Cuomo finds woman to appoint to NYRA Board

Posted by noonante on October 19, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , . 1 Comment

Taking a cue from Mitt Romney and his binder full of women, Governor Andrew Cuomo was able to find a woman to appoint to the new NYRA Board.  She will be the lone distaff member on the new 17-member Board since neither of the legislative leaders nor the old NYRA were able to find one.  According to the Governor’s announcement, Jane Rosenthal is an “acclaimed producer and the co-founder of the Tribeca Film Festival.”  She appears to have no experience with horses or racing.

This is an interesting way to expand the appeal of racing.  If a Bobby Flay can be appointed  –  and he does have experience in racing  –  why could the Governor not find a similarly high-profile woman with a connection to the sport?  That way there would have been two women.

This should be Obama’s debate prep

Posted by noonante on October 15, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

After getting his clock cleaned by Mitt Romney in their first debate, President Obama could prep by just watching this 12-minute video that Andrew Sullivan posted on his blog.  Sullivan entitles it “27 lies in one debate,” but the video lists 31.  Some are duplicative such as Romney’s saying his health plan would cover pre-existing conditions  –  even his campaign backed away from that one  –  and I am not sure some of them would actually amount to lies.  Nonetheless, this is an impressive list of prevarications and misleading statements.

One of the difficulties Obama faces in debating Romney is that the challenger lies and/or changes positions with such facility and fluidity that it can be difficult to choose which statements to go after.  So, just pick some of the big ones and hammer the point home.  Joe Biden showed how it could be done last week, although I would suggest the President not use the same mannerisms and tactics employed by Biden  –  that’s not his game.  Also, don’t count on the moderator to do your job for you.  While many (mostly Democrats) faulted Jim Lehrer’s lack of involvement in focusing the debate, the debate format was agreed to by the campaigns.  It gave a lot of latitude to the candidates to direct the discussion.  One took advantage of that, one did not.

Lance Armstrong doping report is devastating

Posted by noonante on October 14, 2012
Posted in: Cycling, Political/Social commentary. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

I became a big fan of Lance Armstrong after reading his first book, It’s Not About the Bike, describing his battle against a horrible case of cancer.  It was inconceivable to me that someone who had been that sick could come back and win the Tour de France, let alone stand on the podium in Paris wearing the yellow jersey seven years in a row.  I have also been a major fan of the Tour, watching evening replays back in the day when I was gainfully employed, and now watching the live broadcast every morning from France.  When allegations of Armstrong’s doping first came to light, my initial reaction was that someone who had gone through what he had would not start taking potentially harmful drugs to win a bike race.  I also did not want to believe them, and did not.

Now I have read the report by the United States Anti-Doping Agency.  It is a detailed account of close to 200 pages, supported by another 1,000 pages of exhibits.  Not only it is a virtual certainty that Armstrong was the leader of a sophisticated and comprehensive doping scheme, but he comes across as a world-class jerk.  He continues to deny that he doped, blaming the overwhelming testimony against him as motivated by numerous liars who have some type of impure motivation.  The Report, however, convincingly establishes that Armstrong used EPO (an oxygen booster), Testosterone and blood doping  –  all illegal under international cycling rules  –  during each of his Tour wins.

A central feature of his denials is his claim that he never tested positive.  The Report, however, identifies two instances in which he did test positive, one of which came, ironically, after he put on the yellow jersey for the first time.  In that case, he was able to overturn a positive for corticosteroids by getting a doctor to back date a prescription for a steroidal cream that he claimed was needed to treat saddle sores.  In the second, a positive test for EPO “went away” after the cyclist allegedly made a six-figure “contribution” to the testing agency, the Union Cycliste Internationale (ICI).

Two positives over a lengthy career may not seem significant, but the Report details the considerable effort expended by Armstrong to avoid detection, including:

  • Hiding:  He had numerous training sites in both Europe and the United States, and did not provide accurate records of his schedule (as required by USADA rules).  In one case, he quit a race after learning that testers were at his hotel.
  • Using undetectable substances or methods:  When testing was developed to detect EPO  –  a substance he had used previously  –  Armstrong started taking it intravenously and in smaller doses.  There was no effective test for blood doping
  • Understanding testing limits:  Chances of detection were reduced if, for example, EPO was administered intravenously in small doses, and at night when testing occurred infrequently.
  • Taking saline solutions to reduce blood numbers that would suggest blood doping.

