I GUESS GOP VOTERS DON'T BUY LEFT OR RIGHT ARGUMENTS ABOUT ROMNEY'S GAFFE
Mitt Romney has supposedly been the king of fail since he won Florida on Tuesday, but Republican voters in Nevada seem not to have noticed:
Romney up big in Nevada
Mitt Romney is headed for a dominant victory in Nevada on Saturday. PPP finds him polling at 50% to 25% for Newt Gingrich, 15% for Ron Paul, and 8% for Rick Santorum.
Certainly in Nevada the Mormon vote will get a lot of attention and Romney leads Paul 78-14 with that group, which we project to account for 20% of the vote. But Romney's dominance in Nevada goes well beyond that. He's winning voters describing as 'very conservative,' a group he's had huge amount of trouble with in other states, by a 43-34 margin over Gingrich. He's also winning men, women, Hispanics, whites, and every age group that we track. This will be a pretty thorough victory for him....
The poll was taken on Wednesday and Thursday. Romney's big "gaffe" -- his national-TV rollout of that talking point about the "very poor" -- happened Wednesday morning. Clearly it's had no negative impact on his standing with his party's voters in Nevada.
The left criticized Romney for seeming to be heartless. Nevada Republicans, being Republicans, don't care if he's heartless. The right attacked Romney for endorsing a government safety net at all. Now, you'd think Nevada Republicans would be quite Randian on that subject -- Republicans do think government is horrifically evil. But, in my experience, Republicans do acknowledge the existence of a subset of the population called "the truly needy" -- they do know there's that kid down the street with cystic fibrosis who can't really be described as a "bum on welfare." But wingers think this population bloc is tiny, and further believe that anyone whose problems aren't glaring is a bum on welfare -- except themselves when they need (or become eligible for) government benefits; then it's "Keep your government hands off my Medicare" time.
So, at least as far as the GOP rank-and-file is concerned, the concept actually was pitched correctly by Romney and his message-crafters -- he just messed up the delivery. He probably alienated swing voters he'll need in the fall, and he screwed up by igniting a media firestorm, but he didn't say anything that offended or alienated his base.
Friday, February 03, 2012
Thursday, February 02, 2012
IS THAT THE KOMEN PLAN? TO BECOME THE FOX NEWS OF CHARITIES? (Updated)
The Daily Caller tells us that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is claiming a 100% increase in donations over the past two days, following Komen's decision to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. After reading that, and reading Jeffrey Goldberg's report on the steps that led to Komen's decision, I have to wonder: was this just a cave-in to right-wing pressure, or an expression of new VP Karen Handel's wingnuttery -- or was it an attempt to make right-wing pressure groups' lemons into lemonade by beginning the process of making Komen a pet cause of the right?
I know that Planned Parenthood has also seen an uptick in donations -- but I'm not sure our side can match the right in passion for fighting the culture war. Is it possible that the Komen people feel -- rationally or otherwise -- that tacking to the right will make religious rightists, teabaggers, and Fox News watchers give so much money to them, on an ongoing basis, that they'll come out ahead of where they've been, and never miss the support they're losing now? Remember that the right-wing media could try to turn this into a new front in the mythical "war on religion," particularly targeting corporations that try to sever ties with Komen. Planned Parenthood is getting a bump now from our side, but this could become a long-term project of the right. Maybe Handel got the leaders of Komen thinking that the free publicity would be worth its weight in gold. And given the relentlessness of the right, I'm not sure that's irrational.
****
UPDATE: Well, Komen has now reversed itself. I still wonder if Karen Handel walked into Komen last year with a bad case of epistemic closure and persuaded the rest of Komen's leadership that this was a good idea (or just pushed some people around, acting on her worldview). The fact that this proved to be a terrible strategy doesn't preclude the possibility that Handel thought it was a clever and brilliant strategy, and doesn't preclude the possibility that she brought other people around to that point of view.
Oh, and:
Komen says they will allow @PPact to apply for future grants. NOT that they'll continue grants.
Which appears to be true -- current grants will be funded, and then Planned Parenthood will be allowed to apply for future grants, but we'll see if PP continues to be funded. So the wingnuttery may well have been been postponed, not abandoned.
The Daily Caller tells us that Susan G. Komen for the Cure is claiming a 100% increase in donations over the past two days, following Komen's decision to stop supporting Planned Parenthood. After reading that, and reading Jeffrey Goldberg's report on the steps that led to Komen's decision, I have to wonder: was this just a cave-in to right-wing pressure, or an expression of new VP Karen Handel's wingnuttery -- or was it an attempt to make right-wing pressure groups' lemons into lemonade by beginning the process of making Komen a pet cause of the right?
I know that Planned Parenthood has also seen an uptick in donations -- but I'm not sure our side can match the right in passion for fighting the culture war. Is it possible that the Komen people feel -- rationally or otherwise -- that tacking to the right will make religious rightists, teabaggers, and Fox News watchers give so much money to them, on an ongoing basis, that they'll come out ahead of where they've been, and never miss the support they're losing now? Remember that the right-wing media could try to turn this into a new front in the mythical "war on religion," particularly targeting corporations that try to sever ties with Komen. Planned Parenthood is getting a bump now from our side, but this could become a long-term project of the right. Maybe Handel got the leaders of Komen thinking that the free publicity would be worth its weight in gold. And given the relentlessness of the right, I'm not sure that's irrational.
****
UPDATE: Well, Komen has now reversed itself. I still wonder if Karen Handel walked into Komen last year with a bad case of epistemic closure and persuaded the rest of Komen's leadership that this was a good idea (or just pushed some people around, acting on her worldview). The fact that this proved to be a terrible strategy doesn't preclude the possibility that Handel thought it was a clever and brilliant strategy, and doesn't preclude the possibility that she brought other people around to that point of view.
Oh, and:
Komen says they will allow @PPact to apply for future grants. NOT that they'll continue grants.
Which appears to be true -- current grants will be funded, and then Planned Parenthood will be allowed to apply for future grants, but we'll see if PP continues to be funded. So the wingnuttery may well have been been postponed, not abandoned.
IN CASE YOU WERE WONDERING HOW "MODERATE" MITT WOULD DEAL WITH A TEABAG CONGRESS...
Some insider pundits believe it's likely, or at least possible, that Mitt Romney will govern from the right-center if he becomes president, even if teabaggers and other far-rightists control one of both houses of Congress. But if what David Corn writes about Romney and the Trump endorsement is true, we have our answer to that question, and it isn't pretty: Mitt, if you can't stand up to Donald Trump....
A day after Mitt Romney was slammed from all sides for declaring he's not "concerned with the very poor" ... why would he accept an endorsement from celebrity-birther-.001-percenter Donald Trump and appear at the magnate's Las Vegas casino to do so?
... Romney may not have had a choice. This morning, several media outfits -- Politico, the New York Times, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- were reporting that Trump was going to endorse Newt Gingrich. This suggests The Donald was talking to both camps to boost his leverage as he was negotiating a deal. (Quelle surprise!)
The Romney camp had to worry that a Trump endorsement of Gingrich would hurt the front-runner's efforts to keep Gingrich from mounting a full-scale Tea Party rebellion against Romney.... Winning Trump's seal (or bark) of approval would certainly have helped Gingrich in this endeavor and, undoubtedly, caused the commentariat to question whether Romney really could win over the party's conservative base....
To prevent that, Romney needed to be hired (politically) by Trump. And it's not hard to imagine Trump laying down a demand: if I endorse you, you better damn well hold my hand in public. So what's a rich guy gonna do? He will allowed himself to be played by Trump, to be his sidekick, if only for the moment. This shows that Romney cannot escape the gravitational pull of GOP craziness....
You know what else it shows? That Mitt Romney is a freaking coward. He's up by 20 points in the Nevada polls with less than 48 hours to go before the caucusing starts. Coming up soon are states where he has a natural advantage -- Michigan, Maine -- followed by big-money Super Tuesday. He's winning. So why doesn't he have the guts to tell Trump where he can stick his endorsement if it comes at a painful, humiliating cost? I know Trump could theoretically make Romney's life miserable in the fall by mounting a third-party run, but does anyone seriously think he was ever going to do anything other than tease us with that prospect? And with tea party heroes and heroines going every which way in this campaign -- Sharron Angle endorsing Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter continuing to cheerlead for Romney -- why assume that Trump is the Pied Piper of Teabaggia?
If Romney doesn't have the guts to stand up to Trump, he won't have the guts to stand up to the congressional tea party crowd or Al Qaeda. What a gutless wonder.
Some insider pundits believe it's likely, or at least possible, that Mitt Romney will govern from the right-center if he becomes president, even if teabaggers and other far-rightists control one of both houses of Congress. But if what David Corn writes about Romney and the Trump endorsement is true, we have our answer to that question, and it isn't pretty: Mitt, if you can't stand up to Donald Trump....
A day after Mitt Romney was slammed from all sides for declaring he's not "concerned with the very poor" ... why would he accept an endorsement from celebrity-birther-.001-percenter Donald Trump and appear at the magnate's Las Vegas casino to do so?
... Romney may not have had a choice. This morning, several media outfits -- Politico, the New York Times, and the Atlanta Journal-Constitution -- were reporting that Trump was going to endorse Newt Gingrich. This suggests The Donald was talking to both camps to boost his leverage as he was negotiating a deal. (Quelle surprise!)
The Romney camp had to worry that a Trump endorsement of Gingrich would hurt the front-runner's efforts to keep Gingrich from mounting a full-scale Tea Party rebellion against Romney.... Winning Trump's seal (or bark) of approval would certainly have helped Gingrich in this endeavor and, undoubtedly, caused the commentariat to question whether Romney really could win over the party's conservative base....
To prevent that, Romney needed to be hired (politically) by Trump. And it's not hard to imagine Trump laying down a demand: if I endorse you, you better damn well hold my hand in public. So what's a rich guy gonna do? He will allowed himself to be played by Trump, to be his sidekick, if only for the moment. This shows that Romney cannot escape the gravitational pull of GOP craziness....
You know what else it shows? That Mitt Romney is a freaking coward. He's up by 20 points in the Nevada polls with less than 48 hours to go before the caucusing starts. Coming up soon are states where he has a natural advantage -- Michigan, Maine -- followed by big-money Super Tuesday. He's winning. So why doesn't he have the guts to tell Trump where he can stick his endorsement if it comes at a painful, humiliating cost? I know Trump could theoretically make Romney's life miserable in the fall by mounting a third-party run, but does anyone seriously think he was ever going to do anything other than tease us with that prospect? And with tea party heroes and heroines going every which way in this campaign -- Sharron Angle endorsing Rick Santorum, Ann Coulter continuing to cheerlead for Romney -- why assume that Trump is the Pied Piper of Teabaggia?
If Romney doesn't have the guts to stand up to Trump, he won't have the guts to stand up to the congressional tea party crowd or Al Qaeda. What a gutless wonder.
NEW MEME: WHEN ROMNEY SAYS SOMETHING EMBARRASSING, IT'S THE MEDIA'S FAULT FOR LISTENING
You expect Jennifer Rubin, who clearly has a desperate desire to be Romney's C.J. Cregg or Ted Sorensen, to say that the fallout from Mitt Romney's "I'm not concerned about the very poor" remark is the media's fault, but the meme has spread to NPR as well.
Rubin:
Romney as the nominee will be flyspecked and criticized over every word. He needs to avoid actual gaffes. But he can't keep the media from editing out all the inconvenient parts of every sentence, paragraph and interview.... Perhaps a less crazed approach to covering Romney would restore their credibility.
The hosts of NPR's Morning Edition:
STEVE INSKEEP: Here's a view of the news media that's cynical but all too often true.
RENEE MONTAGNE: Reporters, it's said, look for stories that confirm stereotypes about people, and if you're a very wealthy presidential candidate with an elite background and a reputation for a tin ear, reporters will listen extremely closely to your offhand remarks about poor people.
First of all, as I said yesterday, it wasn't an "offhand remark," and Romney has said the same thing in the past. (The reporter whose story Inskeep and Montagne were introducing actually made the latter point.)
Second of all (I'm talking to you, Jennifer), Romney's point wasn't taken out of context. He really was saying that the very poor have it just fine, or would with a little tinkering we can do in our spare time.
But what's really toxic about this -- and Inskeep and Montagne are usually better than this (though Rubin obviously isn't) -- is that it suggests that we shouldn't listen to the words politicians actually utter, and we especially shouldn't listen if what they say confirms our impressions of them. How far should we extend that? If Newt Gingrich says something grandiose and bombastic, or Sarah Palin says something in an ill-informed and tongue-tied way, should we ignore it because it's not polite to pay attention when the character flaws we've detected in people who'd like to govern our country actually manifest themselves?
This isn't what these people are saying. Rubin, of course, is saying, "For the love of God, please vote for the guy I've all but openly endorsed, and pay no attention to any evil bastards who point out his flaws." But Inskeep and Montagne are saying that we must limit our attacks on the Republican Establishment's chosen standard-bearer for the party because suggesting that a leader of the GOP is beyond the pale rends the social fabric. As in an abusive household, it's always necessary to maintain the fiction that the leaders of the GOP are upright and respectable, not abusive or pathological or utterly lacking in empathy. We can't say there's something seriously wrong with them. These are the rules.
You expect Jennifer Rubin, who clearly has a desperate desire to be Romney's C.J. Cregg or Ted Sorensen, to say that the fallout from Mitt Romney's "I'm not concerned about the very poor" remark is the media's fault, but the meme has spread to NPR as well.
Rubin:
Romney as the nominee will be flyspecked and criticized over every word. He needs to avoid actual gaffes. But he can't keep the media from editing out all the inconvenient parts of every sentence, paragraph and interview.... Perhaps a less crazed approach to covering Romney would restore their credibility.
The hosts of NPR's Morning Edition:
STEVE INSKEEP: Here's a view of the news media that's cynical but all too often true.
RENEE MONTAGNE: Reporters, it's said, look for stories that confirm stereotypes about people, and if you're a very wealthy presidential candidate with an elite background and a reputation for a tin ear, reporters will listen extremely closely to your offhand remarks about poor people.
First of all, as I said yesterday, it wasn't an "offhand remark," and Romney has said the same thing in the past. (The reporter whose story Inskeep and Montagne were introducing actually made the latter point.)
Second of all (I'm talking to you, Jennifer), Romney's point wasn't taken out of context. He really was saying that the very poor have it just fine, or would with a little tinkering we can do in our spare time.
But what's really toxic about this -- and Inskeep and Montagne are usually better than this (though Rubin obviously isn't) -- is that it suggests that we shouldn't listen to the words politicians actually utter, and we especially shouldn't listen if what they say confirms our impressions of them. How far should we extend that? If Newt Gingrich says something grandiose and bombastic, or Sarah Palin says something in an ill-informed and tongue-tied way, should we ignore it because it's not polite to pay attention when the character flaws we've detected in people who'd like to govern our country actually manifest themselves?
This isn't what these people are saying. Rubin, of course, is saying, "For the love of God, please vote for the guy I've all but openly endorsed, and pay no attention to any evil bastards who point out his flaws." But Inskeep and Montagne are saying that we must limit our attacks on the Republican Establishment's chosen standard-bearer for the party because suggesting that a leader of the GOP is beyond the pale rends the social fabric. As in an abusive household, it's always necessary to maintain the fiction that the leaders of the GOP are upright and respectable, not abusive or pathological or utterly lacking in empathy. We can't say there's something seriously wrong with them. These are the rules.
IF GINGRICH REALLY WANTS TO PUNISH ROMNEY, WHY NOT RUN THIRD PARTY -- WITH TRUMP? (Update: oops.)
(UPDATE: Is this post already invalid? CNN now says Trump will endorse Romney. Still, the third-party idea still seems valid, if vengeance is Newt's goal....)
Well, you probably know this:
Word started leaking out in Las Vegas earlier that Donald Trump's "major announcement" is to back Newt Gingrich, and sources are confirming it to POLITICO.
The announcement is expected to come at an 12:30 p.m. press conference tomorrow that The Donald is holding.
The move is a bit unexpected since Trump had talked even within the past few days about how he may be compelled to run a third-party campaign of his own if he didn't see a Republican candidate who he thought could beat President Barack Obama....
One thought crosses my mind: Trump is willing to endorse Gingrich but he waited until after Florida? There's got to be a huge bloc of New York-born Floridians who still remember Trump fondly as that nice young man who fixed up the skating rink in Central Park. Poor Newt.
Now? I don't know if this really helps Gingrich -- doesn't Newt already have the pro-grifter vote sewn up? Is this going to add any new supporters?
But it brings to mind something I've been thinking for a while. We know Gingrich isn't going to win the GOP nomination -- upcoming contests include states such as Maine and Michigan where Romney has ties, plus Nevada, where 25% of 2008 caucus-goers were Mormon, and then comes Super Tuesday, which is a pure money contest like Florida, except across multiple states -- so if Newt's goal is vengeance against Romney, how much longer is he going to be effective at that?
Whereas if he ran third-party -- perhaps pursuing the Americans Elect ballot line, and taking his crazy supporters with him -- he could not only punish Romney all year, he could destroy any chance that Romney could win this thing.
And hey, why not make the ticket Gingrich/Trump? As Public Policy Polling noted (in a December survey that showed Romney leading President Obama head-to-head):
One thing that could confound Romney's prospects is if a strong third party candidate entered the race. We find that pretty much all of the big names who have been mentioned for potential independent bids would take a lot more voters from Romney than Obama.
The strongest potential independent candidate we tested is Donald Trump who gets 19% in a three way contest with Obama at 45% and Romney at 31%. The folks who say they would support Trump go for Romney 71-10 in a straight up head to head with Obama.
So there's your ticket! And I think it could be deemed technically in compliance with the Americans Elect requirement that the two people on the ticket be from different parties, because Trump became an independent in December.
As I've said before, I'd happily join Americans Elect just to get Gingrich the ballot line. Hell, if that wasn't possible, I'd circulate petitions for Gingrich/Trump if legally allowed to do so, and I'd urge all of you to do the same. Operation Chaos II! Let's do this!
(UPDATE: Is this post already invalid? CNN now says Trump will endorse Romney. Still, the third-party idea still seems valid, if vengeance is Newt's goal....)
Well, you probably know this:
Word started leaking out in Las Vegas earlier that Donald Trump's "major announcement" is to back Newt Gingrich, and sources are confirming it to POLITICO.
The announcement is expected to come at an 12:30 p.m. press conference tomorrow that The Donald is holding.
The move is a bit unexpected since Trump had talked even within the past few days about how he may be compelled to run a third-party campaign of his own if he didn't see a Republican candidate who he thought could beat President Barack Obama....
One thought crosses my mind: Trump is willing to endorse Gingrich but he waited until after Florida? There's got to be a huge bloc of New York-born Floridians who still remember Trump fondly as that nice young man who fixed up the skating rink in Central Park. Poor Newt.
Now? I don't know if this really helps Gingrich -- doesn't Newt already have the pro-grifter vote sewn up? Is this going to add any new supporters?
But it brings to mind something I've been thinking for a while. We know Gingrich isn't going to win the GOP nomination -- upcoming contests include states such as Maine and Michigan where Romney has ties, plus Nevada, where 25% of 2008 caucus-goers were Mormon, and then comes Super Tuesday, which is a pure money contest like Florida, except across multiple states -- so if Newt's goal is vengeance against Romney, how much longer is he going to be effective at that?
Whereas if he ran third-party -- perhaps pursuing the Americans Elect ballot line, and taking his crazy supporters with him -- he could not only punish Romney all year, he could destroy any chance that Romney could win this thing.
And hey, why not make the ticket Gingrich/Trump? As Public Policy Polling noted (in a December survey that showed Romney leading President Obama head-to-head):
One thing that could confound Romney's prospects is if a strong third party candidate entered the race. We find that pretty much all of the big names who have been mentioned for potential independent bids would take a lot more voters from Romney than Obama.
The strongest potential independent candidate we tested is Donald Trump who gets 19% in a three way contest with Obama at 45% and Romney at 31%. The folks who say they would support Trump go for Romney 71-10 in a straight up head to head with Obama.
So there's your ticket! And I think it could be deemed technically in compliance with the Americans Elect requirement that the two people on the ticket be from different parties, because Trump became an independent in December.
As I've said before, I'd happily join Americans Elect just to get Gingrich the ballot line. Hell, if that wasn't possible, I'd circulate petitions for Gingrich/Trump if legally allowed to do so, and I'd urge all of you to do the same. Operation Chaos II! Let's do this!
Wednesday, February 01, 2012
WILL NO ONE SHED A TEAR FOR THE POOR, PERSECUTED PLUTOCRATS?
Ted Olson may support gay marriage now, but he's still a right-wing hack. Here he is on the Wall Street Journal editorial page literally describing the Obama administration's response to the Koch brothers' anti-Obama jihad as McCarthyism:
How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?
What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president's surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president's party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly -- and accurately -- stated that you have no involvement?
Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political punching bag by the president's re-election team. This is precisely what has happened to Charles and David Koch, even though they are private citizens, and neither is a candidate for the president's or anyone else's office....
