Flip-flopping, the blame game and the Bee Gees

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues:

Today’s comments are brought to you by “the Blue Dog”, a custom pet portrait by Jeff Danford.

Ripped from the headlines: Last week an AZ Republic Letter to the Editor connected Romney’s policies to those of GW Bush. Today, a writer complained about that connection, saying it was ridiculous to connect the policies of one President to those of another just because they are both Republican. The writer went on, however, to connect Obama’s policies to those of Carter and Clinton. In both letters, the writers were trying to deflect all the blame for the poor economy to Presidents of the other party. The problem with this is economies are not built solely on the policies of one man or one party; they are an accumulation of everyone’s policies. No single president or congress acts in a vacuum. Each of them inherits policies from their predecessors and creates polices their successors will inherit. Were Democrats partially responsible for the financial mess caused by the housing industry because of their support for Fannie Mae? Yes. Were Republicans partially responsible due to their repeal of Glass-Steagal? Yes. Both sides blame the other, especially in an election year, but both sides have created the problem and nothing will change until they admit it. Maybe AA needs to set up a new branch called PA or Politicians Anonymous, so these guys can go through a twelve-step program: “My name is Herb, and I’m a Politician”. Response: “Hi, Fred”. Moderator: “Admitting you are a problem Politician is the first step on the road to recovery, Herb. Welcome to our group”.

Politics - Ya Gotta Love it! Every time a political party gets into power and talks about how they are going to change the way the government works and that the old  ways of doing business are over, I laugh, because that’s usually a key that nothing is going to change. In 2010 we saw a rather large crop of Republican Representatives elected, promising to change the way business is done. I was amused to see the article in today’s AZ Republic about the new Congressmen’s use of the franking privilege to send out political announcements. It seems their use of the “privilege” is the same old crap. According to the article, eight of the top ten spenders in this session of Congress were members of the freshmen class. Politics. Ya gotta love it!

Jeff’s Obama vs. Romney comparison: Current score is Obama 6.5, Romney 10.

Using http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/ as my guide, I will continue my election year exercise by examining the candidates’ views on the Budget and comparing them to mine. The website has 8 notes about Obama and 7 for Romney regarding the budget. I looked at four of them so far, and will look at two more today.

Obama - “The President aims for a long term plan for the country concerning clean and renewable energy. By developing alternative sources of power like solar, bio fuels, thermal power etc he plans to lessen imports of foreign oil thus reducing existing deficits.” I will give the President half a point here because I agree with his concept of renewable energy, but that is only half the equation. To me, the ideal energy plan would have two objectives, one long-term and one short term. The long term goal should be to get us off non-renewable fuels, because, whether we like it or not, they are finite resources; they will not last forever. The short-term goal should be to develop every energy source we can now to lessen or eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. This would include solar, wind, nuclear, bio-fuels and whatever we can develop.

The short-term goal should be to buy us time by using all the natural resources currently available to us, including offshore and Anwar. Of course, we would have to find some way to convince the oil companies to sell those resources here in the US at a reduced profit. We have recently become a net oil exporter, meaning we sell more of oil overseas than we use domestically, because the oil that is drilled goes into the global supply. That’s why our prices aren’t going down. Without some kind of agreement with the energy companies, all the drilling in the US could possibly not make a dent in domestic gas prices. Of course, one of the upsides to drilling is the stimulative effect on the economy, which is good. Obama 7, Romney 10.

Romney “He brought forward an economic stimulus package with a price tag of $233 billion which is aimed at generating long term growth incentives. This can be achieved by expensing capital expenditures in the next two years and lowering corporate tax rate so that businesses will thrive and generate revenue. I will give Mitt one point because although I think a lot of businesses would prefer not to, I think they should have the opportunity to expense capital  expenditures in two years. Actually, I think they should have the option to do it one year, but I suspect a lot of companies would not like either option because taking a big hit all at once would lower their profits and create unhappy stockholders, so it is actually preferable in some cases to spread out the pain over the course of several years. I will also give him a point for lowering corporate taxes, but I would approve of such a concept with the understanding that corporate loopholes and personal loopholes would be closed at the same time, although I am under no illusion that lowering corporate taxes generate revenues. Sales are what businesses need to generate revenues. If they get orders, revenues go up and spending on hiring and capacity would go up. Obama 7, Romney 12.

More comments on page 2, after a word from our sponsor:

You can order a custom portrait of your precious doggie, or cat, or chicken or rabbit, or husband, by going to pawprintartists.com

And now… Page 2!

Meanwhile, back in the Arizona desert, despite all the talk from Arizona legislators this session about the need to update the laws concerning legislators receiving gifts, nothing was done.  Democrats as well as Republicans proposed changes to existing disclosure laws, but leadership did not allow any of the bills to move forward.  Is anyone really surprised? Asking them to pass rules restricting their behavior is like asking the fox to ban himself from the chicken coop. It just ain’t gonna happen! The only way we are going to see any change is to hold them accountable, and the best way to do that is to get rid of them. Kick ‘em all out and start over, and hold the new batch accountable. We need to put the teeth back in the election process by refusing to return them to their offices. GOOOH is a national organization dedicated to defeating all incumbents for the House of Representatives. We need something like this on the state and local levels. Only when they know they can be defeated in the polling place will their behavior change.

According to an article in today’s AZ Republic, Jan Brewer is said to be considering a run for a third term as governor of Arizona. It seems this pondering is brewing some controversy, though, since the Arizona Constitution limits a Governor’s terms to two. The controversy arises because Brewer is interpreting a term to be elected only, not a term in which a person fills out another’s term. Brewer was the Secretary of State when Janet Napolitano left the Governor’s office to join the Obama Administration. Jan is now arguing that since she was not elected to that first term, it was not really a term. Hmm. Kinda reminds me of Bill Clinton asking the interviewer to define the word “is”.

Hypocrisy alert… It’s interesting how every election you hear one or another candidate being accused of “flip-flopping”. Defenders of the candidate argue the candidate’s views have merely evolved, while his critics claim he is arbitrarily changing positions, or flip-flopping. I see the whole thing as another example of the hypocrisy that thrives in politics. What it boils down to, once again, is what I call “selective outrage”, meaning it’s outrageous when your guy does it, but not when my guy does it. In this case, the “it" is changing one’s mind. It’s evolution of thought when my guy does it, but flip-flopping when your guy does it.

Musings from a Music fan: music lovers from around the world are today mourning the loss of Robin Gibb of the Bee Gees. I just think it’s a shame he and his brothers are being remembered chiefly for their contributions to Disco, while their pre-disco songs are largely forgotten. When I think of the Bee Gees, I think of such rock classics as “How Can You Mend A Broken Heart?”, “How Deep Is Your Love” , “I Started A Joke “, “I've Gotta Get A Message To You”, “Massachusetts”,  “New York Mining Disaster”, “Run To Me” and  “To Love Somebody” . Now that was good songwriting; forget that disco crap! 

 You can see more of our awesome art at pawprintartists.com

5/16/12 Obama 6.5, Romney 10

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues:

Today’s comments are brought to you by “Prickly Pear Cactus”, an original painting by Gail McFarland.

Ripped from the headlines:  I just watched Charlie Rose’s interview with Former Secretary of Defense Gates, who served in that capacity under both George W. Bush and Barack Obama.  In response to a question about Obama’s foreign policy expertise, he gave high marks to Obama. I wonder how the conservative media will spin this one.

Observations on the 2012 Presidential Horse Race.

Last week President Obama came out in favor of gay marriage. His supporters are energized; they think the president’s endorsement of their cause will help him win reelection; they think it will gain him votes in November. Obama’s opponents are also energized. They think his endorsement will get them lots of votes from people opposed to gay marriage. Personally, I think it will probably be a wash. I suspect he will probably lose as many votes as he gains. The key issue in this election will be the economy, and all the other issues, while important, will recede into the background as the campaign heats up.  

I am waiting for someone on the Right to point to this as another example of Obama’s "war on religion”.

As I’ve said, I really think this election will come down to the economy. Both sides will cherry-pick the data to support their arguments. While I think Republicans can make a good case that Romney’s policies will do more to  fire up the economy than Obama’s, and Democrats can equally make the case that Obama’s policies slowed the recession and have allowed a meager turnaround, both sides are tossing in facts intended to fire up their respective bases. That’s why I like Politifact.org, because it looks at claims from both sides and sorts out the facts from the crap.

One of my favorite anti-Obama claims, one that has found its way into my email in box on many occasions, is the one that shows that Obama has contributed more to the federal debt than all of his predecessors combined. While this is indeed true, if you look at the data (see HERE), you will see the charge would hold equally true for Reagan and almost true for GW Bush,  who missed it a by a few billion dollars. Democrats screamed about the Reagan and Bush deficits without acknowledging the gleeful complicity of Congressional Democrats, while Republicans go after Obama while pretending Reagan and Bush were fiscal conservatives. Both sides are playing fast and loose with the facts.

As previously stated, Ronald Reagan also added more public debt than had been accumulated by all his predecessors yet Clinton and the Republicans managed to balance the budgets and begin us on a path of reducing the debt. We completely fell off that path in the years since. Obama and the Democrats need to shoulder their share of the blame to be sure, but there is enough blame to go around. This was a group effort, and has taken a few years of irresponsible spending by a lot of parties to accumulate our debt. The case can be made that IF we had not squandered Clinton's balanced budgets, and IF we had not passed the Bush tax cuts and IF we had not had to finance two wars without corresponding tax increases to finance them, Obama's stimulus spending would not have added as much to the debt as it has. (you can view charts at office of mgmt and budget; congressional budget office; oecd; department of treasury, and  http://www.davemanuel.com/history-of-deficits-and-surpluses-in-the-united-states.php that support this argument.)

 

More comments on page 2, after a word from our sponsor:

You can purchase Giclees and prints of “Prickly Pear Cactus” at our gallery at fine art America http://fineartamerica.com/profiles/jeff-and-gail-danfordmcfarland.html

And now… Page 2!

Jeff’s Obama vs. Romney comparison: Current score is Obama 5, Romney 9.

Using http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/ as my guide, I will continue my election year exercise by examining the candidates’ views on the Budget and comparing them to mine. The website has 8 notes about Obama and 7 for Romney regarding the budget. I looked at two of them last post and will look at two more today.

Obama: “An overhaul of Health care thereby bringing down private health costs is in the agenda. He signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act aimed at creating 3.5 million new jobs, making important infrastructural investments and giving tax reliefs to 95% of working class Americans.” I will give Obama one point here, because I agreed with the basic intent of the ACA, because I  do think rising health care costs is the biggest single threat to  our economic health in the years to come.  I also agree with some kind of universal health care. Could the ARA be tweaked to make it more functional? I’m sure it could. Is it Socialist? I don’t think so, because it relies on the insurance companies; if it were truly socialist, it would have done away with them and established a single-payer system. I also agree with the ARRA, which I believe did lessen the effects of the recession and helped turn the economy around. Is the economy in great shape? No, it needs work, but I do think the ARRA helped. I will only give Obama a half point here, though, because I think the ARRA stimulus package was not large enough or immediate enough. While I agree with the need for government spending on infrastructure, I think that should have been a stand-alone package. The economic stimulus package should have focused on the short-term stimulus to the economy, a feat Obama could have accomplished since he had control of both houses of Congress at the time and could have passed such a bill if he had the will. Obama 6.5, Romney 9.

Romney – “He supports setting up a national catastrophic fund to ensure that people are entitled to home owners insurance in the event of some natural disasters like hurricanes, tornadoes etc.” I will give Romney a point here because I agree with the concept, although I question how we can pay for it. This is a good subject for discussion, because a case could be made that people chose to live in those areas where natural disasters occur with some regularity, so therefore they should bear the costs incurred when those events occur. However, since insurance policies often have loopholes that allow them to wiggle out of making full reimbursements, and since there is a ripple effect when entire neighborhoods or towns are wiped out, the case could be made for government intervention to prevent the inevitable multiplier effect of such events. Obama 6.5, Romney 10.

Stay tuned to this blog for observations on the latest election campaign news.

Meanwhile, back in the Arizona desert, there was a great article in Time Magazine last week about the rise of Career and Technical Education (CTE) schools. Formerly known as vocational schools, these schools teach skills kids need to get good jobs in the real world.  What I found especially interesting was that many of these kids, after having learned a trade, actually go onto higher education. There is an interesting turn-around in our thinking about public education. For years Democrats have insisted every child should go to college, while Republicans praised vocational schools, but did not want to pay for them. In Arizona, politicians of both sides are seeing vocational education may be the right path for a large number of students and that the results appear to justify the expense of building these schools.  College is fine for those who have the aptitude, but the real goal of public education should be to enable students to get jobs.  If they do show the aptitude or desire to go to college, let’s allow them to learn a trade.

Give me a break! Democrats are wetting themselves with glee over news that Romney cut a gay guy’s hair when he was a student. Two reasons why Democrats are excited: 1/ it provides a neat comparison between the two candidates; they can say, “Look, our guy is in favor of gay marriage while  their guy beats them up,” and 2/ it pays Republicans back  a little for habitually dredging up anything they can find in Obama’s past and using it against him. As usual, the truth is a little more complicated than that. The event in question occurred more than fifty years ago. Yes, a person’s past is important, but events need to be put into perspective and viewed as part of his whole life. There is nothing in Romney’s career to suggest the event in question was anything more than a “youthful indiscretion”. It was, to say the least, a deplorable act, but one that could more aptly be placed under the heading of “stupid things young people do”. Come on, you show me someone who did  not  do  something stupid when they were younger, something they find embarrassing today, and  I’ll show you a damn liar, or someone who grew up in a bubble. I may e an  extreme example, but I did so many stupid things when I was younger, when you open the wrong door, not only do the skeletons appear, but they come out dancing playing tambourines. I sure would not like to be judged by my youthful past. Democrats, give it a break, and let’s get on to discussing the real issues.

You can see more awesome art by Gail and Jeff at pawprintartists.com

When political trash talk becomes treasonous.

I was going to write my usual blog until I opened this email tonight that truly disturbed me. This item demands a dedicated response.  The email provided a link to a website for the Republican Party of Green County Virginia.  This website features the March 19, 2012 edition of their newsletter, “The Constitutional Conservatives” (see HERE).  On page 7, under the column entitled  “Whitehouse  Watchdog” is an editorial  that contains this disturbing passage:

 “The ultimate task for the people is to remain vigilant and aware ~ that the government, their government is out of control, and this moment, this opportunity, must not be forsaken, must not escape us, for we shall not have any coarse but armed revolution should we fail with the power of the vote in No-vember ~ This Republic cannot survive for 4 more years under-neath this political socialist ideo-logue.” (Italics and bolding provided by me). 

Now, I  understand many people on the Right are convinced Obama is a raving Socialist, and many people are convinced he is a disaster for the country, but I am mightily pissed by this. More than that, I am offended and appalled that a group that professes to be “Constitutionalist” would print a missive advocating armed revolution if the conservatives lose this election, that they would advocate committing an act that would surely destroy the constitution they profess to revere.

I googled the article  and am happy to  see many Republican groups are denouncing the editorial. I would hope every Republican and conservative group in the country would follow suit. This is beyond hypocrisy or political firebranding, this is tantamount to treason.

And before someone gets butt hurt that I singled out Republicans, if you can send me to a link where an official Democratic organization does the same thing, I will denounce them in equally vociferous terms. We are not Russia, Chile or Cuba; We are the United States of America. To advocate armed revolution when you don't get your way electorally is an abomination, and such talk does not belong in our republic.

5/9/12 - I still say throw the bums out!

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues:

Today’s comments are brought to you by “Zombies Apocalypse pie r Squared”, an original oil painting by Jeff Danford.

Ripped from the headlines. I have spoken many times in these pages and elsewhere about the need to “throw the bums out” in the next election cycle. While GOOOH (see HERE)  is focused on defeating all incumbent Representatives in the next election, I think the concept should be extended to all elected officials. This country, as well as most of the states and many cities, is facing some hard choices in the next few years.  The primary objective of too many of our elected officials is to retain their jobs or furthering their political  careers. We need to get rid of the current crop of career politicians and replace them with politicians who are willing to take on the hard decisions.

I recently received this post on my Facebook page. 

I have seen it before but decided this  time to answer it. I assume it is anti-Obama since I know the political leanings of the person who posted it, but it could easily be a warning about a conservative candidate as well, I suppose. I have two observations  about this  ad, the first of which is there is no parallel between the German election of 8/19/34 and any American Presidential election, let alone the impending one. The vote of 8/19/34 (see HERE) was a basically a referendum vote that allowed Hitler to formally and legally  consolidate power that he had already assumed. The Weimar Constitution of 1919 (see HERE and HERE), the government under which Hitler assumed power,  was an ineffectual attempt at democracy, which was a new concept  for Germany, which had heretofore always been a monarchical power. One of the major flaws of the new constitution was the granting of too much power to the Chancellor, the office Hitler assumed in 1933 (see HERE) , contained Article 48 (see HERE), which granted Hitler the power to  basically take over the government.

In addition to the fledgling U.S. having the underpinnings of democracy to build upon, the U.S. Constitution contains nothing similar to Article 48. The US government is built upon a system of checks and balances designed to  keep  any one branch of government from getting too much power, a concept lacking in the German constitution. The US Presidential election 2012 will determine who will remain in power for the next four years but in no way resembles the German election of 1934. Contrary to what many conservatives, and some liberals, think, we will not be electing a dictator.

My  second observation is the lack of faith in our government by many conservatives and some liberals amazes me. After all, our constitutional form of government has survived a bitter civil  war, two world  wars, many lesser conflicts, terrorism, and the Cold War. We have also  survived several contentious elections, a few of which had to be contested in the House or the Courts, four Presidential assassinations and at least fifteen unsuccessful assassination attempts, two impeachments, one resignation, and several periods of social upheaval. Why is it so  easy for many conservatives, and some liberals, to believe that one man can, in the course of four  years, destroy what the aforementioned events could not do in over 220 years?

Observations on 2012 Presidential Horse Race.This week’s RCP poll average from realclearpolitics.com shows Obama leading Romney by 0.2. Romney is leading in three polls, Obama in two and they are tied in one. Buckle your seat belts, it's  going to be a long and bumpy ride.

More comments on page 2, after a word from our sponsor:

You can purchase Giclees and prints of “Zombies Apocalypse pie r Squared” by going o our gallery at fine art america.

And now… Page 2!

Jeff’s Obama vs. Romney comparison: Current score is Obama 4, Romney 7.

Using http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/ as my guide, I will continue my election year exercise by examining the candidates’ views on the Budget and comparing them to mine. The website has 8 notes about Obama and 7 for Romney regarding the budget. I will look at each of these notes and score them accordingly, alternating between Obama and Romney.

“As the country squirms through recession, President Obama's budget plans to reduce the decades of economic inequality that prevails in the United States. By bringing in a progressive tax code which would involve raising the tax rates for the high income category proportionately and increasing the tax cuts and credits of the middle and low income stratum”. I  agree in concept with the progressive income tax code, and do agree with  allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top wage earners. The Bush tax cuts did not have their advertised effect  and can be repealed without damage, as long as they are restricted to the top marginal rate. Furthermore, when Clinton raised the top rate, it also did not do what Republicans said it would do. While many  economists do not credit the strong Clinton economy to the tax increase, they also agree the cuts did not damage the economy. While I  agree with Obama on this issue of tax fairness, I do not think the so-called Buffett rule is the way to go. I would rather see the tax code simplified and many of the existing loopholes closed. But, since I agree with the basic premise of this note, I will give Obama a point. Obama 5, Romney 7.

“ Mitt Romney believes in the principle of Reaganomics wherein you cut taxes which is believed to bring in economic growth. According to him the budget should cut taxes on people earning incomes less than $200,000 a year and also cut payroll taxes on people aged sixty five years or older.” I do not believe the historical evidence supports the veracity of “Reaganomics”. The concept of tax cuts for the top income earners worked when Harding and Mellon enacted them in the 1920’s. While some economists credit Reagan’s tax cuts for his strong economy in the 80’s, many others give the credit to FED monetary policies and the subsequent Reagan tax increases. I don’t see evidence that the Bush tax cuts worked, either, so I  would not give Romney a point for this. I will, however, give him 2 points for advocating tax cuts for incomes under $200k and for payroll tax cuts for folks over 65. I  agree with putting more money in the hands of the middle class because it they who drive the economy through increased consumer spending and entrepreneurial investment. Two points for Romney. Obama 5, Romney 9.

Stay tuned to this blog for observations on the latest election campaign news.

Meanwhile, back in the Arizona desert, a local TV station ran a story the other night about Arizona  legislators who appear to be catering to the interests of their corporate donators rather than paying attention to  the needs of the voters. This story attacked the Republicans, but that was because they are the ones currently in power. I have no doubt if the Democrats were in power the story would have been the same. Maplight.org does a good job of tracing the money from special  interests to politicians at the federal level. It would be nice to see someone do similar on the state level. It would be nice to see whose beds my legislators are feathering.

Hypocrisy alert… Political hypocrisy is not a new thing in American Politics, especially Presidential politics, and this year is no  exception. Democrats screamed like wounded water buffalo when George W Bush ran ads politicizing the President’s actions after 9/11 and his toppling of the regime in Iraq. Those same  Democrats are now defending Obama’s politicization of the killing of bin laden while the same Republicans who defended Bush are now offended by Obama’s actions. Once again we are seeing examples of what I  call “selective outrage”, the practice of condemning certain actions when they are performed by the other side but defending them when your side does it.

The only thing I will give the Republicans here is that I agree the Obama reference to Romney was a cheap shot. Would a President Romney have made the same call as Obama? I would like to think he would have. Although there are indications that Obama may have made a gusty call that most of his closest advisers opposed, I suspect Romney, or any other American President for that matter, would have made the same call. Whether Obama’s shot will backfire on him remains to be seen, but it was a cheap shot just the same.

 

You can see more awesome art by Gail and Jeff at pawprintartists.com. 

 

5/3/12 Obama 4, Romney 7

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues:

Today’s comments are brought to you by “Thor”, a custom pet portrait by Gail McFarland.

Observations on 2012 Presidential Horse Race. One of the givens in any political race is the incumbent will trumpet his successes while downplaying his failures. His opponent will do the reverse, highlighting his opponent’s failures while downplaying the latter’s successes. The November race for the White House will be no different. President Obama will point to the success of the auto industry bailout, the role the stimulus played in the economic recovery, the killing of bin Laden and the administration’s success in Libya. He will, of course, will downplay the weak recovery and the continuing threat posed by Iran and North Korea. The Republicans, on the other hand, will try to ignore bin Laden and Libya while insisting that Obama’s economic polices have inhibited the economy from recovering as strong as it could have and should have. And, both sides will accuse the other of taking cheap shots, misrepresenting the truth and lying. Welcome to the world of US Presidential politics.

Is President Obama politicizing the killing of bin Laden? Of course he is. See the preceding paragraph. Republicans for years have been beating the patriotic drum and making the case they are the party of action while the Democrats are the party of appeasement and inaction. The killing of bin Laden gives Democrats the opportunity to say “Hah! Your president couldn’t get him but ours did. Nyah nyah!” While not dignified, it is understandable; after all, if that mission to get bin Laden had failed, you can bet yer sweet ass Republicans would not miss any opportunity in this election to remind the American people of "his" failure. If you doubt that, you can look no further than the election fallout generated by Carter and the debacle at Desert One, Reagan and the bombing of the marine barracks in Lebanon and Clinton and "black hawk down". It's politics. If something fails on your watch, you get the blame, so you might as well grab the credit when something works.

Former GOP presidential nominee John Huntsman wants a third party in American politics, one that will “advance new ideas”. A lot of people, me included, would like to see a third party emerge to challenge both the Republican and Democratic parties. Many people feel the two parties have become more interested in fighting ideological battles and preserving their own power rather than actually trying to solve problems, while others feel the two parties the problem have actually morphed to the point where there is little difference between them. The problems begin, though, when we start discussing what kind of party the new one would be. Conservatives want a party than leans more to the right while liberals want a party that leans more to the left; independents and moderates want a party that would be more pragmatic than ideological, one that would focus on finding compromise solutions to our nation’s problems. I fall into the latter category. I’m tired of politics as usual. Let’s elect people who want to find solutions and fix problems.

More comments on page 2, after a word from our sponsor:

If you would like to commission Gail or Jeff to paint a beautiful custom portrait of your own beloved  pet, please  visit us at pawprintartists.com. 

And now… Page 2!

Obama vs. Romney comparison: Current score is Obama 4, Romney 7.

Using http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/ as my guide, I will continue my election year exercise by examining the candidates’ views on Afghanistan and comparing them to mine.

Obama has recently signed an agreement with Afghani President Karzai that American troops will maintain a security presence in Afghanistan until 2024. I am not particularly thrilled at that prospect. It smells too much like another Korea to me. The Korean War ended in 1953, but we are still there. At some point we need to get out and let the Afghanis find their own path to whatever their destiny is.

Afghanistan, and Iraq, illustrates to me what is wrong with our foreign policy. When we commit troops to harm’s way, we need to have set objectives and a method of measuring attainment to those objectives. Then the President, whoever he or she is, needs to make that case to the American people, get a declaration of war from the Congress, commit the necessary resources to do the job, and then get out when the objectives are reached.

Since World War II, the only president who has done that has been George HW Bush, when he took us into Kuwait, achieved his objectives, then got us out. He received a lot of grief for not going “all the way” and removing Saddam Hussein, but that was not his mandate. His mandate was to kick Saddam out of Kuwait. He achieved that objective, and got other countries to absorb the costs. GHW Bush’s handling of Kuwait should serve as a template for how to do it the right way.  

President Obama came close to following the Bush playbook when he took us into Libya, but he did it unilaterally, without getting the support of the Congress or the country. So, even though I could give him a point for the way he handled our Libyan excursion, I won’t, because he still did not do what he should have done.

Romney thinks we should not be making Afghanistan-like commitments in the future. I agree with him. I would give him a point but, his remarks on Syria tell me that he may not heed his own advice. He stated during the debates we should get involved militarily in Syria, which negates what he has said about Afghanistan.

Obama thinks the war has cost us money we should be spending at home. I agree. I should give him a point, but I won’t because our continued presence in Afghanistan for another 10 years is going to cost us plenty.

Romney thinks our policy in Afghanistan should not be based on politics or economics, but by the military situation. Yep. Should I give him a point? Maybe, but I won’t because I don’t see his policy towards Afghanistan as being any clearer than Obama’s.

I would actually give a point in this issue to Ron Paul, but since he is not in this comparison, the point is academic at best. Paul believes we should be very sparing in our military adventures and even then, they should meet constitutional criteria. I agree. In his book the “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers”, Professor Paul Kennedy observed the great powers that have risen and fallen since 1500 have done so partially because their military commitments outstripped their ability to pay for them. It is a cautionary tale we should pay attention to.

New score, same as the old score: Obama 4, Romney 7

Stay tuned to this blog for observations on the latest election campaign news.

Meanwhile, back in the Arizona desert, a group of Republican legislators is trying to engineer a process by which recalled candidates could be reimbursed by the state for their campaign expenses. The effort appears to be mainly focused on reimbursing Russell Pierce for expenses incurred dung his recent recall fight, which he lost. This one pisses me off, and I don’t care of the recalled candidate is Republican or Democrat. With very few exceptions the money spent on a campaign is not the candidate’s own. It is money contributed to his campaign by other people, so why are we reimbursing the candidate?

When a group of state attorneys general went after the mortgage industry over foreclosures, they won a large settlement to be applied to a fund to help struggling homeowners. In Arizona, this fund was about $97mlllion. In their effort to balance the budget, our governor and legislators have decided to “sweep” $50million of that money into the general fund. Now, I don’t care which party is doing this. In this case, it’s the Republicans, but it could easily be the Democrats. It is wrong. This money was earmarked for a particular purpose, and is now being diverted from that purpose by legislators who are unable to balance the budgets using logic, discipline and financial restraint.

Give me a break! On Wednesday, Romney’s national security advisor resigned because of clams being made that he is not a real conservative because he is gay. This guy has pretty solid conservative credentials, and apparently has a good grasp of what he is talking about, but because he is gay, Romney will be deprived of his advice and services. What a shame!

To see more awesome art by Gail McFarland and Jeff Danford, please visit us at pawprintartists.com

5/2/12 - Obama 4, Romney 7

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues. 

Today’s comments are brought to you by “Felix”, “Little Jeri” and “Maryann”, original paintings by Jeff Danford.

 
Ripped from the headlines. I watched the 60 Minutes interview the other night with Jose Rodriguez, the former head of the CIA's Clandestine Service, in which he defended the Enhanced Interrogation Techniques (EIT) employed by the CIA against al Qaida detainees. For an interesting counterpoint, I recommend “The Black Banners: The Inside Story of 9/11 and the War Against al-Qaeda” by former FBI counterterrorism operative Ali Soufan. Where Rodriguez argues EIT resulted in useful intelligence and prevented further al Qaida attacks, Soufan argues the opposite, that EIT resulted in nothing of use while traditional methods gained far more knowledge. I read Soufan’s book and am looking forward to reading Rodriguez’ when it is released.

************************************************************

I recently received a post on my FB page asking me to support the Student Loan Forgiveness Act of 2012 (H.R. 4170). I could not share this post because I do not agree with it. Yes, the job market sucks, and yes it is hard to get a good paying job that would make paying off the loans easier, but I disagree with the concept of forgiveness. I have great empathy for those who have high student loan debts. It is not easy to manage. My wife and I still have several years before we pay off her student loans, but, we entered into those loans knowing we would have to pay them off, as did everyone else who took on student loans. There were no guarantees that the economy would not go south. That’s a risk we took when we accepted the obligation.

I understand the frustration of these people. After all, we bailed out the auto companies and banks, so why can’t we bail them out, too? I opposed those bailouts, too, because we were setting a dangerous precedent that would allow entities to make risky decisions knowing they would be bailed out by the government.

*************************************************************************************

Observations on 2012 Presidential Horse Race. The other day I received an email from Sean Hannity telling me a new national poll showed Romney beating Obama, and that now "we" had Obama on the ropes "we" needed to step up the pressure to defeat him in November. Only problem is, that was only one poll that week that favored Romney; another one showed them tied, while several others showed Obama leading by as much as nine points in some polls. This illustrates the danger inherent in following a particular poll or even a small number of them. That’s why I like realclearpolitics.com. Their RCP average takes all the polls and averages them out, showing a more accurate picture of what is really happening.

**********************************************************************************

 I’m always amazed at the things campaigns come up with to keep us from thinking of the real issues. A new dimension has been added to the 2012 Presidential campaign. The “Dog Wars” have arrived. Conservative dog lovers are up in arms about a passage in his book “Dreams of my Father” in which he describes some of the food he ate as a boy in Indonesia. Now, this book was published in 1995, but this passage did not attract attention until this week. Hmmm. It appears to be the Republican response to reports that Romney once strapped the family dog on top of the car during a family vacation trip.

Ok, so Obama once ate dog meat. So what? People in a lot of countries eat dog meat. I have many friends who were in the Service who tried it when they were overseas. I have never tried it, but I am not sure I would like it. I understand it can be stringy and have a strong taste.

As for Romney, personally I cannot see myself ever strapping my dog on top of the car. For starters, we have 4 dogs, so I would have to put two or three kennels on the roof. We also think of our dogs as part of the family and would not consider doing that. When you think about it though, what’s the difference between putting the dog on the roof and putting it in the back of a pickup truck? I think Romney’s defense was lame, but as long as the dog was safe, where’s the harm?

We need to stop deflecting voters’ interest from the real issues. Stay tuned to this blog for observations on the latest election campaign news.

More comments on page 2, after this crass commercial announcement:

 
You can purchase a set of Jeff’s chicken prints at our Etsy store

And now… Page 2!

Obama vs Romney comparison: Score is presently Obama 1, Romney.
Using http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/ as my guide, today I will continue my comparison by examining the candidates’ views on abortion and compare them to mine. Romney believes the states should be allowed to write their own legislation regarding abortion. I will give a point to Romney here. I agree with critics the SCOTUS decision in Roe V Wade was an example of judicial overreach. I also agree with Scalia that the Constitution does not mention abortion, so therefore it’s a states issue. I do find it interesting, though, that while conservatives want abortion to be a States’ Rights issue, they think gay rights should be a federal issue. There is a touch of hypocrisy there. Obama 1, Romney 1.

Obama supports the H.R. 3 No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act of 2010 which bans federal funding for abortion except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is in danger. I agree with him. I assume, although this site does not include it, that Romney would agree, so one Point to Obama, one point to Romney. Obama 2, Romney 2.

Both candidates are very supportive of adoption as an alternative to abortions. Since I agree with this position, I will give each a point. Obama 3, Romney 3.

Obama supports Roe v Wade, while Romney favors repeal of Roe v Wade. While I am pro-choice, I have to agree with Romney, that Roe v Wade should be repealed. Point to Obama. Obama 3, Romney 4.
Obama opposes parental notification laws, while Romney agrees with them. I agree with Romney. I think it is an important issue. I have always objected to the dichotomy in thinking that allowed minors to get an abortion without parental involvement, while that same minor would not be able to get a tattoo without parental involvement. I do think there should be some provision for judicial review for those cases in which it would be risky or dangerous for a minor to get parents involved. Point to Romney. Obama 3, Romney 5

Obama opposes the conservative movement to defund Planned Parenthood, while Romney supports it. I agree with Romney, not because I oppose Planned Parenthood, because I actually do support them, but because I think they can get their own funding without aid from the feds. When you think about it, a very small portion of their funding comes from the feds, anyway, so I don’t see it as crippling them. Point to Romney. Obama 3,Romney 6.

Obama supports embryonic stem cell research, while Romney is opposed. I agree with Obama. I think the research can be instrumental in finding cures or preventions for many serious medical issues, so I will give a point to Obama. However, since I am opposed to federal finding for embryonic stem cell research on the grounds we really can’t afford it, and I think private funds can be raised, I will give a point to Romney. Obama 4, Romney 7.

Next post I will look at the candidates' stands on Afghanistan.

**********************************************************************************

Meanwhile, back in the Arizona desert, last week the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled Arizona may require voters to show identification at the polls, but cannot demand that they show proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. I agree with the former and disagree with the latter. Why should we not have to prove our citizenship to register to vote? Afterall, voting is a privilege granted only to US citizens. I think the folks who are screaming about unfair voter ID laws are fighting a dead fight. You need a photo id to do just about anything else in this country, why not to vote?

On the other hand, the folks who are screaming about massive voter fraud are also flogging a nonexistent horse, as confirmed incidences of voter fraud are rare. Once again we are being distracted from more serious issues.

You can see more awesome art by Gail McFarland and Jeff Danford at pawprintartists.com

4/12/12

A compendium of rantings & ravings, observations and otherwise snarky comments dealing with today’s political issues:

Today’s comments are brought to you by “Yellow Trees”, an original painting by Gail McFarland.

  

Ripped from the headlines. I received an email this morning from RushLimbaugh that contains the transcript of a discussion in which the caller said since Obama and the Democrats want to go back to Clinton era tax levels, they should also be wiling to go back to Clinton era spending levels, and Rush agreed. Oddly enough, I agree with Rush… kinda sorta. While I am not sure about going back to Clinton era spending levels, I do think we should take a good look at the policies enacted by Clinton and the Republican Congress.  I am a firm believer in the old principle of “why reinvent the wheel when you can steal it from someone else?” Even before the Bowles-Simpson Commission published their recommendations for deficit reduction I wondered why we didn’t go back to Clinton era budgets and see what Clinton and the Republicans in congress actually did to achieve four consecutive balanced budgets. Why not look at how they did it and see what we can borrow from them? Yes, taxes were raised, but spending was also restrained.  And, it was done without killing the economy.  I get tired of all this bickering about how to fix the deficit problem. Let’s go back and look at a time when something was accomplished and see if we can replicate it.

Observations on 2012 Presidential Horse Race.  With the withdrawal from the GOP race it appears the Presidential election in November will feature Obama vs Romney. Every four years, I like to sit down, look at the issues and compare the candidates’ stands with my own. It’s that time again. In each blog post I will look at one issue and compare my stand with those of Obama and Romney. I will assign points to the candidate I agree with, with 1 point possible for each issue. Contrary to my original intention of using a different site for my source for issues, I will be using the issues as noted in the web site http://2012.candidate-comparison.org/?compare=Romney&vs=Obama, because this site breaks down the issues into key points. Since I often take a nuanced approach to issues myself, I feel this is the best fit. Under the Abortion heading for example, there are 8 separate issues. Out of a possible 8 points, each candidate could get some of my points.

I will maintain a running score count in each post and at the end of the series see for whom I should logically vote. I invite my readers to follow along with me in this exercise, maintaining their own scoring based on their own stands on the issues.

Since the issues are listed alphabetically, the first issue will be abortion.  Obama is pro-Choice. Romney Is Pro-Life. I am Pro-Choice. 

While I am personally opposed to abortion and would try to talk a loved one or friend out of making that decision, I believe that ultimately the decision to get an abortion rests between a woman, her family and her god. I know a few women who have had abortions and with one exception, they were not easy choices to make. In some of the cases, the women were minors whose parents made the decision for them. Others were adults who made a painful difficult personal decision. I know for these women it was not an easy decision to make and they have sometimes wondered if they made the right call, but it was their call. I agree with the statement, “ abortions should be safe, legal and rare”. I think we do should do everything we can to reduce or eliminate the number of abortions through sex education and the availability of contraception methods so abortion becomes the least attractive option.

1 point to Obama. Cumulative score: Obama 1, Romney 0.

You can purchase a 16" x 20" Giclee on Canvas of  "Yellow Trees" today..
Printed with museum quality inks on museum quality canvas, protected with a UV coating and protective varnish; assured to provide enjoyment for more than 100 years under normal conditions.
Priced at $150.00, free shipping anywhere in the US.