Mitt Romney


 

Obama, Romney looking angry

Image Credit: Associated Press

According to the poll released yesterday by Fox News, President Obama is currently leading challenger Mitt Romney by a 9-point margin. The poll shows Obama taking 49 percent of the vote, while Romney would only take 40 percent if the election were held today.

 

This is a significant increase from Fox News’ June horse-race poll, which showed Obama at 45 percent and Romney at 41 percent.

 

Obama’s advantage in this latest poll is mostly a result of increased support from independent voters, who now favor him over Romney by an 11-point margin. 30 percent of independents remain undecided.

 

54 percent of those polled said that they had a favorable view of the candidate, his highest favorability rating in this poll in over a year. According to the poll, this is nearly as high as the 59 percent approval rating reported shortly after the 2008 election.

 

CNN’s Thursday presidential poll has also shown strong support for the president, with 52 percent of registered voters indicating that they would choose President Obama, while 45 percent said they would vote for Romney if the election were held today.

 

The CNN poll also showed that Obama’s approval rating is staying relatively constant at 50 percent. 47 percent of those polled disapproved of the President’s job performance.

 

56 percent of respondents had a favorable view of the President in the CNN poll, while only 42 percent were unfavorable. These numbers did not look as good for Romney, who had a 47 percent favorability rating and a 48 percent unfavorable rating.

 

These poll results seem to indicate that the President is making inroads with independent voters. The percentage of voters that would pick Obama over Romney has steadily increased over the last month.

 

RealClearPolitics now shows an Obama lead of 4.4 points in its polling average. This estimate includes the CNN and Fox polls.

The FiveThirtyEight estimate is now showing that Obama has a 73.3 percent chance of winning the general election, up significantly from a month ago.

I admit I’m a little behind the curve on this one, but it was just too ridiculous to pass up.

 

Wind Turbine, Tower in a Corn Field

Image Credit: Sebastian Celis via Creative Commons

Last week, Governor Romney’s presidential campaign announced in Iowa that if he is elected president, he will allow the Production Tax Credit (referred to below as the “wind credit”) to expire.

According to The Des Moines Register,

Shawn McCoy, a spokesman for Romney’s Iowa campaign, told The Des Moines Register, “He will allow the wind credit to expire, end the stimulus boondoggles, and create a level playing field on which all sources of energy can compete on their merits.”

It the Romney campaign actually wanted to get rid of all energy subsidies, I’d be 100 percent for it because energy subsidies create market distortions. But of course the Romney campaign continues to support oil subsidies; because of course they don’t create an uneven playing field.

Besides, if Romney wanted to do away with oil subsidies, you can bet the Koch brothers et. al. wouldn’t be bankrolling his campaign anymore.

That aside, Romney really needs to work on his swing-state strategy. Iowa has more wind energy jobs than any other state, and Iowa Republicans were quick to point out just how misguided his notion was.

As Republican Rep. Tom Latham pointed out, this proposal demonstrates “a lack of full understanding of how important the wind energy tax credit is for Iowa and our nation.”

This isn’t just turning heads in Iowa, either. Green energy jobs are so important here in Colorado that only one Republican representative, Doug Lamborn, supported Romney’s notion. Even Birther lunatic Rep. Mike “Obama’s not an American” Coffman opposed Romney’s proposal. (This clown is my representative, sadly.)

Lest we forget, the wind energy tax credit was originally signed by George H. W. Bush in 1992 and renewed in 2005 by a Republican Congress and signed by George W. Bush.

The bottom line is Romney’s wacky proposal to do away with the PTC and the wind energy tax credit is so ridiculously off-the-wall that even his own party is disavowing his statements.

I seriously doubt Romney ever expected this to be good policy. He’s just doing the pandering he needs to do to appease the Tea Party and his oil billionaire donors.

He never needed Colorado and Iowa’s 15 electoral votes, anyway.

Update: As of 1:20PM ET, the well-cited “Controvercies” section has been restored to Sen. Portman’s page – see revision history.

There’s an interesting article on NPR.org today titled “One Clue To Romney’s Veep Pick: Whose Page Is Getting The Most Edits?

In the article, NPR notes,

In 2008, as The Washington Post wrote at the time, “just hours before [Sen. John] McCain declared his veep choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, her Wiki page saw a flurry of activity, with editors adding details about her approval rating and husband’s employment. … Palin’s entry was updated at least 68 times, with at least an additional 54 changes made to her entry over the preceding five days.”

Meanwhile, the Post said, “on Aug. 22, the day before the Obama campaign officially named [then-Sen. Joe] Biden as the veep pick, Biden’s Wiki page garnered roughly 40 changes. Over the five days prior, users would make at least 111 other changes to his entry.”

As of 10 AM Eastern Time, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio was leading in Wikipedia edits. He has racked up 16 edits so far today, while the Wiki page of the next closest, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has been edited nine times so far today.

It is also important to note that these revisions may not necessarily indicate that Senator Portman’s page is being cleaned up before the Romney team announces him as the VP pick. Politico notes that the number of edits may be misleading:

By 10:30 a.m., Rubio was tied with Portman at 16. And the edits were almost all driven by one user’s insistence that Rubio was not the “crown prince” of the Tea party. (See above).

The problem with Sifry’s model is that tallying revisions doesn’t account for the difference between serious, substantive edits and the persistence of one user who doesn’t get his way — much less minor spelling edits or slight augmentation of dates, etc.

Those of us taken with the Wikipedia-as-oracle idea would like to believe that those 68 revisions to Sarah Palin’s page provide some sort of precedent in the Internet age. But they don’t. The day before Sarah Palin’s selection was made public, very few people knew who she was. By contrast, everyone watching the 2012 election knows about Marco Rubio or Rob Portman, and more than a few take their own research and opinions to the pages of Wikipedia.

However, as noted by NPR, then-Senator Joe Biden’s Wikipedia page also racked up 40 edits the day before he was announced as then-Senator Obama’s running mate. Politico makes no mention of this.

In light of Politico’s analysis, it seems the most surefire way to determine if these edits are meaningful is to look at the substance of the edits. The NPR story has also been linked to on Reddit, where various Redditors have made note of the changes made to Portman’s page.

Redditor WattersonBill was quick to note that entire sections of Portman’s Wikipedia page including the entire “Controvercies” section (which contained many citations), as well as one discussing his support of NAFTA in 1993, have been removed. You can view the Wikipedia page before the revisions here, and compare the revisions made by user River8009 today (mentioned in the NPR article) to the July 30 version of the page here

So far, the changes made to Senator Portman’s page appear much more substantive than those made to Senator Rubio’s page, which is highly suggestive.

Does this mean Senator Portman will be Governor Romney’s choice for his running mate? Maybe. At best, the changes that are being made to Senator Portman’s page are just another small (if suggestive) clue in the media’s constant search for “Veepstakes” tidbits. We’ll all have to wait for Romney to publicly announce his pick before we know for sure.

Karl Rove’s super PAC, American Crossroads, has just released a new add claiming “this is the worst economic recovery America has ever had.”

I can think of at least one that was worse. This is cynical, even for him.

But I guess this is the sort of advertising you get when you allow unlimited, anonymous political contributions.

Here it is, if you can stomach it.

Firey Olympic Rings at the opening ceremony for the London 2012 Olympic Games

Image Credit: Ian MacNicol, Getty Images

I live in Colorado, which is a swing state in the upcoming Presidential Election. On Friday, I was watching the Olympics opening ceremony with a friend, and we were amazed at how many pro-Romney ads we saw during the ceremony.

So yesterday (July 31), I decided to count how many pro-Romney and pr0-Obama ads were run during the prime time “Olympic Zone” coverage on NBC.

In the 40 minutes between 6:25 PM and 7:05 PM (Mountain Time), I counted eight pro-Romney ads and two pro-Obama ads. That’s an average of one pro-Romney ad every five minutes. Pro-Romney ads ran back-to-back in two of the six commercial breaks during that time (these weren’t typical commercial breaks – some were much longer than others).

In this timespan, there were five different pro-Romney ads, funded by the Crossroads and Restore Our Future super PACs, the Republican National Committee, and the Romney campaign. The most common ad was “Where Did All the Money Go?” (embedded below) funded by the Romney campaign.

In the same timeframe, there were two different pro-Obama ads, both funded by the Obama campaign. The ad titled “The Choice” was more common throughout the evening.

I was fortunate to be watching these ads with a friend of mine who has a Master’s degree in Communication with a concentration in Media and Culture. Her opinion was that the Obama ads were generally more positive and higher quality than the Romney ads. She felt that the overwhelming frequency of the Romney ads, coupled with their negativity, would likely lead to “over saturation” – most viewers would simply ignore the ads.

Think about it this way; if you were watching TV and saw an ad for the same product every five minutes, sometimes twice in a row, would you be more likely to buy that cereal, or would you just be annoyed?

Apparently, Romney and (un)associated super PACs have chosen a “quantity over quality” swing-state advertising strategy, while the Obama campaign has chosen to run positive, higher quality advertisements but not as many of them.

While it is obvious that Romney and his supporters have a significant advantage when it comes to ad spending, they should be careful about running too many negative ads, especially during the Olympics. In 2008, John McCain followed a similar strategy, running negative ads during the Olympics while Obama ran positive ones. 

According to the Washington Post, “McCain’s choice to go negative during a moment of national unity was controversial. Viewers found McCain’s ad far more memorable, but many were turned off by it.”

