The Republican Media- No. 31


We all laughed.

No doubt a howl went up from the crowd when Mitt Romney quipped in Spartanburg, South Carolina "Congressmen taking responsibility or taking credit for helping create jobs is like Al Gore taking credit for the Internet."       Vice-President Gore had stated on CNN

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet.       I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

The claim that Al Gore claimed he took credit for the Internet has been thoroughly debunked more than once, in this case by snopes.net, which explained Gore

was not claiming that he had "invented" the Internet (in the sense of having designed or implemented it) but that he was responsible, in an economic and legislative sense, for fostering the development (of) the technology that we now know as the Internet.,,,


Gore never used the word "invent" and the words "create" and "invent" have distinctly different meanings- the former is used in the sense of "to bring about" or "to bring into existence" while the latter is generally used to signify the first instance of someone thinking up or implementing an idea...


If President Eisenhower had said in the mid-1960s that he, while president, "created" the Interstate Highway System, we would not have seen dozens and dozens of editorials lampooning him for claiming he "invented" the concept of highways or simply lying that he personally went out and dug ditches across the country to help build the roadway.   Everyone would have understood that he meant he was a driving force behind the legislation that created the highway system and this was the very same concept Al Gore was expressing about himself with his Internet statement.

Romney's biggest critic, Newt Gingrich, once stated "In all fairness, it's something Gore had worked on a long time. Gore is not the Father of the Internet, but in all fairness, Gore is the person who, in the Congress, most systematically worked to make sure that we got to an Internet, and the truth is -- and I worked with him starting in 1978 when I got to Congress."       Of course, the former House Speaker now apologizes for agreeing with Nancy Pelosi about climate change and said about Paul Ryan's Medicare plan "any ad which quotes what I said Sunday is a falsehood."      So, admittedly, Newt Gingrich is not the best source- on anything.

But the Internet myth played a major part in the War on Gore (as the Daily Howler's Bob Somerby terms it) conducted by the nation's print and broadcast journalists.     Though the media in its initial reports never suggested that Gore had claimed to have invented the Internet, once the Republican National Committee went to work ginning up its propaganda machine, the mainstream media went into action.

Al Gore, however, never will become president, nor was he allowed by the U.S. Supreme Court to take office twelve years ago after he was elected president.      But Barack Obama would like to be re-elected and Mitt Romney is determined to prevent him from being so.      Yet, after Romney re-invented history in Spartanburg, the news media, perhaps because it is invested in its enduring and false narrative, stayed silent.

And not only about Al Gore but also in response to Romney, leading in to his "joke," alleging "Government doesn't create jobs.    It's the private sector that creates jobs."

Mitt Romney's Repub Party itself (indirectly) acknowledges that government creates jobs- when the GOP argues for yet more income tax cuts.        Private sector job growth continues in this economy partly in response to the President's stimulus package.     And teachers, police officers, FBI agents, and clerical workers throughout the land testify to the fact that government creates jobs.    Mitt Romney' job itself as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was "created" by government.     But the leading and likely Republican candidate for President of the United States- a government job!- says "government doesn't create jobs."     And the media goes collectively silent.

Share |

A Tidy Little Fortune


Salon's Joan Walsh has a reasonable suggestion, made with tongue pressed firmly against cheek, pertaining to the controversy surrounding Mitt Romney's reluctance to release his tax returns.       Mitt's father George, she argues, released twelve years of his tax returns when the Michigan governor made his ill-fated run at the GOP presidential nomination in 1968.  The current Romney thus could compromise and release the last six years of his returns.

But there is little reason to expect he will, given that the money he made in Bain Capital investments was taxed at the 15% capital gains rate.         And especially now that

tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns.    As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million.     In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry.    Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.    

A fund manager, as was Romney, pays only the capital gains rate of 15% because the profits are treated as carried interest.       However, in September President Obama, demonstrating that he is not a Republican (but only plays one on TV), proposed that the management of funds be taxed at the same rate, 35%, as ordinary income.  

The policy and political benefit of this proposal is evident.     Nevertheless, it is uncertain whether the Obama campaign will choose to take full advantage of the manner in which Mitt Romney has accumulated his extraordinary wealth.      The Washington Examiner reports

Jeffrey Zients will serve as President Obama's new acting director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB),but the president's decision might undercut attacks on Republican Mitt Romney's career as a venture capitalist, because Zients and Romney are both alumni of Bain & Company.