While one’s conception of taking illegal drugs may be the occasional furtive trip to the office of a willing doctor, the Report demonstrates clearly that Armstrong’s cycling teams had a comprehensive program involving, at a minimum, the climbers for whom endurance and strength were absolute necessities for success.  Among the witnesses providing incriminating evidence of Armstrong’s involvement were 11 teammates who signed sworn affidavits, many of whom admitted their own illegal drug use.  A key figure in the Armstrong operation was Michele Ferrari, an Italian doctor who was paid over $1 million by Armstrong from 1996 to 2006, including an astounding $835,000 during Armstrong’s last four Tour wins.  The affidavits indicated that while Armstrong and Ferrari did indeed have furtive meetings, Ferrari often attended Armstrong’s training camps and prepared “programs” for members of the team including Armstrong.  Armstrong publicly severed any connection with Ferrari after the doctor was convicted of sporting fraud by an Italian court in 2004.  Nonetheless, Armstrong still paid him $210,000 for his services after the purported termination.

While the reading of specific witness testimony substantiating the allegations can start to seem monotonous, certain anecdotes (supported by the testimony) stand out.  In one such case, the team bus carrying the cyclists back to that night’s hotel was pulled over to the side of the road (under the guise of engine problems) so the entire team could blood dope  –  having a bag of blood intravenously inserted.  In another, Armstrong had a team member “babysit” the team’s blood supply in Armstrong’s apartment in case the power went off, thereby ruining the quality of the blood.

The prolonged and persistent cheating is bad enough.  Worse, however, are the efforts of Armstrong to protect his reputation and continue the conspiracy.  His constant denials of wrongdoing were usually accompanied by targeting the accuser as a liar or someone motivated by personal animus, even when the object of his derision had been a teammate and friend.  The Report also demonstrates that he perjured himself in testimony during the course of a dispute over his drug usage.  He tried to intimidate and retaliate against witnesses, including a case where the witness was not testifying against him, but against Dr. Ferrari.

He threatened to fire a teammate if he did not start with the drug program, and coerced others to do so.  One of the more disturbing incidents involved a teammate who had taken to cycling to help deal with his anguish over his father’s death from drug addiction.  The cyclist was called to a meeting where he was told he would have to get with the “program.” and was then injected with EPO.  When he returned to his hotel room that night, he cried.

Let’s put this in context, particularly since there are many who have excused Armstrong’s transgressions because of the work of his Foundation in battling cancer.  The Report conclusively demonstrates that Lance Armstrong has been lying and cheating for years.  His refusal to contest the allegations before a neutral arbitrator because he was tired of arguing against the charges is as thin an excuse as you will ever see.

Lance Armstrong became an American icon.  He achieved one of the most remarkable records of any athlete in any team sport.  The key word there is “team.”  One does not win the Tour de France on his own.  There was no better demonstration of that than this year when Bradley Wiggins won the race.  His teammate, Chris Froome, had a chance to win the race on his own but subordinated his chances to that of the team leader.  One of many interesting things about the Tour is the word used to describe the other eight riders whose job is to support the leader:  “domestique.”  Lance Armstrong won seven tours because of his teammates, many of whom are world-class cyclists and potential winners in their own right.  (Indeed, Floyd Landis went on to win after Armstrong retired, only to have his win invalidated for doping.)  It is one thing if Armstrong decided that he would dope.  It’s another to force your team members to dope, ignoring any health risks and the possibility that the teammate could be banned for life from cycling  –  all so Lance Armstrong could win the race.  I only call him a “world class jerk” because the appropriate term would be out-of-place in a family newspaper.

