Romney keeps his word on being more specific

Posted by noonante on September 18, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

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.

Romney continues assault on reality-based world

Posted by noonante on September 17, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

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.)

Can Mitt Romney tell the truth about anything? – #5

Posted by noonante on September 12, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

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.”

Now here is a stupid idea

Posted by noonante on September 11, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

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.

Democratic Convention day 2

Posted by noonante on September 6, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

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.

Democratic Convention day 1

Posted by noonante on September 5, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

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.

Beer and marathons

Posted by noonante on September 2, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , . Leave a comment

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?

Initial take on GOP Convention

Posted by noonante on August 31, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . Leave a comment

After not being able to last even 30 minutes on either Tuesday or Wednesday nights, last evening’s Republican Convention made for absorbing TV.  (I watched on PBS.)  One of the standard features of any convention’s last night is the biography of the Presidential nominee.  I could not wait to see how Mitt Romney’s would be presented since he has been unwilling to discuss some of the most central events of his life:  his religion, Bain Capital and being Governor of Massachusetts.  It turned into an entire evening of the Romney biography, and I thought it was quite effective.  The biggest challenge was to “humanize” a candidate who usually appears stiff and robotic.

First an older couple, then a younger woman, described a close relationship with both Mitt and Ann Romney when they were members of his Mormon temple.  They each had a seriously ill child, and discussed how Romney comforted them during a time of crisis, presenting the image of a warm and caring man.  There were not many dry eyes in the house, including my own.

After a couple of women who had senior positions in the Romney Administration in Massachusetts (including the Lieutenant Governor) spoke, we moved on to the introduction of about a dozen former (and one current) Olympic athletes.  There were remarks made by three of them, including Boston’s own Mike Eruzione.  For those under the age of 45, or not from the Boston area, Eruzione was the captain (and a star) of the 1980 hockey team that beat the Soviet Union and won the gold medal.

I had a difficult time figuring out why these folks were there, and what they had to do with the choice of a President.  Then a somewhat disturbing connection started to emerge, emphasized in the biographical film that came next.  The 2002 Olympics that Romney took over amidst a scandal and “saved,” came just after September 11.  I will readily admit to perhaps overstating it, but was the message that the Romney who saved the Olympics was the national leader who brought our nation together after 9/11?  Lord knows I have not had much good to say about George W. Bush, but one of his few actual positive achievements was being an effective leader following that tragedy.  It wasn’t the Olympics that did that, even if it may have played some small part.

From there we moved on to what is being regarded as one of the most memorable events of any political convention and is already legendary.  Mystery guest Clint Eastwood came out with a chair.  It’s not that he was just off-message for this Republican gathering, with remarks about Guantanamo, Afghanistan, gas guzzling planes and student loans, he actually said it was not a good idea for a lawyer to be elected President.  He apparently missed comments by an earlier speaker about Mitt Romney going to Harvard Law School.  But he did all this while speaking to an empty chair that represented President Obama. While parts of this was amusing in the same way a drunk uncle can be sometimes amusing at a family gathering, it was bizarre, particularly since it came just before the introduction of the candidate by Marco Rubio.  My favorite blogger, Andrew Sullivan, has captured a number of the most interesting tweets from the phenomenon now known as “Eastwooding” here.  (Top on my list thus far is one reading, “This is a perfect representation of the campaign: an old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.”)

Senator Marco Rubio proceeded to give a rousing introduction for the candidate (we’ll save the fact-checking for later).  I was somewhat struck by remarks such as “Faith in our Creator is the most important American value.”  I suspect the mullahs might say the same thing about Iranian values.  As one friend remarked, his favorite moment from the Convention was the standing ovation for God.  It’s easy to see why Rubio is one of the next generation of stars in the Republican Party.

Then Mitt Romney came on.  About 18 minutes into his speech, I found myself wondering when he was going to stop talking about the importance of a mother holding her child in her arms and get to some substance.  It turns out there was not to be much substance (his campaign earlier said he would start giving specifics about his plans in October (sic)).  If the goal was for Romney to portray himself as an engaged and personable figure, I think he accomplished that, with a sizeable contribution from the video that focused in large part on his family life.  He had some memorable lines, and even displayed a humor that people would actually understand.

I’ll come back later with a more substantive appraisal.

If Obama is so bad, why must GOP lie?

