On The Other Hand...

"To a great degree," Mitt Romney writes in a Washington Post op-ed published Wednesday,

a presidency shapes the public character of the nation. A president should unite us and inspire us to follow “our better angels.” A president should demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect. As a nation, we have been blessed with presidents who have called on the greatness of the American spirit. With the nation so divided, resentful and angry, presidential leadership in qualities of character is indispensable. And it is in this province where the incumbent’s shortfall has been most glaring.

The former Michigan governor and incoming United States senator from Utah also comes up big where some other Democrats, such as Barack Obama, and Joe Biden, come up small. In his brief piece, Romney manages to invoke the words "Trump" (twice) and "Trump's (once), an accomplishment worth noting.

In a March, 2016 speech in which he recognized "dishonesty is Donald Trump's trademark," Romney maintained the real estate bamboozler

lacks the temperament to be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter’s questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, at the same time he has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

  

Then he went on to say the candidate "compromised our national secrets," the family members having "lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances."  Moreover, "they embody the term 'crony capitalism'" and "a person so untrustworthy and dishonest as (the candidate) must not become president."

That corrupt, self-dealing candidate who could not be trusted to put the interests of the nation first was, in Mitt Romney's reckoning, Hillary Clinton. With the benefit of hindsight (which shouldn't have been necessary), that is obscene.

Her opponent, now President of the United States of America, has given to Russia classified intelligence about a steadfast American ally and relies for advice in large measure to a son who may have given an enemies list to the Saudis after they butchered a legal US resident. Dedicating the presidency to accumulating financial wealth for the President's family is not only unprecedented, but hitherto unimaginable. (Video below is from 1-2 weeks after the election.)

Now Mitt Romney, in the pages of The Washington Post, implies that Donald Trump has failed to "demonstrate the essential qualities of honesty and integrity, and elevate the national discourse with comity and mutual respect." Yet, the former presidential candidate maintains

It is not that all of the president’s policies have been misguided. He was right to align U.S. corporate taxes with those of global competitors, to strip out excessive regulations, to crack down on China’s unfair trade practices, to reform criminal justice and to appoint conservative judges. These are policies mainstream Republicans have promoted for years.

In what must be the most obscure reference (unknown even to the Urban Dictionary) for "caving," Charlie Pierce asks "What do you want in the pool for when he turtles? I'll take March 1st."

Romney states "I look forward to working" on several issues "with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and other senators." In Pierce's pool, I'll take January 2.

Share |

No Way To Run A Government

Mitt Romney was right.

This isn't about Russia, which during the 2012 presidential campaign he maintained "is without question our number one geopolitical foe,they fight for every cause for the world's worst actors."

Romney was right in, and only in, spirit. As President Obama recognized at the time (and is still the case) the nation's number one geopolitical foe is terrorism. However, Russia may be our number one foe among state actors, and the former governor's emphasis upon the evil of the Kremlin was needed in a country still giddy over the end of the Cold War.

President Obama might (and certainly should) want to forget that he rebuked Romney with "And, the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because, the Cold War's been over for 20 years."

Romney was right about one other matter on which he differed from Obama.  Though with few details, fifty-nine (59) months ago

Mitt Romney would not continue the new program that grants work permits and suspends deportation for two years for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as minors, his campaign says, according to the Boston Globe.

Romney would not revoke work permits for people who obtain them by the time he would take office, on Jan. 20, but he would not grant any after that, the campaign says, according to the Boston Globe report.

President Todd Schulte of FWD.us, a liberal/progressive immigration reform organization, notes "the federal government has the cellphone and home address of every DACA recipient."

That's valuable information in the hands of one Donald J.Trump and Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III.  By contrast, if Mitt Romney had been elected and ended the program, the information would be in the hands of a President Romney and whatever Attorney General he would have nominated. At the time of the GOP candidate's remark in October, 2012, 29 individuals would have been affected; now, close to 790,000.

(Nevertheless, if Romney-Ryan had won, the prayers of every disadvantaged person and most of the middle class would have had to be said every night for the continued health of the President.)

Nonetheless, Schulte accurately notes of the "Dreamers"

They grew up here, they work at nearly every major company in America, serve in the military and many are working on recovery efforts in TexasIf DACA is repealed and no permanent legislation passed, they will all be fired and our government will begin the large-scale deportation of people raised in the United States, using information they volunteered to the government with the promise it would never be used against them or their families.

The President has put off a final decision for six months, during which time he hopes congressional Republicans will con Democrats into a deal in which the "Dreamers" are allowed to stay while Trump gets funding for a wall.

Assuming the dreamer at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue does not get his wish, Barack Obama may have won his bet, that whomever becomes #45 wouldn't revoke the Dreamers' privilege of remaining in this country.  In that case, the President of the United States, enacted on an anti-immigration platform, will have reneged on a major campaign promise.

That would be the right way to go because, as Mitt Romney understood in 2012, sometimes principle has to go out the window and you just have to leave well enough alone.  However, if President Trump decides otherwise, those cellphone numbers and home addresses, courtesy of President Barack Obama, will come in quite handy for Trump-Sessions.




Share |

Sarah Palin Response Rebutted


Sarah Palin does it again. That could mean virtually anything, of course, but in this instance, a case of over-reaction and exaggeration.   She placed on her Facebook page

Holy unbelievable. The hypocritical leftist lamestream media should be shamed by every caring, child-loving American. It has once again reached a new low. See the article linked below. One just can't win in their petty little games. Good thing most Americans don't play those little games! It's a beautiful thing the Romney family has done by embracing “the spirit of adoption.” What on earth is more beautiful? Shame on MSNBC for mocking this.

The LSM's pursuit of “shock ratings” is unreal. Governor Mitt Romney ran for higher office with what I believe is a servant's heart. He was saddled with some sup-par campaign tactics. That does not make him a bad person nor does it open his children or grandchildren to attacks over a year after the fact. This latest attack from the Left is despicable.

Leftist media hounds are not expressing an opinion with this attack; they are expressing a prejudice that would never be accepted if it came from anyone else but the lib media.

You really need a conscience, yellow journalists. May your 2014 New Year's Resolution be to find one.

Thank you, Romney family, for giving a child a family full of love.

The former vice-presidential nominee was exorcised by the portion of the December 22, 2013 portion of "Melissa-Harris Perry" (creative title, that) in which

Harris-Perry posted a photo of the extended Romney family, including newly adopted infant Kieran James Romney, who happens to be the only black person in the photo. She asked her panel of guests, including actress Pia Glenn and comedian Dean Obeidallah to come up with captions for the photo.
The panel made a series of jokes, all based around the fact that there was a single black baby in the photo. Harris-Perry speculated about a wedding between Romney's grandson and North West, the daughter of singer Kanye West and reality TV star Kim Kardashian.







While Palin had a conniption over a fairly innocuous discussion  (video below), her comments at least betrayed a slight connection to reality and suggested she saw the video or read excerpts from the offending segment. Not so Republican National Committee chairperson Reince Priebus, who tweeted "Disgusting: Harris-Perry should apologize immediately for mocking Romney's adopted grandchild."

