Mitt Romney reclaims position as GOP frontrunner with crushing Florida win
Romney turns nasty : "In Florida, Romney fought one of the most relentlessly negative
campaigns in recent US history. An independent monitoring group reported
that 99% of his ads aired in Florida were negative"
Gingrich keeps on dreaming : "He did not adere to the tradition of congratulating Romney on his victory, nor did he immediately call him to concede. Before
he embarked on a rambling speech about what he would do in his first
days as president, Gingrich warned the "elite media" against writing him
off as they had done before."
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Of the rich, for the rich, by the rich?
Money always plays and played a role in politics, but must be coming to extreme levels now in the age of the Super PACs, and it really is shocking the amount of money sloshing around, and due to slosh even more, in the US elections...
Is the US setting itself up for a government of the rich, chosen by the rich, and who one would have to suspect then of being at least in some way for the rich?
some recent articles on the subject :
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-billionaire)
Money doesn't just talk, it shouts, and drowns out everything else...
Is the US setting itself up for a government of the rich, chosen by the rich, and who one would have to suspect then of being at least in some way for the rich?
some recent articles on the subject :
in http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/29/us-politics-vote-money-wins
- "In the whole of 2008 individuals, parties and other groups spent $168.8m independently on the presidential election. This year on Republican candidates alone, where voting started less than a month ago, the Super Pacs have reported independent expenditures of almost $40m. In 2008 election spending doubled compared with 2004. This year industry analysts believe the money spent just on television ads is set to leap by almost 80% compared with four years ago. "
- "This is not a partisan point. Almost two-thirds of Americans believe the government should limit individual contributions – with a majority among Republicans, Democrats and independents. The influence of money at this level corrupts an entire political culture and in no small part explains the depth of cynicism, alienation and mistrust Americans now have for their politicians."
- "The trend towards oligarchy in the polity is already clear. There are 250 millionaires in Congress. Their median net worth is $891,506, nine times the typical US household. Around 11% are in the nation's top 1%, including 34 Republicans and 23 Democrats. And that's before you get to Romney, whose personal wealth is double that of the last eight presidents combined."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/28/newt-gingrich-sheldon-adelson-billionaire)
- "By 2010 Adelson had donated around another $6m to the group as Gingrich toured the country, touting his causes and contemplating a presidential run. Eventually this group turned into the Super PAC Winning Our Future. The cheques from Adelson kept coming."
Money doesn't just talk, it shouts, and drowns out everything else...
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Another debate, another round of the Mitt and Newt show...
no matter what one's political persuasion, I think these Guardian blogs of the GOP debates are classic...who'd have thought politics could be so amusing?!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/republican-debate-tampa-florida-live
some extracts:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/24/republican-debate-tampa-florida-live
some extracts:
- it seems like only yesterday that we were all here for the last Republican debate live blog. That's because it was only yesterday. Well, almost yesterday. This is the 18th debate, and the Republican race is showing no signs of being decided anytime soon, so there could be many more. There's another on Thursday, for god's sake. Then there's a gap of about month, but the ratings are so good, and American Idol is tanking, so the broadcasters will probably drop in even more. It makes you want to scream.
- Dammit. Moderator Brian Williams turns to Rick Santorum.Why, Brian Williams, when you had candidates re-enacting the Sharks vs Jets routine of the West Side Story but without the choreography and more ill will?
- The reason why Newt keeps mentioning Reagan, Pope John Paul and Thatcher, is that he wants to relive his glory years in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe he should throw Duran Duran in there as well.
- Immigration now – always a hot topic in Florida. "We're not going to round people up," says kindly Mitt Romney. Instead they will be allowed to work without healthcare benefits on one of Mitt's mansions, and then deported. Actually, according to Romney, those without valid ID "will self-deport". That sounds more like something in Star Trek: "Self deport me, Scotty."
- President Mitt will restart the space programme, presumably to shoot his tax records for the past two decades into the ionosphere
- RomneyBot 2000 is back, presumably smuggled on during the last commercial break, and it promptly answers the question about sugar subsidies by talking about Barack Obama having played 90 rounds of golf while presiden
- What I've learned in this debate so far: It is not 1962 (Ron Paul), Americans are insufficiently blood-thirsty (Newt Gingrich) and when Castro dies, someone is going to think it's a good idea to wake up the president at 3AM (Brian Williams). Also, you should not have to apologize for success (Mitt Romney), but if you spend five minutes arguing that point, it will sound a lot like you are apologizing for success. Santorum something something something.
Monday, January 23, 2012
Sunday, January 22, 2012
The big issue..inequality
The people, from both sides, seem to know which direction to go, but can politicians, of either side, lead them there?
" talk of inequality is resonating with voters. When asked recently what was a bigger problem – "unfairness in the economic system that favours the wealthy or over-regulation of the free market that interferes with growth and prosperity" – 55% of Americans chose the former and only 35% the latter. Two-thirds of Americans believe there are either "very strong" or "strong" conflicts between rich and poor in America – a nearly 20% increase from 2009.
...
From a policy standpoint, polls consistently suggest that Americans believe taxes should be raised on the wealthiest Americans. It's even a view held among rank-and-file Republicans, in stark contrast to the tax cut absolutism of party leaders.
...
The problem is that few national politicians have sought to test the proposition that such attitudes matter much politically. Republicans are deeply fearful of any national discussion about income inequality or the wealthy's shrinking tax burden. .
...
But Democrats have also been resistant to offering such populist appeals for fear of being defined as divisive or engaging in class warfare.
...
Rather, Democrats were happy to parrot the Republican party's talk about deficit spending and defer discussions of income inequality. The gutlessness of Democrats reached its pinnacle in the autumn of 2010 when a mere two months before midterm elections congressional Democrats refused to bring to a vote a measure that would have brought to an end tax cuts for those making more than $250,000 a year."
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Gingrich's victory in South Carolina..what we learned
Below is the guardian's list of "what we learned" points from the SC primary. Personally I think the overall winners were politico soap opera junkies who get another round of cliff hanger episodes, the media circus that gets to continue its carnival and avoid having to get back to real reporting, and of course Barack Obama, who can sit back and watch the the republicans pour their cash into taking chunks out of themselves and writing his own campaign ads for him. That comment that Gingrich is like a cross between Batman and Nixon seems quite apt...the self obsessed, ethically besmirched, vigilante against the powers of Romneykind rides on!
and my favourite quote of the night: "chortled Karl Rove, a man for whom the verb chortle might even have been invented"
From the guardian: (www.guardian.co.uk):
==================================
10.30pm: Right. Here's what we've learned tonight:
A race we all thought would be neck-and-neck between Gingrich and Romney turned out to be a runaway romp for Gingrich. He won with a 14 percentage point margin that outstripped the final opinion polls.
A majority of Republicans in South Carolina think that Newt Gingrich is the party's most electable candidate versus Barack Obama. That's a charming idea in and of itself.
Mitt Romney's supposed advantage in terms of money, super pac support and campaign machinery all turned to ashes on the night. Given that much of the received assumption of Romney's inevitiability rested on those three points, where does that leave Romney's chances?
The Republican contest will now go on beyond the next primary in Florida at the end of this month. A tide of money is likely to flow into the Gingrich campaign. How quickly he can scale up his operation will have an impact on the course of this nomination.
Gingrich's new position as the frontrunner will bring a big bonus with it in terms of free media coverage. Combined with the two debates coming up – on Monday and Thursday – which play to his strengths, Gingrich can use free media to compensate for his organisational and financial weaknesses – but only up to a point.
Rick Santorum's relatively strong showing in third place, winning 17% of the vote, will probably be enough to sustain him in the race. But should Santorum make a decision to withdraw, that would almost certainly aid Gingrich.
