This morning on NPR I heard a story about some women in Ohio who were voting for Romney even after his disastrous second debate performance, where he gaffed about "binders full of women" and suggested both that women should get flex time at work so that they can get home and cook dinner and that single parent homes (presumably led by women) are responsible for gun violence in our society because such households are inherently less stable than two-parent households.
One of the women interviewed said she thought it was a good thing that Romney talked about flex time. Well, it certainly is a good thing that an employer provides workers of ANY gender flex time to deal with family matters, such as child care and other domestic duties. But we are increasingly in a world where there are two income earners per household, and men are increasingly likely to be home and available to pick kids up from school and cook dinner (as I am today, how about that?).
More importantly, another said that she didn't appreciate Romney's comments about gun violence, or his views on contraception or abortion, but that she was more concerned with the economy, like jobs and our debt, than her own choices about reproduction. "I think women can wait till later to deal with those issues." I couldn't be sure, but she sounded older and past her child-bearing years.
Here's the thing, and I'll try really hard to avoid falling into the "you're a man, you couldn't possibly understand" trap. While I agree that national economic issues such as unemployment, deficits, and national debt are of major concern, their importance doesn't detract from the seriousness of women's equality and health issues. In fact, they shine a very bright spotlight on women's issues. Women make up more than half the population, and occupy a similar share of the work force. Their issues regarding equal pay, contraceptive availability, reproductive choice, and the like, are also national economic issues, as Obama said in the debate.
Folks, neither men nor women can wait to deal with the issues women until after the economy is restored to what we consider "normal." They go together, and if you delay women's issues, you hamper economic recovery. Having access to contraception, and access which is covered in their employers' health insurance plans, helps women prevent unwanted pregnancies. Unwanted pregnancies lead to more lost work time, especially if some women decide to terminate them. Not to mention, the stress of dealing with a pregnancy one carries to term, which, let's admit, also costs employers time and money in lost productivity. And if a woman lacks easy access to contraception AND has to deal with a workplace that considers her contribution to be less valuable than a man's even if doing the same work, the economy suffers a great deal. A vote for Romney practically ensures that women will have to fight even harder to be recognized and valued as equal members of this society. How a woman decides to vote against that is beyond me, but I'm of the mind that, as a polity, we're pretty fucked up.
Friday, October 19, 2012
Thursday, October 18, 2012
Maddow Goes Postal Because FACTS MATTER
Been posting a lot of my thoughts on Facebook lately, which is why this blog has seen so little time from me this year. Sorry. But this time I'm linking from FB to here because I need the space. That being written...
Rachel Maddow hit the roof on her show Wednesday night. Didn't catch it? Neither did I, but a Kos poster named Exurban Mom did. Read her transcript attempt. The video for the rant is here. The video leads off with Maddow talking about Romney's credentialing of Jerome Corsi, he of the World Net Daily (don't expect me to link there, are you fucking kidding me?) and calls for Obama's birth certificate (and, now, Obama's a "secret gay married murderer"). However, at about 8:40 of the 10:15 clip, Maddow says the following, which is a huge point worth discussing:
We'll tell ourselves all day long that up is down and black is white, but it won't change what IS. The "reality-based community" actually owns the high ground in this election, while the Romney-ites desperately scramble for some semblance of relevance. But, until they face reality, they're nothing but a sham.
Rachel Maddow hit the roof on her show Wednesday night. Didn't catch it? Neither did I, but a Kos poster named Exurban Mom did. Read her transcript attempt. The video for the rant is here. The video leads off with Maddow talking about Romney's credentialing of Jerome Corsi, he of the World Net Daily (don't expect me to link there, are you fucking kidding me?) and calls for Obama's birth certificate (and, now, Obama's a "secret gay married murderer"). However, at about 8:40 of the 10:15 clip, Maddow says the following, which is a huge point worth discussing:
Part of the reason I think this country would be better if the website Politifact didn't exist is because Politifact has encouraged relativism, on the subject of whether or not stuff happened, as a mainstream thing. So, like, when Mitt Romney wrote an op-ed entitled "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt" and he went on CBS News and defended his call to let Detroit go bankrupt, including that headline, Politifact fact-checked whether or not Mitt Romney did say, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." And they found that HALF TRUE! Because basically they don't think that Mitt Romney likes to be quoted saying, "Let Detroit go bankrupt." Or something. Even though he did. So... "half true?" Politifact last night looked into whether or not President Obama used the phrase "act of terror" the day after the Benghazi attack when he gave that speech in the Rose Garden. [cuts to clip of President Obama saying, "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation."] Politifact, in its assessment, said, "Oh, yes, he did say that, but it's really only HALF TRUE because people on the right say maybe he didn't mean it when he said it. This infection is leaving the conservative media, through purportedly neutral arbiters of fact like Politifact. These baldly false, conservative, "feel-good" assertions about knowable facts that come from the right, end up becoming just "the other side of a political issue... we're taking an 'objective look.'" And that is BULL. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. The unemployment rate is below eight percent. The day after the Benghazi attack, the president called it an "act of terror." Do whatever you need to do to make yourself feel better, but do not confuse your WorldNet-Daily-caliber-therapeutic-conservative-alternative-reality-fantasy-BABBLE for what actually happened. Because stuff really does actually happen. And eventually, you really do have to deal with it.As I've been writing all week, FACT MATTER. TRUTH MATTERS. REALITY MATTERS. Of course, spin happens on both sides of the aisle, and in all of life's wonderful situations: between parent and child, husband and wife, boss and employee, customer and business. But at some point we all have to acknowledge that our spinning does not alter facts. It does not alter reality. Oh, for some like Karl Rove, who proclaims that he and his ilk create their own reality, and that the "reality-based community" can do nothing but sit back and watch, reality can actually be altered. Just not how he thinks it can. He may think the world is seeing reality through the lens he creates, but it's just a filter. On film, a soft focus filter can make an aging, wrinkled actress look younger and more beautiful. On stage, a colored gel turns a white light blue, or red, or green, or yellow. And on Fox News, a decent, hard-working, mixed-race, Christian, capitalist President of the United States can be turned into a white-people hating, do-nothing, Chicago-ghetto-trash, terrorist-fist-bumping Muslim socialist Nazi who may or may not be constitutionally eligible to hold the office. In real reality, the US was acting like a war-mongering, oil-grabbing imperialist, instead of Rove's version: a spreader of democracy.
