Friday, December 21, 2012
Monday, October 22, 2012
Check the record: Auto bankruptcy vs Terror
I didn't think that the "Check the transcript, Candy" line would have affected me. (What's the difference b/w saying the word "terror" the day after?)
But during the debate, when Obama said, "Check the transcript" Re: auto bailouts -- I believed Obama was right again (when watching the debates, and when I internet searched afterwards - yeah, Obama was right again.)
Obama was (technically) right about his terror comment. And Obama is (technically) right about Romney denying the auto industry a bailout.
Romney wanted government help AFTER the bankruptcy. But he was against government help DURING the bankruptcy (ie [real direct quote] "allow these companies to go through bankruptcy"). Knowing that there will be money AFTER the bankruptcy does not help DURING the bankruptcy - especially when there is no other source of money to be lent.
So Romney said: "Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet." Actually, if the circumstances were telling Americans that their tax dollars would (unpopularly) bail out the auto industry - Romney would NOT help the auto industry get on its feet.
Romney might have thought that "tough love" would have helped the auto industry more - but Romney's "tough love" would mean that the auto industry wouldn't have been able to go through a "managed bankruptcy."
The bigger point to me is that Romney will say anything to win points, and hope people are stupid/trusting enough to believe that help AFTER the bankruptcy equals help DURING the bankruptcy.
And I start trusting Obama more - when he says Obama is right if you check the transcript -- you can bet Obama will be right if you check the transcript.
3rd debate: Obama won foreign policy
Obama won the third presidential debate. Romney lost. Obama actually persuaded me that he would be better than Romney at foreign policy. (Maybe because I don't follow foreign policy as closely, so there was more room to persuade me.)
My previous complaint against Obama was that he couldn't unilaterally co-operate with enemies like Russia or Iran. (Just like he couldn't unilateraly cooperate with Congressional Republicans.)
My complaint against Romney was that his "competitive" approach doesn't fix everything either.
During the debate, Obama persuaded me that he could cooperate with our allies (and undecideds) and then act together with the world to stop world enemies.
This approach is vastly superior to Romney's "Cowboy foreign policy" - have a GIANT American military, and then our enemies won't dare act up.
Romney said America should have immediately imposed stricter sanctions (unilaterally) against Iran to deter nuclear weapon development.
Obama said, "We could have done that immediately, but I was smarter to take the time to develop alliances and have world sanctions against Iran - which work better than super harsh sanctions from America only."
Romney wants to unilaterally have America give guns to rebels - Obama wants to work with international allies. Obama's way takes more time, but will probably have better long-term results.
Point to Obama.
Romney had a litany of how things are worse in the Middle East
Obama had a list of stuff he's accomplished.
I'm siding with Obama - there has been some progress (even Romney doesn't disagree.) But Romney seems to think that since Obama hasn't fixed EVERYTHING in the Middle East, Obama is bad on foreign policy.
So I guess the only way Romney would have been satisfied with Obama's foreign policy is if ALL the world's problems were fixed in 4 years?
The biggest charge against Obama's specific policies is that Obama projected "weakness." I'm pretty sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons...because Iran wants nuclear weapons.
I don't think Iran would have acted all peaceful, but since Obama went on an apology tour and met with "enemies" - that means Iran should make nuclear weapons now!
Romney: Attacking me is not an agenda.
Seriously? Romney, your "strategy" is just to point out everything that's wrong with the world and blame it on Obama's weakness.
I know what I'm getting with Obama - Obama doesn't need an agenda for the next 4 years. It's YOUR job to propose YOUR agenda, and show why YOURS will work better than Obama.
Military Romney said that Obama's military has the least boats since before WW2. Obama: "Yeah, but we also have less bayonets and horses!"
Point to Obama.
Romney really doesn't make a case for why we need more military spending than Obama wants. This played to my pre-existing bias, but Romney really doesn't have a way to spend the money - he just wants to spend it so our enemies will think "America is spending more military money- let's do what America says!"
There's no reason to think that will work. And it seems like a waste of (a lot) of money.
So with the debates over - I'll think some more about everything and post who I'll vote for and why, soon.
Saturday, October 20, 2012
Last debate: Expectations
They're going to talk about how China is ruining America's economy. They'll both make China sound bad and promise they will stop China from being so bad. Romney might try to sound tougher, but I doubt most will understand the difference between their policies.
Obama will make fun of Romney for thinking Russia is our major threat.
Romney will attack Obama for Libya - which doesn't seem like that big a deal to me
Romney will attack Obama for the gun walking to Mexico thing - which has no real details for anyone.
Neither side will explain specifically how they will fix the Euro-zone problem. (Which I think has a greater impact on the domestic economy than Russia/China.)
Obama will brag how he ordered special forces to kill Bin Laden. (Which is the fruition of intelligence garnered from W. Bush's years of work. So Obama will blame Bush for the bad things, but will take credit for the good things.)
Romney will brag how he won't cut military spending - and get challenged by Obama.
Obama will not "sleep through the debate" - like he was accused of during debate #1.
I doubt the debate will change anyone's mind about who to vote for, but Romney supporters will be fired up to vote for Romney, and Obama supporters will be encouraged to show up on election day.
Military Spending: Romney vs Obama
I'm not a big fan of deficit spending.
I'm against Obama borrowing $10 million from China to hire 100K more teachers, because we don't really need them that badly.
I'm also against Romney borrowing $100 million from China to maintain current military spending.
After World War II, we stopped building as many tanks. It would have been wasteful to keep spending the same amount of money on tanks.
Similarly, wrapping up Afghanistan/Iraq/etc - we should cut down on military spending.
Romney wants to keep spending on the military because... he thinks military spending is good. (It's not like he's said, "We need to build more submarines, because our current fleet is too small!")
Romney thinks that China/Russia will be impressed if America spends 30X as much on our military, instead of only 15X as much as them.
Really? We already have a much bigger military than them. If we have a SUPER much bigger military - that's what's going to convince them to behave?
I think that the extra money for the military is just "vanity spending" so Romney can feel tough - and that's a lot of money just for vanity.
Libya: Obama vs Romney
So the big "gaffe" in the 2nd debate was that moderator Candy agreed with Obama that he used the words "act of terror" the day after in the Rose Garden, which embarrassed Romney.
Me? I don't care. I don't blame Obama for not realizing that al Quida might attack an African embassy on the anniversery of Sept 11. (It would be more likely that they'd re-attack New York - but if we had to wait 10 more seconds for airport security just because it was an anniversery- there would be complaints of stupid precautions.)
And it's not like Obama would know 100% of what really happened immediately, as news came in, he revealed the extent of what he was certain. (He might not have revealed everything he suspected, but that's a lot of unsubstantiated rumours going round.)
And yes, "Protesting a Youtube video" could be considered an "act of terror" - in a broad sense. I think if the worst Romney can say about Obama's anti-terrorist record is 4 people dead 100,000 miles away - then Obama must be doing pretty well.
Obama vs Romney: Foreign Policy
I doubt the last debate is going to change anyone's vote. Why? Because it is about foreign policy.
It's not that I don't care about foreign policy. It's just that I care about domestic policy so much more.
It would be different if one candidate's foreign policy was better than the other. Instead, they are both different, and bad in different ways.
Obama's approach is "cooperative." After W. Bush made America's international reputation become that of a "bully" - Obama went in the opposite direction. Obama tried to play nice with everyone, NOT taking the lead on anything, because that would make America seem like a bully. (This infuriates Romney Republicans - who think that any time America isn't trying to beat up everyone else, America is making an "apology." However, only Romney Republicans think Obama has "apologized" for America - and even if Obama had apologized, I don't think it would be that bad.)
