MinnPost - Eric Black Ink

Anti-Romney video makes me feel a little sorry for him | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:10:00 -0600

It’s not an easy thing to do, but an online video by a pro-Dem Super PAC, which I assume is supposed to make me view Mitt Romney as a racist or a jerk or stiff or an insensitive French-speaking, wealth-flaunting swell, manages to make me like him a little better and actually feel a little sorry for him or anyone running for office who has to assume that every time he goes out in public he is being filmed and that the merest off-hand joke, overloud guffaw, unfortunate facial expression or slip of the tongue might be used against him

In a period when Repub campaigns — most especially Romney and his own Super PAC allies — demonstrate regularly that they will twist facts, ignore logic and insult their audience’s intelligence with low blows against their opponents, the video is also a reminder that Dems do it too.

The video, by the labor-backed “American Bridge 21^st Century,” is titled “Sh*t Mitt Says.” It contains no lies nor half-truths, since it is nothing but a compendium of short clips of Mitt saying things that the makers of the film suggest is fecal matter.

There is zero substance to the collection. The filmmakers don’t bother with any of Romney’s policy ideas.

A few of the magic moments are already very familiar, such as when Romney challenged Rick Perry to a $10,000 bet, when Romney said he wasn’t concerned about the very poor because they have a safety net, and the time Romney said he likes being able to fire people. Each of those has already been subjected to a predictable hackneyed analysis that even though they are taken out of context and don’t reflect what Romney was really trying to say they nonetheless are damaging because they reinforce a preexisting negative stereotype.

I’m sick of that analysis point and sicker of the subliminal communication strategy that it legitimizes. In the case of this video, I don’t see the strategy and find that about 80 percent of the moments are at least slightly endearing.

I exclude the one where he says "corporations are people, my friend." But am I supposed to find disqualifying:

the “information” that Romney considers his wife “a babe,” and has viewed her that way since she was 15 (or at least claims he has), but that he is trying to get her to stop wearing hot pants (although I gather he has flip-flopped on the hot pants question);
that he has told the same joke (the one about how he is not a career politician because he was only governor for four years and “I didn’t inhale”) over and over again (imagine that, a politician saying the same thing repeatedly in his stump speech);
that he thought the TV series “Twilight” was “fun;”
and that he jokingly tried in one of the debates to curry favor with moderator Wolf Blitzer by saying, “I’m Mitt Romney and yes Wolf, that’s also my first name.” Actually that last one is a lie. Romney’s real first name is Willard. Seriously. You can look it up or have it Politifacted.

Here’s the video:

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

More on Saul Alinsky, this time from Bill Moyers | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Fri, 10 Feb 2012 06:22:00 -0600

A couple of weeks ago, after noticing that Newt Gingrich was working references to "radical" Saul Alinsky into his stump rhetoric in an effort to radicalize Pres. Obama by association, I wrote a piece about Alinsky. Of couse, I wasn't the only one.

Now the estimable Bill Moyers, who's back PBS in case you hadn't noticed, adds a nice little film and his own drawling narrative to the Alinsky revival. Moyers is tougher on Gingrich than I was, but he also manages to juxtapose some Gingrich rhetoric with some Alinsky rhetoric thereby raising the question of whether Gingrich might be the real Alinskyite in the race. Enjoy:

Bill Moyers Essay: Newt's Obesession with Saul Alinsky from BillMoyers.com on Vimeo.

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

The secret identity of the food stamp president | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Thu, 09 Feb 2012 11:02:00 -0600

U.S. Rep. Luis Gutierrez had a little fun this a.m. on the House floor. The takeoff point was Newt Gingrich's recent habit of referring to President Obama as "the food stamp president." In defending the charge (in which some paranoid liberals see a little hint of racialized dog whistling), Gingrich has said that the rolls of food stamp recipients have grown to new heights under Obama. I'll embed the Gutierrez speech below, but first a bit of background.

What Gingrich actually has said is that "more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history." The beginning of the b.s. factor in the statement seems obvious. In general, unless he changes the regulations, a president doesn't "put people on food stamps." It's an anti-poverty program. Rising poverty, in some sense, "puts" people on food stamps. The current lousy economy is the worst since the creation of the food-stamp program, so it makes sense that the rolls are growing. The lousy economy began when George W. Bush was president. It got worse for a while after Obama took office. Now it is getting better, although everyone agrees the recovery is slow and fragile.

It's easy (and apparently irresistible) to exaggerate the degree of presidential influence over the economy. But after three years of Obama in office (and let's not forget that in the first two years, the Dems controlled Congress), Obama has to take more and more responsibility for how the country has fared — economically and otherwise — under his leadership.

Republicans prefer to pretend that the bad economic history began on the day that Obama took office. That's just silly. The degree to which the country might be doing better under different policies than Obama's is conjecture, unknowable (except by Repub presidential candidates), but is nonetheless an utterly appropriate subject for political debate. And that's the kind of (unfortunately not particularly edifying) debate in which Gingrich is engaging when he says that Obama has put more people on food stamps than any other president.

And that's the kind of debate in which Gutierrez is also engaging. Here (via the Huff Post) is a transcript of Gutierrez' little rant, and here's the video (I'm sure you will figure out the punch line before Gutierrez gets to it, and after the video I'll be back with one more punch line):

The last punch line

So, basically, given the increase in population, every president who is in office during an economic downturn is in danger of being "the food stamp president" by some measure of the statistic. When Gingrich starting using the term, I assumed that he was at least correct that more new food stamp recipients had been enrolled in the program during Obama's term than under any previous president.

But it turns out, at least according to Brooks Jackson of Factcheck.org, the dean of the journo-fact-checking movement, even that one isn't true.

hat tip/Ray Schoch.

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

'Shut up,' they explained | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 15:06:00 -0600

My esteemed former Strib colleague Jon Tevlin has a great column today about Robin Hensel of Little Falls who put signs up in her own front yard reading "Occupy Wall Street," "Back the 99 Pecent" and "Boycott Monsanto." Complaining neighbors discovered that a city ordinance bans political lawn signs more than 90 days before (or five days following) an election.

Hensel was ordered to take them off her lawn and complied, although she put them in her windows. Apparently inside the house is OK. But then she complained about a "Support Our Troops" banner that had been hanging in the town square for 10 years. Seemed like a political sign to her but had stayed up before during and after many a campaign season. She thought it should come down.

Hmmmm? The poop hit the fan on that one and Hensel has been subjected to threats and abuse online, serious enough that law enforcement has looked into them. The question of the taking down of the "Troops" sign is under advisement or at least discussion by the City Council.

(By the way, in case you were wondering about the headline on this post, the early 20th century humorist Ring Lardner coined the saying "Shut up, he explained" in a story. It's a father's reply to his child who asks him whether he is lost. Lardner's son Ring Lardner Jr. later refused to tell the House UnAmerican Activities Committee anything about the American Communist Party (Lardner Jr. had been a member), for which he (Lardner Jr.) was both blacklisted and did some prison time. Lardner Jr.'s daughter Kate Lardner — that would be the original Ring Lardner's granddaughter — used "Shut Up, he explained" as the title of her own autobiography, subtitled "memoir of a blacklisted kid.")

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

Is Obama the luckiest man alive? | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 14:12:00 -0600

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post thinks so:

"At the last possible moment to save his reelection, the economy is beginning to hum, as evidenced by Friday’s jobs report. And Obama’s Republican opponents are shaping up to be as formidable as, well, marshmallows. While Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum are making each other unelectable, the president is singing Al Green, congratulating Super Bowl winners, playing with science projects, raising obscene amounts of campaign cash and watching his poll numbers soar."

Hat tip: Taegan Goddard

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

A lighter/nastier take on last night's results | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 13:33:00 -0600

In case you are an insensitive boor who takes pleasure in the misfortune of others, here is a portion of satirist Andy Borowitz' emailed account of last night's Romney/Santorum etc. results. (I've left out the paragraphs that have cursewords in them.)

"DENVER (The Borowitz Report) – Exit polls from last night’s Republican contests reveal that former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney’s key obstacle to gaining the GOP nomination is the fact that voters cannot stand him...

... Exit polls taken last night bear out that theory, with a majority of voters agreeing with the statement, 'I think Mitt Romney is so odious, I would rather vote for a random doofus I’ve never heard of who goes around in sweater vests.'

The beneficiary of that sentiment last night was former Sen. Rick Santorum, who told supporters at a victory rally in Missouri, 'I support the rights of the unborn child until it's born and wants a gay marriage.'

Speaking to supporters in Denver, Mr. Romney uttered what some political experts are calling a possible gaffe: 'I don’t care about all the people who didn’t vote for me. They just envy my massive wealth. And poor people? They can curl up die, and I won’t lose a wink of sleep. I bet you a million crisp dollars from my vault in Geneva.'"

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

Minnesota's caucuses and other voting: Who saw this coming? | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:44:00 -0600

REUTERS/Rick WilkingMitt Romney shaking hands with supporters after speaking at his Colorado caucus night rally.

