TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

What Americans Think About Wealth & Romney

By on 27 January 2012

Mitt Romney has pulled ahead in Florida. However, his long slog hasn’t even begun with the American people.

Romney finally released his tax returns on Thursday, revealing a 2010 income of $27 million and a federal tax rate of 13.9%.  What effect, if any, does this information have on the way voters judge Romney? A January 21-24 YouGov national poll, conducted before Romney released the actual figures, reveals a potential liability for Romney: a majority of Americans believe that he is not paying his fair share in taxes. No other candidate elicits views that are so unfavorable. – Mitt Romney’s Tax Problem, by John Sides, Lynn Vavreck and Joshua Tucker

The columns in the graphic above from left to right read: more than fair share; fair share; less than fair share; do not know.

The information is taken from a January 21-24 YouGov national poll, conducted before Romney released the actual figures.

That means it didn’t include the Swiss bank account information, but also that Mr. Romney is amending his financials because it’s complex and some items were inadvertently omitted.

We need to be cautious in interpreting these findings. The information about Romney’s income or tax rate did not affect how respondents evaluated Romney on other dimensions, such as his willingness to stick by his positions, his honesty, or his trustworthiness. It didn’t make respondents more likely to describe him as personally wealthy (most already do so anyway). And it didn’t change whether they believed he cares about the poor or middle class. When the information does move opinions, the shifts aren’t large. Many respondents may already have heard about Romney’s income or tax rate or simply don’t consider those facts germane. The Obama team may find that a campaign that implicitly or explicitly characterizes Romney as a plutocrat isn’t a slam dunk.

Nevertheless, for Romney, there is cause for concern. Just over half of Americans doubt that he pays his fair share in taxes. After hearing about his actual income and tax rate, these people are less likely to think he “cares about people like me”—an attribute on which Romney is disadvantaged relative to Obama and which is a perennial predictor of how people vote. Information about his wealth also leads a larger fraction of Americans to believe he cares about the wealthy, and this belief in turn also reinforces the sense that he does not care about “people like me.” The more Romney’s wealth and taxes are discussed, the more he may seem like someone who cannot relate to ordinary voters. This may explain why, during a time in which his wealth and taxes were in the news, negative views of Romney jumped 20 points among whites with incomes below $50,000.

Romney can’t even take comfort in the distinction that Obama raised in his SOTU address. Americans may not begrudge financial success in theory, but Romney’s wealth leads them to see him as more sympathetic to the wealthy, which could cost him if they then see Romney as less like themselves. Even if Romney were paying a larger share of his income in taxes—what Obama would call his “fair share”—the simple fact of his wealth may be an obstacle.

This is a marketing challenge for Mitt Romney. It puts an extra emphasis and burden on Ann Romney, who is fantastic on the stump and whose personal story is the very definition of courage. His family will be asked to mitigate, through personal stories of their own, the picture of Mitt Romney that’s seen through his inordinate wealth.

In an era of Occupy, which I hope will rev up in the months ahead, the subject of wealth disparity will be in focus.

When you look at the fairness issue juxtaposed against the austerity platform of Mitt Romney, who supports the Paul Ryan budget, it paints a stark picture of a man who wants to be our president, but whose compassion may only be visible through percentages of his charitable giving.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

Peanut Gallery: Brewer’s Finger in Obama’s Face

By on 27 January 2012

“I’m usually accused of not being intense enough, right,” he told ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, laughing. “Too relaxed.” … I think it’s always good publicity for a Republican if they’re in an argument with me,” – Pres. Obama, ABC News interview

What is it with Republican governors? Walker is dictatorial, John Kasich is autocratic, Rick Scott is… crazy, Chris Christie is considered a bully (though not by me).

Gov. Brewer’s finger made “news” this week, but around here I call it peanut gallery politics. It revs up the rabble, but means absolutely nothing to anyone.

Brewer, who seems to have a problem with black and brown people, said Pres. Obama was “somewhat thin-skinned and a little tense, to say the least.”

It’s not exactly news that Pres. Obama doesn’t like being challenged.

Photo via YouTube screen shot.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Reporters Without Borders lowers U.S. media ranking

By on 27 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold: Liberal, lesbian, Independent, equality activist, writer.

‘Crackdown’ was the word of the year in 2011. Never has freedom of information been so closely associated with democracy. Never have journalists, through their reporting, vexed the enemies of freedom so much. Never have acts of censorship and physical attacks on journalists seemed so numerous. The equation is simple: the absence or suppression of civil liberties leads necessarily to the suppression of media freedom.

The above is a quote from “Crackdown on Media,” the “2011-2012 Press Freedom Index” released on Thursday by Reporters Without Borders. One of the things it points out is what Occupiers, and those following the OWS movement, including some reporting on it, have been saying for the last three months or so: police departments have been instructed to “crackdown” on media, mainstream and new, when covering the Occupy stories. It also points out that, like too few choices in political parties, there are, if not too few, then at least questions to be asked about the Fourth Estate.

From a pdf of the report:

The worldwide wave of protests in 2011 also swept through the New World. It dragged the United States (47th) and Chile (80th) down the index, costing them 27 and 47 places respectively. The crackdown on protest movements and the accompanying excesses took their toll on journalists. In the space of two months in the United States, more than 25 were subjected to arrests and beatings at the hands of police who were quick to issue indictments for inappropriate behaviour, public nuisance or even lack of accreditation.

This isn’t new information. But if you haven’t heard much, or anything, about it, it’s not a surprise. From a piece at HuffPo:

The treatment of journalists by police was well documented throughout 2011. Reporters were beaten, arrested and prevented from covering police action against Occupy protesters. Tensions heightened so much that the New York Police Department had to meet with journalists and remind its officers not to mistreat them.

At the same time journalists experienced everything from being blocked by police to being beaten and arrested, others in the media ignored or downplayed it, as they did the Occupy movement in general. Taken together, both say something rather significant about “freedom of the press.”

Some examples, the first from a mid-December piece at TruthOut:

Even after a solid two weeks of this Occupation, corporate media largely blacked it out. What coverage there was depicted protesters as drug-abusing hippies (the Fox News spin—Hannity, 10/10/11), or, in the ‘liberal’ version, as directionless naifs with no message (New York Times, 9/23/11).

Also see: Getting beyond the primary means for con-trol: Mass media propaganda at Intrepid Report.

NYPD Continues to Block Journalists from Covering Occupy Protests at Media Bistro.

Via TruthOut, in “Low Friends in High Places: Triad of Business, Cops and Politicians Attack Occupy,”

Playing supporting roles was a noisy media chorus repeatedly echoing pretexts of various municipal health, park and police regulations that were allegedly being violated.

A media related, January 18 story seems worth mentioning, just for a bit more context. From Public Policy Polling, the “3rd Annual TV News Trust Poll”:

… finds that Fox News tops the list for both the source Americans trust the most and the one they trust the least.