When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable bullying, oppression and slander from his powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in disgrace."McCarthyism" defined by Webster's as the "use of unfair investigative and accusatory methods to suppress opposition," will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army counsel Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency?" are words that evoke the McCarthy era and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him....
The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men. It is time for the public to ask those engaged in these practices, "Have you no sense of decency?"
Your reaction to the first couple of paragraphs may be to compare the supposedly totalitarian tactics of the White House to those of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisitors: Poke them with ... the derogatory speculative innuendo! And your inability to shed a tear for the poor, suffering victims of this persecution may be reinforced by the knowledge that the net worth of Charles and David Koch has risen from $19 billion each in the last year of the Bush administration to $25 billion each last fall -- an increase of more than 31 percent over three years. If that's McCarthyism, then put my name on a blacklist -- please.
Ol' Perfesser Instapundit has a curious response to this:
...I was talking to a CEO last year -- an Obama supporter no less -- who told me he was amazed at how openly Administration officials threatened to use media demonization if he didn't play ball....
But now some of those officials have to be thinking that the people they threaten will be around after Obama's gone, and they'll remember.
So if corporate CEOs take vengeance on administration officials after Obama leaves office, hey, no prob! In other words, the reaction of Glenn Reynolds to the notion of alleged McCarthyism is like his reaction to a lot of other things: it's fine if it's privatized.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
Ted Olson may support gay marriage now, but he's still a right-wing hack. Here he is on the Wall Street Journal editorial page literally describing the Obama administration's response to the Koch brothers' anti-Obama jihad as McCarthyism:
How would you feel if aides to the president of the United States singled you out by name for attack, and if you were featured prominently in the president's re-election campaign as an enemy of the people?
What would you do if the White House engaged in derogatory speculative innuendo about the integrity of your tax returns? Suppose also that the president's surrogates and allies in the media regularly attacked you, sullied your reputation and questioned your integrity. On top of all of that, what if a leading member of the president's party in Congress demanded your appearance before a congressional committee this week so that you could be interrogated about the Keystone XL oil pipeline project in which you have repeatedly -- and accurately -- stated that you have no involvement?
Consider that all this is happening because you have been selected as an attractive political punching bag by the president's re-election team. This is precisely what has happened to Charles and David Koch, even though they are private citizens, and neither is a candidate for the president's or anyone else's office....
When Joseph McCarthy engaged in comparable bullying, oppression and slander from his powerful position in the Senate, he was censured by his colleagues and died in disgrace."McCarthyism" defined by Webster's as the "use of unfair investigative and accusatory methods to suppress opposition," will forever be synonymous with un-Americanism. Army counsel Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency?" are words that evoke the McCarthy era and diminish the reputations of his colleagues who did nothing to stand up to him....
The misuse of government power to damage or demean one's political enemies is abhorrent and the very antithesis of a free society and a government of laws, not men. It is time for the public to ask those engaged in these practices, "Have you no sense of decency?"
Your reaction to the first couple of paragraphs may be to compare the supposedly totalitarian tactics of the White House to those of Monty Python's Spanish Inquisitors: Poke them with ... the derogatory speculative innuendo! And your inability to shed a tear for the poor, suffering victims of this persecution may be reinforced by the knowledge that the net worth of Charles and David Koch has risen from $19 billion each in the last year of the Bush administration to $25 billion each last fall -- an increase of more than 31 percent over three years. If that's McCarthyism, then put my name on a blacklist -- please.
Ol' Perfesser Instapundit has a curious response to this:
...I was talking to a CEO last year -- an Obama supporter no less -- who told me he was amazed at how openly Administration officials threatened to use media demonization if he didn't play ball....
But now some of those officials have to be thinking that the people they threaten will be around after Obama's gone, and they'll remember.
So if corporate CEOs take vengeance on administration officials after Obama leaves office, hey, no prob! In other words, the reaction of Glenn Reynolds to the notion of alleged McCarthyism is like his reaction to a lot of other things: it's fine if it's privatized.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
THAT WAS NO GAFFE. THAT WAS A BRAND-NEW TALKING POINT.
(Update: or maybe not so brand-new.)
This is being called a gaffe, but when you get an accidental gaffe from Mitt Romney, believe me, you know it -- when he slips up and says something even he knows is embarrassing, he doesn't repeat it. In this case he did repeat it, carefully and deliberately. So maybe this is a terrible campaign miscalculation, but, in the usual sense of the term, it's not a gaffe:
After winning the Florida primary, GOP presidential nominee hopeful Mitt Romney explains to CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien that he is focused on a particular portion of the American population in his campaign.
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling." ...
Via Think Progress, here's the clip. I'll explain what I mean below.
Romney says:
By the way, I'm in this race 'cause I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
This is lite dog-whistling. Note that the very poor (and, yes, the very rich) are not, according to Romney, Americans. Romney is codedly implying that a certain Kenyan Muslim socialist Negro with ties to Goldman Sachs and George Soros is, in fact, excessively concerned with the needs of the people at the very top and the very bottom. Maybe it's not racial dog-whistling precisely, but it's Beck-like -- at the deepest level, it taps into the notion that rootless-cosmopolitan sophisticates like Obama (and Soros) wallow in government-linked high-finance riches and the decadence of the lower orders simultaneously. It's what you get when you take the overt ethnic stereotyping out of the early-twentieth-century notion of the International Jew foisting rampaging, jazz-inflamed Negroes on poor white Christians down on the farm.
Soledad O'Brien questions Romney's statement and he testily replies (addressing her as "Soledad" in the pointed way that Gingrich addressed "Juan"?):
Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.
I think the challenge right now -- we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor. And there's no question it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign -- you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich -- that's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor -- that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans -- retirees living on Social Security, people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years.
See? He keeps repeating it. It's a rehearsed line. It's a talking point he wants to take into the campaign. He wants to divide and conquer; he wants middle-class people who've had the rug pulled out from under them in this recession to feel that their interests are in opposition to the interests of "the very poor." He wants them to think that President Obama is excessively concerned with "the very poor" at their expense.
Will this work? I don't know. But it's no slip-up. It's no gaffe.
(And yes, he did say "Democrat Party." So when are we going to start calling it the "Republic Party" at every possible opportunity? I'm ready.)
*****
UPDATE: Well, maybe it's not a brand-new talking point -- Bill Scher notes that Romney said the same thing in October:
In October, I reported here that Romney made this exact same argument while stumping in Iowa: "In our country, the people who need the help most are not the poor, who have a safety net, not the rich, who are doing just fine, but the middle class."
Video at the link. (Hat tip: Pam Spaulding.)
(Update: or maybe not so brand-new.)
This is being called a gaffe, but when you get an accidental gaffe from Mitt Romney, believe me, you know it -- when he slips up and says something even he knows is embarrassing, he doesn't repeat it. In this case he did repeat it, carefully and deliberately. So maybe this is a terrible campaign miscalculation, but, in the usual sense of the term, it's not a gaffe:
After winning the Florida primary, GOP presidential nominee hopeful Mitt Romney explains to CNN anchor Soledad O'Brien that he is focused on a particular portion of the American population in his campaign.
Romney says, "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs a repair , I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich.... I'm concerned about the very heart of America, the 90-95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling." ...
Via Think Progress, here's the clip. I'll explain what I mean below.
Romney says:
By the way, I'm in this race 'cause I care about Americans. I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there. If it needs repair, I'll fix it. I'm not concerned about the very rich. They're doing just fine. I'm concerned about the very heart of the America, the 90, 95 percent of Americans who right now are struggling. I'll continue to take that message across the nation.
This is lite dog-whistling. Note that the very poor (and, yes, the very rich) are not, according to Romney, Americans. Romney is codedly implying that a certain Kenyan Muslim socialist Negro with ties to Goldman Sachs and George Soros is, in fact, excessively concerned with the needs of the people at the very top and the very bottom. Maybe it's not racial dog-whistling precisely, but it's Beck-like -- at the deepest level, it taps into the notion that rootless-cosmopolitan sophisticates like Obama (and Soros) wallow in government-linked high-finance riches and the decadence of the lower orders simultaneously. It's what you get when you take the overt ethnic stereotyping out of the early-twentieth-century notion of the International Jew foisting rampaging, jazz-inflamed Negroes on poor white Christians down on the farm.
Soledad O'Brien questions Romney's statement and he testily replies (addressing her as "Soledad" in the pointed way that Gingrich addressed "Juan"?):
Well, you had to finish the sentence, Soledad. I said I'm not concerned about the very poor that have a safety net, but if it has holes in it, I will repair them.
I think the challenge right now -- we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor. And there's no question it's not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused is on middle-income Americans. My campaign -- you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich -- that's not my focus. You can focus on the very poor -- that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans -- retirees living on Social Security, people who can't find work, folks that have kids that are getting ready to go to college. These are the people who've been most badly hurt during the Obama years.
See? He keeps repeating it. It's a rehearsed line. It's a talking point he wants to take into the campaign. He wants to divide and conquer; he wants middle-class people who've had the rug pulled out from under them in this recession to feel that their interests are in opposition to the interests of "the very poor." He wants them to think that President Obama is excessively concerned with "the very poor" at their expense.
Will this work? I don't know. But it's no slip-up. It's no gaffe.
(And yes, he did say "Democrat Party." So when are we going to start calling it the "Republic Party" at every possible opportunity? I'm ready.)
*****
UPDATE: Well, maybe it's not a brand-new talking point -- Bill Scher notes that Romney said the same thing in October:
In October, I reported here that Romney made this exact same argument while stumping in Iowa: "In our country, the people who need the help most are not the poor, who have a safety net, not the rich, who are doing just fine, but the middle class."
Video at the link. (Hat tip: Pam Spaulding.)
GOSH, I WONDER WHAT PERCENTAGE OF ROMNEY'S ADS AGAINST OBAMA WILL BE NEGATIVE
You've probably seen this stat:
Negative ads were so prevalent in the final week before the Florida primary that they accounted for 92 percent of all campaign commercials that ran....
Mr. Gingrich, outspent and underfinanced, was the primary target.
The bulk of the ads were run by Mr. Romney and his PAC, Restore Our Future, which spent a combined $15.4 million on television and radio advertising in Florida....
The tone and content of the commercials were almost as lopsided. Of all the spots that ran in Florida for the last week, 68 percent were attacks on Mr. Gingrich, Kantar Media found....
Mustang Bobby writes:
Besides a lot of money, the other thing that Mitt Romney has going for him is that he is running against thoroughly unlikeable opponents. Mr. Romney is no Mr. Personality, but the striking thing is how lucky he was to run against people like Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, all of whom generated a hateful vibe, even for Republicans.... I think one of the big factors in his win last night was that Florida Republicans saw Newt Gingrich bombasting on TV and thought Wow, do I want to watch that asshole for the next four years?
