mykeystrokes.com

"Do or Do not. There is no try."

“Moses, Moses”: Behold The Power of Newt

Newt Gingrich has publicly pledged to have the single most productive day in presidential history. Gingrich has taken to listing his first-day proposals during recent stump speeches, but he promised to take it a step further when he spoke last night. He promised to release a new Contract With America during his non-concession speech— “a personal one between me and you”—that would detail his plans once he enters office. “We’re going to put this together in a way that you will be able to see in writing with my signature, and you’ll be able to hold me accountable,” Gingrich said.

For Gingrich, it’s not enough to promise voters that you’ll bring change to Washington—you have to bring about that change in the span of a few hours. By my assessment, it seemed like far too ambitious of a plan, just given the taxing schedule of inauguration, what with changing tuxedos between each ball and whatnot. But Gingrich offered a rebuke to my timekeeper’s cynicism last night. “All of this is going to happen about two hours after the inaugural address,” Gingrich said.

Having knocked aside that pesky problem of feasibility, Gingrich added another pledge, “I will sign that day an executive order reinstating Ronald Reagan’s Mexico City Policy, no U.S. money will go anywhere in the world to pay for abortions, period.”

These first day pledges have an almost mystical power in Gingrich’s worldview. It’s not enough to encourage Congress to deconstruct all of the accomplishments of the Obama presidency in a matter of weeks; he’ll also implement every conservative pipe dream with a stroke of his pen. Since the world will be aware of his arrival in the Oval Office, Gingrich thinks the economy will change on a dime. “People say to me ‘how quickly will things turnaround?'” Gingrich told a large rally in The Villages on Sunday. “Let’s talk about jobs. Late on election night when we defeat Barack Obama people will start making decisions to create new jobs.”

With everything planned for that first day, Gingrich will quickly run out of plans to enact. My guess: should Gingrich’s presidency become a reality (a dwindling proposition after last night) he’ll roll out a mission accomplished banner by the start of the second week and send himself on a congratulatory tour of the country—likely hawking a book collecting all of his grand accomplishments.

 

By: Patrick Caldwell, The American Prospect, February 1, 2012

February 2, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012 | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Mitt Romney Isn’t Too Perfect—He’s Too Phony

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker has a theory: Former Gov. Mitt Romney doesn’t have a problem connecting with people; rather, people have trouble connecting with him.

Why? Because he’s too perfect:

[H]andsome, rich and successful, he is happily married to  a beautiful wife, father to five strapping sons and grandfather to  many. At the end of a long day of campaigning, his hair hasn’t moved.  His shirt is still unwrinkled and neatly tucked into pressed jeans. He  goes to bed the same way he woke up—sober, uncaffeinated, seamless and  smiling in spite of the invectives hurled in his direction.

What’s wrong with this guy? Nada. Which is precisely the problem. …

For most everyday Americans, life is less tidy. Half have been or  will be divorced. Someone in the family is an alcoholic or a drug user.  Most can barely pay their bills, and there’s not much to look forward  to. When most Americans of Romney’s vintage look in the mirror, they see  an overweight person they don’t recognize.

Great Odin’s raven, I thought I’d heard it all!

I’m not omniscient enough to plumb the psyches of millions of  “everyday Americans” and imagine what they see in the mirror. I’ll take  my cues from the diverse handful of men who’ve seen up Romney up close.  Sen. John McCain, former Gov. Mike Huckabee, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani  and former Sen. Fred Thompson campaigned against him in 2008. To varying  degrees, each of these men quickly learned to despise Romney.

It’s clear that former Speaker Newt Gingrich and Gov. Rick Perry (and  probably Herman Cain) also despise Romney. In the latter pair’s case,  one could argue it’s sour grapes. But not in ’08, when Romney flopped  badly.

My question to Parker and Jennifer Rubin and David Frum and all the  others who are elbowing for room inside the Romney Tank is this: Why do  these men fundamentally dislike Mitt Romney?  Isn’t it because, on the matter of intellectual honesty, they find  Romney all too human? According to John Heilemann and Mark Halperin’s Game Change,  an insider’s chronicle of the ’08 campaign, McCain said at one point  that he preferred former Rep. Tom Tancredo—”because at least he believes  the things he says.”

