Tag Archives: President Obama

Sanders’ claim to turnout is valid

Posted on by
Reply

Several commentators have disparaged Sen. Bernard Sanders’ argument that turnout will be vital to Democrats in November and that he can help the turnout. He is right on both counts.

Commentators at MSNBC, CNN and now some of the networks have gotten on a train recently, though–pointing to the undoubted fact that Democratic turnout in primaries this year is lower than in 2008. (Barack Obama ran that year. No one has turned out newly energized voters like President Obama.) They also point out that the Democratic turnout is lower than turnout in Republican primaries, where Donald Trump has gotten the GOP moving. So–they go on to gloat–where is the turnout that Sanders promises to deliver? (Some particularly unappealing and smarmy gloating on this item has come from Wolf Blitzer, Rachel Maddow, and Chris Matthews. No surprise there. Matthews’ wife, Kathleen Matthews, is losing her race for Maryland’s 8th District congressional seat, in spite of locking hips with the Clinton team and its donor base behind the scenes; you can’t expect him to be a good sport–a man who uses the phrase “Washington insiders” with a straight face is hardly going to be an objective observer of the nation’s fortunes. Blitzer and a tiny handful of others at CNN have been drawing envious blood from Obama since moments after the president’s election November 4, 2008. They apparently resent both his and Vice President Biden’s independence of the DC media establishment. Maddow seems long since to have bought in to the notion that careerism=feminism, or something to that effect. In between fawning on Brian Williams, she seems to be pretty much engaged in boosting the most mediocre women she can find in public life.)

But there is a factor at work this year that did not weigh on turnout in previous elections. The factor is “superdelegates.” Regardless of how hard Sanders’ ardent supporters work–and most of his supporters are ardent–Hillary Rodham Clinton and her team quietly sewed up somewhere around 450 party insiders, to paste her into the nomination should she have difficulty with voters.

Senator Sanders

Hint to analysts: if you want to be an analyst, it might help to analyze. Is there any realistic possibility that the mass of offstage superdelegates would not discourage turnout, among any voters who knew about them? Or among voters who just saw the delegate tallies for the candidates, without clarification?

So much for hope and change. The insider campaign against both–again, by ‘Washington insiders’–has been relentless–while it has also been picayune, bigoted, petty, envious and competitive. Money does not mean sense.

Nor, in the media establishment, does it mean rigorous adherence to journalistic standards. (You read it here first.) Any political analyst is intellectually required to clarify those superdelegates, in the public interest. That is not happening.

The accrual of more than 400 superdelegates by the wealth- and foundation-supported Clintons should also have been rigorously and accurately reported as it occurred. That did not happen either.

This process will have to change, and will change. In the narrowest partisan terms, it is disastrous for the Democratic Party. Democrats are living in a dream world if they think that a Hillary Clinton campaign can just skate by a nominee like Donald Trump. Trump has already appealed to independents–and to Democrats. It is unrealistic just to assume that a gravely flawed candidate like Clinton can defeat him. This is a pipe dream, and that’s even before the rest of the information on the private-server emails comes out. The insecurities about Hillary Rodham Clinton as a candidate are already manifest, in the behind-the-scenes efforts to prevent anyone else from even running.

Vice President Biden

This strategy is also being feverishly boosted by the Maddows and Matthews of the media world. Maddow spent a lengthy segment one evening on some whack-job’s push to get a death penalty(?) for gays. The clear implication was that Hillary Clinton is our only firewall against measures such as, as Maddow put it, “executing homosexuals.” Do Maddow and her ilk really think that executing homosexuals would be opposed only by a Clinton? They don’t think a candidate like, for example, Vice President Joseph Biden would step up to the plate? They don’t think Biden would oppose executing homosexuals? Do they really think Jim Webb would not have opposed these ills, if he had been allowed in the field? Lincoln Chafee? Wouldn’t even Gov. Martin O’Malley have opposed executing homosexuals, at least if the polls were going the right way?

Bernie Sanders could crush Trump. But he has to become the nominee to do so.

Meanwhile, when these over-promoted, overpaid, and under-qualified folks joined up behind scenes to paste Clinton into a nomination she has not earned and does not deserve, they took away part of my vote. They will not get the rest of it. I will not be blackmailed into voting for the ‘electable’ candidate. For one thing, she’s not. For another, the blackmail is being pushed by the very people who put us in this situation in the first place. This is not a process, a candidate, or a strategy that can withstand accurate scrutiny.

 

 

After the election. Part 1

Posted on by
Reply

GOP game plan: Now, the midterm elections are over. Let the harm to the nation begin.

What a difference a few days make. Very quick run-down here, on some key issues, before and after November 4.

Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton before the Senate

On gay marriage:

Opposing a national trend and many better-qualified judges on the bench, two rightwing judges ban gay marriage in four states. In case you had not noticed, the cases were filed in 2012; argued in 2013; proceeded in 2014. The opinion was announced after our midterm elections. More on the decision here. It was written by George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey Sutton, joined by Bush appointee Deborah Cook. A quick glance at their ideological track record tells the story.

One other thing these two Circuit Court judges have in common is that neither received Senate confirmation, after being nominated to the court by GWBush, until a post-9/11 Republican Senate, presided over by Vice President Dick Cheney, was in position.

So, to all the depressed-turnout voters who just sat out the midterm election in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee who have now lost another round: bear in mind that whom you elect to Congress matters, in off-years as well as in presidential election years.

Senator Mitch McConnell, appearing in public

On the Affordable Care Act:

Speaking of coming out, House Speaker John Boehner and probable Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell have now exposed themselves in the Wall Street Journal. Yes, Virginia, McConnell is going to try to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Contrary to what McConnell said on Fox News television a week before the election, he’s going after Obamacare.

I suppose the only real question is why Roll Call covered for McConnell, giving further play (and credibility) to his falsehoods on television:

“Updated 9:35 p.m. | Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell says Republicans won’t be able to repeal Obamacare [sic] anytime [sic] soon.

Tempering the expectations of conservatives a week before the elections that could install him as the first Republican majority leader in eight years, the Kentucky Republican said in a Fox News interview Tuesday a repeal of the health care law simply wasn’t in the cards for now.

He wasn’t telling Fox News anything that close observers of the Senate and the budget process didn’t already know, but it serves as a reminder of the limitations Republicans should expect even if they net six or seven seats, given the obvious reality that President Barack Obama is still in the White House.”

Actually, that is not a real question. It is a rhetorical question; Roll Call is pro-GOP, not nonpartisan.

Anyway, to all of the voters in Kentucky who sat out the election figuring that at least McConnell would be smart enough not to try to destroy every attempt at health insurance reform: you just lost another one.

