TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | investigations

Romney Gets Even for New York Times Story

By on 03 February 2012

A GOP campaign operative who won plaudits for bolstering Mitt Romney’s recent debate performances is not being retained by the frontrunner’s campaign, an apparent victim of internal tensions over staff receiving too much credit for the candidate’s comeback, POLITICO has learned. – Mitt Romney splits with Brett O’Donnell

Fridays is dump day in politics and the Romney camp has just done a whopper of one. This is as inside political baseball as it gets, but they’re fascinating if you’re interested in the machinations of political campaigns, which I am.

Last weekend, the New York Times ran a story replete with how Romney’s team, advisers, opposition-research crew, as well as a new debate coach, who became the talk after Romney took it to Gingrich, Brett O’Donnell, ganged up on Gingrich in Florida to give Mitt a victory. An excerpt:

Mr. Romney, meanwhile, had been receiving help from a new debate adviser — Brett O’Donnell, a longtime leader of the Liberty University debate team who advised Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota in her campaign last year — and assumed a new role as the campaign’s chief attacker, relinquishing his old approach of leaving the dirty work to supporters and a friendly super PAC.

A team of some of the most fearsome researchers in the business, led by Mr. Romney’s campaign manager, Matt Rhoades, spent days dispensing negative information about Mr. Gingrich, much of it finding its way to the influential Drudge Report, which often serves as a guide for conservative talk radio and television assignment editors and to which Mr. Rhoades has close ties.

The effort hit a peak by Thursday, when the site was virtually taken over by headlines assailing Mr. Gingrich, whose advisers said they eventually gave up on trying to persuade the Drudge staff to spare them, acknowledging, in the words of one aide, that “very little can be done.”

“The Romney team” became the subject of scathing rants by Joe Scarborough on “Morning Joe” this week, highlighting how scandalous it was for insiders in the campaign to be blowing their own horns, while giving little credit to Romney.

The closer to the article reveals what became a big problem as the week went on:

Mr. Romney was still in South Carolina when the team, led by Mr. Rhoades, presented the plan to him. “He was on the road, and there was a call with him on Sunday morning where we laid out all the different pieces of what was going on,” Mr. Schriefer said. “He asked questions, but it wasn’t a particularly long call; it was very calm, sort of ‘O.K., guys, let’s go win in Florida.’ ”

Mitt’s team tried to get Brett O’Donnell’s name removed from the piece before printing, but they couldn’t.

Ego is all in politics and after the debate everyone was talking about O’Donnell, if not by name.

There’s an old law in Hollywood: always support the star. If you pull focus you’re not going to be around long.

Mitt Romney’s team seen preening on the front page of the Times taking credit for Florida was bad enough, but having someone who actually made a difference in the candidate’s performance named out loud, well, that’s unforgivable.

So, late on a Friday night of Super Bowl weekend, they decided to cut someone loose to send a message. So who do they ax? Not an adviser or part of the oppo-research team, heaven forbid, they let O’Donnell go.

Message: Mitt Romney doesn’t need no stinking debate coach. He’s got game on his own.

Read full story · Comments { 5 }

Economic News Buoys Obama, as Israel & Iran Chatter Grows

By on 03 February 2012

The pace of job creation surged in January, with the US economy generating 243,000 new positions while the unemployment rate dropped to 8.3 percent, according to government data released Friday. – CNBC

Official White House Photo by Pete Souza



This is fantastic news. Besides the people impacted by the turn in the economy, Obama reelect gets a boost too.

“What’s not to like about the report?” said Andrew Wilkinson, chief economic strategist at Miller Tabak in New York. “Not only did payrolls exceed forecasts…but between the November and December revisions employers added 160,000 more jobs than first thought.” – CNBC

I’d like to just offer one note of caution as 2012 election season starts to be seen only through the jobs and unemployment numbers. This is understandable, but as we learned on the run-up to George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004, when Osama bin Laden popped up in a video, what is suspected to be the issue, Bush-Cheney’s screw-up on Iraq, didn’t turn out to do him in. Obama gave the order for a daring SEAL Team Six mission to take out Osama, for which he doesn’t get enough credit, but there other foreign policy areas where he is less surefooted.

There is growing chatter about developments surrounding Iran and Israel. Richard Haas talked about it this week on “Morning Joe,” stressing a new element, the “zone of immunity.” David Ignasius wrote about it yesterday:

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has a lot on his mind these days, from cutting the defense budget to managing the drawdown of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. But his biggest worry is the growing possibility that Israel will attack Iran over the next few months.

Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in April, May or June — before Iran enters what Israelis described as a “zone of immunity” to commence building a nuclear bomb. Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon — and only the United States could then stop them militarily.

In his State of the Union Speech, Pres. Obama trotted out the old and tired war rattling words “no option off the table” to make the point about Iran. I mentioned earlier when talking about Newt Gingrich and Sheldon Adelson (see Wayne Barrett here and here), who’s whole reason for being is to saber rattle on Iran, that DNI Clapper had warned about Iranian attacks inside the U.S.

