One of the 47 Percent

Since Mitt Romney’s comments about the 47 percent, the stories, about people who used the government as a life-line in troubled times, keep rolling in! Here’s a good one.

This is all I’ve got for you today, but it is a priceless, wondrous bit of reading – and not lengthy by any means. I was a Welfare Mother, by Larson Warren, is a terrific story of someone, down and nearly out, who grabbed hold of the only thing that could save her – government assistance. As one of the 47 percent, as Mitt Romney would classify her, she used that assistance to rebuild her life. (And, the Gig Rose Gay illustration at the top of the story is worth examining.)

It’s neat! It’s good Sunday reading.

Oh yes! You’re welcome!

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Piling on Mitt Romeny

A few of my readers thought I went far too easy on Mitt Romney the other day in my blog about his comments on the 47 percent!
by Charlie Leck

Several readers pointed out to me that I went way too easy on Mitt Romney when I cited the David Brooks column in the NY Times and quoted only the little corrective comments that Brooks made about Romney’s “divided nation” speech to a small gathering of the wealthy. [See my previous blog!] They suggested that I should have included the following two (three) paragraphs from the Brook’s column:

“Sure, there are some government programs that cultivate patterns of dependency in some people. I’d put federal disability payments and unemployment insurance in this category. But, as a description of America today, Romney’s comment is a country-club fantasy. It’s what self-satisfied millionaires say to one another, and it reinforces every negative view people have about him.

“Personally, I think he’s a kind, decent man who says stupid things because he is pretending to be something he is not — some sort of cartoonish government-hater. But it scarcely matters. He’s running a depressingly inept presidential campaign.

“Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?”

Well, these readers are correct. I should have included those two (three) paragraphs, but, then, I could have really piled on and included these few comments from Brooks as well…

“It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of the United States.”

“It reveals that Romney doesn’t know much about the political culture.”

“Romney’s comments also reveal that he has lost any sense of the social compact.”

“The final thing the comment suggests is that Romney knows nothing about motivation.”

Of course, each one of these four sentences above was followed by an explanation of what Brooks meant and it all makes good reading. So, I again suggest you read the original David Brooks column, which was called Thurston Howell Romney.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Romney’s Terrible Tongue

     A less than spectacular home along the Hudson River
     south of Albany, NY. (August, 2012 photo by C. Leck)

Candidate Mitt Romney has some strange ideas and occasionally he says things that show a strain of bitterness. I think he’d make a terrible President. I really do?
by Charlie Leck

Romney was caught on video the other day, saying something really stupid and untrue about Americans and the average American worker. David Brooks, in a column in the New York Times, straightens out the facts and straightens up Mr. Romney, too.

Romney, who criticizes President Obama for dividing the nation, divided the nation into two groups: the makers and the moochers. Forty-seven percent of the country, he said, are people “who are dependent upon government, who believe they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to take care of them, who believe they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

This comment suggests a few things. First, it suggests that he really doesn’t know much about the country he inhabits. Who are these freeloaders? Is it the Iraq war veteran who goes to the V.A.? Is it the student getting a loan to go to college? Is it the retiree on Social Security or Medicare?

It suggests that Romney doesn’t know much about the culture of America. Yes, the entitlement state has expanded, but America remains one of the hardest-working nations on earth. Americans work longer hours than just about anyone else. Americans believe in work more than almost any other people. Ninety-two percent say that hard work is the key to success, according to a 2009 Pew Research Survey.

To swipe a Billy Madison quote that I just really enjoy…
Someone in that gathering in California, upon hearing what Mitt said should have stood up and quoted Billy Madison (one of my favorite lines)…

Mr. Romney, “what you just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

“Okay,” Billy Madison replied, “a simple ‘wrong’ would’ve done just fine.”

If you want to watch the surreptitiously made video (and I wouldn’t waste my time if I were you), I’ve posted it below.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Shoot First – Aim Later

Romney’s decisions to criticize the President have earned him well deserved criticism from both his own party and from Americans of all persuasions.
by Charlie Leck

A crisis abroad – far from home – normally brings a common resolve and a united spirit of concern. This is why Mitt Romney’s strong criticism of the President immediately following an attack on our embassy in Libya seemed so discordant. It actually caused nerves to recoil as if fingernails were dragged harshly across an old chalkboard.

