The 2010 midterm elections was a reverse of misfortune for the Republican Party since losing control of Congress in 2006 and then the White House in 2008. They seemed poised to finish their conquering of Congress, that is, until they nominated Mitt Romney for president.
He is the worst choice for a nominee in a time when the opposing party is running an incumbent president with a questionable record. They had the opportunity to nominate someone who displayed a clear contrast to President Obama. Unfortunately, Romney is far from that.
What makes matters worse, his recent comments about the "47 percent of Americans" who don't pay income tax and constantly line up at the government feeding trough is very alienating to the middle class. And there lies the problem: Republicans aren't closing the deal with the middle class. A poll in late August revealed that 47 percent (how ironic!) of registered voters said the Democratic Party cares more for "people like us", while 42 percent stated that Republicans fit the mold for their ideology. Furthermore, 51 percent of voters believe the Democrats currently holding seats in Congress are "for the middle class", while only 40 percent said the same of Republicans.
So what can Republicans do to turn this around? I wish I knew. I'm not a political strategist. The only thing I can do is offer my ideas.
First, and most important aspect of Romney's campaign for president, is he needs to separate himself from the neo-conservative image of George W. Bush. His wars were very unpopular with Democrats and a majority of independents. With the current budget problems and looming debt hanging over our nation, we cannot afford to finance any more military combat operations overseas. Romney's approach to foreign policy is nothing different to Bush's. Romney stated in an interview on "Meet the Press" over a week ago that "all options are on the table" to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Does this include military action? While President Obama has reiterated this same point, his administration has advocated to give the current sanctions on Iran more time to work.
Touching further on the issue of foreign policy, the Democrats and Republicans differ greatly in their platforms. Here is a summary of their wording from their respective platforms:
Democrats:
No U.S. forces or bases in Iraq.
Bring our troops home from Afghanistan by 2014.
Republicans:
Prevent Iran from building and possessing nuclear weapons.
Notice the difference? It is for this reason that many votes could sway towards Democrats.
Second, the Republicans need to make a better effort to come up with a balanced budget, and pass the message to their nominee that he needs to push the idea in the campaign. Again, referring to the interview Mitt Romney had on "Meet the Press", host David Gregory asked Romney, if elected, if a balanced budget would be a priority for his administration. His response: No. It would be a priority in his second term. The arrogance of that statement alone is just frustrating, but his reason for not making it a priority has the potential to incite rage in many conservative American voters. A balanced budget at this point, according to Romney, would be detrimental to our economy. He also remarks that if his Medicare voucher program idea doesn't work that he wouldn't pass any costs on to seniors and instead blow up the deficit to pay for it.
I can't see how this view totes the party line (as seen in the GOP platform) of passing a Balanced Budget Amendment.
For being a party committed to economic freedom and limited government, they sure aren't advancing those principles. This could hurt them in the South. Democratic strategist, David "Mudcat" Saunders said the Democrats can win the South if they focus on more on equality for Americans rather than class. "Democrats go after class; Republicans go after culture. Culture wins almost every time [in the South]". It is a good idea, since Democrats already have the middle class' support. Saunders also said the difference in the past were the Reagan Democrats, who he claims, are ready to come home to the Democratic Party. He is currently working with a Democratic candidate in Virginia to unseat Eric Cantor, the Republican Majority Leader.
Oh, and Saunders prediction? "Obama will win Virginia".
The GOP has a lot of work to do right now. Mitt Romney has proven to be a poor choice. He is not very popular amongst a majority of Americans. He isn't popular in his own party! There have even been reports that three Republican members of the electoral college have vowed to give Texas Congressman Ron Paul his electoral votes. The division within the party is not good, and if they hope to win the White House as well as additional seats in Congress, they have to unite themselves before they even try to unite the country.
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Sunday, September 9, 2012
Analyzing Romney's Interview
This morning I had the pleasure to catch this week's episode of "Meet the Press" where host David Gregory spent the weekend interviewing Republican presidential hopeful and former Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney. The interview was a chance for Romney to try to convince me to vote for him. Though he had some good things to say, overall, he missed his mark.
One of the first topics that caught my attention was the discussion about the role government should have played in the resurrection of GM. Romney stated, as he has done in the past, that the government should've let GM go into bankruptcy, then help them out of it. He claims it would've saved the government roughly $20 billion. He also claimed when President Obama and Congress decided to assist GM that he indirectly sent them into bankruptcy. Whether this is true or not, I agree to a point with Romney. GM should've taken the necessary steps to file bankruptcy. However, would the United States still have a domestic auto industry had the government not stepped in? Would GM have come out stronger than before if they did file?
The GM topic was the only noticeable one in the first half of the interview. The second half was the most interesting. David covered taxes, the prospect of a balanced budget, Medicare, foreign policy, and abortion. The following is a summary of Romney's responses:
Taxes
Romney claimed he wanted to lower rates for everyone, especially the middle class. Then he said he would like to lower rates for top earners as well, but also remove the deductions and exemptions that have benefited them in the past. He claims this is a step to keep us revenue neutral. When asked which deductions and exemption he would remove, Romney avoided specifics and just reiterated his point. The problem with his policy on taxes is it does nothing to actually cut taxes. I'm an advocate of a flat tax--everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income. By cutting the rate but removing deductions basically means he's not cutting taxes on the wealthy. Instead, he is further pushing a progressive tax system by vowing to cut taxes for the middle class.
Balanced Budget
David: Would you make balancing the budget a priority?
Romney: I would not make it a priority in my first term. It would be a priority in my second term.
What?!?
First of all, the arrogance of the statement tells a lot about who Romney is. To suggest he's even going to make it to a second term smells of over-confidence. He assumes that he is going to win the election even though recent polls after the conventions show President Obama with a slight lead over his opponent.
Second, why would a balanced budget (which is sorely needed) not be a priority? With $16 trillion in national debt, drastic and rational steps need to be taken to begin paying it down. It's going to take a long time, so it's crucial we set the groundwork to do so right now! We need a dramatic cut in spending. Romney doesn't advocate for such a cut. In fact, he argues a balanced budget would be detrimental to the economy at this point. He also wants to "maintain" defense spending and continue to fund Medicare, evident by his criticism of President Obama's $700 billion + cut in the program to fund the Affordable Care Act. Also, Romney wants to implement a Medicare voucher program which would also further require more government funds. To accomplish what Romney wants to do fiscally will contradict with his tax policy. He said he doesn't want to raise taxes, but to pay for all of this, he might have no choice in the matter. Which leads me to the next question: Will he cut a deal with Congressional and Senate Democrats to raise taxes in order to cut spending?
Medicare
David: If it (Medicare voucher program) doesn't work, would you pass the cost to seniors, or blow up the deficit to pay for it?
Romney: We're not going to pass anything on to seniors...
I think the answer is pretty clear: he's going to blow up the deficit. I don't see how this will help with our budget problem, all while "cutting" taxes for the middle class. We already tried this with George W. Bush, and it left us in a terrible mess considering we were also fighting two "wars". Let's hope, if elected, Romney's voucher system works. I actually support the idea, because it would help keep Medicare solvent. Plus, it gives seniors a choice about who they go to for their health care.
Foreign Policy
Speaking of wars, nothing is more harmful to the federal budget than military combat operations overseas. When Romney was asked about the possibility of a nuclear Iran, he criticised the president for not being more assertive in his talks with Iranian President Ahmadinijad. Romney claims a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to our ally Israel, but to us. And he stated that all options were on the table to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. This is the wrong approach. It is not the United States' responsibility to police the world. We need to leave Iran alone; if they are not willing to be our friends, then we simply cease all contact with them. It's as simple as that.
But before asked about his approach to Iran, David asked if President Obama had, in fact, made the United States safer. Romney concurred by acknowledging the president's order to eliminate Osama bin Laden. So, does Romney approve or disapprove of President Obama's approach to foreign policy?
Abortion
Finally, in what is almost always a controversial issue, David asked Romney what his official position on abortion was since he used to run on a pro-choice platform when he was running against Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. He affirmed he is pro-life and would encourage pro-life policies. He plans to reverse the policy of taxpayer funded abortions outside of the country as well as domestically. He also expressed interest in appointing judges that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving states to decide.
Now here is an issue where I generally agree with him. I believe abortion, when used a means of birth control is wrong. However, what about the situations when a woman is raped or her health is in jeopardy? Does she have the option then? Also, overturning Roe v. Wade would be disastrous for personal liberty. Yes, I am fully aware that many consider a fetus to be living. Though I agree, we need to accurately determine viability in order to have a proper policy on abortion. A child in the womb at 3 months cannot survive on its own without the biological nourishment of the mother. Therefore, it is unreasonable to restrict the choice of a woman to continue her pregnancy.
Conclusion
The interview this morning was of great interest to me. I was hoping Romney would say something and act in a way that would fire me up to vote for him. It didn't happen, and unfortunately, this means one of two things: 1) I vote for President Obama, since Romney is not a clear contrast to what we have now, or 2) I vote for Gary Johnson, and subsequently, waste my vote since the media and the general public do not give him a legitimate shot to win.
But all is not lost for Romney. He made a bad impression on me today, but he has a chance to correct this in the future. If he can successfully debate President Obama, and make valid points and clear distinctions between himself and the president, as well as former President George W. Bush, then he may very well earn my vote.
One of the first topics that caught my attention was the discussion about the role government should have played in the resurrection of GM. Romney stated, as he has done in the past, that the government should've let GM go into bankruptcy, then help them out of it. He claims it would've saved the government roughly $20 billion. He also claimed when President Obama and Congress decided to assist GM that he indirectly sent them into bankruptcy. Whether this is true or not, I agree to a point with Romney. GM should've taken the necessary steps to file bankruptcy. However, would the United States still have a domestic auto industry had the government not stepped in? Would GM have come out stronger than before if they did file?