"I'm pleased to designate Jeff Zients to lead the Office of Management and Budget.     Since day one, Jeff has demonstrated superb judgment and has provided sound advice on a whole host of issues,"  Obama said in a statement accompanying the announcement today.   Zients previously served as Deputy Diretcor of OMB under Jack Lew, who became Obama's chief of staff with the departure of Bill Daley.

Stunningly cynical, but the President nonetheless has been presented with a splendid opportunity to portray the GOP and its likely standard-bearer as out-of-touch with the average American, not unlike the depiction of George HW Bush, when he was accused (accurately or otherwise) of being blissfully ignorant of the supermarket scanner.        That was a trivial matter- but paying income taxes at a lower rate than a secretary or a police officer is not.      And Obama can enhance that image of Romney by himself releasing his tax returns- from the past twelve years, as did George Romney, or the past decade, or whatever.       Mitt may show his 2010 return but that may not accurately portray him as the product of uncommon privilege.     The former Massachusetts governor was by late in the year already a presidential candidate and no doubt had decided he would be so much earlier in the year, perhaps as early as November 5, 2008.        The records of bygone years would likely be so much more revealing.   



Share |

Balancing The Budget With Newt



In the December 15 Fox News debate, it was "as Speaker, one of the reasons some people aren’t happy with some of my leadership is, I actually worked things out with Bill Clinton to get welfare reform, a tax cut, and four balanced budgets signed.”      A month later, in the January 16 debate, another sponsored by Fox News (and the Wall Street Journal), it was "having helped balance the budget for four consecutive years, for the only time in your lifetime, I’m reasonably confident I can find ways to balance the budget."   On his website, the former House Speaker has credited "Gingrich-led Republicans" with " 4 consecutive balanced budgets"  and in a December campaign ad boasted "When I was speaker, our budget was balanced and 11 million jobs were created."    (You can never go wrong placing the words "Gingrich" and "boasted" in close proximity.)

Prior to the first debate, Politico reports, an incredulous Paul Begala quipped "What’s next? Is Newt going to claim credit for President Clinton’s weight loss?”     But the former Democratic operative gives too much credit to Gingrich, who had nothing to do, favorably or unfavorably. with Bill Clinton's weight loss but obstructed (ultimately in vain) the President's effort to balance the federal budget.

After the earlier debate, factcheck.org noted "As we've said several times, Gingrich was in office for only two of those budget years (fiscal 1998 and 1999). But he continues to claim credit for two balanced budgets that were passed after he left office (fiscal 2000 and 2001)." Robert S. McIntyre of Citizens for Tax Justice explains  

Gingrich’s argument comes down to this: In August 1997, Congress passed a bill called the “Balanced Budget Act,” which promised to balance the federal budget five years later, in fiscal 2002. Soon after the bill was signed, the budget was balanced. Therefore, the balanced budget act balanced the budget. But that’s demonstrably false.

The budget surpluses from 1998 to 2001 had nothing to do with the balanced budget act. Instead, the surpluses stemmed from a dramatic surge in federal revenues, mainly personal income taxes. Here’s what really happened:

In 1993, Bill Clinton undid some of the Reagan tax cuts for the wealthy, in a bill that every Republican in Congress opposed. In the years that followed, federal revenues shot up. By 1996, the deficit had fallen by more than half from its 1993 level. But cautious official congressional prognosticators thought that this trend was unlikely to continue.

So, in January of 1997, the Congressional Budget Office predicted a budget deficit of $124 billion in the fiscal year that ran from October 1996 to September 1997, with little relief thereafter. That was the deficit situation that Congress thought it faced when it enacted the Balanced Budget Act in August 1997.

But CBO’s crystal ball was faulty. Because the economy and tax revenues continued to grow rapidly, the actual fiscal 1997 deficit turned out to be a mere $22 billion. Of course, that virtually balanced 1997 budget had no connection to the budget act, which wasn’t enacted until the fiscal year was almost over.

In 1998 tax revenues continued to soar, coming in at $162 billion more than CBO had projected back at the start of 1997. That was enough to produce a $64 billion budget surplus. Again, this had nothing to do with the ’97 budget act, which, because of its tax cuts, actually reduced the 1998 surplus slightly. 

