As usual, you are positively encouraged to engage in sockpuppetry in this thread. The usual rules apply.

Please, be sure to switch back to your regular handle when commenting on other threads. I have made that mistake myself.

And remember: the worst sin you can commit on this thread is not being funny.

—

Yesterday, WaPo “fact checker,” Glenn Kessler, evaluated Pres. Obama’s claim that “some wanted to let the auto industry die.”  After wryly noting that Obama has “a fondness for using rhetorical straw men in his speeches,” he awards the president a mere two Pinocchios. 

Kessler somehow manages to get through the column without mentioning the Ford Motor Company, which afaik is part of the auto industry.  Nor does he mention the other members of the auto industry aside from GM and Chrysler who manufacture and otherwise employ folks here in the US.  Granted, we tend to think of a company like Toyota as “foreign,” but Chrysler was sold to Fiat, so the nationalism card should not be in play from a fact-checking standpoint.

Indeed, Kessler also writes “a credible case can be made that an auto industry bankruptcy likely would not have been possible in November or December of 2008 (when Romney and other Republicans pushed for it) because there was no bank financing available.”  If we want to talk about “cases,” a case can be made that a regular bankruptcy would have yielded about the same number of continuing jobs at GM as the taxpayer-funded bankruptcy.  And a case easily could be made that a GOP administration could have come up with a bankruptcy deal that would have looked a lot more like a normal proceeding than a politicially-motivated bailout of the United Auto Workers.  But a “case” is not a fact. 

In short, it’s another example of Kessler, like other establishment media operations, pretending political debates are much simpler questions of fact. And this is a particularly bad example of the genre:

Okay, out of 300 million Americans, maybe there were “some folks” who felt the auto industry should die. But Obama appeared to be suggesting that GOP lawmakers were willing to let the auto industry collapse. On that basis, the evidence is not very strong. The quotes we received — and others we researched — were mostly questions of tactics.

As the administration’s internal debate suggests, the answers were not clear. Certainly, some top administration officials thought at least one car company should die.

From the left, I can argue that Kessler concedes the vague “some” is almost undoubtedly true, meriting no Pinocchios.  From the right, I can note that Kessler came up with zero examples of Obama’s GOP critics wanting the US auto industry to die, which is the politically salient claim.  Indeed, Kessler notes the GOP’s real problem was with the UAW, while largely avoiding the fact that the Obama adminsitration’s maneuver here was mostly about bailing out the UAW’s unsustainable pension and healthcare benefits.

As Kessler seems bent on keeping this up, it is again time to note  the WaPo fact-checker blog was on hiatus from the last day of the 2008 election campaign through January 9, 2011. When the federal government was run entirely by a supermajority of Democrats, there was no need for fact-checking.  In an election year, there is a demand for media spin of Obama’s rhetoric.

–Karl

Newt Gingrich is easily branded as a loose cannon.  Indeed, I’ve done it, because it’s true.  However, frontrunner Mitt Romney is far from immune from self-destructive gaffes:

Obsessive attention to detail suffuses Mitt Romney’s candidacy for president, from the number of times staff members check the microphones at his rallies to their relentless scouring of Twitter.

But Mr. Romney’s aides cannot always bring that well-known level of discipline to one crucial aspect of the campaign: their candidate’s seemingly endless ability to utter remarks that, to the delight of his critics, sail onto political blogs, YouTube and Twitter.

Romney’s comment that “I’m not concerned about the very poor,” caused Jonah Goldberg to ask “What is wrong with this guy?” and to later answer that “as even he will admit, he’s a late arrival. And, as you might expect, he speaks conservatism as a second language.”

It may be worse than that.  As Goldberg also noted, “[t]he frustrating problem with Romney is that his flubs and gaffes either share liberal assumptions or are caricatures of conservative ones.”  I would argue the problem is more specific.  Romney’s gaffes are rooted in his wealth problem.  He alternatively makes comments that feed the narrative of an out-of-touch fatcat or irritate the GOP base with faux populism designed to counter that narrative.  Indeed, yesterday Romney said that he was not concerned about the very poor or the very rich, when his concern should be whatever benefits America without regard to class issues.  Instead, his sensitivity to the wealth issue causes him to not  only disregard the affluent  and the poor rhetorically, but to produce a mediocre tax plan and to back indexing the minimum wage for inflation, which ironically hurts the poor.