This may be the apex (thus far) expression of the sense of victimization among Republicans, one in which "isn't he just the most gorgeous?" becomes "mocking."

Harris-Perry responded to GOP scorn by issuing on Tuesday, the 24th what (among others) Politico, the Huffington Post, the Los Angeles Times, and one of Rupert Murdoch's right-wing rags, the New York Post, misunderstood as an "apology." In a series, MHP tweeted

I am sorry. Without reservation or qualification. I apologize to the Romney family. I work by guiding principle that those who offend do not have the right to tell those they hurt that they r wrong for hurting. Therefore, while I meant no offense, I want to immediately apologize to the Romney family for hurting them. As black child born into large white Mormon family I feel familiarity w/ Romney family pic & never meant to suggest otherwise. I apologize to all families built on loving transracial adoptions who feel I degraded their lives or choices.

Melissa Harris-Perry must have a great attorney... or is extraordinarily smart.  She checked off everything needed for her remarks to be labeled as an apology- "sorry;" "without reservations;" "I apologize."  But she did not state what she is, without reservations, sorry for.  Presumably, it is for "hurting them" rather than for actually doing (or saying) something inappropriate or unjustified.  The burden is subtly placed on the object of the remarks- they were hurt- rather than on Harris-Perry herself, who "meant no offense." It is akin to the standard line from a defense attorney, in which the latter states "We argue (or maintain)  that John Doe did not commit this offense," never contending that Doe did not do it, only that it's their story and they're sticking to it.

If a so-called apology includes an inference that the speaker could not possibly have meant any ill intent because he/or she has experienced a similar situation, all the better.  We've all heard it before, most often in the ludicrous notion that individuals using the "n word" could not possibly be doing anything wrong because they themselves are black.  In this case, the MSNBC host noted she was "a black child born into (a) large white Mormon family"- which, it turns out, is true.   Now a Unitarian-Universalist, Harris-Perry has argued for tolerance toward the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.   And responding on a website for a Mothers Day Special in (it appears) 2012, she wrote

My mother is the fourth of five children born into a working class family at the end of WWII. She is descended from Mormon pioneers who pushed handcarts across the American west. A white woman in a Mormon family, my mom was raised in the racially homogenous enclave of Spokane, Washington and in 1960 went off to college at Brigham Young University. People are typically incredulous when I share this part of my mother’s biography. After all, if they know me as an outspoken, progressive, feminist, black woman, it might be hard to believe that I am the daughter of someone with these beginnings.

But my mother, Diana Gray, possesses an unmatched commitment to fairness, an unflagging belief in hard work, and more than a casual relationship with profound personal transformations.

Mom left the Mormon Church after a failed first marriage left her a single mother and sole breadwinner. Mom moved to a city, enrolled in graduate school in sociology, and eventually met and fell in love with my dad, a black man who grew up in Jim Crow Virginia. 

None of this should bear on the criticism of opportunists such as Priebus or Palin. The latter, apparently reveling in her role as a gadfly, less than two months ago had remarked

Our free stuff today is being paid for today by taking money from our children and borrowing from China. When that money comes due and, this isn’t racist, so try it, try it anyway, this isn’t racist, but it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due. Right? We are going to be beholden to a foreign master.

Persons who equate the relationship of the United States to mainland China with slavery ought not be terribly critical about mere bad taste and failed attempt at humor.  Something about glass houses, as they used to say.




Share |

Distraction

Maggie Haberman of Politico writes

Outgoing Secretary of State Hillary Clinton remains the biggest-name potential Democratic 2016 presidential hopeful who has yet to take a position in support of gay marriage, a source of discussion in Washington this week after the State Department hosted a major LGBT event at which she discussed her commitment to expanding gay rights internationally.

Clinton, who, along with much of the Democratic field, was against gay marriage in her 2008 presidential run, spoke favorably about New York's gay marriage law when it passed in 2011, but has remained quiet on her position since, as other Cabinet members such as Arne Duncan, along with Vice President Joe Biden, have voiced support, and as marriage referenda passed in four states earlier this month.

But according to two sources, Clinton's aides have privately indicated to people that she will end up where her husband and daughter, Chelsea, have emerged on the issue - in favor of same-sex nuptials.

No doubt she will, as she probably is in the midst of evolving on the issue.   'Evolving' is all the rage in politics these days, as President Obama demonstrated with same-sex marriage and Sean Hannity with illegal immigration.   And there is little doubt that Mrs. Clinton has no choice but to follow in the ideological footsteps of Joe Biden and Barack Obama, as Fred Sainz of the Human Rights Campaign explains:

Without any relationship to Secretary Clinton, what I'll say is that no serious [Democratic] contender for the presidency in 2016 will not support marriage equality.   It is a forgone conclusion that every candidate as a result of the president's leadership on the this issue [will be for gay marriage]...[he] literally ran on the issue and was re-elected.

The President literally ran on the issue and was re-elected.   (Sarcasm Alert) Viewers may have missed the frequent mention, the back-and-forth parrying, on the issue of same-sex marriage during the first and second presidential debates.   (The third debate was to be exclusively about foreign policy and national defense.) It was an accidental omission, we are to believe, that neither candidate would refer to the burning campaign issue on which Obama "literally ran."

No question was asked about "marriage equality."   And other than Barack Obama announcing in Denver that the occasion marked his twentieth wedding anniversary, neither did either candidate take the opportunity to swing the discussion anywhere in the direction of marriage.    (Probably both candidates were wise in their assessment.)

There may have been, though, a reason aside from strategic positioning that same-sex marriage never came up.   It's an issue that has no importance beyond itself, that is completely unrelated to the distribution of power in society.   In March, a Washington Post blogger commented

For renowned Washington attorney Ted Olson, mounting the legal battle against Proposition 8, the California initiative banning same-sex marriage, doesn’t just mark a high point in his 45-year career — during which he has argued nearly 60 times before the Supreme Court, and cemented George W. Bush’s victory in the 2000 presidential election.

“This has been the highlight of my life,” Olson said last week at the annual networking dinner hosted by Gibson Dunn & Crutcher for Georgetown Law’s LGBT student group, Outlaw. “This is the most important thing we’ve done in our lives. It’s not just become a legal challenge, but it’s about the hearts and minds of a country changing.”

The extraordinarily gifted and accomplished Ted Olson has not undergone a change of heart since he wreaked so much damage in 2000-2001.   Oh, no.  He then served as solicitor general under the president he helped foist upon the nation and most recently played the role of Joe Biden in preparing Paul Ryan for the vice-presidential debate.

Odd it may seem that Ronald Reagan's assistant attorney general, George W. Bush's solicitor general, private attorney to two of the last three Repub presidents, and Paul Ryan's help-mate would emerge as arguably the most important figure in the drive for "marriage equality."   One blogger in mid-September remarked "A lot of folks are scratching their heads this weekend after word came that Ted Olson will be prepping  Paul Ryan for his vice presidential debate with Joe Biden. Olson, as you probably know, is the attorney who won the overturn of Proposition 8 with his colleague David Boies."

