ICYMI – Pelosi “Knows” Newt

Posted by on . One comment.

In an interview with John King, Nancy Pelosi was asked about the possibility of a Gingrich presidency. Her response was “let me just say this, that will never happen…there is something I know.” Maybe I’m just not used to seeing her speak, but I have to say I was taken aback by the nature of this statement.

Gingrich and Pelosi during happier days

However, the real controversy that has taken off in the last couple of days has targeted her “I know something” statement. Some speculate that this is a reference back to another statement Pelosi made in December. “One of these days we’ll have a conversation about Newt Gingrich. When the time is right…. I know a low about him. I served on the investigative committee that investigated him.”

Does Pelsoi have a campaign shattering piece of information? It is unclear.

In each instance, Pelosi’s chief spokesperson Drew Hammill has walked back her comments and suggested a different interpretation. Unfortunately, the second (most recent) explanation did not ring true. This suggests to me that Pelosi actually does have something on Gingrich, but she is waiting for the general election to release it (if it comes to that).

Newt’s response to all of this is as expected. He essentially calls her demented because she lives in California, denies that there is anything and calls on her to “spit it out.”

I suppose we’ll just have to wait until the General Election to see if Pelosi actually has something.

Edit:  This story continues to develop. Today the Romney camp released an ad that not only reiterates what we’ve gone over here but adds further evidence to this accusation that I have not seen cited anywhere else (the ad cites a 1997 San Francisco Chronicle story). “Now Pelosi says she’ll leak information, so secret, she once asked her own husband leave their bedroom so she could discuss it privately on the phone.”

Click for video

 

There is not nearly enough information available to make a judgement as to whether she actually has some kind of bombshell or if this is being misinterpreted/blown out of proportion.

Edit 2: Okay, so I found the article. It is titled “Pelosi says GOP ‘sandbagged’ Gingrich Ethics Investigation She says House speaker is Unfit.” It is penned by Marc Sandalow. At the very least I can say that the reference is legitimate, but the inference made by the commercial is not. The actual quote says “Pelosi provided an inside look at the controversial investigation into Gingrich — an inquiry so secret that she once had to ask…” There is no reference to some kind of bombshell piece of information, just the general sensitive nature of the inquiry. Furthermore, she did not say this “now”, nor has she made an honest to god threat to leak anything. At the very best, we can say she has been suggestive towards the idea that she has damaging information.

Once again, we are seeing very little regard for ethical politics by the Romney campaign and a willingness to completely misrepresent quotes.

Focused On Things That Do Not Matter

Posted by on . 5 comments.

Tomasky and others are focused on the wrong things when they are doubting Mitt Romney’s general election prospects.

Tomasky is a generally insightful pundit. Unfortunately, too often his judgement is critically clouded by his partisanship. Early december he speculated about Romney out losing the primary, which I suspect was simply out of his wholesale dislike for Romney’s politics. Other recent topics include the typically embarrassingly banal outrage at republicanism in general. He obviously thinks that Obama is strong going into the fall, but the facts don’t match the partisan wishful thinking.

At beginning of this primary season it became clear that Obama’s job approval numbers signaled rough waters ahead for his reelection bid. As noted by Gary Langer, since 1940 four other presidents have gone into their re-election year with approval ratings under 50 percent – Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. Only Nixon won reelection. The state of the economy, the unpopularity of congress, the media’s portrayal of a broken government, the mounting debt and downgrade left most americans horribly unsatisfied with what was going on in Washington. Despite Obama’s claims that his achievements were superior to all prior presidents save FDR, the narrative in the news simply didn’t reflect that (whether bogus or accurate).

The poor reputation of Obama is somewhat unfounded, but entirely understandable. In real policy terms, I have a great deal of respect for his administration and his presidency. As I expected, his actions as president reflect an ideology of pragmatist with moderately progressive leanings. However, his ability win politically has been hampered by too many factors to count. As a result, every crucial measure indicates Obama is an exceptionally weak incumbent president. There is no getting around it – Obama is vulnerable (and he knows it).

