Mitt, Cheney, and the auto rescue

By Frank Moraes

I like Mitt!

Jonathan Cohn of The New Republic has a very evenhanded column about Romney's position on the GM rescue, "What Romney Wants You (and Ohio) to Forget About the GM Rescue." The title makes the article sound a lot more critical than it is. Let me briefly lay out Cohn's argument:

Romney's New York Times op-ed was far more nuanced than its title "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" would indicate. He was not calling for the liquidation of GM and Chrysler. What's more, it isn't clear whether he was for or against Obama's decision to rescue the auto makers. During this period, Romney indicated elsewhere that he did support it.

And then came the primary season, and Romney -- quelle surprise! -- changed his position. This is from a CNBC debate:

My view with regards to the bailout was that whether it was by President Bush or by President Obama, it was the wrong way to go. I said from the very beginning they should go through a managed bankruptcy process, a private bankruptcy process.

We have capital markets and bankruptcy...

My plan, we would have had a private sector bailout with the private sector restructuring and bankruptcy with the private sector guiding the direction as opposed to what we had with government playing its heavy hand.

And then he changed his position back during the Michigan primary. And now we hear from him all the time, "Of course I supported the auto bailout!" It's easy to be on the right side of history when you simply change your opinion to whatever history says.

This is not an isolated incident, of course. Consider Obama's position on Osama bin Laden. When Obama said that he would go into Pakistan to get him, everyone attacked him. This included Mitt Romney. But after Obama did exactly what he said he would, Mitt Romney was totally on board. "Even Jimmy Carter would have made that call."

I don't mind inconsistency; I'm one of its greatest practitioners. But there is a real problem with Mitt Romney's inconsistencies. It doesn't come from the shifting tides of his moods and facts. Instead, it comes from his decision about whatever is expedient. But even this I wouldn't mind if he hadn't surrounded himself with all of Bush's people on foreign and domestic affairs. There is no doubt that if Romney is elected president, there will be a group of neocons and "free" marketeers who will play him like a fiddle. And we don't need another Cheney administration.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

Despite tie in Ohio, Romney keeps pulling away from Santorum for GOP nomination

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Where did the weekend go?

In anticipation of a busy week ahead, what with Super Tuesday just two days away, I decided, without even really thinking about it, to stay away from the computer and more or less avoid U.S. political news altogether. Just needed to relax and refresh, I think.

But let me make a few comments as I get back into the swing of things:

Despite the current Romney-Santorum tie in Ohio (according to the polls) and the media's attempt, as is their wont, to manufacture drama, there really isn't any uncertainly as to the eventual outcome of the race. Romney will win. This has been clear for some time now, but his big wins last Tuesday, particularly in Michigan, where his margin of victory as just enough to indicate he's the solid frontrunner overall, made it certain.

There's no "white knight" -- no Jeb or Mitch or Chris or Bobby -- coming in to save the party from itself, and there won't be a brokered convention this summer in Tampa. The (pro-Romney) elites won't let that happen.

And Santorum isn't about to make a comeback. He peaked well before the Michigan and Arizona primaries, and the longer he's been in the spotlight the less likely are his chances of actually pulling this out. Sure, he has much of the party's right-wing base behind him, but even the right-wing GOP isn't going to nominate someone who's against birth control and who otherwise espouses unabashedly such obviously extreme positions.

Yes, many leading Republicans hold views very similar, if not identical, to Santorum's, but those with national aspirations are usually smart enough either to hide or at the very least dilute them (e.g., anti-choice but with an exception or two just to show they're not entirely crazy. And some just hold such views rhetorically, that is, say they're socially conservative in Santorum's vein but actually aren't and certainly wouldn't make them core components of their policy platforms. The problem with Santorum, and this is evident to the party's elites (as well as conservative media elites), is that he actually believes what he says, that he's genuine, that he would actually do what he says he'd do. This is to his credit, in a way, and explains why the media were soft on him at first -- such an apparently genuine politician is something of a rarity, particularly when juxtaposed with Mitt, who is anything but genuine. But now the media know what he really is and, prodded by the party's elites, are making sure the narrative of Santorum as a nutcase is right up front in their coverage of this race, even as they try to make it seem as if he's actually got a shot to beat Romney.

It is certainly possible that Santorum will do fairly well on Tuesday and that Romney will struggle in the South (Georgia, Tennessee) and Midwest (Oklahoma, North Dakota). But Romney should do everywhere else, including Virginia, where Santorum and Gingrich aren't even on the ballot, not to mention in Massachusetts and Vermont. And I suspect we'll emerge from Super Tuesday with Romney having solidified his status not just as frontrunner but as overwhelming favorite to win the nomination.

And just to drive that point home, let us not forget the results yesterday in Washington, where Romney won easily: 38 to 25 over Paul, with Santorum at 24 and Gingrich well back at 10. Not so long ago, the outcome of these caucuses were in doubt. The fact that Mitt won by so much shows just where the momentum is.

Remember when Santorum was ahead of Romney nationally. That, too, was not so long ago. Two week ago, in fact. On February 14, Rasmussen had Santorum up by 12. That was an outlier, as most other national polls had him up by single digits, between two and nine, but it was telling and by the end of the month the numbers had flipped. On February 29, Rasmussed had Romney up by 16, a 28-point turnaround. This, too, appears to be an outlier, but the most recent Gallup tracking polls has Romney up by 14.

I will continue to point out that Romney remains an incredibly weak frontrunner. Given the awfulness of his opponents throughout this campaign, any strong candidate would be well ahead by now, much further than where Romney is now. But there's no doubt that Romney has this race wrapped up. Barring an utter disaster on Tuesday and/or some personal or political scandal (like coming out in support of Obamacare, or in some other way showing he's not actually the crazy hardcore conservative he's made himself out to be), he'll be the Republican candidate in November. Whether Republicans like it or not.

