Behind the Ad: Mitt Romney is a human being

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Mitt Romney Campaign

Where: Nationally

What's going on: As we know, Mitt Romney has some pretty big unfavourability ratings. To counter that, his campaign has launched an ad narrated by his wife, Ann Romney, intended to show a more positive side of the GOP contender.

Recently, a lot of people have commented that Ann Romney comes across well, that she seems like a pretty likeable person - a very nice lady. It's even been suggested that the Democrats "fear her" in some sense. I'm not sure about that. Maybe if she were running, that would be true.

Look, it's a warm and fuzzy ad. It does a pretty good job of suggesting that Mitt Romney is a human being, with normal human emotions, who loves his family. That's nice. I just can't help thinking that when you have to spend money on an ad to remind people that your candidate is a human being, you may be in some trouble.

The title of the ad might as well be: "You see. He's not the asshole you think he is."

<

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Behind the Ad: Fact-checking Romney

By Richard K. Barry

Who: The Obama/Biden Campaign

Where: Nationally

What's going on: I don't think I'd be the first person to have noticed that Mitt Romney has a problem with the truth. He just kind of says whatever fits with his bullshit characterization of President Obama and runs with it. It seems that the Obama/Biden campaign team has noticed this as well and put together a couple of clever ads recently. It's a simple technique, juxtaposing exactly what one side says to a clip showing that it's simply untrue. Jon Stewart may not have invented this, but he's perfected it on the Daily Show.

When someone has an interest in politics and wants to have credibility with themselves and others, that person tries really hard to be objective when it comes to the political talent and skill of candidates with whom they might not agree. I know I do. I just can't watch Romney, no matter what he is saying, and see anything other than a very weak candidate. The lying aside, if that's possible, he's not very good at this whole politics thing. These two clips below say it all for me. He's going to get the voters who were always going to be against Obama. Is he going to get any support from those who know how to think for themselves? That's the question.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Joe Scarborough knows a lot of pessimistic Republicans

By Richard K. Barry

I watch Morning Joe every day. It's a part of my daily ritual. I generally only have time to sit through about 45 minutes before I have to head off to work. I must say, I have mixed feelings about Joe Scarborough, the main host of the show. I think we're all supposed to be impressed that MSNBC, the "liberal" network, has this right-winger carrying so much water for the station. Take that, "fair and balanced" Fox!

Every now and then, I'll admit, Joe can be pretty entertaining, especially when he takes on Republicans for being flat out crazy or when he articulates views that might be self-evident but which would likely not be uttered by most conservatives.

Such was the case when Joe offered that "no one" in the GOP establishment believes Mitt Romney will beat Barack Obama in the general election.

Just in case you can't open the attached clip, this was his comment:

Nobody thinks Romney's going to win. Let's just be honest. Can we just say this for everybody at home? Let me just say this for everybody at home. The Republican establishment--I've yet to meet a single person in the Republican establishment that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election this year. They won't say it on TV because they've got to go on TV and they don't want people writing them nasty emails. I obviously don't care. But I have yet to meet anybody in the Republican establishment that worked for George W. Bush, that works in the Republican congress, that worked for Ronald Reagan that thinks Mitt Romney is going to win the general election.

It's hard to argue with someone's claim that they have yet to speak to a single person with a particular characteristic who believes something to be true or not true. In Joe's case, he's either making it up, hasn't talked to a lot of Republicans about the matter, or the GOP leadership honestly believes it is truly screwed. Maybe he's just exaggerating to make a point. It's got to be one of those.

Don't me wrong. I think the way things look now Obama is going to win. It's just that so much can happen between now and November that I'm having a hard time believing the Republican establishment is quite that pessimistic.

I suppose it makes for good television.

Apparently, Mark Halperin, a semi-regular on the show, said that Romney "might" win and that he didn't totally agree with Scarborough's take.

That makes for somewhat less good television, but it's a more credible assessment. Let's not get too cocky here.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

How lucky is Barack Obama? Very lucky

By Richard K. Barry

We have been so busy pointing to the utter incompetence of the GOP presidential field or marvelling at the radical social conservatism coming from some of them and how toxic that would be in the general election that we may not have sufficiently considered the other side of the equation. By that I mean the fact that President Barack Obama must consider himself the luckiest man on the face of the earth, to borrow a phrase.

