Romney: 'I’m not concerned about the very poor . . . I like being able to fire people'

UPDATE VII: More context: "just a few days ago, Mr. Romney was denying that the very programs he now says take care of the poor actually provide any significant help. On Jan. 22, he asserted that safety-net programs — yes, he specifically used that term — have 'massive overhead,' and that because of the cost of a huge bureaucracy 'very little of the money that’s actually needed by those that really need help, those that can’t care for themselves, actually reaches them.'

This claim, like much of what Mr. Romney says, was completely false: U.S. poverty programs have nothing like as much bureaucracy and overhead as, say, private health insurance companies. As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities has documented, between 90 percent and 99 percent of the dollars allocated to safety-net programs do, in fact, reach the beneficiaries. But the dishonesty of his initial claim aside, how could a candidate declare that safety-net programs do no good and declare only 10 days later that those programs take such good care of the poor that he feels no concern for their welfare? . . .

Romney’s position seems to be that we need not worry about the poor thanks to programs that he insists, falsely, don’t actually help the needy, and which he intends, in any case, to destroy."

Read The New York Times, Romney Isn’t Concerned.


UPDATE VI: Again, after you get over the irony of Republi-CON complaining of taking statements out of context, consider the statement in context. What Romney actually said, in context, was worse. Read the Washington Post, Romney’s problem isn’t his gaffes. It’s his policies., which notes that:

"Mitt Romney's problem isn't his gaffes. It's probably better to refrain from saying you're 'not concerned by the very poor' and that you 'like being able to fire people,' but campaigns are long, and all candidates make comments that can be taken out of context to make them look bad. Nor is Romney's problem his tax rate, or his wealth, or his time at Bain Capital. Romney's problem is the interaction all of this has with his policies. In particular, the interaction it has with his tax and fiscal policies.

Romney's tax policy, described simply, is to extend the Bush tax cuts and, then on top of that, sharply cut taxes on corporations, the wealthy, and upper-middle class investors, while letting a set of tax breaks that help the poor expire. The result, according to the Tax Policy Center, would be a $69 tax cut for the average individual in the bottom 20 percent and a $164,000 tax cut for the average individual in the top one percent. And Romney would pay for this through unspecified cuts to domestic programs. Since domestic programs mostly go to the poor and seniors, the regressive tax cuts would be regressively financed.

That's a tough political sell for any candidate. But Romney is a very rich guy who already pays surprisingly little in taxes and has made some oddly callous comments about the poor. And now he wants to lower the tax burden on people like himself, and pay for it by cutting programs for the poor and seniors? That's a much tougher sell."

UPDATE V: Expect Obamney to stop talking soon. Read the Washington Post, The too-quotable Mitt Romney and the very poor.


UPDATE IV: The morning after the FL primary, and appearing on CNN Obamney says:

"I’m not concerned about the very poor . . ."

Read Politico, Mitt: 'I'm not concerned about the very poor'.

Sounds like a campaign sound bite to me.


UPDATE III: After you get over the irony of Republi-CON complaining of taking statements out of context, consider the statement in context. "What Romney actually said, in context, was worse." Read The New York Times, Who Fires Whom?, which notes that:

"Romney doesn’t understand his own health reform, which was in large part about ensuring not that you can fire your insurance company, but rather about ensuring that your insurance company can’t fire YOU. . .

He evidently has no sense of what it’s like NOT to be the very wealthy son of an already wealthy father; no idea how the fear of unemployment or medical bills afflicts ordinary Americans."

The statement shows a candidate without empathy, who does "not understanding what life is like for most Americans." Read The New York Times, Uncompassionate Conservatism, which cites "David Atkins, over at Digby’s blog," who notes the statement shows

"Romney’s sense of privilege, and a relationship to the world around him that is alien to most Americans and reinforces everything that is wrong with the 1% in America. . .

When it comes to basic services like healthcare, almost no one in America sees the relationship that way. Most of us wouldn't speak of 'firing' our health insurance company. No matter how much we might detest our insurance company, we probably wouldn't describe the experience of removing ourselves from their rolls an enjoyable one.

But most of all, we don't see the health insurance company as providing us a service. We see ourselves, rather, as indentured supplicants forced to pay exorbitant monthly rates for a basic need that responsible people with means can't get out of paying for if we can help it. We don't see ourselves as in control of the relationship with them. They are in control of us-and no more so than when we get sick and need the insurance most. If the company decides to restrict our coverage or tell us we have a pre-existing condition after all, we're in the position of begging a capricious and heartless corporation to cover costs we assumed we were entitled to based on a contractual obligation. It's precisely when we need insurance most that we're least able to 'fire' the insurance company."

UPDATE II: Even Nation Review, founded by that scion of conservative wealth and influence, which "describes itself as 'America's most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion,'" knows that, quoting the Weekly Standard, an American neoconservative opinion magazine published by News Corporation, which also owns Hedgehog News:

"As a private equity firm, Bain’s goal was to maximize return on investment (ROI) for a small group of high net worth investors. . .

Any jobs Romney or Bain 'created' were thus incidental to their real function, which was (as Last points out) to maximize shareholder value and goldmine the remaining value of the company so that it might more profitably be used elsewhere. Nothing wrong with that, but don’t try to sell it as 'job creation' . . .

A 'job creator' [give] employment to . . . people through the force of his own creative imagination.

But to call corporate restructuring 'jobs creation' won’t fly."

Read National Review, The Battle of Bain Capital.

Even the founder and editor of The Weekly Standard and a regular commentator on the aforementioned Hedgehog News noted that:

Romney’s claim throughout his campaign that his private sector experience almost uniquely qualifies him to be president is also silly. Does he really think that having done well in private equity, venture capital, and business consulting—or even in the private sector more broadly—is a self-evident qualification for public office? . . .

Post 2008, capitalism needs its strong defenders—but its defenders need also to be its constructive critics. The Tea Party was right. What's needed is a critique of Big Government above all, but also of Big Business and Big Finance and Big Labor (and Big Education and Big Media and all the rest)—and especially a critique of all those occasions when one or more of these institutions conspire against the common good. What's needed is a willingness to put Main Street (at least slightly) ahead of Wall Street, and a reform agenda for capitalism that strengthens it, alongside an even more dramatic reform agenda for government that limits it.

Bain Capital shouldn’t be demonized. It may not even deserve to be criticized. But in laying out a way forward, conservatives might remember that Bain Capital isn’t capitalism, that capitalism by itself isn’t freedom, and that there are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in the Gospel of Wealth."

Read the Weekly Standard, From Bain to Main.


UPDATE: The Republi-CON establishment is starting to recognized "the perils [they] face if their nominee — and the GOP in general — are identified with the brand of unrestrained [unfettered, everyman-for-himself, screw-the-working-guy] capitalism Romney’s Bain years embody. Read the Washington Post, Calling for a truce in the Bain wars.

"Remember all the 'pants on fire' finger-wagging outrage directed at Mitt Romney and his campaign’s blatant misuse of a quote by then-candidate Barack Obama in 2008? It’s the one where Obama is heard saying, 'If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.'

The outrage was justifiable since the line was taken completely out of context. The full line reads: 'Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, if we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.'

I bring this up because Romney should not be surprised if — no, when — he gets the same treatment after what he said this morning in Nashua, N.H. It’s a line that could be easily ripped out of context and would be equally outrageous."

Read the Washington Post, Mitt Romney’s unforced error: 'I like being able to fire people'.

Get ready Romney, because what goes around comes around.

