Daily Kos

Rick Santorum wants to limit medical malpractice payments, except for his own family

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:31:13 UTC

Rick Santorum probably shouldn't be preaching about tort reform. (Bryan Snyder/Reuters)

Isn't the whole idea of "do as I say, not as I do" in the Bible? For a devout Catholic like Rick Santorum, it should be one of the key tenets for life. But he's also a Republican, so it's not. Santorum is pushing a cap on medical malpractice awards in his campaign, and in fact had legislation to do so when in office

But Santorum testified in support of his wife when she filed a medical malpractice suit in 1999 that sought $500,000, twice the cap in his original legislative proposal. Karen Santorum claimed that a Fairfax chiropractor had left her with a permanent back injury that probably would result in a lifetime of pain medication and restricted mobility. [...]
Although the lawsuit did not seek a specific figure for pain and suffering, the former senator testified in the case about the emotional and physical toll on his wife and how that justified a sizable monetary award, transcripts show. The judge in the case also made clear that the majority of the $350,000 the jury awarded the family was largely for unspecific losses and pain and suffering, which he concluded was “excessive.”

The Bible has a lot to say about hypocrites, too.

Tech group: SOPA/PIPA need to be scrapped entirely

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:38:31 UTC

Google's homepage during the day of action against SOPA and PIPA

President and CEO of Public Knowledge Gigi Sohn writes at Forbes' CIO Network blog, arguing that there's nothing salvagable in the current SOPA/PIPA anti-internet piracy bills.

Reporters want to know—what if this provision came out? Or what if that was the other language was changed? Would the bill be acceptable to us? Some of the big lobby groups behind the bill suggested a “summit” of tech companies and content companies to hash it all out.
The answer is—none of the above. Trying to “fix” SOPA and PIPA and all of the bad provisions in those bills is the wrong approach. Conceptually, it’s like trying to build a building starting on the second floor. The most logical way to proceed would be to start building a structure from the foundation and working up from there.

She also has a radical idea: "So before we talk solutions, we have to figure out the problem."

This legislation is a perfect example of what happens when you let lobbyists, and in this case the wrong ones, write legislation. The MPAA and RiAA and other content producers called the tune on this one and Congress jumped, even after the Government Accountability Office couldn't validate the dire numbers the content industry put out to show how harmed they are by piracy. Despite the uncertain data, despite the warnings from all of the other communities involved—tech, civil rights, social media—of the dire unintended consequences this legislation would have, Congress was ready to do the content providers bidding.

But the experience of stopping this legislation provides another great example, and perhaps a template to build upon. Sohn:

This was a decentralized effort. No one company or group organized it. No one company or group could have organized it. When someone suggested on Reddit that Web sites go dark, and Reddit agreed, the idea caught on as the site proprietors themselves decided what to do. The combination of expertise in the substance and inside D.C.-based knowledge of the legislative process, combined with outside online activism created a powerful wave that swamped the traditional ways of doing business inside the Capitol.

It set up a great coalition, and a Congress that just might be ready to listen to it, for the next round.

President Obama calls for an end to 'gridlock and games'

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 15:30:03 UTC

President Obama used today's weekly address to revisit his recent State of the Union Address, where he:

... laid out a blueprint for an economy built to last – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, skills for American workers, and a renewal of American values.

... while acknowledging that many Americans are rightfully skeptical that anything will be accomplished in Washington this year.

Decrying the obstructionist tactics by Congress (while inexplicably placing blame on both parties), the President said that it wasn't about him, that the country deserves "better than gridlock and games," reiterated his call for up-or-down votes on various nominees, on ending the "corrosive influence of money in politics," the reining in of lobbyists in Washington, and to:

Tell your Member of Congress that it’s time to end the gridlock, and start tackling the issues that really matter – an economy built on American manufacturing, American energy, American skills and education, and a return to American values. An economy built to last.

Complete transcript below the fold.

Kaiser poll finds little traction in GOP attacks on Romney over health care

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 21:00:26 UTC

This month's Kaiser Family Foundation poll had some discouraging results about the public's attitude toward the Supreme Court and the Affordable Care Act, but it had a glimmer of good news for Mitt Romney.

First, this, via Think Progress.

And what do Republicans think?

As the race for the Republican presidential nomination heats up, the latest tracking poll shows that attempts by rival GOP contenders to paint former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney as holding views on health policy similar to those of President Obama do not seem to be resonating with most Republicans. Despite repeated reminders that Romney signed a 2006 Massachusetts law that is similar in some respects to the national health reform law, nearly half of Republicans (49%) say the two men's views are different, three in ten say they are similar, and another 22 percent had no opinion

Apparently, they hate President Obama and, by extension, his health care law so much that they are willfully blind to the fact that it's essentially the same program. Except, of course, Romney's covers abortion. Go figure.

Study shows Keystone pipeline pals got more favorable (and biased) media attention than foes

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:06:48 UTC

(Click here to see larger version)

In case it wasn't already obvious to those following news coverage of the Keystone pipeline controversy, a review by Media Matters concludes that proponents were quoted far more frequently than those who criticized the project. Bogus claims of a vast number of jobs being created by the pipeline were five times more likely to have been reported uncritically than they were to have been challenged.

On Jan. 18, President Obama publicly rejected the application by TransCanada to build the pipeline along a route from Alberta to the Texas Gulf Coast. The 1700-mile pipeline would have delivered oil derived from the environmentally destructive mining of Canadian tar-sand deposits across sensitive areas, most particularly the huge Ogallala Aquifer, underground water that feeds the U.S. farm-belt from South Dakota to central-west Texas. The president has told TransCanada that it can reapply with a new proposed route, and the company has said it will reapply but without changing the route.

Among Media Matters' findings:

• 79 percent of those quoted or interviewed on broadcast news favored the pipeline. NBC and ABC never quoted an opponent. On Fox News, 66 percent favored and 13 percent opposed; on CNN 54 percent favored and 14 percent opposed; on MSNBC 38 percent favored and 31 percent opposed.

• 45 percent of those quoted by major newspapers favored the pipeline and 31 percent opposed. The New York Times was the most balanced (35 percent favored, 27 percent opposed) and the Wall Street Journal was the least balanced (52 percent favored and 21 percent opposed).

• The Washington Post, USA Today and the Wall Street Journal editorial boards endorsed the pipeline. Collectively, they published 16 op-eds or editorials supporting the pipeline and only one opposed. In total, the major print outlets published 19 op-eds or editorials in favor of the project and 10 opposed.

• Notably, the media presented TransCanada's highly inflated, some would say, bullshit, job-creation claims very uncritically. According to Media Matters, "Fox News uncritically repeated these numbers more than all the other television networks combined."

Among other problems with the coverage was the downplaying of environmental concerns, the focus on unsubstantiated claims of increased energy security and the failure to look closely at allegations of bias by the State Department in its review of the project as well as conflicts of interest by the consultant contracted to carry out the environmental impact statement.

Abbreviated Pundit Round-up: Why Newt lost his groove

rss@dailykos.com (DemFromCT) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 12:47:58 UTC

Visual source: Newseum

Have you seen this true story of heroism on 9/11 in lower Manhattan? The spontaneously organized boatlift evacuation rescued a half a million people in 9 hours - more than Dunkirk in WW II over 9 days. Ordinary people doing extraordinary things.

And then there are the clowns who purport to deserve our, and their, support:

The American Prospect:

Has Newt Gingrich floundered in Florida because he doesn’t understand his own appeal to GOP voters? In South Carolina, the former house speaker hit upon an anti-elite message that goes straight to the heart of the Tea Party—and the political moment. It was nothing new: the kind of silent-majority red meat that white conservatives have eagerly consumed since the days of Wallace and Nixon (not to mention Bush and Palin)... He stopped hitting Romney on his 1-percentism even as more damning evidence piled up. He failed to rouse the rabble in this week’s debates. And he may end up blowing it on Tuesday—and eventually losing the Republican nomination—because he didn’t grasp what gave him a chance to win it in the first place.

Rings true. Of course, it also reinforces everything we don't like about the GOP base, Nixon and Palin.

Gail Collins:

The far right seems to be particularly indifferent to bad-behavior issues. Maybe this is because their supporters know that sinning social conservatives operate at a disadvantage. It is way easier to avoid the hypocrisy label if you’re a straying civil libertarian whose family values speeches mainly involve encouraging kids to donate money to feed impoverished people in Africa. You’re not going to be charged with speaking out of both sides of your mouth when the first side is talking about supporting Doctors Without Borders.
Conservative voters also like expressions of remorse and promises to reform. When all else fails, they have even been known to argue that everybody does it. “I’m just saying, they all have stinky feet,” former Congressman J. C. Watts, a Baptist preacher, said while he was campaigning for Newt in South Carolina.

Although actually, when you’re talking about 1) Committing adultery, 2) Divorcing your wife while she’s sick to marry your mistress, 3) Committing adultery, 4) Allegedly asking your wife to let you keep the mistress on the side and 5) Divorcing your wife while she’s sick to marry your mistress ... it’s pretty clear everybody doesn’t do it.

Eugene Robinson:

“The issue I think that’s going to play out this election is that question of Warren Buffett’s secretary,” House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., said Wednesday on CNN. “We want her to make more money, we want her to have more hope for the future. . . . [But] this notion that somehow the income that Warren Buffett makes is the same as a wage income for his secretary, we know that’s not the same.”
In other words, it’s not just that the rich are better than the rest of us but also that their money is better than our money.

Is this really an argument the Republican presidential nominee is going to make? Not in so many words, surely. Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum seem to understand that taking Cantor’s line would constitute political malpractice.

You mean the same political malpractice that had Romney releasing his taxes on SOTU day?

John Pitney Jr.:

It’s easy to dismiss Gingrich’s challenge as a gimmick, just some red meat to excite GOP primary voters, and not a challenge Obama would ever accept. But what if he did? What if the president and the former House speaker dueled in a series of open, nationally televised debates? An honest look at Gingrich’s record suggests that the results could differ markedly from the fantasies of Team Newt. Obama would not collapse in a heap, Gingrich would not emerge triumphant — and the whole thing would go down as the biggest campaign blunder since Richard Nixon figured he could out-debate John F. Kennedy on television.

Alas, we won't get the chance, it seems, not if the polls are correct.

Adam Clymer:

Those raucous Republicans thrilled by hearing Newt Gingrich denounce the “destructive, vicious, negative nature” of what he often calls the “elite media” during debates might be shocked to watch him on other occasions. He enjoys consorting with the enemy.

Stephen Dworkin on the Keystone XL pipeline and green messaging:

The problem is that supporters of Keystone XL and other polluting resource extraction initiatives have effectively framed the debate for voters and politicians alike around jobs and short-term economic gains instead of long-term damage to the planet and profiting off of technological stagnation or rampant consumerism. When Americans see a blueprint for an oil pipeline, they see energy and infrastructure progress. And when they see the president denying a permit for such a plan, no matter what the context, they often fall for the right-wing squawking (this time from GOP presidential hopefuls) about liberals being destructive to the economy and catering to extremist environmental groups.
So what can we environmentalists do to change the way this debate is unfolding within the chaotic presidential race? I propose that we would do well to stick to our guns on the most potent weapon in our arsenal: scientific and demonstrable truth. Not only are the details surrounding Obama’s decision important—he was legally bound to ensure the appropriate impact assessments were undergone and was pressured by Canadian officials to ignore environmental impacts they de facto acknowledged—but the details about the pipeline itself must be cleared up.

Open Thread for Night Owls: Austerity plans right-wingers want for here make Brits' life miserable

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 04:30:02 UTC

While the U.S. economy continues to make modest improvements but tens of millions of Americans still suffer from extremely grim employment figures, the situation in Britain shows no signs of any improvement whatsoever.

In fact, Brad DeLong writes, the British economy is now doing worse than it did in the Great Depression:

Yep. This many months after the start of the Great Depression, the British economy was rapidly converging back to its pre-depression level of production under Chancellor of the Exchequer Neville Chamberlain's policy of using stimulative policies to restore the price level to its pre-Great Depression trajectory. [...]
In less than a year, if current forecasts come true, the Cameron-Osborne Depression will not be the worst depression in Britain since the Great Depression, but the worst depression in Britain … probably ever.

That is quite an accomplishment. [...]

Here's a chart showing Britain's gross domestic product performance in the Great Depression and three recessions prior to the current one. In case you're afflicted by a bit of colorblindness, as I am, that line which flattens out at minus 4 percent on the far right of the chart is where the U.K. is now:

(National Institute of Economic and Social ResearchâU.K.)

What went wrong? DeLong cites Guardian economics correspondent Philip Inman, who wrote earlier this week:

Much of the UK's plan for recovery from the financial crisis was based on a full-throttle recovery in 2012. This was going to be the year that a return of consumer confidence, business investment and general spending would converge to send the economy on a trajectory of above-average growth. Maybe we would even get back some of the output we lost in the crash. [...]
Business investment has already slumped and confidence indexes show few consumers are ready to spend outside key periods such as Christmas. [...]

And the lack of investment will perplex ministers. They have done what the right-wing economists told them to do and moved out of the way — the theory being that public sector spending and investment was "crowding out" the private sector.

That's the theory of right-wing economists and politicians in the United States, too. Kill as much government spending as possible and get out of the way so the private sector can "do its job." We'll be hearing a lot of that kind of talk in the coming months as the Republicans whittle down the bevy of candidates to the one who will meet Barack Obama come November.

Unfortunately, many Americans will buy their argument because of the economy's weak performance, only 1.6 percent growth in gross domestic product for all of 2011, and forecasts of even less than that for the first quarter of 2012. Their call for lower taxes on the wealthy and fewer regulations on the the financial sector is exactly the wrong approach. Don't believe it? Ask your working-class friends across the pond.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2006:

In a series of cases, many decided in the last few weeks, the federal courts have upheld the controversial "stop-loss" policy, which requires soldiers to remain in the military beyond their contracted term.
On Tuesday , a federal judge threw out a claim brought by two soldiers, David Qualls and Rafael Perez. Qualls' case was dismissed as moot because he voluntarily re-enlisted after filing suit in 2004. Qualls said he re-enlisted to get the $15,000 to avoid bankruptcy and provide for his family and children. As for Perez's claim, the judge ruled there was no evidence that his recruiter misled him, nor was their a contractual breach on the part of the government. There were initially eight soldiers in the lawsuit, but six dropped out after the judge refused to grant their request to stay anonymous.

Meanwhile, in Doe v. Rumsfeld (2006 WL 62337), the Ninth Circuit also upheld the military's stop-loss policy, ruling that the policy is a "valid exercise of presidential power authorized by 10 U.S.C. § 12305(a)."

Tweet of the Day:

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: New polls offer mixed messages in the Mitt-Newt GOP cage match

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 01:45:03 UTC

Mitt Romney is resurgent!

(Unless he's not.)

Even if he's not, though, the schedule favors Mitt Romney. After all, he is coming up on a series of contests in places like Arizona and Michigan, where he should have a real advantage.

(Unless he doesn't.)

There are two very contradictory themes developing as we head into the weekend before the Florida primaries. On one hand, it is becoming more and more likely that Newt Gingrich will lose Florida, by what looks like it will be a margin in the high single digits. On the other hand, Gingrich's hand seems to still be strengthening elsewhere, especially in national polling.

The evidence lies, as it often does, in the numbers:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Gingrich 32, Romney 24, Paul 14, Santorum 13
ARIZONA (American Research Group): Gingrich 32, Romney 32, Paul 12, Santorum 10

FLORIDA (Dixie Strategies/First Coast News): Gingrich 35, Romney 35, Santorum 9, Paul 7

FLORIDA (Quinnipiac): Romney 38, Gingrich 29, Paul 14, Santorum 12

FLORIDA (VSS/Sunshine State News): Romney 42, Gingrich 32, Santorum 12, Paul 9

MICHIGAN (EPIC-MRA): Romney 31, Gingrich 26, Paul 14, Santorum 10

On the general election front, the president still has an edge, and perhaps more importantly, a new poll showed Obama reclaiming the lead from Mitt Romney in a blue-leaning state with special ties to the GOP challenger.

NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Obama d. Romney (45-42); Obama d. Gingrich (48-41)
MICHIGAN (EPIC-MRA): Obama d. Romney (48-40); Obama d. Gingrich (51-38)

How to explain Romney's Florida renaissance with his softening numbers elsewhere? Actually, I suspect that there is a very simple explanation, which I will explore after the jump.

Permanent Medicare 'doc fix' possible in payroll tax bill

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:49:00 UTC

A committee of 20 representatives and senators began meeting this week to hash out how to extend for the entire year some pretty critical economic measures: the payroll tax cut, unemployment benefits, and a fix to the formula for reimbursements to doctors for Medicare.

Of the three issues, the so-called "doc fix" is the least controversial. The "doc fix" is the shorthand used to describe the nearly annual bill Congress passes to override another law they passed, the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula, which was enacted in 1996 to try to keep Medicare costs under control. Almost every year since it has been overridden by Congress because it doesn't actually work. If it's not fixed this year, providers will be hit with a nearly 30 percent cut in their reimbursements.

The Democrats have a relatively simple idea for paying for this fix basically forever. Their plan is to pay for a full repeal of it with the more than half a trillion dollars in savings from the Iraq and Afghanistan drawdowns. Up until now Republicans have been insisting that was nothing but an accounting gimmick and not real money. They would much prefer to pay for the fix by enacting deep cuts in other health care spending, notably hacking away at the Affordable Care Act.

But they've taken some heat over that from providers over the intransigence on this one. In addition to that pressure, it is possible that it's dawned on them that picking these fights over proposals that actually help people is making them less popular generally. At any rate, they seem to be coming around to the Democrats' idea.

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA), the co-chairman of the GOP Doctors Caucus, which leadership usually defers to on this issue, last month slammed the war savings offset as “funny money” and a “Ponzi scheme.” But Tuesday after the State of the Union, he was singing a different tune. [...]
“You might say that using the overseas contingency fund is a little bit of smoke in mirrors, but quite honestly, the SGR is smoke in mirrors,” he argued. “Let’s trade one flawed system for the other, if you will. Let’s bring it back to zero, and start fresh, and do the right thing.”

Gingrey says House leadership has essentially given the issue over to the GOP Doctors Caucus to decide, so Gingrey's attitude will likely seal the deal. Giving up on trying to force other health care cuts in this bill means one less knock-down drag-out fight for Democrats and, almost unbelievably, Congress finally resolving an issue they've been putting off dealing with for years.

Oklahoma Republican seeks to ban use of aborted fetuses in food products

rss@dailykos.com (Kaili Joy Gray) — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:33:56 UTC

Well, it's good to know that lawmakers are finally cracking down on this problem:

A bill introduced in the Oklahoma Legislature has some folks scratching their heads, as it prohibits "the manufacture or sale of food or products which use aborted human fetuses."

The bill states:

No person or entity shall manufacture or knowingly sell food or any other product intended for human consumption which contains aborted human fetuses in the ingredients or which used aborted human fetuses in the research or development of any of the ingredients.

The genius behind this bill, State Sen. Ralph Shortey, (R-Of course), explained his rationale:

The senator says that his research shows there are companies in the food industry that have used human stem cells to help them research and develop products, including artificial flavorings.
"I don't know if it is happening in Oklahoma, it may be, it may not be. What I am saying is that if it does happen then we are not going to allow it to manufacture here."

Frankly, I'm appalled at this attempt to restrict our personal liberties. Who doesn't enjoy a fetus pop on a hot summer day? Or a nice bowl of cream of fetus on a cold winter night? What about folks who enjoy deep fried fetus on a stick at the county fair? Do we really want to prevent McDonald's from introducing the McFetus? That's not very free market-y of the senator. Come on, man, this is America. Our founding fathers didn't discover America just so we could not enjoy our favorite fetus recipes in the privacy of our own homes.

Maybe Oklahoma shouldn't have been so quick to ban that other non-existent creeping epidemic: sharia law in U.S. courts. I hear the terrorists don't like aborted fetuses either.

Kaiser poll finds little faith in Supreme Court

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:49:50 UTC

The Kaiser Family Foundation has released its Health Tracking Poll for January, this time focusing on the Affordable Care Act and the current case before the Supreme Court challenging the law. It's remarkable for one particular finding, just how cynical the American public is about one of the most revered of institutions, the Supreme Court.

That's probably the result of a decade's worth of very political decisions, from Bush v. Gore to Citizens United. The Court certainly isn't immune from the cynicism and distrust of political institution rampant in America, and justifiably so. Unsurprisingly, the majority of those asked, 55 percent, believe that the conservative court will find the law's individual mandate unconstitutional. The mandate itself is still highly unpopular with the "public more than twice as likely to have an unfavorable rather than favorable view of the provision (67% to 30%)."

However, the generally split attitude of the public toward the law as a whole is far more closely divided, 37 percent with a favorable opinion and 44 percent with an unfavorable opinion. But, and this is an important but, that unfavorable could include those who think the law needs to be expanded. Reinforcing that, more people would like to see the law kept and expanded than repealed: "the share of the public that favors expanding the law (31%) or keeping it in its current form (19%) remains larger than the share who would like to see the law repealed outright (22%) or repealed and replaced with a Republican-backed alternative (18%)."

Mayor Cory Booker's spontaneous marriage equality speech

rss@dailykos.com (Scott Wooledge) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:11:33 UTC

Newark, New Jersey Mayor Cory Booker was asked at a general press conference today about New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie's proposal to put marriage equality on the ballot for a referendum.

He begins by saying, "I've got very, very strong feelings about this ..."

Then he proceeded to demonstrate that he did. He delivered a barn-burner of an address to the gathered press.

Transcript after the fold.

There isn't much I could add to improve on this except to say thank you Mayor Booker.

Union membership edged up by 49,000 in 2011

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:15:13 UTC

(DonkeyHotey based on a WWII poster)

The 49,000-worker increase in overall union membership in the U.S. in 2011 isn't much. It's not much in raw numbers, and despite it the union membership rate edged down from 11.9 percent in 2010 to 11.8 percent in 2011. But in a year that saw an all-out assault on unions, union members, and the right to organize and bargain collectively, we'll take it.

Despite the very public assaults on public workers in particular, the union membership rate among public-sector workers increased slightly from 36.2 percent to 37 percent, while private-sector union membership, which has been under a less publicized assault for years, remained at 6.9 percent. Full-time workers were just over twice as likely as part-time workers to be union members, another of the negative outcomes of the part-time economy.

Each end of the age spectrum saw increases in overall union membership: 15,000 more 16 to 24 year olds were union members in 2011 than in 2010, and ages 55 and over saw an increase as well. Black workers were most likely to be union members, followed by whites, Asians and Hispanic workers.

In the wage data we find some of the reasons corporations and Republican politicians are so hell-bent on destroying unions. In health care support occupations, union members have a median weekly income of $519, compared with $484 for non-members. In protective service occupations, union members have a median weekly income of $1,008, while non-members earn a median $627. In retail, it's $591 for union members to $577 for non-members. In food services, it's $585 to $424.

When the powerful are waging war on you with every tool at their disposal, a small gain is worth a celebration—and a redoubling of your efforts to gain yet more ground.

Mitt Romney turning off independents

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:48:11 UTC

Mitt Romney measures his ... support from independents (Brian Snyder/Reuters)

Via Greg Sargent, check out these numbers for Mitt Romney among independents:

November:
Romney viewed somewhat or very negatively by 22% of independents
Romney led Obama by 13 points—47% to 34%.
Today:
Romney viewed somewhat or very negatively by 42% of independents
Romney trails Obama by 8 points—36% to 44%

Perhaps the Republican establishment is right when they say that Newt Gingrich would be an electoral disaster for Republicans. But with these kinds of trends, it's looking like Mitt Romney might not be all that much better.

Senate Democrats to push new strategy for tax reform

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 17:46:53 UTC

Sen. Chuck Schumer (Jason Reed/Reuters)

Senate Democrats intend to push a new strategy of tax reform based on the proposals outlined in President Obama's State of the Union. Rather than using the basic foundation of the 1986 tax reform with some tweaking, a handful of lawmakers have been talking tax reform using the template of the current system. But that's changing.

“Tax reform after the president's speech now has a different definition,” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday.
“We intend to pursue a different kind of tax reform that borrows from the president's proposals," Schumer, a leader in crafting Democratic messaging, told reporters. [...]

“Don't underestimate the chances of Congress to enact parts of the president's blueprint,” Schumer also said Wednesday. “Republicans will not go along out of a desire to cooperate, but they may find they have to out of political necessity.”

The "Buffett Rule" proposed by Obama—that anyone making $1 million or more pay at least 30 percent in taxes—and setting a minimum amount of taxes that multinational corporations have to pay will likely be cornerstones of the proposal. They will also target the "carried interest" tax break on capital gains, the tax break that allows Mitt Romney to pay just 14 percent of his income in taxes.

Cheers and Jeers: Rum and Coke FRIDAY!

rss@dailykos.com (Bill in Portland Maine) — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 00:02:36 UTC

From the GREAT STATE OF MAINE…

Oh, Rachel. You had me at "PolitiFact, you are fired."

From Wednesday night's show:

"PolitiFact, you are fired. You are a mess. You are fired. You are undermining the definition of the word "fact" in the English language by pretending to it in your name. The English language wants its word back.
You are an embarrassment. You sully the reputation of anyone who cites you as an authority on fact-ishness, let alone fact. You are fired."

That was the warm-up. Last night she launched a second barrage when she caught PolitiFact playing fast and loose with the you-know-whats yet again:

"I hereby implore all of us who have interest in the word "fact" continuing to mean something---all of us, left, right and center---to stop playing the bullpucky lottery.
If PolitiFact rates you "True," it's no more a badge of honor than if they rate you "Pants On Fire." If you want to assert the truth or falseness of something else that somebody else did in politics, a citation from PolitiFact can not help you with that. If PolitiFact could be stripped of the word "fact," they should be. In the meantime, let their derision be a source of pride. Let their support be a source of anxiety."

Trust me, that won’t be difficult.

Oh, and speaking of pants on fire: as I head downstairs to open the kiddie pool, please enjoy this flashback from the days when Republicans swore on Bibles that history would judge this guy as one of the greatest leaders the world has ever seen:

"We will not pass along our problems to other Congresses, to other presidents, and other generations."
---George W. Bush, State of the Union address, Jan. 28, 2003

Sorry, tea partiers. You bought him, you own him. He'll always be your crazy uncle in the attic. The fuzzy green beef log in the back of your fridge. The skunk smell on your dog that no amount of tomato juice can get rid of. The straight F's on your report card. The needle pointing to 'E' on your gas gauge. The "heckuva job" tattoo on your tuckus. Enjoy your weekend.

Your west coast-friendly edition of Cheers and Jeers starts below the fold... [Swoosh!!] RIGHTNOW! [Gong!!]

Verizon workers are still fighting for middle-class jobs. Help make tax-dodging Verizon take notice.

rss@dailykos.com (Laura Clawson) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:09:08 UTC

It's been five months since striking Communications Workers of America and International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers members went back to work at Verizon, and they're still waiting and fighting for Verizon to agree to a fair contract that protects middle-class jobs. Instead of bargaining in good faith, though, Verizon has focused on things like sending workers a condescending video calling on them to give in.

Here's a company that paid a negative federal income tax rate from 2008 to 2010, dodged state taxes, raked in enormous state and local subsidies, paid its top executives more than a quarter of a billion dollars over four years, cut jobs and is engaged in a long battle with its union workers over Verizon's demands for things like eliminating their job security and disability benefits, freezing their pensions and downgrading their health insurance.

Verizon has repeatedly made it clear that they agree with the union members that this is a battle over middle-class jobs. Specifically, Verizon thinks middle-class jobs shouldn't be good jobs, that lousy health care and benefits and no job security are good enough for people in the middle class and that working people shouldn't fight for better—job security and good health care should be the province of the 1 percent.

"We need to get their attention," one of the workers in the video above says. "There are 45,000 of us waiting for a fair contract, and they're not listening." Another adds: "We need all of you to be out there and fighting with us. It's not the next guy's job to go out there and he'll cover it."

Help get Verizon's attention. Tell them to stop trying to destroy middle class jobs and stop using corporate tax loopholes and dodges to avoid paying a fair share. Sign the petition.

Open thread: Newt Gingrich, psychiatry and outrage

rss@dailykos.com (Barbara Morrill) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 23:00:03 UTC

A Fox News "psychiatrist" suggests that Newt Gingrich's multiple affairs might make him a "strong president." Hunter isn't buying it.
Mark Sumner will say: Meet George Jetson ... the future isn't what it used to be.
Armando will consider whether Occupy has changed the political narrative by reviewing President Obama's State of the Union speeches and the news coverage they generated.
Prompted by the box office success of George Lucas' Red Tails portraying the 332nd Fighter Group and the 477th Bombardment Group of the U.S. Army Air Corps (Tuskegee Airmen), Denise Oliver-Velez will discuss the dearth of Hollywood films on the 442nd Regimental Combat Team (Nisei) and their families—many of whom were sent to "relocation" camps for the duration of WWII.
Laurence Lewis will express his appreciation for the Republicans having chosen Mitch Daniels to rebut President Obama's State of the Union speech.
Barack Obama's speech on Sunday has placed him in the sweet spot for his general election campaign. But Mitt Romney's primary campaign has put him in an untenable position. In a descriptive essay with a lot of moving parts, brooklynbadboy describes the contours of the general election.
Dante Atkins will muse on his ongoing battle with the case of outrage fatigue he has contracted as a result of prolonged exposure to the Republican primary.

Mitt Romney's campaign selectively whitewashes inconvenient statements from official transcripts

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 22:30:02 UTC

Romney's staff deleted email records as governor ... and inconvenient portions of transcripts as a candidate

Here's one more way in which Mitt Romney's campaign is showing a willful disregard for the truth: When it sends reporters transcripts of official campaign events, it scrubs those transcripts of portions that the campaign finds to be inconvenient. According to BuzzFeed's McKay Coppins, Romneyworld recently excluded Tim Pawlenty's answer to a question about Mitt Romney's investments in government-sponsored enterprises. And Coppins points to a similar example when the campaign excluded comments by John Sununu about Romney's tax return from another transcript.

Obviously, there's nothing illegal here, and nobody should be surprised by the fact that Romney's campaign is doing everything it can—honest or otherwise—to elect their candidate. But anyone who relies on Romney's campaign for accurate information should keep examples like this in mind: The only thing you can trust about something Romneyworld puts out is that it will be in Mitt Romney's best interest.

Wall Street donors swamp all others in election spending

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:11:55 UTC

This is enough to turn your stomach.

FIRE stands for the finance, insurance, and real estate sector, or in other words, Wall Street. The Sunlight Foundation study reveals that in the past two decades, the number of donors giving $10,000 or more from this sector has risen 405 percent. More astounding, the combined contributions to individual candidate, PACs, parties, or independent expenditure groups has grown by 700 percent.

Sunlight calls these donors the "Political One Percent of the One Percent." There were 5,510 of them in the 2010 cycle, and they now contribute one quarter of all individual campaign contributions made in this country.

Where's that money going?

That blip you see on the right, where the money to Democrats went just above 50 percent, was after the 2008 election, when Democrats had the House, Senate and White House. Then came Dodd-Frank and the 2010 election. Boy, that's a steep drop off, huh?

But that's instructive to see when you hear Republicans rail against taxing the wealthy. Because you know very few of the 5,510 donors, the Political One Percent of the One Percent, are paying 30 percent of their income in taxes.

Bank of America demands borrower silence in exchange for loan modification

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:47:48 UTC

Bank of America is continuing to be remarkably thin-skinned. Of course, when experiences like Kaili Joy Gray's go public, they look really bad. Just as bad, in fact, as they actually are.

Now, thanks to investigators in Arizona, we know how Bank of America is dealing with that kind of public airing of grievances by their customers, at least on the mortgage side of their business. They're bribing them with "cash payments and loan relief" as long as they "agree to keep them secret and not criticize the bank." Those agreements to keep the settlements secret is impeding Arizona's investigation into BoA's loan modification practices. The state has filed suit, asking a state court to block these parts of the settlements.

One 2011 accord involving a borrower facing foreclosure who defaulted on a $253,142 mortgage included a $5,000 payment, plus $7,500 for legal fees, and the defaulted payments were waived and the loan was modified to a 40-year term with a 2 percent interest rate, court documents show. The terms of the original loan and the borrower’s complaint about the lender weren’t described in the documents.
The borrower “will remove and delete any online statements regarding this dispute, including, without limitation, postings on Facebook, Twitter and similar websites,” and not make any statements “that defame, disparage or in any way criticize” the bank’s reputation, practices or conduct, according to documents filed in state court in Phoenix. The borrower’s name and address were redacted. [...]

“These agreements have completely silenced even the most communicative consumers,” [Assistant Attorney General Carolyn] Matthews said in the filing. “The settlement agreement purposefully makes it impossible, legally and practically, for a consumer signing it to come forward, voluntarily and promptly, to provide evidence in this case.”

So this action by BoA goes beyond just trying to avoid bad PR and is skating the border of obstruction, since the borrowers are bound to secrecy and can't cooperate with investigators.

Matthews is asking the court to order Bank of America to release the borrowers from the non-disclosure agreement and tell them they will not be held to the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions of their settlements. The hearing is set for February 1.

Today in Newt

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 21:00:03 UTC

YOUR AD HERE (Eric Thayer/Reuters)

Everyone seems to be of the opinion that Newt Gingrich did poorly in this latest debate. Apparently "everyone" includes Newt and his staffers: Their excuse for his lackluster performance this time around, was that the auditorium was packed with Romney supporters:

"They definitely packed the room," Kevin Kellems, one of Gingrich's senior advisers, told The Huffington Post early Friday morning.

Got that? So when CNN kept people from applauding, that was unfair to Newt. When CNN let people applaud, but they applauded for Mitt Romney, that also was unfair to Newt. Apparently the only way Newt will be satisfied is if CNN instructs the next debate audience that they are only allowed to applaud for Newt Gingrich. Come to think of it, I'd be surprised if the Gingrich campaign isn't drafting that demand right now.

Meanwhile, the Gingrich campaign is attempting to recover by releasing a new negative ad. Or more accurately, releasing the mere transcript for their new ad. (Is that a thing now? Like the ever-increasing numbers of running-for-office announcements candidates announce, now we're going to get pre-announcements and pre-pre-announcements of every individual ad? Oh dear.)

From the transcript, which attacks Mitt Romney for lying about his votes for Democrats and his blind trust:

Narrator: What kind of man would mislead, distort, and deceive just to win an election?
This man would be Mitt Romney. Romney said he has always voted Republican when he had the opportunity.
But in the 1992 Presidential Primary Romney had the chance to vote for George H.W. Bush or Pat Buchanan but he voted for a liberal Democrat instead.

Two things, here. One, "What kind of man would mislead, distort, and deceive just to win an election?" Um, I'm gonna have to say "all of them." Prove me wrong, PolitiFact, prove me wrong. But second, it's good to see that the name "Bush" hasn't been entirely purged from the Republican lexicon. What's that? It's the wrong Bush? Ah.

Newt himself is going with the same attack: He was just so floored by Mitt Romney's lack of ethics that he hardly knew how to fight back:

“I think it’s the most blatantly dishonest performance by a presidential candidate I’ve ever seen,” Gingrich said in a telephone interview. At several moments during the debate, Gingrich simply leaned away from his lectern and looked down at his feet because he was so stunned by some of Romney’s statements, he said. He didn’t engage Romney at the time, he said, because “I wanted to fact check. I wanted to make sure he was as totally dishonest as I thought he was.”

Newt Gingrich, at a loss for words?

Newt Gingrich national lead continues to grow in Gallup

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:34:51 UTC

Gallup's latest:

Source: Gallup.com

Like just about everybody else, I think these numbers will change dramatically after Tuesday's Florida primary, which Mitt Romney will probably win by a healthy margin. But predictions have come cheap in this primary, and the one thing that's been clear is that while a substantial portion of the Republican electorate would accept Mitt Romney as their nominee, a large majority are not yet sold on his candidacy.

Mitt Romney may be able to wrap this thing up simply because he has a better organization than his rivals, but the resiliency of opposition to his nomination is fairly powerful—and the fact that Newt Gingrich, despite being such a flawed candidate, is still eight points ahead of him in the latest Gallup poll, is a testament to that fact.

Midday Open Thread

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:00:03 UTC

Today's comic is $#*! Mitt Romney doesn't say by Matt Bors:
Netroots Nation needs your help in developing and organizing the sessions (panels, trainings and screening series sessions) you want to see at Netroots Nation this June 7-10 in Providence. The deadline for submissions is Jan. 31. Guidelines and the submission form are here.
Some parts of America are permanent dead zones:
Recent headlines of a brighter economic picture have given many people hope that the economy is not in another free fall. GDP growth did tick upward in the last quarter. But for many communities the picture is enduringly dark, because unemployment rates have lagged far behind the national average for years and will likely continue to do so. [...]
Conventional wisdom suggests that areas of high unemployment would benefit if resident populations had higher education achievement-rates, that is, more college graduates and fewer high school dropouts. While this may be true in certain situations, it is not necessarily the case in either prosperous or dead zones.
Daily Kos Senior Policy Editor Joan McCarter will appear tonight at about 7:30 PM ET on Current TV to discuss news of the day with Cenk Uygur.
A judge has removed a San Luis, Ariz., city council candidate from the ballot because of her inability to speak English fluently enough to meet requirements set by a state law. She blamed the removal on retaliation.
[Alejandrina] Cabrera, who last year launched two unsuccessful attempts to recall Escamilla as mayor, was one of 10 candidates to file petitions to run for the council.
Is there anywhere Newt doesn't want to bomb?
Twenty years ago, scientists couldn't be certain there even are planets in the universe other than the ones circling our own sun. Hundreds have since been confirmed. To the 34 planets it had already discovered in its first two years of operation, NASA's Kepler mission recently added another 11 systems hosting 26 planets to the inventory. For a cool artist's rendering of these planets and other good stuff about the Kepler spacecraft and its photometer, click here.
If you're partly colorblind, as I am, this video of the northern lights isn't quite as cool as for those who can see the full spectrum. But still stunning anyway.
Paula the Penguin delivered a present to the president of the Kentucky Senate.
Proposed reductions in Pentagon spending not enough by half, say liberal Democrats:
“The Cold War is long over, and no remotely comparable adversary has emerged or is likely to emerge,” the Democrats wrote in a letter to Obama. “We believe that savings of around $900 billion over the next 10 years can be realized … We ask you to take even bolder leadership on this issue as you finalize your budget.”
Besides [Barney] Frank [(Mass.)], Reps. Barbara Lee (Calif.), Rush Holt (N.J.) and Lynn Woolsey (Calif.) signed on to the letter calling for deep spending cuts and the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Afghanistan this year.
In case you didn't see our coverage of it Thursday, here's the tool that will tell you how much Mitt Romney makes in a day compared to what you make in a year.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse set to introduce 'Buffett Rule' tax bill

rss@dailykos.com (Joan McCarter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 19:13:11 UTC

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (Larry Downing/Reuters)

Senate Democrats are talking about a new strategy for tax reform that highlights the "Buffett Rule," the proposal stemming from billionaire Warren Buffett's campaign to pay a higher tax rate than his secretary. In his State of the Union address Tuesday, President Obama called for a the rule, saying that anyone making in the seven figures should have to pay at least 30 percent in taxes.

Those Democrats weren't just talking. They've got a proposal ready to go, according to Greg Sargent.

I’m told that Senator Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI] is set to announce a proposal to do just this. The Senate Dem leadership is not commenting on this idea, but Dem leaders are looking for ways to hold votes on the agenda Obama laid out in his State of the Union speech. This would accomplish that perfectly. [...]
Whitehouse’s office shared some details of the proposal — which is called “Paying A Fair Share Act,” and will be introduced by Whiteouse next week.

The bill would require millionaires (well, their accountants) to calculate their overall tax responsibility—taking into account all income under every tax rate—in the current system, excluding charitable donations. If their effective tax rate is less than 30 percent, they would be required to pay 30 percent of all their income.

Whitehouse is pushing for a stand-alone vote on this bill, for it not to become a part of a larger package. It has the advantage of not requiring any tinkering with the existing tax structure, it works with it, and thus can be voted on quickly and not included in a long and drug out serious of compromises required in a larger tax reform debate.

It would also have the advantage of putting Republicans on the record right now for tax fairness, when the topic is white hot. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should definitely force this issue now, and the Whitehouse proposal is the perfect vehicle for it.

Rick Santorum gets under Mitt Romney's skin

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:50:03 UTC

There's no question that Newt Gingrich flamed out and lost to Mitt Romney in the debate last night ... but it's not like Romney dominated all of his opponents. For example, when Rick Santorum brought up Romneycare, he kicked Mitt Romney's ass with it—and as you can see in these reaction shots from CNN's split screen HD feed, it really pissed Mitt off.

So I guess it turns out that even Mitt Romneybot sometimes has trouble hiding his emotions. And really who can blame him? The last thing anybody wants is Santorum under their skin.

Associates of Ron Paul say he proofed and signed off on racist newsletters

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 18:14:45 UTC

Ron Paul newsletter of January 1990

For months the cheerful, kindly renegade Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul has acted like a victim when it comes to attention given the racist newsletters that were published two decades ago under his name. He's chastised reporters for pestering him about them, cut off interviews because, he said, he'd answered all the questions long ago. He put forth stories that he himself would soon punch holes in. He was disconnected from the newsletter operation, he claimed. He didn't read all the newsletters. He didn't approve of everything that went in them ahead of time. He didn't even know who wrote them. When he later would read them, he was appalled.

Such explanations never passed the smell test. Yet some people who should have blasted him did give him a pass because of his stances on a handful of issues, foreign policy, civil liberties and the war on drugs. When confronted with the fact that Paul's philosophy would trade what he considers federal tyranny with state tyranny, he still collected kudos. He got respect from debate moderators, his fellow candidates, audiences and some progressives.

The fact that most of his foreign policy ideas are driven by xenophobic isolationism, that his perspective on civil liberties is a cramped one that doesn't include, for instance, reproductive rights and that he thinks the Civil War and the civil rights movement of a hundred years later should never have happened because both slavery and Jim Crow would have eventually gone away anyway seemed not to give his supporters much pause. The guy's just a little quirky. And the newsletters? Irrelevant and the allegations unfounded.

Jerry Markon and Alice Crites have put the lie to that claim. They report rather than being unengaged and stand-offish, Paul was deeply involved in the operations of the newsletter company, Ron Paul & Associates, signed off on articles and spoke "to staff members virtually every day."

“It was his newsletter, and it was under his name, so he always got to see the final product. . . . He would proof it,’’ said Renae Hathway, a former secretary in Paul’s company and a supporter of the Texas congressman. [...]
Paul “had to walk a very fine line,’’ said Eric Dondero Rittberg, a former longtime Paul aide who says Paul allowed the controversial material in his newsletter as a way to make money. Dondero Rittberg said he witnessed Paul proofing, editing and signing off on his newsletters in the mid-1990s.

Some will no doubt argue, have argued, in fact, that Paul is not personally a racist. That he only inserted the incendiary racist stuff into an already noxiously conspiratorial and loony newsletter to make money, not because he actually believed any of it. This is an old argument. But, even if it's true in Paul's case, a lack of personal bigotry against other people because of their ethnicity or skin color isn't required to make one a racist. Stirring up hatred and pushing philosophies and policies that serve to keep others "in their place" is what matters. That's what Paul engaged in. And that is the epitome of racism.

Obama wants everyone's kids to go to college so they can be brainwashed, Rick Santorum says

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 23:35:52 UTC

Rick Santorum thinks President Obama had indoctrination in mind when he said in his State of the Union address Tuesday that higher education ought to be available to every American family.

The GOP presidential candidate, who is running third in the Florida polls ahead of next Tuesday's primary in that state, told an audience there Wednesday that the real purpose behind Obama's higher-education push is "undermining the very principles of our country every single day by indoctrinating kids with left-wing ideology. ... The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left's holding and maintaining power in America." To applause, he said people should stop contributing to these universities and colleges.

In a campaign of stupidity, this will most surely rank as one of the most stupid stupidities of 2012. The candidate's opposition to higher education is nothing new. He's been hammering on that theme for quite a while. Never mind that American men who don't have a college education are making 47 percent less in inflation-adjusted dollars as they did in 1969.

At the Florida venue, Santorum made the additional claim that "62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it." Is this one of the 81.5 percent of statistics that are made up on the spot? Because, as on so much else, Santorum is dead wrong on this.

According to a 2007 study Losing My Religion: The Social Sources of Religious Decline in Early Adulthood by Jeremy E. Uecker at the University of Texas at Austin:

"...those who never attended college had the highest rates of decline in church attendance (76.2 percent), diminished importance placed on religion (23.7 percent), and disaffiliation from religion (20.3 percent). Students who earned at least a bachelor's degree, on the other hand, had the lowest rates on those three factors with 59.2 percent indicating decreased church attendance and 15 percent placing less importance on religion and disaffiliating from religion."
"Overall, the overwhelming majority (82 percent) of college students maintain at least a static level of personal religiosity in early adulthood and 86 percent retain their religious affiliation."

Of course, that's just a peer-reviewed study from one of them pointy-headed intellectual types at a secular university. There's some pointy-headedness occurring, to be sure.

Henry Waxman calls latest Republican move on Keystone pipeline 'stupid'

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:56:23 UTC

Rep. Henry Waxman

One page progressives should take from the Republican playbook is relentlessness. Having just seen the Keystone XL pipeline rejected—in part because they jammed a requirement that President Obama make a decision about it in 60 days into the two-month payroll tax deal made in December—they're at again. Now they want to attach approval of the pipeline to consideration of the payroll tax compromise by the conference panel that seeks to reconcile House and Senate versions:

"That is so stupid, already, for them to be pushing the Keystone pipeline issue in this bill, in this conference," Rep. Henry Waxman told reporters gathered near the Chesapeake Bay for the Democrats' annual caucus retreat. "The pipeline issue is one that the Republicans are obsessing over."
"Many of us believe that that pipeline will lock us into a 50 to 100 years of dependence on the dirtiest source of oil," said Waxman, the senior Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He characterized the GOP's Keystone provision as a "special interest earmark" with no business on the tax bill.

Indeed. The Congressman deserves a huzzah for looking at the big picture. Not the pipeline per se, but what it means for the long-term future in a world of climate change. But it's an election year. So we'll no doubt be hearing a lot more bogus statistics about how many jobs the pipeline will create, claims so ludicrous that they have sparked a complaint to the Securities and Exchange Commission. We can also expect commentary from pundits and industry-funded shills like the Institute for Energy Research about how this will help free the United States from dependence on foreign oil, Canada apparently having been brought into the Union without getting a star on Old Glory.

Republican Senate candidate calls Mitt Romney's 'blind trust' defense 'an age-old ruse'

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 16:45:02 UTC

In 1994, Mitt Romney attacked Ted Kennedy's blind trust investments

In last night's debate, Mitt Romney repeatedly responded to questions about his investment portfolio—including his Swiss bank account—with a shrug of the shoulders. He didn't know anything about his investments, he said, because they were in a blind trust. "My investments are not made by me," he said. "My investments for the last 10 years have been in a blind trust, managed by a trustee."

In 1994, however, a Republican U.S. Senate candidate in Massachusetts said using a blind trust as a political shield was "an age-old ruse." That candidate? Mitt Romney—and he meant it, attacking investments in Ted Kennedy's blind trust. (Talk about hating on capitalism!)

According to ABC News, the Mitt Romney of 1994 was right. Romney's trustee is in fact a close family friend. ABC reports Rick Santorum's campaign questions how Romney's trust could possibly be completely blind given that it was investing hundreds of thousands into his one of his sons' businesses, for example. And National Journal points out that not all of Romney's investments were actually in the blind trust—including one of the ones he was questioned about last night. Romneyland's defense? That even though the investments weren't blind, Romney still wasn't responsible for making them.

All of this is vintage Romney, of course: he's got an explanation for everything. He just wants you to be blind to the fact that it's different than the one from the day before. And the day before that.

Mitt Romney offers yet another explanation for why he voted in 1992 Democratic primary

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 15:33:22 UTC

Last night, Mitt Romney explained his 1992 vote for former Massachusetts Senator Paul Tsongas in the Democratic primary as a vote against Bill Clinton. "I've never voted for a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot," he said. "And any chance I got to vote against Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy, I took." Romney's bottom-line? "I have always voted for a Republican any time there was a Republican on the ballot."

Okay, fair enough. Romney is saying he's a Republican, but given the chance to vote against Bill Clinton in 1992, he decided to meddle in the Democratic primary. If he'd had the opportunity to vote for a Republican in the Republican primary, he'd have jumped at the chance, but lacking that, he voted Democratic.

Seems reasonable, except there was a Republican primary. But it's not just the facts that get in the way of Mitt Romney's explanation. It's Mitt Romney himself, because just about each time he's explained the vote, he's explained it differently.

On December 15, 1993, The Boston Globe reported that Romney said "he couldn't recall" for whom he had voted. Six weeks later, the Globe reported that Romney "confirmed he voted for former US Sen. Paul Tsongas." Why? Because "favored his ideas over those of Bill Clinton." Then in October of 1994, The Washington Post reported that Romney "publicizes his brief stint as a Democrat to support ex-senator Paul Tsongas in the 1992 presidential primary."

Flash forward 13 years to February, 2007 and Romney offered a completely different rationale in an interview with ABC's George Stephanopoulos: "When there was no real contest in the Republican primary, I’d vote in the Democrat primary, vote for the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican."

So Romney has gone from not being able to recall who he voted for, to saying he voted for Tsongas because he liked Tsongas, to saying his vote for Tsongas shows he is bipartisan, to saying he voted for Tsongas to oppose Bill Clinton, to saying he voted for Tsongas to weaken the Democrats, to saying he only voted for Tsongas because he didn't have a chance to vote for a Republican. Except, of course, he did.

So what does Mitt Romney really believe? Nobody really knows. And that probably includes Mitt Romney himself.

NBC/WSJ poll: Gingrich leads Romney; Obama leads Romney and crushes Gingrich

rss@dailykos.com (DemFromCT) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:05:22 UTC

In a second release of data from the NBC/WSJ poll (yesterday's post was on an improving right/wrong track and Obama's consequent improvement in ratings) we have some horse race numbers to review.

According to the poll, Gingrich leads Romney 37-28. However, notable is that head to head, Obama's lead over Romney (49-43) is way less than that over Gingrich (55-37). And if Ron Paul is in the mix as a third party, unlikely as it may look right now, it's Obama 45, Romney 32, Paul 18. Clearly, a Ron Paul third party run would be excellent news for the White House.

The pollsters, Democrat Peter Hart and Republican Bill McInturff have a message to pass along:

Mr. McInturff's message to the GOP contenders: "You are not going to get elected simply by being the option to the president."
Mr. Hart had a similar assessment. "This is a great start for Obama with a lot of work to be done for the Republicans," he said. "The Republican primary is hurting them, and the improving economy is helping Obama."

Now, McIinturff says that because the numbers suggest damage done by the increasingly acrimonious GOP primary:

° Now, has what you have seen, read, or heard so far during the Republican presidential nominating process made you feel more favorable or less favorable toward the Republican Party or has it had no impact one way or the other on your feelings toward the Republican Party?

Should Gingrich run head to head with Romney, Newt wins by a whopping 52-39, with tea party and evangelical support. According to First Read, it's because Newt leads with "very conservative voters, the South and the Tea Party."

In fact, Gingrich leads in the South 65-28, the two are virtually tied in the West and Midwest and Romney narrowly leads in the Northeast (38-32).

Also of note is that for all adults (not just Republicans), the public discussion about Romney's version of capitalism (view now more positive 16, more negative 22, not much difference 37) hurt Romney less than discussion of his taxes (more positive 3, more negative 27, not much difference 43).

Other interesting nuggets include the generic ballot for Congress, in which Democrats now lead 47-41 over republicans, their largest lead since 10/09. And here's a fascinating question:

° If there were a place on your ballot that allowed you to vote to defeat and replace every single member of Congress, including your own representative, would you do this, or not?

That will have implications for WH vs Congressional battles to come.

One thing we have seen, however, is that an unhappy GOP electorate is a volatile GOP electorate. There's little in this poll to answer that question, but what happens beyond Florida, or even what happens to these rankings after Florida remain to be determined. Expect what we've seen before: a "fluid" situation.

Full poll (.pdf) is here, MoE plus/minus 3.1 for all respondents, plus/minus 4.7 for sub-groups.

Addendum: after last night's debate, the Romney-Gingrich number will surely change. But if, as expected, Gingrich drops, so does tea party clout. In this poll, the positive/negative tea party numbers are 28/43. When their opposition to Romney fails, what then? Santorum has no money, no organization and no time left. Still, Romney has yet to show he's embraced, no matter the FL outcome. Big NH numbers didn't prove it, and big FL numbers can secure the nomination, change Republican primary votes going forward, and still leave general election voters cold.

Daily Kos Elections Morning Digest: Two key North Carolina Democrats say they won't seek re-election

rss@dailykos.com (David Nir) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:00:03 UTC

Want the scoop on hot races around the country? Get the digest emailed to you each weekday morning. Sign up here.

Leading Off:

• NC-04/NC-13, NC-Gov: There were two major developments in North Carolina politics yesterday, both involving Democrats who said they would not seek re-election—developments which may yet wind up inter-related. Early on Thursday, Rep. Brad Miller, a strong progressive and a great friend to the netroots, announced that he would drop his congressional bid in the 4th District, where a new Republican-drawn map had pitted him against fellow Dem Rep. David Price. (You can read more about our thoughts on what led to Miller's decision, which was immediately felt hard by his many fans, here.)

A little later that same day, Gov. Bev Perdue, who sported bad-to-awful poll numbers almost from the moment she took office, declared that she, too, would not run again this November. (Our reaction to Perdue's move, and the reasons for it, can be found here.) Perdue's departure set off a wave of speculation, public statements, and hearsay about who Democrats might tap to replace her. (Hey, I hear Brad Miller might be available....) The situation has been moving very quickly—and one major candidate has already joined the race—so here's our best attempt to keep tabs on the very broad field that's under discussion:

• In: Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton — "I am the only candidate who has run and won statewide and I look forward to waging an aggressive campaign,"
• Likely in: State Rep. Bill Faison —"You should probably expect the announcement will be in that direction"

• Considering: Charlotte Mayor Anthony Foxx — "I will spend the coming weeks talking with my family and friends about how I could best serve our city and state"

• Considering: 7th CD Rep. Mike McIntyre — "I am always open to considering broader opportunities to serve, including the possibility of governor"

• Reportedly considering: Former 2nd CD Rep. Bob Etheridge — "A former aide... said he should be considered possibility"

• Reportedly considering: 11th CD Rep. Heath Shuler — "A source close to... Shuler... [says] he is strongly considering and leaning towards running for governor"

• Not ruling it out: State Rep. Dan Blue — "Didn't rule out a campaign, although he said he wasn't positioning himself for one"

• Not ruling it out: Winston-Salem Mayor Allen Joines: "I'd say it's too soon to rule anything out"

• Not ruling it out: 13th CD Rep. Brad Miller — "I haven't given it a first thought ... There are other qualified candidates out there"

• Not ruling it out: Former state Treasurer Richard Moore — "Said he hasn't decided whether to enter the race, but he said he's not sure he's the right person to run this year"

• Out: State AG Roy Cooper — "I am honored to serve as attorney general and plan to file for re-election"

• Out: State Treasurer Janet Cowell — "I intend to seek re-election as state treasurer"

• Out: Ex-state Sen. Cal Cunningham — "I am actively having conversations about the office of Lieutenant Governor"

• Out: Former Gov. Jim Hunt — "A secretary said he wanted everyone to know that he has no plans to run again"

• Out: SoS Elaine Marshall — "I have important business to finish at the Secretary of State's office and I hope I can count on your support in my campaign"

• Unknown: 2002 & 2004 Senate nominee Erskine Bowles — no public statements, though some unconfirmed reports say he's out

$#*! Mitt Romney doesn't say

rss@dailykos.com (Matt Bors) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:50:03 UTC

(click for larger image)

Bernie Sanders proposes to ax fossil-fuel subsidies and add 10 million sun-powered rooftops

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:18:23 UTC

Bernie Sanders used to be Congressman-at-large from Vermont. Now he's Vermont's junior Senator. In so many ways, however, he's the nation's Senator-at-large, showing the way when so many others in Congress have lost theirs.

While a good chunk of Congress, including a majority of the freshman class in the House, are climate-change deniers, Sanders has no illusions about where we need to be headed. That's why he introduced the 10 Million Solar Rooftops bill last June. That bill, now with seven co-sponsors, was approved for a vote by the full Senate in December. It's also why he introduced legislation to end oil and coal subsidies last year. That bill got just 35 votes in the Senate. But he vowed Tuesday not to give up. Here he is at the 350.org rally in Washington, D.C.:

“We’ve got to end all of the tax breaks for the oil companies and coal companies and I’m going to introduce legislation to do just that,” Sanders told demonstrators clad in black-and-white striped referee shirts who rallied to “blow the whistle” on members of Congress and Big Oil.
Ending tax breaks and subsidies for oil and gas companies would reduce the deficit by more than $40 billion over the next 10 years. Sanders’ legislation will end those tax breaks and tens of billions of dollars in other special subsidies for the fossil fuel industry.

Government reports 2.8% GDP growth for 4th quarter of 2011, below expectations, but best of the year

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 14:00:06 UTC

(Calculated Risk)

In its first estimate for the fourth quarter of 2011, the Bureau of Economic Analysis reported Friday that gross domestic product clocked in at an annualized level of 2.8 percent, by far the best showing in a very weak year, but below the consensus forecast of 3.0 percent. That puts GDP growth for the entire year at 1.6 percent. At this time last year, analysts, including the Federal Reserve, were predicting growth in 2011 of 4 percent or higher. Growth in 2010 was 3.0 percent.

GDP growth will be revised in two follow-up reports next month and in March. Today's number was substantially less than the fourth quarter of 2009, the best showing since the Great Recession began in December 2007. GDP growth in the third quarter of 2011 was 1.8 percent.

A key number in today's report was final domestic sales—GDP less the change in private inventories—which came in at a very weak 0.8 percent in the fourth quarter. While personal consumption expenditures picked up substantially in the fourth quarter, a good deal of this came out of personal savings, not from increased earnings. That is unsustainable over the long run.

While the GDP trend-line is up, major forecasters have recently dropped their somewhat rosier previous predictions for 2012. The average is now 2.3 percent for the year. Goldman Sachs recently predicted growth for the first quarter of 2012 at a meager 0.5 percent, which would be a match for the 0.4 percent of the first quarter of 2011. The Federal Reserve recently dropped its forecast from 2.7 percent to 2.2 percent for all of 2012. And the most recent 2012 forecast for U.S. GDP by the international Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development was 2 percent, having forecast an expansion of 3.1 percent last May.

Among the reasons for the lowered predictions is the tightening federal budget, the impact of economic problems in Europe, particularly the still burgeoning sovereign debt, which could lead to a default by one of the Eurozone countries, Italy or Spain being possibilities. The other big concern is the slowdown in GDP growth in China, where a bursting of the real estate bubble may be in the offing.

The fact that this month's announcement will mark the 10th quarter of GDP growth since the end of the Great Recession in June 2009 once again shows the need for a more inclusive gauge of economic well-being than the traditional GDP approach.

This is not to say that GDP has no value. It does. Adjustments in the past 15 years have made it a better measure of what it measures. Its biggest problem comes from it doesn’t measure. Especially about our overall well-being. As Robert F. Kennedy said in 1968, GDP "measures everything, in short, except that which makes life worthwhile."

Take pollution. GDP measures as income a manufactured product that creates pollution as a byproduct. It then measures the clean-up as income. It then measures health services to those sickened by the pollution as income.

GDP also leaves out things such as income inequality, the intensity of poverty, economic security, crime costs, the economic value of civic and voluntary work, the economic value of unpaid housework and child care, educational attainment and life expectancy. It’s a measure that assigns zero value to leisure time, to the depletion of mineral and other natural resources, to the benefits of saving, to trade imbalances, to deficits and debt.

Despite prodigious efforts, nobody has come up with an unflawed replacement. There are Canada's Genuine Progress Index, the Human Development Index and the Gini coefficient. But except for the GPI, these measure far less than GDP. The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress initiated by French President Nicolas Sarkozy with Nobel economists Joseph Stiglitz and Amartya Sen in charge, put together a comprehensive report in 2009, but they did not come up with a new, more realistic gauge. Some day, perhaps they or somebody else will.

Abbreviated Pundit Roundup: Post-debate punditry

rss@dailykos.com (Georgia Logothetis) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 12:31:16 UTC

Visual source: Newseum

The Republican presidential candidates squared off in their nineteenth primary debate yesterday and lo and behold, the pundits are a bit stunned that the conventional wisdom is proving to be a bit off the mark. Newt Gingrich continues to prove that his argumentative skills have a tendency to buckle under pressure, while Mitt Romney is building up quite a skill set of his own. Could the recent hire of one of Michele Bachmann's top debate coaches and strategists, Brett O’Donnell, be the cause? On to the punditry...

Jonathan Bernstein:

[F]or the second time this week, Newt showed that his debate skills are massively overrated, particularly his ability to attack an opponent with clear vulnerabilities. And Mitt Romney demonstrated exactly how to go about carving up an overmatched opponent. This time, not even having a noisy audience to appeal to could save the former Speaker.

Romney's hire of O'Donnell seems to be paying off in a big way. It looks like Romney's finally been able to find out how to get under Gingrich's skin and, as yesterday's debate proved, when that happens, it really throws Gingrich off his game.

Michael Crowley looks at the $10 million investment in Gingrich by the nation's eighth richest person, Sheldon Adelson:

I don’t believe we’ve ever seen a federal candidate who drew such a high proportion of his funding from a single donor. Adelson’s support is all the more unusual because the Vegas mogul swooped in to help his friend after Newt had been written off as a loser after his Iowa collapse; betting on Newt in early January, as Adelson did, seemed like putting your chips on green at the roulette table.
Still, you can also see Adelson’s support for Newt as the latest twist on a familiar story about the influence very rich people can exert on presidential politics–a story that gets updated and revised from time to time, but which, on some level, never really changes.

During yesterday's debate, Gingrich proposed that a prize be offered to spark a race to the moon. Froma Harrop points out the hypocrisy of Gingrich's proposal:

[W]here pray tell would the prize and encouragement money come from other than the taxpayers? And why does Gingrich suddenly say he wants a slimmer NASA? Not long ago, he co-wrote a piece saying that the "Obama administration's (2011) budget for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration deserves strong approval from Republicans."
To quote Yoda from "Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back," "You must unlearn what you have learned."

Hypocrisy and inconsistency are trademarks of Gingrich's candidacy. Conor Friedersdorf examines why those twin faults haven't doomed his candidacy among Republican primary voters:

Because his appeal is grounded in tribal solidarity -- because what people like about him is his ability to lash out at the mainstream media, the cultural elite, and President Obama -- he can stray from conservative orthodoxy and policy far more than any other candidate and still retain his support. It's a more extreme version of what happened during the Bush era. Republicans elected the guy with whom they wanted to have a beer, and since they felt in their gut he was one of them, he spent years advancing an agenda that would've drawn cries of tyranny had a Democrat tried it.

Carter Eskew also looks at the nine lives of Newt:

Democrats tend to miss the Republican side of the populist coin: both sides have deep resentment and a desire to blow up the system, but for Democrats, it's a system of financial privilege; for Republicans it is the elites in government that are dragging us down.

Up until this point, Gingrich has surged to the forefront of the Republican primary on that horse of anti-establishment rhetoric. That works great in soundbites, commercials and on the trail, but Romney's aggressive posture during the last two debates is revealing that Gingrich's anti-establishment stance is a farce. John Avlon thinks the marathon debate season is a good thing (for voters, that is):

With a slight too-cool-for-school groan and accompanying eye-roll, the argument goes like this: The debates have taken up too much time for the candidates and their campaigns; they distract from retail campaigning and fundraising; they give the media too much of a role in the voters' vetting process. But I take a different view: The debates have been a valuable addition to this election cycle. [....] Expensive television ads, in contrast, seem to have lost some power of persuasion. This is a good thing -- the debates have imposed an unprecedented degree of transparency and accountability on this GOP presidential race.

Open Threads for Night Owls: Special ops and new bases in Africa

rss@dailykos.com (Meteor Blades) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 04:30:02 UTC

Spencer Ackerman writes:

When Adm. Eric Olson, the former leader of U.S. Special Operations Command, wanted to explain where his forces were going, he would show audiences a photo that NASA took, titled “The World at Night.” The lit areas showed the governed, stable, orderly parts of the planet. The areas without lights were the danger zones — the impoverished, the power vacuums, the places overrun with militants that prompted the attention of elite U.S. troops. And few places were darker, in Olson’s eyes, than East Africa.
Quietly, and especially over the last two to three years, special operations forces have focused on that very shadowy spot on NASA’s map. The successful Tuesday night raid to free two humanitarian aid workers from captivity in Somalia is only the most recent and high-profile example. More and more elite forces have transited through a mega-base in Djibouti that’s a staging ground for strikes on al-Qaida allies in the Horn of Africa, especially in Somalia.

It’s not quite the new Pakistan, or even the new Yemen, but it’s close — especially as new bases for the U.S.’s Shadow Wars pop up and expand. The U.S. military sometimes seemed like it was casting about for a reason to set up shop in Africa. Counterterrorism has given it one. [...]

Nor is the military the only U.S. organization at work in east Africa. Somalia has attracted the CIA as well, which runs a secret prison attached to the Mogadishu airport. During earlier iterations of the CIA’s post-9/11 involvement in Somalia, it blustered that its operations were protected by drones that actually weren’t overhead—all while it assembled a coalition of friendly warlords to help fight al-Qaida. Nor has the FBI been left out of the action: it worked with the special operations forces to free Buchanan and Thisted on Tuesday night, although Navy Capt. John Kirby, a Pentagon spokesman, said no FBI personnel accompanied the raiding team.

Blast from the Past. At Daily Kos on this date in 2011:

In the wake of the Tucson shooting, as Americans debate the best way to prevent another such tragedy, Arizona State Senator Linda Gray has weighed in with her own special brand of crazy:
Training of people to respect human life. It is ironic that today today is the day 38 years ago that the Supreme Court said we do not have to respect the life of an unborn and we have gone through now more then a generation of people, a large number of people who believe that it is fine to take an infant prior to it being born and to kill it. What type of respect is that for human life? So now we have this generation of people who have that idea and it continues on, that why respect life if we can kill an infant who can’t defend themselves. It goes back to the value in the creation of life and the respect for that life and if your not trained and have that type of character in realizing that all human life deserves respect this is what our country has come to.

Got that? Jared Loughner attempted to assassinate Rep. Gabby Giffords because abortion is legal. Let that one sink in for a minute.

Tweet of the Day:

High Impact Posts are here. Top Comments are here.

Daily Kos Elections Polling Wrap: The delicate nature of the GOP race

rss@dailykos.com (Steve Singiser) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:30:03 UTC

Depending on the outcome of tonight's GOP debate, every dollop of data that is linked below may be absolutely obsolete by Sunday morning. Such has become the nature of this Republican primary, where the GOP electorate has shown all the loyalty of an indecisive teenager when confronted with multiple date prospects on a Saturday night.

In Florida, after swooning for Newt Gingrich for what appeared to be about 24-48 hours, the pendulum has swung back strongly in favor of Mitt Romney in the Sunshine State. Meanwhile, nationally, yesterday's apparent halt to the Mitt Romney slide in the Gallup tracking poll apparently last exactly one day, as he slid even further on Thursday. That, coupled with the new numbers from NBC/Wall Street Journal, tell us that Newt's fortunes might be flagging in Florida, but his Newtmentum has not abated nationally.

And with tonight's debate being the last scheduled showdown for nearly a month, this might be Gingrich's last, best shot at dropping the hammer on his rival for the GOP nomination.

We'll know by this weekend if he managed to do so in the eyes of the GOP electorate. For now, however, here are the Republican primary numbers that were released on Thursday:

NATIONAL (Gallup Tracking): Gingrich 31, Romney 25, Paul 13, Santorum 13
NATIONAL (NBC/Wall Street Journal): Gingrich 37, Romney 28, Santorum 18, Paul 12

FLORIDA (Insider Advantage): Romney 40, Gingrich 32, Paul 9, Santorum 8

FLORIDA (Rasmussen): Romney 39, Gingrich 31, Santorum 12, Paul 9

FLORIDA (Monmouth/SurveyUSA): Romney 39, Gingrich 32, Santorum 11, Paul 8

On the general election front, there is at least some evidence that Florida is not the GOP lean that a lot of pundits are making it out to be in November, particularly if you dig into the numbers a bit:

NATIONAL (NBC/Wall Street Journal): Obama d. Romney (49-43); Obama d. Santorum (53-38); Obama d. Gingrich (55-37); Obama d. Romney and Ron Paul (45-32-18)
NATIONAL (Rasmussen Tracking): Obama d. Romney (46-43); Obama d. Gingrich (48-41)

FLORIDA (Quinnipiac): Obama tied with Romney (45-45); Obama d. Paul (47-39); Obama d. Santorum (49-40); Obama d. Gingrich (50-39)

FLORIDA (Suffolk Univ): Romney d. Obama (47-42); Obama d. Gingrich (49-40)

MINNESOTA (PPP): Obama d. Romney (51-41); Obama d. Santorum (52-40); Obama d. Paul (51-38); Obama d. Gingrich (53-38)

Some thoughts about what might happen in Florida, both next week and in November, after the jump.

House Republicans begin to worry that doing nothing might not be good enough

rss@dailykos.com (Hunter) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:30:33 UTC

Nobody ever accused modern Republicans of being deep thinkers.

In an economy that continues to be defined by ongoing unemployment troubles, dismal state budgets, and other bad news (and with the apparent new realization that there's an election coming up!) trouble's brewing among House Republicans:

“We need to get more done,” said Rep. Steve Stivers (R-Ohio), when asked if what has been laid out is enough. “Our unemployment in Ohio is still too high — it’s 8.5 percent. I remember when Ohio had 4.5 percent unemployment.” [...]
“We can’t blame everything on the Senate. The average American doesn’t realize that,” said Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.). “We need to quit passing bills over here and cheering for ourselves when we know they’re dead on arrival over there. And at some point, if the Senate wants to play like this, we need to work something out to help the American people. We think we know the right answers to help them, but we’re not being forceful enough to get the Senate to do it.”

Remember, the only solid 2012 agenda this group was capable of coming up with was "we're going to have lots of investigations to look for something that might hurt Obama." That's it. So it's interesting to hear that now, some House Republicans are worried that maybe completely ignoring unemployment, the economy, and other critical tasks isn't such a bright idea after all.

What will come of it? Nothing, probably. Even within the same Politico article, House Republicans are still more intent on somehow bludgeoning the Senate into accepting House bills than in making any concessions on those bills. There's no larger sense that compromise might (gasp) be needed.

The caucus is too divided to come up with any employment-boosting or economic-boosting plans that would also pass the Senate. At the same time, any House members that do try to pass more moderate measures will likely be tarred and feathered by the cooperation-is-treason GOP base in the next elections. So they're stuck. Their voters will vote them out if they try to do anything acceptable to the president, and the president (or more often, Senate) will kill anything they try to do that's acceptable to their voters.

Grandstanding and incompetent puttering may be the only two things that they're ideologically still allowed to do. Luckily, it's the two things they're still good at.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #12

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 03:20:47 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

7:21 PM PT: I'm going to start uploading some of the reaction shots of Mitt Romney when Rick Santorum was getting under skin about being the Father of Obamacare. Priceless stuff!

