Month: January 2012

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 12 pm

Maybe. In response, Jacob Sullum berates the FDA:

The fact that an FDA-approved, officially favored method of quitting seems to barely work at all underlines the stupidity of government resistance to alternatives such as snus and electronic cigarettes. One reason [nicotine replacement therapy] performs so poorly may be that it is designed and presented as a short-term medication to wean smokers off cigarettes rather than a long-term alternative that avoids all the health risks associated with inhaling tobacco smoke. Snus and e-cigarettes both show promise in that regard, and if public health officials truly were interested in reducing smoking-related morbidity and mortality they would let smokers choose the harm-reduction methods that work best for them instead of puritanically insisting on a goal of complete abstinence. 

As Huntsman gets behind Romney, the DNC gleefully compiles the former ambassador's attacks on the GOP frontrunner:

Meanwhile, Amanda Terkel provides an overview of the record $11.3 million that has been spent so far in South Carolina. Money quote: 

In Columbia, average viewers are likely to see a political ad 182 times before they vote on Jan. 21, according to an analysis by The State. 

Romney is still apologizing to the pro-life movement: 

Tina Korbe isn't convinced that Romney shares her values: 

It’s a nice, feel-good sentiment, and I really want to fall for it. But, somehow, I still can’t get past Romneycare, which allows for taxpayer-funded, elective, surgical abortions. Then, too, Romney granted pro-choice judge Matthew Nestor a lifetime appointment in a Massachusetts court (albeit a court that deals with civil and criminal issues, not constitutional issues like abortion rights). He also paved the way for the approval of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Worcester, Mass., that would provide abortions. All of that was after his 2004 pro-life "conversion." In that context, the pro-life accomplishments cited by Glendon seem less the work of one who is committed to eradicate abortion than one who wants to make abortion "safe, legal and rare."

Gingrich's Super Pac is targeting Romney's electability with two new ads. William Jacobson explains, "Having attacked Romney on his core claim of business experience, they have moved on to Romney’s other strength, the narrative of electability." The following ad makes the case that Mitt is neither conservative nor electable: 

Robert Stacy McCain praises Santorum's ad team for staying on a "positive message of faith" in South Carolina: 

A little premature:

Rick Perry's Pac takes aim at Gingrich and Santorum: 

Lastly, Ron Paul's PAC is raising money to air the following ad in South Carolina and the early states:

Today on the Dish, Andrew President, and explained why 2012 matters so damn much. On that note, he also live-blogged that GOP debate (reax here), eulogized Huntsman's sane conservatism, noted Romney's national surge, and couldn't stand Jennifer Rubin sliming the administration on corpse desecration in Afghanistan. We compiled reax to the Huntsman withdrawal, put Romney's chances at over 90%, wondered whether Bain attacks would play in South Carolina, thought Mitt's rejection of his Mexican heritage in favor of unbearable whiteness poor strategy, noticed he was the rich man's candidate, and guessed at what would happen if he had won in 08.

We learned - morally speaking – to treat foreigners just like conationals, discovered Truman's prudent Iran policy, and vicariously went on holiday to Iraq. The recovery might have been prematurely announced, racial inequality in the economy was still a problem on this MLK day, but both slowing growth and Robin Hooding it were questionable solutions. Discrimination against smokers was debated, tuitions kept skyrocketing, and assessing how productive Americans are was hard but important. Livestrong sorta bilked people, police and tasers were a dangerous combo, football was risky for kids, eye-controlled computers were profiled, evolutionary biology accounted for chins, running on lava was surprisingly possible, and readers discussed the fine points of Jews (not) eating pork.

Faces of the Day here, Chart of the Day here, VFYW here, AAA here, Creepy Ad here, and MHB here.

– Z.B.

K-Lo claims that the clip above "will get watched and rewatched." Jeffrey Lord seems to agree:

Tonight in South Carolina, Newt Gingrich began hitting them out of the park. Answering questions from Juan Williams on poverty, jobs for poor kids, Obama as the food stamp president… this was the Newt Gingrich so many missed when he was smacking back at Romney by going after Bain Capital.

Allahpundit echoes:

Between this, the exchange with Ron Paul on Bin Laden, and the zinger about 99 weeks being an associate degree, I’m thinking he might have turned South Carolina from a solid Romney lead into a nailbiter. Has any candidate at any debate had the crowd more riled up than this?

Rod Dreher is more reality-based:

There goes Gingrich with the food stamp thing again, blaming Obama for "putting more people on food stamps than any president in American history." It wasn’t Obama that did it, Gingrich, it was the depression recession. This is food we’re talking about. This is people struggling to feed their families in the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. And Gingrich is playing racial and cultural politics with it. To listen to Gingrich, you’d think that Obama signed up all those layabouts for food stamps just so he could throw government money at them.

Josh Marshall feels the base was eating out of the palm of Gingrich's hand:

Newt's really on fire tonight. Really not sure that it's going to matter much. But he's back into that mode of serving up perfect red meat for the Republican primary electorate.

Will Wilkinson thinks Mitt had a bad night:

This was Romney's worst debate. He was often flummoxed and seemed incredibly greasy, even for him, in his wriggling answer about disclosing his income taxes. His attempt to pin Bain's creative destruction on insidious Chinese trade practices was pathetic. 

So does Pete Spiliakos:

The low point was when Santorum asked Romney if Romney believed that felons who had completed their sentence should be allowed to vote.  Romney froze and tried to change the subject since apparently Romney didn’t know what he was supposed to pretend to believe.

Taegan Goddard focuses on Mitt's tax return answer:

The most interesting moment of the debate was Romney's reluctant statement that he would release his tax returns around the April 15th deadline. It's very possible the issue of his effective tax rate will be an even bigger in the general election than his record as head of Bain Capital.

Dave Weigel adds important details:

No, you cannot diagram what Romney actually said about his tax returns. He will release them in April, because "he's heard" that it's in line with what people seem to want. And sure, releasing them in April would probably prevent them from coming out until the primary was wrapped up. 

Matt Welch takes Mitt to task for non-answers:

You know, I go on TV sometimes. I am asked questions. Sometimes you slip off the hook a bit so you can use the very small window to make the point you want to make instead of giving a literal answer. I mention this because OH MY GOD DOES MITT ROMNEY NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS. He's got the wriggle-on-your-record-and-turn-it-back-to-Obama thing down PAT. It's totally offensive, and yet it's like America is just too weary to care.

And P.M. Carpenter can hardly believe that Romney is the favorite:

Unlike some of his earlier appearances in previous grillings and third-degrees, his demeanor is utterly imperturbable; there stands a man who knows he's getting away with a magnificent fraud — himself.

11.05 pm. Frank Luntz just gave us the quote of the night, as explosions – fireworks? – boom around the convention center. "It sounds like Fort Sumter out there."

It sure did. All night.

10.58 pm. I'm not sure what to say about this evening, except I want to take a shower. I've rarely been repulsed by the atmosphere of a debate as I was tonight. But this is the Republican core of South Carolina. One of the biggest applause lines was about waging war on the federal government. I suspect that if any Latinos or African-Americans were watching this, Obama's support just jumped.

From my perspective, Romney was cringe-inducing, shudder-worthy, and plastic beyond measure. I suspect he's going to try and rig this year's tax returns to hide his far lower rate of taxation and far, far, far higher income than 99.999 percent of the population. It was a weak answer.

We also had a strong endorsement of child labor, largely for African-Americans. I suspect that Santorum helped himself tonight, as did Perry a mite. Gingrich also showed his ability to reach the Southern vote, and Romney tried to fake it. Gingrich's diatribe about blacks getting paychecks rather than food stamps earned him a standing ovation.

I still have some strange feeling that Romney is in trouble in this state. I'd be a fool to analyze this debate or its impact in South Carolina. But Newt's solid racial dog whistles and constant support for violence and hatred of "elites" may well help him a lot.

Meanwhile, a Mental Health Break – because we all need one after that:

10.56 pm. Hilarious: Fox's twitter feed shows a huge night for Ron Paul. Go Paulites. Romney is getting horrible, awful, dreadful reviews from the twitterverse. Gingrich got huge points on race. How will Fox handle the Paul success and Romney failure? Ignore it. 

10.52 pm. Another discussion of No Child Left Behind with no mention at all of its architect, George W. Bush. In fact, I think it's an amazing thing that over 16 debates, the last Republican president has gone unnamed. He doesn't exist. If he did, they might have to think about what went wrong. But then they couldn't blame the entire recession and debt on Obama!

10.50 pm. A fact! Illegal immigration is at a 40-year low. Perry "blames" that on – who else? – Obama. And still wants a new Great Wall Of America and troops to keep all those loathesome Mexican grandparents out.

10.46 pm. That was a classic piece of self-defeating Gingrich snark. If Romney has no influence over his Super Pac, what influence would he have as president? Romney kicks his butt. Then he lies again: it's "entirely false." No it's not entirely false. It's false in parts, but there's plenty of truth in it as well. Then Gingrich says he "believes" that his Super Pac have sent a list of questions to Romney about the ad. How does he know that?

10.44 pm. Santorum says that Ron Paul wants to wipe out the Second Amendment. Paul doesn't take it seriously. Nor should he. But the assholery returns.

10.42 pm. Romney is "not a serious hunter." No more varmints. Just elk. And there was a moose in there somewhere all of a sudden. I love it when he has to pull that shit out. It's fucking hilarious.

10.40 pm. Another gem from the Economist:

This is Jon Huntsman's best debate by far.

10.35 pm. Just to recap: Turkey is run by Islamic terrorists; and the right response to the Golden rule is to boo it. Also: habeas corpus is no big deal because presidents don't abuse power. Unlike monarchs, I suppose. This is the party of restoring the Constitution?

10.29 pm. Two lines from the Economist:

"There should be no space between the United States and Israel." Not even a sheet with a hole through it?

I think this crowd will be disappointed when informed that there will not in fact be a public hanging later in the evening.

If I were Ben Bernanke, I'd avoid Myrtle Beach tonight. The one thing that unites all of these people is a belief in violence. But this is the saddest thing. This point seemed completely alien to everyone up there:

Can someone raise the point please that we don't know who's joined Al-Qaeda without a legal system designed to find facts? It's called "the rule of law".

The rule of law? That's what Republicans believe in when a Democratic president makes a recess apointment. When the government seizes an innocent person, tortures them and refuses to charge them, as long as it's done by a Republican, the rule of law can jump off a cliff.

10.26 pm. A reader writes:

I tuned in for only one minute, then had to turn it off immediately. This is all I saw, and it was enough for this recovering Evangelical: They cheered Newt for his simplistic rule of "killing America's enemies," and they booed Ron Paul for his rational and Christian-minded rule of doing to our enemies nothing worse than what we would want done to us. What a sick, sad thing for Christians to ignore Jesus' most basic and essential teaching.

Jesus was far more radical than the Golden Rule. He told us to love our enemies. These people would kill all of them, a declared war or not.

10.20 pm. A chilling defense by Romney of the right to put people in prison for "treason" without any due process. Santorum says that the NDAA does not change previously existing law. That was Obama's interpretation. The notion that we should simply trust the president not to abuse a power that is inherently authoritarian is outrageous. Ron Paul alone sees the real issue. But this party that allegedly believes in individual freedom is completely comfortable with the abolition of habeas corpus whenever an administration cries out: "terror suspect!"

10.15 pm. A big attack on Turkey, of all places, by Bret Baier. Perry doubles down by saying there can be "no space" between the US and Israel. Then his allegation of "disdain" for the military by the administration the Marines urinating on corpses. Then we have the president's "disdain for our country". It's so disgusting and yet it seems so routine at this point.

Only Ron Paul knows how to cite his own service. And it's a useful reminder from him to note that the Taliban were once our allies.

10.13 pm. Santorum doesn't want military intervention in Syria. Why not? From his perspective, I mean.

10.11 pm. Now Romney tries to coopt the bloodlust. "We are under attack." If you believe that the US is under attack, and that this gives the US the right to go anywhere and kill anyone, then this is your party. Romney disowns his own foreign policy adviser. No negotiations with the Taliban. Romney apparently favors the Afghan army finishing the job. Heh. Since that won't work, I assume Romney will intensify the war in Afghanistan and reverse the planned withdrawal.

10.06 pm. Ron Paul gives his worst answer yet on war. I'm afraid he's doing very poorly in this debate. A little rattled, a little meandering, somewhat off his game. Sad. Then Gingrich does off on Pakistan. He's having a good debate. He knows in his bones how to rouse a Southern audience. And the Andrew Jackson "Kill Them" line really is the mantra of the Southern right. Killing is what they truly believe in. And Paul is able to stand up to the mob.

10.03 pm. A reader writes:

After Ron Paul’s eloquence was greeted by crickets, Newt’s tribalism whipped the crowd into a frenzy.  That was by far the most racist few minutes I have seen in non-attack-ad, mainstream political debate in forever.

9.55 pm. Juan Williams tries to find out if Gingrich can even understand why some of his rhetoric may offend some. Newt responds by backing child labor in schools. Juan Williams hangs in. The crowd boos the black moderator. Then Gingrich says that president Obama has put more people on food stamps than any president in history – because that's what "elites" like to do. Notice the way in which Gingrich cannot make a point without personalizing it against the president. But with this crowd, against a black media man, he wins the crowd overwhelmingly. So Newt and Santorum are gaining, it seems to me. Ron Paul has been great – but the crowd seems indifferent to him to my ears.

9.52 pm. "Rich white people don't get the death penalty very often." Yes, I just heard that at a Republican debate. That's that racist Ron Paul for you. Then a brave exposure of the insanity of the war on drugs – citing Martin Luther King Jr. on this, and on warfare. I think Paul is drifting slowly toward a conservatism of non-violence. It's a fascinating promise.

9.50 pm. A reader writes:

Should someone tell Rick Perry that the Supreme Court, ostensibly part of the federal government's "War on Religion", just sided with a religious institution's ability to discriminate against employees — and based its decision on the free exercise clause — and that the only justice who dissented from that decision was a conservative justice appointed by a Republican president?

And should someone tell Mitt Romney, the man who knows how to create jobs and is the bastion of free market capitalism, that his protectionist trade policy vis-a-vis China is more closely aligned with socialism than President Obama's free trade policy with regard to China?

Nah. It's important not to add a sliver of reality to this surreal piece of ideological grandstanding. It might throw them off their game.

9.48 pm. Jeers and boos for someone who has Mexican ancestry. Wow. The rank xenophobia in the GOP base sometimes surprises. And Romney of course aims to please: he'll veto the DREAM Act.

9.47 pm. Finally, Romney says that time will tell whether he will release his tax returns around April. But he hasn't committed to it tonight. "Probably". That's a big "problem."

9.46 pm. They are all seeking even further drastic cuts in federal income taxation. Ron Paul even goes to zero. How on earth are they going to cut the debt if they slash the top rates even further? The radicalism here is breath-taking.

9.42 pm. I literally didn't understand a word of Romney's last answer. It was surreal. And he keeps repeating the lie that Obama has not opened up any markets to US companies. Romney must know that Obama signed three free trade pacts. There's something chilling about his completely utilitarian approach to the truth.

9.39 pm. Is Gingrich arguing against unemployment insurance at all – if it isn't matched by training? Gingrich then says something so outrageous it beggars belief. Obama doesn't believe in work and is trying to maximize dependency. Amazing. They just project onto the president every deranged fantasy they have about their version of "the left."

9.37 pm. Have you noticed how Ron Paul is essentially being ignored in this – surprise! – Fox debate? Perry has had far more of a chance to chip in than Paul. Gingrich has also been sidelined.

9.35 pm. South Carolina is "at war" with the federal government. I doubt Perry doesn't understand the resonance of that phrasing. Then he lies again about the Obama administration's alleged and non-existent "war on organized religion". The sound we just heard – from Perry and the crowd – was the rebel yell.

9.32 pm. Romney cannot really defend himself on his shifting positions on social issues. Then we get a robo-spiel. And look: there's a big difference between opposing creating human ambryos for research and criminalizing all abortion in all states.

9.30 pm. A reader writes:

Jeebus! Round 1: Romney is bleeding from the double-team of Newt/Perry.

Round 2: Santorum is beating the shit out of Romney. 

Another writes:

Romney is so, SO unlikeable — every time he speaks, I like him less. How off-putting is he? He is SO annoying that right now I am liking Perry and candidate Frothy Mix better — both come off as more personable, which is damning with faint praise but true.

Great TV, innit?

9.25 pm. When will Romney tell us why he alone will not release his tax returns? So far, I think Santorum has dominated and will likely benefit. Romney's plasticness is somehow particularly exposed by Santorum's relentless, terrier-like impertinence.

9.22 pm. Santorum trips up Romney's smooth operator schtick. And Romney won't answer. This is where Santorum's assholery can come into its own. Santorum is now defending former felons' right to vote. And then he pounces on Romney for governing under different laws when he was running Massachusetts. Romney then whines about Super Pacs. Maybe someone should ask these candidates about Citizens United. This is great – and Romney is a little rattled. So far: advantage Perry and Santorum.

9.19 pm. How great to see Ron Paul tell it like it is. No apologies for serious criticism of other candidates' record. Santorum has no answer but to blame the left. And that he apologizes for No Child Left Behind. Then a confusing answer on "right to work" issues.

9.16 pm. Seib narrows in on the profits Bain made when its clients still collapsed. Romney doesn't answer on that direct point. Then we have a paean to "free enterprise". As if that was the issue at hand. Still no response on the tax returns. Then a lie: Obama has no jobs plan? Has he heard of the American Jobs Act? How can he just tell lies like that?

9.15 pm. Romney is now blaming China for Bain's bankrupt steel mills. Then the regulations canard.

9.11 pm. Perry goes direct for the Romney jugular on releasing tax returns. It's a real issue. "We cannot fire our nominee in September. We need to know now." Pushing Romney to release his tax returns before South Carolina votes is upping the ante. The crowd likes it.

9.10 pm. Romney's Bain response is slick. But he doesn't address the core issue of the Bain years – the fact that Romney made millions off bankrupting companies. They paid Bain the dividends first.

9.05 pm. I have to say that Newt's defense of his attacks on Romney is understandable – and the notion that somehow there should be no feisty ads or attack lines in primaries is, well, creepy. Yes, Romney needs to be able to respond to the Bain issue – and a primary is the place to do that. And Newt is right about the liabilities of the Bain record – and the fortune he made from it.

9.01 pm. A pretty moderate panel. Gerry Seib and Juan Williams are sane. Don't know the other person, I'm afraid.

(Photo: A supporter of Republican presidential candiate Mitt Romney holds up a campaign sign at an event in front of the Myrtle Beach Convention Center, on January 16, 2012 in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. By Mark Wilson/Getty Images.)

Ezra Klein suspects that the next president will get credit for the recovery:

The 2008 economic crisis was not nearly so deep as the Great Depression — in part because of an aggressive policy response — and so the recovery is not likely to be so remarkable, nor the political benefits so dramatic. But they’re still likely to be present. And because a recovery is likely within five years, whichever party wins the White House in 2012 is likely to get the credit, and so too will its policy agenda.

There are two massive reasons for re-electing Obama – to add to my case here. The first is to reform the right, and only after getting defeated – soundly – will they begin to reconsider their lurch to the most extreme positions in my adult lifetime. Secondly, it is to ensure that Obama gets the credit for the hard work and decisions he has made these past three years:

If Romney wins the presidency and the economy begins to rebound, Republicans will argue, and America’s experience will seem to show, that they were right all along: The stimulus was useless and the regulatory uncertainty the Obama administration created with its health-care plan and its talk of cap-and-trade and all the rest kept businesses from investing. Of course, if Obama keeps the office, that argument will be largely discredited, and he’ll be able to make the case that he and his party steered the country through incredible choppy waters despite relentless obstructionism from the Republicans — oh, and in 2014, he’ll also give 32 million Americans health-care insurance, just another little side project he got done while saving the economy.

It's really up to all those who backed Obama in 2008 to give him the breathing space to succeed. We are the ones we've been waiting for.

An out-take from Hardball today:

Full interview here.

Don't forget Tony Soprano.

Weigel spotlights Romney's problems with working-class voters:

Romney’s lucky: The three candidates vying for working-class Republican voters—Gingrich, Paul, and Santorum—seem like they’ll divide it up rather than ride it to primary victories. Santorum has worked the hardest to win over blue-collar votes. When he’s attacked for earmarks, he defends them. When Gingrich makes fun of “Occupy” protesters, Santorum warns that economic inequality is real. Santorum might be better-positioned than anyone else to take advantage of Romney’s working class weakness. But in the end, Romney’s better-positioned to watch the three of them fight for that vote, then lose.