The Republi-CON 'Obama's Responsible for a $15.2 Trillion National Debt' Myth

UPDATE: Republi-CONs believe that "Obama deserves the blame for every dollar of debt that was amassed under his presidency, as once you become president, the federal government is yours to run. That’s a fair argument, though it seems a little self-serving: Obama entered office immediately after the [Bush] administration . . . pushed revenues far beneath spending and failed to effectively regulate the financial sector or the housing sector. In the quarter before Obama entered office, the economy shrank at an annualized rate of nine percent. Two weeks before he was inaugurated — but before Bush had left office — the Congressional Budget Office released a report forecasting a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009. That was all due to policies and conditions predating Obama.

It has been convenient for the Republican Party to blame the resulting deficits on the Obama administration. But this is a bit peculiar: If a house catches fire and damage is done in the time it takes time to put out the blaze, should the blame go to the people fighting the fire or the people who allowed the fire to begin in the first place? The latter, I think. Which is why, in my column, I was trying to isolate the fires Obama’s administration had started.

But perhaps the more generous way to phrase [the Republican] point is that Obama should have turned immediately to reduce the 2010 deficit. But that would have been an economic disaster, as [Republicans] knows. So perhaps the argument is that he should have turned more quickly to long-term deficit reduction. The Obama administration could have spent, say, 2010 pursuing a long-term deficit-reduction package rather than financial regulation.

One answer is that the White House has, through 2011, tried to come to some sort of deficit-reduction deal with the Republicans, but has been unable to get them to accept higher taxes as part of a package."

Read the Washington Post, Doing the math on Obama’s deficits, cont’d.

How much did Obama add to the national debt? First you must know which of Obama’s policies added to the debt?

"The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities . . . [came] up with a comprehensive estimate of Obama’s effect on the deficit. . .

In total, the policies Obama has signed into law can be expected to add almost a trillion dollars to deficits. But behind that total are policies that point in very different directions. The stimulus, for instance, cost more than $800 billion. So did the 2010 tax deal, which included more than $600 billion to extend the Bush tax cuts for two years, and hundreds of billions more in unemployment insurance and the payroll tax cut. Obama’s first budget increased domestic discretionary spending by quite a bit, but more recent legislation has cut it substantially. On the other hand, the Budget Control Act — the legislation that resolved August’s debt-ceiling standoff — saves more than $1 trillion. And the health-care reform law saves more than $100 billion.

For comparison’s sake, using the same method, beginning in 2001 and ending in 2009, George W. Bush added more than $5 trillion to the deficit."

Read the Washington Post, Doing the math on Obama's deficits, which includes this graph, Adding to the deficit: Bush vs. Obama:

Pity Poor Obamney

UPDATE III: "Mitt Romney insisted in his victory speech Tuesday in Florida that a prolonged Republican presidential race wouldn’t hurt his party.

But the longer the former Massachusetts governor has to campaign, the more ammunition he’s giving Democrats, at least when it comes to potential footage that could be used to paint him as an out-of-touch rich guy in the general election.

Romney’s assertion Wednesday morning on CNN that he’s “not concerned about the very poor” because they have a social safety net is the latest quote that Democrats can — and likely will — put to good use during the fall campaign, should Romney emerge as the GOP nominee.

But it’s not the first time Romney has served them a quote or a clip on a silver platter."

Read the Washington Post, Mitt Romney plays into Democrats’ looming rich-guy attacks.


UPDATE II: "I’m not sure the Obama campaign could have scripted this more perfectly. In a remarkable bit of good timing, President Obama is set to deliver a State of the Union speech focused on income [inequality] and tax unfairness on exactly the same day that Mitt Romney will reveal that he made over $40 million in the last two years — all of it taxed at a lower rate than that paid by middle class taxpayers. . .

[T]his comes as Obama is set to deliver a speech focused on extreme disparities of wealth, and on precisely the element of the tax code that enables his likely rival to pay a far lower rate than many middle class taxpayers — at a time of rising public preoccupation with inequality. As Chuck Todd put it this morning: 'If Team Obama could have picked any day to have Romney release his tax return, today might have been the day they’d pick.'

Romney doesn’t just disagree with Obama on these fundamental issues; he personally symbolizes virtually the entire 2012 Democratic message. He is the walking embodiment of everything Dems allege is wrong with our system and the ways it’s rigged in favor of the wealthy and against the middle class. Yet this is the standard bearer the GOP seems set to pick."

Read the Washington Post, What timing: On day of Obama’s big inequality speech, Romney reveals massive income, low tax rates.


UPDATE: "Under his plan, Romney in 2013 would see his taxes cut by nearly half of what they would be if you use current law as a baseline." Read the Washington Post, Romney’s tax plan would cut his own taxes by nearly half, new analysis finds.

In one recent year, he made only $374,327.62 giving speeches. A sum he described as "not very much." Read The New York Times, Romney Shares Some Tax Data; Critics Pounce.

OMG, Republi-CON Are Ready to Endorse Obama's Millionaire Tax Hikes

Obama keeps winning them over. First health care, not tax hikes for millionaires. Read the Washington Post, Obama and the GOP agree: Eliminate tax breaks for millionaires.

Next thing ya know, he'll have them tamed just like Bill did.

Still Unemployed, It's the Economy Stupid!

As I said in February 2009, tax cuts are not the answer, and again in October 2010, this downturn won't be over 'til the fat lady gets a job.

And "the primary cause of the increase in duration [of unemployment] is not extended unemployment benefits or changes in demographics, but weak aggregate demand." Read Calculated Risk, Weak labor demand explains increase in unemployment duration, which references the Federal Reserve Bank San Francisco Economic Letter, Why Is Unemployment Duration So Long?

FL Here Come the Republi-CONs

UPDATE XI: "With his resounding victory over Newt Gingrich in Florida on Tuesday, Mitt Romney showed a worried Republican base a side of himself that it has both longed for and feared that he lacked: the agile political street fighter, willing to mock, scold and ultimately eviscerate his opponent.

But if he has quelled doubts about his toughness, he also emerges from the Florida free-for-all and the three contests that preceded it carrying heavy new baggage.

Mr. Romney was savaged by Mr. Gingrich over his record at Bain Capital, softening him up for the coming Democratic effort to portray him as a heartless capitalist happy to fire people to enrich himself. His release of his tax returns, complete with details about a Swiss bank account, provided new facts for opponents seeking to cast him as out of touch with ordinary Americans.

And the very trait that propelled him in Florida — a willingness to descend into the muck and run a relentlessly negative campaign — distracted from his economic-themed argument against Mr. Obama while deepening his rift with some populist conservatives. Should Mr. Gingrich remain a viable enough candidate to stay in the race through the summer, as he vowed on Tuesday, Mr. Romney could be forced to maintain an angry edge that could undermine his appeal among moderate and independent voters — groups whose views of him, polls suggest, appear to have been harmed by the Florida melee."

Read The New York Times, The Political Costs of a Nasty Fight.


UPDATE X: "After sorting through the exit polling, listening to the candidates’ speeches and sifting through the county-by-county results, we came up with five major lessons learned":

"1. Negative ads work . . .

2. Romney can win Republicans . . .

3. Newt is unbound (really) . . .

4. Romney pivots to November . . .

5. Electability matters . . ."

Read the Washington Post, 5 lessons the Florida primary taught us.


UPDATE IX: The results of the FL primary:

Romney 46.4%
Gingrich 31.9%
Santorum 13.4%
Paul 7.0%

UPDATE VIII: And for last projection before the primary, see The New York Times, Florida Primary Projections:

Romney 44.0%
Vote range: 33 - 51

Gingrich 29.3%
Vote range: 20 - 38

Santorum 13.9%
Vote range: 8 - 21

Paul 11.2%
Vote range: 5 - 18

UPDATE VII: Obamney "may be winning votes again, but is he winning hearts?" Read The New York Times, Money Can’t Buy Him Love.


UPDATE VI: The day before the primary The New York Times FiveThirtyEight forecast shows "a wide diversity of results, even among polls that were in the field at the exact same time" but nevertheless "projects a 15-point win for" Obamney.


UPDATE V: The Great Lecherer seems to be giving up. Maybe the establishment pressure is getting to him.

At the debate last night, "Gingrich seemed to be playing for a draw. He passed upon several opportunities to push back at Mr. Romney, despite being expressly presented with opportunities to do so — on health care, on Ronald Reagan’s legacy, on immigration, and on Mr. Romney’s personal finances among other issues."

Read The New York Times, In Florida Debate, Gingrich Ignores Lessons of Recent History.


UPDATE IV: "It’s no secret that the Florida primary is a must-win for former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney. But, it’s also a victory that former House speaker Newt Gingrich needs to have too." Read the Washington Post, Why Newt Gingrich needs to win Florida.

But the Republi-con establish is closing ranks around Obamney.

And "[p]olling released within the past 24 hours suggests that Mitt Romney may have stopped and possibly reversed Newt Gingrich’s momentum before the Florida primary on Tuesday." Read The New York Times, Polls Suggest Gingrich’s Support May Have Peaked.

The latest FL primary projection shows:

Romney 40.0%
Gingrich 36.4%
Santorum 11.4%
Paul 9.6%

UPDATE III: My last predictions didn't go so well, but try, try again. Here is another, as discussed on the show yesterday:

If Obamney loses big in FL, he stays in the race, but only to collect delegates so that he can (after being hounded by party establishment) graciously reconsider at the nominating convention and set aside for a late entry to the presidential race before The Great Lecherer 'cripples the Republican brand.' (See What Happened in SC?)


UPDATE II: "Is Mitt Romney suffering a reversal of fortune in the Florida polls? It sure looks that way at the moment. There’s a passel of new poll info out and most of it doesn’t look good for the former Massachusetts governor." Read the Christian Science Monitor, Is Mitt Romney's Florida support collapsing.

So what if Obamney loses badly in FL? Would he finally understand that the base wants anybody but Mitt? "Polls have told a consistent story: Between 20 percent and 30 percent of Republican voters support Romney, and the rest support somebody else. Actually, not somebody, anybody."

Would he drop out and endorse anybody but Gingrich?

"No serious person thinks Newt Gingrich will or wants Newt Gingrich to be president. I’d bet a significant percentage of the people who vote for him don’t want him to be president. Voting for Newt Gingrich is just an act of pure petulance. . .

The idea, still apparently existent, that what this electorate — having previously paid close attention to statesmen like Donald Trump and Herman Cain before turning to Newt Gingrich — is clamoring for is the respectable conservativism . . .

[Maybe] Haley Barbour(!), Mitch Daniels, Bobby Jindal, Jon Kyl, Marco Rubio, Jim DeMint, Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, and Mike Pence to either run themselves or hurry up and close ranks behind either Santorum or Romney — Jim DeMint’s late entry to the presidential race would be good February entertainment, it’s true — which seems to miss the fact that those people have about as much control over the party electorate now as John Boehner has over the Republican House majority. . .

There is a great deal of point-missing going on. Each of these savior non-Romney Gingrich-killing dream candidates completely lack the quality that led Gingrich to suddenly take the lead: No one likes him and he’s embarrassing. The voters respond to his breezy shamelessness, and Bobby Jindal is not going to fire this crowd up. (Chris Christie, a loud bullying caricature, might do the trick, but he’s too smart to enter now.)

I am also not sure how essentially begging for a brokered convention helps alleviate the 'chaos' everyone is currently worrying over, but, again, I welcome the entertainment.

Sadly, they’re probably still stuck with Mitt."

Read Salon, Conservatives demand new candidate to throw race into further disarray.


UPDATE: "As the Republican presidential nominating contest moves to Florida, it’s important to remember one simple fact: Florida is a very different political animal than the three states that have preceded it. . .

And speaking of political ideology, Florida’s is best understood, according to longtime Sunshine State politicos, through a geographic prism. The state starts off conservative — fiscally and socially — in its northern reaches (think the Panhandle) and moves toward more straight fiscal conservatism through its central region (I-4 corridor) and to something close to centrist moderation in the south (Miami).

Expect Gingrich to clean up in northern Florida, Romney to win the southern part of the state and for the central part to be where the fight is decided. Just like always."

Read the Washington Post, Florida presents a different challenge for GOP presidential candidates.

"For Mitt Romney, the South Carolina primary was not just a defeat, though it was most emphatically that. It was also where his campaign confronted the prospect it had most hoped to avoid: a dominant, surging and energized rival.

The rebirth of Newt Gingrich, a notion that seemed far-fetched only weeks ago, has upended a litany of assumptions about this turbulent race. It wounds Mr. Romney, particularly given his stinging double-digit defeat here on Saturday, and raises the likelihood that the Republican contest could stretch into the springtime.

For now the race goes on, with Mr. Gingrich and Mr. Romney joined by Rick Santorum and Ron Paul. But Mr. Gingrich’s showing here suggests that Mr. Romney may no longer be able to count on his rivals splitting the opposing vote into harmless parcels, or on the support he is getting from the party establishment to carry him past a volatile conservative grass-roots movement.

At a minimum, it is clear that Republican voters, after delivering three different winners in the first three stops in the nominating contest, are in no rush to settle on their nominee."

Read The New York Times, Fresh Doubts About Republican Contest.

BTW, just a week ago, Obamney was leading The Great Lecherer approximately 40-25%. But the first FL primary projection since SC shows:

Gingrich 37.6%
Romney 30.0%

Did Obama Save the Economy?

"Two years ago, the McKinsey Global Institute looked at the recoveries of 32 countries that had undergone a financial crisis. Their analysis was grim. It was also correct. Contrary to the hopes some held for a quick recovery, MGI warned that financial crises tended to lead to long, slow recoveries as households, businesses and governments dug their way out of debt. But in a report released last week, MGI delivered some sunnier news — at least for the United States. If you look at the 10 largest developed economies in the world, the United States is the furthest along the path to recovery.

Looking back to their sample of 32 past instances with post-financial crisis recoveries, MGI zeroed in on Finland and Sweden’s experiences in the 1990s as the most relevant to our current moment. Those examples 'show two distinct phases of deleveraging. In the first, households, corporations, and financial institutions reduce debt significantly over several years, while economic growth is negative or minimal and government debt rises. In the second phase, growth rebounds and government debt is reduced gradually over many years.'

Most economies, the authors say, are barely even in phase one. In the United Kingdom and Spain, for example, total debt is still rising. But not in the United States. Here, 'debt in the financial sector relative to GDP has fallen back to levels last seen in 2000, before the credit bubble. U.S. households have reduced their debt relative to disposable income by 15 percentage points, more than in any other country; at this rate, they could reach sustainable debt levels in two years or so.'"

Read the Washington Post, U.S. recovering faster than its peers.

So much for the myth of expansionary austerity.

Republi-CON Budget Drama, Much To Do About Nothing

UPDATE II: "You’re not still worried about the federal deficit, are you? That is so 2010! Get over it! The presidential candidates certainly have." Read the Washington Post, Growing federal debt recedes as political issue.

The Republi-CONs conned the Tea Party.


UPDATE: "[I]n their first major act of 2012, House Republicans picked up exactly where they left off: They staged a duplicitous debate in which they pretended that they were going to deny President Obama permission to increase the government’s borrowing limit.

The pretense had been clear since last summer, when 174 House Republicans voted for a budget deal that guaranteed that the debt limit would continue to increase this year unless two-thirds of the House and Senate voted otherwise — a practical impossibility.

