Where's the Outrage?

The Supreme Court, in their infinite wisdom, decided that Citizens United was okay. Money is speech. Speech is money. Corporations are people, so… you get the idea. It should be no surprise to you that our campaigns are awash in secret money (moolah, cash, dough, greenbacks…)

From WaPo:

More than a third of the advertising tied to the presidential race has been funded by nonprofit groups that will never have to reveal their donors, suggesting that a significant portion of the 2012 elections will be wrapped in a vast cloak of secrecy.

The bulk of the secret money spent so far has come from conservative groups seeking to propel a Republican into the White House, advertising data shows. Millions of dollars in additional spending from both sides has poured into legislative races, such as the Senate contest in Massachusetts, that could help determine which party controls Congress in 2013.

The flow of funds is part of a wave of spending by outside groups that has quickly come to dominate the 2012 presidential contest, particularly by so-called “super PACs” that have few limits on their activities.

But unlike super PACs, politically minded nonprofit groups are under no obligation to disclose the corporations, unions or wealthy tycoons bankrolling their advertising, much of which is almost indistinguishable from regular political ads run by campaigns. (more…)

Tags: Elections, Supreme court by ecthompson md
No Comments »

There has been a lot of attention paid to the donations that Romney and Obama have received because Wall Street seems to be showering both of them with money. Without backing from Sheldon Adelson and his family, Newt Gingrich might be out of the presidential race already. We already have heard about the $10 million that Sheldon and his wife gave Newt’s SuperPAC. It appears that daughters and a son-in-law ponied up over $2 million back in December.

It must be nice to have good friends with lots of money.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

There was no South Carolina surprise. Romney took care of business and kicked butt. I don’t know if this is good or bad for the GOP. I know that it doesn’t matter to Democrats. I have heard the talking heads say that Obama would like to face Romney or Perry or whomever. I just find that funny, since President Obama hasn’t publicly said anything.

(This table is from DK)

I will repeat what I said the other day. Newt isn’t a serious candidate. He is running so that his rich donor friends will continue to believe that he is a factor in Washington and will continue to write those large checks. How do you explain the fact that Newt hasn’t come out with a major campaign theme yet? Nothing. He won in South Carolina with a direct attack on Mitt Romney and Bain Capital. Because of criticism, he decided to back away from the only theme that has resonated with voters? Since when has Newt backed down from criticism? He isn’t serious about winning the nomination.

Update: If you can stomach it, here is a few moments of Mitt Romney’s speech in Florida.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Sometimes you just have to wonder what makes a man say certain things. How do you tell a bunch of reporters that there’s a new poll coming out which shows that you are neck and neck with Mitt Romney? I don’t understand how you do that. There was no such poll, yet Newt Gingrich told reporters and a room full supporters,  “We just got word of a brand new poll from about an hour ago that says we have a tie!” Newt Gingrich’s spokesperson stated that the candidate was referring to an earlier poll. This is one of my major problems with Newt Gingrich. He’ll say anything.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I don’t know about you but I’m really hating the these debates. There is nothing new. It is like watching a rerun of a bad sit-com without the laugh track. We need a new debate format. We need to have a real debate. Don’t we need a moderator who can really ask questions without being afraid of being attacked by the candidate? I need a moderator who can ask follow-up questions actually delve into the details of the candidates plan. Don’t we need the candidates to be able to get into a real discussion about policy issues? I don’t think enough to say that you support Israel. What does that mean? What you going to do in order to try to promote peace in the region? That doesn’t mean they simple soundbite saying that you love Israel. Instead, that should mean some sort of detailed answer about the give-and-take that must happen in order for there to be peace in the region. We should be able to have a detailed discussion on the economy. Why can’t this happen? We get the same old soundbites of free markets and tax breaks. Don’t we deserve more specifics?

What system of debate would you favor?

The latest polls out of Florida show Newt Gingrich losing ground.

From 538:

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
2 Comments »

When this whole presidential hoopla started, more than a year ago, I was surprised when Newt Gingrich announced that he was running for president. I figured that his time had passed. He had been out of Washington for more than a decade, during which time he started multiple enterprises. All of his enterprises seem to be tied into his former political life as a US Congressman and Speaker of the House. Upon further reflection, all of these enterprises seem to require rich businessmen handing money over to Newt Gingrich, because, and this is important, he still had access to power. These enterprises seem to require that Newt Gingrich is still important in Washington. Therefore, I concluded that he really wasn’t running for president, but was running so that he could prove to his benefactors that he was still extremely important person.

Over the first several months of his campaign, my theory held up. He never really spent money on infrastructure or campaign personnel. Instead, Newt Gingrich seemed to go from city to city selling books. He had a lot of early upheaval with turnover in his extremely small campaign staff, but this did not seem to faze him. Then, somewhere in Iowa, it seemed that he began to believe the press. It seemed that he was beginning to become serious about running for president. In South Carolina, his stop seemed to be more about campaigning and less about selling books or any of his other products. Newt Gingrich was serious.

Now, Newt Gingrich was a front runner. I don’t know whether he lost his mojo or whether he did not know what to do with his front-runner status, but Newt Gingrich seemed to lose focus. He is in the middle of a knock-down, drag-out fight with Mitt Romney. He needed to sharpen his message. How is he going to improve the country? How is he a better Republican candidate then Mitt Romney? How could he turn the economy around? Can someone explain to me how a “major” Republican candidate in the middle of a tight primary can even suggest America going to the moon? He said it with a straight face. Did he just say this to please a Florida space crowd? Did he think through this lunar colony?

I think that this is yet another example of how Newt is not a serious candidate. This isn’t the 1970s, where the sky was the limit. Our economy is struggling to make jobs. Europe is on the brink of implosion as Greek debt seems to be an unsolvable problem. Yet, Newt is talking about spending billions of dollars not just to go to the moon but to build a colony. Wow. I can’t wrap my mind around how irresponsible a statement that was.

Tags: Elections, NASA by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

As usual, the Republicans cannot stop attacking. President Obama traveled to Las Vegas yesterday and was speaking at a UPS facility. The facility was stocked with specially made natural gas trucks. Republicans have stated that these are not practical. In fact, this is American ingenuity at work. I don’t think that natural gas cars are the answer for everyone, but they simply makes sense in this particular sector of business. UPS was big enough to be able to set up the infrastructure and then reap the cost savings.

From WP:

On Thursday, President Obama traveled to Las Vegas to pitch a few new energy policies — including tax breaks for firms that buy natural gas-powered trucks. T. Boone Pickens, for one, has argued that fueling vehicles with natural gas is the best way to curtail oil use. Is it?

President Barack Obama speaks at a United Parcel Service (UPS) freight facility about greater use of natural gas . (Ethan Miller – Getty Images)In small doses, perhaps, though it depends what the alternatives are. Fueling up cars and trucks directly with natural gas could help cut America’s reliance on crude oil. Yet some experts have cautioned that plug-in electric vehicles should play a much more pivotal role in weaning the country off oil. After all, it’s far more efficient to take natural gas, burn it to generate electricity, and power a bunch of plug-in vehicles, than it would be to fuel up cars and trucks with all that natural gas directly. (That’s because the combustion engines in cars and trucks lose waste more energy than the modern-day combined-cycle gas turbines that produce electricity.)

The counterargument is that electric vehicles are expensive and hard to scale up — and they typically require a vast new charging infrastructure. That’s true. But natural-gas vehicles could face similar hurdles. A 2002 analysis in the journal Energy Policy found that natural-gas fueling stations have historically had trouble getting built precisely because they turned out to be far more costly than anticipated.

For those reasons, a 2009 report from MIT on “The Future of Natural Gas” predicted that natural-gas vehicles would likely play a modest role in transportation — mostly confined to long-haul trucks and other heavy-duty vehicles like buses and delivery vans. Meanwhile, the MIT analysts expect natural gas to play a much more prominent role in the electric sector. That, in itself, could be an environmental boon: The report found that electric utilities could very rapidly cut their carbon emissions up to 22 percent by switching from coal to natural gas in key areas (and that’s without making major capital investments).