We'll tell ourselves all day long that up is down and black is white, but it won't change what IS. The "reality-based community" actually owns the high ground in this election, while the Romney-ites desperately scramble for some semblance of relevance. But, until they face reality, they're nothing but a sham.
Wednesday, October 17, 2012
Debate #2 Reaction
President Obama, after a dreadful showing two weeks ago during debate #1 where he was listless, aloof, and unwilling to engage in debate, found his footing again Tuesday night in Hempstead, NY. He came out swinging, and never let up. It wasn't a perfect showing, as he missed a couple of key opportunities to attack Mitt Romney on the economy while touting his own record. Having him show up with his game face on, with his usual cool demeanor, and with a solid command of facts and reality was a sorely-needed shot in the arm for his supporters. In particular, Andrew Sullivan stepped back off his ledge after going a bit mad after the Denver debate.
Far better writers and commentators than I have written millions of words already about the specific moments in the debate where Obama gained the upper hand. For example, right off the bat, when he said that Romney wanted the auto industry to fail without the means to stay open for business, you knew that Obama meant business. And this was just the tip of his iceberg. Romney's titanic tirade of tall tales (I like that!) continued throughout the debate. Time and again, Obama called Romney's assertions "not true," or simply slammed him with the real Mitt Romney (he of the "one-point plan" and "sketchy" deals). When Obama stood up to Romney over the suggestion that Obama and his team misled the country over what had happened in Libya, his indignation was justified, and he took exactly the right tone to put Romney in his place. From that point forward, Romney acted like a petulant child, and made some really bad choices in what he said and/or suggested. When Romney said that two-parent households helped reduce gun violence, suggesting that single-parent households were responsible for the increases in gun violence, my wife's ears pricked up and she got pissed. Had I been Romney at that moment, I'd have gone back to my stool, pulled off my wing-tips and shoved both feet into my mouth.
For Romney, it was a frustrating evening, and it showed all over his face and in his body language. He scored pretty well when hitting Obama on the economy because, well, Obama's performance on the economy has not pleased many people and is a politically weak area for him. Romney would do well to continue hammering on jobs, deficits, and debt. But because he has been exposed for failing to spell out how, specifically, he would make changes to the Obama policy, he needs to start backing up his criticisms with real ideas. I don't hear vision from him -- he's not a visionary person, he's a problem-solver -- and in the final debate, which deals with foreign policy issues, he'll need to lay it all out there for everyone to see if he wants to build on his considerable post-Denver momentum. I'm sure his people are busily drafting and crafting away at his message, slowly moving him toward a moderate position.
For Obama's part, he definitely is missing some key elements to his second term agenda. I don't particularly believe that he's got nothing but more of the same (that would be politically suicidal), but he needs to show from this point forward where he will change things up. He knows he's got to deal with a Congress that will become even more intransigent and obstructionist. If the GOP gains seats in the Senate, with or without gaining a majority, you'll see even more gridlock. Obama, a former state and US Senator, was content during his first term to let the Legislative Branch do its job, but even with a filibuster-proof Senate majority and a giant House majority for six months, very little got done in a bipartisan fashion. Now, a lot of this can be attributed to certain rules in the two legislative bodies that give individual members the power to hold up votes, block judge nominations, and filibuster without actually standing at the microphone. But most of it is due to the FACT that the GOP set out from the beginning to deny Obama re-election, damn the torpedoes and screw the whole country! Despite this massive blockade, Obama passed key legislation that empowers the middle class and guarantees Americans access to healthcare. I think the public Obama who showed up in Hempstead Tuesday night needs to be the public Obama now and all through his second term, calling out Republicans for not telling the truth, for being inconsistent with past positions, and for putting their party before the well-being of the country. No matter what the GOP says in response to that, they can't deny that they want power before they'll lift a finger to help Americans.
To counter Romney's tack to the center, Obama also needs to tell anyone who is listening that we simply do not know who Mitt Romney is. Up until right after the GOP convention, all we've heard from Romney is about what a "severe conservative" he is, about the 47% of the country with whom he doesn't want to be bothered, and about his support for nearly every hard-right policy in the Republican platform. Of course, we know from his days as governor of Massachusetts that he held a moderate position on a lot of issues, including reproductive choice, which is why so many in the Republican base were wary of his conservative bona fides. So he tacked to the right for over a year, sewed up the nomination, and is now tacking back to the center. Obama needs to fashion a theme similar to, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?" or "Who are you, sir, and what have you done with the real Mitt Romney?" Mitt Romney truly has been whatever he's needed to be at any given moment to gain voters. He's a populist and an opportunist of the worst kind, asserting "core" convictions so powerfully that people forget that he's a monumental panderer and flip-flopper.
Did Obama stop the freefall in the polls? Probably, but we won't really know yet until more polling is done. There were plenty of people who thought Romney had either won or fought to a draw, which tells me and should tell the President that he still has a lot of work to do.
Far better writers and commentators than I have written millions of words already about the specific moments in the debate where Obama gained the upper hand. For example, right off the bat, when he said that Romney wanted the auto industry to fail without the means to stay open for business, you knew that Obama meant business. And this was just the tip of his iceberg. Romney's titanic tirade of tall tales (I like that!) continued throughout the debate. Time and again, Obama called Romney's assertions "not true," or simply slammed him with the real Mitt Romney (he of the "one-point plan" and "sketchy" deals). When Obama stood up to Romney over the suggestion that Obama and his team misled the country over what had happened in Libya, his indignation was justified, and he took exactly the right tone to put Romney in his place. From that point forward, Romney acted like a petulant child, and made some really bad choices in what he said and/or suggested. When Romney said that two-parent households helped reduce gun violence, suggesting that single-parent households were responsible for the increases in gun violence, my wife's ears pricked up and she got pissed. Had I been Romney at that moment, I'd have gone back to my stool, pulled off my wing-tips and shoved both feet into my mouth.
