When it comes to the aftermath of elections, the word mandate is always the first thing to be debated. Of course, the winning side will come out and say that they have one, see George W. Bush's quote noted on today's program, "I've earned political capital and I intend to spend it." Never mind that he didn't spend it wisely, a discussion for another day. However, Speaker of House John Boehner (R-OH) has already come out an said that the President's reelection is not a mandate for higher taxes, something that the President has been pushing for for the past few years, heavily during the campaign, essentially a return to the Clinton tax rates - 39.6% for individuals' earnings over $250,000. Anything under $250,000, the rate stays the same. It's an important point that hasn't been adequately relayed by Democrats because it doesn't have a good soundbite quality to it, but people understand how it is laid out, approval numbers for the plan go up.
So does the President, in fact, have a mandate, which means he has the full authorization from the electorate to implement his agenda? Not really. What the President does have is clear and distinct leverage, especially when it comes to the upcoming fiscal negotiations. The President's reelection coupled with the Democratic gains in the Senate and the rejection of a number of Tea Party candidates, the country has spoken that the President's plan - tax increases and spending cuts together - is the course to be taken.
And as Jim Kramer pointed out in his very brief segment during today's program, a deal has to get done so that Wall Street and big business feel some sense of security in how the government will more forward financially. He has a point in as much as the country needs big business to do more hiring because without a deal, as he noted, they'll just lay people off. We find it ironic that Wall Street has the undying need to know that the government's finances are stable so that it can then go ahead to make risky bets. What that says is that the scale of fairness is weighted in the favor of business. It's just how this country operates at this point and that's why you hear some people suggesting that Mr. Romney, though defeated in the election, could play a role in the United States getting its fiscal house in order. This would be a bad idea as all it would do is give people second thoughts about their choice for President. There are plenty of other Republicans, more sensible ones, that the President could collaborate with to come up with a mutually beneficial, or equally painful, as the case may be.
Senator Coburn said that he saw more of the Republicans demonstrating what they were against during the election instead of what they were for and it was this messaging that needs to change if the Republicans want to take back the Oval Office. This may be true, but it also seems to play into the larger widely spread denial that the Republicans have about the overall electorate. The Republican party must become more sensible when it comes to minorities, immigrants, and women. Frankly, the Republicans are seen as anti all of that and they only have themselves to blame. If right-wing talk radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh are going to continue of have unfettered influence on the party, then their long-term prospects are dim.
The party perceived as the one of old white men has to modulate with the times, especially on immigration and women's issues, the latter of which was not discussed on the program today in depth, but everyone knows the depth of the hole the Republicans has dug for themselves - see Todd Akin and Richard Murdock as case studies. However, immigration, as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) needs to be addresses right away and comprehensively. Oddly enough, immigration reform in the long-term could benefit Republicans as well as Democrats if, and only if, they embrace the change because as Chuck Todd pointed out, the white vote in declining as an overall percentage, a big factor in the election.
In the post-mortem of the election, essentially Doris Kearns-Goodwin had it right. This election was lost by the Republicans in the primaries. The only moderate candidate, Mitt Romney, did emerge the victor but he had to go so far to the right because the others were so far out there that he could never get back to the center to make people feel comfortable. It's not the fault of the media or the Democrats; the Republicans have to own their views and understand that they were not in line with mainstream America.
Lastly, a word about David Petreaus, which in the post election hangover, it's one of those things where you're saying, 'Huh? What?' In resigning his position of the head of the CIA, General Petreaus did the right thing. We agree with Mrs. Kearns-Goodwin that it is a shame that a personal matter should be the demise of a professional career that has benefited the country so much. However, we also agree with Bob Woodward in that the CIA Chief is an exceptional position and from what we've researched, Gen. Petreaus' biographer may have had access to the Colonel's e-mail. Additionally, there may have been the potential for a blackmail situation, which can not stand for a person in the position of Gen. Petreaus. Great patriot but he has to go.
Rep.-elect Joaquìn Castro (D-TX); Republican strategist Steve Schmidt;
presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin; Washington Post’s Bob
Woodward, and NBC News Political Director and Chief White House
Correspondent Chuck Todd.
No comments:
Post a Comment