Romney is already in striking distance. Obama will likely remain where he is while Romney will get a bump from being nominated. (The is pre SOTU)

Romney is not the extreme and easy to embarrass candidate the Obama team wants to face. Early on, some pundits speculated that a Romney who was forced to move sharply to the right in the GOP primary would be easy to defeat. But Romney has not had to do that. Instead, he has retained his reputation as a moderate, a label which is reinforced by every other republican he is currently facing.

In November there will be (yet again) a Republican moderate v a Democrat moderate. Last time, Obama won by a slim margin that was heavily influenced by the unpopularity of the former republican, and this time around the vote could easily turn the other way. Even this early on, I can tell you the factors that will ultimately decide how the coin falls in November will not include Romney’s weaknesses as a political ideologue or his personal baggage.

Despite the attention it is getting now, Mitt’s status as a businessman will not hurt as much as some think. Certainly, the narrative of Mitt Romney as a 1%er will be good for energizing Democrats, but Romney does not need to win Democrats. As always, the election will hinge on each candidate’s ability to attract moderates/independents. His involvement with Mass health care and Obama care only makes him seem more moderate, and the big opportunity for that to hurt him (the primary) has since passed without great consequence. His income tax rate, which is a result of his semiretirement and reliance on capital gains, is an overblown non issue (although capital gains tax in general might enter as a liberal talking points). In general, attacks on Romney as a businessman have not and will not land.

It is plain to see that this list of “baggage” amounts to nothing categorically disqualifying in a general election.

As Tomasky rightfully points out, Obama’s best chance in reelection falls entirely outside of his administration. His fortune as a candidate will largely be determined by the state of the economy, which will largely be determined by what happens in Europe. When we get a better picture of the economy in November we will have a better idea what our presidential politics will look like in November. Generally, without a major change in the economy his approval numbers will probably remain between 45% and 55%, riding the middle. The other factor is who becomes the Republican nominee. In every way, his chances for reelection are reduced by a Romney nomination.

Picking Apart The Romney Tax Returns

Posted by on . No comments.

It was with much fanfare and anticipation that Mitt Romney released his federal tax records for 2010 and 2011 yesterday morning. To keep it brief, Romney made $21.7 million in 2010 and paid 13.9 percent ($3 million) of that to the federal government. It hardly has to be mentioned that a rate of 13.9 percent is far below the rate that most middle-class Americans pay. Moreover, the release of his tax returns also let the country in on the fact that Romney keeps some of his money in tax havens such as Luxembourg, Ireland and the Cayman Islands, outside of the United States. So much for believing in our “shining city on the hill”.

Romney’s devilishly low tax rate is going to be a big deal throughout this election. Today, Newt Gingrich, while addressing a question on Romney’s immigration platform, shot off this zinger:

“You have to live in a world of Swiss bank accounts and Cayman Island accounts and making $20 million for no work, to have some fantasy this far from reality,” Gingrich said.

Fantasy, isn’t it? Newt Gingrich has decided to attack Mitt Romney on the concept of receiving income in the form of interest payments and capital gains. The last time I checked, I don’t even think Democrats are against that. This critique goes way past tax code fairness.

As I’ve mentioned previously, the Romney tax returns are really the final straw — the cherry-on-top — that makes any semblance of Romney’s “electability” suddenly vanish into thin air. No longer can Mitt Romney even pretend to be able to relate to “average” Americans, much less the 49 million Americans who now live below the poverty line. The Republicans have done themselves into a corner.

Romney’s Lingering Troubles

Posted by on . 2 comments.

Today on This Week (now with George Stephanopolous) George Will phrased the essence of what happened in South Carolina in a simplistic but accurate way. He said, “Mitt Romney’s problem is somehow his Romney-ness… there is something about him that is not connecting.”

The populist wing of the republican party wants a game changing candidate. They want someone who is going to change and challenge the system, not work within it. Romney’s brand is, at its essence, someone who smilingly plays the game and happily bends himself to the nature of that game he is playing. Romney still has an authenticity problem and it is at the core of everything that has happened in this race so far.

