For President, a Complex Calculus of Race and Politics
Damon Winter/The New York Times
President Obama in Iowa last week. As the nation’s first black president, he has walked a careful line on the subject of race.
By JODI KANTOR
Published: October 20, 2012
via For President Obama, a Complex Calculus of Race and Politics – NYTimes.com.
Finally Liberated From Facts, Mitt Romney the Pure Bull Artist Takes Flight
POSTED: OCTOBER 19, 11:20 AM ET
Mitt Romney during the second presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
You know those Balsa wood airplanes – not the glider-types but the deluxe models, powered by rubber bands, with little propellers on the nose? I thought of those planes watching Mitt Romney debate Barack Obama the other night.
Romney’s journey toward the presidency has been a marvel to behold. Dating back to his first political steps – his race against Ted Kennedy, followed by his assault on the Massachusetts governorship – Romney has been constantly twisting and contorting himself, exchanging position for position, trading pro-choice for anti-choice, flirting with pro-gay rhetoric before shifting swiftly the other way, pioneering state health care reform before bashing virtually the same plan designed on a national scale, claiming the center on everything from guns to global warming before careening right as a presidential candidate.
Then, just within this year, the contortions took him all the way around again, in a corkscrewish motion, as he first careened as far right as he could stand to win the primary season, and then twisted some more to come all the way back to his version of the center to run as a kindler, gentler sort of centrist alternative to Obama. I was shocked to hear him say aloud in the second debate that the richest people would not have their tax burdens reduced, especially since he spent the entire primary season running as a supply-sider who would create growth by cutting taxes on capital gains, interest, dividends, and eliminating the estate tax, cuts that overwhelmingly favor the very rich.
From the start of the first debate, Romney has almost seemed liberated, spouting line after line of breathless, ecstatic inventions – things that are, if not lies exactly, at the very least just simply made up out of thin air, and seemingly on the spot, too. The business about the $25,000 “bucket” of deductions which he prefaced, with seemingly half of America watching, with the phrase, “Let’s pick a number”: awesome. Then there was the jobs plan that creates 12 million jobs, another number seemingly plucked out of the ether: it turned out that when asked to justify the number, the Romney campaign cited three studies, none of which came anywhere near justifying claims of a 12 million-job increase. This is from Paul Krugman’s new column on the subject:
Just for the record, one study concluded that America might gain two million jobs if China stopped infringing on U.S. patents and other intellectual property; this would be nice, but Mr. Romney hasn’t proposed anything that would bring about that outcome. Another study suggested that growth in the energy sector might add three million jobs in the next few years — but these were predicted gains under current policy, that is, they would happen no matter who wins the election, not as a consequence of the Romney plan.
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain CapitalHow the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill
Comment6397
By MATT TAIBBI
AUGUST 29, 2012 7:00 AM ET
Mitt Romney illustration
Illustration by Robert Grossman
The great criticism of Mitt Romney, from both sides of the aisle, has always been that he doesn’t stand for anything. He’s a flip-flopper, they say, a lightweight, a cardboard opportunist who’ll say anything to get elected.
The critics couldn’t be more wrong. Mitt Romney is no tissue-paper man. He’s closer to being a revolutionary, a backward-world version of Che or Trotsky, with tweezed nostrils instead of a beard, a half-Windsor instead of a leather jerkin. His legendary flip-flops aren’t the lies of a bumbling opportunist – they’re the confident prevarications of a man untroubled by misleading the nonbeliever in pursuit of a single, all-consuming goal. Romney has a vision, and he’s trying for something big: We’ve just been too slow to sort out what it is, just as we’ve been slow to grasp the roots of the radical economic changes that have swept the country in the last generation.
The incredible untold story of the 2012 election so far is that Romney’s run has been a shimmering pearl of perfect political hypocrisy, which he’s somehow managed to keep hidden, even with thousands of cameras following his every move. And the drama of this rhetorical high-wire act was ratcheted up even further when Romney chose his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin – like himself, a self-righteously anal, thin-lipped, Whitest Kids U Know penny pincher who’d be honored to tell Oliver Twist there’s no more soup left. By selecting Ryan, Romney, the hard-charging, chameleonic champion of a disgraced-yet-defiant Wall Street, officially succeeded in moving the battle lines in the 2012 presidential race.
via Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone.
See on Scoop.it – OUR COMMON GROUND News Board •● ☥●• The Third Eye Parenthesis
If you recall during that most recent presidential debate, candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were asked to suggest solutions to the serious gun control problem in America.
See on naturallymoi.com
If you recall during that most recent presidential debate, candidate Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama were asked to suggest solutions to the serious gun control problem in America. Both candidates gave what they probably felt were thorough answers, but Romney seemed to believe that the problem was not with the weapons on the street, but with single mothers.
This claim has led to charges of racism and scapegoating by the Romney camp, who are presuming that having a single mother causes young children to be shot by gang bangers in their neighborhoods. Such a suggestion releases Romney and other Republicans from the responsibility of keeping guns off the streets and out of the hands of criminals.
The National Rifle Association is a strong backer of the Republican Party and fights to keep gun laws from being changed. But there are some who suggest that there is a consistent and concerted effort to keep revenue flowing by allowing guns to get into urban neighborhoods, where most of America doesn’t care about the death toll. As a result of this approach, gun violence is the leading cause of death for African American males between the ages of 15 and 19.
