Only Ricardo Montalban Missing On This Fantasy Island

There are numerous reasons Repubs are finding it difficult to win a national election. Chief among them, as conventional wisdom would have it, is the expansion of the electorate such that it bears a rough approximation to the nation as a whole. Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians, too few of whom vote in off-year elections, go to the polls in presidential election years and the awful ideas of the GOP do not escape their attention.

There are other reasons Mitt Romney went down to defeat in 2012. Fortunately, however, few if any Repubs have been able to figure out why.

Among the apparently delusional is the former mayor of New York City (video below TYT Network), for

"He’s going to have to convince them that he’s going to run a different kind of campaign this time," Giuliani said on "Fox and Friends."

The former mayor said Romney needs to show that "he’s not going to back away from topics like Benghazi."

"Even if he didn’t win, if he had made Benghazi a bigger issue, I think we would have had a better chance," Giuliani said about Romney's 2012 run.







Giuliani evidently didn't clarify what he meant by "topics like Benghazi;" perhaps he was referring to ginned-up scandals ripe for exploitation.  He may not have noticed that a GOP-dominated congressional panel cleared the Administration of the most serious charges in the matter. Or maybe he did notice.

Benghazi wouldn't have saved Romney, nor would have a repackaging of the candidate, notwithstanding the perspective of Rupert Murdoch, who likes John Ellis Bush "very much" but

Murdoch was less kind toward Mitt Romney, who is considering a third bid for the Republican nomination after failed attempts in 2008 and 2012.

"I rather agree with the [Wall Street] Journal this morning, which sort of lacerated Romney," Murdoch said in reference to an editorial in the paper, which he owns. "He had his chance, he mishandled it, you know? I thought Romney was a terrible candidate."

Murdoch also hit Romney for winning the nomination "by destroying every other Republican with his own money" and for failing to deflect criticism that he was "super rich."

Even if the former Massachusetts governor had not been taped making his "47%" remarks- which were merely an overt statement of GOP philosophy- he couldn't have convinced anyone he wasn't a billionaire.  As of the fall of 2012, the guy reportedly was worth approximately a quarter of a billion dollars- and he carries himself like a man of considerable means.  It's his persona, and nothing was going to change that.

But that is not why he lost.   There are three reasons including, obviously (except to a many Repubs), it's tough to beat an incumbent. However, Romney was also hoisted on the petard on one of his kind,someone also of the northeastern governors' club.  Here is the photographic evidence:

The words- themselves quite favorable- Chris Christie spoke while hanging out with Barack Obama at the Jersey shore during campaign 2012 didn't matter as much. It was primarily the pictures, which are worth a thousand words (and more) in their political impact. At a time that many independent-minded voters were convinced by the mainstream media that they just wanted both sides to get together, to have leaders of both parties shaking hands, hugging, and making nice, Christie provided just the right image for candidate Obama. The photographs were in Christie's self-interest, given that the governor of a Democratic state was gearing up to win big in his re-election bid and wanted to send a message to the GOP donor class of his electability for national office.

Still, there was an even bigger reason Romney failed.  At a debate in Tampa in January, 2012, the ex-governor merely had been reflecting the view of the donor and the popular bases of the GOP, as well as of his fellow presidential candidates, when he stated

I do not support a federal mandate. I do not support a federal one- size-fits-all plan. I believe in the Constitution. That`s why the attorney general here is saying absolutely not.

You can`t impose Obamacare on the states. What I will do if I`m president, I will repeal Obamacare and return to the states the authority and the rights the states have to craft their own programs to care for their own poor.

Romney wasn't referring to Medicaid expansion, but to the Affordable Care Act in general and the individual mandate in particular.  That line of reasoning- that the ACA was unconstitutional- suffered a severe blow five months later at the hands of the John Roberts and the United States Supreme Court.  When the 5-4 ruling that the core- the individual mandate- of health care reform was a tax and hence constitutional, a lot of the air was taken out of the Romney campaign. No longer was it easy to get gullible voters to believe the Jeremiah Wright-loving, czar-appointing dictator was abusing his authority.

Chief Justice Roberts had his own reason for a ruling which misconstrued a penalty as a tax, leading to the proper conclusion about the Act (aside from Medicaid).  Governor Christie had presumably different motives, enhancing his (upcoming) re-election margin and ruining Mitt Romney's bid, for a New Jersey governor hardly would have been able in 2016 to challenge the re-election of an incumbent Republican.  (Mitt since has spoken very well of Chris; make of that what you wish.)

With any luck, major Republicans will continue to live in a fantasy world, unwilling or unable to face up to reality.




Share |

Strategic Confusion


Slamming health care reform on Thursday, Rush Limbaugh stated "Daniel Henninger in the Wall Street Journal today says that next Tuesday when Obamacare begins its final and full implementation, what will happen is ''the discrediting of the entitlement state.'

