NRO Newsletters . . . Morning Jolt . . . with Jim Geraghty
July 24, 2012
|
Here's your Tuesday Morning Jolt. Enjoy! Jim |
| 1. Americans Surprisingly Enthusiastic About Guy Demonized in Obama Attack Ads
So, is it possible that Obama's investment in attack ads has turned out like his investment of our money in Solyndra?
USA Today: By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years. The findings raise questions about Obama's strategy of targeting Bain's record in outsourcing jobs and hammering Romney for refusing to commit to releasing more than two years of his tax returns. Instead, Americans seem focused on the economy, where disappointment with the fragile recovery and the 8.2% unemployment rate are costing the president. This would be good news by itself, but it's almost as if the Angry Gods of Politics are smiting Axelrod & Co. with their wrath, as this indicates that as the Obama campaign attacks Romney's business record, voters like it even more. Sean Trende asks: What do the facts actually show? We know that Obama heavily outspent Romney in June, in part because the Romney campaign can't yet spend funds earmarked for the general election. We know that these ads have focused incessantly on the presumptive GOP nominee's experience at Bain Capital, and that they are quite good. We know that the media has piled on, with questions about when Romney's tenure at Bain ended and why he refuses to provide the traditional number of income tax returns. And we know that the president leads Romney in the RCP Averages, both nationally and in most of the swing states. . . . The results? On average, the polls have moved two-tenths of a point toward the president during this time period. That's net movement, by the way, meaning that he's moved up a tenth of a point and Romney has moved down a tenth of a point, on average. Looking at state polls only, we see marginal movement toward Romney. If we look at only the swingiest of swing states -- Colorado, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia -- we see about two-thirds of a point movement toward Obama. That's not much bang for the buck. . . . The superficial takeaway is that this is bad news for the president. He's unleashed something of a "shock and awe" campaign and fired off what many think is one of his most damaging bullets against Romney, with little to show for it. Allahpundit: "The man's nothing if not consistent. He campaigns as he governs, spending astounding sums to little effect." |
2. The NCAA Rules on Penn State . . .
A couple of Morning Jolt readers who went to Penn State or think well of the school wrote in objecting to yesterday's item, where I concurred with Jeff Emanuel that the "death penalty" -- the elimination of the football program entirely for a period of time -- was the only appropriate response to the Sandusky scandal. I am sure, if you're affiliated with the school, this entire scandal is difficult; leaders who you trusted have proven that they abused that trust in an almost unimaginable way. One reader objected to the suggestion that Penn State had a "win at all costs" mentality, and it's both not true and not quite the accusation. (The scandal would undoubtedly be easier to grasp and explain to ourselves if Paterno had been a "sleazy" or "typical" coach.) Joe Paterno was, for the vast majority of the time he was head coach, the role model we all thought he was. The problem is that the evidence suggests he had a giant blind spot, and that blind spot was that did not look too closely at allegations his friend and colleague was perpetrating unspeakable crimes. Some Penn State urged me to read this lengthy argument from John Ziegler. I found it unpersuasive, and in fact, an example of what some people are willing to believe rather than admit a very difficult truth, such as the notion that Paterno could have such a failing. - You have to believe that last fall, the press who reported on the story were "jackals." There are a lot of times that the press behaves like jackals. Demanding to know who knew what and when about Sandusky doesn't seem all that much like a jackal.
- You have to believe that absent one particular shocking phrase in the grand-jury presentation, "Joe Paterno would not have been fired the way that he was and likely would have coached out the season."
- You have to believe "the legal case against Jerry Sandusky was actually remarkably weak."
- You have to believe that the students who rioted at Penn State after Paterno's firing were "mostly angry over the lack of due process."
- You have to believe that almost everyone in sports journalism, from Sports Illustrated to ESPN to John Feinstein, turned upon one of the most beloved figures in sports out of opportunism and a salacious drive for ratings instead of genuine outrage.