The problem with Obama's cooperative approach to foreign policy is the same as a cooperative approach domestically. Namely, you can't unilaterally cooperate. If Republcans don't want to cooperate with Obama on health care, Obama can't make them. Similarly, if China doesn't want to cooperate with Obama on trade, (or Russia on military) - Obama can't make them cooperate either. So I guess Obama's approach is to "stagnate" and not do anything.
Romney's approach is "competitive" - which seems like the alternative if "cooperative" doesn't work out. Unfortunately, competitive doesn't really work. If China won't trade fair, we'll beat China up? Acting competitive isn't going to progress things any more than trying to unilaterally cooperate.
I think the best foreign policy is "finesse." Acting cooperatively or competitively depending on the situation. Which is probably what Obama and Romney will both do, although neither will admit it, since finesse is too complex for a 2 second sound byte. So they both spout their cartoon-ish extreme positions, when they'd probably both do the same thing in the same foreign situation...
Which is why the last debate probably isn't going to matter.
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
2nd Obama/Romney debate = depressing
Well, my predictions just before the second debate have come true. (I'm not sure what the "gaffe" that the media will choose to amplify - I'm guessing Obama's statement of how he was calling Libya a terrorist attack "the next day.")
Obama was definitely more...insistent. So I guess Democrats can say he did "better."
Romney was as aggressive as before, so Republicans will claim "Romney won again."
As for my opinion? Both lost. Big time.
The reason that debates don't affect polls/voters? It's because the candidates don't say anything that we haven't heard before. They stick to their speaking points, and avoid the question.
Q: What about gun control/AK-47?
Obama: I'm taking a broader approach to control violence. Like school system and education. Romney will not hire more teachers like me. This is why my education plan is good....
Romney: Controlling violence is important, and I think that keeping youths in school and happier families will make things better. Let me tell you why Obama is wrong....
Depressing. Neither candidate will talk about what voters want/need to hear. Both candidates will find some way to talk about whatever their advisers say will win them "points."
And by improving their "debate score" both candidates just depress voters looking for content.
As for style? Romney did as well as in his first debate. Obama improved, but he still sounded like his Saturday Night Live caricature. (Its his rising/falling inflection.) Obama didn't say "Umm" as often, but he did seem to keep insisting for more time...
I will say that Obama's final response was the smoothest of the night. ("What is the major misperception of you by voters?) Romney: I care about 100% of America. Obama: Government doesn't create jobs. I care about everyone, and that's why I am asking for your vote.
I think the closing comment was the strongest moment in the debate. Romney (smooth at answering other questions) - seemed like that insincere televangelist that's been bothering me.
Obama really does care about 100% and really is trying and will fight. (My problem is that him trying and fighting may not be the most effective plan, and will definitely add to the deficit.) But Obama was "himself" at the end. (When he was "actively trying to be aggressive - Obama wasn't "himself.")
I think Romney's extensive debate practice has been paying off style-wise, but his content is non-existent (other than to say "Obama is bad, and let me tell you my non-specific non-plan.).
I suspect my previous "conspiracy theory" (Obama intentionally underperformed at the first debate) is unlikely - if that happened, Obama would have outperformed at this debate.
Obama improved, and he will improve some more (style-wise) at the third debate.
Content is another story though...
Town Hall debate predictions
Romney will do as good a job as in his first debate.
Obama's performance will improve from his first debate.
Neither side will unveil anything new/give me a reason to vote for them.
Both sides will claim that their guy won.
Media will "pick a winner" based on their existing biases. There will be a story about a gaffe/mistake that should excite their readers.
Overall, the debate won't change things, since the focus will be on style, not content. And the voters who decided based on style have already decided (the 90% of straight tickeers.) The undecided 10%? (Who are supposedly represented in the debate audience tonight.) They aren't going to get any substance that will earn the candidates a vote.
Romney's non-specifics: Mormonism, Corporate Raider and governor
I like Mormons. Okay, I don't know who were Mormons, but I met some nice people in Salt Lake City, and I'm guessing some of them are Mormons. Mormons seem to be "good, salt of the earth people."
Mormon leaders on the other hand.... They lead their flock of "blind believers." Who will believe what they are taught, because that is their faith. So Mormon leaders think that they don't need to justify why they think that believers go to "star heaven" and others go to "planet heaven."
(Not that Christians believing that some guy rose from the dead is NOT bizarre either...)
As a "corporate raider", Romney would take over a company (and maybe fix it) without giving specifics. After taking over, he would fire the (underperforming) CFO. "But, he's my brother!" protests the CEO. "Surprise!" says Romney.
When Romney took over a company, he didn't need to give specifics, if he gave specifics, they'd never put him in charge, knowing exactly how painful a Romney leader would be
As governor, Romney was bipartisan - by (as he claims today) not offering specifics.
He boasts that his success as governor was that he offered a direction, and let (Democrat controlled) Congress fill in the specifics.
Unfortunately, while "non-specifics" may have worked for Romney in the past, that's not what America needs now. Americans are less...trusting....that a Mormon congregation. If you want our vote, you need to earn it by telling us exactly how what you will do is better.
America is not a business. In business, it doesn't matter how unhappy the employees are - as long as money is being made. In America, it matters very much how happy the constituents are, and it doesn't matter (as much) if the government is turning a net profit. (It does need to "not collapse" under its debt load though. Which is why I was against the W Bush wars, and would prefer that Obama didn't borrow more money from China to hire more teachers.) But I don't think the debt load will collapse America in the next 4 years Under Obama. (Thank goodness for the current low interest rates....)
Finally, while non-specifics may have helped Romney in Massachusetts, he needs an "electoral mandate" if he's looking to lead a 50/50 split Congress (and American citizens.)
So, Romney would rather lose the election than offer specifics, since offering specifics is deeply ingrained from Romney's past as "bad."
His only specific cut: "I will cut funding for Sesame Street/Big Bird." has lead to protest. I'm guessing his other specific cuts will be less popular. And if Romney can't convince Americans that it's okay to cut from Sesame Street (which makes oodles of money off merchandising) - how is he going to convince America to cut from other things?
It is kind of late for Romney to offer specifics. Who knows what is going to be asked at the town hall debates tonight. And the last debate is on foreign policy. So unless Romney "knows" that someone is going to ask "What are your specifics" and Romney is ready to unveil his plan tonight... yeah, that's not going to happen.
So I'm probably going to vote for Obama, and hope he won't debt load America to ruin in the next 4 years...
Post-debate Romney bounce
The polls have been kind of depressing. Despite Romney's non-specifics, because he spoke more smoothly, it looked like he might win the election.
Luckily that "bounce" was temporary, maybe because it was an "immediate emotional" preference. But as people calmed down, they realized, "Waaait a minute - I still don't know what Romney is going to do, so I'm not going to vote for him."
I think Romney "won" the debate because he had "lower expectations" going in. All he had to do to "win" was not be a "47% eating, unsympathetic monster." He seemed not as bad as before. And Obama seemed "not as inspiring" as before, so Obama lost, and Romney "seemed" to win.
I suspect that Obama may have deliberately not performed as well as he could have. Now it will seem like he will have a "come from behind" victory - which will rally his supporters to actually go vote, or else Romney might win!
If Obama was polling ahead before the debates, and then won all three debates, people might not go to the booths to vote for him, since Obama "should win the election without my vote."
I doubt Romney will (ever) offer the specifics needed to earn my vote (see my next post) so I'll be voting for Obama by default.
the VP debates
Saturday, October 6, 2012
Obama: (Alas) Reason for bipartison fight debate answer
In a pervious post, I lamented that Obama's missed the opportunity to earn my vote in the debate. He said "I will continue to fight with Congress for the good of the American people." I had wished he had said, "I will continue to try to find a way to work with Congress for the good of the American people."