But that didn’t stop many of those same 174 Republicans from marching to the floor Wednesday afternoon to vote for a resolution “disapproving” of the very same debt-limit increase they had already blessed. It was a model of deception: claiming to oppose something they had guaranteed would take effect."

Read the Washington Post, For House Republicans, a game of debt charades.

Last week the national "debt stood at $15.1 trillion, $1 trillion more than when the [Republi-con House] got to town. By the end of next year, projections show, it will grow by an additional $1 trillion."

And how much did the Republi-con House cut next years budget? "[B]y only about $7 billion, a sliver so tiny [you] could measure its impact in minutes."

Read the Washington Post, Washington’s year of drama leaves little done regarding debt.

As I say each show, I'm waiting, where's the balanced budget. But don't hold you breath because the Republi-CONs conned the Tea Party, there'll be no $100 billion budget cut, and let's admit the obvious, the Republi-CONs are not serious about deficits.

I also point out that to balance the budget, Congress should do nothing.

It's Not Who You Are, It's Who You Know

So much for the Republi-CON 'classless merit-based society' myth, especially in Mississippi:

"A look at the clemency applications of felons who were pardoned reveal that many contained personal appeals from friends of Gov. Haley Barbour and major Republican donors.

Read The New York Times, Many Pardon Applicants Stressed Connection to Mississippi Governor.

More proof that "the instinct to favor family [and friends] never disappears and will reassert itself whenever possible."

Cap and Trade and Save

"Criticism of cap-and-trade programs often centers on the costs they impose on electric power companies and their consumers. But as I report in Friday’s Times, New York and other Northeastern and mid-Atlantic states that are trying out such a system have found that those costs can be offset by energy efficiency measures paid for by the cap-and-trade program itself."

Read The New York Times, Reaping a Bonus From Cap-and-Trade.

And if you don't believe in global warming, then explain what happens to 35 gigatons of CO2 each year.

Gingrich the Republi-CON

UPDATE V: BTW, not only does the media love The Great Lecherer, he loves them back. Read The New York Times, Gingrich, Offstage.


UPDATE VI: "He won with a glower. After Newt Gingrich in the Jan. 19 Republican debate fought off a totally reasonable question about an ex-wife’s account of his acknowledged adultery with an attack on “the elite media,” there was little doubt about what would happen. South Carolina is the rawest of GOP states, the political embodiment of the legacy of the man Gingrich was channeling with that stare and orchestrated outrage onstage: Richard Nixon." Read Time, Why Newt Is like Nixon.


UPDATE V: Did you hear the show on Friday with Pastor Flip-Flopper (aka Pastor Truthiness (formerly known as Pastor Poppins)), first defending The Great Lecherer, then having to agree with his regular 'correspondents'.

The Pastor began by blaming the media. The truth is the media loves Gingrich.

But Vuoto had it right as well as some other pompous regular, and the Pastor had to reluctantly agree, (so-called) conservative support for The Great Lecherer, an admitted serial fornicator and adulterer, showed the moral rot in the party, and a vote for him would be a contract with the devil.


UPDATE IV: Really, the hypocrisy of the Great Lecherer of Morals now blaming the media. From The New York Times, Gingrich Attacks the News Media and Creates a Stir:

In response to a question from the CNN debate moderator, John King, about whether Mr. Gingrich had asked his former wife Marianne for an open marriage, an allegation she made in a recent ABC News interview, Mr. Gingrich said: 'I think the destructive, vicious, negative nature of much of the news media makes it harder to govern this country, harder to attract decent people to run for public office. And I am appalled that you would begin a presidential debate on a topic like that.'

When Mr. King tried to explain the question, arguing that it was a major news subject of the moment, Mr. Gingrich had none of it.

'John, John,' he interjected. 'It was repeated by your network, you chose to start the debate with it. Don’t try to blame somebody else.'

Mr. Gingrich added, his voice pitched in anger, 'I am tired of the elite media protecting Barack Obama by attacking Republicans.' He received a standing ovation from the audience."

It was a rabid Republi-CON audience.


UPDATE III: What is more 'tawdry and inappropriate:'

Asking your wife for an 'open marriage' so you can sleep with you new lover while lecturing the world on morals,

or

Complaining about the revelation and refusing to answer questions?

Read the Washington Post, Newt Gingrich: Ex-wife Marianne's interview 'tawdry and inappropriate'.

BTW, does all this remind you of another oversexed Republi-con candidate?


UPDATE II: "We shouldn’t be surprised that Marianne has stepped forward. Indeed, how many other friends, staffers and colleagues have their own tales to tell about the speakership years? With Gingrich you are perpetually waiting for the next shoe to drop. And unlike Bill Clinton, who could drag Hillary into the picture for validation and redemption, Gingrich can’t very well sit down with Callista to explain their joint tale of deceit and adultery. . .

The origin of every Gingrich controversy (ethical, personal or political) is the same: Huge ambition unmoored to a code of conduct or fixed principles.

The reemergence of Marianne will give voters pause. It should. And if it’s the difference between victory or defeat in South Carolina? Well, some would call that Gingrich’s just desserts."

Read the Washington Post, Gingrich’s past catches up.


UPDATE: Today's lesson in Republi-CON history:

"[I]n 1999 [Gingrich] asked his second wife for an 'open marriage' or a divorce at the same time he was giving speeches around the country on family and religious values, his former wife, Marianne . . .

Shocked, Marianne Gingrich replied: 'Is there anybody else?' she recalled. 'He was quiet. Within two seconds, when he didn’t immediately answer, I knew.'

The next day, Newt Gingrich gave a speech titled 'The Demise of American Culture' to the Republican Women Leaders Forum in Erie, Pa., extolling the virtues of the founding fathers and criticizing liberal politicians for supporting tax increases, saying they hurt families and children.

'When a liberal talks about values, will he or she actually like us to teach American history?' Newt Gingrich told the women’s group. 'Will they actually like young people to learn that George Washington was an ethical man? A man of standards, a man who earned the right to be father of this country?'"

Read the Washington Post, Marianne Gingrich, Newt's ex-wife, says he wanted 'open marriage'.

"What seemed like genuine, bipartisan PR in 2008 now looks like conservative heresy by the current frontrunner in the Republican presidential race. Gingrich now calls that TV ad the 'dumbest single thing' he's ever done and insists his policy stance on the environment passes all conservative muster.

'If you notice, I never favored cap and trade,' he said in a candidate forum in New York City on Dec. 3, 2011.

Really? Never?

[But PolitiFact.com] did a little digging and it didn't take long to find that Gingrich has been inconsistent and has at times advocated cap and trade legislation when combined with other approaches."

Read PolitiFact.com, Newt Gingrich claims he 'never favored cap and trade'.

Obama's New BFF

UPDATE: Methinks there is a civil war abrew in the Republi-con party, and they're picking sides now:

On Monday night Palin "took on New Jersey’s blunt-talking governor, her fellow Republican Chris Christie, declaring that he had gotten “his panties in a wad” in a “rookie mistake” that reflected a “lack of self discipline.”

Mr. Christie is the most prominent surrogate for Mitt Romney, who now finds himself locked in an increasingly caustic duel for the Republican presidential nomination with Newt Gingrich."

Read The New York Times, Palin Has a Few Choice Words for Christie.

"The most important figure in Tuesday night’s State of the Union address wasn’t on the House floor. In fact, he hasn’t taken a seat in front of the chamber in 13 years.

But as he campaigned for the Republican presidential nomination in Florida, former House speaker Newt Gingrich was doing more to boost President Obama’s reelection prospects than anything Obama himself could do. While Obama was using the speech to portray the Republicans as plutocrats, Gingrich was doing all he could to prove the caricature true."

Read the Washington Post, Gingrich is Obama’s best surrogate.

For further proof, read CBS News, Gingrich-Romney lives in world of "Swiss bank accounts" and $20 million income and the Washington Post, Gingrich mocks Romney’s 'self-deportation' plan for illegal immigrants.

Keep your fingers crossed that The Great Lecherer, aka Newtenstein, wins the nomination and brings us many happy shows til November.

Even better, he could pick as his running mate Save Us, Sarah, Save Us! (<--editorial note: that term is copy righted by NoBullU.com).

Mass Incarceration in America

"For a great many poor people in America, particularly poor black men, prison is a destination that braids through an ordinary life, much as high school and college do for rich white ones. More than half of all black men without a high-school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives. Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under 'correctional supervision' in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. That city of the confined and the controlled, Lockuptown, is now the second largest in the United States." Read The New Yorker, The Caging of America.

Class Today at NoBullU on WEBY, How Should I Vote Edition

UPDATE: Thank you to the caller for helping me, the newbie Republi-con, make this important decision. FYI, in the FL January 31 Presidential Preference Primary Election, I voted for the The Great Lecherer, aka Newtenstein. Keep your fingers crossed that he wins the nomination and brings us many happy shows til November.

Listen to the voice of wisdom and reason in a wilderness of partisan rhetoric -- no political insanity, no conservative hypocrisy, no liberal foolishness -- Just straight talk, straight at you, and that’s no bull!!

NoBullU will broadcast today from 4:05 to 6:00 p.m. at 1330 AM WEBY and on line.

Topics:

Local Business/Event Shout-Out: TBD;


Follow-up: see below;


Fact-free fantasies of the shrieking hatemongers of right-wing rhetoric and partisan hackery: all part of the fundamentalist subculture of ignorance that embraces 'discredited, ridiculous and even dangerous ideas'

And America's preference for rhetorical fairy tales to unpleasant realities

One was gays in the military, funny thing, the world's still turning, not even a hurricane, earthquake or an oil well

And don't be duped by the Birthers, including our very own Pastor Dred Scott (you may remember the infamous Dred Scott decision of 1857, which asserted that African Americans were "beings of an inferior order" who "had no rights which the white man was bound to respect." That ruling declared that African Americans could never be U.S. citizens and therefore could never be President),

See The Fogbow, "your best resource for debunking the lies of the 'birther' movement and discussing the birther antics" and WhatsYourEvidence.com, there is even a Birther Case Scorecard, 0-80 for the birthers;


Local and regional: Hasta la vista TEAM Santa Rosa and time to vote (Wednesday is deadline to request absentee ballot for primary)


National and international: I'm waiting, where's the balanced budget, don't hold you breath because the Republi-CONs Con the Tea Party, there'll be no $100 billion budget cut, and let's admit the obvious, the Republi-CONs are not serious about deficits, and who's responsible for the debt

Republi-CON budget drama, much to do about nothing

To balance the budget, do nothing

Still no sign of those 'invisible [Republi-CON] bond vigilantes'

Good news for the economy, bad news for Republi-CONs

Did Obama con the Republi-CONs?

The Republi-CON zombie myth that the government forced the banks to make bad loans

Economic stimulus told ya so, again

The myth of expansionary austerity

Pity the 1%, they control only 43% of the country's wealth

Republi-CONs in their Delusion-land


And the Republi-CON race cont., to find America’s Not-Mitt

Eeny Meeny Miny Moe, Which Republi-CON, In Iowa They Still Don't Know

A NoBullU told ya so, it was SC stupid

What happened in SC?

FL here come the Republi-CONs

Still searching for the ideal Republican candidate: conservative, interested, electable

Romney: it's 'party ideology politics and obstructionism first', Romney: 'I like being able to fire people', Pity poor Obamney, McCain's Obamney playbook

Gingrich the Republi-CON, Gingrich is soft on crime, Gingrich supports child labor, Newtenstein, What goes around comes around

Colbert for Cain, and making a mockery of Republi-CONs

Obama in 2012?, Lookin better for Obama all the time

HWJRFO

Déjà vu all over again, what to expect if it is Obama v. Romney

Save Us, Sarah, Save Us!

The Republi-CON Tea Party


Health Care Lawsuit Update

After reading two of the appellate opinions, it doesn't look good for the Republi-CONs


and

Is the can at the end of the road?, an update and was it worth it

The Republi-CON 'classless merit-based society' myth

The Republi-CON 'Obama's a socialist' myth


The myth of voter fraud

Watch Hedgehog News, be dumber than the dumb


Fun stuff: Now why didn't we think of this: urine-controlled video games


and


Donate to a good cause: TBD.

I'll discuss anything, but expect a no mercy take-down if you are a shrieking hatemonger of right-wing rhetoric and partisan hackery, pandering to fear, anger and hatred, because the truth sure makes it hard out there for the party pimps.

So tune-in, call-in, but only if you can handle the truth and some ass kickin' discussion of politics and current events.

What Happened in SC?

UPDATE III: This is priceless.

One Pulitzer Prize-winnering conservative political commentator begs Obamney to step up his game before The Great Lecherer 'cripples the Republican brand.' Read the Washington Post, Can Romney the turnaround artist do it again?

The Republi-con establishment has no one to blame but itself for their Newtenstein.


UPDATE: Has the right-wing media been too successful in dumbing-down the base? Read The Atlantic, Who Is to Blame for Newt Gingrich's Rise?, which notes:

"People bear responsibility for the media they consume. Voters ultimately own the politicians they elevate. But if you're wondering to which "thought leaders" his rise can be attributed, best to ask, "Whose approach to politics produces, as its logical conclusion, a candidacy like Gingrich 2012?" Surveying the centrality of attacks on the mainstream media, the casting of President Obama as a radical other, and the trick where you shrewdly repeat a racially provocative line, get accused of racism, and cast yourself as an aggrieved victim for political advantage, Gingrich '12 is modeled after the successful tactics of movement conservatism's demagogues. Is there any candidate in memory whose persona so closely resembles an egomaniacal talk-radio host? The rank-and-file in South Carolina accept a would-be president behaving that way because they're used to their "thought leaders" talking like that. They aren't in on the reality that a lot of what they hear on talk radio resembles performance art; they don't presume that the rhetoric and arguments employed daily on Fox News are often contrived or disingenuous.

What a political movement gets when it spends years marshaling more demagoguery than sound arguments against its opponents, what it gets when its intellectuals are deposed by its entertainers, what it gets when Roger Ailes and Rush Limbaugh are its agenda-setting personalities; what it gets when all these factors and more prevail, is a Newt Gingrich victory in South Carolina, where the voters, having been trained to elevate emotion and style over substance, didn't even realize that they've chosen as their champion a man who is neither conservative nor capable of leading anyone."

This election is teaching Republi-cons that what goes around comes around.

Do the "traditional rules of engagement in a nomination race still apply . . .

[That is] the nomination is technically decided by delegate counts, and somewhat less literally by the preferences of rank-and-file voters, ultimately the nominee is determined by a sort of open negotiation among the party elite, which includes elected officials, major donors and the partisan news media, among others.

Voter preferences can make some difference, but more as a lagging than a leading indicator. Being well-credentialed and building a traditional campaign matters, and candidates who do not do so may soar in polls but inevitably fall back to earth. Moreover, parties tend to come to fairly rational decisions about their nominee, placing heavy emphasis on electability. (This view is eloquently explained in the book The Party Decides, by the political scientists Marty Cohen and others.)

[Or has a paradigm shift] occurred in America’s political culture . . .

