Posts Tagged Newt Gingrich

Political Disaster — Members of Congress Expected to Spend 5 Hours a Day Begging for Money | Alternet


Political Disaster — Members of Congress Expected to Spend 5 Hours a Day Begging for Money

Why politics is so dysfunctional, in a nutshell.

January 9, 2013  

Members of Congress don’t know anything about “the issues” and they spend all their time fundraising, according to both a new Huffington Post story and “an easy inference to make after observing Congress for almost any length of time.”

The HuffPo’s Ryan Grim and Sabrina Siddiqui obtained a PowerPoint presentation given to incoming Democratic freshmen legislators by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and the DCCC’s recommended schedule for House members includes four hours spent on the phone begging rich people for money and one hour spent begging rich person for money in person. This is the daily schedule.

As Kevin Drum notes, this leaves no time for studying or homework. Members rarely know much about anything, policy-wise. An unnamed member confirmed to HuffPo that these guys basically are exactly as ill-informed as you feared:

One member of Congress said that the fundraising takes up so much time that members don’t even have time to become experts on bills they sponsor. “One thing that’s always been striking to me is even the members playing a leading role on specific issues actually could not talk about the issues,” said the member, who didn’t want to be quoted by name. “They didn’t have enough knowledge on their own issues to talk about them at length. I’m probably guilty of that.” He recalled one meeting early in his career, where he brought several members together to try to hash out a compromise, just as he had done earlier as a state legislator.

“Staff members were all twitching at the discussion, because their principals were saying things that were just flat-wrong or uninformed or wondering aloud about what the industry practices really were,” he recalled. “The staff members of course had a pretty good idea. … The members were sitting around the table having a remarkably uninformed and unproductive discussion.”

This, as much as anything else, is why our Congress is both dysfunctional — legislators have no clue what they’re voting for or against most of the time — and so attentive to the priorities of the very wealthy.

Newt Gingrich completely dismantled the internal institutions that used to provide Congress with objective information and research, both because that information frequently contradicted conservative dogma and because he knew that doing so would force Congress to rely on outside (ideological) organizations for information, which would strengthen the corporate-funded policy shops and think tanks that powered the conservative movement. Now nearly everything Congress “knows” about policy comes directly from self-interested, industry-funded groups. Simultaneously, as Lorelei Kelly recently wrote, congressional staff began shrinking, which means expertise was, once again, outsourced — now, increasingly, lobbyists perform the educational function that well-versed staffers used to.

So: the constituents members of Congress have the most direct contact with, and the ones they see themselves as reliant upon to remain in office, are the ones who have the ability to write massive checks. And the people the members talk to to understand the issues are either think tank ideologues or paid representatives of industry or both.

The result is Congress as it’s been since the second Clinton term: Hundreds of dim bulbs, a couple of brilliant-but-evil guys, and a handful of dedicated and intelligent people who frequently do weird and inexplicable things like “voting for the horrible 2005 bankruptcy bill.”

The annoying thing is that the solutions to these problems are incredible simple: public financing of elections and huge increases in congressional staff budgets. But you might notice that both of those solutions involve spending more money on the government, making them non-starters in our age of bipartisan agreement that government spending is unseemly.

The alternative to constant fundraising by the members is for outside groups to take care of it for them, which is a model conservatives already sort of practice. In their “Behind the Caucus” column on Rep. Tom Cotton, an Arkansas freshman who will vote against raising the debt ceiling because he explicitly wants the United States to default, Politico’s Mike Allen and Jim VandeHei explain that Cotton won his primary because the ultra-conservative Club for Growth simply sent Cotton “a FedEx envelope full of checks that he didn’t ask for.” And that certainly saves some time. Allen and VandeHeil also note that Cotton, and his peers, explain why we are probably about to induce a recession for no reason:

Many in the media — us included — often underestimate just how conservative and how impervious to criticism and leadership browbeating these members are when appraising the chances for change in the next two years.

Hey, Mike and Jim, that’s what we’ve been saying for a while now. We’re screwed, because the people who spent thousands getting Cotton elected are the ones explaining the issues to him and his dumber peers.

 Political Disaster — Members of Congress Expected to Spend 5 Hours a Day Begging for Money | Alternet.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

G.O.P. Freshmen Saddened by Failure to Shut Down Government on First Day : The New Yorker


The Borowitz Report

 

JANUARY 7, 2013

G.O.P. FRESHMEN SADDENED BY FAILURE TO SHUT DOWN GOVERNMENT ON FIRST DAY

POSTED BY ANDY BOROWITZ

 

freshmen-boro.jpg

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—Just hours after being sworn in at the U.S. Capitol, the freshman class of House Republicans said that they were disappointed that they failed to shut down the government on their first day in office.

“We were all like, ‘O.K., we’re sworn in, let’s shut this thing down,’” said freshman Rep. Byron Ernie (R-Kentucky). “We were all pretty bummed that the government just kept running.”