Seven half-baked analysis points after Tuesday night’s voting and caucusing in Minnesota and elsewhere:

Point 1
Show me the pundit who saw this coming? I’m not talking about someone who said it ain’t over yet after Florida. I’m talking about someone who said Rick Santorum might sweep all three contests and might double Mitt Romney’s vote in Missouri and Minnesota and that Romney might finish third, 30 percentage points behind Santorum in Minnesota, a state Romney carried by almost 20 points in 2008.

There are, of course, several ways to minimize what happened last night. Three quirky states (as if there are any states that can’t be dismissed as quirky when they don’t behave). Two caucus states and a non-binding primary. Very few delegates were awarded (really, none that are bankable). And if this week’s results follow the pattern of all the previous election nights so far in this contest, the future direction they suggest for the race will be completely contradicted by the next results. I say let them vote and stop trying to get ahead of the contest.

Point 2
The rest of the February calendar is supposed to be Romney-friendly. Michigan is where he grew up and his father was governor there. Arizona has an above-average Mormon population. But that could be a trap for him. You get little credit for winning the state in which you grew up. But if you falter in a state where you’re supposed to win easily and big, it’s a serious problem, at least in terms of much-feared media narrative.

The pundits, back when they supposedly knew what they were talking about, used to sell the idea that a big win (or three) like Santorum just had gives you momentum going into the next round. So far this year: Not so. (Santorum already experienced the opposite of the “bounce” after his surprise strong showing in Iowa. He disappeared in New Hampshire.) Michigan is three weeks away. The most recent polling of likely Michigan Repub primary voters had Romney 15 points ahead of Gingrich with Santorum in third, 21 points behind Romney. I don’t believe Santorum can be seriously considered any kind of co-frontrunner based on last night. But if Santorum starts to surge in Michigan, Katie bar the door.

Point 3
Rick Santorum is about to get fly-specked and quite likely carpet-bombed by the Romney attack machine. Santorum has not yet had the treatment that Gingrich received, first when he surged in the polls before Iowa and then again after the big win in South Carolina. Surely the Romney opposition researchers have a book on him and they have demonstrated that they are ready, willing and very able to go negative.

REUTERS/Sarah ConardRick Santorum, flanked by his daughter Elizabeth, speaking at his primary night rally in St. Charles, Mo.

I wouldn’t want to predict what they will use. Santorum was a big user of earmarks (and makes no excuses for it). I heard one of the Fox analysts last night predict that the Romney campaign is about to turn Santorum into an earmark made flesh.

I do believe that Santorum has benefitted significantly by being outside of the main cross-fire of attacks between Romney and Gingrich. That may end right now. Is there some point at which Romney’s willingness to go negative against anyone who dares to raise their head in the race will start to become yet another element of his likeability problem? Of course, the big attacks will come from the super PAC and Romney will disclaim direct responsibility. At some point will that gag lose its humor?

Point 4
Tim Pawlenty endorsed Romney and worked pretty hard for him in Minnesota. Didn’t seem to do much good. Pawlenty and Romney are really pretty similar in the way they can shape-shift between their moderate and their conservative modes. I have long thought that Santorum (along with Michele Bachmann) fared best on the conservative purity tests (assuming we accept a definition of conservatism different from the Ron Paul libertarian brand). Yesterday’s result is further proof that the historical Stassen-Durenberger-Carlson brand of Minnesota moderate Republicanism is — well — historical.

Point 5
In fact (following on Point 4), when Romney did so well in Minnesota’s 2008 caucuses, he was running as the conservative alternative to the too-moderate John McCain. Now McCain supports Romney and they both look like flaming moderates to the latest edition of Minnesota Republicanism, which keeps moving right.

Point 6
Newt Gingrich insists that he is in the race all the way to the convention. The conventional wisdom is that he will stay in at least until the April 3 Texas primary. Experience suggests that any and all statements by a candidate along these lines should be taken with huge doses of salt. Gingrich is very ambitious, has always wanted to be president, and this is his last chance. But if, as sometimes suggested, he has been motivated substantially by a thirst for revenge since he was on the receiving end of the pre-Iowa Team Romney carpet bombing, there is an alternative logic suggesting that he should get out soon in favor of Santorum. Certainly nothing that happened last night would encourage him to believe that his own chances for the nomination are growing.

Point 7
Santorum has no money. Of course, he has never had any and has gotten this far. But Michigan and Arizona are both big states (Michigan ranks 8^th in population, Arizona 16^th) and both primary states where advertising plays big and costs a fortune. Suffice to say, Romney will have all the money he needs to get his message out and up and over and around. (This is out-of-date, of course, but according to the New York Times money tracker, as of the Jan. 1 reporting deadlines, Team Romney had out-raised Team Santorum by $52 million to $2 million.) Lots of candidates (most recently Rick Perry) have demonstrated that having a big war-chest doesn’t guarantee success. But no one in recent history has won a major party nomination without a big war-chest.

