Karl Rove

May has been a bad month for President Obama's re-election campaign. Let's review some of the lowlights.

First, Team Obama politicized the anniversary of Osama bin Laden's death on May 2 by releasing a video claiming that Mitt Romney would not have ordered the strike. The video didn't pay much tribute to the Navy SEALs who actually carried out the perilous mission. The whole thing came across as ungracious and egocentric.

On May 4, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that only 115,000 new jobs were created in April while 342,000 Americans became so discouraged that they dropped out of the workforce. When unemployment creeps down because people are leaving the labor force, it's evidence of a sick economy, not a robust recovery.

The next day, Mr. Obama formally kicked off his re-election campaign with a rally at Ohio State University. But "there were a lot of empty seats," according to the Toledo Blade. Vacant chairs and a nearly empty arena floor are not good optics for a political campaign. To add insult to injury, a New York Times reporter described it and a Virginia rally later that day as having at times "the feeling of a concert by an aging rock star."

On Sunday, May 6, Vice President Joe Biden said on "Meet the Press" that he was "absolutely comfortable with . . . men marrying men, women marrying women." The White House had to scramble, immediately reaffirming Mr. Obama's support for traditional marriage. But three days later, he told ABC's Robin Roberts, "I think same-sex couples should be able to get married."

Why the shift? Newsweek's Andrew Sullivan credits the need for campaign dollars from gay donors and votes from now apathetic young men and women under 30. New York Magazine's John Heilemann quotes unnamed White House aides who say that New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo's signing of legislation legalizing same-sex marriage led Mr. Obama to shift privately early this year. According to Mr. Heilemann's reporting, Mr. Obama was going to wait a month or two to maximize the political payback from a public conversion, and the need for campaign cash and youthful voters was part of the equation.

Whatever the reasons, the president's announcement came across as political: 67% in a May 11-13 CBS News/New York Times survey said the president announced his public support for same-sex marriage "for political reasons" while 24% said he did it because "he thinks it's right." A USA/Gallup poll of May 10 found only 11% of independents said they would be more likely to vote for him because of his shift, and 23% said they would be less likely.

While this kerfuffle played out, West Virginia and North Carolina Democrats held their presidential primaries on May 8. In West Virginia, 40% chose Keith Judd, a felon in a Texas federal correctional facility, over Mr. Obama. In battleground North Carolina, nearly 21% expressed "no preference" for president.

Then on May 11, Mr. Obama traveled to Nevada to tout the success of his "Hardest Hit Fund," launched two years ago, in staving off foreclosures. But a government report that morning revealed it had helped only 30,640 homeowners, not the three million to four million the administration originally promised.

On Wednesday, the news was that Mr. Obama's fundraising dropped to $43.6 million in April from $53 million in March. At this stage, he will be hard pressed to reach his 2008 total of $750 million, let alone the $1 billion goal his campaign set last year.

The president has trailed or been tied with Mr. Romney in 16 of the last 29 Gallup five- and seven-day tracking polls. This during a period when, with significant organizational and money advantages and no primary opponent, he should be pounding his Republican challenger in the polls.

In 2008, Team Obama ran a first-rate campaign. They made relatively few unforced errors and capitalized on openings. Things look very different this time. The re-election effort is off-key and off-balance, making the president's strategic weaknesses more apparent. His record is uninspiring. He has no explanation for his first term and no rationale for a second.

Mr. Obama may have difficulty leading and governing but has been considered an effective campaigner. Events in May are starting to call that into question.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 17, 2012.

President Barack Obama's re-election organization is spending a lot of time attacking Mitt Romney over his careers in venture capital (investing in start-ups) and private equity (investing in troubled or failing businesses).

To reporters at Bloomberg Businessweek, Obama senior campaign adviser David Axelrod recently ripped Mr. Romney for "leveraging companies with debt, bankrupting companies and making money off of those bankruptcies . . . [that] cost jobs and certainly wages and benefits."

And an Obama campaign briefing paper says "Romney closed over a thousand plants, stores and offices . . . cut employee wages, benefits and pensions . . . laid off American workers and outsourced their jobs to other countries."

The president is guilty of the same alleged sins.

The Obama administration, after all, forced General Motors and Chrysler into Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009 and then capriciously ordered thousands of local dealerships closed.