Rep. Ernie acknowledged that it might have been “overly optimistic” of the freshman Republicans to expect to engineer a government shutdown on their very first day, “but bringing the government to a random standstill was the whole reason we became Republicans,” he said.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Virginia) chuckled good-naturedly at the ambitions of the high-spirited G.O.P. freshmen, telling reporters, “I remember what it was like to be young and full of big ideas about crippling our historic institutions for no discernible reason whatsoever. There’s nothing like your first time.”

Surveying the cherubic faces of the incoming Republicans, he said, “They’re like kids who want to close down a candy store.”

Looking beyond the disappointment of his first day, Rep. Ernie said he was looking forward to “that magical day” when he and his fellow Republican freshmen get to participate in their very first government shutdown: “We’ll be paralyzing the government in the same building where John Boehner and Eric Cantor did it, and Newt Gingrich before them. It’s like playing basketball in the same arena as Michael Jordan.”

G.O.P. Freshmen Saddened by Failure to Shut Down Government on First Day : The New Yorker.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Conservatives urge GOP leaders to be bold, prepare to go over cliff – The Hill’s On The Money


 

Conservatives urge GOP leaders to be bold, prepare to go over cliff

By Erik Wasson 12/23/12

  

Conservative activists who helped doom Speaker John Boehner’s (R-Ohio) “Plan B” say Republicans must be prepared to go over the fiscal cliff to force President Obama to reach a deal that includes no tax hikes.

The activists say Boehner and other GOP leaders have been too scared about suffering politically if the nation goes over the cliff and $500 billion in tax hikes and spending cuts are triggered in January.

Now that Boehner’s “Plan B” legislation has failed, they say Republicans should be empowered to make big demands and stop caving to Obama out of fear. They argue it is Obama who has something to fear if the economy slides into a recession because of tax increases and spending cuts, and the GOP that has leverage.

“I think Obama is very mindful of his legacy and is horrified of going over the cliff,” said Andy Roth of the Club for Growth. “Going over the cliff might be a signal that needs to be sent to the president, that he needs to play ball.”

He argued that President Clinton was forced to become a less liberal president after Speaker Newt Gingrich shut down the government in 1995.

“Clinton would not play ball with Newt until Newt shut the government down,” Roth said.

Several polls, however, suggest Republicans are in danger of being blamed by the public for a failure to prevent the tax hikes and spending cuts.

A Pew Research Center survey out last week found that 55 percent of those surveyed say Obama was making a serious effort to solve the fiscal cliff problem, but only 32 percent said Republican leaders were doing so.

Wall Street Journal/NBC News survey found that 65 percent of those surveyed view the GOP negatively compared to 35 percent who view the Democratic Party negatively. That poll found 24 percent would blame the GOP if the fiscal cliff occurs, compared to 19 percent who would blame Obama.

It also is not conventional wisdom that the GOP benefitted from the government shutdown fight between Clinton and Gingrich. Some argue the shutdown backfired and led to Clinton’s reelection in 1996.

Conservatives also argue Republicans will see their brand diminished by agreeing to anything that could be labeled a tax hike.

Boehner’s bill would have extended Bush-era tax rates on all annual income under $1 million, but conservatives said it raised taxes since rates on income more than $1 million would have gone up.

“I think it is certainly better to go over the fiscal cliff than to have the Republican party deny the American people to have one party that stands for lower taxes and another party that doesn’t,” Michael Needham of Heritage Action said last week.

Freedomworks initially backed Plan B as a negotiating tactic but reversed course last week and, like the Club for Growth, announced it would score votes on the legislation.

“The worst thing that Republicans can do is raise taxes,” Matt Kibbe of Freedomworks said Friday. “If Obama wants to raise taxes he can do that but Republicans shouldn’t give him cover.

“If Obama wants to go over the cliff, let him own that,” Kibbe said.

Roth argued Republicans should be willing to stretch the fight into 2013. Economists argue the ill effects of allowing tax hikes and spending cuts to go into effect will grow over time as more money is taken out of people’s pockets.

“They could take this into the New Year and extract a lot of very pro-growth entitlement reforms but I don’t think they are willing to go that far,” added Roth.

“The best thing we can do is extend the current rates for six to 10 months while we get pro-growth tax reform. The president is the only one who can propose that,” said Kibbe.

Dan Holler of Heritage Action said that Republicans now need to sell Medicare premium support and other bold ideas to get them into a fiscal cliff solution.

“When is the last time you heard Republicans make the case for Medicare premium support? When is the last time you heard Republicans talking about ending cronyism in the tax code? This is what Republicans need to focus on and commit to in the coming weeks and months. Until they do, no deal will be worth cutting,” he said Friday.

