Sunday panel guests for Sept. 23, 2012

Meet the Press: Deval Patrick, Kelly Ayotte, Kasim Reed, Bay Buchanan, Dee Dee Myers, Joe Scarborough, David Brooks, Chuck Todd

Face the Nation: Bill Clinton, David Gergen, David Corn, Peggy Noonan, Rick Stengel, John Dickerson

This Week: David Axelrod, Reince Priebus, Nicole Wallace, Melody Barnes, Ann Coulter, Jorge Ramos, Robert Reich,

State of the Union: Dick Durbin, Lindsey Graham, Mike Rogers

Fox News Sunday: Robert Gibbs, Scott Walker, Brit Hume, Kasie Hunt, Bill Kristol, Juan Williams

Diana Braithwaite & Chris Whiteley - "Morning, Noon and Night"

By Richard K. Barry

I'm spending part of my Saturday afternoon writing a piece for the Toronto Blues Society on Diana Braithwaite and Chris Whiteley. They're a terrific multi-award winning blues duo who call Canada home.

They travel a fair bit, so you should look for them possibly coming to your community. Very old school, very nice.

This clip is of a tune called "Morning, Noon and Night," performed at Hugh's Room in Toronto.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Cast of the West Wing reunites to help an old friend

By Richard K. Barry

If you haven't seen perhaps the best political video of the season, that's about to change.

Bridget Mary McCormack is a candidate for Michigan's State Supreme Court. Her sister, Mary McCormack, is an actor who just happened to play Deputy National Security Advisor Kate Harper on the "West Wing."

The Washington Post picks up the story:

Bridget Mary McCormack

McCormack, who launched her bid for office in March, told her sister about a common problem on many state ballots: People vote for the party candidates, but often skip the non-partisan portion where judicial candidates are listed. For years, people have been trying to get the word out, without much luck.

Lightbulb moment! Mary called Janney and Whitford, her closest friends from “West Wing,” and asked them to do a campaign video. “They said ‘sure’ and it spiraled from there,” said McCormack. Others signed on to reprise their old roles: Richard Schiff, Joshua Malina, Janel Moloney, Lily Tomlin and Melissa Fitzgerald. “I think it’s a testament to their good will and good friendships,” the candidate said.

As the Post writes in their lead:

Trying to get your campaign video to go viral? How about getting the cast of the “West Wing” to reunite?

Yes, I'll bet that would work. The other thing is that this little clip reminds me how much I miss the "West Wing." What a show.



(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The Simpsons on voter suppression

By Richard K. Barry

In a preview of its season premier, The Simpsons released a clip of the episode in which Homer is forced to deal with a new voter ID law.

Sometimes they've still got it. 

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

A.M. Headlines

U.S. Politics

(New York Times): "Romney reveals he paid 14% rate in '11 tax return"

(Politico): "Mitt Romney's tax release puzzles strategists"

(NBC News): "Critics jump on Romney's Friday tax return release"

(The Atlantic): "Ann Romney: 'This is hard'"

(Associated Press): "Tide shifts to Obama in most competitive states"

(Wall Street Journal): "Debates already take center stage"

Other News

(Reuters): Libyan Islamist militia swept out of Benghazi bases"

(ABC News): "Bangladesh police, prophet film protesters clash"

(Yahoo News): "Space shuttle Endeavor takes its final historic flight"

(San Francisco Chronicle): "NFL, league officials' talks not fruitful"

Hilarious Herman Cain

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"To quote Socrates..."

Herman Cain is hee-larious.

Either that, or he's a delusional egomaniac with a penchant for public self-aggrandizement so massive it exists on the outer fringes of the human condition.

(You know, like his buddy Newt, but without the capacity for any trace of rational thought.)

Actually, let's just agree that he's both.

Consider, for example, what he said yesterday at the University of Florida, an institution of higher learning that apparently wished to defile itself, and undermine its educational purpose, by having Herman Cain grace its campus and pollute the minds of its students:

Herman Cain says that if he were the Republican nominee, he would have a "substantial lead" over President Barack Obama right now.

"The reason is quite simple," Cain told reporters on Thursday, according to the Gainesville Sun. "I have some depth to my ideas."

First, it's not clear that Cain actually knows the meanings of the words "substantial" and "lead," nor the others he used.

Second, were he actually a reasonable fellow he would have used the phrase "a great deal of regurgitational speaking-point superficiality to the crazy right-wing propaganda I spew through my pizza pie hole." (Which is to say, man of ideas he is not, let alone a deep one.)

