Monthly Archives: October 2012

Romney arithmetic and Staples

Posted on by
Reply

Romney arithmetic and Staples

Divorce folklore abounds with stories about men trying to offshore assets, so to speak; dark hints about bank accounts concealed or moved abroad, about the plaintiff’s attorney being bought off by job offers or other means, about property liquidated for pennies on the dollar. Most such lore seems more suited for entertainment media–Dick Wolf’s Law & Order–than for hard reporting. Goldie Hawn’s character in the movie The First Wives Club had a little fun with just such a dirty trick, gender-bent.

It looks like less fun in real life. Now we get the real deal, from family guy Mitt Romney of all people. Testifying in a divorce hearing on behalf of a crony who had left his wife, Romney presented the court with an estimated value of a share of stock in Staples at the time–$1.75.

 

Plugging for Staples versus plugging up divorce concessions

Bain Capital had bought Staples stock at $0.86 per share. At the time of the testimony, a recent sales figure had been $2.90 per share. (Romney testified privately that the stock was actually worth less than it was selling for.) Months later, Staples went public with a price of $19.00 per share. The IPO closed on the first day of trading at $22.50 per share. The ex-wife had received $2.50 per share.

Bain Capital got out with a $13 million profit. The Staples executive got out of his marriage, shortly before the company went public, assessed a tenth of the pay-off there would have been after the IPO.

Today’s Washington Post, btw, omits some of these facts.

 

Some quick highlights from coverage so far:

A judge has okayed the release of the transcripts.

Romney acknowledges the ex-wife’s stock category as a “favor” to Tom Stemberg, the divorcing exec.

The Republican Chicago Tribune whitewashes the whole thing.

A fuller though softened report comes from the WP.

Romney was on the board at Staples by virtue of his position at Bain Capital.

[update]

A few more early reports:

From Business Week:

“Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, as a board member of Staples Inc., voted to set a low price on the stock and create a new class of shares as a “favor” to its co-founder who was involved in a divorce.”

From truthdive.com:

“Sources have said that Romney provided testimony in the bitter divorce of his friend and staunch advocate, ex-Staples CEO Tom Stemberg, that meant his ex-wife received a poor divorce settlement, the report said.

He testified during the hearings in 1991 that the company’s stock was ‘overvalued’ and that the future did not look good, it added.”

From the Lawyer-Herald:

“Tom Stemberg, founder of Staples, has endorsed Romney on various occasions on his presidency campaign. Hence, his testimony in the Stemberg case is necessary to be exposed to the people, argued the Boston Globe and the judge agreed. ”

“Romney’s business Bain Capital played a crucial role in setting up the huge office-supply retail Staples in 1996.”

 

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.

News from the Virginia Senate debate: Neither side wants Bowles-Simpson, George Allen wouldn’t force anyone out of Social Security

Posted on by
Reply

News from the Virginia Senate debate: Neither side wants Bowles-Simpson, George Allen wouldn’t force anyone out of Social Security

 

Kaine

C-Span televised the final encounter of Virginia Senate candidates Tim Kaine (D) and George Allen (R) last night. Kaine has an enviable ability to stay cheerful while crisp, on-point in rebuttal while upbeat. That kind of internal energy is refreshing to see. Virginia enjoys the distinction in 2012 of having two former governors running for senate, one of them—Allen—also a former senator.

Thus part of the meeting involved the candidates each bulleting reminders about the other’s track record in office. Kaine got the better of the exchanges: he speaks faster, stays clear, doesn’t get tongue-twisted, and has a sharp memory. Also he had more to work with than Allen did.

 

Allen

Allen, for his part, targeted the old-fashioned white vote to some extent, attempting to tie Kaine to President Obama as though that were the recipe for victory. Kaine came off better in that one, too, emphasizing national-state partnership as well as public-private partnership. He did not run away from Obama or from the administration.

 

Debate forum at Virginia Tech

Allen also referred to “this sequestration deal” (in Congress) more than once, pejoratively.

Given the opportunity to repudiate the debt-ceiling deal (sequestration), however, Allen pfaffed. Moderator Jay Warren, of WSLS-TV, asked both candidates point-blank whether they would vote for the Bowles-Simpson plan of tax hikes and spending cuts “as is.” Allen instantly riposted that Bowles-Simpson was “the president’s idea.” On the direct question he was less emphatic, saying that some parts of Bowles-Simpson need changing while other provisions are good, referring to the deficit, but declining to say that he would vote for Bowles-Simpson. Kaine got the same question and after some repetition, back-and-forth, and cross-talk, summed up both his and Allen’s response: “No, and no.”

Moderator Warren stuck with that answer, quitting while ahead.

It would be interesting to find out whether any senate candidate, in a competitive race, anywhere in the U.S., supports Bowles-Simpson unequivocally.

Kaine’s question for Allen was at least equally significant: Kaine asked Allen whether he would privatize Social Security. Allen did not come up with the right answer, a direct ‘No’. Instead he declared, “I would never force anyone out of Social Security. He did mention “income adjustment,” without defining the adjustment envisioned.

Forcing someone out of Social Security is not usually on the table in discussing entitlement programs. A central flaw in the privatization ideas floated is that they might entice younger workers not to get into Social Security.

This is exactly the possibility hinted at in Republican talking points about ‘choice’. You can ‘choose’, under some plans, to gamble your retirement on the stock market instead of placing it in a stable program. (Social Security, by the way, does not increase the federal budget deficit. Quite the contrary.)

Predictions are vain, but somehow it is hard to imagine Allen re-capturing the Virginia senate seat he lost to Jim Webb, even without a ‘macaca moment’.

[Update]

They’re all using the same playbook. Connecticut GOP senatorial candidate Linda McMahon, of World Wrestling Federation fame, also declined to say what exactly she would recommend for Social Security and Medicare. McMahon and Democrat Chris Murphy also appeared in debate last night. Murphy, like Kaine, leads in recent polling.

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.

Positive harbingers for Obama-Biden

Posted on by
Reply

Pre-election, looking warmer

2012 harbingers

Yet another positive harbinger for the election, from a Democratic and democratic perspective: Citigroup’s CEO just abruptly resigned. Wall Street this fall did a little quiet house-cleaning. Doesn’t suggest that insiders see a wildly lenient Romney-Ryan ticket winning. Rep. Paul Ryan doesn’t seem to see that in his crystal ball, either: he is still on the ballot in Wisconsin, running for reelection to Congress just in case things don’t pan out elsewhere.

 

Ryan with budget

Funny how little attention the hand-wringing liberalish cable commentators have paid to that Wisconsin race.

 

WI challenger Rob Zerban

But then a near-hysterical insistence on closeelectioncloseelectioncloseelection offers little political acumen or illumination.

 

Mad man

Close or not, take a look at some of the hard numbers:

  • by all accounts, the advantage in 2012 early voting is heavily Democratic
  • President Obama outraised Mitt Romney in September, $181 million to $170 million
  • retail sales are up in September, unemployment is down, consumer confidence is up, house sales up, housing permits up; etc
  • Dem Senatorial candidate Tim Kaine is outraising George Allen (R) in swing-state Virginia
  • Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren is outraising incumbent Sen. Scott Brown (R) in Massachusetts in spite of a national lobbyist-superPAC campaign against her
  • compilations of polls and polls of polls still show Obama significantly ahead of Romney in electoral college votes
  • Nate Silver’s micro-tuned statistics continue to predict the win Obama

Even as nominally pro-Democratic commentators keep instilling fear, cherry-picking the most negative opinion polls in order to seem influential, RealClearPolitics makes the picture clear.

RCP, be it noted, accords the incumbent Obama-Biden only 201 electoral votes, and 191 to Romney-Ryan. RCP designates the other 146 electoral votes ‘toss-up’.

That toss-up category includes the following states, in alphabetical order:

What these five ‘toss-up’ states have in common is, among other things, that Obama is ahead in all or most polls in all five of them. Not much surprise there; Obama also carried all of them in 2008. All five also have a history of going Democratic in presidential elections for the past quarter-century. Iowa has voted Republican only once (2004) since 1984. Michigan has voted Dem every time since 1988. Ohio has gone Dem in three of five elections since 1988. Pennsylvania has gone Dem every time since 1988. ‘Swing state’ Wisconsin has gone Dem in every election since 1984.

Jobs minus before, jobs plus after

Meanwhile, Michigan and Ohio are also home to industries that Romney-like policies have damaged. Iowa and Ohio tend to be politically tuned in as state electorates–never a blessing to Romney-type policies. Wisconsin has a history of populism, Pennsylvania of religious freedom, all five states are heartland bastions of the large, self-confident working class called middle class in this country’s sociology.

And as mentioned, every recent opinion poll or almost every recent poll, in all five of these swingy swing toss-up states, puts Obama ahead.

I am beginning to think that the mass media effort to drive every national election to ‘closeness’ bears a strong and unsavory resemblance to price-fixing in retail.

 

Bain and Switch

Posted on by
Reply

Bain and switch

No wonder the Romney campaign and helpers have been going on about ‘China’. Bain Capital, Romney’s company, has taken over an Illinois auto-parts company named Sensata Technologies and is closing it down–and shipping the jobs to China. People working at the Freeport, Ill., plant have the unenviable final task of training their Chinese replacements.

 

Sensata Technologies

A sympathetic Steelworkers Union video about the plant closing appears here. Some Sensata employees have set up a mini-camp they name ‘Bainport’, to draw attention to the move. Some of them have also participated in a Bain Workers Bus Tour.

Bainport encampment

No word yet on whether Toyota will number among customers for the sensors and thermal circuit breakers manufactured by Sensata Technologies in Asia.

In hindsight, Romney’s bringing up China at all pinpoints his own ties to China. Of course Mitt Romney would castigate the Obama administration about China. Bain Capital wanted and tried to enter into a $3 billion technology deal with a Chinese company, and the deal fell through only after national security-conscious regulators called a halt. Of course pro-Romney television ads would use ‘China’ as a talking point. A glance at the giant database LexisNexis turns up more than 3,000 hits for ‘China’ [ + ] with ‘Bain Capital’. Admittedly there are other political angles played in Romney’s flogging ‘China’. Former President George H. W. Bush went to China as ambassador. Former GOP candidate Jon Huntsman, more dignified and more plausible as a candidate than Romney himself, served as U.S. ambassador to China. Both Bush and Huntsman fall into the ‘no help’ or ‘little help’ columns, for Romney. U.S. trade with China benefits some of Romney’s business rivals as it benefits him. Still, it has always mystified me that Romney would even bring up ‘jobs’, especially in connection with ‘China’, since no sane person can claim that Romney himself has made a career of protecting other people’s jobs, of broadening the employment base, of opposing mergers and acquisitions that shrink manufacturing largely while expanding certain tiers of management slightly. The whole China talking point illustrates the Karl Rove tactic of attacking the other guy where you’re weakest yourself, the cheesy tactic of pre-emptive strike.

 

Cartoon

Incidentally, when Romney himself appeared in China, he did what his crew would call ‘apologizing for America’: Romney told Beijing university students, quote, that “America makes mistakes.” Yes, Romney the GOP nominee for the White House went to China and, in typically self-deprecating fashion, shared with students at Tsinghua University that his country, the U.S.A., “makes mistakes.” Had the candidate released his tax returns for 2006 and 2007, evidence for the trip would appear as speaker fees, under the category of earned income. The speaker appearance was only scantly reported.

 

Romney speaking engagement, Beijing

Selling one thing and then delivering another is called bait-and-switch, in business. In politics, it’s called flip-flopping–a soft accusation that lets the fraudulent off the hook.

In the 2012 election, we’ve got one candidate who killed Osama bin Laden and saved the U.S. auto industry, and another candidate whose company provably ships jobs abroad, and wrote an opinion piece titled “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt”–and polls show the race as close?

 

The Detroit headline

Obama is still ahead, as he has mostly been, pre-election–a point conspicuously not made in reporting by the national political press.

Tonight’s town-hall format debate on CNN may help, although Candy Crowley may be bent on asking President Obama the questions no one could answer, and asking Mitt Romney the questions anyone could answer. One of Crowley’s specialties is false equivalencies between ‘left’ and ‘right’. Her notion of originality probably goes to accusing Romney of being too polite. Up-ending expectations; a reversal of sorts. With luck, she will not pull that old stunt of challenging Obama to reveal national security secrets or crucial strategy–classified information–and then suggesting soft-on-terrorists when he doesn’t. That one has long been a favorite with the If-it-quacks-like-a-duck crowd.

Questions put by ‘undecided’ voters, i.e. by people waiting to vote with the majority, inherently give the advantage to Romney–who is, as Joy Reid said, basically a salesman. In the freedom of privacy, one can ignore or brush off a sales rep. It will be illuminating to see how Romney enters, how he attempts to convey I’m-the-winner-go-with-me. It would be nice to hear Romney answer questions about his campaign-trail blood-and-thunder rhetoric on foreign policy. Then there’s that matter of paying for embassy security when you’re talking about cutting the deficit. The giant LexisNexis database turns up no mentions of ’embassy security’ with Romney’s name before September 2012, by the way.

On a more superficial debate detail–it will be interesting to see whether Romney looks tan as he did in the Republican primary debates back through 2011-2012, or pale as he looked in the first presidential debate with Obama. Change of makeup? Deliberate choice, for contrast? Mere fatigue?

Romney fan t-shirt

Surely CNN cameras will not find t-shirts in the audience saying “Put the white back in the White House.” It’s unlikely that Crowley will quiz Romney on why he doesn’t quell the race-baiting in his party, though. It would be more like her to accuse the president of playing the race card by being African-American–an attitude typical of people who talk about ‘blame’ in regard to the U.S. economy.

Calling it ‘blame’ is obfuscation. The U.S. cannot afford to bury history any more than we can afford to suppress votes. We need to end the policies and practices that brought us to the brink of a second Great Depression. We need to prevent their continuance. We need to develop the financial literacy to see through false slogans about the deficit, etc. It is essential to remind the public that a Republican congress and a highly-funded movement of lobbyists across the country have opposed every positive step taken by the Obama-Biden administration. Calling the reminder ‘blame’ is bogus. Will Romney claim that he as president would have prosecuted the creators of the mortgage-derivatives crisis? He cannot claim that he would have prohibited the credit default swaps. Bain Capital even securitized franchise fees for Dunkin’ Donuts franchisers–speaking of arcane financial products.

Biden wins VP debate, Ryan gulps water

Posted on by
Reply

VP debate: Biden wins, Ryan gulps water

 

C-Span is great. A recommendation for future debate watchers: C-Span is the way to go. Public broadcasting is the way to go. They’re the channels for navigating between the false split-the-dif mindset on the networks, on one hand, and the self-caressing party-time mindset on cable, on the other.

As to last night’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Congressman Paul Ryan, you can tell that the Democrats won when commentator-propagandists like WashPost’s Dan Balz call it a ‘draw’. It will be interesting to know where Mitt Romney stands on further benefits (styled ‘education reform’, aka standardized testing) to Kaplan Inc., the Washington Post Co. subsidiary so large it has all but subsumed the parent corporation.*

Signs of the times

But enough said on the horse race.

As to my question in yesterday’s post—whether Ryan would say anything clarifying Romney–Ryan gave a couple of answers relating to abortion.

1)      Speaking for a Romney-Ryan administration, Ryan said, “We don’t think that unelected judges should make this decision.” Seems pretty definitive, that Romney would push legislation and regulations–but does not preclude appointing anti-abortion judges, though it does not promise to do so.

2)      Ryan said clearly that a Romney-Ryan administration would oppose all abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or where the life of the mother is at stake. This one, assuming it’s accurate, is newly definitive—and another shift of position–though it leaves cases of the mother’s health, in any situation short of death’s-door, unresolved.

 

Chart: deductions

Notably, Ryan still did not address the question of the mortgage interest deduction. Even when asked directly by moderator Martha Raddatz whether the budget “loopholes” Ryan referred to several times would include the mortgage interest deduction, the congressman ducked.

Somewhat more clearly, Ryan did attack Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, accusing him of “equivocation.”

Interesting choice of words, given the source. Ryan reassured the public several times that “we” “agreed” with the Obama administration on foreign policy choices—even while criticizing the choices. He also criticized the administration for an alleged lack of clarity in foreign policy, either omitting or indirectly acknowledging that strategy and tactics sometimes demand some tacking.

A lot of GOPers fall into that one. The blood-thirstiest ones never seem to recall that it might be wise not to give potential attackers a road map.

 

President and Mrs. Reagan, 1983

Meanwhile, Ryan’s repeated references to “Marines” re Benghazi were an unhappy reminder of the Marine barracks in Beirut.

Back to that channel-selection guide, up top. A very few minutes’ worth of cable commentary last night was enough to convey that too many commentators a) focused on their notion of ‘style’; b) used ‘style’ as a tool for the usual double-standarding; and c) didn’t bother about accuracy. Biden’s mocking smile was criticized. Ryan’s doing the same thing was not.

Ryan’s smile wasn’t as broad.

Oddly, given the way some of the tea-leaf readers home in on the smallest detail, no one noticed that Congressman Ryan gulped water some ten times in the debate. Or at least that’s my count, according to my notes. The first time was at the beginning; he kept returning to that life-giving fluid at tense moments; and he ceased only when the end was in sight.

Update Friday:

None of the on-air commentary I caught mentioned Ryan’s need for lots of water, but I am not the only person who saw it. So did Bill Maher and others; see thread.

 

*I was the sole journalist in the DC region who reported the Post Co.’s financial stake in GWBush’s ‘education reforms’ under the Bush administration. Neither the ‘left’ nor the ‘right’ picked it up and shared the information with the broader public. Nor did the Washington Post newspaper.

A question for tonight’s VP debate

Posted on by
Reply

A question for tonight’s VP debate

 

I have no prediction about tonight’s vice presidential debate between Vice President Joe Biden and GOP nominee (and congressional nominee) Paul Ryan. I do have one question beforehand, and it’s whether Ryan will say anything that will shed light on Mitt Romney. Listened to closely, Ryan might say something–intentionally or otherwise–that will clarify Romney’s own positions, will widen the window onto a hypothetical Romney-Ryan administration.

 

Neo but not new

This comment should not be misconstrued to suggest that what Romney offers is entirely unclear. Broadly, Romney offers what the top echelon of the GOP always offers–reverse-Robin Hood at home, and contract-generating bloodthirsty incursions abroad. (If you think this summary sounds reductive or harsh, try to rebut it. Try to remember one time in the past two years that Romney has called for kindness and moderation abroad, has counseled restraint rather than intrusion, or has commended the president for boosting a more favorable view of America around the world.) The mere fact that the disgraced neo-cons and PNAC alumni left over from the Bush administration have gravitated to Romney should be clue enough.

For quick thumbnail illustration, try this short-short-short film, working title These Guys:

http://tinyurl.com/bmq6stf 

If you want more trillion-dollar wars and more trillion-dollar redistribution of wealth to Wall Street, less prosecution of mortgage fraud at home and less budgeting for embassy security abroad, Romney’s your man.

 

Talking tough is one thing, paying for embassy security another

Wars abroad, regression at home. End of story–except for the horrible specifics including cost, yet undisclosed by Romney; and except for the consequences.

But the clarity of the big picture does not illuminate the corner that is social policy. Ironically, even while Romney-Ryan social policy has been discussed and ventilated out of all proportion to what Romney and Ryan plan for this country and the globe, I for one have no prediction as to what Romney would actually do about abortion, if he made the White House.

This is not to be stubborn. I know that Romney has pandered to the right wing in every conceivable way, in every venue, on social matters. I also firmly believe that Romney’s flip-flopping on economic and fiscal matters will leave unaltered his bedrock rich-get-richer core. Thus the most recent flip-flop on abortion and birth control–Romney’s remarkable statement this week that he doesn’t know of any legislation (connected to him) that would change things–cannot be taken as an earnest of anything. It is certainly not a sign of true, bedrock moderation under all the foaming at the mouth. Someone whose bedrock is peaceable could not stomach all the blood-and-guts Romney has been spilling on the campaign trail, in either foreign policy or social policy.

That said, a prediction as to which way Romney would actually go on Roe v. Wade, in the Oval Office, is impossible. It all depends on what’s in it for him.

No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend fundamentalist anti-abortionists, if doing so took political courage. Likewise, I cannot imagine Romney’s standing up to defend women, if it took political courage. When has he ever done either one, if–again–it took political courage to do so?

Here is the only way to project what a chief executive Romney would do. What’s in it for him? What is the over-all deal? What deal does the anti-abortion/pro-choice/fill-in-the-blank position seal? Or sweeten?