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

Appeals court reinstates (sort of) same-sex marriage in California | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 12:38:00 -0600

A three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the federal appeals court that covers California, has ruled that Proposition 8, which banned same-sex marriage in California, violates the U.S. Constitution.

The ruling is narrow and the three-judge panel stayed its effect to give same-sex marriage opponents a chance to appeal to the full circuit, which they plan to do. The question could ultimately be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. But even if the Supremes affirm the three-judge ruling, it would not strike down all gay marriage bans and it's unclear what effect it might have on the proposed Minnesota constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage that will be on the ballot this year.

California in 2008 adopted by referendum a state constitutional amendment limiting the right of marriage to opposite sex couples. The wording of that amendment is almost identical to the Minnesota wording, but one difference in the two situations is that Proposition 8 was adopted, in effect, to overturn a state Supreme Court ruling that had struck down the statutory ban on gay marriage. In Minnesota, the courts have not struck down the existing ban. The proposed Minnesota amendment would would not change marriage law in Minnesota. It would elevate the ban on gay marriage to a constitutional provision in a pre-emptive move to make it harder for a Minnesota court to strike down the ban.

This morning's California ruling seems to apply only in situations where the right of same-sex couples to marry has been granted, then revoked. The ruling does not apply even to the other eight western states under the jurisdiction of the 9th circuit.

The ruling -- and it was supported by only two of the three appeals court judges on the panel -- seemed to be as narrowly targeted as possible, stating that it did not reach the underlying issue of whether any may state limit marriage to opposite sex couples. The two-judge majority of the panel wrote:

"Although the Constitution permits communities to enact most laws they believe to be desirable, it requires that there be at least a legitimate reason for the passage of a law that treats different classes of people differently. There was no such reason that Proposition 8 could have been enacted."

But the judges added:

"Whether under the Constitution same-sex couples may ever be denied the right to marry, a right that has long been enjoyed by opposite-sex couples, is an important and highly controversial question. We need not and do not answer the broader question in this case."

The New York Times breaking coverage of the ruling is here.

The fullruling, via the L.A. Times, is here.

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

Jane Mayer on Romney's 'attack dog' | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 10:35:00 -0600

Jane Mayer of the New Yorker has an outstanding piece in the new issue titled "Attack Dog." It focuses on Larry McCarthy, who is little known to the general public but is a big player in the world of political ads, was the creator of the infamous Willie Horton ad in 1988, and is now directing "Restore Our Future," one of the pro-Mitt Romney SuperPACs that has done such a fine hatchet job on Romney's opponents in the Repub nomination campaign.

So it's about both the history of negative political advertising and the new nexus with the financing loopholes created by Supreme Court decisions, most recently "Citizens United."

Mayer's piece is longish and roams widely across the landscape of political money and political advertising. It's here.

The "too much baggage" ad that McCarthy crafted (if "crafted" is the word I want here) to bring down Gingrich in the run-up to the Iowa caucuses is below.

Mayer dug up an anecdote from Horton ad, which was an important part of the pro-Bush (the first) campaign that came from behind to beat Dem nominee Michael Dukakis in 1988. (Similarly to the current SuperPAC environment, this one was sponsored by a PAC so candidate Bush didn't have to take direct responsibility for it.) Anyway here's the anecdote from Mayer's piece:

"[McCarthy] later told a reporter that when he first saw Horton’s mug shot he said to himself, 'God, this guy’s ugly.' He added, 'This is every suburban mother’s greatest fear.' McCarthy admitted to the reporter that he had used a ploy to get the ad past television-station officials, who, he worried, might regard it as inflammatory. ('The guy looked like an animal,' he said of Horton.) So McCarthy made two versions of the ad. The first, which he submitted for review, lacked the mug shot. Once the ad had been approved, McCarthy, claiming that he was fixing an error, replaced it with a version containing Horton’s photograph"

Here's the Horton ad:

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.

Will the economy sink Obama, or will the Repub field save him? | Eric Black Ink

Eric Black — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 09:49:00 -0600

Dem strategist Paul Begala in his column in last week’s Newsweek:

"If his predecessor cursed Obama by handing him a depression and two wars, the Good Lord has blessed him with the weakest field of opponents in memory. I stand by my early assessment: when I look at the economy, I think Obama can’t win, but when I look at the Republicans, I think he can’t lose. The economy is starting to get better; the Republicans aren’t."

Click to write a comment or read comments about this post.