We listened to his harsh and angry statement and wondered about it. He accused the President of leaning sympathetically toward the interests of Muslims.

It was the timing of the clearly political attack that made it so cacophonous. The President had his hands full and he was consumed with the sad and dangerous events taking place in the Arab world. He had just lost an ambassador – one of the most highly regarded international experts in the world and a good, good man.

Romney was, of course, gambling; and his foreign policy advisors had been consulted and agreed with the strategy.

It was a dramatic and very big mistake – an error that has brought harsh criticism on the Republican presidential candidate from all sides of the political spectrum.

The President, himself, put the criticism into sharp and poignant focus: “Governor Romney seems to have a tendency to shoot first and aim later.”

One of George W. Bush’s political strategists said: “It almost feels like Sarah Palin is his foreign policy adviser.”

As the day wore on, Mr. Romney’s political supporters seemed to recognize the damage and began a concerted effort to support and defend the candidate.

Romney’s attack was launched against a statement that came out of the embassy in Cairo. He thought, when he spoke, that it was a statement in response to the attack; however, it was actually an expression of concern made hours before the violence in Benghazi. It is now clear that neither Mr. Romney or his advisors knew, when the speech was made, that J. Christopher Stevens had been killed and he referred only to “an American consulate worker.”

Now the Romney campaign has a real mess to clean up.

America faces dangers in the Middle East such as it has not encountered since World War II. This is no time for bravado and carelessness. This is a time for thoughtful and cautious strategies.

Let it all be a lesson to us about peacemaking and international policies. Each step we take is fraught with so many dangers.

I was livid when I first heard Romney’s statement. The news was still not clear on what had happened but one could sense that it was both awful and dangerous. I screamed at the TV screen as he so smugly spoke. He was, indeed, at that moment, every terrible thing I called him. Now, I am calmed down and I feel some sort of anguished pity for him and his stupidity.

By the way, the NY Times was very clear in its editorial this morning when it called the actions in Libya, “Murder in Benghazi.” How tragic and sad that the murder victim was one of the very best friends of the pro-democracy revolution in the Arab world.

Two asides…
It is not much of a time for humor, but the Toles syndicated cartoon of today is too powerful to ignore. I hope you see it in one of the papers in which it is printed across the nation: God, is sitting back, watching a TV that brings him the day’s reports from his angels. On the screen an angel is speaking: “And now, today’s report on which religion hates others more on your behalf.”

If you missed it, you can go here and enter a request for the September 13, 2012 cartoon.

Ann Telnaes’ animation in the Washington post today is titled “Mittstep.”

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Observing the Politics of Today

Here are some simple observations, right off the cuff, about the politics of today…
by Charlie Leck

üPaul Ryan, before he became the Republican vice presidential candidate, was for Medicare cuts. Now he’s against them. (No comment! Just an observation!)

üVice President Joe Biden better sharpen his game. He’s currently making some careless slips of the tongue. Joe’s feeling a little too good about himself and he’s gotten over-confident.

üWe used to think about our nation as the “united” states. Now we think about our states as red or blue, and not united!

üMitt Romney assures us he has paid, at least, 13 percent taxes on his income for the last dozen years “or so.” However, he and his wife have made in clear that they’ll release no more income tax files for our review. The candidate’s wife, Ann, has spoken up about the subject of releasing more income tax records. She shows way too much anger and that sends a message that gets some people even more interested. She observed that the Democrats want the information as “ammunition.” Is there something hidden there that could be ammunition? She assures us that Mitt is honest. “His integrity is just golden,” she says. The fact is, at 13 percent, Romney is paying far less in taxes than most middle class families because he has so much “investment income,” which is taxed at a far lower rate than average earned income. Romney thinks his charitable giving totals should be considered as well. His wife promises us that they give 10 percent of their income to charity. That, I assume, includes their church.

üNew voter i.d. laws that are being passed by states around the nation will probably, in years after 2012, cost the Democrats about 1 percent of their current vote totals. That will be a huge blow to the party. Mike Turzai, a leader in the Pennsylvania Republican party, which currently has voter i.d., has boasted that the new voting process “is going to allow Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania – done!”

