Michele Bachmann Shares Lead in Iowa with Mitt Romney

You’ve probably heard the news that Michele Bachmann is in a statistical dead heat with Mitt Romney in the Iowa Register’s GOP presidential poll.

The Des Moines Register’s poll is the first measure of likely GOP caucus-goers.

So far, Mitt Romney is leading the pack with 23 percent. But Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is just one point behind him with 22 percent.

Hermain Cain finished a distant third with 10 percent. Then its former House Speaker Newt Gingrich and Texas Congressman Ron Paul, both with 7 percent.

Minnesota’s former Governor Tim Pawlenty, who’s focused so much of his campaigning in Iowa, finished sixth with 6 percent.

Rick Santorum finished with 4 percent and Jon Huntsman is the top choice for 2 percent of the potential caucusgoers.

Nate Silver argues that Pawlenty still has a chance:

…the horse race numbers need to be interpreted cautiously. Instead, I’d pay just as much attention to the impression that voters have of each candidate.

You have to dig down to find those numbers, but they are much better for Mr. Pawlenty: some 58 pecent of voters view him favorably, versus 13 percent unfavorably. The figures for Mr. Romney, by contrast, are 52 percent favorable but 38 percent unfavorable.

Put simply, there is considerable upside in Mr. Pawlenty’s numbers — and some downside for Mr. Romney, who is effectively competing for the votes of perhaps only 50 or 60 percent of the voters in the state because of his relatively moderate positions.

Unfortunately, Pawlenty’s real problem is that he booooorrrrring. Besides, he’s a right-wing “Christian” too.

So basically, unless Sarah Palin jumps into the race, Romney and Bachmann are the only viable candidates for the Republican nomination. I think Bachmann will beat Romney in the Iowa Caucuses for three reasons:

1) Bachmann’s far right evangelical “Christianity” trumps Romney’s Mormonism.

2) Bachmann is a compulsively hard worker and true believer; Romney doesn’t know the meaning of hard work, and he has no moral values or ideology.

3) Michele Bachmann was born in Iowa.

The good news is that Bachmann probably can’t beat Romney in New Hampshire, but you never know.

In an interview today Bachmann explained that

her bid to unseat President Barack Obama shouldn’t be viewed as “anything personal” against the Democrat but says he’s “just wrong” on his policies for America….
[T]he Minnesota congresswoman also said she doesn’t foresee problems moving from frequent naysayer to the country’s proposer-in-chief. She says voters can expect her to propose an economic agenda that includes cuts to corporate taxes and phase-outs of taxes on inheritances and investment earnings.

Bachmann’s nothing-personal message departs from her 2008 comments questioning whether Obama had “anti-American” views. She has said she wishes she framed her criticism differently.

Well, that’s darn sporting of her. I guess Obama can breathe a sigh of relief now.


Why We Should Worry about Michele Bachmann

Michele Bachmann and supporters at Tea Party Rally

According to Roll Call, Michele Bachmann and three other right-wing Congresspeople used money from the their Congressional office accounts to pay for equipment and a sound system for a tea party rally on November 5, 2009 that was organized to protest President Obama’s health care bill.

According to House expense reports, Bachmann and three conservative GOP colleagues — Reps. Tom Price (Ga.), Steve King (Iowa) and Todd Akin (Mo.) — each paid $3,407.50 that day, a total of $13,630, to a sound and stage company called National Events, apparently for the sound system used at the rally.

The money came from the Members’ taxpayer-funded office accounts, despite House rules prohibiting the use of these funds for political activities. Bachmann’s office insists the expense was a proper use of official funds.

Bachmann billed the event as a “press conference,” which can be funded from official accounts. But no questions were taken from the press and, unlike most press conferences, it opened with a prayer, the national anthem and a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.

A press conference? According to the article, Bachmann also hyped the rally on Fox News and Minnesota Public Radio and posted an announcement of the event on her House website, which is also against House ethics rules. She apparently also used these funds for travel expense to media appearances and to pay political consultants and a speechwriter for her “response” to the State of the Union address.

The Hill says that, while the use of taxpayer funds for political purposes is questionable, it isn’t absolutely clear that she did anything wrong. But certainly this shows that Bachmann may have a tendency to cut corners when it comes to ethics.

On Saturday, the Guardian published a profile of Bachmann following her appearance at the New Hampshire Republican Debate.

They quote Stillwater, MN blogger Karl Bremer on a particularly troubling episode in Bachmann’s political history:

“She has got plenty of skeletons in her closet,” he said. One of those skeletons could be her relationship with Frank Vennes, a man who served time in jail for cocaine distribution and money-laundering after being convicted in 1987. After his release, and apparently after finding God while in prison, Vennes became a friend of Bachmann and a big campaign donor for her elections. However, Vennes has recently been indicted on charges stemming from a Ponzi scheme and could end up behind bars again.

