10.21.12: The State of the Race

The first segment with Chuck Todd was a fall down in terms of presentation, but it answered the question - where are we?  The state of the race is a toss up - 47 percent to 47 percent, and Mr. Obama's lead among women is shrinking, down to single digits.  As David Axelrod said in his interview, he thought that the race would always be close, which everyone could foresee, but a dead heat?  It's the President's race to lose, and David Axelrod is responsible for the campaign's poor performance. 

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) wasn't exactly correct when he says the President has failed to put forth a plan for the coming new term, but there is truth in the assessment in as much as the President's campaign team [see: David Axelrod] hasn't effectively articulated a compelling message for the next four years. 

We've touched on this in previous columns that Mr. Obama's agenda, to see it through, was predicated on him winning another term in office.  That's why you see the President and his team focusing so much on the measures they put in place instead of what more they are going to do. It takes time for laws to be implemented, time which Mr. Obama may not have.  In the mean time, the 'no second term agenda/vision' is talking point number one for Republicans, and they'll be hammering that home until election day, hence Mr. Rubio's repetition of the statement and again later with Senator Rob Portman's (R-OH) interview.  Mr. Axelrod, to counter the charge, mentioned taxes, education and manufacturing, but the latter two really fold into the first.  The administration's education and manufacturing aspirations are tied to revising the tax structure, which needs to be done and the raising of income tax to 39% for the income individuals make over $250,000 is a necessary step to close the budget gap. It's not a panacea by any means, but it is one component of getting the deficit under control.

Before we get fully into comments made with regard to foreign positions, we find it very interesting that all the Republican representatives, Mike Murphy included, referred to the President's statements on Libya as 'shifting.'  Where the Obama Administration has been accusing the Romney campaign of shifting positions when it comes to social and economic issues, a factual weakness for Mr. Romney. Several examples of this were illustrated on the program today - Mr. Romney's changing position on the Blunt Amendment where employers can decline to cover contraception for women (see Mr. Rubio's segment), his tax plan in which Alan Simpson and Erskin Bowles both said it wouldn't add up (see Mr. Portman's segment), with regard to Medicare again that it wouldn't change for current recipients (see Mr. Rubio again), and especially on the issue of women in the workplace - think binders (see both Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman). To counter this, the Romney campaign is taking their weakness and are now projecting it on the President with the difference of the attack being on the President's foreign policy.  It's pure Karl Rove political strategy - take your weakness and make it the other guy's. 

Despite Mr. Rubio and Mr. Portman's statements respectively, we trust that we'll get a more accurate assessment from the likes of New York Times columnist Tom Friedman who lead off on the Libya topic saying that it has been completely politicized, which it has, calling it a totally contrived story to weaken the President on foreign policy.  Even Republican strategist Mike Murphy, no stranger to hyperbole, called it a train wreck on all sides specifically citing the Romney press conference.  What Mr. Friedman didn't explicitly say was that the responsibility for it being politicized lies with the Romney campaign and the Republicans following suit. 

However, the shifting that Republicans are referring to isn't really happening as much as it was the Administration putting emphasis on what actually happened in Benghazi.  What we do know is that there was a coordinated attack on the consulate and either before, after, during or all three there was a demonstration associated with an anti-Muslim video.  To politicize the incident is irresponsible because as we have learned with many isolated attacks, the facts will change as more information comes to light, and the President, as David Axelrod pointed out, has launched an investigation.  We find that foreign policy has been one of the President's strengths, a policy that George H.W. Bush would call 'prudent.'  We would assess thus far that the Obama Administration has not played politics with foreign policy simple for the fact that he seems to have upset both sides - the right on Afghanistan and the left on drone strikes.  However, with that said and not to excuse it, but we understand why the Administration would not want to put emphasis on a terror attack, no matter where it is, that happened on September 11th.  There are political consequences for making it an issue, of which the Obama Administration is aware.  Libya is not an illustration of what Paul Ryan called a complete unraveling of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, and we agree with Helene Cooper who said it should not be litigated [amongst the sides as it has been].

And speaking on New York Times reporter Helene Cooper, the other foreign policy matter for discussion today is Iran, the impetus for which was he reporting in today's paper that the United States and Iran are trying to find a way to the negotiating table, something that both side deny for obvious reasons.  Mr. Portman quipped that it sounded like a security leak on behalf of the Administration, but as Ms. Cooper pointed out, there were indications as much from Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at the United Nations last month, but would wait for the outcome of the election. 

It is true that Iran's economy is in a shambles especially with the last oil embargo kicking in for full effect so Iran has to act and their only chip is their nuclear program.  Mr. Rubio said that a military option has to be on the table, somewhat implying that he doesn't think the Obama Administration would follow that tact, but what you have to understand is that given Israel's position, a military strike is always on the table, just not necessary a U.S. military option.  Iran is not going to sit down with Israel, this much we know.  And all diplomacy has to be exhausted before any military option is decided upon as Ms. Cooper also pointed out.  And it is worth noting that the Obama Administration has brought in the world community in getting tough diplomatically with Iran, something that these potential meetings could be seen as alienating as was suggested by Mr. Portman. However, if the United States doesn't lead in finding a way to the negotiating table, and brings in other countries, then the administration would be accused of 'leading from behind' again.  Damned if you do, and damned if you don't, we guess.  It all makes for an interesting debate tomorrow on foreign policy. 


Round Table:  Democratic Strategist and Former White House Press Secretary Dee Dee Myers; Republican strategist Mike Murphy; NY Times Columnist Tom Friedman; and NY Times White House Correspondent Helene Cooper.