Facts is Facts (and Open Thread)

 

"White Lies" - Jason and the Scorchers

The only kind of lies Mitt Romney knows how to tell.

I was enjoying the destruction of the execrable Washington Post "fact checker" Glenn Kessler today.  Kessler is the clown who specializes in giving "four Pinnocchios" to Democrats whenever they land a particular effective blow against Republicans.  His most recent atrocity has been his contention that the Obama campaign lied when it claims that Romney continued to have involvement with Bain Capital after putatively leaving the company in 1999. When it came to light that SEC filings for 2000-2002 show Romney as the CEO, Chairman of the Board, and sole stockholder of Bain, Kessler nonetheless persisted in backing Romney.  Kessler is being hammered all over the internet for his obduracy.

I had my own little tango with Kessler over his mendacity about the Ryan "Medicare Reform" proposal a little while ago.  He is living proof that this whole "fact checking" phenomenon is an absolute and utter failure and newspapers would be better dropping the whole thing. 

More importantly, I think Mitt Romney is showing a really poor ability to deal with the heat on this issue.  He is coming off as an arrogant, entitled asshole -- probably because it is.  He also seems -- what do you know -- like a guy who will say whatever is expedient for his purposes at any given time.  I expect the Obama campaign to continue bringing the heat, not backing off the Bain stuff for a minute, while also hammering Romney on his taxes.  Mitt's hoped for apology from Obama -- I don't see that happening.

What do you think?

 

 

Comments

[low-tech cyclist]

Kessler:

[T]he language saying [in 2000, 2001, and 2002 that] Romney was “sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president” was boilerplate… there is no standard definition of a “chief executive”… no requirement for anyone to have any responsibilities even if they have that title…

Maybe. But if Romney ceded the responsibilities of chairman of the board, chief executive officeer, and president of Bain to Dallas Alice, Betty Boop, and Joe Shmoe, respectively, then track down Alice, Betty, and Joe, and interview them about their roles in managing Bain during the 1999-2002 period.

The argument that there is little solid evidence that Romney WAS running Bain during 1999-2002 is bullshit: it was his toy, he owned it, he held all the positions of responsibility, and the default assumption is that he was in charge until someone else clearly took over.

It should be pretty easy, really, for the MSM to find that person or persons. This is a routine task for a newspaper reporter who's been on the job more than six months. Until Glenn Kessler finds them and gets their stories on the record, he's not checking facts in any meaningful sense.

[Corvus]

Andrew Sullivan has been doing really good work on this issue. Credit where due.

Also, how can you own an entire company and not be responsible for what it does? That's what being the sole stickholder means, right? You're the owner. Forget CEO and president for a moment, aren't you responsible for what a company does if you're the owner?

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Anpther person who has been doing a great job of this has been AzBlueMeanie at Blog for Arizpna. He's done a similar take down of Kessler's reporting from a slightly different angle:

Kessler dismisses the SEC documents discussed in the Boston Globe report as just "boilerplate": "much of the language saying Romney was 'sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president' was boilerplate that did not reveal whether he was actually managing Bain at the time."

The point of Kessler's fact check is parsing between "operational control" and "legal" control. For Kessler, he finds that Romney was not engaged in making the day-to-day "operational control" decisions of Bain Capital or its managed companies during the 1999-2002 period reported by the Boston Globe. His conclusion is based almost entirely on statements from the Romney campaign and from Bain Capital, and the 2002 Massachusetts Ballot Law Commission report that certified that Romney could run for governor.

Kessler concedes that "The SEC documents, especially the ones Romney signed, do raise some questions. One can certainly argue that because Romney did not fully extricate himself from Bain till after his Olympic sojourn ended, he should bear some responsibility for what happened in that period." This would be Romney's "legal" control of Bain Capital and its managed companies.

Such parsing between "operational control" and "legal" control is irrelevant to an attorney. If I am going to sue Bain Capital or one of its managed companies, who am I going to name in the complaint? I am going to name Bain Capital and the "sole stockholder, chairman of the board, chief executive officer, and president" of the company, because that is who is legally liable. it does not matter one iota to me whether Romney turned over the "operational control" of the company to his business associates, his sons, or his secretary in the steno pool. He is the party that is accountable. This is how voters should view this also.

I have another slant as well. There seem to have been a number of statements and testimonies given 'under pain of perjury' including the SEC filings, the testimony at the 'residency hearings' in 2002 and the documents filed -- which seem to differ from each other -- the filings last year with the Electoral Commission, plus, i would assume, various statements in portfolios and the like. And i think I've missed at least one.

I think if the statements were gathered together -- no one's done that so far as I know -- with the exact quotes, it would be impossible to construct a narrative that didn't show some contradiction so strong that one or the other of matching statements would have to be perjurious.

Then there is the question of the returns, but that is separate.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On the tax returns, the Obama campaign has demonstrated its own skill at dressage with Mitt playing the part of Rafalca. It's a beautiful routine, and the horse is dancing just the way they want him to.

“If the SEC filings aren’t accurate, then prove it,” Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter told reporters on Thursday. “If he wasn’t investing millions of dollars in shell corporations, tax havens, Swiss bank accounts overseas to gain a tax advantage, then prove it. Prove it by releasing your tax returns.”

And, of course, this makes the hoofs prance, predictably:

Likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney says he'll only release to the public one more tax return — and not until his accountants complete it.

Romney tells CNN he's complied with the law by filing a financial disclosure statement.

Romney so far has released one complete tax filing, for 2010, along with an estimate for 2011. He filed for an extension for his 2011 tax return.

