PoliticusUSA (Politics)

Biden Versus Ryan: Defense is the Best Offense (October 9, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Following a somewhat unusual Presidential candidate debate last week, featuring possibly the most futile moderation in history from PBS’ Jim Lehrer (I’m still puzzled by Lehrer’s good-natured laugh in response to Romney’s vow to cut funding from the public broadcasting network as a method of balancing the Federal budget), liberal voters are left to anticipate this week’s Vice-Presidential throw down between current office holder Joe Biden and GOP hopeful Paul Ryan. The event is being positioned by both parties as a clash between the old and new guards of American politics.

Team Biden is promoting the debate as the definitive choice between experience and wisdom versus youthful, brash ignorance. On last Sunday’s edition of Meet the Press, NBC’s Political Director Chuck Todd cautioned those who might expect a fumble from the foot-in-mouth-prone VP, “Everybody talks about the gaffes on the trail, but he won most of the Democratic primary debates in 2008.”

Joe Biden, a man with a lifelong penchant towards shooting from the hip, is not the bumbling caricature of Gerald Ford comically delivered by Chevy Chase in the Saturday Night Live parodies of yesteryear. It would serve naysayers well to remember that Biden was a Senate veteran with 26 years of experience before he was promoted to the White House. The 15th longest serving Senator in history built a career out of bipartisan cooperation, and is widely considered one of the most likeable lawmakers in the nation. It may also serve the opposition to recall that when Biden was added to the 2008 ticket, it was in part an effort to strengthen then-candidate Obama’s foreign policy credentials. Joe Biden is no lightweight.

On the other side of the spectrum, Paul Ryan supporters are positioning the week’s rhetorical skirmish as a battle between fresh, wonky ideas versus the old and tired status quo. In the same Meet the Press broadcast, panelist and former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich characterized the 42 year-old elected official as “one of the brightest people in Congress. I think he knows an immense amount of facts.” It is tempting to point out that personality traits that might render one well-prepared for an evening of bar trivia are hardly a recommendation for America’s second-highest office.

Debate watchers may also be curious as to what set of “facts” Ryan will be armed with on the evening in question. Will he bespeak the much-maligned, if personably delivered, “truth” about the Romney budget plan that Mittens tried to sell to registered voters last week, a plan infused with magical fairy dust that permits the elimination of the deficit without destroying the social safety net or cutting taxes further for the wealthy? Or will Ryan adopt the Dr. Phil-esque “get real” approach so yearned for by the likes of New York Times columnist David Brooks? Does Ryan have the courage to talk to likely voters like adults, detailing the real impact of a Romney administration?

Scheduled several weeks after the strangest, most deceptive Republican National Convention in recent memory, gamblers may want to place their bets on the fairy dust edition of Paul Ryan.

With the benefit of a higher “Q” rating and an established presence as a genial and intelligent public servant, a report this week from Yahoo! News distills Joe Biden’s mission for the evening to one simple goal: “Biden needs to enter the ring with his boxing gloves on. Ever since Romney picked Ryan as his running mate, the Obama campaign has been attacking the Ryan plan left and right, and Biden has to be ready to throw punches against Ryan’s economic philosophy.”

That’s right. Vice-President must accomplish what President Obama failed to do in his opening battle with Romney: put Ryan on defense and keep him there. It’s a winning strategy because Ryan’s budget plan is heartless, bad for America and when properly scrutinized, indefensible. Just keep smiling Joe and watch the young kid strangle himself.

Like the Work of the NFL Replacement Refs? Then Vote for Mitt Romney (September 25, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

I have to credit my boyfriend for suggesting this appropriate extended analogy. After several weeks of delayed games, inaccurate calls and the kind of under-preparedness that threatened to remove the integrity from NFL officiating, dire warnings came to fruition last night when the Green Bay Packers were essentially robbed of a victory. Although I am by birth a Chicago Bears fan, this was a uniting moment for football enthusiasts of all stripes. At the end of the day, it’s a love of the game that brings us together, and those who don’t stand in protest against the league’s continued lockout of unionized officials might want to consider who will side with them when their home team is cheated.

