How many degrees of separation are you from Mitt Romney’s characterization of them as irresponsible and self-pitying “victims?” I know I am only one away. Mitt Romney, for that matter, is only one away since his father received public assistance (according to his mother). While what he said was bad enough on its face, how many additional millions did he alienate among those who know that life can be tough?
Political/Social commentary
Observations from today’s news:
- This is an item to which my initial reaction was, “So what?” The Romney campaign gave bonuses to several of its top staffers following the Republican Convention. Setting aside the fact that a campaign is a private entity and he can do whatever he wants, and that the Convention has been widely viewed as a colossal missed opportunity, what was he thinking? He is starting to experience difficulties raising money, with many donors questioning whether this campaign is going anywhere. If he were perceived to be on a winning track, this would be a big “So what?” story. It’s also not a significant amount of money for a campaign that may spend close to a billion dollars this year. But how does that help either your message or your fund raising?
- Then there is his latest foray into “environmental” issues in a week where he was going to lay out many more specifics in the event he is the next President. According to today’s New York Times, a reporter asked if he would be campaigning more extensively – presumably because of complaints from supporters that he wasn’t doing enough of it. The candidate responded: “’Ha, ha. We’re in the stretch, aren’t we?” Mr. Romney said before promptly changing the subject and pointing to the sky. “Look at those clouds. It’s beautiful. Look at those things.’” There was no mention of whether they were as wonderful as the trees in Michigan “that are just the right height,” as he extolled before that state’s primary.
Here are some random observations from today’s blogosphere:
- In speaking to a Univision forum in Florida, Mitt Romney noted that President Obama has referred to him as the “grandfather” of Obamacare which Romney said he took as a compliment. As Alex Seitz-Wald of Salon observed, “What? Are you even trying anymore?” It’s not just that repealing Obamacare has been a centerpiece of the Romney campaign, but this is at least the third time in recent weeks that he has had to walk back a positive comment on the health care reform. I can only imagine the sleepless nights his staff must be going through as they anticipate the debate in two weeks, given the candidate’s penchant for unforced error after unforced error.
- Speaking of unforced errors, the number of Republican elected officials disavowing, or running from, Romney’s observation on the irresponsible 47 per cent of the electorate grows every day. When your most prominent supporters are the likes of Pat Buchanan, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, how is that going to help attract the undecided voter? I’ll take a wild guess here. If you put any stock in what any of that foursome has to say, you ain’t undecided.
- Speaking of the 47 per cent not paying taxes, how predictable was it that Romney’s comments would bring the issue of his refusal to release his own tax returns to the fore? (I may be mistaken here, but I do not think he has fully released even one year of returns.) According to Jillian Rayfield of Salon, Senator Harry Reid said, “For all we know, Mitt Romney could be one of those who have paid no federal income taxes.”
- So when is the last time the head of a foreign government made a TV ad in which he is the only person speaking on a subject that is part of a Presidential election? According to Politico‘s Maggie Haberman, Israel’s Prime Minister is appearing in ads in Florida markets that “house some of the state’s largest Jewish communities.” The subject of the ads are Iran and its nuclear threat. It is widely reported that Bibi Netanyahu has all but endorsed Mitt Romney, even though he is apparently unaware that Romney has said his position on Iran is the same as Barack Obama’s.
- Finally, as apart of an endless series of how dysfunctional our hyperpartisan government has become, Seitz-Wald reports that “Senate Republicans filibustered a bill yesterday to create 20,000 jobs for veterans …. who have unemployment rates far above the national average.” As I was driving today, I also heard a commentary on NPR stating that Senate Republicans have also failed to fund a bill to provide benefits to those 9/11 first responders who are suffering from related disabilities. I’ll check on this tomorrow, but you may hear about it first from Jon Stewart who was instrumental in overturning the GOP obstructionism on passing the bill in the first place.