Tags: Elections, Energy, Obama administration by ecthompson md
4 Comments »

A friend of mine has sent me a great article on Newt Gingrich. Personally, I think conservatives are extremely desperate. They’re looking for someone, anyone, who will be able to take on Obama. Remember way back in October of 2008, John McCain’s campaign was clearly flailing and he was at an event in Wisconsin. A man, a black man, stood up and begged John McCain to take the fight to Barack Obama. (James T Harris, the man who stood up, was a conservative talkshow host on a local radio station, but he didn’t identify himself.) It is the desperation in this man’s voice that I feel is reflected in all conservatives right now. They are desperate. Most conservatives don’t think that Mitt Romney will roll up his sleeves and seriously take on the president. They are, therefore, left with Newt Gingrich. They KNOW that Newt Gingrich will do whatever it takes. If it means bringing up Bill Ayres every single day three times a day for year, Newt Gingrich will do it. If it means bringing up Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres in the same sentence, Newt Gingrich will do it.

Anyway, here’s what my buddy sent me about Newt and morality:

Nor is the issue an unrealistic demand for perfection. No one has a perfect past, and few, if any have a perfect present. But it is a stunning impoverishment of standards to dismiss multiple lies, adulteries, and hypocrisies as mere foibles that fall just somewhere shy of perfection. While Newt was going hard after Clinton for his moral failures and campaigning on family values, he was engaged in an ongoing adulterous affair.

So again, am I suggesting we demand perfection of our candidates? Should we make an issue of every high school and college prank, indiscretion, drunken weekend, wild party, and so on? Of course not. But we are not talking here about adolescent behavior. We are talking about his behavior as a mature adult, while holding elected office.

The fact that Newt thinks his history of moral and ethical infidelity is irrelevant to his qualifications to be President, the fact that he can wax passionate with moral indignation against those who raise these issues, represents a wildly distorted sense of moral judgment and moral proportion. Ironically, he is the mirror image of the postmodern who rejects traditional morality, but knows exactly how to draw a huge ovation from an audience by attacking intolerance with passionate fervor.

King David fell into adultery and he repented and was forgiven. Notably, when confronted with his adultery, he did not turn on Nathan, and say, “Seriously, I am appalled you can be making an issue of the fact that I banged Bathsheba, given the enormous political and economic issues facing this country.” David was forgiven. But he never regained the moral credibility he previously had, and after this incident, his Kingdom began to unravel in various ways, as Nathan predicted. Indeed, it is surely no coincidence that we see this beginning to happen one chapter after Nathan’s confrontation with David, precisely in the form of his sons mimicking his worst behavior (2 Samuel 13). Amnon rapes his sister Tamar, and when David ignores the matter and does nothing about it, Tamar’s brother Absalom plots Amnon’s murder and successfully carries it out. Given David’s adultery and devious murder of Bathsheba’s husband Uriah, he was poorly situated to confront his sons with any sort of moral credibility or hold them accountable for doing the very same sort of things he had done. The King inevitably set a moral tone for the nation, whether for good or for ill. David eventually lost so much of his previous authority that his own son Absalom could successfully garner enough support to lead a rebellion and temporarily usurp the throne. (more…)

Tags: Elections, Ethics by ecthompson md
No Comments »

It is kind of funny to see Mitt Romney all red in the face and angry. He is fighting for his political life. He’s been running for president of the United States for six years straight and his dream is slipping away. Although he has all the facts correct, he still is very awkward in making his point. Newt Gingrich, on the other hand, is very good at the counter attack. He never seems that awkward at the podium. He always seems prepared for the attack or the “gotcha” question. Mitt Romney has his hands full.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
4 Comments »

There are several things that I truly hate about our political system. One of them is the intentional gerrymandering of voting districts which seems to occur in every state every 10 years. It doesn’t seem to matter who’s in power, the overall purpose of redistricting seems to be to openly suppress the vote of your opposition. I feel pretty confident this is what’s happening in North Carolina as well is Texas. The Supreme Court has rejected the redistricting map from Texas because it appears that it has violated the Voting Rights Act of 1965. For this conservative court to unanimously reject a redistricting map is extraordinary. Texas now has to scramble to get a map approved before its April first primary. This is a daunting task.