The auto industry bailout cost lots of Americans their jobs. GM employed roughly 252,000 workers in 2008. Now it has 207,000, with 131,000 of them working in foreign plants. The Detroit Free Press recently noted that fewer Americans work at Chrysler than did before the bankruptcy. Based on data from the National Automobile Dealers Association, I estimate that as many as 100,000 Americans lost jobs at the companies' dealerships.

Mr. Obama's auto industry bailout plan imposed cuts in wages and benefits for current and future workers at both GM and Chrysler. And he loaded up both companies with debt they can never repay. The bailouts cost $80 billion; $51 billion is still outstanding and $24 billion may never be recovered, according to the Treasury Department's latest report. As GM's profits stall, its stock languishes at a level less than half that necessary to recoup Mr. Obama's investment of taxpayer dollars in the company.

The president's actions have produced big bucks for a foreign business. Last month, Fiat reported that, powered by its U.S. Chrysler subsidiary, profits were up tenfold the past year. Without Chrysler's earnings, Fiat would have lost money.

Fiat is likely to deploy those profits in expanding its world-wide operations, even as it's still unclear if it will deliver on its promise of billions in technologies for fuel-efficient vehicles in the U.S.

Mr. Obama also shifted production—and jobs—overseas. As part of the administration's restructuring, GM will increase production in China, Mexico South Korea and Japan—almost doubling the number of vehicles it makes in those countries, according to a confidential report by the company to Congress in May 2009 (obtained by the Detroit News). Many of those cars will be imported into the U.S.

There are differences between Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney rescued companies with private money collected from investors including union pension funds, college endowments and private individuals. He had to go through the normal process of laws and courts. His principal focus was on long-term growth for companies in which he invested his company's reputation and money. And he had to make a profit to be successful.

Mr. Obama's story is very different. The auto industry was bailed out with taxpayer money. The president restructured GM and Chrysler by fiat and then forced them into bankruptcy, presenting the courts with a fait accompli.

The president wanted the auto industry to survive, but he also wanted to reward political allies—so he gave 20% of General Motors and 55% of Chrysler to the United Auto Workers union. He stood by as the UAW forced the closure of a plant in Moraine, Ohio, where workers had joined a rival union.

The secured creditors of GM and Chrysler—including retirees, pension funds and endowments—had their investments virtually wiped out by the president's plan. Though taxpayers will never get all their money back, the president still calls it all a big success.

If the auto industry bailout is the best Mr. Obama can do, Republicans should take heart. Because matched against his overall record of presiding over high unemployment, trillion-dollar annual deficits, and a growing number of Americans in poverty and on food stamps, the bailout is not the political game changer Team Obama believes it is.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 2, 2012.

Considering Team Obama's behavior regarding the killing of Osama bin Laden, I can truly say, What a difference a decade makes.

In January 2002, as senior adviser to President George W. Bush, I told the Republican National Committee that "We can go to the country on this issue [prosecuting the war on terror] because they trust the Republican Party to do a better job of protecting and strengthening America's military might." After the meeting, all hell broke loose.

House Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephardt called my remarks "shameful." House Democratic Whip Nancy Pelosi implied that I might be attempting "to exploit terrorism as a political issue." Democratic National Committee Chairman Terry McAuliffe raged that my comments were "nothing short of despicable" and "an affront to the integrity of the entire United States military."

A few years later, in March 2004, the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign released its first ads. One of them, "Tested," began with the announcer saying "the last few years have tested America in many ways. Some challenges we've seen before. And some were like no others." During this last sentence, footage of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon appeared. The ads, including this one, were so inoffensive that FactCheck.org called them "downright bland." But once again, all hell broke loose. 

The campaign of the Democratic presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry, denounced the use of the 9/11 images as "astonishing." The head of the national firefighters union said it was "disgraceful," and a union resolution demanded Mr. Bush "apologize to the families of firefighters killed on 9/11."

The press corps joyfully pummeled Bush campaign spokespersons. And yet in both instances, critics responded harshly to what were simple, positive statements and images.

Now fast forward to President Barack Obama's re-election campaign, which is drawing attention to his decision to order the raid on Osama bin Laden's hiding place. It is completely legitimate that he and his campaign do so.

But Team Obama took it one massive step further, suggesting that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would not have ordered the bin Laden raid. They made this charge on Sunday morning talk shows and put it in a video. Even Vice President Joe Biden was wheeled out to make the charge. But the voices that were so quick to condemn the Bush administration's alleged attempts to politicize the war on terror have been mute about this overt campaign slur.