ForAmerica Chairman Brent Bozell on Friday released a plan for the GOP that involves it increasing its demands of Obama in fiscal cliff talks.

“Speaker Boehner, working in conjunction with Senate Minority Leader McConnell, should craft legislation that gets us on the road to fiscal sanity. This agenda must include four key items: cutting the corporate tax rate, abolishing the immoral “death tax,” real spending cuts, and serious entitlement reforms,” he said in a statement.

“Bring a united GOP front and challenge the president to support this legislation. Offer him the ‘millionaire tax’ if he will. If he doesn’t accept this, it proves he’s not serious. At that point the GOP should walk away, declaring it’s the president who now owns the impending disaster,” he said.

 Conservatives urge GOP leaders to be bold, prepare to go over cliff – The Hill’s On The Money.

 

, , , , , , ,

1 Comment

Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Reclaim Obamacare, Republicans!


TINA DUPUY

Reclaim Obamacare, Republicans!

 

“If elected, I will repeal Obamacare on day one,” promised the grandfather of Obamacare, Mitt Romney. Of course, he wasn’t elected. There will be no Day One for Romney; no un-signing spectacle moments after a decaffeinated virgin daiquiri Inauguration. Romney lost the election. He only got (appropriately, and ominously) 47 percent of the popular vote and far fewer electoral votes than John Kerry.

Nate Beeler / Washington Examiner

Therefore, Obamacare is here to stay. It’s over.

But lo and behold: People like health care. Strangely enough, sickness equaling bankruptcy isn’t preferred, but having affordable health insurance is. Being taken care of (instead of dropped) when faced with a disease is novel to some Americans and they’ve developed a taste for it. According to a Kaiser Family Foundation survey, only 33 percent of Americans actually want to see Obamacare repealed. More Americans believe in Big Foot than Footing All Medical Bills.

It passed the House and the Senate. It was signed by the president. It was held up by the Supreme Court. The presidential candidate who ran against it lost. This is Obama’s America: Your private insurance company finally has to act ethically. Huzzah.

So what’s next? Republicans ran a micro-targeting campaign aimed solely at old white southerners. The Grampa’s Old Party did their best to get fewer and fewer people to vote for them. While ostracizing “other” Americans, they ended up isolated themselves. They implemented voter ID laws and tried to make it as difficult as possible to vote. (For them, but also in general.) They wanted fewer votes, believing less is more … for Republicans. In the 2012 cycle Republicans ran against everything popular with Americans — like birth control and taxing rich people. They shrunk their party down to the hardcore: the outer core left alone to cringe at what their former party had become (four words: front runner Michele Bachmann).

Here’s how Republicans can gain back their popularity: Admit Obamacare was their idea. Go on, just admit it. They renounced it once Obama embraced it. It’s now law. It’s popular. Reclaim what is (ahem) rightfully Republican!

Just admit the individual mandate was first proposed by Nixon, promoted by George H. W. Bush and fleshed out by the Heritage Foundation. It was the “conservative answer” to the health care issue — it was the “free-market solution” to reform. Admit Bob Dole and Newt Gingrich peddled the government mandate to purchase private health insurance as the Republican alternative to Hillarycare. Just ADMIT it was Mitt Romney who, when governor, implemented the individual mandate in his state. Just admit Romney said (in one of his many incarnations) the individual mandate would ward against any Massachusettsians being “free riders.”

It’s the law of the land. People like it. So own it. It’s yours anyway. Tort reform is the saddest answer ever to the “what would you do instead of the individual mandate?” question, because “that was OUR idea!!” is the real answer. It’s a sensible, pragmatic, pro-business solution and Republicans used to be all of those things.

So be Republicans again: Tout Obamacare.

Then Republicans can run on it. Obamacare works? “See? I told you so!” they can tell people who still vote Republican. Individual mandate equals personal responsibility. Everyone pays their own way! Republican. Republican. Republican.

Let liberals whine about the public option. Let them pine for socialized medicine. Let them lament that private insurance won’t bring down costs enough. Let them finger-wag about all the issues we’ll have to face going forward. Republicans had a plan, the plan was put into place, Americans tell pollsters they like said plan — now conservatives should defend the Republican plan.

Hey, what’s a little Etch-a-Sketch among friends, huh? Re-set? Re-launch? A little Romnesia goes a long way. Not all the way to the Oval Office, thankfully.

 Cagle Post – Political Cartoons & Commentary – » Reclaim Obamacare, Republicans!.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Eugene Robinson: Republicans don’t heed lessons of the election – The Washington Post


Eugene Robinson

Eugene Robinson

Opinion Writer

The Republicans still don’t get it

By Eugene Robinson, Published: November 15

I know it’s early, but I have a sinking feeling the Republican Party is taking all the wrong lessons from last week’s election. Short term, that’s a boon for Democrats. Long term, it’s a problem for the country.

