Saturday Night Live

Our weekend laughs come from the comedy stylings of Mitt Romney, or at least a few of the writers who find him a rich source of mordant humor.

In his article entitled Romney: My Magic Tax Plan Will Repeal Laws of Arithmetic, Jonathan Chiat in New York Magazine ran this photo with the caption: Together we will go to a magical realm where two plus two equals eleven.

In looking for cover for his tax plan which cuts more for the preposterously wealthy, to be paid for by lesser mortals, Romney tried to cite a new study. It required contortions even a climate crisis denier would admire.  Chiat:

Republicans have been frantically denying the math, which Obama has turned into the potent (and accurate) accusation that Romney’s plan would cut taxes on the rich in order to raise them on the middle class. Republican economist Martin Feldstein tried to defend Romney by doing his own study showing that Romney’s math could work, but in an epic blunder, inadvertently confirmed the charges. Despite cutting all kinds of methodological corners, Feldstein’s study found that the threshold above which Romney would have to raise taxes was not the $250,000 he promised but $100,000 a year. That means Romney would have to raise taxes on a huge chunk of income below $250,000 a year, just as the TPC study found. Feldstein dealt with this problem by writing his column about his study as if it disproved rather than confirmed the TPC, and other conservatives have gone on pretending the same thing.

But what Romney says about his plan is "mathematically impossible."  Even the Minister of Magic couldn't make it work.  But smoke and mirrors have worked to bedazzle the public before.

"The basic problem for Republicans is that their highest policy priority is to cut the effective tax rate paid by the richest 1 percent of Americans, but the vast majority of the voters don’t share that goal. Handling that problem is the single biggest challenge the Republican party faces. Normally, when a party has an extremely unpopular position, it just jettisons it. But Republicans care so much about this goal that they won’t give it up, which makes sense — you compromise on your secondary goals, not on your primary goal. Still, this ultimately places them in the position Romney finds himself and Paul Ryan and George W. Bush have found as well — the only way they can get elected is to obscure the real trade-offs and make up a bunch of fake numbers."


Getting at the depths of Romney's fail on the tragic events in Libya and Egypt caused New Yorker writer Amy Davidson to venture into the surreal as well.

"The incident is also a problem for Romney for some of the same reasons that the stories about Bain Capital are—and, indeed, it reprises some of the same themes. Trouble at the Embassy? Go after those you’ve decided are the employees who aren’t performing; put aside questions of loyalty, or about the difficult times they may be going through. Act as though all that’s needed for a transformation is a little managerial sleight of hand. Don’t be distracted by suffering, not even by the knowledge that some of the people doing the same jobs as the ones you’re attacking, in another branch office, are dead—that the next of kin for a couple of the victims haven’t even be informed. He wasn’t reckless and premature in his judgments, just efficient: “It’s never too early for the United States government to condemn attacks on Americans and to defend our values”—suggesting either that Mitt doesn’t care that he got the chronology wrong, or that he has more control over the space-time continuum than anyone suspected. (Come to think of it, time travel might explain some of his investment returns.) "

Once again a writer points out that Romney has " fictionalized the Embassy statement and demonized its authors."

A number of GOPer politicians got away with this in the recent past.  But maybe not this one.  In at least one poll, 49% said that President Obama believes what he says is true.  48% said the opposite of Romney.

Update: Meanwhile, Nicholas Kristof gets a little caustic in his Sunday column:

"DIPLOMACY is a minefield, and Mitt Romney spent the last week blowing up his foreign policy credentials to be president. He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises, and we were left hoping that if that 3 a.m. call ever went to him, he’d have set up call forwarding."

To conclude with a poll question that may wind up inspiring something on the real Saturday Night Live: when asked who would win a fistfight between Obama and Romney, a clear majority picked Obama.

Friday

As the four Americans killed in Libya came home (see post below), violence spread across the Middle East.  But in most places, it did not involve many people.

Meanwhile, the FBI is investigating the Benghazi attack, and their working theory is that it was an organized terrorist attack, possibly by an al Qaeda affiliated group.

Eugene Robinson's column is the latest to go after Romney for his role in this crisis, adding to the other charges this one: ignorance."...I guess this whole performance says a lot about what kind of man Romney is. The most charitable explanation is that he’s in a panic over polls that show Obama opening a lead. If this is not the case, then Romney’s ignorance of foreign policy is more profound — and potentially dangerous — than anyone could have suspected."

It's long been my contention that ignorance is a core value of the Rabid Right.

But Andrew Sullivan argued for the importance of temperament, and what this week says about the President and the GOPer candidate:

"But when I think of the characteristics I want in a president in turbulent times, this capacity for calm and poise comes pretty high on the list. And that's why I think this past week was almost as damaging to Romney as the week before. He over-reacted in a petty, political way to a sudden, murky series of events that demanded restraint and calm and fact-gathering. Then he doubled down on his attempt to politicize it. This was talk-radio performance, not presidential behavior."

On MSNBC, veteran journalist and editorial director Cynthia Tucker commented that "Governor Romney has put his conscience--if he has one--in a blind trust."

NYT/CBS likely voter poll shows President Obama up by 3 points.  But as TPM points out, this is their first likely voter model--in comparison to their last registered voter poll, President Obama has increased his lead by 8 points.

The GOP war on voting rights suffered a significant if unheralded defeat.  A court has stopped the Iowa GOPer secretary of state declaring a "state of emergency" so he can suddenly purge voter rolls.  One of the judge's reasons was that given the lack of evidence of in-person voter fraud and the likelihood that legitimate voters would be denied their rights without recourse in time to vote in this election, the likely harm clearly outweighs the possible good.  It's a decision that the PA Supreme Court might note and heed.

Finally, a tribute to the two-way conversations that can occur on the Internet, admidst the mostly toxic comment systems.  In both cases, the sites themselves pulled these comments from the mailbag and published them.

From TPM

From a Foreign Service Officer …

It’s probably not a surprise. But can I just say that if Mitt Romney wins in November, he is going to have a very chilly reception from his employees every time he goes abroad? I don’t think I can quite state the rage we’re all feeling towards him. 

From The Dish:

A reader writes:

Your quoting of two then-future presidents regarding the Iran hostage crisis got me thinking even more about the horrific events of the past couple days. Candidates Reagan and Bush were responding to an event that Jimmy Carter had an actual hand in deciding. Carter was the one who made the call to attempt to rescue the hostages. By doing so Carter is accountable for what happened. And yet Reagan and Bush stood firmly behind their president and did not criticize the decision that he made.

Fast forward to 2012. The Republican presidential candidate chooses to attack the Obama administration for a statement that upon reflection looks like a balanced respectful approach to a situation that President Obama had nothing at all to do with.

The reader goes on to comment on the transformation of "my father's Republican Party" and concludes: "Mitt Romney and those who classlessly have been backing his attack are not only not fit to be leaders of this nation, they are not fit to maintain any public soapbox at all."    

Coming Home

The four Americans killed in the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya returned to the U.S. on Thursday. President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke.

These four men died in service to their country, to the new democracy that the U.S. helped to establish, and in service to each other.  They were not there to hurt or kill anybody.  Ambassador Stevens in particular faced danger every day, unarmed, to do difficult work in which he deeply believed.  His courage, their courage, is cause for humble admiration.  May they rest in peace.

On another note, but a related one: I was not the only one to notice the moment when Secretary Clinton takes President Obama's hand.  Four years ago such a moment would be unthinkable.  The relationship they have built since then is a testament, an example, and a cause for hope.  As are the sacrifices of these four men.  Maybe we'll make this experiment of humanity work after all, or at least some of us will acquit ourselves honorably and well.    

Thursday

On Thursday, there were more images of demonstrations in several countries, including large ones in Yemen and Egypt that involved police and some violence to American Embassy property.  Three people, none of them American or Embassy staff, were said to have been killed in Yemen.

These demonstrations were based on the continuing misinformation that the U.S. government was responsible for an Internet video that insults Islam.  More demonstrations are expected on Friday, the day of prayer.  Governments in Egypt and Yemen were active in guarding the American embassies.

Information on the quite different event in Benghazi is still contradictory.  Some stories maintain that the violence resulted from a protesting mob, while another quoted witnesses as saying that the consulate was attacked by heavily armed fighters who arrived together in vehicles, and there never were real protesters.  Rachel Maddow again made the case for an organized terrorist attack.  Meanwhile, the Libyan government has arrested four and is questioning others in connection with the murders of four Americans.

To correct my previous post, the compound that was attacked was a consulate, not the U.S. embassy.  The official embassy is in Tripoli, and that's where Ambassador Stevens was headquartered.  He was visiting the Benghazi consulate on the fatal day.  The consulate was not as heavily protected as the larger and more permanent embassy.

Campaigning in Colorado, President Obama said:

Obviously, our hearts are heavy this week,’’ Mr. Obama said, as a hush fell over the crowd. But to a wider television audience he vowed: “I want people around the world to hear me: to all those who would do us harm, no act of terror will go unpunished.” He added, “no act of violence shakes the resolve of the United States of America.”


Political fallout continued, directly or at least partially related to these events.  A number of neocons and other GOPers began voicing support for Romney's general critique of the Obama foreign policy.  At least one (Rob Portman) was called out for supporting Romney's lies of the day before.

But criticism also continued, by still other Republicans.  Joe Scarborough, a media figure more than a Republican heavyweight but still a voice with some volume to it, made the most dramatic charges.  Addressing his fellow conservatives in a Politico oped he wrote: "And the lesson is clear: If we want to win the battle of ideas in the long term, we should be willing to face the fact that Mitt Romney is likely to lose — and should, given that he’s neither a true conservative nor a courageous moderate. He’s just an ambitious man. Nothing wrong with that, except when you want to be president." 

Meanwhile, TPM noted that a web version of a New York Times story on the Romney reaction was replaced by another story, which lacked a key quote: An earlier version of the story quoted an unnamed Romney adviser and former George W. Bush administration official saying Romney’s response to the attacks made it seem like “he had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: don’t start talking before you understand what’s happening.” 

Also on Thursday the last of the "bounce" polls showed that President Obama has opened up leads in three key swing states: Florida, Virginia and Ohio. He was at 50% in Ohio, 49% in Florida and Virginia.  From now on, the theory goes, the traditional convention bounce period is over and any change would be considered more telling for the long run.  But then there's the Egypt/Libya event and Romney's reaction.

So maybe it is telling already: In the latest Reuters/Ipso tracking poll made on Thursday, President Obama widened his lead over Romney by 7 points: 48% to 41%.  President Obama won all categories, including the war on terror, taxes and Social Security,   Romney won but one category: the federal deficit.

So the GOPer chances may be down to voter suppression, and some observers of the first day of the PA Supreme Court hearing were talking about the grilling that the PA government attorney got from the judges, especially the 3 Dems and the Republican Chief Justice. (Another observer however said something quite different: that the Chief Justice was mostly silent and appeared annoyed by the Dems.  This reporter for the Nation doesn't think the four votes are there to overturn.)

 The most damning statistic I heard that apparently was offered was that PENNDOT estimated it could process only a fraction of the eligible applicants for ID before election day.That should be game set and match right there.  It cannot stand for this election.  It's a travesty.

Economy: Good News

Economic recovery in the U.S. has been threatened by several factors beyond the control of policymakers: notably the effects of the drought on food prices, and especially the unstable situation and threat of economic meltdown in Europe.

So it was good news a few days ago that decisions by a central bank and a court in Germany seems to put off a euro crisis there for awhile (some say six months to a year) which provides some breathing room for more positive efforts to stimulate economies, if governments can get there from their obsession with austerity that isn't working.

Economic recovery in the U.S. is being depressed by lack of action from the government, which until Thursday included the Federal Reserve.  That changed, with the Fed's decision to provide more stimulus.  It was generally expected but its open-ended extent was not.  So a stock market that had already been rising on the expectation shot up on Thursday by 200 points, to its highest level since the year 2000.   

Both of these actions took away immediate uncertainty and bolstered longer term predictability for markets and businesses to plan on.  So possible immediate drags on the economy are avoided, with the potential for economic growth improving in the future, and soon.  So, at least for now and the next several months, good news.  As long as you try to forget Congress.

Unfit

News of how misinformation about the film attacking the religion of Islam was spreading must have reached the American Embassy in Cairo. (See the post below for that narrative.) Some six hours before any demonstrations began, and in the absence of the ambassador herself, someone there put out this statement:

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

While the attack in Libya was happening, Mitt Romney issued a statement accusing the Obama administration of "sympathizing with those who waged the attacks," apparently based on this Embassy statement, made hours before the attacks began. Even when this timeline became fully known, candidate Romney in person (photo above) once again accused President Obama of apologizing to the attackers.

The reaction to Romney's accusations were swift and harsh: that they are manifestly untrue, and that they are so badly timed that if anyone took Romney seriously they would be a serious undermining of his supposed country while it was under attack.  Foreign policy specialists in both parties expressed shock that he would inject politics so blatantly into a national tragedy and foreign policy crisis, when Americans traditionally come together behind their President.

Political reporters were nearly unanimous in characterizing Romney's remarks as foolish and desperate. Even Mark Halperin, often a Romney apologist, said "his doubling down on criticism of the President for the statement coming out of Cairo is likely to be seen as one of the most craven and ill-advised tactical moves in this entire campaign." 

But President Obama said it best, in an interview he did that had been previously scheduled. While declining to comment on Romney's response, he added: "There's a broader lesson to be learned here," he told "60 Minutes" correspondent Steve Kroft at the White House. " Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later. And as president, one of the things I've learned is you can't do that. That it's important for you to make sure that the statements that you make are backed up by the facts. And that you've thought through the ramifications before you make them."

Some conservatives were among those who roundly criticized Romney's statements.  Daniel Larison called it "shameless opportunism" and observed: "The extraordinary thing is that Romney may have been losing yesterday, but he wasn’t being widely ridiculed and attacked for having practically disqualified himself from consideration. When senior Republican foreign policy professionals start referring to this as his “Lehman moment,” likening it to McCain’s mid-September meltdown in response to the financial crisis, we can see that Romney’s latest attempt to seize on an international event has done significant and possibly irreparable damage to his campaign."

[Photo: Benghazi U.S. consulate.]
But by evening much of the Rabid Right blathersphere was lining up behind Romney's critique, which may be the political calculation. But for most Americans, it's likely to be a different story. Such obvious contempt for the Commander in Chief at that moment does not usually go down well.  Romney has already demonstrated that he doesn't know what he's talking about, and that he'll lie and repeat his lies endlessly, although some might excuse this on domestic political subjects. But not in a volatile national security situation, when lives are at stake, when war and peace are at stake, and  the way the President handles a dangerous international situation has major implications. 

James Fallows on Romney in the Atlantic: "In short, when faced with a 3 a.m. test, he reacted immediately, rather than having the instinct to wait. And after he waited, he mistook this as a moment for partisanship rather than for at least the appearance of statesmanlike national unity...Think of this temperament and these instincts in a command role, and with stakes much higher than they were today."

Before this, Romney clearly didn't have the policies that would make him a good choice for President.  Now it's clear that he doesn't have the character or the political skills to be President.  As many were saying today, he is unfit for the job.  

Reality

Information is still coming in and being sorted on what really happened in Egypt and Libya in the past 36 hours.  But the picture that is emerging looks like this:

Somebody posted a video on youtube, a kind of crude preview for what it said was an upcoming film that apparently attacks Islam as a religion.  Somehow (and this part is unclear) Egyptians in particular and perhaps Libyans were told that this film was a major part of U.S. commemorations of 9-11 on September 11.  This of course wasn't true.  Nobody much knew about it, in the U.S. or most of the world.  The film itself (if it exists) has never been seen.

Nevertheless, a few hundred people gathered in loud protest outside the Embassy's substantial walls.  Some climbed over the walls, got into the courtyard and burned the American flag. 

Later a small crowd may have gathered outside the American Embassy in Benghazi in Libya, in a similar protest, but this is not really clear.  What is clear is that an organized and heavily armed group attacked the embassy, essentially burned and destroyed it, and killed the U.S. Ambassador, Christopher Stevens, at least one other American (a former Marine), and two other members of the Embassy staff (not yet identified pending notification of next of kin.)  One report said they did so with rocket propelled grenades.

On Thursday morning, when the deaths were confirmed, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama condemned the attacks, and mourned the loss of these Americans, as well as the reported Libyans who tried to defend them.  The new Libyan government and the vast majority of Benghazi citizens consider the U.S. as a friend.  Ambassador Stevens had been the U.S. envoy to the rebels in Benghazi. 

Secretary Clinton said:  "Today, many Americans are asking – indeed, I asked myself – how could this happen? How could this happen in a country we helped liberate, in a city we helped save from destruction? This question reflects just how complicated and, at times, how confounding the world can be. But we must be clear-eyed, even in our grief. This was an attack by a small and savage group – not the people or Government of Libya."

President Obama immediately ordered a rapid reaction force of U.S. Marines to protect the Embassy in Tripoli (Libya), where the remaining Benghazi staff (rescued by Libyans) are quartered.  Two U.S. warships moved closer, and it was made known that recon drones were over Libya.  In his statement in the White House rose garden, with Secretary Clinton at his side (photo above, video below), President Obama said:  " No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done."

I add emphasis there because of speculation about this attack.  President Obama called it an act of terror, which is a characterization with some meaning.   If it was organized and planned, rather than improvised, then a particular group is responsible.  Rachel Maddow made a strong case that it could well be an al-Qaeda group.  This late story suggests that U.S. officials are coming around to this view.

It's not known if the Egypt demonstration and the Libyan attack were linked at all.  There is also not much known about the person who apparently made the video in question.  He is said to be American or Israeli, but his name is likely an alias.   In this TPM story, the man in question is described as having "an Egyptian accent."  No one I know of is yet saying this, but there is at this point the possibility that the film itself was part of a plot to incite violence or even cover an act of terrorism.

