“The one thing I’d say is, the argument that its all about the growth of government, the numbers that came out on friday showed that the private sector is growing almost 5% per year. It’s a huge boom. The thing that is dragging down the economy is that the government is shrinking so rapidly that it is pulling down the overall growth rate to 2.8%”

To which Laura Ingraham, duchess of conservative radio, responded “What?! What?! Wait a second…Is this a science fiction show?”

Clearly, she did not agree with the statement Goolsbee was making, George Will’s head shaking and “i know better” smiling suggested he was equally at odds withe the statement. Understandable, the idea that when the government shrinks “the economy” is negatively impacted is jarringly contrary to her Republican populism. Just moments before she was saying how Romney had to stop admitting that the economy was getting better.

But, what Goolsbee was saying is completely accurate. In fact, the report he is referencing said that positive growth in a number of areas “were partly offset by negative contributions from federal government spending and state and local government spending.” This has been widely reported. Even if you don’t ideologically agree with Krugman’s lamentations over austerity, what Goolsbee said was entirely accurate. The implications of that observation are a different argument.

The central problem here is the insurmountable difficulty everyone has in reporting about economics. The practices of journalism and economics are fundamentally opposed to one another. Economics thrives over nuance and detailed debate, whereas journalism relishes breaking issues down to their core and finding the simplest summation possible. GDP, for instance, is often cited as a way of gauging the economic health of a country. (Even worse indicators that is used are the NYSE’s market indicies.) This is accurate, but no one thinks that GDP is the last word on an economy’s health or its long term prospects. You could respect Ingrham’s outburst if it was concerning that, but I suspect it wasn’t. In the long run, austerity will help our government and our economy. We just have to engage in austerity in a measured and gradual way that will not send our economy into a recession.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

Latest polls out show downward momentum for Romney and upward momentum for Huntsman. But none of it really matters. The size of the number separating first place (Romney)  the rest of the field is too large for any last minute change of fortune. If there is, you will see a lots of “this is what no one expected…polling in New Hampshire has never been terribly accurate.” But I do not think that will happen. Romney will take New Hampshire and effectively end the GOP Primary.

The only question mark is an inconsequential one: Who takes second and third? The race for these positions is largely between Huntsman and Paul, as Santorum’s bounce has begun to fall and wasn’t worth very much in New Hampshire to begin with. A second place finish going to either Huntsman or Paul means nothing in real presidential terms. Both of them remain nationally unelectable. The most consequential result would be a Huntsman second place finish which would legitimize his campaign, and same him from national embarrassment.

Essentially, today has two potential outcomes – the one everyone expects (where the details mean little) or an outrageous change of fortune for Romney at the last minute. If the latter occurs we all go back to the drawing board.

2:37 –  Romney wins. Changes little, but makes my prediction picture perfect, so I’m happy about that. Good night!

2:10 – Twitter is ablaze with reports about a 14 point margin in favor of Romney.  2500 words later and we still do not have a winner of Iowa. A couple things I’m going to sleep thinking about tonight

• According to the media, Romney’s rise in Iowa is almost entirely overshadowed by Santorum’s, but this isn’t really true. Up until very recently, expectations for Romney’s performance in Iowa did not include a first/second place finish. Now that he has that finish Romney will have solidified his place as the presumptive nominee in real terms. If he can take New Hampshire the election is over. Either way, this has very much become Romney’s election to lose.
• The bounces we have seen in polls are real shifts in attitudes that have electoral significance.
• Newt Gingrich was angry tonight and many in the media have concluded that this anger will result in him going after Romney guns blazing with reckless abandon. However, I think he may “reassess” (the word of the night) what happened in Iowa and take a more strategic approach. Too soon to tell.
• The Rick Santorum bounce has occurred. In the following weeks one ought to expect him to be closely analyzed, picked apart and throughly attacked by the media. At this early point I do not believe he will be able to gain the same explosive support in New Hampshire that he received in Iowa.
• Perry’s fundraising was second only to Romney but now he’s all but out of the race. If he officially leaves well before New Hampshire and throws his weight behind eiher Gingrich or Santorum something big might happen. Currently, both have raised relatively paltry amounts.
• Journalists get pretty loopy after 1:30 am.