Henninger's primary contention may be that the Affordable Care Act is bound to collapse on its own. But along the way he claims

Going back at least to the Breaux-Thomas Medicare Commission in 1999, endless learned bodies have warned that the U.S. entitlement scheme of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid is financially unsupportable. Of Medicare, Rep. Bill Thomas said at the time, "One of the biggest problems is that the government tries to administer 10,000 prices in 3,000 counties, and it gets it wrong most of the time." But change never comes.

You will not be surprised that the deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page, whose aim it is to defend corporate America at every point, is short of facts.  He does not mention any of the "endless learned bodies (which) have warned" that Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid are "financially unsupportable."

Well, aside from the Breaux-Thomas Medicare Commission in 1999.  Inconveniently, however, the Commission did not issue any warning about "the U.S. entitlement scheme."   On April 14, 1999 Representative Jan Schakowsky noted on the floor of the House of Representatives

The Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare nearly approved a plan to save Medicare. But a fundamental consideration was strangely missing from the proposal by Medicare Commission Chair Senator John Breaux (D-LA) and co- chair Representative Bill Thomas (R-CA): the detrimental effect this plan would have on the millions of seniors and persons with disabilities who rely on Medicare.  The simple fact is the proposal nearly passed by the Medicare Commission is a disaster.

That bears a striking resemblance to the spin given the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform.  The Commission's co-chairpersons, Republican Alan Simpson and "Democrat" Erskine Bowles, did issue a report but the commission itself did not, owing to insufficient agreement among members. Nevertheless, the proposal offered by Mr. Simpson and Mr. Bowles are often, erroneously, referred to as "the commission's report."

Unaware that something is labeled an "entitlement" by the federal government merely if appropriations need not be renewed annually, most individuals hear "entitlements' and think it's lazy people who believe they're owed something for simply breathing.  (Fortunately,  people otherwise still think of them primarily as Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security.) Henninger's reference to Medicaid, Medicare, and Social Security as "entitlements" not surprisingly mirrors the glee of other Repubs when they use the term.

As described by Crooks and Liars' Heather, CNN's Crossfire on Wednesday featured U.S. senators Lindsey Graham and Bernie Sanders.   The South Carolina Repub at one point maintained

Well, no. What I'm trying to do is save the country from bankruptcy. And when the president of the United States, who I usually don't agree with, put CPI on the table, I thought it was a very courageous thing to do. And I am willing to flatten that tax code. I can go to the rich people in America and all the corporations, say, "We're going to take deductions off the table you now enjoy. Take that money back for the many, not just the few."

But if you don't help me reform the entitlements, there's no way to get there by taxing people.

Sanders called Graham out, stating "I want everybody to understand, when Lindsey talks about reforming entitlements, what he means is cutting Social Security and cutting Medicare."  Co-host Newt Gingrich then made his own reference to "bankrupt."

An organization, person, or a country is considered "bankrupt" when it is "declared in law unable to pay outstanding debts."  But commenting upon the C&L post, the insightful "Paul" observed "The country is not going bankrupt, and if it is in financial straights the way to start getting out of troubles is not by destroying the social safety nets."

Many Repubs don't want the nation to be able to pay its outstanding debts, given they don't want the debt ceiling raised, which would possibly lead to a downgrade of the nation's credit status and a jump in the interest rates hampering its ability to pay down thes debt.  Good strategy, though; claim the country is bankrupt, work toward it, and then point to the economic calamity you've created as affirmation of your policies.

"Paul" also points the way to a more accurate branding of Medicare and Social Security, explaining "They are fully pre-funded, because social security is a fully prepaid annuity that pays earned benefits, not entitlements."  They are better understood as earned benefits, rather than entitlements, and Medicaid as perhaps "survival insurance."

Graham considers himself, "Paul" observes, the "underling" of the rich.  That represents, at least, valuable self-insight on the part of the South Carolina senator who, with Henninger and many other Republicans, are comfortable in their roles as lackeys of the corporate sector.


Share |

Immigratin Misdirection


The debate over comprehensive immigration reform is proving a bonanza for biased polls (and, even if not, it gives me an opportunity to type "bonanza" for the first time).   On July 9, Public Policy Polling released results of a survey, one of which questions actually asked

Do you support or oppose an immigration reform plan that ensures undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. pay a penalty, learn English, pass a criminal background check, pay taxes, and wait a minimum of thirteen years before they can be eligible for citizenship?

Mickey Kaus argues the penalty can be waived; immigrants need not learn English but only enroll in a course; resources are inadequate for genuine background checks; back taxes must be paid only if the IRS already had assessed the taxes. Byron York notes that most agricultural workers and some beneficiaries of the Dream Act would not have to wait a full thirteen years to be eligible for citizenship.

PPP might have compared results had it asked a similarly unbalanced question:  "Do you support or oppose an immigration scheme that allows individuals who have entered the country illegally to be given priority over those who have been admitted legally?  Neither would have been very enlightening about public sentiment toward immigration but at least would have dramatized the importance of strategic wording to elicit the desired response.

