Daily Kos

Yeah, we know he's got the most funding, best organization and most insider endorsements. And, despite—not because of—having John (I love my life, and it shows) McCain as his new BFF, he's leading in the polls both nationally and in upcoming New Hampshire, where there will be no surprises.

Regardless, there are four very important reasons Mitt Romney will be the GOP nominee:

1. Rick Santorum is unelectable

Whether it's blaming liberals for the Catholic Church sex abuse scandal or comparing homosexuality to incest, bigamy and adultery, Santorum's extreme statements have made him a guaranteed loser in a national election. No strategic-thinking Republican will support him. He's soon to find out that the support he's gotten so far is more anti-Mitt and less pro-Rick. It won't be enough because he's sharing the wealth with reasons 2, 3 and 4.

2. Newt Gingrich is a jerk

Who says so? Anyone who's worked with him. The astounding thing about Newt's collapse in national polls is that it was aided and abetted by literally countless number of people who, on record and off, say they know him, they've worked with him, and they will not support him.

3. Rick Perry is damaged goods

I won't point out how badly Perry has done when he charged unarmed into a battle of wits with his peers.... YouTube has the details in any one of the debates he participated in. I will point out that the national consensus that Perry is not ready for command is reflected in the polls, and for this year, is simply not reversible.

4. Ron Paul, libertarian, doesn't share a Republican foreign policy

His foreign policy positions make him unelectable in a Republican primary. It doesn't matter how many third place finishes he gets. I wonder if anyone will tell him?

The funny thing is that each of them by themselves, one on one, might—I say, might—have a chance simply because Romney has his own major issues with the Republican base that votes in a primary. But with each of these less than stellar candidates running against each other and splitting the non-Romney vote, Romney will sail through unimportant New hampshire and have a real shot at South Carolina. If he does well there, why should he do poorly in Florida and points beyond?

At some point, the losers are going to have to admit they really can't win. And what's the point of running if you can't win? All you do is tick off the eventual winner and make yourself a pariah. And as long as these are who Romney is running against, he'll take the prize.

Even someone as ill-informed as Michele Bachmann gets that.

All of this has happened before.

The Washington Post reports:

Authorities say the man charged with setting fire to a Florida Panhandle abortion clinic long targeted by violence told investigators he was motivated by his hatred for abortion.

In an affidavit released late Thursday, prosecutors said 41-year-old Bobby Joe Rogers told investigators that he made a fire bomb and threw it at the Pensacola clinic early Sunday.

Rogers said he was pushed to action after he saw a young woman enter the clinic for an abortion while he was standing outside the clinic with a group of protesters recently.

It's almost hard to get worked up about stories like this, when they're so damned common. Bombs thrown, buildings burned, car tires slashed, patients stalked, doctors assassinated ... You can look at the statistics. You can read about the thousands of acts of violence and tens of thousands of acts of "non-violent" terrorism against health care providers and their staff and their patients and their landlords and their landlords' children. It's all part of the "pro-life" movement to save the fetuses. And hey, if some property, or some people, have to get hurt, well, that's a fair price to pay.

We can already predict how this will play out. After all, all of this has happened before:

The two-story Pensacola clinic that was gutted by flames has been attacked before. It was bombed on Christmas Day in 1984, and in 1994 a doctor and a volunteer who escorted patients to and from the clinic were shot to death as they arrived. The gunman, Paul Hill, was executed in 2003.

In the coming days and weeks, we'll learn more about this Bobby Joe Rogers, who was so enraged at the sight of a woman walking into a health clinic that he just had to bomb it. We'll probably learn about his obsession with this clinic, perhaps even with a particular doctor who worked there. He'll probably have at least tenuous connections to an anti-choice organization: some literature in his car, perhaps, or the phone number of, say, Cheryl Sullenger, senior policy advisor at Operation Rescue and herself a convicted "pro-life" terrorist who, yes, tried to blow up an abortion clinic. Any organization to which his name might be linked will, of course, denounce his violence. They always do. It's their thinly veiled attempt at plausible deniability—stir up the hate, put $10,000 bounties on the heads of doctors, and then claim innocence and sadness after the fact.

All of this has happened before. And until our government starts treating "pro-life" terrorism like, you know, terrorism—starting with actually identifying such acts as terrorism, rather than as mere isolated incidents of violence, because the "debate" about women's health care is so "complicated"—all of this will, tragically, happen again.

The Nonprofit Quarterly:

USA Today is reporting that donations of homes—many of which have been foreclosed—have increased significantly in the past year. I am not sure whether we are supposed to be happy about this. For instance, Bank of America donated 150 homes in 2011, and plans to donate 1,200 next year. Wells Fargo is ahead of the curve, having donated 1,120 homes this year—up from 295 last year. These two paragons of charity were cited by the treasury department in June, along with JPMorgan Chase, for poor performance in the federal HAMP loan restructure program. In short, they made the process so unwieldy that people would be foreclosed on while still in a miasma of negotiations with the same bank that was foreclosing. Kafka anyone?

So the bad news is, banks still aren't willing to work seriously with underwater homeowners to reduce foreclosures. The good news? After they've taken back the homes and tossed the residents out of them, they're turning around and donating a few of those homes to community programs.

Emphasis is on the phrase a few; as NPQ notes, there are about six million homes in America that either have already been foreclosed or are in danger of being foreclosed. A thousand homes each from the top megabanks hardly puts a dent in that. And like most charity contributions, there is something in it for the banks; I would presume the homes being donated are the ones in the worst shape and/or in the most distressed neighborhoods, and homes for which a bulldozer is the only economical solution. Getting those homes off the bank's books, ridding themselves of the liability for the abandoned properties, and being able to write down a much-inflated "market value" as a tax deduction is probably a considerable net win for the banks.

So bully for them, I suppose. But what is needed here is not a few hundred or a few thousand unsellable homes getting donated to community groups, but for something more substantive to be done about the six million homes in distress. HAMP has been a mess, and banks are still—still—not making good-faith efforts to work with homeowners before foreclosure takes place. It is ridiculous, and it's not doing the housing market, the economy, or the banks any favors. After bailing these banks out, taxpayers should all but own these banks (or at least would, were we not so determined to protect our captains of finance from the free-market consequences of their free-market actions at any price); it seems more than reasonable for taxpayers to be asking these banks to better return the favor.

A pipe dream, I know.

Sucks to be a House GOPer.

A year to the day since Ohio’s John Boehner and 87 eager freshmen took Washington by storm, House Republicans are bruised from battle, irritated with each other and have lost trust in their leadership.

The president whose agenda they came to Washington to stop is vowing to spend the year scoring political points against Republicans now, and they don’t have much leverage against him.

Now, they’re trying to figure out how to revamp their agenda to find much needed political and policy victories in advance of the November election.

Political victories? Watch freshman Republicans rebel against a long-term deal on the payroll tax extension—something mainstream Republicans would rather pass quickly and move on to firmer ground. They got crushed on the issue in December, and would rather not relive it.

They're also talking about some tax code reform, which is obviously nothing more than yet another smokescreen to give the wealthiest another break. They made very clear, in the payroll tax cut debacle, that they have no interest whatsoever in helping out the middle class (and certainly not the lower class).

In case you need a reminder of where the House led by Speaker John Boehner and Majority Leader Eric Cantor stand with the American people:

For the uninitiated, that's a historical record low. Yes, the GOP-led House is the most unpopular since Gallup started polling in 1958. And several other polls have confirmed the absolute sucktitude of the teabagger-controlled Congress.

And what does that mean for November 2012?

According to a Gallup poll released Friday, more than three quarters of registered voters say most members of Congress deserve to lose their jobs–the highest number since 1993, the year before the political climate resulted in a Republican "tsunami."

House Republicans are in the worst political position of any governing party since the 1994 tsunami. For the first time ever, people want to vote their own congresscritters out.

Two-in-three voters say most members of Congress should be voted out of office in 2012 – the highest on record. And the number who say their own member should be replaced matches the all-time high recorded in 2010, when fully 58 members of Congress lost reelection bids – the most in any election since 1948.

Republicans know they're f'd, and they're fighting about how to right their ship. And given the huge schisms between establishment and teabagger Republicans in the House, this isn't a fight that will be resolved quickly, or quietly.

I don't see how Mitt Romney can lose his party's nomination. That said, I don't see how he can win it, either. Dana Milbank:

But [McCain] grimaced when he was introduced, and as Romney delivered his own stump speech, an increasingly impatient McCain pulled up his sleeve and checked his watch. McCain gave his endorsement address without mentioning Romney’s Iowa win until the end. “By the way, we forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night,” he said, laughing. Romney ignored him.

Then came the questions: First, one from an Occupy Wall Street infiltrator needling the candidate about his belief that “corporations are people.” A second questioner wanted to know why Romney flip-flopped on universal health care when he was governor of Massachusetts and why he would not increase health-care costs. Later, a Chinese American woman accused Romney of saying “degrading” things about China, and she complained that “after 20 years of Reagan trickle-down economics, it didn’t help me. My tin can is still empty.” [...]

When the end mercifully came, the candidate gave a final rallying call to “get the White House back.” All but a few rose and put on their coats without applauding.

That's an account the New Hampshire rally in which Sen. John McCain was hauled out to give an excruciating-to-all-involved endorsement of Romney. It did not go well. Roger Simon has a similarly brutal take, calling it "the event from hell":

Then Romney announces this is going to be a two-person town hall and that McCain is going to stay on the stage and take questions, too.

This is odd enough — the crowd has probably come to see and hear Romney — but doubly odd since McCain hates public speaking and is no good at it, which he immediately proceeds to demonstrate. [...]

McCain tells an anecdote involving Grantland Rice, Joe Louis and Billy Conn, who everyone as old as McCain (75) no doubt still remembers, bashes President Obama and then wraps up with patented “heh-heh” McCain sarcasm.

Turning to Romney and then the audience, McCain says, “We forgot to congratulate him on his landslide victory last night!” Heh-heh.

Both pieces are worth a full read. The picture they both paint of Romney is about as unflattering as you are allowed to get in mainstream reporting. His campaign is desperately seeks polish and organization, but even the audiences at his own events aren't that into him—but his behind-the-scenes treatment of reporters is, if anything, just as agonizingly awkward and staged as his public persona. It hurts to read it.

I think probably the only way Mitt Romney could become even remotely likable is if he just started dropping bushels of money from the ceiling, during his campaign events. That wouldn't do much to deflect from the perception that he is the candidate for and by the One Percent, however.

It's going to be interesting to watch what happens. The reporters don't like this guy, a large swath of the Republican establishment doesn't like this guy, and the socially conservative Republican base doesn't like this guy. He will probably still be able to struggle through the primaries thanks to the same decided dearth of non-crazy alternatives that has blessed him so far, but it will be a coalition of malcontents, at best. I wonder if Republicans will close ranks around him, after the primaries, or be so irritated with having to support him that many of them just sit this one out.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson

President Obama's American Jobs Act included funding for sorely needed summer jobs for young people—the employment rate for people aged 16 to 24 was more than 10 points lower last July than at the same time five years earlier. Congress, of course, wouldn't pass anything that might create jobs and improve the economy, so Obama's administration once again had to find a way to get something, anything done despite congressional obstruction. Their answer is Summer Jobs+, in which, according to a White House release:

[T]he Federal government and private sector came together to commit to creating nearly 180,000 employment opportunities for low-income youth in the summer of 2012, with a goal of reaching 250,000 employment opportunities by the start of summer, at least 100,000 of which will be placements in paid jobs and internships.

Currently, 70,000 commitments for "Learn and Earn" paying jobs have been made, from nonprofits to corporate giants like Bank of America to federal agencies. The other 110,000 commitments currently on the table are for unpaid internships and other occasions to learn "Life Skills" and "Work Skills" through workshops and mentoring.

The commitments for paying jobs are an unalloyed good. For kids who can't find jobs, the opportunity to attend skills workshops or be mentored is definitely better than nothing. In the case of unpaid internships the big question is whether young people are actually being mentored and learning useful things. The Obama administration will need to be sure that some oversight is put in place and kids aren't used as free labor without getting any benefits to themselves, something that is true of far too many unpaid internships. That said, the effort to create paying jobs for young people is another important step by this administration to get things done in the face of Republican obstruction in Congress.

The Republican outrage over President Obama's recess appointment of Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau continues, with former Justice Department official John Yoo weighing in with his legal opinion:

... I think President Obama has exceeded his powers by making a recess appointment for Richard Cordray ... to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Of course this was the same John Yoo who, when asked:

If the President deems that he's got to torture somebody, including by crushing the testicles of the person's child, there is no law that can stop him?

... replied:

I think it depends on why the President thinks he needs to do that.

Appoint someone to be a consumer watchdog for the nation and you've exceeded your powers. Order that a child's testicles be put in a vice and that's a-okay. And in both cases, Republicans agree with John Yoo.

Reposted from Daily Kos Labor by Laura Clawson The Chamber of Commerce in translation: We're waiting to see if someone else will sue the Obama administration for making recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, but we'll do it if no one else does. As a Chamber spokesman told The Hill:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has not decided whether it will file a legal challenge to the appointments, according to David Hirschmann, who heads the Chamber’s Center for Capital Markets Competitiveness. But he said he’s confident that Obama’s precedent-shattering move will land the administration in court.

"We've made no decisions ourselves," Hirschmann told The Hill. "What we do know is ... it's almost certain ultimately a court will decide if what the president did is legal or not."

Not for one moment will the Chamber relax its vigilance against the smooth function of government agencies with nefarious plans to protect consumers and workers. If Republican obstructionism in Congress fails, the Chamber will do what must be done to let giant corporations have their unfettered way.

Business Insider has a profile of Richard Cordray, President Obama's recess appointee to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, answering the question of why Republicans and Wall Street are so afraid of him.

So what's the problem with Cordray? There are two, one is an old Washington problem, and the other is purely Wall Street's:

1. Republicans said they would never support anyone to head the CFPB — Period —that is, unless the White House made serious changes to the agency. (Politico)
 2. He doesn't just go after Wall Street Institutions. He goes after individual executives as well.

They follow up with specific examples of how Cordray fought Wall Street as attorney general of Ohio. So he went into this with a strong track record and is hitting the ground running. His speech today at the Brookings Institution won't allay any Wall Street fears.

“The consumer bureau will make clear that there are real consequences to breaking the law,” Mr. Cordray, who had been in charge of enforcement at the agency, said in remarks prepared for at a speech at the Brookings Institution.

“We have given informants and whistle-blowers direct access to us,” he said. “We took over a number of investigations from other agencies in July, and we are pursuing some investigations jointly with them. We have also started our own investigations. Some may be resolved through cooperative efforts to correct problems. Others may require enforcement actions to stop illegal behavior.”

Cordray will be targeting "shadow banks," lenders outside the banking industry, as well. That could mean, for example, far more oversight of the student loan industry, protecting students from toxic financial products. That also means payday lenders and non-bank mortgage brokers, businesses that previously weren't really under any federal jurisdiction.

This quick and forceful roll-out, Greg Sargent points out, is smart strategy for the White House. Cordray is making clear that there's now a cop on the beat to protect working families from financial predators, something that couldn't happen as long as the agency didn't have a director. That means that Republicans, in so shrilly screeching in opposition to the appointment, are not only defending governmental gridlock, but doing so expressly to protect Wall Street. Both are losing positions for the GOP.

The full details won't be provided until the coming weeks, but President Obama today announced the outlines of a new, leaner military.

WASHINGTON — President Obama outlined a broad new military strategy for the United States on Thursday, one that refocuses the armed forces on threats in Asia and the Pacific region, continues a strong presence in the Middle East but makes clear that American ground forces will no longer be large enough to conduct prolonged, large-scale counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.

In an unusual appearance in the Pentagon briefing room, Mr. Obama put his mark on a military strategy that moves away from the grinding wars he inherited from the Bush administration and relies more on naval and air power in the Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz as a counterbalance to China and Iran.  [...]

Mr. Obama’s strategy embraces hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to the military, making it an awkward codicil to the uneasy relationship he has shared with the military since his first days in office.

In a letter accompanying the new strategy, the president wrote, “We must put our fiscal house in order here at home and renew our long-term economic strength.”  

But in an election year when he has been under assault from Republican presidential candidates for cutting the military budget and for what they say is his weak response to Iranian threats, Mr. Obama also said that the United States would “avoid repeating the mistakes of the past when our military was left ill-prepared for the future.”

To that end, the president wrote, his administration will continue to invest in counterterrorism, intelligence gathering, cyberwarfare and countering the proliferation of nuclear weapons

So weapons systems producers apparently don't have too much to worry about.

Nick Kristof's column today boils down to this: He hopes Mitt Romney is a liar.

The reassuring thing about Mitt Romney is that for most of his life he probably wouldn’t have voted for today’s Mitt Romney.

This is a man who registered as a Republican only in preparation for his 1994 Senate campaign against Edward Kennedy; previously, Romney had registered as an independent. As recently as 2002, in his successful run for governor of Massachusetts, he described himself this way: “People recognize that I am not a partisan Republican, that I’m someone who is moderate, and that my views are progressive.”

That was accurate, and Romney became an excellent, moderate and pragmatic governor of Massachusetts. But then, in 2005, he apparently began to fancy himself as Republican presidential timber and started veering to the right in what we can all pray was a cynical, unprincipled pander.

Kristof goes on to say that if he had to choose, he'd rather have a chameleon as president—someone merely pretending to be a right-wing lunatic—than having an actual right-winger. But he acknowledges he doesn't really know to which of those categories Mitt Romney belongs.

I understand the impulse behind Kristof's musings, but even if Mitt Romney is a chameleon, the fact remains that he is fueling and encouraging the political right by pandering to them. That alone speaks negatively about his character. Moreover, it is a perfect illustration of what Romney would likely be as president: an empty vessel who allowed Congress to drive his agenda.

Kristof speaks highly of Romney's tenure in Massachusetts, but don't forget, Democrats still controlled the legislature there. Imagine for a moment that Romney had been governor of a state with a conservative state legislature. Is there any doubt that he'd have been a very different governor?

Perhaps with a progressive majority in Congress, a President Romney wouldn't be a disaster. But with a Republican majority—even in just one chamber—Romney would be an absolute nightmare. Anyone who wants a sensible approach to governance needs to realize that there really is no acceptable Republican presidential candidate, chameleon or otherwise. And as important as it is to reelect President Obama, it's also critical that we return Congress to Democratic control.