Despite this, Obama will probably get my vote. (Because I know Obama will be at least barely adequate as president, but Romney isn't telling people what/how he will do stuff, so I don't know if Romney will be adequate or disasterous.)
I'm hoping that Obama will work with Congress after his election anyway. (Or that Congress will realize that stalling isn't going to get them the presidency.)
I'm hoping Obama did not say he will "work with Congress" because he knows that if he said that, Congress will resist him on the "financial cliff." If he showed a conciliatory side during the debates, Congress will say, "Hah, you said you'd try working with us, so try working with us now and give more money to the rich!"
I hope that Obama's non-conciliatory debate answer is just a short-term thing, and he will find a way to work with Congress after the lame duck season.
Next time: Romney's (Alas) reason for "no specifics" debate answer.
Wednesday, October 3, 2012
My reaction to "Instant Romney Debate Win" Results
So I've been surfing the internet, and it seems like most people think Romney won the debate, because Romney seemed more relaxed/fluent, and Obama seemed less enthusiastic.
It's like Nixon/JFK all over again, with the person with more style being deemed the "winner."
I've said in a previous post that Romney did "perform better." But would I have wanted Obama to neglect his presidential duties so he could iron out his debate performance?
I suspect Romney may get a "bump" in the polls from his performance, but while the (critical thinking) non-straight ticket voting Americans may "like" Romney more after this debate, that doesn't mean we're going to vote for him because he said "Um" less than the president.
Immediately, they may have picked "Romney" as the winner, but as they think about it, I hope they'll also realize that Romney doesn't have a plan....
Good job Lehrer, presidential debate moderator!
I wanted to say that I think the moderator (Jim Lehrer) did a good job with the open debate format.
I suspect Obama got more time (since he is the president, and Romney didn't want seem more like a jerk in public). But I think both sides got a chance to say what they wanted to say.
It also was (mostly) more civil/polite than I thought it would be.
I know Jim Lehrer would have preferred to stay retired, but I appreciate the work he put in to this.
Edit So I'm reading what "the internet" thinks of Jim Lehrer, and it's mostly negative. I think it's because people expected/wanted an aggressive moderator, and Jim wanted to let the candidates drive things.
Would the debate have gone better if Jim had enforced stricter time limits? It would be one thing if people were complaining that Jim prevented candidates from saying what they needed to say, it's another thing to complain that Jim let the candidates speak too much....
Zingers: Obama beats Romney
Trickle down government.This might catch on because Fox news is obliged to repeat Republican "cleverness." This might appeal to Republicans, but the phrase makes no sense normal people. (What, we'll have a lot of good government to big corporations, and that will eventually trickle down to good government for individuals?)
Lehrer asked if Obama would like to respond to "trickle down government" and Obama (wisely) changed the topic to "Race to the top" and "close overseas loopholes. I don't think anyone will blame Obama for changing the topic/not responding to Lehrer, mostly because, there wasn't anything to respond to.
-
Economy tax. Right after Romney quoted Biden's "middle class is buried" (but alas, not saying anything specific that Obama did to contribute to the burying) he said that Obama effectively instituted an "economy tax."
Er, a poor economy doesn't give more money to the government...
Energy production is up "in spite of politics" - it is because of private land use. Okay, but isn't this free-market - by not drilling on government property, it encourages private land to drill instead?
Deficit is a "moral issue." An attempt to unite his Evangelical with his business supporters. But increasing deficit is "immoral" if you're going to make all your kids pay back what you borrowed. Really, the kids are benefiting from the borrowing (ie no economy meltdown) as much as the old people.
- You pick "winners and losers" and Obama ends up with just "losers" Presumably, like Solyndra, and ignoring GM. Not that GM is an unqualified win (at best it's a break even, with benefits for Ford via economies of scale.)
You're entitled to your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts This is the most AWFUL zinger attempt of the night. It's like Romney new he was running out of time, but hadn't tried enough zingers, so he threw this out.
I think Romney's best delivered joke was "Michele is probably very happy to spend her anniversery at this debate - very romantic isn't it." It made me smile. It was probably planned in advance, but at least it was well-delivered.
Donald Trump is a "small business. Fox News will probably use this as "evidence" of Obama's "lack of respect for Romney" - but it does illustrate Obama's point, that the tope 3% of successful small business (that create 50% of the jobs) that will get their taxes increased, can afford to pay more in taxes.
Romney has ruled out revenue Probably not a planned zinger, what gives it sticking power is that Romney agreed to this statement. When you haven't put forward specifics, you can't rule out any potential solution contributers.
My grandmother (who helped raise me) worked all her life for her entitlement, and she's not "dependent." Ouch galore for Romney, the only (subtle) nod to Romney's 47% gaffe during the entire debate (that I remember) and which went unanswered by Romney. Conservative biased media will never mention this, and I suspect liberal biased media can mention this to "angle" for their candidate.
Romney: If you're over 60, you don't have to listen, because there's no change for current retirees. Obama: If you're 55, you might want to listen, because vouchers affect you. What makes this zinger effective is that it is a direct response to Romney - it had the "freshness" of unscriptedness that make debates different from everything else.
Obamacare means that if you have insurance, insurance companies can't jerk you around anymore. Okay, it's a lot informal/non-presidential, but it showed that Obama can relate to normal people colloquially.
Romney: Healthcare in Massachusetts was bipartisan, Obama care was rammed through Congress, entirely partisanly. Obama: Affordable care act is a "bipartisan idea" and Democrats can give advice to Republicans on how to cooperate. Negating Romney's point (and blaming gridlock on Republicans) - it's easy to be bipartisan if the other side is working with you :)
Why is Romney's plan secret? Is it because it is too good? Okay, I like this because it speaks to my own bias (and Romney had missed his chances to offer specifics.) This actually made me smile. I think most undecideds don't take notes during the debate like I do, and if there is one "memorable Obama moment" this is probably it.
I said I'm not a perfect person, and I wouldn't make a perfect persident. But I said I would fight every single day, and I promise I will fight every single day in a second term. This was Obama's closing statement, and not the zinger I wanted to hear. It will fire up his base, but I was hoping he would end by saying "I will keep trying to find a way to work with Congress" , instead I heard "I will keep trying to find a way to fight against Congress."
Obama's Zingers
Obama's zingers (except for the depressing last one) all made a valid point, and some were immediately responsive to Romney (so they were extemporized, not canned.) Romney's seemed to be looking to sound clever, never mind if they were valid, and that is why Romney's zingers didn't work.
Romney's debate performance: good style (if not content)
I've lamented Romney's "missed opportunities" for specifics in a previous post. (Which is why I'm probably voting for Obama in November.)
I will say Obama "Won" with the "who's speaking performance was better"
As I predicted, Romney was "aggressive" to make his supporters feel like he was "taking Obama to task" for the bad economy. Romney cited unemployment statistics and his oft quoted fake numbers (Obama cut 700 million from Medicare - which Ryan's plan also does...)
Romney's "style victory, Re: aggressision" is that he appeased his base without getting "emotionally belligerent." By attacking with rational numbers, Romney didn't seem mean, he did show his attitude could be presidential.
Romney did give off "fake televangelist" vibes during his debate "performance" (his opening/scripted statement: things are bad now story) - when he tries to show he cares - it just shows how bad he is when he's trying to show it.
For the first time though, Romney convinced me that he did care. Maybe it's because it's the first "extended Romney" I've seen. (Not counting his scripted RNC acceptance speech, or short sound bytes in the media, or his rehearsed stump speech.) And when he was extemporizing (ie not saying things combed over by his staff a billion times) he seemed more "real."
When Romney was faced with Lerher's "biparisan question" at the end, Romney knew this was an easy/softball for him. "I was a Republican governor with an 87% Democratic Congress, and it worked because both sides cared about America." I actually believed Romney wanted to make both sides of America better.