Democrats are accusing Romney of being secretive and taking advantage of tax loopholes that aren't available to average Americans. The former Massachusetts governor has also come under attack for accounts he has held in Switzerland, the Cayman Islands and Bermuda.

Then the orchestra splits, with the left side playing 'whadja got to hide, Mr. Money?' and the right playing into it with:

The chief of the House Republicans' campaign arm said Thursday it was "fair game" for people to ask for more information about GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney's personal financial records.

"His personal finances, the way he does things, his record, are fair game," Texas Republican Pete Sessions told CNN.

[snip]

Sessions declined to specify what level of detail or how many years worth of tax records Romney should release, but called it a "legitimate question." He emphasized that any disclosure should be confined to the candidate himself – not his extended family.

And as the orchestra plays and the horse dances, the judges will give the rider full credit, both for forcing 'the horse' into a magnificently compromising position, and then, having gotten all they could out of the pose, using the Republicans to force him to release the returns after all -- at a time when all the talk will make even truly innocent 'tax breaks' look suspicious.

[Morzer]

If Mittens wasn't operationally involved, why did he make a point of how he continued to attend Bain meetings during the period in question, flying back for them when he could, but attending by phone when he couldn't be there physically? Sounds like operational control and decision-making to me.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

But even the Obama campaign couldn't have counted on the gift of the 'Condi goof.' And it was that.

It was an obvious ploy to distract people from the Bain story, and a 'way to regain credibility with the middle.' There was never any real chance Romney would pick Condi, but he figured suggesting it, getting the buzz going, and then -- as he was sure she would -- having her turn down the offer would get him out of it.

Errrr...

Oops!

There had seemed to be one group that Romney had in his pocket, and that was the racists. We might argue as to how much of the hardcore Obama hatred is racist, but whether it is 20% or 60% it is there. And it seemed unshakeable, since there was no way Obama was suddenly going to turn white.

And a lot of that support was also Christian Conservative -- the type that believes that women should never lead men.

But even stronger are the anti-abortion forces, the Stupak or Blunt Amendment types.

None of these groups exactly loved Romney, not after the flip flops, the attacks from Santorum and Gingrich, the quotes from his "Massachusetts Moderate" performance and the earlier quotes from the anti-Kennedy campaign -- and some of them were still bothered by the "Mormon thing", but they had two choices, vote for him or stay home.

But 'maybe, if we're lucky, we can run the trial balloon up, get all the pundits saying what a great choice she'd be' get a week's worth of distraction out of it, and then she'll regretfully refuse.'

"The Susan B. Anthony List said what!

Then the liberals and centrists began pointing out that Condi was a pretty bad SofS, and a very bad adviser, and gloating how her pick would give them a chance to reopen the whole question of George Bush's foreign policy, so 'bring her on.'

Condi herself kept repeating that she wouldn't take it, but it wasn't the dignified refusal that Romney had hoped for. The bubble lasted about 15 hours before Romney had to walk it back and say it wouldn't be Condi, but he didn't come out as the strong leader he hoped to be seen as.

And between the trial balloon and Ann's comment that he 'was considering a woman and I'd like to see that' the speculation that had been previously devoted only to male candidates -- the "Palin example" assuring that -- has been rewidened to include women, and, in fact, it may even be more likely than not that Romney will ask for a woman to be nominated -- remember, those delegates in Tampa may be bound to Romney but they aren't bound to his VP choice and can pick someone else -- and this year I'd put the odds at only 3 to 1 against them doing just that.

But now the list includes Kelly Ayotte ("Sen. Ayotte, why did you campaign on taking a NH anti-abortion law to SCOTUS and winning, when in fact SCOTUS ruled against you and the state had to pay half a million dollars for your hopeless fight?) Then there is Meg Whitman, Susana Martinez -- right, a scandal-plagued Hispanic Governor of an ungettable blue state -- Nikki Haley (vetoer of HPV vaccination funding and closer of domestic abuse centers) and the incredible Mary Fallin.

But somehow, Romney will right the ship, gather all those invisible voters out there and make it close.

[Jim S]

It seems that the Romney campaign and the folks doing the fact checking are depending on technicalities. I doubt that most people will care for the distinctions they are drawing and will still believe that if you are the sole owner and CEO of a company that you are responsible for what it does. And frankly, even if you do agree with them, don't you have to wonder about taking 3 years to get this straightened out? Is it really that common for a change in ownership/management to take that long? I've never heard of it, personally.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Jim S: Most voters wouldn't understand anything about the distinctions Romney is making, or the legal wriggling he's doing --but are they his audience? He seems to be trying more to reach the 'chattering class' who he hopes will fall for his 'parsing' and then pass his version on.

And AzBlueMeanie makes a very good case that it is working ... for now. I'll quote AzBM without the documents he quotes to back him up.

Not one of these reproters came prepared for their interview with Romney. Not one of these reporters had a copy of the trial transcript from the Massachusetts ballot challenge in 2002...

Not one of these reporters had a copy of Romney's 2011 public financial disclosure form, sworn under pain of perjury...

Not one of these reporters presented the documentary evidence and asked Romney the key question: "In your 2002 trial testimony, you indicated that you left Bain Capital in 2002, but in your 2011 public financial disclosure form, under penalty of perjury, you state that you left Bain Capital in February 1999. Both sworn statements cannot be true. Were you lying to qualify for the Massachusetts ballot in 2002, or are you lying now?" (Lawyers love this question).