The GOP should be listening to reasonable voices such as that of Newt Gingrich. Yes, I used the words “reasonable” and “Gingrich” in the same sentence. He has occasional moments of lucidity, and one came on the “Today” show when he said Republicans “need to stop, take a deep breath and learn.”

 “I was wrong last week, as was virtually every major Republican analyst,” Gingrich said. “And so, you have to stop and say to yourself, ‘If I was that far off, what do I need to learn to better understand America?’”

The voices the party should ignore include those claiming that House Republicans, by retaining their majority, won some sort of mandate to continue pushing a radical conservative agenda. And yes, Gingrich has made this argument as well. The fog lifts, the fog descends.

A mandate for the GOP? Don’t make me hurt myself laughing. The ideological hero and policy guru of the House Republican caucus, Paul Ryan, couldn’t even carry his home town of Janesville, Wis. (And Mitt Romney, by the way, lost all of his various home states.)

Look, President Obama won 332 electoral votes to 206 for Romney. Much has been written about the demographic shifts that threaten the GOP’s future, but there has been less acknowledgment of an obvious fact about the present: Voters preferred Obama’s policies to Romney’s.

Obama campaigned on a pledge not to extend the Bush tax cuts for households making more than $250,000. He said umpteen times that he will insist on a “balanced approach” to taming the deficit, involving new revenue as well as spending cuts. At this point, if you woke the president from a sound sleep in the middle of the night and thrust a microphone in his face, the first words out of his mouth might be “balanced approach.”

Polls show this is what voters want. The election proved this is what voters want. But I fear some Republicans are convincing themselves that their “mandate” requires further obstructionism of the kind we’ve seen in the last two years. House Speaker John Boehner may want to make a deal, but his caucus may not let him.

Some conservatives even seem tempted to listen to the delusional postgame analysis coming from Romney and Ryan. This is the way to ridicule and ruin.

Ryan said the problem was that he and Romney lost by big margins in “urban” areas — which I take as a synonym for “places where minorities live.” But Republicans always lose in the inner cities. It’s the vote-heavy suburbs, such as Virginia’s Fairfax County, where Romney and Ryan failed to connect.

Romney, in a conference call with big-money supporters, offered a variation on his “47 percent” hypothesis, which really does seem to be the way this benighted man sees the world. In Romney’s view, Obama won only because he succeeded in bribing specific groups of voters with what amounts to monetary “gifts.”

“With regards to the young people, for instance, a forgiveness of college loan interest was a big gift,” Romney said, according to the New York Times. “Free contraceptives were very big with young, college-aged women.”

And as for Obamacare: “You can imagine for somebody making $25,000 or $30,000 or $35,000 a year, being told you’re now going to get free health care, particularly if you don’t have it, getting free health care worth, what, $10,000 per family, in perpetuity — I mean, this is huge. Likewise with Hispanic voters, free health care was a big plus.”

It doesn’t occur to Romney that Republicans might have countered this alleged gift-giving with a health-care reform plan of their own, other than “go to the emergency room.” If the GOP is really this obtuse, Democrats may win the next few elections without having to break a sweat. And that’s the danger I hope we avoid.

Don’t get me wrong: I want progressive candidates to win those elections. But parties without meaningful competition become flabby, lazy, unresponsive. Democratic candidates shouldn’t win by default, and neither should progressive ideas. A smart, creative, reality-based conservative movement is ultimately good for the liberal cause — and good for the country.

Step out of the echo chamber, Republicans. There’s a big country out there, and it’s trying to tell you something. For the sake of party and nation, try listening.

eugenerobinson@washpost.com

Read more on this debate:

E.J. Dionne Jr.: The inconvenient truths of 2012

Anne Applebaum: Republicans should look to their roots

Charles Lane: The Romney lesson

George F. Will: A reformed Republican Party

Charles Krauthammer: The way forward

 Eugene Robinson: Republicans don’t heed lessons of the election – The Washington Post.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Paul Abrams: As Predicted, Mitt Sprinkled Fairy Dust: What Obama Should Do NOW.


Paul Abrams

Paul Abrams

 

As Predicted, Mitt Sprinkled Fairy Dust: What Obama Should Do NOW.

 

The Obama campaign failed to prepare for Mitt’s mendacity. That might have been a forgivable sin if it had been the first time. But, Romney did last night exactly what he had done in the primary to Newt Gingrich who, after discovering that Romney could lie even more blatantly than he does, went on national television and called Romney a liar, but by then it was all over.

Let’s face it. Anyone who can stun Newtie to silence by the depths of his lying is one helluva prevaricator.

This tactic was so obvious that I had predicted exactly what Romney would do. It was apparent from his trial ballooning for the last two weeks, and the right wing’s lack of response to Romney’s abandonment of everything he had promised them that he could do this, and they would have his back.