üSuper PACs are having a much bigger impact on this election than people ever believed they would. Billionaires, like the Koch brothers, are funding a number of campaign organizations that produce incredibly distorted (perhaps, then, “dirty”) advertising. I just can’t imagine why ordinary folks aren’t rising up in anger about the modern election being controlled by the wealthy. The nose-ring led members of the Tea Party love what they’re seeing, however. The Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision is having a far bigger impact than even the wildest negativists thought it would.

üIf you think the presidential campaign is mean-spirited, let me tell you: It’s gonna get a lot worse!

üThe battle for my vote (the Senior vote) is just getting under way. Just wait ‘til you see how they’re going to chase our butts. More and more political observers are saying this election will turn on the Senior vote.

üMichael Williamson, an old Obama ally, is going to get his 15 minutes of fame at the GOP National Convention by speaking out against the President. Et tu Brute?

üIn Minnesota, Michele Bachmann appears to be lying low. What frightens me is that she is not frightened at all about winning the upcoming election. Sooner or later, she’ll need to start campaigning, however, and then I can have some fun bringing you a host of her stupid comments. I can’t wait!

üHere in Minnesota we had a historically low turnout for the primary elections of both major parties and that allowed the inspired right-wingers to work their will. Koch Brothers money was very successful here in my own state legislative district.

üThe Koch Brothers understand ole’ Tip O’Neil’s political rule #1: All politics is local!

üI took a careful look through the week’s obituaries in this morning’s local paper, and my name wasn’t there. I can breathe easier for awhile.

üMinnesota’s current Governor, Mark Dayton, has taken the courageous step of condemning the actions of one of our state’s former governors. On this past Thursday, Dayton said: “I am appalled by Governor Ramsey’s words and by his encouragement of vigilante violence against innocent people; and I repudiate them.” Dayton was talking about an incident that took place 150 years ago in Minnesota. At that time, Governor Ramsey banned members of the Dakota tribe from dwelling or entering Minnesota and, more strongly, went on to say: “The Sioux Indians of Minnesota must be exterminated or driven forever beyond the borders of the state.” It was a dark moment in our state’s history. Indeed, there was an angry uprising of the Dakota against white Minnesotans; but the native Americans had been cheated and they were starving – and they felt hopeless. I’m currently reading an e-book, published by our local newspaper, about Little Crow, the reluctant leader of the uprising [In the Footsteps of Little Crow]. It’s an extremely well written book, but it leaves one saddened. I’ll have more to say about all that in the coming days.

üIsrael continues to drop hints about a possible attack on Iran, to disable that nation’s nuclear weapons development program. Shimon Peres indicates that Israel can’t do it alone. One doesn’t even need to read between the lines to understand he is asking for international assistance – or, at least, international support and approval. “It is clear to us,” Peres said, “that we have to proceed together with America… as serious as the danger is, this time at least we are not alone.” Oh, boy!

üAccording to an article in the NY Times, by Rebecca Berg, there are fewer undecided voters out there than we have been led to believe. She indicates that the “slice” of undecided voters is very small, but will make the difference in this election.

üIs it a big surprise that the GOP is reporting “strong fund-raising” that includes a major influx of cash? The Republican Party has spent 20 million dollars on attack ads in the last month. And you didn’t think the Citizens United decision was a really big deal! Oh, boy!

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Defining Mitt Romney

The major campaign error of the Romney team is to allow the Democratic Party to define its candidate!
by Charlie Leck

“…hardly a positive ad has been run in July.”
                         [NY Times, Jeff Zeleny, 29 July 2012]

This kind of campaign is no fun – not even for those who enjoy observing politics in action. I’m sorry that the President’s political advisors have taken up the tactics of their opponents, but it appears they have no choice.

We’ve seen two years of negativism out of the Republican Party – two years of obstructionism – two years of willingly damaging the country in order to defeat the President.

This is the most horrible and distasteful politics I’ve ever seen. I simply didn’t believe that the GOP could sink so low that they would be willing to seriously damage the nation in order to bring the President down.

John Boehner, Speaker of the House, and Representative Michel Bachmann are the poster children for dysfunctional politics.

Exasperated, the Obama campaign organization has decided it must also attack; and it has now turned thoroughly ugly. The President, who ran on change and hope in 2008, now calls out Mitt Romney and wants to see proof that he has not played shenanigans with his taxes – that he has been ethical and forthright in his personal financial management.

