Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Bush Vs Clinton Clinton Wins - So Romney says NO to Bush Support!
Robert Creamer is a long-time political organizer and strategist, and author of the book: Stand Up Straight: How Progressives Can Win,
Sunday, October 30, 2011
George Will Washington Post Column on Romney
By George F. Will, Published: October 28
The Republican presidential dynamic — various candidates rise and recede; Mitt Romney remains at about 25 percent support — is peculiar because conservatives correctly believe that it is important to defeat Barack Obama but unimportant that Romney be president. This is not cognitive dissonance.
Obama, a floundering naif who thinks ATMs aggravate unemployment, is bewildered by a national tragedy of shattered dreams, decaying workforce skills and forgone wealth creation. Romney cannot enunciate a defensible, or even decipherable, ethanol policy.
Life poses difficult choices, but not about ethanol. Government subsidizes ethanol production, imposes tariffs to protect manufacturers of it and mandates the use of it — and it injures the nation’s and the world’s economic, environmental, and social (it raises food prices) well-being.
In May, in corn-growing Iowa, Romney said, “I support” — present tense — “the subsidy of ethanol.” And: “I believe ethanol is an important part of our energy solution for this country.” But in October he told Iowans he is “a business guy,” so as president he would review this bipartisan — the last Republican president was an ethanol enthusiast — folly. Romney said that he once favored (past tense) subsidies to get the ethanol industry “on its feet.” (In the 19th century, Republican “business guys” justified high tariffs for protecting “infant industries”). But Romney added, “I’ve indicated I didn’t think the subsidy had to go on forever.” Ethanol subsidies expire in December, but “I might have looked at more of a decline over time” because of “the importance of ethanol as a domestic fuel.” Besides, “ethanol is part of national security.” However, “I don’t want to say” I will propose new subsidies. Still, ethanol has “become an important source of amplifying our energy capacity.” Anyway, ethanol should “continue to have prospects of growing its share of” transportation fuels. Got it?
Every day, 10,000 baby boomers become eligible for Social Security and Medicare, from which they will receive, on average, $1 million of benefits ($550,000 from the former, $450,000 from the latter). Who expects difficult reforms from Romney, whose twists on ethanol make a policy pretzel?
A straddle is not a political philosophy; it is what you do when you do not have one. It is what Romney did when he said that using Troubled Assets Relief Program funds for the General Motors and Chrysler bailouts “was the wrong source for that funding.” Oh, so the source was the bailouts’ defect.
Last week in Ohio, Romney straddled the issue of the ballot initiative by which liberals and unions hope to repeal the law that Republican Gov. John Kasich got enacted to limit public employees’ collective bargaining rights. Kasich, like Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, is under siege. Romney was asked, at a Republican phone bank rallying support for Kasich’s measure, to oppose repeal of it and to endorse another measure exempting Ohioans from Obamacare’s insurance mandate (a cousin of Romneycare’s Massachusetts mandate). He refused.
His campaign called his refusal principled: “Citizens of states should be able to make decisions . . . on their own.” Got it? People cannot make “their own” decisions if Romney expresses an opinion. His flinch from leadership looks ludicrous after his endorsement three months ago of a right-to-work bill that the New Hampshire legislature was considering. So, the rule in New England expires across the Appalachian Mountains?
A day after refusing to oppose repeal of Kasich’s measure, Romney waffled about his straddle, saying he opposed repeal “110 percent.” He did not, however, endorse the anti-mandate measure, remaining semi-faithful to the trans-Appalachian codicil pertaining to principles, thereby seeming to lack the courage of his absence of convictions.
Romney, supposedly the Republican most electable next November, is a recidivist reviser of his principles who is not only becoming less electable; he might damage GOP chances of capturing the Senate. Republican successes down the ticket will depend on the energies of the Tea Party and other conservatives, who will be deflated by a nominee whose blurry profile in caution communicates only calculated trimming.
Republicans may have found their Michael Dukakis, a technocratic Massachusetts governor who takes his bearings from “data” (although there is precious little to support Romney’s idea that in-state college tuition for children of illegal immigrants is a powerful magnet for such immigrants) and who believes elections should be about (in Dukakis’s words) “competence,” not “ideology.” But what would President Romney competently do when not pondering ethanol subsidies that he forthrightly says should stop sometime before “forever”? Has conservatism come so far, surmounting so many obstacles, to settle, at a moment of economic crisis, for this?
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Is the Nobel a 'down payment'?
Is the Nobel a 'down payment'?
October 10, 2009
Mitch Potter
U.S. President Barack Obama talks on the phone in the Oval Office in Washington, Friday, Oct. 9, 2009, before speaking about winning the Nobel Peace Prize in the Rose Garden.
THE ASSOCIATED PRESSWASHINGTON–Apologies if you can't hear this. It is a bit noisy down here, what with the gales of unpleasant laughter drowning out Barack Obama's Nobel Peace Prize.
This White House must just hate Friday mornings. Last week, a big decision in Europe unexpectedly stripped Chicago of its Olympic dreams, exposing a red-faced Team Obama to a braying backlash.
And now, one Friday later, a big decision in Europe places the Nobel unexpectedly in the U.S. president's hands, exposing him to another fevered wave of domestic derision. Mocked for losing, mocked for winning – such is the incredible lightness of being Barack Obama, nine months along.
Don't get me wrong: As one who spent most of the Bush years boomeranging between Jerusalem, Baghdad, Kandahar and London, I can appreciate better than most the global motivations behind what amounts to the He's Not George Prize.
But as a resident of Washington today, I can't help but wonder whether a well-intentioned world realizes just how badly the domestic American worm is turning against this president.
And how unhelpful this latest global hug may prove, coming not simply prematurely but also from Europe, where this hopeful new era is not about to translate into so much as a smidgen of help for Obama where he needs it most – Afghanistan.
Obama's true believers will love this bauble. But it is everyone else the White House now is worried about, from those crucial swing voters waiting for the president to turn up his doing dial and make reality of lofty rhetoric, to the ferociously conservative noise machine determined to brand the president's every move an act of anti-Americanism.
Those are the votes that will count come next year's midterm elections, which will amount to a de facto referendum on Obama rule. And Europe, and the rest of us, will have no say.
Obama did about the only thing he could yesterday, downplaying the Nobel with I'm-not-worthy aplomb, pledging the $1.4 million windfall to charity.
"To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honoured by this prize,'' Obama said.
"But I also know that this prize reflects the kind of world that those men and women and all Americans want to build, a world that gives life to the promise of our founding documents. And I know that throughout history the Nobel Peace Prize has not just been used to honour specific achievement; it's also been used as a means to give momentum to a set of causes.
"And that is why I will accept this award as a call to action."
The Norwegian Nobel Committee stunned the world, including the White House, by awarding Obama the peace prize, citing global optimism fostered by his calls for peace and cooperation.
The committee also praised Obama's pledges to reduce the world's cache of nuclear arms, ease American conflicts with Muslim nations and strengthen the U.S. role in combating climate change.
The selection sparked a furious political debate.
Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh said the world elites were urging Obama, "to not do the surge in Afghanistan, not take action against Iran and its nuclear program and to basically continue his intentions to emasculate the United States ... They love a weakened, neutered U.S. and this is their way of promoting that concept," he told Politico via email.
The Democratic National Committee responded by saying the Republicans would "put politics above patriotism at every turn."
"The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the president for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize," wrote DNC communications director Brad Woodhouse.
Some Washington analysts interpreted the Nobel as a "down payment" on great expectations. But it will also serve to elevate expectations the White House has been working hard to manage downward, given the paucity of results.
From Afghanistan, where the administration's most pressing foreign crisis festers with a series of grim options likely to involve more, not fewer, soldiers, to Jerusalem, where Obama's lead envoy ended his ninth attempt at shuttle-diplomacy Friday empty-handed.
Closer to home, Obama's vow to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay by January appears now to be wishful thinking.
Only on the question of Iran's nuclear ambitions is Team Obama's determined bid for broader engagement with international allies showing early results. But rapprochement remains fragile and the hardest work is still to come.
Non-Americans wedded to the Obama doctrine of soft power might want to withhold applause for their Nobel cause, mindful that what plays so well in Oslo or Toronto or beyond is a much harder sell stateside. Think of this Nobel as a massive Wall Street bonus for a performance still to come.
'IT'S EXTREMELY WELL DESERVED'
"Some people say, and I understand it, isn't it premature? Too early? Well, I'd say then that it could be too late to respond three years from now. It is now that we have the opportunity to respond – all of us."
–Thorbjoern Jagland, Nobel committee chairman
"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights."
– Michael Steele, Republican National Committee chairman
"I think it's extremely well deserved ... I think it will take some time before people put together all the different moves that linked his speech at the UN on the abolishing of nuclear weapons, his shift on the missile defence program in Eastern Europe ... to joining the international consensus that confronted Iran to abide by the non-proliferation treaty."
– Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore (above) and 2007 Nobel winner
"Such a prize augments his capacity and reputation around the world, and that will help us accomplish things for all of humanity."
– Prime Minister Stephen Harper
"Amazingly enough, the Pulitzer Prize for Literature went to Sarah Palin for her stated intention 'to read a book someday.' "
– Richard Cohen, Washington Post