Of course, I'm hoping for an utter disaster on Tuesday and/or for some personal or political scandal, but that just isn't likely to happen. This has been an amusing race, to be sure, but it's just about over. And so now we can begin to watch as Romney contorts himself into hilariously untenable positions as he tries to shift back to the center even as he continues to stress his far-right bona fides, and of course to talk seriously about whom he might select as his running mate.

(photo)

Live-blogging the 2012 Michigan and Arizona primaries: Two terrible candidates and a GOP divided against itself

By Michael J.W. Stickings

UPDATED FREQUENTLY.

7:10 pm - Okay, let's do this. I'm still not quite over my extensive live-blogging of the Oscars two nights ago, an exhausting exercise, but politics beckons. Well, Republican politics. Certainly the Oscars are political as well, in a different but similarly ridiculous way. I'll be commenting throughout the evening, a lot, so keep checking back, with updates to this post, and Richard will be weighing in with his commentary as well.

7:16 pm - My predictions for tonight: Romney by 3 in Michigan and 17 in Arizona. Nate Silver notes that Michigan is too close to call, and of course he's right. Democratic turnout in the open Republican primary is helping Santorum a lot, but I don't think it'll be enough. Maybe, as a massive Santorum fan (in a way, or at least for today), I'm just being overly pessimistic, but I figure that Romney's huge spending advantage will help him in the end.

7:20 pm - From WaPo's Felicia Sonmez (via twitter): "Mitt Romney on Tuesday downplayed the significance of a potential loss in the Michigan primary, telling Fox Business Network, "If I were turned down by Massachusetts, where I have lived for the last 40 years and served as governor, that would be a little harder to explain."

Ah, yes, the expectations game. And for Romney, once the pretty clear frontrunner, it's all about lowering them as much as possible so that at the very worst he can walk away with a big win in Arizona and a close loss in Michigan and still look like a plausible option for Republicans, still the narrow frontrunner. He'd have a hard time explaining a loss in Michigan in his speech later tonight, but he could just ignore it by saying it was a tough race but now he's looking ahead, no mention of how he lost a state he's called one of his own, where he outspent his rivals by a wide margin, and where his name and organization really should have been enough to put him over the top.

Would it be harder to explain a loss in Massachusetts (where, of course, he won't lose)? Yes, but, well, no, not really, not to anyone who's being honest about what's going on (and who's being honest about Romney). He's a terrible candidate, a privileged rich douchebag (as I keep saying) who's widely viewed as a massive phony who will do and say anything for votes and who's deeply unpopular throughout his own party and particularly with the non-establishment. A strong candidate would have wrapped this thing up by now. Mitt's not a strong candidate. Similarly, a strong alternative would have beaten Mitt by now. No one thrown up by the right has been a strong alternative, including Santorum. This is why Romney will be the nominee. And why the party will wither from a lack of enthusiasm, with so many of the faithful, when Romney take the stage to give his acceptance speech in Tampa this summer, wondering what the hell just happened.

7:33 pm - Okay, I'm off to have some dinner. Be back soon with more.

8:05 pm - If you want to dig a little deeper in Michigan, Chris Cillizza has five counties to watch. 

8:12 pm - "What happens if Rick Santorum wins Michigan?" asks George S. I thought everyone knew that frogs will fall from the sky.

8:15 pm - Most Michigan polls closed at 8, but some are open until 9. Some results are trickling in... 41-37 for Santorum with 1% reporting, with Paul at 12 and Gingrich at 7. (You can find the results here. And for Arizona here.)

8:18 pm - It should be noted, too, that Michigan lost half its delegates by violating the RNC's schedule (that is, by moving up in the calendar). There are only 30 delegates at stake today, hardly enough to justify all the attention this race has received. But, then, this isn't about delegates, it's about momentum, about what it says about the race as a whole. And a win for either Romney or Santorum would be significant in those terms.

A Santorum aide said that they've already won Michigan: "No matter what the results are, we've won. This is Romney's home state." But that's just spin. Losing by a narrow margin would be something of a moral victory given where Santorum was just a few weeks ago and would allow Santorum to solidify his position as the only viable alternative to Romney, but Romney's been playing the low-expectations game, too, and with a win, no matter how large, he'd be able to solidify his position as the frontrunner and likely nominee, particularly in combination with a big win in Arizona.

But certainly a win for Santorum would be more significant than a win for Romney. Which is to say, Santorum would benefit from a win more than Romney would, as Romney was expected to win here and has had such a hard time staying on top of the pack. Put the other way, a loss for Romney would be more significant than a loss for Santorum, as a loss for Romney would reinforce the narrative that he is incredibly weak (which he is) and that Republicans are desperate for someone else to lead them in November (which they are).

8:34 pm - Not much to say about the results so far. Santorum's up 40-39, with just 71 votes separating them (but with results coming in fairly quickly now).

8:46 pm - Ron Paul's speaking to his supporters. An early speech, but, then, it's not like he had much to wait for. Coherent and engaging, he's making the same points as usual, some of them excellent (about civil liberties and American militarism), most of them the usual right-wing libertarian nonsense. If you've been paying any attention at all, you've heard it all before. But those excellent points deserve repeating, particularly given the way both parties trample all over civil liberties and promote misadventurous warmongering.

8:50 pm - And now for our first comment from Richard...

RKB: Romney's surrogates on the various election coverage programs are still playing the inevitability card. I guess that's the theme that got them this far so they have to stick with it, sort of like dancing with the one that brung ya, but it's a dangerous game. If Romney loses Michigan tonight, all talk of inevitability will probably end pretty quickly.

8:53 pm - David Corn tweets: "'This country doesn't need another war at all.' -- Paul's biggest applause line so far. Are these really Republicans? Check their papers!" They're RINOs, of a sort.

