The Commentariat -- January 27, 2012
David Roberts of Grist: The results of wiring up a focus group of swing voters who watched the State of the Union address were that they strongly favored two Democratic policies: clean energy & increasing taxes on the rich. It's worth reading the post, which leads the reader to believe maybe those low-info voters know a thing or two after all. ...
... Bernie Becker of The Hill: "Democratic leaders are embracing a new strategy for tax reform that leans on President Obama's State of the Union call for tax fairness and economic equality. The new strategy diverges from the 1986 formula, the last time Washington successfully tackled tax reform, and focuses on raising tax revenue from the wealthiest taxpayers and businesses that funnel jobs offshore. 'Tax reform after the president's speech now has a different definition,' Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday." ...
... Clusterfucked. Paul Krugman: in his SOTU rebuttal, Mitch Daniels lied about Jobs and jobs. To make his point, Krugman refers to the Duhigg & Bradsher article(s) linked yesterday on the Commentariat. "One side [Republican] believes that economies succeed solely thanks to heroic entrepreneurs; the other [Democratic] has nothing against entrepreneurs, but believes that entrepreneurs need a supportive environment, and that sometimes government has to help create or sustain that supportive environment. And the view that it takes more than business heroes is the one that fits the facts."
Here's a news item I missed from a couple of days ago. New York Times: "The publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times resigned Tuesday after writing that Israel should consider assassinating President Obama. Andrew B. Adler stepped down after an outcry over a recent column in which he suggested that the Israeli military might 'take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel.' Adler owns the paper.”
Right Wing World
Quote of the Day. Willard Still Likes to Fire People. If I had a business executive come to me and say they wanted to spend a few hundred billion dollars to put a colony on the moon, I’d say, ‘You’re fired.’ -- Mitt Romney, on Newt Gingrich's moon colonization plan
Thursday GOP Debate Post-Mortems
Jim Rutenberg & Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times: "Mitt Romney, facing his greatest challenge of the campaign so far, relentlessly pressed Newt Gingrich on Thursday night in their final debate before the Florida primary, seeking to regain the offensive against an insurgent challenge that has shaken his claim to inevitability. On immigration, personal finances and the grand ideas that have been the trademark of Mr. Gingrich’s candidacy, Mr. Romney gave his rival no quarter, giving prime time voice to his campaign’s all-out, round-the-clock assault on Mr. Gingrich here." The Los Angeles Times story by Paul West & Seema Mehta is here. ...
Jonathan Bernstein in the Washington Post: "... for the second time this week, Newt showed that his debate skills are massively overrated, particularly his ability to attack an opponent with clear vulnerabilities. And Mitt Romney demonstrated exactly how to go about carving up an overmatched opponent. This time, not even having a noisy audience to appeal to could save the former Speaker. Several times over the course of the debate, Romney hit Newt hard, and Newt sputtered around and couldn’t find an effective response."
Glen Johnson wrote the Boston Globe's report on the debate. It is titled, "Mitt Romney’s attacks on Newt Gingrich’s record and credibility strain his own." That should give you a taste of the tenor of the debate. And here are the ...
... Biggest Liar Contest Results. Glenn Kessler fact-checks some of the candidates' remarks.
The DNC fact-checks Romney:
** Tim Egan: "When not holding forth from his favorite table at L’Auberge Chez François, nestled among the manor houses of lobbyist-thick Great Falls, Va., Dr. Newton L. Gingrich likes to lecture people about food stamps and how out-of-touch the elites are with real America. Gingrich, as he showed in a gasping effort in Thursday night’s debate in Florida, is a demagogue distilled, like a French sauce, to the purest essence of the word’s meaning. He has no shame. He thinks the rules do not apply to him. And he turns questions about his odious personal behavior into mock outrage over the audacity of the questioner." ...
Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times: During his term in Congress, "Mr. Gingrich, Democrats and Republicans here agree, emerged as one of Washington’s most aggressive practitioners of slash-and-burn politics; many fault him for erasing whatever civility once existed in the capital. He believed, and preached, that harsh language could win elections.... Those same qualities are now on display as Mr. Gingrich, a Republican candidate for president, turns his caustic tongue against Republicans and Democrats alike." ...
