Romney On Foreign Policy...Scary!

Mitt Romney will give a major foreign policy speech today where he is expected to draw a sharp distinction between his world view and that of the president.  His remarks come after months of criticizing the president as being weak on foreign affairs.

We took the opportunity to read recently released excerpts of the speech.  Frankly, we are having difficulty discerning much of any difference between Romney’s remarks and the current administration policies.

Romney says that he will put Iran on notice that the US and our allies will prevent Iran from nuclear weapon capability.  He also said that he would tighten existing sanctions and authorize new ones.  Done! 

Romney says that he will champion foreign trade in the Middle East and around the world.  Done!

Romney says that he will support those in the Middle East who share our values.  Done!

Romney says he will pursue the terrorists who bombed our Libyan embassy and support the Libyan people in their efforts to forge a lasting government.  Done!

Romney says that he will use our influence to urge the newly elected Egyptian government to represent all Egyptians.  Done!

Romney says that he will work toward identifying, organizing and supporting those who oppose the current regime in Syria.  Done!

Romney says that he will pursue a real and successful transition to Afghan security forces by the end of 2014.  He says that he will review conditions on the ground with our military commanders and that he will place the security of the nation over his political prospects.  Done!

Romney says that he will commit America to the goal of a democratic, prosperous Palestinian state peacefully living side by side with Israel.  Done!

What we have in Romney’s remarks is a litany of the very same things that the president has been doing for the past four years.  What we also have is a Mitt Romney who is once again changing his tune.

Just a few short weeks ago we heard Romney swear that the sanctions against Iran were not working.  He stopped just short of demanding that the president authorize immediate military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.  Now he wants to strengthen sanctions and authorize new ones.  Where is the Romney just aching to start another war?

Just a few short weeks ago we heard Romney criticizing the president for not doing more to help the opposition in Syria.  He blamed the president for the violence in the region.  Leading from behind" was the term he used.  "Slow to act." is how he described the president's response.  Now he sends a mixed message.  First he says he will work to "identify" the opposition. Then he says he wants to arm the opposition so they can take on Syria's tanks and attack aircraft.  The difficulty in identifying the Syrian opposition is exactly why the administration held off shipping arms into the  conflict.  Giving arms to Al Qaeda is not a winning strategy.  First Romney calls for aggressive action.  Then he calls for restraint and caution.  Then he ramps up the aggression again.  

Just a few short weeks ago we heard Romney tell a group of wealthy donors that peace in Palestine was a lost cause.  An unsolvable problem to be kicked down the road to the next in line.  Now he says he will commit America to to the goal of creating a prosperous democratic Palestinian state.

We have seen firsthand how Romney responds in a crisis. We recall how his premature, fact impaired  news conference just prior to the Benghazi violence served as a blueprint to all future leaders in what NOT to do.  We have listened to his politically motivated window rattling bluster and his unpatriotic, ill timed rants against America’s leader.  And now we watch as he unashamedly whitewashes away everything he said before. 

If Romney wants to go to war with Iran and Syria; beef up our military strikes in Pakistan; reengage in Iraq and keep American forces in Afghanistan until the cows come home he should level with the American people.  Instead we get a candidate of political convenience.

What we see once again is a candidate who is not fit for the office of president.  A candidate, whose politically motivated bluff and bluster, even if he really doesn’t mean it, will put the country at risk. 

You can screw up on domestic policy and the result is little more than a punch line on Saturday Night Live.  But when you screw up on foreign policy you can cause a war.  Just ask George W. Bush.

     

                   

Fact Checkers Weigh In On Romney

We commented the other day on how Mitt Romney was the clear winner of the first debate in terms of the optics.  Now that the fact checkers have had their opportunity to weigh in we look to the substance.

Before we begin we should note that in the world of politics it is improper to refer to one’s opponent as a “liar.”  It is acceptable to say that your opponent “miss-spoke”…that he or she was “inaccurate”…or even that your opponent “miss-represented” the facts.  But to refer to an opponent as a “liar” is considered bad form.

However when an individual plays so loose with the facts on such a consistent and reoccurring basis; there is only on word that accurately depicts such blatant behavior.  “Liar!”  Such is the case with Mitt Romney.

Mitt Romney is a liar. 

