Mitt gets bested

Excuse me, but if a Republican presidential candidate can’t turn being rich and paying a low tax rate into a positive, he isn’t much of a Republican. By contrast, Newt flipped a question about his moral laxity and adulterous behavior into an indictment on the ethical failings of the free press, thus winning over values voters. Come on, Mitt.

Newt: More to Love

A FOX News psychologist explains why Newt Gingrich’s multiple adulteries, desertions and marriage are really a good thing. Talk about your fair and balanced.

I want to be coldly analytical, not moralize, here. I want to tell you what Mr. Gingrich’s behavior could mean for the country, not for the future of his current marriage. So, here’s what one interested in making America stronger can reasonably conclude—psychologically—from Mr. Gingrich’s behavior during his three marriages:
1) Three women have met Mr. Gingrich and been so moved by his emotional energy and intellect that they decided they wanted to spend the rest of their lives with him.
2) Two of these women felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married.
3 ) One of them felt this way even though Mr. Gingrich was already married for the second time, was not exactly her equal in the looks department and had a wife (Marianne) who wanted to make his life without her as painful as possible.
Conclusion: When three women want to sign on for life with a man who is now running for president, I worry more about whether we’ll be clamoring for a third Gingrich term, not whether we’ll want to let him go after one.
4) Two women—Mr. Gingrich’s first two wives—have sat down with him while he delivered to them incredibly painful truths: that he no longer loved them as he did before, that he had fallen in love with other women and that he needed to follow his heart, despite the great price he would pay financially and the risk he would be taking with his reputation.
Conclusion: I can only hope Mr. Gingrich will be as direct and unsparing with the Congress, the American people and our allies. If this nation must now move with conviction in the direction of its heart, Newt Gingrich is obviously no stranger to that journey.

Obama vs. Obama

No matter who the GOP presidential candidate turns out to be, the person that Barack Obama is running against is himself. It’s the guy who seduced enough of America to vote for him 3 1/2 years ago in hopes of…well… hope. It’s the guy who has sat in the oval office the past 3 1/2 years and been our Commander-In-Chief. It’s the guy who has achieved what he has achieved and who has failed to accomplish what he’s failed to accomplish. So that is the guy Obama is pitted against. Not the bogey Obama of GOP rhetoric. Not the Kenyan-born-America-hating-socialist of the Tea Party. The real Obama. That’s who he’s matched up with. So how does he stack up? Andrew Sullivan  takes a long look at the man’s accomplishments in this week’s Newsweek:

All these decisions deserve scrutiny. And in retrospect, they were far more successful than anyone has yet fully given Obama the credit for. The job collapse bottomed out at the beginning of 2010, as the stimulus took effect. Since then, the U.S. has added 2.4 million jobs. That’s not enough, but it’s far better than what Romney would have you believe, and more than the net jobs created under the entire Bush administration. In 2011 alone, 1.9 million private-sector jobs were created, while a net 280,000 government jobs were lost. Overall government employment has declined 2.6 percent over the past 3 years. (That compares with a drop of 2.2 percent during the early years of the Reagan administration.) To listen to current Republican rhetoric about Obama’s big-government socialist ways, you would imagine that the reverse was true. It isn’t.

The right claims the stimulus failed because it didn’t bring unemployment down to 8 percent in its first year, as predicted by Obama’s transition economic team. Instead, it peaked at 10.2 percent. But the 8 percent prediction was made before Obama took office and was wrong solely because it relied on statistics that guessed the economy was only shrinking by around 4 percent, not 9. Remove that statistical miscalculation (made by government and private-sector economists alike) and the stimulus did exactly what it was supposed to do. It put a bottom under the free fall. It is not an exaggeration to say it prevented a spiral downward that could have led to the Second Great Depression.

You’d think, listening to the Republican debates, that Obama has raised taxes. Again, this is not true. Not only did he agree not to sunset the Bush tax cuts for his entire first term, he has aggressively lowered taxes on most Americans. A third of the stimulus was tax cuts, affecting 95 percent of taxpayers; he has cut the payroll tax, and recently had to fight to keep it cut against Republican opposition. His spending record is also far better than his predecessor’s. Under Bush, new policies on taxes and spending cost the taxpayer a total of $5.07 trillion. Under Obama’s budgets both past and projected, he will have added $1.4 trillion in two terms. Under Bush and the GOP, nondefense discretionary spending grew by twice as much as under Obama. Again: imagine Bush had been a Democrat and Obama a Republican. You could easily make the case that Obama has been far more fiscally conservative than his predecessor—except, of course, that Obama has had to govern under the worst recession since the 1930s, and Bush, after the 2001 downturn, governed in a period of moderate growth. It takes work to increase the debt in times of growth, as Bush did. It takes much more work to constrain the debt in the deep recession Bush bequeathed Obama.

Out of the hunt

Jon Huntsman probably would make an excellent president. But he never had a chance. He was far too even-keeled, far too intellectually honest and possessed the one quality that the Republican base absolutely cannot tolerate: temperence. E.J. Dionne also observes:

My friend and colleague Harold Meyerson and I went to a well-attended Huntsman event in Peterborough, N.H. the night of the Iowa caucuses. Huntsman was good that night, but Harold was struck by two things: First, the crowd cheered the remarks that might be seen as critical of Republicans (for example, of the GOP in Congress) far more than they cheered anti-Obama comments that typically draw loud shots of approval from standard Republican audiences. Second, Harold had the definitive line on Huntsman: “The words are conservative,” he said, “but the music is liberal.” Huntsman seemed happiest talking about his belief in science and his refusal to sign anti-tax or other pledges. Conservatives heard the liberal music. And enough moderates and liberals heard the conservative positions not to rally to him.

8 votes short

 

A few days ago someone was complaining to me about something stupid candidate Rick Santorum had said about poverty. He said he had a two-part plan that would eliminate poverty for good: 1) Finish High School 2) Get Married. Now, such a policy would be impossible to implement, impossible to enforce and naive at best. Although, there is clearly a grain of truth to it. However, I explained to my friend, it was the perfect policy to lure Iowan values voters. Tax-free. And it did. Sure, there are other reasons that Santorum surged forward in Iowa, coming within 8 votes to victory. Santorum has been stalwartly opposing gay marriage. So much so, gay activists have given the word Santorum its own Wikipedia entry.  You don’t see that happening to Bachman or Perry. This guy puts a target on his back and takes it up the bum for the cause. So Perry has gone back to Texas to pray things over and Bachman is going to get another botox treatment. For the time being, Santorum is the reigning “true conservative.”

The Republicans’ Albert Hobbs

It’s the story of a libertarian isolationist–– who favors the legalization of drugs and pot––posing as a Republican presidential candidate. Right! As implausible as it sounds, Andrew Sullivan discusses the fact that Paul does as well as Romney and better than Gingrich when pitted against Obama:

The man who is the target of a massive smear-job in the current National Review, and whose possible victory in Iowa has already been deemed irrelevant by the national media … is now second only to Romney in match-ups with Obama next fall. Gingrich would lose to Obama by 9 points, Perry by 12.5 points, Bachmann by 14.7 but Paul would only lose by 7.7.

CNN’s poll yesterday is even more striking. It finds Romney and Paul tied behind Obama at 7 points behind. Compare that with Gingrich’s 16 point deficit. So, in one national poll, Ron Paul does the best against Obama in the fall.

I understand why many do not support Ron Paul. What I do not understand is why he is not taken seriously by his own party. He is the most electable not-Romney. And, yes, I do concede he is not ready for government in the usual sense. But that’s his point:

I would be a different kind of president. I wouldn’t be looking for more power. Everybody wants to be a powerful executive and run things. I, as a president, wouldn’t want to run the world.

My point is less that he would be the best president than that he is currently the best medicine for the GOP’s degeneracy – and therefore the body politic’s.

 

Not ashamed

News flash: Rick Perry is not ashamed to admit he’s a Christian. Wow! That’s impressive!! Except, it’s not. Because Michelle Bachman is not ashamed to admit she’s a Christian. Likewise, Rick Santorum is not covering up the fact he is a practicing Catholic. Newt Gingrich has joined a wide smattering of Christian churches: from Baptist to Roman Catholic and is totally down with the Risen Lord. Mitt Romney has done his best to try to confess he is a Christian (although most of the Religious Right is not so sure). Former candidate Herman Cain has made no secret of his Christianity, imperfect as it may be. John Huntsman is an avowed Mormon which he thinks makes him a Christian (see Mitt Romney). And what about Barrack Obama? He has also made kind of a big deal about his belief that Jesus died for his sins. And Joe Biden? Another ashes-on-the-forehead Catholic. So why does Perry run an ad like this? Because there are a lot of church-going voters that think the government is hell bent on Christian persecution, taking God out of the pledge of allegiance and taking Christ out of Christmas. And these nervous Christians are looking for a Saviour (having not found one, apparrently). Rick Perry could be the answer. Paul Waldman writes:

You’ll seldom see a more pure distillation of the religious right’s persecution complex than this ad. “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian,” Perry says, as though Christians are an oppressed minority and he’s displaying his courage by saying he is one. “But you don’t need to be in the pew every Sunday to know that there’s something wrong in this country when gays can serve openly in the military, but our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas or pray in school. As president, I’ll end Obama’s war on religion.” It goes on from there.

You may not have noticed “Obama’s war on religion,” and you might be puzzled by the assertion that “our kids can’t openly celebrate Christmas.” But that’s because you’re an elitist liberal, and you’ve closed your eyes to the way the government brings its heavy boot down on the neck of Christians.

One has to understand that as ridiculous as these claims sound, the voters Perry is pleading with absolutely believe them to be true. And this is the most direct attempt by any of the candidates to go after those votes, to say to Christian conservatives, “I will be your sectarian candidate.” You hate gays? I’m your man. You want America to be more Christian? Come on board.

GOP Newspeak

Recently, GOP strategist Frank Luntz gave Republican leaders a workshop on how to speak about the Occupy movement.

1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’

“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’ ” Luntz said. “The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’

“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But  ”if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes.”

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’

“They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”

4. Don’t talk about ‘jobs.’ Talk about ‘careers.’

“Everyone in this room talks about ‘jobs,’” Luntz said. “Watch this.”

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a “job.” Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a “career.” Almost every hand was raised.

“So why are we talking about jobs?”

5. Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’

“It’s not about ‘government spending.’ It’s about ‘waste.’ That’s what makes people angry.”

6. Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’

“If you talk about ‘compromise,’ they’ll say you’re selling out. Your side doesn’t want you to ‘compromise.’ What you use in that to replace it with is ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you’re selling out those principles.”

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’

“First off, here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ . . . ‘I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.”

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’

Use the phrases “small business owners” and “job creators” instead of “entrepreneurs” and “innovators.”

9. Don’t ever ask anyone to ‘sacrifice.’

“There isn’t an American today in November of 2011 who doesn’t think they’ve already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to ‘sacrifice,’ they’re going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.”

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, “You shouldn’t be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it’s the policies over the past few years that have created this problem.”

BONUS:

Don’t say ‘bonus!’

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.’”

1. Don’t say ‘capitalism.’

“I’m trying to get that word removed and we’re replacing it with either ‘economic freedom’ or ‘free market,’ ” Luntz said. “The public . . . still prefers capitalism to socialism, but they think capitalism is immoral. And if we’re seen as defenders of quote, Wall Street, end quote, we’ve got a problem.”

2. Don’t say that the government ‘taxes the rich.’ Instead, tell them that the government ‘takes from the rich.’

“If you talk about raising taxes on the rich,” the public responds favorably, Luntz cautioned. But  ”if you talk about government taking the money from hardworking Americans, the public says no. Taxing, the public will say yes.”

3. Republicans should forget about winning the battle over the ‘middle class.’ Call them ‘hardworking taxpayers.’

“They cannot win if the fight is on hardworking taxpayers. We can say we defend the ‘middle class’ and the public will say, I’m not sure about that. But defending ‘hardworking taxpayers’ and Republicans have the advantage.”

4. Don’t talk about ‘jobs.’ Talk about ‘careers.’

“Everyone in this room talks about ‘jobs,’” Luntz said. “Watch this.”

He then asked everyone to raise their hand if they want a “job.” Few hands went up. Then he asked who wants a “career.” Almost every hand was raised.

“So why are we talking about jobs?”

5. Don’t say ‘government spending.’ Call it ‘waste.’

“It’s not about ‘government spending.’ It’s about ‘waste.’ That’s what makes people angry.”

6. Don’t ever say you’re willing to ‘compromise.’

“If you talk about ‘compromise,’ they’ll say you’re selling out. Your side doesn’t want you to ‘compromise.’ What you use in that to replace it with is ‘cooperation.’ It means the same thing. But cooperation means you stick to your principles but still get the job done. Compromise says that you’re selling out those principles.”

7. The three most important words you can say to an Occupier: ‘I get it.’

“First off, here are three words for you all: ‘I get it.’ . . . ‘I get that you’re angry. I get that you’ve seen inequality. I get that you want to fix the system.”

Then, he instructed, offer Republican solutions to the problem.

8. Out: ‘Entrepreneur.’ In: ‘Job creator.’

Use the phrases “small business owners” and “job creators” instead of “entrepreneurs” and “innovators.”

9. Don’t ever ask anyone to ‘sacrifice.’

“There isn’t an American today in November of 2011 who doesn’t think they’ve already sacrificed. If you tell them you want them to ‘sacrifice,’ they’re going to be be pretty angry at you. You talk about how ‘we’re all in this together.’ We either succeed together or we fail together.”

10. Always blame Washington.

Tell them, “You shouldn’t be occupying Wall Street, you should be occupying Washington. You should occupy the White House because it’s the policies over the past few years that have created this problem.”

BONUS:

Don’t say ‘bonus!’

Luntz advised that if they give their employees an income boost during the holiday season, they should never refer to it as a “bonus.”

“If you give out a bonus at a time of financial hardship, you’re going to make people angry. It’s ‘pay for performance.’”

Why Do Rich Guys Run?

Why do wealthy businessmen run for President? For one, it’s a free country. Two, running for high office ain’t free–it helps to have money and rich pals. Three, in a weak economy business sense is seen as a virtue. Four, voters love the idea of Washington outsiders and political outsiders are better yet. But finally, and most important, rich dudes have ginormous egos. They think they can do anything. Many also crave attention (this is what they share with most people who run for the office). Which brings us to Herman Cain. What moron runs for office after cutting off a 13-year affair? Well, remember the giant ego and the “hey-look-at-me” syndrome. Of course, maybe the guy is innocent. Maybe he just loves paying white chicks hush money. And maybe, Jerry Sandusky is just a sucker for “horse play.” So we await today’s decision. Will he push ahead? Or will he think of his wife and family and withdraw? Not sure. But one thing is sure. Thinking or his wife and family is not the man’s strong suit. I’m just sayin’.

Eye of Newt

Newt Gingrich is not only leading in latest polls, he is the one GOP presidential wannabe who has a reputation for being an idea guy. Just one problem: most of his ideas are bad. Take this one: Fire the janitors at schools and have children perform their tasks. Right out of Charles Dickens. The Huffington Post weighs in:

Republican presidential candidate Newt Gingrich argued at an address at Harvard University last week that American school systems should fire their unionized janitors and let underprivileged children do the work instead, according to a reportin Politico.

The upshot of the plan? The kids would learn life skills, and taxpayers would save money.

The logic for such an argument would seem to rely on two premises: that janitors are currently being overpaid for their work, and that their job is so easy a child could do it.

The nation’s janitors, unionized and non-unionized alike, would probably disagree.

The mean wage for a janitor working in an elementary or secondary school is $13.74 an hour, or $28,570 per year, according to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The average pay is significantly less for janitors working at private buildings, which comprise the vast majority of janitorial jobs: $10.56 per hour, or $21,960 a year.

The latter annual salary is below the poverty line for a family of four, according to the federal government’s most recent poverty guidelines. It also happens to be less than the self-renewing monthly retainer that Gingrich enjoyed as a consultant to Freddie Mac between 1999 and 2002, according to Bloomberg.

Despite its relatively modest pay, a janitor’s job isn’t as easy as Gingrich seems to think it is. According to the Labor Department, a janitor needs to be able to carry out a long list of duties and repairs during a typical day: Mop and polish floors, handle dangerous chemicals, even perform basic electrical and plumbing repairs. At schools, they also need to interact well with children and, at times, clean up their vomit.

A janitor’s job is also more dangerous than most American occupations — and hardly fit for children, according to the Labor Department’s description of the work. Janitors, it notes, “may suffer cuts, bruises, and burns from machines, handtools, and chemicals. They spend most of their time on their feet, sometimes lifting or pushing heavy furniture or equipment. Many tasks, such as dusting or sweeping, require constant bending, stooping, and stretching.”

A spokesman for Gingrich’s campaign could not immediately be reached for comment.

Gingrich made his remarks on unionized janitors to an audience that should know quite a bit about the subject. After long negotiations, Harvard’s janitors, who are represented by the Service Employees International Union, just ratified a five-year contract with the school this past weekend, having received public support from much of the student body.

The contract includes what the SEIU has described as a “groundbreaking” childcare allowance worth up to $5,000 each year for workers, as well as a modest but important 3 percent annual raise, helping janitors’ salaries keep pace with the ever-rising cost of living. The agreement also caps the percentage of janitors that Harvard can use through contractors, thereby stemming a trend that has helped erode workers’ pay and benefits in the services industry and other blue-collar fields.

At Harvard, Gingrich said his plan to put kids to work as janitors would help them “begin the process of rising” in society.

And the contract won by the unionized janitors appears to do just that for workers and their children. One of the perks in the agreement allows janitors to take advantage of a tuition assistance program, letting them pursue Harvard degrees or continuing education classes at a discounted rate. That benefit, presumably, could lead to better jobs and brighter futures for the janitors and their families.

Cain on Libya

There’s a reason why every one shouldn’t run for President.

Attack of the Dwarfs

Dopey, Gropey and Romney. Are these the best alternative to Obama the GOP could come up with? Heigh-Ho! Heigh-Ho!

Fracking Made Easy

Once again, pinko Liberals are getting all Henny Penny over toxic, cancer-causing pollutants in our drinking water. Please! Don’t they realize that is what chemotherapy is for?

Send in the Clowns

I’ll give Herman Cain one thing, he certainly understands that running for the highest office of our country is a total circus. And every circus needs a clown. This past week he has had all three rings filled with complete absurdity. 1) A cigarette-puffing chief of staff doing an endorsement. Wow! His chief of staff endorses him. He must be good! Who had thought that counted as an endorsement, anyway? Then the last second of him lighting up a Lucky. “Was It good for you?” 2) Then Cain sloughs off a sexual harassment charge with a few bars of a black gospel tune. Can I get an Amen? 3) And, of course, the best part is he is as clueless about foreign policy as a yard jockey. Yet he doesn’t see that as a deficit. High self-esteem will get you every time. Yup. This is the guy leading in the polls. Help me, Jesus! Of course, I am a progressive Obamacare-loving liberal. Let’s see what Rod Dreher of the American Conservative has to say about Black Walnut:

When Herman Cain sang at the National Press Club the other day, I thought it was absurd. There he goes again, the clown. Looking at the performance in greater context, I found it easier to smile at, and not in a hostile way. Still, if you think about it, it says something bad about America that here we are, facing the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression, and looking at a future of crippling indebtedness unless our leaders take drastic action … and the top candidate for the Republican nomination a year from election day is a charming businessman with no political experience, who knows nothing about the world (and makes jokes about his own ignorance), and who is given over to camping it up on the campaign trail. If times were great, there would be serious reason to doubt whether America could afford a man like Herman Cain in the Oval Office. But times are terrible, and could easily get far worse. It’s really quite an indictment on the unseriousness of our country, or at least the conservative electorate, that Cain is at the top of the polls now.

See, there are still some sane conservatives left in this country. Thank God.