Sure, McCain, Giuliani and Huckabee (as well as former Gov. Tim  Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann) have come out in favor of Romney in  this campaign, but they’re doing so out of partisan unity or  professional positioning.

Lack of charisma or relatability is not an insurmountable obstacle in  American politics. Even former Vice President Al Gore managed to win  the popular vote, after all. Romney’s principal problem isn’t a lack of  personal connection with people. It’s that he irritates people. He’s a  transparent phony who, unlike President Bill Clinton, isn’t even  particularly good at being phony.

I’d have far more respect for Mitt Romney if he had the guts to say what he really thinks, which is this.

According to Frum, this is akin to asking Romney to be a political martyr.

That’s silly.

Romney had two options besides committing harakiri.

He could’ve stayed in the private sector (where I hear that created  thousands of jobs!), or if his thirst for power and influence could not  be denied, he could’ve run as a moderate Democrat.

But Romney chose door. No. 3—to run as a belief-beggaring conservative Republican.

Sorry, Kathleen; I’m pretty happy when I look in the mirror and at my  beautiful wife and children. And I still think Mitt Romney is a rancid  impostor.

 

By: Scott Galupo, U. S. News and World Report, February 1, 2012

February 2, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012, GOP Presidential Candidates | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

“Rich American Exceptionalism”: Whose Swiss Bank Account Hedges Against The American Dollar?

No, that’s not a trick question. Yes, the answer is that easy. Of course, it’s Mitt Romney.

According to the manager of his trust, Mitt Romney’s Swiss bank account wasn’t an exercise in tax avoidance—rather, it was a hedge against a decline in the dollar. I’m not qualified to say whether or not his explanation is the full truth, but it certainly doesn’t provide evidence that Mitt Romney hates America. Obviously, an investment that bets on the decline of the dollar might not sound good, but when you have as much money as he does, you’re going to end up placing bets that might not be great soundbites for a campaign. In substantive terms, Romney is going to have a much bigger problem explaining why Bain profited from destroying companies than he will have explaining this.

But while the mere existence of the Swiss bank account doesn’t by itself raise questions about Mitt Romney’s loyalty to America, it provides one hell of a way to respond to Romney when he engages his his now-familiar attacks on President Obama’s loyalty. Despite all the attention paid to Newt Gingrich’s “food-stamp” line, Mitt Romney himself is no stranger to the hate card. His preferred formulation: that President Obama doesn’t believe in American exceptionalism, that he seeks to “poison the American spirit”, and that he wants to turn America into Europe and “keep us from being one nation under God.”

Of course, Mitt Romney is nothing like that at all. He’s just the kind of guy who bets on America’s decline to protect his own ass.

February 1, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012, GOP Presidential Candidates | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

The Tea Party Plan To Save Scott Walker

Tea partiers are gung-ho to help the Wisconsin governor fend off a recall vote—and their fate may well be tied to his.

As soon as April, millions of Wisconsinites will vote on whether to oust Gov. Scott Walker—a rising Republican star and arguably the most polarizing governor in politics today—just two years into his first term in office. Walker’s recall election is a referendum on his hardline conservative agenda, including curbing collective bargaining rights for state workers and slashing education funding. For Walker himself it’s a pivotal moment in his young political career.

The recall fight is also a crucial test for the tea party, the populist movement that helped elect Walker in 2010, vigorously defended him during last winter’s protests over his anti-union “budget repair” bill, and has been organizing to prevent his ouster. The movement’s support is flagging, its clout dwindling, its buzz mostly gone. But now, tea partiers at the state and national levels are rallying around Walker’s recall defense, hoping a victory could bolster the movement in a critical election year. A defeat, on the other hand, would give ammo to liberals and conservatives alike who say the tea party is all but dead.

