Democrats need to Fight for Victory in 2014
As the mid term elections draw closer it seems as if the outcome has already been determined. The Republicans will hold onto and likely expand their margin of seats in the House of Representatives. There appears to be a very good chance that they may gain control of the Senate as well.
I believe the analysis is sound, and generally concur with this scenario. The demographics are clear, and the effects of gerrymandered districts are unassailable. But my question is why should this be true, and what are the Democrats going to do to prevent the inevitable from occurring.
Most Democratic commentators have already moved on to the presidential election of 2016, and seem content to proclaim that the demographics portend victory regardless of the candidates. There is no way a Republican can win the presidency in 2016, they say. Assuming this is true, what about the damage a 2014 Republican sweep can create over the next two years? Even greater gridlock will reign and the last two years of the Obama presidency will be a veritable disaster.
Yet, I refuse to believe that all is lost in 2014. What have the Republicans offered to merit victory in the upcoming elections? What reason can even a loyal conservative Republican have for continuing to elect those who have served in the Congress over the past 5 or 6 years? Lets look at the record.
Since 2008 at the height of the economic collapse of the Bush presidency, Republicans in large measure failed to cooperate in the efforts to save the country. They continue to call these essential measures totally wrong even now. It was Democrats who worked with Secretary Hank Paulson to prevent a complete collapse of the country.
Since then the party of No has distinguished itself in the following ways. They have said no to background checks for firearms. They have also resisted immigration reform. They introduced a budget that would have ended medicare as we know it. They succeeded in shutting down the government to fight against Obamacare, and came close to allowing the government to go into default and be unable to pay its bills.
Every issue that arose to try to provide greater opportunities for all Americans has been rejected. They have been against every effort to reduce income inequality. They have blocked an extension of unemployment benefits, as well as efforts to raise the minimum wage. What should have been a bipartisan infrastructure program to grow the economy and create jobs was also rejected.
Most incredinble of all has been their response to the Affordable Health Care Act. We know they have been and continue to be against it. Yet, now that the bungled roll out has been corrected, millions of Americans are signing up and gaining affordable and worthwhile health insurance. Now, Republicans seek to actually take health care away from those who have just gotten it, often for the first time.
What they have done regarding a failure to extend medicaid benefits to those in their states lacking coverage borders on the criminal. The federal government is paying 100% of the cost to expand medicare and will continue to pay 90% of the cost after 3 years. The money has already been allocated. Yet several Republican governors are in a position of denying benefits to thousands of residents of their states who desperately need coverage.
A brand new budget has just been released by Paul Ryan and the Republicans that seeks to severely cut or eliminate every program designed to help the poor. Yet they are more than willing to help the rich by giving them more money in tax cuts. Why is it only the poor that need to be helped by taking money away from them?
I really don't see how any hard working American in any state can feel good about what the Republicans have had to offer them over the last six years. I realize that people often vote against their own economic interests. They do that only because they don't realize the consequences of what is happening. It is up to the Democrats to make sure that every voter understands the damage that is being done by current right wing efforts.
I believe that any Democratic candidate for office, even in the Republican south, has ample amunition to fight entrenched Republican candidates based on the record. It is important that all Americans understand what the Republicans have done over the past 6 years, They should not be rewarded with another opportunity to do more damage.
It is certainly true that strong get out the vote efforts are essential. Many Democratic voters fail to vote in midterm elections. They need to be made to feel the urgency of this particular election.
Yet it seems to me that Democrats need to do more than just preach to the choir. They need to go into every hill and valley and make clear what the stakes are in this election. They need to clarify the record of Republicans over the last six years, and demonstrate how that record has harmed Americans up and down the political spectrum. Only the wealthiest few in our country have benefited. Democrats cannot afford to hide their record, run from the Affordable Care Act, and try to be Republican light. They have the right record, the right issues, and the best solutions. They cannot be afraid to tell their story and show what they have to offer. The midterm elesctions can yet be a year of surprises if we don't throw in the towel before the battle is waged.
Thursday, March 6, 2014
Friday, November 8, 2013
November Election Results highlight problems for Democrats and the Tea Party
Perhaps only establishment Republicans can feel a little bit positive about the recently concluded November elections. First of all, Governor Chris Christie won reelection by a wide margin in New Jersey. He amassed a coalition which included a surprising number of Democrats, Blacks, and Latinos. He is now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2016.