Romney’s “47%” has roots going back to 2003

Posted by noonante on October 13, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . Leave a comment

Mitt Romney is backpedaling furiously from his remarks at a fundraiser characterizing 47% of the population as “victims” who do not “take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”  While his initial comment on the controversy was that he did not state it “elegantly,” this week he said it was “completely wrong.”  Joe Biden was obviously not as willing to let Romney off the hook as his boss had been in the previous week’s debate, raising it without any prompting from moderator Martha Raddatz.  Romney’s running mate Paul Ryan defended by saying that “sometimes the words don’t come out of your mouth the right way.”  This is, of course, an interesting way to phrase it.  It wasn’t the concept that was wrong, but rather the way it was stated  –  “inelegantly,” if you will.  Ryan, as a devotee of Ayn Rand and architect of the House of Representatives budget that slashes domestic programs severely undoubtedly agrees with the concept.

But this is not the first time Romney has encountered the notion of “takers” and “makers.”  During his first year as Massachusetts Governor, his budget chief, Eric Kriss, said the following to the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, according to a Boston Globe article from October 22, 2003:

But we all know that some  –  most in this room probably  –  are net contributors, while others are net beneficiaries.  The ratio between givers and takers turns out to be a critical variable of government.

Kriss was a partner with Romney at Bain Capital and is in the iconic photograph of the men of Bain with dollar bills sticking out of multiple orifices.  As the state’s budget chief, Kriss was the second most powerful figure in the Executive Branch.  Following the predictable outcry over the remarks, Romney quickly distanced himself from them.  It’s interesting that he was able to do this a mere day later, while it took several weeks for him to disavow his comments this time.  But as Joe Biden said during the debate, “[if] you think he just made a mistake, then … I got a bridge to sell you.”

Report sheds light on Aqueduct fatalities

Posted by noonante on October 8, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 1 Comment

The Task Force commissioned to study the increase in equine fatalities at Aqueduct early this year released its report ten days ago.  This is a serious issue deserving of a sober and fact-based analysis devoid of political considerations.  The Task Force did its job in producing a lengthy, well-reasoned and well-written report that is a service to the entire racing community.  Unfortunately, the Cuomo Administration could not resist an opportunity to take another cheap  –  and inaccurate  –  shot at the New York Racing Association.  We will save a discussion of the political implications for a later post.

Between November 30, 2011 and March 18, 2012, 21 horses died or were euthanized after racing at Aqueduct.  This was twice the number of each of the preceding two years and about twice the national average.  The New York State Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB), based upon the recommendation of NYRA, appointed the Task Force of four experts to study, analyze and report their conclusions.  Two members were veterinarians from outside the state, one was Alan Foreman from Maryland and the fourth was retired jockey Jerry Bailey.  The panel interviewed 75 persons within the industry, reviewed literature in the field of veterinary medicine, and retained outside experts.  The result was a 100-page report, with another 100 pages of exhibits that are available here.

The report served to dispel myths and assumptions relating to the cause of the increase in fatal breakdowns:

  • Not only is two-year old racing not harmful to the racehorse, but appears to be essential in promoting bone growth, lessening the risk of later problems.
  • Of the 7,106 blood and urine samples tested by an independent laboratory during the review period, there were no illegal or performance enhancing drugs, or drugs associated with doping, detected.  There were five positives for enhanced levels of legal substances, but none among the fatally-injured horses.
  • Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, such as phenylbutazone or “bute,” are not, “as has been suggested by others, appropriately characterized as ‘powerful painkillers.'”  There was no statistically significant difference between the injured horses receiving bute and the non-injured horses.
  • Similarly, there was no statistical significance between the injured horses receiving Lasix when compared to the non-injured horses.  As the Task Force concluded, “in terms of relative risk factors, it is intuitive that the magnitude of the contribution of [Lasix] to catastrophic injury cannot be very large  because nearly all horses are treated with [Lasix] and because catastrophic injury, statistically and comparatively speaking, is such a rare event.”
  • The Task Force found “no reason to believe that any of the fatally injured horses was administered an illicit or non-therapeutic drug.”  Nonetheless, the Task Force noted that urine and blood samples from the injured horses were either non-existent or inadequate.

The central conclusion of the Report, and the one driving many of its recommendations, is stated succinctly:  “The most significant factor for fatal musculoskeletal injury in the racehorse is the presence of pre-existing injury.”  (Of the 21 fatalities, 19 were related to musculoskeletal injuries.)  This is where the administration of drugs  –  albeit legal and permissible  –  plays a critical role, because drugs can have the effect of masking the underlying injury and its manifestations.