I don't believe any of those things, and I don't think the evidence is there to support any of those things. Mind you, my harsher penalty would be to demolish the athletic department and salt the earth. My view, initially resisted and reached gradually, is that the actions of all of the authorities in this dismal story were driven by a desire to protect the football program. (Not a desire to win, but a desire to protect the reputation of the program, the school, and themselves.) The so-called leaders at Penn State forgot what their jobs were. They forgot what they were supposed to do. So this worst-case scenario demands a punishment that will reverberate throughout the world of collegiate athletics, and be spoken of in whispers for years to come: Eliminate that temptation once and for all. A collegiate athletic program is a privilege, not a right. But I suppose Ivan Maisel of ESPN may be right -- that the King Football culture at Penn State started dying the day the Sandusky allegations made public, and that some of Monday's punishments represented merely punishment for the sake of punishment: As statements go, a $60 million fine, 40 scholarships, a four-year bowl ban and 112 vacated wins is right up there with the Magna Carta. The presidents put down new stakes on their property line. They are in charge. The importance of that principle supersedes any other consideration. If the Penn State players want to play in a bowl, they can leave their coaches and their classes and their friends and go somewhere else. (This case may be unprecedented, but as usual in the NCAA model, the current Penn State coaches and players are the victims of their predecessors' actions.) Moreover, the culture the presidents attacked at Penn State no longer exists. What is left of Penn State is not a combatant. Former president Graham Spanier has been fired and disgraced. Former vice president Gary Schultz and athletic director Tim Curley will be on trial for perjury. Joe Paterno's memory has been stained, a scar bandaged in chain-link fencing where his statue once stood. The university will be in hock for millions in liability payments to the victims abused on its campus and because of its failure to see what is in plain view in hindsight. Over in Peter King's column on CNNSI, Penn State student-journalist Emily Kaplan writes: We, the 500,000 living alumni and 40,000 students, need to find a way to ensure that money and football and public perception will never again take precedence over doing the right thing. Which will be a challenge. When I heard that some of my peers camped out in tents outside Paterno's statue, "protecting it from vandalism," I wish they had looked at the bigger picture. Who was protecting those children? For years Penn State built a powerful brand, and did everything to protect it. Now our university, like the town of Glen Ridge, will be long branded by its scandal. But moving ahead, Penn State has a unique opportunity to be known for something more: as leaders in child-abuse education. I look at a grassroots network of Penn State alumni who founded the ProudPSUforRAINN campaign, urging Penn Staters to donate money to prevent and treat victims of sexual abuse. They reached their goal of raising $500,000 in less than one month. That's a great start. What can we do in six months? One year? Ten years? |
3. The Legendary, Perhaps Mythical, Undecided Voter
So, do you know any genuinely undecided voters? A McClatchy columnist points out what a lot of campaign coverage tends to downplay: A growing number of political scientists and campaign consultants -- backed by the latest polling data -- think the daily campaign back-and-forth is having no significant effect on voters. Most Americans have locked in their presidential decisions, polls released Thursday suggested, and the already small number of persuadable voters shrinks by the hour. Put another way: America could vote for president next week, and the outcome would probably be the same as it will be in November. "That's accurate, barring some really big, big event or change in the political environment," said Alan Abramowitz, a political science professor at Emory University in Atlanta, who has studied presidential voting patterns.
Jazz Shaw thinks modern political debates and their associated psychology provide voters on each side a way to disregard arguments from the opposition: "If the voters are already living in a deeply divided nation (politically speaking) and begin seeing reinforcing messages on a daily basis as much as a year in advance, I'm guessing it can have an effect. If you're already leaning one way or the other, the constant flood of 'information' can serve to bolster those feelings. If you're already leaning in Romney's direction, all those ads from Obama about Mitt's 'shady' overseas dealings, investments and outsourcing will probably roll off your back as little more than poorly spun side effects of a successful, competent business career. If you're pretty well leaning toward Obama, ads talking about massive spending, debt and unemployment will probably be interpreted as 'just the way things are now' after the GOP broke the system before Obama took office and the way they 'won't work with him' to fix anything." |
4. Addendum
So, ABC News did NOT have a particularly good day Friday . . . Arlene Holmes, the mother of Colorado theater shooting suspect James Holmes, has suggested that ABC News mischaracterized her when it reported that her initial statement to the reporter, "you have the right person," was a reference to her son. "This statement is to clarify a statement made by ABC media. I was awakened by a call from a reporter by ABC on July 20 about 5:45 in the morning. I did not know anything about a shooting in Aurora at that time," Holmes said in a statement this afternoon, read to the national press by attorney Lisa Damiani. "He asked if I was Arlene Holmes and if my son was James Holmes who lives in Aurora, Colorado. I answered yes, you have the right person. I was referring to myself." However, they did correctly report that there is a state called "Colorado." |
| | | | Save 75% . . . Subscribe to National Review magazine today and get 75% off the regular subscription rate. Click here for details. Check out all of NRO's free newsletters: Morning Jolt, The Goldberg File, NRO Digest, and NROriginals. Click here for details. 
|
| - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Join the Morning Jolt Mailing List - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - | | | | |
Comments
Post a Comment