RKB: Howard Fineman on MSNBC is saying that Romney's people are focusing on everyone else's weaknesses rather than Romney's strengths. Chris Matthews called it the "If you think I stink (you should consider the other guy) strategy." The truth may be that Romney doesn't want people to think about him but rather about how much they dislike Obama and how supposedly unprincipled Santorum has been in the campaign.

8:57 pm - Markos Moulitsas tweets: "Results are still within #OperationHilarity margin." What does that mean? Click on the link or go to my post from earlier. (Briefly, it's about Democratic "support" for Santorum, which might be enough to put him over the top.)

9:01 pm - The networks are calling Arizona for Romney.

9:02 pm - Chuck Todd tweets: "Officially calling Romney the winner of AZ primary, winner take all of 29 delegates. MI is 'too close to call.'" Note: one fewer delegate than in Michigan. And Romney wins easily. Even if Santorum wins Michigan, this shouldn't be forgotten when figuring out what today meant. And with delegates in Michigan handed out proportionally in Michigan and winner-take-all in Arizona (correct me if I'm wrong on that), Romney comes away from today with the most delegates by far.

RKB notes Arizona call is based on exit polls.

RKB: With 20% reporting in Michigan, Romney is ahead of Santorum by a margin of 41% to 38% (74,893 to 71,289), according to CNN.

9:12 pm - Ana Marie Cox tweets: "Blitzer: 'Who could have predicted Romney would be struggling' in Michigan? People in Michigan, mostly." You're a genius, Wolf.

9:13 pm - Yes, Romney has surged into the lead. With 27% reporting, he's up 41 to 38. Now, can he hold on? Michigan exit polls show Romney winning 40 to 37, but Todd tweets: "Our models showing MI may be tighter than those leaky exit numbers folks floated on twitter."

RKB: It may be starting to look like Romney is trending ahead in Michigan. My sense is that it won't matter how much he wins by as long as he wins. It would be such a train wreck for him to lose that my guess is the establishment will swallow hard and throw everything they've got behind Mitt. This will be a wake-up call. They will have believed they dodged a bullet and will finally do what it takes to push him over the top.

My guess is that he wins by 5% and that the meme is that it's over now.

9:21 pm - Check out Cillizza on why Romney's win in Arizona matters: Because of the delegates he won in that winner-take-all primary. And: "Of course, this race for president isn't solely a battle for delegates -- a series of trench warfare battles fought in each state. There's also a symbolic national race going on -- one that is influenced far more by momentum than raw numbers." Hey, I said the same thing back at 8:18 pm! I guess this is the CW. Or just stating the obvious.

RKB: Karl Rove on Fox is predicting a 5-6% victory for Romney in Michigan, claiming that areas that are good for Romney have been slower to report. Rove sounds positively relieved.

9:43 pm - David Roberts (Grist) tweets: "If Wolf Blitzer didn't exist, no one would have to invent him." Line of the night.

9:44 pm - Bored yet? I am. Unless the race somehow tightens, which seems unlikely given how well Romney is doing in Wayne and Oakland counties (two highly-populated Detroit-area counties), it'll be as (I) expected, a clear (if hardly decisive) win for Mitt. And with Arizona already called and Romney likely to win by up near 20 points, well... what more can you say? (I can barely keep up with my twitter feed, and I don't even follow that many people. But there's a lot of repetition now.)

Richard and I have been saying this for some time now, but it does appear that Santorum has peaked and is now on the way down. Which means it's Romney's race to lose. Again. And he'll come out of tonight looking strong -- that will be the perception anyway, if not the reality (he's only strong in relative terms). Santorum may win the non-binding caucuses in Washington on Saturday, but it's hard to see him doing well on Super Tuesday next week. Ohio's the big one, and he's ahead there, but Romney will have the momentum and should be able to win there. Maybe Santorum does well in Tennessee's open primary and/or Oklahoma's closed one, and maybe also in Georgia (where Newt's ahead), but that'd be about it.

I think it's over.

RKB: The Republican spin is still that, should Romney get the nomination, the hard slog to get there will make him stronger as a candidate against Obama. I don't think so. What we are seeing time and again is that Romney is a lousy politician, and we've seen nothing to suggest he is getting any better. More than that, the more people see of him, the less they like him. And as the nominee, people will see a lot more of him.

9:57 pm - Jim Geraghty tweets (via my conservative friend Ed Morrissey): "Great news for Mitt: Looks like 2 big wins tonight! Bad news for Mitt: If the pattern holds, he'll screw it all up tomorrow morning." Let's hope so.

RKB: Romney is starting to open up a significant lead in Michigan, 40% to 36%, with a margin of more than 22,000 votes. CNN isn't calling it yet, so they must have reason to believe there is some volatility, but that's a lot of votes to make up with 59% reporting. It looks over. John King is calling it "almost impossible" for Santorum to come back.

10:03 pm - David Corn tweets: "Don't want to get ahead of #miprimary returns, but I'm putting my college diploma back on the wall (and will start using hand lotion again)." Don't forget the porn.

10:10 pm - Howard Fineman tweets: "Santorum up with TV ads in every Super Tuesday state but Mass and Vermont. His people say they will focus on Ohio, TN, and even GA." It's his last stand. But it won't matter.

10:13 pm - Santorum speaking. NBC calls Michigan for Romney. Finally.

RKB on Santorum's speech:

Santorum's people are admitting that their guy screwed up over the past few days with his fooling comments about separation of church and state and on education. They are saying that they are going to get back to their core message on jobs and the economy.

Here comes Rick's speech.

Santorum looks crestfallen to me. I wonder if he knows that he had to win here to have a shot. and that it is probably over. Yeah, the thing that made him attractive in the first place was a certain sense of humility that he seems to have lost more recently. As he got some wind in his sails, he really was sounding like a goof.

He's talking about his mom and the fact that she got a college degree when that was rare. Could he be trying to get some of the woman's vote back? Now he's talking about his daughter Elizabeth. Too late, Rick. Women aren't going to vote for you.