Obviously some trust it, some don’t, but Fox appears at the top of the list for both groups. I’m not sure that really tells us anything new, but it’s one indication of the 2012 condition of the Fourth Estate.

As does the fact that some members of the press who tried to cover OWS were blocked, arrested, and beaten, as the drop in ranking in the Press Freedom Index made clear. Other members of the press spin the whole OWS movement, basically, in the way governments – city and beyond – and corporate heads want them to do. It all leads me to wonder about the choices we have regarding the Fourth Estate. The Two Corporate Parties provide too few political choices, but the choices provided by much of the media, mainstream in particular, are equally questionable. And fairly often, it seems, complicit.

( Photo via ThinkProgress )

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Jacksonville is Mittville

By on 26 January 2012


A Palestinian Republican? Check.

A question about the candidate’s wives, none of whom actually work, which is a much different circumstance than 99% of the families in this country.

The words “manufacturing” and “blue collar” weren’t uttered until Rick Santorum said them at the end of the debate.

Mitt Romney has a new debate coach and it showed. He had game. From 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 candidacy that is unexpectedly threatening to upend his once seemingly indomitable front-runner’s status.

On immigration, on personal finances and, even, on Mr. Gingrich’s proposal for lunar colonies, Mr. Romney gave Mr. Gingrich no quarter, adding prime-time voice to his campaign’s all-out assault on Mr. Gingrich that is now running morning, noon and night here.

The most important thing he did was prove to voters he could stand and fight, but also make the case for himself and defend his biography without sounding apologetic. There was more alpha aggressiveness to Romney. His answer on his wealth and Swiss bank account was the best possible. He does, however, need to work on his Romneycare answers, because Rick Santorum took him out on the mandate. The Jacksonville audience liked Romney and it was his best debate in weeks.

Newt Gingrich is over. As the video at the top teases, he intends to keep going and make Romney bleed, but it’s going to increase the attacks on him. Gingrich seems to have one tactic and that’s punch the media. But he just wasn’t in it at any time tonight.

Ron Paul provided the comic relief, but also clarity at times. He didn’t annoy Republicans because there were few foreign policy questions.

Rick Santorum had a stellar debate, but I can’t consider this guy seriously, because he’d lose 70% of the independent vote due to his belligerent intolerance. Without his backward bigotry, he’d likely be in this race in a serious way. His 93 year-old mother was a huge hit and offered a wonderful moment.

Oh, and Newt tried to pull his media attack stunt on CNN’s Blitzer and Wolf bit back.

This post has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Gunfight at the GOP Corral

By on 26 January 2012

“… I have not been critical of Newt Gingrich but it is now time to take a stand before it is too late. If Gingrich is the nominee it will have an adverse impact on Republican candidates running for county, state, and federal offices. [...] Gingrich served as Speaker from 1995 to 1999 and had trouble within his own party. By 1997 a number of House Republican members wanted to throw him out as Speaker. … Gingrich had a new idea every minute and most of them were off the wall. – Bob Dole


It’s been a rough day for Newt Gingrich. Romney better have his crash helmet on tonight.

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

The 0.1% at WEF are talking about jobs, taxes and a “crisis of leadership”

By on 26 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

I included something about this yesterday, but it’s worth further consideration. One take on the World Economic Forum, from the originators of the Occupy Wall Street movement, Adbusters, “Capitalisms’ Cinderella’s Ball”:

This years’ World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, marks the start of the perennial capitalist meet-and-greet summit season.

The economic equivalent of the Oscars, the WEF is a time for the 0.1% to celebrate the achievements and successes of free-markets, and to discuss how to keep the crumbling ship from running ashore … .

Nestled in the picturesque Swiss Alps where the melting glaciers are deceptively intact and the hotels serviced by an army of invisible temporary workers, approximately 2000 global elites discuss everything from redistributing their obscene profits (a.k.a philanthropy) and environmental sustainability, to forecasting new areas of expansion and the future of capitalism.

In an interview on NPR’s Morning Edition today,

Renee Montagne talks to Nariman Behravesh, chief economist at IHS Global Insight, about key issues dominating this year’s World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. With Europe on the brink of recession, the mood at the meeting is not as upbeat as it was last year.

Behravesh said there are lots of panels on income inequality, and attention to Obama’s SOTU focusing on the same kind of things. But, he said, there’s not much attention to the Occupy WEF group. Really? Does the guy not get that the panels and concerns he mentions, as well as much of Obama’s SOTU, are direct reflections of the Occupy message? Oh, they can ignore the igloo village, like many ignored the Occupy camps. Or they can, as has been widely done, shut down the camps. But neither ignoring or “making them go away” eliminates the inequalities or the people determined to keep those inequalities out in the open. When WEF attendees, along with Electeds and Wannabe’s, feel compelled to acknowledge what Occupiers have made very public, they reveal the power of the movement.

For a very interesting read, check out “Davos man weighs future of capitalism” here, which includes:

A survey of 1,200 experts the WEF published on Monday showed fear of a major geopolitical disruption over the next year has risen significantly to 54 percent from 36 percent last quarter.

Not a particularly philanthropic, feel my neighbor’s pain kind of concern, but definitely something to get the attention of those at the top. “Major geopolitical disruptions” aren’t good for business (except for the “military industrial complex,” including “riot gear” sales to police departments).

In a ‘Call to Action’ ahead of Davos, 11 leaders of international organizations … said economic growth, jobs and protectionism are the top three worries at the start of 2012. …

Of 30 video messages from Davos co-chairs and partners posted by the WEF ahead of the meeting, all are from men, with only a few Asian or Middle Eastern faces among the ranks of middle-aged white males. … One is Arif Naqvi, chief executive of Abraaj Capital, a private equity manager that specializes in emerging markets.

‘We have a crisis of leadership,’ Naqvi said. ‘The Occupy Wall Street movement is going to gain momentum in different cities simply because of the inequality issue and we need to address it.’

There’s more to show that the “Davos man” is aware that he has a problem.

‘Rising inequality is one of the major risks to our future prosperity and security,” said OECD Chief Economist Pier Carlo Padoan …’ .

A participant in one WEF debate, Sharan Burrow, general secretary of the International Trade Union Confederation, said:

‘It is too simplistic to say we need a new system. The system is not working because of extraordinary greed, extraordinary inequality and attacks on workers’ rights that are leading to a crash in demand.’

Another WEF participant pointed out how

capitalism’s original distinction between the entrepreneur and the salaryman has been corrupted by excessive pay. …

Remember, these are the words of those who meet the wealth standard to attend WEF. And again, it sounds much more like “we’re going to be hurt” rather than “we’re hurting the masses” is behind these comments, but clearly these people have moved beyond “ignore it or dismiss it and it will go away.”