My former White House colleague, Dana Perino, recently made this acute observation about Team Obama: Never underestimate their ability to overdo anything.

They diminished the commander in chief by putting his decision, which should unify the nation, in the same frame as a partisan political attack, which divides it. For Mr. Obama to repeat the charge about Mr. Romney at his Monday news conference with the Japanese prime minister made things worse.

Moreover, the attack on the former Massachusetts governor doesn't ring true. Mr. Romney was obviously right in responding that, given the intelligence, even President Jimmy Carter would have ordered the strike.

Nor does Team Obama understand that sometimes less is more. An acknowledgment of the day, focused on high praise for those who carried out the operation, would have been a masterstroke. Instead Americans got Web videos, television ads, a political offensive on cable and Sunday morning television shows, several prime-time interviews in the Situation Room, a cover story in Time, and a trip to Kabul. Someone forgot that too much hype cheapens the moment.

Finally, Mr. Obama showed again it's all about him—his decision, the stakes for him, and the ramification for his re-election. Lost was proper credit for the intelligence operatives who painstakingly traced the thin fragments of evidence to a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan; for the pilots and logistics and support personnel who carefully planned and made possible the mission itself; and of course the brave warriors of SEAL Team 6 who executed the plan to perfection.

The president deserves to take credit for his decision to move against bin Laden. But the way he is doing so will diminish the credit he will receive. Mr. Obama should have left well enough alone, but narcissists never do.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, May 3, 2012.

Many Americans think Washington is broken, out of touch and unaccountable. For good reason: When it comes to jobs and economic growth, Washington often just can’t get it right. Consider how the Obama administration has made a mess of important opportunities that would provide more jobs and greater prosperity.

Exhibit A is the Keystone XL pipeline. It would have brought oil from Canada’s tar sands and North Dakota’s prolific Bakken field to Gulf Coast refineries, factories and chemical plants. This would have created tens of thousands of private-sector jobs and reduced U.S. dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

No matter. Extreme environmentalists opposed this vital infrastructure project. Rather than offend them, President Barack Obama blocked the pipeline’s construction.

There’s another company the Obama administration has prevented from spending billions to create jobs and improve America’s infrastructure. The company is LightSquared and its cutting-edge technology allows cellphones to communicate over both a satellite and a ground-based system — providing coverage virtually anywhere in the country.

This national 4G wireless network — using advanced satellite and terrestrial cellular technology — would have been available to other cell companies. LightSquared planned to be a wholesaler, driving down prices for consumers. The new network would have required as much as $14 billion in private capital — and tens of thousands of people to build it.

The Federal Communications Commission — first under chairmen appointed by President George W. Bush and then under a chairman appointed by Obama — gave authorization to proceed. The company invested nearly $4 billion to comply with FCC mandates. Among other actions, LightSquared inked a deal with the regional carrier Cellular South, to significantly reduce monthly bills for customers.

But then, after nearly a decade of regulatory “green lights,” the Obama administration reversed itself and started proceedings to kill LightSquared’s ambitious plan to upgrade the U.S. cellular infrastructure. Why? Because at the eleventh hour, concerns were raised about potential interference with GPS devices — interference that occurs because these devices are listening into the part of the spectrum licensed to LightSquared.

In effect, these GPS devices are poaching.

There are technical fixes to this problem. LightSquared has expressed its readiness to help implement them. But rather than solving this issue in a reasonable way, the Obama administration is now proposing to shut down LightSquared’s operations before the network can even be launched.

This will have consequences. Consumers will lose the chance to get better, cheaper wireless service. Owners of tablets, smartphones and other new devices won’t get faster downloads and greater bandwidth. The country would miss out on a valuable infrastructure improvement based on cutting-edge technology. Thousands of workers in construction, steel, transportation and other industries won’t get work, along with the good paychecks that a privately funded $14 billion project like this generates.

Why? Because the Obama administration, which first endorsed and encouraged LightSquared, has now reversed course and gutted it.

Given that this is the slowest, most anemic recovery from any recession since World War II, you might expect the administration to be eager to encourage companies to invest in creating jobs, making the economy more productive and increasing economic growth.

But based on what it’s done to Keystone XL and now LightSquared, you’d be wrong.

