Mitt’s meltdown

By Peter Fenn – 09/12/12 11:51 AM ET

Make no mistake, this race will be tight. Two months is an eternity in politics, especially this year. But my belief is that Mitt Romney is doing everything in his power to disqualify himself from the presidency.

He managed to survive the past year and a half of seriously mediocre primary challengers by overwhelming them with money and negative firepower. At practically every turn, the debates, the interviews, the campaign appearances, he came up short. He won, but he won ugly, and failed to convince voters that he was a particularly strong general-election candidate.
The choice of Paul Ryan for vice president was less than inspired — no foreign-policy chops, a radical economic plan that eviscerates Medicare, privatizes Social Security, rewards the rich and devastates the middle class. A far-right social platform that denies a woman the right to choose even in the cases of rape, incest and danger to the life of the mother. Plus, as Bill Clinton pointed out, let’s look at “the arithmetic.” For both Romney and Ryan, you can’t give $5 trillion in tax cuts, increase the defense budget and pledge to reduce the debt and balance the budget. That doesn’t take an act of Congress, it takes an act of magic.

The Republican convention was not a plus for Romney. Clint Eastwood was a memorable disaster and Romney’s speech contained no specifics and no plan to create the jobs he talked about. Plus, there was no mention of our troops or the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The other speeches were jumbled and contradictory; Ann Romney talked about “love” and Chris Christie said he didn’t want to talk about love, he wanted to talk about respect. That would have been an easy catch for those vetting the speeches.

But the fundamental problem is that Americans are having a serious problem contemplating Mitt Romney as president and commander in chief. His foreign trip was disastrous, rarely an interview goes by that he doesn’t seriously put his foot in his mouth and the advertising is doing nothing to build him up, only to tear Obama down.

Voters are worried that he is too much of an empty suit, a person who changes his fundamental beliefs on a daily basis (pre-existing conditions, individual mandates, abortion, gun control, gay rights, tax increases, etc., etc.) and, most important, that he has no plan for America’s future.

He now admits that he has no specifics for how to make up the $5 trillion-plus shortfall and that he won’t divulge the loopholes that he will close. Will it be the mortgage interest deduction, healthcare, charitable deductions, retirement savings, childcare? Of course, Romney won’t say because the top five deductions in the tax code help the middle class and account for half the revenue. (Health insurance, retirement pensions, mortgage interest, exclusion for Medicare and lower capital gains)

The refusal of Romney-Ryan to discuss the specifics leads voters to an overriding conclusion: Either they have no real plan to solve the problems or the cuts and “loophole closings” are going to stick it to the middle class.

The facts are clear on what the Romney-Ryan plan would do: If you make over $3 million you get another big tax cut of $250,000; if you are a middle-class American family you will see your tax bill go up by $2,000.

Mitt Romney will have to defend these policies in the debates. If he appears on any more interview shows he is going to have to answer the tough questions. The trouble with Mitt Romney is he is beginning to convince voters that he will take America back to the Bush era — on economics, on foreign policy, on letting Wall Street run wild. And, when it comes to standing up for women, he will adopt the views of the extreme right. Just as he let them write his platform, he will let them run his government.

This is a campaign and a candidate intent on treating the American people as though they are stupid, that they won’t see the wool being pulled over their eyes. A big mistake. As the debates loom and the power of the microscope gets further turned up on Romney, I suspect we will see more of Mitt’s meltdowns.

Mitt Romney has not exactly distinguished himself in the foreign policy arena: his disastrous trip abroad and misplaced comments, his failure to even mention the troops and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in his convention speech, and now his crass attempt to politicize the deaths and demonstrations overseas.

Instead of ready, aim, fire, with Romney it is fire, ready, aim. When he should wait and get the facts, he fires off a political attack that is designed to boost his candidacy.  Sadly for him and for America’s foreign policy his statements had devastating consequences.

He called the Obama administration “disgraceful” and accused them of “sympathiz[ing] with those who waged the attacks.” He put out an early release of that statement in an attempt to get news coverage, after initially embargoing it until midnight.

He threw an incendiary bomb in the middle of a horrible and life -hreatening international situation. This is not the mark of a leader but rather the mark of a desperate candidate who puts his political survival above those who serve this country. In short, it is his actions and words that are “disgraceful.”

At a time when the rhetoric should be ramped down, Romney ramps it up. At a time when the activities of a mob should be condemned by those of all political stripes and the activity of a deranged individual ridiculing Mohammed should be universally rejected, Romney plays politics.

Chuck Todd called it on Morning Joe today “a bad mistake they made last night….an irresponsible thing to do.”

I couldn’t agree more.

 

The Democratic Convention in Charlotte, which was to be dull, boring, and devoid of drama and excitement, did not turn out that way.

It is usually the challenging party that has the advantage, particularly in a year when voters are worried, hurting, and tilt heavily toward the view that things are off on the wrong track.

But in 2012, it did not turn out that way. The Republicans had as their defining moment Clint Eastwood’s rant, not Mitt Romney’s acceptance. They had a Paul Ryan speech replete with falsehoods and attacks that were just plain wrong, a gift that kept on giving for the Democrats. They had speakers like Gov. Chris Christie who seemed more focused on 2016 than 2012.