‘There is a tremendous risk of social discohesion with the slow growth in the economy that is currently happening so job creation for companies is tremendously important,’ said Unilever (ULVR.L) chief executive Paul Polman in a WEF video message. …

“Discohesion.” I just wanted to point out the word. Back to WEF concerns:

Along with creating more jobs, the OECD also urges governments to consider raising taxes on the rich to reduce inequality, a move already endorsed by billionaires Warren Buffett and L’Oreal SA … heiress Liliane Bettencourt. …

Klaus Schwab, who initiated WEF in 1971, was asked whether anyone from the Occupy WEF had been invited to address the attendees.

… Schwab said that the forum wanted to engage, but not with those who only criticise.

‘We are looking for such people who can make an interesting contribution. The problem is sometimes if you look at ‘Occupy Davos’ or ‘Occupy Wall Street’ or whatever it is, it’s a movement but who are really the significant representatives?’

The “Davos man” acknowledges there’s a problem, but doesn’t want to hear about it from anyone actually involved in making the problem so obvious it can’t be ignored.

Come May, in Chicago, there will be more such people, totally unwilling to be ignored or controlled. More about that tomorrow, when I’ll look at the upcoming G8 and NATO summit, and the plans for an international Occupation.

(Occupy WEF poster via Occupy WEF)

Read full story · Comments { 9 }

Hillary Clinton has Attended Last SOTU as Obama’s SoS

By on 26 January 2012

“I think after 20 years — and it will be 20 years — of being on the high wire of American politics and all of the challenges that come with that, it would be probably a good idea to just find out how tired I am.” – Secy. Hillary Clinton

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg at the U.S. Department of State in Washington, D.C., on January 25, 2012. State Department photo/ Public Domain

I tweeted about this likelihood on Tuesday. She’ll no doubt work up until the very last second on her very last day, for which Pres. Obama is no doubt grateful, as are we all.

We can only imagine that it’s “a little odd for me to be totally out of an election season,” as she also admits she “didn’t watch any of those debates.”

After she leaves State, Hillary Clinton will be able to rest, write, and then assess other options. This includes, come 2014, coming to grips on whether she’s ready to walk away from another run for the White House and possibly being the first female president of the United States.

There will be a different breed bidding for the Democratic presidential spot in 2016. However, no one in politics would be more prepared. She would, however, have to defend her continued militaristic foundation, whether it’s Libya or her continued belief in the war in Afghanistan. Her close relationship to the Pentagon and the U.S. defense industry would also be at issue. Mrs. Clinton’s closeness to Israel’s leaders and the trust built between them, would, however, hold great possibilities. Her involvement during the Libya bombing proved unparalleled, as she worked to convince Arab leaders to come on board. It would be a serious campaign, not a walk in the park, at least with progressive primary voters, though there would also be great emotions on the left to making a Democratic female a seminal part of American history.

Mrs. Clinton has also said time and again she will not run for president again.

TM NOTE: An international women’s foundation, raising money from all sides, like her husband’s CGI, and impacting women’s lives in countries around the world, is one very good bet, which I’d put money on myself.

Taylor Marsh is the author of The Hillary Effect, which traces the history of the near twenty years of press coverage and political events that followed Hillary Clinton into the 2008 presidential race and helped make her candidacy as impossible as it was part of her destiny.

Read full story · Comments { 15 }

Newt Gingrich Lied – John King Vindicated

By on 26 January 2012

**Update below – Rush “rocked”**

Newt Gingrich’s campaign admitted Wednesday night the former House speaker was inaccurate when he claimed his team offered several witnesses to ABC News to refute statements made by Gingrich’s second wife in a controversial interview aired last week. [...] On Wednesday, however, the campaign conceded the candidate was wrong, both in his debate answer and in his interview with CNN on Tuesday. – TRENDING: Gingrich campaign admits error

I’ve been waiting for Newt Gingrich to step in it and it’s happened.


It’s reminiscent of Hillary Rodham Clinton’s Bosnia disaster, which came at a critical time, even though David Plouffe’s caucus strategy would easily outplay Mark Penn’s political malpractice and lack of preparation, credit and blame given fully and without flinching in my new book.

Will it be enough to blow Gingrich out in Florida? It should, because it’s representative of everything about him. But who knows, it’s a wacky year and Republican primary voters haven’t cared so far about anything but satisfying their emotions. It also depends if Mitt Romney or his Super PAC jumps on this, but I’d bet they will, because if I were running his strategy, I’d cranked up the ad machine and get one out post haste.

The revelation that Gingrich lied and tried to disgrace a good reporter, John King, with many in the media playing along, should be instructive to people. It didn’t seem to matter that King is a veteran reporter who had never been challenged before, though I wasn’t one of them, standing up for King’s clear decision to ask Gingrich about the hottest story of the day. Anyone looking at trends across the web, even places like Memeorandum, would have seen the proof. I believed he should have challenged Gingrich when he attacked him, and you can argue about starting with the question on Marianne Gingrich, but it’s King’s call and there’s nothing in his history that even hints he’s unethical, biased to one party or another, or isn’t good at his job.

Oh, if only there was a thought bubble above Pres. Reagan's head...

This latest embarrassment comes after a reader pointed me to Elliott Abrams’ piece yesterday and though I hold Mr. Abrams in particular contempt (see Iran-contra, for which Ronald Reagan deserved to be impeached), when it comes to the Reagan era he’s a source with deep knowledge.

“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.” – Newt Gingrich

Newt is getting carpet-bombed by the conservative chattering class and no one deserves it more. Who would know better about unethical gasbags than Tom Delay? From Politico:

“He’s not really a conservative. I mean, he’ll tell you what you want to hear. He has an uncanny ability, sort of like Clinton, to feel your pain and know his audience and speak to his audience and fire them up. But when he was speaker, he was erratic, undisciplined.” – Drudge, conservative media criticize Newt Gingrich

But have you seen BuzzFeed’s contribution on Newt, complete with art?

Ann Coulter, a Romney gal, delivers the best anti-Newt case there is: Reelect Obama Vote Newt! Mitt Romney’s got humongous general election challenges against Pres. Obama, but there is little doubt that Newt as the nominee would result in a Goldwater type landslide and for good reasons.

Newt Gingrich in the White House would be more dangerous than Sarah Palin.

UPDATE: Listening to Rush Limbaugh’s first hour, a regular habit during election season, this one has been stunning. “It’s happening…” Rush began today, talking about Newt being taken out in Florida; with Gingrich slamming Reagan something he said he didn’t know, being very defensive about it. “We can’t keep up with them starting in March,” Rush Limbaugh said before last break, talking about if the GOP nominee is picked early. This came after he said he was “stunned” at the revelations about Newt on Ronald Reagan. “World rocked about now…” then went to commercial break. … “Snerdly’s chin is on the floor,” Rush continues, after playing a clip of Newt Gingrich saying he was a Rockefeller Republican.