In any case, when President Obama says "We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done," those aren't just words.  Not by the President who has taken out a great many al-Qaeda's leaders throughout the Middle East, including bin Laden.

President Obama and Secretary Clinton spoke movingly of Ambassador Stevens, and so did Senator John McCain.  A video of his Senate remarks is here.

PA Voter Suppression Update

Today the Pennsylvania supreme court takes up the appeal on the decision that upheld the PA voter suppression ID law.  In my earlier post, I wondered if the court can review the total situation or just what is in the appeal.  I still don't know the answer to that, but one thing I learned (via Meteor Blades at Kos) is in the appeal is reference to the 1869 Patterson decision I wrote about in that earlier post.  He quotes from the brief:

 " Patterson is an anachronism, predating the modern framework of differing levels of scrutiny by more than half a century and based on outright prejudice. Patterson is no guide to a current construction of the constitutional rights of Pennsylvanians."

The rest of the brief hits the main issues and responds specifically to elements of the previous decision.  I still wonder if the supreme court can take into consideration how the system is actually working right now, which is to take care of a noisy celebrity's father and make it as hard as possible for non-celebrities to recover their right to vote.

The other piece of information is this oped by a PA Rep which observes that the chief justice, a Republican, has been known to stray from party positions, and in a recent controversial case about redistricting, referred to  "the constitutional commands and restrictions on the process exist precisely as a brake on the most overt of potential excesses and abuse.”  Rep. Waters suggests this directly applies to the voter suppression ID case.

One of these days there's going to be a court that really stands up for this basic right to vote in a big way, with a lopsided decision.  This could be that court.  As the Economist magazine observes, " we ought to recognize it for what it is: deliberate voter suppression, and a betrayal of democracy."

President Obama's statement at the White House Wednesday on the attack in Bengazi that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador.  More about this later.

Congratulations, it's a bounce, baby, bounce.

Update: Two new polls Wednesday: a Fox poll shows President Obama got a 5 point bounce, with an 11 point bounce among independents.  Their likely voter model shows him ahead 48-43.

An Economist poll also shows President Obama getting a bounce and pulling ahead and it notes what other polls have noted: a big increase in Dem enthusiasm.  According to Pew, it's now higher than GOPer enthusiasm.  (All of this should not be too much of a surprise to readers of this blog.)


It's showing up in most polls, with several--including the Gallup tracking--showing Obama 50 Romney 44.  That 50% threshold again--the first time since April in Gallup.  More meaningful now of course, this close to the election.

And as the LA Times points out, Romney has lost his last categorical advantage--in recent polls President Obama has drawn even with him on who can best handle the economy.  President Obama's advantage on foreign policy is just waiting to be capitalized, for as Rachel demonstrated with a raft of survey results, Americans of both parties overwhelmingly agree with Obama's policies, as opposed to the BushCheney policies that Romneyryan less that secretly would reinstate.  (A sample: 82% support withdrawal from Afghanistan by 2014, 67% Iraq war not worth fighting for, 71% be more cautious about use of force. Only 27% support military confrontation with Iran, 32% say should not cut military spending, and two-thirds say U.S. should act militarily only with the UN or NATO.  The survey found no significant difference between Ds and Rs on these issues.)

So another day of the Rabid Right turning their rabidness on Romney and his campaign.  Now all the political commentators can say is Romney's Last Stand is the first debate on October 3.  The Romney people are raising expectations of their guy, noddingly called a good debater (which is exactly what they said about Nixon in 1960).  But close to 60% of the public expects President Obama to do better.  Romney has to live up to his own hype and exceed expectations to have much of a chance.

Others are suggesting that the ad carpet bombing is reaching the point of diminishing returns, especially if Romneyryanrove can't come up with a new line of attack that's effective--and attack is about all they will be doing.  Andrew Sullivan believes that more attacks will benefit President Obama. (The poll chart above also comes from that post.)

Although August was the first month that the Obama campaign raised more than Romney, Mother Jones thinks the Obama campaign will end up raising more for the campaign as a whole.  There's also the suspicion (which I admit I had when I started hearing the Romney panic talk) that with Republicans trashing the Romney campaign, at least some of his big donors are going to turn off the spigot, or at least hedge their bets with some cash for the Dems.

So their leading tactic, apart from increasingly silly lying and hyperbole, is voter suppression.  All eyes move to Pennsylvania, where the state supreme court takes up the appeal on their voter suppression law on Thursday.  It's a six judge panel, 3 of each.  A party-line tie upholds the law.

The initial decision was revealed to be even more dubious by a review of the PA law that the judge referenced, made by a University of Pittsburgh law professor in a piece in (one of) my old stomping grounds: the Pittsburgh Post Gazette.  It was an 1869 decision based on blatant prejudice and racism, giving judicial voice to the silent intent of the current law: to keep "undesirable" citizens from voting.

The law that the decision upheld in 1869 once again was designed to make it harder for citizens of Philadelphia to vote than the rest of the Commonwealth.  The judge's reason for upholding it was that rural voters were virtuous while urban voters included "rogues" and "strumpets."  To allow Philadelphia to vote with the same freedom as elsewhere “would be to place the vicious vagrant, the wandering Arabs, the Tartar hordes of our large cities, on a level with the virtuous and good man.” (All this also quoted on Think Progress, which had the Catch of the Day in flagging this article.)

I'm not sure what the supreme court can consider in this appeal, but if they can examine actual reality they would also find that the current law is being applied capriciously and arbitrarily.  One instance became news Tuesday when cable stock market screamer and very rich guy Jim Cramer tweeted that his father couldn't get a PA ID to vote because he didn't drive and couldn't prove his citizenship.

Half a million people read Cramer's tweets apparently, and within hours, lo and behold, his father was found eligible for special consideration and got his ID. Other sad sack Pennsylvanians have had to spend weeks, many hours in lines and spend lots of cash (one figured it cost him more than $65) in the hopes of getting their right to vote back.   The 1869 decision and the celebrity shortcut are enough to demonstrate the rank injustice of this law all by themselves.