In recent months, the Tea Party Express, a national organization, and the Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama, a tea party-linked political action committee, have waded into the recall fight, blasting out more than a dozen emails to supporters and launching a $100,000 “money bomb” fundraiser to help defend Walker. They argue that the outcome has national implications for the 2012 presidential election; a Tea Party Express email to supporters in January announced that Wisconsin is “Ground Zero for the Battle Against Obama’s Liberal Agenda.”

The Campaign to Defeat Barack Obama says it has raked in small  donations from supporters throughout the country, from Napa, California, to  Nashua, New Hampshire. The group’s director of grassroots outreach, Donald La  Combe, wrote in an email to supporters that funds would go toward TV and  radio ad campaigns as well as “war rooms” throughout Wisconsin to  bolster Walker’s support among voters. “We’re going to win this fight,  we’re going to DEFEAT the RECALL, and we’re going to stop Barack Obama  from getting Wisconsin’s 10 Electoral Votes,” La Combe wrote. (Neither  of the above groups responded to requests for comment.)

Two Wisconsin tea party groups, We the People of the Republic and the Wisconsin Grandsons of Liberty, claim to have signed up  11,000 volunteers and trained 4,000 of them to scrutinize the estimated 1  million signatures gathered by Walker foes. That signature total was  nearly two times the 540,208 needed to launch the recall process;  nonetheless, the two groups’ vetting operation, VerifyTheRecall.com,  was created to root out duplicate signatures and “downright fraud”  found in recall petitions for Walker and Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch,  their website says. Meanwhile, the Wisconsin branch of Americans for  Prosperity, the Koch-funded group that helped train and grow the tea party, held a town hall earlier this month touting the budget reforms enacted by Walker and state Republicans.

It’s not hard to see why the tea partiers would go all-in to defend Walker. There is no clear tea party favorite left to rally behind in the 2012 GOP presidential nomination fight with Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Herman Cain  all out of the race. Walker, on the other hand, is right in the tea  party’s sweet spot: He battles unions, axes state spending, rejects federal funding, and is rigidly pro-life and pro-gun rights.

The tea party also has a lot of political capital invested in Walker.  When intense anger over Walker’s anti-union “budget repair” bill  spilled into the streets of the state capital of Madison last February,  Americans for Prosperity swooped in to hold a counter-protest defending Walker. Other tea party groups also rushed to the aid of Walker and ripped his critics.

“Walker is a central figure to them, their Sir Galahad battling the  evil unions,” says Theda Skocpol, a Harvard sociology professor and coauthor of The Tea Party and the Remaking of Republican Conservatism. Walker ultimately signed the bill into law in March, and it later survived multiple legal challenges.

Last summer, Tea Party Express and Tea Party Nation, two national  groups, launched a four-day bus tour across Wisconsin defending six  Republicans facing recall elections for their roles in the battle over  Walker’s anti-union bill. (Republicans lost two recall races, but clung  to a narrow, one-seat majority in the state Senate—a “victory” the tea  party claimed credit for.) Tea Party Express also ran TV ads defending Walker’s agenda on the economy.

How much influence does the tea party have at this point? An analysis  last July by the liberal blog Think Progress found that the number of  events held each month by the Tea Party Patriots, a national group, had  dropped by half in the first seven months of 2011 compared with the  same period in 2010. Harvard’s Skocpol affirms that tea party events  “are falling off some, but there is not a collapse.”

A Pew Research Center analysis published in November  found that 23 percent of people in the 60 districts represented nationwide by  House Tea Party Caucus members disagreed with the tea party, up from 18  percent a year earlier. Meanwhile, 25 percent of respondents in those  districts agreed with the tea party, an 8 percent drop. And a Rasmussen poll  this month reported that dislike of the tea party was at an all-time  high—and that 46 percent of respondents said the tea party would hurt  the GOP in the 2012 elections.

A recent Marquette University poll  (PDF) found similarly lackluster support for the tea party in  Wisconsin. Forty one percent of respondents thought poorly of the tea  party while 33 percent viewed it favorably.