... Measured against the scale and momentum of the Soviet empire’s challenge, the Reagan administration has failed, is failing, and without a dramatic change in strategy will continue to fail.... President Reagan is clearly failing.... The burden of this failure frankly must be placed first on President Reagan [who is] ... pathetically incompetent. -- Newt Gingrich, 1986 ...
... The Blue Texan at Crooks & Liars: "The wingosphere is flipping out over an explosive Elliot Abrams piece in which he lambastes Newt Gingrich for his vituperative assaults on Ronald Reagan back in the '80s.... This is especially rich since Newt has been invoking St. Ronald of California more than any other GOP candidate."
"Winning Our Future," The pro-Newt superPac, presents "Blood Money" -- The Trailer:
Not to be outdone, the Romney campaign produces this ad, the entire premise of which is a lie:
A pro-Bama superPAC notices Romney was against the 99 Percent a few days before he was for the 99 Percent:
Blast from the Past. TPM: "Former Sen. Bob Dole (R-KS) is blaming Newt Gingrich in part for the losses Republicans suffered in 1996, including his own presidential campaign against Bill Clinton. In a statement sent by the Mitt Romney campaign, Dole warns that Republicans this year could suffer the same fate as the candidates for office in 1996 if Gingrich is nominated." ...
... The Gingrich Reaction. It’s got to be on the top 10 list of the weirdest things he’s ever written. -- R. C. Hammond, Gingrich's spokesperson
Kevin Drum of Mother Jones: "It's sort of fascinating watching the Republican establishment finally go nuclear on Newt Gingrich. As near as I can tell, pretty much everyone who actually served with or alongside Newt in the 90s hates his guts.... Newt's tone and temperament are perfectly suited to the no-compromise-no-surrender spirit of the tea party-ized GOP, which is why he's so appealing to the base during debates. But the truth is that for all his bluster, Newt ... likes to think of himself as a world-historical figure, and that means getting world-historical things done.... That makes him doubly unreliable, since obstruction is the sine qua non of movement conservatism these days." ...
Ginger Gibson of Politico: Gingrich lays into Romney and the "Republican establishment" backing Romney. ...
... Robert Reich: "Even if the odds that Gingrich as GOP presidential candidate would win the general election are 10 percent, that’s too much of a risk to the nation. No responsible American should accept a 10 percent risk of a President Gingrich." ...
... Michael Shear of the New York Times: Mitt "Romney is now fully participating in his campaign’s efforts to attack Mr. Gingrich’s morals and raise doubts about his emotional stability." ...
... CNN: Gingrich is forced to admit he's a big fat liar. He repeatedly claimed he had provided "character" witnesses to ABC News re: their interview of Marianne Gingrich and called ABC News "dishonest" for denying it. However, a Gingrich staffer has now admitted the candidate's claims were untrue. CW: for once, CNN follows up.
When "Disclosure" Doesn't Mean "Disclosure." Matea Gold & Tom Hamburger of the Los Angeles Times: "Some investments listed in Mitt and Ann Romney’s 2010 tax returns – including a now-closed Swiss bank account and other funds located overseas – were not explicitly disclosed in the personal financial statement the GOP presidential hopeful filed in August as part of his White House bid. The Romney campaign described the discrepancies as 'trivial' but acknowledged Thursday afternoon that they are undergoing an internal review of how the investments were reported and will make 'some minor technical amendments' to Romney’s financial disclosure that will not alter the overall picture of his finances.... At least 23 funds and partnerships listed in the couple’s 2010 tax returns did not show up or were not listed in the same fashion on Romney’s most recent financial disclosure, including 11 based in low-tax foreign countries such as Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and Luxembourg."
