Timing is Everything

Amazing, this news cycle thing.  Only short days after the election--while lefties lecture everyone on how to win, Boeing lays off thousands, we hear about a possible debt limit increase this year, and now find out about a US drone being attacked by Iranian fighters.  Apparently superstorm Sandy was just too overwhelming for anything else to make a headline. 

Driving home from work yesterday heard the ABC radio news person describe a 300 point drop in the Dow a day after election as being caused by "whatever".   Today WaPo tells us that Jesse Jackson, Jr is bargaining for a plea deal after winning reelection in his House seat race by a landslide.   He checked himself back into the Mao Clinic, er, sorry, the Mayo Clinic for more 'treatment' after his crushing victory and while these minor legal peccadilloes are solved.   Any Republican analog would have never been in a race. 

Oh yes, the mainstream media did report the JJ, jr story but they never tried to tie him to Obama like they tried to tie Mourdock and Akin to Romney.   And sometimes that's what bias looks like.

Oh well, back to the lectures about how to win elections. 

The Press and Romney's Fate

Look around the web this morning at the coverage of Romney (emphasis added to add emphasis). Here's ABC News:

And it’s a good thing because the last two weeks have brought more than a few of those “unexpected demands” — from a foreign policy crisis that spilled over onto the campaign trail to a hidden camera video that landed Romney in hot water to the release of his tax returns on Friday. Even the disclosure of his 2011 tax documents, has become the subject of blunt attacks by Democrats.

Of course not everyone thinks he botched the 9/11 statement, especially after 12 days of waffling and apologizing by the administration while the riots continue. And not everyone sees the 47 percent tape the same, especially since nobody knows what's in the 1-2 minute gap Jimmy Carter's grandson forgot to record. And the Democrats were going to blast his taxes and ignore his charitable giving no matter what. Here's NBC News:

Republican vice presidential nominee Paul Ryan held events in Florida Saturday, trying to reverse what has been a seemingly difficult week for Mitt Romney’s campaign. NBC’s Ron Mott reports.

Listening to the big media one might think it's been a tough week for Romney ever since he was de facto nominated in the spring.  Yet for some reason Gallup has the race at 47/47.  Irony, anyone?

Here's the WaPo headline:

Romney team is both defiant and realistic

Need to read any further? Here's the Paper of Record:

With Rich Donors, a More Candid Romney Emerges

And that's how it works. The big media decides Romney has had a bad week, which sets up the strawman of him having a bad week, after which they proceed to discuss the strawman continuously as 'news', which only perpetuates the strawman.

What to do!  Well, it used to be said that a GOP politico had to have the skills of Ronald Reagan to end-run this press and get his message to the people, but again, despite Romney's 'bad weeks' he's still neck and neck in the polls.  Notice that Gallup poll showing Obama's lead evaporating from 50-44 on September 6 to tied now, yet the Romney bad-week narrative continues today.    Yes, the real story right now is how he's remarkably hanging in there--even gaining ground--despite Obama's bad weeks being papered over by the same media.  But of course, they wouldn't report that.  Oh, did you hear?  Romney has already lost the October debates.  Sounds like a bad month.  

WHICH IS IT?   9/23/12

Dueling headlines.   CNN, while lessening it's own blockbuster story pitting a less-than-truthful Hillary against Anderson Cooper, has the following headline about Romney:

Priebus on Romney: 'Not the best week'

Click on over to ABC News and you'll see this headline:

Reince Priebus: Last Week Was ‘Good’ For GOP

Of course both are essentially the same message--we've decided Romney sucked last week so how dare anyone disagree, both continuing to hammer the 'secret' video and release of his taxes as defining a 'bad week'.  Meanwhile, Romney caught up with Obama in the Gallup poll.  One wonders if they are even aware of their disease.

AQ Burns Down US Embassy; Romney Grilled

Let me see if I have this straight.  Obama's Cairo embassy staff fires off an apology yesterday about certain intolerant preachers in the US making bigoted films about Mohammad in an effort to tamp down rising tensions in the street.  The rising tensions eventually boil over the wall, tear down the flag and burn it.   This same film had been on the internet since early July but had somehow just come to light Tuesday only a week after Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi met with Iran's Ahmajinejad for a chit-chat.

After some criticism the Embassy tweets a defiant statement later in the afternoon standing by their original condemnation of certain Americans.

While this is going on riots break out in Benghazi, the city in Libya Obama saved (will there be a statue of him there?) tragically resulting in the deaths of four, including our ambassador.  Romney puts out a statement last night condemning the embassy and the apparent dysfunction.  At some point the president begins the process of engaging, which acts to catapult the embassy under the bus resulting in a delete of their tweet.

Then this morning the president issues a long, rather benign statement condemning the event, threatening something, maybe an FBI investigation, applauds the Libyans for helping and mentions himself going to Walter Reed to visit wounded troops yesterday.

So now, with the Egyptian embassy neutered, the Libyan embassy in cinders and the entire narrative reset the story turns to Romney's early statement, driven in part by Obama's late statement.  Suddenly the Journolist press wants to ask Romney questions about a possible political boner rather than pestering the White House about whether AQ might have taken over an embassy in the country we saved (with an illegal military action) based on protecting that very same city, all on the anniversary of 9/11.

Is that about it?  

MORE  9/13/12

Our pathetic media is in full tilt deflection mode to make this story about a Romney gaffe and a justified reaction spurred by right wing fanatics in America.  Southern Poverty Law Center?  Yep, now being dragged into the picture to help identify the haters who made the hateful film that justifies the attack. 

Sorry AP, it doesn't matter what the film shows. NOTHING justifies mobs burning our embassies and desecrating the flag.  The story here is a bunch of barbarians who can't exist in civilized society because every little thing offends them to the point of violence.   The AP and all the other Obama-approved media know this, yet they will throw away their shame and spin the story to make their demigod look as brave and wise as possible. Puke. 

Nuts

Dana Milbank's Saturday column in the WaPo (who, you say? oh right, the guy who used to be a regular on Keith Olbermann's show) is about GOP nutcakes on display in Tampa this past week.  To explain, he begins with an incident where two white men allegedly threw peanuts and a racial slur at a black camerawoman from CNN.  It predictably goes downhill from there.

The nut throwing story didn't get major play from the MSM, probably because the names of the peanut tossers were not released thereby preventing the media from confirming they weren't actually Democratic plants or CNN employees.  But Milbank links to an AP story where the camerawoman is quoted very graciously trying to downplay the incident, saying it could have happened in Charlotte at the DNC and saying she hopes it all goes away.   But right at the end she's quoted as saying something that won't make it go away:

“I can’t change these people’s hearts and minds,” she said. “No, it doesn’t feel good. But I know who I am. I’m a proud black woman. A lot of black people are upset. This should be a wake-up call to black people. ... People were living in euphoria for a while. People think we’ve gone further than we have.”

Describing something as a "wakeup call" usually isn't consistent with wanting it to go away.  As to losing "euphoria", here's another story, this one from the old South--Savannah, Georgia--about a white man being beaten up by three black men for the crime of having a black girlfriend:

"I just hope justice prevails at the end of the day. This should not happen in this day and age. I know we're in the South, but it is time for a change," Bakre said.

Perhaps Dana can explain.  But he likely won't, since the WaPo won't likely be highlighting the story for obvious reasons.  Well, unless it can be proven that the three black men were Republicans, or white racists wearing blackface. 

Milbank then goes on to credit the Romney folks for condemning and ejecting these unknown nut throwers then proceeds to call Romney the head zookeeper for not banning Arizona Jan and Sheriff Joe from the convention for their hate crime of trying to stem illegal immigration (which the White House has now de facto legalized on a whim). And of course we'll see if Milbank calls out Obama for inviting a law student to speak at the DNC who believes there's a 'war on women' because some people don't believe she should have her sex subsidized by Milbank and the rest of us. Not holding breath.

Target: Ryan

It's early Saturday morning but some on the left are already awake and tweeting about Romney's new VP choice, Josef Goebbels, er, Paul Ryan, bashing the size of his house (too big). As predictable as sunrise of course but why can't someone in the GOP finally take on that silly communist meme and  CHAMPION their own success as made possible the greatness of America?  They usually wiggle and defend.

But maybe that's one reason Ryan was picked.  He's an admirer of Ayn Rand.  His pick clarifies a capitalism versus socialism referendum in the fall.   

A lot of talking heads put money on Rubio to help with the Latino vote but team Romney must have either found something in his background they didn't like or figured they would be slapped too hard for pandering.  Ryan also appears to be in Obama's head based on several past interactions so perhaps the 'rattle factor' was another reason for the pick.  Ryan is basically a math wonk who should subtly tear apart the plagiarizing car salesman VP in any debate. Might be a BFD.    

The announcement on a Saturday is also interesting.  It's as if Romney was trying to tone down the typical MSM DEFCON 1 weekday reaction by trying to ease Ryan in over several days.  Of course the mainstreamers will morph into pants-on-fire mode as soon as they emerge from their hangovers, but it's Saturday--not as many people are reading or watching.  The New Yorker already shows signs of being somewhat incoherent, inadvertently bashing Obama by explaining how Ryan is not really qualified because...

But Ryan’s Washington experience is also light, at least for a potential President—which, after all, is the main job description of a Vice-President. Ryan has worked as a think-tank staffer and Congressman, but he’s never been in charge of a large organization, and he has little experience with foreign policy. Given how Sarah Palin was criticized for her lack of such experience, I’m surprised that Romney would pick someone whose ability to immediately step into the top job is open to question.

Bold to highlight what Sarah Palin and the right said about Obama.  Except he was the top of the ticket, not numero dos.  And of course Palin had been 'in charge' of a 'large organization'--the government of Alaska.  She had as much foreign policy experience as Obama (taking trips overseas isn't foreign policy experience).   OK, Obama was in charge of the Annenberg Challenge (and his campaign lied about being appointed by Bill Ayers) but his experience paralleled that of Ryan.  Perhaps the NYer will notice their faux pas later today. 

That said, does Ryan meet the Cheney test? It appears not. Then again, would Rubio? Portman or McDonnell might have been better choices on that front. We'll have to see what Darth says.  Until then get ready to hear that Ryan pushes little old ladies down elevator shafts on his lunch break.

Question mark journalism

The mystery of Harry Reid's presumed living source about Romney's alleged felonious failure to pay taxes continues--and it's getting even more ridiculous.  It appears that a simple WAG by Kos has now become a story on "The Atlantic", a once respected magazine and news-opinion source.

Is Jon Huntsman Sr. Harry Reid's Deep Throat?

The story opens with "the latest speculation" then proceeds to repeat the Kos WAG. That's about it. Certainly a juicy possibility--an internecine Mormon war, but far from being fit to print as the Huntsmans have denied it. So, applying that same level of journalistic integrity what's wrong with this story:

Was communist mentor intimate with Obama's mother?

They appear to be equally sourced, both coming from far left/right sources. Both stories use question marks for plausible deniability (hey, just asking a question!). Yet only one is currently considered a hack source.

Romney Should...

...promptly announce on a campaign stop that he will release 20 years of his federal tax records, his medical history, his college transcripts, his passport records, and any videos of him attending any parties with Bill Ayers.  He should follow that with a challenge for the most transparent president in history to do likewise.

He could even throw in a plea for fellow Mormon Harry Reid to do the Christian-like thing and release his own tax records so the fine people of Nevada can have faith he isn't compromised by outside sources, but addressing dirty liars is not really necessary.  

Otherwise this is not going away for Romney.  CNN's Bash is correct--her very reportage proves it.  The longer Mitt holds out, the more the liberal media will show itself as the partisan hacks they really are by never letting go while never really blaming Reid or Obama for the blind assertions (as they did when conservatives suggested Obama was hiding something).  Yes, if Mitt gives in they will go after the results--he's a richie rich rich boy who dodges taxes.  Axelrod is a master at playing this PC-media game, aka "Chicago Values".  

That's why Romney has to figure an answer or an end run or he'll be in this same kind of trouble repeatedly.  There's some truth about the 'nice guys finishing last' meme (ask McCain) and if the public senses he can't respond effectively to Obama the bully, they'll wonder if he can deal with Putin.  Certainly an end-run might consist of Mitt addressing this at the debates but simply standing there and denying it won't work. Only Obama can get away with that.

Who knows, maybe they have some kind of devious plan at work. Maybe they're stringing Reid along, trying to hook the Obama people on the way in before triggering the mouse trap.  Doesn't sound like a Republican, though.  More likely he'll hit back with a barrage of negative ads like he did to Gingrich, hoping that changes focus, or perhaps hope the VP announcement diverts attention.  It will for awhile, but our intrepid media will never forget.  They sense some blood in the water.  After all, a lot of them are married to Democratic party operatives. 

And yes, you might be thinking that the American electorate is so disgusted with the economy and debt that they're looking way beyond Axelrod's stunt and indeed, many would say that if asked.  But politics is politics and people are people.  Karl Rove understands that and his response was to call Reid a "slimeball".  The fact is nothing really changes.  Mitt has a dog fight on his hands, not a debate.  They're playing it that way on purpose. 

Should We Be Alarmed?

....at this New York Times story....

The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative.

They are sent by e-mail from the Obama headquarters in Chicago to reporters who have interviewed campaign officials under one major condition: the press office has veto power over what statements can be quoted and attributed by name.  Most reporters, desperate to pick the brains of the president’s top strategists, grudgingly agree.

After the interviews, they review their notes, check their tape recorders and send in the juiciest sound bites for review. The verdict from the campaign — an operation that prides itself on staying consistently on script — is often no, Barack Obama does not approve this message.

Or maybe it's just a big yawn (other than the story/admission by the Paper of Record).  Sure seems more like a big deal and maybe worthy of greater coverage.  Then again, the media would have to cover itself.

MORE  7/22/12

This article about Obama's visit to Colorado to console the survivors and families might not have been Obama-approved from Chicago, but there's no doubt Obama would approve:

But in moments of sorrow, presidents can risk looking detached and out of touch. Bush's handling of Hurricane Katrina is an often-cited example.

Touching.

Blunt Romney and other Spin

Several stories to play with today, all with spin.