One of the cardinal rules in politics (or government, business, etc.) is to minimize the “legs” a bad story will have. Yesterday morning, we awoke to the news from Politico.com that the Romney campaign was imploding. This was clearly going to be a story that had all kinds of attention, both from the Main Stream Media and the blogosphere. The sources were numerous folks with connections to the Romney campaign who all seemed to have the same goal: skewer Stuart Stevens. That a campaign that has relentlessly tried to stay on a message of the economy would, instead, willingly take up valuable time and attention to settle scores with a guy they do not like, was not something I viewed as a positive for Romney’s chances of winning.
It may have been coincidental, but the same day the Romney campaign announced it would start to provide “specifics” on the candidate’s message. Although eagerly passed along by the MSM (why is Sarah Palin’s “Lame Stream Media” seeming to be more accurate?), this is, of course, nonsense. Romney’s idea of specificity is saying he would cut taxes and regulations, instead of relying on the bromide that he knows best for improving the economy. Into that breach rides Mother Jones with Romney’s statements from a fundraiser in which he did provide specifics.
According to the Republican nominee, almost half of our country (specifically 47%) is composed of layabouts and “victims” who feel entitled to all forms of government handouts – such as food, health care and housing – and would be supporting Barack Obama. He cited the statistic that 47% of the populace does not pay federal income taxes. Romney did not say, that almost two-thirds of that 47% actually work (since they do pay the payroll tax) and that another 22% are elderly. As Romney put it, “”[M]y job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” (All of the specific numbers are from the Tax Policy Center from Andrew Sullivan’s blog.)
That takes care of domestic issues. What did the nominee have to say about the Middle East, specifically, the Palestinian-Israeli stalemate? According to the Mother Jones video, his view is that “the Palestinians [are] not wanting to see peace anyway,” and that his approach would be to “kick the ball down the field and hope that ultimately, somehow, something will happen and resolve it.” This is the hands-on manager who is campaigning for the Presidency on his ability to solve problems? If that comment were not troubling enough, he did identify a former Secretary of State who thought there was a possibility for settlement – but Romney did not ask for an explanation of how that could be done.
I do not know where I fit in the Mitt Romney world view. I have a mortgage, and deduct those interest costs on my tax return. I’m guessing he is not including tax benefits in his notion of “takers vs. makers” since he is doing quite well under the tax code (even though he wants to cut his taxes even more). Given his desire to balance the federal budget deficit, he must understand that if he pays less in taxes, others will be making up the revenue shortfall.
I first heard of the “47%” and “victims” comment from a family member who is both a small businessman and an Obama supporter who stated, “What does that make us?” He will not be the only person asking that question over the upcoming weeks.
In a Friday interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News, Mitt Romney once again demonstrated how craven he can be. There are two big foreign policy stories in recent days, and Romney had been unremittingly critical of President Obama on both, at least until called on them by Stephanopoulos.
The first had to do with the attacks on our embassy in Cairo and consulate in Benghazi, with four Americans being killed, including the Ambassador to Libya. An embassy employee in Egypt, acting without clearance from either the State Department or White House, issued a statement criticizing an anti-Muslim film which appeared to be the cause of the rioting. The statement deplored the religious bigotry of the film, but did not state an unequivocal defense of the right to freedom of speech. It was this omission that caused both the State Department and the White House to disavow it. In Romney’s first comment on the crisis, he criticized the Obama Administration because, according to Romney, its first response was to “sympathize with those who waged the attacks.” He later described the Administration as “apologiz[ing] for American values.” Neither statement by Romney had a basis in reality, and he was widely criticized for them, including by leading Republicans.
When confronted by Stephanopoulos, Romney did not answer how the embassy employee’s statement showed “sympathy” for the rioters and then had the audacity to say, “I think we said about the same thing” as the White House!
The second issue concerns the ongoing effort by Israel’s Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, to goad the Obama White House into giving Netanyahu a blank check should he decide to launch a war with Iran. Netanyahu describes the necessity for a “red line” – or a defined moment which proves that Iran is on the verge of having a nuclear weapon – that would justify war should Iran cross the red line. Apparently not interested in debating the wisdom of another war in the Middle East, or, for that matter, having a foreign leader dictate America’s foreign policy, Romney has criticized Obama for “throwing Israel under the bus.” (Incidentally, Romney has yet to describe how Obama’s positions on Israel have differed from those of any American President, including both Bushes.)
When Stephanopoulos questioned Romney about his views on Iran, Romney twice said that his “red line” and the President’s “red line” were the same – that Iran should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon.
This pattern of sharply criticizing the President, and then backpedaling furiously, is not a new one for Romney. When auto executives were seeking federal monies to save the industry just after Obama was elected, Romney wrote in an op ed in The New York Times, “If General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for … [their] demise will be virtually guaranteed.” When the federal bailout proved to be remarkably successful, Romney started taking credit for it, saying that Obama did what he had recommended.
What is next in the Romney assault on the reality-based world? While it is a long-time until the first debate on October 3 – plenty of time for a passel o’ lies to be uncorked – Romney made a remarkable statement in that Stephanopoulos interview. After twice saying that the President “tends to … say things that aren’t true’ – a remarkable statement from a candidate who has said he would not let his campaign be dictated by fact checkers – the Republican nominee went on to describe his dilemma: “Well, am I going to spend my time correcting things that aren’t quite accurate? Or am I going to spend my time talking about the things I want to talk about?”
Here is my prediction. Romney is going to let the supposed untruths go by unchecked – partly because he is not a good debater (see the primary debates), and partly because Obama is too careful to throw out “things that aren’t true.” Then, Romney will go on the stump and run ads in which he will characterize true statements by Obama as lies, without his being called upon them in front of a national audience. Because, the body of evidence is that when Romney is challenged, he flops at the earliest opportunity.
(The material in this post is based upon a transcript of the interview from ABC News.)
It’s disturbing enough when a candidate for President lies about a significant matter, but even more troublesome when the lie is part of an effort to politicize a tragedy for our country – on September 11, no less.
Rioters in Egypt and Libya attacked embassies of the United States to “protest” an anti-Muslim film that was being promoted by the Koran-burning nitwit Terry Jones. The rioters in Libya killed four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. An employee in the Cairo Embassy tweeted a condemnation of the film for its anti-Muslim bigotry. According to Talking Points Memo, “the embassy and multiple press reports assert that the statement came before the protests and was intended to head off a confrontation.” The State Department and the White House both disavowed the statement from the embassy employee because it did not also include a defense of freedom of speech by Jones and the film maker.
Here is Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s first comment on the crisis:
“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi. It’s disgraceful that the Obama administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”
After an opportunity to reflect, he came up with this:
“We join together in the condemnation of attacks on the American embassies and the loss of American life and join in sympathy for these people. It’s also important for me — just as it was for the White House, last night by the way — to say that the statements were inappropriate, and in my view a disgraceful statement on the part of our administration to apologize for American values ….”
(Both quotes are from Andrew Sullivan’s blog.)
One of Romney’s recurrent themes – uttered most recently in his acceptance speech at the Republican Convention – is that Barack Obama began his Presidency by engaging in an “apology tour.” Romney even named his book No Apologies. The reality, of course, is that Obama did no such thing, but that has not stopped Romney from repeating this lie. Now he has done it to gain political advantage from the murder of four Americans serving their country in one of the world’s most difficult spots. I think the most apt description for such behavior is “despicable.”
Talking Points Memo today reports that so-called “progressive” groups are contemplating a campaign against Ann Romney. The reason for this decision is that the Mitt Romney campaign has made his wife, according to TPM, “the core of its outreach efforts to women and other groups.”
There may be a situation where a candidate’s or office holder’s wife is an appropriate topic of discussion (see Clinton, Hillary), but what right-minded group – specifically those describing themselves as “progressive” – would think this? Are not the candidates’ policies and opinions sufficient? If you think Mitt Romney is hostile on women’s issues, can you not think of sufficient examples?
