Find a show you like and click the 
button. The show will be added to your My Playlist page and updated 24/7 with new videos.
Search Results
3 Views
00:00:40 01/06/12
Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice
[LESS INFO] 3 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all .
That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): >
"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."
That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families .
Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: >
NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?
(Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .)
As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice.
After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: >
"I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues."
Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus.
Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: >
The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty."
The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'"
On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): >
BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? >
ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again.
But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : >
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake .
"If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." >
Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. >
There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact.
And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
0 Views
00:00:40 01/06/12
Mitt Romney, a Profile in Cowardice
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 00:00:40 01/06/12
For months, likely Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney has made Barack Obama's supposed "failure of leadership" a centerpiece of his campaign. But like his ill-advised comparison of President Obama to Marie Antoinette , Romney's sound bite could well boomerang. After all, when Multiple Choice Mitt isn't comically reversing his stands, he's too afraid to take any at all .
That cowardice starts with his tax returns . While John Kerry and John McCain at least presented a summary of their (and their well-to-do wives') payments to Uncle Sam, the $250 million Mitt has so far refused to do so. Despite his famous demand in the 1994 Senate race that Ted Kennedy release his tax returns to show he has "nothing to hide," Romney reiterated his own paperwork would not be forthcoming. "We don't have any current plans to release tax returns, but never say never," Romney said, adding: >
"I can tell you we follow the tax laws, and if there's an opportunity to save taxes, we like anybody else in this country will follow that opportunity."
Or as he put it to CNN's Wolf Blitzer last week (at around the 6:40 mark): >
"I don't put out which tooth paste I use either. It's not that I have something to hide."
That's one interpretation. Another is that Mitt Romney is desperate to avoid the horrible political optics his tax returns would inevitably produce. After all, because Romney's continuing millions in annual income from Bain Capital (a company the Los Angeles Times recently explained "often maximized profits in part by firing workers") are taxed at the 15 percent capital gains rate, Mitt already pays a much lower share to Uncle Sam than most middle class families .
Romney's pusillanimity extends to his own tax proposals as well. Unlike virtually all of his GOP rivals , Romney has held back on endorsing either a flat-tax or the complete elimination of the capital gains tax. As he seemed to suggest to the Wall Street Journal , discretion is the better part of valor when it comes to telling voters about the massive windfall the Romneys would reap under the tax policies that dare not speak their name: >
What about his reform principles? Mr. Romney talks only in general terms. "Moving to a consumption-based system is something which is very attractive to me philosophically, but I've not been able to sufficiently model it out to jump on board a consumption-based tax. A flat tax, a true flat tax is also attractive to me. What I like--I mean, I like the simplification of a flat tax. I also like removing the distortion in our tax code for certain classes of investment. And the advantage of a flat tax is getting rid of some of those distortions"... >
Amid such generalities, it's hard not to conclude that the candidate is trying to avoid offering any details that might become a political target. And he all but admits as much. "I happen to also recognize," he says, "that if you go out with a tax proposal which conforms to your philosophy but it hasn't been thoroughly analyzed, vetted, put through models and calculated in detail, that you're gonna get hit by the demagogues in the general election."
Mitt Romney's fear of getting hit was also on display during the debt ceiling debate this summer. As the GOP's brinksmanship over defaulting on the U.S. debt reached its climax in late July, Romney turned his tail and fled. As MSNBC reported at the time: >
NBC's Garrett Haake reported that Mitt Romney told reporters in Ohio yesterday that he would not comment on the debt negotiations in Washington. And so far, he has refused to either endorse Boehner's legislation (as Huntsman has done) or oppose it (as Pawlenty and Bachman have done). Our question: How does someone who wants to be the leader of the Republican Party not have a position on one of the biggest issues facing Washington, especially after the dueling primetime speeches by Obama and Boehner? It's actually quite surprising; this isn't just another Washington fight. Is the lack of a position proof of how fragile Team Romney believes its front-runner status is right now?
(Ultimately, Romney used Facebook to announce his support of the Boehner bill, but only after it passed the GOP House .)
As it turns out, Ohio was the scene of another of Mitt Romney's moments in cowardice.
After visiting a Republican phone bank calling voters about the state's controversial Issue 2 curbing public unions , Romney amazingly refused to take a position: >
"I'm not saying anything one way or the other about the two ballot issues."
Embarrassed by his obvious lack of backbone, Romney endorsed the measure the next day. Ohio voters, who handily defeated the Republican measure, won't soon forget Romney said goodbye to his spine in Columbus.
Romney's vertebra similarly went missing on immigration and abortion , two issues near and dear to the Republican primary voter's heart. As Steve Benen recounted, Mitt's campaign simply would not answer Joe Klein question about what President Romney would do about the 12 million illegal immigrants already in the country: >
The evasion wasn't exactly graceful. Klein asked what Romney would do with the undocumented immigrants who are already here, and Fehrnstrom replied, "He would not grant them amnesty." Right, Klein said, but instead of amnesty, what would Romney do with these people? "He would not grant them amnesty," Fehrnstrom answered. Got it, Klein said, but what, specifically, would Romney do? "I just told you, he's not going to grant them amnesty," the campaign spokesperson said. When Klein then explained that this isn't actually an answer, Fehrnstrom, once again, said, "He would not grant them amnesty."