Although many say conservatives will not select him because of his moderate stance on some issues, I'm not convinced. The history of the Republican party has been that they always wind up selecting the individual they see as the most electable candidate. Also, Governor Christie is a true conservative on just about every issue. Just as he has charmed the voters in New Jersey, he will likely charm all but the most recalcitrant tea party members as well. He will indeed be a formidable opponent for Hilary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. The only caveat may be if he has to position himself too far to the right of mainstream voters in order to win the nomination.
A second victory for mainstream Republicans on November 5th, was in a GOP runoff election to fill a congressional seat in Alabama. Bradley Byrne defeated tea party candidate Dean Young with the help of establishment Republicans. Those who had been financing tea party candidates are now actively seeking their defeat and were successful in this race. The government shutdown has soured the business community on extreme tea party tactics, and this could bode ill for tea party efforts in 2014.
The government shutdown was also a major factor in the election of Democrat Terry McAauliffe to the governor's office in Virginia. Republican candidate Ken Cucinelli's extreme views on a number of women's issues were also factors. McAuliffe was considered a weak candidate but Cuccinelli was unable to secure the win in what was seen as a very winnable election. Again, the party's establishment failed to provide support, and the changing demographics of the state, especially in Northern Virginia worked against him.
Democrats have little to crow about however. The race closed in the days leading up to the election, almost certainly because of the failures of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A race that some polls had ending in a double digit vistory for McAuliffe wound up in a 2 1/2 point nail biter.
The only positive factor for Democrats is if they can fix the problems plaguing the ACA website this obstabcle will go away. Unfortunately for Republicans, they cannot change the facts of the government shutdown, which is likely to have staying power as an issue throughout the 2014 elections.
It is tricky to derive too much from an off year election, but a few things can be gleaned with some confidence. First of all there seems to be a message for the tea party. Their extremism is not appreciated by the Republican establishment. A decision to shut down the government regardless of possible damage to the overall economy proved to be unacceptable to Republican businessmen and those bankrolling Republican candidates. With the election of Governor Christie who is now in many ways the head of the Republican Party we may see a very different party emerge by the time we reach the 2016 presidential elections. If he wins the nomination, he will be the one deciding what the party's agenda will be. If tea party candidates do poorly in the congressional elections, that will likely propel Christie to the nomination.
As for Democrats, ACA is pretty much the whole ballgame. They have a couple of months to get this right. Step one is fixing the website and ensuring that it will work for all Americans. Second, they have to demonstrate that the law is a good deal for just about everyone. They have to make the case that ACA will benefit the vast majority of Americans. If they can achieve these goals they may be in solid shape for the campaigns ahead. If not, we could be looking at a veritable sea change in the elections to come..
Perhaps only establishment Republicans can feel a little bit positive about the recently concluded November elections. First of all, Governor Chris Christie won reelection by a wide margin in New Jersey. He amassed a coalition which included a surprising number of Democrats, Blacks, and Latinos. He is now the frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President in 2016.
Although many say conservatives will not select him because of his moderate stance on some issues, I'm not convinced. The history of the Republican party has been that they always wind up selecting the individual they see as the most electable candidate. Also, Governor Christie is a true conservative on just about every issue. Just as he has charmed the voters in New Jersey, he will likely charm all but the most recalcitrant tea party members as well. He will indeed be a formidable opponent for Hilary Clinton if she becomes the Democratic nominee. The only caveat may be if he has to position himself too far to the right of mainstream voters in order to win the nomination.
A second victory for mainstream Republicans on November 5th, was in a GOP runoff election to fill a congressional seat in Alabama. Bradley Byrne defeated tea party candidate Dean Young with the help of establishment Republicans. Those who had been financing tea party candidates are now actively seeking their defeat and were successful in this race. The government shutdown has soured the business community on extreme tea party tactics, and this could bode ill for tea party efforts in 2014.
The government shutdown was also a major factor in the election of Democrat Terry McAauliffe to the governor's office in Virginia. Republican candidate Ken Cucinelli's extreme views on a number of women's issues were also factors. McAuliffe was considered a weak candidate but Cuccinelli was unable to secure the win in what was seen as a very winnable election. Again, the party's establishment failed to provide support, and the changing demographics of the state, especially in Northern Virginia worked against him.
Democrats have little to crow about however. The race closed in the days leading up to the election, almost certainly because of the failures of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A race that some polls had ending in a double digit vistory for McAuliffe wound up in a 2 1/2 point nail biter.
The only positive factor for Democrats is if they can fix the problems plaguing the ACA website this obstabcle will go away. Unfortunately for Republicans, they cannot change the facts of the government shutdown, which is likely to have staying power as an issue throughout the 2014 elections.
It is tricky to derive too much from an off year election, but a few things can be gleaned with some confidence. First of all there seems to be a message for the tea party. Their extremism is not appreciated by the Republican establishment. A decision to shut down the government regardless of possible damage to the overall economy proved to be unacceptable to Republican businessmen and those bankrolling Republican candidates. With the election of Governor Christie who is now in many ways the head of the Republican Party we may see a very different party emerge by the time we reach the 2016 presidential elections. If he wins the nomination, he will be the one deciding what the party's agenda will be. If tea party candidates do poorly in the congressional elections, that will likely propel Christie to the nomination.
As for Democrats, ACA is pretty much the whole ballgame. They have a couple of months to get this right. Step one is fixing the website and ensuring that it will work for all Americans. Second, they have to demonstrate that the law is a good deal for just about everyone. They have to make the case that ACA will benefit the vast majority of Americans. If they can achieve these goals they may be in solid shape for the campaigns ahead. If not, we could be looking at a veritable sea change in the elections to come..
Saturday, October 19, 2013
Politics after the Government Shutdown
Conventional wisdom tells us that Congress has kicked the can down the road. We will be continuing government by crisis in a few weeks. Nothing has changed, and those willing to shut the government down and default on our debt will be just as willing or even more willing to do so in a few weeks.
We are also told that Republicans are frightened about being primaried on their right. They will go along with damaging tactics for fear of losing their seats in Congress. Already challenges are being posed to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for his role in averting default. Other moderate Republicans are in the cross hairs as well.
Let me suggest that circumstances might not be so dire. First I have to say that one reason for the continuing gloom and doom comes from the 24 hour cable news cycle. Hyping the crisis as much as possible gives them something to talk about and keep us entertained.
This is not to say that serious difficulties do not remain. Yet, it is unlikely that Republicans want to go through the disaster of the last few weeks again so soon. Even the staunchest Tea Party Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz are likely to proceed in a different fashion. They will go to their base, talk about how they stood up to Obama Care and would have won if others had supported them.`Even if they were to try to shut down the government again Republican leaders would simply not allow it this time.
It is true, however, that the can has been kicked down the road, so what does Congress do? The joint congressional committee is being chaired by Senator Patty Murray, and Congressman Paul Ryan. The first thing they should not do is seek some grand bargain. It's not in the cards at this time. Their goal should be to keep the government open until after the 2014 Congressional elections.
If Patty Murray says Democrats will never agree to this provision - take it off the table. If Paul Ryan says the House of Representatives will never pass this idea - drop it. Find common ground on a few things. Fix the worst aspects of the sequester. Insist that Republicans go along with some small measures for enhancing revenues. Push Democrats to accept reasonable changes to entitlements such as the chained CPI already offered by President Obama. Maybe even make a few minor changes to The Affordable Care Act that will actually strengthen it rather than damage it. Pass the budget, keep the government operating, and declare victory.
Assuming all that happens, and I'm counting on it, what happens with the 2014 election? Can Democrats win back the House of Representatives? If Republicans did shut down the government again in January and default on the debt in February I believe Republicans would lose their majority in the House of Representatives. Since I don't believe that will happen, it means that favorable ratings for Republicans will rise since they can't go down any further. Many Republicans will hold on to their seats especially because of the extreme gerrymandering of Congressional districts. As an aside, responsibility for drawing these districts must be given to independent commissions in every state.
I do believe Democrats can make some inroads into Republican numbers in the house. If they target certain districts where the message of the irresponsibility of Republican Congressmen can resonate they may pick up as many as 10 seats. In addition, with the help of business leaders demanding more reasonable governing, more moderate Republicans can be prevented from losing their seats and more conservative primary candidates can be defeated. There is the potential to wind up with a somewhat more moderate House of Representatives in the 2015 Congress.The Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands.
