Running Out the Clock

Romney and running out the clock… Dems begin to press the panic button… Greenberg’s and Carville’s advice… Dems win AZ-8 special election… After primaries in ME, NV, ND, and VA, Senate races finally take shape… Eric Holder, political punching bag… Jamie Dimon testifies on Capitol Hill… And Romney addresses Business Roundtable meeting at 11:45 am ET.

By NBC's Chuck Todd, Mark Murray, Brooke Brower, and Natalie Cucchiara

*** Running out the clock: With less than five months until Election Day, Mitt Romney and his team are running a campaign that would make Dean Smith (and his Four Corners offense) or Jim Tressel (and his grind-it-out gameplan) proud. If you're ahead -- or within striking distance -- against a talented opponent, you start running out the clock. Take, for instance, Romney's reply yesterday to a reporter’s ropeline question about whether he thought Democrats were taking his recent remark firefighter and police jobs out of context. "I'm not going to talk about that," he said. (Romney also has ducked reporters’ ropeline questions on Syria, JP Morgan, and even Wisconsin.) Or consider all the interviews he does with FOX (especially its cherry-picked programs vs. its newsier anchors) compared with other news outlets. Or think about the fact that the Romney camp isn't planning (for now) on delivering any new policy speeches. The message Team Romney is essentially giving: “We're going to talk about what we want to talk about -- and to whom we want -- and not talk about the rest.”

Advertise | AdChoices
Advertise | AdChoices

*** But does a president get to control what he talks about? It’s impressive message discipline. And as Smith and Tressel proved, you can win tons of games -- and the ultimate prize every once in a while (especially if your opponent makes mistakes) -- by running out the clock. But here’s something about sitting in the White House: A president often doesn’t get to pick and choose the issues he has to deal with. Think of many of the events in the past five years: the financial industry’s collapse, the European debt crisis, the BP oil spill, the Arab Spring, the violence in Libya and Syria, and the list goes on. While a president gets to pick his domestic priorities (tax cuts, education, and Social Security for George W. Bush; health care and financial reform for Barack Obama), so much of the job is reacting to unplanned events. Ironically, the very issue Romney wants to talk about -- the state of the U.S. economy -- is something that presidents have little control over, especially compared with foreign policy (which they have A LOT of control over). And yet how long can Romney go without going into more detail about how he would handle the various unplanned issues that he would have to deal with if he wins. Take Syria. We know he doesn’t like how the president has handled this situation but how would a President Romney deal with Putin and Assad? He’s provided no clues and his campaign appears to be making sure there’s little opportunity (for now) to find out.

NBC's Mark Murray discusses whether President Barack Obama's message on the economy is working.

*** Dems press the panic button: While Team Romney appears to be running out the clock and displaying an impressive ability at message discipline, the Obama White House and campaign are dealing with Democratic Party that’s beginning to panic after a rough last two weeks. “Is it time for Democrats to panic?” the Washington Post’s Tumulty asks. “That’s what a growing number of party loyalists are wondering, amid a rough couple of weeks in which President Obama and his political operation have been buffeted by bad economic news, their own gaffes and signs that the presumed Republican nominee is gaining strength.” One criticism from the Democrats cited in the piece is how insular Team Obama is, a criticism that has dogged the Obama political team beginning Feb. 10, 2007 (the day Obama announced). This story illustrates two of the Democratic Party’s and Obama White House’s worst traits -- pressing the panic button (especially when nothing fundamental about the race has changed in the past two weeks) and ignoring outside voices (which is a criticism we continually hear about the Obama team). Former Bush strategist Mark McKinnon puts it well in the piece: “[The Obama campaign folks] are not any more or less smart than they were four years ago. The dynamics are just different. This time, the wind is in their face instead of at their back.”

Palin Heart Newt

Editor's note: S.E. Cupp is the author of "Losing Our Religion: The Liberal Media's Attack on Christianity" and co-author of "Why You're Wrong About the Right." She is a columnist at the New York Daily News and a political commentator for Glenn Beck's GBTV.

(CNN) -- Far be it for me to offer unsolicited advice to Sarah Palin. She's built a very successful career out of going rogue and certainly doesn't need any tips from me.

And, as an occasional pundit, a political influencer and a private citizen, she's free to throw her weight behind anyone she wants.

But I just have to say it: Newt Gingrich? Really?

Now, I'm not in the camp of conservative elites who think she's seen her best days and should politely retire to obscurity. If anything, the premiere of "Game Change" on HBO on Saturday is proof that she's still relevant; she's got considerable influence over a certain wing of the party.

S.E. Cupp

And so with great power comes great responsibility. Is Newton Leroy Gingrich the most responsible pick?

Of all the remaining candidates, in fact, the one that makes the least sense is Newt. Mitt Romney I could see, if she wanted to bring the party together. Rick Santorum I could see for his social conservatism, strong Christian faith and similar family stories. I could even see Ron Paul for his "throw the bums out" and "end the Fed" rogue-isms. But Newt?

When rumors first started swirling that Palin might back the former House speaker and self-appointed "cheerful" candidate, Gingrich was surging then. She said she'd vote for him in South Carolina if she could. She wanted to keep the primary alive, she said. And, playing to Newt's strength at the time, she urged "more debates" and "more vetting of candidates."

Julianne Moore's Palin '100% sourced'

Analysis: Gingrich not connecting

Palin leaves door open for 2012 run

Gingrich: 'I'm the tortoise'

But now, with Newt's ham-fisted campaign out of mojo, and no debates on the horizon, it would seem like a good time to jump off that train and get behind Romney or Santorum.

Instead, she doubled down Tuesday, telling Fox Business Network that she voted for Gingrich in the Alaska caucuses, where he finished dead last. And why? "I have appreciated what he has stood for," she said. "He has been the underdog in many of these primary races and these caucuses."

Again, Palin's free to like any candidate she wants, and those would be valid arguments, if they were true.

What Newt has stood for, both during his political career and during this campaign, sits in total contradiction to what Palin has stood for since becoming a public figure. She's for small government; he's shown a disturbing penchant for big government solutions. She champions Washington outsiders and rails against the establishment; he's the epitome of establishment, and has been firmly encamped inside the Beltway for decades. The very people who appreciate Palin should be the same people who despise Gingrich.

And he's hardly been an "underdog." With the backing of billionaire financier Sheldon Adelson and the benefit of serious name recognition, he's enjoyed the money, media attention and opportunity that other GOP candidates didn't. If Newt's been an underdog, I'm sure Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann would have been happy to switch places.

The truth is, Newt isn't the "little guy" in any sense of the word. And if that were truly Palin's criteria, there are actual little guys, such as Buddy Roemer and Gary Johnson to champion.

Or even better, she doesn't have to support any of them.

Maybe Palin's got a master plan in which she makes a late run at the presidency and puts Newt on her ticket. Still, it seems like an incongruous pick and waste of her considerable influence among far-right conservatives.

But I'm sure she knows what she's doing.

Same Old, Same Old

President Barack Obama has come under fire again as he is asking legislators to approve a $1.3 trillion hike in the debt-ceiling this past week. A request brought on not by failure of the president, but a failure, again, in the legislative standoff between the president and Congress.


Texas Governor, Rick Perry used his pursuit of the Republican Presidential campaign as a platform in the national spotlight to urge congress to reject the President's request telling a small audience in South Carolina that it would mean the government would have to print more money and that would devalue the dollar even further.


"The president again went to Congress to ask them to raise the debt ceiling. Than means they're going to print more money, they're going to spend more money. The dollars in your pocket are going to be devalued even more," Perry said. "I hope the members of Congress send a very clear message to the president. Not now, not again, absolutely not, Mr. President."


The request is part of an agreement reached in August between the White House and Congress to raise the debt limit to $15.2 trillion while creating a "super-committee" that unsuccessfully sought to reach a bipartisan deal last fall.


Perry says the president needs to trim his budget and cut spending, an idea that everyone seems to agree with. However, spending cuts alone is not the answer and no one wants to raise taxes or lose their entitlements. Billionaire Warren Buffett has gone so far as to challenge congressional Republicans a financial deal that could reap millions to the deficit. He, as reported to Time magazine, will match all donations to the deficit by the Republican congressional members and will triple match every dollar Senate Republican  leader Mitch McConnell.


Buffett has emphasized that his offer is a "firm offer".

"I told you so..."

My last post of November 14th was about the upcoming failure of the "Super Committee" to reach any sort of agreement and I was right. The deadline past without much fanfare by any media reporting or political backlash. It proves once again the truth about Washington being broken. The only winner was President Obama, that is, if his real purpose was to highlight that a "two-party" system can no longer provide for the American people, he succeeded.


On Saturday night, December 10th, the latest round of Republican debates was featured and for the most part, I haven't watched any of the others, but there was literally nothing else on television besides Christmas shows I have already seen, so I decided to watch most of the sparring by the six major contenders. Honestly I think ABC and Yahoo would have been better off simulcasting The "Grinch Who Stole Christmas" rather than a night of misleading speeches by those that can't decide on who their enemy is. 


Yes, there were a few light moments on stage. Mitt Romney offering a $10,000 bet with Rick Perry, a faux pas that could take serious numbers away from Romney. Michelle Bachmann and her consistent reminder of her "tragic" upbringing of being in a broken family. And, even the sparring between Romney and Newt Gingrich arguing about who was the closer friend to Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.


I really have no idea who might have won the debate as there was more sparring among the participants than actual posturing on key election topics. Maybe Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, or former Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania actually came out on top because I heard very little from them about anything. 


I guess it's true that it's not what is said, but what you hear. For example, Romney incorrectly stated that President Obama said Israel must "go back" to the 1967 borders. That is simply not true! Obama stated Israel should go back to those borders as a starting point for "mutually agreed swaps".


Perry states that over the past 11 years Texas, under his leadership, has created over a million jobs, while there has been over two million job losses across the rest of the country. A statement that is both misleading and false. Numbers are inflated by Perry to make himself look good because as a matter of fact the U.S. has only lost 897,000 jobs according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics over the same period of time.


The one thing this over-used forum has proven is that it's really difficult to know who a Republican should vote for. With little criticism lobbed at Ron Paul or Rick Santorum, maybe they can sneak away some of the lead of the career Washingtonian, Newt Gingrich. I wish you good luck when you finally go to vote in the primaries across country. My advice...eennie meanie minee mo!

Myths and Truths About Social Security

Exploding 5 misconceptions that threaten the system

Reprint from AARP Bulletin of 11/1/11: by: Jane Bryant Quinn 

It happened during the stock boom of the 1990s, and it is happening again. Social Security is coming under attack. The first challenge arose from hope — that savers would get more retirement income for their money if they bought stocks. But the idea of privatization was not popular with the public.

See also: Social Security recipients welcome 3.6 percent COLA.

Now, the attack comes from fear ­ ­ — that Social Security has serious financial problems and can only fail. Younger people lean more toward change than older people do. A CNN/Opinion Research Corp. poll conducted a year ago found that 60 percent of adults who aren't retired expect to get nothing — zero — from Social Security in their older age.

Myth No. 1: Social Security is going bankrupt. No, it's not. Even in the unlikely event that nothing changes and the program's entire surplus runs out in 2036, as projected, checks would keep coming. Payroll taxes at current rates would cover 77 percent of all the future benefits promised. That's true for young and old alike, and includes inflation adjustments.

Myth No. 2: I'd be better off if I'd kept my Social Security taxes in my own investment account. Hmmm ­ ­ — you're saying that you'd faithfully put that money aside, every year of your working life, in a mix of stocks and bonds, without ever skipping a year, drawing on your nest egg or selling when the market dropped? Few such paragons exist.

You'd need to invest far more than you probably realize to match the benefits Social Security pays. As an example, take a 65-year-old couple with a single breadwinner who earned the average wage. At retirement, they'd currently get about $2,170 a month, plus inflation adjustments, for life, the Urban Institute reports.

To equal that sum in private savings, they'd need to have about $580,000, says Michael Kitces, director of research for Pinnacle Advisory Group, and the money might last only 30 years. How many average earners are likely to save that much?

Myth No. 3: In 1983, Congress made changes to Social Security to build a fund that would pay for boomers when they retire, so it's not fair to change benefits now. No, Congress did not intend to "advance fund" the boomers, according to a study of the record by Charles Blahous of Stanford University's Hoover Institution. It raised taxes and cut some future benefits to cure an imminent insolvency. The trust fund reserves — now $2.6 trillion — were a by-product of the decisions made. Congress never veered from its vision of intergenerational compact: Working people pay for those who don't, or can't, work anymore. On the flip side, the compact requires older people to make some concessions so that younger people can afford it.

Myth No. 4: You should get out of Social Security the amount you put in. No. Social Security is not an individual investment program (see Myth  No. 2). Your taxes paid for the earlier generation of retirees. Current workers are paying for you. The total amount of your benefit depends on how much you earned, whether you get a spousal benefit, when you retire and how long you live.

Myth No. 5: Social Security helps old people, not younger people like me. Wrong. It provides income support to qualified widows and widowers with young children, as well as orphans. Just as important, it saves young families from the cost of supporting older parents who, without Social Security, wouldn't have enough money to live on. It also provides benefits for workers who become disabled.

My final point … and it isn't a myth, it's a fact. If young people switched their payroll taxes into private accounts, the government would have to borrow $6.5 trillion or more (depending on the details) to keep paying out benefits to current retirees.

That means higher deficits, higher income taxes, further slashes in spending, or all three. It's smarter — and cheaper — to fix the current program and put everyone's mind at rest. 

Apathy: The Reason We Never Change

When it comes to this country and the lack of change it becomes apparent that apathy is a strong motivator. Why do anything when it's easier to complain about the lack of leadership in Washington, rather than actually making a physical and mental effort to promote change.


It's not our fault Washington can't fix the country, after all, we elected the representatives from our district to fix all our problems and keep our interests first and foremost above all others. It's their job and if they don't do it right, we have the right to sit back and complain. They promised us they would do it and they should. Why should we get involved? Why should we have to make an effort to let them know what they promised and haven't delivered? They should know and they should fix it. 


But I digress, it should be clear as day. I created a petition that could possibly fix the problem, hold Washington accountable and limit their  stay in the Capital if they don't. But once again, apathy has played a big part as to the politico never having to be held accountable. We live in an apathetic time with a questionable attitude that says if they want our names and emails, they will come after us. It's not like this country was founded on the premise that there could be a better way to live.


No, society has become selfish and lazy to the point that why do anything at all when we can just sit back and point fingers and cast blame on those WE elected to fix our country and system. GOD BLESS AMERICA and the right to be apathetic.


http://wh.gov/ToU

Time for a Financial Revolt

I believe it's time for a financial revolt to take place in this country. All the talk about financial stimulus and jump starting the economy is getting old and a bit redundant. The average american has been the biggest loser in this country for far too long and it's time to start taking back the nation and financial markets.


How many times do you see on television, hear on radio, or read in the newspapers about awesome low interest deals on cars, only to see, read or hear about special interest deals available to "well qualified buyers" and know you are not the people they're talking about? How is it car makers are posting profits if the average american doesn't qualify for their "special offers? Oh yeah, that's right, they get kick backs from banks by charging us higher interest and selling it to the banks as "damaged" credit customers, sometimes raking in 2% to as much as 5% back from the lenders.


The average person cannot qualify for home loans because they can't come up with the down payment and can't afford the house payment at the higher interest rates. The houses either sit empty owned by the banks or Realtor's snatch them up and rent them out for the house payment and a little extra for either profit or escrow accounts to "fix" or "repair" their investment. Again, little is done to assist those that would like to own a home that they can afford. It's little wonder that new housing starts are at an all time low, while properties are becoming apartment complexes and once nice neighborhoods, desolate grazing land.


While there isn't much we can doing about getting into homes at "current" interest rates, we can still do the following:


Go into a car dealership offering special interest rates and incentives, test drive the car you would like to have. Tell the salesperson all of the accessories you would like on the car, what color you want, the tires and wheels you want and take up most of their day. When it gets down to crunch the numbers time, tell them you want the special interest rate and payment you want, the number of months you want to pay or the lease term length, and let them run your credit. Even insist on a cup of coffee or soda while you wait, (most salespersons will be happy to oblige since they think they're going to make a big sale), and when they find out you aren't qualified for what you want and they come back to inform you, politely get up, shake their hand and say, "thank you" and walk out. I guarantee it will take at least two hours out of their day and the dealership will do everything they can to get you to buy, but just say thanks and leave.


If enough people do this, automotive makers will have to listen to their dealers and make incentives for everyone and stop the B.S. of "well qualified" buyer ads. I know from personal experience salespeople will get fed up and dealers will voice their concerns and frustrations to the factories. You can even walk on the sidewalk in front of a dealership and silently protest with signs that if you are not well qualified you will pay more for the car you want or have to settle for less. The sidewalk is a public place and the dealership cannot kick you off, especially if the protest is silent and peaceful.


This is an extreme I know, but what else is a person to do to get their voice heard? Certainly we can't count on Washington to help out, heck, they can't even agree on how to balance the budget or pass a budget for longer than seven weeks at a time, why trust them now? 


If the politicians won't tax those that can afford to pay and insist on raising taxes on the lower and middle class, maybe they can insist lower interest rates be available to all citizens of this great nation.

Here We Are Again...

Here we are again, a possible government shutdown. It seems the political process has not learned a damn thing with the people's response to raising the debt ceiling debacle of just over a month ago.


Political sides have drawn another line in the sand waiting for one or the other to cross before remedying a situation that not only affects governmental employees, programs and emergency funding, but it also affects every person, young and old, in this country. Boehner thinks his deal is best, Reid thinks his is. Another "dirty" stalemate looms in the offing, one the American people have seen before.


What's really sad is that this proposed funding is for only first seven weeks of the new fiscal year. Another band aid so that they can argue again in just a few weeks from now. Have the politicians not heard the voice of the "People"? Their approval rating is at the lowest ever and they don't seem to care. This will make the third time in six months a partial government shut down is possible if a Republican led House and a Democratic Senate cannot come to an agreement.


It seems to me if you can't organize your bills and pay your creditors as agreed, you face collections fees and nasty phone calls. Your credit rating goes down the dumper and you no longer can get the house or car of your dreams, you pay at a higher credit percentage and are expected to come up with more money down or forced to file bankruptcy. Either way, it costs you more to live and are supposed to settle for a lessor lifestyle. Maybe it's time for the creditors of our great nation to inform those that make these decisions on our behalf to fix the problem immediately or they will be the ones punished financially.


"It is embarrassing," Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., admitted Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union." Warner asked: "Can we, once again, inflict on the country and the American people the spectacle of a near government shutdown?"


When is enough, enough? It's hard enough to go to our jobs daily hoping the doors are not shut, our paychecks don't bounce and that we will continue to have a roof over our heads, clothes on our backs and food in our stomachs. What makes it more difficult is that the pompous politicians sit on Capital Hill squabbling over keeping the government running and not be concerned that they won't get paid. 


It's time to stop the "pork barrel" spending, the idea that my state is more important than yours and focus on getting this country back on it's feet again. We were once considered the most "powerful" country in the world with streets paved of "gold" but now we are a laughing stock, the butt of jokes around the world.


How about we get rid of all the career politicians, and I do mean all, and elect CPA's, small business owners who are successful in positive cash flow, normal everyday people who can't raise millions for the election coffers, and start running this country as a business and not as a country owing to the 'fat cats" in Washington or the special interest groups out to buy an election. How about the people of this great nation stop their political rhetoric and take back what is rightfully ours.


In 2012 the people can make a difference by not re-electing any political candidate and taking a really close look at those average Americans willing to work one term to right the path of our country.

Time For A Change?

Arguably President Obama is at his lowest approval rating of his Presidential tenure, but is it because he has failed the American people or is it the result of the recent turmoil in Washington, DC regarding the budget/debt crisis? It’s true America was let down, in a catastrophic way, with the ineptness of both sides of the political process to reach a consensus that rectified a problem that has plagued this country for years until the very last minute. The members of Congress were not happy with the ensuing deal made to raise the debt limit but on the other hand they paraded around like war heroes and sport celebrities that had brought victory to the land of the free.


Republicans cast blame for the battle on the Democrats and vice versa. But the real reason for the delay is they can’t get fired for failing to perform the duties of which they were “hired”. Some even wanted to take their summer break and vacation instead of working for the greater good of a nation on the brink of financial disaster. Maybe it’s time to enact a performance clause into the election process much like what the ordinary American is confronted with in his or her job. Even the unemployed are faced with a performance clause weekly.


The constituents should be able to rate the performance of their elected official every six months and if the politician receives a majority negative response a special election would be held within ten days and a new elected official would take their place in Washington. If the majority responded in a positive way, the elected official would remain in office. The only exceptions to the rule would be to the President and Vice President. They would serve out their term to establish a sense of continuity across the globe.


I’m sure there are other ways to make elected officials accountable and to create a sense of urgency for them to deal with the concerns of the country. Maybe it’s time for the ordinary citizen to stand up and be heard, to make sure the elected official is totally aware of who they are accountable to. It’s not the special interest groups, or the big dollar contributor, but the everyday, common people of the United States. Unfortunately, like it or not, nothing will change in the world of politics until the people stand up and be counted in a voice that is not only loud, but possibly even deafening.