One, Blunt Romney visiting the NAACP.  Seriously, "Blunt Romney"?  Is that some kind of secret street language nickname for Mittens leaked by his staff to give him street cred or just business as usual for the Paper of Record?  If you chose latter come collect your prize.  Their counterparts mainly hit with he was booed.  No doubt the booed headline saturated most mainstream coverage as in, how dare Romney campaign against the current president.  That's a personal insult. What next, claiming Obama drove the economic bus into a ditch?  Or spitting on Emanuel Cleaver? 

The other spin came from a potentially embarrassing story that broke connecting Occupy Wall Street with murder.   Early reports said DNA taken from a chain used at an OWS New York event matched that found on the personal effects of a 2004 murder victim.  Early reports also said that all forensic personnel in the NYPD crime lab had been cleared of contaminating the evidence.  Suddenly the main headline has now transformed into "Possible Lab Contamination...", all thanks to a 'source' in the lab, not the PD.   Fit to print with massive font headlines apparently based on one source!

These same folks have held onto the Tea Party spitting story (alluded to above) forever despite Breitbart's cash award for anyone who could actually provide evidence (nobody did) and his later attempt to show up the NAACP as dishonest and bigoted in their approach to the event and the Tea Party in general via the Shirley Sherrod debacle.  No surprise, the very same folks also pushed a dishonest and erroneous narrative against noted white Hispanic George Zimmerman by creatively splicing a 911 tape to make him appear racist.  No source needed.

Finally, the absentee Jesse Jackson, Jr. story.  Early reports said he was being treated for substance abuse, perhaps for alcohol.  Now it has changed to "a mood disorder".   Give the mainstreamers some credit here, the spin is coming from the congressman's staff.  However, reporters by nature are trained to be skeptics and not swallow press releases verbatim, at least theoretically.  Or maybe that was just in Bogie movies.  Wait, no, they still do that with Sarah Palin.  And every other Republican.  So let's see if this new explanation satisfies these notorious hungry dogs just like that dog training exercise story back in the 90s gave them reason to shut down another potentially embarrassing investigation.  


    

Kill Lists and Birthers

Some weird stuff in the news right now.  Zombies in Florida, people throwing their entrails at the cops, porn movies being filmed at the LA Coliseum, Mitt Romney is a unicorn.   Wait, wtf?

Yes, CNN, apparently celebrating their lowest ratings in 20 years, has a story about Mitt Romney being a unicorn:

Call them "unicorners." A liberal group says it has collected more than 19,000 e-mails requesting Arizona officials to confirm Mitt Romney is not a unicorn. Without such proof, the group Left Action argues with tongue in cheek, Romney may indeed be a unicorn -- his dark mane hiding a horn -- and therefore ineligible to be on the presidential ballot in November. The farcical campaign mimics efforts by "birthers," and some top supporters of certain Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, to continually raise the already-settled issue of whether President Barack Obama meets the Constitution's requirements for citizenship.

Fit to print.  Cutting edge stuff.  But wait, it's not just CNN, WaPo also had a story on it and probably others. Clearly they are trying to leverage Donald Trump's recent birther rants against Mittens, rants which are becoming increasingly more interesting in a sort of 'hey, is he working for Obama' kind of way.

But OK, let's have some fun with the Mitt birthers a moment. Some are claiming that since George Romney was born in Mexico, even though he was a US citizen, that makes Romney ineligible for the POTUS because birthers have claimed that Obama's father was a citizen of Kenya and the UK or something.   If they are going to use the parents' heritage argument they are making the birthers' point--Romney's father doesn't have to be born in the US to make Mitt eligible--he only has to be a citizen.  Even if Mitt wasn't born in Detroit he might still be eligible similar to McCain.  That's not the same as having one American citizen parent and another parent who is not.  Stupid indeed.  But the insane frivolity is just beginning.  When you don't have anything else you throw poop.  And sometimes the candidates do, too. 

Speaking of insane frivolity, Farrakhan is making news again. The Blaze has him warning that an attack on the Mullahs, even by Israel, will result in toppling US skyscrapers, evidently by moderate Muslims. Question, shouldn't this qualify him for Obama's kill list?

The Show Must Go On..

Do we have a media in this country anymore?

So Joe Biden "apologized" to the president for getting out ahead of him on the gay marriage thing?  Apologized, really?  For getting out ahead?  When?   BIDEN HAS ALREADY COME OUT FOR GAY MARRIAGE, BACK IN 2010.   The story is right here.  Of course, the video appears to be unavailable for some reason.  

And what about this crappola regarding Obama pushing a girl that the right is using to respond to Romney's high school homophobia haircut (a story perfectly timed to come out after Obama's epiphany)?  The girl says it didn't happen.  In other words, just another composite story manufactured by the writer of "Dreams", whoever that might have been but clearly someone the media doesn't want to discover.  Thank heavens we know about Mitt's high school romps but we still haven't seen the Rashid Khalidi tape.  

