Saturday Night Open Thread: Leaked Videos of Romney Fund-Raiser Go (almost) Mainstream

Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: U.S. Economy, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | 62 Comments

About a month ago, I saw a supposed “leaked video” of Mitt Romney at a private fund-raiser. There were a series of clips from the speech posted on You tube. I can’t recall now where I first learned about this, but at the time, bloggers were saying that it wasn’t confirmed that the audio was actually Romney, although the voice and content sound exactly like him. The earliest new link I can find is this one from August 27 at Shanghaiist.com. The video was also reportedly shown to employees of Sensata, the company in Illinois that is currently being destroyed by Bain Capital.

Suddenly today, the videos are turning up in posts from “respectable” bloggers. Ezra Klein highlights the first one I saw: Romney discussing working conditions at a Chinese factory he toured when he was at Bain Capital.

Klein uses this to argue that Romney was admitting that if you live in the U.S., you’re born with a leg up. In other words, “you didn’t build that.” Klein got the video from Political Wire. I’m not sure why these blogs are posting the videos now when they have been on You Tube for awhile. Have they been authenticated?

A number of these “leaked videos” are posted at the You Tube site of “Anne Onymous.”

Here is another really offensive one in which “Romney” talks angrily about people who vote for Obama as being “dependent on the government” and feeling “entitled to health care, food, and housing.” Listen to how his voice rises in outrage at the notion of people thinking they should not have to starve, die of untreated disease, or live on the street.

In other clips, “Romney” explains why the campaign is using Ann “sparingly,” makes a crude joke about immigration, says he doesn’t want to leave anything to his grandchildren, claims he didn’t inherit anything, admits he was born “with a silver spoon,” and more. In one, “Romney” says “I wish we weren’t unionized. We could go a lot deeper than you’re allowed to go.” What’s that about–wages, benefits? A few of the clips have video, some only audio.

Personally, I’m convinced the voice is Romney’s. But where was the recording made? Or is it a hoax? Check out the videos/audios and see what you think.

UPDATE: The Boston Globe referenced the “purported” Chinese worker video in a story today on Romney’s investments in China. Evidently their reporters had little doubt the voice was Romney’s. I’ve posted some quotes in the comment thread.

Saturday Morning Reads

Posted: September 15, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, Monsanto, morning reads, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , | 55 Comments

Good Morning!!

The political news this past week has been so strange and disturbing that I’ve begun to feel as if I’ve gone through the looking glass into some alternate reality. For years we’ve dealt with a press corps that refuses to deal in facts and will only report what one group of politicians say on the one hand, and contrast it with what another group of politicians say on the other hand, refusing to evaluate the truth value of what they are reporting.

But suddenly in 2012, we are dealing with a presidential candidate who seemingly has no scruples whatsoever. Mitt Romney lies blatantly and constantly, believing that he can get away with it in this media culture of false equivalency. And his running mate, Paul Ryan, also has a troubled relationship with the truth, although he isn’t quite as practiced a liar as Romney is.

James Fallows has been chronicling the way the media deals with what he calls the “post truth” era in politics. A few mainstream reporters have also begun trying to confront the blatant lying head on. Surprisingly, Norah O’Donnell, whom lefties have often mocked in the past, has been a standout. She successfully confronted Paul Ryan on blaming President Obama for spending cuts that Ryan voted for. And yesterday, she did it again with Romney surrogate Ohio Sen. Rob Portman.

Tommy Christopher of Mediaite: Norah O’Donnell Teaches TV Journos Another Lesson With Rob Portman Stuffage

Former Chief White House Correspondent and newly-minted CBS This Morning co-host Norah O’Donnell has been on fire lately, holding a veritable clinic on how to interview dishonest politicians that her mainstream media colleagues would do well to study. In the latest example of this, O’Donnell abandoned the current media fashion of ignoring lies (or presenting the truth as just another counter-argument), and pursued Sen. Rob Portman‘s (R-OH) disinformation on the recent violence in Libya like a Terminator with OCD.

What O’Donnell has been doing recently shouldn’t seem as remarkable as it is, but good old-fashioned feet to the fire followup is a sadly dying art, especially in television news. Interviewers either let lies and misinformation slip by because they need to hit all their prepared questions before time’s up, or because they’re numb to post-truth politics, or they present the facts in asterisk fashion before moving on to allow more lies to spew forth.

Portman completely twisted the timeline of events surrounding attacks on the embassy in Cairo and on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He actually claimed that Romney had made his statement the U.S. embassy in Cairo had issued a statement after the attacks saying “We apologize,” and that Romney’s Tuesday night statement had been made before the violent attacks in Libya. O’Donnell point out the falsehoods, and Portman attempted to continue lying. O’Donnell kept at it, and Portman came out looking the fool. You can watch the video at the link.

After describing O’Donnell’s performance, Christopher concludes:

O’Donnell’s performance here should be in network news training videos, because the only way to get these people to stop lying is to put up a lie stop sign. For awhile, of course, every interview would look like this one, with the subject being stuck on the one lie for the whole interview, but eventually, they’d have to either start fessing up when they’re busted, or (heaven forbid) just start telling the truth.

Clearly, Republicans have learned they can blatantly lie to the media a get away with it; now Romney and Ryan have raised the lying to a new level. Will other reporters begin to point it out, as O’Donnell has? For the sake of our democracy, I hope so.

In contrast, I urge you to read the full transcript of George Stephanopoulos’ interview with Mitt Romney yesterday. Stephanopoulos half-heartedly pushed back on some of Romney’s lies, Romney just ran right over Stephanopoulos’ weak protests. There are points in this interview where Romney makes long rambling statements that make absolutely no sense, and gets away with it!

Romney actually claims that the White House agreed with his his initial statement on Tuesday night, that the U.S. Embassy in Cairo had apologized to terrorists for a muslim-bashing internet video!

Here is the Embassy’s statement, posted on its website hours before any protests began.

The Embassy of the United States in Cairo condemns the continuing efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims – as we condemn efforts to offend believers of all religions. Today, the 11th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, Americans are honoring our patriots and those who serve our nation as the fitting response to the enemies of democracy. Respect for religious beliefs is a cornerstone of American democracy. We firmly reject the actions by those who abuse the universal right of free speech to hurt the religious beliefs of others.

Now Romney’s Tuesday night statement, released after it was known that there was an ongoing violent attack on the Consulate in Benghazi with one American death already reported.

“I’m outraged by the attacks on American diplomatic missions in Libya and Egypt and by the death of an American consulate worker in Benghazi,” Romney said in the statement. “It’s disgraceful that the Obama Administration’s first response was not to condemn attacks on our diplomatic missions, but to sympathize with those who waged the attacks.”

And of course Romney doubled down the next day at his infamous smirk-filled Wednesday morning press conference, by attacking and lying about President Obama even after it was known that four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stephens, had been murdered. Now let’s look at how Romney tried to wriggle out of responsibility for his ugly remarks in his ABC interview:

STEPHANOPOULOS: Boy, there has been quite a controversy in the last couple of days, since those killings in Libya, the chaos in the Middle East. And we heard some of that at your event today. President Obama has stepped in as well. He said your comments on Tuesday night displayed a tendency of yours to “shoot first and aim later.” What’s your response?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, early on, with the developments in Egypt, the embassy there put out a statement which stayed up on their website for, I think, 14-15 hours.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: But before the protestors had breached the wall.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, it first went up before they breached the wall. But it stayed up. And they reiterated the statement after they breached the wall, even after some of the tragedy in Libya, the statement stayed up. And I thought the statement was inappropriate and pointed that out. And of course, the White House also thought it was inappropriate. But of course, now our attention is focused on the loss of life and the tragedy of having a remarkable ambassador and diplomatic members, have their lives taken. This is a great sadness and tragedy for America.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: You said the statement showed a tendency to sympathize with those who waged the attacks. And what the statement seems to be is condemning the continuing efforts of individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims. Where do they show sympathy for those who waged the attacks? It was done before the attacks happened.

MITT ROMNEY: Well, the statement as I indicated stayed on the website for some 14-15 hours. The statement was reiterated after they had breached the sovereignty of the embassy.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Coupled with a condemnation–

MITT ROMNEY: Even– and even–

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: –of the attacks, though.
MITT ROMNEY: And even after the killing in Libya. And by the way what I said was exactly the same conclusion the White House reached, which was that the statement was inappropriate. That’s why they backed away from it as well.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: They didn’t say that it was showing sympathy for the attackers.
MITT ROMNEY: Well, I think the statement was an inappropriate statement. I think it was not directly applicable and appropriate for the setting. I think it should have been taken down. And apparently the White House felt the same way.

GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: So no regrets?

MITT ROMNEY: Well, I indicated, at the time, and continue to that what was said at that time was not appropriate, that they continued to have that. They reiterated the statement after the then breaching of the grounds. And I think that was wrong. And by the way my statement was the same point, which was that the White House said they distanced themself from the statement. I also thought it was an inappropriate statement. I made the statement– my point at the same time, I think, the White House did. So I think we said about the same thing there. I just thought the statement was wrong.

