A couple of weeks back I highlighted the great cover by Beth Hart and Joe Bonamassa of the song “Your Heart is as Black as Night”. This is the original, by the woman who wrote the song, Melody Gardot. And it is a scorcher! Enjoy the hurricane to this classic.
It is unfortunately true that campaigns of all stripes take liberties with the truth, but Mitt Romney has really pressed the outer limits with the ad below. Romney has been taking heavy fire in Ohio for his position on the auto bailout, and has desperately tried to obfuscate his original position. Even respected Republicans like Mike Murphy have tried the duck and dodge on it, but the truth, in this case, is hard for Romney to run away from. Lets review.
1) There is no difference between his position and the Obama position because they were both for “managed bankruptcy”. In fact Barack Obama did put them through managed bankruptcy, but along with George W. Bush provided the liquidity that allowed them to exit bankruptcy and continue as going concerns. Mitt Romney opposed providing the necessary finance, and said so quite explicitly in the op-ed.
Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.
Why the government? President Bush, and then President Obama, were faced with frozen capital markets. Under normal circumstances private equity might have been available, but as everyone knows (and Mitt Romney hopes we forget)the circumstances were not normal, and private finance was just not available. If the Government did not provide the finance then GM and Chrysler were simply going to disappear, and take about a million jobs with them. Our heartland would have been decimated, and we would have not only lost the jobs, but the type of jobs that have moved so many into the middle class.
2) Romney keeps insisting that he was for “government assistance” for the automakers. He has insisted that his op-ed piece shows this, and that the Obama campaign is misrepresenting his desire to help Detroit. And since the President rebutted Romney in a clumsy way in one of the debates Romney is using the fact checkers to buttress his claim. Nothing could be further from the truth. Romney has cited his call for “federal guarantees” for the automakers as proof of his willingness to help. What did he say?
The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.
When Romney and the President were mixing it up in debate Romney said he offered “guarantees”, and I believe the President rebutted him, equating “guarantees” with direct financial aid (bailout checks). Romney is correct. He offered to guarantee private finance that did not exist (see above). Guaranteeing a non-existent loan is not help, and his stated position, that he would not give “bailout checks”, tells us all we need to know about his willingness to save those American companies, and the one million jobs for American workers in Ohio, Michigan, and the American heartland. He can try to change, hide, or bob and weave, but the truth is there for all to see. Mitt Romney would have allowed Chrysler and GM to go under.
As far as the latest Romney claim that Chrysler would be moving Jeep production to China it is another falsehood. He has made that claim on the campaign stump,claiming Chrysler was moving all Jeep production to China, and doubled down on it in this ad. Chrysler itself has rebutted the claim, on its own website.
Despite clear and accurate reporting, the take has given birth to a number of stories making readers believe that Chrysler plans to shift all Jeep production to China from North America, and therefore idle assembly lines and U.S. workforce. It is a leap that would be difficult even for professional circus acrobats.
Let’s set the record straight: Jeep has no intention of shifting production of its Jeep models out of North America to China. It’s simply reviewing the opportunities to return Jeep output to China for the world’s largest auto market. U.S. Jeep assembly lines will continue to stay in operation. A careful and unbiased reading of the Bloomberg take would have saved unnecessary fantasies and extravagant comments.
Professional circus acrobats have nothing on the Mitt Romney campaign, especially on the auto bailout. He knows how badly this issue is hurting him in Ohio, and his desperation shows. This is a four Pinocchio claim if there ever was one.
As the elections come close we are all focused on the results, and on who might control the U.S. House and Senate, as well as the Presidency. If President Obama is re-elected the lame duck session of Congress will be dealing with the so called fiscal cliff, with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts and the impending “sequestration cuts” arising from the failure of the so called super committee. So the country is faced with tax increases for all, and a deep cut in spending at the same time, taking critical dollars out of the economy. Some data from the Congressional Budget Office:
Taken together, CBO estimates, those policies will reduce the federal budget deficit by $607 billion, or 4.0 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), between fiscal years 2012 and 2013. The resulting weakening of the economy will lower taxable incomes and raise unemployment, generating a reduction in tax revenues and an increase in spending on such items as unemployment insurance. With that economic feedback incorporated, the deficit will drop by $560 billion between fiscal years 2012 and 2013, CBO projects.