But the story has been big for what, aboy three days, and it has alewadt hurt Mittens baaadly. Give it time and Obama's push, and it will be a lot stronger.

[Linkmeister]

I'm hoping Mittens will come out with the phrase "controlling legal authority," just to see if our illustrious media will mock him as much as it did Al Gore when he used the term.

[low-tech cyclist]

Prup - no doubt Mitt's playing to the Beltway pundits. But it's getting to the point where the Villagers are simply sacrificing what remains of their beyond-the-Beltway audience in the service of bullshit evenhandedness.

If they keep telling America stuff that America simply won't buy - that Bain doesn't matter, that its outsourcing and offshoring don't matter, that Romney's income taxes don't matter, that his offshore tax shelters don't matter, that his $100 million IRA doesn't matter, that whether he's lying now about responsibility for Bain, or whether he was lying back in 2002 about it doesn't matter - Americans are going to register the George Wills and David Brookses of the world as feeding them incomprehensible gibberish, and just start tuning them out.

Meanwhile, Obama's ads about Romney will be playing in Ohio and Wisconsin and Michigan, and they'll make sense to people, and the pundits won't.

This, by the way, is shaping up as an absolutely classic instance of winning an election by defining the other guy before he's bothered to define himself. In that way, in addition to the ways Sir Charles discussed in his post a few days ago, 2012 seems very much to be 2004 with colors reversed.

[Joe S]

LTC, I think this stuff plays pretty well to the people outside the beltway who listen to David Brooks and George Will. 40-70 year old Whites who are doing well want a reason not to treat Romney as a total fraud and want reasons to blame this generation for not doing well. Brooks and Will and Kessler give them that. Nobody else cares.

[nancy]

Several cans of worms could be reopened with the Bain stuff. Here's a report from the SLTribune about what Mitt did or did not do with the Olympics. "Romney: Olympic Savior or Opportunist?" The comments (date to February 2012) are somewhat revealing re role Mitt played, the LDS role, pre-Olympics corruption, etc. It was a somewhat provincial mess that needed an all- hands-on deck serious fix for sure. But Mitt played the new reassuring face as much as anything. One commenter:

I can't speak for all 26,000 volunteers who gave up time, money, family time, and jumped from workshift to workshift on a no-notice basis BUT .... many in my venue were angered by Mitt.We were told to make our area "presentable" as it could be, because Mitt was coming to thank us!

After days of nasty, throw-away food (we couldn't bring in our own) ... we saw silver trays being carried by caterers, right down the hall! Wow - we're going to a party and being thanked!

Then, a commotion. A security detail, some guys in suits, and there he was! Mitt! Striding quickly down the hall, not looking right or left at the volunteers ... just following the fancy catered food trays.

He went into a special room where he greeted a very few special people--and then he left out another door, followed by the fancy catered food trays.

He never said "thank you" to us. He didn't even want to look at us! We never heard what he said in the special room, we just went back to work. And at break time, went to the cafeteria for more of the donated "throwaway" food that was missing ingredients. Peach cobbler without peaches, chicken pie only half full because they forgot the chicken. We were fed garbage.

But Mitt. He got his silver tray food.

Guy is hopeless. This is the guy who didn't care for the quality of the cookies he was offered in PA I believe. Joe S -- I think people do care. Tone-deaf, oblivious and ungracious. It's deep.

As for the Bain salary and his continued CEOdom, I rather imagine Mitt saw himself as being on permanent "retainer." With the continued CEO salary package as making perfect sense until he was ready to make his next move as permanent resident of Massachusetts.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

nancy: I think Joe meant that Brooks and Will's bloviation didn't matter to anyone else, not that Romney or Bain didn't.

But, Joe, the group you mentioned -- weren't they already Romney voters? All Will and Brooks are doing is lessening the losses Romney will suffer, pure damage control. There is no way they can spin this part of the Bain story into a positive, can use it to attract new votes to Romney.

And there is an even more important priblem for Romney. Now that this has surfaced, now that the questions of perjury are out there, and the whole question of post-1999 Bain actions is open to scrutinty, Romney has to be very careful as to how he uses Bain. It's no longer a pure positive.

(The comparison to Kerry is very apt -- Dave Weigel calls this a 'swift-yachting' of Romney -- except for one main thing. The Romney story is true, it isn't a Republican-style slander. But the effect is the same. Kerry saw his service record as his strongest plus, and all of a sudden he had to put "John Kerry, reporting for duty!" away.)

And that is vital, because Bain was his only positive. He can't run on his record as Governor. He was a pretty mediocre Governor, at best, certainly not with accomplishments that will sway a whole lot of independents to his side. And his accomplishments weren't the sort he wants his base to look too closely at, or they'll ask why he's 'better than Obama,' with the nomination of gay judges, the initiation of 'Obamacare Beta-test version,' etc.

He's not going to get many voters with his personality, his warmth, or his 'beer-worthiness.' (I still insist, but won't argue about it, that he has already turned off a lot of people subtly, people like dog-lovers, or people who have been bullied, or people who have had run-ins with the 'Preppy rich" and that this will keep a lot of people from the effort of going to the polls, or waiting on line, even if they don't realize that's why they are holding back.)

Which meant he had only one thing that could take him 'outside the base' -- outside the people who were primarily voting 'against Obama' whoever the candidate was -- and that was his record at Bain.

