Pathetic . . but oh, so characteristic of Dubya

Interviewed at the Hoover Institute (a conservative think-tank), George W. Bush was answering a question about his post-presidency and why he is keeping a low profile.

"Eight years was awesome, and I was famous and I was powerful. But I have no desire for fame and power anymore. . . . I thought long and hard about that and decided that not being on the stage was something I was comfortable with."

His statement reeks with what I scorn in the man:   an undeserved narcissism and entitlement -- and a complete unconcern for the serious issues and the harm his policies did. 

Add to that a tone of simple-mindedness --where you'd expect a bit of nuance and complexity, perhaps some irony, or maybe even a touch of self-deprecation -- he goes for the "golly-gee, aren't I important?" tone.   Like a little kid playing grown-up with a straight face.


Ralph

At Madame Tussaud's wax museum ?

This is supposedly a photo of President and Mrs. Obama posing with former President and Mrs. George W. Bush at the White House this week for the unveiling of the official Bush portraits.

But please tell me that the Obamas actually went to Madame Tussaud's Museum and posed with the wax likeness of Dubya and Laura.

Can they really look that frozen in real life?

Ralph

Romney on the ropes #4

Here's a plausible explanation from Bloomsburg Business Week for Romney's "lack of enthusiasm" for releasing more tax returns.   The article admits it is pure speculation.  But here goes.

As everyone is now coming to believe, there must be something that would be even more politically damaging than the negative heat he's taking for not releasing them.   Here is one scenario.

Like most ultra-rich investors, Romney probably took a lot of losses in the 2008 market crash.  Given the tax laws that allow capital losses to be carried forward as deductions from future capital gains, it's possible that he paid no taxes at all in 2009.

That, while perfectly legal, would be politically devastating.

Why so devastating?   Because it confirms that rich people have special advantages.  The fact that it is legal confirms that there are different rules for them and the rest of us.

Just compare:    A rich person's stocks lose value;  he's allowed to take it as a capital loss to reduce capital gains tax in a future tax year.  A teacher loses her job and all her income   No way to subtract that lost income from next year's salary -- assuming she's lucky enough to get another job.
 
Ralph

Krugman on Obama's rationale for going after Romney's Bain experience

Paul Krugman examines the question of why the Obama campaign is focusing on the trivia of when Romney left Bain instead of their economic policy differences.

Krugman says, in essence:   Look, it's all too complicated for people to understand, especially with the sound-bite, short attention span that our TV news is committed to.  Even print journalists too often simply present both sides of a difference, without any analysis or fact-checking.

He tells of a focus group in which Romney's economic policy was presented in simple terms, explaining what it actually means.   People in the focus group simply refused to believe that any politician would take such positions.

So there you are.    People form their opinions based on the sound bites and the superficial trivia.

Ergo:   let's talk about something people can understand, like conflicting statements Romney has made about when he gave up responsibility for Bain Capital.

Krugman goes further, however.   He says that, actually this story line is also about the policy and ideological differences, however.   It spotlights the difference between how the wealthy and powerful benefit from our system at the expense of the majority, as in tax cuts for the rich and cutting assistance for the poor.

This should be a winning attack line:   Do you believe there should be different rules for the rich and the rest of us?  Is so, then vote for Mitt Romney.

At least it's more on point than yelling about birth certificates and screaming that "Obama hates America !!" as Ruch Limbaugh did once again yesterday.

Ralph

Change the subject

First rule of political campaigns:   When things are going badly, change the subject.   Trot our something that will grab headlines.   Distract the news media and grab the spotlight.

The most heinous example, of course, would be what Republicans falsely accused Bill Clinton of doing:   Start a war.   In the midst of the fight with Newt Gingrich's Republicans over budget matters, which eventually led to a shutdown of the government, Clinton did urge NATO to act on the intransigent Bosnian Serbs, and U. S. planes began bombing Bosnian strongholds.

That was far more complicated than a simple distraction.   But you get the idea.

So now, the Romney campaign is on the ropes over conflicting documentation of when Romney actually was no longer responsible for Bain Capital's policies and actions.

So:   look for them to announce his choice for VP any day now.

And my guess is it's going to be Tim Pawlenty.    Second guess:   Rob Portman.