Will Gingrich's victory cause a backlash from what's left of the Republican establishment? The next few days will show if there any panic in the ranks. Since Gingrich has been banging the Reagan drum as loudly as possible, look for former Reaganites to start rubbishing Gingrich in public.
With three different winners from the first three contests, looking for a national pattern among Republican voters is pointless. That makes national polls worthless. And the fluid nature of the earlier contests means that opinion polls taken more than two or three days before voting took place were also worthless.
Feel free to speculate endlessly about a deadlocked Republican National Convention and/or late entrants – Jeb Bush? Why not, everyone else will.
That will do for one primary. Next up: a debate in Florida on Monday, just 46.5 hours from now. No, we can't wait, either.
Friday, January 20, 2012
The GOP race and the media: stuffing the "newshole"
Sadly definitely true media coverage of the GOP race exceeds both interest and import, and too much focus on it inevitably leaves other important stories uncovered. But like any soap opera its devotees are simply obsessively addicted, and this one probably has an especially strong hook on the self proclaimed "thinking man" who would scorn such gossip and trivia in any other arena but laps it up once has a "high brow" excuse. Politics and the city, the latest season...
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Barack Obama's presidency, three years on – is it time to give up hope?
Given the focus on the republican primaries, is worth talking as well about the man they're fighting to go up against:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/barack-obama-president-hope-michelle
Perhaps the most wounding criticism of Obama is indeed :
"Which brings us closer to the core critique of Obama. That he avoids a fight, that he folds too early, that in his desire to unite and heal he too often surrenders his own position – to the point where no one is clear what his own position is"
It is true both that Obama could never have lived up to the many (divergent) hopes had of him when elected, but also that he has been less than stellar in his performance. Personally my interpretation is that while his heart is in the right place on most matters, he is ironically far from the driven left wing politican that the republicans paint him as, and is in fact someone who seeks compromise too much. When it comes to compromise it takes two to tango, and I think it is fair to say there has been often congressional obstructionism merely for the sake of it.
That this tarnishes his image is also ironic given that bipartisanship is something the electorate seems to want, and even the office of president itself was (in my understanding) originally meant to be for a sort of concilliatory guiding role, not an authoritarian all powerful one (I think Washington chose the term 'president' precisely for this reason, since the person was 'to preside' over government, and this would be in contrast to the title of 'prime minister' which they could have easily taken over from England, and which would imply much more superiority).
In the modern day however, and especially in a country with such deep cultural divisions, both sides want a president who is forceful in defending their values, and Obama is not very good at that it seems. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. But surely this is what the country needs at a divided time. To paraphrase the stones, you might not 't always get what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/barack-obama-president-hope-michelle
Perhaps the most wounding criticism of Obama is indeed :
"Which brings us closer to the core critique of Obama. That he avoids a fight, that he folds too early, that in his desire to unite and heal he too often surrenders his own position – to the point where no one is clear what his own position is"
It is true both that Obama could never have lived up to the many (divergent) hopes had of him when elected, but also that he has been less than stellar in his performance. Personally my interpretation is that while his heart is in the right place on most matters, he is ironically far from the driven left wing politican that the republicans paint him as, and is in fact someone who seeks compromise too much. When it comes to compromise it takes two to tango, and I think it is fair to say there has been often congressional obstructionism merely for the sake of it.
That this tarnishes his image is also ironic given that bipartisanship is something the electorate seems to want, and even the office of president itself was (in my understanding) originally meant to be for a sort of concilliatory guiding role, not an authoritarian all powerful one (I think Washington chose the term 'president' precisely for this reason, since the person was 'to preside' over government, and this would be in contrast to the title of 'prime minister' which they could have easily taken over from England, and which would imply much more superiority).