It's a long time until the election and conditions can change quickly.. However, as damaging as the last few weeks have been to government, I believe there are some real opportunities here. People have come to see government as more important in their lives than Republican rhetoric had led them to believe. Despite the dismal launch of Obama Care, its favorable ratings actually rose during the shutdown. If problems can be speedily corrected it could become a permanent fixture of our lives along with social security and medicare..
While the Tea Party will continue to engage in heated rhetoric and obstructionist efforts, I believe reasonable Republicans have had enough. We need two responsible political parties in Washington. We may just be a little closer to that goal after the debacle of the last few weeks.
Conventional wisdom tells us that Congress has kicked the can down the road. We will be continuing government by crisis in a few weeks. Nothing has changed, and those willing to shut the government down and default on our debt will be just as willing or even more willing to do so in a few weeks.
We are also told that Republicans are frightened about being primaried on their right. They will go along with damaging tactics for fear of losing their seats in Congress. Already challenges are being posed to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky for his role in averting default. Other moderate Republicans are in the cross hairs as well.
Let me suggest that circumstances might not be so dire. First I have to say that one reason for the continuing gloom and doom comes from the 24 hour cable news cycle. Hyping the crisis as much as possible gives them something to talk about and keep us entertained.
This is not to say that serious difficulties do not remain. Yet, it is unlikely that Republicans want to go through the disaster of the last few weeks again so soon. Even the staunchest Tea Party Republicans such as Senator Ted Cruz are likely to proceed in a different fashion. They will go to their base, talk about how they stood up to Obama Care and would have won if others had supported them.`Even if they were to try to shut down the government again Republican leaders would simply not allow it this time.
It is true, however, that the can has been kicked down the road, so what does Congress do? The joint congressional committee is being chaired by Senator Patty Murray, and Congressman Paul Ryan. The first thing they should not do is seek some grand bargain. It's not in the cards at this time. Their goal should be to keep the government open until after the 2014 Congressional elections.
If Patty Murray says Democrats will never agree to this provision - take it off the table. If Paul Ryan says the House of Representatives will never pass this idea - drop it. Find common ground on a few things. Fix the worst aspects of the sequester. Insist that Republicans go along with some small measures for enhancing revenues. Push Democrats to accept reasonable changes to entitlements such as the chained CPI already offered by President Obama. Maybe even make a few minor changes to The Affordable Care Act that will actually strengthen it rather than damage it. Pass the budget, keep the government operating, and declare victory.
Assuming all that happens, and I'm counting on it, what happens with the 2014 election? Can Democrats win back the House of Representatives? If Republicans did shut down the government again in January and default on the debt in February I believe Republicans would lose their majority in the House of Representatives. Since I don't believe that will happen, it means that favorable ratings for Republicans will rise since they can't go down any further. Many Republicans will hold on to their seats especially because of the extreme gerrymandering of Congressional districts. As an aside, responsibility for drawing these districts must be given to independent commissions in every state.
I do believe Democrats can make some inroads into Republican numbers in the house. If they target certain districts where the message of the irresponsibility of Republican Congressmen can resonate they may pick up as many as 10 seats. In addition, with the help of business leaders demanding more reasonable governing, more moderate Republicans can be prevented from losing their seats and more conservative primary candidates can be defeated. There is the potential to wind up with a somewhat more moderate House of Representatives in the 2015 Congress.The Senate is likely to remain in Democratic hands.
It's a long time until the election and conditions can change quickly.. However, as damaging as the last few weeks have been to government, I believe there are some real opportunities here. People have come to see government as more important in their lives than Republican rhetoric had led them to believe. Despite the dismal launch of Obama Care, its favorable ratings actually rose during the shutdown. If problems can be speedily corrected it could become a permanent fixture of our lives along with social security and medicare..
While the Tea Party will continue to engage in heated rhetoric and obstructionist efforts, I believe reasonable Republicans have had enough. We need two responsible political parties in Washington. We may just be a little closer to that goal after the debacle of the last few weeks.
Monday, October 7, 2013
A Government Shutdown Tutorial
1.Why is the government still shut down?
* Because Republicans still believe they can win
2. What do they want?
* They want to overturn issues that have already been settled by the democratic process -
like the Affordable Care Act
3. Why won't Democrats negotiate?
* Democrats say they won't negotiate 'with a gun pointed at their heads'. Tea Party Republicans
are indeed holding the government hostage. It would be like saying that they will not let the
government operate unless they stop sending out Social Security checks. Is this a legitimate
subject for negotiation, or should it be decided by elections, the courts, and the legislative process?
4. How can this stand off end?
* There are only two possibilities. Republicans pass a clean continuing resolution (CR) or Democrats
give in to their demands
5. Why is it so dangerous to negotiate at this time?
* It represents government by crisis - resolving this crisis simply puts it off until the next crisis. The
CR's are only designed to last for a short while - maybe 2 or 3 months. The debt ceiling will only be
extended for maybe six months. The same battles then begin all over again. The correct process
is the normal budget process. Both houses of Congress have passed budget bills - that is the
appropriate vehicle for negotiation
6. Republicans say they will open little pieces of the government - why not go along?
* This is an arrogant and insidious ploy to choose between different government workers and
different agencies of government. This small group of legislators will decide who is important and
who is not. They are not only opting for a government by a minority, their way would actually
introduce a new form of dictatorship where this elite group of legislators will make the
rules for everyone. The desires of the majority would be disregarded. What they are doing is
turning the Constitution on its head.
7. What is being accomplished by the government shutdown?
* Nothing. The Congress is already agreeing to provide back pay to all employees currently
furloughed. While they remain at home they are providing no services to our country or to
the people
8. Why not send these people back to work so they can at least earn their pay?
* That would end the fight that the Republicans seem to want to have. Refer back to question 1.
9. How can these Republicans care so llittle about their country and the damage that is being done to the
American people? How can they continue to allow this to happen over and over again?
* I can't answer that question
10. What can I and others do?
* Demand action by Congress. Insist on a clean CR to fund the government long enough to
negotiate their way out of a budget impasse. Demand the critical debt ceiling be raised and
not held hostage to more political gamesmanship
Friday, October 19, 2012
Obama Wins Second Debate but the Election is Not Over
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.
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.
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?
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Archbishop Lori and the 'Fortnight for Freedom'
Archbishop Lori, Baltimore's new Archbishop, has embarked on a new program called 'Fortnight for Freedom' as he espoused in his Baltimore Sun editorial of June 27th. The Archbishop has taken his concerns about contraception in the new health care policy and has construed it as an attack on religious liberty. Yet, the Archbishop himself in his editorial, references real attacks on religious liberty in countries like Iraq and Nigeria, which actually demonstrates that the Archbishop's current program in the Archdiocese of Baltimore is a tempest in a teapot. There is no vendetta, no discrimination, no hostility to the Catholic Church on the part of the US government. The President has made repeated efforts to reach out to the Bishops to resolve their differences. There are legitimate differences here, but they are policy differences, not attempts to deprive Catholic institutions of freedom.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
The Archbishop thinks all Catholic institutions should be exempt from having to provide health care plans that cover contraception. The adminsitration believes that this kind of coverage should be available to all Americans. This is a difference of opinion, not a wholesale attack on everything Catholics hold dear. After all we do llive in a multi cultural society and everyone does not share the beliefs of the Archbishop. Our society requires compromise and understanding, but it appears that the Archbishop only wants to be understood, not to understand, which is a distortion of the prayer of St. Francis that many of us know.
The Archbishop seems to be concerned with religious liberty in so far as it impacts the ability of the institutional Church to operate as it pleases without restraint. Is there an equal concern for the freedom of other citizens to access health care plans wihich contain the services they feel they need? It is difficult to find such a concern. More broadly where is the Archbishop's concern that all Americans have health care? Would he have preferred the health care law to be struck down and the uninsured to remain without adequate care?
What happened to the concern of the Catholic Church for the poor? What happened to the moral imperative Catholic Bishops had insisted on in the past - that health care was a right and not a privlege. The Church and the Catholic Bishops had long been one of the most vocal and vigorous advocates for the implementation of a universal health care program. These goals seem to have been left by the wayside in the current climate.
The Catholic Bishops seem determined to fight over this issue. We continue to be fed the notion that we poor Catholics are being picked on even as the administration continues to pursue every effort to find a satisfactory accommodation with the Church..At the same time the Church continues to wage an aggressive campaign to bend the administration to its will. The Archbishop has grossly distorted the issue into one of religious liberty which it is not. There is and will continue to be differences of opinion, but the Church cannot continue to accuse their foes of being anti Catholic whenever they don't get their way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