[nancy]

Thanks Prup. Sure you're right. Long hot day not translating especially well.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Henry Blodget at Business Insider has two columns on Romney's taxes, what he expects to be found there -- he presumes it will be legal, but making every use of the available loopholes. The first one deals with the taxes as a whole, and here's a summary:

For what it's worth, my guess is that what Romney is hiding in his tax returns is not something that is clearly illegal or dishonest, but, simply the following reality:

Romney has made hundreds of millions of dollars

He has paid very little of that (on a percentage basis) in taxes

He has made hundreds of millions of dollars in part because he has structured most of his income in ways that enable him to pay the least amount of taxes possible

This "structuring" of income has likely taken full advantage of things like the ludicrous "carried interest" tax exemption that allows private-equity investors to pay capital gains taxes on income that is actually fees [This tax treatment is one of the most outrageous and unfair elements in the entire tax code. There is no logical basis for it, and it benefits only the richest people in the country.]

This "structuring" has also likely taken advantage of offshore accounts, the contribution of hard-to-value securities at low valuations to Romney's IRA (whereupon they exploded in value), and other sophisticated tools. These tools are, theoretically, available to anyone, but, in practice, are available only to those with tens of thousands of dollars to spend every year on tax-and-estate planning.

This structuring, which (let's be honest) is done primarily to avoid paying taxes,[emphasis in original] will look bad to most Americans, who will know instinctively that it's done to avoid paying taxes and that it's not something they will ever be able to afford to do--and, therefore, will seem unfair.

The second article, here just concentrates on one particular piece of 'financial engineering' -- how, when IRAs were limited to contributions of $2,000 a year, did Romney's wind up with $100 million in his. (No, I'm not going to summarize it, because I can't. It's tricky and 'legitimate' and people will hate him for it.)

[low-tech cyclist]

he had only one thing that could take him 'outside the base' -- outside the people who were primarily voting 'against Obama' whoever the candidate was -- and that was his record at Bain.

And now, as you say, that's gone.

I think he'll still do at least as well as McCain, simply because we're in a place as a nation where 46% will vote for any semi-presentable Republican. It's just that his chances of upping that even to 49% are vanishingly small, barring an economic disaster or a terrorist attack* between now and Election Day.

*Despite the reality that Obama has been far more effective against al-Qaeda than Bush and Cheney were, the awareness of that still hasn't penetrated very far with most voters. A terrorist attack during a GOP administration would even now produce a rally-round-the-prez effect, while a terrorist attack during a Dem administration would just mean we need a GOP daddy to protect us. This is true for the chattering classes and most remaining persuadable voters alike.

The persistence of these memes is one of the most disturbing things about our politics. The Dems have been the fiscally responsible party, and the GOP the fiscally irresponsible party, for 35 years now. But most people would tell you it's the other way around. Including most of the Villagers, which is a good part of the problem right there.

[low-tech cyclist]

Totally off the thread topic, but tangentially related to my last comment in a way, I was listening to the "Beauty Shop" segment of NPR's "Tell Me More" on Wednesday afternoon as I was driving between meetings, when one of the participants, Mary Kate Cary of U.S. News and World Report, floored me by saying of Romney, "He's got some openings, I think, with the Catholics in the swing states when we talk about the Affordable Care Act and the HHS Mandate for free abortion services."

Never heard of Mary Kate Cary before, but apparently she's not above telling baldfaced lies, even on topics that are at most tangential to the point she's making. It's always good to know this, in case her name ever pops up again.

What was just as bothersome was, no one stopped and said, "Wait, what?" when she said this. It just slipped on by in the conversation on NPR, while I was yelling, "What the fucking fuck?!" at my radio while driving down the highway. If I hadn't been in a hurry to get to my next meeting (I'd left the first meeting early to get to the second one on time; it was one of those kinds of days) I'd have called in to the show just to point out that the Hyde Amendment is still very much in effect.

But apparently, in that glorious right-wing universe where you're entitled to your own set of facts as well as your own opinions, one of the facts going around is that due to Obama, there's a HHS mandate for free abortion services.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

And, l-tc, I think you are still wildly overestimating Romney's chances. I could probably take all morning just listing the factors that make even a McCain-like 46% far beyond his reach, without explaining them. Instead I'll just mention three in detail. But before I do, let's look at the "GOP Dddy" idea. Agreed, if the candidate were, or could be portrayed as, "Ozzie Nelson" or even "Ricky Ricardo" but I don't think people would vote for Homer Simpson, Al Bundy, or (the best example, if you watch cable and ROYAL PAINS) Eddie R. Lawson -- all 'dads.' And that's the type of respect Romney will have pretty soon. And there is absolutely nothing in his life or background that even implies that he would have the faintest idea what to do in a terror emergency, and no cadre of advisors standing by to give 'adult supervision' the way W had. (We might consider Cheney, Rumsfeld, Bolton and the neo-cons horrors, but they at least had some feel for how you operate or can operate, in a foreign policy crisis. Romney doesn't have anyone to hold his hand and whisper in his ear -- in this area -- that anyone, even Republicans, have an equivalent respect for.)

But let's look at three other factors that will keep driving Romney's numbers down. And the first is a new one, even for me, his lack of experience in Republican politics, his lack of a circle of friends bound to him through gratitude, or the joint memory of a fight they shared, even the long history of connection to a specific state base. Romney has no one like that at all.

He's never, afaik, intervened in a Congressional, Senatorial or Gubernatorial race. There's nobody who can say "I'll be there for Mitt, because I remember when he was there for me." There's no one who owes his seat, or even a primary victory, to Mitt.