There’s an interesting post up at Huffington Post on the entire subject of Obama and Iran.

Mitt Romney is so incredibly weak on national security issues that there can be little doubt he’d have to trip the full neoconservative wire to pass muster with Republicans.

Pres. Obama has shown his Bushesque colors throughout his foreign policy decisions, with an election year bringing even bigger challenges to him. As many of you remember, he ducked an important vote on Iran as a senator running for president. There has been much criticism on his Israeli policy as president, most undeserved. Pres. Obama has been a steadfast friend to Israel, as all American presidents must be, with Romney’s “appeasement” lines absurd.

It has leaked that US chairman of the joint chiefs of staff Gen. Martin Dempsey warned the Israelis that if they launched a strike on Iran that spiralled into a war, they would be on their own. – Juan Cole

It’s a long way until November. However, never underestimate election year foreign policy problems to distract people who remain unhappy about the direction of the country. If Iran and Israel become front and center the Middle East could raise its head and turn the election into something no one anticipates today.

This election year is primed for shock waves.

This column has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 10 }

Press Harassment Continues

By on 01 February 2012

“I’m within my First Amendment rights, and I’m being taken out,” Fox shouted as he was led away. – Josh Fox arrested at hearing, Politico

Josh Fox is an Oscar-nominated filmmaker. His documentary “Gasland” helped expose the dangers of unregulated natural gas fracking.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Komen Move to Defund Planned Parenthood Not a Surprise

By on 01 February 2012

Planned Parenthood confirms that Komen is the first, and only, organization to cut off funding since the Congress began debating the issue in earnest last winter. Komen said it could not continue to fund Planned Parenthood because it has adopted new guidelines that bar it from funding organizations under congressional investigation. The House oversight and investigations subcommittee announced in the fall an investigation into Planned Parenthood’s funding. – Why Komen defunded Planned Parenthood

While the right was laying ground for what just happened, the left was giving ground.

This Komen–Planned Parenthood relationship has long been a target of pro-life activists and, media bias aside, this appears to be a remarkable turning point. – Kathryn Lopez

Kathryn Lopez is correct and the abortion rights opponents earned it. Democrats and progressives have no one to blame but themselves.

Nothing happens suddenly on issues this large or in a vacuum. There is always a methodology to this type of madness and when you cede territory to people on a mission you rarely get it back.

In a statement by Cecile Richards of Planned Parenthood, she says she’s “shocked and saddened.” How embarrassing for her. Others write words like “creep up” to describe what has been systematic strategy utilizing tactics that the left is too squeamish to consider.

As a liberal, all I can say is that the female leaders we have today not only aren’t up to the task, but progressives have failed immeasurably and completely to defend the ground stronger women who came before won.

This fight has been around for decades and revolves around abortion rights not cancer screening. But a tipping point occurred during the health care debate when Democrats chose to allow the Hyde Amendment to be codified into law. Until the Affordability Care Act, the Hyde Amendment had to be voted on yearly in the budget.

It signified Democrats and progressives had blinked and the right got the message.

At the time, Planned Parenthood’s Cecile Richards wasn’t bothered by the move in ACA or the decisions by Democrats. But when Rep. Bart Stupak was given ground by former Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the House in U.S. history who also empowered the Catholic Church during health care negotiations, something fundamental shifted on the game board. Mr. Stupak was then elevated further through an unnecessary executive order signed by Pres. Obama and the message was sent and received by people who never give ground that Democrats weren’t going to suit up for the fight.

The Susan G. Komen decision is the result of getting beaten, with women across this country the victims because Ms. Richards, Ms. Pelosi, Rep. DeGette and the so-called progressive “pro-choice” caucus, along with many, many others never understood what compromise on issues of bedrock principle to the right would mean in the long-term.

We’ve seen it with Pres. Obama’s actions time and again.

The Susan B. Komen decision is about the abortion rights opponent forces winning a battle through squeezing the foundation, starting with getting them ostracized. Here’s the background if you’re interested. Komen’s current senior vice president public policy person is Karen Handel, a woman who wasn’t going to stop until the defunding of Planned Parenthood was a reality.

These are not people who capitulate and compromise for the sake of anything, unlike Democrats and progressives in Congress and their allies who set this scene up.

An entire chapter in my book, “Is Freedom Just for Men,” was written because I saw the erosion of women’s rights, which began with the Hyde Amendment decades ago. It then crescendoed with it being not only codified into law, but women are expected to find emergency insurance outside the normal routes, shrinking the pool of insured and opening the door to unavailability. In this chapter in my book, I cite all the “mini-Stupak” laws that have spread in a contagion across this country, because of the message sent by Democrats.

Susan G. Komen Foundation made the decision on Planned Parenthood because the right won critical seats in the 2010 midterms in a rabid campaign that Democrats didn’t engage fully, including on economics. It allowed Republicans to corner Planned Parenthood, which set up the investigation, which was written into Komen as something that disqualified an organization from funding.