I strongly disagree with this. Republican voters? They fall for Santorum's aw-shucks Boy Scout act and think Bachmann is just a nice lady who hates gay people only because she has such a deep, abiding love for Jesus and freedom. As for Gingrich, GOP voters may have ultimately soured on him, but watching him for four years is precisely what they want, or wanted for quite a while. They wanted to watch him smite Barack Obama with his mighty tongue on continuous loop all through the fall, and then watch him smite reporters and brown people and Harry Reid endlessly after that. It's their version of a first-person shooter game, and they they wanted to spend the rest of their lives playing it. I think they still feel that way -- or at least they still secretly hanker for the Newt they saw in the debates with Juan Williams and John King, the one who seemed as if he couldn't be stopped. Romney stopped him, which made him look weak, and vulnerable to the Obama campaign, so they reluctantly gave up on their view of him as a conquering Visigoth. But they still want a conquering Visigoth.
As Charlie Pierce notes, they got a semi-Visigoth in Romney:
Very early [last] evening, the MSNBC embed with the Romney campaign opined that following Romney around the last couple of days, when it became clear that the election was in the bag, was something like watching an episode of Dexter, the TV show about the charming-as-hell serial killer.... In addition to being a singularly appalling liar, Mitt Romney also has all the basic qualities of a considerable bully. He ruthlessly shoved aside a hapless but nonetheless incumbent Republican governor in order get himself elected in Massachusetts. You've seen him have to rein it in a little on the debate stage. (Believe me, there's more of that to come.) And you saw it on Tuesday night, when Willard accepted victory, and then launched into his usual litany of lies about the president (the president doesn't "want to amass record deficits" -- honestly, no, he doesn't) -- spiced with just the right amount of upper-crust sneering.
I was particularly amused by this little aside: "Like his colleagues in the faculty lounge who think they know better, President Obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy."
... But it was how Romney delivered the speech that was so revelatory. This is a rich kid who likes flogging The Help. There were just enough shit-eating, country-club grins as he delivered his rancid material to show you what the guy must have been like in those golden moments when he realized that there was more dough in wrecking a company than in investing in it.
Even after twenty-plus years of Limbaugh and fifteen or so of Fox, the ugliest presidential campaign of modern times is still arguably the Poppy Bush campaign of 1988. Well, I think Romney's campaign this year is going to be that Lee Atwater/Floyd Brown campaign on steroids, specifically super-PAC steroids. It's not just Romney's personal and demographic similarity to Bush the Elder. The "faculty lounge" crack quoted by Pierce is an echo of Bush's assertion that Michael Dukakis's policies were "botn in Harvard Yard's boutique." The willingness to brazenly fake patriotic sanctimony -- see Romney's incessant invocation of "America the Beautiful" -- precisely echoes the visits to flag factories and other showoffy efforts Bush made to distinguish himself from the ACLU-invoking opponent whose wife was scurrilously rumored to have burned an American flag.
And mock that "America the Beautiful" stuff if you will, but that plus the new habit the Republicans have of beginning debates with the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem tells me that Romney's going to jab President Obama on patriotism until he draws at least a little bit of blood. I can easily imagine him turning to Obama on a debate stage and challenging him to recite second and third verses of some patriotic song or other; we Jon Stewart watchers will chortle, but it might actually connect in Appalachia. I have no doubt that Romney would stoop to that McCarthyite low.
And the ads -- remember that the Willie Horton ad came not from the official Bush campaign but from an ostensibly independent outside group. (Yes, Citizens United.) It's going to happen again. We're not going to get birtherism, but we're going to get distortions and insinuations that approach birther level -- whatever the right thinks will go just to the limit and not quite give the mainstream press the vapors. It's going to be ugly. It's going to be every stereotype from the Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism. It's going to be patriotism and race and gun-grabbing and Soros and Molotov cocktails tossed to a Grateful Dead soundtrack. Romney and his super PAC aren't going to refrain from any line of attack.
Will it work? I don't know. Obama's no slouch. But it will be exceedingly nasty.
You've probably seen this stat:
Negative ads were so prevalent in the final week before the Florida primary that they accounted for 92 percent of all campaign commercials that ran....
Mr. Gingrich, outspent and underfinanced, was the primary target.
The bulk of the ads were run by Mr. Romney and his PAC, Restore Our Future, which spent a combined $15.4 million on television and radio advertising in Florida....
The tone and content of the commercials were almost as lopsided. Of all the spots that ran in Florida for the last week, 68 percent were attacks on Mr. Gingrich, Kantar Media found....
Mustang Bobby writes:
Besides a lot of money, the other thing that Mitt Romney has going for him is that he is running against thoroughly unlikeable opponents. Mr. Romney is no Mr. Personality, but the striking thing is how lucky he was to run against people like Newt Gingrich, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and Rick Santorum, all of whom generated a hateful vibe, even for Republicans.... I think one of the big factors in his win last night was that Florida Republicans saw Newt Gingrich bombasting on TV and thought Wow, do I want to watch that asshole for the next four years?
I strongly disagree with this. Republican voters? They fall for Santorum's aw-shucks Boy Scout act and think Bachmann is just a nice lady who hates gay people only because she has such a deep, abiding love for Jesus and freedom. As for Gingrich, GOP voters may have ultimately soured on him, but watching him for four years is precisely what they want, or wanted for quite a while. They wanted to watch him smite Barack Obama with his mighty tongue on continuous loop all through the fall, and then watch him smite reporters and brown people and Harry Reid endlessly after that. It's their version of a first-person shooter game, and they they wanted to spend the rest of their lives playing it. I think they still feel that way -- or at least they still secretly hanker for the Newt they saw in the debates with Juan Williams and John King, the one who seemed as if he couldn't be stopped. Romney stopped him, which made him look weak, and vulnerable to the Obama campaign, so they reluctantly gave up on their view of him as a conquering Visigoth. But they still want a conquering Visigoth.
As Charlie Pierce notes, they got a semi-Visigoth in Romney:
Very early [last] evening, the MSNBC embed with the Romney campaign opined that following Romney around the last couple of days, when it became clear that the election was in the bag, was something like watching an episode of Dexter, the TV show about the charming-as-hell serial killer.... In addition to being a singularly appalling liar, Mitt Romney also has all the basic qualities of a considerable bully. He ruthlessly shoved aside a hapless but nonetheless incumbent Republican governor in order get himself elected in Massachusetts. You've seen him have to rein it in a little on the debate stage. (Believe me, there's more of that to come.) And you saw it on Tuesday night, when Willard accepted victory, and then launched into his usual litany of lies about the president (the president doesn't "want to amass record deficits" -- honestly, no, he doesn't) -- spiced with just the right amount of upper-crust sneering.
I was particularly amused by this little aside: "Like his colleagues in the faculty lounge who think they know better, President Obama demonizes and denigrates almost every sector of our economy."
... But it was how Romney delivered the speech that was so revelatory. This is a rich kid who likes flogging The Help. There were just enough shit-eating, country-club grins as he delivered his rancid material to show you what the guy must have been like in those golden moments when he realized that there was more dough in wrecking a company than in investing in it.
Even after twenty-plus years of Limbaugh and fifteen or so of Fox, the ugliest presidential campaign of modern times is still arguably the Poppy Bush campaign of 1988. Well, I think Romney's campaign this year is going to be that Lee Atwater/Floyd Brown campaign on steroids, specifically super-PAC steroids. It's not just Romney's personal and demographic similarity to Bush the Elder. The "faculty lounge" crack quoted by Pierce is an echo of Bush's assertion that Michael Dukakis's policies were "botn in Harvard Yard's boutique." The willingness to brazenly fake patriotic sanctimony -- see Romney's incessant invocation of "America the Beautiful" -- precisely echoes the visits to flag factories and other showoffy efforts Bush made to distinguish himself from the ACLU-invoking opponent whose wife was scurrilously rumored to have burned an American flag.
And mock that "America the Beautiful" stuff if you will, but that plus the new habit the Republicans have of beginning debates with the Pledge of Allegiance or the national anthem tells me that Romney's going to jab President Obama on patriotism until he draws at least a little bit of blood. I can easily imagine him turning to Obama on a debate stage and challenging him to recite second and third verses of some patriotic song or other; we Jon Stewart watchers will chortle, but it might actually connect in Appalachia. I have no doubt that Romney would stoop to that McCarthyite low.
And the ads -- remember that the Willie Horton ad came not from the official Bush campaign but from an ostensibly independent outside group. (Yes, Citizens United.) It's going to happen again. We're not going to get birtherism, but we're going to get distortions and insinuations that approach birther level -- whatever the right thinks will go just to the limit and not quite give the mainstream press the vapors. It's going to be ugly. It's going to be every stereotype from the Protocols of the Elders of Liberalism. It's going to be patriotism and race and gun-grabbing and Soros and Molotov cocktails tossed to a Grateful Dead soundtrack. Romney and his super PAC aren't going to refrain from any line of attack.
Will it work? I don't know. Obama's no slouch. But it will be exceedingly nasty.
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
SIX DEGREES OF "LIBERALS SUCK!"
A lot of people are very seriously pondering Charles Murray's new book, and the column David Brooks wrote about it today. I think it's somewhat of a waste of time to expend too much gray matter on Murray; I did my bit on Saturday. Short of reading Murray's book, if you want to assess what the guy is saying now, read the Wall Street Journal article he adapted from the book, as well as the article Adam Serwer wrote last May when Murray previewed the book in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. Or you can go straight to this Roy Edroso post, which is informative and much funnier than anything else I've recommended, and also contains a link to an are-you-oppressing-the-proles-with-your-elitism? quiz from the book.*
The most interesting aspect of Murray's current work is his focus on blue-collar whites; he clearly feels burned by the reception to The Bell Curve. But his change in focus isn't all that interesting -- really, it's just a different approach to one of the main items on the wingnut intellectuals' mission statement, which is: Whenever possible, endeavor to demonstrate that big-government liberalism and liberal cultural elitism are responsible for everything bad in the world, and that the richest plutocrats are blameless. You may have read that Murray blames the well-to-do for failing to wag their fingers sternly at blue-collar workers who quit their jobs and have kids out of wedlock -- but he's not blaming the truly well-to-do, and he's certainly not blaming them for the things they did to become well-to-do. As David Brooks says, citing Murray's book:
... there are vast behavioral gaps between the educated upper tribe (20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the country)....
Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog society's resources. But that's a distraction. The real social gap is between the top 20 percent and the lower 30 percent. The liberal members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are playing in driving inequality and unfairness.