Read full story · Comments { 24 }

Obama to Panetta: ‘Good job tonight’

By on 26 January 2012

Statement by Secretary Panetta on Hostage Rescue Operation in Somalia

Last night U.S. Special Operations Forces conducted, by order of the President of the United States, a successful mission in Somalia to rescue two individuals taken hostage on October 25, 2011. Ms. Jessica Buchanan, an American citizen employed by the Danish Demining Group, and her Danish colleague, Mr. Poul Thisted, were kidnapped at gunpoint by criminal suspects near Galcayo, Somalia.

            Ms. Buchanan and Mr. Thisted have been transported to a safe location where we will evaluate their health and make arrangements for them to return home.

            This successful hostage rescue, undertaken in a hostile environment, is a testament to the superb skills of courageous service members who risked their lives to save others.  I applaud their efforts, and I am pleased that Ms. Buchanan and Mr. Thisted were not harmed during the operation.  This mission demonstrates our military’s commitment to the safety of our fellow citizens wherever they may be around the world.

            I am grateful to report that there was no loss of life or injuries to our personnel.

            I express my deepest gratitude to all the military and civilian men and women who supported this operation.  This was a team effort and required close coordination, especially between the Department of Defense and our colleagues in the Federal Bureau of Investigation.  They are heroes and continue to inspire all of us by their bravery and service to our nation.

Secy. of Defense Leon Panetta monitored the situation from the White House, then left for the State of the Union. That’s where Pres. Obama, while making his way to the podium, took a moment to thank his SecDef. It’s one of those moments when you see it that is haunting in the bright lights inside the House chamber.

Danger Room’s Spencer Ackerman reports the drama and links the stories that weave it together.

…But now, for the special operations community, it might be Black Hawk Up.

But Little and his Pentagon colleague, Navy Capt. John Kirby, said that the “criminals” who kidnapped Buchanan and Thisted were “armed and had explosives nearby” when the special-operations team arrived. Asked if the Somalis fired on the U.S. raiding team, Little said details were still coming in, but “there were very concrete plans for removing the kidnappers and placing them in detention,” with Kirby adding, “That opportunity didn’t present itself.” All nine kidnappers — whom both spokesmen said were not members of the al-Qaida aligned al-Shabab movement; and may not have been pirates, either — on scene were killed.

… Obama said in a statement that he authorized the raid on Monday. The U.S. government had not said much of anything about the kidnapping of Buchanan and Thisted, whose captivity lasted three months. But Obama said the raid sent the message that the U.S. “will not tolerate the abduction of our people, and will spare no effort to secure the safety of our citizens and to bring their captors to justice.”

Little and Kirby said that “actionable intelligence” recently presented itself for a “window of opportunity,” that led to the raid. Adding a sense of urgency were indications of a pre-existing medical condition afflicting Buchanan which “could be life-threatening.” Both spokesman said Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had “full confidence” in Obama’s decision to order the raid — and Panetta “monitored” it from the White House before heading to the State of the Union address, where Obama was heard congratulating him on a “good job tonight.”

There’s really nothing else to add. Oh, except this:

Everyone in the McCain voter group spoke highly of Obama’s foreign policy successes. Several said that the speech reminded them of the successes in the war on terror that they had forgotten about. In the words of one participant, “He did some pretty good stuff in the war, he got bin Laden, he’s continued drone attacks started by President Bush, and he’s been a bit of a butt kicker.” Specifically, they appreciated the references to the death of Osama bin Laden, the victory in Libya, and the status of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. – Obama ‘a bit of a butt kicker’ on foreign policy

Republicans are in a lot of trouble looking at November, especially if they decide to nominate Newt, which I still contend they will not. That’s got the look of Goldwater in ’64 written all over it.

I disagree with Pres. Obama’s Bushesque militarism, his nonchalance on international law, as well as the reality that Gitmo is a disgrace and he hasn’t the courage to take Congress on and make the case to the public, using the capital he’s earned on national security to make the case about closing Gitmo. Chris Hayes did an interview with a man who was held for 7 years, then finally released; what happened to him occurred on Pres. Obama’s watch & the Administration deserves to be held accountable.

That said, the raid on bin Laden, as well as this raid to rescue the hostages, is what he’s getting paid to do. That he is doing it extremely well in fighting al Qaeda, I would say even minimizing them for all time, is inarguable.

The world will always have bad actors, but Pres. Obama has gone straight at our biggest enemy & succeeded so we can turn to a different type of military policy that includes smaller, more nimble force that is built on stealth and is just as lethal, but more appropriate for the asymmetrical threats we face in most parts of the developing world, understanding that there are other villains that will require adeptness beyond overt force.

This article has been edited, updated.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

U.S. News & World Report Op-Ed

By on 25 January 2012

Closeup photo of Taylor Marsh

President Obama takes his base for granted on issues like the Bush tax cuts, Plan B, and the economy - US News

It’s written by yours truly.

They chose the title.

Here’s a teaser, but it’s an exclusive for US News, so you’ll have to click the link above to get the rest. (I hope you do.)

Here we are at the beginning of Pres. Obama’s reelection and what do we find? The Bush tax cuts that, back in 2008, candidate Obama pledged he’d fight to repeal, but which as president he extended. Considering not extending them began as his base position, three years into his first term it’s not too much to ask how Democrats allowed themselves to get twisted into this policy pretzel.

That’s exactly where Obama’s got his Democratic and progressive base…

On a side note, it’s interesting to find myself with an op-ed in a property owned by Mort Zuckerman. They gave me free rein and it’s the exact piece I wanted to write, so I’ve got no complaints.

Share it, tweet it, just check it out. I’d like them to know people are reading it!

Read full story · Comments { 16 }

Nobody is Buying Obama’s Financial Fraud Unit

By on 25 January 2012

After watching parts of the “analysis” of Rachel Maddow and Ed Schultz on Pres. Obama’s State of the Union Speech, the access parade on MSNBC obviously saw something I didn’t. I turned to CNN. Realizing that emotions work with audiences of these events, with approval of Obama’s speech sky high, it’s hard for the average person to understand that underneath the campaign rhetoric lies something else entirely. That goes double for the mortgage investigation unit he announced.

David Dayen explains the problems with smoke and mirrors substituting for what is really required to get a handle on the foreclosure crisis.

As one observer close to an AG told me last night, “I don’t know how Eric Schneiderman gets a wave and a wink from the President of the United States in the State of the Union address without standing behind the Administration’s agreement.” Indeed. That upsets the entire balance of power with respect to the settlement. If Schneiderman joins, it undermines the group of “Justice Democrat” AGs who were working on how to deal with investigations in the absence of a settlement. AG offices are freaking out about this, and it will be tough to keep them from acquiescing now. After all, they have a fig leaf of this new new investigation.