Stop scratching.   We can assume Ted Olson sincerely believes that gay people should have the right to enter into marriage with whomever they wish.  We can assume also that Mr. Olson, who did what he could for the G.O.P. ticket, agreed with Mitt Romney when the latter clearly enunciated the fundamental Republican creed:

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48—he starts off with a huge number. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich. I mean that's what they sell every four years. And so my job is not to worry about those people—I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

That statement demonstrated the sense of entitlement and resentment of the super-wealthy and highly-connected.   It, rather than controversy over same-sex relationships (as Mitt Romney surely understands), reflects what the distribution of power in America is all about in 2012.




Share |

Not Yet, Not Now


For those of you too young to remember when Cadillac was a metaphor for class and success, think Lexus.   It used to be said that ambivalence is watching your mother-in-law driving off the cliff- in your new Cadillac.

Never having had a Cadillac, a Lexus, or a mother-in-law I would want to have drive over a cliff, I'll have to be satisfied with an election which turned out far better than I expected.

Barack Obama was re-elected with an Electoral Vote margin (assuming the inclusion of Florida) far greater than I expected, my prediction of 294-244 the product of splitting the difference between facts and logic- the estimation of Nate Silver and other brilliant experts- and my hunch, which was that this could (improbably) end in disaster.  I felt very good about the Senate overall, but saw a possible problem for any or all of the Democratic candidates in Montana, Wisconsin, and Virginia.     And I never, ever thought the Democratic nominee would win in North Dakota.  (What must the great Byron Dorgan be thinking?)

I neglected to project Democratic gains in, though failure to win control of, the House of Representatives.   Nor did I bother to predict that it will snow in Boston and Chicago this winter, nor that Florida will receive little or no snow (which I refuse to call "the white stuff.")

The post-mortems continue as Republicans continue to assess the reason(s) they lost the presidential race to, as they see it, to Lucifer, and had their tails handed to them in the United States Senate.    Many of them are somewhat valid- but not this one from many of the Party's young bucks.  BuzzFeed's Zeke Miller writes

But some of the younger generation — people in their twenties and thirties, digital natives, committed conservatives — reported another feeling: relief. The time had finally come to push aside the television-centric operatives who have run Republican campaigns for a generation, to reset the party’s values around race and sex, and to adapt its tactics to the era of Twitter. Politics has always been ruthlessly competitive, with one cycle’s guru the next cycle’s washed-up cable news commentator. Mentors have always had to keep an eye out for protégés wielding daggers. And now the daggers are out. 

Television is just so yesterday.   Some of these cool geniuses choose not to recall

Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney gained ground on Democratic President Barack Obama after a strong performance in their first debate heading into the Nov. 6 election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after their prime-time face-off.

Romney is now viewed positively by 51 percent of voters, the first time he has enjoyed a net positive in the U.S. presidential race, the poll found. Obama's favorability rating remained unchanged at 56 percent, according to the poll.

Romney moved ahead of the president on several core issues after Wednesday's debate, which was widely seen as a victory for the Republican candidate.

Voters now see Romney as a better bet to boost the economy, spur job creation and manage the budget deficit, the poll found. He narrowed Obama's advantage on taxes, the Social Security retirement program and the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.

That debate was not held on Twitter, Facebook, the IPad, the IPhone, or any other variant of social media or instrument of new technology.   It was held on television.

Ipsos pollster Cliff Young had said of Romney "If he has more debates like this, is able to push through his message and target undecideds, we might see movement in voting intention, but he needs a lot more of this."

He didn't need a lot more, only a little more, and failed to get it as Obama clearly got the better of his challenger in the second and third debates, as Joe Biden did of Paul Ryan in the vice-presidential debate.   Romney's problem was compounded when New Jersey Governor Chris Christie fawned over President Obama in the wake of Hurricane Sandy.   No one knows yet whether the federal government's response to to Sandy will be viewed as highly effective but has been lauded for his response.   Obama's appearance on television enabled him to project leadership, and praise by the GOP governor- viewed by tens of millions of Americans on television- enhanced Obama's claims to bipartisanship.

Miller observes

Indeed, the fact that new forms of communications remain a relatively small fraction of campaign spending rankles many.

“We still haven't learned the lesson of the Obama campaign of 2008: The Internet and technology, by lowering transaction costs and barriers to entry, can empower individuals to be more impactful to the political process in general,” said Soren Dayton, a Republican consultant who specializes in new media. “Obama turned activists to organizers. Republican campaigns still treat activists as ATMs and phone-calling automatons.”

I am no more certain of the impact of old technology on future elections than I was of Virginia and Colorado on this one.  Nonetheless, it appears those enamored of the new because it is the new (or because they understand, and can utilize, it better than their elders) are either unaware, or loath to acknowledge the obvious.  The 2012  race was almost won by a singularly unlikable candidate, who had marginalized himself in the primary campaign, because of his performance on television.  And then, having failed to repeat the highly effective television performance, he remained in contention until the ravages of Hurricane Sandy were brought to voters in Virginia, Florida, Ohio, and Colorado by silly old TV.





Share |

Look No Further


Slate and Reason have released the presidential preferences of staff and contributors, and in the latter case, "other people important to the libertarian universe of ideas."  

Slate political editor Dave Weigel has a particularly intriguing explanation of his view of the candidates:

I'm copping out. On about half of the issues that I care about, Barack Obama has been a massive improvement on George W. Bush. Drone warfare or lie-based land wars in the Middle East? U.S. attorneys running junk cases against "voter fraud," or the DOJ trying to expand the vote? Endorsing the Federal Marriage Amendment, or refusing to defend DOMA in court? I agreed with an economic stimulus in 2009, as did the forgetful Republicans, who just disagreed about what should go in it. But Obama's a mediocre executive who's never figured out how to overcome opposition in Congress. I think Romney could be a great executive. If we fell into some Greece-like receivership, and a coalition of bankers installed a dictator to manage our economy, Romney would be perfect. Give him a Democratic Congress and you'd bring out his best instincts. My problems: If you trust John Bolton and Dan Senor to speak for you, who are you going to fill the government with? If you agree to a Balanced Budget Amendment that would require a California-style supermajority to raise taxes, what other dumb fiscal decisions will you make?

So I'll vote for the Libertarian ticket, which I agree with on everything besides the scale and speed of spending cuts, and the first third-party team that actually seems competent enough to run a country. (Let's face it, Nader voters. Would you have trusted him to run anything larger than a make-your-own-salad franchise?) But I guess I'm pulling for a 269-269 electoral vote split, which would give us a chastened President Romney and let us keep the greatest vice president in history, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr.

It's hard to understand why anyone who recognizes the Balanced Budget Amendment as a "dumb fiscal decision" would vote for a libertarian like Johnson.   Equally intriguing, though, is his remark "But I guess I'm pulling for a 269-269 electoral vote split, which would give us a chastened President Romney and let us keep the greatest vice president in history, Joseph Robinette Biden Jr."

I hesitate to disagree with anyone who has a higher regard for Joe Biden than Barack Obama but it is hardly a sure bet that a 269-269 division in electoral votes would produce "a chastened President Romney and let us keep" Vice-President Biden.  While the new, undoubtedly Republican-controlled House undoubtedly would select Mitt Romney as the nation's 45th President, selection of the Democrat as v.p. by a Democratic-controlled Senate is far less certain.

In all likelihood, the Democratic Party will retain its "control" of the Senate.  But it is unlikely that it will improve on its 53-47 majority and there would be enormous pressure on Democrats (most center or center-right) from GOP-leaning states, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, and West Virginia, to vote for Paul Ryan.   The temptation, which eventually persuaded Al Gore to concede the 2000 presidential race (when he actually garnered a plurality of votes in Florida), to succumb in the interests of a mythical "national unity" would be difficult to resist for Democrats eager to claim the mantle of bipartisanship for a re-election battle.

Obviously, the likelihood that there will be an even split in the Electoral College is fairly remote, though perhaps more likely with an apparent 270-268 Obama advantage (with a supreme effort by Republicans to flip an elector) than in an apparent 269-269 outcome.   Nearly as likely is the result that that such a split "would give us a chastened President Romney."   Right-wing Republicans, i.e., the Party majority, understand that they would need merely to whisper in Mitt Romney's ear two words:  "primary challenge."     George W. Bush hardly received a mandate in 2000- and we got deregulation, two new wars (including one completely unrelated to the threat of terrorism), and tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires to fight for those wars.

There is no need to wish for a "chastened" President Romney when we already have a chastened President Obama.     The lawyer, community activist, communicant of Jeremiah Wright's church, and the first black President in American history, in an interview shortly before the Des Moines Register endorsed Romney, assured the daily

Number four, I want to reduce our deficit. It’s got to be done in a balanced way. I’ve already cut a trillion dollars’ worth of spending. I’m willing to do more. I’m willing to cut more, and I’m willing to work with Democrats and Republicans when it comes to making some adjustments that bring down the cost of our health care programs, which obviously are the biggest drivers of our deficit....

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.

Chastened? The man already has accepted a good chunk of the GOP wish-list and the election hasn't even concluded, much less negotiations begun.That's the same guy who in the first presidential debate stated "I want to talk about the values behind Social Security and Medicare, and then talk about Medicare, because that's the big driver of our deficits right now" and "So my approach is to say, how do we strengthen the system over the long term? And in Medicare, what we did was we said, we are going to have to bring down the costs if we're going to deal with our long-term deficits, but to do that, let's look where some of the money's going."   Not the unsustainable cost increases of health care (as, admittedly, he has at other times) but the mounting cost of the the more efficient Medicare.

Weigel (who will be voting for neither Romney nor Obama) and others hope that a President Romney is 'first-debate Romney' rather than 'primary campaign Romney.'  But in the incumbent, we have not only a centrist, pragmatic president but one who pledges to "walk Mitch McConnell's dog, wash John Boehner's car" if he is re-elected.






Share |

They Need Some Reason For Supporting Romney


Can you guess what comes next?

1, 3, 6, 10, 15, 21, 28....

If you came up with 36, you will understand the reasoning of the Des Moines Register, David Brooks, David Frum, and Buzz Bissinger in endorsing Mitt Romney for president.

In its endorsement, the editors of the Des Moines Register maintain

One of the biggest obstacles either candidate faces is partisan gridlock in Congress. It appears unlikely either party will have enough votes to have its own way without bringing over members from across the aisle.

Early in his administration, President Obama reached out to Republicans but was rebuffed. Since then, he has abandoned the effort, and the partisan divide has hardened. That has hampered not only the economy, but the entire country. We remain a nation of red states and blue states.

Having acknowledged that President Obama has sought compromise with the GOP, the paper goes on to argue "Which candidate could forge the compromises in Congress to achieve these goals? When the question is framed in those terms, Mitt Romney emerges the stronger candidate."

The editors, claiming Obama "has abandoned the effort" to reach compromise, evidently forgot that the President had told them three days earlier

It will probably be messy. It won’t be pleasant. But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I’ve been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs.  

Bissinger, an excellent author, terrible radio talk show host, and contributor to The Daily Beast, endorsed Mitt Romney on that site in part because "I am not sure Obama really wants to be president in any practical way. He hates the rolling up of sleeves and schmoozing that is politics.  I respect his principles, the way he does not veer from them, but politics is not principle whether we like it or not.  It is friendliness and compromise."

Yes, the chief executive who watered down, shaped and modified the Affordable Care Act to secure GOP votes (which he nonetheless never received) is a man of "principles" who does not compromise.

Bissinger's perception of President Obama bears a similarity to other, more accomplished columnists who, unlike Bissinger, actually are conservative and Republican.    The New York Times' David Brooks, who cites Obama's "moderate and sensible agenda," believes in a second Obama administration

The first order of business would be the budget deal, averting the so-called fiscal cliff. Obama would first go to Republicans in the Senate and say, “Look, we’re stuck with each other. Let’s cut a deal for the sake of the country.” He would easily find 10 Republican senators willing to go along with a version of a Grand Bargain.

Then Obama would go to the House. He’d ask Eric Cantor, the majority leader, if there were votes for such a deal. The answer would probably be no. Republican House members still have more to fear from a primary challenge from the right than from a general election challenge from the left. Obama is tremendously unpopular in their districts. By running such a negative presidential campaign, Obama has won no mandate for a Grand Bargain. Obama himself is not going to suddenly turn into a master legislative craftsman on the order of Lyndon Johnson.

There’d probably be a barrage of recriminations from all sides. The left and right would be consumed with ire and accusations. Legislators would work out some set of fudges and gimmicks to kick the fiscal can down the road.

But under President Romney

Republicans would begin with the premise that the status quo is unsustainable. The mounting debt is ruinous. The byzantine tax and regulatory regimes are stifling innovation and growth.

Republicans would like to take the reform agenda that Republican governors have pursued in places like Indiana and take it to the national level: structural entitlement reform; fundamental tax reform. These reforms wouldn’t make government unrecognizable (we’d probably end up spending 21 percent of G.D.P. in Washington instead of about 24 percent), but they do represent a substantial shift to the right.

At the same time, Romney would probably be faced with a Democratic Senate. He would also observe the core lesson of this campaign: conservatism loses; moderation wins. Romney’s prospects began to look decent only when he shifted to the center. A President Romney would look at the way Tea Party extremism had cost the G.O.P. Senate seats in Delaware and Nevada — and possibly Missouri and Indiana.

To get re-elected in a country with a rising minority population and a shrinking Republican coalition, Romney’s shape-shifting nature would induce him to govern as a center-right moderate. To get his tax and entitlement reforms through the Democratic Senate, Romney would have to make some serious concessions: increase taxes on the rich as part of an overall reform; abandon the most draconian spending cuts in Paul Ryan’s budget; reduce the size of his lavish tax-cut promises.

Brooks concludes "If Obama wins, we’ll probably get small-bore stasis; if Romney wins, we’re more likely to get bipartisan reform. Romney is more of a flexible flip-flopper than Obama. He has more influence over the most intransigent element in the Washington equation House Republicans."    He counts this as the best reason, the reason to vote for Mitt Romney.  Seriously.

Similarly, David Frum, drummed out of the American Enterprise Institute a couple of years ago for insufficient fealty to the right-wing cause, concedes "I'd like to believe the David Brooks theory of  the Romney presidency: that Romney will pivot away from Tea Party Republicanism as soon as he is elected. I don't see much evidence in support of that theory, alas."   But he later adds

The congressional Republicans have shown themselves a destructive and irrational force in American politics. But we won't reform the congressional GOP by re-electing President Obama. If anything, an Obama re-election will not only aggravate the extremism of the congressional GOP, but also empower them: an Obama re-election raises the odds in favor of big sixth-year sweep for the congressional GOP - and very possibly a seventh-year impeachment. A Romney election will at least discourage the congressional GOP from deliberately pushing the US into recession in 2013. Added bonus: a Romney presidency likely means that the congressional GOP will lose seats in 2014, as they deserve.

Congressional Republicans, who support Romney and whom Romney supports without qualification or reservation, ought to be tossed out in 2014.  They represent the same extremist philosophy espoused by Mitt Romney on his way to their party's nomination.  So let's elect him.

These Romney partisans are sparse in their criticism of the incumbent's policies and seem to believe those of his challenger for most of the past year-and-a-half are destructive.  Frum, for instance, recognizes "Mitt Romney's campaign has been one long appeasement of the most selfish and stupid elements of the Republican coalition, and the instinct for appeasement will not terminate with the counting of the votes next Tuesday."   

Critiquing the "vote for Romney or else" rationale, Paul Krugman explains

So we shouldn’t worry about the ability of a re-elected Obama to get things done. On the other hand, it’s reasonable to worry that Republicans will do their best to make America ungovernable during a second Obama term. After all, they have been doing that ever since Mr. Obama took office.

During the first two years of Mr. Obama’s presidency, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, Republicans offered scorched-earth opposition to anything and everything he proposed. Among other things, they engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters, turning the Senate — for the first time — into a chamber in which nothing can pass without 60 votes.

And, when Republicans took control of the House, they became even more extreme. The 2011 debt ceiling standoff was a first in American history: An opposition party declared itself willing to undermine the full faith and credit of the U.S. government, with incalculable economic effects, unless it got its way. And the looming fight over the “fiscal cliff” is more of the same. Once again, the G.O.P. is threatening to inflict large damage on the economy unless Mr. Obama gives it something — an extension of tax cuts for the wealthy — that it lacks the votes to pass through normal constitutional processes.

Would a Democratic Senate offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney? No, it wouldn’t. So, yes, there is a case that “partisan gridlock” would be less damaging if Mr. Romney won.

As Krugman concedes, a Democratic Senate would not "offer equally extreme opposition to a President Romney."   But we are "close to accepting protection-racket politics," he observes, if Mitt Romney is elected on a platform of "nice country you got here.  Shame if something were to happen to it."



Share |

Victory Despite, Not Because


An accurate narrative will emerge in the very unlikely event Mitt Romney emerges as the victor next Tuesday.   Romney ran a good, or at least workmanlike, campaign, the pundits will say, while Barack Obama ran a horrible campaign.

More likely, Barack Obama will earn a majority of electoral votes.  Although there will be limited applause for his campaign, we will hear everywhere of an imaginary awful campaign conducted by his opponent.

It has already begun.  Veteran Democratic strategist Bob Shrum cites the Republican's brazenly dishonest Jeep ad, rebutted by both Chrysler and parent company Fiat, as well as Romney's claim during the second debate "I- I think interesting the president just said something which- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror."   The former governor was immediately corrected by moderator Candy Crowley, who, anticipating the inevitable firestorm from Republicans who can't handle the truth, later unconvincingly corrected her correction.   Too little, too late, fortunately.

Shrum notes the error of having "let an unscripted Clint Eastwood conduct a farcical debate with an empty chair."   But there is little evidence that this bit of low, tasteless comedy hurt the campaign in anything but the slightest degree.  Romney came out of the convention behind but other factors, including the backdrop of Hurricane Isaac, which forced a one-day postponement of the affair and cast an unavoidable pall on the festivities, probably played a greater role.

Then came Denver.   The first presidential debate lifted Mitt Romney five, possibly even six, points in the polls, in part because pundits had built up the upcoming event as one which might have a seismic impact.   (I was surprised, having argued that the first debate would not prove terribly significant.)  Romney's favorability rating shot up as some pliable voters evidently concluded that the Republican presidential nominee was, in fact, a legitimate aspirant to the highest office in the land.  Additionally, the talk which  abounded before Denver that the big money people were considering abandoning an unwinnable presidential race for more credible congressional efforts ceased once Romney put on what was considered a dominating performance.

Mitt's momentum has stalled and even reversed.   But statistical guru (or, as some Repubs imply, gay partisan) Nate Silver while explaining why an Obama victory is probable remarked "Mr. Obama's polls are worse than they were in the period in between the conventions and the debates.  But they're better than they were immediately after Denver; he's gained back one percentage point, or perhaps a point-and-a-half, of what he lost."  Net, Mitt Romney has gained approximately four points from that first debate, probably the signature moment of the presidential campaign, which probably will be mostly neglected in the wake of an Obama victory.

Shrum argues Romney's "colossal mistake on Libya in the second debate also prepared the way for the real October surprise, the bromance between" Obama and New Jersey governor Chris Christie.        But there is little evidence (from Shrum or otherwise) of any connection between Libya and the Obama-Christie affair, other than an indirect one:  Romney slipped up on Libya, his numbers declined, and Christie decided Obama would be re-elected.   Far more likely are the other explanations.  Perhaps the New Jersey governor was angling for an introduction to his idol, Bruce Springsteen; Christie, once spurned for the V.P. slot, was itching for an opportunity to sabotage the Romney campaign, so as not to foreclose his own chances in 2016; the GOP governor was seeking political advantage for his re-election campaign in a state with relatively few Republicans; the state's chief executive was, uncharacteristically, acting in his state's best interests.

Arguing "the fault is not just in the party but in himself," Shrum maintains

Romney made some unavoidable mistakes embedded in the DNA of today's GOP.  He assumed, correctly, that in the primaries he had to pander on social issues to the religious right- and on immigration to a party that has become the modern incarnation of nativism.  He can plead in mitigation that he had no choice- and if that is so, look for another Republican defeat in 2016.   On Nov. 7, Romney may be asking himself:  What does it profit a Mitt to gain a nomination and lose his chance to make history in the White House?"

The former private equity manager did, clearly, "pander on social issues to the religious right- and on immigration" and, to a lesser extent, to the donor base of the party, exemplars of the 1%.    But having gained (aided by his V.P. selection, whose net impact on the campaign cannot be determined until the election results are in) the full support (though not the trust) of the popular and corporate bases of the party, Romney made a brilliant strategic calculation, executed in one 90-minute competition.   The right-wing partisan of the primary season became the candidate advocating that any health care reform be "done on a bipartisan basis" and claiming his Medicare proposal originated with Democratic Senator Ron Wyden and President Clinton's chief-of-staff.    The primary season's candidate of the 53%, appalled that most elderly persons, the poor, and a fair swath of the middle class don't pay federal income taxes,  now asserted "regulation is essential," slammed the $716 billion reduction to the Medicare program his running mate had advocated in the House, and assured independent and centrist voters "we can care for the poor."

Ah, the 47%.   Back in May, 2-3 months before the Republican National Convention, a candidate for the nomination of one of the two major political parties in the nations said

There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what.  All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe that government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.  That that's an entitlement.  And the government should give it to them.  And they will vote for this president no matter what.  And I mean, the president starts off with 48, 49, 48- he starts off with a huge number.  These are pople who pay no income tax.  Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax.  So our message of low taxes doesn't connect. And he'll be out there talking about tax cuts for the rich, I mean that's what they sell every four years.And so my job is not to worry about those people- I'll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

It's Politics 101) and possibly the first rule of politics) to ask people for their vote.  Here Mitt Romney- before he was nominated and began his general election campaign- said to nearly half the electorate:  I'm not going to address your needs, so don't even think about voting for me.    It was a message which dovetailed neatly with an individual who made hundreds of millions of dollars by getting companies to accumulate huge gobs of debt, virtually requiring them to strip jobs and the pensions of those who kept them, and which companies specialized in shipping  jobs abroad, including many to Romney's favorite boogeyman, mainland China.

And what was the response by that man's opponent?   During the second debate, he made his case about concern for the 47%; in the first and third debates, nothing.   And the word "Bain" never crossed Barack Obama's lips in any of the three, in front of the three biggest audiences of autumn.  Perhaps this was the price the candidate had to pay for the active support of Bill Clinton, who is chummy with the private equity set.   However, Clinton instead probably was acting out of an interest in fostering the presidential prospects of his wife.

Barack Obama will be re-elected against a foe who, aside from his family (or at least his wife) apparently no one is personally fond.  But contrary to what we will probably hear from Bob Shrum and others (especially others), he has been a terrible candidate and will not have defeated Mitt Romney, but a party whose professed, radical ideology is out of the mainstream of American thought.




Share |

Same Old Tune


Jeffrey W. Robbins, chairperson and professor of religion and philosophy at Lebanon Valley College in Pennsylvania, writes, in paragraphs opening and closing his op-ed in philly.com

Don't look now, but with only a few days left until the presidential election, one of the most potentially explosive and divisive issues has not become a factor:  religion...

With all the partisan bickering and mounting challenges we face, might this be a sign that the religious tolerance enshrined in our Constitution, and fought for by our Founding Fathers for practical and principled reasons, has finally become a reality?  We'll have to wait and see- and maybe even hope and pray- but I, for one, am heartened.

Haven't we heard this before?    From many people we have and in this case, from the often wrong, always thoughtful, John McWhorter, who maintained in a column titled "Racism In America Is Over"

The question someone like me has been asked to answer several times a week since Nov. 5 has been, "Are we now in a post-racial America?"

Giving an answer requires that we know what the question really refers to: whether America is past racism. Moreover, the point is largely racism against black people, i.e., Barack Obama, i.e., the people who are America's eternal shame, and so on. We are not really thinking about racism against Arabs. Most of us have a sense that the Asian pitching in on how the question applies to her is vaguely beside the point.

So, in answer to the question, "Is America past racism against black people," I say the answer is yes.

Of course, nothing magically changed when Obama was declared president-elect. However, our proper concern is not whether racism still exists, but whether it remains a serious problem. The election of Obama proved, as nothing else could have, that it no longer does.

Nice try, John- no, really nice try, arguing merely that the election of Barack Obama demonstrated a significant decline of racism in America, rather than, as many conservatives did, that his election proved that racism had died in the nation.

However, The Guardian of the United Kingdom recently reported

Racial prejudice in America is more widespread now than when President Barack Obama became the country's first black president in a historic 2008 vote, a new survey has shown.

In a poll of racial attitudes by the Associated Press news agency, researchers found that more Americans have attitudes that are both implicit and explicitly racist than when the same survey was conducted four years ago...

When measured by an implicit racial attitudes test, the number of Americans with anti-black sentiments jumped to 56%, up from 49% during the last presidential election.

"As much as we'd hope the impact of race would decline over time … it appears the impact of anti-black sentiment on voting is about the same as it was four years ago," said Jon Krosnick, a Stanford University professor who worked with AP to develop the survey...

The survey also found that some 79% of Republicans expressed explicit racial prejudice compared to 32% of Democrats.

The implicit test too showed that 64% of Republicans had racial prejudice compared to 55% of Democrats, while independents came in at 49%.

The explicit racism test asked respondents whether they agreed or disagreed with a series of statements about black and Hispanic people.

In addition, the surveys asked how well respondents thought certain words, such as "friendly", 'hardworking", ''violent" and "lazy" described blacks, whites and Hispanics.

The same respondents were also administered a survey designed to measure implicit racism, in which a photo of a black, Hispanic or white male flashed on the screen before a neutral image of a Chinese character.

The respondents were then asked to rate their feelings toward the Chinese character. Previous research has shown that people transfer their feelings about the photo onto the character, allowing researchers to measure racist feelings even if a respondent does not acknowledge them.  

I don't have sufficient details to determine whether the survey accurately determined racial attitudes, whose likely impact on the outcome of the presidential race is probably fairly complicated.   But let's not be overly cautious:  however precisely the survey measured racial preference (including pro-black sentiment), it found more negative attitudes of Americans toward blacks than it did four years ago.   As Jerry once (under)stated on Seinfeld, "this can't be good."

Selection (by less than 60% of actual voters) of the first black president in United States history did not prove that racial animus has ended, or even diminished, in the nation.  We didn't need a survey by a news organization to prove that, though it was helpful, especially in view of Americans eager to convince themselves in 2008-2009 that we can relax, having proven wrong all those people who had accused them of being "racist."

Now an accomplished academic hopes that the absence of discussion of religion in this campaign "is a sign that the religious tolerance enshrined in our Constitution... has finally become a reality.

It neither proves nor even suggests anything of the kind.   Each campaign is ignoring the elephant in the room for its own strategic purposes and the media is following suit, wary of raising an issue which neither side itself appears to have introduced.   Sure, Mitt Romney, demonstrating underrated political agility, during the primary campaign did tell a sympathetic audience that he believes both the Constitution and Declaration of Independence are "probably inspired."   Conveniently, his supporters there and elsewhere recognized that as shorthand for "divinely inspired," while the media was unsuspecting. In the general campaign, Romney has wisely avoided repeating the contention now that he is appealing to a broader array of voters.

Mitt Romney was a leader, albeit among many, in his church.  Yet, intimidated into silence, the media has taken a pass on any consideration of the impact of the candidate's faith on his personality, character, or political ideology while leaving voters largely ignorant about the religion of the man who may be the next President.      If the importance of religious values had been acknowledged (or at least considered), victory or defeat for Mitt Romney still would not have proven tolerance.    In its absence, the outcome on Tuesday will suggest nothing at all about religion in America.  



Share |

Hot Air



Mitt Romney wants you to know that, before he finishes breakfast on January 21, 2013, he will declare mainland China a currency manipulator.

He told us so in the last presidential debate, when he maintained

They’re making some progress; they need to make more. That’s why on day one, i will label them a currency manipulator, which allows us to apply tariffs where they’re taking jobs. They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods.

He had told us in the second presidential debate, when he contended

We lose sales. And manufacturers here in the U.S. making the same products can't compete. China has been a currency manipulator for years and years and years. And the president has a regular opportunity to label them as a currency manipulator, but refuses to do so.

On day one, I will label China a currency manipulator, which will allow me as president to be able to put in place, if necessary, tariffs where I believe that they are taking unfair advantage of our manufacturers.

And he did so way, way back in December, 2011, when he remarked during a CBS television interview (as part of a report obviously favorable to the ex-governor) "The actions a president can take are, No. 1, to declare China a currency manipulator. And under our law, that allows the president to apply tariffs in places where the president believes that China's practices are killing American jobs."

Few issues better demonstrate Romney's Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde persona than his China rhetoric.   In a fair and balanced (no, really) manner.    Business Writer George Hohmann of The Charleston (W.Va.) Daily Mail describes the response of the President  to Chinese tires flooding the U.S.A. early in the Obama Administration, explaining  

Charleston native Charlotte Lane was serving on the U.S. International Trade Commission when the United Steelworkers brought the case against Chinese tires in 2009. Lane, who finished her eight-year term on the commission last year, now practices law in Charleston. She remembers the tire case well.

Most disputes like the China tire case are brought under the law that says tariffs can be imposed if products are being dumped at prices below cost. But the tire case was brought under a provision that says tariffs can be imposed if, for any reason, a product is coming into the country in such huge amounts it is disrupting industry.

Lane recalled that she voted in the majority when the U.S. International Trade Commission found, in a 4-2 decision, that Chinese tires were disrupting the U.S. market.

The commission's recommended remedy: impose a 55 percent tariff on Chinese-made passenger tires for the first year, a 45 percent tariff the second year and a 35 percent tariff the third year.

President Obama chose to impose a 35 percent tariff the first year, 30 percent the second year and 25 percent the third year.

Lane recalled that the tire case "was a really big deal" while she was on the commission. "Interestingly enough, the provision the tire case came under was added when China came into the World Trade Organization in 2001," she said.

"There have been several market-disruption cases," she said. "The others, (then-President) George Bush turned down. This is the only one where the President imposed tariffs.

"It was really interesting because most cases are brought by industry," she said. "This one was brought by the United Steelworkers." (The United Rubber Workers merged with the steelworkers union in 1995).

"It was interesting from a political standpoint because it was brought shortly after the President took office, brought by a huge labor union, and with the backdrop that a President had never put tariffs on a product under this provision.

"It was clear when we looked at it that market disruption was taking place, domestic workers were being injured." Under the law, six to nine months prior to the expiration of the tariffs, Obama could have asked the International Trade Commission to investigate whether the tariffs needed to continue. He did not do that. The tariffs expired Sept. 26.

In an article in the current issue of the United Steelworkers' magazine titled, "Tire Tariffs Worked," the union noted that it brought the case against Chinese tires.

The article reports that after the trade commission found that the tires were damaging the U.S. industry, "the Obama administration acted on its recommendation to impose a graduated tariff of 35 percent the first year, 30 percent the second year and 25 percent the third year."

Not mentioned in the article is the fact that the trade commission actually recommended higher tariffs.

The union reported that the tariffs Obama imposed worked.

The tariffs "allowed many American tire manufacturers to maintain stability and return to profitability in the aftermath of the global economic crisis and prolonged recession that followed," the article quotes Steelworkers International President Leo Gerard as saying.

The article goes on to quote Gerard as saying, "Because the tariffs were so effective, extending them to a fourth year could have resulted in compensation being paid to China, so we refused to pursue an option that could potentially reward China for its actions.

"There should be no doubt that President Obama's decisive action and leadership at a critical time saved the domestic tire sector," Gerard said.

But Alex MacGillis of The New Republic has the audio, video, and transcript to get a better idea of Mitt Romney's sentiment as recently as 2009, when Romney engaged in a luncheon discussion of the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neo-conservative organization founded by William Kristol.  It's safe to assume that few of the attendees were industrial workers whose jobs were endangered by cheap imports from Asia, including the behemoth the candidate now seems so exorcised with.     Answering a question "regarding China and our protection of the tire manufacturing industry." Romney commented, in part

To the 50 people who lose their jobs, it’s a very bad idea, and they will resist with great energy and passion the idea of allowing horses to draw plows because it will make their life far more uncertain, at best. Those of us who stand back a bit say, no no no, don’t you understand that by having these plows and releasing those 50 people that someone, one of them or someone else is going to come up with something else for them to do? Making chairs, making movies whatever that is going to make everyone better off. More productivity will make everybody wealthier and more successful...

(Employees, corporations) the shareholders and all the wealth owners, capitalists behind the tire industry are saying don’t let those foreign tires in here, it’s gonna hurt me. And it will -- as those tires come in it does hurt them directly, and therefore what their response is, their immediate response is, don’t let them in. But if that’s what their response is, my experience is over time, they will lose out slowly but surely...

So putting barriers up, trying to put walls up, in my opinion is a defeating strategy and will yield ultimate decline and collapse....

So, long story short, the wrong answer for America’s workers and for the wealth of every citizen of this nation is to try and put up barriers to stop competition, either domestic competition or competition from abroad.

Facing off with Obama in Boca Raton, Romney argued " They’re stealing our intellectual property, our patents, our designs, our technology, hacking into our computers, counterfeiting our goods."   But as MacGillis concludes, "there was one time Obama stood up to China.  And Mitt Romney, speaking behind closed doors to a 'sophisticated audience,' explained why he was wrong to do so.





Share |

Roots Of Benghazi Political Strategy



On September 11 (timeline, from The New York Times, here), preceding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and on the U.S. diplomatic mission in Libya that left four Americans dead, the Embassy in Egypt issued the following statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

That night (the following morning, in the Middle East) GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney

I'm outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It's disgraceful that the Obama administration's first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.

This statement was released 14 minutes after Politico reported it had been told by an Administration official "The statement by Embassy Cairo was not cleared by Washington and does not reflect the views of the United States government."    Politico noted also the statement (issued two minutes before the Politico article) from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton concluding "There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind."