Here is what Romney had to say about single mothers and their participation in creating the culture of violence in urban America:
Race-Baiting? Experts Angry that Mitt Romney Blames Single Mothers for Gun Violence | Naturally Moi.
 SHARE |
« Previous Coates | Next Coates » |  EMAIL  PRINT |
Jason Thompson, the son of former Governor and Wisconson Senate candidate Tommy Thompson, speaking this morning at a brunch attended RNC Chairman Reince Priebus said that “we have the opportunity to send President Obama back to Chicago — or Kenya.” A woman in attendance then chimed in “we are taking donations for that Kenya trip.”
It’s Funny Because We’re White – Ta-Nehisi Coates – The Atlantic.
The billionaire Koch brothers have become the poster children for corporate influence on politics in the post-Citizens United era.
WEB ONLY// FEATURES » OCTOBER 14, 2012
Koch Sends Pro-Romney Mailing to 45,000 Employees While Stifling Workplace Political Speech
The billionaire Koch brothers have found a new way to influence the 2012 election—preaching to employees.
BY MIKE ELK
Ignore all confusing rhetoric. In the end, one candidate really wants to raise taxes, and one wants to cut benefits. Guess which is which. 
In case you’re feeling a bit confused about how exactly the Obama and Romney campaigns differ on their plans for Social Security, don’t worry: it’s probably just a sign you’ve been paying attention during the debates.
During his low-wattage performance in Denver, the president chagrined his supporters by suggesting that he and Romney would take similar approaches to keeping Social Security solvent. The campaign quickly began walking that statement back, and by last night, Joe Biden was railing against the GOP ticket for supporting the Bush administration’s plan to privatize the program. Paul Ryan demurred, arguing that Romney just wanted to curtail retirement payments for higher earners.
Now feel free to forget most of that. Here’s what appears to be the actual divide, made simple: Obama wants to raise taxes in order to keep Social Security afloat while reducing some benefits. Romney doesn’t want to raise taxes, which means he would have to cut more benefits. Sounds familiar, no?
Social Security is expected to tumble into insolvency by 2033. The program already sends more to beneficiaries than it takes in via payroll taxes, but for the time being, the Treasury is covering the deficit by paying back money it borrowed from the program. When those funds run dry in two decades, we’ll be dealing with a serious shortfall.
Neither Romney nor Obama has released a detailed plan for fixing this problem. But they’ve each said enough to give us a rough sketch of their intentions.
The Real Difference Between Romney and Obama on Social Security – Jordan Weissmann – The Atlantic.
* Romney viewed positively for first time in campaign
* Republican nominee makes gains on economic issues
* He shores up support among Republican voters
* Obama leads Romney 48 percent to 43 percent in poll (Adds details, background)
By Andy Sullivan
WASHINGTON, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Republican presidential challenger Mitt Romney gained ground on Democratic President Barack Obama after a strong performance in their first debate heading into the Nov. 6 election, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll taken after their prime-time face-off.
Romney is now viewed positively by 51 percent of voters, the first time he has enjoyed a net positive in the U.S. presidential race, the poll found. Obama’s favorability rating remained unchanged at 56 percent, according to the poll.
Romney moved ahead of the president on several core issues after Wednesday’s debate, which was widely seen as a victory for the Republican candidate.
Voters now see Romney as a better bet to boost the economy, spur job creation and manage the budget deficit, the poll found. He narrowed Obama’s advantage on taxes, the Social Security retirement program and the Medicare health insurance program for the elderly and disabled.
Romney’s strong performance could make the race more competitive, Ipsos pollster Cliff Young said.
Obama-Romney Debate: Poll Shows Mitt Romney Gaining Ground After Strong Performance.
<nyt_byline style=”font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: normal; “><nyt_text style=”font-family: Georgia, serif; line-height: normal; “><nyt_correction_top>
<nyt_byline style=”color: rgb(51, 51, 51); font-family: georgia, ‘times new roman’, times, serif; font-size: 10px; line-height: 14.999999046325684px; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); “>
The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election.
The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.
Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.
That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.
None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”
In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.
When Mr. Romney accused the president of supporting a “trickle-down government,” Mr. Obama might have demanded to know what that means. He could then have pointed out that it is Mr. Romney whose economic plan is based on the discredited idea that high-end tax cuts trickle down to the middle class and poor.
Mr. Romney said he supported the idea of regulation but rejected the Dodd-Frank financial reform law because it was too generous to the big “New York banks.” This is an alternative-universe interpretation of a law that is deeply despised and opposed by the banks, but Mr. Obama missed several opportunities to point out how the law limits the corrosive practices, like derivatives trading, that led to the 2008 crash and puts in place vitally important consumer protections.
On health care, Mr. Romney pretended that he had an actual plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, and that it covered pre-existing conditions. He has no such plan, and his false claim finally roused the president to his only strong moment of the evening. The country doesn’t know the details, he said, of how Mr. Romney would replace Wall Street reform, or health care reform, or tax increases on the rich because Republicans don’t want people to understand the hard trade-offs involved in these decisions.
There are still two more presidential debates, and Mr. Obama has the facts on his side to expose the hollowness of his opponent. But first he has to decide to use them aggressively.
<nyt_update_bottom>
Reuters | Posted: 10/04/2012 4:55 pm EDT Updated: 10/05/2012 6:02 pm EDT