On President Obama’s attempt to explain away Scott Brown’s victory:
It’s amazing that his explanation for all of this is that he was so occupied with helping the American people — working quietly and late nights in the White House — that he was overly reticent. The man was ubiquitous. The man hovered like Big Brother. Every night you turned him on [TV]. He gave 29 speeches on health care, and at the end every time he gave a speech the [poll] numbers were declining. . . .
Democrats want to think there is a question of the message. They want to believe it was a matter of tactics. They want to say he contracted out and ended up owing Congress, [that] he should have directed [health-care reform] out of the White House. All of that is cosmetic.
The problem is the substance. . . . The bills that were produced were monstrosities. . . .
The ultimate cause of the debacle in Massachusetts — and of his decline, Obama’s decline — is that he misread his mandate. This is a center-right country and he tried governing left. His only hope of success is to tack to the center, the way that Clinton did.
The problem is that he is much more ideological and he may not have the capacity or the will to end up back in the center.
On yesterday’s Supreme Court decision loosening restrictions on campaign contributions by corporations:
I think it’s a great ruling. The most important amendment is the First Amendment. The most important of our rights is free speech. And the most important element in free speech is political speech. And that’s why the governing class has always attempted the . . . regulation of political speech.
The less, the better.
Now, it has to be admitted that one of the downsides of this will be a marginal increase in the power of money. However, for all of the restrictions that we have had under all our laws – the [campaign] finance laws — money always ends up having its influence one way or the other. It finds its level. It goes around loopholes. You hire smart (and now rich lawyers) and you get around [the law].
And, secondly, the only way to completely abolish the power of money is to do what was done in other English-speaking countries and . . . ban all political money and you have it all paid by the government. The problem is: If you do that, it’s a huge advantage for any incumbent.
So, I think what we heard today [from the Supreme Court] is exactly what you ought to do: disclaimers and disclosures so everybody knows who is giving and who is financing. But open the gates.