Still, even if the tea party suffers a major defeat with Walker’s  recall, their influence will be felt for years to come given the  hardline agendas promoted by state and federal lawmakers swept into  office in 2010. And Skocpol says the recall election could be a  galvanizing event for the movement. “Because all of the tea party forces  have not been able to unite on a GOP candidate for president, they’re  going to redouble on things like the Wisconsin crusade,” she says.  “Grassroots tea partiers everywhere will be be following and  contributing to the Walker campaign.”

February 1, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012 | , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Mitt Romney, “A Well-Oiled Weathervane”: Character And Core Values May Be His Downfall

More than most elections, the contest for President this fall is likely to be decided less on “wedge issues” — or even candidate positions that are symbolic of who is on whose side — and more on the character and core values of the candidates — and for that matter on the question of the core values of the society we hope to leave to our children.

Last Friday, speaking to the Democratic Caucus Policy Conference, Vice-President Joe Biden told a story that speaks volumes about the character of Barack Obama.

According to Biden, the day before he ordered the raid that finally stopped Osama Bin Laden, President Obama met with his top national security advisers in the Situation Room.  At the close of the meeting, he went around the room asking each person for his or her recommendation on whether to launch the risky nighttime mission.

As it went around the table, Leon Panetta recommended that the President proceed.  Most of the others expressed reservations and handicapped the odds of success as only fair.  Finally, the President got to Biden who said he recommended not proceeding until two additional steps were taken to enhance the odds.

Then the President stood and told his advisers he would let them know of his decision in the morning.

The next day, as Obama stepped onto his helicopter to leave on a day trip, he turned to his National Security Adviser, Tom Donilan, and issued a simple order: “let’s go.”

Much more was at stake in the Bin Laden mission than success or failure killing or capturing the most wanted fugitive of modern times.  In some respects Obama’s Presidency itself was at stake.

To quote Biden, “The President has a backbone like a ramrod.”

Whether or not you like all of his policies — or all of his decisions — it’s hard to argue that Barack Obama is not a tough, decisive guy — a guy who is guided by solid core principles and has a disciplined, laser-focused will. This is not a President that flip-flops in the political wind or is swayed by the last person who talks to him.  Above all, Barack Obama is centered.  He has a solid core built around strong core values.

America — and the rest of the world — have seen those character traits over and over again during the last four years.

They saw them when he announced his candidacy to become the first African American president of the United States — and then organized the highly disciplined, leave-no-stone-unturned campaign that elected him 2008.

They saw that same inner toughness in his — at the time unpopular — decision that saved the American auto industry.

In early 2009, Obama simply refused to throw in the towel on health care reform, when the election of Senator Scott Brown made it appear impossible to succeed — and he won.

Later that year, Obama’s force of will guaranteed the passage of Wall Street reform and the creation of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.  And his willingness to just say no to Republican obstructionism last month by making a recess appointment of Richard Cordray, guaranteed that American financial institutions — for the first time — have a regulator dedicated solely to looking out for the interests of everyday consumers.

Obama has remained determined and unflappable in the face of the toughest economic and political environment in sixty years and has emerged from three years of battle ready to wage a highly organized, focused campaign this fall that will center on most fundamental question facing our society: whether we will have a nation where we look out for each other, and have each other’s back — or a society where we are all in this alone.

Obama intends to make this campaign a battle over core values — a choice between a society where we are all responsible for our future, and for each other — or a society where selfishness is our highest value — where “greed is good.” His campaign will frame the choice before America as whether we have a government dedicated to defending privilege — or one whose mission is giving everyone a fair shot, a fair share, and a guarantee that we all have to play by the same set of rules.  His campaign will be about reigniting the values that underlie the American Dream and the hopes of the middle class and all of those who aspire to it.  It will be about restoring fairness and opportunity and hope.

Contrast that kind of President — and that kind of campaign — with Obama’s likely opponent, Mitt Romney.

Right after the 2004 election I was riding in a New Jersey taxicab. The driver was a typical male New Jersey cabbie.  “So what do you think of Corzine?” I asked.” “Oh, Corzine, tough guy.  Like him,” he replied about the then-Senator.

“What do you think of Bush?”  I said.  “Like him too.  Tough guy.  Stands up for what he believes,” came the answer.

