Over the last few days, the Obama administration has conveyed far-from-conclusive statements about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. When one hears phrases like "with varying degrees of confidence," it's quite a stretch to regard anything as certain.
And yet it doesn't stop many on the right -- including more than few right-leaning friends of mine -- from directing criticism at Obama, claiming he had a "red line" which appears to have been crossed, so what is he waiting for? It's another chance for them to hopefully cast him as a wobbly Democrat when it comes to making difficult decisions about going to war or intervening militarily in another country.
As always, Obama's no dope. He remembers all too well what happened when the prior administration acted on very inconclusive intel about WMD. He's definitely not going to make that same mistake.
However, suppose the intel is 90% or 95% on-the-mark, that it's very likely Syria did indeed use chemical weapons, but yet it's not 99.9% ironclad. Will Obama delay in favor of getting a near-100% certain answer from intelligence sources? And what if his desire for certitude ends up taking a prolonged amount of time during which something awful happens? And will such intel ever be 99.9% conclusive, and at what point should a president just act?
I believe these are all valid points and questions, and I don't claim to have the definitive answers. However, I would remind those on the right that if you want to blame anyone at a time like this, start with your boys Bush/Cheney. It was their bungling of intel in the lead up to Iraq (leaving aside how much was cooked or fabricated at the time) that has forever affected how future presidents will decide to act under similar circumstances. Can anyone blame Obama if he were to hesitate, even slightly, given recollections of the Bush/Cheney years? Would he even want to risk being cast in the same light as Bush/Cheney if the Syrian intel turned out to be wrong?
Some may say that the extremely regretful past of Bush/Cheney has managed to at least create lemonade from lemons in that if anything it insures that future presidents will take inordinate steps to insure all intel is accurate. I would argue that Bush/Cheney were the exceptions, that most if not all prior administrations did take the necessary time and effort to insure that intelligence was solid and actionable. The mistakes and chicanery committed by GW's administration does not improve the chances that intel will be more accurate. The protocols, routines and systems in place likely remain now as they were then. In fact, arguments can be made that overall the intelligence community performed very well during the Bush years, and that the failures came from higher-ups within the administration and not so much within the "nuts and bolts" of the intel apparatus.
But a lasting harm of Bush/Cheney is for any president to refrain from acting on intel due to excessive fears of it being faulty. Yet no intel will ever be 100% certain and such hesitancy to act could eventually cost lives. Make no mistake, and I hope it's obvious, I'm not making the case that Obama should rush to judgment and take action versus Syria. Rather I'm simply making the case that these kinds of decisions are not and never have been easy, and yet thanks to the shameful legacy of GW/Cheney, it has only been made a much more difficult process for all future presidents for all the wrong reasons.
In this time of Bush reconsideration, one should remember the many horrible truths of his eight years in office. To this day we continue to be adversely affected by his incompetent reign.
Tuesday, April 30, 2013
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Obama Proposes $900 Billion Surplus!
(UPDATE: The great wonk-maestro Ezra Klein kindly informed me that my numbers were off a bit, he reminds that the $1.8 trillion plan is over 10 years, not one, and even then the deficit never completely disappears. I admit to an extent I was purposefully somewhat hyperbolic and a tad facetious with this entry, but my bad for not closely studying all the details in Obama's proposal. And silly me to rely on simple math when it comes to Washington, tsk tsk. But apart from a lack of eventual surplus, despite close to a $2 trillion proposal, all of my remaining points below stand.)
Huh? Obama proposes a surplus?
Here’s the running tally on the federal deficit:
Note the $200+ billion Clinton surplus (in yellow), which Bush/Cheney quickly turned into years of deficits.
Also note that despite the year after year of deficits under Bush/Cheney, we never heard a peep from the Tea Party and/or Republicans. As a rule, deficits only matter when a "D" resides in the White House.
As you can see, the (inherited) deficit has come down under Obama by -35% ($1.4 trillion to $900 billion), one of if not the biggest and fastest deficit reductions ever, in our history. Yet, just as we never heard boo from the Tea Party/Republicans about the deficits during Bush/Cheney's reign, we never hear boo about the fact that the deficit has been declining since 2009. For that matter, just as we never hear much about how the stock market has more than doubled with a pinko socialist as President.
So this past week Obama proposed a $1.8 trillion deficit reduction package. Given the deficit is projected to be $900 billion by the end of this year, judging by my math, in effect he's proposing a plan to achieve a sizable ($900 billion) surplus. Let's please stop using "balance the budget" or "erase the deficit" and start using that "S" word more -- it has a huge impact on the public and always harkens back to the last time we had a surplus, the Clinton years. Ah yes, when times were better.
But again, we never hear a peep about any of this.... Oh, that liberal media.
Huh? Obama proposes a surplus?
Here’s the running tally on the federal deficit:
Note the $200+ billion Clinton surplus (in yellow), which Bush/Cheney quickly turned into years of deficits.
Also note that despite the year after year of deficits under Bush/Cheney, we never heard a peep from the Tea Party and/or Republicans. As a rule, deficits only matter when a "D" resides in the White House.
As you can see, the (inherited) deficit has come down under Obama by -35% ($1.4 trillion to $900 billion), one of if not the biggest and fastest deficit reductions ever, in our history. Yet, just as we never heard boo from the Tea Party/Republicans about the deficits during Bush/Cheney's reign, we never hear boo about the fact that the deficit has been declining since 2009. For that matter, just as we never hear much about how the stock market has more than doubled with a pinko socialist as President.
So this past week Obama proposed a $1.8 trillion deficit reduction package. Given the deficit is projected to be $900 billion by the end of this year, judging by my math, in effect he's proposing a plan to achieve a sizable ($900 billion) surplus. Let's please stop using "balance the budget" or "erase the deficit" and start using that "S" word more -- it has a huge impact on the public and always harkens back to the last time we had a surplus, the Clinton years. Ah yes, when times were better.
But again, we never hear a peep about any of this.... Oh, that liberal media.
Thursday, March 28, 2013
Scalia: oh, the ignorance
This week in the same-sex marriage hearing, Justice Scalia wondered aloud if same-sex parents were harmful to children.
Just last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex couples as parents to children. A pretty big deal, widely reported.
What more evidence does one need to realize how out-of-touch and misinformed Scalia is on many issues? I mean this is inexcusable. He may not agree with the endorsement, but he certainly can't suggest that there does not exist any scientific evidence concluding that same-sex parents may or may not be harmful to children. For the AAP to approve means there exists many years worth of studies proving no harm (and the report has 60 citations).
But as is common with Fox News, Scalia appears to only know that which he chooses to know, ignoring the rest of the fact-based world that he deems to be dissonant or in conflict with his heavily self-edited view.
Brilliant legal mind? C'mon.
Just last week, the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed same-sex couples as parents to children. A pretty big deal, widely reported.
What more evidence does one need to realize how out-of-touch and misinformed Scalia is on many issues? I mean this is inexcusable. He may not agree with the endorsement, but he certainly can't suggest that there does not exist any scientific evidence concluding that same-sex parents may or may not be harmful to children. For the AAP to approve means there exists many years worth of studies proving no harm (and the report has 60 citations).
But as is common with Fox News, Scalia appears to only know that which he chooses to know, ignoring the rest of the fact-based world that he deems to be dissonant or in conflict with his heavily self-edited view.
Brilliant legal mind? C'mon.
Monday, March 18, 2013
How Anemic Was The Stimulus?
We know that the 2007-2009 economic collapse has been unprecedented in terms of the toll taken on jobs, and such devastation has unfortunately continued to linger much longer than history would have otherwise suggested. Why has the economy remained in such a funk, with the rate of unemployment stubbornly hovering well above the 7% level?
One significant reason has been the lack of fiscal stimulus. Oh yes, we had the American Economic Recovery Act of 2009, but it was much too low a figure in relation to the economic damage it aimed to mend. And a good chunk of that Act was not good old fashioned fiscal stimulus in the form of spending but rather tax cuts, which are substantially less effective when it comes to turning around an ailing economy. Meanwhile, since the downturn, the political climate has been obsessed with the opposite of fiscal stimulus, that being austerity in the form of deficit reduction. (Never mind that Economics 101 dictates the time to spend and ignore the deficit is during economic recessions/depressions. Instead we had GW/Cheney obliterate a surplus ala Cheney's "deficits don't matter" -- it didn't matter then, but apparently it does now, exactly at the wrong time.)
So the stimulus was not big enough, but the nagging question remains: how big should it have been? I think the two charts below help to establish at least a ballpark figure on that number.
The first chart shows the percent of job losses as compared to past recessions. As you can see, this current recession has been the worst ever in this respect. The second chart shows amounts of fiscal stimulus delivered in past recessions, more specifically during the Reagan and GW Bush recessions compared to Obama's inherited debacle.
The first chart makes the case that compared to Reagan's (purple line) and GW's (brown line) recessions, Obama's (red line) recession is twice as bad as Reagan's and three times worse than GW's downturn. These figures are arrived at by comparing the worst point in the job loss levels, the red line (Obama) bottoming below -6% as compared to -3% for Reagan and -2% for Bush II.