More important, this announcement has collapsed the unified wall of objection on the left to a settlement. And I mean COLLAPSED. Just a day ago, activists were getting in the face of their AGs, warning them of the dangers of a weak settlement that provides little in the way of relief to homeowners. Now I have dozens of press releases in my inbox from liberal groups offering huzzahs to the President for this wonderful investigatory panel.

[...] This is a classic Obama move, putting a threat or a rival inside the tent. It happened with Elizabeth Warren and David Petraeus and Jon Huntsman, and it’s happening again. It divides the coalition against a weak settlement, which will at the least shut down state and federal prosecutions on foreclosure fraud and servicing issues. It puts hopes in yet another investigation, one with little chance for success.

Introducing Abigail Field who is equally unimpressed.

President Obama, if you want to do good policy, you have to kick off Breuer, Khuzami and West. They must be recused; fully walled off. Schneiderman must run the show, not Co-Chair it. Unless his Co-Chairs are SIGTARP Neil Barofsky and US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald. Whether on his own or backed by true law enforcement allies, Schneiderman must have full subpoena power backed up by the resources to fully investigate and prosecute. And indictments must be immediate.

Yves Smith goes ballistic:

So get this: this is a committee that will “investigate.” The co-chair, Lanny Breuer, along with DoJ chief Eric Holder, hail from white shoe Washington law firm Covington & Burling, which has deep ties to the financial services industry. Even if they did not work directly for clients in the mortgage business, they come from a firm known for its deep political and regulatory connections (for instance: Gene Ludwig, the Covington partner I engaged for some complicated regulatory work when I was at Sumitomo Bank, later became head of the OCC). We’ve written at length on how the OCC is such a shameless tout for the banking industry that it cannot properly be called a regulator. Similarly, the SEC has been virtually absent from the mortgage beat, no doubt because its enforcement chief, Robert Khuzami, was general counsel to the fixed income department at Deutsche Bank. That area included the trading operation under Greg Lippmann who we have described as Patient Zero of so called mezz CDOs, or to the layperson, toxic mortgage paper that kept the subprime bubble going well beyond its sell date. And we don’t need to say much about the DoJ. It has been missing in action during this entire Administration.

In all things, the health care debate should be used as a model. Are you seeing the problem more clearly now?

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Wish I had some magic answers, but hard work will have to do

By on 25 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

If you aren’t a Harry Potter fan, then “Expect Us Patronum” won’t make sense. Let’s just say it’s a reference to a spell, Expecto Patronum, which provides a defense, and repels the bad guys. Seeing the clever take-off made me laugh, then made me wistfully think about a magic solution to the super grim unfair tale that is our political and governing systems.

It is something akin to magic, when people like Occupiers refuse to believe the fairy tales we’re consistently told by Electeds and Elites, including the “if you work hard and play by the rules, you, too, can fulfill the American Dream.” You, too, they imply, can join, well, maybe not the 1%, but how about the 10%. Or at least maybe you can find a job, or keep the one you have.

And then there are the ramped up fairy tales specific to incumbents and Wannabe’s. The 2012 version of these ridiculous claims we’re suppose to accept as truth is impossible to avoid. We’re expected to cheer, while vigorously clapping, kind of like hoping Tinker Bell will return and all our wishes will come true.

In last night’s SOTU, Obama included:

… no matter what party they belong to, I bet most Americans are thinking the same thing right now: Nothing will get done this year, or next year, or maybe even the year after that, because Washington is broken.

Well, yes, that does about sum it up. Except the “because Washington is broken” bit could be more honestly stated by taking responsibility for the “breaking.” But that kind of assumption of responsibility by Electeds is really wishful thinking. As it would have required some kind of magical spell for Obama to have explicitly cited the Occupy / 99% movement, though he certainly used the language.

In what is a much more positive spin on last night’s speech than I think is accurate, David Corn does, nevertheless, point out the president’s use of Occupy points. At Mother Jones:

In a feisty speech, Obama pitched a patriotic, quasi-populist, OWSish progressivism to set up his 2012 reelection campaign. …

Obama took up the call of the Occupy Wall Street movement, decrying unfair tax breaks for millionaires. He adopted a modified version of the OWS 1-vs-99-percent message … .

The president decried Wall Street pirates and announced a new Financial Crimes Unit. His language could have come off a cardboard sign in Zuccotti Park: ‘We can either settle for a country where a shrinking number of people do really well, while a growing number of Americans barely get by, or we can restore an economy where everyone gets a fair shot, and everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same set of rules.’ …

In the past year, Obama has moved from a compromiser-in-chief looking to cut deals with the Republicans … to a semi-populist battler for the middle class who is eager to defy Republicans over issues of economic fairness and the role of government.

Or maybe he’s just moved to campaign mode. No magic needed to make that guess.

Some SOTU thoughts from the OWS Twitter feed:

The State of the Union in 2012: nyti.ms/Abs3Vl #OWS #ochi You have indeed impacted the conversation! Full steam ahead.

RT @democracynow: ‘He is a political coward,’ says @Ralph_Nader of @BarackObama not discussing #OWS in #SOTU. democracynow.orgabout

@democracynow @Ralph_Nader @BarackObama #OWS does not want Obama to co-opt its message.

Good to see the NYT name drop #OWS – very unlikely we’d be talking abt 15%v30% effective tax w/o #Occupy nyti.ms/yQx4yn

Given the entrenched nature of the Two Party Front for the Oligarchy, including their very successfully sold fairy tale that “we have no other choice,” any time anyone is willing to call them out, it’s almost like magic. Last night’s SOTU could have every Elected there unclothed, and it would still be something of a miracle for many to recognize that the servants of the Corporate Emperors “have no clothes.” And by the way, sorry about that visual.

Two Occupy stories, that at least for me, tell very different, and much more authentic, stories. The first from Occupy WEF:

Join the igloo camp in Davos, Switzerland …

Every year, self-proclaimed «global leaders» allegedly committed to improving the state of the world meet up for the World Economic Forum (WEF) in the Swiss mountains to propagate their own businesses and network amongst the so-called global economic elite.
This year, we will not let them exclude us, the 99%! We say: occupy WEF!

The Occupy WEF began on January 22, with Occupiers building igloos, and staying them, and in heated tents. The WEF runs from January 25th to 29th. According to Common Dreams:

This year, there’s more than a hint of irony in the event that created the concept of the quintessential ‘Davos Man’, that global super-achiever into disrepute after 2008: some of the richest people in the world, and companies who have paid millions to sponsor the event, will pontificate on the failings of capitalism and inequality before slipping off for vintage champagne dinners and parties.

There’s something rather magical about the setting, if nothing else. More importantly to me is that there are people making efforts to point out, among other things, the “irony” of the super rich spending some time talking about the “failings of capitalism and inequality.”