** Jerry Markon & Alice Crites of the Washington Post on Ron Paul's racist, homophobic newsletters: Paul "has denied writing inflammatory passages in the pamphlets from the 1990s and said recently that he did not read them at the time or for years afterward.... But people close to Paul’s operations said he was deeply involved in the company that produced the newsletters ... and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day. 'It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product.... He would proof it,’' said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company" and a Paul supporter "A person involved in Paul’s businesses ... said Paul and his associates decided in the late 1980s to try to increase sales by making the newsletters more provocative. They discussed adding controversial material, including racial statements, to help the business, the person said."
Gene Robinson: "Republicans seem eager to double down on a 'greed is good' ethos that has more resonance when the economy is booming, real estate values are soaring and everybody feels rich. Obama, by contrast, envisions a return to an America where the successful and fortunate lend a helping hand to those down on their luck.... This seems much more in tune with the times.... The Republicans who are running the party laugh at the concepts of fairness and collective responsibility. Soon they may find the joke’s on them."
News Ledes
New York Times: French "President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Friday that would break with its allies in NATO and accelerate the French withdrawal from Afghanistan, pulling back combat troops a year early, by the end of 2013. Mr. Sarkozy also said that he and Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, would ask the NATO alliance for a similar speedup of the transfer of primary security responsibilities to Afghan troops."
New York Times: "... in a sort of coming-of-age moment, Twitter announced that upon request, it would block certain messages in countries where they were deemed illegal. The move immediately prompted outcry, argument and even calls for a boycott from some users. Twitter in turn sought to explain that this was the best way to comply with the laws of different countries. And the whole episode, swiftly amplified worldwide through Twitter itself, offered a telling glimpse into what happens when a scrappy Internet start-up tries to become a multinational business."
ABC News: "President Obama met with former president George H. W. Bush and his son, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, at the White House this evening."
President Obama spoke to Democratic Members of Congress this afternoon:
Reuters: "President Barack Obama vowed on Friday to push back hard against Republicans who try to obstruct his election-year proposals on taxes and jobs, as he sought to rally congressional Democrats and move past a period of strained relations. Wrapping up a cross-country tour to promote a populist agenda laid out in this week's State of the Union address, Obama hammered home a reelection campaign appeal for greater economic fairness and called on fellow Democrats to close ranks with him."
Washington Post: "The Pentagon is rushing to send a large floating base for commando teams to the Middle East as tensions rise with Iran, al-Qaeda in Yemen and Somali pirates, among other threats. In response to requests from the U.S. Central Command, which oversees military operations in the Middle East, the Navy is converting an aging warship it had planned to decommission into a makeshift staging base for the commandos. Unofficially dubbed a 'mothership,' the floating base could accommodate smaller high-speed boats and helicopters commonly used by Navy SEALs...."
Reuters: "Fitch downgraded the sovereign credit ratings of Belgium, Cyprus, Italy, Slovenia and Spain on Friday, indicating there was a 1-in-2 chance of further cuts in the next two years. In a statement, the ratings agency said the affected countries were vulnerable in the near-term to monetary and financial shocks."
Washington Post: In his speech in Ann Arbor, Michigan, "President Obama will offer a plan Friday to reduce the costs of higher education by increasing the amount of federal grant money available in low-interest loans and tying it directly to colleges’ ability to reduce tuition." New York Times story here.
Reuters: "The U.S. economy grew at its fastest pace in 1-1/2 years in the fourth quarter of 2011, but a strong rebuilding of stocks by businesses and a slower pace of spending on capital goods hinted at softer growth early this year."
AP: "Fresh violence erupted Friday in the besieged Syrian city of Homs, a day after armed forces loyal to President Bashar Assad barraged residential buildings with mortars and machine-gun fire, killing at least 30 people including a family of women and children, activists said Friday."
AP: "Costa Crociere SpA is offering uninjured passengers euro11,000 ($14,460) apiece to compensate them for lost baggage and psychological trauma after its cruise ship ran aground and capsized off Tuscany when the captain deviated from his route. Costa, a unit of the world's biggest cruise operator, the Miami-based Carnival Corp., also said it would reimburse passengers the full costs of their cruise, travel expenses and any medical expenses sustained after the grounding."