It's just one metric, admittedly, but it is apples-to-apples and employment loss does get at the root of an economic decline. What is made plain to see is that the fiscal stimulus (in real dollars) for Obama should have been at least 2x-3x greater than that passed during the recessions of Reagan and GW.
And yet the second chart clearly shows that not only has stimulus been anemic during this most recent recession/depression, it hasn't come close to the levels achieved during the Reagan and GW downturns. In fact, we see the bars for the recent downturn actually go negative, when as just stated, those bars should be 2x-3x higher than what is shown for the 1981-1982 and 2001 recessions. Incredible. A far worse economic condition and yet far less stimulus delivered as a remedy.
Of course, the fiscal stimulus bars are positive for recessions other than Obama's because prior to when the "Kenyan" took office, Congress knew that spending was necessary to help get an ailing economy humming again. Democrats worked with Republicans to pass such fiscal spending bills for the betterment of all Americans. Clearly that has not been the case for Obama, with Republicans vowing to stonewall and vote against any meaningful fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending.
Well there you have it, one attempt to arrive at an estimate for how much bigger stimulus should have been compared to past precedent. What is obvious is it was woefully too small, and remains so. As a further stick in the eye, real interest rates are negative, meaning investors are paying the federal government to take on added debt! We should be spending more and ignoring the deficit! Bridges, roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired at some point -- now is the time, not just because it will help the economy and job market, but because it also makes sense financially given the level of real interest rates.
Oh forget it. Since when did facts and reason make a difference to modern-day Republicans?
One significant reason has been the lack of fiscal stimulus. Oh yes, we had the American Economic Recovery Act of 2009, but it was much too low a figure in relation to the economic damage it aimed to mend. And a good chunk of that Act was not good old fashioned fiscal stimulus in the form of spending but rather tax cuts, which are substantially less effective when it comes to turning around an ailing economy. Meanwhile, since the downturn, the political climate has been obsessed with the opposite of fiscal stimulus, that being austerity in the form of deficit reduction. (Never mind that Economics 101 dictates the time to spend and ignore the deficit is during economic recessions/depressions. Instead we had GW/Cheney obliterate a surplus ala Cheney's "deficits don't matter" -- it didn't matter then, but apparently it does now, exactly at the wrong time.)
So the stimulus was not big enough, but the nagging question remains: how big should it have been? I think the two charts below help to establish at least a ballpark figure on that number.
The first chart shows the percent of job losses as compared to past recessions. As you can see, this current recession has been the worst ever in this respect. The second chart shows amounts of fiscal stimulus delivered in past recessions, more specifically during the Reagan and GW Bush recessions compared to Obama's inherited debacle.
The first chart makes the case that compared to Reagan's (purple line) and GW's (brown line) recessions, Obama's (red line) recession is twice as bad as Reagan's and three times worse than GW's downturn. These figures are arrived at by comparing the worst point in the job loss levels, the red line (Obama) bottoming below -6% as compared to -3% for Reagan and -2% for Bush II.
It's just one metric, admittedly, but it is apples-to-apples and employment loss does get at the root of an economic decline. What is made plain to see is that the fiscal stimulus (in real dollars) for Obama should have been at least 2x-3x greater than that passed during the recessions of Reagan and GW.
And yet the second chart clearly shows that not only has stimulus been anemic during this most recent recession/depression, it hasn't come close to the levels achieved during the Reagan and GW downturns. In fact, we see the bars for the recent downturn actually go negative, when as just stated, those bars should be 2x-3x higher than what is shown for the 1981-1982 and 2001 recessions. Incredible. A far worse economic condition and yet far less stimulus delivered as a remedy.
Of course, the fiscal stimulus bars are positive for recessions other than Obama's because prior to when the "Kenyan" took office, Congress knew that spending was necessary to help get an ailing economy humming again. Democrats worked with Republicans to pass such fiscal spending bills for the betterment of all Americans. Clearly that has not been the case for Obama, with Republicans vowing to stonewall and vote against any meaningful fiscal stimulus in the form of government spending.
Well there you have it, one attempt to arrive at an estimate for how much bigger stimulus should have been compared to past precedent. What is obvious is it was woefully too small, and remains so. As a further stick in the eye, real interest rates are negative, meaning investors are paying the federal government to take on added debt! We should be spending more and ignoring the deficit! Bridges, roads and infrastructure will have to be repaired at some point -- now is the time, not just because it will help the economy and job market, but because it also makes sense financially given the level of real interest rates.
Oh forget it. Since when did facts and reason make a difference to modern-day Republicans?