Stampede?

The good news for the Obama campaign just keeps on coming.  The best of Monday: the CNN poll, and the August campaign contribution numbers.

The CNN poll of likely voters moved from a tie (O-48% R-48%) to Obama-52% Romney-46%.  The 8 point margin (and bump) is the biggest movement in a long while, but the best news is the 52%.  Any time a candidate gets to 50% and over, it means that more than half are at least open to the possibility of voting for that candidate.  Even if he slips back in this poll, the 50% threshold, once achieved, is major.

The August contribution numbers show that the Obama campaign actually outraised the Romney campaign $114 million to $111 million.  The Obamas got contributions from 1.1 million donors, including me, which is possibly why my checking account was down to $12 today.

Apart from the number, which means the Obama campaign can remain competitive in the swing states which the Romney campaign bragged they were "carpet bombing" with TV ads this week, there's the additional fact that last month the Romneyryans spent more than they took in.  They spent more than a hundred million dollars, and they lost the month, and they're still losing.

Those some commentators suspect that the race has been fundamentally changed by the Dem convention, all we can say for sure is that Obama got a healthy bump.  But apart from a certain herd mentality in the media, the odd effect is that this is all it took to unravel more of Romney's party support, at least according to Byron York who reports that GOPer anxiety threatens to turn into a stampede.   Mark Halperin, a soft GOPer, seems to agree.

There's already evidence of this in the far right blathersphere.  And when a supposed supporter like Gov. John Kasich of Ohio says of Romney's economic plan-- "He says he's got a 53-point plan or whatever, I don't know."--then you've got problems.

The Romney campaign does not seem to be responding well. After going through their latest missteps, Rachel Maddow concluded, "This is either high level genius we don't understand in what they are doing, or they don't know what they are doing."

Meanwhile, the Obama bounce--if that's what it is--is moving on down the line.  Elizabeth Warren has moved back up to a tie in MA (she was down 5 before the convention.)  Meanwhile, Dems running for House seats get higher approval, while GOPers drop off the cliff.

Andrew Sullivan, Nate Silver and Josh Marshall are among those actually contemplating an Obama landslide.  Partly that's because sudden (though explicable) movement in the polls can either be temporary or an early clue to the new direction--they could move even more in that direction and stay there, as voters stampede to Obama.  

Well, it was a euphoric afternoon when the CNN and August money numbers came out, and I've always believed in the possibility of an Obama landslide, but there's a long way to go.  September is the month when outside events and/or gaffes can alter the race.  October is about the debates.  And the election is still about turnout and voter suppression.

GOPer suppression efforts are accelerating in the swing states--most outrageously at the moment in Iowa, where the GOPer sec of state wants to declare a 'state of emergency' to purge registration rolls before election day.  Hey, why not go straight to martial law?

But where past efforts seem most likely to pay off is Florida.  Obama is probably going to be strong enough in Ohio and PA to withstand the efforts there.  But things are seriously fucked up in Florida, and we may be in for a 2000 scenario.  Frankly if the presidency is in the balance again I don't know how the country survives it.

The Real Convention Bump

Election numbers guy Nate Silver had a column during the Dem convention that worked the numbers to show that "There’s one advantage that President Obama has that Mitt Romney probably doesn’t. If he can get a good turnout from his base, he’ll be the heavy favorite to win in November — even if Mr. Romney gets a strong turnout as well."

If registered Dems and Obama voters actually voted at the same rate GOPers do, President Obama would win by a substantial margin.  While Silver says this is unlikely because Dem constituent groups are harder to get to the polls than are those of the GOP, the higher the turnout of these voters, the better President Obama's chances are, even with a high GOP turnout.

Silver related this to the intentions of the Dem convention organizers--to make sure all the component groups got their issues talked about as part of the overall 2012 election agenda.  From just viewing it on TV, my impression was that this intention was fulfilled, and then some. Think about all the elements of the new Democratic coalition and how none of them left Charlotte feeling compromised.

But even more importantly it was a DNC that was both diverse and unified. Not only did groups visibly and happily intermingle and work together, they seemed to be having a great time doing it. It certainly gave me the impression that the convention energized and focused Dems for the work to win, and that showed voters interested enough to watch and troubled enough by Romney that they were safe voting to reelect President Obama.

So far the polls are saying it pretty clearly: the DNC made a difference. But however the polls go, the real difference will be made by the Dems being focused.  In part the "enthusiasm" gap was to me just a product of Obama voters not yet paying attention.  There weren't any primary fights, and the electioneering that was happening in the GOP was a turnoff.  I always thought the DNC would be the moment that got their attention and reminded them of 2008.  Sure, it's a more sober group and time.   But at the convention the commitment was just as strong, and they all saw that in each other. And we saw them seeing that. That can't be bad.  And President Obama closed that deal by so strongly relating 2008 with 2012 and his theme, you are the change.

Independents, undecideds and lonely sane Republicans got plenty of reasons to vote for President Obama during the DNC. But the DNC did its primary job if the Dems are fired up and ready to go.  Because this is likely going to be a turnout election, and Obama voters have to be more determined to even get to vote this year in many places.  That will depend in part in how determined members of various groups are to vote their voice--women especially, but also members of minorities who see what's going on and refuse to be intimidated or insulted. 

The evidence of this is already starting to come in.  In the latest poll President Obama has widened his lead in Ohio, chiefly because of more support and enthusiasm from Democrats.  But regardless of the polls, it's the voting--and the turnout--that counts.

Weekend Updates

Saturday: President Obama expands his lead in three tracking polls, with leads of 4 points in Reuters and Gallup.  To achieve this, he has gotten a bump of from 7 to 9 points since Wednesday at the DNC.  But the full convention won't be figured into these polls until the next one.

Meanwhile, according to the Princeton Election Consortium, Romney got a negative bounce out of the GOP convention.