So, see, it's not the people who actually decide where all the job openings are (China rather than the U.S. Rust Belt) who are to blame for the decline of blue-collar America -- it's the people who drink craft beers and avoid strip-mall restaurants who are at fault, just by dint of drinking craft beers and avoiding strip-mall restaurants. (No, really -- check out the quiz. Murray says that.)
But, um, how does this jibe with Murray's old thesis, that non-whites are simply less fit to function at the upper levels of society? Well, it doesn't matter whether it jibes -- it all functions like a parlor game, except one played with control of our dominant political narrative at stake. It's all in that statement I italicized above: if you're a right-wing "intellectual," your work has to proceed from the assumptions that the uber-elitists are blameless and that liberals bear 100% of the blame for everything. Then your task is to keep coming up with new, fresh, seemingly thought-provoking ways to connect these two premises. It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon -- it doesn't matter how you get to Kevin Bacon, it just matters whether you do it in a compelling way. Murray's winning the game right now. If he continues to win, the prize is control of our discourse on race and class for years to come.
****
*(Also see: Roy's follow-up on Murray and TBogg's two Murray skewerings.)
A lot of people are very seriously pondering Charles Murray's new book, and the column David Brooks wrote about it today. I think it's somewhat of a waste of time to expend too much gray matter on Murray; I did my bit on Saturday. Short of reading Murray's book, if you want to assess what the guy is saying now, read the Wall Street Journal article he adapted from the book, as well as the article Adam Serwer wrote last May when Murray previewed the book in a speech at the American Enterprise Institute. Or you can go straight to this Roy Edroso post, which is informative and much funnier than anything else I've recommended, and also contains a link to an are-you-oppressing-the-proles-with-your-elitism? quiz from the book.*
The most interesting aspect of Murray's current work is his focus on blue-collar whites; he clearly feels burned by the reception to The Bell Curve. But his change in focus isn't all that interesting -- really, it's just a different approach to one of the main items on the wingnut intellectuals' mission statement, which is: Whenever possible, endeavor to demonstrate that big-government liberalism and liberal cultural elitism are responsible for everything bad in the world, and that the richest plutocrats are blameless. You may have read that Murray blames the well-to-do for failing to wag their fingers sternly at blue-collar workers who quit their jobs and have kids out of wedlock -- but he's not blaming the truly well-to-do, and he's certainly not blaming them for the things they did to become well-to-do. As David Brooks says, citing Murray's book:
... there are vast behavioral gaps between the educated upper tribe (20 percent of the country) and the lower tribe (30 percent of the country)....
Democrats claim America is threatened by the financial elite, who hog society's resources. But that's a distraction. The real social gap is between the top 20 percent and the lower 30 percent. The liberal members of the upper tribe latch onto this top 1 percent narrative because it excuses them from the central role they themselves are playing in driving inequality and unfairness.
So, see, it's not the people who actually decide where all the job openings are (China rather than the U.S. Rust Belt) who are to blame for the decline of blue-collar America -- it's the people who drink craft beers and avoid strip-mall restaurants who are at fault, just by dint of drinking craft beers and avoiding strip-mall restaurants. (No, really -- check out the quiz. Murray says that.)
But, um, how does this jibe with Murray's old thesis, that non-whites are simply less fit to function at the upper levels of society? Well, it doesn't matter whether it jibes -- it all functions like a parlor game, except one played with control of our dominant political narrative at stake. It's all in that statement I italicized above: if you're a right-wing "intellectual," your work has to proceed from the assumptions that the uber-elitists are blameless and that liberals bear 100% of the blame for everything. Then your task is to keep coming up with new, fresh, seemingly thought-provoking ways to connect these two premises. It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon -- it doesn't matter how you get to Kevin Bacon, it just matters whether you do it in a compelling way. Murray's winning the game right now. If he continues to win, the prize is control of our discourse on race and class for years to come.
****
*(Also see: Roy's follow-up on Murray and TBogg's two Murray skewerings.)
NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER FINDS A STORY HE LIKES -- NEVER MIND THE FACTS
You might not be seeing a lot of evidence of this yet, but there's a very strong likelihood that, as the year progresses, mainstream political journalists will settle on what Bob Somerby famously called "a story they like" -- a story that offers a comforting narrative, facts be damned. The story will be that the Republican Party almost went over the edge with all that tea party craziness, but cooler heads prevailed: the "moderate" Mitt Romney won the presidential nomination and teabag-friendly presidential candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum) were rejected. The GOP is now safe as houses!
In a front-page New York Times story today, Michael Cooper asserts that the GOP appears to have gotten all that crazy stuff out of its system at the state level:
Second Year In, Republican Governors Moderate Tone
A year after a coterie of new Republican governors swept into the statehouses and put in place aggressive agendas to cut spending and curb union powers, sparking strong backlashes in many places, many of them are adopting decidedly more moderate tones as they begin their sophomore year in office.
... many of the new Republican governors who swept into office last year, taking aim at collective bargaining rights, are striking less confrontational notes as they begin the new year, at least judging by what they have been saying in their State of the State addresses.
But there are a few problems with Cooper's narrative -- as he himself notes:
Of course, governors do not always propose their toughest measures in their annual speeches to lawmakers. Last year, [Governor Scott] Walker of Wisconsin used his State of the State address to call on government workers to contribute more to their pension plans; he did not mention his plan to curb collective bargaining rights until later.
Oh yeah -- that.
Also:
To be sure, some governors -- both first-termers and veterans -- are still proposing measures that are sure to cause controversy this year.
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, proposed a major overhaul of the state's tax system that would lower tax rates but eliminate deductions and credits -- including popular ones, like deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions and tax credits for poor families....
And more laws that aim to curb the power of unions are being pursued in a number of states this year.
Unions and Democrats were thrown on the defensive this year in Indiana when [Governor Mitch] Daniels, serving in his second -- and last -- term, switched course and decided to support a bill to ban union contracts from requiring nonunion members to pay union dues....
In South Carolina, a right-to-work state whose unemployment rate remained at 9.5 percent in December, above the national average, Gov. Nikki R. Haley, a Republican beginning her second year in office, took a hard line on unions in her address to the Legislature. "I love that we are one of the least unionized states in the country," she said, calling it "an economic development tool unlike any other." She pledged to "make the unions understand full well that they are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina."
Teacher tenure continues to be a flashpoint in many states. The governors of New Jersey, South Dakota and Virginia all used their speeches this year to call for abolishing or weakening it....
But hey -- apart from all that, the GOP is really, really mellowing!
Except that's not true. Cooper doesn't even mention what's going on in Republican-dominated states with regard to abortion and reproductive rights. Here's a sample of January headlines from Google News:
Abortion Ban to Be Proposed in Kansas Legislature
Abortion Bills Fill Desks in Virginia Capitol
Florida Lawmakers Push Again to Restrict Abortions
New Hampshire Considers Defunding Planned Parenthood, Weakening Domestic Violence Laws
But that's not how the press wants to cover the GOP in the year of the Romney-Obama race. That's not how the press ever wants to cover the GOP -- the press never wants to acknowledge the party's extremism. The press wants to say that the party is fine, our two-party system is fine, and anything intemperate that Republicans have ever done is anomalous, and unrepresentative of the fine folks all insider journalists meet at cocktail parties. So we get stories like Cooper's.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
You might not be seeing a lot of evidence of this yet, but there's a very strong likelihood that, as the year progresses, mainstream political journalists will settle on what Bob Somerby famously called "a story they like" -- a story that offers a comforting narrative, facts be damned. The story will be that the Republican Party almost went over the edge with all that tea party craziness, but cooler heads prevailed: the "moderate" Mitt Romney won the presidential nomination and teabag-friendly presidential candidates (Bachmann, Perry, Gingrich, Santorum) were rejected. The GOP is now safe as houses!
In a front-page New York Times story today, Michael Cooper asserts that the GOP appears to have gotten all that crazy stuff out of its system at the state level:
Second Year In, Republican Governors Moderate Tone
A year after a coterie of new Republican governors swept into the statehouses and put in place aggressive agendas to cut spending and curb union powers, sparking strong backlashes in many places, many of them are adopting decidedly more moderate tones as they begin their sophomore year in office.
... many of the new Republican governors who swept into office last year, taking aim at collective bargaining rights, are striking less confrontational notes as they begin the new year, at least judging by what they have been saying in their State of the State addresses.
But there are a few problems with Cooper's narrative -- as he himself notes:
Of course, governors do not always propose their toughest measures in their annual speeches to lawmakers. Last year, [Governor Scott] Walker of Wisconsin used his State of the State address to call on government workers to contribute more to their pension plans; he did not mention his plan to curb collective bargaining rights until later.
Oh yeah -- that.
Also:
To be sure, some governors -- both first-termers and veterans -- are still proposing measures that are sure to cause controversy this year.
Gov. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican, proposed a major overhaul of the state's tax system that would lower tax rates but eliminate deductions and credits -- including popular ones, like deductions for mortgage interest and charitable contributions and tax credits for poor families....
And more laws that aim to curb the power of unions are being pursued in a number of states this year.
Unions and Democrats were thrown on the defensive this year in Indiana when [Governor Mitch] Daniels, serving in his second -- and last -- term, switched course and decided to support a bill to ban union contracts from requiring nonunion members to pay union dues....
In South Carolina, a right-to-work state whose unemployment rate remained at 9.5 percent in December, above the national average, Gov. Nikki R. Haley, a Republican beginning her second year in office, took a hard line on unions in her address to the Legislature. "I love that we are one of the least unionized states in the country," she said, calling it "an economic development tool unlike any other." She pledged to "make the unions understand full well that they are not needed, not wanted and not welcome in the state of South Carolina."
Teacher tenure continues to be a flashpoint in many states. The governors of New Jersey, South Dakota and Virginia all used their speeches this year to call for abolishing or weakening it....
But hey -- apart from all that, the GOP is really, really mellowing!
Except that's not true. Cooper doesn't even mention what's going on in Republican-dominated states with regard to abortion and reproductive rights. Here's a sample of January headlines from Google News:
Abortion Ban to Be Proposed in Kansas Legislature
Abortion Bills Fill Desks in Virginia Capitol
Florida Lawmakers Push Again to Restrict Abortions
New Hampshire Considers Defunding Planned Parenthood, Weakening Domestic Violence Laws
But that's not how the press wants to cover the GOP in the year of the Romney-Obama race. That's not how the press ever wants to cover the GOP -- the press never wants to acknowledge the party's extremism. The press wants to say that the party is fine, our two-party system is fine, and anything intemperate that Republicans have ever done is anomalous, and unrepresentative of the fine folks all insider journalists meet at cocktail parties. So we get stories like Cooper's.