Note: Had Romney just strung together his responses into a speech that were not part of the debate, the headlines would have been akin to Paul Ryan’s coming out of the Republican National Convention speech–nearly everything he said was a lie. Instead, because it was a debate, our lamestream media (and, thanks, Sarah, you got that one right!) focused on who won the accolades, not what they said. One suspects that the Obama camp, not distinguishing what he could get away with in a debate versus a speech, discounted the likelihood that Romney would be so consistently outrageous because it would be detrimental to him. That is why following polls or the DC punditry can be dangerous to a campaign’s health.

From a candidate’s perspective, that complaint is hollow. A campaign needs to take the environment seriously, no matter how irrational or distasteful it seems. The political “pundits” are into the horse race, so one has to gear the performance to the standards. Moreover, the race was getting too far out of reach for Romney, and the media prefer close races to boost viewership.

Now, suddenly, Romney is not a right-wing zealot. Now, suddenly, he is going to keep parts of ObamaCare (however, it is not possible without causing his friends in the insurance industry to go bankrupt, but I suppose Bain could take them over then). Now, suddenly, he is not handing the rich another juicy tax cut. Now, suddenly he thinks the President should have done for the country what he did in Massachusetts, but he will still repeal ObamaCare.

It was surprising that the President’s answer to why not repeal ObamaCare wasn’t, “for 100 years, 7 presidents have tried to get healthcare for Americans. Finally, we did it. After a 100 year battle, of course you go forward, not backward. Of course, you keep equal treatment for women, of course you continue all the insurance reforms including pre-existing conditions, no dropping coverage, no lifetime caps, of course you keep Medicare solvent until 2024 whereas repeal would make Medicare insolvent in a few years, of course you keep coverage for women’s reproductive health….need I go on. Why would any American, except a politician looking for a way to fool you, want to go backward?

I am most surprised, however, that the President did not present a single salient fact that would have rescued the performance: that by repealing ObamaCare, Medicare goes bust in 2016, so seniors over 55–do NOT turn off the sound!

But, pathological liars wear people down, and responding would certainly wear down the television audience. In that format especially, it is difficult to respond to all the lies, or abrupt changes in position.

The DC “pundits” also missed it. None of them looked at Mitt’s recent history, or contemplated that Mitt was raising trial balloons prior to the debate. Yet, there they were, waxing eloquent into the wee hours of the morning, stating that now Romney is going to have to get specific, and that Obama should depend on Joe Biden to staunch the bleeding when he debates Ryan in 10 days. GMAFB.

Please, Obama campaign, don’t listen to any of them.

Pointing out the litany of Romney’s lies does not do it either. The key is for the public to “get”, in the deepest recesses of their psyches and bones, that Romney is a liar, a man who cannot be trusted about anything, certainly not your future. With the start made on Romney’s taxes, Bain Capital, engrafting “pathological liar” onto his character should not be difficult.

But, unlike Newtie, whose run was over before it began, neither the President nor the campaign can call Romney a liar. All that does is provoke an escalating war of words, and all Romney needs to survive such a character test is confusion among the public.

What we need is a well-respected arbiter who can make the case, and not be a target.

Enter, William Jefferson Clinton.

Former President Clinton is today’s Walter Cronkite (“the most trusted man in America”). The former president needs to make two points:

1. Never in the history of presidential campaigning has anyone lied so blatantly, repeatedly and seemingly without embarrassment. That type of person is a pathological liar. You cannot trust a pathological liar; and,
2. Romney is running a stealth campaign. Not only will he not tell you what he wants to do, he is masking what the Republicans will do if they gain control. Look at what they have done to women, to voting rights, to workers rights, to the environment when they gained control of state governments, but having run on none of it, saying they wanted to create jobs.

If Clinton made an ad in which he says, “never in the history of presidential campaigning, has anyone lied so blatantly, repeatedly and seemingly without embarrassment”. And, while he is at it, he might mention that Republicans have long based their policies on making up facts and ignoring reality. “My fellow Americans, we learned in the last 10 years that you cannot eat, drive, fill up your tanks or go to school with fairy dust. Nor does it cure your illnesses”.

President Clinton should also ask the American people to stop a moment and think–are the billionaires who are paying hundreds of millions of dollars to get Romney elected, are they doing that because they care about your jobs?

And, then he should close: “anyone who would do what Mitt Romney did last night cannot be put in a position of trust. You cannot entrust your lives or your children’s future to him. He does not deserve your trust. And, you cannot risk what he would do with it.”

Do not wait until the Vice-President’s debate. Do not wait until the next Presidential debate.

Do it–NOW!

This is no trivial matter. On President Clinton’s words may rest the future of Social Security, the future of Medicare, the future of Medicaid, peace in the middle east, workers’ rights, the health of our environment, and the chances for the middle class to recover from the debacle of his successor.