The Romney camp built a similar stonewall after their man seemingly came out in support of the soon-to-be defeated "personhood" initiative in Mississippi . But the day after the ballot measure went down to crushing defeat, Team Romney insisted "he's being falsely characterized as supporting a proposed amendment to define a fertilized egg as a 'person.'"
On matters small and large, duck and cover is Mitt Romney's posture. Afraid to admit that he has obviously been running for President without interruption since his failed campaign four years ago, Romney's wife claimed his 2012 run was all her idea. As Ann Romney told Wolf Blitzer last week (starting around the 2:30 mark in the video above): >
BLITZER: Is it true that you had to talk to Mitt into running again? >
ANN ROMNEY. ROMNEY: It is true...after the last campaign, it was kind of ironic that I was the one that said I'd never do this again, and now, this time around, I'm saying, you know what, Mitt, you've got to do this again.
But in Mitt's telling, his latest White House bid is all due to Barack Obama. As he told the Wall Street Journal just days ago, Mitt was content to hang out in his $12 million, soon-to-be doubled-in-size California beach side home : >
The Republican presidential candidate says he never intended to run for office again after 2008--"I went back and bought a home which was far too expensive and grandiose for the purposes of another campaign," he jokes. He was drawn back into public life amid Mr. Obama's bid to "fundamentally transform" the country, to use the president's own words, into "an entitlement society," to use Mr. Romney's.
Given his Boston area townhouse and lakeside mansion with man-made beach in New Hampshire, a third palatial retreat would have seemed excessive for a candidate Romney. After all, Mitt Romney's running for office as a " man of the people "; he can't have mansions, for Pete's sake .
"If it seems like this keeps coming up with the former governor," Benen concluded, "it's not your imagination." >
Romney refused to take a stand on Paul Ryan's budget. Romney refused to take a stand when asked about voters booing a U.S. soldier serving in Iraq during a Republican debate. Romney refused to take a stand when Rick Perry dabbled in Birtherism. Romney initially refused to take a stand on Ohio's campaign to undermine collective-bargaining rights, and then sheepishly backpedaled when the right complained. >
There's going to come a point next year when the Obama campaign is likely to say, "Mitt Romney lacks the courage and the character to be a leader." And the criticism will sting because it's based in fact.
And so it goes for the man George Will rightly described as a "recidivist reviser of his principles." On the issues where he doesn't change his mind, Mitt Romney - the man who would be leader of the Free World - lacks "the courage of his absence of convictions."
(This piece also appears at Perrspectives. )
0 Views
19:00:00 09/18/11
Bill Clinton Public Private Cooperation Is A Way Out Of Jobs Crisis
[LESS INFO] 0 VIEWS | ADDED 19:00:00 09/18/11
video platform video management video solutions video player
Former President Bill Clinton appears on This Week With Christiane Amanpour to talk about the upcoming Clinton Global Initiative and its focus on job creation . I was part of a group of bloggers that got to meet with him a few years ago, and he was talking about green retrofits then. As I recall, the energy savings numbers he said could be created by retrofits were jaw-dropping, so this makes more sense than ever: >
AMANPOUR: Now, sir, your mantra right now is jobs, jobs, jobs. What do you think can happen to radically shift the unemployment picture and also pass muster in Washington in these very partisan times?
CLINTON: Well, I don't know that I'm the best person to answer the second part of that question. But I believe that we, those of us who aren't in government, can think of ways to create jobs which will reinforce what I believe are the positive suggestions coming out of Washington. Essentially, the president's plan has big payroll tax cuts in it, which will benefit the economy by lowering the average family's tax bill by 1,500 dollars. And then they can have that to spend. That will help. And then by lowering payroll taxes for employers, will make it more attractive for them to hire new people. But those of us who aren't in government, we don't have anything to do with that. So what we should do is focus on possible areas of job creation that will free up some of the corporate money that's in Treasuries now, that could be invested in America, and make bank loans more attractive to create jobs.
So that's what we try to do. We try to go around thinking about ways to specifically to do that. And if you look at the way the CGI program is set up this year, we also are trying to create more jobs around the world by focusing on the possibilities of green energy elsewhere, because it's not just in America that the green tech jobs are growing at twice the rate of overall employment. It's -- that's true around the world. And by focusing on trying to empower women and girls, because in many other countries, they're left out of the economy. And that's dragging the economic prospects of everyone down.
AMANPOUR: So what will tell the CEOs and the world leaders who come to your Clinton Global Initiative meeting this next week?