The Democrats, in contrast, had a tight convention that was disciplined and upbeat.

At the end of the day, here are the five things the Democrats accomplished:

Motivated the base.  The speeches made clear the importance of this election to the party faithful. Michelle Obama, in particular, made the case for her husband and gave an emotional, personal speech. People at home and in the hall left with the motivation to make the phone calls, knock on doors, walk the precincts. In a close election, this is critical.

Brought the party together. The various constituencies of the party were in full evidence. Working people, union members, women, Hispanics, African-Americans were all convinced that there are real differences in the Romney-Ryan platform and what the Democrats stand for and how they govern. The radical nature of the Republicans was made crystal clear.

A blistering critique of Republicans. Bill Clinton, Joe Biden, Jennifer Granholm, Deval Patrick, Ted Strickland, Sandra Fluke led the charge in laying out how out of touch the Republicans are on social issues as well as economic issues. This coordinated approach repeated the core criticisms over and over.

A coordinated message and speakers who were in sync. Who stands up for working families was clear. The message discipline for Democrats was consistently in evidence, which is not always the case. Speakers played off one another, made clear the accomplishments of the president in both domestic and foreign policy and drew the comparison with the Republicans. The fight for middle class families was the mantra as opposed to the tax and budget plans that would benefit the wealthy that the Republicans propose.

Set the stage for the fall campaign. The convention and the President’s speech set the stage for the next two months and the debates. The president in his speech not only defended his record an criticize the Romney-Ryan approach, but he redefined what American citizenship should mean. He put in perspective what government can and cannot do, what is in the public’s interest, what is needed for the long term. He provided a sense of stability and confidence in his leadership.

Will there be huge changes in the polls from this convention?  I doubt it, just as there wasn’t much from the Republicans. The conventions were so close to one another and so late in the game that we will probably move deadlocked into the final two months of this race is my guess.

But the messages are taking shape and the debate is clear, and the Democratic Convention did more than the Republican convention to sway independents and motivate the base.

 

Bubba is BACK!

By Peter Fenn – 09/06/12 10:24 AM ET—-The Hill Pundits Blog

It is hard to imagine a better speech than Bill Clinton gave last night — a clear, coherent, compelling, if not exactly concise, narrative for Obama’s case for reelection. And he articulated the solid arguments for a rejection of the Romney-Ryan Republican alternative. He sliced and diced each of their policy arguments and made mincemeat of their proposals. Factual and solid arguments, presented in his usual direct and folksy style, as if you were listening to a story.

No one can do it like Bubba — a reminder of how the comeback kid has come back so many times.

So what does this speech mean? A lot, if Democrats adopt the arguments and the narrative for the next two months.

First and foremost, the nation is better off than we were when Barack Obama took office. The markets are stabilized, the financial bleeding has been stopped, the auto industry has been saved, the American economy is coming back and, thanks to Obama’s decisions and policies, the car did not go off the cliff.

It could have gone the other way if he had not made the politically unpopular decision to save the American automobile industry, if he had not put money into the states to save them and their teachers, firefighters, police; if he had not invested in infrastructure and education and technology. It could have been a lot worse had he not provided a tax break for 95 percent of Americans, putting thousands of dollars in their hurting pocketbooks.

The Republicans now propose to double down on tax cuts for the wealthy at the expense of the middle class. They want to starve government programs that actually help people and grow the economy, like Pell Grants for college, funds for Head Start, child nutrition, job training and rebuilding our infrastructure.

They seem to hate government; they seem to be intent on doing what David Stockman, Reagan’s budget director, once called “starving the beast.” Stockman acknowledges now that this didn’t work and let to higher deficits and greater economic hardship for middle-class families. This was a strictly ideological policy, not a pragmatic one.

Republicans, Clinton laid out, have adopted policies that simply do not work.

The Democrats must convince those undecided voters that their plans are working and that the Republicans offer a traditional reverse-Robin Hood philosophy, more suited to the Gilded Age than the Golden Age. When America is asked the question “Who is fighting for the middle class?” the answer must be clear: Obama and the Democrats. That is the case that Clinton made last night and Barack Obama must make tonight.
 

 

I am going to get in trouble for this.

For years many of my Republican friends have admitted to me that they couldn’t give a damn about social issues—abortion, gay marriage, or the Ten Commandments being posted on schools and public buildings. They are contemptuous of the religious right and find many of them “wackos.”  In short, the religious right has driven them crazy for years.

But these are political people and they know they need the religious right to activate the Republican base. Ever since the late 1970s and the rise of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, Republicans have made sure they were inside the tent. They were not Ronald Reagan’s cup of tea but he brought them in, as did the Bushes.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Republican Party.]

But, more and more, the Michele Bachmanns, Paul Ryans, Todd Akins are the Republican Party and some political pros have begun to worry. In fact, a leading voice of the anti-tax conservative movement, Grover Norquist, is known to have contempt for the right wing social activists. He has admitted when his guard was down that he thinks the issues are “nuts.”  But he has also said that it is so easy just to push these hot button social issues and boy, off they go, in full gallop!