1:30 - Eerie silence as people wait on a final tally.

12:35 –  99% in and there is a 5 vote difference. To quote The Fix’s Chris Cillizza – “Holy crapozoli.” Everyone, including me, is impressed by Santorum’s speech. He knows this is his biggest opportunity to grab hold of momentum. I’m not convinced this will permanently launch him into the top tier as is being suggested by some of the pundits.

12:20 - Santorum’s “Thank you so much Iowa” sounded like a movie trailer narration. Rewind and watch it again. Next on the teleprompter – “in a world, where Barack Obama is President…”

12:05 – Nathan – I’m giving up on this. I call a tie between Santorum and Romney. The guy who was too lazy to go to the caucus today will feel like crap for the rest of his life.

12:00 - I was wrong. It’s midnight and we do not have a winner. It sounds like Rick Perry is dropping out. He would gain some respect from me if he did.

11:35 -  We are yet to have a winner, but there are still some real take aways from tonight. In his concession speech, Gingrich declared war on Romney. Every cable news channel is talking about the full page ad that Gingrich is taking out against Romney. I agree with a lot of what the talking heads are saying about this. A “kamikaze” attack by Gingrich on Romney could be super effective, if only because of Gingrich’s really strong ability to go negative on substantive issues. And, his ability to go negative on personal issues and make them sound substantive.

In other news, Bret Baier can’t use an Ipad calculator to do subtraction.

Also, I have no idea what Bachmann’s speech is about. For some reason, it is not about dropping out.

11:00 – CNN is now projecting all but the winner of the Iowa Caucuses.

1st and 2nd – Romney or Santorum

3rd – Ron Paul

4th – Newt Gingrich

5th – Rick Perry

6th- Michelle Bachmann

7th – John Huntsman

These results currently perfectly reflect the most recent polls done in the state and, I might add, my prediction. The difference between Romney and Santorum is making pundits lose their minds. We can now expect to hear from candidates.

10:55 - NBC has just projected that Ron Paul will take 3rd place and the the race for the number one position will be between Romney and Santorum. Looks like the numbers are coming in quicker the many expected. At this rate we should have a winner well before midnight. And then a recount. (EDIT: My understanding now is that there will be NO recount)

10:20 - Nathan -  Here you go folks: Rick Santorum is benefiting from a short window of opportunity when it comes to searching “santorum” on Google and not having spreadingsantorum.com popping up as the first result. Instead, Google is displaying the results to the Iowa Caucus..

10:15 -  Right now the big story is the dead heat between Romney, Paul and Santorum. Some speculation that it will take all the ballots being counted before a winner is declared. The other story is that Bachmann placed as poorly as expected. The thing I’m paying attention to is the different talking heads and their willingness to make wild conclusions extrapolated from partial election results. As cable news outlets try to report new information I suspect that speculation will grow more wild.

Rick Perry just spoke to Fox News about the results with a pretty lack luster opening line – “everything is fine.” There’s a lot of pain in those eyes.

If you want to see how democrats are interpreting the results turn to MSNBC. Surprise, they seem to be dissatisfied with the messaging of the Republicans.

9:40 - Nathan -  The Fox News “decision desk” has projected Michele Bachmann to be the loser of the Iowa Caucus and HuffingtonPost is now reporting that Bachmann’s own staff is about to tell her to quit. The Republicans might not be happy about the evangelical/libertarian/ neoconservative rift that is currently forming, but at least they can now take solace in the fact that the Republican party is still the party of old white men.

9:10 - Fox News is projecting that Bachmann places in 6th place after Huntsman. A quick look at the visual messaging being used by each candidate at their respective HQ’s lecterns show an interesting distinction between Romney and the others.

Where as the other candidates have their name on display, Romney has a slogan.

8:45 - The first results are out. It seems that Politico’s site is a bit slow at updating, but Google is fast enough. Right now, the initial results are entirely meaningless. Yet, most media outlets need stuff to talk about so they are reporting on individual counties and other stuff everyone will forget tomorrow.