Under this interpretation, elite support and the ground game do not matter as much as usual. Instead, success is more idiosyncratic: personalities matter a lot, and nominations are determined based primarily on momentum and news media coverage."

Read The New York Times, Did Gingrich’s Win Break the Paradigm?

It's SC Stupid

UPDATE XIV: The final tally:

Gingrich 40.4%
Romney 27.8%

From the Washington Post, Five lessons learned from the South Carolina primary:

"1. Debates matter. A lot . . .

2. It’s a marathon, not a sprint . . .

3. Frontrunners falter . . .

4. Mitt Romney has a base problem . . .

5. It’s going to get real nasty, real quick . . ."

And from Politico, South Carolina: 9 takeaways:

"1) Romney may not realize he’s having a near-death experience . . .

2) Newt needs to hold it together . . .

3) Paging Sheldon Adelson . . .

4) Rick Santorum has nothing to lose by going forward . . .

5) Mitch Daniels isn’t doing Romney any favors . . .

6) Nikki Haley suffered a big loss . . .

7) Rick Perry’s backing mattered . . .

8) Gingrich fared surprisingly well with women . . .

9) Romney is about to get all sorts of unsolicited public advice . . ."

UPDATE XIII: And for last projection before the primary, see The New York Times, South Carolina Primary Projections, which continues to momentum for The Great Lecherer:

Gingrich 38.7%
Vote range: 26 - 49

Romney 29.3%
Vote range: 19 - 39

Paul 15.6%
Vote range: 8 - 24

Santorum 13.9%
Vote range: 7 - 22

UPDATE XII: "Up with Newt. Down with dignity. That’s the way it goes.

Newt Gingrich is surging in South Carolina and has a good chance to win that state’s primary on Saturday. But, as he rises, so grows the dark shadow that he casts over his party and the grievous damage he does to its chances of unseating President Obama."

Read The New York Times, Newt’s Southern Strategy.


UPDATE XI: How can The Great Lecherer proclaim "himself the only conservative alternative to Mitt Romney. The reason for his rising popularity is not really because he’s more conservative than Mr. Santorum – he’s not – or because he will bring about more conservative change, as Rick Perry said in endorsing him today before leaving the race.

The reason, colorfully on display this morning in this history-soaked waterfront town, is that no other candidate in the race expresses the kind of visceral, full-bodied disgust with President Obama that Mr. Gingrich does. No one else can even come close to the kind of withering ridicule that Mr. Gingrich employs."

Read The New York Times, Newt Gingrich, Nutty Radio Talk Show Host.

The power of pandering to fear, anger and hatred is on full display this election season.


UPDATE X: "By avoiding direct confrontations with his opponents while giving evasive answers on a range of issues in debates this week, Mitt Romney has allowed Newt Gingrich to become the slight favorite to win in South Carolina." Read The New York Times, Romney’s ‘Prevent Defense’ Yielding Big Gains to Opponents.

And the day before the primary, from The New York Times, South Carolina Primary Projections, here are the forecasts, "formulated from an average of recent surveys, with adjustments made to account for a polling firm's accuracy, freshness of a poll and each candidate's momentum:

Gingrich 35.1%
Vote range: 22 - 46

Romney 32.8%
Vote range: 21 - 43

Paul 15.9%
Vote range: 8 - 25

Santorum 12.9%
Vote range: 5 - 22

UPDATE IX: Taken before the day's upheaval, polls show Obamney and Gingrich in a virtual tie.


UPDATE VIII: It now appears that Santorum edged Obamney "in the Iowa caucuses by 34 votes, but can’t be declared the winner because results from eight precincts are missing."

Other news:

Santorum is the nominal conservative Obamney alternative.

But Gingrich had a bellicose debate performance and has a Palin sort-of-endorsement and Perry dropping out endorsement, but has yet to answer renewed questions about his moral character (see this interview with one of Newt Gingrich’s ex-wives about his open-marriage idea).

There is also that other guy still running, and the vote for Cain for Colbert effort.

UPDATE VII: Obamney “rivals enter the final four days of the South Carolina primary in search of something — anything — to significantly alter the basic trajectory of their party’s presidential nominating contest. . .

[H]owever, they are running out of time." Read The New York Times, Time Running Out for Romney’s Rivals, which notes "that political fortunes can change more quickly than anyone expects. That may be even more true in the age of Twitter, when small moments on the campaign trail can quickly become global phenomenon.

So what might yet happen in the next four days? Here are some possibilities":

1. EVANGELICALS. . .

2. THE MORMON QUESTION. . .

3. A NEW ATTACK? . .

4. A NEW STUMBLE. . .

5. SURPRISE DROP-OUTS? . .

6. ANOTHER DEBATE. . .

UPDATE VI: "Another day, another [Republi-con] presidential debate."

For a recap, read the Washington Post, South Carolina Republican debate: Winners and losers and Fact Checking the Fox News-WSJ debate in South Carolina, and CNN, Five things we learned from Monday's debate.

"The debate last night demonstrated the essential problem that the top three not-Romney contenders face in South Carolina and beyond: No one has been strong enough and focused enough to oust Mitt Romney, but none is so weak as to drop out." Read the Washington Post, Romney’s path to the Republican nomination.


UPDATE V: "As Republican leaders watch with horror Newt Gingrich’s one-man campaign to bring down the party’s likely presidential nominee, they should remind themselves of this: Gingrich is a monster of their own making." Read the Washington Post, Kamikaze Gingrich, on the loose in South Carolina, which notes:

Romney, on his way to South Carolina, complained explicitly that Gingrich was against 'free enterprise.'

Romney has it wrong. Gingrich’s attacks on him are the very essence of free enterprise: They’re helped by campaign finance laws that sell elections to the highest bidder. For those Republicans who thought that unlimited political contributions would be a good thing for their party, it’s a delicious irony that a casino billionaire is using his money to underwrite a populist assault on the GOP front-runner.

'Crony capitalism, where people pay each other off at the expense of the people of this country, is not free enterprise, and raising questions about that is not wrong,' Gingrich said in South Carolina. Americans, he said, should know whether businesses are 'fair to the American people, or are the deals being cut on behalf of Wall Street institutions and very rich people.'

If Republican elites don’t like millions of dollars being spent to amplify that anti-Romney message, they have only themselves to blame."

UPDATE IV: "In South Carolina, they know who their enemy is. They’re just too busy attacking one another to fight [Romney]." Read The New York Times, The Tea Party’s Not-So-Civil War.


UPDATE III: "Voters in South Carolina will have plenty of opportunities to meet the Republican presidential candidates at town-hall-style meetings and campaign rallies over the next week and a half. But why even leave the house?

The state will be awash in campaign commercials, direct-mail fliers and automated phone calls in the days leading up to the Jan. 21 primary, all part of a full effort by the campaigns and their 'super PACs' to break through in what could be the kind of climactic contest that the New Hampshire primary was not."

Read The New York Times, Expensive and Bitter Media War Already Ignited.


UPDATE II: From the Washington Post, The five remaining scenarios in the GOP primary, read the article for "what they would mean for the overall GOP primary":

"Romney wins solidly in South Carolina . . .

Romney wins narrowly over Ron Paul, Newt Gingrich, or Jon Huntsman . . .

Romney wins narrowly over Rick Santorum or Rick Perry . . .

Romney loses to Santorum or Perry . . .

Romney loses to Paul, Gingrich, or Huntsman . . ."

UPDATE: Which Mitt will show up in SC?

Will it be the "Mitt Romney who campaigned across New Hampshire the past few days entered the workforce 'at the bottom,' feared getting 'a pink slip,' doesn’t own four houses (although he thinks 'that's a good idea') and 'never imagined' he would run for office because, as he put it, 'I was just a high school kid like everybody else with skinny legs'"?