Sunday, March 17, 2013
Rob Portman's "Courageous" Flip-Flop
Ohio senator Rob Portman recently changed his position on gay marriage, stating "I have come to believe that if two people are prepared to make a lifetime commitment to love and care for each other in good times and in bad, the government shouldn’t deny them the opportunity to get married." And many are applauding his sudden turnaround, deeming it courageous and brave.
Really? In this day and age, isn't this kind of decision -- to update one's views to match the current century -- just a long overdue correction, something that doesn't deserve being rewarded with laudatory characterizations? Rather Portman should simply be commended for joining the side of reason as well as the side aligned with the Constitution, the law of this land, as opposed to say the Bible. And then it should be glibly asked, "What took you so long?"
But of course, as often is the case, it takes a personal event to resonate with a politician enough to have him or her consider changing a position. Never mind said person should've had the empathy and ability to consider others versus oneself to arrive at a just decision. In this case, Portman learned that his own son was gay and such a revelation apparently changed everything.
However, something not getting mentioned in this story is a time table. Portman wrote, "Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay." Two years ago? And Portman only recently changed his opinion on this issue?? Let me understand, after his son told him he was gay, it took the senator two whole years to gain the wisdom and muster the courage to reverse his position publicly. What a man, I say, what a paragon of bravery, a valiant soul!
Pathetic.
It's similar to those who call Paul Ryan "brave" and "courageous" for having the "guts" to cut taxes on the wealthy, slash programs for the poor and elderly, and vow to close many tax loopholes without naming one specifically. What a ballsy American! Yes, a genuine Braveheart without the skirt and makeup....
As Paul Simon (& Art Garfunkel) once sang, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?"
Really? In this day and age, isn't this kind of decision -- to update one's views to match the current century -- just a long overdue correction, something that doesn't deserve being rewarded with laudatory characterizations? Rather Portman should simply be commended for joining the side of reason as well as the side aligned with the Constitution, the law of this land, as opposed to say the Bible. And then it should be glibly asked, "What took you so long?"
But of course, as often is the case, it takes a personal event to resonate with a politician enough to have him or her consider changing a position. Never mind said person should've had the empathy and ability to consider others versus oneself to arrive at a just decision. In this case, Portman learned that his own son was gay and such a revelation apparently changed everything.
However, something not getting mentioned in this story is a time table. Portman wrote, "Two years ago, my son Will, then a college freshman, told my wife, Jane, and me that he is gay." Two years ago? And Portman only recently changed his opinion on this issue?? Let me understand, after his son told him he was gay, it took the senator two whole years to gain the wisdom and muster the courage to reverse his position publicly. What a man, I say, what a paragon of bravery, a valiant soul!
Pathetic.
It's similar to those who call Paul Ryan "brave" and "courageous" for having the "guts" to cut taxes on the wealthy, slash programs for the poor and elderly, and vow to close many tax loopholes without naming one specifically. What a ballsy American! Yes, a genuine Braveheart without the skirt and makeup....
As Paul Simon (& Art Garfunkel) once sang, "Where have you gone Joe DiMaggio?"
Monday, March 11, 2013
True dat!
A poetic takedown of the financial media and Wall Street types, by Lawrence O'Donnell.
The market has more than doubled under Obama, compared to -25% under GW's eight years, and we know what the market did under Clinton, yet you don't hear a friggin peep about this from the Wall Street crowd. It's been shown in studies that the market has done better with Dems in the White House than Republicans, but facts are illusory to this crowd -- except when it has to do with companies. Most on the Street root for the Republican to win despite evidence showing the GOP is bad for their profession. Crazy.
Just imagine what we'd be hearing if the stock market more than doubled with a Republican in charge. The shrill boasting would be endless and insufferable. In large part, because it rarely happens.
But do we hear the Democrats boasting? Do we hear it repeated over and over on MSNBC? Nope. Nothing.
The market has more than doubled under Obama, compared to -25% under GW's eight years, and we know what the market did under Clinton, yet you don't hear a friggin peep about this from the Wall Street crowd. It's been shown in studies that the market has done better with Dems in the White House than Republicans, but facts are illusory to this crowd -- except when it has to do with companies. Most on the Street root for the Republican to win despite evidence showing the GOP is bad for their profession. Crazy.
Just imagine what we'd be hearing if the stock market more than doubled with a Republican in charge. The shrill boasting would be endless and insufferable. In large part, because it rarely happens.
But do we hear the Democrats boasting? Do we hear it repeated over and over on MSNBC? Nope. Nothing.