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
IN THE LAND OF THE CLOWNS, THE ONE WEARING THE LEAST MAKEUP LOOKS DIGNIFIED
Today's New York Times has a subtly snarky editorial called "Don't Stop the Debates," which urges the Republicans to prattle on:
...Since the debates began, the popularity gap has grown between the leading Republican candidates and President Obama.
But that's not simply because the candidates have increased the intensity of their attacks on each other, nor is it curable by cutting back the mud-fighting.... It's also because voters have been exposed to the broken windows of the Republican idea factory....
The long series of debates are an open window onto the failed policies and dubious values of the Republican Party. No wonder some people want to close it.
The editorial lists some of the candidates' ideas, some of them crazy and presumably considered laughable by the general public (Gingrich's moon colony), others crazy and -- the Times doesn't say this -- potentially quite popular, given how much the public has internalized right-wing government-bashing memes (repealing Dodd-Frank and replacing it with nothing).
Ah, but doesn't the general air of lunacy hurt all the Republicans, including the front-runner? I don't think so. I'm starting to think that it's making Mitt Romney look more and more presidential, God help us -- especially the ranting of Gingrich. Standing next to Newt, Mitt must look to at least some voters like Abraham freaking Lincoln.
At the very least it's a wash, as William Galston argues:
This morning, Gallup released the latest in its series of polls focused on twelve swing states.... Obama and Romney are statistically tied: it's Romney 48, Obama 47 in the swing states and 48-48 nationally.... despite changes in the political environment, a more aggressive stance by the president, and the emergence of less than flattering information about Mitt Romney, the Obama-Romney contest hasn't moved much in many months. Last October, for example, Romney led Obama 47-46 in the swing states. Since last August, Obama's national support has moved in a narrow range between 46 and 48 percent; Romney's, between 46 and 49 percent. This evidence supports the thesis that the 2012 presidential election will be hard-fought and close....
And check this out, from a new Gallup poll (click to enlarge):
Fairly solid majorities think Romney "has the personality and leadership qualities presidents should have" and "can manage the government effectively"? Half the country thinks he "is sincere and authentic"? Authentic? Half the country?
The impression of Republican clownishness is not rubbing off on Romney. If anything, it's setting him off in relief, making him seem like the one guy with at least an adequate level of gravitas in a gravitas-deprived party. The clown car is just making him seem the least clownish.
Today's New York Times has a subtly snarky editorial called "Don't Stop the Debates," which urges the Republicans to prattle on:
...Since the debates began, the popularity gap has grown between the leading Republican candidates and President Obama.
But that's not simply because the candidates have increased the intensity of their attacks on each other, nor is it curable by cutting back the mud-fighting.... It's also because voters have been exposed to the broken windows of the Republican idea factory....
The long series of debates are an open window onto the failed policies and dubious values of the Republican Party. No wonder some people want to close it.
The editorial lists some of the candidates' ideas, some of them crazy and presumably considered laughable by the general public (Gingrich's moon colony), others crazy and -- the Times doesn't say this -- potentially quite popular, given how much the public has internalized right-wing government-bashing memes (repealing Dodd-Frank and replacing it with nothing).
Ah, but doesn't the general air of lunacy hurt all the Republicans, including the front-runner? I don't think so. I'm starting to think that it's making Mitt Romney look more and more presidential, God help us -- especially the ranting of Gingrich. Standing next to Newt, Mitt must look to at least some voters like Abraham freaking Lincoln.
At the very least it's a wash, as William Galston argues:
This morning, Gallup released the latest in its series of polls focused on twelve swing states.... Obama and Romney are statistically tied: it's Romney 48, Obama 47 in the swing states and 48-48 nationally.... despite changes in the political environment, a more aggressive stance by the president, and the emergence of less than flattering information about Mitt Romney, the Obama-Romney contest hasn't moved much in many months. Last October, for example, Romney led Obama 47-46 in the swing states. Since last August, Obama's national support has moved in a narrow range between 46 and 48 percent; Romney's, between 46 and 49 percent. This evidence supports the thesis that the 2012 presidential election will be hard-fought and close....
And check this out, from a new Gallup poll (click to enlarge):
Fairly solid majorities think Romney "has the personality and leadership qualities presidents should have" and "can manage the government effectively"? Half the country thinks he "is sincere and authentic"? Authentic? Half the country?
The impression of Republican clownishness is not rubbing off on Romney. If anything, it's setting him off in relief, making him seem like the one guy with at least an adequate level of gravitas in a gravitas-deprived party. The clown car is just making him seem the least clownish.
Monday, January 30, 2012
THE FUTURE OF NEWT?
Wow, this is just awesome:
Gingrich: I wouldn't accept debate versus Obama moderated by reporters
Newt Gingrich threatened Monday to skip any debate as the Republican nominee versus President Obama that's moderated by a member of the media.
"As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators," Gingrich said at a rally in Pensacola. "We don’t need to have a second Obama person at the debate."
... Gingrich has made his debating prowess a central selling point of his candidacy, promising fantastical showdowns with Obama in the general election. A frequent applause line for Gingrich, for instance, is his promise to challenge the president to seven, three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates....
I am so very, very sorry this guy won't be the Republican nominee. The only thing that would be more advantageous for Obama than getting to stand on a podium and watch Gingrich unleash hours of obnoxious, self-important cockamamie rhetoric in debates would be Gingrich engaging in a divaesque refusal to debate Obama unless the presidential debate commission changed all the rules that have applied to debates for decades, just to accommodate Newt.
And, really, what an idiot: doesn't Gingrich realize that, without debate moderators as foils, he'd be back home right now, as much of an also-ran as Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry? His insults of debate moderators have been the only real high points (although I don't think that's the right expression) of his campaign.
****
But it occurs to me that we may be getting a glimpse of Newt Gingrich's possible future.
I could see him riding the rails from town to town, with nothing but a portable lectern and a cardboard valise, offering to take on any and all comers in ... a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates! Three hours! No moderator! Come one, come all! Step right up! Do you think you have what it takes to out-pontificate The Mighty Newt?
He could be like an itinerant pool hustler -- except he'd be an itinerant pool hustler of civilization-altering transformational change! It would be awesome! Maybe he could even do one of these debates on the moon!
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
Wow, this is just awesome:
Gingrich: I wouldn't accept debate versus Obama moderated by reporters
Newt Gingrich threatened Monday to skip any debate as the Republican nominee versus President Obama that's moderated by a member of the media.
"As your nominee, I will not accept debates in the fall in which the reporters are the moderators," Gingrich said at a rally in Pensacola. "We don’t need to have a second Obama person at the debate."
... Gingrich has made his debating prowess a central selling point of his candidacy, promising fantastical showdowns with Obama in the general election. A frequent applause line for Gingrich, for instance, is his promise to challenge the president to seven, three-hour Lincoln-Douglas style debates....
I am so very, very sorry this guy won't be the Republican nominee. The only thing that would be more advantageous for Obama than getting to stand on a podium and watch Gingrich unleash hours of obnoxious, self-important cockamamie rhetoric in debates would be Gingrich engaging in a divaesque refusal to debate Obama unless the presidential debate commission changed all the rules that have applied to debates for decades, just to accommodate Newt.
And, really, what an idiot: doesn't Gingrich realize that, without debate moderators as foils, he'd be back home right now, as much of an also-ran as Bachmann, Huntsman, and Perry? His insults of debate moderators have been the only real high points (although I don't think that's the right expression) of his campaign.
****
But it occurs to me that we may be getting a glimpse of Newt Gingrich's possible future.
I could see him riding the rails from town to town, with nothing but a portable lectern and a cardboard valise, offering to take on any and all comers in ... a series of Lincoln-Douglas debates! Three hours! No moderator! Come one, come all! Step right up! Do you think you have what it takes to out-pontificate The Mighty Newt?
He could be like an itinerant pool hustler -- except he'd be an itinerant pool hustler of civilization-altering transformational change! It would be awesome! Maybe he could even do one of these debates on the moon!
(X-posted at Booman Tribune.)
OOPS -- THERE GOES THAT RATIONALIZATION
Newt Gingrich yesterday on ABC:
Asked about his "collapse" in the polls on ABC News' "This Week," Gingrich said, "I think that they haven't quite collapsed. And the fact is, when you combine the Santorum vote and the Gingrich vote, we clearly are -- the conservative combined would clearly beat Romney."
Is that "clearly" true? Not according to Suffolk University it isn't:
The new Suffolk University poll of the Florida primary: Romney 47%, Gingrich 27%, Santorum 12%, Paul 9%.
(For the math-challenged, that's Romney 47%, Gingrich + Santorum 39%.)
Oh, and not according to Nate Silver's new forecast:
Our new Florida forecast: Romney 44.7 (97% chance of win), Newt 29.4, Santorum 13.2, Paul 11.1
(That's Romney 44.7%, Gingrich + Santorum 42.6%.)
I really wanted Newt to go all the way, and I'm sure he'll be entertaining if he refuses to quit, but it looks as if he's about to be crushed.
Newt Gingrich yesterday on ABC:
Asked about his "collapse" in the polls on ABC News' "This Week," Gingrich said, "I think that they haven't quite collapsed. And the fact is, when you combine the Santorum vote and the Gingrich vote, we clearly are -- the conservative combined would clearly beat Romney."
Is that "clearly" true? Not according to Suffolk University it isn't:
The new Suffolk University poll of the Florida primary: Romney 47%, Gingrich 27%, Santorum 12%, Paul 9%.
(For the math-challenged, that's Romney 47%, Gingrich + Santorum 39%.)
Oh, and not according to Nate Silver's new forecast:
Our new Florida forecast: Romney 44.7 (97% chance of win), Newt 29.4, Santorum 13.2, Paul 11.1
(That's Romney 44.7%, Gingrich + Santorum 42.6%.)
I really wanted Newt to go all the way, and I'm sure he'll be entertaining if he refuses to quit, but it looks as if he's about to be crushed.
SCORCHED-EARTH NEWT MAY HURT THE ARTIST MORE THAN MITT ROMNEY
New York magazine's John Heilemann thinks Newt Gingrich really might be crazy enough to keep fighting Mitt Romney all the way to the convention. Heilemann thinks this is a real problem for Romney. I agree with Heilemann about the potential for a prolonged, futile Gingrich fight -- but I'm not so sure about the likelihood of harm to Mitt.
Heilemann writes:
... in Gingrich's case, he might be serious, so much has he come to despise Romney and the Republican Establishment that has brought down on him a twenty-ton shithammer in Florida, and so convinced is he of his own Churchillian greatness and world-historical destiny. The same antic, manic, lunatic bloody-mindedness that has made him such a rotten candidate in the Sunshine State may be enough to keep him the race a good long time.