That is a juicy story. As are Bachmann’s links to the mysterious “Bobby Charles Thompson”, who disappeared after the collapse of his apparently fraudulent fundraising organisation, which had been portrayed as a navy veterans’ group. Arrest warrants have now been issued for Thompson, whose real identity is not known. But what is known is that Thompson’s group donated campaign funds to Bachmann.

Then there is the issue of the Bachmann family farm in Wisconsin. The large rural property has been the recipient of considerable government largesse in the form of agricultural subsidies, despite the fact that Bachmann is a vociferous critic of government handouts. Yet Bremer’s blog has reported that the farm has reaped the Bachmanns about $154,000 of government cash since 2001. That is obviously not illegal but – given Bachmann’s virulent dislike of state welfare – it could make for some interesting headlines.

But will the media cover Bachmann’s “skeletons,” or are they going to give her a pass like the one they gave Obama in 2008? Frankly, I’m worried about it. It’s easy to dismiss Bachmann and treat her as a joke, and she deserves that. But she is driven and a very hard worker; the tea party crowd find her charismatic and inspiring; and she is one of the best fund-raisers around.

In three congressional terms, presidential contender Michele Bachmann has made a name for herself as a formidable fundraiser. As of her latest filing with the Federal Election Commission, Bachmann had $2.8 million cash on hand (compared with, say, veteran Ron Paul’s $1.6 million). And she took in $13.5 million in the 2010 election cycle, out-raising the leader of her own party, John Boehner, by almost $4 million and making Bachmann the most prolific fundraiser in the House. So how is she getting all that money?

Bachmann is increasingly getting money from individuals making smallish donations, a feat that helps solidify her status as a grass-roots, Tea Party–fueled outsider rather than another Establishment fixture. Of the $1.7 million she reported raising last quarter, only $1,500 came from non-individuals, and the average donation was just $619.34.

The Washington Post reports today that Bachmann is increasingly using a new fundraising technique for which is is uniquely qualified, called “money blurts.”

Here’s how it works: An up-and-coming politician blurts out something incendiary, provocative or otherwise controversial. The remark bounces around the blogs and talk shows and becomes a sensation.

And in the midst of it all, the politician’s fundraisers are manning the phones and raking in the donations.

Consider Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), the tea party favorite and newly minted presidential candidate, who has made a specialty of raising money in the wake of bold and well-placed remarks. Shortly after accusing President Obama of having “anti-American views” during one cable-news appearance, for example, Bachmann took in nearly $1 million.

I’ve spent the past few days reading extensively about Bachmann’s personal and political history. I’ve learned two important things from all this reading: 1) Bachmann is a dangerous extremist with serious psychological problems; and 2) She should never be underestimated.

I will continue to write about her, because I think that with the dearth of exciting Republican candidates, the growing strength of the crazy right, and the increasing tendency for the media to ignore facts and accept lies at face value, she could actually win the nomination. We can ridicule her all we want, but we dismiss her chances at our peril.

Here’s some video of Bachmann’s “press conference” on November 5, 2009.


Mitt Romney Gets Kiss of Death from Al Gore

Via the Atlantic Wire, today Al Gore wrote a brief post on his blog in which he praised Mitt Romney for not changing his stance on global warming.

Gore linked to this story at the Washington Post

From the Washington Post dealing with a question asked at a town hall meeting in New Hampshire on June 3.

It seemed like a straightforward question on a second-tier issue: Would Mitt Romney disavow the science behind global warming?

The putative Republican presidential front-runner, eager to prove his conservative bona fides, could easily have said what he knew many in his party’s base wanted to hear.

Instead, the former Massachusetts governor stuck to the position he has held for many years — that he believes the world is getting warmer and that humans are contributing to that pattern.

Gore wrote:

Good for Mitt Romney — though we’ve long passed the point where weak lip-service is enough on the Climate Crisis.

While other Republicans are running from the truth, he is sticking to his guns in the face of the anti-science wing of the Republican Party.

The question of candidates’ views on global warming didn’t come up in the debate on Monday, but a number of conservatives took note of Romney’s comments. They aren’t happy, to put it mildly. Here’s what Rush Limbaugh had to say:

“Bye-bye, nomination,” Rush Limbaugh said Tuesday on his radio talk show after playing a clip of Romney’s climate remark. “Another one down. We’re in the midst here of discovering that this is all a hoax. The last year has established that the whole premise of man-made global warming is a hoax, and we still have presidential candidates that want to buy into it.”

It appears that Romney has decided that avoiding flip flops is going to help him more than kowtowing to the right-wing crazies.

“The fact that he doesn’t change his position . . . that’s the upside for us,” said one Romney adviser….“He’s not going to change his mind on these issues to put his finger in the wind for what scores points with these parts of the party.”

Good luck with that, Mitt.


Is Obama Preparing to Cede the Presidency to the Republicans?

It's all been downhill since I beat Hillary

This morning President Obama gave an interview to Ann Curry of NBC’s The Today Show. It was a pretty strange interview for someone planning to run for a second term as President. Obama told Curry that it doesn’t make much difference to him whether he wins the 2012 election or not.

Though the president himself, his staff, and his supporters around the country are busy devoting everything they’ve got to his 2012 re-election campaign, Obama revealed Monday that his family isn’t necessarily as “invested.”

[….]

And the president revealed that even he sometimes feels like giving up.

“I’m sure there are days where I say that one term is enough,” the president said, but he added that what keeps him going is the unfinished work regarding energy, education, and other issues.

Then why should all the bots go out and support him this time? Can we get a candidate who actually cares about the country?

…if the first lady thought it was time for him to go, he’d listen.

“I think Michelle – if she didn’t think that what we were doing was worthwhile in moving the country forward, I think she’d be the first to say, ‘Why don’t you do something else that’s a little less stressful?’”

Obama also discussed the public perception that he’s a cold fish who never gets worked up about anything. First he claims that “ordinary folks” don’t really think that.

“Ordinary folks understand I spend all my time thinking about this stuff because I’m talking to these folks every single day,” he said….”When I see them at meetings, and they start crying, the notion, somehow, that I’m calm about that, is nonsense. But what is true is that as president, my job is to make sure that I am finding every good idea that we can to move the country forward.”

Well then what does he do when he sees “them” and “they start crying?” Frankly, he’s a sociopath with almost no ability to empathize with other people. He doesn’t even understand what these people are feeling because he doesn’t experience strong emotions other than narcissistic rage and envy. JMHO.

Obama also pretended talked about jobs without really saying much of anything.

Obama says the real challenge is to develop new industries to spur job growth.

“The challenge, though, is it only takes 100 workers to make what it used to take 1,000 workers to make in terms of the amount of steel,” he said. “So that’s why we’re going to have to look at new industries and encourage entrepreneurs to invest in these new industries and make sure that our workers have the skills to train them.

“For us to employ the same numbers of workers as we need to, to get the unemployment rate down, we’ve got to look at new sectors, new markets. We’ve got to do more exporting. So one of my big areas of focus has been on increasing exports.”

Whatever….he doesn’t really care about jobs or “ordinary folks,” and it shows.

Why did Obama give this interview? What’s the point? Was it a shoutout to Republicans that he’s ready to turn the government over to them?


Tuesday Reads: Republican Freak Show, Obama’s Hypocrisy, and Other News

Yikes! We're in big trouble.

Good Morning!!

Last night several of the Republican presidential candidates participated in a debate in New Hampshire, hosted by CNN. John King was the moderator. I have never heard anyone talk that fast before. I could barely understand what he was saying. He also talked over much of what the candidates said, telling them they were going too long. For some reason, CNN only allowed 30 second answers. Here are some media reactions to what the candidates said.

The NYT Caucus blog: Fact Checking the Republican Debate

On economic policy:

Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, said that while President Obama didn’t start the recession, “he made it worse, and longer.” Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives, called President Obama “anti-jobs.”

While it is true that unemployment is far worse today than Mr. Obama’s advisers initially predicted, it would be even worse without the stimulus bill that many Republican candidates derided, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

On Michelle Bachmann’s inconsistencies:

“I don’t see that it’s the role of a president to go into states and interfere with their state laws,’’ said Ms. Bachmann, a favorite of Tea Party members who believe in states’ rights.

But then, after some other candidates said that they supported a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, she amended her answer.

“John, I do support a constitutional amendment on marriage between a man and a woman,’’ she told the moderator, John King of CNN, “but I would not be going into the states to overturn their state law.”

ABC News: Michele Bachmann Steals Show at GOP Debate to Announce Presidential Run

The Minnesota congresswoman was invited to the debate as an undeclared candidate, despite ample evidence that she was planning a White House bid, and she used the first question posed to her to announce she had officially filed to run.

[….]

“Our country needs a leader who understands the hardships that people across America have been facing over the past few years, and who will do what it takes to renew the American dream,” Bachmann said. “We must become a strong and proud America again, and I see clearly a better path to a brighter future.

“For these reasons, earlier this evening I instructed my team to file the necessary paperwork to allow me to seek the office of President of the United States.”

From The Fix: New Hampshire Republican debate: Winners and losers Chris Cilizza says the big winners are Michelle Bachmann and Mitt Romney, big losers – Tim Pawlenty and Herman Cain. Cilizza also liked John King (ugh!) and the “this or that” choices at the breaks (stupid!!).

Juli Weiner at Vanity Fair: Bachmann a Big Winner and Romney Is Bulletproof at CNN’s Republican Debate Here’s what Weiner had to say about Newt:

Most Obviously Disinterested

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich appeared sullen, and his answers were notably terse. He seemed most excited about two things: talking about NASA—Gingrich is a longtime admirer of outer space—and when King asked him to choose between Dancing With the Stars and American Idol. For the record, he choose the latter—although how long until divorces it in favor of its younger, flashier update, The Voice?

We were wondering if Gingrich’s disgruntled former staff organized a watching party tonight? And if so, what was the drinking game like?

She loved Romney’s facial expression when Herman Cain was talking abut his muslim phobia.

Most Comically Skeptical Face
For a fleeting, glorious moment during Cain’s exposition about “peaceful” Muslims versus Muslims “who are trying to kill us,” the split-screen showed Romney making a face not dissimilar to the one your blogger was making—a face one might make after eating a lemon-soaked pickle, or a slice of Godfather’s Pizza. “Romney’s face during Herman Cain’s answer might just have won my vote,” Ezra Klein of The Washington Post tweeted. Romney’s rejoinder to Cain’s response was measured: “Of course Sharia Law isn’t going to be applied in our courts,” he said. “Our country was founded on a principle of religious tolerance.”

This isn’t a reaction to the debate, but is very relevant to the Republican candidates and their so-called economic policies: American Chronicle: Grover pulls GOP strings

Today’s Republicans love to point out that President John F. Kennedy saw the wisdom of tax cuts when he reduced the top income tax rate. However, congressional Republicans at the time were worried that this would cause a budget deficit. President Dwight Eisenhower supported the continuation of high wartime taxes to reduce the nation’s debt. President Richard Nixon defended the continuation of a surtax to pay for the Vietnam War. Fearing deficits, President Gerald Ford opposed a permanent tax cut.

All of these leaders would be RINOs (Republicans in Name Only) today, because they put balanced budgets ahead of cutting taxes. President Ronald Reagan remains a hero, but that’s because his rhetoric on taxes and smaller government is beloved. Never mind that he agreed to several tax increases (including a huge hike in the payroll tax that rescued Social Security for decades to come), never once proposed a balanced budget and oversaw an expansion of the federal government. The Reagan tax hikes were a responsible response to growing imbalances, but they would be shot down today.

The bipartisan national debt commission and the Gang of Six (now down to five senators) are looking at a simpler tax code that would widen the tax base, lower rates and eliminate many deductions as part of a debt and deficit solution, which includes significant spending cuts. But because this would increase revenue overall, the grand poo-bah of anti-tax purity has declared that this must be opposed by any politician who has signed a pledge to never raise taxes. He Who Must Be Obeyed is Grover Norquist, who invented the tax pledge and is the head of Americans for Tax Reform.

In other news, President Obama opened his big mouth and said that Anthony Weiner should resign.

In an interview that will air on the Today show on Tuesday morning, Obama said that Weiner’s online exchanges with women were “highly inappropriate” and that he “embarrassed himself.” And while Obama said the decision about leaving Congress would ultimately be up to him and his constituents, he made his own preference clear.

“When you get to the point where, because of various personal distractions, you can’t serve as effectively as you need to, at the time when people are worrying about jobs, and their mortgages, and paying the bills—then you should probably step back,’’ Obama said.

Frankly, I think a President who hasn’t done diddly-squat about jobs or foreclosures should step back. Maybe he’s distracted by all those White House parties and so many vacations. If I had failed as badly as Obama has, I’d resign.

This is a horrifying story from Think Progress: JP Morgan Records Largest Profit Ever, While Community Devastated By Its Predatory Lending Sheds 1,000 Workers

One of the many tragic stories of the Great Recession involves Jefferson County, Alabama. As Matt Taibbi explained in an article in Rolling Stone last year, mega bank JP Morgan Chase used a predatory refinancing deal on sewer bonds to reap billions while the local area was financially devastated.

Now, Jefferson County, still reeling from the effects of JP Morgan’s dirty deals, is moving to place nearly 1,000 public workers on administrative leave without pay, as the state Legislature failed last week to come to the municipality’s aid with any fiscal support. In doing so, the county hopes to save “just over $12 million.”

Yet while the public workers of Jefferson County will soon face the prospect of losing their wages and livelihoods through no fault of their own, JP Morgan Chase continues to rake in lavish profits. In 2010, the mega bank posted a profit of a whopping $17.4 billion; during this past quarter, the bank “reported the biggest quarterly profit in its history,” with a 67 percent rise in net income.

I’ll end with some provincialism: Bruins dominate the Canucks, force Game 7

The Boston Bruins beat the Vancouver Canucks 5-2 in Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Finals at the Boston Garden. That makes the two teams tied 3-3. Game 7 should be a doozey. The last time the Bruins won the Stanley Cup was in 1972.

So what are you reading and blogging about today?