Too many are overlooking the obvious and getting the analysis somewhat wrong. I’ve seen too many lists about the “lessons” we all learned after South Carolina and they all include a “debates matter” point. Debates themselves do not intrinsically matter in the sense that voters care about per se debate performance. Their importance lies within the GOP electorate’s (now apparent) demand for an authentic candidate. Gingrich performs well because he makes politically risky statements, directly answers questions and does not sound like he is up there to please anyone but himself.

That how you appear authentic.

Bizarro Election Day #1

Posted by on . No comments.

When I speak in private and people ask me for handicaps of the different races in the news on I always assign percentages. Recently I had been giving Romney an 85 percent shot of taking the nomination and a 60-70 percent shot at taking the general. Often times after giving these numbers I’m asked why and asked why I’m only giving slight advantages rather than more certain statements. Well, it’s because of days like this.

National elections always have days like this. Everything is going as expected and then suddenly several major stories drop from the sky and change the entire entire landscape of things within a matter of hours. In South Carolina, that is exactly what has happened.

(From Real Clear Politics)

As you can see to the right (earlier numbers at the bottom), the most recent poll numbers have Romney trailing Gringrich by roughly 4-5 points. This is a tremendous reversal of fortune for Romney, who was leading Gingrich by a healthy 10 point lead. The move probably has several contributing factors including the closeness to the election, general dissatisfaction with Romney and Gingrich’s solid performance in the last debate.

Today we also saw Perry fold his campaign up and endorse Newt.

This comes as good news to Newt who expects to have his dirty laundry aired out on national television by his wife. While his personal trespasses are well know, having the ex-wife detail her apparently horrific experience being married to the current SC front runner may have major implications amongst Newt’s most important voter group – the evangelicals (values voters).

To top all of this off, the final recount in Iowa has Santorum on top by an irrelevant number of votes.

What does all this mean?

Well, beyond the fact that tonight’s debate is set to be the most important debate of the campaign, it is hard to say. Perry dropping out is bad for Romney, good for Gingrich. Santorum taking Iowa is good for Santorum and bad for Gingrich and Romney. Gingrich’s performance tonight is clearly bad for Gingrich and good for Romney. But, most of all, Gingrich’s surge is horrible for Romney and revitalizing news for Gingrich.

During the debate tonight I’ll be looking for Gingrich to deal some sort of death blow to Romney in the form of a confrontation/question that will force him to provide a terrible answer. Romney needs change things up and get on the offensive against Gingrich.

 

PIPA + SOPA Blackouts

Posted by on . One comment.

The enormity of sites such as Wikipedia, Google and Reddit “blacking out” their websites in protest of PIPA and SOPA is not to be underestimated. We at 1115.org not only support these efforts, but give offhand support to those working against PIPA and SOPA.

Personally, I do not have enough expertise on the subject to speak to the real implications of either. However, I am strongly opposed to any attempt by the government to control the internet in the general.

The only specific statement I would like to make on this subject is about the wrongness of former US Senator Chris Dodd. Today he said the blackouts were, “irresponsible response and a disservice to people who rely on them for information (or) use their services…It is also an abuse of power given the freedoms these companies enjoy in the marketplace today.”

Dodd’s position is understandable, as the Motion Picture Association of America’s chief lobbyist Dodd has a professional responsibility to fight for the passage of SOPA and PIPA. He is, however, utterly ridiculous for him to suggest that these sites do not have the right to do whatever they wish with their principal property. It is entirely hypocritical for him to criticize these companies for doing exactly what he is paid to do – advocate politics on the behalf of corporation. These companies may not have the dollars to hire lobbyists such as Dodd, so they have to turn to other avenues. They have every right to fight for their own survival, and against efforts of censorship, in this way.

 

Is this real life?

Posted by on . 2 comments.

Mitt Romney told reporters today at a press stop in South Carolina that he pays “probably closer to the 15 percent rate” on taxes. This is way lower than what most middle-class families pay in taxes. Taking into account this cherry-on-top consideration, Greg Sargent of the Washington Post today decided to add up the equation that pretty much equals unelectability for Mitt Romney in a general election:

1) At a time when the 2012 presidential election is expected to focus heavily on tax fairness, the GOP is set to nominate someone who is worth as much as $250 million, but pays a lower tax rate than many middle class taxpayers.