As I wrote in “The Party’s Over,” for over 30 years Democrats have said women needed to vote for them to keep our rights secure. I’ve done that, trusted them, and with Democrats the only game in politics who aren’t cut out for the current fight, now look what has happened. What I was promised would never occur if I voted Democratic.

When you have female leaders so weak on fundamental issues of women’s individual freedoms that they are willing to give away foundational concessions on issues won through the courts it’s only a matter of time before you lose them. Putting party loyalty above all else is how this unfolded.

This was very well played strategy by the right whose tactics should have been seen a long way out. That the head of Planned Parenthood is “shocked” says it all.

Needless to say, I’m not.

Next you’ll hear a rallying cry from Democrats and others to fight back and that women’s rights are at stake! The mean anti-women’s coalition is targeting us all! Give money now!

Any organization taking your money to fund political prerogatives over the mission they’re touting doesn’t deserve one dime.

It goes beyond hypocrisy. It’s a betrayal of trust and purpose, using women as the coin.

This column has been edited.

Read full story · Comments { 22 }

Leaked Syrian Report at Foreign Policy

By on 31 January 2012

“What I saw was a humanitarian disaster. The regime is not just committing one war crime, but a series of crimes against its people,” said Malek. “The snipers are everywhere shooting at civilians. People are being kidnapped. Prisoners are being tortured and none were released.” – report by Column Lynch

After calling for President Bashar al-Assad to step down, which was ignored, the Arab League also called off its mission to monitor the carnage inside Syria this past Saturday. Considering they reportedly didn’t have enough armored vehicles and too few bullet-proof vests, with the details from Turtle Bay’s Column Lynch about the Chinese passing the walkie-talkies, it would be laughable if the situation hadn’t been so deadly.

Gen. Mohamed Ahmed Moustafa Al-Dabbi was in charge of the mission, which is part of the problem. Lynch has a good rundown on the general:

The mission’s international standing was also diminished by the selection of its monitoring chief — General Al-Dabbi, a close advisor of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court. Al-Dabbi also served as a top military officer in Darfur, Sudan, at a time when the government was organizing local militia, known as the Janjaweed, that were involved in mass killings of civilians in the region. An Algerian member of the Arab team, Anwar Malek, resigned in protest, telling Al Jazeera that the mission was a “farce.”

The leaked report is available over at Lynch’s Turtle Bay. The Europeans are unimpressed by it, while the Russians and the Security Council are in it over the bloodletting in Syria. One thing is clear after reading the report and that is the Syrian government seems to have had no intention of allowing it to succeed. From Lynch:

On Jan. 18, Arab League Secretary General Nabil Elaraby ordered the suspension of the organization’s observer mission, its first major experiment in human rights monitoring. He claimed that the escalation of violence had undercut its ability to do its job.

But a confidential account of the organization’s mission, signed by the monitor’s controversial chief and obtained by Turtle Bay, shows that the Arab monitors were hobbled from the beginning by a shortage of equipment — and by what Al-Dabbi describes as a ferocious Syrian media disinformation campaign against the monitors and him personally. “The credibility of the mission has been undermined in the minds of Arab and foreign viewers,” he wrote.

[...] “The mission…sensed the acute stress, injustice and oppression endured [by] Syrian citizens,” Al-Dabbi wrote. “Yet they are convinced that the Syrian crisis must be resolved peacefully, in the Arab context, and not internationalized so that they can live in peace securely, and achieve the desired reforms and changes.” That said, he is surprisingly candid and critical of the observer mission’s ability to perform well the task required of them.

Read full story · Comments { 6 }

Who Are We Today?

By on 30 January 2012

What Secy. Panetta described on 60 Minutes as Obama administration policy is nothing close to what candidate Obama said he’d be as president.

But I wonder how many people watching Secy. Leon Panetta found anything at all wrong with what he’s saying in the video above.

Whatever Barack Obama once stood for as a constitutional lawyer no longer exists in his presidency.

That Democrats continue making excuses for him and sounding like neoconservatives when they do says all you need to know about the Democratic Party in the Obama era.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Why Does the Catholic Church Enjoy IRS Protection?

By on 30 January 2012

The answer is simple. Because no Republican or Democratic politician has the courage to challenge any church today. E.J. Dionne reveals why:

That is why it is so remarkable that he utterly botched the admittedly difficult question of how contraceptive services should be treated under the new health care law.

His administration mishandled this decision not once but twice. In the process, Obama threw his progressive Catholic allies under the bus and strengthened the hand of those inside the Church who had originally sought to derail the health care law.

… Speaking as a Catholic, I wish the Church would be more open on the contraception question. But speaking as an American liberal who believes that religious pluralism imposes certain obligations on government, I think the Church’s leaders had a right to ask for broader relief from a contraception mandate that would require it to act against its own teachings. The administration should have done more to balance the competing liberty interests here.