Read the Washington Post, Mitt Romney may face lasting damage from New Hampshire primary.


"The Republican primary race will come to a fork in the road in South Carolina. A win by former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney in the Palmetto State effectively ends the GOP nomination fight. A loss by Romney likely means a protracted primary fight that continues through Super Tuesday on March 6. . .

The reality of the South Carolina vote, according to a number of well-informed GOP observers, is that it really amounts to two primaries in one.

In one primary is Romney — and to a MUCH lesser extent former Utah governor Jon Huntsman — who are competing for the establishment wing of the state’s GOP. These are voters who prize electability over all other factors and who gave Arizona Sen. John McCain 33 percent — and a win — in the 2008 South Carolina primary.

Romney is likely to win the lion’s share of those voters whether he spends a dime or $10 million on his South Carolina campaign since, unlike in 2008, he is clearly regarded by the smart set within the GOP as the most electable of the current field. (For why Huntsman isn’t likely to be a major figure in South Carolina, make sure to check out our post from this morning.)

That means Romney probably has a floor of about 30 percent in South Carolina and a ceiling around 35 percent almost no matter what he or his rivals do over the next 11 days.

The second primary is between former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich — and, to a lesser extent, Texas Gov. Rick Perry. This primary is a fight for the mantle of consensus conservative candidate, a title that remains very much up for grabs at the moment.

The central dynamic of the race then is not then Romney versus Santorum/Gingrich/Perry but rather a three-way cage match — yes, the Fix was/is a huge pro wrestling fan — between Santorum vs Gingrich vs Perry.

(There is even a third primary within the primary and that one is where Texas Rep. Ron Paul resides. In South Carolina, Paul has a slightly smaller following than he has shown in Iowa and New Hampshire though they are no less dedicated. Polling suggests Paul is in low double digits at the moment in the Palmetto State.)"

Read the Washington Post, Why South Carolina matters more than New Hampshire.

How Fast Can You React

Reaction time is the elapsed time between the presentation of a sensory stimulus and the subsequent behavioral response.

Shot some sheep and test your reaction time. Click the tranquilizer dart (no aiming necessary) when a sheep leaves the flock and runs for freedom.

Be very careful, this can be addictive.

The Republi-CON Tea Party

"The Tea Party’s influence is diminishing as conservatives seem to be inching toward nominating Mitt Romney," the Republi-con establishment candidate.

Read The New York Times, History vs. the Tea Party, which notes that:

The Tea Party was just "the latest in a cycle of insurgencies on the Republican right," quickly captured by establishment insiders and molded to the party's purpose, doing little more than emphasizing "quixotic crusades" with ""no real plans for reducing government expenditures beyond the conservative pursuit of politics-as-warfare."

Making a Mockery of Republi-CONs

UPDATE III: "Colbert will join forces with former candidate Herman Cain in South Carolina on Friday, hosting an event called 'The Rock Me Like a Herman Cain: South Cain-olina Primary Rally.'" Read Politico, Stephen Colbert's 'South Cain-olina' rally.

UPDATE II: Colbert, with help from Stewart, is also making a mockery of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision that corporations were people. Watch The Daily Show, Colbert Super PAC - Not Coordinating with Stephen Colbert:

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
Get More: Daily Show Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,The Daily Show on Facebook

UPDATE: "Stephen Colbert's 'super PAC' is out with a new ad, this time urging South Carolina voters to pick a candidate who really is on the ballot for Saturday's primary.

The candidate? Herman Cain. No, wait. Why does he look like ... Colbert?"

Read USA Today, Colbert ad urges vote for ... Herman Cain?

And watch the campaign ad:

"Colbert is a serious performer playing a silly character, while the media and political world are deeply silly but pretending to be serious . . .

What makes Mr. Colbert such an ingenious satirist is not just that he exposes political fantasy but that he also takes it to its illogical conclusion. "

Read The New York Times, Beneath a Deeply Silly Campaign, a Deeply Serious Performer.

Nobody is better at mocking the Republi-CONs than Colbert. Remember his roast of Bush at the 2006 White House Correspondents Dinner:

It Takes a Republi-CON to Know a Republi-CON

From BuzzFeed, The Book On Mitt Romney: Here Is John McCain's Entire Opposition Research File, "John McCain's entire, 200-page opposition research file — or 'book' — on Mitt Romney from 2008, the year they were bitter rivals":

The Republi-CON 'Obama's a Socialist' Myth

UPDATE: If Obama is a socialist, so was Reagan. "Obama's tax policy relies on the same progressive approach that has been the cornerstone of American tax policy since the federal government first collected an income tax in 1863, an approach embraced by Republicans and Democrats. It was based on the Tax Act of 1862, which President Abraham Lincoln signed, and which imposed a 'duty of three per centum' on all income over $600, and five percent on income over $10,000.

The idea is that the wealthy pay a larger share of their income because they are more able to afford it. To the extent the government then gives some of the money to the less-wealthy through various programs, you could say the income is being redistributed. But that concept has been embraced by Republicans and Democrats for well over a century.

That's a far cry from true socialism, which is defined as support for 'governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.'

That's enough for us to set the Truth-O-Meter ablaze, but let's dig a little deeper to explore whether Obama's main policies can accurately be called socialism.

Read Politifact, Rick Perry says Barack Obama is a socialist, which finds the claim a Pants on Fire lie.

"[I]f Obama’s [tax] proposal is intended as a huge redistributionist scheme designed to level our society by bringing about government-imposed equality, then it can already been seen as a pretty massive failure." Read the Washington Post, How Obama’s tax hikes would really impact the rich, in three easy charts, one of which shows "what taxes people would pay in 2013 under various tax regimes, when the Obama proposals would take effect":

Plan For Life

From an email:

One evening an old Cherokee told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside people.

He said, "My son, the battle is between two wolves inside us all. One is Evil - It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego. The other is Good - It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith."

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: "Which wolf wins?"

The old Cherokee simply replied, "The one you feed."

What is Your Civic Literacy?

"Are you more knowledgeable than the average citizen? The average score for all 2,508 Americans taking the following test was 49%; college educators scored 55%. Can you do better? Questions were drawn from past ISI surveys, as well as other nationally recognized exams." Take the civic literacy exam.

And post your score in the comments.

How Now NH

UPDATE VI: With 95% of the precincts reporting, the Washington Post reports:

Romney 39.4%
Paul 22.8%
Huntsman 16.8%
Gingrich 9.4%
Santorum 9.3%
Perry 0.7%

UPDATE V: From The New York Times, New Hampshire Primary Overview and Forecast, here is "each candidate’s FiveThirtyEight forecast for New Hampshire along with what the forecast model deems to be his 90 percent confidence interval":

Mitt Romney
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 39 percent
High end of forecast range: 47 percent
Low end of forecast range: 27 percent
. . .

Ron Paul
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 19 percent
High end of forecast range: 27 percent
Low end of forecast range: 11 percent
. . .

Jon M. Huntsman Jr.
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 17 percent
High end of forecast range: 26 percent
Low end of forecast range: 9 percent
. . .

Rick Santorum
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 12 percent
High end of forecast range: 20 percent
Low end of forecast range: 6 percent
. . .

Newt Gingrich
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 11 percent
High end of forecast range: 19 percent
Low end of forecast range: 5 percent
. . .