Legislative service makes friendships, even across party and ideological lines (Kennedy and Hatch, Obama and Coburn, McCain and Finegold). The long, close association can give people respect for each other, can give them the unity of shared problems -- not even political ones, even the problems two Senators share with getting their offices painted can make a small bond. Romney has none of this, no legislators who remember any experiences with him. (And only two Republican Governors, Mitch Daniels and Dave Heineman, even shared time with him in the Republican Governors Alliance -- and extra credit for anyone who knows what state Heineman is from. I wouldn't have without checking the list. Not exactly a 'powerful player.')

I am, in fact, unable to think of any Republican office holders who are a part of the Romney's 'Social Circle' -- I don't mean 'make duty calls at the same Washington Cocktail Parties.'

There are no Republican politicians who have ties to Romney of a personal level, shared experience, gratitude, loyalty, even ties to the family (as with GWB). The last time that was true about a Republican Candidate, his name was Dewey. He lost.

That's one factor. The next two in the next comment.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

The second factor is the 'cascade effect.' Once someone starts becoming perceived as a loser, supporters stop working so hard for him, which incrases the perception, which means more people stop working, which...

This won't just affect voting, people not willing to spend time on line in a fruitless cause. It will affect all the aspects of a campaign, volunteers, GOTV, getting the message out, having the punditry or your favorite candidate to quote in support of the candidate. For that matter how many preachers are going to hold back on their 'support the Republicans as God wants you to' sermons if they know that God ain't going to reward the congregation with a victory.

Maybe even more importantly, it's going to effect contributions. Even members of the .1% are not used to throwing money away -- other than in Veblenesque 'conspicuous consumption' -- so they are going to reach a point where the checkbooks are closed to the sure loser. (I've already seen some hints of this happening.) And even if they are still writing checks, there are going to be a lot of down-ballot candidates who realize they are getting no coattail-boost from Mittens and they better get their own money, and they are going to be sitting next to the Romneymen, equally begging for checks.

And I have seen several polls recemntly where even many Romney voters are saying that Obama will win and win big. (I've been arguing for months that the Republican Establishment has alrady decided that, but even if I was wrong, certainly now they are moving in that direction and will be there before the convention.)

And that is the final point. the convention will be a cicus. Boehner can't even control House Members, how can he or anyone control the TP newcomers among the delegates. And then there are the Paulistas. One under-covered story has been the number of Republican caucus states where Paulistas got themselves chosen as Romney delegates -- simply by sticking around longer than the others, who left after the voting. Amd Paulistas have taken over other party organizations. They are going to create a lot of mischief on their own, along with and in opposition to the TPers.

And then they will write a Platform. And that should be hilarious on its own -- especially if you see some of the state platforms already written. (And I wonder if some of the Paulistas are going to argue that the candidate must make a public avowal of support from the platform, and oh my what will Mittie do then?)

And remember that these delegates may be bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, but they aren't bound to vote the way he suggests on anything else, not even the VP nomination.

It will be a riotous week in Tampa -- and this time not only the hookers will be preparing for extra business, with the Paulistas coming, so should the smoke dealers. (With the smoke, the hookers, and the guns -- which Tampa is forbidden from banning or even asking about by Fla state law -- there almost certainly will be at least one messy, dirty, ugly, or horrifying event that will mark the convention.)

And if you wonder why that is so important, remember that both the Goldwater and McGivern debacles were, of not started, considerably hastened by an out-of-control convention.

46%? 'fraid not. If the first number is 4, that will be better than I expect.

[see you all later, after the Mets and a nap, if I get a chance before the cat box. (Next three days are back in the oven, want it out of the way.)]

[Morzer]

"46%? 'fraid not. If the first number is 4, that will be better than I expect."

I don't think much of Romney as a politician (or, frankly, a human being) but this analysis is simply not realistic. We know, from poll after poll, that there is a solid Republican/teabagger base that hates Obama passionately. They may not find the Kama Sutra Candidate Mitt Of The Thousand Positions very much to their taste, but organized hatred will bring them to the polls. Obama's peak year in 2008 saw him hit 52.9%, when dislike of Bush was at a high. Now, we have a juddering economy, Obama's ratings have dropped off and the GOP have spent years getting the rubes riled up about socialism, free abortions, compulsory exercise and anything else that malice or lunacy could bring to mind. I can't see ANY way in which Obama is going to perform better than in 2008, which is what Prup's analysis implies. We have five months to go and now is not the time to declare victory. It's going to be an incredibly unpleasant campaign and we need to organize, organize and organize some more to make sure we avoid disaster.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Morzer: We definitely DO "need to organize, organize and organize some more" but to get every Senatorial and Congressional seat we can -- and, ideally, even scaring some 'sure winners' into working harder than they thought. (And 'hey, ya never know.')

The White House has Romney well in hand -- and let's be honest, our 'organizing' doesn't have much effect on the Presidential contest. When we spend our time on that -- all we do is cheer each other on and talk among ourselves.

But we can make serious waves in the Congress -- and did, see 2006 AND 2008, where we were the difference in any number of races. We have a great group of candidates for the Senate -- okay, a few not so great, but nothing like the squad of Deadly Dullmess we ran last time. There's Heitkamp, Berkeley, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Baldwin, and Richard Carmona -- and all of them are running even or better already. But they need buzz, they need support, they need the sort of opposition research the blogosphere is best equipped to do. (Remember how even a week of concentrating on Komen seriously wounded them? A lot of us had pieces of the puzzle, the blogosphere gave us a chance to put them together. We can do the same for a lot of Republicans, getting the word out on their weaknesses and our strengths -- but not if we spend our time inside our own 'salons' keeping our 'superior knowledge and wisdom' to ourselves where it will be 'properly appreciated.)