What Mr. Dionne reveals is that “Catholic allies” are more important than the integrity of protecting the individual person against the institution. The female individual having no lobbying crew or elite to protect her, for which she relies on the government, because only at the highest levels can a woman’s individual civil rights be secured. “Competing liberty interests” doesn’t address the lack of power an individual person has against institutions, seen in this debate by the Catholic Church who wants to deny reproductive health care to women, which hits rural and poor women directly.

Contrary to the fantasy that the Obama administration waging “an attack on their religious freedom,” an argument Russ Douthat makes today in the New York Times, what Pres. Obama has decided gives power to the individual over institutions.

Nothing is in higher keeping with the founders’ principles. It also is what Republicans and other conservatives, including Democrats, tout all the time, except where women are concerned. Then all of a sudden freedom it is just for men.

One woman’s privacy is more important than any religious institution’s prerogatives.

This highlights the biggest scourge in our politics and that is allowing religion and faith to have entrance into the debate in the first place. Thanks to Ronald Reagan and the “Moral Majority,” which was neither then or now, a religious litmus test has entered our political and policy landscape.

In thousands of parishes this weekend, Catholic priests read a version of the following letter to their congregation denouncing this decision as an attack on their religious freedom. Each bishop personally sent the letter out, and so there were some local variations. Here’s the one read in the Phoenix Archdiocese. Here’s another from the Bishop of Trenton. What follows is from the Bishop of Marquette… – Business Insider

I’m a rebel Episcopalian that now relies on daily meditation as my spiritual bedrock. I won’t take a back seat to any fundamentalist or evangelical or Catholic on spirituality. However, any person’s preferences in private should have no sway in public policy matters.

Since the Catholic Church is clearly encouraging it’s parishioners to wage a political campaign against this decision there should be substantive questions raised as to why this religious organization deserves protected status under the IRS code.

From Catholic News in November 2011:

“The law says that organizations exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, which includes charities and churches, may not participate or intervene in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office,” the Internal Revenue Service says on its website.

That means no endorsements, checklists, guides promoting one candidate over another or sample ballots by tax-exempt parishes and organizations or their publications.

But it does not prevent religious leaders or members of other tax-exempt organizations from speaking out on the issues, organizing voter registration drives or nonpartisan educational forums or publishing candidates’ responses to a questionnaire as long as the questions cover a broad range of issues and do not reflect any bias.

As you’ll see from the letter below, provided by Business Insider, there is nothing nonpartisan about it.

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ:

I write to you concerning an alarming and serious matter that negatively impacts the Church in the United States directly, and that strikes at the fundamental right to religious liberty for all citizens of any faith. The federal government, which claims to be “of, by, and for the people,” has just been dealt a heavy blow to almost a quarter of those people — the Catholic population — and to the millions more who are served by the Catholic faithful.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announced last week that almost all employers, including Catholic employers, will be forced to offer their employees’ health coverage that includes sterilization, abortion-inducing drugs, and contraception. Almost all health insurers will be forced to include those “services” in the health policies they write. And almost all individuals will be forced to buy that coverage as a part of their policies.

In so ruling, the Obama Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty. And as a result, unless the rule is overturned, we Catholics will be compelled to either violate our consciences, or to drop health coverage for our employees (and suffer the penalties for doing so). The Obama Administration’s sole concession was to give our institutions one year to comply.

We cannot—we will not—comply with this unjust law. People of faith cannot be made second class citizens. We are already joined by our brothers and sisters of all faiths and many others of good will in this important effort to regain our religious freedom. Our parents and grandparents did not come to these shores to help build America’s cities and towns, its infrastructure and institutions, its enterprise and culture, only to have their posterity stripped of their God given rights. In generations past, the Church has always been able to count on the faithful to stand up and protect her sacred rights and duties. I hope and trust she can count on this generation of Catholics to do the same. Our children and grandchildren deserve nothing less.

And therefore, I would ask of you two things. First, as a community of faith we must commit ourselves to prayer and fasting that wisdom and justice may prevail, and religious liberty may be restored. Without God, we can do nothing; with God, nothing is impossible. Second, I would also recommend visiting www.usccb.org/conscience,to learn more about this severe assault on religious liberty, and how to contact Congress in support of legislation that would reverse the Obama Administration’s decision.

Sincerely yours in Christ,
Alexander K. Sample
Most Reverend Alexander K. Sample
Bishop of Marquette

This article has been updated.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }

Sheldon Adelson Couldn’t Buy Newt Florida

By on 30 January 2012

If you wanted to know the state of Newt Gingrich’s campaign right now all you had to do was watch Fred Thompson on Meet the Press on Sunday. With his hair slicked back and wisps of uncut frizz flipping out in the back, Thompson delivered his lines haltingly and with his head bowed, while focusing downward as he talked. I won’t get into the fantasy Thompson floated that if Republicans had held out during the government shutdown in the mid-90s they’d have… er, won. It was a tour de force whine from camp Gingrich about how big bad Mitt had played too dirty. Hypocrisy unlimited, the bellyaching stems from the reality that Newt can’t match Mitt’s money, because if he could he’d be doing the same thing. Anybody doubt that fact?