Congressional Republicans would be delighted with the spending cuts, except for the defense sequester, which is raising howls of protest from the neo-con/Republican defense hawks. So the Republicans want to roll back ALL of the cuts, in the hopes of saving the defense spending. So much for Republican deficit cutting bona-fides. But I digress. Lets look at the politics.
The Democrats have dug in pretty hard on the extension of the Bush tax cuts for the top earners. The Republicans have dug in pretty hard as well, opposing any attempts to raise rates on those top earners. Republicans have had the advantage legislatively up to this point, and forced through a full extension of the Bush tax cuts that the President signed in 2010. That extension was for two years, and I do believe that Barack Obama, if re-elected, will be able to get the Bush tax cuts extended for all but the top earners. How will he do that? I think it will be done in cooperation with House Speaker John Boehner.
Speaker Boehner has recognized that any grand bargain on the budget/deficit will require additional revenues. His willingness to accept up to $800 billion (ten year number)in new revenue during his negotiations with President Obama drew howls of protest from his own Republican caucus, and was one of the reasons that the negotiations failed. Boehner was pushed around by Leader Cantor on the issue, and the President was pushed around by Democratic Congressional leaders. Since Boehner can agree to nothing that would cede ground on the Bush tax cuts for the top tier there is no realistic way to reach agreement on extension in the lame duck session, short of agreeing to kick the can down the road for a few months. That will be a difficult sell in the U.S. Senate. There is no time for tax code reform that would raise money (Boehner’s preferred methodology)since that work could take a year. The Democrats hold two cards (defense spending, and the Bush top tier tax cuts) and will not give them up lightly. What is a Republican to do?
If the President is re-elected then my guess is that a phony lame duck session negotiation will fail, followed by a plunge off the cliff, and a “quick” deal that extends the Bush tax cuts for all but the top, restores the defense sequester, pays lip service to tax reform by ordering the appropriate Congressional Committees to produce a reform package within a prescribed period that could simplify and lower marginal rates (Simpson-Bowles), and gives Republicans additional (domestic) spending cuts as well as some (future) deal on entitlements (to correspond with tax reform package) Still a tough deal for Boehner, but he can sell the tax package as a “tax cut” after the plunge off the cliff, and may be able to deliver some immediate and painful spending cuts that his caucus is salivating for. Ultimately he will tell his caucus that the issue was decided by Obama winning re-election, and that they have to take the best deal they can get. The Democrats do not hold all the cards, as the debt ceiling will need to be increased, and that will be a major source of Republican leverage. That will be a part of this negotiation, as the government will likely hit the existing debt ceiling in the first quarter of 2013. Talk about a fiscal cliff. This is the Grand Canyon. Can a deal be reached without initially going over the cliff? Absolutely possible, but just so much more difficult for John Boehner. But he will extract some real spending concessions from a newly elected President Obama in the process, and there will be a deal, because there has to be a deal.
So what happens if there is a President Mitt Romney? Oh boy, that has to be another post.
A powerful group of big business CEO’s, under the leadership of Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, of Simpson-Bowles fame, has sent a letter calling for a solution to the debt and deficit problem in the United States. The letter calls for deficit reduction through spending cuts and revenue increases. Of course the notable news is that business leaders accept the need for additional revenues, and in fact say that solving the deficit cannot be done with just spending cuts. (CEO’s understand math.)
The CEOs who signed the manifesto deem tax increases inevitable no matter which party succeeds at the polls in November. “There is no possible way; you can do the arithmetic a million different ways” to avoid raising taxes, said Mark Bertolini, CEO of Aetna. “You can’t tax your way to fix this problem, and you can’t cut entitlements enough to fix this problem.”
Before Democrats start clicking their heels in joy at the capitulation of business leaders to economic reality it should be noted that entitlement reform is part of the letter as well. The CEO’s, as you might expect from a group put together by Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles, largely support the Bowles-Simpson framework, which includes entitlement reform that has been rejected by many Democrats. Under that framework revenue increases are driven by tax reform that broadens the tax base but reduces marginal tax rates, as well as the corporate tax rate. The CEO’s took no position on any specific policy proposal, including President Obama’s call for higher tax rates on top earners.
Blowback? You bet! First from the right, as Grover Norquist slammed the effort. From the Wall Street Journal:
“When bipartisan deals are struck promising to cut spending and raise taxes, the spending cuts don’t materialize but the tax hikes do,” Grover Norquist of the anti-tax Americans for Tax Reform, has said.
And Bernie Sanders of Vermont hit from the left. From the Sanders web page:
Sen. Bernie Sanders said corporate leaders should look in the mirror before lecturing the American people on ways to tackle the deficit. After the heads of more than 80 big companies issued a statement Thursday on deficit reduction, Sanders released a report detailing how many of the companies headed by the same CEOs have avoided taxes, sent American jobs overseas and took taxpayer bailouts. “There really is no shame,” Sanders said. “The Wall Street leaders whose recklessness and illegal behavior caused this terrible recession are now lecturing the American people on the need for courage to deal with the nation’s finances and deficit crisis. Before telling us why we should cut Social Security, Medicare and other vitally important programs, these CEOs might want to take a hard look at their responsibility for causing the deficit and this terrible recession.”
I can just imagine that the lame duck session of Congress will be a difficult one, regardless of who wins the Presidency. The fiscal cliff lies ahead.
I have promised to offer revisions once a week to the electoral map I have created from 270towin.com, and do so now. I have made no changes from last week, but that is not to say that there has not been some movement.
It is tempting to switch Virginia from undecided to Romney, as I see some movement towards him there. That may have to wait for a few days. CO remains in play and very tight, with Gary Johnson potentially playing a spoiler role there, polling as high as 4% in some surveys. That may change the outcome there, and on that basis I leave it as a toss-up. The other toss-up state on my map, NH, may be tilting slightly to Obama, but it is still too close to change.
The elephant in the room remains Ohio, where both campaigns are directing enormous resources. I leave Ohio in the Obama camp, but it is truly only “lean Democratic”. In the final analysis I still believe that Obama wins Ohio, and if that happens I just don’t see a path to victory for Romney.
FLA, while painted red on my map, is still in play, and attracting Democratic resources, which means the Dems believe they have a chance. A win by Obama in FLA will bring down the curtain on Mitt Romney.
I think the other key is Democratic turnout. Pollsters are showing Obama with greater strength among registered voters, and Romney with greater strength among likely voters. That difference is scaring Democrats, and producing a big get out the vote effort. The ground game must produce turnout numbers that are close to 2008, or it could be a long night for Democrats.
The Manzi total, as of today, leaves Barack Obama at 277, Romney at 235, and toss-up at 26. I await the map from Teddy Panos.
Elizabeth Warren, in a new MassInc/WBUR survey, is holding a five point lead over Senator Scott Brown. The last MassInc survey had Senator Brown holding a four point lead over the challenger. The new survey seems to be in line with most other surveys showing this race moving in Elizabeth Warren’s direction. The numbers please!
Both candidates are now registering positive favorability ratings that are in the same neighborhood. Warren stands at 49%/39% (favorable/unfavorable) and Brown is at 49%/38%. Despite trailing in this survey Brown is still a popular figure in Massachusetts, although not as popular as when this race started. Mitt Romney is upside down on favorability, coming in at 38%/54%, while Barack Obama is at 58%/35%.
The head to head match-up has Elizabeth Warren leading by a 48% to 43% margin, with 7% undecided and 1% third party. When so called “leaners” are thrown in Warren hits 50% to Brown’s 44%, with 4% undecided. Those are very encouraging numbers for Elizabeth Warren, and have to be somewhat discouraging for Scott Brown.
The cross-tabs give Elizabeth Warren some additional good news, and in my view show the basis for her lead. With women Warren has opened up a wide lead, winning that group by 13%, 52% to 39%. She only trails with men by 2%, so Brown is not making up that wide gap with females. With independents, the key to the Scott Brown victory over Martha Coakley, Brown leads by 52% to 39% (same as the Warren lead with women). That 13% lead is far below what he achieved in the Coakley win, and far below what he will need in this race.