Is it just me, or does Mitt Romney sound like a gibbering idiot? Yet the Stephanopoulos allows him to spew his nonsense at will after a few weak efforts to point out fallacies. Seriously, does Romney expect people to believe this garbage?  Stephanopoulos should have said something like that–slightly more tactfully, of course, but emphatically.  Please read the entire disgusting thing, if you can stand it. And then cleanse your palate with this hilarious post by Sarah Proud and Tall at Balloon Juice.

Here are a few more links to get you started on your weekend reading:

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel: Judge throws out Walker’s union bargaining law.

LA Times: Christian charity, ex-con linked to film on Islam

BBC News: Seven dead as anti-Islam film protests widen

Danger Room: ‘Muslims’ Movie Producer Was Arrested for PCP, Snitched for Feds

Smoking Gun: Producer Of Anti-Islam Film Was Fed Snitch

Houston Chronicle: US scrambles to rush spies, drones to Libya

Don’t miss this one! Wayne Barrett at The Nation: Mitt Romney, Monsanto Man

Politico: Pennsylvania poll: Obama up by 11

ABC News: The Early Voting Factor: Mitt Better Hurry

ABC News: Jennifer Granholm, DNC Firebrand, ‘Cute’ on ’78 ‘Dating Game’

Now what are you reading and blogging about this fine Saturday morning?

Why Did the NYT Alter Quotes in their Background Story on the Romney Meltdown?

Posted: September 13, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, The Media SUCKS, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , | 39 Comments

This is mysterious. In the morning post, I linked to a short piece by Josh Marshall on some disturbing changes the New York Times made its story on how Mitt Romney came to unleash his bizarre attacks on President Obama over a message posted on the website of the American Embassy in Cairo, Egypt on Tuesday.

Marshall wrote:

I’m not sure what’s up with this. But earlier this evening the Times ran a story entitled “Behind Romney’s Decision to Attack Obama on Libya.” The byline was David Sanger and Ashley Parker. The big news out of the story was that Romney himself had been the driver of last night’s decision making. That and a lot of other color and interesting news. As I write, it’s still that piece and lede that’s on the front page. But now it’s been replaced (same url) by an almost unrecognizable piece entitled “A Challenger’s Criticism Is Furiously Returned”, bylined by Peter Baker and Ashley Parker….

The thrust of the piece is dramatically different and, unless I’m missing something, leaves out this critical quote from a Romney senior advisor explaining their rationale. “We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath.”

So basically, this “senior adviser” was saying that the campaign had built a specific narrative to use against Obama, and the events in Cairo appeared to meet the criteria of the manufactured narrative. Therefore, the decision was made to issue an immediate attack on Tuesday night before they really knew what was happening.

Late this morning, Marshall put followed up with another post.

A number of media reporters have now followed up with reports about the Times switcheroo. And the answer from the Times is that it was part of the normal editing process and the preference for on-the-record quotes over blind quotes. The specific response we got from Eileen Murphy, spokesperson for the Times, reads as follows …

As reporting went on during the day yesterday, we were able to flesh out the story, add more context and get more sources on the record, which is obviously what we prefer. Having said that, we stand by the reporting in all versions of the story.

Peter Baker, who replaced David Sanger as the lead byline, told Buzzfeed, “It’s just normal journalism — as more reporting comes in, you improve the story. On the record Republican criticism beats anonymous Republican criticism.”

But why was the damning quote left out of the second version of the story? Actually the missing quote was the first half of a longer quote, the second part of which was retained in the new version of the article. Here’s the entire original quote:

“We’ve had this consistent critique and narrative on Obama’s foreign policy, and we felt this was a situation that met our critique, that Obama really has been pretty weak in a number of ways on foreign policy, especially if you look at his dealings with the Arab Spring and its aftermath,” one of Mr. Romney’s senior advisers said on Wednesday. “I think the reality is that while there may be a difference of opinion regarding issues of timing, I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”

Marshall writes:

The first part of that quote makes the advisor seem callow, frivolous, and shabby. We’ve had the critique out there, “this was a situation that met our critique”, and that was good enough for us. We just let fly.

In the edited version of the Times piece, as Politico’s Dylan Byers notes, that quote is replaced by an on-the-record quote from policy director Lanhee Chen …

Mr. Romney’s camp was surprised by the blowback. “While there may be differences of opinion regarding issues of timing,” Mr. Chen said, “I think everyone stands behind the critique of the administration, which we believe has conducted its foreign policy in a feckless manner.”