Why? Because mendacious Mitt will scuttle all of them if he is elected. Has he ever said what he would sign, or not sign, if Jim DeMint’s gang presents him with laws to abolish the EPA, Regulatory Reform, A Personhood Amendment for DC, repeal of Lily Ledbetter Act, repeal of the Voting Rights Act, and so forth?

Once former Clinton’s words seep into the general psyche, Democrats will actually gain an advantage from tonight’s debate. Democrats are the party of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. By lying so blatantly, Romney can now be challenged directly on the issue of trust. Voters were unlikely to trust Romney and Ryan on these programs anyhow, now there is footage galore that can be interwoven without distortion to show people how risky a bet Romney/Ryan is.

And, take the 47% Ad, for example, and alter it slightly by saying, “this is what Mitt Romney says in public”, followed by a quote from the debate about his caring for people, and then say, “but this is what Mitt Romney says in private”, followed by part of the 47% tape. The announcer should then say, “Can you really trust Mitt Romney when he says……[fill in the blank].

The same can be done with other issues from taxes, to Romney/Obama Care, to Medicare and so forth.

But, first things first. The nation needs Bill Clinton, again.

[p.s. Joe Biden ought to go after trust strongly--and with Paul Ryan, he has a ready-made foil for it. "He follows an alien philosophy, from novels of a Russian philosopher, Ayn Rand. Of course, he tries to run away from that now, but ask his staff why he hands out Ayn Rand books to them".]

 Paul Abrams: As Predicted, Mitt Sprinkled Fairy Dust: What Obama Should Do NOW..

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Free Wood Post – Republican Party Admits to Being a Massive Prank


Republican Party Admits to Being a Massive Prank

October 27, 2012

By Kyle Murphy"Reince" "Priebus" "RNC" "GOP" "Republican" "prank"

Confirming suspicions long-held by much of the American political left, Republican party chairman Reince Priebus unveiled on Friday that his party is, and has been for over four decades, one big piece of satirical performance art.

“I’ll be honest,” said Reince, appearing before the Associated Press in a jester’s hat and holding an elaborate ivory cane, “I totally
thought you would have all caught on before this.  I mean, especially with the candidate we’re supposedly running for President this year.”

“Seriously people,” continued Reince, “Seriously.  Look at my stupid name.  You seriously think this is all real?  C’mon.”

‘Reince’ credited Thruston B Morton (real name Stephen Smith) as the first RNC chairman to employ the use of a fake name designed to drop hints that the modern Republican Party was an elaborate prank played on the American people.

Other faux Conservatives taking silly pseudonyms over the years include Ray Bliss, Richard Richards, Spence Abraham, Chuck
Yob, and Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich himself seemed torn on the unveiling of what he described as ‘the craziest, funniest role’ he had ever played.

“It’s sad to see great gigs come to an end,” said Gingrich (Frank Hershowitz) in a press statement.  “But it’s time to get the stench of
this Gingrich character off of me, no matter how much fun it was to play such a Charles Dickens-esque villain.”

While originally the plan had been to continue with the charade at least until the end of 2015, concern over the harm they were doing to their country for the sake of a laugh apparently caused some of the actors to consider bailing out early on the almost 50-year-old practical joke.

“It’s true,” said Preibus, “a lot of us were starting to think, you know, this is great satire, but it’s taking a really dark path.  I mean, we’ve made most of the people in our own country significantly poorer with our phony economic policies, and, hey, killed hundreds of thousands of people around the world.”

“And my old drama school roommate Chris Jacobs – you know him as Mitt Romney – well, he was losing himself in his character, genuinely beginning to believe he was some rich fop who’d be getting his hands on the nuclear launch codes.”

“When a joke winds up hurting people, well, it’s time to put an end to it.”

 Free Wood Post.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Romney Pollster: We Won’t ‘Let Our Campaign Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers’ | Mediaite


 

Romney Pollster: We Won’t ‘Let Our Campaign Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers’

by Josh Feldman | 12:16 pm, August 28th, 2012

 

For the past month, the Republican campaign has been hammering President Obama over cutting out work requirements for welfare. The Romney campaign has been rebutted by many fact-checking organizations over inaccuracies in the claim, and during a panel discussion today, Romney pollsterNeil Newhouse responded to the criticism, saying, “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.”

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Tells Anderson Cooper There’s ‘No Proof’ For Romney Welfare Attack

Earlier this month, after Mitt Romney alleged that under Obama’s welfare plan, “you wouldn’t have to work… they just send you your welfare check,” PolitiFact rated his claim Pants on Fire. PolitiFact said it was a “distortion of the planned changes” in current welfare law.

CNN fact-checked the claims last week, noting that the Obama administration granted welfare waivers after governors of multiple states, including Republicans, asked for “more flexibility in how they hand out welfare dollars.”