Now he's talking about the big bad government that thinks it knows better what's best for Americans. Back to the faux populist message.

Gut reaction to Santorum is that he really is not ready for prime time. He's not impressive on the stump.

Funny thing is that CNN cut away from the Santorum speech to call it for Romney, and they haven't gone back to Santorum. It almost seems a little dismissive.

Ah, but Fox is sticking with Santorum, who by now is rambling. 

*****

Oh man, Santorum is now starting to quote the Declaration of Independence. Is he going to sing, too?

I think Santorum just spoke of the men and women who signed the Declaration of independence. What? Women?

*****

Okay, I now officially want Santorum to go away. Romney may be a douchebag, but Santorum is an idiot.

10:41 pm - Chuck Todd tweets: "Romney on MI: 'didn't win by a lot but we won by enough.' And the 'enough' = no major GOPers calling for new 'white knight' savior."

10:43 pm - What a horrible, horrible speech. Well done, Mitt. You have a great night, at least relative to expectations, and you blow it with your usual rhetorical bullshit. There's a reason no one likes you.

RKB on Romney's speech:

Ann Romney is at the mic doing the obligatory thank yous. She's not that bad. She should be running.

More jobs, less debt, and smaller government is what Romney is saying his campaign is all about.

My god, Romney is boring.

Still amazing that Romney and any Republican gets to blame Obama for not fixing Bush's economic mess fast enough.

Have to say that Romney looks relieved tonight. He knows he barely survived.

It does seem to be a more disciplined speech than is his norm. It's all silly cliches, but that's what he offers. Simple solutions for simple minds.

Ah yes, cutting taxes as a way out of the recession. That'll work.

As I said earlier, this victory should launch Romney and be the end of Santorum and the other pretenders. Romney is a disaster, but he's the one they've chosen.

Romney is also saying that Obama will not be restrained in a second term and will therefore be more dangerous.

Man, even Fox News seems unexcited about Romney. Funny.

10:53 pm - Romney basically begging for money from small-time donors after he just blew his massive load outspending everyone like mad is hilarious. 

11:55 pm - Took a break for Stewart and Colbert. Jon was especially hilarious tonight going after Romney's hypocrisy (over voting in Dem primaries) and Fox hosts spouting Republican talking points.

11:56 pm - So... what's the new narrative? Check out this ludicrous headline on the front page of CNN.com right now: "Home run for Romney" (linking to this). Really? Look, I'll admit, and I've written it here, it was a big night for Romney. But only because expectations for him were so low. Sure, he won Arizona easily, but he's only ahead in Michigan by three points. I get how this works. He spins it as a win and the media, which play right along with the expectations game, give him a push, telling us that he's back, baby, back! But while it's certainly true that he's the frontrunner and likely nominee and that these results serve to confirm him in that position, he's really no stronger than he was before these two votes today. It's pretty clear that any genuinely strong and credible conservative alternative would be beating him. Lucky for him there hasn't been one. And it's certainly not Santorum.

12:01 am - The results: In Michigan, with 93% reporting, it's Romney 41, Santorum 38, Paul 12, and Gingrich 7. Three points. Who predicted a three-point win for Mitt? (Hint: Go back up to the entry at 7:16 pm).

12:03 am - In Arizona, with 80% reporting, it's Romney 47, Santorum 26, Gingrich 16, and Paul 9. That's a 21-point margin. I predicted 17. Oh well.

12:05 am - One thing we haven't talking about tonight... Newt. What now? He's still in the race, or so he said in his speech earlier this evening, but he was noticeably downcast, not the egomanical Newt we've come to know and loathe. But can you blame him? Even he must see the writing on the wall.

In my live-blogging post of the Nevada caucuses on February 4, I speculated as to the over/under, or rather before/after, of Newt getting out of the race:

At his press conference, Gingrich said he's in the race all the way to the convention in Tampa. He may mean it tonight, but things change and one suspects that he'll eventually change his mind. Unless Romney stumbles badly, which hardly seems likely, or Newt can somehow resurrect his campaign a third time with big wins on Super Tuesday on March 6, which also hardly seems likely, he has no shot at the nomination and will only meet more intense resistance within the party the longer he stays in.

Let's put the over/under (before/after) on him getting out of the race at, yes, March 6. Do you take the before or after? I might still take the after.

But if it's March 8, I think it has to be the before. There's just no way he lasts beyond a day after Super Tuesday. The pressure on him to get out will be immense, and even with his massive egomania and loathing of Romney it's hard to see him fighting on beyond that. He is, after all, a hyper-partisan Republican. Ultimately, he'll do what the party needs him to do.

Which is to say, I thought he'd make it to Super Tuesday but then get out the next day. What do we say now? Will he make it to next week? I'll still say yes, because he wants to win Georgia at least. But that will be that. I say he gets out on March 7. Oh, how the temporarily mighty, then sort of mighty again, have fallen.

12:18 am - Okay, that's it for me tonight. We've gone on long enough. We'll be back in the morning with new posts, including two on the retirement of Olympia Snowe. (Oh, Romney's now up by just 20 in Arizona!)

Good night, everyone.

(photo)

Dem turnout way up in Michigan

By Michael J.W. Stickings 

Via twitter: 

MSNBC says early exit polls indicate Dem turnout 10% in Michigan, up 3% from 2008. #OperationHilarity 

-- Markos Moulitsas (@markos)

Hilarity indeed. Anything we can do to facilitate the crackup up the GOP we should do.

Vote Santorum! Go Santorum!

(Though I think Romney will win. By two or three.)

**********

Markos tweets further:

Per exit polls: 10% of turnout is Dem, 50% of that is Santo, 15% of that is Romney. So #OperationHilarity is worth 3.5% of Santo's #s.

Gotta love Santorum. 

**********

Romney's calling this "dirty tricks," with Santorum seeking Democratic votes, but he has admitted to doing the same thing (voting in Democratic primaries for "the person who I thought would be the weakest opponent for the Republican"). 

And, of course, Santorum is fine with what he's doing. He was against it, now he's for it.

Hypocrisy? You betcha.

Dear Michigan Democrats... Vote Santorum!

By Michael J.W. Stickings

CNN:

It's no secret that most Democratic strategists consider Mitt Romney the GOP contender who poses the biggest threat to President Obama. It's also no secret that Michigan, the state where Romney grew up, is a must win for him.

Combine those two dynamics, add in the fact that any registered voter is allowed to vote in Michigan's open primary, and you get a recipe for Democrats to make mischief.

Then let there be mischief. Because it's not just Democrats, it's Santorum himself urging Democrats to vote for him.

It's possible, and perhaps even probable, that most of these Democrats propping up Santorum won't actually come out to vote for him (leaving Romney with a narrow win). But they should. It's a ridiculous system, to be sure, particularly with these open primaries, but there's no reason not to take advantage of it.

As crazy as Santorum is, he's an easy choice for Democrats at this point, not least because he's making life miserable for Romney. And also because he's helping tear the Republican Party apart.

Mitt Romney gets blown out at Ford Field

By Michael J.W. Stickings

"Mitt Romney's Ford Field Fumble?" asks ABC News.

It's a rhetorical question. Of course he fumbled. And what an embarrassing fumble it was:

Standing on the 30-yard line of Detroit's Ford Field, Mitt Romney delivered what was billed as a major economic speech before a crowd of about 1,200 supporters on Friday.

In his crucial home state of Michigan,  Romney reiterated his new tax plan to applause from an audience dwarfed by the scope of the stadium that seats up to 80,000 spectators.

The Romney campaign promised an economic policy speech on filled with major new policy initiatives, but as it turned out, the venue may have been too big for his message. The supporters, sitting in folding chairs on the field of the indoor football stadium that is home to the NFL's Detroit Lions, were surrounded by tens of thousands of empty seats.

"I want to thank the folks at the Ford Field for making this space available for us," Romney said. "I guess we had a hard time finding a large enough place to meet and this certainly is."

The speech itself was typical Romney. If you've been paying attention, you've heard it all before. He said that Detroit should be "the motor city of the world," though of course he was against the auto bailout -- which has proven to be a huge success.

As The Hill notes:

Television cameras showed rows of empty chairs as Romney rehashed many of the policies and quips he'd used in previous speeches, made a few jokes that appeared to fall flat with the audience and said that his wife, Ann, drives "a couple of Cadillacs," which will likely give Democrats more ammunition for their depiction of him as rich and out of touch.

*****

Most of Romney's speech was focused on rehashing the tax policies he'd released earlier this week, and repeating attacks he’d made previously on President Obama. Romney promised to lower taxes and repeal Obama’s healthcare overhaul, comments he makes during nearly all of his speeches.

And those in attendance were not terribly impressed, it would seem:

After an audience member asked Romney if he thought he'd have the best chance to beat Obama, Romney dismissed the other GOP candidates.

"I not only think I have the best chance, I think I have the only chance — maybe I'm overstating it a bit," he said, chuckling awkwardly.

"That's my family leading the applause," he said quickly, although no one was clapping, then laughed again. No one appeared to laugh with him.

Awk... ward. And this from the Republican frontrunner and likely nominee? Yes. And this is what it's come to: Romney bullshitting, the media calling him on his bullshit, and whatever appeal he has left draining away. It's like no one's even taking him seriously anymore as he runs as far as he can to the right while keeping an eye on the center he must head to should he win the nomination, promoting a far-right agenda on everything from the economy to immigration to same-sex marriage to unions to Iran, but doing so without even a shred of credibility, so obvious does it seem that he'll do and say anything for votes, and blaming Obama for everything under the sun, so much so that it's all become quite ridiculous, his act so laughable, his inability to connect so blatant, his desperation so palpable that the negative media narrative is writing itself, and deepening, every time he opens his mouth or even just appears in public.

Even his key surrogates, the Chris Christies and Ann Coulters of the world, must find it hard to summon any enthusiasm. Imagine how the party faithful will react when he walks out to give his acceptance speech at the convention later this year. They'll back him because he's the Republican and because they hate the president, but will there be any genuine love for Romney himself?

A speech full of the usual banality to some unimpressed supporters in the middle of a mostly empty stadium in a state that he calls his own pretty much says it all.

Another memo to Obama: Focus on Romney, play up Santorum

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Ignoring my sage advice, it seems that the Obama campaign has indeed begun to turn some of its attention to Rick Santorum:

Last week, the Obama campaign made what seemed, on its surface, like a startling announcement: They were steering some of their opposition researchers, who had been mostly trained on Mitt Romney, to a rocketing Rick Santorum.

The announcement was factual — the campaign is, indeed, busy beefing up its dossier on the former Pennsylvania senator, thanks to his recent trio of wins and surprising strength in Michigan. It was also a bit of classic campaign jujitsu designed to further degrade the standing of an already wounded Romney, the man Team Obama still thinks will be the eventual GOP nominee.

"Circumstances have changed," said Stephanie Cutter, Obama's deputy campaign manager, referring to Santorum's sudden relevance.

But more than anything, the shift revealed a genuine sense of befuddlement within Democratic circles over how to deal with the once-unthinkable possibility that Rick Santorum — you know, the guy who lost his last Senate race by 18 points — could actually be their opponent in November.

That's the Santorum paradox, Democrats say: He's too dangerous to ignore — yet impossible to take seriously.

As usual, Politico is overstating the case. Democrats aren't befuddled as much as they are bemused -- and for good reason. Santorum would be a disaster of a candidate in the general election, and Republicans would be even stupider than we thought they were to nominate him.

Furthermore, while circumstances may indeed have changed, insofar as Santorum has indeed emerged as an apparently credible anti-Romney, and hence as a relevant possibility, there's no way the Obama campaign is actually taking him, or the likelihood of his nomination, all that seriously. If anything, it's playing a game here, appearing to take Santorum seriously as a way of further weakening Romney -- this point Politico gets right.

Is there a Santorum paradox? Maybe, for the media. But surely not for anyone with any sense. The Obama campaign would be wise to continue playing up Santorum as a viable alternative to Romney, just as many of us have been doing, those of us on the left openly rooting for Santorum (as we rooted for Gingrich before), but there's certainly no good reason to consider him much of a threat. Romney's still the one to beat (and he seems to be back in the race in Michigan, as expected, meaning he could get back the momentum with wins both there and in Arizona next week), and Santorum will implode. It's just a matter of when.

(photo)

Michigan in winter

By Mustang Bobby.

The Michigan primary is a week from today, and according to polling from PPP, the lead that Rick Santorum had a week ago is tightening, but he's still ahead of Mitt Romney.

Santorum gets 37 percent in the new numbers to Romney’s 33, while Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) sees 15 and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is down to 10 percent.

So there's still a chance that Mr. Romney could win in his nominally home state, but the question among a lot of people is why is it so hard for him to win there?  He should be running away with it.

A lot of it has to do with him and his campaign, of course.  Heretofore the GOP electorate has been about as interested in Mr. Romney as they are to expired yogurt, and the more he tries to sell himself as a true conservative, the less they're interested.  Rick Santorum is cruising in a lot of areas where his medieval views on social issues resonate.  (That said, they resonate as long as they're in the third person: women have no rights to their own bodies and gay people should be thrown in jail until the woman that needs pre-natal care is your wife or daughter, or the gay kid is your son who is getting the snot kicked out of him for being a sissy done to the tune of Lady Gaga.)

But there's another element that explains Mr. Santorum's hold on Michigan.  Once you get out of the five counties that comprise the Detroit metropolitan area (Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Monroe, and Washtenaw), you're in a different place.   It's a beautiful state with forests and hills and sparkling lakes and miles of open country; even in winter you cannot escape the beauty of the nature and the breathtaking sight of the Great Lakes that surround the peninsulas.  But it's also a tough place to make a living.  As you head upstate towards the Upper Peninsula, it becomes more and more apparent.  My parents, who spent nearly twenty years living in northern Michigan in the 1980's and 90's, were witness to it, as my mom noted in an e-mail last week: "The rural poor are as destitute as those living in the inner city ghettos.  They live in run-down trailers or shacks with falling-in roofs supplied with well water that might be polluted by run-off from pesticides used in the orchards and often little or no heat.  House fires from heat provided by a lamp or candles are common.  If there are jobs to be had they are summer ones in the orchards or cleaning up after the down-state vacation cottage owners.  When Fall comes they go back on unemployment until that, too, runs out.  It’s a way of life."

I also spent a number of years in northern Michigan (Frankfort and Petoskey), and I saw it every day.  The hard winters go along with the hard choices of an economy based on agriculture, tourism and the whims of rich people who live hundreds of miles away.  When he wrote Let Detroit Go Bankrupt, Mr. Romney didn't think of the thousands of people in the rest of the state who rely on the auto industry for more than just jobs.  Little companies in places like Frankfort and Benzonia that make electrical relays for power windows rely on the auto industry, as do the stores and businesses that rely on their employees.  So it's no wonder why he would have little appeal to voters in the rest of the state.  He reminds them too much of the guy who owns the 5,000 square foot summer cottage in Harbor Springs or Marquette and drops $500 on wine and cheese at the seasonal gourmet shop on M-22.  Rick Santorum, with his hard-wired simple answers for life's complicated questions and his distrust of "the Others" is more to their life and liking.

Mitt Romney could still pull off a win in Michigan, but if he does, it won't be because the Republicans in Petoskey or Escanaba decided his name and his nostalgia for trees of the right height was the winning combination.  It will be because the Republicans in Grand Rapids and Grosse Pointe outnumbered them.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Memo to Obama: Keep the focus on Romney

By Michael J.W. Stickings

According to the WSJ, "President Barack Obama's re-election campaign has begun discussing whether to attack Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum and try to define him for a general-election audience, potentially breaking from its focus on Mitt Romney."

I would say no. Don't.

1) While Santorum is leading Romney nationally, as well as decisively in both Michigan and Ohio (but not Arizona, where Mitt's well ahead), and appears to have a ton of momentum right now, Romney still has an overwhelming edge in both money and organization. With the Michigan primary still a week and a half away (February 28), he has more than enough time to narrow the gap. And if he wins Arizona and at least makes it close in Michigan (though a win would hardly be a surprise), he'll be in good shape heading into Super Tuesday (March 6), particularly if he also does well in Washington (March 3).

2) Santorum is weakening himself in the long run with his insistent focus on issues like abortion and birth control. He's waging the culture wars of the 1660s 1990s and is proving himself to be ridiculously out of touch with the overwhelming majority of Americans.

3) Santorum has been able to get to this point not just because he's been a solid candidate, polished and seemingly authentic, and not just because he's just because he's the only credible anti-Romney candidate left, but because he's been able to avoid the spotlight as a result of being so far out of it for most of the race. His recent wins in Missouri, Minnesota, and Colorado were the best things that happened to him in this race but perhaps also the worst. The media are paying attention. And so are the voters. (And so is the Romney campaign, which has turned its attack machine on him the way it did Newt. Newt was crushed by it. Sure, there was more to attack in Gingrich than in Santorum, but the the attacks will take their toll over the long run.) Santorum has what it takes to hold up better than others under the spotlight (e.g., Perry and Bachmann, not to mention Cain), but it's possible that he's peaking now and will only wither from here on out.

4) In large part because he wasn't a serious contender until Iowa, but really until those wins in the three states on February 7, Santorum lacks the campaign infrastructure to keep up with Romney. Sure, the money will flow if he keeps winning, and he'll attract the needed expertise, but it's probably too late.

5) Even if he somehow were to win the nomination, Santorum would be no match whatsoever for President Obama. Unless the economy were to collapse, an Obama-Santorum match-up would likely result in a landslide victory for the president, both Electoral College and popular vote. Even with the deep divisions between the two parties, even with all the virulent rage on the Republican side, wouldn't a 60-40 Obama victory be possible, with Santorum only winning the Deep South and isolated right-wing states like Utah and Idaho?

All of which is to say, it's probably not worth going after Santorum right now. Why bother? It seems like a huge waste of time.

Behind the Ad: Romney strongly (and wrongly) suggests Obama caused the auto sector crisis

By Richard K. Barry

(Another installment in our "Behind the Ad" series.)

Who: Mitt Romney in an ad called "Growing Up."

Where: Michigan.

What's going on: In the ad, Romney is driving around in a car on a street somewhere in Michigan. He is narrating himself as various scenes are shown depicting the Detroit auto show, workers at a Chrysler plant, and the General Motors tower in downtown Detroit.

The Washington Post provides this analysis, which is bang on:

Mitt Romney clearly wants to remind Michigan voters that he grew up there and his ad, the first one designed for the state's Feb. 28 primary, is an explicit home-town appeal. He reminisces about his father, a popular former governor and auto executive, name-checks the renowned auto show and uses imagery designed to remind voters of the Motor City's glory days. If that's not enough, he concludes by asserting that the state's fate is "personal" for him.

The ad comes at a delicate time for Romney. While he recovered somewhat by winning Maine's caucuses last weekend, he's still nursing wounds from Rick Santorum's sweep of nominating caucuses in Colorado and Minnesota, and Missouri's non-binding primary. Santorum's momentum has pushed him ahead of Romney in a handful of national polls and in early Michigan surveys. If Romney is to regain momentum before the potentially decisive Super Tuesday primaries on March 6, when 10 states vote, he badly needs to win in Michigan.

But the part about the ad that really stinks is the strong suggestion that President Obama is somehow to blame for Detroit's woes.

Again, The Washington Post:

He also implies that Obama's policies played a role in the auto industry's collapse, which is not the case. After noting the industry's decline in one breath, Romney then says Obama "did all these things that liberals have wanted to do for years." Regardless of the merits of Obama's policies, they didn't bring about Detroit's ills. The auto industry in general, and Chrysler and General Motors in particular, were collapsing before Obama took office in 2009. The decision to continue the bailout of GM and Chrysler, which Romney doesn't mention, was one of Obama's first major decisions in office. Romney publicly opposed the bailouts and reaffirmed his stance this week in an opinion piece published in The Detroit News.

I don't know if I should give the ad grudging respect for creating a grossly false impression without actually lying or if I should be disgusted by yet another example of bullshit coming out of Romney's mouth to support his run for the GOP nomination.

Well, actually, I do do know. This is pathetic.

Hard to believe that anyone could actually lower the level of political discourse coming from the right, but Mitt Romney has.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Romney and Santorum and inequality

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday, Bill Burton, former Obama White House deputy press secretary, tweeted the following:

In 2010, Santorum made $983,000 and paid 28.5% in taxes. In 2010, Romney made $21.7 million and paid 13.9% in taxes. 

So unfair. So unjust. (Seriously.)

But at least Santorum got Megadeath's Dave Mustaine's endorsement. That's... positive... right? I mean, he's a major... cultural... figure... who will bring in masses of metalhead votes. Take that, Mitt!

Oh, right, Romney got Michigan Governor Rick Snyder's endorsement.

What's better -- the governor's support with the primary coming up or having half the tax rate of your opponent?

Doesn't matter. Romney has both.

So very, very unfair.

Romney slams auto bailout, adopts political suicide strategy in Michigan

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney was wrong about the bailout of the auto industry -- he was against it, and therefore in favor of the industry collapsing, and it's been a rousing success -- and yet continues to be riding the wave of his own failure.

In an op-ed in yesterday's Detroit Newt, Romney argues that the bailout was a bad idea, notes reluctantly that there has been some "indisputable good news" (i.e., GM and Chrysler still in business -- he doesn't mention all the jobs that would have been lost, all the lives ruined, all the families destroyed), and then shifts course and blames President Obama for mismanaging the bailout, apparently because criticizing the bailout itself is now ridiculous.

And for what specifically does he blame Obama. Well, it should come as no surprise that Romney plays the ever-popular-in-GOP-circles union-bashing card and blames him for not "standing up to union bosses," specifically Democratic and pro-Obama union bosses. And also for giving "American taxpayers," through the Treasury Department, a share of GM:

This was crony capitalism on a grand scale. The president tells us that without his intervention things in Detroit would be worse. I believe that without his intervention things there would be better.

Instead of a bailout, Romney preferred "managed bankruptcy." In other words -- surprise, surprise -- he wanted the banks to win, not the union -- not, that is, the workers.

By the spring of 2009, instead of the free market doing what it does best, we got a major taste of crony capitalism, Obama-style.

Thus, the outcome of the managed bankruptcy proceedings was dictated by the terms of the bailout. Chrysler's "secured creditors," who in the normal course of affairs should have been first in line for compensation, were given short shrift, while at the same time, the UAWs' union-boss-controlled trust fund received a 55 percent stake in the firm.

Confused? (Sure, it's complicated.) I'll let emptywheel's Marcy Wheeler explain:

He's complaining, of course, that VEBA (the trust fund run by professionals that allowed the auto companies to spin off contractual obligations – retiree healthcare – to the unions) got a stake in Chrysler while Chrysler's secured creditors took a haircut.

So, in part, he's basically complaining that the bailout preserved the healthcare a bunch of 55+ year old blue collar workers were promised. He’s pissed they got to keep their healthcare.

He's also complaining that banks took a haircut, as would happen in any managed bankruptcy.

But it's more than that. He's complaining that a bunch of banks that themselves had been bailed out had to take a haircut. He's complaining, for example, that JP Morgan Chase, Chrysler’s largest creditor at the time and the recipient, itself, of $68.6B in bailout loans, had to take a haircut on $2B in loans to Chrysler.

When Romney says he wants the free market to do what it does best, he must be referring to the sort of vulture capitalism over which he presided at Bain Capital, the sort of capitalism that rewards banks and investment firms will billions upon billions in profit with no regard for the human toll of their actions.

As Travis Waldron writes at ThinkProgress:

In the editorial, Romney, whose former company profited from a government bailout, called on the government to sell its shares in GM and return the profits to taxpayers. In other words, Romney is fine with destroying the company when it isn’t succeeding, but then wants to seize its profits if it turns around.

Meanwhile, he continues to ignore the success of the rescue plan he criticizes. Chrysler posted its first profit more than a decade in last year and expects those profits to continue growing in 2012. It has added 9,400 jobs since its rescue and plans to add 1,600 more at a plant in Illinois this year, and the success of Chrysler and General Motors has helped American automakers control more than half of the industry's market share. The industry has hired enough workers to make up for all those laid off during the recession, and American and foreign automakers plan to add 167,000 jobs at American plants this year.

Now, the demerits (and privileged rich douchebaggery) of his argument aside, what of the politics of his positioning? Surely this will kill him in Michigan, where he's currently trailing Rick Santorum, no? Er, no. As David Dayen notes at Firedoglake, "This isn't quite as suicidal as it looks. Romney needs to win Michigan, and Michigan Republicans actually don't support the auto rescue, in true what's-the-matter-with-Kansas fashion. So though this looks like the opposite of pandering, that's what it is, playing to the conservative lizard brain conception of greedy unions." Mistermix makes the same point at Balloon Juice:

We all know that Santorum is toxic as a national candidate, but the problem for Romney is the only way to beat Santorum is to adopt the same anti-gay, anti-woman and anti-progress positions in the primaries and bet that he can somehow reverse course this Fall. The longer the contest draws out, the more Romney has to pander, and the more he turns himself into the Goldwater-like candidate that the Republican establishment is desperate to avoid. There are two more debates before Super Tuesday and Mitt's going to have to be pretty fucking severe if he hopes to keep up with the new front-runner.

But of course it is suicidal in the long run, assuming he wins the nomination and finds himself up against Obama for real. Dayen again:

For the state as a whole, however, it's a really dumb double-down, especially when it can be so easily characterized as Romney favoring banks over people's health care. Not to mention the fact that Michigan's unemployment rate has fallen precipitously, led by manufacturing. Romney's lament about managed bankruptcies and union trust funds sounds like a fan whose football team has won 35 games in a row complaining about the new trim on the uniforms.

Well, it sounds much worse than that. It sounds like a privileged rich douchebag with a plutocratic sense of entitlement (as I've been writing for some time now) who got it terribly wrong but who is lashing out at Obama, advocating for the interests of the super-rich at the expense of everyone else (and at the expense of the economy, which he needs to be in bad shape to have any hope of winning in November), steadfastly refusing to acknowledge his own errors, and shamelessly pandering to the extremist base of his party.

Basically, what else is new?

The problem, for him, is that in doing and saying whatever it takes to win the Republican nomination, now more of a challenge with Santorum posing such a serious threat, he's effectively destroying whatever hope he has of winning in November. And the longer this remains a tight race, the longer Santorum keeps up the fight, the worse it will be for him.

Survival now, suicide later. Or, rather, survival through suicide. Isn't it ironic?

**********

For more on all Romney's attack on the auto bailout, see Steve Benen at his new home at The Maddow Blog, where he posts this clip from last summer -- Romney being so very, very wrong, and certainly not someone who should be trusted with the presidency:

My one and only post about Fred Karger

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Who's Fred Karger, you ask? Why he's a political consultant and gay rights activist running for the Republican -- yes, the Republican -- nomination for president. Suffice to say that he's not doing all that well. But he is on the ballot in Michigan!

I've been on his mailing list throughout the campaign. I didn't sign up, I didn't ask for it, but there I am. And I'm fine with it. He seems like a decent guy and if his campaign wants to send me an e-mail now and then, so be it. I can pay attention or not. Usually not.

But yesterday... well, yesterday came one of the best moments of the whole campaign so far. Yes, courtesy of Fred Karger.

He announced yesterday in an e-mail blast that he has released his tax returns from 2000 to 2010, obviously a swipe at Romney. But that wasn't all. Do you know where he actually made the announcement? No, probably not...

At the George Romney Institute for Law and Public Policy at Adrian College in Michigan.

Yes, that George Romney. The dad.

"George Romney did the right thing 44 years ago when he released 12 years of his federal tax returns," said Fred. "He was the first presidential candidate to do so when he ran for president in 1968. At the time he said he released so many years of tax documents because one year was not enough. I just followed his lead."

If only his son were so, er, honorable (and less of a privileged rich douchebag with a massively plutocratic sense of entitlement).

Well done, Mr. Karger. And well played.

**********

Photo above, with more on Karger, here. He may not be what Republicans are looking for, not even close (you know, being gay and all), but he's certainly a partisan:

There is no doubting Karger's Republican credentials. He has spent his life working for the party's cause as a top strategist. Like Karl Rove, he was a disciple of the controversial Republican tactician Lee Atwater. Indeed, Karger played a key role in publicising the "Willie Horton" adverts that destroyed the Democratic candidate Michael Dukakis in 1988.

Yeah, that's some serious GOP cred.