Rick Perry
538 forecast (most likely outcome): 1 percent
High end of forecast range: 3 percent
Low end of forecast range: 0 percent

UPDATE IV: And the day before the NH primary, the FiveThirtyEight NH forecast model predicts:

Romney with 39.3%, and a vote range of 26-49%

Paul with 19.4%, and a vote range of 10-29%

Huntsman with 15.6%, and a vote range of 7-26%

Santorum with 12.1%, and a vote range of 5-21%

Gingrich with 11.3%, and a vote range of 4-20%, and

Perry with 1.4%, and a vote range of 0-3%.

The forecasts "are formulated from an average of recent surveys, with adjustments made to account for a polling firm's accuracy, freshness of a poll and each candidate's momentum. Although this improves accuracy, there is still considerable uncertainty in the forecast as is reflected in the range of possible vote totals for each candidate."


UPDATE III: From The New York Times, New Hampshire Debates: Five Things to Watch:

"Six Republican candidates will gather Saturday night for a two-hour debate sponsored by ABC News, Yahoo and WMUR-TV. Ten hours later, they will reconvene, this time on the set of NBC‘s “Meet the Press” program for another debate.

The twin face-offs have the potential to be the highest-stakes events in a campaign that has been shaped by debate performances. And for these debates, there will be no net — New Hampshire voters will vote less than two days later, giving candidates little time to recover from a blunder.

With new polls showing Mr. Romney maintaining his wide lead in New Hampshire, his rivals are all but certain to aim their attacks at him. But Mr. Romney has proven himself to be a skilled debater in this campaign and is no doubt preparing for the expected onslaught.

Here are five things to watch for during the debates:

1. NEWT UNLEASHED . . .

2. SANTORUM IN THE SPOTLIGHT . . .

3. HUNTSMAN’S LAST STAND? . . .

4. NO MORE 'OOPS' . . .

5. PAUL’S ATTACKS . . ."


UPDATE II: "Independents are a finicky and fickle bunch. They are deeply dissatisfied with the direction of the country, with an overwhelming majority saying things are badly off track. Social issues do not concern them. Many of them voted for President Obama.

And now, this critical voting bloc — which makes up as much as 45 percent of the New Hampshire electorate — is about to take center stage. If the Iowa contest exposed the conflicted mood and sharp divisions within the GOP, then New Hampshire will offer a broader snapshot of a hard-to-pin-down sliver of the electorate that has an outsize impact on elections, particularly in this swing state."

Read the Washington Post, Independents represent a major unknown in the N.H. primary.

"The Iowa caucuses answered some questions — no, Michele Bachmann isn’t going to be president — but raised lots and lots of others.

As the race moves to New Hampshire (Jan. 10) and then South Carolina (Jan. 21), here’s a look at five key questions — the answers to which will tell us a lot about the shape of the race going forward.

1. Does Newt Gingrich go on a kamikaze mission? . . .

2. Can Rick Santorum stand the heat? . . .

3. How much more money does Restore Our Future have? . . .

4. Does Rick Perry stay viable? . . .

5. Do conservatives unite? . . ."

Read the Washington Post, The 5 key questions of the Republican presidential race.

Romney: It's 'Party Ideology Politics and Obstructionism First'

"[C]utting through Mr. Romney’s expensive armor and exposing the hollow core within. Read The New York Times, Huntsman's "Country First" Slogan.

Economic Stimulus Told Ya So, Again

On December 12, 2008, more than three years ago I (and a few others) suggested mortgage refinancing as an economic stimulus for Main Streeters. And I suggested it again in February 2009, and yet again several other times over the years.

Guess what the big-shot economist are suggesting now. Read the Washington Post, By promoting mortgage refinancing, Obama could win big, which notes:

"From 2001 to 2003, Glenn Hubbard served as President George W. Bush’s chief economist. Today, he’s dean of Columbia University’s School of Business and one of Mitt Romney’s top economic advisers. But right now, the candidate who could most benefit from his advice is President Obama.

Hubbard is an advocate for using Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to set off a nationwide wave of mortgage refinancing. In a paper co-authored with Columbia economist Christopher Mayer, Hubbard estimates that more than 75 percent of the homeowners with 30-year mortgages backed by Fannie or Freddie are paying interest rates higher than 5 percent. But for the past two years, interest rates have been closer to 4 percent. That means tens of millions of Americans are paying more than they need to every single month. . .

The effect on the economy would be twofold: First, the refinancings would act like a high-powered tax cut for those homeowners who took advantage of them. As Hubbard and Mayer write, 'Empirical evidence suggests that consumers spend a larger portion of permanent increases in income than temporary increases.' And as these refinancings would lower payments, they’re as permanent as you can get in government policy. Second, it would make the Fed’s efforts to keep interest rates low more effective in stimulating the economy."

Better late than never I suppose, but is it too late for Obama?

From the Pensacola Streets of 'Deaths and Drugs'

UPDATE: "Warrington is rife with violence, drugs and poverty -- deadly realities for those who live in the heavily wooded area just southwest of Pensacola, Fla. The Alabama junior tailback is lucky to have escaped it, but others haven't been so fortunate.

Last year, three of Richardson's friends were murdered."

Read FOX Sports, Richardson won't turn back on his roots.

"Trent Richardson went to the same high school as Emmitt Smith, who calls Richardson 'the best running-back prospect in a long time.'" Read The New York Times, With Family as Foundation, Alabama’s Richardson Perseveres.

Given his comment, I'm not sure the city will make him an honorary mayor any time soon.

Maybe if he makes it big he can use some of his wealth and fame to make Pensacola a better place.

The Republi-CON 'Classless Merit-Based Society' Myth

UPDATE: "Americans are much more likely than citizens of other nations to believe that they live in a meritocracy. But this self-image is a fantasy: as a report in The Times last week pointed out, America actually stands out as the advanced country in which it matters most who your parents were, the country in which those born on one of society’s lower rungs have the least chance of climbing to the top or even to the middle.

And if you ask why America is more class-bound in practice than the rest of the Western world, a large part of the reason is that our government falls down on the job of creating equal opportunity. . .

So where is the evidence that Mr. Romney or his party actually believes in equal opportunity? Judging by their actions, they seem to prefer a society in which your station in life is largely determined by that of your parents — and in which the children of the very rich get to inherit their estates tax-free. Teddy Roosevelt would not have approved."

Read The New York Times, America’s Unlevel Field.

Republi-CON assertions to the contrary, "Europe’s social democracies now fit the description of 'merit-based opportunity societies' much more than ours does.

The best way to measure a nation’s merit-based status is to look at its intergenerational economic mobility: Do children move up and down the economic ladder based on their own abilities, or does their economic standing simply replicate their parents’? Sadly, as the American middle class has thinned out over recent decades, the idea of America as the land of opportunity has become a farce. As a paper by Julia Isaacs of the Brookings Institution has shown, sons’ earnings approximate those of their fathers about three times more frequently in the United States than they do in Denmark, Norway and Finland, and about 11 / 2 times more frequently than they do in Germany. The European social democracies — where taxes, entitlements and the rate of unionization greatly exceed America’s — are demonstrably more merit-based than the United States."

Read the Washington Post, No longer the land of opportunity.

As a result of the study, "researchers have reached a conclusion that turns conventional wisdom on its head: Americans enjoy less economic mobility than their peers in Canada and much of Western Europe. . .

Despite frequent references to the United States as a classless society, about 62 percent of Americans (male and female) raised in the top fifth of incomes stay in the top two-fifths, according to research by the Economic Mobility Project of the Pew Charitable Trusts. Similarly, 65 percent born in the bottom fifth stay in the bottom two-fifths. . .

While liberals often complain that the United States has unusually large income gaps, many conservatives have argued that the system is fair because mobility is especially high, too: everyone can climb the ladder. Now the evidence suggests that America is not only less equal, but also less mobile."

Read The New York Times, Harder for Americans to Rise From Lower Rungs.