The newest attack on Mitt Romney by a Newt Gingrich-supporting Super PAC is a nearly 8-minute documentary entitled “Blood Money” which purports to describe Mitt Romney’s profiting from Medicare fraud perpetrated by Damon Corporation during the time that Romney was on its board of directors, representing Bain Capital’s majority stake in the company. In fact, the PAC has made a website just to discuss the issue: mittsbloodmoney.com One of the nation’s largest public sector unions, AFSCME, has spent about a million dollars in Florida running an ad with a similar message. Separate from the issue of what the revival of the Damon Corp. story might mean for Romney’s fortunes, the fact that AFSCME is spending their money during the primary election instead of during the general election implies that they (as major supporters of Barack Obama) would much rather run against Gingrich than against Romney. DNC Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman “Who is more annoying than I am?” Schultz is sending out a memo with the same message, and other liberal and groups are running anti-Romney radio ads in Florida. The Damon Corp. story certainly reads like — and probably is — an episode of corporate greed and fraud. It’s an old story, which Massachusetts voters have heard before, but most Americans haven’t. The reason that it could be a problem for Romney is that despite the fact that neither he nor Bain was ever charged with wrongdoing in the case, the coming narrative is that Romney has given two different answers regarding his involvement — which Obama supporters will try to use to mask the basic facts of the case. In one answer, he discovered that the company was overbilling Medicare for blood tests and called for an investigation. Some reports say that prosecutors gave credit for ending the fraud to Corning Inc. which purchased Damon in 1993 . But ABC News notes, in the most balanced report I’ve found on the topic, that “Romney and the Damon board did, however, contact Damon’s lawyers, seek their counsel, and change Damon’s policies.” In another answer, Romney said he was unaware of any criminal investigation into the matter. To be sure, those two claims are not mutually exclusive; Romney could easily have both asked for an internal investigation and been unaware of a federal investigation. The real question here is whether anybody cares about a “scandal” which occurred two decades ago. It’s potentially damaging to Romney by going after his aura of being honest and upstanding. And that’s just what the Democrats will try to do, especially trying to tie Romney to a Medicare scandal which might impact Romney’s appeal to older voters. Romney will likely say “If I had done anything wrong, don’t you think I or my firm would have been charged with something? Furthermore, here are copies of the documents I had sent to the company’s lawyers to ask them to investigate this issue, and we implemented all the changes the lawyers instructed.” ABC News believes that “We can expect Romney’s opponents to keep surfacing one key number, however: the $473,000 Romney reportedly gained from the sale of Damon Corp.” I’m skeptical of that, or at least of the effectiveness of that tactic. After people have heard repeatedly that Romney is worth a quarter billion dollars, and that he’s made $40 million just in the last two years, they may be numb to a number which ends with the word “thousand” when it comes to thinking about Romney. It will be interesting to see if this newest attack on Romney gains any traction. His ability to defuse the Damon bomb will say a lot about his ability to take on Barack Obama and the David Axelrod-led attack machine in a general election. One point Romney should make (with a smile) is that “Obama and his friends must really be afraid of me to work to help Newt Gingrich with this particular smear campaign.”
More here:
Romney and Damon Corp.: A Bomb or a Dud?
The Associated Press has a nice rundown of the lies, exaggerations, distortions, and outright nonsense otherwise known as the State of the Union address.
Continued here:
Fact Checking Obama (A Full-Time Job)
Exhibit A : WASHINGTON — Declaring the American dream under siege, President Barack Obama called Tuesday night for a flurry of help for a hurting middle class and higher taxes on millionaires, delivering a State of the Union address packed with re-election themes. Restoring a fair shot for all, Obama said, is “the defining issue of our time.” Obama outlined a vastly different vision for fixing the country than the one pressed by the Republicans challenging him in Congress and fighting to take his job in the November election. He pleaded for an active government that ensures economic fairness for everyone, just as his opponents demand that the government back off and let the free market rule. Fairness. That’s in the Constitution,right? Okay, that’s just snark. Fairness is not mentioned in the Constitution, for a simple reason – life is not fair. I do not say that because I’m a comfortable member of the “one percent.” Quite the opposite. My father was in the military and I was raised on bases around the country. My first job was framing pictures at an art auction. That was when I was in high school. When I was in college, I paid for books and gas money by working in retail and food service. I have put up with grumpy customers who have literally hit me with shopping carts and burned myself on skillets and with hot frying grease. After graduation, I got my first ‘professional’ job, which led to another job and graduate school, which led me to where I am today. I earn a decent salary with good benefits because I’ve worked for them. My wife is a medical professional who makes more than me. In Obama’s world, neither of us should profit from our efforts to better our station in life. In our president’s eyes, the fact that we earn more than others is reason enough to hand over more of our paycheck to ensure we aren’t making more than we “should.” Frankly, the fact that our president has decided that he knows the acceptable level of personal profit we should earn from our labor is frightening. At best, his statements on ‘fairness’ make him a dreamer. At worst, they reveal his true nature – a near-fascist who dreams of a utopia defined by his personal desires. Neither is comforting. What’s even less comforting is that the media seems all too willing to frame their stories in a way that supports his message. In their eyes, Obama wants “fairness.” The GOP? They want you to be at the mercy of the awful “free market.” Look upon the invisible hand and despair! So…Newt? Mitt? After that speech, all I have to say is yes. Just…yes.
View post:
Why Do Conservatives Distrust the Media?
Occasionally, I will hear someone say that the amount of attention paid to Iowa and New Hampshire in the nominating process is ridiculous. However, on the Republican side of things, it turns out there is a good reason for that. Since the institution of the modern primary system (and even before), no Republican has won the nomination without winning one or the other of the early contests. Observe the chart below: A couple of observations are in order here. First, disparaging comments by Jon Huntsman aside, New Hampshire does not have a remarkably better record of picking Presidents than Iowa. New Hampshire and Iowa have disagreed on a total of five contests – in those, the candidate who won New Hampshire went on to win the nomination 3 times, the candidate who won Iowa went on to win twice. This is hardly a clear signal that Iowa can be disregarded in favor of New Hampshire in all cases. Second, South Carolina’s role in picking the nominee is at least largely due to the fact that the race has usually been all but decided by the time New Hampshire is over. Remember that South Carolina was not moved up to “third place” until 1988. It is believed by many that Atwater bumped SC up because it was thought to be friendly to Bush who was facing possible embarrassment – not necessarily of defeat, but of at least a long, difficult slog – against an insurgent Dole campaign (stop and relish the absurdity of that statement for a moment) and a stronger-than-expected showing from Pat Robertson. Since that election, there have only been three seriously contested Republican primaries – the fact that South Carolina has been the deciding factor in these elections is likely only symbolic of the fact that unlike Democrats, Republican primary voters tend to prefer settling down much earlier in a campaign and avoiding the long, drawn out debacles for which the Democrats are famous. If you look at this list, not only are there no nominees that come from outside the IA/NH column, but there are very few candidates who have even survived (in any meaningful sense) to Super Tuesday outside the IA/NH winner columns. Conclusion: Republican primary voters like to settle things early in the process. It seems like every election cycle people tend to believe that some candidate can win the Republican nomination while breaking the mold and waiting until South Carolina (or later) to claim their first victory. Evidence suggests that this is highly unlikely to be successful. Certainly I wouldn’t rule out such a thing ever happening, but I’d lay long odds against it happening any time soon. Which, you would have to assume, is bad news for anyone in the current GOP field not named Mitt Romney. All that having been said, I don’t absolutely hate the process like a lot of people do. The procession of IA, NH, and SC means that the first two contests are in small swing states in geographically diverse areas, which at least theoretically tests the candidates’ ability to win in states that will be important in November, and also allows candidates with smaller war chests to be competitive. Then SC speaks as a solid Republican state. The inclusion of MI, NV, and FL in the early rounds then tests the ability of any insurgent campaigns that might have captured IA or NH to fundraise and organize in larger and more expensive states, followed ultimately by Super Tuesday, which functions as a quasi-general. I could think of worse ways to do things. Certainly if folks are displeased with the involvement of the “establishment” in primaries, a national single-day primary would be the absolute worst idea possible, as only the wealthiest and most well-connected campaigns could even conceivably compete in such an environment. I suppose that ideally, the first two states might rotate around somewhat, while still keeping with the premise of starting with smaller swing states and trying to vary geographical location. This way certain idiosyncrasies wouldn’t keep popping up – for instance, the strong disadvantage faced by opponents of ethanol pork in the current field. But ultimately there aren’t that many variations that make as much sense (although you could imagine perhaps NV/WV, NM/IN as possible choices). While these sorts of small tweaks might be desirable, I’ve yet to see a compelling case for throwing the entire system out wholesale.
Continue reading here:
The Importance of the Early Contests
Just the fact that he’s considering it is enough to make your blood boil. Via WaPo’s Marc Thiessen: President Obama is reportedly considering releasing several senior Taliban leaders from Guantanamo Bay as an enticement to get the Taliban to the peace table. If he does so, he will do tremendous harm to American national security
See more here:
List of Gitmo Detainees Obama Is Considering To Release In “Peace Deal” With The Taliban…