Andrew Sullivan (who works weekends) thinks this might be major.

Gallup also calculated a major uptick in economic confidence of 17 points, but since it wasn't associated with any particular event, it remains something to watch rather than something to totally believe.

Sunday: Andrew Sullivan adds further evidence of an Obama surge based on the DNC.  He believes this is the first real change in the presidential race.  He notes that Nate Silver again repeats what others have observed: President Obama still has never really been behind.  What's left for the coming week is to see if the bounce continues and is reflected in other polls.  And then in a week or so, whether the lead remains.  It would be unusual if the race didn't tighten again, especially in October.  But the narrative so far could become that voters started having doubts about Romney over the summer, and the DNC made Obama seem like the better--and safer--choice.

There's something else reflected in the Reuters poll.  Obama leads in most categories: intelligence, eloquence, personality, etc.  But he has consistently led in many such categories, especially in personal appeal, but also overwhelming was the choice when voters were asked who they thought would win the election.  It may be that the convention has started giving people permission to leave reflexive GOPer choice and say they favor the guy they think is going to win.

The Obama campaign passed 700,000 donors over the DNC week. 

Finally, these two photos are being widely reprinted, both from Sunday.  Also an exchange President Obama had with a boy who said he was born in Hawaii.  "Born in Hawaii?  Do you have a birth certificate?"

This very big man who owns this pizza shop was so excited by having the President drop in that he lifted him off the ground.  The Secret Service told him it was okay to lift the President, as long as he didn't take him anywhere.

Joe Biden seems to have a way with the biker ladies, but not necessary the biker guys.

The Beat Goes On

The very first indicator is very positive: President Obama's approval rating in the Gallup poll jumped to 52%, a seven to nine point surge, depending on when you start measuring.  The data covers only part of the Dem convention week.

Overnights show President Obama's speech was watched by about 36 million (Romney 30 million).  Bill Clinton's speech on Tuesday got around 25 million, and even beat out the tense second half of the opening NFL Giants-Cowboys game.

A lot of people were pushing back against lukewarm pundits on Obama's speech, and there's this highly interesting--and very positive-- roundup of newspaper front pages in swing states. 

Speaking of swing states, both the Romney campaign and their key (but of course un-coordinated, because that would be illegal) superpacs have pulled ads from PA, Michigan and Wisconsin.  Jonathan Chiat reads a lot into this in terms of Romney strategy--noting that Romney has to win every one of the swing states he's targeting to get enough electoral votes--but it's way early to divine that a campaign has definitively abandoned certain states.  Especially with the millions that Romneyryanrove have amassed.

The Labor Dept. Jobs report showed 96,000 jobs added and unemployment dropping from 8.3 to 8.1.  This is less than half of what a private outfit reported in new hiring for August.  I don't know what that means, except possibly that there was a surge towards the end of the month that the Labor Dept. didn't count.  At this point, however, only a very bad report or a very good one is likely to break out as big news.  Wall Street is expected the Fed to do some more stimulus next week--what could be interesting about that is if Bernake says loudly that they had to do it because Congress wouldn't.

On the stump, President Obama is pointing out that the GOPer strangling Congress has failed to pass or even consider the American Jobs Act.  It's a year now since President Obama proposed it.  

The Obama campaign received more than half a million grassroots donations during the Dem convention, and is going for 600,000 by midnight.

Update: By late Friday another two polls, including Reuters/Ipsos daily tracker, showed movement in Obama's direction of from 2 to 4 points.  And the Obama campaign zoomed past 600,000 on its way to 7.

A Convention to Remember

The GOP convention provided golden opportunities, and on Thursday Democrats made sure they took every one of them.  If Mitt Romney wasn't going to offer specifics or talk about American soldiers and foreign policy, President Obama did, and so did just about everybody else.

If Romney was going to try to make a joke out of the Climate Crisis, John Kerry and especially President Obama were going to call him on it:

"And yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet – because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They’re a threat to our children’s future. And in this election, you can do something about it."

The day's highlights included Gabby Gifford's courageous accomplishment of leading the Pledge of Allegiance, demonstrating not only her courage and the fragility of our lives but the cost of being a conscientious and intelligent public servant in this era of violent extremism in the land of guns.

John Lewis placed current GOP voter suppression efforts in the context he lived, of the Civil Rights movement, and the sorry history of such efforts to cheat African Americans out of their votes and their rights.

Caroline Kennedy presented a calmly expressed but passionate case for President Obama's accomplishments as well as his promise, as in keeping with the Kennedy legacy.  She pointed out that her father never got to run for a second term--all the more reason to make sure this President gets his.

But following her came the surprise of the day--the normally cool and collected former Governor of Michigan, Jennifer Granholm bringing the crowd to their feet with a preacher-on-steroids recitation of all the jobs in all the states that the rescue of the American auto industry saved for American workers.

John Kerry was blunt, incisive and funny in taking apart the Romneyryan qualifications and non-specific foreign policy positions, such as they are.  He was the first to call Romney on the Climate Crisis.

Joe Biden's acceptance speech was heartfelt and mesmerizing.  He talked about the two elements of his favorite bumper sticker saying (General Motors is alive, and Osama bin Laden is dead) but in terms of being there when President Obama made those decisions.  He also talked about Medicare versus Vouchercare.

President Obama promised specifics and he delivered, outlining the choice of visions for the next four years in the first part of his speech.  In addition to following through on efforts he's begun on jobs and the economy, health care, education and energy, he talked more about foreign policy than the entire GOPer convention did.  Real responsibilities that a real President must face.

Around the world, we’ve strengthened old alliances and forged new coalitions to stop the spread of nuclear weapons. We’ve reasserted our power across the Pacific and stood up to China on behalf of our workers. From Burma to Libya to South Sudan, we have advanced the rights and dignity of all human beings – men and women; Christians and Muslims and Jews.

