The Bain of the GOP's Existence

The next time someone tells you, "I'm a capitalist," go ahead and answer, "No, you're not." You'd just be playing the odds. A capitalist is defined as "A wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism." In other words, probably not you or the person you're talking to. "Capitalist" is synonymous with "financier."

Also, notice the term "job creation" isn't anywhere in the definition. People don't invest to create jobs, they invest to make money. In fact, whether any jobs are created by the investment is entirely beside the point. In many cases, jobs are lost. The people Republicans hold up as the high-minded "job creators" not only aren't interested in creating jobs, but they'd really rather not. When you're maximizing profits, you want as few employees as possible. After all, you're in the business of writing your own paycheck, not someone else's.

When it comes to what Republicans call "job creation," they'd rather you didn't see how the sausage is made. Because when you get right down to it, it looks pretty heartless. If hiring someone means you'll make money, you'll hire someone -- and if firing someone means you'll make money, they're out. The "job creators" have been doing one helluva lot more firing than hiring lately, which makes the GOP's favored term for capitalists a lie. After all, one would assume that a "job creator" actually would get around to creating some jobs. Lately, they've been acting as "job destroyers."

Which brings us to a guy named Willard "Mitt" Romney, son of wealth, former vulture capitalist and professional job destroyer. Remember the villain in all those movies -- you know, the ones where there's a hostile takeover and rich corporate-type wants to sell off all the company's assets and fire everyone? Yeah, those movies. That's Mitt Romney, CEO of Bain Capital. He's that guy.

Even if you're a Republican who worships at the altar of the Free Market, it's hard to look at Romney's past and not see it as a liability. If you're that Republican and you're running against him, it becomes almost impossible not to see a target. And that has his opponents moving to the left of the party. Establishment Republicans are finding themselves at odds with most of their candidates and it's kind of putting them on the spot.

And this in itself is a problem; how do you defend Mitt Romney and Bain Capital without confirming every negative stereotype people have about the GOP and their relationship to the wealthy? If you're conservative spinmeister Frank Luntz, you don't. You change throw up a smokescreen.


Conservatives should not be defending capitalism. They should be defending economic freedom. And there is a difference. The word capitalism was created by Karl Marx to demonize those people who make a profit. We’ve always talked about the free enterprise system or economic freedom. Suddenly, they’re trying to defend something that has only 18 percent support.


The problem here is that "economic freedom" doesn't mean freedom from criticism, any more than freedom of speech means you get to say whatever you want and everyone else gets to shut up about it. And if "economic freedom" means doing what Bain did under Romney, I think the average person would like to see a little less of that particular brand of freedom. After all, you don't become a cookie-cutter movie villain by being widely respected and admired.

My point in all this is a simple one; in order to be more in tune with the average person and criticize Romney and Bain, GOP candidates are running to the left. They can't possibly run to the right with it. The best they'd be able to do is follow Luntz's lead and try to camouflage the issue with pretty words that poll better.

And what does this all prove? That the public is to the left of Republicans on issues of corporate responsibility and business ethics. Most of the candidates know this, that's forcing the GOP establishment to defend Romney, and that in turn putting them in the spotlight. There's a reason why it's mostly private citizens who are rushing to Mitt's defense, not elected Republicans; defending Bain is a Democratic "candidate X is so out of touch" attack ad waiting to happen.

Republican candidates are setting up a narrative that President Obama can carry into the general election. I'm not as convinced of Romney's "inevitability" as everyone else seems to be, but I will agree that the odds are heavily in his favor. What this means is that there will be a continuity of criticism, a bipartisan assault on Romney's past as a movie villain.

Willard has some rough sledding ahead.

-Wisco

News Roundup for 1/10/12

New RNC logo

-Headline of the Day-
"Republicans Hand Democrats a Populist Issue."

Republicans handed Democrats a gift today, by way on confirming one of the worst GOP stereotypes. In a fourth circuit court case, the Republican National Committee filed an amicus brief [PDF] arguing that candidates for office should be able to get that sweet, sweet corporate cash straight from the corporations themselves.

"Especially if Romney is the nominee, expect this to be rolled into Romney's 'corporations are people, my friend' line, the Bain Capital stuff, and the recent 'I like to fire people gaffe,' with Occupy undertones, for Democrats (or their super PAC surrogates) to make an anti-corporate, Populist message for Obama's reelection," writes Rick Hasen of the Election Law Blog.

In fact, since the RNC basically makes the "corporations are people" argument in the brief, I'd say this was a pretty sure bet. They might as well slap a "for sale" sign on the GOP logo, because the RNC is indicating that they want to sell the party really, really bad. (Political Wire)


-Shovel-Ready-



Don't worry New Hampshire, it's almost over. (Time)


-Bonus HotD-
"Heckler askes Romney: 'Are you going to fire the baby?'"