Waging a protracted battle would likely be an act of futility for Gingrich, but it could turn out to be something much worse for Romney.
But how much more harm can Gingrich do to Romney? In some voters' minds, he's helped create an image of Romney as an evil corporate predator -- but on that subject, what else has Newt got? Does he have anything that isn't in that attack film he released a couple of weeks ago?
Yes, that line of attack does seem to have hurt Romney with general-election swing voters -- though please note that it doesn't seem to have hurt him at all with Republicans, and it's conceivable it even shored up his support with the Randian base. Gingrich's current line of attack -- that Romney is "a Massachusetts moderate who's pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-liberal judge" -- may actually help Romney with swing voters. (See? He's not so extreme!)
And really, how many of Newt's best punches are aimed at Romney anyway? Yes, Gingrich hates Romney -- but his most effective attacks have been aimed at debate moderators. And that's not working anymore, is it? A lot has been made of Romney's increasing skill as a debater, but debate moderators have a learning curve, too: Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer learned not to do what Juan Williams and John King did -- goad Gingrich -- and now he looks toothless and impotent. And there aren't going to be very many more debates.
****
You know where Gingrich may be having an impact? In this year's Oscar race. Consider what happened at the Screen Actors Guild awards last night:
The Help was the big winner at the 18th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards last night, taking three awards many had expected to go to The Artist.
Hmmm ... Gingrich calls Barack Obama the "food stamp president," proposes janitorial work for poor children, attacks Juan Williams, and gets asked about old remarks in which he criticized bilingual education as reinforcing immersion in "the language of the ghetto," all in the space of a couple of weeks. Yes, I know there's always some idiot spouting racist nonsense somewhere, but this is pretty high-profile. Think it might be high-profile enough to be making movie award voters more supportive of a film that focuses on racism? Think it might benefit The Artist if just went away?
New York magazine's John Heilemann thinks Newt Gingrich really might be crazy enough to keep fighting Mitt Romney all the way to the convention. Heilemann thinks this is a real problem for Romney. I agree with Heilemann about the potential for a prolonged, futile Gingrich fight -- but I'm not so sure about the likelihood of harm to Mitt.
Heilemann writes:
... in Gingrich's case, he might be serious, so much has he come to despise Romney and the Republican Establishment that has brought down on him a twenty-ton shithammer in Florida, and so convinced is he of his own Churchillian greatness and world-historical destiny. The same antic, manic, lunatic bloody-mindedness that has made him such a rotten candidate in the Sunshine State may be enough to keep him the race a good long time.
Waging a protracted battle would likely be an act of futility for Gingrich, but it could turn out to be something much worse for Romney.
But how much more harm can Gingrich do to Romney? In some voters' minds, he's helped create an image of Romney as an evil corporate predator -- but on that subject, what else has Newt got? Does he have anything that isn't in that attack film he released a couple of weeks ago?
Yes, that line of attack does seem to have hurt Romney with general-election swing voters -- though please note that it doesn't seem to have hurt him at all with Republicans, and it's conceivable it even shored up his support with the Randian base. Gingrich's current line of attack -- that Romney is "a Massachusetts moderate who's pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro-tax increase, pro-liberal judge" -- may actually help Romney with swing voters. (See? He's not so extreme!)
And really, how many of Newt's best punches are aimed at Romney anyway? Yes, Gingrich hates Romney -- but his most effective attacks have been aimed at debate moderators. And that's not working anymore, is it? A lot has been made of Romney's increasing skill as a debater, but debate moderators have a learning curve, too: Brian Williams and Wolf Blitzer learned not to do what Juan Williams and John King did -- goad Gingrich -- and now he looks toothless and impotent. And there aren't going to be very many more debates.
****
You know where Gingrich may be having an impact? In this year's Oscar race. Consider what happened at the Screen Actors Guild awards last night:
The Help was the big winner at the 18th annual Screen Actors Guild Awards last night, taking three awards many had expected to go to The Artist.
Hmmm ... Gingrich calls Barack Obama the "food stamp president," proposes janitorial work for poor children, attacks Juan Williams, and gets asked about old remarks in which he criticized bilingual education as reinforcing immersion in "the language of the ghetto," all in the space of a couple of weeks. Yes, I know there's always some idiot spouting racist nonsense somewhere, but this is pretty high-profile. Think it might be high-profile enough to be making movie award voters more supportive of a film that focuses on racism? Think it might benefit The Artist if just went away?
Sunday, January 29, 2012
THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL? INDEED.
What does Charlie Pierce call Paul Ryan? "Zombie-eyed granny-starver"? Well, here he is a moment of levity, courtesy of Fox:
Ryan gets a dollar-sign birthday cake
Spending his birthday morning on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Paul Ryan got a surprise: a large white sheet cake adorned with a massive green dollar sign....
As a crew member brought the cake out, Ryan was a bit incredulous, "You've got to be kidding me, where did you get this?" And Wallace joked that he'd stayed up late to bake it.
The mind reels.
Here's the video:
Yeah, Ryan is at least embarrassed by the gesture -- but not because, in the middle of a deep recession, it's tasteless. The Z.E.G.S. is embarrassed because, as he says, he simply doesn't eat sweets. I can find no evidence that he's diabetic -- what I do find is that he's a showoff about his workout routine, so he's probably too narcissistic to even contemplate adding an extra bit of body fat. Imagine what the wingnuts would say about the "elitism" of a guy refusing to eat cake and obsessing over his P90X routine if he were a Democrat....
What does Charlie Pierce call Paul Ryan? "Zombie-eyed granny-starver"? Well, here he is a moment of levity, courtesy of Fox:
Ryan gets a dollar-sign birthday cake
Spending his birthday morning on "Fox News Sunday," Rep. Paul Ryan got a surprise: a large white sheet cake adorned with a massive green dollar sign....
As a crew member brought the cake out, Ryan was a bit incredulous, "You've got to be kidding me, where did you get this?" And Wallace joked that he'd stayed up late to bake it.
The mind reels.
Here's the video:
Yeah, Ryan is at least embarrassed by the gesture -- but not because, in the middle of a deep recession, it's tasteless. The Z.E.G.S. is embarrassed because, as he says, he simply doesn't eat sweets. I can find no evidence that he's diabetic -- what I do find is that he's a showoff about his workout routine, so he's probably too narcissistic to even contemplate adding an extra bit of body fat. Imagine what the wingnuts would say about the "elitism" of a guy refusing to eat cake and obsessing over his P90X routine if he were a Democrat....
NO, JEB, THIS ISN'T GOING TO GET YOU THE NOMINATION IN 2016
Jeb Bush and his father visited President Obama at the White House last night -- I have no idea why. I mean, I guess I understand why Poppy Bush would show up -- the Bushes were in D.C. for the Alfalfa Club dinner, and Poppy, however mean and nasty he might have been whenever he was campaigning against a Democrat, seems to be the kind of guy who likes to leave the real nastiness behind once the campaigning is over. But Poppy can afford to be that kind of Republican -- he's retired. What's Jeb thinking?
Well, Jeb was one of the people who tried to rebrand the GOP in early 2009 as a post-Palin, less threatening party -- remember the pizza summit? The timing of that effort was spectacularly bad, because it happened just as the tea party (along with its media wing, Fox News) was taking the GOP even further to the right.
But maybe Jeb thinks the party is going to go too far to the right this year, and in the next four years as well; maybe he thinks Obama's going to win handily this year, and the GOP will need to be rebranded in 2016. It's not as if Jeb's a moderate -- recall his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, which praised Paul Ryan and damned the current crowd in D.C. as a bunch of big-government crushers of the entrepreneurial spirit -- but he may think the time will be right for a Republican who seeks to "disagree without being disagreeable," as the saying goes (or who at least pretends to want to do that).
If so, I think he's nuts. Either Romney's going to win this year or his loss is going to be blamed by the GOP on his lack of extreme conservatism. (We lost with Romney, McCain, and Dole! We won with George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan! True conservatives always win!) Either way, Jeb can't be nominated four years from now -- if Romney isn't running for reelection, a Jeb who's seen as too much of an appeasenik can't possibly be the nominee. The crazy base will never accept that they're the problem, even if their party loses the presidency for the fourth time this year in the six most recent contests (and loses the popular vote for the fifth time out of six). So give it up, Jeb. It would take years, and massive losses, to purge the insanity and lust for combat from your party. Stick to being a partisan attack dog -- your fellow pizza summiteer Eric Cantor has done that, as has another summiteer, Romney. You're never going to get anywhere in your party by being gracious to Democrats.
Jeb Bush and his father visited President Obama at the White House last night -- I have no idea why. I mean, I guess I understand why Poppy Bush would show up -- the Bushes were in D.C. for the Alfalfa Club dinner, and Poppy, however mean and nasty he might have been whenever he was campaigning against a Democrat, seems to be the kind of guy who likes to leave the real nastiness behind once the campaigning is over. But Poppy can afford to be that kind of Republican -- he's retired. What's Jeb thinking?
Well, Jeb was one of the people who tried to rebrand the GOP in early 2009 as a post-Palin, less threatening party -- remember the pizza summit? The timing of that effort was spectacularly bad, because it happened just as the tea party (along with its media wing, Fox News) was taking the GOP even further to the right.
But maybe Jeb thinks the party is going to go too far to the right this year, and in the next four years as well; maybe he thinks Obama's going to win handily this year, and the GOP will need to be rebranded in 2016. It's not as if Jeb's a moderate -- recall his recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, which praised Paul Ryan and damned the current crowd in D.C. as a bunch of big-government crushers of the entrepreneurial spirit -- but he may think the time will be right for a Republican who seeks to "disagree without being disagreeable," as the saying goes (or who at least pretends to want to do that).
If so, I think he's nuts. Either Romney's going to win this year or his loss is going to be blamed by the GOP on his lack of extreme conservatism. (We lost with Romney, McCain, and Dole! We won with George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan! True conservatives always win!) Either way, Jeb can't be nominated four years from now -- if Romney isn't running for reelection, a Jeb who's seen as too much of an appeasenik can't possibly be the nominee. The crazy base will never accept that they're the problem, even if their party loses the presidency for the fourth time this year in the six most recent contests (and loses the popular vote for the fifth time out of six). So give it up, Jeb. It would take years, and massive losses, to purge the insanity and lust for combat from your party. Stick to being a partisan attack dog -- your fellow pizza summiteer Eric Cantor has done that, as has another summiteer, Romney. You're never going to get anywhere in your party by being gracious to Democrats.
