Et tu, Marco?



Michael Brendan Daugherty, political editor of Business Insider, revealed nine days ago on Real Time With Bill Maher

I spoke to a Senator earlier this week, and he told me that, a Republican Senator told me that Mitch McConnell has told his conference that ‘We’re not doing anything, we won’t make a single move between now and the election, because any move could be risky, and all of the shit is sliding down on President Obama.’

So, they’re not going to do anything, they’ve talked about this very clearly among themselves.

It has been fairly clear for a long time that the Gas and Oil Party had decided to obstruct every move by Barack Obama, largely to reap the benefit from a president who would appear ineffective and ineffectual by failing to have major pieces of his agenda enacted.    As an added benefit, the country would suffer and electoral advantage would come the way of the out party, the GOP.

Daugherty's finding adds evidence, all the more startling for the lack of attention it has received.   It is no less stunning because the mainstream media refuses to acknowledge that central political fact of the past three-and-a-half years.

Still, Marco Rubio is taking it a step further.     CBS- not the Onion- reports

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., may now refrain from introducing his much-anticipated version of the DREAM Act following Friday's administration announcement of a deportation deferral process for young, undocumented citizens in the U.S.

A Rubio spokesman told CBS News chief White House correspondent Norah O'Donnell, "Obama's move kicks the can down the road for two years." He added that both Rubio's version of the DREAM Act and the president's announcement today achieve similar policy goals.

The Floridian, according to Politico, maintains "There is broad support for the idea that we should figure out a way to help kids who are undocumented through no fault of their own, but there is also broad consensus that it should be done in a way that does not encourage illegal immigration in the future,."     He called the shift in policy "welcome news."     Nonetheless, he contended "By once again ignoring the Constitution and going around Congress, this short term policy will make it harder to find a balanced and responsible long term one."

Senator Rubio, Politico reminds us, has (had?) been "working quietly to build a coalition among both Democrats and Republicans to draft a compromise version of the DREAM Act that would stop short of full citizenship for young illegal immigrants."     Senator Durbin (D-Ill) stated "What the president did is what [Rubio] asked for in the bill, that’s the way [Rubio] described it to us.”

So Marco Rubio, the son of refugees from pre-Castro Cuba, is concerned that the federal government may, in the President's words, "expel these young people who want to staff our labs, or start new businesses, or defend our country simply because of the actions of their parents — or because of the inaction of politicians." He pursues legislation to give these deserving younsters a break.    With the Dream Act having been blocked by congressional Republicans, the Obama administration establishes new rules to bring to fruition, at least in the near term, the policy change Rubio seeks.

Rubio, however, is not pleased, ostensibly because the administration has accomplished this unilaterally, without congressional action, thus inhibiting realization of a "responsible, long-term" solution.      But the Senator, according to CBS, now is reluctant to introduce legislation- legislation that would bring about the change he has supported but which he believes should have been implemented by legislation rather than presidential fiat.

At first thought, it makes no sense for Rubio to be obstinate.   But it does, because he merely would be following the strategy outlined by his (Minority) Leader- do nothing that would imply agreement with Barack Obama.    Or, rather, do nothing because if something is done and legislation is passed, Republicans will find it that much more difficult to complain that government is the problem and the holy private sector is the solution.   Better, they figure, for cynicism to build among Americans.   It is the stuff- the only stuff- of which Republican majorities are made.



Share |

Hold The Applause, Please


Last night, the Canadian-born former Michigan governor and current Current (yes, current Current) TV host Jennifer Granholm offered a commentary entitled "Obama, Thank You for Keeping the Golden Door Open."    She exhibited impressive shortsightedness when arguing that the decision addressing the opportunities of children of illegal immigrants the President announced (transcript, here) yesterday "addresses our nation's biggest dilemma, which is economic growth."

By contrast, on Tuesday, Robert Reich, rarely if ever right (wing) but invariably correct, had noted

Can I say this any more simply? The earnings of the great American middle class fueled the great American expansion for three decades after World War II. Their relative lack of earnings in more recent years set us up for the great American bust.