Favorite recent headline: Newt May Be Mad and Mental Enough to Fight On Long After Florida, an article by John Heilimann.

Here’s an excerpt:

In a weekend of trailing the former speaker to a series of events along the I-4 corridor, there was just no escaping that a campaign that was flying high (and even into outer space) ten days ago has now come crashing back to earth. At what was billed as a Hispanic town hall meeting at another church yesterday in Orlando, Gingrich was greeted by row after row of empty pews and maybe 40 voters in attendance. For a full hour after the scheduled starting time, Gingrich and his wife, Callista, sat outside, cloistered in his campaign bus — possibly sulking, possibly fuming at his campaign’s horrid advance work, and surely praying that a few more souls would show up. When Gingrich finally entered the building, it was announced that the event was a town hall no more; the candidate would speak briefly, then take pictures with the scant few who’d turned up. And “briefly” was an understatement: Standing behind a Lucite lectern, Gingrich talked for a bare eight minutes and eleven seconds, looking deflated and exhausted. By no small margin, it was the worst and saddest campaign event that I have witnessed in this presidential cycle.

Now all the talk in the political world is about how badly Newt Gingrich could get beat tomorrow, with everyone anticipating a large margin win by Mitt Romney.

A lot of Republicans are hoping for it and an end to the savage bloodletting, as well as the debates. Sen. John McCain said on Meet the Press Sunday that they’ve got to end. Chris Wallace said the debates were “ridiculous,” “insane,” and “stupid” recently on a radio show. The next one is at the end of February, which will be a very long month for Newt Gingrich.

Sheldon Adelson bought Newt Gingrich South Carolina. What he’s gotten for his money is another story. It’s about Israel and Iran, but having a candidate in the race that can define the debate rightward where the Middle East is concerned.

RT @RyanLizza: Newt warning Iranians could easily blow up Jacksonville with nuclear weapon (via boat).

I retweeted the above to make the point. You may remember Gingrich saying the Palestinian people were “invented.”

We should all be thankful Mitt Romney’s rich, organized and that his campaign is not going to take their foot off Gingrich’s throat again.

“It not about winning here anymore,” one Romney staffer told BuzzFeed. “It’s about destroying Gingrich — and it’s working.” – Zeke Miller, BuzzFeed

There’s no comfort when you look at Mitt Romney where the Middle East is concerned either. To say foreign policy isn’t his forte is an understatement. So with neoconservatives and John Bolton in the background, with Newt in cahoots with Adelson, it’s all very weirdly counterproductive for Israel and for the U.S. on the right.

Mr. Adelson and his wife were evidently cynical enough to believe that American Jews living in Florida would buy Newt’s message. It doesn’t look like it’s selling. The question is whether Adelson will keep the money flowing if Gingrich loses big in Florida, because where this race heads next depends on it.

Read full story · Comments { 13 }

Sarah Palin Isn’t Who She Used to Be

By on 28 January 2012



Sarah Palin rose to power in Alaska by taking on Republicans in her own state on ethics. It’s the very thing Tom Brokaw is talking about regarding Newt Gingrich in the Romney ad above, though Brokaw, and NBC are protesting, so I have no idea if the video will be available by the time you read this. The Romney hashtag for it is #Newtorious.

You don’t need partisan rhetoric or his scandals to fillet Newt Gingrich.

“They, thinking that by trotting out this old Gingrich divorce interview that’s old news — and it does feature a disgruntled ex, claiming that it would destroy his campaign — all this does, Sean, is incentivize conservatives and independents who are so sick of the politics of personal destruction because it’s played so selectively by the media…” – Sarah Palin: Newt Gingrich’s secret weapon

If Sarah Palin were backing Rick Santorum she’d have some credibility, but by defending Newt Gingrich she reveals the hypocrisy at her core.

Stop and print the section in bold above. Sarah Palin is correct on this one point. But hearing Palin whine about the “politics of personal destruction” when she’s a master of it is a bit much.

Sarah Palin’s shift to propping up an ethics-challenged hypocrite like Newt Gingrich directly relates to her ineffectiveness with the wider public and why she can’t wage a successful run for president. After amassing incredible power in 2010, which I chronicled fairly on this site, at the Huffington Post and in my book, she’s squandered it with anyone but her faithful.

Newt’s problem is that Independents won’t go near him.