A Romney critic blows the obligatory baby picture photo op with a wisecrack. Experts say this is the most embarrassing infant-related campaign incident since Chester Arthur confused the "shake hands, kiss baby" routine and had to be forcibly stopped from shaking babies. (Raw Story)

GOP Voters Find Romney as Exciting as a Saltine

The New Hampshire primaries are today and, if polling is to be believed, Mitt Romney may be looking at a landslide. This is probably fortunate for Team Romney, since it may wipe the taste of a humiliating Iowa squeaker from their mouths. Then again, Mitt's trajectory has been downward in the Granite State in recent days, so it's possible that he may not get his monstrous win. Still, barring a miracle, Romney will win.

While the media have been talking about Romney's "inevitability" as the GOP nominee, the other narrative has been the Republican voters' inability to get behind him. While polls show him winning in New Hampshire, I haven't seen one that has him cracking 50%. If this primary battle is what the media has portrayed it to be -- Romney vs. Not-Romney -- then Not-Romney still has the numbers, if not the candidate. As a result, Mitt Romney's rise seems to be accompanied by a consequence; waning GOP enthusiasm.

Part of the reason for the Iowa squeaker was that evaporating enthusiasm. Where turnout for the caucuses was expected to reach 140,000, 122,000 showed up. Romney won by eight votes, making it the tightest win in caucus history. And the number of registered Iowa Republicans has declined from 21.1 percent in 2008 to 19.9 percent now.

Nationally, the numbers are no better. A new CBS News poll finds that most GOP voters disapprove of their presidential choices -- and that percentage has increased.


The nominating process may officially be underway, but Republicans have yet to enthusiastically embrace a potential nominee for president - and despite the late date, most would like to see other candidates enter the race, according to a new CBS News poll.

The survey finds that 58 percent of Republican primary voters want more presidential choices, while just 37 percent say they are satisfied with the current field. The percentage of Republican primary voters that wants more choices has increased 12 percentage points since October.


A twelve percent quarterly rise in voter dissatisfaction is nothing to sneeze at. This is not the direction the Republican Party wants to be moving in right now. And it's not just Mitt that's dragging the party's enthusiasm down, it's the clear lack of a Mitt-alternative. This is why voters have been running from candidate to candidate, desperately searching for a Not-Romney who is also a Not-Joke.

They haven't been having a lot of luck. First it was Trump, then Bachmann, then Cain, then Gingrich, now maybe Santorum. As a result, the Not-Romney contingent is scattered and demoralized. How often can candidates let you down before you conclude they're all worthless?

"There is no candidate in the GOP field who more than one third of Republican primary voters say they would enthusiastically support if he were the nominee," CBS reports. "Rick Santorum does best in terms of enthusiasm, with 33 percent saying they would enthusiastically support him. (Roughly one in two say their support for Santorum would either come with reservations or simply result from the fact that he is the GOP nominee.) Santorum is followed by Newt Gingrich, whom 29 percent would enthusiastically support, and Romney, whom 27 percent would enthusiastically support. They're followed by Rick Perry at 17 percent, Ron Paul at 15 percent and Jon Huntsman at 12 percent."

The only bright spot for the GOP in the poll is that it shows Romney beating Obama by two points, mostly the result of Independents swinging Romney's way and within the poll's three-point margin of error. But the caveats here are that it's still very early and that Romney's perceived strong suit -- business and the economy -- is being hammered at by his rivals. Also, that two points means a "whoever wants it more" race -- bad news for a candidate whose voters lack enthusiasm. And Romney voters' enthusiasm is running third, between Newt Gingrich and the miserable, hopeless Rick Perry.

It may be that, in the end, Barack Obama will win reelection by being the final Not-Romney candidate.

-Wisco

News Roundup for 1/9/12

Probably not what Romney meant

-Headline of the Day-
"'I like being able to fire people.'"

The above words are a fine example of something you should never, ever in a million years say if you're running for president under the banner of "I'm a Big-Time Job Creator!"

This is especially true if you're Mitt Romney, whose record of job creation is sketchy at best and nearly nonexistent at worst.

But Mittens said exactly that at a Chamber of Commerce breakfast this morning in Nashua. Full context: "I want individuals to have their own insurance. That means the insurance company will have an incentive to keep you healthy. It also means that if you don’t like what they do, you could fire them. I like being able to fire people who provide services to me. You know, if someone isn’t giving the good service, I want to say, I’m going to go get someone else to provide this service to."

OK, so not so extremely terrible in context -- just garden variety terrible. As a sound bite goes, this is a campaign commercial. For example, Team Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt was nearly speechless at his candidate's good fortune. His response: "!!!"

No, really.