8:30 - The first round of entrance polls are out. While the results are not to be taken at face value, they are not completely without meaning. For instance, polls are showing a three way race Paul, Santorum and Romney. Unsurprising, but a good sign for Santorum as it demonstrates that his lack of organization on the ground may not actually be hampering his performance. These polls are generally skewed by campaign organizers putting vocal supporters into caucus locations so that they are questioned first.

As the night goes on the later entrance polls will give us a better idea of what is going on.

8:00 - Caucuses should be starting. If you like, you can follow the results on your own, I suggest Google or Politico. As results come in and Bachmann, Gingrich and Perry begin their damage control consider that no candidate since the 80s has won South Carolina after losing both Iowa and New Hampshire.

7:00 - Doors open in Iowa at 8pm. In anticipation of the results, here is my prediction:

Romney, Santorum, Paul, Gingrich, Perry, Bachmann, Huntsman

The surprise here being that Santorum defies current polling, which has him trailing Paul by 5-7 points. For other predictions check out ABC’s staff “crystal ball.” One might notice that my prediction perfectly mirrors ABC’s Amy Walter’s prediction.

6:45 - Say what you will about Gingrich, but he often has the unique ability to make profound, pointed and entirely accurate statements. After calling Romney a liar, Gingrich said to CBS (via the Fix),

Well, you seem shocked by it!” Gingrich exclaimed. “Which part of what I just said to you is false? Why is it that if I’m candid in person and I wanted to be honest in person, that’s shocking … why is it politically incorrect to tell the truth?’

Without commenting on the “truthiness” of Romney, I think what Gringrich has said this morning is an excellent point that needs to be made. The evidence of the media being shocked and almost professionally offended by those who call a spade a spade is especially prevalent today. For instance, Ron Paul made big headlines when he admitted that he is a “long shot” candidate. Despite this fact being obvious to everyone, the obvious headline is that he is not delusionally optimistic about his chances to win. It should be radical and bizarre for media to report on someone stating the obvious as an extraordinary development. Are we so far gone that we expect presidential candidates to lie about patently obvious things, even if the truth may not be friendly to them?

6:35 - Nathan - Just noticed this: the Obama Campaign team has bought out three sides of the Des Moines Register website.

6:10 - Nathan – Talking Points Memo notes that Herman Cain and Donald Trump will be commentating on Fox News this evening. Can’t wait to hear “expert” analysis from the two most inconsequential figures of the 2012 nomination! Maybe Newt Gingrich will drop out of the race halfway through the night and join them on the Fox News payroll…

5:30 – I have long held the opinion that Iowa lacks the importance that some might assume it has because of the widespread media coverage. However, as I have said in the past, it may very well act as a harbinger of death for some campaigns which are lagging. Two campaigns in particular are facing the executioner today: Bachmann and Perry.

Bachmann has long retained the majority of her support as a tea party darling, scooping up those who were turned on by the Sarah Palin aura. She was a strong, conservative and decisive woman who had not yet been beaten down by the media. And then she was beaten down by the media. That is not to say that she did not deserve it. Like Perry, most of her problems where her own – she made embarrassingly false statements and lost many key staffers. Perry’s fall was much sharper and painful to watch. His “oops” will forever been one of the worst moments in debate history.

For both candidates, Iowa has long been a must win. Perry’s camp has strategized accordingly, spending more money in Iowa than any other campaign. Bachmann, on the other hand, has spent the least. This is likely because she has much less than other candidates (less than half of what Perry has) and because she care mores about having a national showing than actually winning. Yet, both of them are polling Iowa worse than every other candidate except for Huntsman, whom has skipped Iowa. For both candidates, losing Iowa will be an official end of any hope for their campaigns. The question will be whether they drop out and endorse anyone or not.

3:30 – Think you know Iowa? Think again, playa. David Yespen says there are some big myths about Iowa that are being falsely reported on. However, some of the points made are disputable.