We need to adopt a computer-generated nonpartisan redistricting process. (This is a very detailed map using a nonpartisan process.) In my opinion, this is a must in order to take back our democracy from special interests which includes both Democrats and Republicans.

Tags: Civil Rights, Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I’m sure that everybody has heard at least 1000 times by now that South Carolina has chosen the Republican nominee every single time dating back to 1980. I haven’t checked the stats, but that’s what the smart people have told us. I don’t know, South Carolina may be the bellwether of the Republican Party again this year. Personally, I think it’s too early to tell. As I mentioned after the Iowa caucuses, this is one mixed-up field. I don’t think we know much more now than we knew after Iowa.

After Iowa we knew that Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum were still in the fray. Some pundits continue to believe that Ron Paul can seriously attract Republican voters, though I’ve never thought that Ron Paul could get over 15% of the GOP vote. He is not a true conservative. He is a Libertarian, an outsider. After Iowa, Herman Cain, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann were really no longer viable candidates. (Jon Huntsman never caught fire. He could possibly be labeled a moderate Republican, of the variety which has been rejected by the mainstream GOP for the last 20 years. Currently, the moderate Republican is a rare species which should be viewed in the zoo.)

Let’s start with Rick Santorum. From a political standpoint, Rick Santorum simply fumbled the ball. He had momentum out of New Hampshire and simply did nothing with it. It was an epic failure. It is in South Carolina that he should’ve hammered home his religious conservative credentials, but he didn’t seem to do that. South Carolina believes in limiting abortions, states’ rights, not limiting gunowners’ rights, etc. South Carolina is the poster child for these conservative social issues. Rick Santorum should’ve hammered home on these issues. Instead, he tried to appeal to South Carolina voters by hammering Obama on the economy. It’s really hard for Rick Santorum to sell himself as more qualified, on the economy, than Newt Gingrich or Mitt Romney. Looking at exit polls, there seems to be no conservative demographic that Rick Santorum appealed to more than any other candidate. He was a total washout.

Mitt Romney. The problem with Mitt Romney is that he is milquetoast. He has the voter appeal of John Kerry or possibly Al Gore (he isn’t liberal, but voters are have the same reaction – they yawn). He is completely uncomfortable in front of crowds. He doesn’t seem to be all that comfortable in front of a microphone. Therefore, if you’re going to vote for Mitt Romney, you’re voting for him because you believe that he understands how to fix the economy. Unfortunately for Romney, he simply is not exciting and South Carolina voters wanted somebody who’s going to get them excited. His advisers should have told him to begin to hammer away at Newt Gingrich. Instead, he ignored Newt Gingrich and began to hammer away at Obama. The strategy didn’t work. (BTW, where was all of the support that Nikki Haley was throwing Mitt’s way? She campaigned hard for him and it didn’t seem to help at all.)

Newt Gingrich. In spite of all the baggage that comes with Newt Gingrich, South Carolina loved him. When you look at exit polls, Newt Gingrich won both males and females. He won with voters who are 30 and older. (Ron Paul won the younger voters 18- 24, but Newt Gingrich was second in that category.) Newt Gingrich won those who are college-educated and also won those with no college degree. He appealed to single conservatives those who are married (I found this interesting). The only category in which he lost significantly were those South Carolinians who made more than $200,000 or more (approximate 5% of the electorate). This is the Romney class.

For Mitt Romney, South Carolina was a complete and total failure. He placed a lot of resources and money into South Carolina and he came up second. He came up a distant second. His current strategy is failing miserably. He needs to come up with something else or the Republican nomination will slip through his fingers. I smell panic from the Romney camp.