I told you so.

This is what you get when you rely for ‘analysis’ on paid shills or media-outlet groupthink, whether at Roll Call or in the big-city daily newspapers or on NBC.

The problem goes back a few years. With the amnesia typical of political coverage, few media outlets recall (or reveal) the political temper dominant in the news media only ten years ago. So simple, so forgotten: A candidate who mentioned that people ought to be paid a day’s wage for a day’s work was laughed out of town, or ignored. (Who could win with an argument like that?) It was largely Barack Obama who up-ended that political worldview, somewhat as J. K. Rowling up-ended the conventional wisdom that ‘young people don’t read’, and (much earlier) Dr. Seuss up-ended the notion that children’s books had to be eye-glazingly dull.

There are some small enclaves in the national political press who will never forgive him. Sorry, but some people are more threatened by merit than supportive of it. When times are tight, those individuals tend to get worse, not better.

Note to human beings: the ‘smart money’ is usually wrong, at least when the smart money comprises a small number of under-qualified and over-promoted individuals in a declining profession–whose decline was brought about largely by their own misdirection of resources.

I say this with love.

Once again, dear friends: when, between c. 1980 and 2006, did you ever see insurance industry problems/abuses/outright fraud discussed with clarity and focus in national political coverage?

 

More later.

 

 

WHAT YOU DIDN’T READ, ABOUT THE 2014 ELECTIONS

Posted on by
1

WHAT YOU DIDN’T READ, ABOUT THE 2014 ELECTIONS

Memo to Democrats: This is what you get, when the face of the Democratic Party is the Clintons.

Memo to Democrats: No passionate voter likes a lack of choice, a monopoly candidate.

Memo to Democrats: Passionate voters are not inspired by an election that looks preordained. Let alone by an election that looks bought. Let alone by an election that looks preordained, bought, timid, platitudinous, and uninteresting.

Wishes and hopes

Memo to Dems: Candidate Hillary Clinton lost the 2008 primaries decisively. She had more money and endorsements than popular appeal. She continued to downgrade other candidates, after the strategy ceased to wok. She and her husband were the boys-on-the-bus choice rather than the people’s choice. She and her husband were more the Republicans’ choice for a Democratic Party candidate than Democrats’ choice.

Memo: All of these factors persist today.

Memo to Democrats: A first in U.S. history, when Hillary Clinton fell behind during the primary process, she made open comments on the campaign trail that seemed to accommodate the possibility of assassinating a more popular candidate. She (and her team) tried to play the race card against a better and more effective candidate.

Memo to Dems: Playing to the David Gergens of the world works for Republican candidates; it does not work for Democratic candidates. The national political press has not effectively reported, let alone supported, movement on issues of national importance (recall the Washington Post’s campaign against health insurance reform), especially when reporting might benefit Democrats. It has aggressively reported the eccentricities and frailties of Tea Party types, while covering for establishment GOP candidates (recall the absolute silence this year about the young George P. Bush’s run-ins with the law, including the stalking incident/s re a former girlfriend).

In happier news: President Obama had a good press conference yesterday. As usual, he made important points with admirable concision. Among them,

  • “voters expect us to focus on their ambitions, and not on ours.”
  • two thirds of the electorate did not vote
  • “Voters went five for five” to increase the minimum wage. In other words, the minimum wage won in all five states where it came on the ballot (even when GOP anti-minimum-wage candidates won their senate races).
  • “We are more than simply a collection of red and blue states. We are the United States.” 

He also listed, concisely, a few items on the agenda for the current Congress, before its term ends: support for measures domestic and abroad against the Ebola virus; authorization to use military force against ISIS; and a budget that will cover the rest of the fiscal year.

Then you get the other side:

More GOP name-calling for a woman

Speaking of items not reported, or not reported with clarity, below are a few examples (besides the young George P. Bush’s stalking) of what newspaper readers did not see in the 2014 election cycle. Items are boldfaced.

A Democratic Party candidate is not written about as a “moderate,” in the national political press. That word “moderate” is reserved for Republicans, raising questions such as, ‘What is the “moderate” number of deaths from unsafe toys/unsafe workplaces?”

The GOP establishment prevented Tea Partyers and other unwelcome candidates from winning in 2014. Following several prominent examples from 2012–Richard Mourdock, Todd Akin, etc.–the party was aware of the dangers going into 2014, well aware of them. And the Republican Party establishment met the challenges at every turn except for the Virginia primary that ousted Eric Cantor and, possibly, except for the Iowa primary that elected Joni Ernst. David Brat was the only challenger/Tea Party-type who did not have to meet other challenger/Tea Partyer candidates in his GOP primary. (Cantor did not have to contend with another establishment figure/rival, either. But having the establishment field to himself wasn’t enough.)

So simple, so effective: In primary after primary, the establishment candidate was alone; the Tea Partyers were multiple. So the arithmetic of the field won, almost every time: a divided vote on the “insurgent” or Tea Party side gave the establishment candidate or incumbent a majority or at least a plurality of the electorate, almost every time. (The Iowa senate primary was the only exception, and a mixed bag; the Chamber of Commerce supported Ernst, as did the Washington, D.C.-based company that created her two attention-getting ads.)

Little to none of this scenario was reported in the national political press, even when the national political press covered a state or local election, and even when boys-on-the-bus coverage used the incumbent/establishment versus challenger/Tea Partyer model. Instead, the inevitable outcome of a Republican primary was inevitably reported as a victory for “moderate” GOPers over extremists/outsiders/clowns/rubes/Ebola-laden virus carriers, regardless of the margin of victory for the establishment figure, and regardless of the vote share taken by non-establishment candidates.

There is no guarantee, of course, that a one-against-one race will produce a win for the Tea Partyer. But the party took no chances. In every primary of any significance, the field was cleared for the ‘establishment’ type, and almost every time, the arithmetic of the field was decisive.

It was actually D.C.-based media consultant Todd Harris who came up with the hog and gunshot ads for Joni Ernst in Iowa. Ersatz machismo, Iowans. You voted for second-hand K Street knockoffs, thinking they were independence.

This nonsense is infuriating to anyone who actually knows anything about farming. My maternal grandparents were farmers, and they raised a couple of pigs each year–piglets in spring, sausages in fall. The hogs were humanely fed and treated, although no one made a big song and dance about it. They were not castrated. Castrating the animals is designed to produce an unnaturally large and capon-like hog, analogous to tying geese down and force-feeding them to produce fois gras. Ernst’s and Harris’s castrating metaphor is another indication of the ties that bind to agribusiness, not of robust independence. Ernst could use the username bogusfarmgrl. The Ernst-Harris ad made an effective call for campaign donations from agricultural interests, as the gunshot ad called successfully for donations from the NRA. The latter also, of course, called for assassinating a president. The established political pundits who let that one pass failed a significant test.