"I think I see the point Romney was trying to get at," Steve Benen comments, "but for a guy with an atrocious jobs record, who got very wealthy laying off American workers, 'I like being able to fire people' is a seven-word phrase that may prove tough to live down."

With all the GOP candidates already going all OWS on Romney (yeah, they've all turned hippie), this is exactly the wrong way for Mittens to go.

Still, he's quickly disproving that whole "not a real Republican" thing everyone tried to saddle him with -- he's got the Republican style of competence down pat. (Political Animal)


-I used to like having eyes-
Oh jeebus...


Click for full comic

Maybe steel wool will get the image out... (Bad Reporter)


-Bonus HotD-
"Could Huntsman Take Second?"

Jon Huntsman has a real chance of taking the silver in New Hampshire tomorrow. That Santorum boomlet sure didn't last long, huh? (Talking Points Memo)

Out of State Money King Scott Walker Complains About Out of State Money in Wisconsin Recall

The petitioning period for recalling Wisconsin's Governor Scott Walker is winding down. Petitioners have until January 17 to collect over 540,000 signatures and, by all accounts, they'll make it with a few hundred thousand to spare. This is on.

As is so often the case when dealing with a Republican and elections, hypocrisy becomes a problem. They've got a pack full of victim cards and will pounce on any excuse to play one. If it weren't for be constantly offended, outraged, and aggrieved, they wouldn't have anything to talk about. And so it is that Scott Walker has taken to playing a victim card he has no right to hold.


[Huffington Post:]

As Wisconsin Democrats continued their push to force his recall, Gov. Scott Walker (R) came to Washington on Thursday to raise funds for the election that is all but certain to occur. But while Walker has slammed the influence of out-of-state money in the recall effort, he defended his own fundraising from non-Wisconsinites as fundamentally different from what he called the "excessive amounts" raised by unions and liberal groups.

"The people from around the country who are helping us at the grassroots level are trying to match the amazing levels of money coming in from unions from Washington and throughout the country," said Walker at a question-and-answer event at the American Enterprise Institute on Thursday morning. Walker spoke at AEI before meeting with Republican donors at the Capitol Hill Club later in the day.


And here comes the hypocrisy: "According to his latest campaign finance report, Walker has raised $5.1 million since the start of the recall effort on November 15th. Nearly half of that amount, $2.4 million, has come from outside of Wisconsin."

"I’ve never seen any candidate — ever — get close to half their money from out of state," said Mike McCabe, executive director of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, told the political journalism site Wisconsin Watch. "I used to always be stunned when I saw a candidate for state office with 10 percent coming from out of state."

To be sure, recall supporters are pulling a lot of out of state money too -- also about half of their funding -- but the differences are startling. According to Wisconsin Watch:

• The Democrats and United Wisconsin (the two biggest groups in favor of recalling Walker) took in much less money overall than the governor. As a reminder, Walker can take unlimited donations for recall-related expenses, while the Dems need a candidate to start doing that.
• Their biggest donors are much smaller than Walker’s biggest donors. That guy in Texas donating $250,000? So far, there’s no Dem equivalent.
• They seem to have a much bigger proportion of small donors. It’s hard to say how many, because they’re unitemized (legally) in campaign finance filings.
• Anti-Walkerites got a big chunk from out of state, just like Walker. (However, we’d caution that comparing Democratic party contributions to Walker’s receipts isn’t apples-to-apples. [W]e excluded contributions to the party from other political committees — such as county Democratic parties — so we could look at the individual dollars.)

The amount of out-of-state pro-Walker money is staggering. "Five million dollars is more than I’ve ever seen in a single reporting period by a candidate in the history of the state," McCabe said. For their part, state Democrats have raised $3.1 million total, while United Wisconsin -- the main organizer of the recall -- has raised $329,994. Only 10% of United Wisconsin's money is from out of state.

Meanwhile, the big money pours in for Walker.


The largest single contributor to Walker’s campaign was Bob J. Perry, a homebuilder in Houston, Texas, who gave $250,000. Perry is a prominent funder of conservative causes. He gave more than $4 million to Swift Vets and POWs for Truth, a group that helped torpedo 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry. In 2010, he gave $7 million to American Crossroads, a Republican campaign fund.


When asked about the out of state money, Walker told the Huffington Post, "[E]ven money that's coming in from outside of Wisconsin in many cases is coming from people giving us 10, 15, 20 dollars, saying, 'We want to help you counter money coming from Washington and elsewhere.'"

Ten, fifteen, twenty, a quarter of a million dollars -- all the same thing really. Just reg'lar folks scraping together what little they can.

If you want to raise buttloads of money from out of state, don't claim you're the victim of buttloads of out of state money -- especially when your buttload is much, much bigger.

Then again, honesty doesn't seem to be a requirement when playing the victim card.

-Wisco