Crackies, what a load of horsehiite.

MORE  5/11/12

CNN does some research, including mentioning the creator of "Will and Grace", the TV show used by Biden as an example by how NBC educated the nation:

The show's creator, Max Mutchnick, said Wednesday on CBS's "This Morning" that Biden had used similar language at a private fundraiser three weeks prior to the interview. He added that the White House was recording Biden while he made the comments at the event. "This says to me that it was all very choreographed," Mutchnick said. "It just doesn't seem right to me because it was verbatim to what he had said three weeks earlier....He was testing the material out of town, and then he took it to a larger house, which was 'Meet the Press.'"

Funny, social conservatives have been claiming for years that the networks were using these kinds of shows more as education than entertainment, and Biden basically confirms it.  Meanwhile yeah, they still won't mention Joe's comments from December 2010.  But at least CNN had the stones to refer to Obama's 1996 starting point on the issue...

 ..while completely avoiding it it in the actual story when detailing the "evolution".

Is This a Trick?

Obama, probably using his Latin-tinged accent, speaking with Univision:

President Barack Obama has called on Republican Mitt Romney to release his past tax returns, saying that candidates for office need to be "as transparent as possible."

Of course this is a further attempt to paint Romney as Thurston Howell III, but doesn't he understand how some people might turn those kind of words back on him? For instance:

"I think that it's important for any candidate in public office to be as transparent as possible, to let people know who we are, what we stand for, and you know, I think that this is just carrying on a tradition that has existed throughout the modern presidency," Obama said in an interview scheduled to air Sunday on Univision's "Al Punto" program.

Really? Is he so insulated in the White House bubble that he's lost track of his own image or is this just another clever trick designed to drag Romney or his supporters into birtherism by luring them into retorting about the various transcripts, records, and writings still in Obama's personal vault? My guess is the latter--he knows the elite media has already 'investigated' and 'vetted' everything fit to print in his background therefore any further probing will be called racist, etc. Any campaign capable of using a Hillary Rosen type trick cannot be underestimated.

Clueless

Don't ever accuse Obama of a lack of transparency when it comes to releasing personal information, such as college transcripts, medical records or materials from his tenure at Harvard. He most certainly will release things--when they can be spun politically. Like his 2011 tax returns.

The Obamas are rich. Not quite as rich as Richie Romney (book sales have leveled off) but pretty well-off. And he's not denying that--he's using it to prove that his effective tax rate was perhaps lower than the average secretary, er, sorry, executive assistant.

And how, how did he do it? Not by using the Buffet break, but another break that "benefits the wealthy" according to Huffpo:

According to their tax returns released Friday by the White House, the president and the first lady claimed a $47,564 home mortgage interest deduction on their house in Chicago, which they bought in 2005 for $1.65 million. That equates to $13,318 in savings on their federal tax bill, according to an analysis by Michael Gillen, director of the tax group at the Philadelphia law firm Duane Morris.

They didn't have many capital gains to be taxed at the Buffet-friendly 15 percent rate so the spin is that he overly benefited from a perk of the rich--the mortgage deduction taken on his Hyde Park mansion. If only that unfair perk could be eliminated for the richest richies we might get back to fiscal health..

"Lots of middle-class people take the deduction and realize some savings on their tax bill, but they don't understand that it is badly skewed," said Seth Hanlon, director of fiscal reform at the liberal-leaning Center for American Progress. "A lot of people don't realize that the benefit can be taken on vacation homes or even a boat."

Then again, some might consider it the epitome of 'fair' insofar as the current code has no penalties for being successful. Buying that second home or boat can surely be called a stimulus, no? Why discourage it? After all, boatbuilders and carpenters need the work we're told. It's what God would do!

By the way, Huffpo's use of experts from the Center for American Progress should be a tell-tale; they probably coordinated the attack with the ultimate goal of redistributing wealth. Just don't call them socialists.

But such a strategy is both clueless and unnecessary. The last great liberal-Democrat president, William Jefferson Bubba Clinton III, somehow managed to balance the federal budget in the late 90s without resorting to any class warfare whatsoever. How, how did he do it? Well, he raised taxes to unprecedented levels in 1993 with a Democratic Congress, then Gingrich came to power in a tantrum in 1995 and made sure the extra revenue didn't get spent on frivolity. 'Presto', balanced budget. Shouldn't that be a template for the current crop of political leaders?

No, of course not. The GOP can't possibly call for a return to Clinton tax increases due to the Tea Party; Obama is a rigid ideologue who would lose most of the arrows in his class warfare quiver if he had to admit the Bush tax cuts actually helped middle class people and not exclusively Ann and Mitt. So the solution is out there but neither side is capable of engaging it, which is why we see these silly distractions.