In short, Romney recognizes his wealth is a political liability and his attempts to address that liability often become an additional liability.  His discomfort also feeds the perception that he is inauthentic.  Unless he finds a personal comfort level with his wealth and its political implications, all of these problems will linger into the general election, where Team Obama will exploit them ruthlessly.

–Karl

That said . . .

Three cheers for Romneycare?

Really?

Even his most avid supporters can barely muster one, let alone two.

And Ann is giving three?

Really?

A U.S. Justice Department source has told The Daily Caller that at least two DOJ prosecutors accepted cash bribes from allegedly corrupt finance executives who were indicted under court seal within the past 13 months, but never arrested or prosecuted.

The sitting governor of the U.S. Virgin Islands, his attorney general and an unspecified number of Virgin Islands legislators also accepted bribes, the source said, adding that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder is aware prosecutors and elected officials were bribed and otherwise compromised, but has not held anyone accountable.

The bribed officials, an attorney with knowledge of the investigation told TheDC, remain on the taxpayers’ payroll at the Justice Department without any accountability. The DOJ source said Holder does not want to admit public officials accepted bribes while under his leadership.

Remember that Holder is sitting on the hot seat tomorrow morning answering questions about U.S. gunrunning to Mexico. I don’t know whether he will have to answer questions about this newly emerging scandal tomorrow . . . but he will have to sometime.

If he doesn’t resign first.

Jim Geraghty (among others) , relying on Gallup, notes Pres. Obama’s job approval rating for 2011 is anemic in most swing states. Just as notable are Obama’s disapproval numbers in swing states, as they show an incumbent underwater, often with majority disapproval: IA (45.6/45.9); PA (45/47.8); VA (44.5/49); NC (43.7/48.5); FL (43.6/47.8); OH (42.1/50.2); NM (41.7/51.2); NV (41.3/50.6); CO (40.4/52.2); and NH (38.7/54.4).

Geraghty adds that this does not necessary translate to votes which is true, but probably not good for Obama.  In 2004 — a polarized, close election — Bush lost states where he had net positive job approval, but did not win one state where he had a net negative job approval.  As Jay Cost notes, the only two years where we see a substantial amount of support for the incumbent president among disapprovers — 1972 and 1980 – are also not good news for Obama.

National Journal’s Josh Kraushaar correctly reminds us the Gallup data is from “throughout 2011, reflecting as much the past year as the present,” while noting Obama’s national job approval hasn’t moved much this year.  Where recent polls are available, they generally confirm Kraushaar’s hypothesis.  I covered IA and NH earlier this month; those states are marginally better than Gallup, but they’re also less economically distressed than most (and Obama is still underwater in NH).  In PA, recent polls have Obama at 45/50 and 40/49.  In VA, it 48/47 and 42/51. In NC, it’s 47/49 or 50.  In FL, it’s 44/49.  In OH, it’s 44/51.  In NV and NM, GS Strategies has Obama at 41/57.3 and 43.3/56.8 (the firm did not provide a complete breakdown of the sample, but the firm’s polls for FL, OH and VA are close to other public polls).  In CO, Ciruli Associates (a local firm) had Obama at 39/53 in December 2011.

The news is marginally better for Obama in January’s Purple Poll (.pdf), even though it spotlights FL (40/56).  Obama is underwater in the Southern Swing states (FL, NC & VA) at 42/53 and the Rust Belt (NH, OH & PA) at 41/51.  However, he’s above water in the Heartland (WI, MN & IA) at 48/47, and only marginally underwater in the Wild West (CO, NV & NM) at 47/49.  That showing in the West is improved from the September poll; his numbers have not moved significantly in any of the other regions.  I might trust that uptick, as I doubt it’s coincidence that Obama spent last week in Iowa, Colorado and Nevada.  Time is the candidate’s most valuable resource.  Obama needs to spend his in states where he has the best odds of goosing his job approval rating to a net positive.

