A Change in the Wind

How far we have come on global warming -- not!

Yesterday Jason Margolis for The World had an absolutely first-class analysis of the presidential politics of global warming. He began with the GOP front-runner's silence on the issue, which Margolis contrasted against the GOP candidate of four years ago. Here's what John McCain said about climate change while running for President as a Republican:

“It’s real. It’s a danger to our planet, it’s a danger to the future of these young people who are in front of me and their children. And it’s got to be stopped.”

Amazing. Today Mitt Romney ignores climate change, while Newt Gingrinch describes his call for action on it "the stupidest thing he's ever done," and Rick Santorum calls global warming a hoax. 

Liberals and Democrats shouldn't self-congratulate, though, because President Obama is as silent on the issue as is Romney. He mentioned climate change in the State of the Union address only to say that nothing could pass Congress on the subject. That is, he blamed the GOP for the inaction.

And "we the people" are no better, as Margolis points out: 

Perhaps the president and the Republican candidates are simply following our lead. According to a recent poll from the Pew Research Center, Americans ranked global warming as the least important of 22 priorities, just behind campaign finance reform.

Campaign finance reform -- John McCain's other signature issue. No wonder he lost. 

For a shockingly entertaining explanation of the power of global warming, take a look at the National Center for Atmospheric Research's Jerry Meehl talking about climate change...and steroids in baseball.

Romney attacks: Obama tugs gently at the heartstrings

Andrew Sullivan is not happy with Mitt Romney's victory speech in Florida:

8.44 pm. Everything this man says is a lie. He's doubling down on the big lies I tried to counter in that Newsweek piece. The president Romney is describing does not exist. Obama is demonizing and denigrating every sector of the economy? That is a pure lie. As is the repeated lie that Obama is an appeaser. Has Romney understood what has happened to the Iranian economy these past few months? Does he think Osama bin Laden thinks he was appeased?

Let me just say right now: this speech is the most dishonest, manipulative, disgusting series of lies I've heard in a very long time. And its core premise: that the president hates this country, whereas Romney believes in it. As I said: disgusting. I'm with Newt on this. The man will say anything to gain power.

David Corn tweets it simply:

Romney, in short: Obama is the other, other, other, other, other. 

How does the crack Obama campaign handle this? They try to show he's human. First, the president sings (briefly) Al Green, and Green, in the audience, declares that the prez "nailed it." Then, as New York magazine points out, David Axelrod sends out a photo of the Prez, taking good care of his dog. Inside the car. Unlike Romney's famous transportation of the family dog Seamus across New England in a crate on top of the car. (Today it's revealed that when the Romney family finally reached their destination, the Irish setter actually ran away -- all the way to Canada. Understandably.)

By contrast the Obama campaign launches a Facebook 'Bark for Obama" page, featuring loving pet owners and their cute dogs, completely with charming bumper stickers. Build that approval rating.  

Back on the trail, Romney is becoming legendarily awkward. Even right wing hawks and supporters are appalled at the geeky ineptitude of his rhetoric. Jonathan Chait has a theory why:

It’s easy to try to persuade somebody for whom you have basic respect. It’s persuading somebody whom you consider stupid — while you must conceal any trace of your disdain — that’s excruciatingly difficult. Romney’s awkward manner on the trail is the agony of suppressed contempt.

Maybe. But Ted Rall's idea is more fun:

In the 2012 Presidential election it will be one other versus another, apparently. 

Can the Romneytron 9000 elicit emotion from humans?

Bright young Brit Tim Stanley reports on the ground from South Carolina and very convincingly argues that Newt Gingrich didn't win the primary.

Willard Romney lost it. 

Newt Gingrich will deny it, but the South Carolina vote was really a referendum on Romney. He lost it because he is slipping in the area that was previously his one selling point: electability. The Bain mess and his absent tax returns were compounded by the overturning of his “victory” in Iowa. Without the illusion of being unbeatable, there is no reason for conservatives to vote for Romney. Crucially, they told exit pollers that they now believe Newt is more likely to win against Obama than Mitt in November. That’s an illusion, too. But when you hate someone as much as some sections of the Tea Party hate Romney, you don’t see them as they really are. Poor Romney has become, unfairly, a stand in for all the elitism and bad faith of the Republican establishment. He has a tough fight ahead.

What can Romney do? How can he connect with the public? Election experts agree that he remains the best-funded, least offensive, and most-likely-to-succeed candidate for the GOP.

But like Richard Nixon, no one seems to actually like the guy. He needs to show something human that people can latch on to and trust emotionally. Hell, even Richard Nixon had to do that. 