It's too bad some in the GOP can't call Obama's bluff and demand we go back to the Clinton-Gingrich model of the 90s to return to fiscal balance again. That would force Obama to acknowledge that his real goal is not fiscal sanity, rather a strange desire to punish success, which in turn may cause some to reconsider all those stories about the kind of people he used to pal around with. Of course Gingrich could recommend it since he was there--but then again he can't, can he? So here we are.

Mitt Rockney is Just Too Rich

Or something, so says Maxine Waters..



So all this apologizing about insulting Ann Romney by using the oldest Democratic trick in the playbook (remember Bush 41 not knowing the price of milk--even if that wasn't quite accurate) is just another trick. They are trying like mad to continue the war on women while stoking class envy by using flacks to brand the Romneys as Thurston and Lovey, out-of-touch rich white people who don't suffer like the rest of us. The ultimate goal is getting out the narrative. Since it looks crass coming from the White House they use surrogates then the good cop, bad cop tactic. Yep, that's the winning strategy of these damn divisive statists. Thing is, it has worked before or they wouldn't be trying it.

Of course part of the narrative is that the chief sufferers didn't have the "luxury" (another code word) of Michelle being a stay-at-home mom. Wondering... since they are Democrats, and considering Michelle's above-average wages during the time her children were born, maybe somebody should ask why Obama didn't consider staying home. Seems kind of sexist to just consider the mom giving up the career.

MORE 4/13/12

Andrew Malcolm, a former LA Times blogger, asks someone to identify the angry doppelganger currently filling in for the president; the NY Times Blog tacitly acknowledges the anger, calls it a strategy, questions its usefulness, but provides some helpful tips.

The Dangers of the Daddy Party

It's an old political saw--the Democrats are the 'mommy party' because they favor helping people over everything else, including common sense and finances; the Republicans are the 'daddy party' because they favor common sense and finances over everything else, including helping people. Dems feed on emotion; Repubs feed on logic and rules.

There is some truth to the characterization, but it varies from candidate to candidate. George W. Bush tried to make an end run on it by calling himself a 'compassionate conservative'. It sorta worked. Romney has famously referred to himself as a 'severe conservative'. Maybe prudent when one is a life-long moderate angling for conservative votes, but not very handy in a general against someone trying to set himself up as the chief mommy.

Obama is out touting his Buffett Rule (just another day of dividing America) not because he knows it will help the deficit or the economy, but because he thinks it will help his chances against Thurston Romney III. And why not? Most of the time people gravitate to the poor populist going against the evil magnate--just watch Turner Classic movies for awhile.

Part of that strategy is to label the magnate as cruel towards the fairer sex, someone whose authoritarian governance will threaten them right down to body, soul, spirit and offspring. It's unfair of course, since it's all a gimmick, but with Romney it might be working.

So what does the presumptive nominee do? Does he take a page from Kerry's playbook and appear at the beach? Does he take one from Gore's playbook and wear more flannel shirts? Or is that part of the negative image already? Does he keep a stock of valiums on hand and open his shirt collar an extra button? Or, when the time comes, does he waffle on Obamacare and other free stuff?

Or does he stick to the one he's bringing to the dance--the economy. After all, women are part of the unemployment numbers. Mommies will benefit from a better economy in every area.

Unfortunately Romney has always appeared a bit stiff in body and wobbly in belief. That image will be exploited continuously and ruthlessly until November. His wife softens it a bit, but she's not Mitt. His best chance will be to stick with his best chance, the economy. He can't out-mommy Obama.

Of course that leaves him open should the economy begin seriously improving through summer, which likely assures his place in the same historic dustbin along with Bob Dole, John McCain, and Walter Mondale. Variables always exist, such as 6 dollar gas or an Israeli attack on Iran, unsanctioned by Obama, which probably tanks the markets and causes Hizballah counter strikes in America. But even that could bring the masses to the side of the commander-in-chief, the guy who was holding out for peace unlike the daddy party candidate who wanted to kickass, etc.

Surely team Romney will be trying to counter this image with the correct VP choice. But picking another moderate might not bring out the base, who are desperately needed to win. Yet picking a more conservative female, let's say, will only shift the focus of the mommy party attacks as occurred with Palin. So we'll see.

CBS is Lying About Romney

Yeah, hardly dog bites man, but pretty flagrant and crafty. For your perusal, an article about GM and Romney titled, "Is auto bailout Romney's Achilles heel in Mich.?" The writer goes on to say (emphasis added):

Still, some business and political leaders opposed it, like Mitt Romney, who was contemplating another presidential run at the time. Romney, a Detroit-born son of an auto company CEO who became a Michigan governor, penned a November 2008 Op-Ed in the New York Times declaring "You can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye" if the government bailout went through. "Its demise will be virtually guaranteed," Romney wrote. Glende said, "I'm glad the Obama Administration didn't listen to them, you know. I think there's a lot of job opportunities that would have been lost."