AP: "A Connecticut man will be formally sentenced to death for the home invasion killings of a Connecticut woman and her two daughters. Joshua Komisarjevsky will be sentenced Friday in New Haven Superior Court after a jury last month delivered a death verdict. Komisarjevsky is joining co-defendant Steven Hayes on death row for the 2007 killings of Jennifer Hawke-Petit and her daughters in their Cheshire home."
AP: "A shipment containing 16 kilograms of cocaine was seized last week at the U.N.'s mail intake center, a New York Police Department spokesman said Thursday.... There was no name or address on the shipment sent from Mexico City through Cincinnati."
Share Article
Reader Comments (6)
Re the David Roberts (at Grist) interpretation of the reception of calls for clean energy and increasing taxes on the rich:
I would agree with anyone calling it an interesting result that merits follow-up, but I’m not sure that I buy the conclusions that Carville’s group and Roberts draw.
First of all, the 50 people on which this is all based is a rather small sample, and just a single person changing their vote from one side to the other would result in a 4% change in the difference between the two sides. The desired standards of statistical significance on political polls usually require a sample size of about 1,000 people.
Second, those tested are defined to be “swing voters”. But swing voters (besides being a heterogeneous group whose constituent sub-groups in the overall population may not be properly represented in this small sample — see my point above) are notoriously fickle, and furthermore, are unlikely to cast their votes based on only one issue. At one moment they may swing one way; a minute later, based on some other issue that catches their attention, they may swing a different way. (If their opinions were significantly fixed, “dial testing” wouldn’t work very well). And if voter opinions and choices are mutable, then we’re back to the fact that the sophistication of modern political propaganda and manipulation would put Third Reich methods to shame — and the Republicans are more expert at visceral appeals than are the Democrats.
Krugman makes an essential distinction between Republicans and Democrats in their world views. The adherence, by Republicans, to the idea of an economy driven, as Krugman says, by "heroic entrepreneurs" makes complete sense given a central tenet of right-wing ideology: the Great Man Theory.
This largely (and discredited) 19th century trope would have us believe that history has been written solely by the great men who bestride the world, giants of industry, economy, politics, and technology (can’t say science. It’s a dirty word to Republicans).
Great men show the way, be they Douglas MacArthur, Carnegie, Rockefeller, Napoleon, Churchill, Ronald Reagan, or Jesus. The problem with this theory is that it looks at the Great Man (sorry ladies, no Great Women where the right is concerned. Well, maybe Maggie Thatcher, but that’s about it) as if he existed in a vacuum and was able, by dint of individual will, brilliance, strength of personality, or moral force, to change the world on his own.
Closer analysis shows this to be an immature, blinkered, hero-worshipping form of historicity which falls apart quickly when examined within the context of historical eras and political and socio-economic milieus in which these Great Men existed.
As Elizabeth Warren has pointed out, quite correctly, no one gets rich (or Great) by themselves. Those Great Men worshipped by the right were products of their age, their environment, their social standing, their luck. Certainly their own personal skills, abilities, and original ideas brought them great success, notoriety, and influence. No one is saying that such as Albert Einstein or Isaac Newton or Napoleon got to where they were purely because of social conditions or luck. That would be disingenuous, not to say, equally immature. But attempting to separate an individual from the mass of society and conditions surrounding them turns these historical figures into Ayn Rand comic book characters. Colossal figures who operate outside history. But one of the great benefits of the Great Man theory, at least for Republicans, is this exact shortcoming. Great Men do things on their own. No help from a government, no affirmative action, no special needs attention, no namby-pamby bleeding heart liberal concern for social conditions, or education, or healthcare, or better school lunches. These guys did it ALL ON THEIR OWN, DAMMIT!! And that’s why we should still base all of our policies on this theory. Those rich people EARNED that money. They DESERVE special consideration because they are GREAT MEN.