But for all the progress we’ve made, challenges remain. Terrorist plots must be disrupted. Europe’s crisis must be contained. Our commitment to Israel’s security must not waver, and neither must our pursuit of peace. The Iranian government must face a world that stays united against its nuclear ambitions. The historic change sweeping across the Arab World must be defined not by the iron fist of a dictator or the hate of extremists, but by the hopes and aspirations of ordinary people who are reaching for the same rights that we celebrate today.


  He produced some bold statements and sharp critiques.  For example:

"My opponent and his running mate are new to foreign policy, but from all that we’ve seen and heard, they want to take us back to an era of blustering and blundering that cost America so dearly.
After all, you don’t call Russia our number one enemy – and not al Qaeda – unless you’re still stuck in a Cold War time warp. You might not be ready for diplomacy with Beijing if you can’t visit the Olympics without insulting our closest ally."

"And while my opponent would spend more money on military hardware that our Joint Chiefs don’t even want, I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways. After two wars that have cost us thousands of lives and over a trillion dollars, it’s time to do some nation-building right here at home."

"But when Governor Romney and his allies in Congress tell us we can somehow lower our deficit by spending trillions more on new tax breaks for the wealthy – well, you do the math. I refuse to go along with that. And as long as I’m President, I never will."

"And I will never turn Medicare into a voucher."

"This is the choice we now face. This is what the election comes down to. Over and over, we have been told by our opponents that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing. If you can’t afford health insurance, hope that you don’t get sick. If a company releases toxic pollution into the air your children breathe, well, that’s just the price of progress. If you can’t afford to start a business or go to college, take my opponent’s advice and “borrow money from your parents.”

In the last part of his speech he outlined the values that inform his vision.  He spoke about citizenship as the identity that binds us.  For everybody--but especially I think for people who followed him in 08 and may have fallen away--he elaborated on the real meaning of hope and change.  He's alluded to this before, he's said it in other ways, but in this context it was particularly powerful.  "The hope is you," he said.  And after four years, that means something, because that "you" is behind accomplishments with real meaning for real people.

"So you see, the election four years ago wasn’t about me. It was about you. My fellow citizens – you were the change.

You’re the reason there’s a little girl with a heart disorder in Phoenix who’ll get the surgery she needs because an insurance company can’t limit her coverage. You did that."

Here's a link to videos of the major speeches and to the text of President Obama's speech.  The punditocracy seemed underwhelmed (except on msnbc) but I suspect this is like one of those Clinton State of the Unions that went over their heads.  I think this speech is going to take on every more significance as time goes on, as an eloquent statement not just of the choice in this election but a political philosophy for these times.  A civics lesson for the future.

But for all its skillfulness, one of its most potent lines may well have been accidental.  President Obama was about to talk about the effect of actually being the decider-in-chief.  He was about to talk about what it's like to order soldiers into action, and then comfort the loved ones of those who didn't make it home.  But he started this section with these words:

"I recognize that times have changed since I first spoke to this convention. The times have changed – and so have I. I’m no longer just a candidate. I’m the President."

But at the words "I'm the President" the hall erupted in cheers.  Twitter went nuts.  Later in the evening commentators were interpreting the meaning and power of that phrase in their own ways.  What I thought about as I saw the reaction of people there was the realization that--yes, we did this once, he is the President, he is our President, and it would be a damn shame not to do this again.  And it was the connection between 2008 and 2012.

Earlier they ran a video I've seen before that very skillfully and very quickly lists the major accomplishments of President Obama's first term.  They are awesome.  They are historic.  And in a sane country they would result in a landslide reelection. 

Yet the polls say he's tied or barely ahead of the worst candidate either party has fielded in generations.  He's opposed by people who in just the last few days: said that the Democrats claim that his speech was moved inside from the outdoor arena was because they couldn't raise the crowd and not because of the forecast threat of thunderstorms, because Democrats knew of this forecast "for months;"  that student loans could lead to another Holocaust; and tweeted "I hope someone was passing out free condoms tonight, otherwise Sandra Fluke might be in trouble tomorrow." 

The party of the vile and the stupid shouldn't even be polling in double digits.  But unless and until Americans start paying attention, this country and the future are in trouble.  President Obama outlined the choice:

"If you turn away now – if you buy into the cynicism that the change we fought for isn’t possible…well, change will not happen. If you give up on the idea that your voice can make a difference, then other voices will fill the void: lobbyists and special interests; the people with the $10 million checks who are trying to buy this election and those who are making it harder for you to vote; Washington politicians who want to decide who you can marry, or control health care choices that women should make for themselves.

Only you can make sure that doesn’t happen. Only you have the power to move us forward."

 

 

 

 

 

You and Me, Bro

"I've been watching a lot of the coverage and I don't get it. I'm an old white guy-- and I love Barack Obama."

James Taylor at the DNC
just before he sang "You've Got A Friend"

He started out by approaching his chair for "Carolina On My Mind" and reassuring the crowd they didn't have to be nervous about the empty chair.  "I'm going to sit in it, not talk to it."

(I believe this photo is from the sound check early on Thursday, which apparently turned into a mini-concert for the few delegates there.)

A Speech to Remember

On election day in 1992,  I drove from my beloved Pittsburgh apartment to my polling place with "Don't Stop Thinking About Tomorrow" on a loop in my Chevette's cassette player.  And I played it really loud on the way home.  What a day that was.

To that same song--his convention theme song (a mystery until it played after his acceptance speech)--Bill Clinton walked onto the stage at the 2012 Democratic National Convention and gave the speech of his life.

And that's saying something.  There have been a few comparative clunkers through the years--his famous first convention speech (in which he got the biggest applause for the line, "in conclusion...") and his second Inaugural.  But he could make speeches even on the most pedestrian occasions (including ones that a relative handful of people heard, only on C-Span) shine.  And he made some very important ones for himself--especially at his nominating convention but at various times on the big stages throughout his presidency.

As many commentators said--and as I suggested was the golden opportunity waiting to be taken--he gave a detailed policy speech and rebuttal of GOPer lies, contrasting with the GOPers refusal to be specific about anything.  He did it with clarity and charm and some perfect one-liners (which to be fair were scattered in a number of speeches throughout the day--all showing signs of having been at least edited by the same speechwriting team.)  There was something Mark Twain about how he summarized the GOPer argument against Obama: "we left him a perfect mess but he didn't clean it up fast enough, so fire him and hire us back."

