By Peter Fenn – 05/02/12 03:43 PM ET

Our nation’s political history is replete with examples of snarky comments/attacks against spouses and children of presidents.

Dolly Madison was criticized as far too outspoken and called a “party-giver.” Imagine! Mary Todd Lincoln was criticized for spending too much and for her extravagant clothes. Lucy Hayes was thought to be way too far out front on women’s rights.

In more recent times, the criticisms of Eleanor Roosevelt are well-known. Margaret Truman, as a young daughter, was belittled for her piano-playing. Amy Carter was ridiculed as a teenager, as was Chelsea Clinton, by those who disagreed with their fathers’ politics.

Some of this, I suppose, comes with the territory. But it shouldn’t.

We have moved into a period of attacking the candidate/president by attacking the spouse or family.

The nasty attacks against Michelle Obama in 2008 that she “hated America” and was “an angry black woman” were absurd. Rush Limbaugh accused her of “uppity-ism” and said recently “there’s a reason she is called Michelle Antoinette.” Ridiculous, demeaning and dangerous.

Barack Obama urged people to back off when, in the 2008 campaign, it was announced that Bristol Palin was pregnant out of wedlock. He knew that circumstance because of his own parents’ situation and felt it should have no role in the campaign. He shut it down.

Now Ann Romney is feeling the same sort of attacks leveled at her that many spouses have felt. If she makes policy pronouncements, they are fair game. But to now see criticism for a $990 shirt she wore on the ABC interview with her husband is also absurd. Who cares? That is totally out of bounds. Her role as a wife and mother should also be out of bounds.

Campaigns should not be about such personal attacks — simple decency and respect should dictate a “no-spouse/family zone.”

Former Gov. Mitt Romney and his advisers and surrogates are going apoplectic over the anniversary of the killing of Osama bin Laden and the attention President Obama is getting for the success.

They absolutely hate that he is using the events in ads and are especially defensive that the Obama campaign is pointing out Romney’s own statements that he “wouldn’t move heaven and earth” to get bin Laden and that he was against going into Pakistan unannounced.

Well, as I write this, the networks just reported that President Obama has arrived in Afghanistan on a surprise visit. My, my, now we are really going to hear from the Romney campaign, or won’t we?

If I were them, I would just zip it. The Republicans look unbelievably hypocritical on this one.

[Susan Milligan: GOP Should Be Careful Criticizing Obama on the Bin Laden Raid]

Remember “Mission Accomplished”—landing on that aircraft carrier declaring victory in Iraq? Oops. Remember the Republican National Convention in New York City in 2004? Remember President Bush and the Republicans trying to use 9/11 as a political club to beat Sen. John Kerry?

Go back and review the speeches at that Republican convention from Mayor Rudy Giuliani, in particular. Or how about Ed Koch, or Bernard Kerik, or even retired General Tommy Franks? And, yes, even one Mitt Romney, who declared, “George W. Bush is right, and the ‘Blame America First Crowd’ is wrong!”

Playing politics with the tragedy of 9/11 or even the war in Iraq was the Republicans’ mantra.

 

I guess they were for it before they were against it, huh?

The bottom line is that President Obama did the right thing at tremendous risk to the lives of men under his command and with a real risk of failure. He knew, as we all do now, that had this mission not been successful lives would have been lost and his political career would have been over.  And, yet, he had the courage, the grace under pressure, to make the call. That is what we call leadership.

By Peter Fenn – 05/01/12 03:05 PM ET

After much debate and discussion, the Obama message for 2012 has taken shape. The narrative is pretty simple: During the first eight years of the 21st century the Republicans drove the car right up to the edge, where it was leaning, ready to go over the cliff. Barack Obama took over as 800,000 jobs a month were being lost, the economy was in meltdown and our entire auto industry was on the brink of dissolution.

Because of President Obama’s leadership, the car is safely back on the road, proceeding to its destination, still not going at 60 mph, but picking up speed.

Meanwhile, the Republicans have made it perfectly clear that they offer nothing new or innovative or different from what they proposed under George Bush.
Let’s face it, the Republicans have decided that they are going to continue to embrace policies that put the nation in the ditch in the first place. Big tax breaks for the top 1 percent, cut programs vital to education, families and communities, and propose budgets that keep the red ink flowing. By keeping the huge Bush tax breaks for the wealthy in place and proposing even more tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires, Mitt Romney will be adding $5 trillion in red ink, with only a “secret plan” to close tax breaks that he refuses to calculate.

Trickle-down has never worked. Putting more money in the pockets of hedge fund managers will not create jobs; keeping alive tax breaks for parking millions in the Cayman Islands and Swiss bank accounts will not cause the economy to prosper. Allowing the largest corporations like Apple to evade taxes with brilliant lawyers and accountants only serves to enrich those at the top — and the lawyers and accountants. Why not close these loopholes if they are not fair and equitable? Why not admit that regulation and cracking down on these “schemes” makes economic sense for the country? Far from penalizing economic success, it is an admission that with success comes responsibility — responsibility to play fair and play by equitable rules.

Why won’t Mitt Romney admit that because he can take advantage of these loopholes does not make it right, does not make it fair to working families, and sends a message that those who have much, get more? Why not say, “Yes, I did what was currently legal to avoid taxes by sending my money overseas and taking advantage of the carried interest rules, but those laws need to be changed, those loopholes closed”?