It seems this was not an isolated poll.  Comes now a Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey asking

Thinking about immigration…If Congress is unable to come to agreement on an immigration bill before the end of its current term who do you think will be most to blame -- (RANDOMIZE) the Republicans in Congress, the Democrats in Congress, or President Obama?

This was not preceded by a question asking respondents if they believe Congress should come to an agreement on an immigration bill, let alone whether they approve of the one being considered by Congress. It was not preceded by any question about immigration, instead prompted by an assumption that respondents of course supported the pending immigration bill.  After all, who wouldn't be?

The results:  44% blame "the Republicans in Congress," 14% "the Democrats in Congress," 21% "President Obama," 11% "all equally to blame," and 10% were "not sure."   By now, you're probably wondering: who are these 35% (over one-third!) who would blame Democrats- and can I sell them that proverbial beachfront property in Arizona?  Except they probably are not- couldn't be- so misinformed, but rather probably are opponents of comprehensive immigration reform who rightly blame Democrats for pushing it.

That would be akin to a protest vote- but we'll never know because the question was so thoroughly misguided.  It may be unsurprising in a poll co-sponsored by The Wall Street Journal, whose editors came out in favor of the legislation approved by the Senate, recommending

if the House doesn't want to take up the entire bill that recently passed the Senate, it can still consider and pass the parts that are pro-growth and that most Republicans support.

These include a provision to allow foreign graduates of U.S. schools with science, math and technology degrees to stay in America if they have a job offer. Even Mitt Romney supported this one. Another provision would double the number of H-1B visas for skilled immigrants, while a third would allow visas to those who will start businesses and invest in America.

And in case readers aren't convinced of the WSJ's motives, the editors recommended "opening more paths for legal immigrants to meet U.S. labor demand."  So the next time you meet a college graduate who is unemployed, working part-time, serving a paid or unpaid internship, or cheerily exclaiming "welcome to WalMart," remember to tell her how lazy she must be because the Wall Street Journal says we need more workers because there are too many jobs around.



Share |

A Blank Check Is Not A Good Thing



You know Rand Paul is on to something when The Wall Street Journal editorializes "If Mr. Paul wants to be taken seriously he needs to do more than pull political stunts that fire up impressionable libertarian kids in their college dorms... he needs to know what he's talking about."  Evidently, the Journal's editorial page, often seeming libertarian and hostile to big government, has nary a concern about principle while it fronts for corporate interests.

We learned also that the editors, aside from defending the interests of the 1% faithfully, can't resist slamming the Obama Administration- even when it agrees with one of its policies.   As the Kentucky Senator commendably droned on for nearly 13 hours about the the right of a President to order the killing of an American citizen on American soil for whatever reason he chooses, the editors of the Journal wrote

Calm down, Senator. Mr. Holder is right, even if he doesn't explain the law very well. The U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil or anywhere else. What it can do under the laws of war is target an "enemy combatant" anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil. This includes a U.S. citizen who is also an enemy combatant. The President can designate such a combatant if he belongs to an entity—a government, say, or a terrorist network like al Qaeda—that has taken up arms against the United States as part of an internationally recognized armed conflict. [...]

The Journal is convinced "the U.S. government cannot randomly target American citizens on U.S. soil."  Yet, given the absence of a response by the Administration to the request of Senators for an explanation of the legal basis for drone strikes, it is unclear that the White House would not claim nearly unlimited authority, nor that it wouldn't exercise it covertly.

Probably not this President.  Probably.  In early February, Krystal (which should be "Crystal") Ball commented on MSNBC

I voted for President Obama because I trust his values and his judgment, and I believe that he is a fundamentally responsible actor.  Without gratuitously slamming ex-President Bush, I think he displayed extraordinary lapses in judgment in executing his primary responsibility as commander-in-chief, and put troops in harm’s way imprudently...

President Obama would have exercised better judgment and he has exercised better judgment.  What would George W. Bush do? That’s our standard? We would never allow a power to the presidency that we wouldn’t feel comfortable giving to George W. Bush?

Yes, that is, or rather should be, our standard. That's why we have checks and balances enshrined in the United States Constitution.    Were we confident all our leaders would be above reproach- strong and gentle and kind, possessed of Christ-like judgement- we wouldn't need restraints on Executive power.

One of the checks on the power of government over the individual is is due process. And one of the checks on Executive, relative to legislative, power is the authority to declare war.  The Journal claimed the federal government "under the laws of war" may target an enemy combatant' anywhere at anytime, including on U.S. soil."  But although a declaration of war against terrorists evidently is constitutionally permissible, it has not been convenient for either President Bush or President Obama to pursue a declaration of war against "terrorists," "Al Qaeda," or "terrorism."

Until it does, actions cannot be justified on the basis of the U.S. being involved in "war."  This is a government of laws, not of men.  Krystal Ball and a few others may be crushed to learn that Barack Obama will not be President forever, and may be replaced by someone not "a fundamentally responsible actor."  Admittedly, even in the absence of this Administration claiming extraordinary power, the next Repub Administration will do so. But if a free pass is not given to this President, a claim of precedence will be without merit.