Singled out for particular opprobrium were systemic and intra-articular (IA) corticosteroids. According to the Report, corticosteroids “are potent anti-inflammatory agents that are used to treat a broad range of medical conditions in horses.”  Intra-articular administration refers to the injection of the medication into the joint space of the horse.  (For the record, I am getting all of this information from the Report.  Prior to reading it, I had no idea to what “intra-articular” referred.)  While observing that there are three commonly used corticosteroids, one of which has been demonstrated to protect and promote cartilage health, the Report singles out one particularly troublesome one:

Methylprednisolone acetate (DepoMedrol), however, has been demonstrated to have degradative effects on articular cartilage….  [t]he repetitive use of intra-articular corticosteroids, particularly methylprednisolone, may cause significant damage to the cartilage in the joint.  Additionally, the intra-articular use of corticosteroids can mask the inflammatory changes ordinarily associated with joint disease, and can confound the pre-race clinical examination.

The Task Force identified 11 of the 21 fatalities as presenting “missed opportunities” to prevent the death.  Of the 11 identified, 4 had IA corticosteroids, 1 had “repeated” corticosteroids and another 4 had trained on medications.  While acknowledging that “[a]ll the medications reportedly administered to the fatally injured horses are recognized and accepted therapeutic medications,” the Task Force stated that training on medications can mask injuries that might warrant further scrutiny.  Of particular concern were the IA corticosteroids that, when administered within a week of the race, prevented an opportunity to evaluate the results of the treatment prior to racing.  In three instances of “missed opportunities,” the Report stated that jockeys failed to report concerns about the horse’s health.

The regulations of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board require a trainer to report to the stewards any IA administration of a steroid before the horse is entered to race.  This appears to be the only situation in which administration of medication must be reported.  In the four instances in which fatally injured horses had such treatment, no reports were made.  The Task Force concluded that the regulation is neither “observed nor enforced,” and the NYSRWB’s failure to monitor compliance “is a serious deficiency that must be promptly addressed.”   

The Veterinary Department within NYRA  also came in for significant criticism.  The five-member staff is managed by the Chief Examining Veterinarian who, according to the Report, failed to train or monitor adequately the veterinarians, and did not provide written protocols for examinations that would help ensure the consistent application of standards to protect the health and safety of the horse.  In addition, the Department used an antiquated record-keeping system instead of a contemporary tablet-based system with Internet connectivity that would have enabled each vet to see the horse’s race and workout history, as well as the results of prior exams, and permit the contemporary updating of records during an examination.

The Task Force was further concerned that the Veterinary Department reported to the Racing Department, and not to the stewards or a separate regulatory agency.  This, according to the Report, “establishes a potentially critical conflict of interest.”  The Racing Department seeks to have the largest field size possible because more entries mean a larger handle.  The Veterinary Department is charged with protecting the health and safety of the horse.  Scratching a horse from a race, therefore, could affect the amount bet on a race.  Even more troubling are concerns that pressure  –  even when only implicit  –  might interfere with the professional judgment of the veterinarians.  In one instance, a trainer convinced the Racing Department to no longer assign a particular vet to examine the trainer’s horses.

The Task Force examined and analyzed a wide variety of factors ranging from inflated claiming purses to the weather.  The former resulted from the infusion of money from the Aqueduct VLT’s and led the Task Force to conclude it was inappropriate for the purse structure to induce trainers to enter horses for purses far in excess of the horse’s value.  The Task Force recommended a number of common-sense solutions to address many of the issues they identified.

At the same time, the group recognized they benefitted from “the clarity of a retrospective review.”  While declining to find fault or assess blame, it is clear there is plenty to go around to all players in the industry, from owners to trainers to jockeys to state officials.

What is real reason for latest fix for NY racing?

Posted by noonante on September 25, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , . 2 Comments

One of the frustrations I have discussed previously is trying to determine the real reason for Governor Andrew Cuomo’s assault on the New York Racing Association.  While almost every media outlet that reports on this issue liberally sprinkles the notion of a “scandal-plagued NYRA” throughout its coverage, there is virtually no discussion of what those scandals are.  Yes, there was a delay in reducing the takeout percentage on certain bets by one percent, but no one points out that the financial “windfall” to NYRA was on the order of $1 million spread over some 15 months, more than half of which was returned to bettors.  When said that way, it looks more like an oversight than grand larceny.