But the entire economic platform of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan will perpetuate those tax dodges and the huge subsidies for the oil companies, while continuing to squeeze the middle class.

So, at such a critical time, why would the American people want to go “back to the future” and elect Mitt Romney, who promises exactly what they had during the bust times of 2001-2008? His policies promised job growth in Massachusetts when it was 34th in the country — he took it to 47th — and left Bay Staters with the highest per capita debt in the nation.

Obama has created 4.1 million new jobs, has been in positive territory for 25 straight months and saved millions of jobs in the auto industry alone. The economy is improving no thanks to Republican policies or votes, rather in spite of them.

So the message of moving forward makes perfect sense, especially when we consider the consequences of sliding back.

By Peter Fenn – 04/10/12 07:55 PM ET

On Tuesday morning, as a guest on the Bill Press radio and Current TV show, Bill and I took a very interesting on-air call. At the end of the hour, a man led off stating he was a strong conservative. Bill and I thought, “Here it comes!”

Instead of reading us the riot act, this caller explained he really liked and appreciated the way progressives were talking about fairness in the tax system, standing up for the middle class and contrasting our policies with those of the Republicans and Mitt Romney. He disagreed with us on many things, but this economic argument made sense to him. It was personal.

 

This election is going to be about who really fights for the middle class, whose policies and perspectives identify with Americans caught in the economic vise of the past decade and who can help improve their lives now and in the future.The latest Washington Post-ABC poll shows President Obama leading on “protecting the middle class” by 49-39 percent. It should be more. The poll indicates that Obama “understands the economic problems people are having” by 49-37 percent over Romney. It should be more.

Yet this poll also shows Romney leading Obama, 47-43 percent, on “handling the economy.” The predisposition in tough economic times, as candidate Obama discovered in 2008, is for change, especially “change we can believe in.”

Right now, voters do believe in Obama over Romney, but the full force of Karl Rove’s Crossroads media onslaught has not been felt yet in the dozen targeted states. Now that Santorum has effectively withdrawn, the Romney machine will begin to direct its fire at Obama. This deluge of negative ads has already been telegraphed, and they will begin immediately and will be not confined to the fall campaign.

My prediction is that Romney will run very few positive ads, just as in the primaries; that his team understands his severe vulnerabilities; and that it will try and do to Obama what it has done to Gingrich and Santorum — eviscerate him.

The Obama campaign has the upper hand on the economic fairness argument. It has to make the campaign clearly about who is in the trenches with hardworking middle-class families and who stands with those in the millionaire boys club.

Romney has locked himself into a tax plan of his own, as well as the Paul Ryan plan he endorsed, which creates even more of a windfall for the fabulously wealthy. It severely harms the middle class, adds $10 trillion to the deficit and would undermine programs such as Medicare, education and veteran assistance.

The contrast could not be clearer: According to the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, Romney’s tax plan gives the top1 percent an additional break of $149,977, while the lowest one-fifth of wage earners would owe $143 more in taxes. Under Obama, millionaires would see their tax breaks halted and the top 1 percent would pay on average about $87,173 more a year. Thus the Bush “temporary” windfall tax break for them would end.

What is also relevant here is Romney’s personal attitude toward fairness. He believes it is fair that he pays only 13.9 percent in taxes; he believes it is fair that he can put his money in Cayman Islands and Swiss banks to avoid taxes; he believes it is fair that the now-infamous “carried interest” tax rate of 15 percent on new income can be applied to his $7.4 million windfall in 2010; he believes it is fair that he does not have to disclose his Bain Capital investments or that he need not release details of how he avoids paying his fair share; he believes it is fair that no tax returns prior to 2010 be released.

This is personal. When you are a middle-class American making $60,000 a year and paying 29.9 percent of your income in taxes, and you have Mitt Romney, who makes $41 million over two years and pays less than half that percentage in taxes, it is personal.

It is personal to Warren Buffett and many others who decry that their secretaries pay a higher percentage than they do. They care about fairness.

It was personal to Ronald Reagan, who, in two strong videos, made statements advocating for closing loopholes that make bus drivers pay a higher percentage than millionaires and even used the same boss/secretary comparison.

This is the personal fight Barack Obama needs to take to the American people.

Former Sen. Rick Santorum’s exit before the Pennsylvania primary was smart politics. Even if he were able to win that battle against former Gov. Mitt Romney, he would have still lost the war. And if he lost his home state, his star would have been further tarnished by the rejection, two times over.

His money had run out, he needed to be home for his daughter and family, and his options had been effectively shut down. Knowing when to fold ’em? Good move.

If  Romney crashes and burns this November, Republicans will be saying, “You bet we should have nominated a solid conservative!”  And you can be sure, it won’t be former House Speaker NewtGingrich in 2016. It may not be Santorum, either, but at least he finishes with his head high, solid victories, and a come-from-behind campaign in the early primaries. He is on the radar screen.

And, of course, he can still point to Abraham Lincoln who lost a Senate race and went on to win the presidency!

USNews —  Jefferson Street Blog  —

Should Mitt Romney Talk More About His Mormon Faith?

April 5, 2012