Starting around 1980, globalization and automation began exerting downward pressure on median wages. Employers began busting unions in order to make more profits. And increasingly deregulated financial markets began taking over the real economy.

You won't get any of this from the  leading liberal/progressive blogs or journalists today.     Not from Reich.   Nor Glenn Greenwald.    Nor Charles P. Pierce.   Nor Daily Kos, which even offers a petition to sign supporting the Administration's decision.   Nor, especially, the Center for American Progress, the de facto media arm of Organizing for America.

Today, they will not be writing about globalization or automation- or offshoring, outsourcing, privatization, or withering criticism of government employees.    They will not point out that (as did Robert Oaks a few months ago) there officially are 3.39 unemployed individuals seeking work for every job available, with a ratio of 6.07 to 1 if we use a broader definition of unemployment.     While they pause to praise the President's decision, they will, for the time being, also stop writing about Republican class warfare while the GOP continues its (largely successful) effort to pit the poor against the working and middle classes.

Nor will they remind us of the 2010 Survey Of Consumer Finances released this past week by the Federal Reserve Board, which "provides insights into changes in family income and net worth since the 2007 survey."   It found (as the chart below, from the Federal Reserve Board via the economicpoplist.org, indicates)

the median value of real (inflation-adjusted) family income before taxes fell 7.7 percent; median income had also fallen slightly in the preceding three year period (figure 1).    The decline in median income was widespread across demographic groups, with only a few groups experiencing stable or rising incomes.   Most noticeably, median incomes moved higher for retirees and other nonworking families.

Median net worth (chart from the Federal Reserve Board via economicpopulist.org) fell dramatically despite rising for retirees and other nonworking families- the Americans who derive their income from outside the employment sector.
    

  


Continuing a 30-35 year trend (interrupted periodically), median family income declined despite rising for retirees and other nonworking families- the Americans who derive their income from outside the employment sector.        For individuals competing for jobs, the trend is clear, and downward, as reflected in the decline of middle-income private sector jobs as a share of total employment, graphically depicted by the decline of the empire.com:

Admittedly, those factors- including "free" trade, automation, privatization, off-shoring, outsourcing,  privatization, a stagnant minimum wage, and union busting- usually celebrated by conservatives play a greater role in the destruction of the job market, downward pressure on wages, and subsequent decline of the middle class than does immigration, legal or illegal. And, today (June, 2012) as Granholm assumes, our biggest "dilemma" might in fact be economic growth.

Still, at some point the economic slump will be in our rear view mirror with politicians, pundits, and media all cheering a roaring economy.    All factors, including illegal immigration, will continue to take their toll on jobs and wages, with most ignored by the right, and illegal immigration by the left.  




Share |

Testosterone Surge

In the area of political satire and humor, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert have few peers.   But one man is far, far more amusing.    Have you heard this one from Mitt Romney?

And they have manipulated their currency to make their products artificially inexpensive. It's hallowed out many of our manufacturing companies in this country.    That's unacceptable. And I will label China as it is, a currency manipulator, and I will go after them for stealing our intellectual property. And they will recognize that, if they cheat there is a price to pay.

That was from a debate last September 6 with his Repub competitors but the former governor has repeated the pledge since then.     And it is about as likely the presumptive GOP presidential nominee will follow through as it is that he declare himself a "socialist" at his first debate with President Obama.

During ABC's This Week on June 3, senior campaign adviser Eric Fehrnstrom asserted that a President Romney would declare that China is a currency manipulator," after which Paul Krugman slapped him down, explaining

I was very much for that. I've been demanding that we declare -- but the window for that has passed. Right now, the Chinese economy is tanking. So if you were thinking you were going to get a big boost out of beating up on the Chinese now, two years ago I thought was really a good time to do that. But my god, now that is totally out of date.