As you can see, the second portion is identical. So it really sounds like the blind quote was from Chen as well.

What the hell? Is the NYT suddenly in the business of helping the Romney campaign clean up their messes?

In an update to his piece, Politico’s Dylan Byers responds to NYT writer Peter Baker’s quote mentioned above:

UPDATE (11:06 a.m.): Missed this, but Peter Baker talked to the Huffington Post earlier this morning:

“As we reported more through the day, we found Republicans criticizing Gov Romney on the record, so why use an anonymous one?” Baker said. “There are too many blind quotes in the media and we try not to use them when it’s not necessary.”

Here’s why: Because there’s a big difference between “Republicans” and a Mitt Romney campaign adviser.

At New York Magazine, Joe Coscarelli has a piece headlined: Romney Adviser Admitted Libya Flub Before New York Times Scrubbed Story. Coscarelli notes a second quote that was left out of the “scrubbed” NYT article:

A front page New York Times article this morning describes how Mitt Romney “personally approved” his apology-less campaign statement yesterday accusing Barack Obama of sympathizing with terrorists, but an early iteration of the story was far juicier. In a version posted online last night, the Times quoted “an adviser to the campaign who worked in the George W. Bush administration” who went so far as to say that Romney “had forgotten the first rule in a crisis: don’t start talking before you understand what’s happening.” That’s more or less the criticism that was pelted at Romney throughout the day yesterday by pundits, and by President Obama himself, but to hear it from the mouth of an adviser, even an anonymous one, in the Times, really stings. Or stung — that quote has since disappeared from the article.

Coscarelli brings up a stunning possible explanation for the altered/dropped quotes: “Could this be that campaign quote approval we’ve heard so much about?” He then links to a story he wrote in July: Political Campaigns Reserve the Right to Neuter Journalism in Exchange for Access.

A front-page story in the New York Times today describes the process by which reporters at major news organizations — including Bloomberg, the Washington Post, and yes, the Times — agree to let political campaigns not only have veto power over which quotes get used, but allow after-the-fact editing on remarks from insiders. “The quotations come back redacted, stripped of colorful metaphors, colloquial language and anything even mildly provocative,” the Times reports.

Afraid of losing their access to top spokesmen and strategists, journalists agree to the tweaks. Both the Obama and Romney campaigns have their own quote-approval demands, and the results are official lines that always stay on-script, lack any off-the-cuff qualities, and on top of that, are often anonymous anyway. And in playing by the rules written for them by those they’re supposed to be covering, print journalists falls further behind the times.

That’s a new one on me. News organizations allowing the subjects of their articles to make changes after the fact? Here’s hoping Josh Marshall or one of the other big bloggers who can get access to the NYT will force them to publicly admit they took orders from the Romney campaign.

Romney Pollster Says Obama’s Convention Bounce is Just a “Sugar High”

Posted: September 10, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, U.S. Politics | Tags: , , , | 66 Comments

Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies

Just a quick post to call attention to a memo put out by Mitt Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse of Public Opinion Strategies. Buzzfeed reproduced the entire memo here.

“Don’t get too worked up about the latest polling,” wrote Romney campaign pollster Neil Newhouse. “While some voters will feel a bit of a sugar-high from the conventions, the basic structure of the race has not changed significantly.”

Newhouse argues that Obama continues to own the weak economy, and that the issue will soon “reassert itself” as the guiding factor in the election — the chief talking point that has always served as the founding rational (sic) of Romney’s campaign….

The memo notably strays from the straight number-crunching pollsters typically focus on, with Newhouse writing about campaign strategy and ad buys, among other things. It could represent an effort to leverage the pollster’s perceived credibility as a numbers guy — less likely to spin than a political strategist, or the campaign manager.

But what does it mean when a campaign feels the need to tell supporters “Don’t Panic?” At The Caucus Blog, Ashley Parker writes:

The mere existence of the memo seemed to place Team Romney on the defensive, forced to publicly assert that it is still in a position to win on Election Day. But the Romney campaign used the memo to underscore what has been its existing rationale for his candidacy — the struggling economy, which has not improved as quickly as Mr. Obama and most voters had hoped.

“The key numbers in this election are the 43 straight months of 8 percent or higher unemployment, the 23 million Americans struggling to find work, and the 47 million Americans who are on food stamps,” Mr. Newhouse wrote, citing the disappointing jobs report that came out on Friday. “Americans are not better off than we were four years ago, and that is why President Obama has struggled in this race.”

