President Obama by all accounts was aggressive and focused at Hofstra University in the latest presidential debate. He was the consensus winner of this second debate, though not by the margin by which Romney won the first debate. So he did what he had to do. Did he therefore stop the bleeding? Do things now revert to where they were before the Denver debate with Obama holding a pretty comfortable lead? We really don't know. However, new NBC polls from Iowa and Wisconsin show Obama with leads similar to those he held before the first debate.
Governor Romney's best argument was that things have not gone so well during the past four years. Unemployment is still high, and the economy is not where it needs to be. This is pretty much an indisputable argument, though it is one that every American is already well aware of. At the same time an increasingly credible case can be made that we are now seeing a definite turnaround in the economy. Unemployment is down below 8%, housing seems to be coming back, profits are high, and the market is doing very well. Even consumer confidence is improving.
Clearly then, things could be better, but maybe they are actually beginning to get better. While Romney makes a good case for how bad things are, does he really have the answers to more jobs and an improved economy? Is it reasonable to stick with the current occupant of the White House now that things may be getting better. Should we stick with the policies that have begun to make that difference, or take a chance on the supposed business acumen of Mitt Romney?
Once again we are faced with the choice between a government that wants to cut taxes for corporations and the wealthy, and roll back regulations as a way of moving the economy forward. The problem with Mitt Romney's plan is that this is the policy the George W. Bush administration used to help create the great recession we have experienced.
The alternate choice is a government that believes in protecting the most vulnerable among us and making sure that we all have an equal chance to get ahead. This prescription from President Obama has actually worked better that many people realize. We are now beginning to see the fruits of these efforts. The stimulus was instrumental in saving thousands of jobs at the state level for teachers, policemen, and firefighters. The proof of this reality is that when the stimulus ran out we saw state governments slash jobs resulting in the public employment sector becoming a major contributor to the unemployment rate. The auto bailout also saved thousands of jobs both in the auto industry and in related industries. Additionally, the contrast with what has happened in Europe is instructive. Europe's insistence on severe austerity measures has made a bad situation worse. Targeted government investment seems preferable. If there is a criticism it may be that we failed to create enough stimulus.
What happens on the campaign trail now? There is one more debate, but I believe there will be less interest in it and it will likely have limited impact. The remainder of time before the election will be taken up with negative adds, appeals to the base, and the ground game of getting voters to the polls. Who has the advantage here? Many say the Republicans are more energized to vote against President Obama. Maybe so, but the stakes couldn't be higher for those who believe in a government that seeks to help the disadvantaged and promote fairness for all Americans. The Republican party and too many of their candidates are working hard at the state and national level to implement extreme policies on social issues and in governing. There are more than enough reasons to get to the polls and make sure every voice is heard. We cannot allow the super pacs to determine the outcome of this election with an overload of deceptive advertising. The Obama campaign is credited with an outstanding ground game for getting out the vote. This may be the most crucial factor of all.
Unfortunately our country remains heavily polarized and there appears to be no immediate way to resolve this conflict. We must continue to fight for policies that support all of our citizens. We must say no to those who see the 47% as standing in the way of implementing a narrow and rigid vision of what they believe the world should look like.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
The Case Against Mitt Romney
Last week Mitt Romney won the first Presidential Debate. There was a clear consensus among Democrats and Republicans alike. To my recollection going back to the first Kennedy Nixon debate, I don't believe there has been a debate where there was a winner so clearly defined. Romney was aggressive, confident, and gave fairly clear and concise answers. Almost every one would agree that President Obama was not on his game. The latest polls showing Romney now even with Obama reflect that fact.
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
What happened? Romney was well prepared over a long period of time. He knew exactly what he wanted to say and said it well. No one challenged what he had to say. Whatever strategy Obama may have been employing was the wrong strategy. There was little or no energy. It sounded like we had heard it all before.
The problem with Mitt Romney's performance was that in fact we hadn't heard any of it before. He did a complete about face on almost every issue. The 20% tax cut was obfuscated by words of it being revenue neutral. Repeal Obama care on day one was confused with talk of how wonderful Romney care was in Massachusetts, not to mention his intention to retain all of the well liked provisions of Obama care. Yet there appeared to be no need to pay for, or institute a mandate that would make these provisions possible. Romney was suddenly a fan of Wall Street regulations, and complained that the Dodd Frank bill was simply not tough enough. So, he once again dramatically changed his positions, and hid the implications of other positions which might not be popular.
So what do we really know about Mitt Romney? Many commentators feel they know who he is, and most who do say that he was just being conservative to get the nomination and will now revert to the moderate he actually is. After all, the notion goes, his record in Massachusetts was that of a moderate governor. Yet we have seen his disdain for ordinary Americans when he was talking freely with wealthy doners. He has continued with his extreme positions in the campaign until now. Perhaps, the fact that he was falling further behind contributed to his change of heart.
One thing we know about him is that he wants to be president. He seems to be willing to go to extremes to achieve that goal. He said in the primary debates that he would refuse to raise revenue even if the ratio of cuts to revenue increases was 10 to 1. When threatened by challengers like Rick Perry, Newt Gingrich, and Rick Santorum he unceremoniously crushed them with his seemingly unlimited financial resources and targeted adds. Apparently, he believes he can do the same to President Obama, and there is no doubt that the President will have to significantly elevate his game to prevent that. Rightly, or wrongly, style matters, and debate performances impact voter choices.
The main issue, however, has not changed. This campaign continues to be about two very different visions for our country. Whatever raging moderate may lie within him, the man who selected Paul Ryan as his running mate believes that the federal government is the problem. States need to solve their own problems as they choose with greatly reduced resources from the federal government. Too many of us are dependent on government and need to fend for ourselves, unless of course, we are wealthy and then the govenrmment should support us because we are the job creators.
The Obama and Democratic vision is that we are all in this together. Policies need to be fair and balanced so that everyone has a fair chance to get ahead. Business left on its own will not automatically do the right thing for all Americans. If government, therefore, doesn't step up to ensure a reasonably fair playing field for all Americans, who will?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