(Yes, odd as it may sound, the “balanced budget” act started off by digging an even deeper budget hole, with a capital gains tax cut for the rich and other expensive tax cuts that overall were expected to cost $292 billion over 10 years!)

Revenue bonus

In 1999 and 2000, tax revenues and surpluses continued to grow at a rapid pace. That was due not just to a still vibrant economy, but also to an extra revenue bonus: Clinton’s 1993 increase in tax rates on high earners applied to a new wave of taxable income from corporate executives cashing in their lucrative stock options (which are taxed as wages). In fiscal 2000, the surplus peaked at $237 billion, and it remained a robust $128 billion in fiscal 2001 (Clinton’s last budget year).

All of these surpluses would have occurred if the Balanced Budget Act had never been enacted. But did the act at least play a role in making the 1998-2001 surpluses bigger? Not really. Starting in 1999, the act’s tax cuts made the surpluses noticeably smaller, while the plan’s biggest program cuts weren’t scheduled to take effect until fiscal 2002, and in any event largely failed to materialize at all).

Sadly, after 2001, the Bush tax cuts and a sagging economy soon sent us back deeply in the red. Ironically, that abrupt turnaround from fiscal responsibility began in fiscal 2002, the precise year that Gingrich and his allies had promised to finally balance the budget.

But Newt Gingrich's claim is stunning less because it runs contrary to fact than because it is deeply disingenuous.        The man who claims to have "worked things out with President Clinton" put up as many roadblocks as possible to the Chief Executive, even twice forcing a government shutdown.        And when the President had proposed in his first budget a massive tax increase, Gingrich delivered zero (0) Republican votes for a measure which ultimately played a major role in setting the nation on the path to economic recovery and a dominant role in balancing the books.     And according to the Congressional record, in 1993 Representative Gingrich gravely had predicted

We have all too many people in the Democratic administration who are talking about bigger government, bigger bureaucracy, more programs and higher taxes. I believe that that will in fact kill the current recovery and put us back in a recession. It might take 1½ or 2 years, but it will happen.

It is comforting, in a way, to hear Newt Gingrich suggest disastrous consequences for the nation if Barack Obama is re-elected, given the man's visions of apocalypse under the previous Democratic president.




Share |

An Indecent Proposal

As a result of the 2010 census, a new congressional district has been created in the State of Utah.      Vying for the GOP nomination is Mia Love, the first black mayor of a city in Utah. A wife and mother of three children, Mrs. Love is second generation Haitian-American.     (But don't get excited about a conservative black Republican- she is a Mormon, not a Roman Catholic.)           The biography on her website- spun, obviously, for the benefit of her candidacy- is testimony to the American dream.     She was born in Brooklyn and her parents moved to Connecticut where she "recalls both parents working hard to earn a living, her father at times taking on second jobs cleaning toilets to pay for school for their three children."


That is inspiring but if it were up to Newt Gingrich, it never would have happened.         At last night's GOP debate (transcript here), Fox News' Juan Williams asked the former House Speaker (video, from The Root, of exchange below)

Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans? 

The question was inartfully worded, given that any politician views a question asking him if he is "insulting" or "hostile" or "racist" or a "loser" as opportunity for a layup.     It gave Gingrich a chance to repeat his child labor proposal, contending

New York City pays their janitors an absurd amount of money because of the union. You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.

The comment by the down-home Gingrich, who earned upwards of $30,000 an hour as an "historian," brought the house down, demonstrating that nothing so thrills an audience of elitists more than having a conservative Republican slam elitists.     He inaccurately implies that janitors get paid a king's ransom, but truth never has been a high priority for Newt.

Adam Serwer at Mother Jones notes "Gingrich didn't actually address the question Williams asked, which was how he justifies implying that black people would rather sit at home living on food stamps than earn money for a living, and that those traits are so ingrained that it would justify Gingrich lecturing black people collectively (in the form of a speech to the NAACP) about the virtues of working for a living."       Stop the presses!     Newt Gingrich, who refers to the first black president as "the food stamp president,"  is racially prejudiced.  

