Almost dead Hollywood star to captivate GOP convention by standing, breathing on his own

Straight from the Department of Tone Deafness, someone at the RNC thinks a good idea for a political party that has a persistent and troubling problem with younger voters is to parade an 82-year-old Hollywood has-been out as their big surprise speaker.

Was the decaying corpse of a 101-year-old Ronald Reagan not available for a "Weekend at Bernie's"-style appearance? We all know the near-dead are big fans of the GOP. How is emphasizing that to swing voters a winning effort?

Take a look at this recent photo of Clint Eastwood for all the evidence you need.

 Oh wait, that's the guy from HBO's "Tales from the Crypt"? Could've fooled me.

Where in the world has the Recess Supervisor been?

Please stay in, Todd Akin...

... oh please please please stay.

Rep. Todd Akin (R) of Missouri apologized for his recent comments on rape but said he was staying in the race for US Senate, saying “I have not yet begun to fight.”
Representative Akin offered his apology on former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee’s radio show Monday afternoon, his first interview since comments over the weekend in which he referred to “legitimate rape” in response to a question about his views on possible allowances for abortion.

“Rape is never legitimate, it’s an evil act that’s committed by violent predators,” Akin said Monday. “I used the wrong words in the wrong way. What I said was ill-conceived and it was wrong – and for that I apologize.”
But Akin said he would not heed the call of several prominent Republicans to drop out of the race to replace Sen. Claire McCaskill, widely believed to be the most vulnerable Democratic Senate incumbent this year. The Real Clear Politics average of recent polls shows Akin with a 48 percent to 43 percent lead over Senator McCaskill.

Akin was the choice of Missouri conservatives and deserves to stand on the November ballot, warts and all.  If he is, Missouri will get one of two outcomes.

1. Todd Akin loses.
2. Missouri embarrasses itself before the nation.

But more importantly, the GOP gets another chance to learn the lesson it refuses to grasp. If the party doesn't start disowning its lunatics more aggressively and calling bullshit on its own members, it loses its own credibility on the broader playing field. There's no excuse for nominees like Todd Akin, Sharron Angle, or Christine O'Donnell. There's no excuse for Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, James Lankford, and Renee Ellmers to be in Congress. And all of this happens because the GOP is too scared of the crazy know-nothings within its own party to tell them to either shut up or go away.

Giving the GOP establishment an easy out by replacing the candidate of the conservative base with some handpicked party loyalist merely removes the consequence from the action.

Where in the world is the Recess Supervisor, Day 1

Also, some travel-related snark...

- When did society decide it was okay for middle-aged men to dress like eight-year-olds when traveling? Seriously, leave your giant straw hats, short-sleeved print shirts, and convertible pants at home. The t-shirts and Crocs look doesn't work any better. Unless you're going on a safari you look ridiculous. And I'm pretty sure that where I am, we're not hunting elephants.

- When you're traveling in a group of Southerners, you don't combat everyone's stereotype of southerners when you loudly speak on the plane how you think the language of your soon-to-be host country sounds goofy. Just shut up. This is why the world thinks Americans are stupid.

A primary night question

I have no idea who is winning the GOP U.S. Senate primary, but that isn't even my greatest curiosity tonight.

What I'm really looking forward to seeing is how badly Mark Pocan destroys Kelda and whether Kelda mans up and concedes tonight or if she just cuts another negative ad to explain away her 30-point loss.

Recess Supervisor Revisits Soul-Crushing European Socialism

Just a quick note to let you know that things might be a bit spartan around here for the next three weeks. I'm off to the other side of the pond to see some things and do some things that I've always wanted to do and see. I've been fortunate that my career has taken me lots of places but it's time to start checking off some of what's left.

According to many Republican politicians, all of Europe is the same socialist cesspool and is based roughly on the Epcot World Showcase. Thankfully, I stopped listening to Republican politicians about seven years ago. Maybe you'll even get a picture or two, a la Owen's "Where in the World?"

To my readers, I hope you enjoy the rest of your summer as much as I suspect I'll be enjoying mine.

PIMCO: Not such a fan of Paul Ryan

PIMCO is the world's largest bond investor, and its concerns are valid based on history:

In recent history, conservatives have always thrown deficit reduction under the bus in the name of lower taxes. Reagan did it, Bush did it - is there good reason to believe that a Romney/Ryan ticket would be any different? After all, Paul Ryan voted for every major piece of the Bush fiscal agenda.

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney's Sarah Palin

After a brutal recession and a lackluster recovery, Mitt Romney today still polls behind President Obama, usually around the outer fringe of the margin of error. The Romney campaign has been less than impressive, filled with silly press snafus and lacking anything resembling a credible agenda.

Romney thus far has hinged his entire strategy on saying as little as possible about his plans, wishing and hoping that not being President Obama would be enough. Thus far, it's only sufficient to get him consistently within 3-5 points of the president.

The selection of Paul Ryan recognizes that what the Romney campaign has been doing hasn't been working. Romney couldn't afford to take a milquetoast placeholder like Tim Pawlenty or Rob Portman. He needed someone who would polarize the race, not reinforce the status quo.

Paul Ryan is Mitt Romney's Sarah Palin; a high-risk, high-reward proposition. It's the kind of pick you make when you're behind, not when you're ahead. It's not bold by choice; it's bold by necessity.

Furthermore, the selection if Paul Ryan is a sure sign that the Romney campaign has figured out its drab message about the importance of private sector experience hasn't been whipping the masses into a frenzy. You don't get more career politician than Paul Ryan, a guy who's barely spent a day in his adult life working outside the sphere of government. I don't have a problem with guys like that; most of our nation's greatest political leaders have made a career of public service. Romney, however, does have a problem with it, and has made a point of it repeatedly. Ryan undermines that entire narrative, which means Romney must be prepared to refocus his message.

Paul Ryan's record is interesting. He certainly has emerged as a strong leader in the GOP who isn't afraid to put actual ideas on the table. That's refreshing in our current political environment. At the same time, he was also a reliable vote for every budget-busting proposal that George W. Bush put in front of Congress, which should force all of us to ask whether Ryan's recent leadership isn't simply the leadership of opportunism; of having bold plans when one knows that one's plans will never be enacted.

Romney's selection of Ryan changes the narrative. It gives Romney a detailed economic plan, and a vocal and intelligent advocate for it. It changes the storyline, for now. What remains to be seen is whether it will make a difference in the end.

I say something nice about Eric Hovde

Hovde's absolutely right about this.

In explaining his opposition to the pledge to Green Bay conservative radio talk show host Jerry Bader, Hovde argued, as have many liberals, that Norquist’s pledge simply protects the status quo, in which politically connected corporations carve out giant loopholes in the tax code. When anybody attempts to close those loopholes, Norquist brands them as “tax hikers.”

“Behind the story with Grover Norquist is he’s funded by giant corporations that have created loopholes in our tax system,” said Hovde. “We need to lower the rates, but we also have to get rid of the corporate welfare. How is a small business going to compete if they’re trying to compete against General Electric, that in some years, pays nothing because they can buy off Washington politicians?”

How much does big business spend annually on lobbyists and campaign contributions just to game the system in their favor and against their competitors, screwing individuals and small businesses in the process?

If Hovde said this and nothing but this, he'd be a badly needed voice in a Senate caucus filled with pretend conservatives who are all too happy to do the bidding of their corporate overlords.

Lessons in media

The people making the news don't get to decide when society is done talking about something.

RNC Chairman Reince Priebus is so tired of talking about Mitt Romney’s tax returns, he said Friday he’s done discussing them.

“Oh boy, we’re going down this road again?” he said, when asked about the returns on CNN’s “Starting Point.”...

“Any second we spend not talking about how this president failed in his mission, the mission to fix this economy, he campaigned on this economy, he hasn’t accomplished a darn thing,” Priebus said. “We’re worse off. That’s the issue, and I’m not spending any more time talking about this issue.”

Yeah, actually you will be. When you get to stop talking about it is up to Gov. Romney.

Haven't I seen you before?

I just ran into one of Tammy Baldwin's commercials and I kept having deja vu.  Light blue sweater, soft cadence, poofy blond hair.

And then it dawned on me.  I have seen this approach before!

Is the U.S. Senate big enough for two Stuart Smalleys?

Amtrak: 1,000,001 ways to lose money

I'd like a hamburger and a giant side of red ink, please.

WASHINGTON – Amtrak loses millions on its food and beverage service, and a congressional committee wants to know why.

The company's food and beverage cars have lost $833.8 million over the last decade, including $84.5 million in 2011, according to testimony at a congressional hearing Thursday.

The reason: the difference between Amtrak's costs and what it charges passengers. For example, taking overhead into account, each cheeseburger costs Amtrak $16.15 and each can of soda costs $3.40. But Amtrak charges passengers only $9.50 and $2 for those items...

Ted Alves, inspector general of the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, said most of the losses come from Amtrak's 15 long-distance routes. Some losses come from theft.

I'm a huge proponent of rail in high-density urban areas where it's convenient and it makes sense.  That doesn't describe any long-haul east-west route in the U.S. Planes win on cost and speed, so from a competitive standpoint, these long-haul routes can only compete on experience. And by the numbers, there aren't enough people willing to pay for the novelty of rail travel.

Just shut these routes down already and focus on the routes people use.

Romney backs Obama proposals to create 12 million jobs

Mitt Romney is doubling down on his claim to create 12 million jobs in his first term.

Conveniently, Moody's already projects that 12 million jobs will be created between 2013 and 2016...

Nonetheless, in a press release today, the Romney campaign claimed that this new plan would create 12 million new jobs. “My plan will turn things around and bring the economy roaring back, with twelve million new jobs created by the end of my first term,” Romney said.

I ran this claim past Mark Hopkins, a senior analyst at Moody’s Analytics. His conclusion: according to his firm’s projections, the economy is already set to add 12 million jobs in the next four years, provided a series of policy outcomes take place, such as a long term deficit deal that includes tax hikes on the rich and cuts to entitlements.

Hopkins tells me:

The current Moody’s Analytics baseline forecast is for payroll employment to increase by 12 million jobs from the start of 2013 to the end of 2016 (134 million to 146).

If Romney is elected and the trajectory of the U.S. economy plays out according to script, obviously he’ll be able to take credit for those 12 million new jobs.

However, the economic assumptions embedded in our forecast include only an extension of Bush-era tax rates for those under 250K, which is more closely aligned with the Obama administration’s position. We also assume a bipartisan deal to scale back sequestration and achieve a long-run fiscally sustainable path, with Democrats accepting reforms to Social Security and Medicare in exchange for the increase in top tax rates.

In effect, therefore, Romney is essentially promising no more jobs than we currently expect to gain under proposals similar to those advanced by the Obama administration. There’s not enough in Romney’s plan to estimate how many jobs it would create. If he’s saying the net change will be 12 million jobs, that’s exactly what we’re estimating without Romney’s plan.

In other words, Romney's promising Americans the 12 million jobs that would be created if we just did what Obama wants to do.

Should we be surprised?  He won't release his tax returns. He won't detail the exemptions and credits he plans to eliminate to pay for his tax overhaul. He won't come clean with details on anything. Why would this be different?