But the reality is that any large scale mandate is out of the question at this point. It would end up being opposed by Republicans out of the spirit of turning Obama into a one term president by making him look legislatively impotent and it would work. Any large enough piece of legislation would have something in that could be labeled as unforgivably objectionable and Republicans would harp on it or they would just lie (death panels! – Politifact’s lie of the year).

Most people are tired of broad rhetoric and want a specific plan of action.

What Obama has done is exactly what he should be doing. Despite what my crush over at ABC (Amy Walter) thinks, this was Clintonian triangulation at its finest. Obama is trying to make it as difficult as possible for the GOP to claim ideological differences to bills as possible. This way, when the Republicans attempt to prevent a entirely agreeable bill (e.g., The Puppies Are Cute 2012 bill) from passing Mitch McConnell will have a hard time claiming that it is socialism or otherwise ideologically objectionable. More than anything, Obama needs to show leadership, action and progress… this comes from congress passing bills. One deal can lead to a second and a third.

So yes, he is starting this new legislative “age” with what should be relatively easy stuff.

The proposals that he has suggested are unquestionably bi-partisan and have genuine support from both sides. In fact, Rep. Jeb Hensarling (a Republican who was on the super committee) said, “Like most of the other speeches, I find myself agreeing with about 80 percent of what he says, but disagreeing with about 80 percent of what he does.” While I’m not sure about the second half of that quote, the first half, at the very least, demonstrates agreement on the broad strokes. Most notable are Obama’s long standing proposals concerning tax reform.

Klein points out in Mitch Daniel’s response he actually flat out agreed with Obama’s proposal to cut tax exemptions from the wealthy. You might be wondering how that does not count as class warfare…I don’t know either. Nonetheless, this is a great first step towards equity in the tax code and such a move would bring in an estimated non-trivial amount of 30 billion dollars a year; that’s to say nothing of what might be gained by closing loopholes for major corporations. In fact, a study concluded that if the government was able to make evasion (/avoidance) impossible top tax rates could be raised over to nearly 83% without impacting the economy. That’s probably not completely accurate (nor possible), but it suggests that the impact Obama’s “Buffett tax” on the economy is not nearly as horrible as many Republicans are suggesting.

But therein lies the slippery slope that the rich and republicans fear. What follows is the real line of thinking that prompts the banal “class warfare” and “soaking the rich” arguments: If we can practically draw the line at 30%, why not 83%? How can government possibly justify TAKING more private property when it is so disagreeably utilized today?

I addressed many these ideas in “Seven Compelling Reasons to Tax the Rich” because they are legitimate and really important questions about personal property and the social contract America wants to have with its most powerful individuals. Indeed, it is dangerous for the government to begin to think that it knows the proper amount of money for people to be earning. The government should not take a tax increase on anyone (even the rich) lightly. We should also recognize that many of the individuals whose income is above 1m do not find themselves in that income group every year. But at the very least, no matter how you earn it, those taking in astonishing sums of money should be paying at least what those taking in significantly less should be paying. We can safely draw the line there. For all 235,413 of you.

“You’re fired”

“That’s simply inexcusable…the idea that I’m anti-immigrant is repulsive. Don’t use a term like that.”

“Wouldn’t it be nice if people didn’t make accusations somewhere else that they weren’t willing to defend here.”

“The idea of getting something for free when they can afford to pay for them self, we decided that was a bad idea.”

“First of all, it’s not worth getting angry about. Secondly, 98% of the people have insurance. So the idea that more people are free riding is impossible…”

Those aren’t Gingrich quotes, those are Romney quotes.

Color me impressed. Romney’s performance in this last debate was very much what it needed to be (for Romney, that is). Romney not only sounded authentic, but his discussions of policy were sound and fluidly delivered. There were no “not a penny more” awkward moments. Romney also went on the offensive, hitting Gingrich with off handed and sometimes genuinely funny remarks. Instead of looking like someone who was spitting back memorized lines he appeared to be genuinely enthusiastic about defending his record. I don’t know where this Mitt came from, but if he can keep it up I think it helps him greatly.

Right now Romney and Gingrich are dueling in Florida for 1st. Its a long road from here, but if Romney’s ability to adjust so hard and effectively is not a fluke his chances are still good.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.