Mitt Romney

Republicans Reveal Their Top Priority For America In Iowa Debate

Posted by on December 17, 2011 at 12:38 pm. 5 Comments :

At a time when the nation faces some formidable challenges on critical matters of economics, employment, national defense, health care, etc., the Republican candidates for president met in Iowa to debate the issues that they regard as most important to voters and the country.

Leading off the Fox News sponsored debate, Fox anchor Bret Baier summarized just what issues the GOP held as their highest priority, and it wasn’t any of those enumerated in the paragraph above.

Bret Baier: We have received thousands of tweets, Facebook messages and emails with suggested questions. And the overall majority of them had one theme: Electability. People want to know which one of you on this stage is able to be in the best position to beat President Obama in the general election. And that’s the number one goal for Republican voters, obviously.

So there you have it. The number one goal is not restoring the nation’s economic health. It is not creating jobs or strengthening the middle-class. It is not Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Al Qaeda, or any other source of international hostility. It isn’t even Republican pet causes of guns, gays, God, or repealing ObamaCare. The number on issue is electability. Republicans are focused squarely on the singular issue of evicting the Kenyan socialist from the White House, to the exclusion of all other principles or positions. Just like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said shortly after Obama was inaugurated.

Taking this theme to heart, the debate continued with a series of question that addressed nothing substantive other than the candidate’s prospects for beating President Obama next November. Here are the first seven questions asked at Thursday’s debate:

Bret Baier: Speaker Gingrich, since our last debate your position in this race has changed dramatically. You are now physically in the center of the stage, which means that you are at the top of the polls, yet many Republicans seem conflicted about you, They say that you’re smart, that you’re a big thinker. At the same time many of those same Republicans worry deeply about your electability in a general election saying perhaps Gov. Romney is a safer bet. Can you put to rest, once and for all, the persistent doubts that you are indeed the right candidate on this stage to go up and beat President Obama?

Megyn Kelly: Cong. Paul, you have some bold ideas, some very fervent supporters, and probably the most organized ground campaign here in Iowa, but there are many Republicans, inside and outside of this state, who openly doubt whether you can be elected president. How can you convince them otherwise, and if you don’t wind up winning this nomination, will you pledge here tonight that you will support the ultimate nominee?

Megyn Kelly: Sen. Santorum, no one has spent more time in Iowa than you. You have visited every county in the state. And yet, while we have seen no fewer than four Republican candidates surge in the polls, sometimes in extraordinary ways, so far you and your campaign have failed to catch fire with the voters. Why?

Chris Wallace: Gov. Romney, I want to follow up on Bret’s line of questioning to the Speaker because many of our viewers tell us that they are supporting Newt Gingrich because they think that he will be tougher than you in taking the fight to Barack Obama in next fall’s debates. Why would you be able to make the Republican’s case against the President more effectively than the Speaker?

Chris Wallace: Cong. Bachmann, no one questions your conservative credentials, but what about your appeal to Independents who are so crucial in a general election? If you are fortunate enough to become the Republican nominee, how would you counter the efforts by the Barack Obama campaign to paint you as too conservative to moderate voters?

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Perry, by your own admission you are not a great debater. You have said as much and downplayed debating skills in general. But if you were to become your party’s nominee you would be going up against an accomplished debater in Barack Obama. There are many in this audience tonight, sir, who fear that possibility and don’t think you’re up for the fight. Allay them of their concerns.

Neil Cavuto: Gov. Huntsman, your campaign has been praised by moderates, but many question your ability to galvanize the Republicans, energize the conservative base of the party. They’re especially leery of your refusal to sign on to a “no tax hike” pledge. How can you reassure them tonight.

Nothing is more revealing of a party’s intentions than what they themselves place at the forefront of their campaigns. And nothing could be more clear than the fact that Republicans simply do not care about issues or the welfare of the American people as much as they do about their own selfish quest for power.

What’s more, the debate sponsor, Fox News, and other right-wing spokesmodels concur with the GOP’s directive on beating Obama above all else. That’s why the questions were littered with words like “worry,” “doubt,” “fear,” and “leery,” to describe the electorate’s mood toward the GOP frontrunners. And the debate amongst Republican elites is raging at an unprecedented pace. Rush Limbaugh thinks Romney is a milquetoast candidate. Glenn Beck called Gingrich a progressive (a pejorative for Beck) and the one candidate he would not vote for. Even Fox’s Chris Wallace slammed Ron Paul saying that a win by Paul in Iowa would discredit the state’s caucuses.

So what we have here is both the candidates and the media fixated on electability. All they talk about is the horse race and not the underlying issues. And of course, the reason for that is that they don’t care about the issues, only the power that comes from political control. And now they have confessed this obsession unabashedly.

Unfortunately for these polito-Narcissists, they aren’t quite smart enough to craft accurate predictions of who is or isn’t electable. They will undoubtedly make the wrong choice and their anointed candidate will suffer an embarrassing defeat. But to be honest, that’s an easy call for me to make because any of the current GOP candidates would be the wrong choice. They are all presently losing to Obama in national polls, and that’s quite a feat considering Obama’s low favorability ratings. The best thing that’s happened for Obama’s reelection prospects is that he’s running against this batch of pathetic Republicans.

The Phony Fox News Course Correction

Posted by on December 7, 2011 at 1:32 pm. 1 Comments :

A couple of months ago Fox News CEO Roger Ailes told the Daily Beast that his network was undergoing an editorial realignment that he called a “course correction.” The implication was that Fox would cease to be the fiercely partisan propaganda outlet for which it has become so well known.

Well, that didn’t last long.

This morning Fox Business Network anchor Stuart Varney appeared on Sean Hannity’s radio program and candidly announced his political biases while discussing the upcoming presidential election:

“We must win. I say ‘We’ – I’m a conservative, I’m a Republican. I say we must win”

Varney went on to declare that if Obama is reelected the country will be bankrupt in four years. Of course, Hannity agreed with everything Varney said. This is a pretty good example of the actual course that Fox intends to pursue. And the political beneficiaries of Fox’s agenda know full well what they can expect from their favorite network. Mitt Romney was interviewed by Neil Cavuto yesterday and testified on behalf of the network saying…

“I’ll be on Fox a lot, because you guys matter when it comes to Republican primary voters.”

Indeed they do. In just the past two months since the alleged course correction, Fox News has hosted Liz Cheney to accuse Obama of wanting the economy to fail. They invited Victoria Jackson to present her shrill theory that Obama is a communist. They have relentlessly broadcast numerous phony stories in an effort to tarnish the administration (i.e. fast and furious, climate researcher’s emails, a Christmas tree tax, etc.) And they have gone out of their way to misrepresent Obama’s public remarks, such as the fuss they made out of his using the word “lazy.” This week Fox didn’t even bother to broadcast all of Obama’s major economic speech in Kansas. They cut away from the speech about half way through in order to air an interview with GOP loser Michele Bachmann.

So if anyone has fallen for the fairy tale that Fox is moderating their extremist right-wing activism, they clearly are not paying attention to the barrage of hostility that continues to emanate from Murdoch’s media. The Fox empire has never been more offensive and unethical, even when they still had Glenn Beck’s ravings blasting the airwaves. If they have made any course correction at all, it is further to the right and in support of the GOP primary candidates. And given the sorry nature of that bunch, you would think that they’ve suffered enough embarrassment for the remainder of this year and next.

If All Political Ads Were Made Like Mitt Romney’s Ads

Posted by on November 22, 2011 at 10:27 am. 1 Comments :

Yesterday perennial GOP presidential frontrunner-up, Mitt Romney, released an ad that contained an unambiguously dishonest soundbite. The ad played a clip of President Obama saying…

“…if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

However, that clip was taken from a speech in 2008 where Obama was quoting a John McCain campaign spokesman. Here is full quote in context:

“Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”

Political advertising is an activity that has seen more than its share of lies and deliberate distortions. But this perversion of reality will go down as one of the most brazenly disreputable misrepresentations on record. And to compound the deceit, Romney is defending his ad saying…

“Now, the tables have turned. … President Obama and his team don’t want to talk about the economy and have tried to distract voters from his abysmal economic record.”

So not only does Romney have no regrets about his false representation, he absurdly asserts that Obama isn’t talking about the economy. Of course, anyone paying even the slightest bit of attention knows that Obama has talked about almost nothing but the economy. Does Romney really expect voters to believe his nonsense?

Well, if they believe Fox News then he has a chance. Fox viewers will believe anything they are told. That’s why it would be great to see this alternative version of Romney’s ad played on Fox News:

Small Government – Small Hearts: The GOP Response To Hurricane Irene

Posted by on August 27, 2011 at 8:46 am. 8 Comments :

There is a storm advancing on the east coast of the United States of historic proportions. Hurricane Irene has resulted in the first ever mandatory evacuation of New York City due to a natural disaster. It is expected to cause billions of dollars of damage from North Carolina to Maine, but the human toll will not be known until the storm has passed. And the response by Republican leaders typically expresses their disdain for the unfortunates who not are a part of their elitist, country club caste.

Small Government

The GOP has long had an obsession with dismantling government. Grover Norquist famously stated that he wanted to “reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.” More recently, Eric Cantor, the Republican Leader of the House, said that he would only support federal disaster aid if the expense was offset by cuts elsewhere in the budget. In effect, he is holding emergency relief hostage to partisan deficit reduction.

Right-wing icon Ron Paul goes even further. In an interview with NBC News he essentially advocated repealing a century of progress in critical response to national tragedies saying, literally, that “We should be like 1900.”

Paul cited as an example the response to a devastating hurricane in Galveston, TX, in 1900. It is still the worst natural disaster in U.S. history, taking the lives of between 10,000 and 12,000 people. Paul proudly boasted that the community did not require federal aid to rebuild the city. That, however, is patently false. Galveston did request and receive federal aid, without which it could not have rebuilt. Glenn Beck also falsely cited Galveston in an attempt to argue that the federal government’s role in disaster relief was unnecessary.

The modern Republican Party is making a predictable progression from George Bush’s phony “compassionate conservatism” to the heartlessness of the Tea Pity Party. At this foreboding time, when American lives and property are at risk, we should take care to remember the results of the anti-federalist policies that produced the cataclysm of Katrina and resolve to never allow that to happen again.

Mitt Romney: Corporations Are People, My Friend

Posted by on August 12, 2011 at 12:24 am. 5 Comments :

The front-runner for the Republican nomination for president, Mitt Romney, took a courageous stand today in support of the browbeaten, wealthy corporations of America:

That’s right. Corporations are people. They’re born, they live, they dream, they love. And that’s not all…

Soylent Green is people. Corporations are people. And don’t even get me started on Depeche Mode.

It’s about time somebody stood up for the downtrodden multinationals. When will society treat them fairly and allow them to marry and to serve in the armed forces? While they can’t vote, at least they can manipulate elections with their riches because the Supreme Court has ruled that money is speech. And since corporations have more money than “ordinary” people, they get more speech.

Aint Democracy grand? Way to go, Mitt.

Truth-O-Meter Fail: Mitt Romney’s Job Recovery Disinformation

Posted by on June 16, 2011 at 11:19 pm. 5 Comments :

Republican presidential front-runner, Mitt Romney, was campaigning in a Tampa coffee shop where he delivered some remarks about the economy:

“It’s been a failure in the last several years to get America back on track again. It’s taken longer to get Americans back to work than it took during the Great Depression. This is the slowest job recovery since Hoover.”


Nice try, Mitt. An analysis by PolitiFact shows that Romney fell somewhat wide of the mark. As it turns out there were at least two, and perhaps as many as four, recessions that experienced slower recoveries. Amongst these were recessions overseen (and caused) by George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. Now Romney and the rest of the GOP pack would like to go back to the policies that produced recoveries that were even slower than the one we are suffering through now.

I’m pretty sure that’s not what America wants, but whether or not they learn about the failures of the past that the GOP embraces will be determined by how thorough and honest the media is in reporting these facts.

PolitiFact goes into great detail in their analysis. They even explain the possible reasons that the present economic weakness has been so frustratingly enduring:

“Part of this likely stems from the severity of the recession (which most experts agree is the worst since the Great Depression) and part stems from a long-term trend toward relatively jobless recoveries. The first seven recoveries on our list averaged a jobs bounceback of more than 8 percent; the final five averaged 2 percent.”

By every standard of measure, the Obama administration is performing fairly well relative to historical comparisons, despite not achieving the results we all desire as rapidly as we would like. At least we are no longer in the vertical plunge the previous administration had cast us into.

The economy, as usual, will play a major role in the upcoming election. The challenge for Democrats is to tell the story of this recovery’s progress, even though to many voters it may not feel like there has been much. And the first line of attack is to call out the falsehoods and misrepresentations like the one Romney tried to pass off in Tampa.

Barack Obama Beating GOP Rivals In Their Own States

Posted by on June 16, 2011 at 11:00 am. 11 Comments :

As the 2012 campaign season continues to roll out, here’s something you won’t hear in much of the mainstream media:


The people who know these Republican candidates best prefer President Obama. These senators, governors, and congressmen served for years representing their constituents, yet those constituents were apparently not impressed.

Other Republican who have been the subject of speculation (Chris Christie of New Jersey, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich of Georgia, Sarah Palin of Alaska, and Rick Perry of Texas) are also notably unpopular at home. The same is true for GOP governors (Rick Scott of Florida, John Kasich of Ohio, Scott Walker of Wisconsin, and more) for whom voters in their states are experiencing buyer’s remorse.

The rest of the nation should take this into account as the campaigns proceed.

Fox News Analyst Dick Morris Admits He Is A GOP Shill

Posted by on June 14, 2011 at 1:12 am. 2 Comments :

Anyone with a functioning brain stem knows that Fox News is the PR arm of the Republican Party. Their programming throughout the day is unabashedly partisan and overtly hostile to the White House and Democrats. And while they prove it every day in their news and commentary, it isn’t often that confess it openly.

Fox News contributor and political analyst Dick Morris appeared today on the Mike Gallagher radio show and made it clear that he has no intention of even pretending to be a objective analyst:

Morris: I decided a couple of – a month or two ago to stop dumping on Mitt Romney, for example … Not because I approve of Romneycare, not because I approve of his flip-flops, flip on abortion, but because I may have to be one of those who carries this guy for a couple of months when he’s running against Obama and I don’t want to make my own task harder.

There you have it. It doesn’t matter what his actual opinion is about Romney, he is only going to comment in a manner that will be supportive. So regardless what questions he is asked by Fox hosts like Bill O’Reilly or Megyn Kelly, Morris can be depended on to give a dishonest answer.

It would be interesting to ask O’Reilly what he thinks about this and how he will engage Morris the next time Morris is his guest. It calls calls into question every answer Morris gives on any subject. Is he just advancing the GOP position on not increasing the debt ceiling even though he may believe it should be increased? Is he really pro-abortion but doesn’t want to want make his task harder when he’s promoting a family values, fundamentalist Republican candidate?

OK, a lot of this is obvious partisanship that has always been a part of the Fox psyche. And Morris is, perhaps, the most consistently wrong pundit in America. But it’s still a little jarring to hear him make this admission. And the fact that he feels free to do so is likewise disturbing. When will Fox’s colleagues wise up and stop treating Fox as if it were a legitimate news enterprise? Fox is making fools of every real journalist that allows them to get away with this.

Mitt Romney: Hang The Obama Misery Index Around His Neck

Posted by on May 1, 2011 at 2:47 pm. 5 Comments :

Last Friday Mitt Romney spoke before a gathering of Americans for Prosperity, the Koch-funded lobbying group that bankrolls the Tea Party. In response to a question, Romney stumbled over language that comes perilously close to a lynching reference:

“Do you remember that during the Ronald Reagan-Jimmy Carter debates, that Ronald Reagan came up with this great thing about the Misery Index? And he hung that around Jimmy Carter’s neck and that had a lot to do with Jimmy Carter losing. Well we’re going to have to hang the Obama Misery Index around his neck. And I’ll tell you, the fact that you’ve got people in this country really squeezed with gasoline getting so expensive, with commodities getting so expensive, families are having a hard time making ends meet. So we’re going to have to do talk about that, and housing foreclosures and bankruptcies and and higher taxation. We’re going to hang him with that — uh, so to speak, metaphorically, with, uh, you have to be careful these days, I learned that — with an Obama Misery Index.”

With so many examples of overt racism threading through the fabric of modern Republicanism, it is tempting to interpret every alleged gaffe in the most negative light. While Romney should know better than to juxtapose the words “hang” and “Obama” so closely (and his attempted recovery shows that he does know), I don’t think this qualifies as a racist remark. He is clearly using the metaphor of “hanging an albatross” around one’s neck, not a noose dangling from a tree. However, he’s still not off the hook (if I may mix my metaphors).

His remarks begin by attributing the Misery Index to Ronald Reagan. That isn’t true.

“The misery index is an economic indicator, created by economist Arthur Okun, and found by adding the unemployment rate to the inflation rate.”

What’s worse though, from a strategic perspective, is that the Misery Index under Reagan averaged 12.19. Under Obama, so far, it is only 11.48. And that doesn’t take into consideration that Reagan had eight years to spread the misery out. Obama was saddled with the worst economic calamity since the the Great Depression and has only had two years to try to correct it. Nevertheless, he is still outperforming Reagan.


[Click to enlarge]

In addition, an analysis of the Misery Index from the Truman administration to the present shows that the misery produced by Republicans (10.64) was significantly worse than that by Democrats (9.17). So if Romney wants to raise the issue and hang it around anyone’s neck, he might not want to stick his out so far without looking at the facts.

Ron Paul’s CPAC Poll Victory: What Does It Mean?

Posted by on February 21, 2010 at 2:10 pm. 9 Comments :

A lot of jaws dropped yesterday when the organizers of the Conservative Political Action Conference announced the results of their presidential straw poll (pdf).

In a surprise victory, Ron Paul far outpaced his GOP rivals with 31%. Mitt Romney, who has won in several previous CPAC polls came in second with 22%. Sarah Palin, a presumed conservative favorite, trailed badly with only 7%.

So what might have contributed to these unexpected results? For one thing, it is not possible to make general representations about the CPAC attendees. Only 2,395 of them (out of approximately 10,000) voted in the poll. That means that 70% abstained. And there was no effort to develop representative sampling, so the results can’t be extrapolated to the attendees at large.

Ron Paul has fired up a certain segment of conservatives with his independent streak and appeal to anti-government types. But he is also 74 years old (a year older than John McCain) and a plurality of CPAC voters (48%) were students. Apparently that demographic split didn’t hurt Paul. It may, in fact, point to the more anarchistic bent of youth, while older establishment conservatives lean toward the comfort food candidacy of Mitt Romney.

Some analysts have attributed Palin’s poor showing to her not showing. She announced weeks ago that she would not be attending CPAC in favor of the Tea Baggers Ball in Nashville. Of course there was nothing stopping her from going to both – except that the Tea Baggers paid her a hundred grand and CPAC is a gratis affair. Also, presidential hopefuls Tim Pawlenty, Mike Pence, Newt Gingrich, and Mike Huckabee all showed up, gave warmly received speeches, and finished below no-show Palin.

Some other questions posed in the poll may shed light on the presidential numbers. For instance, most voters (53%) were unsatisfied with the current crop of candidates. An overwhelming majority cite smaller government, a key Paul issue, as their main goal. Issues championed by Palin, like traditional values (9%) and national security (7%), were far less important to this crowd. And bombast seems to be out of favor judging by the high negatives of Glenn Beck (27%) and Rush Limbaugh (27%). You would think that number would get more attention. Nearly a third of CPACers have a negative view of their most prominent spokesmen. For some reason, Palin was not included in the favorability question. Not to worry. Perhaps that’s for the best as a recent poll showed that she is not particularly welcome in the 2012 race anyway. 71% said they did not want her to run. That included 56% of Republicans, 65% of Independents, and even 58% of conservatives.

So what does it all mean? The Hell if I know. The only thing that I come away from this with is the certainty that the roster of also-rans in this poll will shortly be adopting more of Ron Paul’s policies and rhetoric.