The Bushes are back. Not with a groundswell of enthusiasm. Under-qualified Bush administration alumni are still doing their usual, and some got elected to office. Others continue to work publicly or behind the scenes in government, media, and NGOs. The burrowers should have been fired in 2009.

Al Gore Should Have Built a Smaller House. MSNBC should have kept Keith Olbermann. Al Gore fired Olbermann at CurrentTV (after I published a brief criticism of Gore’s non-eco-friendly house construction) and then sold CurrentTV to Al Jazeera. MSNBC is not worth watching. No Olbermann; too little reporting; too much parroting the boys-on-the-bus groupthink.

Memo to Democrats: Being in office does not give you some magical, Tinkle Bell-fairy dust protection against losing office. Corollary: Having the endorsement of official Democrats does not necessarily win you the office.

What works, if anything will, is trying to do a good job in office. As Working Families points out, “Unless and until Democrats are seen as actually improving people’s lives, the path is open for Republicans to stoke fears about declining living standards and stoke white anxiety about a racially changing America.” Democrats who showcased their work on raising the minimum wage and passing paid sick days for workers, for example, won.

In this context, a few words on some more local races in Maryland are in order. Again, boldface for the non-reported or under-reported items.

Maryland was not a Republican sweep. The governorship went to the purportedly anti-tax white guy, but Dems Peter Franchot and Brian Frosch won state Comptroller and Attorney General respectively. None of the Maryland Democrats in the U.S. House were even threatened with a close race, except John K. Delaney in District 6, who won anyway; Delaney’s opponent did get more votes on Election Day but not enough to overcome Delaney’s large advantage in the early voting.

It did not help Dems, or electoral participation, in Maryland that late Washington Post editor Ben Bradlee’s death on October 21 meant several days of non-stop articles in the paper about the Washington In Crowd, a week before the 2014 elections. The orgy of self-back-patting over Post glory days, while understandable, does not appeal to any population.

In good news from Maryland, and Prince George’s County, a series of bond issues passed, as did other referenda.

The only Prince George’s County referendum that lost was one extending term limits for County Council and County Executive from two terms to three consecutive terms. Looks as though Rushern Baker’s running unopposed for County Executive (except for write-ins) was not overwhelmingly popular. Baker hasn’t done enough in office; too busy playing keep-away. Try to ‘explore’ the feeble county web site.

Rushern Baker, endorsed by the Washington Post, and running unopposed for reelection, got a total 184,663 votes for County Executive. The total was somewhat more than for the Clerk of the Circuit Court and the Register of Wills got, also running unopposed. But less than the highly qualified and effective Angela Alsobrooks got (185,770) for State’s Attorney from P.G., also unopposed.

State Senator Victor Ramirez got 14, 363 for reelection as state senator for District 47–the lowest vote total in the state, for a winning senator, opposed or unopposed. Several losing candidates for state senate also got more votes.

Back to the national scene:

If Mark Begich loses in Alaska, then three Democratic incumbent senators will have lost, in predictable states–Begich; Mark Pryor in Arkansas; and Kay Hagan in North Carolina. Of the three, Hagan and Begich did far better than Pryor. Pryor’s wipe-out in Arkansas should make the hack pundits quit drooling over Bill Clinton (or Hillary Clinton) as campaigners and vote-getters.

Stumping and stumped in Arkansas

Hillary Clinton did not run for Senate from Arkansas. No one mentions the fact. In all the palaver about the Clintons as pols, hasn’t anyone noticed that they did not leave Arkansas in good shape for Democrats? Their team had thirty years in Arkansas. They did as little for the 99 percent as they could get away with doing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More on the Romney campaign’s internal polling

Posted on by
Reply

Romney internal polling–myopia rather than rose-colored glasses

I don’t call these post-mortems, but in this election follow-up, The New Republic has disclosed some useful information. The gist is that Mitt Romney’s campaign thought it was likely to win because internal polling at the end said so. The Romney team’s own last-minute projections for six key states showed Romney possibly winning enough electoral votes for victory.

 

Romney and Ryan in Wisconsin

Here, from TNR:

“In an exclusive to The New Republic, a Romney aide has provided the campaign’s final internal polling numbers for six key states, along with additional breakdowns of the data, which the aide obtained from the campaign’s chief pollster, Neil Newhouse. Newhouse himself then discussed the numbers with TNR.”

The six states chosen for outtakes are Colorado, Iowa, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.

 

Red states, blue states, purple states by senate representation

The first thing you notice about the Romney internal numbers is that they were nearly right where they focused on votes for Romney. In alphabetical order, here are the states lined up with the Romney campaign’s projections for Romney, and Romney’s actual results:

  • Colorado:            Romney vote projected at 48%. Actual Romney vote 46.1%
  • Iowa:                     Projected Romney vote 46.5%. Actual Romney vote 46.2%
  • MN:                       Projected Romney vote 43.5%. Actual Romney vote 45%
  • NH:                        Projected Romney vote 48.5%. Actual Romney vote 46.4%
  • PA:                         Projected Romney vote 46%. Actual Romney vote 46.7%
  • WI:                         Projected Romney vote 45%. Actual Romney vote 46.1%

The late polls were nearly accurate. In five of the six states, the Romney campaign came within two percentage points of predicting Romney’s actual vote, and in New Hampshire the campaign miss Romney’s actual numbers by only 2.1 percent. In three of the states, the polls were off by less than one percent. One could expound on the Romney campaign’s obliviousness to a key fact about New Hampshire–namely its closeness to Massachusetts, home base or epicenter of Romney’s unpopularity. But the fact remains that most of the Romney team’s numbers were close to the mark. It will be interesting to see the campaign’s late polls for Florida, Ohio and Virginia, if they are ever released.

 

Voting in Florida

Furthermore, the Romney campaign actually underestimated the percentage of the vote that Romney went on to get in three of the states. Minnesota, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin–percentages highlighted here in red–actually went for Romney in slightly bigger numbers than his own campaign projected in internal polls. This is not wild miscalculation.

Where the Romney team did miscalculate wildly was the Obama vote. This is key: In a presidential election there is more than one candidate running, and dismissing the other major-party candidate the way you would dismiss Virgil Goode is not viable assessment.*

Here are the six states with the run-down on the Obama vote, as calculated by the Romney campaign, and President Obama’s actual outcome:

  • Colorado:            Obama vote projected at 45.5%. Actual Obama vote 51.5%
  • Iowa:                     Projected Obama vote 46.5%. Actual Obama vote 52%
  • MN:                       Projected Obama vote 47.5%. Actual Obama vote 52.6%
  • NH:                        Projected Obama vote 45%. Actual Obama vote 52%
  • PA:                         Projected Obama vote 49%. Actual Obama vote 52.1% 
  • WI:                         Projected Obama vote 49%. Actual Obama vote 52.8%

Again, the underestimates–i.e. all six states–are highlighted in red.

Now the most obvious comment is that Romney’s tacticians made the fundamental mistake of underestimating their opposition, the error warned against by strategists for millennia. However much you wish to despise the person/king/opposition, allowing your assessment to be distorted by your emotions is an elementary error. Machiavelli, whose critics gave Machiavellianism a bad name, would have recognized it. That Machiavelli himself died a despised and forlorn exile is beside the point.

Back to 2012–in regard to the Romney calculations, even hard-nosed numbers crunchers could not see that their numbers re Obama were way off. It did not even strike them as unrealistic that a popular incumbent president was polling, according to their picture, at 47.5 percent in Minnesota and at 46.5 percent in Iowa?

There are several factors at work here.

  • One is ‘demographics’, which as we know did not play well for the GOP in the 2012 elections. Nor should it have. It stands to reason that the people making those well-exposed public comments about immigrants–often basically running against immigration–would be no better at evaluating what they were doing behind the scenes. The same personnel are now scrambling to find new shades of lipstick for the hog, mostly by promoting a few Latino politicians and a few fauxish immigration reforms. Back during the campaign, they kept well away from the people they were characterizing rather than wooing.
  • Another is the millennial generation. It’s not just that cell-phone users tend to be under-polled; it’s that old measures do not always work. WARNING: OVER-GENERALIZATION AHEAD: Aside from Occupy Wall Street, millennials do not tend to be demonstrative. Demonstration with them tends to be a last resort, not a first. They are not vehement at first hue, they do not ask for things stridently. On the plus side, they tend to respect human dignity, they tend to appreciate courtesy, and they tend to let other people have a say. One can imagine how Rick Santorum or Newt Gingrich would have fared with this cohort.
  • That leaves the third factor, not explored by TNR, of race. Romney strategists and even Romney pollsters operated in a partial blindness that left them unable to imagine other people voting differently from the way they themselves would vote, and the different race of the president made that back-of-the-eyelids view more plausible. Calling this ‘racism’ does not explain anything. It is a simple facet of the human brain to find difference, or newness, harder to understand than the familiar. Change is so hard to adapt to that even positive change–a promotion, winning the lottery–is stressful.**

For Republican campaigners and campaign operatives, the natural myopia was compounded by their other characteristics, or the related characteristics of their side–a continuing antipathy to genuine information, an unwillingness to see anything positive on the other side, and a corresponding willingness to shout down any unwelcome perception on their own side. These are useful attributes for the politicians who are hired guns for privilege rather than independent thinkers, just as they are useful for the media personalities like them–Limbaugh and Krauthammer et al. These are the qualities that strengthen a Gingrich or a Bachmann to run a campaign as shameful as the policies espoused by the candidate. But for running a national campaign, where winning depends on knowing something outside your own sphere of influence–not so much.

They were hoist by their own petard.

 

*In the interest of full disclosure: according to genealogy research mostly via ancestry.com, Mr. Goode and I may be distantly related.

**[Update Dec. 4: Overt racism was cultivated by the campaign, as we know. Sometimes the overt racism is attributed to blue-collar  voters; this is false sociology. Persons with wealth, status and at least nominal education can and do participate in racist acts and speech.]

Grover Norquist Lost

Posted on by
1

Obama won, Grover Norquist lost

2012 election results are in, and Obama won. President Obama should also win Florida. That means an electoral college tally of 332-206.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which spent at least $28 million against Democrats, lost.

 

Represented by Chamber of Commerce

American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, which spent $1 billion against the president and against Democrats, lost.

Karl Rove lost. Grover Norquist lost. Donald Trump lost. Rudy Giuliani lost. Rush Limbaugh lost. Charles Krauthammer lost. George Will lost. Bill O’Reilly lost.

(Here from YouTube is Rove, on air, trying to dispute the outcome in Ohio: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQLV7nqD3CA)

The grotesques lost.

‘Winners’ and ‘losers’ are worse than useless as words. The winners-and-losers language cannot be trusted, anyway, as to validity. The commentators most eager to identify winners and losers self-identify as less eager to nail accuracy; a vulgar mindset characterizes notable non-wizards. I do not want to sound as though I were auditioning to become one of the sillies.

But clearly on election day 2012 some won, some lost.

 

The president

Won:

President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden won re-election, and rightly so. They won the popular vote as well as the electoral college. For the first time since 1936, they won re-election with over 50 percent of the popular vote.

FDR

Several deserving Democratic senators won hard-fought re-election in an avalanche of negative advertising, including Sherrod Brown in Ohio, Joe Manchin in West Virginia, Bill Nelson in Florida, and Jon Tester in Montana.

 

Massachusetts Senator-elect Elizabeth Warren

Elizabeth Warren won in Massachusetts, Claire McCaskill won in Missouri, Tammy Baldwin won in Wisconsin, Heidi Heitkamp won in North Dakota, Mazie Hirono won in Hawaii. There are now twenty women in the United States Senate–a record. The senate is better off with such women Democrats.

Alan Grayson won as U.S. Rep in Florida, rightly so.

Tammy Duckworth won for the House in Illinois, in the process defeating the disgraceful Joe Walsh. The swing from awful to good is even bigger than the outcome.

 

Lost:

Lackluster corporate ally Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, the author of the Ryan so-called budget, lost. (Rep. Ryan won re-election to the House.)

Rep. Allen West lost decisively in Florida. Way past due, but better late than never.

GOP Senate candidate George Allen lost in Virginia.

Rep. Joe Walsh lost in Illinois.

 

Big money lost.

The Koch brothers, who spent tens of millions on the election, lost.

Sheldon Adelson, who donated tens of millions first to Newt Gingrich and then to Mitt Romney, lost.

The Chamber of Commerce losses and the losses of Rove’s groups, the losses incurred by all the super-PACs massed on the pro-corporate, pro-tax haven, anti-union side of the aisle, are the biggest money losses. But it is worth mention again that wealthy self-funding candidates also lost. Linda McMahon lost in Connecticut; Steven Welch lost to incumbent Sen. Bob Casey in Pennsylvania; most others lost in primaries. The national political press could have seen an augury for fall 2012 in the losses of so many self-funders.

Along with the billionaires and millionaires, corporate executives who stepped off the sidelines to bully the political process through their workplaces lost.

Speaking of losses, the long string of candidates who lost the race for the GOP nomination lost again. They did not help Republicans look better in the general election. Remember the parade–the string of fallen candidates from the GOP campaign trail—Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Tim  Pawlenty, Michele Bachmann. None can claim—although that won’t keep them from trying—that the election outcome enhances his individual credibility, or that they enhanced the party’s credibility.

Republicans lost. They lost the presidential race; they lost seats in the senate; they lost seats in the house; and they lost seats in the state legislatures. Only in governorships did the GOP eke out an advantage, and even there, with more to defend, Democrats kept or took five governorships including the hard-fought governorship of West Virginia.

Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) lost.

House Republicans lost. They lost their two ugliest members, they lost some of their ‘base’, and once and for all the scorn of establishment Republicans for the anti-abortionists was clarified for all to see.

 

Won:

Democrats won. Not all state tallies are complete, but enough returns are in to clarify a nationwide pattern.

Democrats gained two seats in the senate, giving them the edge 53-45. Of two independents–Vermont’s Bernie Sanders and Maine’s Angus King–at least one will caucus with the Democrats. Given the quality of the new Democrats elected, that means the Democrats are stronger now than with the nominal ‘filibuster-proof’ sixty they had in 2009, relying on Joe Lieberman.

Democrats gained at least six seats in the house. In a notable upset, physician Raul Ruiz defeated GOP Rep. Mary Bono Mack in California. (Bono Mack’s husband, Connie Mack, also lost his senate race in Florida.) Dem Pete Gallego beat Quico Consego in south Texas. Lois Frankel beat Adam Hasner in South Florida. If Scott Peters has beaten Rep. Brian Bilbray in California, the gain is at least seven for Dems.

In the states, Dems gained the New Hampshire Executive Council. Democrats flipped at least eight state chambers from Repub to Dem in 2012, including chambers in Colorado, Maine, New Hampshire, New York and Oregon, losing only two. Early estimates are that Democrats picked up 200 seats in state legislatures, partly making up for the large losses of 2010. Local races parallel the federal and state patterns.

Lost:

Media grotesques lost.

Charles Krauthammer and Rush Limbaugh lost, as mentioned. George Will and Bill O’Reilly lost. Sarah Palin lost. Sean Hannity lost. Dick Morris lost.

The rightwing noise machine lost.

Fox News lost.

Rupert Murdoch lost.

The Wall Street Journal lost. The Chicago Tribune lost.

A host of auxiliary right-wing pundits installed by the newspaper I subscribe to, the Washington Post, lost. David Gergen lost. For that matter, most pundits lost. Dan Balz lost. The WashPost‘s layout editors–whoever composed the unfavorable headlines and picked the disfiguring photos of Obama–lost. George Stephanopoulos’ Round Table on ABC’s This Week lost. Face the Nation lost. Meet the Press lost. Chris Matthews lost.

Many or most of the pollsters–except for Nate Silver–lost.

 

The middle class won. Some degree of tolerance won. Health care won. Social Security won. American labor won. Reproductive rights won. The U.S. automobile industry won. Collective bargaining won. College students won. Mortgage holders won. Banking customers won.

Unfortunately, Paul Ryan won re-election to the House. So did Michele Bachmann. We can’t have everything. Bachmann’s race was tight, though. In theory that should end any discussion of Bachmann as some kind of powerhouse. Still, politically progressives won. Racism lost. Anti-immigrant campaigning lost decisively.

I am not gloating. This is a celebration of improvement, of steps toward a cleaner and healthier body politic. People like Joe Walsh and Allen West never did have any place in public office and should never have gotten a federal office in the first place. Anyone who held the opinion that the election was Mitt Romney’s to win was never qualified to be a political reporter in the first place. Any writer who thought ‘the economy’ an issue that would work in Romney’s favor is unqualified to appear in print. Corporate managers who spent more time throwing their weight around than they did improving their companies never should have been managers in the first place. Corporate management should never have been so pinned to stock price in an imaginary paper market as to neglect product, service and labor in the first place.

Political reporting, like every other kind of reporting, is supposed to shoot for accuracy. So read it here, all you buckaroos and buckaresses who spent a year and a half predicting a ‘close election’ and a ‘late election night’:

  • The presidential race was not close.
  • The battleground states were not razor-thin.
  • Democrats won. It was not fifty-fifty. It was not split-the-difference.
  • Republicans lost. The party has also lost name affiliation among registered voters.
  • Progressives won. Where Democrats lost, it was either a Blue Dog, a Republican-leaning district, or a hard race, sometimes close, where a challenger took on an entrenched incumbent. As mentioned, Alan Grayson won.
  • The right wing lost. As mentioned, Joe Walsh and Allen West lost. So did Todd Akin and Richard Mourdock, although their brand of conservatism differs from the ugliness of Walsh and West.

 

more later

Where was this foreign-policy Romney in the GOP primaries?

Posted on by
Reply

Etch-a-Sketching Middle East policy

In pre-debate discussion on CurrentTV last night, former Vice President Al Gore speculated that Mitt Romney would need to avoid the pitfall of “too much endless war.” I wrote in my notes that “R will prob know how to avoid that one.”

Did he ever.

Whether Romney knew how best to avoid the pitfall of recommending endless war might be questioned.  But he knew enough to sidestep it over and over. I lost count of the number of times Romney endorsed President Obama’s actions and policies, particularly in regard to the Middle East.

 

Romney, President Obama on split screen

A plug:

Once again, C-Span came through for the public. Watching the debate on C-Span gave viewers something no other channel offered–a split-screen view of both candidates while each was speaking. Thus one could see, for example, Romney looking sick when moderator Bob Schieffer asked the president about Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak. The question was whether the president had any regrets about calling for Mubarak to step down. The answer was a firm no. Apparently Romney thought the answer was a good one; he responded to the Mubarak question by quickly saying that he had supported the president on Egypt.

 

Former dictator Gaddafi

Romney didn’t look a whole lot more robust when Obama discussed American policy in regard to previous conflict in Libya–including the fact that Libya was previously governed by long-time dictator Muammar Gaddafi. Does any GOP candidate even remember Gaddafi? Do any of the chicken-hawks eager to inflame tensions around the world–particularly in dangerous situations–even recall that Gaddafi was removed on the president’s watch, to U.S. advantage as well as to the advantage of his own people, without American boots on the ground?

For that matter, do any of the Republicans running for national office remember that a series of dictators has fallen in the last four years? Where was the mention of a string of collapsed dictators, when Romney attempted to rattle off a stump-speech litany of administration failures?

To his credit, Romney began on a conciliatory note by saying, “I congratulate him” [Obama] on getting Osama bin Laden.

Romney, Schieffer, Obama

Romney also did not mistakenly mix up Osama bin Laden’s name with President Obama’s. Every little bit helps. Romney even went on to say, “but we can’t kill our way out of this mess”–making two people on his ticket (as of this writing) going for non-military-intervention in hot spots, for a total of four on the two national tickets. No saying how the rabid right wing of his party will receive the message, but at least he stuck with it through the course of the debate.

As mentioned, Romney’s statements often paralleled the president’s or paralleled administration policy. Romney voluntarily brought up the U.N. (Those words should probably be highlighted and bold-faced in red.) He expressed a desire to “help the Muslim world.” He spoke favorably of policy recommendations from a group of scholars. He referred to “economic development.” He voluntarily brought up “foreign aid.”

Where was this Romney during the Republican debates of the campaign season?

When the president said firmly, in response to Schieffer’s question about Syria, that Syrians have to determine their own future but that the administration is organizing the international community, working to isolate the dictator and to support the opposition–without military intervention and without providing arms that might later be turned against the U.S.–Romney had no rebuttal. No counter-offer. No specifics. But he, too, to do him justice, said clearly that “we don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict” in Syria.

Romney, in short, agreed with Obama on Egypt, on Syria, on the Muslim world and its youth, on engaging in commerce, on supporting education around the world, on supporting women’s rights around the world–and on Pakistan and Afghanistan.

That last might be the big item. After repeatedly criticizing the White House for even wishing to get out of Afghanistan, the Republican presidential nominee came through with a key policy endorsement in the clutch: “we’re gonna be finished [in Afghanistan] by 2014,” Romney said. He said it more than once, too: the troops will be “out by 2014.”

More bold red highlighting needed. In response to questions from Schieffer about Pakistan, Romney even went so far as to say, “I don’t blame the administration” for going into Pakistan (without permission). “We had to go in there,” Romney said, if we were going to get bin Laden.

Even in regard to China, Romney’s policy suggestions parallel those of the administration. With a lot of tough talk about Chinese piracy, hacking, and currency manipulation, Romney still had this to offer: “China can be our partner.” Since no Republican candidate wants a ‘trade war’, he pretty much had to say it. It still left him in a vulnerable position, politically; as Obama mentioned–speaking of trade–“You ship jobs overseas.”

More on some of the domestic-policy talk that derailed the foreign policy debate, later. For now a slight plug for Current TV. Current TV made the mistake of the decade firing Keith Olbermann. It made itself look petty and feeble. It lost ratings. It may tank financially. But it did offer an entertaining gimmick with the candidate debates: Viewers can read tweets on the debate scrolling below the screen while watching the debate. This has its downside, of course. One gets a microscopic up-close-and-personal look at some right-wing ignorance.

Furthermore, the tweets are selected by someone behind the scenes at CurrentTV. When I helpfully tweeted Current, during the second presidential debate, that sound problems were distorting the president’s voice, the tweet did not appear. The sound problems seem to have been corrected, though by that time I had switched to C-Span.

Back to the tweets last night–they were helpful on Romney’s oral mistakes; for example, Romney mixed up ‘Iraq’ and ‘Iran’ more than once, etc. Although I don’t recall anyone picking up on Romney’s remarkable claim that “The economy is not stronger” (than four years ago), tweets were alive with Romney misstatements. Even with GOP spinsters horning in, Obama won the tweets column.

Farther down and later on, one could sense big guns getting alarmed at President Obama’s strong performance in contrast to Romney’s feeble one. Karl Rove and Ann Coulter took a valuable minute out of their busy schedules to tweet a diss of the president. The cavalry appears over the top of the hill.

They got some help from an odd source: For some reason the otherwise astute Eliot Spitzer, Olbermann’s replacement, keeps preaching from the text that ‘the economy’ is ‘Romney’s issue’. ‘The economy’? Romney’s issue? After the mortgage-derivatives crisis? With Romney’s background? This from a man who as New York’s Attorney General went after the bad guys on Wall Street?

Politics makes strange bedfellows, as they say. It also makes strange theory-weddings.

Weird.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In honor of Sunday morning, a prediction about Sunday morning

Posted on by
Reply

In honor of Sunday morning, a prediction about Sunday morning

It’s Sunday morning, and we can expect that today’s morning talk shows will not be terse about the much-touted close and/or ‘tightening’ election. Close election is the moral indifferents’ ground game. It was their calling card; now it is their mantra. If it happens, it will be a defeat for the public.

Hence this article:

It is a given that pre-game armchair quarterbacking is going to be weaker than post-game ditto. But with due respect to some of the established journalists who get on air while people like me never do,* I still cannot  understand the excessive chatter about a 2012 ‘close election’. If a close election is such a given, why do they talk about it so unceasingly? –They don’t keep reminding us that we have two major parties, one Democratic, you know, and the other Republican.

Sigmund Freud

Professor Sigmund Freud and I hypothesize that in fact the hysterical insisters on a ‘close election’ fear that it might be, or might have been, otherwise. As Gertrude said, Methinks somebody doth protest too much.

(Freudian slip: When you say one thing but mean your mother.)

Summary analysis, so far as I can figure it out:

Some Washington insiders (as Chris Matthews called them, without irony) are making common cause with the Republican noise machine, up to a point.

A close election is a GOP win

They’re doing so not because they have a committed belief that rich-get-richer is the best fiscal policy, not because they have any fantasy that Mitt Romney will produce ‘jobs’, and not because they want all abortions, etc., illegal; quite the contrary. They are simply afraid on grounds of short-term self-interest to call an issue for the guy who’s winning it. Like other established but under-qualified persons, they’re not eager to see merit rewarded. It’s the gut response, when you don’t have guts.

Thus, while no one in his right mind could think that a Romney-Ryan administration would be other than economic disaster, we still have serious news people treating the GOP ticket as though it embodied gravitas. The same people insist on a close election.

Electoral map, 2008

As to the election, predictions are vain, of course. But we do have ‘facts on the ground’, a phrase deferred to ad nauseam in lip service, less in accuracy. Among tangibles, we have a popular incumbent president. Incumbency in every other national election in memory has been considered a fundamental by the national political press. The guys on the bus accorded incumbency fundamental status even with the troubled administration of George W. Bush. (They unceasingly touted GWBush’s ‘likability’, too.) In 2012, the incumbent is being challenged by a discredited party–the Republicans continue to lose in party identification. At the top of the ticket, the minority party has a lackluster candidate who has never been a powerful national figure. Romney’s unfavorables, for people who track that kind of thing, are near-record. The candidate has proven himself so willing to say anything, depending on audience, that virtually every adult citizen knows about the propensity. His defining visual, the Etch-a-Sketch quality, is a staple for late-night comics. Again, in any other election years the guys on the bus would have made a big deal of this kind of thing. (On the other hand, Romney’s flip-flopping has become such a given that it’s in danger of becoming passively accepted, and thus acceptable.)

Then there’s Romney’s vice presidential pick. The fact that Paul Ryan is still running for Congress suggests that he doesn’t see the upcoming election as a win for Romney.

 

Ryan gets pans for washing clean pots

Clearly, what should be reported most about the election is what it means for the country. A Romney win would be disaster, given the foreign-policy recklessness and domestic reverse-Robin-Hood the candidate has upheld during the campaign. Thus most political reporting is a loss from the get-go.

Even in narrowly political terms, however, the trend of much political reporting recently has been disturbing. Recent signs of the times have gone unstated or understated. Early voting is up in 2012–up even over the strong early vote of2008–and analysis of early voting consistently gives the advantage to Obama and the Democrats over Romney and the GOP. Swing state polls continue to give Obama the edge. Gaffes and missteps continue for the Romney-Ryan campaign. Opinion polls on the second debate give Obama the win, rightly. One poll is linked here; the consensus is advantage-Obama, from immediately post-debate to the present. Vice President Joe Biden is universally considered to have won in his appearance with Paul Ryan. Numbers from number man Nate Silver continue to give Obama the lead, as they have for months. A short article from Silver on occasions when Gallup has been the outlier is linked here. Virtually every electoral college map gives the win to Obama, and has for months, even while published opinion polls continue to undercount some demographics including cell-phone users. Even the published polls indicate that Obama sweeps the youth vote.

Yet with all the plus factors touched on here, and more, the Obama campaign itself has started doing what the John Kerry campaign did in 2004–focusing too much on a few swing states. This is a tactic too politically transparent and too liable to breed cynicism. It brings a danger that people will forget that the president governs, watching him campaign. There is a margin of diminishing returns. Look how it worked for Kerry.**

It’s great for the president to visit Florida, which needs all the help it can get. But the president should also come to Baltimore (and to Prince George’s County, Md.), go to Richmond, to New Mexico, and to North Carolina, time permitting. Also, Obama’s team is undervaluing the incumbent. Let him spend more time governing: New Orleans also needs all the help it can get. So does Arizona. So does New Jersey, for that matter. Look at N.J.’s governor. So do all the states and localities where vote suppression tactics are taking hold.

 

Lining up to vote early

Obviously I do not belong to the brigade of highly paid experts with a track record of winning (or losing) national campaigns. My views are offered here simply as those of a voter, a writer and journalist, and an observer. I am offering them not to fill up air time but because I think I’m right. Viz.: People in the rest of the U.S. don’t appreciate being ignored because a few less than truthful pundits are again pretending to consider ‘undecided voters’ seriously. The rest of the country doesn’t appreciate being ignored while up-and-down voters keep wobbling with every opinion poll. For that matter, it doesn’t make a handful of states feel all that special to be wired like paramecia under a microscope, within days of a national election. The nation is more important than they are, as on some level they themselves know.

Bainport, Illinois

Let the ground game take up some of the slack on the campaign trail. Admittedly, some who perceive themselves as strategists could perceive limiting swing-state visits as a disadvantage. GOP opponent Mitt Romney, after all, doesn’t have to spend his time and energy governing. He could visit Florida another twelve times. But that’s because Romney hasn’t been elected to anything lately. Let Fox News have its polls, let the same crew of Washington insiders who boosted the Iraq war boost ‘centrists’, a ‘close election’, and ‘undecided voters’. These are not people to be influenced by. After all, if we actually have a close election in this country, the press will have failed the public.

To sum up, the administration has a good record, and should run on it. One of the uglier examples of the big lie in election 2012 has been Romney’s pretense that the Obama record is one to run away from. The GOP, in contrast, has an execrable record. Any good television ad campaign could condense the mortgage-derivatives crisis in a few spots. We’ve got upside-down mortgages because we had an upside-down Wall Street. Financial insiders touted disastrous products for the public and got out with billions themselves, everybody else paid the price, and Romney-Ryan and the congressional GOP have banded together to protect the privileged. Their slogan: Prevent improvement.

 

*I have not tried to get on television.

**Qualifier: Kerry won Ohio in 2004. He thus won the electoral college vote; most of the same media figures touting a close election this time swept Ohio under the rug in 2004.

The returning issue of Romney’s tax returns

Posted on by
Reply

The returning issue of Romney’s tax returns

Tax returns are not trivial

In the land of abundance, the legal obligations of citizenship rest lightly for most Americans. With no military draft or compulsory youth service, the United States actually requires little in the way of civic obligation–that is, obligation imposed by law and justice. Jury duty, maybe. Community service, maybe, depending on your school district, but only for students in school at the time (and their parents, dragooned indirectly to chauffeur them). Showing up to vote? If you don’t want to, no one can make you. Military service, maybe, but only if you sign up, and aside from the occasional court-mediated pre-sentencing agreement for young people, there is no one in officialdom to make you sign up. We may not always find feasible transportation to work, we may not find good jobs, we may not always be able to get needed medical attention. And of course we are supposed to eschew crime. But our system of government imposes few affirmative obligations on us individually as we go about our day. That leaves taxes as one of the few government-imposed legal obligations for the overwhelming majority of U.S. citizens and legal residents.

 

Whack-job signs

Thus it is either funny how much fuss the right-wing noise machine makes about government, when you think about it, or no wonder GOPers make such a fuss about taxes. If media personalities in the foaming-lips crowd want to represent the president as some kind of tyrant, they have little work with.

All this means that discussion about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, and questions about why Romney has not released them, are not trivial, silly or superficial. I respectfully disagree that the presidential candidate’s refusal to disclose his own IRS returns is a side issue.

 

Front page

Furthermore, Romney’s refusal to release his individual tax returns magnifies his inability to disclose his tax plans–tax policy–for other Americans.

 

Rep. Paul Ryan was repeatedly recommended as a vice-presidential pick before appearing in reports on Romney’s short list, before Romney took him on board Aug. 11–and not always by conservatives. In the context of taxes, former automobile ‘czar’ Steven Rattner on ABC’s This Week had this to say:

“I personally would love to see [Romney] pick Paul Ryan, because then we could actually have a decision about Romney’s economic plan, which he is not discussing, because I think when people actually understand his plan, they’ll understand all the tax things that we talked about. They’ll understand the spending implications of the Ryan budget plan in terms of what it does to Medicare, privatizing it, what it does to Medicaid, turning it into a block grant program, and then 33 percent cuts that are going to occur in a whole series of programs, including things like food stamps. Just to make his numbers work. So I would welcome Ryan and the discussion we have about it.”

The next speaker, former White House environmental advisor Van Jones, brought the Aug. 5 discussion closer to tax returns as well as to taxes:

“We’re talking about two different things here. We have a problem with Mitt Romney, because it seems that Mitt Romney doesn’t understand what ordinary people are going through. He’s talking—he’s had these magical mystery numbers about, oh, we’re going to close loopholes. When you dig down into it, the levels, what he’s calling loopholes as you are saying, are what ordinary people rely on to keep moving forward in the economy. So I think what you got here is do you want to elect somebody who won’t tell you how much money he’s making and won’t give you his tax returns, but with all he’s put on paper, will cut his taxes and raise yours. That’s the real question.”

One of Ryan’s biggest boosters, George H. W. Bush speechwriter Mary Kate Cary, pushed for Ryan in hopes that he would distract attention from Romney’s tax returns:

“This is an election about “big ideas,” and the longer it stays on small issues like Bain Capital and Romney’s tax returns, the worse Romney will do. Ryan is the intellectual leader of the party—who better to take the Republican case to voters in common sense language about how high the stakes are? Time to move from defense to offense.”

Ryan holding up budget

Moving back a little earlier in time than the presidential-campaign year, if we remember, Romney declined to weigh in on any congressional disputes over the payroll tax. Thus when congressional Republicans argued–in effect–that payroll taxes don’t count, compared to income tax, Romney offered no reasoned correction. (He has, after all, said in private that “47 percent” of Americans pay no income tax without mentioning that those people do pay payroll taxes.) Romney, the man running as CEO who can fix things, has taken little to no part in any of the fiscal policy disputes embroiling Congress. When he did take part–belatedly and reluctantly–he blew hot and cold, first over Ryan’s budget, then over the debt-ceiling deal. (Right now it looks as though Ryan is returning the favor by positioning himself for 2016, as much as working to benefit Romney.)

Hopeful Ryan with Bush Sec of State Condoleezza Rice

The refusal to release his own tax returns is one of few issues on which the GOP nominee for the White House has been consistent, and Romney has held to this one position even under heavy fire. Even in the Republican primary season, with Newt Gingrich among others calling for Romney to release his tax returns, no dice. He held to the position even when several right-wing commentators weighed in, in concert, with the same advice.

Romney himself recognizes that his unearned income, his inherited wealth and connections, and his immense fortune acquired through finance are less than political assets. He has played down the amount of money he  inherited outright–though the amount would be substantial for almost anyone else. He modestly deprecated $374,000 in speaking fees as “not very much.” He told at least one audience that he, too, feared being fired, feared getting a pink slip. The partial tax returns released do everything possible to minimize his assets abroad in the Caymans and elsewhere. And in the Oct. 18 town-hall debate, Romney even made the remarkable claim that “I came through small business.”

These are not the actions of a candidate oblivious to the impact of tax discussion.

 

Side note:

Taking a leaf from Rupert Murdoch’s book, Bain Capital over the years has invested heavily in media companies in the U.S. and abroad, one example being Clear Channel–a conduit for Bush administration communiques. Other media acquisitions and investments include Warner Music, The Weather Channel and AMC Entertainment, but completed media deals are only part of the picture; the Bain Capital track record also includes several foiled attempts (including in China). No one writes about Bain and media companies, but Bain Capital has a pattern of acquiring or trying to acquire a number of large media companies, in the U.S. and abroad. Thus, just as GOP federal-state links cemented under the GWBush administration have continued to solidify and expand–reinforced by superPACs, well-funded lobbying and party ties–so have GOP government-corporate links, including politics-media links. All signs point to a party (GOP)-government-media nexus on steroids under a Romney White House. It’s the right-wing noise machine grown more elegant, so to speak, because quieter and subtler. Gives a whole new meaning to the old term “fourth estate.”

Benghazi , binders and birthers

Posted on by
1

Benghazi , binders and birthers

With any luck, last night’s town-hall presidential debate will quell some unseemly attempts to exploit the attacks on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi, Libya. It will not end the topic, since the perpetrators have not been caught yet. When they are caught, that will be the point at which right-wingers of the Koch-brothers persuasion quit mentioning Benghazi. We will then hear no more from them about ‘Benghazi’ than we now hear from them about Osama bin Laden. Almost the only times the right/GOP mention bin Laden are to tongue-twist his name with that of President Obama.

A dead bin Laden generates no contracts.

Meanwhile, GOP nominee Mitt Romney’s worst (regarding Benghazi) has been caught on videotape.

 

Romney corrected by Crowley

Here is the White House transcript of the president’s address in the Rose Garden, the day after the attacks. Here is the president’s explicit reference to terrorism:

“As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.”

It should be noted that the entire address comprised a tribute to the heroic American victims, a pledge to fight back, and repeated characterization of the attacks as what they were–attacks. Obama referred to “attack” and “attackers” throughout the Rose Garden address.

Obama’s entire address was dignified. The right can’t stand that. The segment of the right that jokes about turning the Rose Garden into a watermelon patch especially can’t stand it. Furthermore, every tumult in the Middle East occurs in the global context of an improved image for America, because of the switch from George W. Bush to Barack Obama. The right really can’t stand that.

Thus the spiteful glee with which some congressional Republicans have pounced on the Benghazi attacks. It’s we’ll-show-you-where-your-peace-gets-you. Falsely, Romney’s smarmy comments in last night’s debate suggest that the Obama administration has been characterizing the killing of four Americans as some kind of ‘spontaneous demonstration’. Basically, this kind of accusation is the petty revenge of worse against better, Romney behaving like a petty character in an old Brian de Palma movie instead of boosting the dignity and unity of the U.S. for global viewers.

But wait; there’s more. The gold-selling anti-Obama crowd is trying to refute even the fact that the president did indeed refer to the attacks as terror. How? By drawing an artificial distinction between the words terror and terrorism. An example:

“In tonight’s presidential debate President Obama maintains that he called the attack on the US Consulate in Benghazi a “act of terror”, which turns out to be accurate.  However, the President is using a play on words.  The full transcript below supports that assertion, which the moderator, Candy Crowley vehemently confirmed the President did do.  However, the legal term of “act of terrorism” is never used.”

These are the people who claim that President Obama’s birth certificate is phony because it is titled (by the state of Hawaii) CERTIFICATE OF LIVE BIRTH rather than “Birth Certificate.”

 

[Update]

Daily Kos presents the video moment on Benghazi here.

Talking Points Memo does it here.

Think Progress treats it here.