I think he didn't over-script this answer - if he lucked out and got this question, his answer is so easy, let's not worry about it too much - and since he didn't worry about it too much -- that's what made him believable.
So a month before elections, and I finally see a believable Romney moment. Now if only he had a good plan, I might actually vote for him.
Obama's debate performance: Missed opportunities
Obama and Romney both went over their "15 minutes" alloted talking time on earlier questions, so Lerher didn't get to cover all his taking points. With like 3 minutes left, the moderator said, "We've got limited time, but what will you do about partisan gridlock when you're president."
Romney's answer is easy "I got along with an 87% Democractic state legislature when I was governro, I can get along with Democrats in national Congress when President. In Massachusetts, I sat down with Democratic leaders every Monday and we worked on a collaborative basis."
Romney missed his previous opportunity to explain specifics, was Obama going to miss his opportunity to renew his pledge to bipartisanship?
Here is (the gist of) Obama's answer:
I've long said I'lll take ideas from anyone. (Specifics) That's how we cut taxes, and made trade deals and succeeded militarily. (Principles) 1. Have plan specifics, and 2. Be able to say "NO" to both sides.
I have said no to Republicans about Wall Street regulations and Obamacare. Romney has never said "NO" to his Republican supporters, he's taken whatever extreme positions the fringes of his party made him say.
Obama had a good "political" answer that won him points by pointing out his accomplishments (specifics) and his opponent's weakness (Romney's lack of principles).
But Obama had a BAD "persuasive" answer to people like me (who want reassurance that a vote for him will NOT equal more political gridlock.)
Specifics: Yeah, stuff got done, but things you listed: kind of small in comparison with that whole "deficit ceiling/fiscal cliff thing."
Principles: Good for you to not just cave in to everyone (which is why I'm probably voting for you over Romney. Romney knows the only way he can please everyone is not to say anything specific/offensive). But in addition to saying "No" you also have to say "Yes" to some things you wouldn't want to do otherwise. (Not that you'd admit doing such a thing in a debate, as that would "Cool down" your needed "Ardent support" amongst your base.)
Would it have killed you to say something like "While we've worked together in the past, (and inserting this phrase) AND I WILL TRY TO WORK WITH REPUBLUICANS MORE IN THE FUTURE (end my inserted phrase) it's important to say No to both sides....
With that phrase, you could have earned my vote. As it stand (barring unforseen political earthquakes) you are getting my vote by default (ie Who is Romney) and I know I'm getting at least "barely adequate" and hoping that A) Republican will soften since they can foil your next presidential run or B) you will make overtures to Republicans (not just steal their best ideas) maybe in your inaugeral/state of the union address?
Presidential debate: Who won (my personal opinion)
Obama and Romney both "met my expectations." This means they both lost. Romney won for "speech performance style" - but lost his opportunity to get me to vote for him. (I don't care if a president sounds better in a TV debate; I care that he has better ideas.) Obama lost his opportunity to lead bi-partisan-ly; he stayed conservative (as I predicted, he didn't risk his probable "election win" by being too aggressive) and since I was leaning towards Obama before the debate, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama in November.
Obama did say, "Umm" and "Err" a lot in his speeches - in fact, he sounded much more like the Saturday Night Live exaggeration ("Stick with someone who is barely adequate, or take your chances with the other guy.") than the (less soaring than 2008 but still soaring) Obama of the 2012 DNC convention.
Romney did not put forth the specifics to get my vote. He did bring up a "potential maybe of capping potential tax deductions (at some number to be decided in the future)" - but that is not a plan. Plans have upsides and downsides, and then you defend your plan by saying your plan has the most upsides and the fewest (unfortunate) downsides. Romney had his chance to reveal his "plan" - but he didn't say anything with a downside (if he gave actual specifics, they would have a downside, and that would (gasp) cost him votes!). Instead, he gave his "justification" for why he doesn't share specifics:
"You don't get alot done if you have specifics. I'm like Reagan, I only present principles for Congress and then we'd work on it together to get stuff done."
Umm, Mr. Romney, that is a (very) fake "justification" for not sharing specifics. At some point, when Congress is working on specifics, they are going to bring specifics to you, and what, is it THEN (after you are elected) that you will reveal what specifics you are for and against?
Romney opened with his "5 point plan" from the RNC. (We heard that before and are not impressed) And Romney had opportunities to provide specifics. Instead of specifics he offered "principle for tax cuts:"
- No tax cuts that will increase the deficit. (which I guess means there will be no tax cuts, since it will be pretty tough to cut that much spending.
And these principles for which programs to cut:
- 1. Is project critical that we need to borrow from China to pay for it. (He specifically stated Obamacare and cutting PBS. But is that really ALL that he is going to cut? After election, he might decide, "You know, we don't really need to maintain the highway system. If businesses want roads, they can pay for it privately!") The only thing that Romney believes is critical is a high military budget. Without defining "Critical" Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."
2. Is it better at the state level? Romney seems to think that healthcare is better at the state level. What's his justification? (Other than he was governor of Massachusetts when he passed Romney care, and he needs a "reason" to repeal Obamacare.) Are conditions really that different state to state? The "individual mandate" of Obamacare still allows for some flexibility state to state as well, I think - does there need to be more?
On the other hand, Romney seems to think that state/local schools need a federal hand, to "increase competition"? Can't states decide that on their own?
Without saying how to evaluate if it's better at the state level, Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."
3. Is it better to combine agencies? He mentioned that there are 47 government training programs across 8 departments, and that he can decrease overhead by sending it to the state level. It'd be great if he mentioned how setting combining the departments would help. (We could save $2 million in xerox costs!) Sure, there may be some jobs that are duplicated, but he needs to show that the 8 departments addressing different point of views is not more effective than 4 departments doing twice as much work...
Am I being unfair because Obama doesn't exactly have specifics for his next 4 years either? Maybe, but I don't need Obama to be specific, I have a good feel that his values are (at least) "barely adequate" and he's not going to gut the interstate highway system.
Obama missed his opportunity to EARN my vote in the debate as well (more on that in my next post) But I believe Obama can be president for the next 4 years, Romney had his chance to convince me that he could be president, and he missed his chance. Unless something amazing happens, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama.
Sunday, September 30, 2012
Debate expectations: Obama and Romney
Last week, there was a dearth of presidential election news. Mostly, it was campaign officials saying: "The other candidate is really good - Americans should expect a lot from their team." This manipulative lie is almost standard for politics - it's amazing that anyone even bothers reporting it as "news" anymore.
Previously, I posted what I hoped to hear from the debates. (Romney: Here are specifics of my plan. Obama: Here is how I will specifically keep trying to avoid gridlock if re-elected.)
Here is what I (unfortunately) expect from the candidates.
Romney: may give more specifics, but not enough to convince me. (Romney said 5 things at the RNC, Obama said 6 things at the DNC, now Romney will say 10 things which will seem like a lot, but there's still 99 other specifics that Romney will not go into.) The best Romney could do is mention a few more specifics and point to his website for more details. I think Romney will say more specifics (so "conservative media" can praise his forthcomingnesss), but not enough specifics to outline a presidency.
Romney will be "aggressive" and "on the attack" to try to "seem" presidential. Unfortunately, the best way to presidential is just to be yourself, when you're trying too hard, you will come across as "trying too hard" and will NOT come across as a real leader.Romney may also try "sound bytes" that the media will quote glowingly. Unfortunately, these "zingers" will come across as stale and desperate. (At the RNC, Romney's attempt at a "zinger" - "Are you better off than you were 4 years ago" failed miserably. Romney is not hip like Reagan the actor, Romney can not pull of zingers.)
If Romney is aggressive and zinger-y, Fox News and Limbaugh will both claim that Romney won the debate. Undecided swing voters (like me) will not be convinced to vote for Romney.
Obama doesn't need to give specifics- we know that if we vote for him, we're going to get 4 more years like previous 4 years. At worst, they are "barely adequate" - at best, they are good, we just need to give more time to see the effects.
Obama is safe, polling-wise. So he won't be aggressive, he will be laid back and let Romney seem like an immature attack dog. Obama's number 1 priority is to NOT say a gaffe that could ruin his re-election, so we won't see "bold promises of bipartisanship" - like I am hoping.
Obama will also try for "sound-bytes" - but they will be emtpy oratory, designed to fire up his supporters. There won't be any substance to what he says, the more substance Obama provides, the more attackable he will be, so Obama will not provide more substance.
Regardless of what happens, I suspect both sides will take quotes from the opposing side, and use the quotes out of context. These "fake quotes" will sound good in the media, but won't convince voters who weren't convinced by previous fake quotes.
Regardless of what happens, conservative media will say Romney won (he did what he needed to do) and liberal media will say Obama won (he did what he need to do.)
If both candidates "meet my expectation" both candidates will lose. Romney will lose the election (failing to convince undecided voters like myself, but "meeting expectations" of his base.) Obama will also lose a chance for an effective second term. (Obama will "demonize Republicans" during the debates to fire up his base, when he needs to reach out to them. Now that he's winning, he can afford to show bipartisanship - but this is risky, and Obama will "play it safe" - since he doesn't want to risk losing re-election.)
Still, I'm hoping that one candidate will "exceed my expectations" for these debates.
Saturday, September 29, 2012
Obama: What he should say in the debates
So, Romney has been an...unideal...candidate. Why am I still hoping he will have a plan? Because I'm still hoping that there's something better than the (probable) political gridlock that will happen if Obama gets re-elected.
I doubt Romney will reveal a masterpiece of a plan though, so Obama will get my vote by default.
If Obama wants to EARN my vote (and not just get it by default): Here's what he needs to say:
"I know that Americans are frustrated with the gridlock in Congress. And I will address that in my second term with these three specific plans:
I will invite a Republican Congressmen to lunch once a week. I won't push my agenda, in fact, I'd rather not just get to know a Republican socially without politics. There's so much animosity between Democrats and Republicans because the only time we see each other is when it's time to fight over a law that one side wants passed and the other side opposes. This has led to divide and demonization, and as president, I want to do my part to heal this partisan separation.
Second, I will set up a "buddy program" for a Democratic freshman congressman and a Republican freshman congressman. I would encourage them to see each other socially, before their senior party members crystalize their hatred. If a Texas House Representative can meet with a Califrnian Senator at the start in friendship, maybe there will be hope of a bipartisan connection that won't get jaded by experience.
And third, I will set up a website of "bipartisan issues" that citizens can visit and email their representatives that they shouldn't hate this idea just because it was brought up by the other side.
So that is what I will do personally, what I will do to encourage lawmakers, and what I will do to encourage citizens. Also, if there are other ideas to encourage bipartisanship, I will do everything I can as president to implement it."
Of course, Obama probably isn't going to "fire up his Democratic base to go to the polls" if he's not absolutely hating Republicans in his debate appearance. (Which is another problem against bipartisanship.)
But maybe Obama could mention a sentence that he has ideas on how he will change Washington from the inside in his second term, and flesh them out in his inaugeral address.
And maybe to help Bipartisanship, Obama could say in his inaugeral address that he "knows that 49% of America votes for Romney, so I will also cut legislature's salary for underperforming, and eliminate government waste like the electoral college, and other parts of Romney's plan that Republicans support."
Romney: What he should say in the debates
So I've complained about Romney's "lack of a plan." The debates are coming up, and I've said I'm looking for specifics. Here's what he needs to say to get my vote.
"I've said that I am going to use my business experience to reduce wasteful goverment expense. And here's an example: When I take over a failing company, I make sure to tie executive earnings to the company's success. I pledge to tie the salary of lawmakers to the country's success. I will cut the salary of House and Senate members in half, saving taxpayers millions of dollars over the next 4 years. I will tie percent increases to "normal rates" when the public opinion of Congress is over 50% approval - if it's under 50% approval, there will be more salary cuts. They will also get paid less if they don't pass a balanced budget.
Since I lead by example, I will also cut the president's salary in half.
Obviously, these salary cuts account for 0.01% of what we need to cut, for the other 99.99%, see my campaign website where I will list item by item, what I will cut.
I've also said that I will deregulate government. So, I will remove the "human element" from the electoral college - after the election, we'll have an "auto" electoral vote - eliminating "faithless voters" and saving time that humans waste on a formality.
Again, this is 0.01% of wasted government time we need to eliminate. On my website, there's the other 99.99% of what else I will eliminate as president.
I've also said I will close tax loopholes. Currently, there is a loophole for pet giraffes. Normally, you pay $50 in giraffe taxes, but if you tie the giraffe to a parking meter, you only need to pay $25 in giraffe taxes.
I will eliminate this loophole, and on my website there are more extensive examples of loopholes that I will close.
Okay, I don't know much about tax loopholes, so the giraffe example is a joke. (The first two examples are not though.) I doubt Romney will be able to explain his plan fully during a debate. It would be good if he had 3 big examples and then point citizens to a resource if we want to learn all the cuts/deregulations/loopholes that will be eliminated.
Unless I know Romney's plan, I will not be voting for him in November. At least with Obama, I know what I'm getting. I'm not going to vote for Romney and here during his inaugural address: "Surpise, I'm going to cut home mortgage interest rate deductions!"
So Romney, I'm hoping you have a plan.
Obama: Major weakness for re-election
I don't blame Obama for the economy. (He inherited the mess from W Bush.)
I don't blame Obama for the debt ceiling political gridlock. (It takes BOTH sides for gridlock to happen.)
But I DO blame Obama for STOPPING his attempts at bipartisanship.
His first year, Obama reached out for reasonable compromise to the minority Republicans. The Republicans (emotionally crazy because they're not used to being depowered) had secret meetings saying, "No matter what Obama proposes, we will all vote against it."
So his second year, Obama decided "I'm not going to be able to work with these crazy Republicans, I'm just going to ram through as much legislation as I can, before I lose the majority in 2010 elections."
After the 2010 elections, Obama STOPPED trying to work with Republicans. He said "Well, Republicans were going to block me when they had no power, so now that they have the House, they're going to block me even more. Oh well, I guess nothing is going to get done for two years."
When Romney was (the Republican) governor of Massachusetts, he was able to work with (Democratic majority) legislators. So, there is hope that if Romney becomes president, he'll be able to work with (Democratic majority) Senators.
But if Obama wins re-election, what is to prevent another 4 years of gridlock?
Obama seems to think that if he wins re-election, Republicans will magically stop obstructing him, since they will have learned that doesn't help anyone.
It's possible they'll start being reasonable, but I'm not going to "hope" that Republicans will "Change."
Unlike Romney, Obama doesn't really need a "plan" for what he'll do if he wins the election. We can expect more of the same Obama, and he will pay for what he wants to do by borrowing from China.
Unlike Romney, Obama DOES need to explain how he will lead a bi-partisan legislature. If his plan is to hope the other side will change - that's not a presidential plan.
Thursday, September 27, 2012
Romney Ad: Talking to the Camera
So there have been (a few...okay, more than a few) showings of Romney's response to the "47%" video link.
Romney talks to the camera and says: "I care."
What a gawd-awful video!
Seriously, Romney has billions of dollars saved up, and this is the best they could do?
Nothing says "Fake televangelist" than earnestly TRYING to be sincere with all your might.
Here's a tip: Use testimonials. Find people whose job you saved, and get them to say "Thanks to Romney, I got a better job!" Or one of your Mormon congregation people to say "Romney prayed for me, and he didn't want anything in return."
Better yet, just admit that you DON'T care. (That will come off as more honest.)
Here's what you say:
I have had quotes taken out of context.
I like to fire people...who is doing a bad job. Because then I can give that job to someone who will work hard at it and grow the company and create two new jobs.
If you're an intentional slacker, yeah, I would like to fire you. And intentional slackers, go vote for the other guy.
But if you want quality co-workers and want a guy in the Oval Office who will make sure everyone on your team is pulling their weight, you should vote for me.
I don't care about the vote from poor people... who don't want to take advantage of the free market incentives I will provide.
If you want a bigger welfare check for free, vote for the other guy.
If you want a job to get off welfare, support yourself, and contribute to society, vote for me.
That would be MUCH more believable than the current ad, and it would let you move on to discuss actual specifics about your plan to make America better.
Tuesday, September 25, 2012
What Romey needs to do in the debates:
Everything. Romney needs to do everything. (You think with all the time/money he's spent, he would have done something for his campaign, but no, no he hasn't.)
Romney needs to:
- 1. Give us a plan
- 2. Convince us that it's the best option
- 3. Tell us how he'll get it passed (it's more likely if he wins that Republicans will keep control of the House and get control of the Senate, so this is less crucial than Obama)
- 4. Convince us that now is the time to "tighten our belts" (ie the economy won't be damaged when he implements his plan
It's a good thing Romney has three debates....
What Romney does NOT need to do
Go after Obama aggressively. Gingrich (whom I hate) recommends this. So does his base. But really, seeing more Obama attacks isn't going to convince me to vote for you Romney. You need to build yourself up, not tear Obama down. (The case against Obama has been made...many times...repeatedly.)
Be likeable/inspirational The harder you try, the more you come across as a fake televangelist. Obama doesn't try to be likeable/inspirational, that's why he succeeds and you don't. What you need Romney is to be yourself. Be practical. Explain your solutions.
Soon/Eventually: What Obama needs to do in the debates (and the major reason I haven't decided to vote Obama yet.)
Obama's Non-Plan
Obama's plan has "more stuff" than Romney. (The benefit of going after the RNC: If Romney says 5 things, Obama knows he just has to say 6 things!)
Also, there is an (unspoken) mechanism of how he's going to accomplish everything – just borrow money from China! So just like Romney has to persuade that what he's doing is right, Obama needs to persuade that what he wants to do is worth more debt.
- 1. Economy (Jobs, China, Small business – health care),
- 2. Energy
- 3. Education
- 4. Spending: (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)
I. Jobs:
12 million new jobs should happen regardless.
Obama wants to “borrow money from China” to get 1 million new manufacturing jobs. This makes sense to build factories and stuff (since it helps the trade imbalance.) But, manufacture what? We'll never be competitive sewing clothes (we won't pay Americans $2/week to sew full-time.) or other low skilled work.
600,00 natural gas jobs. This sound reasonable.
And doubling exports by 2014. Exports of what?
II. Energy
Cutting net oil imports in half by 2020.
Reducing by 50% only sounds reasonable compared to Romney's reducing by 100%
But does this really solve the energy problem? If we make more gas in the USA, that doesn't make gas more cheap here than other places. (Since price of gas is global.)
What happened to alternative energy? I know Solyndra is a black eye, but does that mean Obama has "given up?"
III. Education:
Cut college tuition growth in half (by borrowing money from China.)
(And 2 million community college job training) Because there aren't enough unemployed people with college degrees.
100,000 math/science teachers. Because more crappy teachers will increase the quality of graduating students.
IV. Spending.
Deficit: Reduce it.
That's great, but how?
(This is the one thing Obama can't accomplish by borrowing money from China.)
Taxes: Steal from the rich, and redistribute to the poor. Except that stealing more from the rich is .001% of what we need.
So while there's "more stuff" from Obama than Romney, Obama still doesn't have a plan.
Saturday Night Live had an Obama parody, where Obama said the choice was "Either stick with someone who's barely adequate, or take your chances with the other guy."
Yeah, given two non-plans, I'm leaning towards Obama.
Romney's Non-Plan
At the Republican National Convention (and elsewhere), Romney proposed 4 things:
- 1. Economy (Jobs, China, Small business – health care),
- 2. Energy
- 3. Education
- 4. Spending: (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)
Let's look at each.
1A. Economy: Jobs
Romney proposed to add 12 million jobs during his 4 years. Depending who you ask, “too hard” impossible (250,000 jobs per month) or “too easy” (that's how many were going to come back anyway.)
I don't think it's “too hard” to add 250K jobs per month. They disappeared for no good reason during the recession, they should come back for no good reason during a recovery.
So let's go with “too easy” - if the economy recovers from Obama's job stimulus work done already, we'll get 12 million jobs.
So Romney's "plan" is (basically): “I will do nothing and let the economy recover on its own.” (Which goes along with his general governemtn/free market philosophy.)
If this is Romney's “plan” for the economy, he needs to convince me that the economy really can recover on its own (ie, admit that Obama has done a good enough job that the economy is out of danger) and that now is the “time” to stop splurging and tighten our belts.
1B. China
Romney will “call China a currency manipulator.” I'm not really sure what currency manipulation is – it seems like if a toy dog costs 1 USD, but it costs 2 (RSD), it just means that Chinese people who are making 50K (RSD) aren't middle class, they're actually very lower class 25K (USD).
Romney says he will “Get tough on China.” He's got a competitive approach to foreign relations, so he needs to show why that's appropriate. It seems to me, China is an economic ally – they're giving us money at low interest – that's a nice thing to do. We don't hate a credit cards that gives us a low APR, do we?
1C Small business – health-care
He will help small businesses by repealing Obamacare. I don't really see the link. It's not as if Obamacare is THE major problem with small businesses. Okay, things will get more expensive, but it's only slightly so. Romney needs to prove that the expense of mandatory healthcare is NOT worth the benefits of getting everyone healthcare.
2. Energy:
Stop America from importing oil from the Middle East by 2020. So basically, all of our gas is going to come from America, Canada, and Mexico. Is there really that much oil here? I don't think it's that easy (even with off-shore drilling).
Romney needs to make the case that A) we have that much oil, and B) if we eliminate regulations, it will make gas cheap for everyone, which will C) springboard the economy to a recovery.
I'm not sure any of those are reasonable assumptions. (Even if we go back to coal and increase nuclear – not enough energy. Especially without renewable energy subsidies, and if he deregulates energy efficiency, thus ending any incentive to develop technology that makes more use out of less resources.)
3. Education
Improve American competitiveness by A) giving parents a “choice” between public/private and B) stopping teacher unions? That's what's stopping kids from getting smarter? How about lack of motivation for students(ie, no jobs even if you get a high school diploma). There's a lot more wrong with education, and your “plan” needs to address it.
4. Spending. (Tax cuts, Deficit, Military)
Tax cuts are good. Tax cuts right now? Unless you've got a plan (programs to cut government spending and alternative sources of revenue) Cutting taxes sounds popular, but may not be the smart thing to do.
Obama said Romney's only solution is “Tax cut.” Actually, it's “tax cut” and “let the free market work.” Things are more complex than that, and Romney needs to address it and convince me of his plan.
Cutting the deficit is good. Cutting the deficit right now? Might not be so good. Romney needs to show the economy can handle it (ie, it has sufficiently recovered, which sounds like “Obama praise” to me.)
The one specific part of his plan that Romney does have is that he will NOT cut the military. Why? You spend a lot when there's a war. Pulling out of Afghanistan means we don't need to spend as much. Do we really need another Cold War, especially when there doesn't seem to be an opponent that we're trying to bankrupt?
So, Romney's plan is anything but.
Friday, September 21, 2012
Romney: Income Tax Release: I don't care.
Today, Romney released his 2011 income taxes.
Of course, he was unemployed in 2011, and he knew he was going to run in 2012, so he must have sterilized these 2011 returns to prep.
If Romney wants to win my trust, he should release his income taxes from say, 2002. His 2006 taxes would be just as sterile (since he had to know he'd run in 2008) but 2002? That's where we'd find the real/honest Mitt Romney and how he really files his taxes.
I get that Romney probably exploited a bunch of tax loopholes - which is what makes him most qualified to close them.
I do have a lingering concern that Romney...stretched... the law to pay less taxes in 2002. But if he didn't out and out cheat/lie, that'd be enough for me.
I doubt Romney out and out cheated/lied- he's just not releasing his 2002 returns because he wants to talk about something else.
But what else is he talking about? Not his actual plan for what he'll do when he's president - at least not yet.
Thursday, September 20, 2012
Obama: Univision : Biggest lesson
Obama - His Univision minuses
I voted for Obama in 2008, but I'm (still) hoping for a better candidate in 2012.
After Romney's Univision appearance, Obama got interviewed. He said he realized "You can't change Washington from the inside."
So why are you running for President? You admit you can't change the political gridlock, so like Eastwood (kinda) said: "Maybe it's time to step aside and give someone else a shot?"
When asked why Obama said he didn't pass immigration reform like he promised, Obama admitted, "Yeah, that's a regret. But it's not for lack of trying, or lack of desire."
I don't blame Obama for the economy. But I DO blame him for lack of trying and lack of desire. He decided "I can't change Washington from the inside." so he's not trying, and he doesn't want to change Washington anymore.
I voted for him because he envisioned a bipartisan presidential term, and now Obama (and Romney too) don't mention bipartisanship in their convention acceptance speech.
I'll revisit this critique in a future "Why I haven't decided for Obama" post. It's probably the one issue he (most) needs to address to get my vote.
EditInitial post said "Telemundo" but I changed it because it was channel Univision.
Also, Democratic bloggers claim that the quote (like previous mudslingers) is just taken out of context.
Obama really said: "You can't change Washington from the inside (that's why voters in Virginia/Florida need to turn out and support candidates.)
But the context doesn't alter my perception on this quote. Obama admitted that this was something he "learned" - ie, it's a change from his previous position in 2008:
2008 Obama: I will change Washington from the outside. If voters in Virginia/Florida need to turn out and support me, I will transform Washington!
2010 Obama: You can't change Washington from the inside. So voters in Virginia need to turn out and vote, because I can't transform Washington by myself.
So Obama is admitting: I have no plan to change Washington - I'm out of ideas - I need voters to change Congress for me.
That's why this quote bothers me. (Media liked "You didn't build that" and "I like to fire people" - because those are big and sexy. This problem is subtle, so the media doesn't care as much, but discerning swing voters are picking up on what the media does not.)
Edit again An explanation/defense is that "You can't change Washington from the inside" is a cliche, uttered thoughtlessly by everyone (even Romney, in 2008 primary debates.)
Maybe Obama just rehashed what he's accustomed to saying in a campaign, not realizing that he's now inside Washington.
Unfortunately, Obama doubled down, saying "I can't change Washington inside by myself. I need voters outside Washington to support me.
This is the problem. I'll talk about it in "What Obama needs to do in the debates.
Romney: 100%, Libya and Healthcare
Romney - waffle leader
I was okay with Romney admitting that his strategy to win only 53% of the vote.
His (immediate) response was to double down: "What I said is true, just inelegantly stated." That's the sort of truth talk that wins over smart independents (such as moi) whom he wants to get him over 50%.
But (after criticisms) he changed his response so it's now: "Actually, I am for 100% of America."
That's one way to prevent (more) of the 45% of the "auto-Romney voters" from evaporating. But now he just looks like a waffler to the intellegent independents.
I'm beginning to suspect that the reason he hasn't unveiled specifics of his plan is because he's waiting for last minute polls to tell him what he needs to say to win. It doesn't matter what he actually believes in, or what he'll actually do when elected. It's like his startegy is "Tell me what you want to say, and I will say it to be your leader."
Which, ironically, is not what I think a leader should say.
Libya: Doubling down, and then not (again.)
So after the Libya tragedy, Romney's (immediate) response was "I'm disappointed that the Obama administration is apologizing." And then it turned out that Romney spoke before/after he knew what was really going on.
And then he "doubled-down" the next day: "Yes, I stand by my remarks, maybe the apology didn't come directly from Obama's mouth, but his officials are channeling Obama policy and that policy is "America will apologize."
And then the next, next day (after criticisms) he changed his response to: "Yeah, Libya was a tragedy."
Health care
After the primaries were (mostly over), Romney said: "I will repeal Obama care, as my first priority act in office."
During the RNC, Romney said "Amongst the things I will do to help small business is repeal Obamacare." (Literally, it's not a "headline" in his 5 talking points, it's a subheading under "help businesses.")
After the Democratic convention (and polls came in saying what parts people liked) Romney said: "Well, I wouldn't repeal ALL of Obamacare, I'll keep the parts that help people with pre-existing conditions."
And then at yesterday's Telemundo interview he said: "Obama says that my Romneycare plan from Massachusetts is the grandfather of Obamacare. It's not a compliment, but I'll take it."
Soooo, now Romney thinks his association with Obamacare is a good thing?
Call me crazy, but I want to know where a candidate stands on an issue like "healthcare" before I vote for him.
Tuesday, September 18, 2012
Romney 47% Video Leak: Why no effect on me
(Not) Continued
Today, I was going to talk about what Obama and Romney needed to do to earn my (undecided) vote. But since yesterday, so many articles have reported "candid Romney" saying he doesn't care about the poor - and how that video "leak" is a game-changer for undecideds (like me).
As a "persuadable", let me tell you that the "gaffe" does not affect me. And here's why:
Immunity to negative campaigning
Evidently, negative campaign ads work. I guess that's how 90% of America has already decided. But us remaining 10% won't become decided when we see another negative campaign ad, message or gaffe.
Romney: I like to fire people (when they don't do a good job)
Obama: If you have a small business, you didn't build that (street that connects you to your clients.)
Us "Deciding 10%" haven't been swayed by those "previous gaffes", and we're not swayed by this one either.
Romney: I don't want the votes of poor people (who are too lazy to work for the benefits offered by my presidency which will reward hard workers.)
Nothing new
If anything, the gaffe will reinforce people who've already decided on both sides.
Republican: I'm so glad I'm going to vote for Romney, he really does want to reward hard workers!
Democrat: First Ryan pushes grannies off cliffs, now Romney admits he doesn't care about the poor!
As for undecideds like me, we already know that Romney (and Obama) are going for a 51% win. It's the smart thing to do - that's why Obama isn't campaigning in Texas, and Romney isn't campaigning in Illinois.
You might say: But this isn't geographic discrimination, this is class discrimination!
Which brings me to:
The real gaffe
The real gaffe is Romney's manipulation - telling people numbers that they want to hear/what is most helpful to Romney. (Like "23 million" unemployed at the RNC, when it's like 13 million unemployed, and 10 million "underemployed.)
The "hidden video" wouldn't be notable at all if Romney said: "I don't care about the 13% who don't pay income taxes, because my tax cuts aren't going to help them."
Instead, Romney said "47% are victims." He (probably) said this to a wealthy (potential) donor who said "I'm not going to give you money unless you've got 75% support!" So Romney had to manipulate the donor and say "I'm not going to get 75% of the vote, because 47% will automatically vote for Obama, because they're not as smart/hard-working as you are!"
Obama uses "fake numbers" as convenient too. And I'm sure he tells wealthy donors what they want to hear to. ("Why don't I get more votes in Texas? Well, those Texans like their guns too much.") And actually, Obama has had his "manipulations unknowingly recorded" gaffe in this election already. (Telling the Russian president "I'll have more flexibility after the election.")