In April, Reuters had found "The Chinese currency has risen 31 percent against the dollar over the past seven years, eroding a chunk of the price advantage Chinese exports once enjoyed on world markets. At the same time, China's huge trade surplus with the world has shriveled."   But it's not as if the get tough on China policy is second nature to the former governor.     Earlier this month, The Huffington Post's Rachelle Younglai reported  

From his early days at private equity firm Bain Capital to his time as Massachusetts governor, Romney welcomed investments from China, and bought and expanded companies that benefited from its low labor costs and controlled currency. As chairman of the 2002 Winter Olympics, he also said Beijing should not be punished for human rights abuses...

Bain, the private equity firm Romney founded in 1984 and ran through 1999, invested in companies that have, like many U.S. corporations, taken advantage of cheaper Chinese manufacturing costs while also investing in the country to tap rapidly growing consumption there.

Romney and his campaign have often talked about how three companies that Bain invested in during this period - the Staples Inc, Sports Authority Inc and Domino's Pizza Inc chains - have gone on to create more than 100,000 jobs combined.

What he does not discuss is the role China is playing in these businesses. For example, of 80 items randomly chosen in a Sports Authority store in Washington, D.C., earlier this month, about two-thirds were Chinese produced - including tennis balls, bikes and boxing gloves.

At a Staples outlet in New York, the figure was more like 40 percent, including staplers, glue and rulers. The percentage may be bigger on a sales basis because a lot of the higher-priced goods, like computers and other electronic gear, come from China...

Other Bain investments also have China connections.

For example, in 1996, Bain invested $2.1 million in customized doll maker Lifelike Co, which had operations in the United States and Hong Kong, according to "The Real Romney," a 2012 biography of the candidate by Boston Globe reporters Michael Kranish and Scott Helman. The book said Lifelike filed for bankruptcy in 2004. It was not immediately clear if the company manufactured in mainland China.

In 1997, Bain invested $8.36 million in Midwest of Cannon Falls, a company that sells novelties such as holiday ornaments to small retailers. Former Midwest Chief Executive Officer Kathleen Brekken told Reuters that at the time, most of the company's products were made in China, but she declined to comment on Romney or Bain.

In his own words, Romney has supported China in the past.

Recalling a visit to a factory there in 1998, Romney praised the Chinese work ethic. "They cared about their jobs," he told a forum on the future of U.S. cities that year. "They wouldn't even look up as we walked by."

Skeptics in both Washington policy circles and the business community see Romney's current rhetoric as designed to play on the fears of economically frustrated Americans, who worry that China has been stealing jobs from the United States.

However, a look at Romney's tenure as Massachusetts governor between 2003 and 2007 also suggests that he may be more measured towards China if he becomes president.

Romney welcomed Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao to Boston's port in 2003 and boosted Massachusetts' exports to China by 235 percent, according to state figures. The governor also praised the role of Beijing-controlled China Ocean Shipping Co in building the trade relationship.

When Romney was chairman of Salt Lake City's 2002 Winter Olympics and Beijing was vying for the 2008 summer games, he said he was against denying China an opportunity to host the event because of the nation's human rights abuses.

"They have practices, as reported in the media, that violate my sense of human rights, but we should not build walls even if we vehemently disagree with many of their practices," Romney said at a 2001 news conference, according to the Chicago Tribune. "Building bridges increases the possibility for spreading the ideas of civil societies."

If anything, HuffPo was a little conservative in suggesting that Mitt Romney's words may not ring true.       Sheldon Adelson, who bankrolled Newt Gingrich's abortive presidential bid to the tune of $21 million, met privately with Romney in late May and now has contributed $10 million to the Romney SuperPac, Restore Our Future.      He is, CNN notes, "the chairman and CEO of the Sands Corporation, which owns three casinos in Macau along with multiple properties in Las Vegas. The Sands Macau opened in 2004, followed by the Venetian Macao in 2007 and the Four Seasons Hotel Macao in 2008."   With a net worth exceeding $20 billion, Adelson is considered by Forbes Magazine to be among the ten wealthiest Americans.