As my partner and I looked on in horror at the pandemonium that erupted at Seattle’s Qwest Field after the game’s controversial conclusion, he made a keen observation: “This is what will happen if the country votes for Mitt Romney.” Immediately, I asked for further clarification.

Basically the argument is this: President Obama has a great deal in common with the locked out NFL officials. These are the people that many fans, players and coaches take for granted during a normal season. They do their jobs without glamour, striving to make the best calls according to the league’s rule book. They don’t get it right every time, leading to the requisite jeers, but by and large, students of the game can rest confidently knowing that if nothing else, the referees decisions do not affect the match’s outcome. The best team will usually win. It is not until these shepherds are taken away that we feel the pain of their absence.

President Obama is just such a leader on a national level: a brilliant thinker and empathetic man entrusted with stewardship of the country in the midst of one of its most historically challenging epochs. Every call the POTUS has made since taking office in January 2009 may not have been the right one, but the choices were made through a combination of strategic thought and genuine respect for the American people. However much work lies ahead, in under four years, Obama has brought the union back from the brink of complete financial and foreign policy collapse.

Those that have grown impatient with the slow and steady progress of nation rebuilding would like to substitute Barack Obama for Mitt Romney, an ignorant charlatan who has made lofty promises about “putting people back to work” and “restoring the middle class” without the benefit of specifics. Seeking to capitalize on a stubbornly sluggish job market while conveniently forgetting that it was eight years of GOP policy making that landed us in this protracted mess, Republicans have the audacity to suggest we give them another go, because you know, destructive management is bound to yield completely different results this time. So send in the scab!

But as we have seen over and over again throughout this long campaign, Romney doesn’t have the chops to step into Obama’s shoes. He has no specific plans for uplifting America’s beleaguered middle class. His foreign policy ineptitude is now well documented, as is his disdain for the working poor and any average American struggling to keep a roof over their head and food on the table. To underscore Romney’s utter cluelessness, it is now apparent that he doesn’t possess the basic understanding of your average first grader in grasping why commercial airline windows can’t be manually opened.

Last night’s Seahawks/Packers game, which bore witness to two awful contest ending calls from officials, was a case study in inexperience compounded by frozen ineptitude. No lives were lost and I do not mean to suggest that the NFL scandal is on par with the dire consequences we are bound to collectively suffer by replacing Obama with a cartoon punchline. However, those who enjoy the sporting element of politics yet approach the coming election with seriousness were gifted with a foreshadowing allegory from, of all places, a football match. Imagine Romney in the end zone during a matter of national urgency, surrounded by a team of confused advisers more interested in saving face than protecting the honor of the institution. That’s our future should the Romney/Ryan ticket prevail.

Should We Forgive Romney’s ‘Off the Cuff’ Remarks? In a Word, No (September 15

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Call it the 2012 Presidential campaign shot heard ’round the world. In a contest marred by gaffes and PR debacles of the diverse kind, Mitt Romney is staring down the barrel of hard video evidence that he just doesn’t give a damn about Americans occupying social positions outside the privileged one percent.

By now we have grown used to the candidate’s willful ignorance. Everyone not living in the United Kingdom enjoyed a good laugh at Romney’s clumsy insult directed at London, the host city of this year’s summer Olympics. Nothing was destroyed but a planning committee’s delicate feelings. Silly Mittens.

But Romney’s foreign policy ineptitude took a turn for the more serious last week when U.S. ambassador to Libya Christopher Stevens was killed in a terrorist attack, and the GOP challenger immediately sought to leverage the tragedy for political gain. Without waiting for full details of the incident and before expressing his condolences to victims’ families, Romney made an inexcusable, disingenuous play to tar Obama as an American apologist. As anti-American protests rage in areas where not so long ago, we celebrated “Arab Spring” democratic revolutions, it is important to ask to what extent Romney’s careless words fed the growing fires of Middle Eastern hatred.

