Obama campaign throws its weight behind Democrats' Super Pac

Head of Obama's campaign expresses concern that Republican candidates will be able to outspend president in 21012 race
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/feb/07/obama-campaign-democrats-super-pac
"The Democratic party has watched aghast at not only the amounts raised by Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney – who is favourite to take on Obama for the White House – but Republican Super PACs storing funds for the general election, such as Karl Rove's American Crossroads.
Messina said American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS raised $51m last year while comparable Democratic groups collected only $19m over the same period.
Until recently, it had been widely assumed that Obama would be the first candidate to have a record-breaking $1bn to fight a White House campaign and his Republican rival would be behind, with about $750m. But these calculations are being up-ended."

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor

Given the recent (and ongoing) crisis of the western economic model, and the untold hardship for many, then I think wealth, and candidates attitudes to it, are an important topic for our times. It should be said that since Romney is under the spotlight at the moment, of course most articles will be about him, and I will try to seekout post and highlight any similar articles about the other candidates, and Obama.

It's not just that all politicians  are wealthy, it's what their worldview of wealth, and how it should be distributed that matters, since it will set the tone for how society progresses (and letting the market decide returns is just as much a mechanism of re-"distribution", a transfer of wealth from one bunch of people to another, as taxation is).

And several elements in the following article are (even if taken as they are here in isolation) I think particularly worrying about Romney (extracts below).

Why Mitt Romney is 'not concerned' about the poor
The Republican frontrunner rejects the politics of 'envy'. How convenient for the multimillionaire candidate of the 1%
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/02/mitt-romney-not-concerned-about-poor

On the one hand he doesn't think the 'poor' are a group worth being focused on, despite this being an ever increasing section of US society, nor does he think there is anything wrong with siding with the 99% against the 1% who disproprotionately benefit from the current system, claiming, without any irony, that the mere thought of it is against the US ideal of 'one nation under God'. Maybe he means the '1% nation under God'.

Extracts : 

• According to the most recent figures available from the US Census Bureau, 46.2 million people lived in poverty in 2010, 15.1% of the population, the largest number in the 52 years the poverty estimates have been published. 2010 marked the fourth consecutive annual increase in the number of people in poverty

•  We will hear from the Democrat[ic] party the plight of the poor, and there's no question, it's not good being poor," he told CNN's Soledad O'Brien. "You could choose where to focus, you could focus on the rich, that's not my focus. You could focus on the very poor, that's not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans."

• Romney, in his victory speech in New Hampshire, said:

"This country already has a leader who divides us with the bitter politics of envy. We must offer an alternative vision. I stand ready to lead us down a different path, where we are lifted up by our desire to succeed, not dragged down by a resentment of success … We are one nation under God."

• The next morning, NBC's Matt Lauer challenged him, asking:

"Did you suggest that anyone who questions the policies and practices of Wall Street and financial institutions, anyone who has questions about the distribution of wealth and power in this country, is envious? Is it about jealousy, or fairness?"

• Romney doubled down, claiming:

"I think it's about envy. I think it's about class warfare. When you have a president encouraging the idea of dividing America based on the 99% versus 1% – and those people who have been most successful will be in the 1% … [it's] entirely inconsistent with the concept of one nation under God."

Romney reaps the power of the dark side, Gingrich dreams on...

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."

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

• "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. "

and yet the US public that it works on, don't even like it :

• "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."

And another article about one billionaire pouring cash into Gingrich's campaign
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."

But of course all the other candidates have similar 'angels' supporting them, and this must be having real impact on the race. For example the effect of  million dollar blitz advertising would seem to be evident in Florida, where Romney has manage to obtain a double-digit turnaround in a few days, surely in part to facts like

• "Media analysts put the ratio of Romney ads to Gingrich at 4-1 but the ratio is even higher for big, expensive events. During a widely watched basketball game in Florida at the weekend, Romney's camp aired seven ads compared to none by Gingrich."

Money doesn't just talk, it shouts, and drowns out everything else...

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:

• 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.

South Carolina primary result: Republicans' verdict

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/jan/22/south-carolina-primary-result-republicans-verdict

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....

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

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

PAC men

Guide to the super-PACs...

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

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

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