Tuesday, November 06, 2012
Sandy, God and The Election
Based on ample factual evidence, it's safe to say an Obama win is expected today. So come tomorrow morning (if not sooner!), expect Republicans to begin the excuse-fest about why they lost.
And the excuses will be many. Of course, none being about themselves, their stand on issues, or in my mind their biggest problem: forcing presidential candidates to win over the far-right base by adopting extreme positions only to then have to try and tack to the middle to appeal to the more-moderate general electorate, in so doing appearing fractured, duplicitous and lacking consistency and convictions. As long as Republicans force their candidates to do this pretzel-twisting, they will never win the White House.
Anyway, no doubt Sandy will come up as a convenient excuse. They'll say Romney's momentum was cut short by the storm.
Problem is this so-called Romney momentum never existed, a complete myth. Instead for the last several weeks, it's Obama who has enjoyed the rising momentum as he has steadily recovered a large portion of the ground he lost post-first debate.
In fact, I would bet that if they had the choice Republicans would've weeks ago invited and prayed for a storm like Sandy to appear, hoping it did something, anything to halt Obama's steady rise. They'd get down on their knees praying it would become Obama's Katrina.
Well, Sandy came and wrecked, but no Katrina for Obama. Unlike the imbecilic GW, Obama has handled the post-Sandy response very well and if anything he's received a boost in approval ratings for his competent performance during this trying time. And Republicans are pissed.
But I ask: where are the usual folks who say God sent Sandy to punish the sinner blue states in the Northeast? Hmm, to me it looks like God sent Sandy to help insure Obama gets re-elected.
And the excuses will be many. Of course, none being about themselves, their stand on issues, or in my mind their biggest problem: forcing presidential candidates to win over the far-right base by adopting extreme positions only to then have to try and tack to the middle to appeal to the more-moderate general electorate, in so doing appearing fractured, duplicitous and lacking consistency and convictions. As long as Republicans force their candidates to do this pretzel-twisting, they will never win the White House.
Anyway, no doubt Sandy will come up as a convenient excuse. They'll say Romney's momentum was cut short by the storm.
Problem is this so-called Romney momentum never existed, a complete myth. Instead for the last several weeks, it's Obama who has enjoyed the rising momentum as he has steadily recovered a large portion of the ground he lost post-first debate.
In fact, I would bet that if they had the choice Republicans would've weeks ago invited and prayed for a storm like Sandy to appear, hoping it did something, anything to halt Obama's steady rise. They'd get down on their knees praying it would become Obama's Katrina.
Well, Sandy came and wrecked, but no Katrina for Obama. Unlike the imbecilic GW, Obama has handled the post-Sandy response very well and if anything he's received a boost in approval ratings for his competent performance during this trying time. And Republicans are pissed.
But I ask: where are the usual folks who say God sent Sandy to punish the sinner blue states in the Northeast? Hmm, to me it looks like God sent Sandy to help insure Obama gets re-elected.
Monday, November 05, 2012
I'm Nervous (But Shouldn't Be)
I am nervous about this Tuesday. I know, I know, I fully realize the great Nate Silver has Obama's chances of winning at 80+% (86% to be exact). In fact, I tabulated projections from more than a few electoral map projection web sites. See below (click to enlarge).
Remind me again why I'm nervous? The average of the nine projections that exclude toss-ups gives Obama a solid 303-235 edge (270 needed to win). When you consider just those projections that include toss-ups, Obama's edge dwindles to 256-196 with an average 86 votes up in the air, but still a +60 net lead.
Which way will those 86 toss-up votes likely break? Well, given the fact there are nine projections that force the marginal votes to take a side, resulting in the 303-235 average, it gives you a very good sense which way those votes will break on average. Clearly the marginal (toss up) states tend to on average lean in Obama's favor, and thus the 256-196-86 becomes 303-235, again on average.
What does this mean, other than I shouldn't be so nervous? It means if come Tuesday night Obama wins by a very close call, the Republicans will have a weak case if they chose to become irate and demand recounts. The data above makes the convincing point that polls are swinging in Obama's direction. If anything, it argues that if Romney were to win -- whether by a hair or by blowout -- investigations would then be more justified versus if Obama were to win.
So again, why am I nervous? One reason is I think it's the natural inclination for liberals, to never take anything for granted and always have a healthy amount of skepticism about everything. But let's face it, it's also because we're dealing with an opposition party that has proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing when it comes to winning.