Romney doesn’t give a fig what kind of trouble he stirs up overseas. As America works to restore its image from the out-of-touch “Cowboy Diplomacy” of the George W. Bush era, yeoman’s work in which President Obama has been largely successful, Mittens runs around shooting his uneducated mouth off about the long-running Israel/Palestine conflict and other issues which may score him points with his political base, but do nothing to reflect the traits of a leader who understands 21st century dynamics and a hyperconnected, interdependent world ecosystem.

However, until this week it was reasonably safe to assume that Mitt Romney’s blunderous foreign policy soundbites were unfortunate blabber from an unelectable candidate who nevertheless genuinely loves his country. Most of us are not so partisan that we can’t disagree with a man without questioning his patriotism (behavioral patterns of the far right wing notwithstanding). Apologies to the remaining voters who tried to believe that no matter who wins the November election, a real effort would be made to create jobs and otherwise throw the drowning middle class a lifeline.

We have all made dialectical miscalculations in the private company of friends and family members. Comments that would sound gauche in mixed crowds seem palatable around the familiar. Presidential campaigns are particularly scripted, messaged and strategized so when given a chance to go “off the cuff, ” who can throw stones at an exhausted, 24/7 news cycle-beleaguered contender? In making the case here, consider most of Vice-President Joe Biden’s dunce-cap worthy messaging errors.

Mitt Romney’s latest rhetorical scandal cannot be categorized as the mistake of an exhausted, relaxed man in the company of likeminded souls. How do we know this for certain? Just ask him. According to a report earlier this week from Yahoo! News, “Mitt Romney stood by his comments captured on a hidden camera at a closed-door fundraiser earlier this year in which he called supporters of President Barack Obama ‘victims’ and said they are reliant on government handouts.”

Well then. Allow me to take the opportunity to thank Romney for his honesty and candor, an occasion members of the voting public are not awarded often enough. I have to disagree withNew York Times columnist David Brooks when he writes “Mr. Romney, your entitlement reform ideas are essential, but when will the incompetence stop?” Brooks’ rhetorical question implies that Mittens’s characterization of Obama voters as lazy, needy bottomfeeders is merely an error, but in order to accept this position, one would have to willfully suspend belief in the candidate’s own words at the hastily arranged late-evening press conference. I don’t think most of us are prepared to do that.

 

After Romney’s Disastrous Week the Only Surprise is America Not Unanimously Voting Obama (September 15, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

Yahoo! News published a story this week, a joint venture with Esquire magazine, that shared the results of a recent survey the two media outlets commissioned from pollster Gary Langer of Langer Research Associates. The poll queried 1,000 likely voters on a range of topics designed to draw distinctions between sitting President Barack Obama and GOP challenger Mitt Romney. Results will be doled out in the next several weeks leading up the general election, however the first question posed to respondents was pretty straight forward with a rather unsurprising denouement.

“If the election were held today who would you vote for?” The answer? Amongst likely voters, Obama leads by four percentage points, 50 to 46. However the gulf opens much wider when the field is narrowed to voters who are already registered. In that case, Romney trails the POTUS by 11 percent, 52 to 41.

As voter registration postmark deadlines vary from state to state (some states cutoff entries 30 days before the election, while others leave opportunity open until just a couple of days prior), examining the responses of registered balloters becomes more consequential with each passing day. And it would seem that Republican attempts to disenfranchise the young, poor and certain minority groups just aren’t doing enough to stem the tide of momentum working in the President’s favor.

But polls are simply hypotheticals and while this news is encouraging less than two months before the ballot boxes officially open, it remains stupefying that the gulf isn’t much larger. While reading the Yahoo! story, it isn’t unreasonable to wonder if there’s any group that misfit contender Romney hasn’t done his best to alienate.

If you’re unemployed or otherwise struggling to make ends meet, a huge proportion of modern American society, there are the wealthy Romney family’s offshore accounts, dodgy tax returns and pathetic attempts to identify with real world problems to turn you off. If you’re a female, have a look at Romney’s flipflop from a pro-choice moderate to a pro-life intolerant who aligns himself with a Vice-Presidential candidate that opposes abortion in all situations, including cases of rape and incest, as well as instances where an expectant mother’s health is imperiled.

While we’re on the subject of Paul Ryan, are you an elderly American on a fixed income? Well then his plan to convert Medicare into a voucher program that exposes you to the business practices of private insurance companies ought to send you fleeing toward Obama. Are you an immigrant? The GOP can’t deport you fast enough. Person of any color? We didn’t see many of you at the recent Republican National Convention. How about a current or upcoming college student? Team Romney is tired of giving you “handouts” in the way of affordable loans and other financial aid that could guide you toward a 21st century job opportunity. If you’re gay, rest assured that the right wing will never stand up for your right to wed and raise a family. And Mittens’ deplorable handling of the Libyan embassy tragedy yesterday should go a long way toward alienating foreign policy wonks.

In fact all things considered, it’s sort of tough to comprehend how the poll Yahoo!/Esquire numbers don’t skew much father left. 95 percent to five sounds about right if you generously allow that there might just be that many independently wealthy, hawkish white males left in the nation. If Republican leadership did not receive the message in 2008 that they are out of touch with mainstream America, and it’s clear that they didn’t, let this be the year when they finally take themselves out to the shed.

Obama’s Convention Speech: The Real Mission (September 6, 2012)

Becky SarwateLeave a comment

“But, mostly, I wish he’d be for something. I wish he’d rise above the petty tactical considerations that have shrunk him over the past two years. I wish he’d finally define what he stands for. A liberal populist? A Clintonian moderate? At some point, you have to choose.”

The quote above was pulled from “independent” New York Times columnist David Brooks’ latest effort. In a piece of commentary entitled “The Elevator Speech,” Brooks’ waxes nostalgically for the Obama before 2010, whereafter stymied by a do-nothing, Republican-controlled House, the administration’s agenda slowed to a virtual standstill. However, Brooks fails to recognize that this state of affairs was the albatross around Obama’s neck, referring to the post-2010 period instead as one where the POTUS’ “purpose did not survive contact with reality.”

Though I find myself frequently frustrated after a reading of Brooks’ punditry, headed into the main events of this week’s Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, NC, I was incensed. The continual reference to the first Obama administration as somehow lame duck boggles the mind, and it isn’t only independents and conservatives who are guilty of painting the President’s record in such broad strokes. The Facebook fan page “Liberals Against Obama” currently has 577 “likes” with the tag line “Take back the progressive agenda.” Postings from the group include gems such as this: “Looks like the Republicans are doing their best to scare people into voting for Obama :(” I only wish I were editorializing the sad face emoticon.

It’s hard to understand how Obama’s first term could constitute failure, especially viewed through the eyes of his liberal base. While it’s true that the last two years have been punctuated by debacles such as the debt ceiling debate, which ultimately saw the country’s credit rating downgraded, the left-leaning electorate’s only concern ought to have been a leader who failed to recognize that Speaker of the House John Boehner never intended to show up at the bargaining table. Yet it’s impossible not to admire Obama for the good-faith effort and for ultimately revolting against a Tea Party “compromise” that would have savaged the social safety net while doing precious little to generate revenue.

It’s tough to disagree with the impression that this week’s convention is a high-profile opportunity to reset the tone for Obama’s second term, as well as a chance to lay out a specific agenda that promises to address continuing social ills like the disintegration of the middle class. But compare this to last week’s Republican celebration which was light on specifics, high on crazy (Clint Eastwood) and factual gymnastics (the Paul Ryan speech) and created a partisan vacuum where the chosen Presidential candidate could not tout his greatest political accomplishments, seeing as they now sit too far to the left.

It is expected that the President will share his vision for job creation and revitalizing opportunities for the bottom 99 percent, while addressing other issues like immigration reform, climate change and a host of other challenges facing the country. But Obama’s address is also a ripe opportunity to do the one thing he has failed to do over the partisan screaming of the last few years: tout his MAJOR accomplishments. Interrupting the country’s financial free fall, rescuing the struggling auto industry, revamping the broken health care system in the face of dire opposition, advancing equality for GLBT citizens marked by the repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” taking out public enemy #1 Osama bin Laden while displaying deft foreign policy skills in many other challenging situations and ending a pointless, costly war in the process. If this record represents failure, then sign me up for four more years of it.