The winner of the presidential election will be the candidate who shows voters he best understands where real job growth and economic expansion come from. Not from massive and intrusive government but from private-sector projects like the Keystone XL pipeline and LightSquared’s plan to upgrade cellular infrastructure.

The economy and jobs are the presidential election’s No. 1 issue. Even Obama knows the penalty he’ll pay if the economy remains weak, unemployment high and job growth sluggish.

Which is why his administration’s proposed decision on LightSquared is so puzzling.

 

This article originally appeared on POLITICO.com on Tuesday, May 1, 2012.

We've entered the silly season when vast numbers of words will be expended on who Mitt Romney's vice presidential running mate should be. Since the actual announcement is likely to be made shortly before the Aug. 31 GOP convention, we'll have to endure three-and-a-half months of pundits handicapping prospects.

This exercise is largely useless. Who thought at this point in 2000 that the vice-presidential nominees would be Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman, or in 2008 Sarah Palin and Joe Biden?

The person who matters most in this decision, Mr. Romney, appears to be approaching it with appropriate seriousness, appointing a longtime trusted aide, Beth Myers, to vet possible running mates.

Having played a role in this process, I know that if done well this will be a political proctology exam for each individual considered. Ms. Myers and an army of lawyers, researchers and accountants will examine the person's every public statement, vote or executive decision; they will review tax returns and financial records; and they will scrutinize friends and associates. They also will ask finalists what in their background could embarrass Mr. Romney if it came out, because it will.

This is not an activity for the squeamish or reticent. Team Romney will discover that every prospect has strengths and warts. There is no perfect candidate.

Many presidential contenders view their potential vice president largely through an Electoral College prism: Who can deliver a vital state? This was John F. Kennedy's approach in 1960. He had little love for Lyndon Johnson but felt creating a Boston-Austin ticket could bring Texas into the Democratic fold. And the Lone Star State, which had twice chosen Eisenhower, went for Kennedy.

Sometimes the vice-presidential decision results from the campaign's flow. In 2008, John McCain's camp felt that while they were ahead after a better-than-expected summer, they needed to shake things up with an out-of-the-box pick. This thinking produced Sarah Palin.

That same year, Barack Obama left for a Hawaii vacation on Aug. 8 as Russia invaded Georgia. He worried about his absence of international experience and turned to Mr. Biden, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

But such political decisions run into one hard reality: Running mates haven't decided an election in more than a half-century. For example, research by Bernard Grofman and Reuben Kline, political scientists at the University of California, Irvine, suggests that the net impact of the vice-presidential picks in 2008 was roughly one-half of one point and is generally less than one percentage point. Presidential elections are rarely that close.

What about running mates helping to carry their home states? Political scientists Christopher Devine of Ohio State and Kyle Kopko of Elizabeth College argue the home-state advantage is often modest and almost never dispositive. Rarely does a presidential election come down to one state, as it did in 2000 (Florida) or 2004 (Ohio). In neither of those instances did either party field someone from those states.

A running mate's principal political impact is on behalf of the presidential candidate's themes or issues. The vice-presidential candidate helps reinforce what the presidential candidate is emphasizing. But if the top banana on the ballot isn't getting it done, the running mate won't be able to on his or her own.

Choosing a running mate reveals much about the presidential candidate himself. Though still only a candidate, this is his first presidential decision.

It is one best made by asking about the skills, philosophy, outlook, work ethic and chemistry of a prospective running mate. Do they have good judgment? Can they be counted on to give their unvarnished opinion? Are they loyal? Who can best help the president govern? In other words, set aside politics. Put governing first.

This was brought home to me in 2000, when then-Gov. George W. Bush was strongly leaning toward picking Dick Cheney as his VP. He knew I was opposed and invited me to make the case against his idea. I came to our meeting armed with eight political objections. Mr. Bush heard me out but with a twist: I explained my objections with Mr. Cheney sitting, mute and expressionless, next to the governor.

The next day, Mr. Bush called to say I was right. There would be real political problems if he chose Mr. Cheney. So solve them, he said. Politics was my responsibility. His job was different: to select his best partner in the White House and a person the country would have confidence in if something terrible happened to him. The country was better served by Mr. Bush's decision than by my advice.

There's a lesson there for Mr. Romney. Choose the best person for the job. Leave the politics to the staff.

This article originally appeared on WSJ.com on Wednesday, April 25, 2012.