That is hardly news in today's GOP, which idolizes Ronald(6) Wilson(6) Reagan(6), who raised appealing to racial fears to an art form.        The proposal by Gingrich, which he had made previously,  is the product of some really serious naivete.      It takes someone truly out of touch with reality to believe that a young student assigned "light janitorial duty" in his or her school, would "show up for work" more than one day.       After the ridicule the youngster would receive from fellow students, it would be an even bet that he'd even return to the school for another day.

And it's dangerous.   Politifact looked at 2010 census data and observed  

In 2010, according to census data, the median earnings for a full-time white male worker were $50,074. By comparison, in 1973, the median for that category, in 2010 dollars, was $50,513...   white men were no better off, adjusted for inflation, in 2010 than they were 37 years ago, they were taking home about $8.44 less per week.


And when measured by the purchasing power of those dollars, the gap is even bigger. Because wages haven’t kept up with prices, as Axelrod asserted, the typical white male worker's purchasing power has eroded by almost 11.5 percent in 37 years.

Much of that decline can be is due to the decline of organized labor.    So Newt Gingrich wants to take unionized jobs, including ones as a janitor- typically held by males- and let children do the work for pennies on the dollar.       It takes an impressive opportunist to look at the labor market in the United States today and conclude that the problem is excessive wages coupled with an excessive number of jobs and an insufficient number of adults looking for work.       Take the job from the father and give it to the child.     If his proposals had been implemented in an earlier time, the ladder of mobility for a lot of working-class people, including the parents of Mrs. Mia Love, would have been turned into a stepstool.













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 |

Hey, Look Me Over


I miss Herschel Walker.        Not for his play in the National Football League, significant only in having been the lure for the Minnesota Vikings to trade numerous players and draft picks to the Dallas Cowboys, who went on to win two Super Bowls as a result.      Not even for his exploits as a fabulous running back for the University of Georgia, where he won a Heisman Trophy.

But as both a collegian and a pro, Walker displayed the class exemplified in the video below. No celebrations for Walker; when he reached the end zone, he acted as if he had been there before.      That is rare now, when everybody who scores a touchdown (and often at other times) has to preen for the camera, all the more for friends and family to see him on ESPN SportsCenter, YouTube, elsewhere, or anywhere.

And so there is writer Annie Keeghan, blogging on Open Salon, commenting upon having "heard on the news that Marines were videotaped urinating on the dead corpses."     She admits "when I saw that video, my first reaction wasn't outrage or condemnation (but) sadness."    Further,  

My second reaction to the news was wondering why we're all so surprised, why we expect that these men and women, who carry out duties they cannot decline- living in a state of constant hyper-vigilance, performing acts that none of us can imagine, suffering sleep deprivation and questioning their safety more hours of the day than not, watching their comrades blown to bits in front of them, watching innocent children and families suffering- why we expect that they won't break, won't seek out perverse forms of release...

Perhaps we're surprised because Marines are trained not to act in this manner.      We admire them in part because they are a team and are highly disciplined and dedicated to their nation.  Marines are not expected to commit acts so profane- or perverse, as Keeghan puts it- that video of the incident is scrambled so that women and children are spared being offended, revolted, or both.     Nor are they encouraged to jeopardize U.S. standing abroad among those who view, or are told of, American soldiers grossly humiliating Afghans, presumably Muslims.     It is not a way to convince the populace of
"American exceptionalism"- or to win a war.

Such acts may be committed more often than we civilians know.     But we do know about this event, and we do so precisely because

In the 39-second video, the four soldiers in combat gear and carrying weapons are seen acting in unison as they stand over the corpses and urinate.    They sigh and laugh.   One of the marines says "Have a great day, buddy" while another comments "Golden, like a shower."


They are clearly not concerned at being caught.   One of them asks a fifth soldier who is filming the incident:   "You got it on the video?"

These are not soldiers responding to "a state of constant hyper-vigilance" or "sleep deprivation."      Nor are they merely "seek(ing) out perverse forms of release," as if young males have no more self-control than do lower animal forms.     They appear to be having a jolly old time, intent on drawing attention to themselves, more like today's NFL players than like Herschel Walker.










