In an emotional 35 minutes in the House of Representatives today, Gabby Giffords' colleagues on both sides of the aisle bid her goodbye as her resignation takes effect.

With the notable exception of Speaker John Boehner, I don't think there was a dry eye in the house. There certainly wasn't a dry eye in this house.

I'll add the transcript as it becomes available.

After his Presidency, perhaps he'll do a run on American Idol.

I'll give Newt Gingrich this much: He knows how to play the race card for everything it's worth, and does it without even batting an eyelash. I think the apex of Monday's debate was this moment when Juan Williams asked Gingrich a direct question about how his thinly-veiled racist attitudes play with African American voters, and whether he regretted his positions. Here's the question and answer:

WILLIAMS: Speaker Gingrich, you recently said black Americans should demand jobs, not food stamps. You also said poor kids lack a strong work ethic and proposed having them work as janitors in their schools. Can’t you see that this is viewed, at a minimum, as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to black Americans?

GINGRICH: No. I don’t see that.

The audience roared. Absolutely roared. Salon writer Steve Kornacki's analysis was right on the money:

In a general election debate, this might have been a challenging question for Gingrich to field. But this was a GOP primary debate in a state where the modern Republican Party was essentially created out of a white backlash against the Democratic Party’s embrace of civil rights. Some in the live audience in Myrtle Beach hissed at Williams, one of the few Democratic-friendly voices on Fox, and Gingrich milked their outrage for all it was worth.

Yes, yes he did. Not content to re-emphasize his barely-concealed disdain for those sponging poor folk who obviously have no decent role models so they can learn how to work, he went on to declare this:

You could take one janitor and hire 30-some kids to work in the school for the price of one janitor, and those 30 kids would be a lot less likely to drop out. They would actually have money in their pocket. They’d learn to show up for work. They could do light janitorial duty. They could work in the cafeteria. They could work in the front office. They could work in the library. They’d be getting money, which is a good thing if you’re poor. Only the elites despise earning money.

Ooh. A two-fer. He gets to nail those piggy union janitors in New York and play right into the heart of the crowd with the "elites" comment. Except it's not accurate. The union employees Gingrich is referring to here are known as "custodial engineers." And as FactCheck.org notes, the starting pay for one of those employees is about $56,000 in New York. However, a custodial engineer isn't really a janitor in the sense that Gingrich describes. A custodial engineer is a management position. A "cleaner" makes about $32,000 per year.

In Newt's scenario, that $30,000 per year position would be split among "30-some" kids, who would do "light janitorial duty", presumably. How many hours would students work to earn that $1,000 per year? And what happens to the adult who no longer has a job because the students are now "learning to work"? These are unanswered questions.

But never fear, Newtie didn't stop there. He knew he had the audience with him and the momentum on his side, particularly after the audience booed loudly and tried to shout Juan Williams' next question down.

Continue reading »

Under pressure from opponents, Mitt Romney says he'll release his tax returns in April. Maybe. Or not. Because really and truly, he feels like he's disclosed enough about his finances. Except that in a time where one of the key points of disagreement with Republicans is over taxes paid by high-earning taxpayers like Romney, it's relevant to the debate.

Could we possibly trust someone with tax policy who currently benefits from it as it stands? That's the key question, and one Mitt Romney is unwilling to answer, despite using tax returns as a campaign wedge when he ran against Ted Kennedy.

Romney rather proudly says he's released his financial disclosures and owes no other. But every President and Vice President in recent history has released their tax returns. Barack Obama and Joe Biden have released ten years' worth. Bush and Cheney released tax returns beginning with the year 2000.

Here's the problem. It's entirely likely that Mitt Romney's tax rate is far lower than most people's. It's likely he is a poster child for the "Buffett Rule", because most of his income is likely to be passive income like dividends and capital gains, which are taxed at a lower rate than earned income. To further complicate things, it's appears that he's parked much of his wealth offshore in order to avoid taxes entirely.

From the January 12th broadcast of Countdown, David Shuster reports:

You see, we've actually looked at the financial disclosure forms that you, and all candidates, are required to file. And in your case, the disclosure forms reveal that you and your wife have millions of dollars in offshore accounts. Your offshore funds are in the Cayman Islands and other places that give huge tax advantages to investors.

I appreciate the statement by your campaign that "the Romney's have paid taxes on all income, including offshore investments." However, the tax rates and income levels are not specified in the disclosure forms.

If Romney runs true to form, he won't release any tax returns whatsoever. And if that is the case, he should be given no quarter when it comes to tax policy. Anything that comes out of his mouth should be assumed to be only for the benefit of the 1 percent, and not the rest of us.

If he does deign to release returns, you can bet on the fact that he will release sanitized versions of his 2011 returns without any from 2010, when he first declared his candidacy. We can't have the unwashed masses privy to the workings of Mitt Romney's finances, after all. That's something for quiet rooms.

Full transcript below the fold.

Update: Today, Mr. Romney admits his effective tax rate is 15%, less than most people pay.

Continue reading »

In Monday night's debate, this exchange immediately followed the audience booing Ron Paul for invoking the Golden Rule as part of foreign policy.

I wonder if Mitt Romney really understands the Taliban. I wonder if he understands that there are different factions of the Taliban in Pakistan, Afghanistan and elsewhere. But mostly, I wonder if he understands that no matter how hard he might try, he cannot truly challenge the current Administration's successful foreign policy, even when that foreign policy includes negotiations with the Taliban.

Romney practically oozes testosterone as he swears that negotiation with the Taliban is absolutely off-limits to a President Romney. He reiterates the neocon line that Iraq was necessary and the only way to avoid such "necessary conflicts" would be to build the "strongest military in the world." Because of course, spending all that money on weapons of world destruction surely endears us to the rest of the world.

This is the official Republican party line. It wouldn't matter if it was Romney or Santorum. These men are one hundred percent committed to Empire writ large all over the world. They have no compunction about our young people being sent off to die for no apparent reason beyond revenge in foreign lands, nor would they lose even a little bit of sleep at night.

Also? I'd like to correct one thing Mr. Romney said. No Iraqi killed Americans. No Iraqi declared war on us. No Iraqi did harm to us. But we invaded and occupied their country anyway, based on a lie. I also appreciate his endorsement of our current President's foreign policy.

Transcript below the fold.

Continue reading »

It's just weird to hear a billionaire like Foster Friess go on and on about how attractive Rick Santorum is because he's such a "blue collar candidate." I'm not sure Friess really has a clue as to what a blue collar worker is, and I seriously doubt he has any love for them unless they're spending their hard-earned money to beef up his bottom line.

Friess, as you might recall, was one of those present and mentioned at the Koch gathering where Charles Koch thanked the members of his "millionaires club" for donating over one million dollars to the conservative cause.

In this segment with Neil Cavuto, Friess goes on about how Rick Santorum is such a blue-collar, down to earth guy, and is a Reaganesque figure. This is somewhat contradictory to Santorum's actual background. He grew up in the suburbs and was raised by a nurse and a psychologist who worked for the Veterans Administration. He went to college, got involved in politics and never worked a blue collar job in his life that I can find.

It appears to me that Santorum has managed to live a life where wealthy patrons financed his political rise (and fall), and after he left office, he went to very blue collar jobs as a Fox News commentator and lawyer.

Friess, however, is hedging his bets as any good investment mogul would. He's got Romney in the wings just in case his bet on Santorum doesn't pan out.

If the candidates were wearing the logos of their sponsors, I imagine Rick Perry would have Exxon-Mobil's emblazoned in the place where he currently wears his flag pin. Or Amoco, or whoever it is that funds his campaign when it's clearly gone past its prime.

Perry wasn't given a lot of debate time, so it would appear he memorized a few key paragraphs to make sure he got a sound bite or two. Unfortunately for Governor Perry, ending the Iraq war is something 75% of Americans support, regardless of party affiliation. That's overwhelming, which is why it's shocking to have actually heard him say he would re-deploy troops to Iraq, and to claim the war in Iraq ended because of the President's "lefty liberal base", a perjorative term that he spat out in the middle of his speech. Here's what he said:

PERRY: Well, I think that you have to -- I would send troops back into Iraq, because I will tell you...

STEPHANOPOULOS: Now?

PERRY: I -- I think we start talking with the Iraqi individuals there. The idea that we allow the Iranians to come back into Iraq and take over that country, with all of the treasure, both in blood and money, that we have spent in Iraq, because this president wants to kowtow to his liberal, leftist base and move out those men and women. He could have renegotiated that timeframe.

