On a day when the Republican nominee-in-waiting should have been doing a victory lap, things didn't quite go as planned.
Mitt Romney adopted a new defense of George W. Bush in Maryland on Wednesday. Getty Images
ARBUTUS, MARYLAND -- Mitt Romney said Wednesday that former President George W. Bush deserves credit for averting total economic collapse, not President Obama.
Romney delivered a passionate defense of the 2008 bank bailouts at a town hall here, aligning himself with the still-unpopular former president in the process.
"I keep hearing the president say that he's responsible for keeping America from going into a Great Depression," Romney said. "No, no, no. That was President George W. Bush and [then-Treasury Secretary] Hank Paulson."
Though Romney has previously spoken in support of the Troubled Asset Relief Program, the full-throated defense, and the credit he gave to Bush, were surprising and seemed to open a new front in what's likely to be a major theme of the general election -- the relitigating of Bush's record in office. Democrats frequently point to Bush's policies as the source of the economy's continued tribulations, while Republicans say Obama hasn't done enough, or hasn't done the right things, to turn it around.
During the 2008 crash, Romney said, "President Bush and Hank Paulson said, 'We've got to do something to show we're not going to let the whole system go out of business.' I think they were right. I know some people disagree with me, but I think they were right to do that."
Though the bailout was seen as a necessary emergency measure at the time -- and was supported by a broad bipartisan consensus that included then-Senator Obama -- "bailouts" have since become a dirty word and one of the animating hatreds of the Tea Party.
Romney might have been inspired by his morning's interaction with another member of the Bush family. Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor and powerful GOP force, endorsed Romney Wednesday morning, in a powerful signal that the Republican establishment is ready to anoint Romney as the nominee in the wake of his big win in Illinois on Tuesday.
Romney also addressed the press after his town hall to respond to the kerfuffle surrounding his adviser Eric Fehrnstrom's comment comparing the campaign to an Etch A Sketch toy.
It was a powerfully resonant image for those predisposed to see Romney as a man without principles. His opponents seized on the comment as proof that Romney's conservative primary positions were a mere put-on and would swiftly disappear in a general-election contest. A spokeswoman for Rick Santorum, Alice Stewart, even showed up at the town hall here, in a blue-collar town southwest of Baltimore, holding a toy Etch A Sketch.
The comment, Stewart told reporters outside the American Legion post where Romney's event was held, "acknowledged our worst fears" about Romney.
Romney, in a one-question news conference after the town hall concluded, said the comment was about campaign operations, not philosophy.
"Organizationally, a general-election campaign takes on a different profile," he said. "The issues I'm running on will be exactly the same. I've run as a conservative Republican. I was a conservative Republican governor. I'll be running as a conservative Republican nominee -- er, excuse me, at that point, hopefully, nominee for president. The policies and positions are the same."
On a day Romney ought to have been doing a victory lap, his status as the nominee all but assured, it's safe to say things didn't go as planned.
Even an attempt at a joke with a sympathetic questioner fell a little flat. The man said he was a businessman too, with the only difference being that Romney talks about having failed, and "I haven't failed yet."
"You will," Romney assured him. "It's the nature of the private sector."
19 Kids and Counting built its reputation on preaching family values, but the mass-media platforms that made the family famous might also be their undoing.
On Thursday, news broke that Josh Duggar, the oldest son of the Duggar family's 19 children, had, as a teenager, allegedly molested five underage girls. Four of them, allegedly, were his sisters.
The information came to light because, in 2006—two years before 17 Kids and Counting first aired on TLC, and thus two years before the Duggars became reality-TV celebrities—the family recorded an appearance on TheOprah Winfrey Show. Before the taping, an anonymous source sent an email to Harpo warning the production company Josh’s alleged molestation. Harpo forwarded the email to authorities, triggering a police investigation (the Oprah appearance never aired). The news was reported this week by In Touch Weekly—after the magazine filed a Freedom of Information Act request to see the police report on the case—and then confirmed by the Duggars in a statement posted on Facebook.
New research confirms what they say about nice guys.
Smile at the customer. Bake cookies for your colleagues. Sing your subordinates’ praises. Share credit. Listen. Empathize. Don’t drive the last dollar out of a deal. Leave the last doughnut for someone else.
Sneer at the customer. Keep your colleagues on edge. Claim credit. Speak first. Put your feet on the table. Withhold approval. Instill fear. Interrupt. Ask for more. And by all means, take that last doughnut. You deserve it.
Follow one of those paths, the success literature tells us, and you’ll go far. Follow the other, and you’ll die powerless and broke. The only question is, which is which?
Of all the issues that preoccupy the modern mind—Nature or nurture? Is there life in outer space? Why can’t America field a decent soccer team?—it’s hard to think of one that has attracted so much water-cooler philosophizing yet so little scientific inquiry. Does it pay to be nice? Or is there an advantage to being a jerk?
The Islamic State is no mere collection of psychopaths. It is a religious group with carefully considered beliefs, among them that it is a key agent of the coming apocalypse. Here’s what that means for its strategy—and for how to stop it.
What is the Islamic State?
Where did it come from, and what are its intentions? The simplicity of these questions can be deceiving, and few Western leaders seem to know the answers. In December, The New York Times published confidential comments by Major General Michael K. Nagata, the Special Operations commander for the United States in the Middle East, admitting that he had hardly begun figuring out the Islamic State’s appeal. “We have not defeated the idea,” he said. “We do not even understand the idea.” In the past year, President Obama has referred to the Islamic State, variously, as “not Islamic” and as al-Qaeda’s “jayvee team,” statements that reflected confusion about the group, and may have contributed to significant strategic errors.
In an interview, the U.S. president ties his legacy to a pact with Tehran, argues ISIS is not winning, warns Saudi Arabia not to pursue a nuclear-weapons program, and anguishes about Israel.
On Tuesday afternoon, as President Obama was bringing an occasionally contentious but often illuminating hour-long conversation about the Middle East to an end, I brought up a persistent worry. “A majority of American Jews want to support the Iran deal,” I said, “but a lot of people are anxiety-ridden about this, as am I.” Like many Jews—and also, by the way, many non-Jews—I believe that it is prudent to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of anti-Semitic regimes. Obama, who earlier in the discussion had explicitly labeled the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, an anti-Semite, responded with an argument I had not heard him make before.
“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said, referring to the apparently almost-finished nuclear agreement between Iran and a group of world powers led by the United States. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national-security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”
The former secretary of state jettisons sweeping rhetoric, and focuses on specific policies.
Hillary Clinton has been an official candidate for president for five weeks, and she still hasn’t done the thing most candidates do on day one: given a speech laying out her vision for America. Nor is she planning on doing so anytime soon. Politicoreports that Hillary’s “why I’m running for president,” speech, initially scheduled for May, has now been delayed until June, or even later.
There’s a reason for that: The speech is unlikely to be very good. Soaring rhetoric and grand themes have never been Hillary’s strengths. That’s one reason so many liberals found her so much less inspirational than Barack Obama in 2008. And it’s a problem with deep roots. In his biography, A Woman in Charge, Carl Bernstein describes Hillary, then in law school, struggling to articulate her generation’s perspective in an address to the League of Women Voters. “If she was speaking about a clearly defined subject,” Bernstein writes, “her thoughts would be well organized, finely articulated, and delivered in almost perfect outline form. But before the League audience, she again and again lapsed into sweeping abstractions.”
Advocates say that a guaranteed basic income can lead to more creative, fulfilling work. The question is how to fund it.
Scott Santens has been thinking a lot about fish lately. Specifically, he’s been reflecting on the aphorism, “If you give a man a fish, he eats for a day. If you teach a man to fish, he eats for life.” What Santens wants to know is this: “If you build a robot to fish, do all men starve, or do all men eat?”
Santens is 37 years old, and he’s a leader in the basic income movement—a worldwide network of thousands of advocates (26,000 on Reddit alone) who believe that governments should provide every citizen with a monthly stipend big enough to cover life’s basic necessities. The idea of a basic income has been around for decades, and it once drew support from leaders as different as Martin Luther King Jr. and Richard Nixon. But rather than waiting for governments to act, Santens has started crowdfunding his own basic income of $1,000 per month. He’s nearly halfway to his his goal.
In any case, people have probably heard the phrase in reference to something gone awry at work or in life. In either setting, when the shit does hit the fan, people will tend to look to the most competent person in the room to take over.
And too bad for that person. A new paper by a team of researchers from Duke University, University of Georgia, and University of Colorado looks at not only how extremely competent people are treated by their co-workers and peers, but how those people feel when, at crucial moments, everyone turns to them. They find that responsible employees are not terribly pleased about this dynamic either.
Why agriculture may someday take place in towers, not fields
A couple of Octobers ago, I found myself standing on a 5,000-acre cotton crop in the outskirts of Lubbock, Texas, shoulder-to-shoulder with a third-generation cotton farmer. He swept his arm across the flat, brown horizon of his field, which was at that moment being plowed by an industrial-sized picker—a toothy machine as tall as a house and operated by one man. The picker’s yields were being dropped into a giant pod to be delivered late that night to the local gin. And far beneath our feet, the Ogallala aquifer dwindled away at its frighteningly swift pace. When asked about this, the farmer spoke of reverse osmosis—the process of desalinating water—which he seemed to put his faith in, and which kept him unafraid of famine and permanent drought.
This weekwe have photos of an 80-foot-high tire in Michigan, dozens of Siberian students smashed into a car, two volcanic eruptions, yet another nail house in China, synchronized swimmers in a pond at the Chelsea Flower Show, a view from the top of the 104-story One World Trade Center, cows on the beach along the Mediterranean, a solar halo above Mexico, and much more.