CLINTON: Well, I will ask them to put aside for the moment whatever their recommendations are to Washington about changes in the corporate tax laws or the trade bills or, you know, the tariffs that are imposed on component parts that some manufacturers use here but have to import from overseas, and just think about where we are now and what we can do now with the resources we now have. For example, I think we'll have an update on an announcement we made in Chicago, where the AFL-CIO and a couple of its affiliate unions are going to put some of their own pension funds into putting people to work retrofitting buildings and doing other things that will create jobs for their members and for other Americans in a way that will actually make more money for the pension funds than just putting it into the stock market will today. And they'll be in partnership with business instead of having a Washington political fight with them.
AMANPOUR: Where do you see -- obviously, this is all about this stubborn unemployment rate. Where do you see the unemployment, after all of these suggestions, and if they're implemented -- where do you see it standing this time next year?
CLINTON: Well, if you look at the program that the president has outlined, I think if we had the payroll tax cuts and the special incentives to hire the long term unemployed, and we did some of the things that I have been pushing very hard for, to invest building retrofits, which, if we did it right, could create a billions of jobs, the estimates are right across the economic board, including by Mr. Zandy who was an economic adviser to Senator McCain in the 2008 election.
All of the estimates that it will create somewhere between 1.3 and two million jobs, and drop unemployment by approximately one percent, maybe a little more. That's if they're implemented. That's -- we can't do much better than that right now, unless -- unless there is an aggressive action, which seems unlikely in Washington's political climate, to clean up this housing mess, because that's freezing too much investment in place.
So I think that it's a very good program that he outlined. I think if the Congress seriously takes him up on it and they start trying to work through it and get anything approaching the amount of activity that was recommended, they could put about two percent more on the GDP growth of the coming year, and they could drop unemployment by somewhere between one to two million. Or they can create one to two million jobs.
AMANPOUR: You have said in the past that this is not time for Mexican standoff or sort of macho politics. What can be done to make people in this city understand that the country faces a national emergency in this regard?
CLINTON: Well, we need a little bit of help from the American people. I mean, conflict has proved to be remarkably good politics. And it -- that sort of thing, you know, that -- it's very hard for the people in Washington, who got there based on pure conflict, pure attack, pure ideology, to take it seriously when their same constituents are saying please do something positive. That's not how they got elected. We live in a time where there's this huge disconnect between the way the political system works and the way the economic system works. If you look -- there are places all over America, believe it or not, that have low unemployment, high growth, strong home prices, jobs being created, a shortage of skilled workers.
And in every one of those places, they have networks of cooperation. San Diego has the largest number of Nobel Prized scientists in America. It's become the biotech center of the country. Everybody knows Silicon Valley's back. But look at what's happening in Pittsburgh, where they're trading steel for nanotechnology and other biomedical advances. Look at what's happening in Cleveland, around the Cleveland Clinic. Look at what's happening in Massachusetts, with the recovery of high-tech manufacturing around the MIT area. I can give you lots and lots of other examples. Every place the American economy is booming, cooperation is the order of the day. But conflict is still good politics in Washington. So until the American people make it clear that whatever -- however they voted in past elections, they want these folks to work together and to do something, there's going to be a little ambivalence in Washington.
AMANPOUR: Let me ask you this, then: Mayor Bloomberg of New York has said this week that unless something is done to really address this unemployment problem, there could be riots in the street, unrest. Do you -- do you agree with that?
CLINTON: I don't know. There have been demonstrations in many other countries where the same thing is going on. But if you -- the most important thing Mayor Bloomberg said recently is to offer land on Governor's Island or Roosevelt Island or the Navy Yard in Brooklyn for a new world-class science and technology research center. And he said that he'll kick in $100 million worth of investment if a group of universities will put one there, because he wants New York, in effect, to rival Silicon Valley as a technology center. That's the kind of thing that works. If you want put people to work, we've got to focus on what works, and what works is not all this back and forth fighting in Washington.
I think, as I said, I think that if we can't fix the housing crisis now -- which is probably not politically possible, but should be done -- we can't return to full employment . But if we adopt the plan that the president outlined, according to all this economic analysis, it will create between 1.5, 2 percent increase in GDP growth. It will put a million or two million people to work, and we'll be on the way back. We need some signal out of Washington that they understand that cooperation is good economics, even if conflict is good politics.
AMANPOUR: Mr. President, obviously the current situation in various polls are suggesting that people aren't satisfied with President Obama's leadership on this. And there was a special election in New York in District 9 that the Democrats lost after holding it for nearly 100 years. What does that say to you?
CLINTON: Well, the New York case is -- I know that district very well, and they were good enough to vote for me twice. But, I think, Mayor Koch had a big impact on that election because of the controversy surrounding Israel and how they're reacting to the proposal of the Palestinians to get the U.N. to recognize them as a state. I think that had a lot to do with it.
I also think it's a real blue-collar district that is suffering economically. So, it didn't surprise me. And I don't think -- and the Nevada district was a Republican district. So it's just -- it is what it is. We won not very long ago that district in upstate New York that had been Republican for even longer than this district had been Democrat because of the Medicare plan, and the Republicans have stopped talking about their plan to voucherize Medicare. So I -- there's a lot of upheaval now. A lot of, you know, people are feeling disjointed because they're hurting economically and they don't see the country going forward.