When the Governor succeeded in his effort to overthrow the NYRA Board and replace it with a 17-member Board composed of 12 government appointees, 8 of whom would be selected by him, here is what he gave as the reason:

With the structure of the gaming industry changing here in New York, the state also needs to take a new approach to how it manages and governs racing.

The change to which the Governor refers appears to be his proposal to amend the state’s Constitution to permit casino gambling.  All that is required for that to happen is votes of two legislative sessions (one of which has occurred) and subsequent approval by the voters.  This is not something that is either a certainty to happen and, if it does, it is down the road.  Why this necessitates a change in the state’s approach to racing is neither clear nor was it articulated by the Governor.

This week brought the report from Frederic U. Dicker in the New York Post that the Governor “plans to seek public bids for a new operator to replace NYRA … from for-profit companies.”  What is the reason for this dramatically different approach?  Again, according to Dicker’s unnamed sources in the Administration:

Aides to Cuomo … had worked for months on a sweeping NYRA reorganization plan.…  But in mid-summer, as the Saratoga meet got under way, the Cuomo aides decided that NYRA’s organizational structure and management team, which has had a series of scandals in recent years, wasn’t up to the job and that a new approach  –  proven outside management  –  was needed.  (Emphasis is mine.)

The Governor’s Director of State Operations, Howard Glaser, appeared on Dicker’s WGDJ-AM radio program yesterday morning.  While declining to comment on the Post piece, Glaser made some startling comments on his own.  He began by stating  –  without providing any specifics  –  that the “functioning of NYRA is sub-standard.”  Then, he said, “the state does not want to be in the business of managing horse racing.” Uhh … to coin a phrase, “isn’t that horse out of the barn?”  Your boss seizes control of thoroughbred racing by replacing the current NYRA Board (on which, by the way, 11 of 25 members were state appointees) with a Board on which 12 of 17 members are state appointees.  Glaser is saying the prior Board was “sub-standard,” but the state does not want “to be in the business of managing horse racing,” even though it is the new Board.  According to Dicker’s piece, it is the shortcomings of the old NYRA that are the reason to privatize operations, even though it is now the Cuomo Administration that is now in charge.

Later on Monday, the Governor held a press conference in which he was asked about the Dicker report.  He did not comment on it, saying he had not read it.  Let’s see.  Before the presser, I had read the piece and commented on it.  The Governor says he did not read a brief news article written by his authorized biographer that quoted unnamed sources in his Administration on a subject he knew he would be asked about.  I guess his laugh when he told the press corps that he had not read it was the signal that he was not being totally forthcoming.

The Governor also acknowledged not being knowledgeable about horse racing.  While there is nothing wrong with that, it does beg the question of who in his Administration is calling the shots on this?  Keep in mind that the first public acknowledgement that a state takeover of racing was being considered was in mid-May.  In a month, the bill drafted by the Governor’s staff was enacted.  One month later, the Governor’s aides decided that a state takeover may not be such a great idea and they decided to privatize operations.  This was, if you can credit Dicker, after his staff had worked for months on a NYRA reorganization plan.

My suspicions are always aroused when a proffered reason for a given policy is so obviously bogus.  That was the case when the Governor cited the “gaming industry changing” as his reason for the state takeover of NYRA.  It was again the situation when I read the reason for privatizing track operations as NYRA’s inadequacies when the state will be controlling those operations.

There is one thing of which I am certain, and that is the importance of stability if New York racing is to survive.  When I wandered about Saratoga this summer, the one constant I heard from owners, trainers, breeders and fans was the importance of bringing some stability to the industry.  In reason  recent years, we have gone through a NYRA bankruptcy, a franchise renewal, waiting for the VLT monies to start coming, firing the head of NYRA, and the state taking over NYRA.  We are still waiting for the Governor to name a new Board and, apparently, to decide if track operations are to be privatized.  Despite all the criticism of NYRA from multiple media sources, one of the few constants in that litany of instability I just cited is the prominent role of state government in failing to get things done in a timely or efficient way.  Nothing I heard yesterday from either the Governor or his Director of Operations suggests that is about to change.