The Washington Post piled on and gave the Romney campaign’s welfare ad “four Pinocchios.” The president himself said of the Romney campaign’s welfare ad, “Every single person here who’s looked at it says it’s patently false.” Even recent news headlines have acknowledged factual inaccuracies in the Romney campaign’s claims, from the AP’s “Romney pushes on with discredited welfare attacks” to CBS News’ “The real strategy behind Romney’s (lying) welfare ads.”

Greg Sargent contrasts today’s statement by Romney’s pollster with what Romney himself said earlier this year about how the Obama campaign keeps running inaccurate ads.

“You know, in the past, when people pointed out that something was inaccurate, why, campaigns pulled the ad,” Romney said on the radio. “They were embarrassed. Today, they just blast ahead. You know, the various fact checkers look at some of these charges in the Obama ads and they say that they’re wrong, and inaccurate, and yet he just keeps on running them.”

 Romney Pollster: We Won’t ‘Let Our Campaign Be Dictated By Fact-Checkers’ | Mediaite.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Mitt’s plot to confuse you – Salon.com


 

Mitt’s plot to confuse you

His goal isn’t to win over voters on Medicare. It’s to make them throw up their hands in frustration

 

Mitt’s plot to confuse you

What’s most noteworthy about the new Medicare-themed ad that the Obama campaign unveiled today is its defensive tone. The spot opens by referring back to a Romney ad that claims the president “robbed” $716 billion to pay for the new healthcare reform law, then contrasts AARP’s favorable assessment of Obama’s actions on Medicare with its ominous take on what Paul Ryan has proposed.

There’s a lot going on here, and that might be problematic for Obama.

Medicare is a supremely popular program, and attempts to cut or alter it dramatically always poll terribly. The hope for the Obama team is to replicate the success that Bill Clinton and Democrats enjoyed in 1996, when they positioned themselves as the last line of defense between Medicare and the Republicans who would (in the famous words of Newt Gingrich) let it “wither on the vine.”

But the issue is more complicated in this year’s campaign, because of the Medicare changes that Obama made through the Affordable Care Act. That the law cuts spending by $716 billion over 10 years is true, but the reductions do not affect benefits; instead, they’re aimed at hospital reimbursement rates and the excessively costly Medicare Advantage private insurance program, with smaller cuts for home healthcare providers and others. What’s more, Ryan’s own Medicare plan, which House Republicans almost unanimously endorsed (and which Romney has indicated he would have signed as president), upholds all of these cuts. But Ryan says he’s now running on the Romney plan, not his own, and the Romney plan (such as it is) calls for wiping out the Medicare cuts.

It’s all rather slippery, but that doesn’t mean it won’t work. The upshot is that Romney and Ryan are now running around blasting Obama for making savage cuts in Medicare, and running ads to the same effect. This, of course, is also what Republicans did in the 2010 midterms, when their landslide was keyed in part by an anti-Obama backlash among senior citizens. This complicates Obama’s hopes of replicating Clinton’s reelection strategy. Clinton never had to answer for his own cuts; he could just fire away at the “Dole-Gingrich” attempt to raid Medicare. Obama’s task is trickier. He has to explain his own actions first, then pivot to an attack on his rivals. As Greg Sargent points out, all the GOP needs to do here is to muddy the waters enough that swing voters throw up their hands in confusion and move on to other issues – like the economy.

If there’s a silver lining for the Obama side, it’s that voters still instinctively regard his party to be more supportive of Medicare than the GOP. A poll a few months ago found that voters trust Democrats over Republicans by a 40-24 percent margin to look out for the program. Obama has also enjoyed a wide advantage over congressional Republicans on this front. The gap is tighter when Romney enters the picture; a poll of swing state voters this week found Obama running 8 points ahead of Romney, 42 to 34 percent, on who would better handle Medicare. By comparison, Clinton was running more than 20 points ahead of Dole on the issue at this point in ’96. (Of course, he was also running about 20 points ahead of Dole in the horse race.)

That said, voters are more inclined to give Obama and Democrats the benefit of the doubt on Medicare than Romney and the GOP. And the Democratic assault on Ryan-ism is only beginning. The polls may look different a few weeks, or months, from now. But just because Romney’s running mate is the author of a reviled Medicare plan doesn’t necessarily mean that the GOP ticket will pay a price for it.

 Mitt’s plot to confuse you – Salon.com.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Matt Miller: Recognizing Paul Ryan’s ‘tell’ when he is trying to avoid something – The Washington Post


 

Matt Miller

Matt Miller

Opinion Writer

Recognizing Paul Ryan’s ‘tell’ when he is trying to avoid something

 

In poker a “tell” is the physical giveaway or tic that lets you know someone is lying about his or her hand. In politics it’s the mode of evasion a politician chooses to sidestep a truth he or she doesn’t want to admit or to avoid saying something against self-interest. In his debut interview with Fox News’ Brit Hume Tuesday, Rep. Paul Ryan’s “tells” were audacious and revealing. They suggest an opening Democrats would be wise to pursue.