Share |

Vague For A Reason


Numerous Republicans already were concerned about the direction of the Romney campaign.   The disreputable NewsCorp CEO Rupert Murdoch on Monday tweeted "Met Romney last week.   Tough O Chicago pols will be hard to beat unless he drops old friends from team and hires some real pros.   Doubtful."    Others piled on after the Romney campaign failed to label early, definitively, and with equanimity the penalty in the health care mandate a tax, rather than a fine.

Thus the opening was provided for other Republicans to know avoidance by the candidate to avoid any specifics about his signature issue, the economy.   Weekly Standard editor William Kristol wrote

The economy is of course important. But voters want to hear what Romney is going to do about the economy. He can "speak about" how bad the economy is all he wants—though Americans are already well aware of the economy's problems—but doesn't the content of what Romney has to say matter? What is his economic growth agenda? His deficit reform agenda? His health care reform agenda? His tax reform agenda? His replacement for Dodd-Frank? No need for any of that, I suppose the Romney campaign believes. Just need to keep on "speaking about the economy."

The Wall Street Journal editorialized

This latest mistake is of a piece with the campaign's insular staff and strategy that are slowly squandering an historic opportunity. Mr. Obama is being hurt by an economic recovery that is weakening for the third time in three years. But Mr. Romney hasn't been able to take advantage, and if anything he is losing ground.

The Romney campaign thinks it can play it safe and coast to the White House by saying the economy stinks and it's Mr. Obama's fault. We're on its email list and the main daily message from the campaign is that "Obama isn't working." Thanks, guys, but Americans already know that. What they want to hear from the challenger is some understanding of why the President's policies aren't working and how Mr. Romney's policies will do better.

Then-President George W. Bush invoked a (well-worn) response that is applicable here:  "Bring it on."  Terming it "an excellent piece of work and very much needed," Romney in March stated "I'm very supportive of the Ryan budget plan. It's a bold and exciting effort on his part and on the part of the Republicans and it's very much consistent with what I put out earlier."

Paul Ryan's budget, as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities explains

would cut the top marginal income tax rate, now 35 percent but scheduled to rise next year to 39.6 percent, to 25 percent.  It would cut the corporate income tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminate taxes on the foreign profits of U.S.-based multinationals.  It would eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), designed to ensure that high-income people pay at least a minimum level of tax.And it would eliminate health reform’s increase in the Medicare tax for high-income individuals.      

That would blow a hole of $400 billion in the budget in 2015.    Still, Ryan claims his plan would prove to be revenue-neutral in part because the "reforms will grow the economy" (pursuant to discredited supply-side theory) and also "because we close special-interest loopholes."

It would be entertaining to watch the GOP presidential nominee explain which deductions he would close.     The ones with greatest impact, as the table (below, from Kevin Drum with figures from the Tax Policy Center) from the CBPP indicates, are exclusions of employee healthcare benefits and the mortgage interest deduction, and favorable treatment of pension benefits.     Perhaps Romney would like to tackle (or jet-ski through) the deductions for charitable contributions, or on social security or medicare part B benefits, or the earned income tax credit.    What a political winner that would be.

Alternatively, perhaps the former governor would end the tax breaks on dividends, capital gains, inheritance, or offshore income.    That would be a fine way to squander his advantage over Barack Obama in fund-raising among the top 10%.    Romney is as likely to jeopardize that as he is to turn down the nomination he will be handed in Tampa.

So, Mitt, follow the advice offered you by Kristol (and demanded of you by the WSJ) and go into detail.    Forget the vague, sometimes misleading references to Obama's failed economic policy and reject the approach of the party's 1968 nominee, who promised merely "peace with honor," with no explanation.    Then watch as you struggle to win 200 electoral votes in November.



                                     
                               

Share |

A Little Harsh On Romney



Frustrated writer, sometime columnist, pundit, and professional neocon William Kristol (who, by the way, looks like he's related to Billy Crystal)  rhetorically asked in his Weekly Standard blog "Is it too much to ask Mitt Romney to get off autopilot and actually think about the race he's running?"

More significantly, the editors of the unofficial house organ of the Republican Party, the Wall Street Journal, ran an editorial maintaining "If Mitt Romney loses his run for the White House, a turning point will have been his decision Monday to absolve President Obama of raising taxes on the middle class."

Responding to the suddenly fashionable hand-wringing from GOP heavyweights about the Romney campaign, Salon's Alex Pareene is right about so much- and wrong on one point.

Pareene correctly notes, "Mitt Romney will definitely accuse Obama of raising taxes" and it is, after all, only early July.     He recognizes as "an awful idea" Kristol's desire "to hear policy specifics from Romney," which the WSJ also suggests for the candidate.  He notices the Journal's "point is actually just to hammer Romney adviser Eric Fehrnstrom for being sort of feckless and horrible at mesaging, and to let the Romney campaign know that the Journal will be telling them which things to say, thank you very much."    

Recognizing, further, that "Romney, for all his flaws, was the best candidate to face Obama this year," Pareene finds Republicans are "whining how it's harder to beat Obama than thy have always thought it ought to be."   They are gearing up, if Romney is defeated, to blaming the campaign, as well as nomination of the individual generally considered the least conservative candidate.

Top Republicans, including the Wall Street Journal, William Kristol, and Rush Limbaugh, seem to believe that Barack Obama should be easily defeated for re-election.    "The Romney campaign," Pareene argues, is doing the absolute best it can running against an incumbent president who remains broadly popular."     The campaign itself, and the ex-governor as a presidential candidate, have been underrated.    But, as I never get tired of saying, Barack Obama's personal popularity is an urban myth.

Pareene links to Real Clear Politics, which presents favorable-unfavorable results from dozens of surveys since the beginning of the calendar year from various firms.    Although the wording differs slightly- very slightly- from poll to poll, it is typically similar to that in the last (from CNN/Opinion Research), in which respondents are told "We'd like to get your overall opinion of some people in the news. As I read each name, please say if you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of these people -- or if you have never heard of them."

The last eight surveys give the President an average of +6.5, in which there are 6.5% more individuals holding a favorable, than unfavorable, view of Obama.     That might seem mildly impressive until one considers that a) Americans generally like their presidents personally, or at least think they do; 2) some people say, however implausibly, that they like everyone or at least hate no one; and 3) the president is black and it's very uncomfortable for many Caucasians to admit they don't like a black person- especially when his election was an historic first.     (That, ironically, demonstrates how far we have not come in the matter of race relations.); 4) the somewhat positive results seemingly contradict results of other polls pertaining to the President.

Barack Obama is of the United Church of Christ denomination, more generally Protestant, and even more generally Christian.    He was born in the State of Hawaii, of the nation of the United States.   (He even presented, to appropriate fanfare, a long term birth certificate, probably more evidence of birth than any other U.S. President has.)

Why, then, are many Americans unconvinced Barack Obama was born in their own country- and did the Public Religion Research Institute find approximately two months ago that a mere "36% of respondents correctly identify Barack Obama as Protestant or just Christian?"      This is, folks, still largely a nation of Christians, though our values might more correctly be characterized as Judeo-Christian (or instead, in some cases, off-kilter).    Most Americans identify with a Christian denomination, as has every President, to one extent or another.     If these Americans believe Barack Obama may not be a Christian, it's likely they are not enamored of him- and not surprisingly, the ignorance is greatest among white evangelical voters, few of whom are members of the Barack Obama Fan Club.      

Despite doubts about the President's religious affiliation (and nation of birth), Obama holds an advantage in the upcoming election.    But the political victory handed the Administration by Chief Justice Roberts,  as well as the inept response by the Romney camp, are of relatively little import.   Far more significant is the nomination of the GOP of probably its strongest candidate- and the release of six economic reports before Election Day.


Share |

American Exceptionalism Doubted




Speaking before donors in Ebert County, Colorado recently, Representative Mike Coffman let slip "I don't know whether Barack Obama was born in the United States of America. I don't know that.     But I do know this, that in his heart, he's not an American. He's just not an American."

When it was informed that the Representative's comments were recorded, the campaign issued a written statement:

I misspoke and I apologize. I have confidence in President Obama's citizenship and legitimacy as President of the United States.    I don't believe the President shares my belief in American Exceptionalism. His policies reflect a philosophy that America is but one nation among many equals.    As a Marine, I believe America is unique and based on a core set of principles that make it superior to other nations.

The repetitive congressman was approached by a reporter for the local NBC station, which released this transcript:



KYLE CLARK: Congressman Coffman, how are you?

REP. COFFMAN: How are you doing? Good to see you.

KYLE CLARK: Good to see you. You're a tough man to find lately.

REP. COFFMAN: I am.

KYLE CLARK: Can we chat quickly before you go inside?

REP. COFFMAN: Sure.

KYLE CLARK: Alright, fantastic. Why don't we head right over here so we're out of the way. Thank you for your time. I apologize for showing up unannounced. I've been trying to call your staff. They won't return myphone calls. Let me ask you, after your comments about the President, do you feel voters are owed a better explanation than just, I misspoke?

REP. COFFMAN: I think that... Umm... I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: OK. And who were you apologizing to?

REP. COFFMAN: You know, I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: I apologize, we talk to you all the time, you're a very forthcoming guy. Who's telling you not to talk and to handle it like this?

REP. COFFMAN: I stand by my statement, that I wrote, that you have, and I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Was it that you thought it would go over well in Elbert County where folks are very conservative and you'd never say something like that in the suburbs?

REP. COFFMAN: I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Is there anything I can ask you that you'll answer differently?

REP. COFFMAN: You know, I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize.

KYLE CLARK: Thank you, congressman.

REP. COFFMAN: Thank you.


If there ever were a doubt that when a public figure says "I apologize" he/she isn't apologizing, there should be none now.      The only doubt is what "misspoke" means, and there seems to be no high-profile instance in which a reporter has asked a respondent to explain "misspoke."   Certainly, the persistent Clark, had he asked the question, would have received only the creative "I stand by my statement that I misspoke and I apologize."   Having received no retraction from Representative Coffman, we can merely assume that he still believes President Obama does not possess "a belief in American exceptionalism."

Evidently, Coffman believes American exceptionalism is rejection of the "philosophy that America is but one nation among equals."    "America" (would that include Mexico, part of the Americas?) is distinct and distinctly superior to all other nations.

It's a pity The Wall Street Journal doesn't agree with the guy from Colorado.     The Journal, which believes the USA must become "appealing and dynamic again," is offended that Senators Chuck Schumer and Bob Casey have proposed that individuals such as Facebook co-founder Eduardo Saverin, who wants to skip on taxes by renouncing his citizenship, be taxed at 30% tax on their capital gains.   The editors argue  

America was built on millions of similar individual decisions to come to our shores. It is precisely that ability to decide for oneself that has made America such a magnet for two centuries.

The way to continue to be a magnet for the best and brightest is not to impose Soviet-style exit taxes to punish people who want to leave the country. That is what oppressive and demagogic regimes do, and it's humiliating to see U.S. Senators posture in such fashion. The way to punish Mr. Saverin is to make the U.S. so appealing and dynamic again that he'll be sorry he ever left.

The editors of the Wall Street Journal, though terming Senators Schumer and Casey "envy specialists" and suggesting they are fellow travelers,  term Saverin's escape from the U.S. "a remarkable act of ingratitude toward the country that welcomed him as a child from Brazil."    Naughty, naughty, Ed- we'll scold you, then protect your billions from taxation.     That'll teach him.

The Wall Street Journal accuses Schumer and Casey of being "envy specialists" wanting "Soviet-style exit taxes."      Less revealing than implying these senators are fellow travelers is the realization that this corporatist Repub organ wants our nation to become "so appealing and dynamic again."      Silly we Democrats- we thought the U.S.A. is "appealing and dynamic." Glad to be set straight by The Wall Street Journal.



Share |

Not Inconceivable


On Sunday, once Dave Weigel of Slate had learned that Jon Huntsman would on Monday end his presidential run and endorse Mitt Romney, he asserted of the GOP, "Divided as they are, ready as they are to let Mitt Romney win the nomination anyway, Republicans in 2012 had no interest in a compromise candidate who could speak Democratic parseltongue."

Never having believed myself that Huntsman had any chance to capture the GOP nomination, I should nod in agreement.      Yet....

The former governor of Utah did have a shot, albeit a long one, at the nomination.      He dropped out six days after running third in the one state in which he competed- and in all likelihood would have remained in competition if he had finished second, which would have given him at least a small boost going into South Carolina.      Serving as an ambassador in the Obama administration, what Steve Kornacki refers to as Huntsman's "original sin," was hardly resume-enhancing to the GOP's populist base.    Yet, Kornack notes Huntsman's


overall platform was far more conservative and tactically-driven than many realized. His economic program, for instance, was nothing short of radical — massive reductions for the super-wealthy and for corporations — and seemed tailor-made to win approval from the GOP’s supply-side wing. He also provided the most unqualified endorsement of Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan to end Medicare as it now exists, was just as insistent as every other candidate that healthcare reform and the Dodd-Frank bank reform law be repealed, and sang the standard conservative tune on abortion, gay marriage, gun control and most other hot-button issues. Occasionally, he’d throw his media and non-Republican fans a bone, but he could be just as quick to reverse himself when he sensed an opportunity to make inroads with the right.


It wasn’t hard to see the strategy that was at work: Ride the “sane” image to a breakthrough showing in finicky, independent-friendly New Hampshire, then be positioned to win over suddenly curious national conservatives by saying, “Have you actually looked at my platform — I’m not the moderate you’ve heard I am.”

If Huntsman had "placed" in New Hampshire, he would have been risen to Gingrich's equal as a competitor to front-runner Romney.       The ego-driven, ego-consumed former House Speaker (whom George Will called "the least conservative candidate"), as well as Rick Perry, has been slammed for criticism of Mitt Romney's job cremation stint with Bain Capital.      Huntsman, though, probably would have been acceptable to the Repub corporate base.       As early as September, his economic agenda had gotten the nod from what is arguably the center of GOP corporatism, the Wall Street Journal editorial page, which termed it "as impressive as any to date in the GOP Presidential field."      While Huntsman's foray into Mandarin Chinese at the last debate may have contributed to his loss in New Hampshire, it served as a reminder to the party's corporate base that he had its interests at heart.

This is no small matter.       The GOP establishment has proven widely distrustful of Newt Gingrich, the former House Speaker's old colleagues having led the way.      Rick Santorum, as someone committed to the cultural causes which make the plutocrats uncomfortable, might not have been tolerated.        And Ron Paul, who makes defense contractors shudder, is broadly despised.

Certainly, among all the candidates (including the departed Michele Bachmann) who have vied for the party's nomination, Romney has been, as expected, the favorite of the party establishment.     But arguably, the second most acceptable (or next-to-last unfavorable) candidate would have been Jon Huntsman.        The voice of the electorate- or at least that small portion voting in the early caucuses and primaries- wouldn't let it happen.          The game plan, however, really was more plausible than it now seems in light of his early departure. 

Share |

GOP Fiddling With Numbers

As the GOP continues its project to make Barack Obama a one-term president by prolonging the economic misery of Americans, facts increasingly are adjusted to fit predetermined notions.

As Media Matters documents, this discussion recently took place on Follow the Money at Fox Business Network:

BOLLING: All right, very quickly, Z99, guys. This is Harry Reid responding to Senator McConnell's blame-game accusation.

REID [video clip]: The massive layoffs we've had in America today have, of course -- are rooted in the last administration, and it's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine. It's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers.

BOLLING: First of all, can I just point something out? Public-sector jobs have increased by almost 160,000 since President Obama took office. What is he talking about?

STEPHEN HAYES (Fox News contributor): Yeah, you're going to hear that clip again and again and again.

Gosh, I should hope so- primarily because it's true. A partner organization of Media Matters explains

The chart below, updated with today's report, illustrates the steady contraction of the public sector and the expansion of the private economy since the Recovery Act actually began to reach the economy in early summer 2009. Since that time, the private sector has seen a net gain of 1.4 million jobs; if public-sector employment had just held steady, without any hiring or firing, the economy would have grown by about 2 million jobs over this period. Instead, budget cuts have eliminated 572,000 government workers on net.

And still, Rush Limbaugh in June claimed of President Obama "The private sector middle class is his target. The public sector middle class are his beneficiaries." Thursday, Limbaugh condemned Barack Obama and argued "In percentages, private sector unemployment is down 5.4% since 2007. Government unemployment is down only 1.8% since 2007, and teacher unemployment is down 1.4%."

Someone wake Rush up and remind him that one of his heroes, George W. Bush, was president in 2007 and 2008, during which most of the private sector job loss took place. Public sector employment lags behind private sector employment, and so has dropped in the past two years as state and local tax revenues declined and politicians realized they could make political hay by making public employees pay for the sins of Wall Street.

Limbaugh leans on Thursday's editorial in the Wall Street Journal criticizing Senate Majority Leader Reid, who unfortunately said "It's very clear that private-sector jobs have been doing just fine" before adding " it's the public-sector jobs where we've lost huge numbers."

Census Bureau numbers support Reid's point that the public sector has taken the bigger hit. The pattern continued in August as the number of public sector jobs dropped by 17,000 while private sector employment increased by 17,000. In September, the decline in the number of public sector jobs accelerated, dropping by 34,000 while private sector employment, still insufficient, increased by 137,000. Nevertheless, the Journal's editors- after conceding that private employment lately has been climbing- claim "contrary to Mr. Reid, the real U.S. jobs problem continues to be in the private economy. If private employers were hiring at the pace they normally do in an economic recovery, we might be doing fine."

Except that private sector employment growth has been dramatically outstripping public sector job growth. This constitutes, in Matthew Yglesias' term, The Conservative Recovery, which conservatives are complaining about only "because the President is a Democrat named Barack Obama."

Yglesias is right, except: when it comes to The Wall Street Journal, Rush Limbaugh, or a component of the communications arm of the Republican Party, it's necessary only that the President is a Democrat.

Share|

Ron Paul Snubbed

Politico's Roger "Don't Call Me Paul" Simon has noticed what few others have. U.S. House of Representatives member Michelle Bachman barely edged out Ron Paul in what Simon has recognized as the "organized bribery" of the Iowa straw poll. As his reward, he has received: silence.

To Jill Lawrence of The Daily Beast/Newsweek, Simon points out, it is "the new top tier of Bachmann, Perry and Romney." The Washington Post reported "A Republican presidential campaign that has been slow to take shape suddenly snapped into focus Sunday, with an unlikely three-person top tier of former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, Rep. Michele Bachmann (Minn.) and the newest entry, Texas Gov. Rick Perry." The Associated Press calls it "a three- way race" among the three. CNN sums up "Conventional wisdom is that Perry joins former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who's making his second bid for the GOP nomination, and Rep. Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, as the top tier in the Republican fight. “ Repub pols and pundits have joined in the conventional wisdom.

There is one clue to the disregard shown the Ames second-place finisher in the breezy dismissal of the Texas congressman noted by Simon. "Libertarian Ron Paul," the editors commented (within parentheses, even), " who has no chance to win the nomination, finished a close second."

The Wall Street Journal editorial page, unlike the news departments of AP, the Washington Post, and others, has a motive for relegating Paul to the ranks of also-rans. Responding to Mitt Romney's recent remark "corporations are people," Paul the following day had told Center for American Progress writer Scott Keyes

People are individuals, they’re not groups and they’re not companies. Individuals have rights, they’re not collective. You can’t duck that. So individuals should be responsible for corporations, but they shouldn’t be a new creature, so to speak. Rights and obligations should be always back to the individual.