Notice the human drama of saved and created jobs, all attributable to president Obama, while Romney comes off as Old Man Potter. The writer even refers to the NY Times op-ed Romney wrote during the bailout as evidence (with the catchy title "Let Detroit go Bankrupt") as if he thought perhaps nobody had actually read it.  Henry Payne of the Detroit News read it and came up with the following (emphasis added again):

Exhibit A is the fiction that Mitt Romney "was willing to let (the American auto industry) just die" as President Obama repeatedly puts it in speeches - uncorrected by his MSM allies. Michigan is crucial to Obama's fall reelection and Romney is a formidable obstacle. Solidifying a narrative that the GOP challenger is anti-autos is crucial, not just to mobilizing blue collars but also swing white collars whose jobs were saved by government intervention. "Just like Mitt Romney, who wanted Detroit to go bankrupt, Newt Gingrich opposed the rescue loan that saved the U.S. auto industry and 1.4 million American jobs," Obama spokesman Clark Pettig told The Detroit News this weekend. Huh? Both Romney and Obama advocated bankruptcy for GM and Chrysler.

Wow, it really doesn't sound like Romney opposed the bailout, it sounds like he opposed the kind of bailout Obama was suggesting at the time (late 2008).  That's a distinction with a difference.  Payne calls it campaign season "misinformation", which is rather generous.  The final version turned out somewhat similar to the op-ed (with some major differences) as Romney has been saying.        

How could CBS do it?  Hmm, maybe some of these wascally Democrats, sorry, journalists figure that team Romney won't push back too hard because to do so would be the show strong support of...bailouts in general.  And we all know the TEA Party hates bailouts, even if they make sense.

For the record, this blogger is not a Romney supporter.  This blog was also in favor of a structured bailout of GM, not Chrysler, because they were a strategic asset similar to Penn Central in the 70s, which went bankrupt and was merged--by the feds--along with five other moribund railroads to form "Conrail" in order to protect necessary rail infrastructure in the industrial heartland from liquidation.  Ironically that was another fiasco brought about by oppressive government regulations combined with overly feathery union contracts.

But there ya go.  CBS lies about Romney because they evidently think they can get away with it, just like they are getting away with reporting about how great GM is doing without showing all the magic dust details so Obama can take credit. If Edsel had been largely devoid of taxes for a substantial period of time (something most bankrupt companies don't get--GM actually pays less than Buffett's secretary), had a CEO from a presidential jobs council order a line of their cars (in this case the Volt for their fleet), screwed their bondholders in all kinds of innovative new ways uncommon to standard bankruptcies, and had union workers (whose previous contracts contributed to the downfall) take a big under-the-radar pay cut while all the while still owing billions of bailout dollars to the taxpayers they too might still be making cars five years after their actual demise.

Meanwhile recent news reports herald the 7000 dollar bonus checks unionized members will be earning soon thanks to a record profit to be reported for the year--highest in company history, while for some reason salaried employees are to get whacked on bonuses because they didn't meet some unnamed 'targets' amidst an all-time record profit. Talk about Old Man Potter!  Also, their traditional pension plans are also being frozen in favor of a 401K contribution plan because...

GM said its pension plan was underfunded. The automaker said it would release more details on that Thursday. The automaker said that part of its incentive for switching the plan to a 401(k) is to transfer investor liability from the employer to the employee.

Ah yes, they deserve it, don't they, the evil white collar men of greed.   And Romney is one of them, the man who said that GM would die if the bailout went through, according to CBS.  But let's go back to the Romney op-ed and re-read the very first paragraph, for clarity, again bolding the seminal part:

IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Notice he didn't exactly say what the CBS hack suggested.  It's great that GM workers are still working, we all feel for them and want them to succeed like everyone else, but the jury is still out on whether they can do so long-term, as Romney alluded.  But hey, everything is good news during a presidential campaign year.  So America, do not whine or complain, even if you favored a different type of bailout.  GM is an American success story, dammit.

MORE  2/19/12

The Times fires another shot, although it's a bit more balanced than others.   Let's get some facts in order here first.  The Romney op-ed appeared in the Times on November 18, 2008.  At that point Bush had not yet pulled the trigger on the first phase of the auto bailout but the TARP was in place.  Going to the video, er digital, this is from mid December 2008 and the Times itself:

The plan pumps $13.4 billion by mid-January into the companies from the fund that Congress authorized to rescue the financial industry. But the two companies have until March 31 to produce a plan for long-term profitability, including concessions from unions, creditors, suppliers and dealers. In February, another $4 billion will be available for G.M. if the rest of the $700 billion bailout package has been released. Even before the March 31 deadline, it might fall to the Obama administration to persuade Congress to release the second $350 billion of the Treasury Department’s huge financial system stabilization program — a request that the Bush administration is reluctant to make.