Ryan (R-Wis.) tried to cloak himself in his supposedly charming “wonky-ness” to sidestep two simple questions from Hume: When does Mitt Romney’s budget reach balance, and when does Ryan’s own budget plan do the same? Ryan pirouetted because Hume’s queries threatened to expose his famed “fiscal conservatism” as a fraud.

It’s worth parsing Ryan’s tactics in this exchange because it shows the brand of disingenuousness we’re dealing with. So let’s go to the videotape. Have a look at the relevant two-minute portion of the clip (excerpted on this CNN video) and then we’ll dissect it.

Okay, you’re back. Hume started with a simple question: “The budget plan that you’re now supporting would get to balance when?”

Now, for context, recall that in the last era of epic budget smackdowns, 1995 and 1996, Newt Gingrich would have had an equally simple answer: in seven years. President Bill Clinton’s failure to embrace the goal of a balanced budget at all was a major political liability that Clinton finally (and shrewdly) erased when he came out with his own 10-year plan in mid-1995. (It’s worth underscoring that a 10-year path to balance was viewed then as the outer limit of credibility — pledging to end the red ink any further than a decade out didn’t pass the laugh test.)

Since Ryan knows that Romney’s bare sketch of a plan never reaches balance, he stumbles momentarily before trying to move the conversation to his comfortable talking points about Romney’s goal of reducing spending to historic norms as a share of gross domestic product.

But Hume grows quietly impatient. He practically cuts Ryan off.

“I get that,” Hume says. “But what about balance?”

You can see Ryan flinch. He doesn’t know, he says. Why not? “I don’t want to get wonky on you,” he says, recovering, “because we haven’t run the numbers on that specific plan.” But that’s not “getting wonky” at all. As common sense (and the Gingrich/Clinton approach) suggests, there’s nothing arcane about this subject. You decide on a sensible path to balance as a goal and come up with policies that achieve it. All this means is that Romney hasn’t done what a fiscally conservative leader would do. Trying to evade this as a matter of not “getting wonky” is Ryan’s tell. He’s betting Hume is too dumb, uninterested or short on time to press the point.

Ryan then adds that “the plan that we’ve offered in the House balances the budget.” But he immediately stops short of saying when — you see his eyes dart to the right at that moment, his next tell — because that would mean admitting it reaches balance in the 2030s. And Ryan wants to get through this interview without saying that, because he knows it doesn’t sound good. After all, what kind of “fiscal conservative” has a 25-year plan to balance the budget? Instead, in a practiced maneuver signaled by his telltale sideways glance, he moves to a contrast with President Obama, who he says has never offered a budget that ever reaches balance.

This is true — but is a plan to balance the budget when Ryan is nearly 70 really different enough to make Ryan the “deficit hawk”? Please.

Meanwhile, Hume’s quiet baritone presses on. 

 “Your own budget . . . when does that contemplate reaching balance?” Hume asks.

There’s no exit. Not until the 2030s, Ryan finally admits, looking uncomfortable — but then he quickly adds, making a face, that’s only under the Congressional Budget Office’s scoring rules, implying that they’re silly constraints every Fox News viewer would agree are ridiculous (instead of sensible rules meant to credit politicians only for policy proposals that are real). Ryan adds that “we believe” if we get the economy growing, “it would balance in 10 years.” But that’s supply-side faith-based budgeting again — exactly what we ran an empirical test on in the 1980s. (And the truth is, if Ryan’s big tax cuts were properly accounted for, his plan’s real date of balance would push well beyond 2040).

Why am I harping on this? Because it’s impossible to overstate how central the unjustified label of “fiscal conservative” is to the Ryan brand and the GOP’s strategy. As Clinton understood in the 1990s, “fiscal responsibility” is a values issue important to the voters who decide modern presidential elections.

The point: Democrats can’t afford to let Ryan/Romney’s phony image as superior fiscal stewards survive. And Hume’s interview shows how swiftly this charade can be exposed if Democrats and the press zero in on simple questions like Hume’s. If the press is primed to cover this more intelligently, such queries will also expose the big Republican lie — the idea that you can balance the budget as the baby boomers age without taxes rising.

Let me be clear. The most important issue facing the country isn’t when we’re going to balance the budget. It’s how to get growth and jobs reignited in the near term and how to renew the country’s promise and competitiveness after that (an agenda in which long-term budget sanity is just the ante). But if Democrats spend all their energy on Medicare — and don’t knock out the GOP ticket’s undeserved reputation for fiscal responsibility — they’ll find themselves in unexpected peril as the race heads to the fall. 

 Matt Miller: Recognizing Paul Ryan’s ‘tell’ when he is trying to avoid something – The Washington Post.

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 263 other followers

%d bloggers like this: