Queen Ann Lays Down the Law on Mitt’s Taxes as Obama Opens a New Campaign Front

Posted: July 19, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Austerity, Barack Obama, corporate greed, Medicare, Mitt Romney, Team Obama, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

Thanks to Delphyne, who posted this link on the morning thread: Ann Romney: We’ve Given ‘All You People Need To Know’ About Family Finances

Mitt Romney’s wife is reinforcing her husband’s refusal to make public several years of tax returns, telling ABC News “we’ve given all you people need to know” about the family’s finances.

“You know, you should really look at where Mitt has led his life, and where he’s been financially,” she said in her interview with Robin Roberts. “He’s a very generous person. We give 10 percent of our income to our church every year. Do you think that is the kind of person that is trying to hide things, or do things? No. He is so good about it. Then, when he was governor of Massachusetts, didn’t take a salary in the four years.”

Roberts pressed: “Why not show that, then?” and reasoned that people could “move on” if her husband released his returns.

Romney responded, “Because there are so many things that will be open again for more attack… and that’s really, that’s just the answer. And we’ve given all you people need to know and understand about our financial situation and about how we live our life. And so, the election, again, will not be decided on that. It will be decided on who is gonna turn the economy around and how are jobs gonna come back to America.”

Queen Ann has spoken, and that’s that, you people. Ann’s attitude puts me in mind of this famous quote from Leona Helmsley: “We don’t pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes…”

Meanwhile, President Obama is opening a new campaign front today in Florida. The Bain attacks were just a warm-up for an even more lethal attack in which the consequences of Mitt Romney’s stated support of the Ryan budget will spelled out in detail. From MSNBC’s First Thoughts:

Here comes Medicare: The past few weeks on the presidential campaign trail have featured aggressive attacks and counterattacks. On outsourcing by Bain Capital. On Mitt Romney’s post-1999 association with that firm, as well has his tax returns. On charges of “crony capitalism” in the Obama administration. And on President Obama’s views about business. And today when Obama begins a two-day swing through the crucial state of Florida — with all of its seniors — he’ll introduce another attack: hitting Romney on Medicare and the Ryan budget. Per the campaign, the president “will discuss his commitment to strengthening Medicare, and a new report tomorrow that highlights the devastating impact Mitt Romney’s Medicare plan could have on the 3.4 million Floridians that rely on Medicare.” Bottom line, per the campaign’s guidance: Obama will argue that Romney — through his support for the Ryan budget plan — advocates ending Medicare “as we know it.” Obama starts his Florida swing with a 1:25 pm ET event in Jacksonville, and then he heads to West Palm Beach at 6:20 pm. Tomorrow in the Sunshine State, he hits Ft. Myers and Winter Park.

As Ed Kilgore wrote this morning, Jonathan Chait predicted this two-front strategy last month.

I strongly suspect that Obama is currently in the first stage of a two-part assault on Romney. The first is to define his motives and perspective: a rich man who sees the world from the perspective of the CEO suite and blithely assumes what is good for people like himself is good for everybody.

This is the essential predicate for part two, which I would guess (I have no inside information) will dominate the last half of the campaign. Part two is Romney’s fealty to the Bush-era low-tax, anti-regulatory ideology and the radical Paul Ryan plan. The average undecided voter pays little attention to politics and might not understand why a candidate would return to failed Bush-era policies or slash the social safety net in order to clear budgetary headroom for keeping taxes on the rich low. Defining Romney’s business career is a way of making sense of those choices.

This morning, Chait announced that phase two begins today.

Greg Sargent explains why stage two is necessary:

Keep in mind: A focus group convened by the pro-Obama Priorities U.S.A. found that voters simply refused to believe that Romney or Ryan would really transform Medicare into a quasi-voucher program while also cutting taxes for the rich. This is what the assault on Romney’s Bain years is really about. It’s an effort to establish an image of Romney that will make it easier for voters to accept that this is indeed the agenda Romney has embraced and would carry out as president.

As the Obama campaign will point out, Republicans expect Romney to essentially rubber-stamp the Ryan’s agenda. ”We want the Ryan budget,” Grover Norquist recently said. “Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States.”

The attacks on Romney’s business background and core rationale for running for president may enable the Obama campaign to fight Romney to a draw on the economy — by persuading swing voters who are unhappy with Obama’s performance that Romney certainly doesn’t have the answers to their economic problems, and could even make things worse.

I heard on the Morning Joe show today that Obama’s Bain attacks aren’t working because polls still show Obama and Romney deadlocked after weeks of the Obama campaign pounding Romney on Bain, outsourcing, and tax evasion. But I agree with Jamelle Bouie that it’s way too early to know for sure whether the attacks will work.

In the summer of 2004 it seemed that the Swiftboat attacks weren’t hurting Kerry, but only political junkies like us are really paying attention right now. The real tests will come after the conventions and during the debates. Bouie writes:

Given the extent to which commentators have analogized this controversy to the Swift Boat attacks on John Kerry, it’s worth looking back at how the former nominee fared during the period in which he absorbed withering attacks on his military record. The Swift Boat ads aired from the beginning of May until the end of August. During this period, according to Gallup, Kerry held a small lead among likely voters.

Kerry’s position began to decline in August, but even then, he ended the month with only a small deficit. George W. Bush didn’t begin to build a large lead until the fall. The growth in Bush’s lead corresponded with a decline in Kerry’s net favorability. It’s possible Kerry was unaffected by the Swift Boat attacks. But it’s also possible that they didn’t begin to have an impact until later. It’s also too early to say whether the attacks on Bain will work. But there’s a chance they’ll have the most effect after the conventions, as undecided voters begin to make a choice, and draw on overall impressions built up over months as they make their decision. Given the new $8 million ad buy from Crossroads — meant to deflect Obama’s attacks on Bain — it’s clear Republicans see long-term danger here.

I have to say, this campaign is getting a lot more interesting. I’m not thrilled with either of the candidates, but I have no problem saying that Romney is much much more horrible than Obama. I probably won’t end up voting for either of these candidates, but as a true political junkie I love watching a hard fought campaign.

Tuesday Reads: My Objections to Mainstream Media Reporting on the Trayvon Martin Case

Posted: May 22, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: morning reads | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 67 Comments

Good Morning!

I’ll warn you up front: I’m going to subject you to another rant about the Trayvon Martin case. If you’re not interested, you can stop reading now and just head for the comments. I promise not to take offense. BTW, it was either this or a rant about Cory Booker and Harold Ford.

I’m still following the Trayvon Martin story very closely, and I’ve been really shocked at the way the mainstream media has covered it. There has been a surprising willingness of reporters and “experts” to accept George Zimmerman’s multiple and conflicting versions of what happened on the night of February 26, 2012, when he shot and killed an unarmed minor child, for example, see here. I can’t help but wonder if some kind of institutionalized racism isn’t involved. Here are a few of the obvious inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s accounts just off the top of my head.

We’ve been told that Martin walked in circles around Zimmerman’s truck, and that Zimmerman was terrified. Yet Zimmerman was on the phone with a police dispatcher at the time and never mentioned this threatening activity.

We also know that Martin was on the phone with a friend at that time. Does it make sense that he would repeatedly circle Zimmerman’s truck while at the same time telling his friend he was frightened because a “crazy and creepy” man was watching and following him? And why would Zimmerman then get out of his truck and begin following Martin (while still on the phone with the dispatcher) if he was so frightened of the boy? We know that he did get out of his car and follow Martin, because Zimmerman told the police dispatcher so, and you can hear him huffing and puffing on the call as he either ran or walked quickly after Martin.

We’ve also been told that after Zimmerman got out of his car, he lost sight of Martin and turned back toward his truck. Then suddenly Martin attacked from behind, knocking Zimmerman to the sidewalk. Then supposedly Martin climbed on top of Zimmerman and banged his head on the pavement again and again and again. Where’s the evidence for that?

We now know that Zimmerman had a superficial cut on the back of his head and a couple of other cuts on his face as well as a bloody nose. We’ve been told that he had two black eyes and a closed fracture of his nose, but no photos of these injuries have been released. There was no sign of black eyes in the videos of Zimmerman at the police station after the shooting.

Certainly getting your head banged on cement should lead to serious damage–including brain damage or internal bleeding–not just a one-inch long cut! Here is an article about a man in Florida who fell and hit his head on the pavement and died from his injuries. Perhaps you could hit your head on pavement and survive, but pounded violently and repeatedly into the pavement? Surely that would turn the back of your head to hamburger.

Furthermore, if the fight took place on the sidewalk, how did Martin’s body end up in the middle of a grassy area? Police also reported that the back of Zimmerman’s jacket was wet and covered with grass stains. Witnesses describe a fight that moved over a distance and was witness successively by neighbors along the way.

Zimmerman also told police that Martin held his hand over his (Zimmerman’s mouth) as they fought, but at the same time that Zimmerman was screaming for help at the top of his lungs.

According to the Orlando Sentinel, even police did not believe the story about the hand over the mouth, because Zimmerman wouldn’t have been able to scream out words if his mouth were covered.

Police also had problems with some of the melodramatic quotes Zimmerman attributed to Martin, such as the claim (through Zimmerman’s father) that Martin reached for Zimmerman’s gun and announced “you’re going to die tonight.” You have to wonder how many arms Martin had to be punching Zimmerman, holding his hand over Zimmerman’s mouth, pounding his head on the pavement, and also reaching for the gun. Of course we now know that none of Martin’s DNA was found on any part of the gun, yet Zimmerman told police the two struggled over it.

In Zimmerman’s account, Martin was sitting on top of him, punching him and suddenly Martin saw the gun and reached for it and the two struggled over it. How would Martin have seen the gun if it was in the holster on Zimmerman’s waist. Wouldn’t he have been sitting at or above the waist in order to punch Zimmerman’s face? And how would Zimmerman have pulled his gun out in this position? Another problem with this story is that the autopsy showed that the trajectory bullet went front to back in a straight line. How would Zimmerman have been able to do this with Martin sitting on top of him like this?

How would the man on the bottom manage a straight, front-to-back shot from that angle? Wouldn’t it make more sense if they had been standing at the time of the gunshot?

Zimmerman also told police that after he shot Martin, the boy said the words “Okay you got it” or “you got me.” But from the autopsy results we now know that Martin was shot straight through the left ventricle of the heart with a hollow-point bullet. His lungs collapsed immediately as the bullet split into pieces. How would he have been able to speak? I think he probably died instantly.

So there are all kinds of problems with Zimmerman’s account(s) of the shooting and the events leading up to it. Yet, most mainstream media sources that I’ve read are reporting that Zimmerman’s account(S) are corroborated by the evidence. The assumption is that Martin attacked Zimmerman and therefore somehow deserved to die. I just don’t get it.

Since the release of part of the prosecution evidence, media outlets have focused on the finding that Trayvon Martin had trace levels of THC in his blood and urine at the time of his death, but have paid almost no attention to the much more powerful and dangerous medications that George Zimmerman was taking–Adderall (two forms of amphetamine) and Restoril (a sedative-hypnotic in the benzodiazepine family). Both of these are addictive drugs that are commonly abused, yet media reports have tended to minimize their mood-altering effects.

It seems to me that if Zimmerman’s attorney opts for a hearing on a stand-your-ground claim that all these inconsistencies will be brought up. That will be problematic for Zimmerman, because he will have to take the stand in order to state his case and back it up. He will have to describe the events of the night and explain any discrepancies with his previous statements. He made five different statements to police and participated in a taped recreation of events at the scene.

At Zimmerman’s bond hearing, prosecutor Bernie de la Ronda suggested that there were inconsistencies in Zimmerman’s statements (de la Ronda was referred to as “unidentified male” in the CNN transcript).

UNIDENTIFIED MALE [Prosecutor de la Ronda]: But before you committed this crime on February 26th, you were arrested — I’m sorry, not arrested. You were questioned that day, right, February 26th?

ZIMMERMAN: That evening into the 27th.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And then the following morning. Is that correct?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And the following evening, too. ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Would it be fair to say you were questioned about four or five times?

ZIMMERMAN: I remember giving three statements, yes sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And isn’t it true that in some of those statement when you were confronted about your inconsistencies, you started “I don’t remember”?

O’MARA [Zimmerman’s attorney]: Outside the scope of direct examination. I will object your honor.

JUDGE LESTER: We’ll give you a little bit of leeway. Not a whole lot but a little bit here, ok.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Isn’t it true that when you were questioned about the contradictions in your statements that the police didn’t believe it, that you would say “I don’t remember”?

JUDGE LESTER: I’m going to grant his motion at this time.

O’MARA: Thank you, your honor.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Would you agree you changed your story as it went along?

ZIMMERMAN: Absolutely not.

Prosecutor de la Ronda also alluded to some e-mails and text messages that were found on Zimmerman’s cell phone after his arrest.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Ok. Now, sir, you had a phone at some point and you agreed to turn over that phone to the police so they could make a copy of what was in there, right?

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And in that phone did you receive or send text messages sir.

ZIMMERMAN: Yes, sir.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to a reverend?

O’MARA: Objection, your honor. Outside the scope.

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Did you ever make any reference to Mr. Martin, the father of the victim?

JUDGE LESTER: Sustained. You’re getting a little bit far away.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I apologize your honor. My question is he was asked in terms of apology to the family and I’d like to be able to address that if I could. JUDGE LESTER: I think you can classify that whether or not he asked the apology. I don’t want to get into other areas.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Yes, sir.

JUDGE LESTER: Thank you.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: My question is, Mr. Zimmerman, do you recall sending a message to someone, an e-mail, about referring to the victim’s father?

ZIMMERMAN: No, sir. I don’t.

The statements that Zimmerman gave to police and the e-mails and text messages from his cell phone have not been released yet. But we have learned from one witness’s statement that Zimmerman has shown himself to be a bully and a bigot toward a Middle Eastern co-worker. I suspect that the comments found on Zimmerman’s cell phone were derogatory and racist references to Trayvon Martin’s family and/or their supporters. The “reverend” might be Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson.

Zimmerman will also have to deal with the testimony of Trayvon Martin’s friend (referred to in the media as “Dee Dee,” who was talking to Martin during the time leading up to the confrontation and the shooting. In the full interview that she gave to the prosecutor, “Dee Dee” describes hearing a confrontation between Martin and Zimmerman. Martin says “Why are you following me for?” and Zimmerman responds by saying “What are you doing around here?” She then hears a bumping sound and Martin’s headphones fall off. But she can still hear him say, “Get off. Get off.” The whole interview is posted at The New York Times (scroll down to sidebar).

One of the biggest questions is who was screaming on one of the 911 tapes called in by a witness. Yesterday, the WaPo had an article about two voice experts, one of whom concluded that the voice is Trayvon Martin’s and that he can be heard saying “I’m begging you,” “Help me,” and “Stop!” right before the gunshot silenced him. A second expert pooh poohs these findings, but give it a read. I found the article quite compelling.

I know I’m largely preaching to the choir here at Sky Dancing, but I wanted to try to pull some of these inconsistencies together to show that–despite the media seeming to favor Zimmerman’s side–he is going to have a lot to answer for, particularly if he and his attorney decide to go the “stand-your-ground” route. In a trial, Zimmerman will have a choice about whether to take the stand; but at a pre-trial hearing to determine whether he is immune from prosecution because he was defending himself, Zimmerman would have to testify and his credibility will be on the line.

I’d love to get your reactions to what I’ve written. I’d especially like to know your opinions about why the mainstream media in general has been giving George Zimmerman the benefit of the doubt and demonizing Trayvon Martin.

For example, why the obsessive focus on traces of THC and little attention to the heavy duty prescription drugs Zimmerman was taking? Why was Martin described for so long as very tall, towering over Zimmerman, when he actually was 5’11” and Zimmerman is only a couple of inches shorter. Why has the media portrayed Zimmerman’s injuries as horrifying when they are actually quite superficial? Why have they exaggerated a tiny cut on one of Martin’s fingers into “scraped knuckles?” And so on. Am I wrong to suspect underlying racism as at least part of the explanation for these media attitudes?

As always, please feel free to post your own links in the comments.

States of Denial

Posted: February 17, 2011 | Author: | Filed under: Economic Develpment, education, Elections, Federal Budget, poverty, Psychopaths in charge, public education, Republican presidential politics, The Media SUCKS, the villagers, U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics, unemployment, We are so F'd | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , | 25 Comments

Gail Collins messed with Texas today. I’m rather glad she did because it shows exactly how much Texas seems to exist in a vacuum of its own making.  The head denier of reality is its wacko Governor who appears to get elected by saying the right things and doing very little.  The state that forces its antiquated views through textbooks onto the rest of the nation has a huge problem in the numbers of children having children.  This leads to all kinds of social problems that I probably don’t have to discuss here.

But, let’s just see how bad it gets down there with the denier-in-chief who seems to think abstinence education works and the Texas education system works when Texas’ own statistics show that they don’t work at all.  Republicans get elected spewing untruths and he’s a prime case in point.   The state’s out of money and like my governor Bobby Jindal, the first place Republican governors look  is for cuts to education rather than look for new revenue sources. What is worse, they talk about improving  children’s future while doing draconian cuts to children’s schools.  How do they get away with it?

“In Austin, I’ve got half-a-dozen or more schools on a list to be closed — one of which I presented a federal blue-ribbon award to for excellence,” said Representative Lloyd Doggett. “And several hundred school personnel on the list for possible terminations.”

So the first choice is what to do. You may not be surprised to hear that Governor Perry has rejected new taxes. He’s also currently refusing $830 million in federal aid to education because the Democratic members of Congress from Texas — ticked off because Perry used $3.2 billion in stimulus dollars for schools to plug other holes in his budget — put in special language requiring that this time Texas actually use the money for the kids.

“If I have to cast very tough votes, criticized by every Republican as too much federal spending, at least it ought to go to the purpose we voted for it,” said Doggett.

Nobody wants to see underperforming, overcrowded schools being deprived of more resources anywhere. But when it happens in Texas, it’s a national crisis. The birth rate there is the highest in the country, and if it continues that way, Texas will be educating about a tenth of the future population. It ranks third in teen pregnancies — always the children most likely to be in need of extra help. And it is No. 1 in repeat teen pregnancies.

Which brings us to choice two. Besides reducing services to children, Texas is doing as little as possible to help women — especially young women — avoid unwanted pregnancy.

For one thing, it’s extremely tough for teenagers to get contraceptives in Texas. “If you are a kid, even in college, if it’s state-funded you have to have parental consent,” said Susan Tortolero, director of the Prevention Research Center at the University of Texas in Houston.

Plus, the Perry government is a huge fan of the deeply ineffective abstinence-only sex education. Texas gobbles up more federal funds than any other state for the purpose of teaching kids that the only way to avoid unwanted pregnancies is to avoid sex entirely. (Who knew that the health care reform bill included $250 million for abstinence-only sex ed? Thank you, Senator Orrin Hatch!) But the state refused to accept federal money for more expansive, “evidence-based” programs.

“Abstinence works,” said Governor Perry during a televised interview with Evan Smith of The Texas Tribune.

“But we have the third highest teen pregnancy rate among all states in the country,” Smith responded.

“It works,” insisted Perry.

“Can you give me a statistic suggesting it works?” asked Smith.

“I’m just going to tell you from my own personal life. Abstinence works,” said Perry, doggedly.

There is a high cost to a state to living in this kind of denial.  Teen moms and children of teen moms are generally not a productive group of citizens.  You pay to prevent this realistically or you pay for their and your mistake to do so throughout their entire lives.  But, this seems to be the way of the new brand of Republican governor.  These guys start running for president the minute they hit the mansion.  They do so by following a litmus test of Republican items–regardless of the consequences to their states–that will make them sound like purity experts when they hit Iowa and New Hampshire.  They will undoubtedly leave their state in ruins, but that won’t be the story by the time they’re on the lecture and talking heads circuit for higher offices.

The Governor of New Jersey is doing the same thing.  He can read off a litmus list for the republican inquisition while at the same time ensuring the people of the state he governs languish.  Again, he screams about the importance of the future of the children while simultaneously downsizing it.

In a clear shot at congressional Republicans over calls for curbing entitlement programs, he said, “Here’s the truth that nobody’s talking about. You’re going to have to raise the retirement age for Social Security. Woo hoo! I just said it, and I’m still standing here. I did not vaporize into the carpet.

“And I said we have to reform Medicare because it costs too much and it is going bankrupt us,” he continued, later comparing those programs to pensions and benefits for state workers that he’s been looking to reel back.

“Once again, lightning did not come through the windows and strike me dead. And we have to fix Medicaid because it’s not only bankrupting the federal government but it’s bankrupting every state government. There you go.”

Clearly looking to blunt criticism of his famously combative style, the former federal prosecutor said there is a method to the battles he picks, insisting, “I am not fighting for the sake of fighting. I fight for the things that matter.”

The speech was titled “It’s Time to do the Big Things,” and Christie suggested the items that Obama called for as “investments” in his State of the Union address were “not the big things” that need Washington’s focus.

“Ladies and gentlemen, that is the candy of American politics,” Christie declared, adding that it appeared to be a “political strategy” – or game of budgetary chicken – that both Republicans and Democrats are playing.

“My children’s future and your children’s future is more important than some political strategy,” he said. “What I was looking for that night was for my president to challenge me … and it was a disappointment that he didn’t.

It’s difficult not to scream when you hear these folks talk about our children’s futures while cutting education, telling children abstinence fairy tales, turning down money for infrastructure improvements —like the nitwit Republican Governor Rick Scott in Florida–that will likely create better environments for business and jobs, and refusing to look at their tainted tax systems that usually punish the poor and flagrantly ignore the assets and the incomes of the rich.  It is clear whose children they have in mind.  It is not yours or mine or the majority of the people who live in their states.

These guys seem intent on turning their states into third world countries.  Many people seem more intent on letting them do it as long it doesn’t cost them anything immediate. Our fellow citizens appear beguiled by fairy tale promises and bribes of low taxes.  They should not be surprised then by a future where they and their adult children live in rented shacks together with few available public services.  They better just hope they don’t get robbed, the shack doesn’t catch fire, and there are no grandchildren needing public education.  They’re voting to downsize these things into extinction.

Read the rest of this entry »

Newer Entries →