Of course when Obama came in he basically stopped the Bush plan and set up a task force, forcing the automakers into a managed bankruptcy with goals similar to both Romney's and the ones described above, sans the socialism, control, and political favor parts.  He also continued to shovel a lot of money to them during the process.  So the crux of this kerfuffle is whether Romney was against the Bush cash outlays in general (a standard bailout propping up the companies) or whether he would have allowed some cash to flow pursuant to managed bankruptcy. Let's go back to the op-ed:

But don’t ask Washington to give shareholders and bondholders a free pass — they bet on management and they lost. The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk. In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

As we know, Washington DID NOT end up giving bondholders and shareholders a free pass--they lost their shirts in the new upside down process used in the bankruptcy. Romney also favored the feds providing "guarantees" for financing and said they should back warranties.  Sounds like some cash involved in such a thing.  Does that get him off the hook or just put him further into the weeds?

So one could say, and Mittens might try, that he was against the BUSH BAILOUTS that were occurring before the Inaugural, which didn't push the companies off the deep end as he had suggested.  In other words, if we just keep pumping in cash without changing the structure it was going to be a waste, which was absolutely correct!   Bush respected the office of the president and the voters and simply pushed the problem along by extending bailouts to the Inaugural so Obama could handle it.  It appears Romney was apparently against those bailouts but not the bankruptcy that actually occurred, which Obama is now using to claim he saved Detroit.  Go it?

Yet such is the problem with Romney--he often appears to be on both sides of an issue.  Not sure that kind of nuance will satisfy the TEA Party, and it darn sure won't stop the media and left from mischaracterizing it in an attempt to give Mittens an embarrassing loss in Michigan, his automobile father's home state.

Burnett is Correct

Erin Burnett of CNN breaks it down..

Conservatives may not like the way she blasphemes the Gipper with a comparison to Obama but she's correct--if the the unemployment rate falls even a little he'll probably be reelected. And that will occur with no small help from the Erin Burnetts of the media, standing by ready to turn any minor trend into another morning in America (that shining city on a hill).

Such will especially be true if the GOP contender is Romney since Mitt's entire platform is based on fixing the economy.  He's not a strong conservative, hasn't talked as much about debt as the others, and isn't particularly liked by the Tea Party (who faces a conflict in supporting him). Maybe that's why Donna Brazille claimed he was the Dems' candidate of choice. They know if the economy gets better Mitt will be left to twist in the breeze of all his former flip-flops while explaining why only Massachusetts residents deserve Obamneycare.

PAUL'S VICTORY 1/10/12

Yes I know, Romney won and won big. But in coming in second with over 20 percent Ron Paul's performance has to be scored as a victory. This is the guy everybody ignores! Some are saying he was the beneficiary of an 'operation chaos' like effort by liberal-leaning indies and dems to poison the well, but I don't think that accounted for most of his numbers. A lot of conservatives are simply not satisfied and they like Paul's austerity, at least to some degree. Paul's post-election speech got off to a roaring start--certainly more passionate than Romneybott's--with proclamations about saving liberty (good stuff) but true to his enigma he soon veered off into the fiat currency zone and lost me. But he won't lose his rapid supporters.

And that begs a question--does Paul and his increasing following portend any trouble for Mitt? I think it's sizable enough that if he jumped to a third party run he could scuttle the GOP's chances against Obama, so perhaps he might want something. Is it possible Romney would choose a guy like Paul as a VP? Or even Paul's son Rand? That might turn off some indies but how many? As mentioned, a lot will go for Paul if he decides to bail. As to favorables, Romney should do well with women, better than Paul, but so does Obama. If Romney picks a woman we'll see the same gang tackle as with Palin, especially if the woman is more conservative. If he picks a less conservative woman the Tea Party won't like it. They'd rather see Rand Paul. If he picks someone vanilla like Pawlenty they may put half of America to sleep before election day. Something to think about, at least. Paul has so far been awfully nice to Mitt.

I Betcha a Million Bucks

That the spin from Romney's ill-advised 10,000 dollar bet offer with Perry in last night's debate will end up being spun more as elitist than just generally stupid:

After trying so hard to prove to people that he is just a regular guy, multi-millionaire Romney "may have given his GOP rivals and President Obama a gold-plated gift in Saturday’s debate in Iowa," writes the LA Times. "Not a lot of 99%'ers are out there making $10,000 bets," tweeted a former Obama White House aide, adding, "If corporations were people, $10,000 bets actually wouldn't be that big of a deal."

Uh, which candidate in the race, or former candidate currently residing in the White House, isn't a 'multi-millionaire'? Had Romney used 5 dollars that would have been too small to back his claim.  Maybe he should have used a trillion, since that would have served to remind people of the debt and couldn't have been spun as couch cushion change in his den.