In the memo, the campaign also pointed to the expanding map of swing states, as well as its post-convention cash advantage, as reasons why it expects to win in November.

Now let’s get some perspective from Boston, where journalists are familiar with the history Newhouse’s reassurances and predictions, shall we? David Bernstein of The Boston Phoenix writes: “Well, If Newhouse Says So… PANIC!!!!!”

“[W]e’ve seen this kind of thing from Newhouse before,” says Bernstein:

Who in Massachusetts can forget the mid-October release of a Newhouse memo claiming an internal poll had Charlie Baker 7 points ahead of Deval Patrick, countering the public polls to the contrary — most notably a Suffolk University poll showing Patrick ahead by 7?

And two weeks later, the Newhouse memo claiming that “it appears that Charlie Baker is well-positioned to win this race”?

Patrick won by 6 points.

Or how about 2006, when the Kerry Healey campaign ran around touting an internal Newhouse poll that showed Patrick’s lead cut in half, to single digits, and public opinion of her improving? Healey lost by 21 points.

I’m not saying Newhouse is a terrible pollster. What I’m saying is that when a campaign is touting Newhouse claims to counter external evidence, in my experience that spells trouble for the campaign.

I’ll end with this piece by Salon’s Steve Kornacki, who points out that–despite the media narrative–President Obama has been ahead throughout the entire 2012 presidential campaign.

Open Thread: Sunday Night Funnies

Posted: September 9, 2012 | Author: | Filed under: 2012 presidential campaign, open thread, U.S. Politics, War on Women | Tags: , , , , , | 28 Comments

Obama Gets a Lift in Florida:

In this key swing state, Obama stopped at Big Apple Pizza & Pasta Italian Restaurant, where he was greeted by owner Scott Van Duzer, a muscular man dressed in a gray T-shirt and matching athletic shorts.

Van Duzer was so smitten by the president that he embraced him in a bear hug, leaned backward and lifted the 6-foot-2 president a foot off the ground. Photos of the moment show Obama with his arms spread wide and palms turned upward, as if to say he’s at the mercy of the pizzaman….

Afterward, a reporter at the scene reported that Van Duzer, 46, from Port St. Lucie, stands 6-foot-3 and weights 260 pounds, and he can bench-press 350.

“Everybody look at these guns,” Obama said, pointing to Van Duzer’s chest. “If I eat your pizza, will I look like that?”

“Look at that!” Obama exclaimed after Van Duzer put him down. “Man, are you a powerlifter or what?”

Joe Biden had a big day too.

SEAMAN, Ohio — Vice President Joe Biden was looking to cozy up with voters as he toured Ohio this weekend, but he did not imagine that an Ohio woman would nearly end up in his lap.
Biden was chatting up customers in the Cruisers Diner in southern Ohio Sunday when he met a group of motorcycle riders in black leather vests and bandanas.

A female group member was watching, and Biden waved her over, telling her, “I know who runs the show.”
The woman had no place to sit, so Biden pulled a chair in front of himself and pulled her nearly into his lap. He put his hands on her shoulders and leaned in for a conversation as photographers snapped away.

Economics lessons aren’t usually all that funny, but the one Paul Krugman gave Rand Paul on ABC’s This Week was hilarious.  Cokie Roberts interrupted with some Villager nonsense–she seems as unteachable as Rand Paul.

Krugman was so amazed by the ignorance that he wrote two blog posts about it.  The first one is mostly a chart showing the steep drop in government employment under President Obama.

Krugman’s second post: The Zombie That Ate Rand Paul’s Brain

After watching the video, Krugman noticed the shocked expression on Rand Paul’s face. How could he be so stunned by a fact that is out there for anyone to read about?

Almost surely it’s a case of a zombie lie that has gone unchallenged in the hermetic world of movement conservatism, so that people like Paul know, just know, something that ain’t so. I wrote about this way back: the usual suspects seized on the Census bulge in employment as evidence of a big-government surge; and because nobody in that business ever admits having been wrong, this became a “fact” that people like Rand Paul believe. He wouldn’t have made this mistake if he ever read or listened to an analysis from nonpartisan sources, but he evidently doesn’t.

I’ve got a few editorial cartoons for you too. The first two are about Bill Clinton’s speech to the DNC.

Two on the “We built it” theme.

And one more on Romney’s ridiculous “Are you better off” question.

What next?  I’m looking forward to more craziness next week.

← Older Entries
Newer Entries →