–Karl

Polls don’t close for a while — and afafik, full exit polls won’t be available until then.  But Drudge leaked an early exit poll topline, which may or may not be reliable, as anyone who suffered through 2000 (or 2004 for that matter) knows.  Some exit poll data is flowing at TIME, the NYT and CBS News. 

I’m seeing CNN exits on Twitter, which I’ll briefly summarize here.  52% voting in GOP primary were men, 48% women.  34% said they are “very conservative”, 37% “somewhat conservative”, 30% “moderate or liberal.”  66% support the tea party.  15% of GOP voting electorate today is Latino.  39% evangelical Christian, 61% not.  

Fox exits via Twitter: Romney winning 58% of those who say beating Obama is biggest priority.  Romney winning seniors by 15% over Newt.  Romney is last among those who say electing a “true conservative” is most important (shocka).  Romney winning Hispanics by 27%.  Gingrich only leading Romney among evangelicals by 4%.

Discuss.

Update: Nate Silver has some very pretty maps of the 2008 primary results for comparison.  The Fix has 5 counties to watch tonight.  And here’s your Google map and results.

Update 2: Historically, Florida is a blowout.  It will be interesting to see how the margin squares with exit polling suggesting 40% are not happy with the field.

–Karl

UPDATE BY PATTERICO: ROMNEY WINS!!!

OK, I guess it’s not that surprising.

Today is the Florida primary, which most expect to be won by Mitt Romney.  While we await those results this evening, it is worth reflecting on the other primary Romney essentially sews up today: the invisible primary.

Yesterday, I referred to the GOP apparat — and some of the response was to have a little fun with the idea, or to express weariness with debates about the “GOP establishment.”  Such responses are understandable.  After all, the Republican Party is not a conspiracy.  Moreover, post-1968 reforms took  presidential nominations out of the hands of party bosses and into the hands of caucus and primary voters, right?  At the very least, it placed the process more in the hands of candidates and their campaigns, yes?

Some political scientists think it is more complex than that.  For example, in The Party Decides, Marty Cohen, David Karol, Hans Noel, and John Zaller argue the rise of the invisible primary still gives the party control of presidential nominations:

The invisible primary is essentially a long-running national conversation among members of each party coalition about who can best unite the party and win the next presidential election. The conversation occurs in newspapers, on Sunday morning television talk shows, among activist friends over beer, in chatter at party events, and, most recently, in the blogosphere. ***

***

Some voices obviously count for more than others in the invisible primary, but anyone can join in simply by paying attention, attending party gatherings, and chiming in.  The weighting of voices is determined by the resources (money, labor, expertise, prestige) the speaker can bring to party business and by the cogency of the remarks offered.  Politics enters as well: pressure to go along with one’s group, to get on the bandwagon of the likely winner, or to repay old obligations.  But the main business of the invisible primary is figuring out who can best unify the party and win the fall election.

Note the authors’ definition of the party extends beyond its elected officials and party functionaries, but extends to activists, fundraisers, interest groups, campaign technicians and others.

As Jay Cost noted last summer, the invisible primary has become extremely important because the cost of campaigning has increased exponentially and frontloading has altered the nature of the nomination battle.  Since the institution of the caucus/primary reforms, Jimmy Carter remains the only candidate to win his party’s nomination without winning the invisible primary, as typically measured by fundraising and endorsements — and that was largely because the parties had not recognized that someone could beat the system before 1976 and the system was not as frontloaded.  Howard Dean attempted a similar feat in 2004 via the Internet, but failed.  Barack Obama may have beaten the seemingly establishment Hillary Clinton in 2008, but he raised more money than her heading into the Iowa caucuses and his endorsements in early states were competitive with hers.  The closest example in the GOP,  John McCain, stumbled in the summer of 2007, but started and finished as the winner of the invisible primary (especially after accounting for Romney’s significantly self-funded 2008 campaign).