In the modern day however, and especially in a country with such deep cultural divisions, both sides want a president who is forceful in defending their values, and Obama is not very good at that it seems. Try to please everyone and you end up pleasing no one. But surely this is what the country needs at a divided time. To paraphrase the stones, you might not 't always get what you want, but sometimes you might get what you need.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Newt Gingrich: I would ignore supreme court as president
Gingrich has said before that he regards the president as above the court when the two branches have fundamentally differing views but he went further in committing himself to setting up a constitutional crisis on his first day in office.
The Republican candidate cited what he said were precedents, including Abraham Lincoln's refusal to accept the Dred Scott decision denying that former slaves were citizens.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/19/newt-gingrich-ignore-supreme-court-president
Without knowing the details of the US system, can't comment too much on what consitutional grounds a president has to ignore the courts, but regardless of the particular setup, in general it sounds pretty terrible. One can only imagine how Putin or Ahmadinejad would be described if they made a similar promise.
Though of course in principle courts are to interpret law made by congress, not to make them, and so they are of course not omnipotent. But the point of a complicated and interconnected judicial and congressional system is specifically to avoid the power being given to one individual, who could dictate at will. Laws and their interpretation is something which is culture based and on which culture is based, and must thus change direction slowly, as the result of deliberation and discussion. If every 4 years one person can have ultimate control on what they are allowed do, and not just how to do it, then it's not just republicanism, but banana republicanism (as even Bush's attorney general has callled it ("President George W Bush's attorney general, Michael Mukasey, has said that a president selectively ignoring supreme court decisions would turn the US in to a banana republic.")
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Mitt Romney admits: I pay 15% tax on $200m personal fortune
The fact that a candidate with wealth of $200m pays income tax at an effective rate of 15% says more about the taxing (or lack of) of the extremely rich rather than how far removed most candidates (of both parties it must be said) really are from the 'man in the street'. Though of course the acceptance of the wealth of those involved is even more bizarre when one considers that coming across as 'one of us' seems to be one of the most important boxes to tick for any US presidential candidate.
The question is whether the candidate, party or electorate think this is ok in current times of hardship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/mitt-romney-speaking-fees-tax
Of course the figure of $200m is 'wealth', not income (I specifically don't use the term 'earnings') but since Romney considers the $370,000 he gets for speaking engagements 'not very much' then presumably his (not disclosed) yearly take is considerable, even after the whopping 15% tax he pays in the socialist commune Obama has supposedly turned the US into....
The question is whether the candidate, party or electorate think this is ok in current times of hardship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/17/mitt-romney-speaking-fees-tax
Of course the figure of $200m is 'wealth', not income (I specifically don't use the term 'earnings') but since Romney considers the $370,000 he gets for speaking engagements 'not very much' then presumably his (not disclosed) yearly take is considerable, even after the whopping 15% tax he pays in the socialist commune Obama has supposedly turned the US into....
Monday, January 16, 2012
Domestic elections and foreign policy
The Republican challenger can talk big, act tough and promise the world, so the president must not to rise to the bait:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jan/15/romney-obama-republican-foreign-policy
Sunday, January 15, 2012
oddest attack ads
two most bizarre attack ads have seen so far...
Santorum's 'values' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhNdmD_I3Aw , claiming he's 'the only one with experience in the fight against radical islam' ?! Not sure what that is supposed to be based on, and even worse blatant stoking of irrational fears...
Gingrich's body blow to Romney, the man, speaks... French! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ
Santorum's 'values' http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JhNdmD_I3Aw , claiming he's 'the only one with experience in the fight against radical islam' ?! Not sure what that is supposed to be based on, and even worse blatant stoking of irrational fears...