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

As for your argument about how it will 'still be close' these were the same arguments i heard -- and even made -- during the McGovern campaign. We had the Revolutionary Youth Movements -- our Tea Parties -- we had a much longer history of Democrats hating Nixon, twenty years or more -- and with much better reason -- and we have the Humphrey base to build on. Okay, we weren't favorites, but we sure as hell would come close. And McGovern even had a record, in the House, Senate, and Kennedy's Cabinet. He'd even won over a 'deep red state.'

Same arguments. Same mistakes -- including not realizing that the 'movement' we'd watched had already started waning.

Same result.

[Morzer]

"The White House has Romney well in hand"

We are five months out. It makes no sense to assume this sort of thing.

"these were the same arguments i heard -- and even made -- during the McGovern campaign"

I am sorry, but this sort of generalized analogy could be used to argue anything - and it would still be an empty argument. Just remember that Republicans have been arguing that this race is Reagan against Carter.

I am optimistic that Obama will win, but I can't see anything in the polls or the demographics of the race that justifies talk of certainty or a landslide where Romney polls below 40% nationally. The state polls certainly don't suggest that sort of margin, nor do the national trackers.

[jeanne marie]

Of course this is just anecdotal, but the Facebook comments regarding the recent Obama visit in Roanoke were disheartening. Mocking the several thousand folks who stood in line to get to see the president were comments like "Maybe these people are lining up for a handout" and about the Secret Service telling the owner of a local small biscuit joint to avoid looking out her windows, "Well *name* you are considered somewhat wealthy so he could want one of your windows to give to some lazy ass that won't work." and "Socialism. They tell you not to look out your window when you own the window."

And these are Facebook friends. (yikes)

It's not just Obama, they hate hate hate the lazy immoral liberal Democrats. They proudly wear the bumper sticker "Thank a Republican. We work so you don't have to."

Sadly, the politics of resentment is alive and well in Roanoke, Virginia.

PS Obama was wonderful and the crowd that gathered to see him was enthusiastic.

[Morzer]

@jeanne marie

Speaking purely for myself, if I were the candidate, I'd rather have several thousand good people actually show up than get some dumb comments made on Facebook by a handful of malicious jackasses.

[Bill H]

Morsel, I have tried... Obama loyalists are convinced that even after having thoroughly alienated his base, Obama is actually going to fare better in the polls in 2012 than he did in 2008. If I were as dedicated to him winning as they claim to be, I would be crying "danger, he might lose" and trying to get out the vote, but they all seem to feel that complacency serves his cause better. I'm not sure why that seems logical.

[nancy]

OT. Huh? Bruce's encore silenced. It was 10 minutes past the curfew...of 10:30.

Looks like no one is above the law at Hyde Park. Even Sir Paul. :)

jeanne marie, That's quite depressing. Kind of a particularly nasty American twist on schadenfreude.

[Morzer]

Well, Bill, I can see that you might be trying. Looks a little desperate to abuse another poster's name, don't you think? Not the conduct of a gentleman, frankly.

[Joe S]

Since this is an open thread, and I really don't want to talk about the election and you all know my opinion anyway, has anybody heard the new Neneh Cherry album with her new band "Cherry Thing" ? All I can say is wow, just wow.

Neneh Cherry used to hang around on the bus with Ornette Coleman and Miles Davis when her dad played with those musicians. Some of the genius must have rubbed off, because that is one hot album. Best mix of punk and jazz since the Minutemen.

[Morzer]

http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j116/fogiv/olaugh.jpg

If you wanted a nice take on Mittens' "demand" for an apology.

[low-tech cyclist]

What Atrios said.

[Sir Charles]

Jim,

It is seriously preposterous to keep pretending that these polls are off by some astonishing amount. There is absolutely zero evidence to suggest that this election is going to be a landslide, much less a McGovern style blowout. Roughly 47% of the country would vote for Benedict Arnold's corpse if it had an R next to it.

Bill,

There is actually zero evidence the Obama has thoroughly alienated his base. The polls indicate that he has 90% support at least among Democrats. So your observation is fact free.

Morzer,

Earlier this year when the job growth looked like it might cook along at 150-250,000 a month, I thought Obama might essentially replicate his 2008 margin and win by about 6 points. Now that the economic news has remained disappointing I think we are likely to be looking at a 2-4 point margin. Way too close for comfort.

The apology thing is priceless.

jm,

Sad, but not shocking out in Roanoke. But it sounds like he drew a great crowd, which you should take some solace in. I think Obama is going to narrowly carry VA on the strength of northern Virginia and a huge minority vote.

nancy,

Astonishing. What could this people be thinking?

Joe,

Have not heard Neneh Cherry, but will check it out.

[low-tech cyclist]

Man, there's a lot of great stuff out there for a Sunday. Karl Rove accused Obama of gutter politics, thereby cutting out irony's heart and stomping on it; GWB is releasing a book on how to make America's economy great, thereby jumping up and down on the rest of the corpse; and former RNC chair and current Romney flack Ed Gillespie, in one of the best GOP laff lines since Ron Ziegler declared his previous statements inoperative, said Romney "retired retroactively" from Bain - apparently Romney decided in 2002 that he'd left Bain in 1999.

There were also a number of unimportant but still amusing stories like George Zimmerman wanting to fire his judge, and the tea party nut from Iowa who declared herself to be a U.S. Senator.

And yeah, Romney's demands for an apology definitely rate the ROFL treatment. (Thanks, Morzer.) And I think Atrios' point is well taken that if you are able to turn your opponent into a laughingstock and punchline, then it makes it a lot harder for people to vote for him. It isn't Josh Marshall's bitch-slap theory (which I largely buy into, but wish it had a less misogynistic name); it's something far better than that.

[big bad wolf]

joe s, i will check it out too. i had long ago lost track of her, but i loved buffalo stance eons ago

[Joe S]

When I say Punk, I guess I mean the attitude. She's not using the Exploited or the Misfits as a backup band. But she takes some great standards, covers, and a few new songs, and adds triphop and attitude to them in a way that sounds spectacular (to my ears). Corvus would probably like the percussion as much as I.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Sir Charles; While I have the strength to keep arguing every day, and the evidence to back it up -- evidence developed by keeping my eyes on the local races, reading the local papers, comparing the tone today with the tones in the same papers a year ago, and watching what happened in the primaries and how easily even vastly underfunded candidates were able to seriously wound Romney -- as well as the overall comparison I have been making. But nobody here has the strength to listen to me continuing to rant -- and after all, this is not my key point. So I'll just returm to the overall prediction every so often as the numbers begin to prove me right -- or wrong.

But I hope no one will disagree with my main point about how important it is to put effort into the various Congressional (particularly Senatorial) races -- and not just in our own states and districts. Or my secondary point about how dangerous it would be if we fell into the sort of "Sports Talk Radio" mode that hurt us so badly in 2010 -- when we spent all our time talking with people who already agreed with us, praised each other for the brilliance of the latest put-down or funny name we came up with for Republicans, and fooled ourselves into thinking we were doing anything more than political masturbation.

Now I entirely agree with Morzer about the need for organization. I would include organizing information as well as organizing people. What i mean is the sort of thing I have been trying to do, creating talk, interest, and support for our great group of candidates, trying to gather together the sort of information on the opponents that we did with Komen, or more, the way we did with George Allen in 2006. The 'macaca' story could have been an isolated, ignored incident, but it was the blogosphere as much as anyone that used it as a springboard to get people talking about Allen's history of racism, his phony 'Southernness' and opened him up to examination that brought us Webb -- who we did a good job of defending when his writing came up.

There are similar incidents and opportunities today. Rick Berg, the Republican Senatorial Candidate in North Dakota made his considerable millions through a company called Goldmark Commercial, a property rental corporation which doesn't have the greatest reputation. It operates in many states, maybe some of you know people who have had problems with it, or can research it locally, and pass the news on. Or Jeff Flake's lobbying for South Africa during apartheid. It's known, but not widely enough.

I've spoken a lot about our producing flyers, newspaper advertisements, op ed pieces, and letters to the editor -- again, not just in local races, we could do something on the psuedo-scandal involving Shelley Berkeley, for example, in Nevada.

As for organizing people, it's not something I can do much of myseolf. (Believe it or not, I'm even harder to take in person than I am in print, and I really am a hermit, with only nodding acquaintance to most of my neighbors. If opportunities arise, I'll take them, but there must be some ideas we can pass on.)

Some are obvious, some sort of meeting we could set up to discuss Obamacare, anything friom a neighborhood block party to renting a place, and maybe getting both candidates and professionals to discuss it, unless you yourself have enough credibility.

Or setting up groups of vounteers in Voter ID states simply to offer to accompany someone through the necessary stages of getting the ID -- and maybe able to lodge a complaint if there is some problem, some Catch-22. But there must be other ones. Morzer, you suggested it, have any ideas to throw into the pot?

Anyway, I'll keep nudging you as the numbers start going my way -- or provide you with a handy target if they don't -- but the key is getting us actually working, for Obama, or for the candidates down ballot. We really have a shot at doing damn well in the Senate races, but we can help push things along.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Commenting problem in the next thread, comments marked as closed. (I hope this actually has gotten through. It's supposed to have done.)

[Bill H]

Well, excuse me all to hell Morzer, I was typing on an iPad and, due to having Parkinson's Disease, have a bit of difficulty on that "keyboard." I will try to be more careful in the future so as not to offend you.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

On the Romney Bain front, the following Republicans have, yesterday or during the last week, told Mitt Romney to 'stop whining and release his tax returns':

George Will (on THIS WEEK),
Matthew Dowd (on THIS WEEK),
Bill Kristol (on FOX NEWS SUNDAY),
Haley Barbour,
Michael Steele,
Robert Bentley (Gov. of Alabama at the National Governors Conference),
John Weaver (Republican Strategist).

Hmmm, there goes that old-fashioned Republican solidarity once again -- and has there ever been any campaign where so many high ranking party members, pundits, and even campaign surrogates have so publicly and repeatedly disagreed with their candidate. (Not to mention those who said they were waiting until 2016 to run (Hi, Gov. Christie!) -- which is only possible if Romney loses._

[nancy]

Bill H and Morzer. Let's pax OK. I don't know what being touchy gains us 'round here.

Morzer, really. Kind of odd, since you did 'French leave' about a year ago.

Don't we all want to hear from one another? I do. That's what's important.

[Sir Charles]

Yeah, let me back up nancy's call and once again ask for general restraint on the personal side of things.

We can disagree spiritedly and still not do so in a way that attacks the person and not the argument.

I have no desire to moderate or delete comments. I trust in all of you to have a sense of where the line should be drawn.

