Bill Bennett, CNN: "Obama looks more vulnerable to a Republican challenger than Jimmy Carter"

Is Obama defeatable?
By William J. Bennett, CNN Contributor
March 8, 2011 10:12 a.m. EST

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/03/08/bennett.obama.defeat/index.html?hpt=C1

The question most analysts are thinking and talking about now, however, is whether the candidates and potential candidates will prove formidable against President Barack Obama. In other words, is President Obama defeatable? The short answer is yes.

No presidential campaign is a layup and Barack Obama is an excellent campaigner. He took on the Clinton machine and family -- arguably the most prominent, successful, and tough strategists, fundraisers, and campaigners in the Democratic party -- and beat them. But President Obama could very well be defeated by the Republicans next year.

***

Incumbency is usually a strong factor -- since World War II, only two elected presidents have been turned out of office after their first term (and they were Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush). And yet, just now, President Obama does look more vulnerable to a Republican challenger than Jimmy Carter or George H.W. Bush did in the first quarter of the year before their re-election year. A recent Gallup poll shows a nameless Republican candidate tying President Obama in a prospective re-election, 45-45.

We Republicans still have a lot of work to do to put our 2012 house in order. Each of our potential candidates comes with great qualifications and certain deficits. Given the polling history of 1979, 1991, and recent polling that shows President Obama's disapproval rating being higher than his approval at various points, so do the Democrats.

Gambling

In 2003 it became publicly known that Bennett was a high-stakes gambler who reportedly had lost millions of dollars in Las Vegas.<7> As a Catholic, Bennett was not prohibited from gambling (although the Catholic Church states that one should be stewards of their money and use moderation) but some felt it conflicted with his public image as a leading voice for conservative morals. Criticism elevated in the wake of Bennett's publication, The Book of Virtues, in which he argued for self-discipline— an attribute at odds with problem gambling. Bennett and Empower America, the organization he co-founded and headed at the time, opposed the extension of casino gambling in the states.<8>

Bennett never said he had a problem with gambling and has maintained that his habit did not put himself or his family in any financial jeopardy. After Bennett's gambling became public, he said that he did not believe that his habit set a good example, that he had "done too much gambling" over the years, and that his "gambling days are over". "We are financially solvent," his wife Elayne told the USA Today. "All our bills are paid." She added that his gambling days are over. "He's never going again," she said.<9>

Several months later, Bennett qualified his position, saying "So, in this case, the excessive gambling is over." He explained that "Since there will be people doing the micrometer on me, I just want to be clear: I do want to be able to bet the Buffalo Bills in the Super Bowl."<10>

Radio show abortion comment

On September 28, 2005, in a discussion on Bennett's Morning in America radio show, a caller to the show proposed the idea that the Social Security system might be solvent today if abortion hadn't been permitted following the Roe v. Wade decision. Bennett responded that aborting all African-American babies "would be an impossible, ridiculous, and morally reprehensible thing to do, but the crime rate would go down."<11> Subsequently, Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, as well as civil rights groups, condemned Bennett's statements and demanded an apology. President George W. Bush said Bennett's statements were "not appropriate."<12>

Bennett responded to the criticism saying, in part:

A thought experiment about public policy, on national radio, should not have received the condemnations it has. Anyone paying attention to this debate should be offended by those who have selectively quoted me, distorted my meaning, and taken out of context the dialog I engaged in this week. Such distortions from 'leaders' of organizations and parties is a disgrace not only to the organizations and institutions they serve, but to the First Amendment.<13>