Oddly enough, the one person who has recently helped to allay my fears is NJ Governor Chris Christie. With the devastation of storm Sandy in his home state, Christie spent a fair amount of time touring NJ with Obama. I realize most governors would've likely done the same. However, given we're just days away from an important election and the governor in this case was the keynote speaker at the GOP convention and the president in this case is a Democrat running for re-election, one would've thought that the governor would have limited the time spent with the president and also limited or couched any praise given to said president. But that was not what happened at all. Christie spent an extended period of time with Obama and when it came to publicly expressing his opinions about how the president has been handling the post-Sandy fallout, Christie was extremely effusive in his praise for Obama, lauding him with one gushing compliment after another. It was striking.
I have to believe that if Christie felt Romney had even a remote chance of winning this Tuesday, he would've done things differently, curtailing the time spent with Obama and greatly tempering any kinds words said about him. Yes, New Jersey is a blue state and this obviously isn't lost on Christie, especially since he's up for re-election next November. But the governor is quite popular in his home state, meaning he didn't have to cozy up to Obama to shore up a weak approval rating. Instead, my bet is he did it because he could, he's a strong figure within his party and he has much leeway to do what he wants. That said Christie likely made the decision that it was in his interest -- for both 2013 and 2016 -- to be seen siding with Tuesday's eventual winner as opposed to the near-inevitable loser.
Christie is no dummy and while I don't agree with him on many issues, in this instance we're definitely on the same page.
Remind me again why I'm nervous? The average of the nine projections that exclude toss-ups gives Obama a solid 303-235 edge (270 needed to win). When you consider just those projections that include toss-ups, Obama's edge dwindles to 256-196 with an average 86 votes up in the air, but still a +60 net lead.
Which way will those 86 toss-up votes likely break? Well, given the fact there are nine projections that force the marginal votes to take a side, resulting in the 303-235 average, it gives you a very good sense which way those votes will break on average. Clearly the marginal (toss up) states tend to on average lean in Obama's favor, and thus the 256-196-86 becomes 303-235, again on average.
What does this mean, other than I shouldn't be so nervous? It means if come Tuesday night Obama wins by a very close call, the Republicans will have a weak case if they chose to become irate and demand recounts. The data above makes the convincing point that polls are swinging in Obama's direction. If anything, it argues that if Romney were to win -- whether by a hair or by blowout -- investigations would then be more justified versus if Obama were to win.
So again, why am I nervous? One reason is I think it's the natural inclination for liberals, to never take anything for granted and always have a healthy amount of skepticism about everything. But let's face it, it's also because we're dealing with an opposition party that has proven time and time again that they will stop at nothing when it comes to winning.
Oddly enough, the one person who has recently helped to allay my fears is NJ Governor Chris Christie. With the devastation of storm Sandy in his home state, Christie spent a fair amount of time touring NJ with Obama. I realize most governors would've likely done the same. However, given we're just days away from an important election and the governor in this case was the keynote speaker at the GOP convention and the president in this case is a Democrat running for re-election, one would've thought that the governor would have limited the time spent with the president and also limited or couched any praise given to said president. But that was not what happened at all. Christie spent an extended period of time with Obama and when it came to publicly expressing his opinions about how the president has been handling the post-Sandy fallout, Christie was extremely effusive in his praise for Obama, lauding him with one gushing compliment after another. It was striking.
I have to believe that if Christie felt Romney had even a remote chance of winning this Tuesday, he would've done things differently, curtailing the time spent with Obama and greatly tempering any kinds words said about him. Yes, New Jersey is a blue state and this obviously isn't lost on Christie, especially since he's up for re-election next November. But the governor is quite popular in his home state, meaning he didn't have to cozy up to Obama to shore up a weak approval rating. Instead, my bet is he did it because he could, he's a strong figure within his party and he has much leeway to do what he wants. That said Christie likely made the decision that it was in his interest -- for both 2013 and 2016 -- to be seen siding with Tuesday's eventual winner as opposed to the near-inevitable loser.
Christie is no dummy and while I don't agree with him on many issues, in this instance we're definitely on the same page.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Final Debate: No Contest
That was easy. Almost too easy.
Obama won last night's debate without breaking a sweat, it wasn't close. And speaking of sweat, Romney looked as if he had run a marathon through Death Valley just prior to the debate. We haven't seen flop sweat like that in a debate since Nixon faced Kennedy in 1960. Yikes. However, it's understandable when you consider the extent to which Romney was in over his head, with every answer either empty rhetoric hoping to at least sound meaningful or positions that more or less aligned with Obama's existing policy. It was painful to watch.
I can't decide on my favorite moment. It's as if Obama was restraining himself, holding back from being even more snarky or sardonic than he was at times, realizing the hapless challenger was up against the ropes and it was all but over in the first round. The "fewer horses and bayonets" line was priceless, making Romney look as naive and infantile as Ryan often did versus Biden. I also applauded when Obama explained to Romney how a trip to Israel should go (no donors, etc.), another decimating moment.