Jim,

I suspect that the lack of solidarity on the taxes issue is the collective sense of these Republican mouth pieces that withholding the tax returns is not viable, that the longer he holds off the more he bleeds, and that in the end when disclosure comes, if there is anything damaging -- and I suspect that there will be -- it is better to have time to react to it.

[Morzer]

Well,nancy, pardon me for existing. "French leave"? I have to apply for your permission to comment or not comment? I think not.

[Joe S]

Morzer, in any community (even an online one) there are norms. There are values. It's not a matter of permission. It's a matter of wanting to belong and comporting ourselves to the values we want to live by and which we've implicitly come to in order to belong.

The regulars here like to shoot the shit in a friendly manner (me maybe a little less than the others, but me too). Nobody's giving either you or Bill H orders, but we would all like for our online community to be more considerate than your typical blog comment scrum.

[Sir Charles]

One of the great pleasures of writing for the blog has been the development of the online community here -- indeed it has gone beyond simply being an online community in the sense that I have had the chance to actually break bread with a considerable number of you and hope to get the chance to do so with more of you.

I have recently had a couple of personal email exchanges with people who have felt slighted by comments or have wanted to have the last word on an issue. I would really prefer that we try and avoid such situations and confrontations.

Again, I am no shrinking violet and I don't mind a bit of mixing it up. Just try and give your fellow commenters the benefit of the doubt regarding their good faith.

[big bad wolf]

write it aflame with all your ire and righteousness, your withering wit and declamations of disapprobation. show your strength and your fierceness, your judgement of others. do it not only on their arguments but on their personalities, which you have correctly and completely discerned from a sentence or paragraph or three or even from a couple of years if reading at that length. then take all those parts out. and take all the parts you are 110% sure of. what's left may be of some interest and may help us along and learn us something.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

Bizzare story of the ... (fill in your own, I;d suggest 'geological era.')

For months, Randi Shannon has been campaigning in an important Iowa Senate race, telling people why as the GOP-preferred candidate she's a better choice than Democratic incumbent Liz Mathis to represent Linn County's District 34.

She is now not arguing not only that she was the better candidate, but that she has found a better government, dropping out of the race to become "senator" for the "Republic of the United States."

A businesswoman who owns Iowa Auto Glass among more than a dozen other businesses, according to Shannon, she could not bring herself to work for "the corporation," as she describes the current legal status of the U.S. government, the one most people are familiar with.

(For those of you who don't recognize this particular political pathology, it comes from the 'sovereign citizen' movement, but I hadn't realized any group had actually set up an 'alternative, "constitutional" government' -- or that it had moved this far east. If you are wondering about our 'original givernment' that these folks have 'restored,' go here but go fortified with either popcorn or Bushmill's -- or both.

[oddjob]

He also seems -- what do you know -- like a guy who will say whatever is expedient for his purposes at any given time.

That's been his campaign style since 1994.

[oddjob]

If Mittens wasn't operationally involved, why did he make a point of how he continued to attend Bain meetings during the period in question, flying back for them when he could, but attending by phone when he couldn't be there physically?

Oh, that's easy.

Back in 2002, when he ran for governor of Massachusetts, a question was raised as to whether the time he spent in Salt Lake City was such that he no longer met the residency requirements to run for governor!

As I said, the man has been saying whatever he finds most expedient for that next election since 1994.

[oddjob]

Americans are going to register the George Wills and David Brookses of the world as feeding them incomprehensible gibberish, and just start tuning them out.

I haven't read either for years, and I pay a hell of a lot more attention to American politics than most Americans do.

[Prup (aka Jim Benton)]

I wish I'd marked down the cite, but apparently Ted Kennedy challenged Mittens on outsourcing during their contest. Mitt's response? "Don't blame me, I was on a leave of absence when it happened."

Anybody want to apply for 'excuse-maker in chief' for a Presidential candidate? After Fehrnstrom and Gillespie, he needs someone new in that position.

[oddjob]

Karl Rove accused Obama of gutter politics, thereby cutting out irony's heart and stomping on it

One is reminded of the old definition of chutzpah: the kid who murdered his parents and then pled for mercy because he was an orphan....

[Joe S]

Give Rove his due. He's a masterful propagandist. The man could challenge Molitov for saying what is politically necessary at the time.

[kathy a.]

mitt's just claiming dual citizenship. he lived in salt lake AND in massachusetts. he was CEO AND retired. he was governor, AND had nothing to do with "romneycare."

[oddjob]

:)

[nancy]

"French leave"? I have to apply for your permission to comment or not comment? I think not.

By way of clarifying: 'French leave' as we use the phrase in my household means leaving a group quietly, so as not to disturb or interrupt the flow of conversation. Absenting oneself unceremoniously.

I certainly don't view myself as Cogblog hall monitor. (Like anyone would put up with that.) I'd hoped to be conciliatory, that's all.

Sorry for any confusion.

[Paula B]

nancy, you are a saint. Guys, it's hard to determine the emotion that stands behind a post, so try to lower the textual decibel level, when you can. Maybe you now have an idea why some participants have complained in the past about in-your-face comments and name calling. Fortunately for the flow of conversation, at least some people got over themselves. You can, too.

[nancy]

Paula, saint? Nah. I'd put it in the 'fools rush in' category. Which I plan to hence curtail.

Now back to munching les bon bons, filing le nails and catching up with Mad Men.

kathy, you've a memorable T-shirt screen there. dual citizenship. he lived in salt lake AND in massachusetts. he was CEO AND retired. he was governor, AND had nothing to do with "romneycare." :))