The single sound-bite that seems to be resonating throughout the nation, if not the whole planet, is the President's "horses and bayonets" zinger aimed directly at Mitt Romney. The context:
"You [Romney] mentioned that we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets --- because the nature of our military has changed. We have these things called aircraft carriers where planes land on them. We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines. It's not a game of battleships where we're counting ships. It's what are our capabilities."
Other than Romney's declaration that the U.S. military is not properly fortified, the Governor appeared to be in synch with most of the President's foreign policy priorites. Overall, his intent seemed to be the presentation of a "kinder, gentler Romney". (A lame attempt to woo the women's vote, maybe)? In regard to Iran, both men seemed to be focusing on sanctions, as opposed to military action. However, Obama did state that Romney had a history of recommending premature military action. The Governor managed to avoid a response.
But somehow, Romney's seeming affirmation of most of Obama's foreign policy statements appears just a shade suspicious. Here's why: Lurking in the wings offstage, anxiously awaiting the opportunity to start chewing up the scenery, are some of the baddest of the bad neocon nutcakes whom the Mittster has chosen as his foreign policy gurus. Principal among them is John Bolton, George W. Bush's United Nations-hating United Nations ambassador. This is the same John Bolton who has never met a bomb he didn't like; especially if said bomb happens to have the name Iran etched into its casing.
Overall, 17 of Romney's 24 advisors are alumni of Bush the Younger's foreign policy team: the very ones who helped bring us the tragedy that was Iraq. Two among those notables come readily to mind:
- Dan Senor: One of the major architects of Operation
Iraqi Freedom which, among other things,
attempted to force the Iraqis to do business The
Unbridled Free Enterprise Way via the ill-fated
Coalition Provisional Authority.
- Cofer Black: A CIA counter-terrorism operative who
later became vice chairman of Blackwater USA,
one of the largest private security contractors to
benefit from US action in Iraq. Some of their
activities were found to be beyond the pale of
what was considered moral or legal.
So, is it realistic to assume that a Romney foreign policy
would be similar to Obama's? Well, during the debate, the Governor seemed to affirm almost everything the President said.
I guess there's no logical reason to be cynical regarding Romney's intentions, is there? And elephants lay eggs. Yes, they do!
Friday, October 26, 2012
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
The Second Presidential Debate: Obama by a Knockout
From where I sit, the President redeemed himself in the wake of his lackluster performance during the first debate. (Al Gore theorized that Obama's recent arrival in the host city of Denver may have been a factor: trouble adjusting to that area's high altitude). For whatever reason, he appeared tired and careworn during that event while Mr. Romney was all abubble.
But last night, President Obama seemed clearly in command. Commencing with a discussion of the auto industry bailout, his rhetorical engines were revved up right from the start. However, when Romney stated that prices at the pump had increased dramatically, Obama did overlook the most practical rebuttal; no single nation has any control over the price of oil. ( Regardless of its country of origin, all oil is sold in the global marketplace). But he did emphasize that we've made progress toward increasing reliance on domestic energy sources, including green technology.
Anyway, here are the two highlights of this debate that really grabbed my attention (aside from the moderator, Candy Crowley's on-the-spot fact-checking expedition: Romney claimed that Obama took two weeks to recognize the tragedy in Libya as a terrorist act; a video transcript proved otherwise).
First, Romney insisted that his tax reform plan wouldn't expand the deficit despite reduced tax rates for everyone, eliminating loopholes (but not disturbing the low rate on capital gains and investment income), and ratcheting up the military budget. Despite numerous authoritative citations that the numbers would not add up, Romney thundered, "Of course they add up! I ran a business and balanced the budget!" He followed that up with a statement approximating, "Look at me! This is who I am!"
Second, the coup de grace: Obama's closing statement. Last May, Romney informed some well-heeled supporters that 47% of this nation's households do not pay federal income tax. (True, but most pay state and local taxes as well as payroll taxes, many of which are generally more regressive). The Governor then accused these 47-percenters of being slackers and feeling a sense of entitlement: takers, not givers.
Well, Obama went to work. "Who was he talking about? Hard-working people who don't make much money, soldiers, retired folks. .... The GI Bill was not a handout."
Throughout the debate, the President spoke in his normal even-toned, professorial manner. It might have been nice to witness some genuine indignation. But still, a hard act to follow.
But last night, President Obama seemed clearly in command. Commencing with a discussion of the auto industry bailout, his rhetorical engines were revved up right from the start. However, when Romney stated that prices at the pump had increased dramatically, Obama did overlook the most practical rebuttal; no single nation has any control over the price of oil. ( Regardless of its country of origin, all oil is sold in the global marketplace). But he did emphasize that we've made progress toward increasing reliance on domestic energy sources, including green technology.
Anyway, here are the two highlights of this debate that really grabbed my attention (aside from the moderator, Candy Crowley's on-the-spot fact-checking expedition: Romney claimed that Obama took two weeks to recognize the tragedy in Libya as a terrorist act; a video transcript proved otherwise).
First, Romney insisted that his tax reform plan wouldn't expand the deficit despite reduced tax rates for everyone, eliminating loopholes (but not disturbing the low rate on capital gains and investment income), and ratcheting up the military budget. Despite numerous authoritative citations that the numbers would not add up, Romney thundered, "Of course they add up! I ran a business and balanced the budget!" He followed that up with a statement approximating, "Look at me! This is who I am!"
Second, the coup de grace: Obama's closing statement. Last May, Romney informed some well-heeled supporters that 47% of this nation's households do not pay federal income tax. (True, but most pay state and local taxes as well as payroll taxes, many of which are generally more regressive). The Governor then accused these 47-percenters of being slackers and feeling a sense of entitlement: takers, not givers.
Well, Obama went to work. "Who was he talking about? Hard-working people who don't make much money, soldiers, retired folks. .... The GI Bill was not a handout."
Throughout the debate, the President spoke in his normal even-toned, professorial manner. It might have been nice to witness some genuine indignation. But still, a hard act to follow.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Is China Really our Economic Bogeyman?
During last week's first presidential debate, Mitt Romney alerted us to the risk of borrowing from China to finance public television. The China reference, though, seemed to have gotten lost in the haze created by the dustup over the Romney threat to fire Big Bird.
This isn't the first time that Romney and his allies have made apocolyptic-sounding references to China; they seem to be fond of implying that our economy and the American way of life will be laser-beamed to smithereens if China ever calls in its notes, which is highly unlikely. (Do they really even care about the deficit and the national debt? If so, why do they insist on lowering taxes for the uber-wealthy and buffing up the military?).
According to the United States Treasury, about two-thirds of our national debt is held domestically. However, it is a fact that China is our largest foreign debtor. But their portion of our debt is steadily shrinking in real numbers as well as percentage-wise. Yep, The Peoples' Republic of China is actually selling off some of its US notes; as far as I can tell, it's rated nary a whimper stateside, in the markets or anywhere else.
Here are the stats: China now holds $1.15 trillion of the United States' debt as of July 2012 --- in contrast to $1.31 trillion a year earlier, a 12.5% drop. This represents about 8% of our overall $16 trillion debt, still a very significant amount, but no justification for panic. Again, this is US Treasury data.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything trivial about the national debt or the deficit. Both issues need to be addressed, but in a humane manner. In previous posts, I've cited the proposals in the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget, as a relatively unhurtful way to eventually lead us toward fiscal solvency. The CPC budget can be referenced at budget for all 2013 .
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, I just don't envision any near-future economic action by China as fulfillment of a bad dream. Fulfillment of said dream is more likely to occur if the President isn't re-elected.
This isn't the first time that Romney and his allies have made apocolyptic-sounding references to China; they seem to be fond of implying that our economy and the American way of life will be laser-beamed to smithereens if China ever calls in its notes, which is highly unlikely. (Do they really even care about the deficit and the national debt? If so, why do they insist on lowering taxes for the uber-wealthy and buffing up the military?).
According to the United States Treasury, about two-thirds of our national debt is held domestically. However, it is a fact that China is our largest foreign debtor. But their portion of our debt is steadily shrinking in real numbers as well as percentage-wise. Yep, The Peoples' Republic of China is actually selling off some of its US notes; as far as I can tell, it's rated nary a whimper stateside, in the markets or anywhere else.
Here are the stats: China now holds $1.15 trillion of the United States' debt as of July 2012 --- in contrast to $1.31 trillion a year earlier, a 12.5% drop. This represents about 8% of our overall $16 trillion debt, still a very significant amount, but no justification for panic. Again, this is US Treasury data.
I'm not suggesting that there's anything trivial about the national debt or the deficit. Both issues need to be addressed, but in a humane manner. In previous posts, I've cited the proposals in the Congressional Progressive Caucus's budget, as a relatively unhurtful way to eventually lead us toward fiscal solvency. The CPC budget can be referenced at budget for all 2013 .
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, I just don't envision any near-future economic action by China as fulfillment of a bad dream. Fulfillment of said dream is more likely to occur if the President isn't re-elected.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Obama Sputtered, But He Can Recover
Well, it looks as if this election cycle's first presidential debate wasn't exactly a banner night for the incumbent. President Obama spoke like his normal professorial, articulate self, but he appeared tired and careworn. Governor Romney, on the other hand, spoke glibly and seemed to be in fine fettle.
But did Romney actually win the debate? Many pundits seemed to think so. Me? For whatever it's worth, I'm not so sure that there was a winner. Considering actual content, Obama seemed pretty much on target, capsulizing his administration's accomplishments and focusing on priorities for a second term.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke in vague generalities. For example, he vowed that he'd replace Obamacare, without elaborating what he'd replace it with. He also repeatedly denied that he'd support tax cuts for the wealthiest households, totally contradicting everything he had been saying right up until the debate.
Obama did actually call him on the carpet for that remark, stating that "Romney denies what he's been saying for the past 18 months". But then he let it slide.
There's the rub! Judgments regarding the outcome of the debate seem to be based more on style than substance. Obama simply wasn't aggressive enough. He overlooked opportunities to portray Romney's policies for what they truly are: cruel, inhuman, and potentially toxic for a lot of people!
Despite the outcome of this first debate, Obama has plenty of time to recover. According to a number of political historians, it's not at all unusual for incumbent presidents to perform poorly during that initial meetup. In 1984, I remember watching incumbent President Ronald Reagan sputter and hem and haw his way through his first debate with his Democratic opponent, Senator Walter Mondale. In its aftermath, many pundits were left wondering whether the then-73-year-old president was still capable of governing. However, Mr. Reagan recovered his poise in time for the second debate; he was re-elected handily.
I'm confident that Obama will do likewise. The second debate will feature a townhall format with questions from the audience. The last one will be focused on foreign policy, which I should think, given Romney's lack of depth in that realm, would be a cake-walk for Obama.
The President should do okay. He just needs to sharpen his fangs a bit.
But did Romney actually win the debate? Many pundits seemed to think so. Me? For whatever it's worth, I'm not so sure that there was a winner. Considering actual content, Obama seemed pretty much on target, capsulizing his administration's accomplishments and focusing on priorities for a second term.
Romney, on the other hand, spoke in vague generalities. For example, he vowed that he'd replace Obamacare, without elaborating what he'd replace it with. He also repeatedly denied that he'd support tax cuts for the wealthiest households, totally contradicting everything he had been saying right up until the debate.
Obama did actually call him on the carpet for that remark, stating that "Romney denies what he's been saying for the past 18 months". But then he let it slide.
There's the rub! Judgments regarding the outcome of the debate seem to be based more on style than substance. Obama simply wasn't aggressive enough. He overlooked opportunities to portray Romney's policies for what they truly are: cruel, inhuman, and potentially toxic for a lot of people!
Despite the outcome of this first debate, Obama has plenty of time to recover. According to a number of political historians, it's not at all unusual for incumbent presidents to perform poorly during that initial meetup. In 1984, I remember watching incumbent President Ronald Reagan sputter and hem and haw his way through his first debate with his Democratic opponent, Senator Walter Mondale. In its aftermath, many pundits were left wondering whether the then-73-year-old president was still capable of governing. However, Mr. Reagan recovered his poise in time for the second debate; he was re-elected handily.
I'm confident that Obama will do likewise. The second debate will feature a townhall format with questions from the audience. The last one will be focused on foreign policy, which I should think, given Romney's lack of depth in that realm, would be a cake-walk for Obama.
The President should do okay. He just needs to sharpen his fangs a bit.
Thursday, October 4, 2012
A Reprieve in Pennsylvania: Voter IDs not Required
Good news! Pennsylvania voters lacking state-mandated IDs will not lose their right to vote --- at least for now.
Yesterday, state Commonwealth Court Judge James Simpson, at the urging of the state Supreme Court, ruled that voters without IDs would still be allowed to cast their ballots. Earlier this summer, the same judge upheld requirement of the voter ID, which became law last March.
But it would have been impossible for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT), the agency tasked with providing the IDs, to issue them to everyone in need before Election Day. It was determined that not enough had been done to ensure "liberal access" to picture ID cards.
However, the photo ID mandate was not thrown out. Voters now have two years to acquire them, between now and the next election.
So, it looks as if the Republicans' grand plan to deliver Pennsylvania to Romney may have been thwarted --- much to the dismay of folks like House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who was caught on video declaring that the voter ID law would enable Romney to win Pennsylvania.
Something else to consider: According to a recent New York Times poll, four of Pennsylvania's Congressional races are considered too close to call. Three of those seats are currently held by Republicans. Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats to recapture a majority of the House nation-wide.
Now that no one in the Keystone State is being denied their right to the ballot, could it happen? Hmmm!
Yesterday, state Commonwealth Court Judge James Simpson, at the urging of the state Supreme Court, ruled that voters without IDs would still be allowed to cast their ballots. Earlier this summer, the same judge upheld requirement of the voter ID, which became law last March.
But it would have been impossible for the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation (PENNDOT), the agency tasked with providing the IDs, to issue them to everyone in need before Election Day. It was determined that not enough had been done to ensure "liberal access" to picture ID cards.
However, the photo ID mandate was not thrown out. Voters now have two years to acquire them, between now and the next election.
So, it looks as if the Republicans' grand plan to deliver Pennsylvania to Romney may have been thwarted --- much to the dismay of folks like House Majority Leader Mike Turzai, who was caught on video declaring that the voter ID law would enable Romney to win Pennsylvania.
Something else to consider: According to a recent New York Times poll, four of Pennsylvania's Congressional races are considered too close to call. Three of those seats are currently held by Republicans. Democrats need a net gain of 25 seats to recapture a majority of the House nation-wide.
Now that no one in the Keystone State is being denied their right to the ballot, could it happen? Hmmm!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)