Latest ‘fix” for New York racing

Posted by noonante on September 24, 2012
Posted in: Horse Racing, Political/Social commentary, Politics, Saratoga thoughts. Tagged: , , . 5 Comments

In today’s New York Post, Frederic U. Dicker describes the latest fix for New York racing according to his unnamed sources in the Cuomo Administration.  Even though the legislation giving control of New York’s prestigious racetracks to state government has still not been signed by the Governor, he has apparently decided that the real solution is to privatize management of the tracks.  Dicker reports that Cuomo “plans to seek public bids for a new operator to replace NYRA, a not-for-profit corporation, from for-profit companies with deep experience in the racing and/or entertainment industries.”

According to a “source with firsthand knowledge:”

Why not let Churchill Downs compete with Santa Anita, with Formula One, with Madison Square Garden for the best operation of the tracks?

Well, I can think of several reasons.  First, and foremost, is that thoroughbred racing in New York has been among the best  –  I would argue the best  –  in this country for many years.  It is an industry with thousands of jobs throughout the state, and one entire region that is heavily dependent on racing for its economic vitality.  If there are going to be major changes in the running of that industry, there should at first be an open and full discussion, not changes announced by executive fiat through a trusted reporter.  Let us not forget that the state government’s taking control of racing was accomplished by a heavy-handed campaign of threats and intimidation and rushed through the State Legislature in a matter of days.  As best I can determine, there was but one dissenting vote in both the Assembly and Senate.  And the state’s media, starting with The New York Times raised not a single questioning voice.  Even though this was accomplished with a sense of urgency normally limited to coping with natural disasters, the law still sits, unsigned, on the Governor’s desk, more than three months after its enactment.

Second, there is not the insignificant matter that the state’s seizure was said to be a “temporary” measure, in effect for only three years until control would be returned to a presumably chastened NYRA.  In fact, the law specifically sets forth that three-year limit.  Now, however, Fred Dicker’s sources are eagerly contemplating the “huge fees” that will be paid by the for-profit entities interested in running the tracks.  One would have to think that no sensible business is going to spend a large amount of money for a contract not likely to be awarded  –  again, according to unnamed sources  –  until the “middle of next year” that will then expire two years later.

Third, let’s take a look at some of those prospective bidders.  My sports loyalties are for teams in Boston, so I only pay attention to news about New York’s teams when it is negative.  For that reason, the idea that Madison Square Garden  –  or one James Dolan  –  could end up running racing sends a chill down my spine.  Now, I may have missed the positive stories about Dolan, but I must say the negative ones are pretty negative.  Then there is Santa Anita Park, or to personalize it once more, Frank Stronach.  It may be all you need to know about the racing experts in the Cuomo Administration that they think Stronach will be a positive force should he come to New York.  They may be unaware that one of the most reliable and regular news stories about Stronach is the frequent and constant changes among the top managers for his racing ventures.  The view that he would be a stabilizing influence on New York is nothing short of laughable.

Then there is the matter of the Cuomo Super PAC, or as it is known officially, the Committee to Save New York.  The New York Times reported in June that casino interests had contributed some $2.5 million to the group.  The Governor has refused to divulge the sources of other contributions that were made before the effective date of a law mandating such disclosures.  What we do know, however, is that the Governor has made  changing the state constitution to allow casinos one of his priorities.  We also know that his interest in horse racing does not extend to attending premier events such as the Belmont Stakes or the Travers, but that in the space of less than four months, he has gone from ramming through a state government takeover of racing to now contracting it out to the highest bidder.

The law permitting the state takeover is entitled the “New York state racing franchise accountability and transparency act of 2012.”  If there is one thing that is transparent about the Governor’s behavior relative to horse racing, however, it is that he believes “accountability and transparency” only applies to others.  Maybe this time, either major media outlets, or the State Legislature, will pay more attention to what is going on.

Degrees of separation from the 47%

Posted by noonante on September 23, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

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 tidbits from September 21

Posted by noonante on September 21, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , . Leave a comment

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.

Political tidbits from September 20

Posted by noonante on September 20, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , , . Leave a comment

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.