It's not going to be Condi Rice.  Or, if it is, it will indicate real desperation.  Desperate enough to counter the fact that her slightly moderate stance on abortion would widen the gulf with the Tea Party crowd.   Besides, she seems to really really mean it when she says she's not interested in the job.   [Look, she's already baby-sat one president who wasn't qualified for the job;  give her a break.]

Perhaps the recent flurry about her being considered was just so they could appear to be giving serious consideration to choosing a woman VP.   Of course, she would be a two-fer:  she's (1) a woman and (2) African-American -- two demographics that Romney lags badly with.    But she's way too moderate for the current climate.


Ralph

PS:   Given how badly things are going for Romney, maybe he is that desperate.

Romney on the ropes #2

Mitt Romney did a media blitz on Friday -- going on five different networks to say, over and over, in the same words and tone (he memorizes well), "I had nothing to do with any entity at Bain after February 2009."

He tried to dismiss those annoying documents that list him as "sole shareholder, chief operating officer, and president" as mere forms that were filled out with the old data while they were working out the transition to someone else.

It didn't work.   There are now just more questions.

Another pesky document has surfaced, filed with the state of Massachusetts in late 2002, a month after he was elected governor.   It lists Romney as one of two "managing members" of Bain Capital Investors, LLC.

You tried to whitewash, Mitt.   It didn't work.   This is going to keep dripping out and making you look bad -- as well as dominating the news cycle -- until you come clean.   Either fess up that you did still had responsibility at Bain, and therefore have to own up to being in charge when their record is not so savory -- or else you retained the titles (and a salary listed as "over $100,000") and did absolutely nothing to earn it.

The beauty of this as a campaign tactic for Obama is that, while the issue itself is a trifle (did he or did he not attend board meetings and make decisions?):  (1) it further taints the image of Romney as an admirable corporate executive;  (2)  it keeps reminding people that things happen differently for the wealthy and powerful (wouldn't we all like to have a $100,000 salary for doing nothing?);  and (3) it reinforces the image of Romeny as slippery with the truth, of changing what he says to fit the moment.

Ralph

Penn State cover-up #2

Let's see.   You're the 84 year old legendary football coach at Penn State, where football is god.   Everyone thinks you are the greatest coach ever, and your reputation is that of a really good guy -- known for integrity and honor.    To many generations of football players and coaches you are a god yourself.  There is a statue on the campus of you.

But it's January 2011, and you've just been called before a grand jury to testify in the sex-abuse scandal of one of your former assistant coaches.   The public didn't know it at the time, although the university president obviously did, but you knew a lot more about this case than you admitted to.

In fact, as far back as 1998 and again in 2002, formal complaints had been filed against Assistant Coach Sandusky.   We now know that Sandusky was questioned by the campus police and reportedly confessed to this and other incidences of inappropriate behavior with boys in the college gym.

You knew about this but you never spoke to Sandusky about it.   And you agreed with the Athletic Director and the University President that no further action should be taken, other than letting Sandusky quietly retire the following year -- and he could continue having an office on campus and use of the athletic facilities (and use he did for the next 10 years, bringing boys in and sexually abusing them in the showers).

Everybody knew you as a man of rectitude and integrity -- but you knowingly had condoned a pedophile for 10 years -- and created such an atmosphere in the athletic department that several janitors have now testified that they observed Sandusky raping boys.   But they were too afraid of being fired, so they didn't report it.

So now it's January 2011 and another case has come to light that can't be ignored.  A grand jury is convened.  Your role in the failure to report and the cover-up is exposed.

So what do you do?   You, Joe Paterno, icon of a football empire, go to the president and begin negotiations for an amended contract that isn't due for renewal for more than a year away.  And you do negotiate that amended contract:   it gives you a $3 million bonus if you retire at the end of the 2011 season and forgiveness of $250,000 interest-free debt the university has been carrying for you.  And a few more perks -- like access to a stadium luxury box for the next 25 years for your family.

The amended contract was accepted.   Then the scandal hit the news.   Paterno was fired -- and his offer to finish out the season was rejected by the Board of Trustees, who had not been informed about all the earlier incidents.

Paterno claimed he had not known the extent of the inappropriate behavior, that it had been described to him only as "fondling."

But why -- if you had no fear of losing your job over your failure to act -- would you hurry to amend your contract to make it even cushier for you and your family?

It smells like guilt to me.

Ralph