2) At a time when polls suggest public anger at Wall Street conduct is running high, the GOP is set to nominate someone who presided over corporate restructuring deals that resulted in mass layoffs and economic suffering — even as he raked in an enormous fortune in the process.

3) At a time when majorities support higher taxes on the wealthy and are increasingly preoccupied with inequality and the shrinking middle class, the GOP is set to nominate a candidate whose tax plan, by one analysis, would cut taxes on the top 0.1 percent by nearly half a million dollars, while marginally raising them on many lower end taxpayers.

4) At a time when Democrats are salivating to paint their opponent as the candidate of the one percent, the GOP is set to nominate a candidate who regularly says things that (fairly or not) can be used to feed this narrative. To name just a few, Romney has said that “corporations are people”; confided that he likes to “be able to fire people” who provide him services; and has refused to say whether any and all questions about inequality and Wall Street excess are rooted in anything other than “envy.”

Yes, the idea of Romney’s general election “electability” is probably delusional at best. I would add the following to the list: At a time when the Republicans most galvanizing issue with independent and republican voters is supposed to be the repeal of “Obamacare,” the Republicans are set to nominate a candidate who was intrinsically part of its creation. However much Romney tries to spin it, he will eventually have to fess up to the fact that his crowning achievement as Governor of Massachusetts was the blueprint for Obama’s alleged march towards ”European-style social welfare.” His fingerprints are everywhere.

The Problem With Your Analysis is That it is Incorrect

Posted by on . 2 comments.

Columnists who have to find something to write about and forgo logic in return for an effortless 500 words need to be given a vacation or something. The Boston Herald’s Holly Robichaud is one such columnist.

As if we needed to be forewarned about the lack of seriousness within this particular column, her first attack focuses an all too often point of focus for some conservatives (you know who you are) – the lady’s name. Instead of Elizabeth, it is innocently demeaning and tongue-in-cheek to refer to the contender as if he/she was a child. How clever. Never let substance get in the way literally making fun of the name of a candidate for high office.

In fact, the actual substance of the article is so nonsensical that it is reminiscent of Canian (i.e., Herman Cain) logic. See, Democratic candidate for US Senate Elizabeth Warren is challenging Republican US Senator Scott Brown primarily by presenting herself a warrior that will stand up to wall street. She infamously claimed that she was part of the intellectual backbone of the OWS movement, which is actually a relatively permissible claim.

But! Robichaud has discovered something treacherous!

“Lizzy is a member of the 1%…The only thing that could make her a more hypocritical class warrior is if she anchored a yacht in Rhode Island. There is nothing wrong with being financially well-off. The problem is that Lizzy wants everyone in the 1 percent to feel guilty about their success while she lands another six-figure part-time gig.”

According to Robichaud this makes Warren philosophically incoherent. That is, one cannot be a member of the 1% while also supporting tax raises, etc. on the 1%.

To whom does this ring logical? I wonder if she dared criticize Warren Buffet when he asserted that the government coddled billionaires such as himself. Robichaud seems to have a problem with someone who supports policies which they actually believe are in the interest of the greater good rather than potentially personally expedient. Of course, it generally lends more credibility to a proponent of a position when they have no self interest attached to that position. But that does not jive jibe with the “class warfare” line that has been so recklessly thrown about.

The problem with Robichaud’s analysis is that it is incorrect.

 

 

Pew Report & “King of Bain” – Evidence of OWS’ Success

Posted by on . No comments.

Earlier this week, the Pew Research Center released a new report that showed a strong increase of americans acutely aware of class conflict. While it explicitly mentions the Occupy Wall Street movement in its report, the report did not speak directly to the origins of the increased awareness (which is generally impossible to determine anyway). Yet, I think this is patently obvious evidence of the success of the Occupy Wall Street movement long after its principal operation in New York was shut down.

While the movement was still center stage in the news it received a great deal of criticism, most of which was asinine. Most of the nonsensical criticism was directed towards social movements in general, rather than this one. That is, it wasn’t clear what the protesters wanted, the people themselves were a little loopy (or smelly/unclean), or that the protesters should get jobs. What social movement is not directed towards problems rather than solutions? What social movement doesn’t have participants who are a little off (or a lot “off”)? The statement about jobs is the most ridiculous of all.