Third, the guy blanked when asked about Libya. (Remember that, when "all of this stuff twirling around in my head" confused him to the point of mental collapse?) And... 

Oh, I was going to go back through the mists of time, back to when he was a Republican star, to provide some of his greatest hits, but what's the point?

He proved himself to be a fool, an ignoramus, and a clown -- and worse. And he's still at it.

So. Fucking. Hilarious.

The tight-fisted Romney campaign

By Mustang Bobby

In spite of the fact that the big money is mostly on the side of the Republicans, the Romney campaign hasn't been spending much of it:

Despite what appears to be a plump bank account and an in-house production studio that cranks out multiple commercials a day, Mr. Romney's campaign has been tightfisted with its advertising budget, leaving him at a disadvantage in several crucial states as President Obama blankets them with ads.

One major reason appears to be that Mr. Romney's campaign finances have been significantly less robust than recent headlines would suggest. Much of the more than $300 million the campaign reported raising this summer is earmarked for the Republican National Committee, state Republican organizations and Congressional races, limiting the money Mr. Romney's own campaign has to spend.

With polls showing President Obama widening his lead in some of these states and the race a dead heat in others, Mr. Romney's lack of a full-throttle media campaign is risky, especially as he struggles to get his message out over the din of news about his campaign's recent setbacks.

It's not like they’re going broke or anything, but I'm guessing that most of the money the GOP is pulling in is going to state and local races because they know they're going to lose the presidential race and think the money is better spent on winning down-ticket like the Senate and House (although the Senate looks safe for the Democrats).

It must be tough to march in lockstep when you're racing for the exits.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

They don't like him. They really don't like him.

By Richard K. Barry

Here's a fascinating bit of information from the Pew Research Centre that comes with a chart, in case the words aren't stark enough:

A review of Pew and Gallup favorability ratings from September finds that Romney is the only presidential candidate over the past seven election cycles to be viewed more unfavorably than favorably.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Telephone poll

By Mustang Bobby

Chances are if you get polled by a political survey, they’re going to do it on your land-line phone. But what about those people who have given up their land-lines and use cellphones only? Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight ran the numbers, and it has an interesting outcome:

We keep track of which polling firms include cellphones in their samples and which do not. So on Monday night, I decided to run two alternate versions of the FiveThirtyEight forecast. (Note that all results are based on polls that were in our database as of Monday night, and so will not include Tuesday morning's New York Times polls or others published on Tuesday.)

In one of the forecasts, I ran the numbers based solely on polls that do include cellphones in their samples. The vast majority of these polls also use live interviewers, since federal law prohibits automated calls to cellphones under most circumstances. (Note, however, that one or two mostly automated polling firms, like SurveyUSA, use a separate sample based on live interviewers to reach cellphone-only voters; these were included in the model run.)

In this universe, Mr. Obama seems poised for victory. The model forecasts him for a 4.1 percentage points win in the national popular vote. That compares with 2.9 percentage points in the regular FiveThirtyEight forecast, which includes polls both with and without cellphones.

Mr. Obama's advantage is also clearer in the swing states. The cellphone-inclusive polls give him an 80 percent chance to win Virginia, a 79 percent chance in Ohio, and a 68 percent chance to win Florida, all considerably higher than in the official FiveThirtyEight forecast.

Overall, this version of the model gives Mr. Obama an 83 percent chance of winning the Electoral College, a full 10 percentage points higher than the 73 percent chance that the official FiveThirtyEight forecast gave him as of Monday night. So the methodological differences are showing up in a big way this year.

I'm curious as to why this would be the case; cellphone usage is universal regardless of political affiliation. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that robo-polling is prohibited on cellphones, whereas anyone with a landline knows that robo-polling ("If you support Barack Obama, press 1") is rampant and probably unreliable since they have no idea who is responding to the poll.

If this model holds true, we're looking at a much bigger win for President Obama.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Craziest Republican of the Day: Rick Perry, for blaming Satan and the '60s for the separation of church and state

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Some crazy moron.

Remember when it looked like Rick Perry had a good shot at the Republican nomination? Given how widely unpopular Romney was, and given that at the time the conservative banner was being carried by Michele Bachmann, Perry was looked upon a savior even before he entered the race in August of last year.

It didn't take long for that bubble to burst, with Perry embarrassing himself on the national stage and generally looking worse and worse as time went by.

But again... it could have been Perry, who still looks and sounds the part, if only he'd managed not to come across as such an extremist moron / moronic extremist.

