The GOP Clash Demonstrates One Thing: There Are Very Few Serious Candidates
The saying in political circles these days is that Herman Cain peaked one hour before the start of the CNN Republican debate this past weekend. Clearly, Cain did not give a great account of himself. He managed to make, what is ostensibly a very simple tax plan (9% income tax, 9% corporate tax, 9% national sales tax) into a very confusing topic for the viewer and drew fire from all sides at the start of the debate. Some of the criticism was, frankly, odd for a Republican forum. Michele Bachmann criticized the plan as being to regressive: she is right, but this is the first time that I've heard the Tea Party advocate argue the virtues of a progressive tax system. Romney criticized it as double taxation, pointing out that Nevada residents would have to pay their own state sales tax in addition to the national tax. He is also right, but his point is sort of beside the point. We pay multiple taxes at almost every level now. Income is taxed with SSI taxes and income taxes at both the federal and state level. We already have federal taxes on things like gasoline, alcohol, tobacco and firearms that are in addition to state-level sales taxes.
I was on one level very surprised to see the GOP candidates so roundly dismiss what is a pretty GOP idea -- a flatter tax code and a shift away from income-based taxes to consumption-based taxes. I guess everyone shoots for the front-runner of the week.
Cain did himself absolutely no favors in the debate, mumbling on about Apples and Oranges, rather than focusing the debate on the simplicity of his plan and the complexity of the existing plan. He also was completely backed into a corner, trying to continue to argue that this plan won't make taxes go up on lower-income Americans, when it is obvious on face that it will (a point Rick Santorum and Rick Perry made at great length.) Of course, Rick Perry is now turning around and promotion a flat income tax designed to "broaden the tax base", which is exactly the same thing, but never we mind that.
Just when it looked like Cain was going to be completely cooked and roasted, Romney and Perry turned on each other in a series of exchanges that, in a less civil day, might have ended in a fist fight. Perry accused Romney of hiring illegal immigrants (he hired a landscaping company which employed illegals, hardly a first) and Romney fumbled completely by stating that of course he asked the lawn company to fire them since he was running for public office, seemingly implying that he wouldn't have cared otherwise. Perry kept pointing his finger at Romney. Romney kept chiding Perry for interrupting him, even begging moderator Anderson Cooper to intervene at one point.
In total, it was the worst showing for the GOP field as they looked like a bunch of bickering school children. Romney clearly had his worst performance, losing his cool in a way I had not seen in previous debates. Cain looked like an utterly unserious front-runner. Perry looked like a guy who has lost all momentum and is just trying to gin up controversy to keep himself relevant. If there was a winner, it was Newt Gingrich, whose professorial, intelligent responses played a lot better against this backdrop than they had in previous debates.
In spite of Romney's poor performance, it is abundantly clear to me that he is the only credible candidate in the field.
Cain? If the anchor to your campaign is a tax plan and you can't explain it, you are in big trouble. People might forgive some of the downright ignorant things Cain has said on foreign policy, his utterly confusing responses to questions about social issues and his borderline racist comments about Muslims if he was rock solid on economic policy. But Cain would be a train wreck in a general election campaign.
Perry? The more that even Republican hear him speak, the less they like him. Does anyone really think this is the guy to bring down Barack Obama?
Gingrich? He WOULD be credible -- if he didn't carry so much baggage. He's a smart guy and a great debater. He explains his positions in a clear, well thought out manner. But if he ever became a serious threat in the polls, his sketchy personal past and long history in Washington would be a club over the head of his poll numbers.
Bachmann? Please. Crazy doesn't win general elections.
Santorum? If the lynchpin of your campaign is that you've won in a swing state and the reason you aren't in office is that you lost re-election in that swing state by 18%, you aren't starting in a great place. Besides, he comes off horribly bitter. Nobody takes him seriously.
Paul? His loyalists love him, but the day the GOP nominates an anti-war, pro-drug and prostitution legalization, pro-gay marriage (sort of) libertarian, I'm investing in snow plow dealerships in hell.
Huntsman? Is he still running? Regrettably, Jon Huntsman is a very serious and well qualified candidate. He just can't get the GOP to pay attention to him.
All of which leaves Romney as the guy with the most credibility.
The key question is whether that will matter to the GOP in this nomination cycle. It didn't matter when they nominated Christine O'Donnell in Delaware, Joe Miller in Alaska and Sharon Angle in Nevada in 2010. Do they want to win or do they want a Tea Party loyalist? We shall see.
Qaddafi Dead
The death of Libyan Dictator Muammar Qaddafi (or Gaddafi if you like that spelling) is good news to the world. Qaddafi was an awful dictator, hated by his people and well known for making crazy and offensive UN speeches that delegates would walk out of.
You can criticize President Obama at great length on many domestic topics, but to the surprise of many, he has been a rock-solid leader on foreign policy.
The GOP can say all they want that he bows too much or isn't strong enough, but the facts tell a different story.
Osama Bin Laden is dead. So are scores of Taliban and Al Qaeda leadership.
Muammar Qaddafi is dead.
The Iraq War is essentially over with the last US troops leaving in the next couple of months.
Our position in Afghanistan is strengthened (albeit we still need an exit strategy.)
We have a new, comprehensive, nuclear weapons reduction treaty.
We have new free trade deals spanning the globe.
Did President Bush have 1/10th this amount of accomplishment in 8 years?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Showing posts with label Muammar Qaddafi. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Muammar Qaddafi. Show all posts
Saturday, October 22, 2011
Friday, September 25, 2009
It's a Crazy World, Waffling on Afghanistan?, More Obama Polls, Tracking NJ and VA, Health Care Plods Along, MA Senate Controversy
There has been a ton going on this week in the world of politics, so I'll get right to it....
Nutcases, Radicals and Dictators -- Oh, My! If there is one thing that the UN and G20 meetings has confirmed, it is that there are still a lot of crazies in the world....and that we need to keep an eye on the ones who could potentially get their hands on nuclear weapons.
From the re-emergence of Libya's nutty-again dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, who, apparently has quite an axe to grind with just about everyone in the world, to Iran's illegitimately elected (probably), nuclear-ambitious, holocaust-dening, always-nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world is quite a scary place.
Of the two, while Qaddafi's rambling, long speech garnered the eye of the media, it is Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions that deserve our attention. A nuclear Iran is a scary prospect indeed. While Iran lacks the technological capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. territory, they could certainly turn the middle east into a crater, Israel included.
A much harder line is needed with Iran. President Obama is right to declare their actions unaccceptable, but the world needs to stand together to do much more than talk. Iran should have zero access to capital, equipment or trade unless and until it abandons its nuclear ambitions. They are simply too great a risk. What purpose does the UN serve if NOT to stop rogue nations like Iran from acquiring the ultimate destructive weapon?
At the G20, a slightly more sane gathering of nations, things were considerably tamer. Sure, we had the normal protests from the usual anti-globalization radicals, but the tone inside was considerably more business-like. That said, no real break throughs came out of the session. The leaders declared it a success and agreed to some underlying principles on things like regulation of the financial markets and pollution control. Nothing really meaty though.
The international schedule has been crowded as of late, particularly with the aftermath of a global recession. Unfortunately, I fear the world is just nibbling at the edges of the causes of the near-collapse of the global economy. No one has addressed in a serious way, how to eliminate the risk posed by "too big to fail" institutions, which are at the root of the severity of the recession. And it appears unlikely they will as the crisis has passed.
Is Obama Shooting Straight on Afghanistan? From the onset of his campaign for President, Barack Obama made it clear that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" as opposed to the Iraq war, which he viewed as a "war of choice". He relentlessly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to commit adequate resources to Afghanistan and for taking its eyes off the ball by focusing so much troop strength in Iraq.
It is concerning, then, that the President seems reluctant to send more troops and appears to have held back the recommendation of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal to send at least 10,000 additional troops to the country.
Is Obama caving in to the left-wing of his party?
The worst solution in Afghanistan is to maintain the status quo. We could have a reasoned debate about whether a continued American presence makes sense (I tend to think it does, although we need a great deal more clarity on the mission objectives and conditions for exit), but EITHER commiting more troops OR exiting the theater are preferable to maintaining the status quo. We learned our lesson in Vietnam, that half-pregnant wars do not work.
Let's hope President Obama takes a clear position in the next couple of weeks and if he chooses to continue to leave troops in Afghanistan, that he commits a sufficient number to do the job.
More Obama Polling
It is remarkable, given everything that has happened over the first 8 months of his Presidency, that President Obama continues to enjoy popularity at or above his November totals. The hope and change President has seemed far less inspirational and a lot less visionary over the past few months than many had hoped. Yet, on his ultimate scorecard he is still faring pretty well.
President Obama has continued to hold on to the modest gains that he had achieved following his late-August lows. He has yet to have a polling day below his November margin of 7.2%.
In the monthly data, President Obama actually has a chance for September to be the first month that he gains ground. His average as of today is +12.0%, just slightly below his August average of +12.3%, but his daily numbers are tracking above the average, so it certainly looks that, at worst, President Obama will have a flat month in September. Not a bad recovery after the disaster over the summer.
NJ/VA Governor Updates
It's getting down to crunch time in the 2009 elections, and the only ones of significance are the fights for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The GOP would still have to be considered a favorite to take both seats, but things continue to get closer.
In Virginia -- my latest analysis of polls puts this at a 4.4% margin for Republican Robert McDonnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds, while the RCP average has an identical margin. This is practically a pick 'em in a state race with over a month to go and Deeds closing at a pretty good clip (we were talking mid-double digits a couple of months ago.)
In New Jersey -- my latest analysis still has it a 7.5% margin for Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) while the RCP average shows it a 6.6% race. This one is tightening too, although not as fast.
I'd been predicting from the get-go that Corzine would close in New Jersey, given its history of flirting with Republicans but electing Democrats. Could I have had this backwards? Might the DEMs pull it out in now-purple Virginia and get scortched in still-deep-blue New Jersey?
Health Care Bills Moving, But Not Too Fast
In the House, Nancy Pelosi is slowly moving towards a showdown on the floor sometime in the next month, basically negotiating only with Democrats. It appears likely that the bill will make it to the floor with a public option in it, as Pelosi has expressly rejected both co-ops and the "trigger" mechanism as alternatives. The problem Democrats face in the House, is that it is not clear that they can cobble together enough Democratic votes to pass a bill with the public option, and they will certainly get no GOP votes. It's also not clear that a bill that excludes a public option would attract enough liberal support. Back to the same problem -- the Dems are not on one page.
The Senate prospects, unbelieveably, actually look brighter than in the House. Despite lots of partisan committee votes, it appears that the Baucus bill will make it to the floor without major changes and with no obvious Democratic defections. If the Senate passes a bill without a public option, it will put major pressure on Pelosi and company to get the liberal wing in line and line up behind a similar bill.
Still a long tricky way to go on this one.
Hypocrites in Massachussetts
Governor Deval Patrick (D) has named Paul Kirk to fill in as an interim Senator until a special election is held in January to select the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). He made this appointment after the legislature rushed through a bill, changing the law to allow such an appointment. The Governor waived a normal protocol that laws in the state be deferred for 90 days before taking effect, prompting a GOP court challenge, which appears to have at least initially failed.
Gov. Patrick and company were probably within their legal rights here. But that's not the point. The point is the hypocracy that they delayed in making the change in the law.
Massachussetts had previously had a law which allowed temporary appointments to the Senate. In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was seeking the Presidency, the legislature promptly changed the law to allow only selection by special election, guarding against a GOP Senator from then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Now, when a 60th Democrat is needed for health care reform, they switch it back. Changing the rules of election to serve a specific political outcome is wrong and should be condemned.
And while we are on the topic, shouldn't we have a uniform selection of laws across the country for how Senators are selected in the event of a vacancy?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Nutcases, Radicals and Dictators -- Oh, My! If there is one thing that the UN and G20 meetings has confirmed, it is that there are still a lot of crazies in the world....and that we need to keep an eye on the ones who could potentially get their hands on nuclear weapons.
From the re-emergence of Libya's nutty-again dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi, who, apparently has quite an axe to grind with just about everyone in the world, to Iran's illegitimately elected (probably), nuclear-ambitious, holocaust-dening, always-nutty Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the world is quite a scary place.
Of the two, while Qaddafi's rambling, long speech garnered the eye of the media, it is Ahmadinejad and Iran's nuclear ambitions that deserve our attention. A nuclear Iran is a scary prospect indeed. While Iran lacks the technological capability to launch a nuclear weapon that could reach U.S. territory, they could certainly turn the middle east into a crater, Israel included.
A much harder line is needed with Iran. President Obama is right to declare their actions unaccceptable, but the world needs to stand together to do much more than talk. Iran should have zero access to capital, equipment or trade unless and until it abandons its nuclear ambitions. They are simply too great a risk. What purpose does the UN serve if NOT to stop rogue nations like Iran from acquiring the ultimate destructive weapon?
At the G20, a slightly more sane gathering of nations, things were considerably tamer. Sure, we had the normal protests from the usual anti-globalization radicals, but the tone inside was considerably more business-like. That said, no real break throughs came out of the session. The leaders declared it a success and agreed to some underlying principles on things like regulation of the financial markets and pollution control. Nothing really meaty though.
The international schedule has been crowded as of late, particularly with the aftermath of a global recession. Unfortunately, I fear the world is just nibbling at the edges of the causes of the near-collapse of the global economy. No one has addressed in a serious way, how to eliminate the risk posed by "too big to fail" institutions, which are at the root of the severity of the recession. And it appears unlikely they will as the crisis has passed.
Is Obama Shooting Straight on Afghanistan? From the onset of his campaign for President, Barack Obama made it clear that he viewed the war in Afghanistan as a "war of necessity" as opposed to the Iraq war, which he viewed as a "war of choice". He relentlessly criticized the Bush Administration for failing to commit adequate resources to Afghanistan and for taking its eyes off the ball by focusing so much troop strength in Iraq.
It is concerning, then, that the President seems reluctant to send more troops and appears to have held back the recommendation of Gen. Stanley Mcchrystal to send at least 10,000 additional troops to the country.
Is Obama caving in to the left-wing of his party?
The worst solution in Afghanistan is to maintain the status quo. We could have a reasoned debate about whether a continued American presence makes sense (I tend to think it does, although we need a great deal more clarity on the mission objectives and conditions for exit), but EITHER commiting more troops OR exiting the theater are preferable to maintaining the status quo. We learned our lesson in Vietnam, that half-pregnant wars do not work.
Let's hope President Obama takes a clear position in the next couple of weeks and if he chooses to continue to leave troops in Afghanistan, that he commits a sufficient number to do the job.
More Obama Polling
It is remarkable, given everything that has happened over the first 8 months of his Presidency, that President Obama continues to enjoy popularity at or above his November totals. The hope and change President has seemed far less inspirational and a lot less visionary over the past few months than many had hoped. Yet, on his ultimate scorecard he is still faring pretty well.
President Obama has continued to hold on to the modest gains that he had achieved following his late-August lows. He has yet to have a polling day below his November margin of 7.2%.
In the monthly data, President Obama actually has a chance for September to be the first month that he gains ground. His average as of today is +12.0%, just slightly below his August average of +12.3%, but his daily numbers are tracking above the average, so it certainly looks that, at worst, President Obama will have a flat month in September. Not a bad recovery after the disaster over the summer.
NJ/VA Governor Updates
It's getting down to crunch time in the 2009 elections, and the only ones of significance are the fights for Governor in New Jersey and Virginia. The GOP would still have to be considered a favorite to take both seats, but things continue to get closer.
In Virginia -- my latest analysis of polls puts this at a 4.4% margin for Republican Robert McDonnell over Democrat Creigh Deeds, while the RCP average has an identical margin. This is practically a pick 'em in a state race with over a month to go and Deeds closing at a pretty good clip (we were talking mid-double digits a couple of months ago.)
In New Jersey -- my latest analysis still has it a 7.5% margin for Republican Chris Christie over incumbent Gov. Jon Corzine (D) while the RCP average shows it a 6.6% race. This one is tightening too, although not as fast.
I'd been predicting from the get-go that Corzine would close in New Jersey, given its history of flirting with Republicans but electing Democrats. Could I have had this backwards? Might the DEMs pull it out in now-purple Virginia and get scortched in still-deep-blue New Jersey?
Health Care Bills Moving, But Not Too Fast
In the House, Nancy Pelosi is slowly moving towards a showdown on the floor sometime in the next month, basically negotiating only with Democrats. It appears likely that the bill will make it to the floor with a public option in it, as Pelosi has expressly rejected both co-ops and the "trigger" mechanism as alternatives. The problem Democrats face in the House, is that it is not clear that they can cobble together enough Democratic votes to pass a bill with the public option, and they will certainly get no GOP votes. It's also not clear that a bill that excludes a public option would attract enough liberal support. Back to the same problem -- the Dems are not on one page.
The Senate prospects, unbelieveably, actually look brighter than in the House. Despite lots of partisan committee votes, it appears that the Baucus bill will make it to the floor without major changes and with no obvious Democratic defections. If the Senate passes a bill without a public option, it will put major pressure on Pelosi and company to get the liberal wing in line and line up behind a similar bill.
Still a long tricky way to go on this one.
Hypocrites in Massachussetts
Governor Deval Patrick (D) has named Paul Kirk to fill in as an interim Senator until a special election is held in January to select the late Sen. Edward Kennedy (D). He made this appointment after the legislature rushed through a bill, changing the law to allow such an appointment. The Governor waived a normal protocol that laws in the state be deferred for 90 days before taking effect, prompting a GOP court challenge, which appears to have at least initially failed.
Gov. Patrick and company were probably within their legal rights here. But that's not the point. The point is the hypocracy that they delayed in making the change in the law.
Massachussetts had previously had a law which allowed temporary appointments to the Senate. In 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was seeking the Presidency, the legislature promptly changed the law to allow only selection by special election, guarding against a GOP Senator from then-Gov. Mitt Romney (R). Now, when a 60th Democrat is needed for health care reform, they switch it back. Changing the rules of election to serve a specific political outcome is wrong and should be condemned.
And while we are on the topic, shouldn't we have a uniform selection of laws across the country for how Senators are selected in the event of a vacancy?
If you like this site, tell your friends.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