Finally, this from The Root:

Occupy Atlanta Helps Save Historic Black Church …

A historic black church in northwest Atlanta was saved by the help of the Occupy Atlanta movement. Higher Ground Empowerment Center, a church opened in 1903, is part of Atlanta’s Vine City, which has been economically battered over the last few years.

The 99% are saying, “Expect us.” And then they’re showing up. Doing that, doing the hard work of activism, can create something kind of like magic.

(Expect Us Patronum poster via OWS News
Occupy WEF Davos poster via Occupy Pix
Occupy WEF Igloo photo via OWS News)

Read full story · Comments { 7 }

Mitt Slams Newt with Ronald Reagan

By on 25 January 2012



er… I mean Romney’s Super PAC… er… Rather, the Super PAC supporting Mitt Romney that has absolutely no contact with the candidate whatsoever is slamming Newt with Ronald Reagan.

Nate Silver reveals why. In the debates, Newt continually tries to associate himself with the Gipper:

Over the course of the 17 debates that he has participated in during this cycle, Mr. Gingrich has used the term “Reagan” 55 times, according to debate transcripts. By comparison, the nine other Republican candidates who have participated in the debates mentioned Reagan just 51 times combined. (Rick Santorum is a distant second to Mr. Gingrich with 14 mentions.)

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

File This Under Predictable

By on 25 January 2012

It comes from Fox and nobody should be surprised.

It won’t help Mitt Romney win the nomination, because he’s having so much trouble explaining himself I’m not sure anything can at this point, but it does give you an idea of the demagoguing on Romney’s wealth.

It also is illustrative for why many Americans are sick of both political parties and their unhinged partisan warfare.

WHO’S GREEDY? Obama Gave 1% to Charity, Romney Gave 15%

I wrote the headline first yesterday: How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity? So, needless to say I knew this was coming.

No one can argue that the Swiss bank, Cayman account bingo slick Mitt is playing looks bad. That Newt Gingrich, a rich fat cat lobbyist and access peddler, is teeing off on it is as expected as the Democratic response.

Let’s just not pretend Democrats don’t play the same game.

Mitt Romney is simply the general election whipping boy on wealth in an era of Occupy.

But considering he’s one man among many, including Obama’s chief financial architects, this is quickly and predictably turning into an unseemly spectacle brimming with hubris and hypocrisy.

It’s just one reason the Occupy movement doesn’t want to identify with either Democrats or Republicans.

This post has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Of Smoke-filled Rooms and Mitch Daniels

By on 25 January 2012

Mitch Daniels, a favorite of Bill Kistrol, the man who brought the GOP Sarah Palin, gave the Republican response last night. For conservatives, it was the perfect setting, given in perfect pitch, and included the perfect message, delivered by someone who didn’t come off crazy. It’s likely why waking up today after Pres. Obama’s State of the Union speech, some Republicans have political morning sickness.

Newt Gingrich has the political touch Mitt Romney lacks, but he delivers it in a way that makes him look maniacal. He also has a taste for the jugular, which is why he won in South Carolina. But Newt’s style is also what has gotten him into trouble a million times before, which is why there are stories and rumors flying about nervousness inside GOP central, which is more a state of mind these days than an actual address.

An aide to Charlie Crist has gone over to Mitt Romney. It took Newt Gingrich about 2 seconds to use it against him. From Politico:

“We discovered last night that Mitt Romney has picked up Charlie Crist’s campaign manager,” Gingrich said Tuesday at the Tick Tock Restaurant in St. Petersburg. “I thought that told you everything you need to know about this primary.”

“As governor of Massachusetts [Romney] was pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, pro-tax increase and pro- gun control,” he said. “Now that makes you a moderate in Massachusetts but it makes you pretty liberal in a Republican primary. That’s probably why he hired Charlie Crist’s staff.”

Newt Gingrich seems to be the only one who doesn’t know he’s not welcome at the top of the GOP ticket. The message is being delivered, though whether he hears it or not is another story.

It’s starting over at Townhall and it’s serious. Because when you tell Andrea Mitchell stuff like this it’s going to hit the airwaves.

ANDREA MITCHELL: “I talked to a top Romney adviser tonight who said, ‘Look, if Mitt Romney can not win here in Florida then we’re going to have to try to reinvent the smoke-filled room which has been democratized by all these primaries. And we’re going to have try to come with someone as an alternative to Newt Gingrich who could be Jeb Bush, Mitch Daniels, someone.’ Because there is such a desperation by the so-called party elites, but that’s exactly what Gingrich is playing against.”

But all this talk of smoke-filled rooms and Mitch Daniels misses one thing: the Tea Party. Are you telling me that Republicans don’t think right wing conservatives won’t pitch a fit if the Republican establishment decides to scuttle Newt’s rise to possible nominee? They really think in the Tea Party era they can get away with this?

I’d like to see that play.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Obama to Thank the Republicans Running for President

By on 24 January 2012

**UPDATED**

President Barack Obama talks with Jon Favreau, Director of Speechwriting, in the Oval Office, Jan. 23, 2012. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)


During his State of the Union address tonight, President Obama will announce the creation of a special unit to investigate misconduct and illegalities that contributed to both the financial collapse and the mortgage crisis. The office, part of a new Unit on Mortgage Origination and Securitization Abuses, will be chaired by Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general, according to a White House official. – Sam Stein, Exclusive

Mitt Romney’s careening from frontrunner to hanger-on.

Newt Gingrich is pitching a fit about the press, while whining that if he can’t have his audience he’s going take his Tea Party talking points and go home.

“I wish in retrospect I’d protested when Brian Williams took them out of it because I think it’s wrong,” Mr. Gingrich said. “And I think he took them out of it because the media is terrified that the audience is going to side with the candidates against the media, which is what they’ve done in every debate.”

[...] Mr. Gingrich clearly noticed something was off, too. “We’re going to serve notice on future debates,” he told Fox. “We’re just not going to allow that to happen. That’s wrong. The media doesn’t control free speech. People ought to be allowed to applaud if they want to.”

Romney and Gingrich are both a gift to Pres. Obama. They’re making him look awfully good these days.

From ABC News:

Unfavorable views of Mitt Romney have soared, doubts about Newt Gingrich remain widespread and Barack Obama has advanced to his highest personal popularity in more than a year — all in advance of the State of the Union address in which Obama makes his case for a second term.

Fifty-three percent of Americans in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll express a favorable opinion of Obama overall, up by 5 points from last month to the most since April 2010. It can matter: Favorability is the most basic measure of a public figure’s popularity.

UPDATE: OBL finish, the flag, the names, would have been a lot more moving & deserved to be, if speech had been disciplined instead of a laundry list of forgettable words.

Read full story · Comments { 21 }

Obama says it’s “make or break” time: What’s your choice?

By on 24 January 2012

Joyce L. Arnold, Liberally Independent, Queer Talk, equality activist, writer.

Time limited political campaigns as usual are a much easier sell than indefinite work of activism, but you get what you pay for. Or more accurately, if you go the politics as usual route, you get what major donors pay for.

In spite of denials to the contrary, Occupy / 99% has had an impact on 2012 politics, whether by way of efforts of rejection, co-optation, or taking the Occupy concerns seriously. One perspective, from Lynn Parramore at AlterNet:

Will the Mitt/Newt Slugfest Boost the Occupy Movement?

The Occupy Movement brought key issues like economic inequality, Wall Street greed, and political corruption to the table. And we may have the GOP front runners to thank for keeping them there. …

Newt leveled three sets of charges at his rival on economic issues, all of which resonate with core Occupy Wall Street concerns. The first two were key in the South Carolina primary, and the third may be important in the next phase as Newt attempts to draw Ron Paul supporters into his camp. They are:

1) Taxes (OWS concern = economic inequality)
2) Private equity (OWS concern = Wall Street predation, ruthless capitalism, senseless job destruction)
3) Federal Reserve (OWS concern = power of big banks over government)

Each of these issues, of course, is viewed through somewhat different lenses by left and right-leaning populists.

Another perspective, from Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, via TruthOut:

In 2012, the Real Conversation Will Be in the Occupations, While Corporate Candidates Have a False Conversation …

The irrelevance of the political debate, primarily between two-corporate approved candidates, will become more evident as the voices of the people grow. …

The truth is for the vast majority of Americans their presidential vote is pre-ordained. Due to the Electoral College in all but about a dozen states we can already definitively predict where your vote is going. This should be greatly freeing to most Americans – we do not have to vote for either corporate candidate out of the manipulation created by fear of the greater evil. We are free to send a message to both corporate parties that we do not accept their money-dominated campaigns. …

The main job of the Occupy Movement during this election year will be to change the conversation from a mostly irrelevant debate between two corporate approved candidates to one relevant to the American people. We need to show that the pre-scripted, focus-group, corporatized rhetoric of the presidential campaign is a false conversation – and the people of the United States are having the real conversation about our future. In the end, whoever is elected will need constant pressure from the Occupy Movement to put the people’s necessities first. So, our job is to build a strong independent movement in 2012 and beyond.

Populist spin, or attempts at it, is politics as usual. We hear it from Right and Left. We hear, in different ways, from Romney, Gingrich and Paul. We’ll hear yet another version from Obama in tonight’s State of the Union address. From the National Journal, Obama Previews State of the Union Address to Supporters, in which Obama talked about

‘ … the central mission we have as a country, and my central focus as president. And that’s rebuilding an economy where hard work pays off and responsibility is rewarded, and an America where everybody gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everybody plays by the same set of rules.’

He will cast this as ‘a make-or-break moment for the middle class’ and will warn that the country ‘can go in two directions. One is towards less opportunity and less fairness. Or we can fight for where I think we need to go: building an economy that works for everyone, not just a wealthy few.’

Ah yes, “everyone, not just the wealthy few.” It isn’t that Occupy is anywhere near the first to call attention to the inequities in our economic and governing systems, but without question, Occupiers have played a huge role in making it a key part of the 2012 campaign. My take, unsurprisingly I’m sure, regarding the “make or break” framing is that both parties are on the make, and it’s up to us to break their assumed power.

Waiting until after the next election to hold your Party of choice responsible is not a strategy, it’s a surrender.

(Don’t Make Us Go Wisconsin poster via Occupy Pix)

Read full story · Comments { 8 }

Ryan Lizza and The Hillary Effect, Case Proved Beyond Any Doubt

By on 24 January 2012

The reason I wrote my book was to tell a piece of history. It was to set the record of events out for people to read and connect. The Hillary Effect gets another big boost from recent reporting that bolsters the case I make, which is backed up by the facts I offer.

Available in print at Amazon.com


A memo revealed by Ryan Lizza in “The Obama Memos”, printed in The New Yorker, proves a main thesis in my book and does so beyond any doubt whatsoever.

“Change we can believe in” and other Obama slogans were mythmaking of the first order, which I prove, with character assassination the only weapon they thought could work when Obama got up against it. Because it wasn’t as if Hillary had an affair with Monica, or was responsible for NAFTA (it was proven conclusively she was against it), and Obama and Clinton had the same votes in the Senate on foreign policy (minus the Iran vote he ducked).

The reality from Lizza’s important article:

Another hard-edged decision helped make him the Democratic Presidential nominee. In early October, 2007, David Axelrod and Obama’s other political consultants wrote the candidate a memo explaining how he could repair his floundering campaign against Hillary Clinton. They advised him to attack her personally, presenting a difficult choice for Obama. He had spent years building a reputation as a reformer who deplored the nasty side of politics, and now, he was told, he had to put that aside. Obama’s strategists wrote that all campaign communications, even the slogan—“Change We Can Believe In”—had to emphasize distinctions with Clinton on character rather than on policy. The slogan “was intended to frame the argument along the character fault line, and this is where we can and must win this fight,” the memo said. “Clinton can’t be trusted or believed when it comes to change,” because “she’s driven by political calculation not conviction, regularly backing away and shifting positions. . . . She embodies trench warfare vs. Republicans, and is consumed with beating them rather than unifying the country and building consensus to get things done. She prides herself on working the system, not changing it.” The “current goal,” the memo continued, was to define Obama as “the only authentic ‘remedy’ to what ails Washington and stands in the way of progress.”

Obama’s message promised voters, in what his aides called “the inspiration,” that “Barack Obama will end the divisive trench warfare that treats politics as a game and will lead Americans to come together to restore our common purpose.” Clinton was too polarizing to get anything done: “It may not be her fault, but Americans have deeply divided feelings about Hillary Clinton, threatening a Democratic victory in 2008 and insuring another four years of the bitter political battles that have plagued Washington for the last two decades and stymied progress.”

Neera Tanden was the policy director for Clinton’s campaign. When Clinton lost the Democratic race, Tanden became the director of domestic policy for Obama’s general-election campaign, and then a senior official working on health care in his Administration. She is now the president of the liberal Center for American Progress, perhaps the most important institution in Democratic politics. “It was a character attack,” Tanden said recently, speaking about the Obama campaign against Clinton. “I went over to Obama, I’m a big supporter of the President, but their campaign was entirely a character attack on Hillary as a liar and untrustworthy. It wasn’t an ‘issue contrast,’ it was entirely personal.” And, of course, it worked.

The entire traditional, elite and many new media outlets sucked up the Axelrod theory with a straw. Put more bluntly, they picked a side.

The result is the disillusionment you have among many American voters who trusted the marketing message of “change we can believe in,” but also trusted the press, which was in collusion for one candidate over another, a scourge that continues to run through our media, especially on cable, but also in new media, where if you don’t pick a side readers can’t figure out what you’re saying. That’s how used to the partisan pabulum people have become. The case I make in my book lays it out in detail.

The Obama memo details from David Axelrod emphasize what Neera Tanden is quoted saying. The only way Barack Obama could beat her was a character assault on Hillary Rodham Clinton, even if her character was really not the issue. The issue was Barack Obama not having what it took on his own.

It’s nothing new under the political stars, but it is emphatically evident it was far from the preening, above it all persona the Obama campaign pushed.

The critical component remains the media who laid the groundwork, which I prove conclusively in my book, which covers close to 20 years.

This illustrates the importance of reporters in outlets like The New Yorker to history, people who get access to historic information to which independent authors aren’t privy. It’s a lot harder for people like myself to get heard, because I’m outside the establishment, so nuggets like what Rizza offers are critical.

The New Yorker has done something very important, for which I’m grateful, because I wrote a fair, fact based, true account of the most important political contest in modern history, from a point of view that had not been heard before.

The relevancy of The Hillary Effect has never been more real and now has one more piece of historical testimony to add to its truths.

Read full story · Comments { 17 }

How Many Democratic Millionaires Pay 10% to their Church or Charity?

By on 24 January 2012

The Wall Street Journal got an early peek at Mitt Romney’s tax returns. I wonder how many conservative Christians gave over 10% to their church in 2010. How many Democratic millionaires gave that much to their church or their favorite charity?

Did Mitt Romney abuse the tax code? No, it’s made for him. Newt Gingrich would have lowered what Romney paid to zero. George W. Bush, then Obama, by extending the Bush tax cuts, made it possible.

GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney paid a 14% effective income tax rate in 2010 after making $3 million in tax-deductible charitable donations and drawing most of his income from investments, according to a summary of Mr. Romney’s 2010 tax form provided by his campaign.

Mr. Romney reported $21.7 million in income. He paid $3 million in federal taxes, slightly more than the $2.98 million he made in charitable donations. At least $1.5 million of his charitable donations went to the Mormon Church.

Of Mr. Romney’s 2010 income, he noted a capital gain of $12.6 million, taxable interest of $3.3 million, ordinary dividends of $4.9 million and smaller sums of gains and losses on business income, refunds and other income.

His 2010 return also showed that he had a financial account in Switzerland that was closed in 2010 and that he generated income from overseas investments. He also reported financial accounts in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands.

What a layup for Democrats.

The disagreements I have with Mitt Romney on the issues are wide and long. However, the fact that Gov. Romney is a fat cat millionaire who gives a lot more than most people to his church, while playing the system set in place and prolonged by Bush, Obama and those who came before, isn’t one of them. I got news for Democrats, it won’t be to most Americans either.

Romney’s problem isn’t taxes, it remains Mitt Romney.

As for disagreements, did you hear Romney’s ridiculous answer on Afghanistan last night? How do you handle Afghanistan? “By beating them,” Romney said and “By standing behind our troops and making sure we have transitioned to the Afghan military a capacity for them to be successful in holding off the Taliban. Our mission there is to be able to turn Afghanistan and its sovereignty over to a military of Afghan descent, Afghan people that can defend their sovereignty. That’s something we can accomplish in the next couple of years.”

One of his biggest boosters, Jennifer Rubin, was ecstatic on Twitter: “by beating them? BEST answer on afghanistan EVER.”

“A couple of years” has turned into over 10, with no end in sight.

If before November anything remotely related to national security happens he’ll get his clock cleaned by Pres. Obama. Newt Gingrich would give a standard neoconservative reply, but he’ll sound credible doing it. If the economy wasn’t the issue Mitt Romney wouldn’t be running.

Looking at Newt Gingrich, with his tens of millions multiples, his lobbying and hypocrisy, right wing conservatives may choose to side with a man who’s anger is genuine, but he’s just the bookend to happy warrior Herman Cain, except Newt’s channeling the god of war. Neither man is remotely suited for the presidency and neither man can win a general election against Pres. Obama. It’s not about electability. It’s about credibility.

But a Swiss bank account and a Cayman account, really Mitt? You’ve been running for president since 2008 and you couldn’t have cleaned this up sooner?

Pres. Obama couldn’t have a better set up for his Osawatomie 2.0 State of the Union speech. He’s reportedly going to offer a word salad to make Democrats smile. Candidate Obama did the same thing in 2008 and won the election with it.

Just don’t expect reelecting Pres. Obama will give us anything different than we’ve gotten in his first term, except he’ll have no restraints whatsoever on his Republican conservatism. He’ll finally be free and unfettered to enact entitlement “reform,” something he served up first. At least it won’t be a registered Republican doing it, right?

…while our foreign policy militarism revs up and on, draining us of the resources required to do what’s required of our government here at home. Unthinkable that the amount of income taxed for Social Security should be lifted for multi-millionaires.

Obama versus Mitt or Newt, this isn’t a choice, it’s our problem.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Newt’s Mistake: Pivoting to General Election Mode

By on 24 January 2012

There was no sports arena atmosphere. No applause. None of which benefited Newt Gingrich. …or Brian Williams, who made The Elite Media and the Professional Left antsy.

The video above was released as the debate began, driving home Mitt’s theme of the night.

“In the 15 years after he left the speakership, the speaker has been working as an influence peddler in Washington,” Romney said. “In those 15 years, I helped run the Olympics, helped start a … turnaround in Massachusetts.” – Burns & Haberman

Newt Gingrich decided to take Romney’s assault. He evidently thinks it’s presidential. But it’s political suicide against a man who’s loaded with cash and a campaign team that stretches to June, neither of which Gingrich has going for himself.

Someone told Newt Gingrich that to win the general election he needs people beyond right-wingers, so he didn’t respond all night. But you don’t let your opponent, someone you just put on his heels, kick your character to the curb.

“After 4 years he had to resign in disgrace” was said twice by Romney in response to the first question, then he called him an “influence peddler,” both having the virtue of being true.

“I didn’t have an office on K-street,” with follow-ups from Cayman cash Mitt that landed.

Memo to Newt: it’s not over yet and you need money beyond your Super PAC mom and dad, but you won’t get it if you’re not attacking, the tactic that got you into the lead and where your ego decided you’ve already won.

The “self-deportation” line from Romney brought out snickering. But as BuzzFeed tweeted, it’s a real thing, it just has “few takers.”

Something for Gingrich to ponder before Thursday’s CNN debate: when you’re not attacking, you’re losing, because without it people wonder why they like you.

Next event, Mitt Romney’s taxes tomorrow, but it’s also the State of the Union. No one will be distracted.

Maybe if Newt Gingrich actually wins this thing we’ll get to see the Republican hard right up close, allowing it to spin itself into oblivion and out of our national fabric.

It’s the up side of Newt.

Read full story · Comments { 12 }