Just look at the hagiography that has been constructed around Ronald Reagan. The next step is that Great Men can do no wrong. This is why George W. Bush, who still considers himself a Great Man, no doubt, could never recall a single mistake or error he had ever made. You see where this takes us of course. To go back to Ronald Reagan for a second, I don’t believe there was another presidency in history that had more investigations, indictments and imprisonment of administration officials. Iran Contra, the Savings and Loan crisis, EPA problems, scandals galore. The Attorney General was investigated multiple times for wrongdoing! The Attorney General!! But do any right-wingers today remember or acknowledge or even care that the Reagan presidency was one of the great legal, ethical and moral disasters of American history? Don’t even bother answering. As a bona-fide Great Man, Reagan is immune to all charges of illegal, immoral, and unethical behavior. As is Bush.
Plus this theory is also an excellent “Get Out of Doing Anything for Anyone Not Great” card. Great Men will rise to the top and show us all the way. All we need to do is get the government off their backs.
It’s a great all-purpose tool for the right. Ideology of the Great, the Rich, and the Perfect.
The rest of us are just in the way.
I'm curious now as to how Gingrich the Lobbyist has been able to sell "access" to the Washington GOP congressionals over time, given that his own party loathes him so assiduously. But, judging from the nature and extent of his current campaign twaddle, this is one presidential candidate in dire need of a Newtonian physic!
@ Fred Drumlevitch. Thanks for the insights on the stats. I'd add that the focus group was run by a Democratic organization. Even tho the participants were "wired up," assuming that the organizers revealed their affiliation, it seems possible to me that the questioner bias effect also played a part. That is, the members of the focus group knew what the "right answers" were supposed to be, so even at a gut level, they were predisposed to responding "correctly."
Nonetheless, I think Dems have a good chance of appealing to "soccer moms" -- and dads -- on environmental issues. Nobody wants the kiddies and grandkids to grow up in Gagsville, even if Republicans think the public doesn't care. And -- class envy or not -- tens of surveys have found that Americans of all political persuasions think it's only fair that taxes on the rich be raised. Richy Rich Poster Boy Willard only enhances that effect.
I guess we'll find out in November.
@ Akhilleus. Thanks for reminding us of the Great Man theory. It plays right into our Rugged Individualism meme. Americans are pioneers! who set out on their own against all odds -- like the native Americans who got here first -- and conquered the wilderness. So even those who didn't become "great" but who tilled or ranched their little 640 acres -- oops, granted to them by the government, but oh, well -- stood alone against gunslingers, cattle rustlers & those folks who wanted to save the land for the 7th generation. Luckily, the pioneers had their guns and religion to keep them safe.
Slap on top of that the idea that each of us harbors -- that whatever success we have made of ourselves, we have done it on our own despite the best efforts of opponents -- mean bosses, jealous colleagues, conniving competitors -- to stand in our way. That is, we see ourselves, even living in close quarters, as rugged individualists, and give no quarter to all the help we have got since the day we were born from parents, teachers, mentors, and fate.
@MickNamVet. Thanks for contributing & thank you for your service.
The key to Gingrich's "access" was $$$$$, with a dollop in insider knowledge. A Freddie Mac executive said Gingrich's job was to "build bridges" between Freddie & Capitol Hill. Those were certainly expensive bridges. Gingrich's "persuasion" ultimately came in the form of campaign contributions, which are the quid pro quo of many a vote for something that stinks. A 2008 report by Politico noted that "Over the past decade, [Fannie & Freddie] have spent nearly $200 million on lobbying and campaign contributions." (That money, of course, went to both Democrats & Republicans.) Even somebody as repulsive and unpopular as Gingrich sounds pretty convincing when he tells a Congressman that he'll put in a good word for him with some big donor. Gingrich made his money in his post-Congressional career by selling access -- hooking members of Congress up with big donors like Freddie & big Pharma -- not by making brilliant arguments on the merits.
Gingrich reportedly also advised Freddie & a Freddie PAC on how -- and probably whom -- to lobby. That is, Gingrich knew what Congress members could be bought and what their price was. His boss at Freddie was Freddie's chief lobbyist, not its chief policy wonk.