[Posted by Karl]

Only the naive thought stories like this were going away:

Political hacktivist group Anonymous claims to have found emails linking Texas Rep. Ron Paul to an American white supremacist group, a claim the Paul campaign says is completely untrue.

Las Vegas-based group American Third Party Position (AP3) — whose stated goal is “to reach out to Americans of European ancestry and particularly to disenfranchised White workers, farmers and students who have become victims of the discriminatory affirmative action policies” — was allegedly hacked by Anonymous Tuesday, and emails purportedly reveal close ties between Paul and members who are admitted white supremacists.

Last week the story was that Paul was deeply involved in the company that produced racist, anti-gay, conspiracy-mongering newsletters, Ron Paul & Associates, and closely monitored its operations, signing off on articles and speaking to staff members virtually every day.

I am in no position to confirm or deny the Anonymous claims, but Paul is the guy who once bragged about how much money he raised from the mailing list for The Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, anti-Semitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.  Paul’s columns appeared in  in the American Free Press — another Carto publication.  His 2008 campaign was, er, unconcerned about donations coming via the Stormfront website.  And Paul’s association with Civil War revisionists and the John Birch Society are recent-to-ongoing.  Accordingly, the campaign’s denials are going to be met with skepticism in many quarters.

But probably not from all quarters.  My interest in the newsletter story has been Paul’s apologists and supporters in the media and libertarian circles.  These folks are are spinning for Paul because they see his campaign as their best chance at gaining real-world political influence.  That’s interesting insofar as these sorts of libertarians generally look down on supporters of the major parties as grubby and unprincipled.  But for all their touting of Ron Paul as the principled candidate in the race, he’s a poseur on entitlements.

Beyond what these stories reveal about supposedly principled libertarians, there is a potential residual effect on the election.  Although Paul is downplaying expectations for the Nevada caucus, it appears he plans to stay in the race and amass as many delegates as he can for leverage at the GOP convention.  Giving Paul a prime speaking slot or influence over the platform will give the establishment media a chance to drape his dirty laundry all over the eventual nominee, much as they hung Pat Buchanan’s around the neck of George H. W. Bush in 1992.

–Karl

[Posted by Karl]

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

[Posted by 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

I get her point that a state mandating purchase of health insurance is not unconstitutional in the same obvious and insulting way as a mandate from Congress is.

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?

Just when you thought Eric Holder was really in trouble over Fast and Furious, you learn that he’s potentially in trouble over something else:

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.

[Posted by Karl]

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

[Posted by 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.

[Posted by Karl]

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? (more…)

Doesn’t it?

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.

As voters line up to vote in Florida, let us not lose sight of the reason we are voting: to oust Barack Obama. In that vein, I want to keep the focus on one of the bigger scandals of his administration: Fast and Furious — because there is a major hearing coming up Thursday. Eric Holder will be on the hot seat, and new Friday afternoon document dumps are casting doubt on some of his previous testimony:

[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.