“How about Hillary Clinton?”  I asked.  “Tough gal.  Like her,” he said.

“What about Kerry?”  I asked.  “Kerry?  Can’t stand him.  Flip-flopper–a phony.”

Ideology, policy positions — none of that mattered to this cabdriver who liked Corzine, Clinton and Bush.  He wanted a tough, committed leader.  But the Republicans had convinced him of its central message — “John Kerry is a flip-flopper–a phony.”

Bush strategist Karl Rove had sold that version of Kerry — a Senator who in fact has strong core values — largely because of his tendency to “Senate-speak.” He also realized that Kerry’s vote for the Iraq War, and then against continued funding in 2004, could be portrayed as the symbolically powerful flip-flop.  The icing on the cake was Kerry’s explanation of the 2004 vote: “I voted for it before I voted against it.”  Rove illustrated his flip-flop message with an iconic commercial that featured pictures of Kerry windsurfing and tacking one way and then another.

Kerry’s perceived lack of core values was the factor that, more than any other, led to George Bush’s second term as president.

Voters want leaders who believe in something other than their own election.  Quite correctly they want leaders with a strong moral center. They want leaders who make and keep commitments to their principles and to other people. And they want to know that the candidates they support are the leaders they will get after the election — not, as John Huntsman said of Romney, “a well-oiled weathervane”.

Romney has never seen a position he couldn’t change if he determined it would be to his advantage to do so.   He thinks of politics as a business marketing project, where you say what you think you need to in order to maximize sales. Romney doesn’t think of voters as citizens to be engaged — he thinks of them as customers to be manipulated.

As Massachusetts Governor, Romney was pro-choice — now he is anti-choice.

Romney was the author of the Massachusetts health care plan that in many respects served as the model for Obama’s own health care plan.  Now he wants to repeal “Obamacare.”

Romney once refused to sign the “no new tax pledge.”  Now he has signed the “no new tax pledge.”

Romney favored extension of the assault weapons ban.  Now he opposes extension of the assault weapon ban.

Once he said the TARP “was the right thing to do.”  Now he says he opposed it.

Right after the economy collapsed he said he favored an economic stimulus program; now he says he opposed the stimulus bill.

Once Romney said he believed that human activity contributed to global warming; now he says he doesn’t think we know what causes global warming.

One day he was emphatically neutral on Ohio Governor Kasich’s union-busting legislation — that was ultimately “vetoed” by the Ohio voters.  The next day he one hundred percent supported that legislation.

Romney is a guy who, when called on his flip-flops and inconsistencies, said: “I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake.”

The reason Romney is having such a difficult time making the sale in the Republican primary contest is that many Republicans don’t think he has strong core beliefs, don’t trust him and think he’s a phony.

Wait until he has to convince swing voters that he’s anything more than a “vulture capitalist” who will say anything and do anything to make the biggest deal of his life — the “acquisition” of the government of the United States of America.

But, you say, maybe he will flip-flop back into a more “moderate” Mitt Romney if he becomes President.  Don’t bet on it.  People who have no core values will sell their services to the highest bidder.  Romney’s Presidency has already been sold lock, stock and barrel to the big Wall Street banks, the CEO class, the multi-millionaires who are behind his super PAC and the Republican Establishment that have financed his campaign.

In fact, throughout his career, Mitt Romney has demonstrated that his only “core value” is his own financial and political success. In Romney’s view, both in politics and in business, every other belief or commitment can be thrown overboard if it weighs him down in his quest for success.  And that goes for the people and communities that were impacted by the “creative destruction” of his corporate takeovers and leveraged buyouts at Bain Capital.  To him, they were apparently nothing more than “collateral damage.”

In the end, it is likely that the ultimate irony of the Romney campaign will be that his own willingness to toss aside positions and values that might at one time or another have appeared inconvenient, will ultimately weigh him down more than anything else.

 

By: Robert Creamer, The Huffington Post, January 29, 2012

February 1, 2012 Posted by | Election 2012, GOP Presidential Candidates | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment