Government is serious. Democracy is sacred. And then there is politics the way it is actually played. The Vote blog looks at politics the way the players talk about it among themselves after work.
The convention hall in Tampa as organizers prepared for the Republican National Convention last week. (Warren Richey/Staff)
Video of the GOP convention: Take a peek behind the curtain
Republicans from across the nation descended on Tampa, Fla., last week for their national political convention. The mission: nominate GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney.
The gathering began under a threat from tropical storm Isaac and ended in the blazing Tampa heat. Expected massive protests by anarchists and the Occupy Movement never materialized – perhaps in part because of an overwhelming contingent of police and security officials.
Security around the Tampa Bay Times Forum often resembled a military outpost with an eight-foot-high steel fence and concrete barriers patrolled by Florida National Guard troops armed with assault rifles. Reporters lugging their gear the half-mile through the security zone in the intense heat and humidity were funneled into two checkpoints with TSA specialists, medal detectors, and X-ray machines.
Even well within the convention site, reporters were continually asked to show their convention credentials.
The real action took place inside the forum on the convention floor. That’s where Monitor correspondent Warren Richey spent most of his time – with cameras at the ready.
What unfolded represented a new level of political wackiness. Any item of clothing that could possibly support an American flag or elephant theme was on full display among the delegates and other convention participants. Lady Liberty made an appearance all the way from Long Beach, Calif., in a Colonial gown with a flag theme. A Kansas Jayhawk patrolled the floor, as did an Abe Lincoln look-alike who doubled as a delegate from Missouri.
Here is Warren Richey’s six-minute take on the 2012 Republican National Convention.
Was the Declaration of Independence (a rare first printing of which is shown here) the first mention of the 'United States of America'? Maybe not. (Elise Amendola/AP/File)
Who coined the name 'United States of America'? Mystery gets new twist.
It may seem surprising, but nobody is really sure who came up with the phrase, “United States of America.”
Speculation generally swirls around a familiar cast of characters – the two Toms (Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson), Alexander Hamilton, Ben Franklin, and even a gentleman named Oliver Ellsworth (a delegate from the Constitutional Convention of 1787). But every instance of those gentlemen using the name "United States of America" is predated by a recently discovered example of the phrase in the Revolutionary-era Virginia Gazette.
So who was perhaps the first person ever to write the words "United States of America"?
A PLANTER.
That was how the author of an essay in the Gazette signed the anonymous letter. During that time, it was common practice for essays and polemics to be published anonymously in an attempt to avoid future charges of treason – only later has history identified some of these authors.
The discovery adds a new twist – as well as the mystery of the Planter's identity – to the search for the origin of a national name that has now become iconic.
Several references mistakenly credit Paine with formulating the name in January 1776. Paine’s popular and persuasive book, "Common Sense," uses “United Colonies,” “American states,” and “FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES OF AMERICA,” but he never uses the final form.
The National Archives, meanwhile, cite the first known use of the “formal term United States of America” as being the Declaration of Independence, which would recognize Jefferson as the originator. Written in June 1776, Jefferson’s “original Rough draught” placed the new name at the head of the business – “A Declaration by the Representatives of the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA in General Congress assembled."
Jefferson clearly had an idea as to what would sound good by presenting the national moniker in capitalized letters. But in the final edit, the line was changed to read, “The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.” The fact that “United States of America” appears in both versions of the Declaration may have been enough evidence to credit Jefferson with coining the phrase, but there is another example published three months earlier.
Beginning in March 1776, a series of anonymously written articles began appearing in The Virginia Gazette – one of three different Virginia Gazettes being published in Williamsburg at that time. Addressed to the “Inhabitants of Virginia,” the essays present an economic set of arguments promoting independence versus reconciliation with Great Britain. The author estimates total Colonial losses at $24 million and laments the possibility of truce without full reparation – and then voices for the first time what would become the name of our nation.
“What a prodigious sum for the united states of America to give up for the sake of a peace, that, very probably, itself would be one of the greatest misfortunes!” – A PLANTER
So who is A PLANTER?
Likely candidates could be well-known Virginians, like Richard Henry Lee, Patrick Henry, or even Jefferson. Some of the essay’s phrasing can be found in the writings of Jefferson. For example, “to bind us by their laws in all cases whatsoever,” appears in both the essay and Jefferson’s autobiography.
A Planter could be the nomme de plume of an intrepid New Englander, like John Adams, attempting to rally support for independence in the South, a similar motive for why he charged Jefferson, a Southerner, to pen the Declaration.
A Planter could be Benjamin Franklin, who was well-known for his hoaxes and journalistic sleight-of-hand. Or maybe, A Planter is exactly whom the letters portray, an industrious, logistics-minded landowner, evangelizing about the promise of increased prosperity should the “united states of America” ever become an independent nation.
There is a possibility the author was aware of the historical significance of introducing the new name for the first time, as he or she observes:
“Many to whom this language is new, may, at first, be startled at the name of an independent Republick, [and think that] the expenses of maintaining a long and important war will exceed the disadvantages of submitting to some partial and mutilated accommodation. But let these persons point out to you any other alternative than independence or submission. For it is impossible for us to make any other concessions without yielding to the whole of their demands.”
So, the mystery continues.
Our anonymous author, A Planter, certainly did plant a few seeds in the spring of 1776. Those seeds came to fruition as the first documentary evidence of the phrase “United States of America” – an experiment in self-government that quickly became one of the most powerful and influential nations in the world.
Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin reacts to audience applause during a campaign event at the Waukesha County Expo Center, Sunday, Aug. 12, in Waukesha, Wis. (Mary Altaffer/AP)
Paul Ryan shirtless? We're more interested in his widow's peak.
Since his unveiling Saturday as Mitt Romney’s running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan has gone from being famous only inside the Beltway – and in his corner of Wisconsin – to being a national curiosity.
How else to explain the fact that the second most-searched term Saturday on Google related to Congressman Ryan, after “vice president,” was “shirtless,” as noted by Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post’s “Fix” column. Indeed, aside from his focus on all things budgetary, the youthful Ryan is also known on Capitol Hill for his devotion to physical fitness. And despite the fact that he’s married – happily, by all indications – that hasn’t stopped the return of the “Hey Girl, It’s Paul Ryan” meme on Tumblr.
But truth be told, we’re more interested in Ryan’s hair – particularly his widow’s peak. Having a full head of hair is always a plus in politics, but the way his hair comes down to a little point in the middle of his forehead (think Eddie Munster) gives him an added bonus. It brings to mind no less a Republican figure than the late President Ronald Reagan, the last inhabitant of the White House to have a pronounced widow’s peak.
For Republicans, ever on the lookout for the next Reagan, this could be a sign.
In fact, a professor at University of California at Irvine did a study in the late 1980s on the facial attributes of politicians, and found that widow’s peaks were “a clear positive” with the public, according to an April piece in the Washington Post’s “Reliable Source” column.
“It was associated with being seen as more competent and with greater integrity,” Shawn Rosenberg, a professor of political science and psychology, told the Post. He couldn’t explain why.
Last year, at a forum at Marquette University Law School in Milwaukee, Ryan referred to his distinctive hairline as he shrugged off talk of his political future, according to the school’s faculty blog.
“When I look in the mirror, I see a broken nose and a widow’s peak,” he said. “I don’t see a future president.”
Wonder if that’s still the case.
RECOMMENDED: Mitt Romney's five biggest assets and five biggest liabilities as GOP nominee
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney laughs as reporters ask him about his vice presidential pick, as he boards his charter plane in Centennial, Colo., on Aug. 2. (Charles Dharapak/AP)
Mitt Romney VP pick: Convention speaker list offers fresh tea leaves
Could Mitt Romney's vice presidential pick come late this week – perhaps as he kicks off a three-day bus tour through battleground states that begins Friday?
That's what some campaign watchers are predicting, though Mr. Romney may opt to hold onto the suspense – and avoid competing for an audience with Olympics coverage, which ends Sunday – by waiting until closer to the GOP Convention in Tampa, Fla., held the last week in August.
Still, speculation over who the pick will be is only growing – and the announcement Monday of seven speakers at that convention seemed to narrow down the long list of contenders at least slightly.
The list of announced speakers includes former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez, South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Florida Gov. Rick Scott, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. None of their time slots were given, and other speakers – including the keynote speaker – will be announced closer to the convention.
Some of those names, including the three women, have been tossed around as possible veep picks, but that now seems unlikely (though it is possible that a name was released as a red herring). More notable is who wasn't on the list of announced speakers, including many names on most people's vice presidential short list: Sen. Mario Rubio of Florida, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio, former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, and New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.
At this point, the biggest speculation among many campaign watchers is whether Romney will go with a "safe" pick (someone like Senator Portman or former Governor Pawlenty) or with a riskier one, who could energize certain segments of voters.
He's been under some pressure from fellow conservatives to go the latter route – most notably with a plea over the weekend from Weekly Standard editors Stephen Hayes and William Kristol that urges Romney to "go bold!" (Of course, bear in mind that Mr. Kristol has was also one of the earliest, most ardent promoters of another "bold" VP pick that in retrospect seems to have been a mistake: He pushed Sarah Palin for vice president before many Republicans had heard of her.)
In their article, they tell him to, "Go bold, Mitt! Pick Paul Ryan, the Republican Party’s intellectual leader, the man who’s laid out the core of the post-Obama policy agenda and gotten his colleagues in Congress to sign on to it. Or pick Marco Rubio, the GOP’s most gifted young politician, the man who embodies what is best about the Tea Party and a vision of a broad-based Republican governing majority of the future."
They go on to lay out a case for Senator Rubio (energizing Hispanic voters nationwide, but particularly in Florida, where they are a key demographic in a must-win state) and Congressman Ryan (energizing conservatives and Midwestern voters).
Even one of the people mentioned on most veep short lists, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, made a case for Ryan as vice president over the weekend, speaking at the Red State Gathering in Jacksonville, Fla.
“I think picking somebody like a Paul Ryan would send a very powerful message that this administration was serious about Medicare reform, entitlement reform, shrinking the size of government, and doing so in a courageous way,” Governor Jindal said.
Still, conventional wisdom is that Romney is likely to play it safe and will go with someone, like Portman or Pawlenty, with whom he gets along well and who is unlikely to overshadow him.
Especially after John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin in the last election – which added initial excitement but then came back to haunt him – Romney seems likely to go with a candidate who seems ready for the presidency and is more of a "do no harm" pick than a bold one.
At this point, the Romney campaign is only fueling speculation about the pick – including unrolling a new app, called "Mitt's VP," through which supporters can supposedly learn about the pick before anyone else.
Whether or not Romney's campaign manages to control the news so tightly that it actually breaks via smartphone app, of course, remains to be seen.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, (D) of Nev., speaks to reporters at the Capitol in Washington, in this July 25 photo. Reid is getting slammed by political watchdogs, Republicans, and some Democrats for asserting that Mitt Romney paid no taxes for 10 years. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Romney tax returns: Harry Reid may be bluffing, but he's winning
Harry Reid is being slammed by political watchdogs, Republicans, and some Democrats for making an unsubstantiated assertion about the content of Mitt Romney’s unreleased tax returns.
On Monday, top Republicans continued to heap scorn on the Senate Democratic leader, calling him a liar and accusing him of trying to divert attention from the struggling economy. Democrats pounded back, saying that President Obama’s Republican challenger could solve the problem by releasing more of his taxes.
Indeed, if throwing sand in our eyes and sowing dissension among Republicans were Senator Reid’s goals, he has succeeded: Reid has kept the political world – and most important, the media – focused on speculation around the wealthy Mr. Romney’s taxes, even amid an uptick in the unemployment rate. And Republicans are continuing to say that Romney should release more than the two returns he has already put out.
RECOMMENDED: Mitt Romney's five biggest assets and five biggest liabilities as GOP nominee
"I think at this point in time it's going to dog him all the way, and he needs to get it behind him," Republican strategist Ed Rollins said Sunday on Fox News. "I think he needs to release more taxes. Absolutely."
Mr. Rollins joins conservative columnist George Will, Weekly Standard editor William Kristol, and former Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour (R) in saying that Romney should release more returns.
Nearly a week after Reid claimed in an interview with the Huffington Post that an unnamed investor in Romney’s former company, Bain Capital, told him Romney didn’t pay any taxes for 10 years, the topic continues to rage in the political media.
At best, Reid is repeating an assertion for which he has provided no backup. He has not revealed the identity of the investor in Romney’s former company, nor has he explained the specifics of what this investor has allegedly seen or how this person would have access to Romney’s personal tax information. Reid’s defense is that the investor is “an extremely credible source.”
Romney’s response has been, “Put up or shut up.” Democrats are saying, in effect, “Back at you, pal.”
In short, it’s possible that Reid is bluffing. He may know that his source can’t prove his claim. If Romney does release more returns, and is shown to have paid something in taxes, Reid will look foolish. But maybe he doesn’t care. He was reelected in 2010, and will not face voters again until 2016 – if he decides to run at all. And he will have gotten the prize the Democrats and the Obama campaign are looking for: more fodder on Romney’s finances, which include off-shore accounts that are easy to demagogue.
On Monday, The Wall Street Journal editorial page – at times critical of Romney – came out in defense of the former Massachusetts governor. The editorial noted that the paper had called on Romney long ago to release more tax returns and put the matter to rest. But it ended by taking Romney’s side.
“[W]ithout any proof, Mr. Reid's accusations are a smear from the fever swamps that say more about Mr. Reid's ethics than they do about Mr. Romney's taxes,” the piece concluded.
The editorial was entitled “Stay classy, Harry.” It could have been called “Dirty Harry.” But the one-time boxer from Nevada might have found that flattering.
Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke appears before the House Financial Services Committee Wednesday to deliver his twice-a-year report to Congress on the state of the economy. (J. Scott Applewhite/AP)
Ron Paul vs. Ben Bernanke: final battle ends on surprising note
It’s been a long ride for Ron Paul and Ben Bernanke.
Since 2006, when the latter was named as the chairman of the Federal Reserve system, the former – the libertarian congressman from Texas – has been haranguing Mr. Bernanke during his annual visits to the House Committee on Financial Services.
But with Mr. Paul retiring after this term, Wednesday marked the final chapter of six years of Paul-Bernanke combat. Their engagements have often been the stuff of Internet lore.
Paul-Bernanke matches “certainly made the hearings more interesting – and provided several memorable YouTube moments,” said Rep. Spencer Bachus (R) of Alabama, the chairman of the House Committee on Financial Services at the top of the hearing.
The script usually goes like this: Paul launches into a lecture about Austrian economics for somewhere near half of his allotted time, followed by a perfunctory question to Bernanke. Bernanke answers succinctly, often with a slim smile. Paul then fires off several other questions which Bernanke deflects with a mix of concision and respectful disagreement.
Wednesday wasn’t much different – but it dropped a curtain on a poignant, long-running episode of a broader battle within the GOP on fiscal and monetary priorities.
On one side of that divide stands Bernanke, a Republican and economist with technocratic bona fides after being thrice nominated by President George W. Bush to various posts, including his current spot, before being reappointed by President Obama. On the other is Paul, the leading light for the Republican Party’s disaffected libertarian cohort who see the Bernanke years, including bank bailouts and rock-bottom interest rates for years on end, as not distasteful necessities but deep betrayals of conservative financial principles.
Many on the Financial Services Committee were in a reflective mood early in Wednesday’s hearing – including Paul.
“I have over the years obviously been critical about what goes on in monetary policy, but it hasn’t been so much the chairman of the Federal Reserve, whether it was Paul Volcker or Alan Greenspan or the current chairman, it’s always been the system,” Paul said. “I think they have a job that they can’t do because it’s an unmanageable job, it’s a fallacy, it’s a flawed system, and therefore we shouldn’t expect good results.
Burnished by double a member’s usual time allotment – fellow libertarian Rep. Walter Jones (R) of North Carolina gave up his time so Paul could speak at greater length – Paul uncorked one of his standard diatribes about the Federal Reserve’s secret deliberations over monetary moves.
The argument has particular weight this week, as the House is set to take up (and likely pass) next week Paul’s bill to force the Federal Reserve to reveal more about its deliberations over monetary policy moves.
“Whose responsibility is it under the Constitution to manage monetary policy?” he asked.
“Congress has the authority and it's delegated to the Federal Reserve. That’s a policy decision that you’ve made,” Bernanke replied.
Paul was unimpressed.
“But [Congress] can’t transfer authority. You can’t amend the Constitution by just by saying ‘We’re going to create some secret group of individuals and banks.’ That’s amending the Constitution. You can’t do that, and then all of a sudden allow this to exist in secrecy,” Paul fumed.
Bernanke parried by saying Congress has given that authority and they could decide to take it away. He wouldn’t recommend it, as he argued independent central banks have delivered better economic results than nonindependent ones. But Congress could do so.
Paul’s reply?
“Congress ought to get a backbone, we have a right to know, we have an obligation to defend our currency,” he said.
And that launched a soliloquy that was picture-perfect Paul.
“It’s the destruction of the currency that destroys the middle class. There’s a principle of free market thinking that says destroying the value of the currency through inflation, you transfer the wealth from the middle class and it gravitates to the very wealth. The bankers, the government, the politicians – they all love this. It is the fact that the Federal Reserve is the facilitator. If you like big government, love the Fed. They can finance the wars and all the welfare you want ... but your country ends up in a crisis. It’s a solvency crisis, and it can’t be solved by printing a whole lot of money,” he concluded.
Paul, whose warnings about debt, deficits, and inflation have been his calling card during some 20 years in public service, later offered another line of argument that could stand in as an essential statement of his critics during his time in Congress.
“We’re in deep doldrums and we never change policy. We never challenge anything. We just keep doing the same thing. Congress keeps spending the money, welfare expands exponentially, wars never end, and deficits don’t matter,” Paul said.
And what did Bernanke say to that? Nothing, directly. Paul had gobbled up all of his available time. Only when Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts asked for a moment for Bernanke to respond did he get a word in to defend the Fed’s current procedures.
“So far my views have not prevailed,” Paul later said, “but I have appreciated this opportunity to have served on the [financial services] committee.”
Demonstrators stand outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Thursday before the court's ruling on health-care reform. (Evan Vucci/AP)
Outside Supreme Court, health-care ruling ignites cauldron of emotion
Americans are deeply divided on President Obama's health-care plan – and so were the thousand-plus activists outside the Supreme Court who braved the 95-degree heat to be at the epicenter of Thursday's historic ruling.
Chants of "USA!" and Yes, we can!" mixed with jeers from a tightly packed crowd – some arriving hours ahead of the decision – when the Supreme Court announced its decision to uphold the 2010 health-care law.
The tide of opinion has been running against the Obama plan – the signature achievement of his first term. Only 28 percent of Americans said that they would be pleased if the Supreme Court ruled that the health-care law was constitutional, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll. Thirty-five percent of Americans said they would be disappointed by such a decision and another 37 percent had mixed feelings or were unsure.
That full range of views was represented outside the Supreme Court on Thursday.
“It was constitutional, and it was the right thing to do," says Lauren Weiner, deputy communications director for Americans United for Change.
For other supporters, the ruling was a mixed blessing. Molly Smith, who works with Planned Parenthood, says the health-care law did not go far enough but hoped the Supreme Court's decision could serve as a powerful stepping stone toward universal healthcare. "This is better than nothing, but I think we have a long way to go to make health care that’s affordable for all people,” Ms. Smith says.
But for health-care opponents, including several Republican leaders on hand, the court’s decision marked a call to action: Repeal the health-care law.
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R) of Georgia, co-chair of the Republican Doctors Caucus, said he was “bitterly disappointed by the action” and encouraged protesters to take all possible actions to ensure that Congress quashes the law. Mr. Gingrey even sent a direct message to Chief Justice John Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberal justices in declaring the constitutionality of the individual mandate.
“I’m ready to call for the impeachment of Chief Justice Roberts based on this decision,” Gingrey said, eliciting a loud and long string of boos from health-care supporters.
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) of Minnesota, who chairs the House tea party caucus, said that upholding the law would further slow the recovery of an ailing economy. "The pragmatic effect of this decision is there will be a black cloud over an prospect of economic recovery in the United States,” she said.
Still others said that the event, with all its diverse opinions, represented core American values.
“This is what democracy is about – getting out here and being able to protest,” says Sam Williams, who traveled an hour and a half to register opposition to the law."
Ann Romney, the wife of US Republican Presidential candidate Mitt Romney, stands next to owner Linda Hundt, as she holds up a cookie in the shape of Michigan (minus the Upper Peninsula) inside the Sweetie-licious Bakery Cafe in DeWitt, Michigan, last week. (Larry Downing/Reuters)
Courting the cookie vote: Obama vs. Romney in the presidential bake-off
Never mind taxes, wars, immigration, same-sex marriage, or global warming – here’s a question that is always at stake in any presidential election year: Chocolate Chip or Oatmeal Raisin?
Or this year’s iteration: Mama Kaye’s White and Dark Chocolate Chip or M&M?
It’s not quite the Kitchen Debates, but for the past 20 years, Family Circle magazine's Presidential Cookie Bake-off has been a wildly popular sideshow to the presidential election campaign: Which candidate’s spouse makes a better cookie?
The magazine has sponsored five previous contests in every presidential election year since 1992 when Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush crossed cookie sheets and went mano-a-mano over Chocolate Chip Oatmeal (Clinton) vs. Chocolate Chip (Bush).
It works like this: The candidates’ spouses offer up favorite cookie recipes for public consumption. Readers then whip up their own batches and vote on which cookie is tastiest.
This year, bakers can cast their votes for M&M cookies, courtesy of Ann Romney, or Mama Kaye’s White and Dark Chocolate Chip, from Michelle Obama, through Family Circle’s Facebook page.
It isn’t quite like fortune cookies, but the magazine sponsors insist that the winning recipes are surprisingly accurate in their outcomes, predicting the eventual occupants of the White House in every contest with the exception of one: Cindy McCain’s Oatmeal Butterscotch beat out Michelle Obama’s Shortbread in the 2008 culinary vote, though the popular vote of course ultimately favored Barack over John.
(Bill Clinton, it should be noted, also got into the game that year (Oatmeal) as Hillary Clinton challenged Mr. Obama in the Democratic primary race.)
And spare us your snarky political assumptions: Democrats don’t only use vegan, gluten-free, hemp-and-flax, free-range, organic, non-GMO ingredients and Republicans don’t only use butter, sugar, chocolate, and red-white-and-blue sprinkles.
There have, by the way, been some unusual cookie components in the past, notably: pumpkin puree (for Theresa Heinz Kerry’s Pumpkin Spice), and white vinegar (Tipper Gore’s Gingersnaps).
Standing under the massive pipe organ at Boston's Symphony Hall, President Barack Obama addresses supporters during a campaign fundraiser on Monday, June 25, 2012. (Stephan Savoia/AP)
Obama gets green-carpet treatment in Boston, as dollars roll in
No, that wasn’t a rock concert rattling the rafters and raising the roof at Boston’s august Symphony Hall.
Nor was it a religious revival shaking the 112-year-old hall’s gilded balconies and snarling the city’s already notorious rush-hour traffic.
It was merely Barack Obama storming through town Monday evening to rake in some cash for his reelection campaign and to bask in a rapturous reception from supporters and donors, deep-pocketed and not.
The president’s star quality may have dimmed since 2008, but it hadn’t among the adoring 1,800 people who ponied up between $250 to $2,500 to see the Democratic incumbent offer up grist on Republicans, taxes, immigration, job creation, and even a barb on the Red Sox that got what sounded like boos. (This is sports-mad Boston, don’t forget.)
On a day when the US Supreme Court offered a mixed bag of fraught judicial opinions, the thunderous ovations and millions of dollars he pulled in gave affirmation that for now Mr. Obama doesn’t have much to worry about in the blue-state Bay State.
“The debate in this election is not whether we have more work to do. Of course, the economy is not what it needs to be. Of course, there are too many folks still struggling. Of course, things should be better. These challenges were built up over years. They weren’t created overnight. They won’t be solved overnight,” he said.
“But the big thing is with this election is how do we grow the economy back together? How do we create more jobs? Moving forward, how do we find more opportunities? How do we pay down our debt? How do we reclaim that basic bargain that makes America the greatest nation on Earth? How do we do it?” he asked.
Both Obama and his likely Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, have raised substantial amounts of money in the state, though neither has spent much time campaigning here. Obama has netted more than $7.7 million in contributions this election cycle, as of the end of May, according to federal campaign filings. Monday's visit brought in at least $3 million more. By contrast, Romney has collected nearly $4.9 million in direct contributions from state residents.
Monday’s visit most likely will be Obama’s last before November. Polls show Obama with a solid lead over Romney here.
So while stumping votes wasn’t the priority during the one-day visit, stumping for dollars was. The Symphony Hall event was bracketed by an even more elite pair of gathering in the Boston area: one at a posh bistro in the city’s swanky South End with 25 supporters who reportedly paid $40,000 each to attend, and later on, a fundraising dinner with 100 people at a private home in one of the state’s wealthiest towns. Tickets reportedly cost $17,900 per person and $35,800 per couple.
If Obama’s fundraising prowess in a state that voted overwhelmingly for him in 2008 was never in question, neither was his ability to inspire a crowd to jump to its feet for nearly a dozen standing ovations and at least as many applause lines during his 40-minute Symphony Hall speech.
“We believe that in America that your success shouldn’t be determined by the circumstances of your birth,” he said. “We believe that if you work hard, you should be able to find a good job. You make your responsibilities, you should be able to support your family, own a home, start a business, give your kids opportunities you could never imagine.
“No matter who you are, no matter what you look like, no matter where you come from, no matter who love, no matter what your last name is,” he said.
In between poking fun at the Red Sox, Republicans, and even himself, he also presaged the Supreme Court decision on health care, expected on Thursday, that could define, or doom, his presidency.
“You can decide whether ending bailouts for Wall Street banks was the right thing to do; whether preventing insurance companies from discriminating against people who are sick is the right thing to do; whether allowing over 3 million young people to stay on their parents’ health insurance plan, whether that is the right thing to do,” he said.
The undercard for Monday’s event could very well have deserved equal billing. Elizabeth Warren, the Harvard Law professor whose bid to unseat Republican US Sen. Scott Brown is one of the most closely watched races in the country this year, poked at Romney and his campaign trail comments on corporations, but made no mention of her competitor in her introduction for Obama.
In the end, it was clear that few in the audience needed any persuading.
“It’s a tough world. As he said, he’s not a perfect man, he hasn’t been a perfect president. But he’s got the vision that I think people will respond to,” said Al Zabin, a trial lawyer from the suburb of Lexington.
“The main thing people have going against him is fear. When people are afraid, they’re polarized. When people are afraid of losing their jobs, the homes. When people are afraid, they don’t think,” said attendee Priscilla Douglas, who served as secretary of consumer affairs under Republican Gov. William Weld in the 1990s.
RECOMMENDED: Mitt Romney's top 5 attacks on President Obama
A woman donning a Robin Hood-style hat and mask protests outside the JPMorgan Chase headquarters in support of the Robin Hood tax in New York Tuesday. (Andrew Burton/REUTERS)
'Robin Hood tax': What is it and why does Occupy want it?
If you're a 99 percenter and think something called a "Robin Hood tax" sounds like a good idea, what better time to don a mask and a pointy-topped hat than on the day JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon gets grilled by Congress?
Mr. Dimon might have become the new symbol of corporate profligacy when his company lost some $2 billion in stock trades, but Occupiers on Tuesday dreamed of socking his Wall Street brethren with a much bigger number. Say, $100 billion.
If Congress were to pass a financial transaction tax – a.k.a. the Robin Hood tax – the "rich" (stock- and bondholders) would lose a small percentage of every trade, which would be given to the "poor" (insert your cash-strapped federal program here). All without adding a cent to personal income taxes.
Its backers – including actor Mark Ruffalo, Rage Against the Machine’s Tom Morello, and Coldplay’s Chris Martin – appear in a video drawing masks and hats on dollar bills. In front of the JP Morgan Chase headquarters in New York Tuesday, a group of about 40 activists (and one dog) also dressed in Robin Hood attire tried to drum up public support.
"As a democracy, I think it’s what we want, but the people who would be taxed are the most powerful people in the country,” says Michael Kink, executive director of Strong Economy for All Coalition.
Indeed.
Unfortunately for Tuesday's would-be Robin Hoods, Washington is no Sherwood Forest. Republicans on Capitol Hill are against any tax increases, and even potential allies such as President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner have said the tax wouldn’t be feasible.
Critics say taxing financial transactions could move all that Wall Street business offshore and would be more likely to affect individuals’ retirement savings than financial traders. Obama administration officials have said that it would be ineffective.
“Academics tend to be big supporters of this – back when he was an academic Larry Summers was a big proponent of this, but he changed his mind” when he became Treasury secretary, says Pete Davis, an economist who advises Wall Street on financial legislation.
Advocates are talking about between a 0.5 and 0.005 percent tax on every transaction, but those numbers add up quickly. The tax would generate more than $300 billion a year if there was no reduction in trading, according to a study by the Center for Economic and Policy Research. Different proposed versions of the tax have more modest estimates.
When Sweden enacted a similar tax, traders moved to the London Stock Exchange and the volume of trading declined significantly, says Shelly Antoniewicz, senior economist with the Investment Company Institute (ICI).
“We view [the taxes] as being more harm than good, the side effects or negative consequences would outweigh the benefits,” she says.
ICI has a letter to Secretary Geithner on its website, stating its opposition to a transaction tax.
Robin Hood activists tried to do the ICI one better.
“I knocked on Tim Geithner’s door, but he didn’t answer," says Bobby Tolbert, an activist in New York Tuesday who went to Washington last week to try and generate interest in the tax plan. "We just wanted to deliver a letter to him, but the Secret Service stopped us.”
Still, Mr. Tolbert's merry band can claim at least one small victory.
Quoth he: “As we were leaving, a neighbor told us that they would deliver the letter for us.”
Previous
Become part of the Monitor community