At the time, however, few if any noted that Romney's hyper-partisan, opportunistic, and irresponsible remark represented a critical tactic in his political strategy.   In the second presidential debate, Romney was slapped down by Candy Crowley and Obama for his Libyan myth making and at the third debate took a pass on the issue.   But now, longtime Democratic strategist Mark Shrum has noted that Romney previously

had pursued the exploitative path he had foreseen in a little-noted part of the notorious “47 percent tape.” After referring to Jimmy Carter’s failed hostage-rescue mission, in which eight U.S. service members died, he told the assembled plutocrats: “If something of that nature occurs, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.” I suspect his last round of debate prep included the warning that the president could clock him with that quote if he renewed his push on the Libyan issue, which had stunningly embarrassed him a week before when moderator Candy Crowley had told him he was wrong—that the day afterward, Obama had called the killing of the American ambassador a “terrorist act.”

At the time pursuing the Repub presidential nomination, Mitt Romney assured the assembled millionaires at the famous Palm Beach fundraiser

And yet, in that election, in the Jimmy Carter election, the fact that we have hostages in Iran, I mean, that was all we talked about. And we had the two helicopters crash in the desert, I mean that's—that was—that was the focus, and so him solving that made all the difference in the world. I'm afraid today if you said, "We got Iran to agree to stand down a nuclear weapon," they'd go hold on. It's really a, but…by the way, if something of that nature presents itself, I will work to find a way to take advantage of the opportunity.

There is nothing like a tragedy- ideally, a terrorist attack- to fuel Republican campaigns.  It worked in 2004 for George W. Bush and Romney figured it would work for him in 2012.    In this case, it bought the GOP nominee a lot of grief- but it did draw greater attention to a terrible incident which could be exploited by a candidate who really, truly wants voters to believe that President Obama is endangering the security of the United States.   And it further raises the question of why Barack Obama has gone nearly mum on a tape which fully, and uniquely, reveals the nature of his opponent.



Share |

Collateral Damage



The president of Request Foods, a processed food company, has written in his company's newsletter "The past 4 years with President Obama, trying to lead and represent us, has been a complete failure."  In his five-paragraph message, Jack DeWitt summarized

What can we do? What am I going to do? I am going to vote on November 6 for new hope and change by voting for Mitt Romney, Paul Ryan and Pete Hoekstra. I hope you will join with me, so we have a better America with less government, less taxes, less regulations, and lower gasoline prices. I believe that voting in these folks would also help lower the number of abortions and enable Request Foods to manage its own health care costs.

He's not alone in his sentiments.  In an eleven-paragraph e-mail to all his employees, David Siegel, founder and CEO of Westgate Resorts (which Gawker.com describes as a "huge national timeshare company and one of the largest resort developers"), sounded a similar alarm.  He wrote (or typed) in a message replete with a sense of entitlement and victimization

The economy doesn't currently pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is another 4 years of the same Presidential administration. Of course, as your employer, I can't tell you whom to vote for, and I certainly wouldn't interfere with your right to vote for whomever you choose. In fact, I encourage you to vote for whomever you think will serve your interests the best...

So where am I going with all this? It's quite simple. If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, as our current President plans, I will have no choice but to reduce the size of this company. Rather than grow this company I will be forced to cut back. This means fewer jobs, less benefits and certainly less opportunity for everyone.

So, when you make your decision to vote, ask yourself, which candidate understands the economics of business ownership and who doesn't? Whose policies will endanger your job? Answer those questions and you should know who might be the one capable of protecting and saving your job. 

The Koch brothers, as the leading supporters of right-wing and Republican causes, obviously aren't going to be left out.   In a voter information packet mailed to all 45,000 employees of its subsidiary, Georgia-Pacific, Charles and David said in part

If we elect candidates who want to spend hundreds of billions in borrowed money on costly new subsidies for a few favored cronies, put unprecedented regulatory burdens on businesses, prevent or delay important new construction projects, and excessively hinder free trade, then many of our more than 50,000 U.S. employees and contractors may suffer the consequences, including higher gasoline prices, runaway inflation, and other ills.

Enclosed with the letter was a flyer [PDF] listing Koch-endorsed candidates, beginning with Romney. Robertson’s letter explained: “At the request of many employees, we have also provided a list of candidates in your state that have been supported by Koch companies or by KOCHPAC, our employee political action committee.”

Mike Elk of In These Times, which broke the story, added

The packet also included an anti-Obama editorial by Charles Koch [PDF] and a pro-Romney editorial by David Koch [PDF]. The letter went on to say, “We believe any decision about which candidates to support is—as always—yours and yours alone, based on the factors that are most important to you. Second, we do not support candidates based on their political affiliation.”

In the flyer sent to Oregon employees, all 14 Koch-backed state candidates were Republicans.

The effort will be boosted this coming week as the National Federation of Independent Business (which backs Romney as it does other Republicans) is holding a session to train its members to get its employees out to vote.  The effort to intimidate workers is yet another reason to overturn the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision which, Elk states, " "overturned previous FEC laws prohibiting employers from expressing electoral opinions directly to their employees."    And it is taking place in an environment relatively favorable to corporate profits.

The Motley Fool has compared average annual corporate profit growth under the past nineteen presidents and found, using January 2008 profit levels as a starting base, it has increased by 6.8% under Obama, higher than that under 14 of the 18 remaining chief executives.  Using as a starting base the month (January 2009) this president took over (as the site did with the other fellows), Obama's record is far more startling, as the graph below indicates.

But Obama has an unfair advantage- he's a Democrat (technically, anyway).  Fox Business (!) in early September noted

history actually shows that the U.S. economy, stock prices and corporate profits have generated stronger growth under Democratic administrations than Republican ones

According to McGraw-Hill’s (MHP ) S&P Capital IQ, the S&P 500 has rallied an average of 12.1% per year since 1901 when Democrats occupy the White House, compared with just 5.1% for the GOP.

Likewise, gross domestic product has increased 4.2% each year since 1949 when Democrats run the executive branch, versus 2.6% under Republicans. Even corporate profits show a disparity: S&P 500 GAAP earnings per share climbed a median of 10.5% per year since 1936 during Democratic administrations, besting an 8.9% median advance under Republicans, S&P said.

DeWitt's plea for support of the right candidate is remarkable given that his company, Zach Carter and Jason Cherkis of The Huffington Post explain, "obtained $5.5 million under a federal grant program that Obama's stimulus bill increased by $1 billion," helping it to hire at least 250 additional employees, and has increased markedly its sales during the administration of the Great Socialist.   Township Supervisor Terry Nienhuis of Holland, Michigan, where the money was used for a new water treatment plant to serve a new facility, said "They are growing strong.  They didn't seem to be affected by it at all.  In fact, I think that was one of their strongest growing periods.  Yeah, they're doing well. They are providing very important jobs for people who are having difficulty finding employment."  

So perhaps these executives (who built it on their own) have a reason, beyond enthusiasm for the candidate of the 1%, to oppose Barack Obama.    As Business Insider revealed (graphs below) in June, just as wages as a percent of the economy (third graph) and employment as a percentage of the population (second graph) are at an all-time low, corporate profit margins (first graph) are at an all time high.   So maybe DeWitt and others have worked it out rationally, believing that in a Romney administration, jobs will decline, wages will decline, and corporate profits accordingly rise.   Crazy like a fox.

Share |