He has blatantly and consistently lied in the past, and according the fact checkers he did so again in the recent debate.

Mitt Romney lied when he accused the president of stealing $716 billion from Medicare.  He lied when he said there was a Medicare “board” that would decide what treatments we would be allowed to receive.  He lied when he said his program would strengthen Medicare while the president’s policies would weaken the program.

He lied about the details of his tax program.  He lied about the number of people who are unemployed.  He lied about Dodd-Frank being a “big kiss” to the banks.  He lied about his position on regulations.

Don't believe the fact checkers...consider this...

Romney's own senior advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom, said Romney “miss-spoke” when he said that his health care plan included coverage for pre-existing conditions for all individuals.

And Mitt Romney himself just admitted that he was lying to that gaggle of donors when he made his now infamous remarks about the 47% of Americans who don’t pay taxes.

It should be noted that if the sudden more “moderate” Romney that we witnessed in the debate is, as some have suggested, the “real Romney” suddenly unchained from the shackles of the party base…then he lied to the Republican Party in order to secure their nomination.  In one 90 minute performance Mitt Romney whitewashed away most of what he had been selling to his party and the American people for the past year. 

Those close to the governor brush aside this sudden change as simply:  “the campaign reinventing itself.”  We call it lying.    

In the past we have concurred with those who have said that Mitt Romney is a good man; a good husband, good father and devout Mormon.  But you have to wonder about a person that can look you in the eye and lie so easily.

Mitt Romney lied to the American people.

And according to Nielson...67 million people watched the president let him get away with it.      

         

Romney KO's Obama

If you believe as we do that optics matter then Mitt Romney was the clear winner of the first presidential debate.  It wasn’t even close.  As John McCain said:  “If this was a fight…they would have stopped it.”

Romney took the fight directly to the president.  He aggressively attacked the president’s record and made the case that the country could ill afford four more years of the same.  He was well rehearsed.  He was calm, engaging, thoughtful and at times even funny.  And as his been his history…he didn’t let the facts get in his way.  He had an obvious game plan coming in and he rolled over any attempt by the president or the moderator to interrupt his message.  It was obvious that Romney relished the opportunity to go toe to toe with the president.  He knew that he needed to deliver the political performance of his life…and he did.

Inexplicably the president did nothing to stop him.  Whereas Romney clearly reveled in the moment, the president appeared to endure it.  As Romney rained down criticism over the president’s economic policies the president allowed him to go on virtually unchecked; avoiding eye contact, looking down at his notes.  It was as if the president was caught by off guard by Romney’s aggressive attacks.  The result was a president playing defense while Romney controlled the narrative.

This series of events should not have come as a surprise to the Obama Campaign.  Romney has a history of performing well when his back is against the wall.  And he has shown that he has no problem with stretching the truth for political gain.  Romney can be very effective if allowed to go unchecked. The president gave him free rein.

What we found most perplexing was the president’s failure to bring up any of the controversial events or statements attributed to Romney over the past several months.  Romney’s infamous comments about the 47% were never mentioned.  Romney’s record at Bain, his failed jobs record as governor, his secret  tax returns, his stance on women’s health care, abortion, immigration, unions…the president failed to hold Romney accountable on any of these subjects.  Perhaps the president was concerned that by attacking Romney he would endanger one of his most important attributes in the polls…likeability. If that is the case then he traded in “likeability” for “competence”; because Mitt Romney certainly appeared to be the more competent candidate in this debate.

In the end Mitt Romney did what he needed to do.  If the president had performed up to expectations he could have effectively ended this race.  Romney stopped him cold.  He pumped new life into a dying campaign.  He calmed nervous donors and gave them reason to continue giving to his cause.  And his more moderate tone will go a long way toward persuading undecided voters.

Now the fact checkers will enter the fray.  They will have a field day with the unfettered nonsense that Romney was peddling.  But the average voter won’t get that far down into the weeds.  All they will see is that Mitt Romney went toe to toe with the President of the United States…and won. 

The polls will tighten…and Mitt Romney will live to fight another day.

As for the president…he will maintain his slim lead in the polls.  He will hear the wakeup call and he will respond.  And when he looks in the mirror he will exhale a deep sigh of relief that this was only the first debate…and not the last.        

   

Which Mitt Romney Will Viewers See Tonight?

If November 6^th is Christmas Day for political wonks then tonight is Christmas Eve. Tonight we will bear witness to the first of three highly anticipated Presidential debates.  An estimated 50 million viewers will tune in to watch two candidates explain their divergent views on the role of government…

…and both of them are named Mitt Romney.

Many viewers will be tuning in to this campaign for the very first time; getting their first glimpse of candidate Mitt Romney.  The question is which Mitt they will see.

Will they see the Mitt Romney that his wife and friends describe as funny and warm and caring?  Or will they see the embodiment of Thurston Howell III; the stiff stilted millionaire disconnected from the plight of average Americans? 

Will they see the Mitt Romney who says that he wants to be the president of 100% of Americans?  Or will they see the Mitt Romney who says his job is “not to worry about the 47% of Americans who consider themselves victims, who don’t pay taxes and don’t take personal responsibility for their own lives.”

Will they see the Mitt Romney who derides those who don’t pay taxes?  Or will they see the Mitt Romney who has aggressively used every available loophole and offshore tax shelter to avoid paying his own taxes? Whose tax returns are so damaging that he is unwilling to reveal them to the American people?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who said the president’s auto bailout was a terrible idea?  Or will we see the Mitt Romney who took credit for the bailout’s success; claiming the president followed his advice?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who vows that as president his policies will create good paying American jobs?  Or will we see the Mitt Romney whose policies as Governor of Massachusetts allowed his state to slip to 49^th in job creation?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who derides the president for failing to standing up to China while allowing good paying American jobs to move overseas?  Or will they see the Mitt Romney who made millions at Bain Capital exporting American jobs to China?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who would round up all the illegal immigrants and ship them back to the country of their origin?  Whose idea of immigration reform is a wall and self reporting?  Or will they see the Mitt Romney who says if elected he will allow the president’s amnesty program for children of illegal’s to remain in place?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who as governor was instrumental in implementing universal health care in Massachusetts; an achievement so high on Mitt’s list of accomplishments that he chose to prominently display the legislation in his official gubernatorial portrait?  Or will they see the Mitt Romney who vows to repeal “Obamacare” on his first day as president?

Will they see the Mitt Romney who says that he will always be an advocate for a women’s right to choose?  Or will we see the Mitt Romney wants to repeal Roe v. Wade?

Which Mitt Romney will they see?

And regardless of which Mitt shows up tonight in Denver; will he be the same Mitt that shows up for the next debate on October 16^th?

More importantly…if elected…which Mitt Romney will govern?  

     

   

Happy Fiscal New Year!

October 1^st marks the beginning of the new fiscal year for the federal government.  Typically this date marks the end of the existing congressional budget and the start of the new budget for the upcoming year.  But since this Congress has failed to pass a budget for the past three years, the onset of a new fiscal year posed a funding problem.  No money…no government. 

No worries!  Congress responded in the same fiscally irresponsible manner that we have come to expect.  Congress passed a continuing resolution which used borrowed money to continue funding the government at current levels until March of 2013.  The heavy lifting done and the continued funding of their paychecks secured; Congress took a seven week vacation hiatus to celebrate the fiscal New Year… and to persuade constituents to place campaign signs in their front yards.

This is how government works.  Budgets…checks and balances…who needs them?  Need money to fund defense appropriations…borrow it.  Can’t afford to fund our schools…borrow more.   Bridges and roads need repair…borrow whatever you need.  Our credit card debt stands at $16 trillion dollars yet we just keep borrowing more and more and more.

According to most economists, by 2020 every tax dollar the government receives will go to fund Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on that $16 trillion dollar debt.  Some economists believe that due to the massive number of tax payers leaving the work force that phenomenon will occur in 2013.  Our taxes will pay for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the debt…that’s it.  Every other government program and service: defense, education, transportation, health and human services etc. etc. will be funded with money borrowed from China and other foreign nations.

It doesn’t take a genius to see that the current course is unsustainable.  Our unfettered borrowing threatens the country’s financial and economic stability. 

Yet 35 days from the election neither President Obama, Mitt Romney nor self proclaimed numbers wonk Paul Ryan have offered a comprehensive, specific rational solution on how to fix the problem.