Yikes. A year and a half after the landmark Citizens United decision decreeing corporate personhood, Ron Paul does not stray from the reservation, but rides off into the sunset Asked what he would "make of Mitt Romney’s statement that 'corporations are people' yesterday," Paul replies "obviously they're not."

The Texas congressman holds extremely conservative views and couches his opposition to Romney's statement in the rights and responsibilities of the individual, a traditional conservative stance (though not extending to the responsibilities of the individual to the community). But this is not Eisenhower's GOP or even Reagan's GOP. Heck, it's not even the GOP of Newt Gingrich, the darling of the 1994 Republican revolution, who in March slammed Paul Ryan's effort to rescind Medicare as "social engineering." Gingrich, as his words made clear, preferred to eliminate it gradually, through the back door. Not good enough for Nikki Haley, governor of the most important state in a GOP presidential race, nor for The Wall Street Journal.

This Repub Party embraces social engineering (though, disingenuously, not the term) and recognizes the Citizens United ruling as a boon for it, as well as a boondoggle for Democrats. It will not abide by the likes of a presidential candidate who believes corporations are not people, anathema to a party which, with all its cries and complaints, ultimately voted to raise the debt ceiling as demanded by its corporate base.

Share|

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

In "Obama Beats Bennett," subtitled "How Washington defeated a Senator," the Wall Street Journal weighed in on the defeat of three-term U.S. Senator last weekend at the nominating convention of Utah's Republican Party. Read the piece. Read it again. Read it a third time. It still will make no sense.

The editors "admit to liking Mr. Bennett," in part because of the health care bill he authored with Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), which they believe was better than "Obamacare." But they claim

the man who really defeated Mr. Bennett is President Obama. By governing so far to the left—so far that even the Wyden-Bennett plan was dismissed as too conservative by Democrats—Mr. Obama has made U.S. politics even more polarized. The internal GOP debate has naturally shifted right, as Republican voters look for standard-bearers who will fight the historic expansion of the welfare-entitlement state. This makes it tough for middle-of-the-roaders.

Follow this if you can. Senator Bennett's response to the health care plan pushed by President Obama, highly unpopular among Republicans, was his own health care plan (co-sponsored by Wyden). It was an alternative to Obamacare. He offered an alternative to a bill associated with the Democratic President. He fought the good fight, as it would presumably appear to Republicans. His bill did not prevail and he proceeded to vote against Obama's program. And his defeat in the GOP convention thus can be attributed to.... Obama?

If the President is as unpopular among Republicans as polls indicate and The Wall Street Journal believes, one would think that GOP voters would coalesce around someone, or some set of beliefs, which would surely defeat Obama and the dreaded Democratic Congress. They would, logically, turn to a conservative Republican with the kind of experience that Obama, the "community organizer" (as he is slammed by many Republicans), allegedly lacks.

Senator Bennett, although not so young that he would have been considered presidential timber, would seem to have been that kind of conservative. But as the WSJ concedes, "the internal GOP debate has naturally shifted right, as Republican voters look for standard-bearers who will fight the historic expansion of the welfare-entitlement state."

That is what defeated Robert Bennett, never an advocate for, or supporter of, "the welfare-enitlement state." It is a party which seems collectively to have decided- unlike President Obama- to secure its base first, second, and third. If then independents want to come aboard, there is room- but they'll have to wait in line and toe the line.

This cannot be blamed on President Obama. This cannot be blamed on a Democrat who ran on a liberal platform but once elected, kept American soldiers in one war (understandably more popular with Republicans than Democrats) started by a GOP president, increased American involvement in another war (understandably more popular among Republicans than among Democrats), maintained the national security policies of the previous, right-wing president, responded to the greatest downturn in America since the Great Depression with a relatively piddling economic stimulus, and pushed a health care reform bill supported by the hospital and pharmaceutical industries and which will hand 30+ million more customers to the private insurance industry. More Santa Claus than socialist, President Obama opposed most reform of the financial services industry- until a bill supported across the political spectrum demonstrated such widespread bipartisan support that it was passed unanimously. Less a partisan than a bipartisan facilitator.

It's arguable that, as The Wall Street Journal maintains, President Obama and Congress have "radicalized the middle class." It's hard to imagine that the paper (it's not called The Wall Street Journal for nothing) would even recognize the middle class, just as it's hard to understand why a middle class which has had an effective cut in its taxes by a centrist president would be increasingly "radicalized." But as the bastion of traditional conservative Republicanism, the WSJ, playing the victim card, has to find a victim(s) for its party going off the ideological deep end.

The country has become more conservative due to many factors, including effective messaging by the GOP, partisan talk radio, and dominance of cable news by the communications arm (Fox News) of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, if the policies of the pragmatic and centrist President Obama and the Congress have contributed to the rightward tilt of the populace, it says less about them than about the distortion of the public debate by the nation's most conservative institutions.

Share|