The GM topic was the only noticeable one in the first half of the interview. The second half was the most interesting. David covered taxes, the prospect of a balanced budget, Medicare, foreign policy, and abortion. The following is a summary of Romney's responses:
Taxes
Romney claimed he wanted to lower rates for everyone, especially the middle class. Then he said he would like to lower rates for top earners as well, but also remove the deductions and exemptions that have benefited them in the past. He claims this is a step to keep us revenue neutral. When asked which deductions and exemption he would remove, Romney avoided specifics and just reiterated his point. The problem with his policy on taxes is it does nothing to actually cut taxes. I'm an advocate of a flat tax--everyone pays the same rate, regardless of income. By cutting the rate but removing deductions basically means he's not cutting taxes on the wealthy. Instead, he is further pushing a progressive tax system by vowing to cut taxes for the middle class.
Balanced Budget
David: Would you make balancing the budget a priority?
Romney: I would not make it a priority in my first term. It would be a priority in my second term.
What?!?
First of all, the arrogance of the statement tells a lot about who Romney is. To suggest he's even going to make it to a second term smells of over-confidence. He assumes that he is going to win the election even though recent polls after the conventions show President Obama with a slight lead over his opponent.
Second, why would a balanced budget (which is sorely needed) not be a priority? With $16 trillion in national debt, drastic and rational steps need to be taken to begin paying it down. It's going to take a long time, so it's crucial we set the groundwork to do so right now! We need a dramatic cut in spending. Romney doesn't advocate for such a cut. In fact, he argues a balanced budget would be detrimental to the economy at this point. He also wants to "maintain" defense spending and continue to fund Medicare, evident by his criticism of President Obama's $700 billion + cut in the program to fund the Affordable Care Act. Also, Romney wants to implement a Medicare voucher program which would also further require more government funds. To accomplish what Romney wants to do fiscally will contradict with his tax policy. He said he doesn't want to raise taxes, but to pay for all of this, he might have no choice in the matter. Which leads me to the next question: Will he cut a deal with Congressional and Senate Democrats to raise taxes in order to cut spending?
Medicare
David: If it (Medicare voucher program) doesn't work, would you pass the cost to seniors, or blow up the deficit to pay for it?
Romney: We're not going to pass anything on to seniors...
I think the answer is pretty clear: he's going to blow up the deficit. I don't see how this will help with our budget problem, all while "cutting" taxes for the middle class. We already tried this with George W. Bush, and it left us in a terrible mess considering we were also fighting two "wars". Let's hope, if elected, Romney's voucher system works. I actually support the idea, because it would help keep Medicare solvent. Plus, it gives seniors a choice about who they go to for their health care.
Foreign Policy
Speaking of wars, nothing is more harmful to the federal budget than military combat operations overseas. When Romney was asked about the possibility of a nuclear Iran, he criticised the president for not being more assertive in his talks with Iranian President Ahmadinijad. Romney claims a nuclear Iran is not only a threat to our ally Israel, but to us. And he stated that all options were on the table to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons. This is the wrong approach. It is not the United States' responsibility to police the world. We need to leave Iran alone; if they are not willing to be our friends, then we simply cease all contact with them. It's as simple as that.
But before asked about his approach to Iran, David asked if President Obama had, in fact, made the United States safer. Romney concurred by acknowledging the president's order to eliminate Osama bin Laden. So, does Romney approve or disapprove of President Obama's approach to foreign policy?
Abortion
Finally, in what is almost always a controversial issue, David asked Romney what his official position on abortion was since he used to run on a pro-choice platform when he was running against Ted Kennedy for Senate in 1994. He affirmed he is pro-life and would encourage pro-life policies. He plans to reverse the policy of taxpayer funded abortions outside of the country as well as domestically. He also expressed interest in appointing judges that would eventually overturn Roe v. Wade, leaving states to decide.
Now here is an issue where I generally agree with him. I believe abortion, when used a means of birth control is wrong. However, what about the situations when a woman is raped or her health is in jeopardy? Does she have the option then? Also, overturning Roe v. Wade would be disastrous for personal liberty. Yes, I am fully aware that many consider a fetus to be living. Though I agree, we need to accurately determine viability in order to have a proper policy on abortion. A child in the womb at 3 months cannot survive on its own without the biological nourishment of the mother. Therefore, it is unreasonable to restrict the choice of a woman to continue her pregnancy.
Conclusion
The interview this morning was of great interest to me. I was hoping Romney would say something and act in a way that would fire me up to vote for him. It didn't happen, and unfortunately, this means one of two things: 1) I vote for President Obama, since Romney is not a clear contrast to what we have now, or 2) I vote for Gary Johnson, and subsequently, waste my vote since the media and the general public do not give him a legitimate shot to win.
But all is not lost for Romney. He made a bad impression on me today, but he has a chance to correct this in the future. If he can successfully debate President Obama, and make valid points and clear distinctions between himself and the president, as well as former President George W. Bush, then he may very well earn my vote.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)