7:22 PM PT:

7:23 PM PT:

7:24 PM PT:

(More images below the fold.)

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #11

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:59:48 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

7:01 PM PT: So, it's over. Newt wilted—big time fail. Doesn't have the stuff to beat Romney. But Romney didn't really do anything good, other than allow Newt to fail. Santorum, meanwhile, had a great debate, and truly got under Mitt's skin.

7:01 PM PT: Mitt Romney says he's "delighted" with his debate performance. Shocker!

7:02 PM PT: With respect to Romney's claim that he only voted in a Democratic primary when there were no Republicans on the ballot:

RT @CMassPolitics: @AKaczynski1 There were three Rs on MA primary ballot in '92 when Mitt voted for Tsongas http://t.co/... #cnndeb ...
— @AKaczynski1

In other words, he lied. Just like he lied about the ads.

7:03 PM PT:

Grades (strategy/execution): Romney (A/A); Santorum (A-/A); Paul (B-/C); Gingrich (D-/B)
— @fivethirtyeight

7:06 PM PT: Santorum defending leaving Florida. I wonder if he isn't making a mistake by doing that.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #10

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:47:16 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

6:47 PM PT: Newt Gingrich is taking up Rick Perry's war on religion. Way to go down in flames, bucko.

6:49 PM PT: Rick Santorum probably is having the best debate tonight. I mean, I think he's a fucking lunatic, but I'm saying the within the context of the GOP, he's doing best. I can't imagine he has a shot in hell of winning, but I could see him stealing support from both Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich.

6:51 PM PT: We're on commercial break, one more question to go. There isn't much time left before 10 PM ET, so there won't be long to talk, but we're in the home stretch.

6:52 PM PT: Santorum Surge!

6:54 PM PT:

"Last question: Newt, what the hell happened to you tonight?"
— @allahpundit

6:56 PM PT:

Please Note: When these GOP debates began Mitt Romney was pro-choice gay teenager.
— @LOLGOP

6:57 PM PT: I simply cannot stomach all this self-congratulatory claptrap.

6:58 PM PT: Proof Santorum won this debate: instead of using the phrase "bottom up" he's repeatedly going to "top down."

7:01 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): Okay, folks, one more debate thread for you.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #9

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:36:02 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

6:38 PM PT:

If only a machine could combine all four republican candidates together then one giant man could lose to Obama.
— @AlbertBrooks

6:39 PM PT: Why did this question go to Mitt? Newt is the one who said Palestenians don't really exist.

6:39 PM PT: And Romney's answer is basically: "I hate Palestinians."

6:40 PM PT:

FACT CHECK: Romney Wrong on Blind Trust, http://t.co/... #cnndebate
— @nationaljournal

6:42 PM PT:

I only vote for Democrats when I vote in the Democrat primary - Mitt Romney
— @rchammond

6:44 PM PT: So, anyone going to ask Mitt why he voted in the Democratic primary rather than the Republican one?

6:46 PM PT: Ron Paul says his religious views wouldn't have an impact the decisions he would make as president. Mitt Romney says he agrees with Ron Paul, and would consult "providence" on important decisions. Uh, dude, that's called "I disagree with Ron Paul."

6:47 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #8

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:23:23 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

6:23 PM PT: And now that we are back from commercial break, Wolf wants to know why each candidate's wife would be the best first lady:

Coming up, Real Housewives of the GOP Primary. #cnndebate
— @mollyesque

6:25 PM PT: Moon surge waning:

Hard to hear in press room, over the noise of the Gingrich bubble deflating #CNNdebate
— @daveweigel

6:26 PM PT: Pretty much my take too:

My summation so far: Newt getting pounded, Romney telling flat-out lies, and Rick Santorum just eviscerating Romney on health care.
— @BrianYoung

Romney probably has Tuesday in the bag ... but only because he's facing the sorriest bunch of bozos ever assembled for a presidential campaign.

6:27 PM PT: Wow, clearly Santorum is still tired after his debategasm earlier.

6:29 PM PT: Mitt Romney on whether he can claim the Reagan mantle more than Gingrich: "No of course not." Then tells his life story ... completely overlooking the part about his 1994 senate campaign or his having been a Democrat in 1992.

6:29 PM PT: As Meteor Blades just put it: "When Reagan was president, I was opening my first accounts in the Caymans."

6:32 PM PT: Newt has his best moment there, probably. Too little too late. And Romney tries to explain his vote for Paul Tsongas for president as a vote against Bill Clinton. He says he never voted or a Democrat when there was a Republican on the ballot. But George H. W. Bush was on the ballot that year, and Pat Buchanan was challenging him.

6:35 PM PT:

A basic debate skill is looking for opportunities to go on offense when you're losing. Newt seems to lack it, or doesn't know he's losing.
— @fivethirtyeight

6:36 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #7

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:11:49 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

6:12 PM PT: Santorum has got Mitt really, really mad. Eye rolls, scowls. Wow.

6:13 PM PT: Hahahaha:

Rick Santorum. Hasn't done this much damage since he spoke to a group of gay kids.
— @LOLGOP

6:14 PM PT: Santorum is not letting go. And Mitt's thinking to himself: just when I thought I'd fucking clinched things, Dirty Rick Santorum comes along!

6:14 PM PT: Newt has this funny smile on his face. Probably thinking to himself he'd like to hire Rick Santorum to be his debate coach on the moon.

6:17 PM PT:

In explaining MA plan, Mitt just offered an eloquent explanation of the Affordable Care Act he says he would repeal.
— @davidaxelrod

6:21 PM PT:

Romney lists all the people of Mexican birth he wouldn't deport. It's a short list. #cnndebate
— @RL_Miller

6:24 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #6

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:02:36 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

6:03 PM PT: Newt's tanking the debate, so the primary is probably just about over. That's a bit sad, but on the other hand:

RT @HuffPostHill: Newtenfreude.
— @HuffingtonPost

6:04 PM PT: DemFromCT just pointed out to to me: "Hey, don't forget the death of Newt's candidacy is the death of the tea party."

6:05 PM PT: Mitt's solution to health care: treat individuals like corporations.

6:08 PM PT: Mitt Romney wants to give people who are unemployed a tax deduction if they buy their own insurance. Um, where are they going to get the money for that?

6:09 PM PT: Mitt Romney must think that when somebody is unemployed, they still make $20+ million per year in carried interest, just like him.

6:10 PM PT: Santorum landing some haymakers here on Romney. Hurting him in ways that Newt Gingrich can only dream of. Santorum surge now that Newt is toast?

6:11 PM PT: Mitt defending the mandate. And getting applause.

6:12 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #5

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:49:46 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

5:50 PM PT: Aw, poor Rick Santorum didn't get asked if he'd release his medical records.

5:52 PM PT: Mitt says no way no how to Newt's moon colony. But he wants private corporations to fund NASA.

5:53 PM PT: Newt's proposal to pay for putting a colony in the moon is to give the person who does it first a prize.

5:55 PM PT: Well, to paraphrase Bill Burton, congratulations to Mitt Romney for (probably) winning this debate and Tuesday's primary and the nomination. And thanks too for all the great video footage you gave us in this debate. (The ad that was his that he didn't see was priceless, and I can't count the number of times he defended himself by citing a blind trust, and bragging about his wealth.)

5:57 PM PT: Ironically, the thing Newt Gingrich is actually blasting into orbit is Mitt Romney's campaign.

5:58 PM PT:

So now Romney's going to "fire" Newt; He is just relentless tonight. Newt does seem a tad shellshocked
— @chucktodd

5:59 PM PT:

Mitt utters his favorite sentence, "You're fired." He's said it more than Trump - or Scrooge, for that matter. #cnndebate
— @PaulBegala

6:00 PM PT:

Romney: you're fired.... as if we didn't have enough video of that already. #thx #lol
— @billburton716

6:01 PM PT:

ICYMI, Mitt loves firing people. #CNNdebate
— @KailiJoy

6:03 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #4

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:40:34 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

5:41 PM PT: And we're back from the commercial break, and tax returns are the topic.

5:42 PM PT: Wait, uh, Newt is saying the tax returns shouldn't be talked about. The crowd boos. Mitt Romney accuses him of being unwilling to attack him to his face. Newt says, fine, I'll attack you to your face. Why do you have a Swiss bank account?

5:44 PM PT: Romney says "shit" to himself. (Not really.) Then he says he's proud of being super rich, he's proud of his taxes, and that everything is in a blind trust anyway. And that Newt shouldn't make a personal attacks.

5:44 PM PT: Newt says he'll stop making personal attacks if Mitt does. And Mitt says no thank you, I'll attack you in the future.

5:45 PM PT: Now Newt is going on about how everybody should have the option to pay Mitt Romney's tax rate. "The Mitt Romney Flat Tax" he calls it.

5:46 PM PT:

A Republican who likes Newt emails: "Romney is crushing him"
— @jonkarl

5:48 PM PT:

On points, Romney probably winning. On soundbites that will be great in ads, Romney doing a fantastic job. #trustee
— @billburton716

5:50 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.

Liveblogging Newtmittgeddon II: #3

rss@dailykos.com (Jed Lewison) — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 01:26:06 UTC

Talk about it here. Watch it live on CNN or CNN.com.

5:28 PM PT: Romney is probably getting the better of Newt right now, but it's worth pointing out that much of it is because of his righteous rage about Newt's ad accusing him of being "anti-immigrant" followed by his denial of running an ad making a similar claim about newt. But according to Chuck Todd, he actually did run the ad.

5:28 PM PT: (And unlike Chuck Todd, Wolf Blitzer didn't correct the record.)

5:29 PM PT: Oh I stand corrected. Wolf Blitzer corrected the record. Oh hahahahaha.

5:29 PM PT: Mitt Romney just got his pants pulled down.

5:29 PM PT: Er, rather, Mitt Romney got caught with his pants pulled down on that ad exchange.

5:31 PM PT: CNN really may have rescued Newt there. And he'll never give them credit for it.

5:32 PM PT: Now Gingrich is on offensive: "How much money has Mitt Romney made foreclosing on people?"

5:32 PM PT: Romney's answer nails Newt: says Newt has the same investments as Romney.

5:33 PM PT: So they both suck, in other words. Now Romney is pounding on Newt's lobbying contract with Freddie.

5:37 PM PT: Rick Santorum and Ron Paul are so irrelevant, but their participation makes this debate a strange mixture of wonkiness and personal attacks between Romney and Gingrich.

5:41 PM PT (Kaili Joy Gray): The liveblogging continues in the next thread.