Won't be easy. The joke on Romney is that he's either just boring (SNL) or actually a robot (from Rall, Drum, and others).

The Romneytron 9000 as Kevin Drum put it. 

In the South Carolina debates, Gingrich successfully turned attacks on his character into attacks on the press,  and more importantly, in doing so connected with the audience. They thrilled at his fiery attack on "elites" -- meaning the likes of handsome, well-paid, well-educated, intelligent questioner John King. 

(Curiously, in his looks John King is almost exactly as stolid and Ken-like as Mitt Romney.In a dramatic sense, they are worthy if slow-moving opponents, in an Megatron vs. Optimus Prime sort of way. And as mentioned below, Prime got a terrific shot in on Megatron in the last battle over Megatron's income tax returns.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Richard Nixon had a somewhat similar problem, when he was running for Governor of California in the early 60's. People just didn't like him. After a bad loss, he lashed out at his famous "last press conference." In true bitterness he said: 

"You don't have Nixon to kick around anymore, because, gentleman, this is my last press conference." 

In a practised, familiar, move, Newt Gingrich turned his negative into a positive, by blaming the press for his situation. Will Romney try something similar? 

Surely it's too late to play "me too" -- Newt's all but patented that move.

Maybe he'll find a way to tug at the heartstrings, such as Richard Nixon's infamous Checkers speech?

No -- no one can pity the billionaire unable to buy his wife the coat she wants.

Romney has been accused of being Nixonian -- by his neighbors, in fact. According to a story in the New York Review of Books:

When I ask locals about their impressions of Mitt, I get a recurring response: Nixonian. “The overriding passion of his life seems to be to become president,” a conservative economics professor tells me. “I can’t think of a single issue over which Romney would risk reelection in order to stick to a principle.” A University of Massachusetts journalism professor puts it more positively: “He can be as cagey as Nixon, and he can be almost as smarmy, but he is also able to think strategically.”

Romney may be able to think strategically, but can he act strategically?

That appears to be his challenge. Can he pick up the mantle of Reagan -- or at least, Nixon -- and make some sort of emotional connection with the electorate? 

What are the chances? Hasn't managed it yet, near as I can tell.   

Will Romney live up to his own father's standards?

Though attacked for asking a personal, sexual question of Newt Gingrich at the beginning of the South Carolina debate, CNN anchor John King came back later in the debate with an even tougher question for Newt's rival Mitt Romney. He laid it out beautifully, and listened as Romney flailed to answer. 

As Romney failed to live up to his father's example, the crowd actually turned against him.  

 

Romney had to know the question was coming, but could not have expected that King would so artfully juxtapose Mitt's furtive secrecy against his father George Romney's open disclosure. As Andrew Sullivan said -- brilliant. 

Willard got terrible reviews for his evasive answer from across the political spectrum, and now the Washington Post picks up the gauntlet and in an editorial repeats the reporter's question. 

THURSDAY NIGHT’S Republican presidential debate produced more equivocation from former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney about when he would release his tax returns and how many he would release. He was asked by moderator John King if he would follow the standard set by his own father, George, the former Michigan governor who was the first presidential candidate to release his tax returns. He put out 12 years’ worth in November 1967, as he prepared to run for the White House in 1968 — a point also being made in a Democratic National Committee video. All Mr. Romney could muster was an awkward “Maybe.” Wait until April, he said.

More disclosure, sooner, would be better, as is already obvious even to such supporters of Mr. Romney as New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie (R).

Give King credit for asking a great question (and doing Newt and us all a great favor). And wonder what is in those tax returns that the Mitt-bot is so reluctant to reveal. 

Romney 11/22/05: For and against climate pact on same day

The Internet is an astonishing thing: this evening the the entirety of the book of research into Mitt Romney's record, as compiled by the staff for his bitter GOP rival John McCain's staff in 2008, hit the intertubes.

The 200-page document included this gem of a flip-flop on climate change, as reported in the Boston Globe:

Romney Changed Positions On Regional Agreement Within Span Of One Day.

“At a clean-energyconference in Boston on Nov. 7, Romney sounded exuberant about the Northeast state [climate change] agreement, saying in his speech that it was ‘a great thing for the Commonwealth.’ ‘We can effectively create incentives to help stimulate asector of the economy and at the same time not kill jobs,’ he said.

Later that day, however, Romney outlined to reporters several fears he had about the proposed agreement.”