Scott Brown is getting 90% support from Republicans, while Warren is getting 77% support from Democrats. A major focus of the Warren campaign has been to peel back Democratic support for Scott Brown. Brown is at 14% Democratic support in this survey, below the 24% number I have seen in other surveys. The Warren strategy is paying some dividends, and is another key reason for her lead.
This race is not over by any means, but Elizabeth Warren has to like where she sits today.
Candidate for U.S. Senate in Indiana Richard Mourdock issued some controversial statements during a debate with his opponent. He said that even where a pregnancy occurred due to rape it was likely God’s will. From the Detroit Free Press:
“Life is that gift from God. I think that even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape, that it is something God intended to happen,” Mourdock said, his voice thick with emotion.
Mitt Romney immediately distanced himself from the Mourdock comments, saying:
“Gov. Romney disagrees with Richard Mourdock’s comments, and they do not reflect his views,” said Andrea Saul, a spokeswoman for Romney’s campaign.
But Mitt Romney just issued a ringing endorsement of Mourdock, which the Democratic National Committee will not soon let him forget. The DNC issued a video showing the Romney endorsement, and linking the two together. The Romney campaign has been trying to close the gender gap so this controversy could not come at a worse time for them. Look for additional Democratic attacks linking Romney with Mourdock, as well as with the Republican candidate for Senate in Misssouri Todd Akin, as they try to widen that gap.
A final note on this is the huge benefit that Democrats have accrued from the choices made by Republican primary voters. You could make a reasonable argument that Republicans could have taken over the U.S. Senate in the last cycle were it not for blowing safe seat pickups in Nevada and Delaware, among others. They have continued on that path this year by nominating Akin and Mourdock. And they may well have dealt a big blow to Mitt Romney as well. Keep up the good work!
Elizabeth Warren visited Methuen yesterday, stopping at Mann’s and greeting a big group of supporters, and accepting the endorsements of Mayor Steve Zanni and Rep. Linda Campbell. It was great to see Elizabeth in Methuen, talking about helping the middle class, creating jobs, and making sure that common sense regulation of Wall Street prevents the type of financial meltdown that occurred during the administration of President George W. Bush. It is going to be a close race, with plenty of money being spent coming down the stretch. Warren told folks in Methuen that she has no fear of the onslaught that is sure to come, and knowing her record I can assure you that fear is not part of her makeup.
I had a great time debating Al DiNuccio on AM Jive this morning, with Jamie Atkinson, George Scione, and Seth Graham. Getting a Republican to agree that Obama Care was good legislation has to be considered a feather in my debating cap. Thanks to the AM Jive Team.
The third and final debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney was held last night. The full debate is below. Polling showed that the President “won” the debate, and I do agree. But what else, if anything, was at play? The speculation please!
Mitt Romney, as has been his history, essentially took a u-turn on policy. That should surprise no one. But the u-turn, as on domestic policy, was towards the center and away from the neo-con dogma that he has been embracing as a candidate. We learn that even Mitt Romney has come to understand that the neo-con philosophy of bombing just about everyone is not acceptable to the American public. He more often than not agreed with the President, and disagreed on the margins. The President was aggressive throughout, and seemed determined to correct and criticize Romney. Mitt Romney is really moving to attempt to close the gender gap, and to appeal to independents. As much as Mitt Romney has been fundamentally dishonest in his approach to issues, both foreign and domestic, it is clear that his campaign etch-a-sketch is having a positive impact for him. (See todays post on Ohio polling by Suffolk)
Does the Romney demeanor tell us anything else? It may be that both campaigns, through internal polling, see the race moving in Mitt Romney’s direction. That is speculation, but the Romney folks appear to like the current trajectory. I believe the Romney centrist, easy approach here is reflective of their new confidence. The President is still trying to make up for that first debate, and will not have folks saying he was asleep during debate three. But without question the Obama folks do not like the current track, and the President’s demeanor, beyond making up for debate 1, may reflect the campaign’s view that they need to stop Romney momentum. Speculation, but worth a thought.
In the end last night’s debate, even if won by Obama, will not move the political needle all that much, if at all. It is all about the ground game now, and for Obama driving Democratic turnout. All eyes look towards Ohio.
Bill Manzi.com 