One reason Romney has been outperforming Gingrich in hypothetical match-ups against President Obama is due to independents. Now, both main Republicans are at a disadvantage. [...] For his part, Gingrich runs solidly the other way among these middle-of-the-roaders, at 20 percent positive, 58 percent negative. Romney, whom moderates rated about evenly throughout the fall and into early January, are now about 2 to 1 negative: 27 percent hold favorable views, 52 percent negative ones. – Washington Post

There are a lot of things that can be said and argued about Mitt Romney, starting with his austerity message, which is a killer for our economy. He’s been an awful candidate so far and is as unlikable as any candidate in recent memory, Democratic or Republican. His wealth in an Occupy era makes him a perfect whipping boy for Pres. Obama and the Democrats. However, there is absolutely no evidence anywhere in his long business or political careers that points to ethics violations or that he was ineffective in his endeavors, both of which dog Newt Gingrich.

Sarah Palin has chosen to play defender of Newt Gingrich, the exact type of Republican she would have railed against once upon a time in Alaska, all so she can toot her Tea Party horn in the hopes of regaining relevancy and keeping the cash rolling in.

Hey, nothing wrong with that at all. Ann Coulter’s been doing successfully for years.

What’s convenient is the thousands of Palin fans who continue to help her, because she wouldn’t be newsworthy without them. She owes them everything, but she owes Newt, too.

Without Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin couldn’t stoke up the audience for her keynote CPAC speech next month.

Read full story · Comments { 11 }

A Mitt Romney Moment: Fannie and Freddie

By on 28 January 2012

Art offers his perspective as a movement progressive activist.

Ever put a fortune into a company and then not know it?

In the CNN Thursday debate, Mitt Romney claimed he had no idea of his investment involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. When confronted by Newt Gingrich over the fact that Romney poured 100s of thousands into a mutual fund that held Freddie and Fannie debt notes, among other government entities, Romney replied that he had no knowledge, because his money is in a blind trust.

Ah, but is that accurate?

From the Boston Globe:

On his financial disclosure statement filed last month, Romney reported owning between $250,001 and $500,000 in a mutual fund that invests in debt notes of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, among other government entities. Over the previous year, he had reported earning between $15,001 and $50,000 in interest from those investments.

And unlike most of Romney’s financial holdings, which are held in a blind trust that is overseen by a trustee and not known to Romney, this particular investment was among those that would have been known to Romney.

Gingrich is about to go up with a brutal ad deconstructing the situation. Script:

Governor Mike Huckabee:

“If a man’s dishonest to get a job, he’ll be dishonest on the job.”

Voice-over:

“What kind of man would mislead, distort and deceive just to win an election?”

“This man would: Mitt Romney.”

“Romney said he has always voted Republican when he had the opportunity.”

“But in the 1992 Massachusetts Primary Romney had the chance to vote for George H.W. Bush or Pat Buchanan, but he voted for a liberal Democrat instead.”

Romney said his investments in Fannie and Freddie were in a blind trust.

But, as reported in the National Journal, Romney earned tens of thousands of dollars from investments NOT in a blind trust… …

Mike Huckabee has responded to news of the Gingrich ad.

The Miami Herald also has fact checked and it turns out Romney has folks who worked as consultants and lobbyists for the mortgage giants on his campaign team right now:

The Associated Press and Daily Caller report that top Romney advisers and surrogates were paid lobbyists and consultants for Freddie Mac and other interests in the thick of the housing crisis.

Among the consultant-lobbyists on Romney’s team: Former Rep. Susan Molinari and Vin Weber.

Mitt Romney’s campaign has responded to the allegation made by Gingrich. From the Boston Globe, the paper of record on all things Mitt:

The trustee who manages Romney’s money said those investments were made through a charitable trust “operated on a totally blind basis’’ that Romney did not control. He also said that the investment related to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, quasi-public agencies that many conservatives blame for the housing crisis, has been sold.

“This investment, which has been sold, was not known to Governor Romney,’’ Brad Malt said in a statement. Although Romney’s financial disclosure forms do not list it as such, Malt said the fund was held within a charitable trust and has been managed “on a totally blind basis since 2002.’’

Mitt Romney in 1994: “The blind trust is an age old ruse.” See the video below from BuzzFeed.


Taylor Marsh contributed to this post.
Read full story · Comments { 4 }

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 { 10 }

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 }

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 }

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 }

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 }

Financial Shenanigans Amid Gingrich-Romney War

By on 23 January 2012

It’s happy days on Wall Street, while main street struggles on.

In the Obama era, like the Bush era, Wall Street is an alternate financial reality.

While the political world is riveted on Newt Gingrich’s win in South Carolina and his surge in Florida, there is an intense battle going on over holding banks accountable for the carnage they caused. The Financial Times reported on the proposed settlement on Friday.

An interesting report from a group called The New Bottom Line is revealing, though unsurprising. Co-director Tracy Van Slyke explains the findings:

The nation’s top six banks — Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs — paid out $144 billion in bonuses and compensation for 2011, second only to the record $147 billion they paid out in 2007 at the height of the economic boom, according to a report released today by The New Bottom Line. Four banks – Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley – were awarded record high bonuses and compensation in 2011, despite their bleak stock performance during the year.