More assistance is likely from, as The Wall Street Journal described him, the "chairman and chief executive of Las Vegas Sands Corp., which includes the famous Venetioan casino in Las Vegas, as well as casinos in Macau and Singapore.   " With a net worth exceeding $20 billion, Adelson is considered by Forbes Magazine among the ten wealthiest Americans.

It should come as no surprise, then, that John McCain, long an advocate of campaign finance reform, has questioned Adelson's generosity to Romney, remarking "That is a great deal of money.   And again, we need a level playing field and we need to go back to the realization that Teddy Roosevelt had that we have to have a limit on the flow of money, and that corporations are not people."     The Arizona senator maintained "Maybe in a roundabout way, foreign money is coming into American political campaigns."

Maybe, and quite likely.    If elected president, Mitt Romney might recognize mainland China as a totalitarian state ruled by its communist party which threatens the existence of a sovereign nation, perpetrates economic sabotage and builds up its military for no apparent reason, bolsters the regime in Tehran, is uncooperative on Syria, and far more enamored of child labor than baby girls.    Or he might consider the interests of a guy who has chipped in several millions of dollars to his presidential campaign, with a likelihood of additional support. Can you guess which option he'll choose?



Share |

Obstructionism- And Sabotage



Last year, we had the Gas and Oil Party engineering a downgrade of the nation's debt.      It was not to cut taxes, or cut spending, or reasserting some vague notion of traditional American values.     The money already was authorized and spent and, refusing to honor our debts probably would have violated the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.    But that was of little concern to the GOP, which persisted. successfully prompting one of the  ratings agencies to downgrade the nation's credit status.   So on August 11

A Standard & Poor’s director said for the first time Thursday that one reason the United States lost its triple-A credit rating was that several lawmakers expressed skepticism about the serious consequences of a credit default — a position put forth by some Republicans.

Without specifically mentioning Republicans, S&P senior director Joydeep Mukherji said the stability and effectiveness of American political institutions were undermined by the fact that “people in the political arena were even talking about a potential default,” Mukherji said.

“That a country even has such voices, albeit a minority, is something notable,” he added. “This kind of rhetoric is not common amongst AAA sovereigns.”

The statement seems likely to bolster one Democratic line of attack, that it was tea party intransigence — not a shortcoming of leadership by President Barack Obama — that is to blame for the U.S. downgrade, from AAA to AA+. Obama himself called on Republicans to “put country ahead of party” Thursday — a dig at conservatives in Congress who are blocking his agenda.

In retrospect, there were two chances- fat and slim- the Gas and Oil Party would do that.

On June 13, Dick Polman summarized the political history of the last three-and-a-half years when he explained

The Republicans' 2012 election strategy is perversely brilliant: Sabotage President Barack Obama's job-creation efforts, then blame him for the wreckage. This strategy was in action the other day, when Mitt Romney assailed Mr. Obama on the stump. Mr. Romney said that "with America in crisis, with 23 million people out of work or stopped looking for work, he hasn't put forth a plan to get us working again."

Mr. Romney conveniently omitted the fact that Mr. Obama put forth such a jobs plan last autumn. The American Jobs Act would have put as many as 2 million construction workers, cops, teachers and firefighters back to work -- so said economic forecasters -- if only congressional Republicans hadn't dynamited it.

Yes, sabotage was required. Republicans knew their prospects for beating Mr. Obama would be damaged if they signed on to a plan that got more Americans working again. They're far too invested in economic misery to let that happen. As Senate GOP leader Mitch McConnell candidly remarked in 2010, "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president"....

What's fascinating about Mr. Obama's sabotaged jobs bill is that he tried to attract Republican support by packing it with Republican provisions. For instance, some GOP senators had come up with the idea of creating jobs repairing America's decaying infrastructure through an independent, privately bankrolled fund. A good idea, but once Mr. Obama embraced it, the Republicans naturally deemed it a bad one.

So goodbye, construction jobs. Goodbye also to the funds that would have saved the jobs of 30,000 teachers who have since been laid off by financially strapped states. And goodbye to other Republican provisions, such as slashing payroll taxes for small businesses and allowing them to fully expense new investments. Better for the Republicans to simply reap their sown seeds and blame Mr. Obama for the jobs deficit.