For Romney, it was a frustrating evening, and it showed all over his face and in his body language. He scored pretty well when hitting Obama on the economy because, well, Obama's performance on the economy has not pleased many people and is a politically weak area for him. Romney would do well to continue hammering on jobs, deficits, and debt. But because he has been exposed for failing to spell out how, specifically, he would make changes to the Obama policy, he needs to start backing up his criticisms with real ideas. I don't hear vision from him -- he's not a visionary person, he's a problem-solver -- and in the final debate, which deals with foreign policy issues, he'll need to lay it all out there for everyone to see if he wants to build on his considerable post-Denver momentum. I'm sure his people are busily drafting and crafting away at his message, slowly moving him toward a moderate position.
For Obama's part, he definitely is missing some key elements to his second term agenda. I don't particularly believe that he's got nothing but more of the same (that would be politically suicidal), but he needs to show from this point forward where he will change things up. He knows he's got to deal with a Congress that will become even more intransigent and obstructionist. If the GOP gains seats in the Senate, with or without gaining a majority, you'll see even more gridlock. Obama, a former state and US Senator, was content during his first term to let the Legislative Branch do its job, but even with a filibuster-proof Senate majority and a giant House majority for six months, very little got done in a bipartisan fashion. Now, a lot of this can be attributed to certain rules in the two legislative bodies that give individual members the power to hold up votes, block judge nominations, and filibuster without actually standing at the microphone. But most of it is due to the FACT that the GOP set out from the beginning to deny Obama re-election, damn the torpedoes and screw the whole country! Despite this massive blockade, Obama passed key legislation that empowers the middle class and guarantees Americans access to healthcare. I think the public Obama who showed up in Hempstead Tuesday night needs to be the public Obama now and all through his second term, calling out Republicans for not telling the truth, for being inconsistent with past positions, and for putting their party before the well-being of the country. No matter what the GOP says in response to that, they can't deny that they want power before they'll lift a finger to help Americans.
To counter Romney's tack to the center, Obama also needs to tell anyone who is listening that we simply do not know who Mitt Romney is. Up until right after the GOP convention, all we've heard from Romney is about what a "severe conservative" he is, about the 47% of the country with whom he doesn't want to be bothered, and about his support for nearly every hard-right policy in the Republican platform. Of course, we know from his days as governor of Massachusetts that he held a moderate position on a lot of issues, including reproductive choice, which is why so many in the Republican base were wary of his conservative bona fides. So he tacked to the right for over a year, sewed up the nomination, and is now tacking back to the center. Obama needs to fashion a theme similar to, "Will the real Mitt Romney please stand up?" or "Who are you, sir, and what have you done with the real Mitt Romney?" Mitt Romney truly has been whatever he's needed to be at any given moment to gain voters. He's a populist and an opportunist of the worst kind, asserting "core" convictions so powerfully that people forget that he's a monumental panderer and flip-flopper.
Did Obama stop the freefall in the polls? Probably, but we won't really know yet until more polling is done. There were plenty of people who thought Romney had either won or fought to a draw, which tells me and should tell the President that he still has a lot of work to do.
Friday, October 12, 2012
Post Veep Debate Reaction
I went into watching last night's Vice Presidential debate in Danville, KY not caring who would "win." There wasn't one voter watching that debate who is/was going to change his mind on whom to vote for based on the words or ideas (or lack thereof), or exhanges between the two VP candidates. Not one. The debate had one primary purpose: to make sure that those already in the presidential candidates' respective corners continue to feel good about being in those corners. On that basis, both Joe Biden and Paul Ryan did fine.
Where the scales tipped was in the substance and the energy of the debate. Joe Biden has a lifetime career in politics. His experience as a Washington mover and shaker, his background in foreign policy, and his "I was there" cred were in ample supply. Ryan was completely out of his league on foreign policy. I was embarrassed for him when he talked about the different places in Afghanistan he'd visited. When he would spout off the names of those places, as well as was authoritative about "fighting season," he came across as little more than a well-coached high school debater. (It also didn't help that he looked frighteningly like Eddie Munster with that dark hair, widow's peak, and big ears.) On domestic policy, Biden dominated as well because, well, he has actual reality on his side. When Ryan talked about unemployment going up, I simply could not avoid shouting at the TV, "That's a lie!" But Joe was there with the facts.
And Joe's congeniality simply outshone Ryan's frankly scary tone. Yeah, Joe smirked, he giggled, he rolled his eyes, he threw up his hands, he interrupted Ryan, and he raised his voice. It was all a little much. But that's classic Joe Biden. He was never disrespectful of Ryan, calling him "my friend" numerous times (because that's what senators and representatives do even when they're arguing). Ryan, on the other hand, got rattled near the end of the debate, and even though he tried to admonish him once, saying, "Mr. Vice President." later he twice called him "Joe." I'm sure Joe didn't really care about that; he's Joe!
The real winner in this debate, by far, however, was Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Finally, a real reporter, with actual real journalism experience under her belt, moderating a debate where real pointed questions were asked. I didn't like her final question about the tone of the campaign, but I'll give her a pass on that one since the rest were so fine. Not only that, she engaged in strong follow-up questions, pressed each candidate for clarity, and did a far better job at holding to the time limits than sleepy ol' Jim Lehrer did with the first presidential debate last week. Ryan seemed utterly flustered when Raddatz pressed him for specifics on both the Romney tax plan, and foreign intervention choices. And Biden, good ol' Joe, grinned sheepishly when he got caught going on too long.
