|
|
|
National Republicans
Carter Wrenn posted on September 21, 2012 18:09
From Singapore to Casablanca outside our embassies Muslims are rioting – so, exactly how much of the Muslim world is mad at us? Ten percent? Half? Ninety percent? Or, more to the point, how many Muslims agree that taking revenge for a YouTube video by murdering a diplomat who never saw or heard the video is wrong? A handful? A lot? Almost all?
Last Sunday, President Obama’s Ambassador to the U.N. told us the attack on our embassy was spontaneous. It wasn’t a terrorist attack. But whoever heard of a demonstrator showing up at a riot carrying a grenade launcher? So who attacked our embassy? If it was terrorists – who were they? Where are they? We’ve tried attacking whole nations (two of them) to stop groups of terrorists and that hasn’t worked out too well – so, this time, how do we tell the terrorists from the Muslims who bear us no ill will?
And, finally, the biggest question of all: Who is going to answer these questions? President Obama? Secretary Clinton? Congress? Lord, help us, is there someone else? How about the Mossad?
[Click to read and post comments...]
Carter Wrenn posted on September 21, 2012 11:32
Mitt Romney’s getting pummeled for saying 47% of the voters will not support him because no one getting a check from the government’s going to vote for him over Obama.
Even the conservative pundits are giving Romney the blazes.
But while Romney was fumbling the facts he may also have put his finger on our Modern 21st Century Third Millennium Democracy’s biggest dilemma.
David Brooks wrote this about Romney’s faux pas: ‘In 1980, about 30% of Americans received some form of government benefits. Today about 40% do...In 1960, government transfers to individuals totaled $24 billion. By 2010, that total was 100 times as large… entitlement transfers have grown by more than 700% over the last fifty years… and this spending surge has increased faster under Republican administrators than Democratic ones.’
It’s a hard fact in our democracy: A majority can vote to reach into the treasury and help themselves to other people’s money whenever it wants. It’s redefined the meaning of ‘Majority Rule.’ And it’s not a new phenomenon.
Back during the 1820’s, Congressmen from the North (who wanted to protect manufacturers in New England from imports) and Congressmen from the West (who wanted Washington to build roads in their states) got together and passed tariffs – that were primarily paid by Southerners.
After the Civil War the railroad tycoons corralled enough votes in Congress to get the federal government to give them free and clear title to 12,000 acres of public land for each mile of track they laid – and, in the end, the tycoons ended up owning more land than there is in all of Germany.
Social Security and Medicare started out with the best of intentions but, today, unless you have the misfortune of dying young, when you retire the government is going to pay you a lot more than you ever paid into either program – whether you need the money or not.
And there seems to be no solution to the problem – instead it looks like once a democracy gets itself good and organized (which takes around 200 years) this is where it ends up.
So, maybe, instead of backpedaling Romney ought to let fly and say: I know pointing out our government has become a system for plunder is unpopular – but here’s an even harder fact: An economy based on plunder won’t work and it’s just a matter of time before the plunder gets so out of hand the economy collapses. So do we fix the problem now or do we wait for the collapse?
It would probably cost Romney the election but that debate is coming sooner or later.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 20, 2012 09:42
Here’s betting that, whoever wins the presidential race, Erskine Bowles ends up in Washington.
He’s being mentioned as Obama’s Secretary of Treasury. And wouldn’t Mitt Romney be smart to put Bowles – a Southern, Clinton Democrat – in a top position? Maybe Treasury, Budget Director or something out of the box like Defense?
Bowles’ work on the Bowles-Simpson budget commission makes him the gold standard in America today when it comes to rising above partisanship. And they’re getting set to spend $25 million selling that plan.
He already balanced the federal budget once, so maybe he could do it again. Or make an even deeper mark on the country.
Good thing he lost those Senate races. He would have been wasted among those 99 fools.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 19, 2012 09:34
Mitt Romney is going to make me a sorry seer. I blog that he’s bound to come back, then he says the dumbest, most damaging and most unintentionally revealing thing I’ve heard in politics in ages.
Romney’s “47 percent” remarks hurt him on so many levels.
One, he’s wrong. I’m voting for Obama. I know a lot of people who are voting for Obama. I don’t get a government check. Neither do they. But he assumes we’re all a bunch of mooches.
Two, it sounds like he wants to raise taxes on 47 percent of Americans. Which is exactly what the Obama campaign is nailing him on.
Third, it sets in concrete the image of a rich, elitist, callous candidate who divides America into people like him and people like the rest of us. And he shows total contempt for the rest of us.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 18, 2012 09:31
Everything is going wrong for the Romney campaign, but one thing is certain in politics: This too shall pass. So look for the story line to change dramatically at some point before the election.
Election Day is seven weeks from today. That’s too long for the media to keep saying Romney is a terrible candidate, his campaign is in disarray, even Republicans are piling on, Obama is certain to win, etc., etc.
At some point, something will happen to change the narrative. Given the increasingly low expectations, Romney may surprise us in the debates. At this point, he’ll be seen as doing well if he doesn’t fall over when he walks in.
Maybe it will be the Middle East. Maybe Obama or Biden will make a big gaffe. Maybe something with the economy.
But something, at some point, will give the media a chance to make this a close race. Count on it.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 15, 2012 10:04
A TAPster writes:
“Ironically, or maybe not, the talking heads at Fox News who created the term ‘Obamacare’ as a derisive term for the Healthcare Reform Act have actually done the opposite. They defined the debate in Obama’s terms and not their own. How stupid!
“Think if you are Ford Motors and BMW decides to go to war over Ford cars having a smooth ride instead of a stiff ride the way BMW’s do and they called it ‘Fordride.’ Now what if most people really wanted a smooth ride rather than a stiff one as most want many of the features in the Healthcare Act. You don’t want to define the debate in terms of your opponent unless it’s Richard Nixon.”
Former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell gave a pithy defense of Obamacare not long ago on Jon Stewart’s show: “It means that 31 million more Americans will get health care.”
Maybe that’s why Mitt Romney retreated on Obamacare. He says he’ll keep the good parts. I suspect most Republicans don’t concede there are any good parts. Does he know something they don’t?
[Click to read and post comments...]
Carter Wrenn posted on September 13, 2012 17:56
Almost every day, sometimes a couple of times a day, someone will ask, Well, who’s going to win this election? It’s human nature: We want bedrock beneath our feet. But there is no answer to the question. Not even the handful of undecided voters have a clue how they’ll vote at the end of the day.
But that’s only one conundrum. There’s a bigger problem. In politics, like, say, when you’re walking down the street, the unexpected happens. One day you’re rolling along fine and rosy and the next you sit down in a doctor’s office and he says, You have a tumor, and the ground shakes beneath your feet.
Two days ago the ground shifted beneath Mitt Romney’s feet. No one could have foreseen what happened in Libya and Egypt but the Jihadist (or whatever they were) may have just handed Obama a real – as opposed to political – October surprise. Is Obama about to hunt the criminals and smite them hip and thigh – like Osama bin Laden? Will Obama fumble? Will the whole thing fade away? Will the unseen hand move again?
The only other surprise would be if the unexpected doesn’t happen.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 12, 2012 09:43
Every time I’ve handicapped the presidential race, I’ve warned about X Factors – big events out of anybody’s control that can sway elections. A big one exploded in the Middle East last night.
A foreign policy crisis in September is a huge X Factor. It dominates the news. It challenges the incumbent. And it tests the challenger.
Last week, President Obama seized the strong-defense flag. (Did you know he ordered the mission that killed bin Laden?) Romney got roundly criticized for not mentioning Afghanistan or the troops.
Romney had pledged to refrain from campaigning on the anniversary of 9/11. But late last night, his campaign put out a statement criticizing Obama on its reaction to the embassy attacks in Egypt and Libya. To keep its 9/11 promise, the campaign embargoed the statement for midnight. (Really, I’m not making this up.) Then it lifted the embargo.
It looked like a hair-trigger overreaction from a panicky campaign that’s been royally ripped by disloyal Republicans. Which it is.
All this on top of a flap about Israel pushing Washington on attacking Iran.
Suddenly, the world looks very dangerous. And the election is totally upended.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 11, 2012 08:14
The convention gave President Obama a surge (possibly short-lived) in polls and fundraising. But he’s got another edge that won’t be short-lived: a “fired up and ready to go” ground game and the technology to make it go.
The Obama campaign has spent years and millions upon millions of dollars building it. They have honed the technology. They use social media to forge, direct and motivate a truly awesome ground game. And they are way ahead of the Republicans
The Obama campaign knows how to measure results. In a call to convention-goers who couldn’t get into Obama’s speech last week, the campaign manager said daily reports in the Chicago headquarters show North Carolina “blows the doors off” in calls and contacts made each day.
One boost from the convention: an army of excited and enthusiastic volunteers – especially in North Carolina and Virginia.
This is new politics. It didn’t exist at this level of sophistication four years ago. It’s not as evident as the dueling TV ads. It is below the vision – and beyond the grasp – of even the best political reporters.
Those reporters often cite one number to show how hard it will be for Obama to carry North Carolina: 14,000 – his margin in 2008. But that works the other way, too. There are 100,000 Hispanic voters in North Carolina. There are more than 100,000 new African-American voters who can be brought to the polls. There are tens of thousands of college students.
If they turn out, Obama could win by a lot more than 14,000.
For all the focus on conventions, debates, superPACs and negative ads, the real dynamic that decides this race could be what’s happening in phone banks, Twitter feeds and voter turnout work.
Silent and deadly.
[Click to read and post comments...]
Gary Pearce posted on September 10, 2012 14:52
Mitt Romney must think his campaign is in serious trouble. Why else would he promise to keep some of Obamacare and not cut taxes for the wealthy? Two 180s in one 30-minute talk show!
How long will it take before the Tea Party forces him to re-retreat?
There is a great irony at the heart of Romney’s campaign. If he could run as what he is – a moderate Republican and successful businessman – he’d be a strong candidate.
But he has three things weighing him down – perhaps fatally.
First, the Obama campaign has turned his business career – and his wealth – into a negative.
Second, it’s hard to blame Obama for the economy when voters know the problems started under a Republican President and that Republicans in Congress have refused to work with Obama.
Third, Romney is held captive by a far-right faction that seized control of the Republican Party.
The Democratic Convention drove home all three points. At the end, President Obama not only opened up a significant lead in the polls, but also moved his approval ratings moved into positive territory.
It would take a politician as deft as, say, Bill Clinton to overcome all that. And Romney is no Bill Clinton.
[Click to read and post comments...]
|
|
|