The stupid part of this approach – as opposed to the offensive – is that it is an attack that helps Mitt Romney. What audience is there for an attack on the candidate’s wife that is not already opposed to the candidate? An attack – on a woman who has battled both breast cancer and multiple sclerosis – is undoubtedly hoped for by what is referred to as “Boston,” site of the Romney campaign headquarters.
After Michele Obama’s speech on Tuesday, we wondered if Bill Clinton could reclaim his title as Barack Obama’s most effective surrogate. We do not know who wrote the carefully crafted Obama speech, but have no such question about Clinton’s. This was pure Bill, all 49 minutes of it – rambling, wonkish, and incredibly effective. As a political junkie, I thought that I would be familiar with all the arguments on both sides of the spectrum, but Clinton added some new ones. I did not like him as President, but this is one incredible politician.
For starters, I was not aware – even amidst the debate over student loan rates – that Obama’s education reforms would have student loans repaid at a rate that is tied to actual income. So, as Clinton pointed out, college graduates could take jobs for which the compensation may not be so great, but would help boost the economy, because they had a more reasonable chance to repay the loans. (Mitt Romney’s solution – not mentioned by Clinton – was to ask your parents to help.)
Clinton further pointed out that the GOP’s cuts to Medicaid would result in reduction in benefits to the elderly in nursing homes who rely on Medicaid for benefits not covered by Medicare. The Republicans, of course, describe their changes as providing block grants to states, but what that really means is the federal government saves money, and unless the states want to pick up the increased costs, it requires reducing benefits.
Clinton had many great lines, including the Romney campaign’s saying, “We are not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact checkers,” a rare example, according to Clinton, of a true statement coming from the Republican camp.
President Obama has been rightfully criticized for not doing enough to promote his policies – “Obamacare” being the most notable example – but such diffidence is not the style of Bill Clinton. When a surrogate is doing a much better job explaining the principal’s policies, you have one hell of a surrogate.
I had about the same amount of interest in watching the first day of the Democratic Convention as I did in watching day one of the Republicans, which is to say nil. I made an effort to watch the GOP and did not last long. I didn’t even try with the Dems, although in fairness, I was watching the last episode of Breaking Bad. It’s not just the predictable partisan rhetoric which ranges from mildly inspiring to distasteful, but the carefully packaged infomercial nature of it.
Then I read the reviews of Michele Obama’s speech, and watched a replay on YouTube. Wow. I once observed that Barack Obama’s most effective surrogate was Bill Clinton, and after tonight he may reclaim the title. But no one will be able to mix Michele Obama’s personal comments with the President’s political views so effectively. And, she did it with a charm and warmth that made many of the subtle comparisons with her husband’s challenger (without ever mentioning him) so devastating. As one commenter observed, “Today is the first time Mitt Romney woke up with a hangover.” I don’t know who wrote the speech, but it was an effort of genius.
It’s nice when items from the political news are about two areas in which I have lots of experience – beer and running marathons.
The Boston Globe today reports that President Obama has been brewing beer in the White House, and printed the recipe for White House Honey Ale. “It is believed to be the first beer brewed on the grounds of the White House,” according to the Globe.
Add Runner’s World magazine to the list of must-visit sites for political coverage. Four years ago it was a picture of Sarah Palin in a running outfit on the cover. This year, they have joined the growing list of publications discovering that VP candidate Paul Ryan’s reputation as a fact-based pol with a reputation for telling the truth may have been a tad overblown. According to the Associated Press (as reported on Politico.com), Ryan told radio host Hugh Hewitt that he had run a “two hour and fifty-something” marathon. Anyone who has ever run a marathon knew immediately that he was lying, which undoubtedly prompted Runner’s World to get their I-Team on the case. When you’ve run a marathon, you know your time to the second. I mean winners of major marathons are hitting their own stop watch before they get down and kiss the ground. When the magazine called him on it, he admitted his actual time was over four hours, and added the preposterous explanation that he should have rounded his time to four hours, not three hours. Uhh .. the House Budget wizard thinks going from a plus-four hour marathon to 2:50 is a rounding error?
Tom Noonan 