On a final note; regardless of party, people should always fact-check the political ads they see. There were some truly outlandish statements made in many of the ads, but the claim that really struck me was in the “Olympics” ad funded by Restore Our Future. It claimed, “after September 11th, Romney delivered the Olympics safe and secure.”

Really? Republicans complained bitterly that Obama failed to give credit to the Navy SEALs and intelligence services (which he actually did) when he announced the death of Osama bin Laden, but it’s ok for Romney to take credit for preventing an imaginary terrorist attack at the 2002 Olympics? What about the police, security guards, FBI, and intelligence agencies that were involved in security for the Salt Lake Olympics? Don’t they deserve any credit?

Take a minute to compare the two most common ads:

 

 

What do you think?

Mitt Romney fails to condemn Bachmann's offensive allegations against Huma AbedinLast week, US Representative Michele Bachmann’s penchant for offensive absurdity exploded into a national media circus when she and four other representatives alleged that Huma Abedin, aide to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, had infiltrated the Federal government on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Probably noticing how dangerous such allegations are for their party’s reputation, prominent Republicans were quick to condemn the attacks as dangerous and un-American. John McCain called the attacks “specious and degrading,” and John Boehner said, “accusations like this being thrown around are pretty dangerous.”

Bachmann’s former campaign manager Ed Rollins called her claim “extreme and dishonest” and said, “I am fully aware that she sometimes has difficulty with her facts, but this is downright vicious and reaches the late Senator Joe McCarthy level.”

Republicans Marco Rubio, Lindsey Graham, and Scott Brown also condemned Bachmann’s attacks against Muslims.

Not to be outdone, Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh defended Bachmann’s allegations.

But one prominent Republican was conspicuously silent on the matter. Can you guess who?

If you guessed Mitt Romney, you were correct. Not only did Romney the man stay silent, his campaign also had nothing to say. No one in the mainstream media, with the exception of Hardball’s Chris Matthews, seems to have noticed. And Matthews only mentioned it in passing.

Of course, Romney has a history of capitulating to extremism in his own party. A big fuss was made when Romney stood by silently while a supporter accused President Obama of treason at a town hall. So why hasn’t the media noticed Romney’s conspicuous silence about Bachmann’s allegations?

Surely, because of their prominent positions and the magnitude of their accusations, Bachmann and her cronies are more worthy of condemnation than some crank at a town hall? Or is Romney so desperate for support that he won’t even stand up to racism and bigotry in his own party?

Romney has again demonstrated a startling lack of leadership and an inability to stand up to bigots like Michele Bachmann. He wouldn’t even stand with six other members of his own party to condemn Bachmann’s accusations against Huma Abedin and Keith Ellison.

If he can’t stand up to Bachmann and the Tea Party, how can we expect him to stand up to the leaders of rogue states like Iran and North Korea?

This morning, I had CNN’s Starting Point on in the background as I got ready for work. On it was an interview between CNN’s Soledad O’Brien and one of Mitt Romney’s top surrogates, Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin.

I usually tune interviews like this out, because of the nuttiness that is increasingly common from those on the political right. But in this interview, Johnson said something so absurd that I couldn’t help but pay attention.

He said, “President Obama simply doesn’t understand that it’s the free enterprise systems, the private sector, the productive sector, not the government sector that creates long-term self-sustaining jobs. Take a look at the Soviet Union, Venezuela’s economic basket case, and is anybody moving to the island paradise of Cuba?”

O’Brien, visibly perturbed, asked Johnson if this was indeed what he meant. She asked, “You’re surely not suggesting that the idea and the concept behind Solyndra and other green energies like Solyndra is comparable to the Soviet Union and Cuba, right?”

Johnson replied, “No, I am suggesting that, because when you take taxpayer money and you invest that into business, that’s the taxpayer money put at risk. And let’s face it; the lesson of the Soviet Union and other socialist nations is that governments are very poor allocators of capital. It’s an economic model that doesn’t work.”

There are so many things wrong with this that I’m not even sure where to start. For example, one of the biggest problems we face is that private industry isn’t “creating long-term self-sustaining jobs.”

Those arguments aside, my real question for Senator Johnson is, if government subsidizing green energy companies is communist, what does that make government subsidies to fossil fuel companies? What about government subsidies the agriculture industry?

What about the LA Times article detailing evidence that Mitt Romney benefited from government subsidies while he was head of Bain Capital? Or when, as Governor of Massachusetts, he offered subsidies to attract businesses to his state? Does that make Romney a communist?

Of course it doesn’t. Government subsidies to green energy companies aren’t communist either. Subsidies are common practice at the federal and state level, and are given to companies in nearly every industry.

That Romney and his surrogates are making claims this absurd, not to mention categorically false, is evidence of how little they think of the American public.

Here’s the video:

Next Page »