I think it is a huge error for us. We’re going to see Iran, in my opinion, move back in at literally the speed of light. They’re going to move back in, and all of the work that we’ve done, every young man that has lost his life in that country will have been for nothing because we’ve got a president that does not understand what’s going on in that region.

Perry clearly speaks for the 25% of Americans who are either clueless, greedy, or bloodthirsty. I'm not sure which. It's classic neocon framing, though, particularly the part about "treasure, both in blood and money," as if lives were equal to money. Perhaps it's too simplistic to say so, given the neocon belief that US-style democracy should dominate political systems worldwide, but can we just be honest and say it's about the oil? I somehow doubt Rick Perry cares as much about lives as he does about treasure, and clearly he's upset that we aren't putting our greedy little hands on the treasure.

Continue reading »

I was really hoping Newt Gingrich would take the gloves off and hammer Mitt Romney, but alas. It seems he has gotten over his sadness over Mean Mitt and decided to play nice just like the rest of them who appear to have reached consensus that Mitt Romney is the Nominee Apparent. However, that didn't stop Ron Paul and Newtie from going personal with each other, and boy did they.

The kerfuffle seems to begin with an interview Ron Paul gave to CNN earlier this week, where he came right out with it and called Gingrich a chickenhawk. (Video) Diane Sawyer asked Dr. Paul if he stood by his comment. He did, and when asked whether he'd say it on the debate stage, he was happy to oblige. Suffice it to say, Newtie didn't take it well. Not at all.

This is one area where I agree with Ron Paul. Far too many politicians want to send our young people off to fight wars when they haven't served and really don't have a clue about what a sacrifice it really is. For all of Newt's righteous indignation, it was clear the punch landed and landed hard. As it should.

I will give Newt this much. Being in a military family is its own kind of sacrifice. It's hard, whether a spouse or a child, to wonder if your parent is going to come home safely and be the same parent they were before they left. It's hard never to put down roots and to live on the salaries paid to our troops. This is why Michelle Obama works so hard on behalf of military families -- she knows it's a difficult haul. He's right about all of that, but it doesn't serve as a substitute for service itself.

The transcript follows after the jump, via Washington Post.

Continue reading »

Of all the Republican candidates, I think Jon Huntsman is at least sane. Sane, and somewhat reasonable in his policy ideas. I don't agree with him, but I do respect him coming from a perspective that's not sheer insanity.

In Saturday night's debate, he tangles a bit with Mitt Romney. Mitt was particularly condescending at this debate. It's a miracle he even deigned to acknowledge Huntsman's existence, much less actually engage with him. Romney speaks what everyone knows: Jon Huntsman is toast in the Republican party of 2012, because he was President Obama's Ambassador to China before he was a candidate for President. But not content to stop there, Romney then goes off on a complete rant about China and how he's going to be authoritative and make them do what President Romney wants them to do.

To which Jon Huntsman says, Mitt Romney, you don't know what you're talking about. That's not really much of a retort, unless of course, it's done in Mandarin. I know Jon Huntsman is going to be done after Tuesday, but I really enjoyed him giving Romney a taste of what someone who actually understands a country thinks when Mittens spouts off with more of his silly neocon authoritarian stuff.

The most pathetic part of this exchange is how clueless Romney really is. He thinks, like most neocon Republicans, that we can just swagger around and tell China what to do. He hasn't really picked up on the fact that those days ended when his party sold us to China to pay for wars and tax cuts.

Ah, Republican love for democracy at work. And let's not minimize the fact that the one and only Karl Rove is the one to share the news with viewers.

After six hours of Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum exchanging leads by the barest of margins, suddenly the vote counts dropped for Santorum and rose for Romney, so that Santorum's 20+ vote lead dropped to 4 votes. Rove earnestly explains that there was a transposition on entry of final totals, and when it was adjusted, it went to Mitt Romney's favor.

That left only the votes in Keokuk outstanding. Karl Rove explains that both candidates have agreed to what the final tally was for that precinct, leaving Mitt with the win by 14 votes.

How convenient. We can't have the GOP Anointed One usurped by an interloper, even if it is another GOP party acolyte. Even more convenient that Rove is the guy who has the story first. Had it, or wrote it? Which?

Update:Iowa GOP Chairman Matt Strawn just announced this: Mitt Romney wins with 30,015 votes. Rick Santorum had 30,007 votes. A total of 122,255 Republicans turned out, which is less than was expected. Just for comparison, consider Mitt Romney's 2008 vote count: 30,021.