Conclusion
So I'm actually glad that both Romney and Obama have had their "unknown recorded" gaffes - that's what they get for trying to manipulate people instead of just being honest.
Some day, there will be a candidate who has a good plan, and does NOT need to manipulate people. That day is NOT during this current election. Until that day comes, like most undecideds, I'm going to vote for the candidate who has the better plan. (Which will hopefully come out during the debates.)
Monday, September 17, 2012
My case against Romney:
With the economy, Obama left an opening for a good Republican candidate to become president. At first, Romney might have been that candidate. He has a good economic background, and (unlike Ross Perot) he also has governing experience in the executive branch.
The initial case against Romney wasn't convincing. "He's a millionaire who only wants to help other millionairs" is as much an obvious distortion as Obama's portrayal as a socialist who steals from the rich.
And his "gaffes" on his foreign trip? You have a pack of reporters following you for 24hrs, who are waiting for the slightest misstep - and we'll see how you do. If the only mistake I made was saying "London could use more security" - I'd think I was doing pretty well.
My case against Romney is his (conscious?) strategy of "ambiguity."
When he started, Romney knew that 60% of America disliked Obama. So if the 45% of Republican voters supported him (hey, they'd vote for any Republican presidential candidate), and over half the undecideds voted against Obama - he could win the election without having to say or do anything.
So Romney played conservative - if he doesn't say or do anything - there won't be anything said or done that would make him lose the election.
The problem is that just because 60% of America dislikes Obama, that doesn't mean that 60% will automatically vote for Romney.
Okay, some undecideds are that undiscerning, but not most of us. (At least, I hope so.) When we "decide" it's because we've thought things through.
And those of us who think things through don't like it when you try to manipulate us with "ambiguity."
Ultimiately, the reason I'm leaning away from Romney is that Obama is good (not great) and Romney is unknown. I would be surprised if/when Romney (finally) reveals his plan at the debates that it's going to be so obviously awesome that it will convince me to vote for him in a month.
If Romney's plan was that good, he would have unveiled it much earlier. Most likely, Romney's plan is going to be mixed. If Romney had revealed it (months) earlier, he could have learned what the voters thought of it, and tweaked it before the debates.
So Romney's plan had better be pretty darn good when it is finally unveiled - if it's a "rough draft" at the debates, my current "leaning towards Obama" will become a "vote yes for Obama."
Next time: What Obama and Romney need to do to earn my vote
My case against Obama
Am I better of than 4 years ago?
Slightly. In 2008, everyone (including me) was scared about losing our jobs and the economy crashing into a Depression. In 2012, I'm less scared about losing my job (the current concern has improved from: "How quickly are jobs disappearing?" and the is now matured to:"How slowly are jobs coming back?" ) And even if we go over the "fiscal cliff" - we're more likely to go into a Recession than a Depression.
My case against Obama is that he was good, not great. And this is at a time when we needed "excellent."
Ideally, you want things "good, quick, and cheap." Practically, you get to pick two of the three.
Obama's recovery wasn't "cheap" - so it should have been "good and quick." The recovery is anemic and taking longer than execpected.
Obama's second term
I think Obama knew in 2008 that the recovery wasn't going to be complete in 2012. I think he (famously) said "If we're not recovered by 2012, I should be a one-term president." - not because he thought the recovery would be done by 2012, but because Obama didn't WANT a second term (at least back then), but he knew showing (fake) confidence in the recovery would get others to believe in the recovery as well, thus increasing consumer confidence.
I hate that kind of political manipulation - and it serves Obama right that it's coming back to bite him.
I also think that Obama didn't really have an 8 year plan - he just had a 4 year plan to stop the crisis, and now that it's 2012, he doesn't have a plan anymore, beyond doing more of what he's been doing (which may not be what the economy needs right now.)
Finally, I don't think that Obama WANTS a second term to fix the economy in the future. He WANTS a second term so that his "accomplishments" in the first term aren't automatically undone by the next president. While Obama's campaign slogan is "forward" - he hasn't really shown what he wants to do that will bring us forward.
Conclusion
Romney's big question from the 2012 RNC ("Are you better off today than you were 4 years ago?) was lifted from Reagan's campaign against Carter. It worked for Reagan because Carter's policies had caused the stagflationary economy they were facing.
We are (slightly) better off over Obama from 4 years ago. A better question at the RNC would have been "Has Obama got you where you want to be in 4 years? If not, why give him another 4?"
"Who am I?" and "Why this blog?"
Who am I?
I am an undecided swing voter. From Florida. And I identify myself as "middle-class." (So supposedly, both Obama and Romney will are good for me if either wins the election :)
Why this blog?
I read an article that said 45% had already decided they'd re-elect Obama. Another 45% had decided to vote for Romney. So that meant that 10% of America is going to decide this election (and if doomsdayers are to be believed - the fate of the world.)
Of that 10%, maybe 20% live in a swing state, so (evidently) I'm in the 2% that REALLY matter. And of that 2% how many blog? (Most political bloggers are decidedly biased Democrat or Republican - it's their strong passions that make them want to blog. How many "strongly passionate" undecideds are there?)
So political types should probably care what someone like me thinks about this election - evidently they're spending millions on polls, and more millions on advertising.... So they could look at fake numbers, or they could just read my blog for an in-depth "sampling" of their target audience.
I do doubt if any "senior campaign startegists" will ever read my blog though. Mostly I'm doing this to work out my own thoughts. (And to archive it, so I can look back when I'm 65 and say, "I actually believed that when I was younger?")
I can't really be an undecided swing voter, right?
Technically, you could say my (historical) preferences lean towards Republican/small government. At the start of 2012, I was leaning more towards Romney, although I am currently leaning towards re-electing Obama. But we'll see what happens in the debates. (Seriously, why/how has 90% of the country already decided who to vote for, when the debates haven't happened yet?)
I grew up with Reagan, and I suppose he shaped my values. (Reinforced when Clinton said, "The era of big government is over.") I voted for Clinton over Dole, because why change when things are going well? I voted for Bush over Gore, because of my (traditional) Republican leanings, and it seemed like a governor is better qualified that a vice-president. (Seriously, what did the VP do for 8 years?)
I voted AGAINST Bush in 2004, not because I liked Kerry, but because I HATED Bush. (Seriously, we can't afford it, but let's give free drugs to seniors just to keep the incumbent in power? And I hated "Operation Enudring Freedom" before "hating it" became mainstream.)In 2008, I voted for Obama, because while I admired McCain's courage and fighting spirit, I thought Obama's intellectual capacity was more...presidential.
I didn't follow the start of the 2012 Republican primaries that closely. (It started with like 20 candidates.) As the field narrowed, I thought Ron Paul had some crazy ideas (some were "good crazy", but enough were "crazy crazy" ideas.) I hated Newt Gingrich for attacking Clinton's personal failings for political gain. Ultimately, I preferred Romney's "economy" message over Santorum's "Christian Values" message.
In the 2012 general election, I was initially leaning towards Romney. I don't believe Obama is a secret Muslim socialist who failed on the economy. Mostly, I think he did his job adequately (we didn't plunge into a second Great Depression) - but I think Obama didn't really have a plan to do things differently for the next 4 years.
I'm kind of leaning back towards Obama, because Romney doesn't seem to have a concrete plan either. Romney said something like "If you don't think Obama did a good job, that means you should vote for me." Umm, no, Mr. Romney, I will vote for you when you convince me that you'll do a better job than Obama. I'm not going to vote Obama out and put someone who will do (maybe) a worse job in his place.
Obama isn't great, but Romney hasn't convinced me that you'll do better. Maybe that'll change during the debates, but until then, I'm leaning towards Obama.