I believe that this nomination process is far from over. I think for the first time in my adult life, the Republicans are going to have a knock-down, drag-out fight over several months. This is going to be fun.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

In politics, it’s important to understand the atmosphere that you’re in. Richard Nixon famously could not understand the antiwar movement and how the country had changed significantly since the mid-’50s. Mitt Romney seems to be one of these politicians who really doesn’t understand the environment in which he is working. He and his advisors need to sit down and come up with a strategy about handling the issue of his tax returns. The question is not going to go away. It doesn’t matter how mad he gets or how he tries to blow off reporters’ questions. The issue is only going to get bigger. Hell, one of his biggest surrogates (in political stature and size) is New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. Even he has called for Mitt Romney to release his tax returns. The longer he waits, the more speculation grows. “There must be something nefarious in there.” “He must be hiding something.” Personally, I don’t think that there’s anything nefarious. Mitt Romney is simply a very rich man who wants to stay rich. He has parked money in the Cayman Islands. He’s used every tax loophole he can in order to keep as much money as he can. This is what he does not want the American people to see. It is my opinion that Mitt Romney has legally used every loophole there is and has paid less than 15% of his income in taxes – legally. This is what he is hiding. Releasing his taxes changes everything for Mitt. Now, the focus is not on his message but instead on how the rich can pay a smaller percentage of their income than the average American. Will it sink his campaign? Who’s to say? What is clear is that his advisors aren’t getting through to him. He needs to figure this out and fast. If his tax returns are as bad as I think they are the American people will be infuriated.

I wish Mitt Romney lots of luck in trying to hold out. It’s a little like Don Quixote. Cute, but futile.

Tags: Elections, Taxes by ecthompson md
No Comments »

It must be nice to sit around and make money while doing nothing. $66,000 for a speech? I promise that I can give a more informative and interesting speech than he can, but… I ain’t rich. This isn’t Mitt’s IRS tax form. It is a financial record. It is hard to read, but it is clear that this guy makes money because he is already rich.

Mitt Romney, to quote Mel Brooks, must know that it is good to be the king!!!

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

United Wisconsin, a group formed for the recall election, turned in aproximately one million signatures today. No matter what side of the political spectrum you’re on, if you like democracy, you have to like the people power that we’re seeing in Wisconsin.

From the Wisconsin State Journal:

“The collection of more than 1 million signatures is a crystal-clear indication of how strong the appetite is to stop the damage and turmoil that Gov. Walker has caused Wisconsin,” said Ryan Lawler, United Wisconsin co-chairman. “In the dead of Wisconsin winter, an army of more than 30,000 Wisconsin-born and -bred volunteers took to the streets, the malls, the places of worship and dinner tables to take our state back.”

This would be the first statewide recall election in Wisconsin history, and only the third gubernatorial recall in U.S. history, if at least 540,208 signatures against Walker are found to be valid.

Walker was in New York City on Tuesday, attending a fundraiser hosted by Hank Greenberg, the former CEO of American International Group. Ciara Matthews, his campaign spokeswoman, said the governor was “completely booked for the day” and unavailable for comment. (more…)

What? The governor is unavailable for comment? How is that possible? This recall started months ago, yet somehow Governor Scott Walker is not even in the state when the signatures are turned in. I wonder if that’s the plan. Coward.

Tags: Domestic Issues, Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Candidates practice questions all of the time for these “debates.” There is almost no question which these guys haven’t seen and answered. Getting a question about jobs should be a lay-up. Let’s see how Republican candidate,  Rick Santorum, dribbles this one off his foot and watch the ball roll out of bounds.

From TPM:

At the Huckabee forum a voter asks Santorum what as President he could do to help people like her, and goes on to outline her situation. Four years ago her husband lost his job. They’ve run through their IRA. They’ve run through most of their 401k. They moved from their large house in the north of the state to a smaller house in the south of the state where it’s cheaper.

Santorum starts his answer by noting that she and her husband “have moved to a beautiful part of the country.”

“My wife and I love vacationing here,” he continues, before going on to outline his desire to ramp up the American manufacturing industry.

UPDATE: Towards the end of the forum the questioner is asked whether she was satisfied with Santorum’s answer. She’s not. She notes her husband, and many others like him who’ve been affected by the recession, are in their sixties, and so “I’m not sure manufacturing is going to bring him back his job.”