Happy Fiscal New Year, America!              

President-Senate-Supreme Court

Is Affirmative Action important to you? 

Do you believe in the legality of same sex marriage?  Do you think same sex couples are entitled to the same federal benefits as heterosexual couples? 

What about voting rights?  Did you know that the Voting Rights Act requires state and local governments with a history of racial and ethnic discrimination to obtain advanced approval from the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before making any changes that affect elections?  Did you know that the law applies specifically to the states of Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia and certain specific counties in other states?  Did you know that in 2006 Congress and George W. Bush extended this provision of the act for 25 more years?  Does that seem right to you?

Do you believe in a women’s right to choose?  Do you believe that gays should be able to serve openly in the military?  Do you believe in the separation of church and state?  Do you believe that doctrine should apply to prayer in our public schools?  Do you believe that wealthy Americans and corporations should be allowed to donate unlimited sums of money in support of political candidates?

These are just some of the weighty issues that the Supreme Court is expected to adjudicate over the next four years.  Although several of these issues have been the law of the land for years they are expected to be resurrected for debate once again by the call of partisan politics. 

Given the importance of these issues it is only natural that the voting record and composition of the Court be a frequent topic of conversation within the media; especially given the very real possibility that three or four members of the Court may retire during the next administration.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 79 years of age.  Justice Anthony Kennedy is 76.  Justice Antonin Scalia is 76 and Justice Stephen Breyer is 74.  If any or all of them choose to step down, either Barak Obama or Mitt Romney will be appointing their successor.  And those appointments will shape the Court for decades.

It is also noteworthy that the United States Senate, charged with confirming the presidential appointments to the Court, has thirty three seats up for re-election this November.

So as you head to the polls this November consider the questions posed above. Understand that you are not just voting for the office of president or senator.  You are voicing your opinion on these important issues.  You are helping to create the very fabric of our society.

No matter where you stand on the important issues of today…vote!     

                

Akin Causing Problems For GOP

Do you remember Todd Akin?  He’s the Republican candidate who may single handedly derail their efforts to control the Senate.

Akin is running against incumbent Missouri Democrat Claire McCaskill for the US Senate.  Akin is the guy who gave us the astoundingly stupid statement about “legitimate rape.”  Akin is the guy who told us that pregnancy as a result of rape is unlikely because a woman’s body “has a way of shutting down that whole thing.”  Akin is the guy who could make or break the Republican Party’s chances to take control of the Senate.

You may recall that upon hearing Akin’s astoundingly stupid statements Republican Party leaders abandoned the Tea Party backed candidate like rats leaving a sinking ship.  Romney, Ryan, Cantor, McConnell and a host of others condemned his remarks and urged him to step aside.  Karl Rove and a number of other financial backers pulled their support.  It looked to everyone like Akin was done.

Except Todd Akin!

Akin flipped the party leaders the bird and said he wasn’t going anywhere.  He said that the people of Missouri voted him as their candidate and only the people of Missouri could tell him to leave. Akin was in it for the long haul.

Any chance that Akin might withdraw ended this week with the passage of the state deadline for all candidates to be removed from the ballot.  Like it or not…Todd Akin is the Republican candidate for US Senate from the state of Missouri.

Akin celebrated by putting his foot in his mouth once again.  After Senator McCaskill tore into Akin in their most recent debate; Akin said that the Senator was not very “ladylike” in her approach.  Nothing closes the gender gap for swing voters like referring to your tough female opponent as un-ladylike.

Republicans would love to ditch Akin.  But they desperately need his seat to have any chance of controlling the Senate.  So do they pour money into his campaign and legitimize his candidacy or do they distance themselves and risk losing the bigger prize?

Once again the Tea Party radicals have cost the Republican Party.  In 2010 Republicans could have easily won Senate seats in Delaware and Nevada.  But the Tea Party forced the nomination of Christine “I am not a Witch” O’Donnell and crazy Sharon Engle.  Both lost and the Democrats retained the Senate.  Now the Republican Party faces the same dilemma with the train wreck candidacy of Todd Akin.

So how do Republicans enthusiastically support a guy who they were pillaring just a few weeks ago?

Perhaps they should consult with Mitt Romney.  After all, nobody is better at flip flopping than the leader of the Republican Party.