In the end, I come away with this: Facts matter. Truth matters. Reality matters. Four years ago, Obama and Biden were elected at a time when the entire world was reeling economically because of the crazy shit Bush, Cheney, and Paulson actively and tacitly encouraged in the financial sector. That's a fact. That's the truth. That's reality. Unemployment now is at the level it was when Obama took office, but it must be acknowledged that what happened to jobs in Obama's first year was fallout from what had happened in 2008, when Obama was a candidate. That too, is reality. I don't think they believe they did everything right every step of the way. But I do believe they did what they thought was the right thing to do at the time. And the results -- declining unemployment rates, steady (though sluggish) job growth for nearly three years, steady (though sluggish) GDP growth, a stabilizing housing market, more manufacturing jobs, a thriving auto industry, a vibrant stock market, record corporate profits, higher worker productivity -- bear that out. These, too, are facts. Obama has also had to deal with one undeniable fact: the Republican Party has been the single greatest obstacle to greater American prosperity since 2009. They have, since January 21, 2009, had one vision: deny Obama a second term. Everything they have done to obstruct the Obama legislative agenda has cost this country. The right can spin this all they want, but it is a FACT that they have put their hunger for power before the success of the country. And they must not be allowed to succeed.
Where the scales tipped was in the substance and the energy of the debate. Joe Biden has a lifetime career in politics. His experience as a Washington mover and shaker, his background in foreign policy, and his "I was there" cred were in ample supply. Ryan was completely out of his league on foreign policy. I was embarrassed for him when he talked about the different places in Afghanistan he'd visited. When he would spout off the names of those places, as well as was authoritative about "fighting season," he came across as little more than a well-coached high school debater. (It also didn't help that he looked frighteningly like Eddie Munster with that dark hair, widow's peak, and big ears.) On domestic policy, Biden dominated as well because, well, he has actual reality on his side. When Ryan talked about unemployment going up, I simply could not avoid shouting at the TV, "That's a lie!" But Joe was there with the facts.
And Joe's congeniality simply outshone Ryan's frankly scary tone. Yeah, Joe smirked, he giggled, he rolled his eyes, he threw up his hands, he interrupted Ryan, and he raised his voice. It was all a little much. But that's classic Joe Biden. He was never disrespectful of Ryan, calling him "my friend" numerous times (because that's what senators and representatives do even when they're arguing). Ryan, on the other hand, got rattled near the end of the debate, and even though he tried to admonish him once, saying, "Mr. Vice President." later he twice called him "Joe." I'm sure Joe didn't really care about that; he's Joe!
The real winner in this debate, by far, however, was Martha Raddatz of ABC News. Finally, a real reporter, with actual real journalism experience under her belt, moderating a debate where real pointed questions were asked. I didn't like her final question about the tone of the campaign, but I'll give her a pass on that one since the rest were so fine. Not only that, she engaged in strong follow-up questions, pressed each candidate for clarity, and did a far better job at holding to the time limits than sleepy ol' Jim Lehrer did with the first presidential debate last week. Ryan seemed utterly flustered when Raddatz pressed him for specifics on both the Romney tax plan, and foreign intervention choices. And Biden, good ol' Joe, grinned sheepishly when he got caught going on too long.
In the end, I come away with this: Facts matter. Truth matters. Reality matters. Four years ago, Obama and Biden were elected at a time when the entire world was reeling economically because of the crazy shit Bush, Cheney, and Paulson actively and tacitly encouraged in the financial sector. That's a fact. That's the truth. That's reality. Unemployment now is at the level it was when Obama took office, but it must be acknowledged that what happened to jobs in Obama's first year was fallout from what had happened in 2008, when Obama was a candidate. That too, is reality. I don't think they believe they did everything right every step of the way. But I do believe they did what they thought was the right thing to do at the time. And the results -- declining unemployment rates, steady (though sluggish) job growth for nearly three years, steady (though sluggish) GDP growth, a stabilizing housing market, more manufacturing jobs, a thriving auto industry, a vibrant stock market, record corporate profits, higher worker productivity -- bear that out. These, too, are facts. Obama has also had to deal with one undeniable fact: the Republican Party has been the single greatest obstacle to greater American prosperity since 2009. They have, since January 21, 2009, had one vision: deny Obama a second term. Everything they have done to obstruct the Obama legislative agenda has cost this country. The right can spin this all they want, but it is a FACT that they have put their hunger for power before the success of the country. And they must not be allowed to succeed.
Friday, October 5, 2012
Romney the Robot Resets
It is unsurprising, but nonethess unconscionable, that R-money now walks back his secretly-recorded comments from last May where he says that 47% of Americans are government-dependent parasites with whom he can't be bothered.
You might think that, after his debate win and while he's enjoying an uptick in the polls, it would be a good time to try to correct a past wrong. But let's be crystal clear: After the news broke that R-money had made these comments, not only did he not immediately walk them back (let's call that what it actually would have been -- an apology), he hastily put together a painfully awkward presser and then doubled down on them. On Sept. 17, he said, "This is something I talk about a good deal in rallies and speeches and so forth. The president’s approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes.”
Not only is the clarification completely different than what he'd said months ago, we clearly see that the 47% comment represents one of his core beliefs. Perhaps we had been waiting to see what his core actually is. It is this, certainly, but it is also that he has a reset button for practically everything he has ever said or will ever say.
As conservative blogger Daniel Larison put it today, "Romney demonstrates on an almost daily basis that he can’t be trusted. Even when he is correcting obvious mistakes, he gives people reason to doubt him."
You might think that, after his debate win and while he's enjoying an uptick in the polls, it would be a good time to try to correct a past wrong. But let's be crystal clear: After the news broke that R-money had made these comments, not only did he not immediately walk them back (let's call that what it actually would have been -- an apology), he hastily put together a painfully awkward presser and then doubled down on them. On Sept. 17, he said, "This is something I talk about a good deal in rallies and speeches and so forth. The president’s approach is attractive to people who are not paying taxes.”
Not only is the clarification completely different than what he'd said months ago, we clearly see that the 47% comment represents one of his core beliefs. Perhaps we had been waiting to see what his core actually is. It is this, certainly, but it is also that he has a reset button for practically everything he has ever said or will ever say.
As conservative blogger Daniel Larison put it today, "Romney demonstrates on an almost daily basis that he can’t be trusted. Even when he is correcting obvious mistakes, he gives people reason to doubt him."