Share |

Much Ado About Not Very Much


Newt Gingrich, blasting Mitt Romney, early this week stated "you have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?      "Although "nobody objects to Bill Gates being extraordinarily rich, they provide a service," he explains, objectionable is when an investor receives "six-to-one returns, and the company goes bankrupt," at which time "you have to ask the question, is capitalism really about the ability of a handful of rich people to manipulate the lives of thousands of people and then walk off with the money?"      The next day, he noted "if someone who is very wealthy comes in and takes over your company and takes out all the cash and leaves behind the unemployment? I think that’s not a model we want to advocate..."

Reaction from the left was muted, although Benjy Sarlin at Talking Points Memo argued "The former Speaker is making the case that, in contrast to good old fashioned businesses who make stuff, Romney and his ilk have instead gamed the system to create a soulless machine that profits from the misery of others."   And Lawrence O'Donnell somewhat naively praised Gingrich for "forcing Republicans to think about something they don't like to think about, the difference between the right to do something and doing the right thing."

Conservatives predictably were critical, with the Chamber of Commerce, Jim DeMint, and Rush Limbaugh, who claimed "you could have read this in an Occupy Wall Street flier," being among those who objected.        And the oddest knock came from Jon Huntsman, taking a break from slamming Mitt Romney for- well, for everything- curiously maintaining "I think it’s more instructive to look at Governor Romney’s record as governor.     You can’t be on both sides of this issue. If you’re going to stand for breaking up the banks, then you can’t criticize Bain Capital for doing some of what it did."      Whatever that means.

There was no reason for Republicans to be so exorcised (although they do appear to need an exorcist) about the comments of one candidate questioning the rapacious capitalism of corporate raiders.        Newt since has somewhat backed off his comments, and they were merely sound and fury signifying nothing, anyway.          As usual, Robert Reich understood immediately:

Where has Newt been for the last thirty years? Leveraged buyouts became part of traditional capitalism in the 1980s when enterprising financiers began borrowing piles of money, often at high interest rates, to buy up the stock of ongoing companies they believe undervalued. They’d back the loans with the company assets, then typically sell off divisions and slim payrolls, and resell the company to the public at a higher share price – pocketing the gains.

It’s a good deal for the financiers (the $25 billion buyout of RJR-Nabisco in 1988 netted the partners of Kohlberg, Kravis, and Roberts around $70 million each – and most of Mitt Romney’s estimated $200 million fortune comes from the same maneuvers), but not always for the company or its workers.

Some workers lose their jobs when the company downsizes. Others, when the company, now laden with debt, can’t meet its payments to creditors and has to go into bankruptcy. According to the Wall Street Journal, of 77 companies Bain invested in during Romney’s tenure there, 22 percent either filed for bankruptcy or closed their doors by end of eighth year after Bain’s investment.

But, hey, this is American capitalism – at least as it’s been practiced for the past three decades. Is Newt proposing to ban leveraged buyouts? Or limit the amount of debt a company can take on? Or prevent financiers – or even CEOs and management teams – from taking a public company private and then reselling it to the public at a higher price?

None of the above.

Rick Perry criticizes Romney and Bain pushing the quest for profits too far. “There is nothing wrong with being successful and making money,” says Perry. “But getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is indefensible.”

Yet getting rich off failure and sticking someone else with the bill is what Wall Street financiers try to do every day. It’s called speculation – and at least since the demise of the Glass-Steagall Act, investment bankers have been allowed to gamble with commercial bank deposits, other people’s money.

So is Perry proposing to resurrect Glass-Steagall? Not a chance.

Gingrich, Perry, and others are putting particular focus on the people who lost their jobs as a result of Romney’s Bain Capital. Gingrich’s Super PAC will be running $3.5 million of ads featuring emotional interviews with some of them.

But what, exactly, are Romney’s opponents proposing to do about layoffs that harm so many people? Millions of Americans have lost their jobs over the last four years – and as a result have often lost their health insurance, their homes, and their savings.

Are Gingrich, Perry, and others proposing to expand health insurance coverage for jobless Americans and their families? All I hear from the Republicans is their determination to repeal the law that President Obama championed – which still leaves millions of Americans uninsured. Do Romney’s opponents have plans to keep people in their homes even when they’ve lost their jobs and can’t pay their mortgages? No. Do they propose expanding unemployment insurance? If memory serves, most of them were opposed to the last extension.

Soon, Newt Gingrich will be back to calling President Obama a socialist, South Carolina will customarily vote for the GOP's next-in-line candidate, and all will be right with the world.





Share |