This cycle, anyone following politics could see the efforts mounted to pull Haley Barbour, Mitch Daniels, Paul Ryan and Chris Christie into the race.  The names of those behind such efforts were not always public, but it was hardly a shadowy cabal, either.  Tim Pawlenty’s early withdrawal from the race was a product of the invisible primary (donors lost confidence in him after the Iowa straw poll).  Most commentary and coverage of Ron Paul, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann reflected the judgment of the invisible primary that these were not serious candidates.  The invisible primary has never been more visible.

Of course, opinion is far from unanimous on the theory that party elites play a decisive role in determining presidential nominations.  Nate Silver is among the skeptics, helpfully noting that Romney may be preferred by GOP elites, that preference is rather tepid.  Silver focuses primarily on the relative scarcity of endorsements overall, but that data is corroborated by reports that many big-name GOP donors did not commit to Mitt until Chris Christie was officially out.

However, even if you are more partial to the view that the current rules emphasize candidates, their consultants and voters over the party per se, Jay Cost correctly notes the early caucus and primary states often favor moderates and attract large numbers of the poorly informed.  Even if you do not think the party decides, the party does more or less set the calendar.  You know who that benefits?

–Karl

I’m speaking, of course, to Democrats . . . about their unelectable candidate, Barack Obama:

It’s understandable that the focus would be on Republican candidates in the midst of a GOP primary. But we shouldn’t forget that the general election — like all incumbent elections — will largely be a referendum on Barack Obama. And, under current conditions, Obama is every bit as unelectable as the Republicans supposedly are.

The piece is worth a read, but it reminds us that Obama’s approval rating is still low, the economy still sucks, Obama’s agenda is still unpopular, and people are tired of his message.

Yes, our candidates suck. We have a guy who passed a healthcare mandate and a guy who supported one. Newt Gingrich is our “anti-establishment” candidate; enough said.

But it’s good to remember we aren’t the people with the crappiest candidate. Democrats are. And no matter whom we choose, that will remain true.

[Holder] is scheduled to appear Thursday before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The first question for Holder will concern a series of emails sent in the immediate aftermath of the death of Border Patrol Agent Brian Terry on Dec. 15, 2010. The emails make clear that Monty Wilkinson, then Holder’s deputy chief of staff, was informed by U.S. Attorney Dennis Burke of Terry’s death, and that weapons found on the scene were bought in Phoenix and were among those in “the investigation we were going to talk about.”

Other documents obtained by the committee make clear that the investigation in question was Fast and Furious. The emails also establish that Wilkinson and other senior Justice Department officials in Washington were briefed on the program shortly after Terry’s murder. In other words, within days, if not hours, of Terry’s death, it was known at the highest levels of the Justice Department that he was killed by guns sold with the full knowledge of federal officials who then lost track of them.

It is simply inconceivable that Wilkinson did not inform others in the Justice Department, including Holder, about these facts.

Indeed. And if he didn’t, that raises questions about Holder’s managerial competence.

This is going to be a major hearing, and it won’t be pretty for Holder. We’ll do our best to stay on top of it here.

The language of GOP racial politics is heavy on euphemisms that allow the speaker to deny any responsibility for the racial content of his message. The code words in this game are “entitlement society” — as used by Mitt Romney — and “poor work ethic” and “food stamp president” — as used by Newt Gingrich. References to a lack of respect for the “Founding Fathers” and the “Constitution” also make certain ears perk up by demonizing anyone supposedly threatening core “old-fashioned American values.”

Yeah, any time I hear someone talk about the “Constitution” I can tell they’re racists.

The fact is, if you hear the n-word every time someone talks about our entitlement society, the person with the race problem is YOU. If you hear “American values” and think “bigot” then the person with the race problem is YOU. If talking about the Founding Fathers seems racist, the person with the race problem is YOU.

If everything sounds like racism to you, Juan Williams, you might be a racist.