He made the key arguments, but more than that he gave them the weight of his own presidency.“No president — no president — not me, not any of my predecessors, no one could have fully repaired all the damage that he found in just four years,” Clinton said. “He has laid the foundations for a new modern successful economy, a shared prosperity, and if you will renew the president’s contract, you will feel it.”

 I wasn't too crazy about how he handled himself in the 08 primaries, and I disagreed with some of what he did as President (though I usually wound up defending him to friends.) But this brought back fonder memories. Memories also of how he drove the GOP literally crazy. They really hated him.  Now he's got a 69% approval rating, even higher among women.

So two nights, two outstanding, historic speeches.  As Jonathan Bernstein wrote, "Bill Clinton tonight showed them all how it’s done. He gave a master class in how to combine folksy and poetic language, stinging one-liners and policy nuance, empathy and rip-roaring partisanship. It was as good as it gets."  Other commentaries: Joe Klein,  Michael Tomasky, Dan Amira (with a video of the entire 48 minute speech.)

Though Tuesday lacked the freshness of the first day, there were other highlights: Olympic Gold Medalist Gabby Douglas leading the Pledge of Allegiance and Brandon Marsalis playing the national anthem, Planned Parenthood prez Camille Richards (who I didn't know is the daughter of beloved Ann Richards), Sister Simone Campbell (one of the nuns on the bus--I'm not a Catholic anymore, but she made me proud of having been one), Sandra Fluke, Elizabeth Warren.  And remarkably the energy in the hall seemed to stay up all day.

So of course this all leaves everybody wondering how vp Joe Biden and especially President Obama are going to top this or even measure up tomorrow.  Not a bad problem to have.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Focus

So far the Democratic convention is remarkably focused on what one speaker summed up in one word today: opportunity.  A potent message.

They are also focused on another "o" word: Obama.  Even when Chris Matthews was interviewing two of Teddy Kennedy's sons about their father, neither of them said a sentence without including Barack Obama in it, as the person who continues the fight for the causes the Kennedys championed.  What a contrast to the NRC.

Obama's Secret

Here's the secret about President Obama nobody talks about.  It's never mentioned at the convention, or in the ads, or even in introductions.  It's a forgotten moment in his past.

But in the interest of truth, I'm afraid I must remind you.  President Obama's deepest secret is this: he won the Nobel Peace Prize.

Shhhh.  Don't tell anybody.

A Night To Remember

It's hard to imagine a better first night for the Democratic National Convention.  Every speaker I saw was impressive in some way (though I missed a few.)  Even some of what happened before the magic network hour was magic, and may have more impact in news clips and campaign spots.

  I'm thinking especially of Stacey Lihn, not a politician, on stage as the mother of a toddler with a heart defect.  Her presentation was perfect--crisp, emotional and absolutely on point.  Her child was in danger of exceeding her lifetime limit on her health insurance, until Obamacare lifted that limit.  But she's heard Romney say he would repeal it on day one, and that's "something we worry about every single day."  Now it's a right that would be taken away. There's no way this young family could afford to provide the care she needs. Her husband and two children stood beside her.  One of the girls stood and looked appealingly at the crowd.  The other was in her father's arms, and at the mention of Romney (coincidentally but potently) she began to fuss and cry.

The politicians did pretty well, too (although the young daughter of Mayor Castro of San Antonio, the keynote speaker, did a little scene stealing herself when she became interested when she saw her face on the TV and fluffed her hair to watch what happened.)  Mayor Castro told a Latino version of the multi-generational American Dream, which would later find resonance in Michelle Obama's.  Si se puede.

  Governor Deval Patrick of Massachusetts gave a fiery speech (just before primetime), at last justifying his reputation as an orator.  Govenor O'Malley of Maryland started primetime with a call and response, and the enthusiastic crowd cooperated by flashing their "Forward" signs (in blue) and "Not Back" (in red, of course) right on cue. Earlier, Kathleen Sibelius was sharp, and even the old white guy of the night--former Republican Governor of RI Lincoln Chafee-- was sweetly effective.

Kal Penn, Lilly Ledbetter--crisp and on point, very impressive. Rahm Emanuel was also crisp and on point, talking issues but from the perspective of being the Chief of Staff in the first years.  Joseph Kennedy III (Bobby's grandson)  introduced a tribute video to Senator Ted Kennedy--and he has the star power and presence to reopen the Kennedy franchie--while the video itself also happened to deftly show Teddy shredding Mitt Romney in their senatorial debates, showing Romney avoiding any specifics and Teddy calling him on it.  When Romney talked about how pro-choice he is (!), Teddy said, he says he's pro choice, I think he's multiple choice.  Is it still 1994?  Romney must think so.

But of course the supernova of the night was Michelle Obama.  Like the best of the preceding speeches, it told a positive story which--by the plot points it touched--reminded everyone of Romney positions and characteristics to the contrary.  But it was also a truly transcendent speech--one of the greatest moments in convention history--certainly a great television moments.  The speech as written is brilliant, but it was the presentation that made it so powerful, so transcendent.   I wouldn't want to be Barack right now, trying to do better.

In the form of the evening, a very effective infomercial.  In the content, it was speaking to the Obama constitutency that needs to come out in big numbers: women, Latinos, Africian Americans, gays and lesbians, seniors, the new immigrants.  If they do, he wins.  But more than that: this is the new Democratic party.  It's not identity politics--it's demographics, it's the new reality.  It's the new American middle class.

I've watched these conventions for many years.  At their best, they are the Democrats reaffirming what they stand for.  Here there were no apologies for Obamacare, for the philosophy of helping hands, of social justice.  Sure, there was political skill in the best presentations.  But this wasn't skewed to some pollster's idea of the undecideds you have to cater to.  This was: this is who we are, this is our guy. 

That's why there was so much enthusiasm, so much love in the hall.  And this was the first day.