"We're making great progress," Mr. Romney said when David Gregory asked him at the top of the interview if he felt his campaign was winning race. Despite what Mr. Romney says, Chuck Todd is correct in saying that the Romney Campaign feels that they are behind. It's this reality that certainly factored into some of Mr. Romney's answers.
Convention winners and losers aside, Mr. Romney has been saying all along that one of the 5 points in his economic plan is to completely repeal Obamacare. Good enough, but in today's interview he softened those statements by saying that he wouldn't repeal every measure in the law. For example, he would keep the provision that parents could keep their kids on their policies until age 26 or that people with preexisting conditions will not be rejected by insurance companies for coverage. Convention bumps are insignificant and it's the undecided, independent voters that one must appeal so this is why you see a 'revising' or should we say a 'refining' of his position. (We're used to that with Mr. Romney.) The problem is that repealing the structure of the bill but keeping those provisions, doesn't work fiscally for consumers. If you don't have price controls that the Affordable Health installs, then an individual with a preexisting condition is going to have to pay a premium that will essentially price them out of the market.
We had been looking forward to watching this interview since it was announced, hoping for some new insights and specifics from the candidate, but unfortunately there weren't any. Sticking with healthcare, Mr. Gregory asked Mitt Romney that if the Republican proposed voucher system for Medicare doesn't cover costs at the rate of inflation, would he pass the cost to seniors or blow up the deficit? He never answered the question. We can only project that given the Republican collective political philosophy, those costs will be passed to seniors.
Another critical area where he offered no specifics were on taxes. (We have to rhetorically ask how Mr. Romney expects to win when he offers no detailed answers on the tougher questions.) He said that he would lower overall rates, but that the wealthiest of Americans would still pay the same because he would close tax loopholes, yet cannot explain one that he would close. Instead he explained that he would make sure that the middle class paid less on dividends and capital gains. Here's a disconnect that it seems the media hasn't picked up on, which is that the middle class do not have dividends and capital gains, at least of not any significance. And if you asked most middle class working Americans how their capital gains are doing, they wouldn't even know what capital gains were.
Also, Mr. Romney said he would increase defense spending, while cutting taxes, and went on to say that he would balance the budget in his second term. As Bill Clinton has now famously said, it's 'arithmetic,' and we're unable to add up Mr. Romney's plan because on its face, increasing military spending and lowering taxes without more revenue doesn't make sense given there are no specific loophole closures. Mr. Romney did say with regard to military spending that the President was wrong to propose it and that Republicans were wrong to go along with it. Today's round table pointed out that the sequestration of spending was meant to be an inter-party conversation starter, but given the fact that both sides are just willing to let things happen because of their collective lack of negotiating, where are the solutions? Despite what Mr. Bill Bennett would tell you that cutting taxes is pro-growth, it just isn't that simple.
Mr. Romney is correct, however, when he explained that for every job
that has been created, three people have dropped out of the workforce
and that the recovery is essentially jobless. But that's how our
economy is set up - ours is a supply-side economy that enables the
wealthiest and most economically powerful to recover first and then the
rest will follow. However, on the promise of balancing the budget in his second term, why would one vote for Mr. Romney? He specifically said in the interview today that the President is asking for an 'incomplete [grade]' for his first term and that was unacceptable. However, at the end of Mr. Romney's proposed first term, we'll have to give him the same grade.
E.J. Dionne reminded us that in Mr. Romney's Washington Post opt-ed, he said that he would allow market forces to work and if that meant General Motors ceasing to exist then so be it. Mr. Romney's answer today did not instill any confidence in the manufacturing sector. He said that he recommended bankruptcy for GM and that in fact it did go into bankruptcy, a nuanced answer to say the least. His was a bankruptcy that without government assistance, would have completely shut down General Motors. With a government loan, as was issued, GM would be able to enter bankruptcy and then exit. This example is the key example of how the two men think. If you think saving GM and all the parts and repairs suppliers that feed into GM was a good idea then you agree with the President. If not, Romney is your guy.
Chuck Todd said that the one drag on Romney is the Republican old orthodoxies and that it's his biggest hurdle. This is no more true than when it comes to foreign policy. Mr. Romney dismissed Mr. Gregory's reference to the President saying that he was stuck in a cold-war mind warp. In the interview, Mr. Romney did not mention Russia, not 'doubling down' as they say. Instead he went on about Iran's nuclear capability. We don't mean to diminish the significance of that prospect, but it is the only aspect of foreign policy he can address, it suggests a stubbornness that is reminiscent of the Bush Administration's unilateral position.
President Obama quoted Abraham Lincoln during his convention speech, "I have been driven to my knees many times by the overwhelming conviction that I had no place else to go." The quote is meant to be an admission that he as the President is still human and not infallible. When asked if Mr. Romney thought it was a mistake that he did not mention Afghanistan or the troops in his convention speech, he answered that the day before he was at an American Legion hall talking to veterans. He will not admit that it was a mistake. For a man who wants to be the Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth not to mention soldiers that are fighting at this moment in the biggest speech of his life is not only a mistake but, in our humble opinion, practically a disqualifier.
Mr. Romney, you screwed up, now admit it.
But he won't, and the point is that he would never admit to any failings. In the interview today, Mr. Romney again said that he wants to help the American people, not stem the rise of the oceans. Mr. Obama in his convention speech referenced the Romney comment and said that climate change was no joke. But Mr. Obama was mistaken on his interpretation of what Mr. Romney meant, and what he was much more cynical. What Mr. Romney is really cutting into Mr. Obama about is that the President has some kind of God complex, and that's how the Christian right-wing interpret that, code that, again, the media hasn't picked up on.
In totality, with all these non-answers and lack of specificity on many important points and issues, we're compelled to give Mr. Romney's interview effort an incomplete.
Round table: Rising star in the Democratic party who gave the keynote address on
Tuesday night at the DNC, San Antonio Mayor Julian Castro; the Wall
Street Journal’s Peggy Noonan; the Washington Post’s EJ Dionne; Fmr.
Secretary of Education Bill Bennett; and NBC’s Political Director and
Chief White House Correspondent, Chuck Todd.
Panelist Side Note: Once in a rare while we'll enjoy the comments of the Wall Street Journal's Peggy Noonan. We grant her respect as an author of several books and a presidential speech writer, however, given that he comments today came off as like she has some stature of the great mother of 'conservative' wisdom saying that Mitt Romney needs to be strong and capable, that Mr. Obama being re-elected is like throwing a cold blanket on the economy. These are banal, pointless generalities that are unproductive said with an air of condescension. Sometimes you just have to call B.S. when you see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment