Jeff Rosenberg Posts

Remember a couple of months ago, when Republicans were crowing that the Democratic National Convention was a sign that Democrats were in dire straits? Dems were having trouble raising money for the convention, they had shortened it from four days to three, and leaders were telling legislators in tough campaigns to stay home and work in their districts. All of these were supposedly signs of an impending trainwreck.

Instead, the Democrats put together a powerful, uplifting event with such strong message discipline I can scarcely believe it was my party that I was watching. Even more incredibly, it put the Republicans' uneven, undisciplined efforts to shame.

I can't even believe I'm writing this, but in what is likely to be a very close election, the Democrats' cohesion and message discipline may make all the difference.  

When Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate, pundits said that finally, we had someone who would lead us to a substantive discussion of the issues. After the Republican National Convention in Tampa, though, it became apparent that we'll never hear a single substantive idea out of the Romney/Ryan campaign. Barack Obama and the Democrats, on the other hand, want to talk about policy, and they're positively brimming with ideas.

After watching Bill Clinton last night and President Obama tonight, it's clear that the Democrats have chosen a strategy that's uncommon these days: Treat voters like adults and talk about policy. In his speech tonight, Obama largely dropped his soaring rhetoric in favor of defending his accomplishments, laying out his plan for the future, and establishing a sharp contrast with his opponent.

I'll readily admit that a detailed policy agenda isn't always as entertaining as lofty rhetoric or hard-hitting partisan attacks. I said the same about Bill Clinton's speech last night. Nevertheless, Obama leaves Charlotte having clearly made his case to the American people. He explained how far we've come, where he wants to lead us, and the alternatives being proposed by his opponents. In the end, I think the voters will thank him for that.

Maybe I'll be proven wrong. Maybe the voters would have preferred more of the high-flying rhetoric that was Obama's style in 2008. But I don't think so. With both conventions now over, Barack Obama has defended his record and laid out a path for moving forward, while Mitt Romney has only offered a few tired platitudes. I predict that the voters will reward Obama and the Democrats for having an adult conversation.

Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan want nothing less than to dismantle America's entire social safety net. It's not enough that they want to end Medicare; they also want to gut Medicaid, too, as Bill Clinton emphasized last night:

They also want to block-grant Medicaid, and cut it by a third over the coming 10 years.

Of course, that's going to really hurt a lot of poor kids. But that's not all. Lot of folks don't know it, but nearly two-thirds of Medicaid is spent on nursing home care for Medicare seniors who are eligible for Medicaid.

It's going to end Medicare [sic] as we know it. And a lot of that money is also spent to help people with disabilities, including a lot of middle-class families whose kids have Down's syndrome or autism or other severe conditions. And honestly, let's think about it, if that happens, I don't know what those families are going to do.

My daughter doesn't have any of those severe conditions, but we do rely on Medicaid for her health insurance. If Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan are elected, and they're successful in demolishing Medicaid, my daughter will almost certainly be kicked off of the program. That would be devastating to our family. I can't even imagine how much worse it would be for families whose medical bills are routinely in the tens of thousands.

What makes this attack on my daughter hurt the most is that it will exclusively benefit the 1 Percent. The Ryan/Romney plan wouldn't even reduce the deficit, which is their typical excuse for why they want to decimate Medicaid. The money that today pays for my daughter's checkups will instead be used to reduce taxes for millionaires and billionaires, who are already paying their lowest taxes in nearly a century.

Like millions of Americans, I have a personal stake in this election. For millions of us, our families' health and well-being is literally on the line. Whether it's Medicare, Medicaid, or private insurance, a Romney victory in November could result in our loved ones -- or ourselves -- losing health insurance. As Bill Clinton said, we can't let that happen.

There's a reason Barack Obama wanted Bill Clinton to speak to the country tonight. There's nobody in politics today who can beat Clinton when it comes to taking difficult issues and explaining them in simple, clear language. He demonstrated that right from the start, when he laid out the Democrats' values in pitch-perfect terms:

We believe "we're all in this together" is a far better philosophy than "you're on your own."

It turns out that advancing equal opportunity and economic empowerment is both morally right and good economics.

What's more, Clinton has three things going for him that made him a perfect surrogate for Obama tonight:

1. He has a proven track record of success.
2. He can keep an audience entertained no matter what he's talking about.
3. He's already made a name for himself.

I make that last point because Clinton didn't deliver a barnburner or a speech that will be remembered for years. He didn't need to. What he did do was the most helpful thing he could have -- he went through President Obama's case point by point and made the case to the American people. For every single debate that's come up in the contest so far, Bill Clinton was ready with a powerful argument to show you why Obama's answer is the right one.

It sounds boring when I put it like that. But I wasn't bored, and I suspect most folks who watched Clinton speak weren't either. Even more importantly, I suspect many of them were persuaded. Come November, they may not remember the speech as a whole. But on the topics that are the most important to each individual viewer, they'll remember what Bill Clinton said when they mark their ballots.

It's taken two and a half years, but Barack Obama and the Democrats are finally playing offense on Obamacare. Speakers at the DNC have been eager to claim the Affordable Care Act as one of Obama's signature achievements. In addition, last night's lineup featured a powerful appearance by Stacy Lihn, a mother who says her daughter would not survive without Obamacare.

Governor Romney says people like me were the most excited about President Obama the day we voted for him. But that's not true. Not even close. For me, there was the day the Affordable Care Act passed and I no longer had to worry about getting Zoe the care she needed. There was the day the letter arrived from the insurance company, saying that our daughter's lifetime cap had been lifted.

I don't know about you, but I thought Lihn's story really packed an emotional punch. It makes the stakes crystal clear. This debate isn't about abstract facts and figures, or even about the role of government. It is quite literally about saving American lives. That's a story Democrats have largely failed to tell, until now.
In fact, the Democrats have failed to make their case for so long that most political observers now take it for granted that the public opposes the Affordable Care Act. Take this analysis from Ezra Klein, which was a fairly typical reaction to Lihn's speech:

Obamacare - or, as it's officially called, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - doesn't poll particularly well, and it's believed to have been a key contributor to the Republican victory in 2010. But Democrats appear to think that the politics have changed.

That's what all the pundits have been saying, but they just don't get it. Obamacare hasn't polled well precisely because Democrats haven't been talking about it. They've run away from Obamacare, instead of telling the stories of Stacy Lihn and the thousands of Americans like her.

After hearing about Lihn's daughter Zoe, how many Americans will really be willing to go back to a system where insurers are allowed to kick her to the curb because she's reached her "lifetime cap?" If more people knew Zoe's story, Obamacare would be far more popular. Democrats have only themselves to blame that it's not.

That's why I was so happy to see the Democrats finally embracing the Affordable Care Act. They're not doing it because they "think the politics have changed." They've realized that the only way the politics will change is if they finally make their case to the American people. Obamacare is one of the best things the Democrats have done in decades. It's time to stop running, and start bragging.

This is absolutely brilliant. During the first day of the DNC, Democrats aired a video tribute to Ted Kennedy. As part of that tribute, they included over a minute of footage of Kennedy demolishing Mitt Romney in a debate. Even back in 1994, Romney had a reputation as a dishonest chameleon and flip-flopper, leading Kennedy to claim "I am pro-choice. My opponent is multiple-choice."

Watch it:

The results from the annual State Fair poll are in, and as usual, fairgoers largely prescribed a common-sense direction for the state. The poll isn't scientific, but the results are still interesting.

The Republican Party has spent the last two years sabotaging our economic recovery by bringing Congress to a standstill. If Barack Obama wins this election, they'll continue to do exactly the same thing, remaining hellbent on destroying Obama, even if it brings the country to ruin. And that's why you should vote Republican!