My earlier post on this subject talked about how the GOP’s criticism of this movement made it very hard to take them serious as philosophically coherent legislators. But that’s not what this post is about.

The very real criticism of Occupy was whether their efforts would result in anything. This is a problem that the Tea Party quickly quashed after they managed to dominate elections across the country. Occupy’s impact is less tangible, but not less important, than the Tea Party’s impact. This Pew study one of several polls/studies that support the notion that the Occupy movement put income inequality into the forefront of american consciousness. I think this is why we see Newt Gingrich’s Super PAC going after Romney with an ad that takes, what the a Romney ad (quoting the Wall Street Journal) called, the “Obama line.” It is almost confusing as to why Newt’s Super PAC is going after Romney’s corporate experience, calling him the “king of Bain.” But the attacks against Romney’s conservative bonafides have not worked and South Carolina is Newt’s only chance to get back into the race. The usage of this ad is a clear admission by a Republican presidential candidate’s organization that concern for income inequality and all the issues surrounding it are real sentiments now held by americans.

Whether its envy or its a real critical concern about crony capitalism, it’s there.

Edit: Gallup has a seemingly conflicting poll.

Taking A Candidates Word For It

Posted by on . 11 comments.

Earlier today, the New York Times Public Editor Arthur Brisbane wrote an interesting piece that delved into the question of whether the news media should add disclaimers to quotes by political figures that can demonstrably be proven false. Brisbane phrased it like this:

I’m looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge “facts” that are asserted by newsmakers they write about.

[...]

…on the campaign trail, Mitt Romney often says President Obama has made speeches “apologizing for America,” a phrase to which Paul Krugman objected in a December 23 column arguing that politics has advanced to the “post-truth” stage.

As an Op-Ed columnist, Mr. Krugman clearly has the freedom to call out what he thinks is a lie. My question for readers is: should news reporters do the same?

If so, then perhaps the next time Mr. Romney says the president has a habit of apologizing for his country, the reporter should insert a paragraph saying, more or less:

“The president has never used the word ‘apologize’ in a speech about U.S. policy or history. Any assertion that he has apologized for U.S. actions rests on a misleading interpretation of the president’s words.”

Although I was very interested in weighing the pros and cons of this difficult question myself, there was a similar question about journalistic standards that pressed me a little more.  Right before I had read Brisbane’s article, I had read a New York Times article authored by John Harwood that had unwittingly misquoted a line from Mitt Romney’s New Hampshire victory speech. The line, as reported by the Times, read:

“President Obama wants to fundamentally transform America,” Mr. Romney said. “We want to restore America to the founding principles that made this country great. He wants to turn America into a European-style entitlement society.  We want to ensure that we remain a free and prosperous land of opportunity. “

This is what Mitt Romney actually said:

“He wants to turn America into a European-style social welfare state.”

Now, honestly, the only reason I had noticed this discrepancy at all was because I had run into this problem myself. That is, while I was searching for the same quote to post on my New Hampshire Primary Live Blog this past Monday, I could only find transcripts that had the wording “entitlement society”. I had originally taken this as an indication that the Romney campaign had released a transcript of the speech to a number of media outlets, and out of time considerations on primary night, many had not been able to fact-check the transcript with the actual speech. (Or do they ever do that?)

In the past couple weeks, there’s been a lot of chatter by journalists and bloggers alike about the blasé manner in which the newsmedia have covered the Republican candidates numerous off-the-cuff claims about President Obama being things such as “un-American” and a “socialist”. What struck me about the New York Times’ flub was how they had similarly become so unconcerned with these types of claims that the semantics that differentiate ”entitlement society” from “social welfare state” had also become meaningless.

It was also alarming that our country’s “paper of record” had ceded the “record” part over to whoever could provide them with the transcript.

I emailed the New York Times this morning to ask for a correction. This evening I received an email from John Harwood who indicated that the Times would issue a correction. Thanks Guys! Now I can soundly consider whether y’all should rebut misleading claims!