(Beth Daley and Scott Helman, “Romney Doubts Seen Delaying Emissions Pact,”

[The Boston Globe --  11/22/05]

Romney reminds of Charlie Brown, who used to say -- Why can't I change just a little bit? I'll be wishy one day and washy the next! (31 Dec 65)

The pen is mightier than the Mitt Romney

As the inevitability of dreary Mitt Romney's candidacy for President for the GOP becomes inescapable, one has to wonder -- will today's character artists be able to make fun of him?

Will he be a target-rich opportunity, as exemplified by the likes of Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, or will he just be bland, like Dick Cheney? 

The truth is, he seems to be coming into focus slowly. The great Mike Lukovich highlights the blurriness around his eyes -- who is this man? 

Most of the attempts available from not well known artists do not impress, but there are surprises, such as this one from Adam Zyglis. 

Toles, as usual, tends to dominate, but today's sketch is particuarly rich. 

But to my eyes, the most evolved -- and dangerous -- characterization comes from Ted Rall. 

The Mitt-Bot. 

To the stars, through the thorns: Gov. Jerry Brown

Jerry Roberts knows more about California than you, and me, and probably most of the people in the state put together. He's edited major newspapers, for decades; written columns, for decades; launched websites, written books, taugth at university -- his rap sheet is as long as a cliche. He left teaching a year ago to concentrate on his writing, he said, and from the opening to his latest column in the Santa Barbara Independent, it's clear he made the right move. To wit:

Letting loose a little Latin lexicon, Jerry Brown offered up some context from the classics to describe the political challenges facing Sacramento in 2012.

“Ad Astra per Aspera,” the Jesuit-trained governor intoned in a look-ahead interview about the legislative session that began this week.

Chatting with public radio’s ace Capitol correspondent John Myers, the governor translated the expression as, “To the stars through the thorns.”

The whole column is worth reading, but that is beautiful. 

Sometimes it's so easy to see the Jesuit in Jerry Brown.  

Why does the White House disrespect Paul Krugman?

The great Steve Brodner wants to know why the White House ignores the left's most knowledgeable, effective, and lauded advocate.  

He writes: "Paul Krugman, locked out of Obama’s party with the 1%. Three years on, who had it right!!???"

Ron Paul is a racist paranoid homophobic crank...

...if what was published in his newletter for over ten years can be believed. 

As one smartie put it, there are three options for Paul supporters, when faced with the massive weight of evidence (just see the scans of his newletters, aforelinked)

...there's no way Paul could have been ignorant of the content [of] 8-12 page newsletters published under his name for over ten years. Paul supporters face three losing propositions:

• He lacks the competency to control content published under his own name for over a decade, and is thus unfit to lead a country.
• He doesn't believe these things but considers them a useful political tool to motivate racist whites, which makes him fit to be a GOP candidate, but too obvious about it to win.
• He's actually a racist, which makes him unfit to be a human being.

An example? Sure:

From October, l992, entitled : Carjacking: A Hip-Hop Thing to Do:

"If you live in a major city, you've probably already heard about the newest threat to your life and limb, and your family: carjacking. It is the hip-hop thing to do among the urban youth who play unsuspecting whites like pianos. The youth simply walk up to a car they like, pull a gun, tell the family to get out, steal their jewelry and wallets, and take the car to wreck. Such actions have ballooned in the recent months. In the old days, average people could avoid such youth by staying out of bad neighborhoods. Empowered by media, police, and political complicity, however, the youth now roam everywhere looking for cars to steal and people to rob. What can you do? More and more Americans are carrying a gun in the car. An ex-cop I know advises that if you have to use a gun on a youth, you should leave the scene immediately, disposing of the wiped off gun as soon as possible. Such a gun cannot, of course, be registered to you, but one bought privately (through the classifieds, for example)."

Never in my lifetime have I seen a candidate for U.S. President endorse killing by gun.

Via Tim Dickinson. 

Unemployment falls, surprising/pleasing pundits

The New Yorker is thrilled:

This is the best piece of economic news that President Obama has received in many a moon.

On CNBC’s Squawk Box, a former chairman of the White House Council of Economic Advisers said, “The trend I am seeing … is that things have turned around.” And he went on: “People don’t feel good about the economy until the labor market turns around. And the labor market has been lousy for a long time. I am pretty hopeful.”

No, those weren’t the words of Austan Goolsbee, Obama’s former chief economic advisor. (He was on the show too, and, as you might expect, he was pretty chipper.) The upbeat comments came from Ed Lazear, the Stanford professor who headed the Council of Economic Advisors from 2006 to 2009 under President George W. Bush.

In his analysis, tough-minded John Cassidy points out that the fall below 9% is probably not a statistical aberation, and is not simply a case of a rise in discouraged workers.

Well, let's hope he's right -- the numbers do look pretty good on a graph. 

Don't they, though?