The problem now—as illustrated by Rep. Todd Akin, a sincere and true believer in these issues, his church, and a strict religious moral code—is the “regular Republicans” who have used these religious activists now want to jettison them or at least keep them quiet. I debated Todd Akin at Harvard a number of years ago—we disagreed heartily but I found him to be a very committed and consistent social conservative. He was not a cynic; he was not going through the motions. He was a believer and he lived his values.

[Take the U.S. News Poll: Should Todd Akin Drop Out of His Race After ‘Legitimate Rape’ Remarks?]

Now, the Republican Party operatives find themselves so wedded to this faction after exploiting it for nearly 30 years that they don’t know what to do when the mechanisms of the party have been taken over by the far right. The Republican Party platform for the last three cycles, including this year, makes no exception for terminating a pregnancy caused by rape and incest. It does not even allow for the life of the mother. Women (and men) are not supposed to notice? The party embraces “personhood” amendments and refuses to support the morning-after pill, again even if a rape is involved. “De-fund Planned Parenthood” is their battle cry.

And no one at this Tampa convention has the guts to speak up. All they do is condemn Todd Akin—because, really, he presents a “political problem.” But they are as quiet as church mice when it comes to amending the Akin anti-abortion platform plank.

[See a collection of political cartoons on the Catholic contraception controversy.]

Some of these religious conservatives should be hopping mad. They are being played. They are being used by presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney. No one in his Boston headquarters wants the public to know that his VP pick Rep. Paul Ryan has been locked at the hip with Todd Akin. Their views areexactly the same on these issues, one slip of the tongue on rape not withstanding. They want the religious right’s money, they want them to work on their campaign, they want them to turn out at the polls, but they want them quiet, behind the curtain. They have no intention of overturning Roe v. Wade, they know that the train has left the station on gay and lesbian rights, they know that tolerance and diversity will rule the day, but they won’t change their party platform because the far right that they used over the past three decades has taken over their party. They do not want the public to know where they stand on these issues, because they know their deficit with women could be 20 points. They could lose the suburban vote, they could further anger young voters, they could be unmasked as the right wing, extremist party that their 2012 platform says they are.

In short, they want Todd Akin and others to leave the limelight right now because that light shows what we all know—the Republican emperors of Romney-Ryan have no clothes. (And we’re not talking about skinny-dipping in the Sea of Galilee!)

Sen. Tom Harkin, Democrat of Iowa, released a report recently on for-profit colleges that should make your hair stand on end. So many bad apples, so little time to remove them.

This report should, at the very least, send many of these “educators” into the proverbial classroom corner with their dunce caps on. Actually, it should put a whole host of them out of business and cause the others to instigate serious and immediate reforms.

I have written a number of blog posts on the for-profits, and each new revelation makes me angrier. No one disputes that efforts at nontraditional learning, online courses, helping those who are older and are raising families succeed, are laudable and should be pursued with all due speed. But the current crop of for-profits are, by and large, failing to serve these students and ripping off taxpayers.

[Students at For-Profit Colleges Earn Less, Study Says]

The Washington Post’s Dylan Matthews summarized it as follows: Most students don’t graduate, the schools are really expensive, and you’re paying for it. He should have added that many in this “business” are getting fabulously wealthy soaking in taxpayer dollars. The average CEO of the publicly traded for-profits made $7.3 million in 2009…$7.3 million! If they were delivering a serious and worthwhile product and their compensation was tied to student success, that would be one thing, but far from it.

The report showed that 63 percent of students who enrolled in an associate degree program left and the median student lasted only four months. Of those seeking a bachelor’s degree, 54 percent left, and 38.5 percent left certificate programs.

And how are they paying for it? Loans, grants, Department of Defense dollars—86 percent of all the money these for-profits take in comes from taxpayer dollars. The cost to all of us last year was $32 billion and rising.

And how do these for-profits spend their money—on education? An educational institution, one would think, should be investing in education, right? Sorry, 23 percent goes for marketing and recruitment, 20 percent is considered profit, and actual instruction for students comes to a paltry 17 percent. Don’t forget the lobbying expenses that have increased rapidly as these for-profits have come under legitimate criticism.

The lead lobbyist for the for-profits, former Rep. Steve Gunderson, a Wisconsin Republican, called the report “ideology overriding reality.” Actually, there is nothing ideological about these criticisms. They are grounded in a pragmatic approach to solve our country’s serious educational problems.

When state and community colleges are getting their funding cut, the economy has put the squeeze on working families, and college loans are increasingly hard to pay back, how can we justify being ripped off by the for-profit colleges? How can they escape scrutiny and regulation when they are taking in $32 billion a year, much of it not to educate kids, while other colleges are struggling, students are struggling, families are struggling? With millions of students being saddled with debt, no job after school, promises unfulfilled, how can we justify continuing to use taxpayer’s money? We are paying the bill—where is the oversight, where is the outrage?

My advice to Gunderson is that it is time to clean house, to bring together a serious board of advisers with real experience in education to work on serious reform of the for-profits. If he doesn’t act quickly, he will find that the bad apples in his barrel will cause all of them to be rotten.