“Even though top bank executives have claimed that bonuses are down as much as 30 percent for 2011, total compensation has not decreased at all,” according to The New Bottom Line’s report, “Pulling Back The Curtain: The 1% Behind The 2011 Big Bank Bonuses.”

Many banks made up for smaller bonuses by increasing base salaries. For example, base salaries for named executive officers at Goldman Sachs more than tripled in 2011. At JPMorgan Chase, named executive officers saw salaries go up 50 percent.

There’s a meeting in Chicago that’s lighting up the progressive world, which revolves around what’s being characterized as a potential “sweetheart deal” for the banks.

Yves Smith over at Naked Capitalism blasts Pres. Obama and the administration today:

The president seems to labor under the misapprehension that crimes by members of the elite must be swept under the rug because prosecuting them would destablize the system. What he misses is that we are well past the point where coverups will work, and they may even blow up before the November elections. If nothing else, his settlement pact has a non-trivial Constitutional problem which the Republicans, if they are smart, will use to undermine the deal and discredit the Administration.

To add insult to injury, Obama is apparently going to present his belated Christmas present to the banking industry as a boon to ordinary citizens. He refused to appoint a real middle class advocate, Elizabeth Warren, to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but he’s not above stealing her talking points.

[...] The story did not outline terms, but previous leaks have indicated that the bulk of the supposed settlement would come not in actual monies paid by the banks (the cash portion has been rumored at under $5 billion) but in credits given for mortgage modifications for principal modifications. There are numerous reasons why that stinks. The biggest is that servicers will be able to count modifying first mortgages that were securitized toward the total. Since one of the cardinal rules of finance is to use other people’s money rather than your own, this provision virtually guarantees that investor-owned mortgages will be the ones to be restructured. Why is this a bad idea? The banks are NOT required to write down the second mortgages that they have on their books. This reverses the contractual hierarchy that junior lienholders take losses before senior lenders. So this deal amounts to a transfer from pension funds and other fixed income investors to the banks, at the Administration’s instigation.

It seems obvious that the meeting in Chicago coming the day before the State of the Union is in hopes of wrenching a deal in place so Pres. Obama can announce it tomorrow night. Whether than can happen is another story.

Read full story · Comments { 2 }

Where Davos Meets Dueling Narratives on Possible Bank Deal

By on 23 January 2012

The idea was to get a settlement with these banks that could bring in billions of dollars in aid for hundreds of thousands of troubled homeowners who’d been served faulty foreclosure documents, some of them including forged signatures. But the shape of this agreement disturbed Schneiderman. He said banks were looking for a release from investigation and prosecution on other mortgage practices: how huge volumes of bad loans were made to begin with, and the creation of toxic mortgage-backed securities. Federal-State Meeting Planned to Rally for Foreclosure Accord (h/t David Dayen)

A “consequential” meeting in Chicago? It’s all very nebulous.

This comes during the week of Davos, where news is already being made.

“We have a general morality gap, we are over-leveraged, we have neglected to invest in the future, we have undermined social coherence, and we are in danger of completely losing the confidence of future generations,” said Klaus Schwab, host and founder of the annual World Economic Forum.

“A general morality gap” certainly applies on the U.S. foreclosure crisis, which is why some activists are sounding the most recent alarm.


Van Jones and George Goehl have one version:

Rumor has it that on Monday, after months of negotiation with big banks, the White House may announce a settlement that would let the banks off the hook for their role in the foreclosure crisis — paying a tiny fraction of what’s needed in exchange for blanket immunity from future lawsuits.

We hope these rumors are untrue.

President Obama has the ability to stop and change the direction of this sweetheart deal. He should reject any deal that benefits the one percent and lets the big banks get away with their crimes. Instead, the president should stand with the 99 percent and push for real accountability and a solution that will help millions of people in this country.

Bloomberg started the story rolling:

State attorneys general are being invited to meet with U.S. Housing and Urban Development Secretary Shaun Donovan and a Justice Department official to rally support for a proposed settlement with banks over foreclosure practices, said the Iowa Attorney General’s Office.

Materials about the proposed deal are being sent to all states, and Democratic attorneys general have been asked to meet on Jan. 23 with Miller, Donovan and Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, said Geoff Greenwood, a spokesman for Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller.

It’s unclear whether this is really coming to a head or a fake out, but enough people are concerned that it has Van Jones sounding the warning cry, with protesters ready, while there were reports last week that heavy weights like A.G. Schneiderman hadn’t yet committed to being present.

From what is available to read it sounds to me the attorneys general who want banks to be investigated for robosigning and fraudulent tactics are being squeezed. There’s little evidence that they’re falling for it.