1. While Iowa “looks like” the overall american population, the political makeup of caucus goers is decidedly “evangelical” and “conservative,” not moderate. But this isn’t really important, because everyone pretty much agrees that Iowa in no way “anoints” winners. It’s just another state that happens to be first.

2. I think Yespen is right about this. Retail politics has been redefined. The term “retail politics” was generally used to describe old methods of campaigning in which different coalitions were courted by personal appeals by candidates. Blacks, women, unions, etc. all had their representative political machine that would ultimately strongly side with one candidate or another. People are largely more independent of these organizations, but personal appearances are still valued greatly. The new “retail” politics is simply anything that actually involves a direct connection to the candidate, like “tele-town halls,” during which candidates hold a town hall like discussion over a conference call.

3.  A little over 110k voted last time, so things like rides to polls are going to be significant. However, we will see just how significant – Santorum apparently has a skeleton operation in Iowa.

4. Its conventional wisdom that weather affects all elections, but probably not any more so in Iowa.

5. It often appears that Iowans, or caucus goers in general, take voting more seriously than other people. The caucus system is a more involved process than simple ballot casting. Iowa, in particular, gets a lot of attention, which attracts attention loving people who want to seem really concerned. Really, any caucus system, not just Iowa, probably results in more “serious” voters.

Like many myths, these myths contain both exaggerations and grains of truth.

2:00 – I’ve been paying close attention to Ron Paul for the last couple of weeks. Since the media has gone Iowa intensive and most of the candidates have shifted their focus to Iowa, Paul’s strength there has changed the entire dynamic that Paul has historically had in elections. Typically, one would expect him bomb throw in debates, complain about lack of media attention and comfortably take 2-5%. Paul and supporters alike would be fine with the outcome, as his explicit objective was not winning elections. This time around the it is still entirely improbable that Paul is the nominee, but is now a potential threat to other candidates in important states – such as Iowa.

Instead of being ignored, Paul now find himself the target of attacks from those he most directly threatens. Both Gingrich and Santorum (today) have hurled very strong attacks against him. Accusations about racism have also cropped up once again and recently garnered a good deal of media attention.

Gingrich, Santorum and Perry all know the same thing about Paul. If they are placed in the same political league as him they might as well go home. They dont even want to engage him in debate, never mind battle him for votes. One of the most important results of today may very well be how much electoral legitimacy Paul gains from winning or placing highly in Iowa.

1:15 - This morning started with big hits coming from all over. Newt Gingrich continued to break his pledge to stay positive by calling Mitt Romney a liar. Santorum attacked one his main competitors today, Ron Paul, by calling him “disgusting.” I suspect that these attacks are signs of frustration from candidates, rather than strategically planned negative hits. Plain name calling this late in the game will likely have no meaningful impact.

Today essentially comes down to a race between Romney, Santorum and Paul. Gingrich has basically conceded defeat in Iowa. While Gingrich will probably stay in the race afterwards, finishing after Romney in Iowa will be horrible for his larger prospects.

Wisconsin ABC 12 (12/14/2011):

“Mickey Mouse, Adolf Hitler Allowed on Wis. Recall Petitions”

 

MADISON, Wis. — The signatures of Mickey Mouse and Adolf Hitler will be counted on recall petitions targeting Gov. Scott Walker as long as they are properly dated and include a Wisconsin address, the board charged with reviewing the petitions was told Tuesday.

Suspicious signatures will be noted when the Government Accountability Board reviews the petitions, but reviewers will look to see that signatures are accompanied by a Wisconsin address and are dated as having been signed during the circulation period, board elections specialist David Buerger said.

“We will flag them, but we will not strike them without challenge,” Buerger said after being asked whether Mickey Mouse’s signature would be counted. He noted that in previous recall petitions, Adolf Hitler’s name was struck because the address given was in Germany, not because of the name itself.

It’s laughable that the journalist propagandist who wrote this article somehow forgot to mention in the headline and the lead paragraph that the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board was responding to a speculative question, and that Mickey and Hitler have not actually signed the petition.

(via ThinkProgress)