Tags: Economy, Elections by ecthompson md
4 Comments »

Stephen Colbert has clearly illustrated how ridiculous our political system is by forming his own super PAC (political action committee). One would figure, because we do not want foreign governments and other outside interests involved in our political process, that there would be some sort of background check before you could own a super PAC. Nope. This whole system needs to be changed. This whole thing about coordination needs to be clarified. The fact that you can transfer a PAC from one person to the other with less paperwork than it takes to sell a house is very disturbing.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

I have never been to Wisconsin. I love warm weather. I consider it cold when the temperature dips below 50, but I love Wisconsin. Right now, Wisconsin more than any other state is showing us what democracy is all about. Next week, progressives will drop off over 1.5 million signatures to force a vote on recalling Governor Scott Walker, his lieutenant governor and four Republican State Senators. Simply organizing and getting all of those signatures is a huge feat. Congratulations to Wisconsin.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
No Comments »

I kind of enjoy the way the Republicans are starting to beat up on each other. Two weeks ago, Newt Gingrich was the recipient of most the beatings. Now, it is Mitt Romney. He is getting hammered (here and here) over his time as chairman at Bain Capital. I suspect that in the coming weeks the American people will have an opportunity to look at venture capitalists up close and personal. Venture capitalists, more than bankers, are the personification of modern day supercapitalism. Bankers have regulations. Venture capitalists are free to do whatever they want to do with their money. Their only goal is to make money for their investors.

Venture capitalists make money in lots of different ways. Traditionally, venture capitalists invested in start-up businesses. They will take a business that is not much more than an idea and turn it into reality. Many businesses will fail. A few will be successful but not make tons of money. Then there are a couple that are hugely successful. They’re the ones that make the venture capitalists truckloads of money.

Another way for them to make their truckloads of money is one that we haven’t talked about much until recently and is less popular with the American people. Venture capitalists can spot a company that is terrifically undervalued. They buy the company, then they carve out what they believe is extremely valuable and cast off the rest of the company. The valuable portion of the company can be bought or sold for profit. This is the ugly side of venture capitalism. The venture capitalists make money, yes, but lots of people lose their jobs because they were working for the “nonprofitable” portions of the company.

Finally, the video (above) points out that Bain Capital took government money in order to make a profit on a couple of deals. This should be no surprise to anyone. The purpose of venture capitalists is to make money any way legally possible, including taking government money.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
1 Comment »

I’ve mentioned this before but I think it’s worth mentioning again. I think it illustrates a very important point about Rick Santorum. Data and information do not penetrate his cranium.

Let’s go back to the dark days. We invaded Iraq on March 20, 2003. One of the premier reasons for going to war was that Iraq harbored weapons of mass destruction. We all remember Colin Powell in front of the UN General assembly laying out the case against Saddam Hussein. According to the Bush administration Iraq had tons of weapons of mass destruction this included chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.

Many people have discussed the frantic in futile search for weapons of mass destruction in 2003. Thomas Ricks has done one of the best jobs at documenting the search in his book, Fiasco. The fact that President Bush and Vice President Cheney personally got involved in the search is critically important. Judith Miller, New York Times reporter and cheerleader for the war, went to Iraq to personally “show” the military where to look. Yet, there were no weapons of mass destruction found. By late 2003 and early 2004, it was clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction to be found in Iraq. By September 2004, the Iraq survey group announced that they did not find any evidence that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction at the time of our invasion in 2003. More study and more handwringing by the Bush administration revealed even more evidence that there were no weapons of mass destruction at the time of our invasion. Yet, in June of 2006, then Senator Rick Santorum decided that he had found something that nobody else at found chemical weapons in Iraq. He called a press conference to announce his findings. He was wrong. He showed none of the judgment that one would expect from a Senator. Is clearly not the judgment that we would expect of the president.

Santorum proves that he can't evaluate information [ 3:42 ] Play Now | Play in Popup | Download

Tags: Elections, Iraq by ecthompson md
No Comments »

Mitt Romney has the same problem that he has always had. He is rich and he loves being rich. He loves doing things that rich people do. There is nothing wrong with being rich. As a matter of fact, we would all love to have enough money to do what we want to do when we what to do it. It is the smugness in which Romney flaunts his money that is the problem.

Tags: Elections by ecthompson md
8 Comments »