Gingrich's body blow to Romney, the man, speaks... French! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyFaWhygzjQ
PAC men
Guide to the super-PACs...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure...
http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php?cycle=2012
current top 8 by expenditure...
| Group | Supports/Opposes | Independent Expenditures | Viewpoint | Total Raised |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Restore Our Future | supports Romney | $7,795,104 | Conservative | $12,231,700 |
| Winning Our Future | supports Gingrich | $4,204,685 | Conservative | $0 |
| Make Us Great Again | supports Perry | $3,793,524 | Conservative | $0 |
| Our Destiny PAC | supports Huntsman | $2,453,204 | Conservative | $0 |
| Endorse Liberty | supports Paul | $1,165,542 | Conservative | $0 |
| House Majority PAC | $1,105,843 | Liberal | $2,110,000 | |
| American Crossroads | $1,064,223 | Conservative | $6,679,887 | |
| Red, White and Blue | supports Santorum | $727,200 | Conservative | $0 |
Friday, January 13, 2012
Stephen Colbert for President?
Satirical news show host paves way for presidential bid by transferring control of political fundraising to Jon Stewart
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/13/stephen-colbert-president-super-pac-jon-stewart
Thursday, January 12, 2012
When two Newts go to war...
It seems Gingrich is thrashing in SC out of pure spite, but I guess
it could mean such issues are raised and dealt with long in advance of
the real campaign, so maybe not so bad as it looks.
Two Newts emerge in South Carolina to take down Mitt Romne : Both the nasty and nice sides of Newt Gingrich are facing a tough battle in trying to derail Romney's momentum, but neither side may be able to succeed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/newt-gingrich-south-carolina-romney
I have to admit since I am repelled by some of the more conservative streaks in the Republican party (though as I say elsewhere these elements are probably over-hyped and might cloud objective judgement on policies that do matter), so have also to admit a certain relish in watching them take chunks out of each other. Surely Obama must be sitting back and laughing, especially at the irony of Mitt Romney being portayed by Gingrich as a 'vulture capitalist'. Is this not the exact kind of charge Obama can use to most effect in the final campaign in a time of economic suffering, and what better than be able to say Romney's own colleagues say it?
Since so talked about, here's the link to the full ad : When Mitt came to town :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
Two Newts emerge in South Carolina to take down Mitt Romne : Both the nasty and nice sides of Newt Gingrich are facing a tough battle in trying to derail Romney's momentum, but neither side may be able to succeed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/12/newt-gingrich-south-carolina-romney
I have to admit since I am repelled by some of the more conservative streaks in the Republican party (though as I say elsewhere these elements are probably over-hyped and might cloud objective judgement on policies that do matter), so have also to admit a certain relish in watching them take chunks out of each other. Surely Obama must be sitting back and laughing, especially at the irony of Mitt Romney being portayed by Gingrich as a 'vulture capitalist'. Is this not the exact kind of charge Obama can use to most effect in the final campaign in a time of economic suffering, and what better than be able to say Romney's own colleagues say it?
Since so talked about, here's the link to the full ad : When Mitt came to town :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BLWnB9FGmWE
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
The New Hampshire result...Ron Paul wins in 2nd place...
"Mitt Romney's emphatic win is less significant than Ron Paul's result. And what it signifies is a Republican party fragmenting"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ana-marie-cox-blog/2012/jan/11/ron-paul-is-a-winner-with-second-place
Though this might be a case of excessive rune-reading. I do however like the comment: "Gingrich continues on completely out of spite, thank God. He is the grim anti-hero of the GOP, a cross between Richard Nixon and Batman."
It's economic policies, stupid
It's a valid point that for all the fascination with the 'cultural' views in the GOP race, on religion, rights (and maybe even slightly race) too little attention is being paid to the implications of candidates' economic 'ideologies'. While the republican party makes headlines with stances on abortion and gay rights, what is more relevant to the vast majority of people are the economic dogmas.
Mitt Romney, candidate of the 1% :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/09/mitt-romney-candidate-of-the-1-per-cent
Monday, January 9, 2012
Ron Paul's useful idiots on the left
"Progressives who make common cause with Paul on US foreign policy ignore his stunningly reactionary views on everything else"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/06/ron-paul-useful-idiots-on-the-left
Rick Santorum's homophobic frothing
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/04/rick-santorum-homophobic-frothing
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)