Thursday, October 4, 2012
My Three-Cent Reaction to Obama/Romney 1
Mitt Romney executed a masterful end-run around Barack Obama last night, grabbing the political center that Obama has so deftly occupied for the past four years. And he did it by repeatedly lying about his policies. Furthermore, he changed the narrative of the election from ideology to a referendum on Obama's effectiveness. Basically, his argument last night, after flip-flopping on some major conservative points (see more below), was, "I'm really not that much different than President Obama, but with a Republican-led Congress, I'll be much more effective at executing. The President's had time to get stuff done and he's failed, so it's time to give me a shot at it."
Where did Romney flip-flop? On the DREAM Act, he said he would keep the order alive (the far right hates this law). On Obamacare, he said he'd keep all the good things he liked alive while getting rid of the law nonetheless (which would be impossible). He will stop Obama's $716B Medicare stripping and let seniors choose to have traditional Medicare if they want (a lie and a bureaucratic clusterfuck to run two different programs at the same time). And he would embrace Simpson-Bowles "with some tweaks here and there" to make it stronger (another lie).
The worst part of Romney's argument is that it could work. People can see the reasonableness of what he said, when in truth the extremist GOP has held the country hostage for four years by obstructionism and nihilism toward anything Obama wanted to do, and has then blamed Obama for it. Romney sold us on his plan, and it involved the most adept example of pandering that he has ever shown us. Those in the middle who haven't yet decided whom to elect might very well have been pulled to his side.
As for President Obama, I have never been more disappointed in him. Going into this debate, he had to have known that Romney would come in acting like he had nothing to lose. Say anything, who cares if it's true? Obama himself, meekly harping on Romney's $5 trillion tax cut, referenced the idea that if you say something enough times... And then he caved when Romney said his plan did not involve a $5 trillion tax cut, but would cut taxes for the middle class. Why didn't Obama say, eye to eye, face to face, "You and your running mate have talked about the vagaries of your plan for weeks. Americans are getting tired of your games; they want specifics. Give us all one specific example of how your plan is deficit-neutral." Why? Because that's not his character.
So does Obama's long game, the deftness of which has frequently been underestimated, entail letting fact-checkers and surrogates do his dirty work? Probably. In our 24-hour news cycle world, the next day will involve a phalanx of Democratic strategists and administration officials relentlessly slamming Romney's tax plan, his lies at the podium, his 47% statement, and his inability to relate to ordinary Americans. Could Romney have been more insincere than last night? Between the smug, bemused smile he pasted on his face, coupled with the vaguely uncomfortable look in his eyes, I got the sickest feeling that he didn't mean a word he said.
Worse, however, was Obama's refusal to look up while Romney was speaking directly to him. A president, especially one who has firm confidence in the good he has done, can ill afford not to meet his opponent's gaze. He came off as aloof, distracted, bored. That's the ticket: he bored me, and I sure as hell think he bored a lot more people too.
Damage has been done. Polls are showing a narrowing, and Nate Silver shows that Obama's reelection chances dropped from 74% to 64% overnight. Round two will need to be a very strong showing for the President. I truly don't think he can withstand another onslaught from Romney without an equally strong push-back.
Where did Romney flip-flop? On the DREAM Act, he said he would keep the order alive (the far right hates this law). On Obamacare, he said he'd keep all the good things he liked alive while getting rid of the law nonetheless (which would be impossible). He will stop Obama's $716B Medicare stripping and let seniors choose to have traditional Medicare if they want (a lie and a bureaucratic clusterfuck to run two different programs at the same time). And he would embrace Simpson-Bowles "with some tweaks here and there" to make it stronger (another lie).
The worst part of Romney's argument is that it could work. People can see the reasonableness of what he said, when in truth the extremist GOP has held the country hostage for four years by obstructionism and nihilism toward anything Obama wanted to do, and has then blamed Obama for it. Romney sold us on his plan, and it involved the most adept example of pandering that he has ever shown us. Those in the middle who haven't yet decided whom to elect might very well have been pulled to his side.
As for President Obama, I have never been more disappointed in him. Going into this debate, he had to have known that Romney would come in acting like he had nothing to lose. Say anything, who cares if it's true? Obama himself, meekly harping on Romney's $5 trillion tax cut, referenced the idea that if you say something enough times... And then he caved when Romney said his plan did not involve a $5 trillion tax cut, but would cut taxes for the middle class. Why didn't Obama say, eye to eye, face to face, "You and your running mate have talked about the vagaries of your plan for weeks. Americans are getting tired of your games; they want specifics. Give us all one specific example of how your plan is deficit-neutral." Why? Because that's not his character.
So does Obama's long game, the deftness of which has frequently been underestimated, entail letting fact-checkers and surrogates do his dirty work? Probably. In our 24-hour news cycle world, the next day will involve a phalanx of Democratic strategists and administration officials relentlessly slamming Romney's tax plan, his lies at the podium, his 47% statement, and his inability to relate to ordinary Americans. Could Romney have been more insincere than last night? Between the smug, bemused smile he pasted on his face, coupled with the vaguely uncomfortable look in his eyes, I got the sickest feeling that he didn't mean a word he said.
Worse, however, was Obama's refusal to look up while Romney was speaking directly to him. A president, especially one who has firm confidence in the good he has done, can ill afford not to meet his opponent's gaze. He came off as aloof, distracted, bored. That's the ticket: he bored me, and I sure as hell think he bored a lot more people too.
Damage has been done. Polls are showing a narrowing, and Nate Silver shows that Obama's reelection chances dropped from 74% to 64% overnight. Round two will need to be a very strong showing for the President. I truly don't think he can withstand another onslaught from Romney without an equally strong push-back.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Eighteen LGBT-friendly Companies
To help guide my marriage equality-hating friends to choose to patronize companies that comport with their "family values," here is a list of 18 companies that support LGBT rights and issues. Go fight the good fight, wingers!
Kraft Foods -- a rainbow Oreo cookie was posted to its FB page on 6/12/12 in honor of Pride Week
General Mills -- the company opposed a gay marriage ban in Minnesota
Levi Strauss -- the company pulled its financial support of the Boy Scouts for the group's anti-gay stance
American Apparel -- put its "Legalize Gay" t-shirt in storefront windows and then sent them to any group fighting for LGBT rights after its stores were vandalized.
Disney World -- the theme park has "Gay Days"
Starbucks -- supports marriage equality
Procter & Gamble -- opposed an anti-gay rights statute in its hometown of Cincinnati.
Microsoft -- supported a bill that would outlaw discrimination against homosexuals at work. Under pressure the company withdrew its support and the law was defeated by a single vote
Home Depot -- has an inclusive corporate culture that does not discriminate against gays.
PepsiCo -- gave $1 million to Human Rights Campaign and PFLAG
Safeway Grocers -- put large Pride posters in its stores across America
GAP Stores -- Old Navy sold "It Gets Better" anti-bullying t-shirts in its stores, and The Gap launched ads featuring two men pressed together in the same shirt.
Girls Scouts of America -- allowed a transgender youth to participate
Macy's -- fired an employee who prevented a transgender woman from using a female dressing room because of "her religious beliefs."
Target -- announced it would donate 100% of any Pride merchandise sold to pro-LGBT group.
JCPenney -- depicted a same-sex couple lovingly playing with their children in one of their catalogs.
Walgreen's -- Platinum level sponsor of Chicago's "Gay Games"
Ford -- donated money to LGBT groups, supported and sponsored Pride celebrations, and advertised in gay-oriented publications.
Kraft Foods -- a rainbow Oreo cookie was posted to its FB page on 6/12/12 in honor of Pride Week
General Mills -- the company opposed a gay marriage ban in Minnesota
Levi Strauss -- the company pulled its financial support of the Boy Scouts for the group's anti-gay stance
American Apparel -- put its "Legalize Gay" t-shirt in storefront windows and then sent them to any group fighting for LGBT rights after its stores were vandalized.
Disney World -- the theme park has "Gay Days"
Starbucks -- supports marriage equality
Procter & Gamble -- opposed an anti-gay rights statute in its hometown of Cincinnati.
Microsoft -- supported a bill that would outlaw discrimination against homosexuals at work. Under pressure the company withdrew its support and the law was defeated by a single vote
Home Depot -- has an inclusive corporate culture that does not discriminate against gays.
PepsiCo -- gave $1 million to Human Rights Campaign and PFLAG
Safeway Grocers -- put large Pride posters in its stores across America
GAP Stores -- Old Navy sold "It Gets Better" anti-bullying t-shirts in its stores, and The Gap launched ads featuring two men pressed together in the same shirt.
Girls Scouts of America -- allowed a transgender youth to participate
Macy's -- fired an employee who prevented a transgender woman from using a female dressing room because of "her religious beliefs."
Target -- announced it would donate 100% of any Pride merchandise sold to pro-LGBT group.
JCPenney -- depicted a same-sex couple lovingly playing with their children in one of their catalogs.
Walgreen's -- Platinum level sponsor of Chicago's "Gay Games"
Ford -- donated money to LGBT groups, supported and sponsored Pride celebrations, and advertised in gay-oriented publications.
Saturday, August 11, 2012
Romney Just Conceded Defeat
The Ryan pick represents a big gamble for the GOP. R-money has pandered to the base, who want to debate economic issues, but the Ryan budget plan is a big target for Obama and the progressives. Ryan's Medicare voucher program will alienate him among seniors, especially in Florida.
Ryan, the scion of a rich Wisconsin family who lives in a six-bedroom, eight-bathroom mansion that is a historic national landmark, has little credibility among the middle class. His pursuit to drastically reduce or end the federal economic safety net lands him squarely in the same rarefied air of the one percent.
Accordingly, the rest of us do not matter. Ryan is a vocal proponent of the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. He cites Atlas Shrugged as one of the most influential books he's ever read. Anyone who has read Rand knows that there is no greater purpose for man than the furthering of his own self-interest. Rand was a staunch atheist, and believed that altruism and collective goodwill were anathema to the ultimate success of society. The fact that the Ryan budget wants to radically alter and/or dismantle federal entitlement programs, while worthy of debate and compromise, should give the Obama campaign great big gobs of red meat to feed their supporters.
With the Ryan pick, R-money has not redirected the debate toward economic issues. He has solidified this election as class warfare. Obama needs to exploit that issue as mercilessly as he has exploited R-money's corporate vulture persona. A great Obama campaign slogan: "Vulture/Voucher 2012: NOT change we can believe in."
A little side issue with the Ryan pick that pivots off his Randian leanings: the GOP has defined itself, despite any claims to the contrary, as the party of real Christians. As rank-and-file Republicans apply religious litmus tests to all candidates national and local, as they continue to press on social issues like gay marriage and abortion as inherently anti-Christian (hence, anti-American in their twisted "Christian nation" delusion), they create a huge problem for R-money. Embracing Ryan's Rand-inspired budget turns the GOP into a bipolar beast. It is impossible to fully embrace individualistic economic policies that destroy federal safety net programs while proclaiming that they live by solid Christian values. Rand would be clawing at her casket trying to get out to spit on both R-money and Ryan. This is another potentially huge target for Obama, who should run at R-money with this like a freight train, asking him to reconcile Ryan's anti-Christian budget to the GOP's bedrock Christian identity. Of course, Obama won't because Democrats are, by definition, squishy and fearful of backlash. But it would, at least, make for an interesting debate this fall.
Ryan, the scion of a rich Wisconsin family who lives in a six-bedroom, eight-bathroom mansion that is a historic national landmark, has little credibility among the middle class. His pursuit to drastically reduce or end the federal economic safety net lands him squarely in the same rarefied air of the one percent.
Accordingly, the rest of us do not matter. Ryan is a vocal proponent of the objectivist philosophy of Ayn Rand. He cites Atlas Shrugged as one of the most influential books he's ever read. Anyone who has read Rand knows that there is no greater purpose for man than the furthering of his own self-interest. Rand was a staunch atheist, and believed that altruism and collective goodwill were anathema to the ultimate success of society. The fact that the Ryan budget wants to radically alter and/or dismantle federal entitlement programs, while worthy of debate and compromise, should give the Obama campaign great big gobs of red meat to feed their supporters.
With the Ryan pick, R-money has not redirected the debate toward economic issues. He has solidified this election as class warfare. Obama needs to exploit that issue as mercilessly as he has exploited R-money's corporate vulture persona. A great Obama campaign slogan: "Vulture/Voucher 2012: NOT change we can believe in."
A little side issue with the Ryan pick that pivots off his Randian leanings: the GOP has defined itself, despite any claims to the contrary, as the party of real Christians. As rank-and-file Republicans apply religious litmus tests to all candidates national and local, as they continue to press on social issues like gay marriage and abortion as inherently anti-Christian (hence, anti-American in their twisted "Christian nation" delusion), they create a huge problem for R-money. Embracing Ryan's Rand-inspired budget turns the GOP into a bipolar beast. It is impossible to fully embrace individualistic economic policies that destroy federal safety net programs while proclaiming that they live by solid Christian values. Rand would be clawing at her casket trying to get out to spit on both R-money and Ryan. This is another potentially huge target for Obama, who should run at R-money with this like a freight train, asking him to reconcile Ryan's anti-Christian budget to the GOP's bedrock Christian identity. Of course, Obama won't because Democrats are, by definition, squishy and fearful of backlash. But it would, at least, make for an interesting debate this fall.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
How Paul Ryan Will Help Obama Win Reelection -- And Easily
Ryan Lizza has a must-read piece in The New Yorker about Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, who has in the past 14 years gone from an idealistic back-bencher to an ascendant star in the new generation of House GOP leadership. While I had initially read the piece primed to confirm my distrust and contempt for the guy who wants basically to dismantle the structure of the federal government as we know it (and I have not been disappointed there), I have also gained a measure of respect for a man who took his learning, his training, and his best intentions and has stuck to his guns. He believes in what he does, and he is informed and well-read enough to be taken seriously. The piece also makes him somewhat sympathetic as it describes a time when President Obama invited Ryan as a VIP to a speech he was giving to discuss Ryan's economic plan (presumably to showcase how he and Ryan, on opposite sides of the ideological spectrum, can still find common ground), only to watch Obama eviscerate it before his eyes. Talk about a defining moment.
Where Lizza succeeds in showing how Ryan will help Obama's reelection campaign is a bit oblique, but nevertheless needs to be heavily showcased. These three paragraphs did it for me:
As [Ryan's hometown] Janesville increasingly becomes a base for the business of distribution logistics, its single most pressing economic concern is good roads. [John] Beckord [a Ryan supporter and the head of Forward Janesville, a pro-business economic-development group] pointed toward Interstate 90, which runs southeast a hundred miles to Chicago. “From an economic-vitality and economic-development perspective, transportation infrastructure is huge,” he said. Next year, I-90 around Janesville will begin expansion from four lanes to eight. The project, the top issue for the local business community since the G.M. plant closed, will be financed as part of a billion-dollar federal and state highway project. “Paul has been as helpful as he can be to encourage that development,” Beckord said. “But, as you know, he also has a philosophical disconnect with the idea of earmarks.”
We passed a warehouse-like building under construction where several men in hard hats were at work. Beckord explained that it would soon house the Janesville Innovation Center, providing entrepreneurs with commercial space in which to launch their ideas. The money came from a $1.2-million government grant through the Economic Development Administration, one of Obama’s major stimulus programs.
There was one more success story that Beckord wanted to share. A few years ago, he had a melanoma that was treated with a radioactive isotope; this isotope is administered to fifty-five thousand patients a day but has a half-life of sixty-six hours after manufacture, so it must be delivered quickly. The isotope, known as a medical tracer, is made outside the United States by a complicated process requiring highly enriched uranium from nuclear reactors. The government offered twenty-five-million-dollar matching grants to companies that could devise a way to produce the material domestically, without using enriched uranium. “Two of the four companies that won that competition, incredibly, are going to build plants in our county, and one of them is going to be in Janesville,” Beckord said. In May, the federal government announced that it would contribute more than ten million dollars to the new facility, which could employ some hundred and fifty people.
Ryan does acknowledge that Obama's much-maligned statement, "If you've got a business, you didn't build that," was referring to the infrastructure and education programs that were clearly government helping the individual achieve success rather than impeding it. Also, Ryan clearly sees the federal government's hand in the resurrection of his town. But this doesn't stop Ryan from maligning Obama anyway: "His comments seem to derive from a naïve vision, an idea that the nucleus of society and the economy is government, not the people."
A Republican ideologue of Ryan's stature and ascendancy cannot be quoted as giving any credence to anything Obama has said, done, or proposed. To the modern GOP, it's enough to oppose, with great enthusiasm, the legitimacy of the Democrat occupying the White House. And, while his intentions to show the country that the GOP has "a solution to get us out of the ditch we're in, and to be proud of it" is worthy of our attention, sane voters from the center to the left know better that Ryan proposes no solution, nothing conservative. It's scorched earth; it's ruthlessly pro-wealthy and anti-poor, anti-worker, and anti-middle class. Gingrich was right. It's a like a course of strong antibiotics, which not only kills the infection but every other good bacteria in the body. And the more he pushes it, the stronger Obama will get.
(Ryan caricature from The New Yorker story)
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Thoughts On The Supremes and Obamacare
Despite CNN and Fox News getting it wrong so spectacularly, most of the media got it right: The US Supreme Court ruled today, in a typical 5-4 decision, that President Obama's signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act, is fully constitutional.
In a complicated decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance or pay a penalty, did not violate the Constitution if viewed as a kind of tax. Congress has broad taxation authority and this is where Roberts hung his robe. He did not agree with the Obama administration's argument that the federal government had authority to regulate insterstate commerce in this way, but bought the "backup" argument. As they say in sports parlance, "A Win is a Win."