That's the argument being made by Ramesh Ponnuru, a Bloomberg columnist and editor at the conservative National Review. If Obama wins, the Republicans will go crazy. Don't let the Republicans destroy America -- vote Republican!

If Obama wins re-election, the Republican Party will react by moving right, not left. It will become less likely to compromise with Obama, not more....

Republicans, especially at the grassroots level, would react to Obama's re-election by assuming that Romney failed because he was too moderate. That's a very widespread view among Republicans about why Senator John McCain lost in 2008....

The choice before those people is looking more and more like one between Romney and a unified Republican government, or Obama and four more years that look a lot like the last two. [Bloomberg View, via Political Animal]

Ponnuru is asking us to reward economic sabotage and hostage-taking. I can't think of a more abhorrent reason to vote for the Republicans. Voting Republican because you believe in conservative principles is one thing. But voting Republican because you're afraid of how they will retaliate if you don't? That's absolutely outrageous. We can't give into the Republicans' threats.

My fellow voters, if you don't want continuing gridlock in Washington, there's another option. Don't vote for the party trying to sabotage our country. Vote for President Obama, and vote to give him a majority in Congress. Vote for a unified government that wants to help move the country forward, not one that threatens to destroy the country if it doesn't get its way.

Early on in his campaign, Mitt Romney decided that rather than doing exhaustive sourcing and fact-checking of his claims, it would be easier to just simply lie when he needed to. His constant lies, and his complete lack of concern over whether he gets caught, have been hallmarks of his campaign. Since Paul Ryan joined the ticket, though, things have gotten even worse.

First, Romney's lies have become more brazen and more desperate. Paul Ryan's pick signaled that Team Romney knew its strategy wasn't working. In trying to refocus the campaign, Romney built his new message on a few big, easily-debunked lies, like the ridiculous claim that Obama was trying to end work requirements for Welfare . Romney isn't just casually lying anymore. His desperation to turn things around has forced him to make lies the center of his campaign.

Second, lying has become a compulsion for Team Romney. That became evident last week, when Ryan claimed that he had run a marathon in less than 3 hours. Ryan's claim was so dubious, it led Runner's World to investigate. Ryan's pointless lie was proven false, and he was forced to recant.

Some have questioned whether Ryan's lie is fair game, or at least claimed it's not a big deal, since it's not about anything actually relevant to the race. But to me, that's precisely why it's such a big deal. Ryan has been taught to lie about everything, and it's become a compulsion. Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, would have cared about his marathon time, and yet he felt compelled to lie anyway. If he'll lie about something so trivial and irrelevant, you can bet that he's lying about bigger issues as well.

Ryan's willingness -- or even eagerness -- to lie about such irrelevant minutiae signals that the entire campaign has developed a compulsion for lying. That compulsion stems from Mitt Romney's desire to win at any cost, his fear that Obama is winning, and his campaign's increasing desperation.  

Erik Paulsen, comfortably ahead in the polls, has refused to debate challenger Brian Barnes. Yesterday, in a brilliant effort to highlight Paulsen's cowardice, Barnes offered Paulsen some alternatives to a debate:

Brian Barnes really wants to share a stage with Republican Congressman Erik Paulsen. Barnes, who's the DFL nominee to challenge Paulsen in the 3rd District, has been trying unsuccessfully to schedule a debate with the two-term incumbent.

Now, Barnes is offering Paulsen a less political, State Fair-themed option although Paulsen would have to act fast, since the Fair ends Monday.

"I challenge him to a contest of cow milking, butter carving or corndog eating - he can take his pick," said Barnes in a statement. "If I had a voting record like his, I would be afraid to debate also."

Absolutely fantastic. Whether you support Barnes or not, you've got to appreciate his challenge to Paulsen. Having an incumbent refuse to debate is a frustrating situation that often reduces challengers to whining. Barnes handled it with humor and panache.

Rep. Chip Cravaack (R-MN/NH) pulled off a stunning upset in 2010 when he defeated longtime Representative Jim Oberstar. Two years later, though, he's in serious trouble. Just a few weeks after the DFL primary, Cravaack is already behind:

In a new survey of Minnesota's 8th congressional district, Democrat Rick Nolan now leads Republican Congressman Chip Cravaack, 47 - 44 percent. Even though 86 percent of voters in the district are familiar with Cravaack compared to only 59 percent familiar with Nolan, the Democratic challenger already enjoys the advantage. The fact that Cravaack is trailing a lesser-known challenger shows that he is in serious jeopardy and that Democrats have an excellent chance to reclaim this traditionally Democratic seat in November. [House Majority PAC (PDF), via MPR]

The poll also shows that as Nolan gains name recognition, his lead should widen. Given a positive description of both candidates (read it yourself, you'll find that the description of Cravaack is more than fair), Nolan's lead increased to 7 points.

Granted, the poll has to be taken with a grain of salt. It's a small sample, we don't have any crosstabs, etc. Still, it provides confirmation of what we've all suspected -- that this is going to be a very tough election for Cravaack.

Cravaack's victory in 2010 came during a historical Republican wave, but all indications are that he'll face a more difficult environment this time. In 2012, we'll see a more solidly-Democratic electorate in the 8th district. Voters already appear to be breaking towards the Democratic challenger. And it certainly doesn't help that he now lives in New Hampshire, or that he appears to be trying to avoid his own constituents. All things considered, Cravaack is going to have an uphill battle to hang onto the MN-08 seat.

Mitt Romney's speech last night was entirely forgettable. So without further ado, let's forget about it and turn our attention to something much more amusing -- Clint Eastwood's bizarre performance, which featured Eastwood trash-talking an empty chair. If you haven't seen it, you've got to watch this.

This rambling performance was the first thing primetime viewers saw when they tuned in. I don't think there can be any question that including Eastwood turned out to be a serious mistake.

Well, that's an hour of my life I'll never get back. I've suffered through Mitt Romney's RNC speech, and here are a few of my thoughts.

First, letting Clint Eastwood speak at the very beginning of primetime turned out to be a horrible mistake and a black eye for the Romney camp. Eastwood's "speech," such as it was, was bumbling, disjointed, and petty, and set the stage horribly for Romney. Eastwood may have overshadowed Romney, and not at all in a good way.

Moving on to Romney, his speech was supposed to be an attempt to reboot his biography -- to make him appear to be an empathetic man with a human touch. To me, it fell flat, particularly when he pretended to know something about struggle. Romney's words were nice, but there's still no indication that behind that empty facade, he actually believes a word of his heavily-scripted remarks.

To me, what was most notable about Romney's speech is everything he felt he couldn't discuss or had to gloss over. Bain Capital was once the centerpiece of his campaign. Tonight, Romney tried briefly to turn it back into a positive asset, but not as hard as I would have expected. His time as Governor of Massachusetts was completely off limits. He talked briefly about his Mormonism, but quickly moved on. Even his policy prescriptions were the same vague, substanceless pablum he's been peddling for months, without a single number or scoreable proposal.

Actually, I thought Mitt's speech got stronger when he got away from the personal stuff and got into attacking Barack Obama and engaging in revisionist history. But there are two problems with that. First, it doesn't address Romney's biggest deficit -- his likability. Second, he didn't offer anything new, only the same arguments that saw him losing ground to Obama in the polls just a few short weeks ago.

All in all, I think Romney offered a perfectly passable speech, particularly in the second half when he was able to lapse back into the more comfortable territory of lying about Barack Obama's presidency. But will it do anything to move the dials after the short-lived convention bounce? I seriously doubt it.

Mitt Romney is the archetypal Man of Privilege -- a wealthy heir for whom the normal rules don't apply. Romney didn't make his fortune by selling a product, or even by adding value to anything. He was a parasite that sucked companies dry, mortgaging their assets to pay huge returns to his wealthy investors. According to documents obtained by Rolling Stone, he even soaked the U.S. government for over $10 million:

...federal records, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act, reveal that Romney's initial rescue attempt at Bain & Company was actually a disaster - leaving the firm so financially strapped that it had "no value as a going concern." Even worse, the federal bailout ultimately engineered by Romney screwed the FDIC - the bank insurance system backed by taxpayers - out of at least $10 million. And in an added insult, Romney rewarded top executives at Bain with hefty bonuses at the very moment that he was demanding his handout from the feds.

This is the sort of "capitalism" that Mitt Romney practices. He plunders companies' assets and converts them into payouts for his cronies. He then makes his exit and leaves others holding the bag, such as shareholders, workers, and even the government. And this is the experience he claims has prepared him to fix our economy.

The Rolling Stone article goes into great detail on the whole sordid affair, and it's well worth a read. By the time you get to the end, I think you'll agree that Romney's leadership would lead our country to the brink of ruin. Before he ruins us completely, though, he'll divvy up our assets among the wealthy financiers who are paying for his campaign.

Republicans get mad when Democrats claim that they want to end Medicare. But facts are facts -- a leaked draft of the GOP platform to be ratified at their convention confirms that their plan would indeed end Medicare:

"The first step is to move the two programs [Medicare and Medicaid] away from their current unsustainable defined-benefit entitlement model to a fiscally sound defined-contribution model," the draft platform reads. "While retaining the option of traditional Medicare in competition with private plans, we call for a transition to a premium-support model for Medicare, with an income-adjusted contribution toward a health plan of the enrollee's choice. This model will include private health insurance plans that provide catastrophic protection, to ensure the continuation of doctor-patient relationships."

The esoteric language gets to the heart of the change that ends the basic structure of Medicare. Since its inception in 1965, Medicare has been a government-run insurance program that directly pays medical bills for the elderly per their needs (i.e. "defined benefit"). Republicans want to turn it into a partially privatized system that pays seniors a fixed amount to buy their own health insurance (i.e. "defined contribution").

Conservatives -- led by Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan, want to end the universal, government-run, defined-benefit program that is Medicare. In its place, they would institute a voucher program that would cover only a portion of seniors' health care costs. They would still call it Medicare, but other than the name, Medicare as we know it today would be no more.

Seniors, you'd better start saving your money. Some day soon, if you need medical treatment, Medicare may not be there to cover the costs.

Michele Bachmann is thrilled that the government is committing resources to improving mass transit from St. Cloud. In fact, she's even touting her own involvement in securing funds for the venture. Here's the statement Bachmann released:

I have long been a supporter of the airport's effort to secure a carrier, and I was happy when the combination of their business savvy, the public commitment to funding, and my recommendation of their project resulted in a grant award. Today, I extend my heartfelt congratulations to all the involved parties. I am certain that this connection from the St. Cloud metro area to Arizona will prove to be very beneficial to both regions. And I look forward to continuing to work with the airport as they seek to expand even further.

Okay, so it wasn't for trains or buses -- modes of technology despised by Republicans because they're socialist plots designed to eliminate freedom. But this isn't just a glib "gotcha." To me, it seems pretty noteworthy that Bachmann is admitting that the government has a role in bringing prosperity to the St. Cloud region.

As a rabid Tea Partier, Bachmann would have you believe that government can't create economic vitality -- only destroy it. But even she can't escape the fact that there are some things only the government can do effectively. Regular air service out of St. Cloud would do a lot to allow the region's economy to grow, and that's something that requires a significant public commitment.

Government infrastructure is vital to our economy. So is education, and yes, even our social safety net (more on that sometime soon). Under Tea Party rule, with their militant anti-government agenda, all of these beneficial programs would disappear. Even Michele Bachmann seems to know what a disaster that would be.