I mean, the economy is still weak and, even though Obama didn't start the fire, he could easily be blamed for not putting it out fast enough, as unfair as that may be. But that's politics. You play the hand you're dealt and are judged accordingly.

While I would never have necessarily said Obama was going to be the underdog in 2012, the only way he might have been favoured, in my view, would be if the economy moved off centre stage either because it was improving or because the other guys foolishly decided to focus on something else or even because opposition candidates so lacked basic political skill that the focus of the campaign would be on each of them, and the eventual nominee, instead of the economy.

Well, guess what? The economy may be improving slightly but, perhaps more importantly, the other guys are talking about restricting the accessibility of birth control or whether or not women should be in the workplace or the extent to which the devil has infiltrated American institutions among other crazy things. Okay, only Rick Santorum is talking about these things, but it's pretty much blocking out the stuff Republicans should be talking about and setting the agenda in a very destructive way for them.

The other piece, of course, is that the GOP field is so weak that even with the economy in the shape it's in, they don't have a credible delivery system to carry the message. So, they're off message, and even when they're on message they're screwing up because the supposed front-runner is a rich guy so out of touch with the lives of most Americans that he's a walking, talking billboard for the Democrats' key message, i.e., Republicans are the party of privilege, who want to keep the middle class down.

Democratic strategist, James Carville, always good for a quote, was being interviewed on the Imus in the Morning radio program recently, and told Don Imus, apropos of all this, that though it was possible Obama could lose the election because of an event, he would not lose it because of a Republican candidate. Carville, an experienced political hand, knows that in politics things can go wrong, but he doesn't think there is a Republican strong enough to beat Obama on merit.

As he said:

Right now, things are starting to perk up a little bit. Who knows? This is the — no Republican can beat Obama. Events can beat Obama. He’s not going to get beat by a Republican. Now events could come in and cause him to lose the election. But that’s it right now. That was not the case three months ago.

And the quotable quote?

You know what, he is — if this president, if I had anything in the world I would love to do? I would love to go to Las Vegas and stand by him at a craps table. ‘Mr. President, you just throw the dice. I’ve got my money on every roll.' He’s a lucky, lucky, lucky guy.

You can find the full clip here.

James Carville is no fool and he is clearly hedging his bets because anything can happen in politics. But who saw the GOP screwing up this much when this all started?

The worst economic downturn since the Great Depression and, as Carville taught us all in 1992, "It's the economy, stupid."

It's hard to believe anyone could fail to grasp that these days.

Yes, Barack Obama is a very lucky man.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

White House Chief of Staff Bill Daley resigns, finding no deals to be made

By Richard K. Barry

With all eyes on today's Republican New Hampshire primary, it was almost possible to miss the news that William M. Daley, President Obama's Chief of Staff, will be stepping down after what most people are calling a frustrating year. He will be replaced by Jacob J. Lew, the budget director. 

The New York Times had this to say about Daley's departure:

Mr. Daley, an affable former banker who is the son and brother of legendary Chicago mayors, proved to be an awkward fit on the Obama team. Recruited largely for his deal-making skills and ties to the business world, he failed to help his boss strike a huge budget deal with Republicans in the House.

After that failed negotiation, which led to months of acrimony between the White House and Congress, some of Mr. Daley's duties were transferred to Pete Rouse, a low-profile former Congressional aide with closer ties to the president.

That Mr. Daley was frustrated by Washington was no secret. In October, he told a Chicago TV station that he planned to leave the White House in January 2013, at the end of Mr. Obama's first term. It was not clear what precipitated his decision to leave now.

Is the obvious comment that a man with "deal-making" skills was not the best fit for the current dynamic in Washington? Old-school politics, with good-faith bargaining, which involves getting some of what you want in return for giving up some things, is not where we are at the moment.

We know that the Republican agenda is to ensure that Obama fails. The way they see it, nothing is supposed to happen. In that context, a deal-maker like Daley really had nothing to do.

Now that the election is in sight, different skills are required. Best advice for Obama may be in the immortal words of the late owner of the Oakland Raiders, Al Davis, who famously said, "just win baby."

Just win, Mr. President, with majorities in the House and Senate, then jam it down their throats in a second term, if that's how they want to play. It's not my first choice, but it's all they're likely to understand.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Robert Reich says it will be Obama-Clinton in 2012

By Richard K. Barry

Okay, my break is over. Back to politics.

Robert Reich, former Secretary or Labor under President Bill Clinton, says that the Democratic ticket in 2012 will have Hillary Clinton as the vice presidential candidate. He's quick to point out that it's based on absolutely nothing, which reminds me that, also based on absolutely nothing, I suggested many months ago that Hillary would run for the top job in 2016. Hey, why not? It's all idle speculation, though, to be fair, there is some logic to Reich's musings.

Here's his thinking:

Obama needs to stir the passions and enthusiasms of a Democratic base that's been disillusioned with his cave-ins to regressive Republicans. Hillary Clinton on the ticket can do that.

Moreover, the economy won't be in superb shape in the months leading up to Election Day. Indeed, if the European debt crisis grows worse and if China's economy continues to slow, there's a better than even chance we'll be back in a recession. Clinton would help deflect attention from the bad economy and put it on foreign policy, where she and Obama have shined.

The deal would also make Clinton the obvious Democratic presidential candidate in 2016 — offering the Democrats a shot at twelve (or more) years in the White House, something the Republicans had with Ronald Reagan and the first George Bush but which the Democrats haven't had since FDR. Twelve years gives the party in power a chance to reshape the Supreme Court as well as put an indelible stamp on America.

I think we have all heard it said that Joe Biden covets the Secretary of State gig. I'm not sure where that comes from, but we've heard it, which means a job swap could work. And no matter what Hillary Clinton says, if offered an opportunity to position herself to become President of the United States of America, she won't say no.

Robert Reich is not the kind of guy who just says stuff. I think he may have a point. Bottom line is that this will all hinge on the extent to which Obama and his team think they need the help. If this is the only way they can get themselves comfortable with their re-election chances, I see no reason to dismiss the possibility.

And now that the GOP has finally stopped fooling around with the idea of nominating the gift to Obama that would have been Newt Gingrich, it does look like Mitt Romney. And if it's Romney, it will be a race. And if it's a race, all hands will be on deck for Democrats, maybe even Mrs. Clinton's.

Could happen.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Romney's fair warning that his campaign will continue to lie

By Richard K. Barry

You'll recall the recent Romney campaign ad that so obviously took President Obama's words out of context that nearly everyone in the media called them on it.

The New York Times describes the backstory like this:

On October 16, 2008, campaigning in Londonderry, New Hampshire, Obama cast his opponent, John McCain, as out of touch with the problems facing the country – a month after the financial collapse that saw the American economy crater. Obama was expressing his incredulity at McCain’s lack of understanding of the full import of the world-engulfing fiscal crisis: “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’ ”

Romney's ad was constructed on the lie that the words actually spoken by the McCain campaign were spoken by Obama. It is in fact an old trick, but no less disgusting for that fact. When you draw attention to what someone else said, it doesn't mean you said it yourself, or that you hold the same views. Pretty clear, right? 

It got a lot of press at the time, so no need to go into it again.

What's new is the Romney campaign defending the tactic. Here is what a top Romney operative had to say about it:

First of all, ads are propaganda by definition. We are in the persuasion business, the propaganda business…. Ads are agitprop…. Ads are about hyperbole, they are about editing. It’s ludicrous for them to say that an ad is taking something out of context…. All ads do that. They are manipulative pieces of persuasive art.

Chew on that for a moment. Romney's team is saying that in politics everyone lies so it's not a big deal, in fact, we should expect it. 

Apparently, whenever Romney or his campaign says something, we should assume that we are being manipulated. We should have no expectation that they have any respect for the truth. By their own admission, we should expect that their statements are hyperbolic and out of context. 

This is what they are telling us about how they are and will continue to run their campaign.

Thanks for the heads up, Mitt.

As Greg Sargent writes:

Between this new quote and their boast that the ad’s mangling of context was strategically brilliant because it won reams of media attention, it almost seems as if Romney advisers are trying to persuade political reporters and commentators to abandon any standards they might use to judge tactics and rhetoric throughout this campaign. Of course, one would hope this will have the opposite effect.

Let's hope. 

Final word on this is that as Gingrich continues to surge, we can expect Romney to get more and more desperate. Much as we were all being told that, among the GOP presidential hopefuls, Romney was the adult in the room, it seems that he is also a lying and manipulative adult. Isn't that wonderful?

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)