But pressure like Van Jones is applying preemptively, isn’t a bad thing, because we’ve all seen the Obama administration time and again side with moneyed interests.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The tone deaf Cayman cash man gets cornered

By on 19 January 2012

Newt Gingrich led Mitt Romney 34-28 in PPP’s South Carolina polling last night, the first of what will be three nights of tracking. Ron Paul at 15%, Rick Santorum at 14%, Rick Perry at 5%, and Buddy Roemer at 3% round out the field. – Public Policy Polling



Why Cayman cash Mitt didn’t have a prepared answer for the tax return question is puzzling. He’s been programmed within an inch of his life since the start. From Forbes to Christian Science Monitor, few think it will matter. From Forbes:

The fact is that Romney is doing exactly the same thing that you and I do: he’s taking advantage of existing Tax Code. You wouldn’t expect him to volunteer to pay at a higher rate “just because” anymore than you would volunteer to give up your own mortgage interest deduction or offer to drop a personal exemption. There is absolutely nothing in the Tax Code that requires you to legally pay more taxes than you have to.

Romney’s tax return issue is in view, because even if he releases his 2011 returns, who doesn’t think they won’t be stacked for the election season? His dad released his financial information for several years, so that’s Mitt’s model.

It’s never the facts surrounding the candidate that takes him or her out, it’s the emotions the voter feels toward the candidate that do him in. It wasn’t the quote about firing people that did it by itself, it’s that it represented how people already feel about Mitt Romney.

“I get speaker’s fees from time to time, but not very much.” – Mitt Romney

It’s the nervous laugh that came afterward, reminiscent of the Bret Baier interview, that sounds so sour, because $374,327 is anything but “not very much.”

Then comes the story I’ve been waiting to break, and it’s not that he tithes millions including stock options to the Mormon Church. It’s Mitt Romney stashing millions in the Cayman Islands. From ABC News:

But tax experts tell ABC News there are other reasons Romney may not want the public viewing his returns. As one of the wealthiest candidates to run for president in recent times, Romney has used a variety of techniques to help minimize the taxes on his estimated $250 million fortune. In addition to paying the lower tax rate on his investment income, Romney has as much as $8 million invested in at least 12 funds listed on a Cayman Islands registry. Another investment, which Romney reports as being worth between $5 million and $25 million, shows up on securities records as having been domiciled in the Caymans.

Official documents reviewed by ABC News show that Bain Capital, the private equity partnership Romney once ran, has set up some 138 secretive offshore funds in the Caymans.

Nothing Mitt Romney is doing is illegal and according to Brian Beutler and others, the Romney camp is also saying that his Cayman cash is taxed as if the funds were in the U.S., so anyone implying they’re tax havens are wrong. Then why the secrecy?

But even that misses the issue. In an Occupy era, perception colors reality more harshly, with the GOP’s Cayman cash man representing all that ails our economic system.

Seen in an atmosphere that has Perry endorsing Newt Gingrich, while Santorum squeaks out a win in Iowa, though he just doesn’t have what it takes to capitalize, you also have Sarah Palin giving a nod to Gingrich, too. If the air around Cayman cash Mitt starts to erode his electability argument, always the weakest case for any candidate, the establishment will start to get very nervous, though they should be already. Because though Mitt Romney is an uninspiring candidate, Newt Gingrich will get creamed in the general, because women won’t vote for him. I’m not even sure they will in South Carolina and I felt this way long before the Marianne Gingrich bombshell due to explode tonight on Nightline

We’re about to see what Mitt Romney’s made of and just how good his election machine is, as well as whether the establishment rallies around him. With the southern state nomination swing season upon us, Romney will be in for it if the new polling and Gingrich surge is real, but watch out if he wins on Saturday.

There is passion tied to Newt, but not Romney, which is why Mitt’s machine tried to take him out in Iowa. But the viper you only wound can kill you, even if you live to tell about it.

But no matter the bad week Romney’s having, the one who really needs South Carolina is Newt Gingrich.

Read full story · Comments { 3 }

Newt was honest with Marianne Gingrich about his sexuality

By on 19 January 2012

“… Callista doesn’t care what I do. … He wanted an open marriage.” – Marianne Gingrich

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

We’re on the other side of hell hath no fury, folks.

Marianne Gingrch has now given the interview she’s threatened to unpack, but was saving for the perfect moment. The result is not presidential, but it is human for a segment of his gender.

At least Bill Clinton had the survival instincts not to ask.

How interesting that after one failed marriage and in the throes of another, Newt Gingrich honestly opens up to tell his wife he wants to stay married, but desires to sleep with another woman, now his current wife, Callista.

It’s not great for the get out the women’s vote.

It’s no secret that I find Newt Gingrich not equipped or worthy of the presidency. However, this revelation is going to fizzle for a reason. But it will be delicious to watch tonight on Nightline.

Men of all political persuasions and religious affiliations, though the faithful don’t stray on Sunday, can relate to Newt’s request. Back in the ’90s I did enough interviews with men and research into sexuality and marriage to prove to me this is true, which I don’t believe changes over time.

What Marianne Gingrich’s confession confirms is that once women get a whiff they won’t vote for this man in a million years.

Whatever you say about Mitt Romney, and I’ll have a post up on him tonight that says a lot, he’s not repellent to women, a voting block neither party can win without.

Read full story · Comments { 19 }