Posted by noonante on August 30, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , . 2 Comments

I hate to use words such as “lie” in what I hope can be rational, informed political discourse.  But there is a significant difference in political speech that is puffery or exaggeration, and that which is demonstrably false.  The current campaign against President Obama  –  it is difficult to characterize it as a campaign for Mitt Romney  –  is rife with blatant lies that are continually repeated.  Let’s look at examples from just last night’s Republican Convention.  Much of what follows is from reported accounts.  While it was my intention to watch the entire proceedings, I felt the same listless torpor that seemingly affected so many of the televised delegates, and ended up going to bed without even being able to watch until the end Tim Pawlenty’s speech.

  • “You didn’t build it”  –  It’s not bad enough that Obama’s remarks recognizing the help so many of us got  –  from parents, teachers, etc.  –  has been blatantly distorted by Romney himself, but it was actually the theme of the Convention’s first full night.  A theme built on a lie.  Here is what Obama actually said:

“Look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something—there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business—you didn’t build that.”  (As quoted in Dave Weigel’s Slate column on August 29.)

  • “Obama hasn’t negotiated any trade agreements”  –  This is a line that Romney has used repeatedly, and was said again last night by either Pawlenty or Rob Portman.  It’s not true since there have been agreements with South Korea, Columbia and Panama, a fact acknowledged by Condoleezza Rice in her remarks.
  • “Closing the GM plant in Janesville, Wisconsin,” home of Paul Ryan  –  The plant was closed, but the announcement by GM was made during George Bush’s Presidency.  Ryan, the conservative icon in favor of small government, lobbied for saving the plant and voted for the GM bailout.  Still, he blamed it on Obama.
  • “Failure of Bowles-Simpson deficit reduction plan”  –  Yes, the bipartisan group did not achieve the necessary votes to advance the plan recommended by the majority of the Commission.  One of the negative votes preventing the plan from moving forward was one Paul Ryan, a “fact” not mentioned by the VP nominee as he condemned the President for the Commission’s failure.
  • “Lowering of United States credit rating”  –  Ryan blamed the President for this.  The facts?  It was lowered following the brinksmanship of Congressional Republicans over extending the debt ceiling at the end of last year.

Unfortunately, this is just a partial list from last night.  Tonight, we get the Prevaricator-in-Chief.  The over-under on demonstrably false statements made by Mitt Romney is six.  I’m going with the over.

But the more basic question is a simple one.  If President Obama is as bad as many in the Republican leadership would have us believe, why is it necessary to lie repeatedly about his positions or actions?

Forget the economy, let’s talk rape

Posted by noonante on August 28, 2012
Posted in: Political/Social commentary, Politics. Tagged: , , , , . 2 Comments

During one of the endless Republican debates early in this election cycle, the moderator asked Mitt Romney a question about contraception.  My recollection is that Romney seemed totally taken aback by the question because of its seeming irrelevance to a campaign for the Presidency in 2012.  It may have been his most genuine moment other than talking about his marvelous wealth.  I was similarly astonished by the question, but it just goes to show how out-of-touch both Romney and I were with the current Republican Party.

It did not take long for contraception to rise to the fore when the debate over requiring health insurers to cover birth control became a central issue in the campaign to elect a President.  Predictably, Republicans said it had nothing to do with a woman’s ability to control her own body, but was a matter of religious freedom.  It reminded me of a moment in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton when Clinton’s attorney, former Senator Dale Bumpers, said, “When they say it’s not about sex … it’s about sex.”

That issue may have faded, but it is becoming clear that women and their right to make their own decisions about their health will be a constant flashpoint whenever Republicans gather.  Let’s not forget that soon after the Tea Party representatives took office in 2011, one of their most important priorities was to restrict a woman’s right to choose.  When Congressman Todd Akin opined that doctors had informed him that a raped woman had the ability to prevent a pregnancy because of some mysterious biological capability, top Republicans became concerned.  The concern was not over the realization that an idiot was running for the United States Senate under the GOP banner, but that he might lose the election because of views the Republican Party prefers to keep hidden until they control the government.

Akin’s views on abortion  –  that not even rape, incest or a threat to the woman’s health would justify an abortion  –  are shared by Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan, and are part of the Republican platform that will be voted on this week.  Indeed, Ryan and Akin co-sponsored legislation that would have restricted abortions for rape to only “forcible rape,” a precursor to Akin’s bizarre concept of “legitimate rape.”

Where is Mitt Romney on this?  His views on Akin’s asinine comments “evolved” as more and more top Republicans came out against the Missouri Senate candidate.  He went from “disagreeing” to asking Akin to stop his candidacy because  “I think he should accept their counsel [Missouri voters] and exit the Senate race.”

So, one of our two major political parties believes that the government requiring health insurance is tyranny, but the government requiring that a woman exercising a constitutionally-protected right  –  abortion  –  first have  an ultrasound probe inserted in her vagina, even though there is no medical justification for this insult.