THE CAMPAIGN PRESS BEGINS TO DRESS TEAM ROMNEY IN A FLIGHTSUIT
Maybe the press is never going to warm to Mitt Romney himself -- maybe it will continue to treat him as contemptuously as it treated Al Gore in 2000 -- but I think it's possible that the press will transfer its desire for a Hero Republican Daddy to his campaign staff, and see starbursts whenever that staff does the wet work brutally and efficiently. Consider a few key passages from this New York Times front-page story by Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny entitled "The Calculations That Led Romney to the Warpath":
With the Florida primary two days away, Mr. Gingrich is now facing the full capabilities of a Romney team that was built for battle....
Behind the scenes, it [Romney's loss in South Carolina] was ... a call to arms employing all the visible and invisible tactics of political warfare....
If Mr. Romney does win here on Tuesday, it will have been through a blistering and unrelenting series of attacks....
David Kochel, an adviser who arrived here from Iowa to oversee the pressure campaign, described the strategy as "let's go rush the quarterback." ...
A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney's campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich....
When Mr. Romney delivered the attack against Mr. Gingrich that evening, Mr. Gingrich was left with no substantive response, a killer blow....
Wow -- after writing all this, I bet Rutenberg and Zeleny wanted a cigarette.
It would be unusual for the boys on the bus to dress the operatives in the metaphorical flightsuit while not really respecting the candidate, but we do live in a meta age -- it's been years since talk about Academy Award marketing strategies migrated from the pages of Variety to the popular press, and in politics, of course, Lee Atwater, Carville & Matalin, and Karl Rove became mainstream superstars over the past couple of decades. So why not?
This is the kind of thing I expect to be reading whenever the Romney campaign has the Obama campaign on the defensive, however temporarily. Sooner or later, some individual from the campaign will be deemed the new Carville, and will get the star treatment (magazine cover stories, softball interviews asking about his iPod songs and the contents of his refrigerator). And if he makes pugnacious comments that suggest he holds liberals, "elites," and the reporters who cover him in contempt, even greater swooning will follow.
Maybe the press is never going to warm to Mitt Romney himself -- maybe it will continue to treat him as contemptuously as it treated Al Gore in 2000 -- but I think it's possible that the press will transfer its desire for a Hero Republican Daddy to his campaign staff, and see starbursts whenever that staff does the wet work brutally and efficiently. Consider a few key passages from this New York Times front-page story by Jim Rutenberg and Jeff Zeleny entitled "The Calculations That Led Romney to the Warpath":
With the Florida primary two days away, Mr. Gingrich is now facing the full capabilities of a Romney team that was built for battle....
Behind the scenes, it [Romney's loss in South Carolina] was ... a call to arms employing all the visible and invisible tactics of political warfare....
If Mr. Romney does win here on Tuesday, it will have been through a blistering and unrelenting series of attacks....
David Kochel, an adviser who arrived here from Iowa to oversee the pressure campaign, described the strategy as "let's go rush the quarterback." ...
A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney's campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich....
When Mr. Romney delivered the attack against Mr. Gingrich that evening, Mr. Gingrich was left with no substantive response, a killer blow....
Wow -- after writing all this, I bet Rutenberg and Zeleny wanted a cigarette.
It would be unusual for the boys on the bus to dress the operatives in the metaphorical flightsuit while not really respecting the candidate, but we do live in a meta age -- it's been years since talk about Academy Award marketing strategies migrated from the pages of Variety to the popular press, and in politics, of course, Lee Atwater, Carville & Matalin, and Karl Rove became mainstream superstars over the past couple of decades. So why not?
This is the kind of thing I expect to be reading whenever the Romney campaign has the Obama campaign on the defensive, however temporarily. Sooner or later, some individual from the campaign will be deemed the new Carville, and will get the star treatment (magazine cover stories, softball interviews asking about his iPod songs and the contents of his refrigerator). And if he makes pugnacious comments that suggest he holds liberals, "elites," and the reporters who cover him in contempt, even greater swooning will follow.
Saturday, January 28, 2012
WILL PALIN KEEP THIS UP IF ROMNEY GETS THE NOMINATION? AND WHICH SIDE DOES THAT HELP?
Sarah Palin is suddenly all over the place. First we had Howard Fineman listing five reasons why Newt Gingrich's campaign is imploding in Florida, including this one:
The Palin Factor. Some D.C.-based establishment types were preparing to reconcile themselves to former House Speaker Gingrich, if not outright endorse him, before or after the South Carolina primary last week. But according to one such insider, who asked not to be identified because of her prominent corporate lobbying role, Gingrich fatally said on Jan. 18 -- three days before the primary -- that he would offer former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a "major role in the next administration if I'm president." That one statement scared the accept-Newt, Republican-establishment types. "That sure did it for me, and I think for a lot of other people in town," the lobbyist said.
Now we have a blistering anti-Romney, anti-GOP Establishment screed written by Palin's ghostwriter* and posted on her Facebook page, and we have Politico declaring her to be Gingrich's "unofficial campaign surrogate."
So, is she going to keep this up past primary season, after Romney wraps it up? Is she going to go on Fox and be lukewarm about Romney, or even actively hostile? Might she even endorse some obscure third-party Jesus-'n'-guns candidate for president instead of Mitt?
And if so, does that help Mitt or hurt him?
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, Romney needs a crazy base that's motivated to vote for him. Palin's sincere backing would be of benefit in order to get that to happen.
On the other hand, he's counting on the mainstream press to tell swing voters that he's not really a right-winger, that all the crazy right-wing things he said in the primaries were just for show and he'll govern as president only a bit more conservatively than he governed Massachusetts. (Heck, ladies, he might even become pro-choice again!)
This is nonsense, of course -- if he's president, he's just going to do whatever the crazy Republicans in Congress want him to do, because they have an agenda they're hell-bent on enacting, and he's a pathetic, passve wimp who just wants to hold the office of president, not actually do anything.
But mainstream pundits may cite the opposition (or at least wariness) of Sarah Palin (and possibly a few other zealots) as evidence that Romney won't really be a right-winger. And swing voters might swallow that.
But how would these two things would balance each other out? I really don't know.
****
*Wingnuts, please don't try to persuade me that Palin writes her own Facebook posts. Here's a typical sentence -- stilted but reasonably coherent -- from the current one:
Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney's conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate.
Now here's something that came out of her own mouth, on Fox News, as quoted by Politico. She's responding to Peggy Noonan's characterization of Gingrich as an "angry little attack muffin":
"They maybe subscribe such characterization of Newt via words like that, but they don't subscribe those to say Mitt Romney when he or his surrogates do the same thing," she said."
I rest my case.
(And no, that wouldn't even make sense if you changed "subscribe" to "ascribe.")
Sarah Palin is suddenly all over the place. First we had Howard Fineman listing five reasons why Newt Gingrich's campaign is imploding in Florida, including this one:
The Palin Factor. Some D.C.-based establishment types were preparing to reconcile themselves to former House Speaker Gingrich, if not outright endorse him, before or after the South Carolina primary last week. But according to one such insider, who asked not to be identified because of her prominent corporate lobbying role, Gingrich fatally said on Jan. 18 -- three days before the primary -- that he would offer former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin a "major role in the next administration if I'm president." That one statement scared the accept-Newt, Republican-establishment types. "That sure did it for me, and I think for a lot of other people in town," the lobbyist said.
Now we have a blistering anti-Romney, anti-GOP Establishment screed written by Palin's ghostwriter* and posted on her Facebook page, and we have Politico declaring her to be Gingrich's "unofficial campaign surrogate."
So, is she going to keep this up past primary season, after Romney wraps it up? Is she going to go on Fox and be lukewarm about Romney, or even actively hostile? Might she even endorse some obscure third-party Jesus-'n'-guns candidate for president instead of Mitt?
And if so, does that help Mitt or hurt him?
I can see it both ways. On the one hand, Romney needs a crazy base that's motivated to vote for him. Palin's sincere backing would be of benefit in order to get that to happen.
On the other hand, he's counting on the mainstream press to tell swing voters that he's not really a right-winger, that all the crazy right-wing things he said in the primaries were just for show and he'll govern as president only a bit more conservatively than he governed Massachusetts. (Heck, ladies, he might even become pro-choice again!)
This is nonsense, of course -- if he's president, he's just going to do whatever the crazy Republicans in Congress want him to do, because they have an agenda they're hell-bent on enacting, and he's a pathetic, passve wimp who just wants to hold the office of president, not actually do anything.
But mainstream pundits may cite the opposition (or at least wariness) of Sarah Palin (and possibly a few other zealots) as evidence that Romney won't really be a right-winger. And swing voters might swallow that.
But how would these two things would balance each other out? I really don't know.
****
*Wingnuts, please don't try to persuade me that Palin writes her own Facebook posts. Here's a typical sentence -- stilted but reasonably coherent -- from the current one:
Without this necessary vetting process, the unanswered question of Governor Romney's conservative bona fides and the unanswered and false attacks on Newt Gingrich will hang in the air to demoralize many in the electorate.
Now here's something that came out of her own mouth, on Fox News, as quoted by Politico. She's responding to Peggy Noonan's characterization of Gingrich as an "angry little attack muffin":
"They maybe subscribe such characterization of Newt via words like that, but they don't subscribe those to say Mitt Romney when he or his surrogates do the same thing," she said."
I rest my case.
(And no, that wouldn't even make sense if you changed "subscribe" to "ascribe.")
Rooting for Failure
Romney cheerleader James Pethokoukis gleefully presents what he calls "The economic chart that may doom the Obama presidency":In his State of the Union response the other night, Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels neatly summed up Mitt Romney’s (who has a roughly 90 percent chance of being the GOP nominee according to Intrade) economic case against President Barack Obama: “The president did not cause the economic and fiscal crises that continue in America tonight, but he was elected on a promise to fix them, and he cannot claim that the last three years have made things anything but worse.”Here's the chart:
In other words, the Obama Recovery stinks.
Pethokoukis describes it at some length, but the gist of it is this: the Reagan recovery was awesome, and this recovery is really shitty. That's about it.
Two things strike me about this. First, this is a tacit admission that Romney has no affirmative case to make. There's just nothing there to vote for, only something to vote against. That doesn't mean he can't win--he could, if the economy is still shitty--but it does reduce Pethokoukis and all the other Romney boosters to rooting for failure.
The second thing is the reason the recovery is weak: decent private-sector growth is offset by cuts to the public sector:
The public sector has been shrinking for the last year and a half — mostly because of cuts in state and local government, with some federal cuts, especially to the military, playing a role as well. In the fourth quarter, government shrank at an annual rate of 4.5 percent.Cuts, I hardly need point out, that were driven by Republicans. They're rooting for failure, and they're doing their damnedest to make it happen.
Over the last two years, the private sector grew at an average annual rate of 3.2 percent, while the government shrank at an annual rate of 1.4 percent.
The combined result has been economic growth of 2.3 percent.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)