Mitt Romney and the Eye of the Needle

Check out this excerpt from one of the (hundred) debates during the Republican primaries. 

That was an interesting reaction, wasn't it? Romney stammers his answer and has to think fast before he commits his soul to the fiery furnace. As Anderson Cooper gives him a second chance to clarify, Romney hesitates and finally- to smattering of applause- takes the plunge. 

(In an earlier post, we pointed out how Romney has violated repeatedly his own Mormon code forbidding lying in every form. He was quite willing in that case to break the tenets of that faith to the cost of his salvation.)

Mitt Romney’s Trickle -Down Government Nonsense

by Nomad

Mitt Romney's use of a new catch-phrase "trickle-down" government deserves a closer look. What does he mean? And why are his ideas about "trickle-down" downright wrong.

Trickle-Down
Maybe you heard it too. At first, I thought I had mis-heard what he had said. 

Near the end of last debate we heard Mitt Romney say:

This is the way we're going to create jobs in this country. It's not by trickle-down government, saying we're going to take more money from people and hire more government workers, raise more taxes, put in place more regulations. Trickle-down government has never worked here, has never worked anywhere.

In case you missed it, “trickle-down government” is a new catch-phrase that Romney has deploying at every possible occasion. Here’s another example in the first debate:

The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work.

In one speech in Colorado, he clearly put pedal to metal and came out chattering like a manic shopping channel salesman:

”I saw the president’s vision as trickle-down government, and I don’t think that’s what America believes in….We have very two different courses for America – trickle-down government or prosperity through freedom. And trickle-down government that the president proposes is one where he will raise taxes on small business….

“We’re going to have a stronger America with more jobs, rising incomes, moderated prices – that’s a very different path than one with trickle-down government…Under trickle-down government, you have the president saying – well, you remember in his last campaign, that under his policies of energy, that prices of energy would necessarily skyrocket…

“The Congressional Budget Office says that by the end of a four-year period, if he were to be re-elected, trickle-down government would lead to a setting where we would have $20 trillion in debt…Trickle-down government will not create the jobs Americans need.Trickle-down government will not bring down the cost of energy. Trickle-down government will not allow incomes to rise…”

Well, the reasons for this rhetorical strategy are clear. By now most intelligent voters have caught on to the fact that the whole trickle- down theory has been pretty thoroughly discredited. Most people have understood that rewarding the super wealthy has not led to an increase in jobs. In fact, much of the money derived from the Bush tax cuts was apparently stowed away in offshore accounts in the Cayman islands or in Swiss banks. If the trickle-down theory actually worked, then we would have seen some sign of its success after ten years. 

So Romney’s idea? Continue with the same policy but re-frame the debate by changing the catch-phrases. Now it’s trickle-down government. 

"Binders Full of Women": Shredding Mitt's Myth

by Nomad

C

ourtesy of The Atlantic, this photograph from last night's 90-minute debate at Hofstra University in Hemptstead, N.Y seems to capture the inner truth about the candidates.

One exchange during the debate which emerged as an online talking point was Romney's remark on hiring women. 

Here's is a transcript of that segment:

CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

ROMNEY: Thank you. An important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

And I -- and I went to my staff, and I said, "How come all the people for these jobs are -- are all men." They said, "Well, these are the people that have the qualifications." And I said, "Well, gosh, can't we -- can't we find some -- some women that are also qualified?"

And -- and so we -- we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women.

I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America. Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort.

His statement seems to contradict his already foggy stand on Affirmative Action. After all, why is hiring from a pre-selected category any different? How is a binder full of women any different than hiring from a binder full of blacks or a binder full of Hispanics? His statement doesn't make sense because, as we shall see, it is based on a misrepresentation of the facts.

Romney's Stolen Line: A Cuban-American PR Disaster

by Nomad

When it comes to foreign policy, Romney has had more than his share of missteps- even before he began this campaign. Back in the 2008 presidential race, for example, he accidentally caused a public relations nightmare with Cuban-Americans. 

In March 2007, while speaking in Miami, Romney made a play for the Latino vote, telling his audience:

“Hugo Chavez has tried to steal an inspiring phrase. Excuse me for my pronunciation: ‘Patria o muerte, venceremos.’ It does not belong to him, it belongs to a free Cuba.’”

That phrase means ‘Fatherland Or Death, We Shall Overcome.” Obviously somebody thought Romney could take a page from the Kennedy playbook and speak as the natives do. When Kennedy mangled German, it somehow added to the charm. That an American president would make an attempt to speak their language saying, literally, I am one with you.” It's pretty old schtick but effective when it goes right. 

In Romney’s case, it all went ..not right. By that I mean, it went horribly wrong. 

Musical Sanity Break- Three by Prine

Some Humans Ain't Human 

  

Hello in There

Your Flag Decal Won't Get You Into Heaven Anymore

Vice Presidential Debates- What You Didn't Hear

NATO: A Closer Look at Mitt Romney’s Two Percent Solution

by Nomad

A

s any businessman or lawyer will confirm, the art of deception often involves things are not said, rather than the things that are actually specified. Mitt Romney's recent foreign policy speech the other day, entitled "The Mantle of Leadership, delivered at  Virginia Military Institute, definitely fits this profile. 

Here's an interesting statement from that speech.

And I will call on our NATO allies to keep the greatest military alliance in history strong by honoring their commitment to each devote 2 percent of their GDP to security spending. Today, only 3 of the 28 NATO nations meet this benchmark.

Compared to both the United Kingdom and the United States, the rest of the NATO-member countries spend noticeably less of their GDP on defense. Therein lies the Republican complaint. According to a journalist for CQ Press:

European NATO members also spend a smaller percentage of their income on defense than the United States. Although under NATO rules all members vow to spend at least 2 percent of their gross domestic product (GDP) on defense, most European members now treat the 2 percent minimum as a ceiling instead, spending about 1.4 percent of their GDPs on defense. The United States spends about 4 percent of its GDP on defense.

American critics of NATO say that with a productive population of 445 million and a combined GDP of about $11 trillion, Europeans can afford to look after themselves militarily. But by spending less on defense — and refusing to pool their resources on most joint projects — the Europeans create resentment across the Atlantic about the unfair financial burden borne by the United States. The situation also undermines efforts to create a common defense policy within the military organization.

This has been an ongoing gripe by the Republican warhawks since the Bush administration. Certainly they have a point. Michael Cohen, writing for The Century Foundation, a progressive non-partisan think tank, points out:

Why should the United States be responsible for underwriting European security (and in turn the European welfare state), especially when European countries face not a single legitimate military threat to their well-being? Moreover, if Europeans don't think it's important enough to spend their own money on their own security, why should America? Now granted, the Europeans are a little short on cash these days, but then so is the United States. But of course as the House of Representatives reminded us recently—as they eviscerated key social safety net programs to restore cuts made to the defense budget—you can't put a price tag on a huge American military that does little to keep America safe and underwrites the security of other countries.

As unfair as the situation appears to be to some Americans, it cannot be overstated that NATO is not an American organization. Although the United States comprises the largest military force within the organization, NATO is voluntary organization, a working alliance of many nations, all with shared interests, all of them treaty-bound for mutual defense. It's not a company. If you own 51% of the hardware, you still don't have controlling shares or anything like that.