Convinced they haven't done enough damage to the economy, the Republicans are not giving up.    The Olympian of Olympia, Washington editorializes

Democrats and Republicans reached bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate on a transportation spending bill that would send $44 million next year to Washington state for construction on roads, bridges, rail and public transit, creating an estimated 30,000 jobs.

The bill merely approves the current transportation spending appropriations, which expire at the end of June. If the bill isn’t passed by the House, $109 billion in federal money for highway projects over the next two years would dry up and scuttle projects ready to go, and pull the rug out from under thousands of construction workers nationwide.

After last week’s weak jobs report, you’d think our national leaders couldn’t wait to pass a bill that puts so many Americans back to work. And if U.S. senators reached bipartisan support, what’s the problem?

Two words: House Republicans.

We could wait before addressing the nation's infrastructure or we can do it now, when short-term interest rates are near zero, unemployment remains high, and spending by the public sector is critical to replace the spending absent from consumers or the private sector.     As with oil filters, we can pay it now- or pay it later.








Share |

Confused Yet?   He Hopes So



At the time, it seemed quite clear.    Mitt Romney said President Obama

wants another stimulus, he wants to hire more government workers.   He says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers.    Did he not get the message of Wisconsin?   The American people did.   It's time for us to cut back on government and help the American people.

Let's break this down.    According to the former governor, the President says we need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers and thus "did not get the message of Wisconsin."

To most earthlings, that would mean that Mitt Romney believes "the message of Wisconsin" is that we do not "need more firemen, more policemen, more teachers."

Fellow earthlings, we were wrong.   On GOP News June 12, Romney was asked "(President Obama) says you want to cut firefighters and teachers, that you don’t understand what’s going on in these communities. What do you say to that, governor?"

Governor Flip-Flop maintained

That's a very strange accusation.  Of course, teachers and firemen and policemen are hired at the local level and also by states. The federal government doesn’t pay for teachers, firefighters or policemen. So obviously that's completely absurd. 

Well, no, because the gentleman said we should cut firefighters and teachers (and police officers).    And while the federal government doesn't hire teachers, firefighters, or police, it can pay their salaries (at least indirectly), as the ARRA demonstrated.    Romney himself said Obama "wants another stimulus, he wants to hire government workers...  more firemen, more policemen, more teachers."    Now, confronted with a damaging statement, Romney wants to play professor of American government, maintaining that Obama should cut back on the government he expanded by hiring workers it is possible for only state and local governments to hire.

But he didn't stop there.   He continued

He’s got a new idea, though, and that is to have another stimulus and to have the federal government send money to try and bail out cities and states. It didn’t work the first time. It certainly wouldn’t work the second time.

So Mitt charges Obama with wanting to use another stimulus "to have the federal government send money to try and bail out cities and states."     Immediately after asserting teachers, firefighters, and police officers are not hired, or paid for, by the federal government, he acknowledges that the stimulus would be sent to cities and states to do just that.      He then says the stimulus "didn't work the first time.   It certainly wouldn't work the second time."

Wrong on both counts.    In November, Politico reported that the Congressional Budget Office

figures released Tuesday estimate that the stimulus package raised the gross domestic product this past quarter by 0.3 percent-1.9 percent.

The CBO report provided a broad range of the estimated number of full-time jobs created because of the stimulus — from a low of 500,000 to a high of 3.3 million jobs...

The effects of the stimulus are fading after having peaked in the first half of 2010, the report noted.

However, the CBO estimates that the stimulus will raise GDP by 0.1 percent to 0.8 percent next year and employment by 200,000 to 1.1 million jobs.

Of course, the presumptive nominee of the Gas and Oil Party, who considers himself an expert on business and the economy, was lying when he said the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act didn't work.    But lying is not Romney's forte.    Rather, he specializes in the tactic represented by the first four sentences of his statement on Tuesday morning, a marvel of misdirection meant to sow confusion.   It's a fascinating approach to political propaganda, one which the Obama campaign must (and probably will) find a way to counteract.





Share |

Searching For Compromise



Writing in The Washington Post in late April, Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein described the conservative shift in American politics.      Both sides are not equally to blame for the gridlock in Washington, they noted, as

It is clear that the center of gravity in the Republican Party has shifted sharply to the right. Its once-legendary moderate and center-right legislators in the House and the Senate — think Bob Michel, Mickey Edwards, John Danforth, Chuck Hagel — are virtually extinct.

The post-McGovern Democratic Party, by contrast, while losing the bulk of its conservative Dixiecrat contingent in the decades after the civil rights revolution, has retained a more diverse base. Since the Clinton presidency, it has hewed to the center-left on issues from welfare reform to fiscal policy. While the Democrats may have moved from their 40-yard line to their 25, the Republicans have gone from their 40 to somewhere behind their goal post.

Some refuse to acknowledge the obvious.     A font of conventional wisdom, Chris Cillizza, argued "a look at the recent departures from the Senate Democratic ranks suggests their number of moderates is also very much on the decline.... and it's clear that the centrist Democratic ranks have taken a major hit over the last four years too."

Yet the chart (from Jon Perr, who credits political science professors Keith Poole and Howard Rosenthal) below, in which the closer to 1.0 the line gets the more conservative the vote, demonstrates that the ideology of congressional Democrats has changed little over the years while Republican votes have become sharply more conservative over the past 45 years.

Cillizza, further, gives a pass to congressional Republicans for casting their conservative votes because, he rhetorically asks, "What if the Republican rank and files have grown more and more conservative over the past few decades, a progression that has forced its leaders to move to the right in order to, well, remain leaders?"    There is little advantage in holding accountable the politicians, important sources for journalists, when citizens can be blamed.

Moderate Democrats, however, are saluted by Cillizza and others for having the courage to rise above the liberal rabble and vote as centrists.    Mann and Ornstein note of such pundits

"Both sides do it" or "There is plenty of blame to go around" are the traditional refuges for an American news media intent on proving its lack of bias, while political scientists prefer generality and neutrality when discussing partisan polarization.   Many self-styled bipartisan groups, in their search for common ground, propose solutions that move both sides to the center, a strategy that is simply untenable when one side is so far out of reach.

Under President Obama's leadership, the Democratic party has listened to the "American news media intent on proving its lack of bias."     The President's signature legislative achievement (in danger of being struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court) bears a striking similarity to the health care plan stewarded to passage in Massachusetts by then-Governor Mitt Romney, reform itself based on the plan proposed by Rush Limbaugh's favorite think tank, the Heritage Foundation.    Proposed by a Democratic president whom party leadership already had vowed to defeat at virtually any cost, the legislation garnered zero (0) votes from the Gas and Oil Party.

Among the vocal opponents of the Affordable Care Act was Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, who told sympathetic interviewer Dustin Suggins

This is what the “grand bargain” idea was all about. Democrats think working with us on Social Security will bring a compromise. They think we want changes to Social Security and we will agree to bring taxes up. This is wrong-headed. We are not jumping up and down to reform entitlements; we want to fix them because they are broken. The Deficit Commission wanted a “grand bargain,” but the whole concept misses the point.

It's bad enough a Democratic president wants to 'reform' a healthy Social Security.   To Rand Paul, characteristic of his Repub colleagues, reform is not enough; it must be "fixed" by means-testing (turning an earned benefit into welfare) and raising the retirement age (effectively lowering benefits).     Raising the cap on income subject to taxation for Social Security or eliminating the cap so an individual with a $1,000,000 income pays more than one earning $106,800 simply cannot be considered.

The morning after defeating long-time incumbent Richard Lugar for the GOP nomination for U.S. Senate from Indiana, Richard Mourdock told MSNBC's Chuck Todd  "I certainly think bipartisanship ought o consist of Democrats coming to the Republican point of view."   Soon thereafter, perhaps aware that Chris Cillizza and others haven't figured it out yet, Mourdock told CNN's Soledad O'Brien "What I've said about compromise and bipartisanship is I hope to build a conservative majority in the United States Senate so that bipartisanship becomes Democrats joining Republicans to roll back the size of government, reduce the bureaucracy, lower taxes and get America moving again."

Mourdock should be happy.     The size of government and of the bureaucracy has declined, even in this period in which a spurt of employment in the public sector would have bolstered demand and jacked up the GDP, as in the previous three recessions.   Ezra Klein, from whom the first chart below is taken, explains

Since Obama was elected, the public sector has lost about 600,000 jobs.    If you put those jobs back, the unemployment rate would be 7.8 percent.

But what if we did more than that?   At this point in George W. Bush's administration, public-sector employment had grown by 3.7 percent.   That would be equal to a bit over 800,000 jobs today.  If you add those hypothetical jobs, the unemployment rate falls to 7.3 percent.  

Mourdock and other Republicans should be overjoyed- and would be, if the President were not a Democrat- that federal taxes as a share of gross domestic product haven't been this low in 60 years,  as illustrated in the second graph below, from the Office of Management and Budget via Daily Kos.    

.

There is virtually no limit to the extremism the Repub Party can illustrate.    While ever-compromising Democrats are spanked by the Washington establishment for failing to compromise further, Republicans are "enabled," facing no penalty for staking out a continually more radical position.

Share |

This Is Not That


Time's Mark Halperin has graced us today with a fine example of political equivalence, arguing (emphasis his)

The President doesn't think the economy is "doing fine."   Mitt Romney doesn't oppose firefighters, police, or teachers.     Yes, there are legitimate questions about the President’s understanding of how the private sector operates. And, yes, Governor Romney supports less federal aid to states and localities for such jobs than the Democrats do. But shame on the media for starting the week perpetuating the self-fulfilling prophecy that Friday’s gaffes will be a big deal in the election by continuing to pump them. These gaffes will matter because we say they do.

How can the press ever criticize politicians for trivializing our politics when we focus on statements that have little to do with the candidates actual views or their proposals for the future? But also: shame on both campaigns for saying, in effect, the other guy’s gaffe matters but our guy just had some bad phrasing which should be ignored.

For those who haven't noticed- including the mainstream media- hiring in the private sector has been much more robust than in the public sector.   That, now, is virtually irrelevant, especially since the President chose to (cliche alert) "walk back" his comments almost immediately by bowing and scraping, pleading "It is absolutely clear that the economy is not doing fine. That's why I had a press conference."   Clearly, he does not want to be judged by the initial remark, which he has retracted.

Not so Mitt Romney.     Promptly following Obama's remarks, Romney declared in a web video "He says we need more fireman, more policemen, more teachers.   Did he not get the message of Wisconsin? The American people did. It’s time for us to cut back on government and help the American people."

No one knows whether the GOP candidate believes that- rare or nonexistent is the man or woman who can be sure what the former governor believes about anything.     At the least, however, Romney wants us to think that he believes it.   Three days later, he has not retracted or even modified his remarks.    He wants us to believe that he's coming after public employees, even if teachers, firefighters, or police officers.    We are better off, he strongly infers, with fewer public servants.

Salon's Alex Pareene recognized Halperin late last year as "the world's laziest dispenser of collective wisdom."     Halperin resides comfortably among what Digby refers to as "the Village," Washington insiders who mistake "balance" for fairness or accuracy.  Having offered an assessment which appears faulty, Barack Obama bid a hasty retreat.     By contrast, Mitt Romney offered a political assessment, suggesting that "the American people" believe "it's time for us to cut back on" firemen, policemen, and teachers.     When a politician contends "the American people" want X, he is clearly advocating X, maintaining that he or she embodies the will of the populace.    

There is no equivalence between Barack Obama's statement and Mitt Romney's statement, nor a resemblance between Mark Halperin and a journalist.





Share |