This is a significant gamble for the President. Afterall, he consistently polls much higher than Romney as one who is “likeable.” Moving the nasty needle up, as Obama’s team is doing, may change the public’s perception of the President.

Yet, Obama may be caught in a trap here. Afterall, he has got to fight fire with fire – or so his team thinks.

Team Obama is trying – rushing – to define Mitt Romney before the Republicans can fully define their candidate: “…a secretive Bush era throwback whose wealth puts him out of touch with the middle class.”

One must remember that the President, in his ads, is answering more than just Mitt Romney’s ads and claims; he is also responding to the nearly 100 percent negative ads of the Super Pacs (a recent Washington Post poll shows the general public knows very little about Super Pac activity).

The sticky-wicket in which the Obama campaign may find itself comes down to preserving the President’s high degree of likeability while still being tough and willing to fight back against the harshly negative Romney ads.

My own feeling is that Obama should produce, at least, as many positive ads as those that cast Romney in a negative light. Right now Obama is running negative ads at a rate of two to one. Romney is running five negative ads to each one about his own character and talent – nearly 60,000 negative ads since April.

The Romney error may be a failure to define the Republican candidate, leaving that job to the Obama ads.

Who is Mitt Romney really?
That slightly less than grammatically correct question is the way voters ask it. Romney appears unwilling to lift the curtain on himself. He leaves the job to the Democratic campaign machine and this is a serious Romney error.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

If you’ve got a lemon, make lemonade!

Turns out that John Sinunu’s claim that President Obama couldn’t run a lemonade stand is absolutely correct and I’ll be damned.
by Charlie Leck

I’m out here on a run toward New York City. The sun is newly up and I was on the very early list for breakfast in the dining car. I took along a small log-book and began making notes about something that has been roiling in me for a week. It’s what that two-bit, political draft-horse, punk of a guy, John Sinunu, said about the President.

Sinunu said that President Obama couldn’t even run a lemonade stand. Wow! Couldn’t he have gone somewhere else? Almost anywhere else?

I guess Sinunu had some good information. I’ve got some solid, inside (and anonymous, of course) information that does indeed indicate the President did have a number of problems with a lemonade stand back in Chicago when he lived there. The Obamas had a lovely home in the Kenwood neighborhood of Chicago’s Southside. When the girls got to that certain stage all little kids get to, they wanted to set up a lemonade stand on the sidewalk in front of their house. Of course, as any dad would, Mr. Obama offered to help them. Well, he wasn’t the senior operations guy on this project, but we have certain and undeniable word that the lemonade stand took some pretty hefty losses (for those days) in the neighborhood of twenty or thirty bucks.

Damn! That Sinunu has more going for him than just that alliterative name. He’s got someone on the inside providing solid information about the President’s business acumen. Now Mitt Romney would have worked it differently and you can bet on it. The former chief-executive-officer and sole stock holder of Bain Capital from uh, uh, uh – well, from back then in, let’s see, in about 1984 – would have made that lemonade stand a huge success. The President allowed his girls to use home-grown, American lemons that were also organic. Far too costly were these lemons to ever hope for a return. The sugar the girls used was also organic and purchased from American owned companies. Finally, the water was first-class, filtered water that was also a bit too costly. It’s difficult to make money when the President insisted the girls hold the price to somewhere around a dime for a glass of lemonade. It was one of those deals, much like my wife’s lamb business – the more the girls sold, the more money they lost, though the lamb is spectacularly good and so was the lemonade.

Now you can see what I’m getting at and why I’m so damned angry about this attack on my wife – er, I mean on the Obama children. Sinunu has no right to go off on these girls that way.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney can’t seem to clearly explain just when he stopped being the go-to guy at Bain Capital [Read Dana Milbank’s wonderful column in the Washington Post: Romney and His Time Machine]. From the founding of the company, Romney was its CEO and only stockholder. Romney, it seems, took a leave from Bain in 1999 in order to save the Olympics that were to be held out in Utah. Seems that some guy, who couldn’t run a lemonade stand, had tried to manage the Olympics and got everything all screwed up. Romney saved the day and nobody will deny that or argue the point.

The question is, rather, when did Mr. Romney step down from running the Bain operation? Seems Bain out-sourced a lot of jobs after 1999 and that wouldn’t seem good for Romney if he was the company’s CEO. Yet, it seems that Mr. Romney’s name was still listed on legal filings as the CEO and only stockholder during the period that the out-sourcing took place. A spokesman for Romney now says that the retirement was “retroactive” to February of 1999. Retroactive?

“Retroactive? Retroactive? What the hell do you mean, retroactive?”

Dana Milbank describes this as something akin to time-travel. Strange!

“Retroactive retirement! It was a brilliant formulation, perhaps the greatest addition to the political lexicon since “no controlling legal authority.” And it raised tantalizing possibilities: If Romney can do it, perhaps others can go back in time to rearrange events.

“George W. Bush could retroactively end his presidency on Sept. 1, 2008, before the financial collapse. Donald Rumsfeld could retroactively pull out of Iraq before the insurgency. President Obama could retroactively deny government funding for Solyndra.”  [Dana Milbank]

Brilliant! Brilliant! No wonder Romney is such a good business man. Maybe he could take us back to a time period before a Republican president lied to us about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Or certainly before a time when we foolishly expanded our mission in Afghanistan – back to a time before we spent 3 or 4 trillion dollars on foolish wars.

I’ll bet, if Mr. Obama, could time travel, he would take us retroactively back to a time before he set the price for the girls on their lemonade sales and he would then allow them to charge a quarter for a glass of delicious, organic and pure lemonade – and, they could advertise that they were the daughters of a future U.S. President! Can you imagine the sales?

I don’t know! Train travel does something to me.

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.

Loose Lips Sink Ships

Santorum, Gingrich and Romney are loose lipped loonies who do the nation a disservice with their tough talk about Iran!
by Charlie Leck

Let's just call 'em the Three Stooges!
There’s a letter to the editor in this morning’s edition of our local paper. It’s written by Robert Loscheider, a fellow from Grand Rapids, Michigan. It makes a helluva lot of sense and I wish all the Republican candidates for the presidential endorsement of their party would read it.

“Some individuals are critical of President Obama’s ‘go slow’ strategy with Iran’s atomic energy/bomb efforts. Hasty action by previous presidents has cost Americans trillions of dollars. [You can read the rest of the letter here!]

The first thing these candidates need to be reminded of is the great cost in lives and limbs that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has wrung from our military. Minds also have been forever altered and affected by the men and women who served us in these wars. And, the nation has spent nearly four trillion dollars on these entanglements. The problem of our national debt needs no further explanation than this.

Now the Republican candidates, out on the stump, are criticizing the President for not being forceful enough – for not threatening more the use of American military might in Iran. These bozos do great damage to the President’s attempts to solve this problem diplomatically.

This is a difficult time for our President. It would be difficult no matter who was serving in this office at this precarious time. If ever the nation should rally around a President – should ever faithfully pray for his success in keeping the peace – this is that time. I wonder if the pious Mr. Santorum understands that.

With the exception of Mr. Paul, the candidates are taking very hawkish positions on Iraq and I can’t believe they don’t really understand how foolish that is. Nevertheless, they play to the basest interests and fears of the American people. Hopefully, most Americans will see how foolish they are.

U.S. Senator John Kerry, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, put it this way about Mitt Romney in a column in the Washington Post (though he could have been addressing several of the candidates):

“While wise Republicans stress the perils of loose war talk and the value of engagement to isolate Iran, Romney seeks to create political division with an attack on the Obama administration’s Iran policy that is an inaccurate as it is aggressive.”

Here’s the kind of loose talk Kerry is alluding to (Mitt Romney wrote the following and he’s expressed these sentiments on the campaign trail again and again)…

“My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. It also includes increasing military assistance to Israel and improved coordination with all of our allies in the area.”

Frankly, President Obama has instituted some of these measures and he’s seriously considering others, but he is first pushing a strong diplomatic effort, trying to get the Iranians to think seriously about what their threatening plans will force the world to do to stop them. He doesn’t need people like Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum undermining his efforts

_________________________

Why not become a follower?
If you read my blog regularly, why not become a follower? All you have to do is click in the upper right hand corner and establish a simple means of communication. Then you'll be informed every time a new blog is posted here. If all that's confusing, here's Google's explanation of how to do it! If you don’t want to post comments on the blog, but would like to communicate with me about it, send me an email if you’d like.