By now, you've probably heard of Rep. Todd Akin (R-MO), the Tea Partier who believes that women who are "legitimately" raped can't get pregnant. Akin may be the only Republican dumb enough to actually express this backwards view out loud, you can be assured that he's actually a spokesman for his party. Sure, some members of his party have repudiated his comments, but that's just because they're afraid of the electoral fallout. Ultimately, actions speak louder than words:

The Republican Party is once again set to enshrine into its official platform support for "a human life amendment" to the Constitution that would outlaw abortion without making explicit exemptions for rape or incest, according to draft language of the platform obtained exclusively by CNN late Monday.

"Faithful to the 'self-evident' truths enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, we assert the sanctity of human life and affirm that the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed," the draft platform declares. "We support a human life amendment to the Constitution and endorse legislation to make clear that the Fourteenth Amendment's protections apply to unborn children."

So they're not repudiating Todd Akin's policies. They're just repudiating his words, while simultaneously running on his policies. Apparently, they're saying they understand that women can and do get pregnant from rape -- they just don't give a damn.

Michael Brodkorb made a name for himself by pushing unsourced, often-inaccurate rumors about Democrats with breathless, self-righteous outrage. He lost everything when he was caught in an affair with the Republican Senate Majority Leader. His reputation, to put it bluntly, is that of a liar and a cheat.

So it was rather surreal to see this announcement on politics.mn, Brodkorb's new "non-partisan" website:

I will be adding a political fact-check section to politics.mn in the coming days.  I will be fact-checking both public statements and campaign advertisements.  If you have an ad or statement you would like fact-checked, please send me an e-mail via the contact page on politics.mn.

This seems totally reasonable. After all, if I had to describe Michael Brodkorb in three words, they  would be honesty, fairness, and integrity.

In related news, I hear that former GOP chair Tony Sutton will soon be starting a new blog geared towards helping people with their personal finances.

After Rick Nolan won the DFL primary last week, Chip Cravaack (R-MN/NH) charged that Nolan and the Democrats would raise taxes if elected. Nolan's response? Cravaack is right. Democrats would raise taxes -- on the super rich.

I'm very glad to see that Nolan isn't afraid of the right on taxes. Too often, Democrats try to hide their views on taxes. They assume that the right has the winning message on taxes, and their clumsy attempts to spin their position make that assumption a self-fulfilling prophecy.

In reality, the vast majority of Americans agree with Democrats that the rich don't pay enough. We should never hide that belief -- we should loudly and proudly acknowledge it, and make it a central campaign theme. I'm happy to see that Rick Nolan won't shy away from the issue.

Supporters of voting rights won a victory today when a Federal judge ruled against a right-wing effort to end same-day registration. Unfortunately, there's already another effort underway to end same-day registration, and it's on the ballot this November.

First, the good news. A lawsuit against Mark Ritchie, Lori Swanson, and a host of county election officials was dismissed with prejudice today:

Judge Donovan W. Frank ruled against a collection of organizations, including Minnesota Voters Alliance and the Minnesota Freedom Council, seeking to end Minnesota's long-standing system of Election Day registration. The federal court ruled that Election Day registration in Minnesota will stay in place for the November 2012 election.

The lawsuit gave us a clear look at the right-wing agenda for remaking our election system. They believe that voting is a privilege, not a right. They believe that too many people are voting, and they want to put a stop to it. That's why they're trying to end same-day registration and absentee balloting.

The lawsuit was always likely to be dismissed. But it was just the first strike in a much larger MNGOP effort to radically reshape our voting system. The real threat is the constitutional amendment that would end same-day registration and absentee balloting. The amendment would also institute a "voter ID" poll tax and force Minnesota to adopt provisional ballots.

Conservatives aren't even trying to pretend anymore. With this lawsuit, they openly admitted that they want to end same-day voter registration. This November, we must stop them from taking away our right to vote.

(edited to fix a typo in the title)