Then again, that may not be possible, hence his downfall. And in case you need more evidence, he's back in the news this week being as mind-bogglingly stupid as ever:

In a conference call with fellow evangelicals earlier this week, Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) shared his thoughts on the origins of the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. Rather than tracing the idea to the nation's founders, Perry warned of a more nefarious source: Satan.

"Satan runs across the world with his doubt and with his untruths and what have you and one of the untruths out there that is driven is that people of faith should not be involved in the public arena," Perry said during the call on Tuesday, organized by the Rev. Rick Scarborough.

Perry said the separation of religious and civic institutions in the U.S. began with a "narrative" that first took root in the 1960s.

Well, he's an right-wing evangelical theocrat, so none of this should come as much of a surprise. But while the Satan line is silly enough, it would also seem that Perry knows nothing of Jefferson and the Founders and U.S. history and a certain key document known as the United States Constitution.

I mean... really? He blames it on the '60s? What, on the hippies? Is he really that stupid?

Well... yes. And you know what? The Republicans really should have picked him. He's just their kind of guy.

Tim Pawlenty jumps ship

By Richard K. Barry 

Yeah, ha-ha. It should've been me.

I don't know if this will get a lot of play, but it sure is a strange item. Here we are, 46 days to the election, and Mitt Romney's campaign co-chair Tim Pawlenty has decided now would be a good time to resign that position to take a job as a bank lobbyist.

According to The New York Times:

Tim Pawlenty, the former governor of Minnesota, is resigning as a national co-chairman of Mitt Romney's presidential campaign to take a job in Washington as a top lobbyist for a group representing banks and financial companies.

Mr. Palwenty's new role as President and chief executive of the Financial Services Roundtable was announced by the organization Thursday morning. In a statement, the group said that Mr. Pawlenty would step down from his role at Mr. Romney's campaign because the organization is bipartisan.

This really is odd. Is it that things are so tense within Team Romney that Pawlenty couldn't wait to get away? Is it that any thought of being rewarded with a cabinet post in a Romney administration is pretty much a lost cause? Or is it just too hard for poor Tim to hang on thinking that if he had only stuck it out, he couldn't be doing any worse than his party's nominee?

Don't forget, he probably was the only credible candidate who could have appealed to the Tea Party right as well as the party establishment and maybe attract enough swing votes. As dull as he would have been as a candidate, it's possible, with the economy in the shape it's in, dull would have worked.

I'll bet he really is shaking his head at the bone-headed decision he made to quit his bid for the nomination when he did.

I almost feel sorry for him. Then again, as a lobbyist for the banks, he'll be making bucket loads of money.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

New poll: Obama expands lead in Wisconsin

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Richard noted that the swing states are swinging in Obama's direction. One such state is Wisconsin, and the two polls he referenced showed the president up by 6 and, yes, 14 points. Well, the truth may be somewhere in between, assuming that 14 is an outlier result, and a new PPP poll has him up by 7, with his lead growing, his support looking strong, and the underlying numbers backing it all up:

PPP's newest Wisconsin poll finds Barack Obama opening back up a wide lead in the state. He has 52% to 45% for Mitt Romney.  This is the largest lead we've found for Obama in the state since February. Our previous two polls had shown just a single point separating the two candidates.

One thing that's definitely not helping Romney is his comments about the '47%' this week. 86% of voters say they're familiar with what Romney said and 53% consider his comments to have been inappropriate, compared to only 40% who feel they were appropriate. 39% of independent voters say Romney's comments made them less likely to vote for him compared to only 20% who consider them a positive, and Obama's now opened up a 52-43 lead with independents.

The movement toward Obama in Wisconsin isn't all about Romney flubbing though. Obama's on pretty solid ground in his own right with 52% of voters approving of him to 47% who disapprove. That's up a net 9 points from a month ago when his approval spread was 46/50. Voters trust Obama more than Romney both on the issue of the economy (51/46) and on foreign policy (52/44).

Another major development in Wisconsin is that Democrats are starting to match the enthusiasm level of the Republicans, something they weren't able to do in the recall election in June. 65% of Democrats say they're 'very excited' about voting in the elections this fall compared to 63% of Republicans. A big part of the GOP's success in Wisconsin over the last couple years has been having the more fired up base, but it doesn't appear that advantage will continue to be in place this fall. 

Two things stand out for me: Obama's lead among independents and rising Democratic enthusiasm. For Romney to win, he needs -- other than a terrible economy, some sort of sudden crisis that he can exploit a bit more effectively that the attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya, and, of course, Republican voter suppression efforts aimed at reducing the Democratic vote -- to pull over a significant chunk of independents and Republican voters to be as energized as possible (not so much pro-Romney, though, as anti-Obama) while Democratic support for the president remains lukewarm.

Well, Romney is getting the exact opposite of what he needs in terms of independent support and voter enthusiasm. It's happening in Wisconsin, Paul Ryan's home state, which is moving into solidly Obama territory, and it's happening all across the country.

But maybe that whole anti-Democratic (and anti-democratic) voter suppression thing will work. You never know.

Oh, Mitt, the cool kids will never like you

By Richard K. Barry

(Ed. note: I would just like to note that I don't pity Romney at all. -- MJWS)

Well, apparently, the big news yesterday, if you are a Republican, is that President Obama made the statement that you can't change Washington from the inside -- that you have to change it from the outside. Not that this is anything new for Obama. He says things like this all the time, as you would expect from a president who thinks empowering people is a good idea.

But Romney, desperate as he is for something to run on, thinks this is big.

Here's the money quote:

The president today threw in the white flag of surrender again. He said he can't change Washington from inside. He can only change it from outside. Well, we're giving him that chance in November. He's going outside!

I can change Washington, I will change Washington. We'll get the job from the inside. Republicans and Democrats will come together.

Um, Mitt, this is pathetically stupid. In fact, this is so stupid I'm sure the gang at Fox & Friends will be all over it because only really stupid people will think this is problem for Obama.

And the thought that you're going to bring Democrats and Republicans together? Hell, you can't even bring Republicans together. And, given that you only have 53% to work with, what's the point?

Mitt Romney is becoming so sad that I am actually having a hard time watching him. The sense of pity is almost unbearable. As I think some people used to say, "ick."


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

A.M. Headlines

U.S. Politics

(New York Times) : "Before debates, Romney faces a daunting path"

(Wall Street Journal) : "Headwinds for Romney in latest poll results"

(The Hill) : "Romney intensifies campaign schedule, attacks on Obama"

(Time) : "Romney tries to seize mantle of change"

(Wall Street Journal) : "Obama, allies outspent GOP rivals in August"

Other News

(Washington Post) : "Defense Secretary Panetta says 33,000 U.S. surge troops now out of Afghanistan"

(Washington Post): "Pakistanis mark state holiday by holding violent protests against anti-Islam"

(CNN) : "Diplomatic missions close amid fear of more protests"

(Washington Post) : "Washington back in postseason for the first time since 1933, Nationals clinch by beating Dodgers"

The Senate's looking good for Democrats

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

Democratic candidates in some of the most critical Senate races in the country are surging, putting the party in its best position of the election cycle to keep its majority in November.

The reasons range from the post-convention bounce led by President Barack Obama, to potent Democratic attack ads, to anemic performances of some GOP candidates.

Fresh polling in marquee contests shows a distinct trend line in the Democrats' favor, making the GOP's narrow path to a Senate majority significantly more difficult with less than two months until the election.

Democratic candidates in Virginia, Massachusetts and Wisconsin are on the rise after navigating a summer of challenges, and benefiting from Obama's growing strength in all three states. In Florida and Ohio, Democratic incumbents have so far withstood a tidal wave of spending by conservative super PACs and outside groups.

 

There's still a long way to go, many of these races are still really close -- including for Tim Kaine in Virginia, Elizabeth Warren in Massachusetts, and Tammy Baldwin in Wisconsin, even if the numbers have them looking better and better -- and I'm really trying not to let optimism get the better of me.

But as Nate Silver writes: "[I]f the trend continues, the question may no longer be whether Republicans can win the Senate -- but how vulnerable they are to losing the House."

 

And I can't help but get a little giddy.

Because they can

By Mustang Bobby 

Senate Republicans — including those who sponsored the bill in the first place — blocked passage of a bill that would have established a $1 billion jobs program for veterans:

Republicans said the spending authorized in the bill violated limits that Congress agreed to last year. Democrats fell two votes shy of the 60-vote majority needed to waive the objection, forcing the legislation back to committee.

Yeah, bullshit. They did it because even though it didn’t stand a chance of passing the House this session, they didn’t want to hand anything at all to President Obama during an election.

To be fair, five Republicans did vote to waive the objection, but only after they knew that the bill would fail anyway.

Support the troops, right?

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Mitt Romney -- out of context

By Richard K. Barry

Maybe it's not time to relax just yet, but it does look like the Obama campaign has decided it's time to have some fun. Check out this new video made entirely of out-of-context clips by Mitt Romney, intended as payback for the slicing and dicing of statements made by President Obama that make it look like he said things he never said.

I wonder if they sent a copy to Mittens personally with a note saying, "We made this -- just for you."


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Photos of the Day: Mitt, Monty, and Thurston, together again

By Richard K. Barry

It's funny how older people compare Mitt Romney to Thurston Howell III from Gilligan's Island while younger people compare him to Montgomery Burns from The Simpsons.

Hey, whatever works. Good thing everyone understands Jon Stewart.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Chicken run

By Mustang Bobby 

Chick-fil-A gets out of the fryer: 

Chick-Fil-A has reportedly stated it will no longer donate to anti-gay organizations or groups that actively oppose same-sex marriage. The $4 billion fast food chicken restaurant also reportedly has sent a company-wide memo stating the organization respects all people, including gay people, and supports equal treatment for all, according to a Chicago lawmaker, and local Chicago LGBT organization, who claim Chick-Fil-A will no longer funnel millions of dollars, via its Winshape Foundation, to anti-gay hate groups, like the Family Research Council, or anti-gay organizations like Focus On The Family.

That's very nice of them. But lest you think they’re doing it because they've suddenly decided that there's nothing wrong with being gay and that their new jingle is being sung by the Village People, rest assured that it has nothing whatsoever to do with gay rights or marriage equality. They have simply learned that having a political or social message as a part of your business plan carries risk and responsibility.

Some companies are willing to take the risk of supporting political or social causes, and they factor it in. Chick-fil-A apparently did not. (It may also be that some of the friends they made during the kerfuffle were not people they want to have over to dinner.) Now they've decided that neutrality is the only way out of the mess they got themselves into. And from now on, they're going to keep their money to themselves.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Sen. Dean Heller disavows Romney's elitism

By Richard K. Barry 

On Tuesday, two Republicans running in blue states, Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts and Linda McMahon of Connecticut, were quick to reject Romney's "47%" comment. Yesterday I wondered who was next.

Here's the answer.

GOP Sen. Dean Heller in Nevada has aggressively distanced himself from Romney's comments, as reported by Politico:

Incumbent Sen. Dean Heller, who is in a tight race with Democratic Rep. Shelley Berkley, played up his blue-collar background, telling POLITICO he doesn't "view the world the same way" as Romney. The GOP presidential nominee told donors at a fundraiser that President Obama's backers represent "47 percent" of Americans who are "dependent upon the government" and think they are "victims."

"You got to understand, I grew up with five brothers and sisters. My father was an auto mechanic. My mother was a school cook. I just don't view the world the same way he does," Heller said Wednesday.

That's three. Keep the line moving. Don't cut in.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Why is "Romney the Experienced Manager" running such an inept campaign?

By Comrade Misfit

Romney has spent a lot of time touting his experience at managing businesses and making them work. What he doesn't spend as much time bragging about is the fact that he has been running for the presidency for the last seven years.

So why is he now stumbling so badly? Why does he say the stupid things that he has been saying? Why does he tolerate having a senior staffer who is laboring under the delusion that the Soviet Union still exists?

And when he screws up, why the frak doesn't he just say so and then move on? His doubling-down on his gloating over the slaying of four American diplomats in Benghazi was unseemly and may have hurt him badly.

This campaign is by no means over. But if Mittens loses, I'll bet that the pundits will mark mid-September as the beginning of his failure. 

(Cross-posted at Just an Earth-Bound Misfit, I.)

Swing states are starting to swing

By Richard K. Barry

From here on out the polls are going to come very quickly. It'll be hard to keep up. Just to give you a sense of how things look at the moment, yesterday Political Wire aggregated a bunch of swing state polls. In one sense, it's close, but things are starting to move:

• A new USA Today/Gallup Poll of twelve swing states shows President Obama leading Mitt Romney by just two points, 48% to 46%
• Colorado: Obama 48%, Romney 47% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)
• Florida: Obama 49%, Romney 44% (Fox News)
• Ohio: Obama 49%, Romney 42% (Fox News)
• Michigan: Obama 52%, Romney 44% (CNN/ORC)
• Pennsylvania: Obama 50%, Romney 41% (Morning Call/Muhlenberg)
• Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 46% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)
• Virginia: Obama 49%, Romney 46% (We Ask America)
• Virginia: Obama 50%, Romney 43% (Fox News)
• Wisconsin:Obama 51%, Romney 45% (Quinnipiac/CBS News/NYT)
• Wisconsin: Obama 54%, Romney 40% (Marquette Law School)

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Grasping at strawmen

By Mustang Bobby 

I don't remember where I read it, but some conservative commentator made the most egregious false equivalency argument about the Romney video that I've heard in a long while. No, I'm not talking about the "clinging to guns and religion" line; that's already been deflated because Mr. Obama was worrying about how to connect with those people. Now they're grasping at a more recent straw. I'm paraphrasing, but it went something like this: "How different is what Romney said in Boca about the 47% compared to what Obama said about 'You didn't build that!'? Both said stupid things, and yet the libs are completely ignoring Obama's socialist trope."

Yeah, that's because when Barack Obama said "You didn't build that!," it was part of a much longer speech in which he was saying that "we're all in this together." The Romney campaign and its press agency — Fox News — selectively edited that speech to make it sound like Mr. Obama was slapping around business owners. Given the chance and the editing machine, they could make it sound like he was storming the Bastille. But the Romney tape is all out there. There's no editing. He really said it.

By now, though, a number of middle-school kids pundits are coming back with "Well, so what?":

Conservative commentator Mary Matalin hailed Mitt Romney's "47 percent" line on CNN as good news for Republicans.

"There are makers and takers, there are producers and there are parasites," she said. "Americans can distinguish between those who have produced and paid in through no fault of their own and because of Obama's horrible polcies who cannot get a job or are underemployed. That's what the campaign is about."

This is a little like the scouts coming up to General Custer and telling him that they were surrounded.  And the general replied, "Great! We've got them right where we want them!"

I can understand that the Republicans desperately want to make chicken salad out of chicken shit, but now they're letting signs of panic creep out. Even with my cold, I can smell the flop-sweat.

Once this election is over, the hard-core right wing will go on the attack in their own party for letting a nominee with no real right-wing credentials lead them into the battle. We have not heard the last of Rick Santorum, Rick Perry, and Michele Bachmann. Yip yah.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

New poll: Obama's historic September lead

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Pew:

At this stage in the campaign, Barack Obama is in a strong position compared with past victorious presidential candidates. With an eight-point lead over Mitt Romney among likely voters, Obama holds a bigger September lead than the last three candidates who went on to win in November, including Obama four years ago. In elections since 1988, only Bill Clinton, in 1992 and 1996, entered the fall with a larger advantage.

Not only does Obama enjoy a substantial lead in the horserace, he tops Romney on a number of key dimensions. His support is stronger than his rival's, and is positive rather than negative. Mitt Romney's backers are more ardent than they were pre-convention, but are still not as enthusiastic as Obama's. Roughly half of Romney's supporters say they are voting against Obama rather than for the Republican nominee. With the exception of Bill Clinton in 1992, candidates lacking mostly positive backing have lost in November.

And Mitt Romney, if I may venture out on a limb, is no Bill Clinton.

As Ed Kilgore writes, pretty much stating the obvious, this is really bad news for Mitt.

Mitt Thurm

By Carl 

One of my favorite Saturday Night Live characters of all time was Nathan Thurm, created by Martin Short. In brief, the character was a weasel, a corrupt politicking jerk who would lie and then deny he lied, then deny his denial.

Ladies and gentlemen, last night we met Mitt Thurm:

"I said I'm not in favor of a deportation, a mass deportation effort rounding up 12 million people and kicking them out of the country," Romney said. "I believe people make their own choices as to whether they want to go home and that's what I mean by self-deportation. People decide if they want to go back to the country of their origin and get in line legally to be able to come to this country."

Democrats have attacked Romney's "self-deportation" concept since the primary campaign, when Romney used immigration as an issue with which to attack his rivals from the right, essentially promising to make economic opportunity so scarce for illegal immigrants that they would leave the United States voluntarily.

To quote Nate, "I never said that! It's so funny to me that you would think I said that!" After all, forcing people to "self-deport" rather than starve their families is hardly voluntary, is it? It's called "ethnic cleansing."

Mitt backpedaled and flagrantly denied his own words in front of a live audience and on live network (Univision) television. He denied his full-throated support of Arizona's racist immigration law, saying that, no, he only supported the employer verification rules, and claimed Obama, who had actually ramped up the number of deportations in his first term, was soft of illegal immigration.

He then denied that he ever denied that his Massachussetts health-care plan was the blueprint for the Affordable Care Act, and that he thinks anyone who received public assistance is not worth his time, mentioning that his own father received welfare when he had to flee Mexico ahead of a revolution.

Hmmmmmmmmm, he doesn't do nuance all that well.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

A.M. Headlines

What? What'd I say?

U.S. Politics

(CBS News): "Why is Mitt Romney losing his edge on the economy?"

(Examiner.com): "GOP candidates race to distance campaigns from Romney"

(Reuters): "Romney's '47 percent' remark damages image with voters"

(Time): "Why Romney is polishing the energy apple"

(Wall Street Journal): "Romney plans new focus on swing states"

(New York Times): "In tight race, Obama yields all levers of power in reach"

Other News

(Haaretz): Poll: Majority of Palestinians, Israelis say attack on Iran will result in major war"

(Reuters): "Chicago schools reopen after strike ends, budget looms"

(Reuters): "Euro zone slump deepens and China still wilts"

(USA Today): "Will Rory McIlroy or Tiger Woods finish 2012 stronger?"

Romney lies on Univision -- to Latino voters, to all Americans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Politico:

"My campaign is about the 100 percent of America," Romney said in his opening comments at a Univision forum [in Florida on Wednesday].

Romney repeated the phrase, "the 100 percent," three more times in his initial statement.

Whatever you say, Mitt. Whatever pathetic fucking bullshit you say.

Greatest hits of the news coverage of Romney's 47% remark

By Richard K. Barry

The DNC put together what Political Wire has called a "brutal compilation" of news coverage of Mitt Romney's 47% remark captured by a hidden video camera.

Oh my, this really is devastating.

At one point I thought of Romney as someone who wanted the presidency so badly he would turn his back on many of the policy positions he once held as part of a campaign strategy. It wasn't a flattering view, mostly pathetic more than anything. Like a lot of people, I thought if he were to win, he would govern more from the center than the radical right would appreciate.

It wasn't until these comments became public that I actually fully embraced the notion that he is a real bastard capable of doing serious harm to the United States and its citizens.


(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Quote of the Day: Clint Eastwood on those "dumb enough" Republicans

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

"If somebody is dumb enough to ask me to go to political convention and say something, they're gonna have to take what they get," said Eastwood in an interview Tuesday with the television show "Extra" about the convention speech that won rave reviews, puzzled looks and slacked jaws.

As Harry Callahan, Eastwood's character, says in Magnum Force, the first sequel to Dirty Harry, "a man's got to know his limitations."

(By the way, for a good assessment of Eastwood's "eclectic," "attitudinal" political leanings, see this piece by Chris Orr at The Atlantic.)

Nate Silver on the GOP's chances of capturing the Senate (not good)

By Richard K. Barry

I strongly recommend you have a look at Nate Silver's always thorough analysis as he makes his case for the likelihood that the Democrats will hold onto the Senate in November.

He writes:

Democrats are now favored to retain control of the Senate when the new Congress convenes in January, according to the FiveThirtyEight forecast, breaking a summer stalemate during which control of the chamber appeared about equally likely to go either way.

An unusually large number of Senate races remain competitive, meaning that a wide range of outcomes are still possible. Republicans have about a 10 percent chance of winning a net of at least six seats from Democrats, according to the forecast, which would give them control of at least 53 seats next year. However, there is also about a 20 percent chance that Democrats could actually gain Senate seats on balance, giving them at least 54. The only thing that seems completely assured is that neither party will control enough seats next year to hold a filibuster-proof majority.

It's true that much can happen between now and Election Day, but with states like North Dakota and Missouri no longer slam dunks for the GOP, the likely loss of Olympia Snowe's Maine seat to an independent, and the strong possibility that Elizabeth Warren takes Massachusetts from GOP incumbent Scott Brown, it's hard to see how the Republicans can get a net gain of 3 seats (with a presidential win) or 4 (without it), which would be required for a majority.

It's good reading in a week full of good reading for Democrats.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

The unvarnished Mitt Romney

By Mustang Bobby

The hits just keep on coming for Mitt Romney. No sooner had the dust settled from his coldly political take on the deaths of four Americans in Libya than up pops this video of him coldly calculating how he'll win in November by ignoring the majority of Americans that he apparently thinks are moochers and welfare queens. What’s next? A muttered "I can't believe I'm losing to this ni-CLANG!" caught on tape at the debate (shades of Jon Lovitz from SNL)?

The inevitable comparison of this unguarded moment will be to Barack Obama's caught-on-tape discussion about how people in Pennsylvania cling to their guns and religion. But the difference between then and now is two-fold. First, Mr. Obama was talking about how hard it was for him -- a Harvard-educated black man -- to reach the people he was talking about; the poor white folks who don't necessarily look upon outsiders with favor. Mr. Romney was dismissing not only the people who count on some form of government assistance -- and that's a great number of people if you count everyone from senior citizens on Medicare to veterans in the VA hospital or going to college on the GI bill or children in the schools of Miami-Dade County who qualify for free or reduced meals -- but anyone else who hasn't risen to his level. Mr. Obama, however awkwardly, was trying to reach out to them. Mr. Romney was dismissing them.

Second, what Mr. Romney said was not so surprising to anyone who has followed the Republicans and their philosophy for the last thirty years. Since the Reagan administration, and certainly since their inability to accept anyone but a Republican in office (which goes back generations), they have shown veiled contempt for anyone who does not fit within their idea of an American: white, straight, preferably evangelical Christian, with a decent income and no need to worry about asking for handouts -- at least overtly. Anyone else -- the poor, the other-colored, the recently arrived immigrant, the icky gay or lesbian, the non-Jesus shouter -- is steerage. The Republicans own the country; the rest of us just live here, and they equate anyone who relies on any form of government participation as lacking personal responsibility and see themselves as victims.

What this video reveals is the unvarnished Mitt Romney. Skits and snark have depicted him as the emotionless android, a real-live Lt. Cmdr. Data running for office, and a lot of people have said -- including his wife -- that if we could only know the real Mitt Romney, we'd all like him and vote for him. Well, this video does show us Mr. Romney in his element; he says this at a private fundraiser in the presence of very, very rich people who think like him and raise money for his election. And what it shows us is that he is a coldly calculating businessman who brings the same mentality it took to buy up companies, lay off a lot of people, sell off the assets, take a huge profit, and move on to being the President of the United States. This whole thing about having to actually go out and campaign for the job -- which to him must seem like begging -- is incredibly awkward for him, and it shows in his odd off-hand comments about tree height and our benevolent overlords, the Corporation People. 

Josh Barro at Bloomberg thinks this is the moment when Mitt Romney lost the election. I don't know if this is The Moment, but adding in everything else that has gone wrong for him over the last couple of months, it isn't going to help. Voters don't elect a candidate who views fully half of them with contempt.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Reading the tea leaves of Romney's demise

By Richard K. Barry

If things really start to go badly or, I should say, worse for Mitt Romney's presidential aspirations, it will be interesting to see what the early signs might be. Will some super-PAC money start to move away from Romney and towards tight Senate and House races? Will the blame game among the radical right begin sooner than we might have expected? And, maybe most tellingly, how soon will it take for Republicans in close races to begin to distance themselves from the top of the ticket?

Well, on that last point, apparently not all that long.

The Hill reports that Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass), who is currently on the losing end of polls against Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren, wasted no time denouncing Romney's controversial remarks on the "47 percent."

Everything's good... right?

In an e-mail to The Hill, he said this:

That's not the way I view the world. As someone who grew up in tough circumstances, I know that being on public assistance is not a spot that anyone wants to be in. Too many people today who want to work are being forced into public assistance for lack of jobs.

In a decidedly blue state, Brown knows what he is up against as Elizabeth Warren had this to say about Romney's comments in an interview with The Washington Post:

It's a party that says, "I've got mine and the rest of you are on your own," versus those who say, "We're all in this together." There's a clear choice in this election, between those who believe that to build an economy, the rich and powerful should get richer and more powerful, with tax cuts for the wealthiest and deregulation, while everyone else is left to pick up the pieces.

Yes, Romney might have made things harder for himself, but he is making things damn near impossible for Republicans who are tying to win in more progressive states.

He said what?

Meanwhile, Republican U.S. Senate candidate Linda McMahon, who is running for an open seat in Connecticut, also denounced Romney's comments in a statement posted to her website:

I disagree with Governor Romney’s insinuation that 47% of Americans believe they are victims who must depend on the government for their care. I know that the vast majority of those who rely on government are not in that situation because they want to be. People today are struggling because the government has failed to keep America competitive, failed to support job creators, and failed to get our economy back on track.

McMahon's Democratic opponent Chris Murphy dismissed McMahon's criticism of Romney as a "desperate attempt to distance herself from the right-wing agenda and Republican party she strongly supports."

So, there you have it, two Republican Senate candidates running away from Mitt Romney as fast as they can.

Who's next? Don't be shy.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)