But perhaps my favorite zing is when Obama recited point for point how Romney has waffled, how he has been a flip-flopper when it comes to foreign policy. Romney is now for diplomatic pressure (sanctions) on Iran whereas before he was against it, he was against a timetable for an Afghanistan exit but is now for it, he wanted to end the war in Iraq but now wants to leave 20K troops, he felt going after Gaddafi was "mission creep" and with regards to Osama Bin Laden, Romney believed "it was not worth moving Heaven and Earth" to get him and if anything we should ask Pakistan for permission (!). It was a breath-taking moment and clearly crystallized just how ill-prepared Romney was for this debate, and is for President.
Which gets back to my opening comment about Obama's win last night being too easy. Indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Tighten the already-effective Iran sanctions -- really?? Romney said things that made no sense, none whatsoever. The fact that this presidential race still appears to be tight and the challenger is saying such idiotic, clueless statements about world affairs -- it's quite concerning, to say the least.
Another area of grave concern that was a blown opportunity, one that Obama should've pounded and reiterated numerous times: how Romney = GW/Cheney. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team is basically a family reunion of ex-Bush/Cheney personnel, with 15 of 22 members being former policy advisers under the Bush administration. We're talking a neocon PNAC photo album.
It's all the more reason Romney's overly dove-ish, peacenik posture last night was a complete farce. We're to believe Romney has gone all soft on us, wishing peace on Earth and for all mankind...? Right. More like a calculated gambit to win over women, once again insulting their intelligence with a transparent grab for their vote.
Despite Obama's snap-back in winning the final two debates, the question is: will it be enough? Did he squander a growing lead, one that put his Intrade odds close to 80% before plunging after his abysmal first-debate performance, settling at the current 59% probability of winning?
We'll see. It's been reported that the last two debates did not garner nearly the TV audience of the first one and if Obama were to (gulp) lose the election, it would forever change the importance of that first debate. Never again would an incumbent show up and just mail it in or play it too safe, as if the election was his or her's to lose. It will be, and should always have been, knives out from the get go and take no prisoners.
Here's hoping if Obama wins, it will be knives out for four years.
Obama won last night's debate without breaking a sweat, it wasn't close. And speaking of sweat, Romney looked as if he had run a marathon through Death Valley just prior to the debate. We haven't seen flop sweat like that in a debate since Nixon faced Kennedy in 1960. Yikes. However, it's understandable when you consider the extent to which Romney was in over his head, with every answer either empty rhetoric hoping to at least sound meaningful or positions that more or less aligned with Obama's existing policy. It was painful to watch.
I can't decide on my favorite moment. It's as if Obama was restraining himself, holding back from being even more snarky or sardonic than he was at times, realizing the hapless challenger was up against the ropes and it was all but over in the first round. The "fewer horses and bayonets" line was priceless, making Romney look as naive and infantile as Ryan often did versus Biden. I also applauded when Obama explained to Romney how a trip to Israel should go (no donors, etc.), another decimating moment.
But perhaps my favorite zing is when Obama recited point for point how Romney has waffled, how he has been a flip-flopper when it comes to foreign policy. Romney is now for diplomatic pressure (sanctions) on Iran whereas before he was against it, he was against a timetable for an Afghanistan exit but is now for it, he wanted to end the war in Iraq but now wants to leave 20K troops, he felt going after Gaddafi was "mission creep" and with regards to Osama Bin Laden, Romney believed "it was not worth moving Heaven and Earth" to get him and if anything we should ask Pakistan for permission (!). It was a breath-taking moment and clearly crystallized just how ill-prepared Romney was for this debate, and is for President.
Which gets back to my opening comment about Obama's win last night being too easy. Indict Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Tighten the already-effective Iran sanctions -- really?? Romney said things that made no sense, none whatsoever. The fact that this presidential race still appears to be tight and the challenger is saying such idiotic, clueless statements about world affairs -- it's quite concerning, to say the least.
Another area of grave concern that was a blown opportunity, one that Obama should've pounded and reiterated numerous times: how Romney = GW/Cheney. Mitt Romney’s foreign policy team is basically a family reunion of ex-Bush/Cheney personnel, with 15 of 22 members being former policy advisers under the Bush administration. We're talking a neocon PNAC photo album.
It's all the more reason Romney's overly dove-ish, peacenik posture last night was a complete farce. We're to believe Romney has gone all soft on us, wishing peace on Earth and for all mankind...? Right. More like a calculated gambit to win over women, once again insulting their intelligence with a transparent grab for their vote.
Despite Obama's snap-back in winning the final two debates, the question is: will it be enough? Did he squander a growing lead, one that put his Intrade odds close to 80% before plunging after his abysmal first-debate performance, settling at the current 59% probability of winning?
We'll see. It's been reported that the last two debates did not garner nearly the TV audience of the first one and if Obama were to (gulp) lose the election, it would forever change the importance of that first debate. Never again would an incumbent show up and just mail it in or play it too safe, as if the election was his or her's to lose. It will be, and should always have been, knives out from the get go and take no prisoners.
Here's hoping if Obama wins, it will be knives out for four years.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Obama's Rebound
Yes, a basketball analogy is appropriate. After seemingly sleep-walking through the first debate, Obama delivered as promised with this second debate, showing up in full force and knocking Romney back on his heels more than a few times during the evening. It was revenge comeuppance at its best.
To this blogger, it especially warmed the heart to see Obama perform as we knew he could against a classic school-yard bully. I wrote once before how Romney resembled some of the best-known bullies in cinema, with Neidermeyer of Animal House coming to mind. During this second debate, as he did in the first one, Romney interrupted often and attempted to intimidate moderator Crowley and Obama, shifting around the stage as if ice skating and indignantly talking down to Obama as if he was a busboy at a restaurant and not our 44th president. Yet throughout the debate Obama stood firm, smiled and gracefully confronted the bully on numerous occasions, this time around pointing out each time Romney lied. In the end, Romney's thug-ish tactics paid off for Obama as such behavior made Romney look small and petty, in effect magnifying Obama's presence and further confirming which guy on stage was suitable to be President.
As for the lies, it's incredible but Romney actually told more than he did in the first debate. Don't believe me? Click here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for starters. You can also just Google key words: Romney, second debate, lies. To say Romney is a serial, pathological liar at this point is like saying Limburger cheese stinks.
My favorite moment was when Romney attempted to ensnare Obama in a gotcha moment concerning Benghazi, as he slowly tried to draw Obama in, only to see that Obama was two steps ahead of the slow-witted bully, with Obama urging him to proceed and then blammo -- it blew up in Romney's face. It was great, the equivalent of George McFly landing a punch to Biff's face in Back To The Future. KO, lights out.
Ah yes, what a night. It did wonders to return one's faith in the world, that those who were bullies and told lies incessantly would always get what was coming to them. Well, not always since in this case the lying bully was worth over $250 million, but at least there's a very good chance the dolt won't be rewarded with four years in the White House.
The topic for the next and last debate will be foreign policy and based on what we've seen so far, it should be no contest. Romney is utterly clueless when it comes to anything beyond our borders and as for policy he either agrees with Obama or GW Bush -- neither of which will help him.
To this blogger, it especially warmed the heart to see Obama perform as we knew he could against a classic school-yard bully. I wrote once before how Romney resembled some of the best-known bullies in cinema, with Neidermeyer of Animal House coming to mind. During this second debate, as he did in the first one, Romney interrupted often and attempted to intimidate moderator Crowley and Obama, shifting around the stage as if ice skating and indignantly talking down to Obama as if he was a busboy at a restaurant and not our 44th president. Yet throughout the debate Obama stood firm, smiled and gracefully confronted the bully on numerous occasions, this time around pointing out each time Romney lied. In the end, Romney's thug-ish tactics paid off for Obama as such behavior made Romney look small and petty, in effect magnifying Obama's presence and further confirming which guy on stage was suitable to be President.
As for the lies, it's incredible but Romney actually told more than he did in the first debate. Don't believe me? Click here, here, here, here, here, here and here, for starters. You can also just Google key words: Romney, second debate, lies. To say Romney is a serial, pathological liar at this point is like saying Limburger cheese stinks.
My favorite moment was when Romney attempted to ensnare Obama in a gotcha moment concerning Benghazi, as he slowly tried to draw Obama in, only to see that Obama was two steps ahead of the slow-witted bully, with Obama urging him to proceed and then blammo -- it blew up in Romney's face. It was great, the equivalent of George McFly landing a punch to Biff's face in Back To The Future. KO, lights out.
Ah yes, what a night. It did wonders to return one's faith in the world, that those who were bullies and told lies incessantly would always get what was coming to them. Well, not always since in this case the lying bully was worth over $250 million, but at least there's a very good chance the dolt won't be rewarded with four years in the White House.
The topic for the next and last debate will be foreign policy and based on what we've seen so far, it should be no contest. Romney is utterly clueless when it comes to anything beyond our borders and as for policy he either agrees with Obama or GW Bush -- neither of which will help him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)