What this means is that millions of Americans who were unable to purchase health insurance, due to pre-existing conditions or other exclusionary criteria, will now be able to purchase it. And those who elect not to will be forced to pay this penalty (which is far, far less than the amount one would pay for an annual premium). As the linchpin for the program, the mandate makes sure that those who opt out of insurance are still going to have to foot part of the bill for those who would have been priced out. This is how the insurance industry works anyway; healthier individuals who have lower premiums and don't ordinarily use health services offset the cost of individuals who consume more healthcare and pay premiums that never equal what they get in benefits. The payment of this penalty is handled through the IRS, so enforcement exists. Those who refuse, for whatever reason, either to purchase insurance or pay the penalty run the risk of fines and/or arrest.
Also, the ACA had a provision for Medicaid expansion that, on its face, is a bigger deal than the mandate. States would have faced a cut-off of all Medicaid funding if they opted out of the ACA's insurance exchange. The justices, including Roberts, held that the federal government could not cut off all funding, but could withhold new funds if states declined to participate. This will certainly happen, as Tea Party-supported governors and elected officials will cry foul at the draconian, socialistic, government-run death panels that decide who lives and who dies.
The interesting this here is that Roberts, for the second time this week, has sided with the court's liberals on huge legal issues. First, on the Arizona immigration law, then today on ACA. There are lots of commenters out there with opinions on this, and I invite you to do some searching to find them. I won't link to them here, but there is a LOT out there to see.
Andrew Sullivan did, however, post a reader's email that speculated on what might have happened behind the scenes during the court's deliberations. Apparently, Justice Scalia's opinion might originally have been a majority opinion, as it cite's "Ginsburg's dissent." The suggestion is that Roberts jumped ship from the majority for some reason and joined the liberals, effectively changing history.
What this means for Obama is anyone's guess. Republicans will cry that the president is raising taxes on the middle class (true for those who do not purchase health insurance), but in truth, how many middle class Americans who do not have health insurance don't want it? Perhaps some younger people, but those who are under age 26 can stay on their parents' policy under ACA. Those who are older will more than likely need health insurance in the future if they decide to raise families. So in the end, it's pretty much a paper tiger issue. The GOP will try to repeal the law, and that's exactly what Boehner is vowing to do (so is Romney, but more on that in a minute). But they need a filibuster-proof Senate to do that, which, regardless of the outcome in November, is unlikely.
As for Romney, this ruling eviscerates a major campaign issue for him. Now he is going to have to run against his own healthcare law in Massachusetts, which he had earlier said was fine on the state level but was unconstitutional at the federal level. Now that a conservative, Bush-appointed Chief Justice has written the majority opinion negating Romney's chief argument, he's put in yet another difficult bind, running against the Supreme Court as legislating from the bench. But, as it turns out, Roberts has done very little legislating from the bench, and is on record during his confirmation hearings as being firmly against such behavior. Perhaps this is why he sided with the liberals and took the lightest approach possible. There is historical precedent for federally-derived individual health-care mandates.
Gonna be a great summer!
In a complicated decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court held that the individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase healthcare insurance or pay a penalty, did not violate the Constitution if viewed as a kind of tax. Congress has broad taxation authority and this is where Roberts hung his robe. He did not agree with the Obama administration's argument that the federal government had authority to regulate insterstate commerce in this way, but bought the "backup" argument. As they say in sports parlance, "A Win is a Win."
What this means is that millions of Americans who were unable to purchase health insurance, due to pre-existing conditions or other exclusionary criteria, will now be able to purchase it. And those who elect not to will be forced to pay this penalty (which is far, far less than the amount one would pay for an annual premium). As the linchpin for the program, the mandate makes sure that those who opt out of insurance are still going to have to foot part of the bill for those who would have been priced out. This is how the insurance industry works anyway; healthier individuals who have lower premiums and don't ordinarily use health services offset the cost of individuals who consume more healthcare and pay premiums that never equal what they get in benefits. The payment of this penalty is handled through the IRS, so enforcement exists. Those who refuse, for whatever reason, either to purchase insurance or pay the penalty run the risk of fines and/or arrest.
Also, the ACA had a provision for Medicaid expansion that, on its face, is a bigger deal than the mandate. States would have faced a cut-off of all Medicaid funding if they opted out of the ACA's insurance exchange. The justices, including Roberts, held that the federal government could not cut off all funding, but could withhold new funds if states declined to participate. This will certainly happen, as Tea Party-supported governors and elected officials will cry foul at the draconian, socialistic, government-run death panels that decide who lives and who dies.
The interesting this here is that Roberts, for the second time this week, has sided with the court's liberals on huge legal issues. First, on the Arizona immigration law, then today on ACA. There are lots of commenters out there with opinions on this, and I invite you to do some searching to find them. I won't link to them here, but there is a LOT out there to see.
Andrew Sullivan did, however, post a reader's email that speculated on what might have happened behind the scenes during the court's deliberations. Apparently, Justice Scalia's opinion might originally have been a majority opinion, as it cite's "Ginsburg's dissent." The suggestion is that Roberts jumped ship from the majority for some reason and joined the liberals, effectively changing history.
What this means for Obama is anyone's guess. Republicans will cry that the president is raising taxes on the middle class (true for those who do not purchase health insurance), but in truth, how many middle class Americans who do not have health insurance don't want it? Perhaps some younger people, but those who are under age 26 can stay on their parents' policy under ACA. Those who are older will more than likely need health insurance in the future if they decide to raise families. So in the end, it's pretty much a paper tiger issue. The GOP will try to repeal the law, and that's exactly what Boehner is vowing to do (so is Romney, but more on that in a minute). But they need a filibuster-proof Senate to do that, which, regardless of the outcome in November, is unlikely.
As for Romney, this ruling eviscerates a major campaign issue for him. Now he is going to have to run against his own healthcare law in Massachusetts, which he had earlier said was fine on the state level but was unconstitutional at the federal level. Now that a conservative, Bush-appointed Chief Justice has written the majority opinion negating Romney's chief argument, he's put in yet another difficult bind, running against the Supreme Court as legislating from the bench. But, as it turns out, Roberts has done very little legislating from the bench, and is on record during his confirmation hearings as being firmly against such behavior. Perhaps this is why he sided with the liberals and took the lightest approach possible. There is historical precedent for federally-derived individual health-care mandates.
Gonna be a great summer!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
