Mike Pouraryan"Outsdiers" Americas Watch (5/17/2012): What A Week
May 17th 2012 06:46
:
Can't Possibly Be....
The Prevailing Wind in Washington Today: Courtesy of the Salt Lake Tribune
This past week saw the Federal Trade Commision settle out claims of False Advertising against the makers of Sketchers Sneakers. The makers of the Sneakers claimed that by wearing the $ 100 (US) sneakers, folks will emerge a lot healthier. It was wrong and they were fined 40 Million Dollars for being wrong about it. This is as JP Morgan Chase came out with the announcement that it lost 2 Billion Dollars in trades over the past few months.
What has just happened this past week underscores the need for a strong regulatory regime in the United States. The Sketchers settlement was just one example of the Federal Government in the United States (and by extension all around the World) doing what it can to look for the interests of the common man on the street. This is an example of actions that is not supported and frankly frowned upon by the continued drumbeat of rhetoric that continues to be pushed by the Republicans in Washington. The view that somehow Government is the problem seems to be thrown out the window by such wins.
Beyond the daily work of Government, there is the greater issue of the need to Govern and compromise that seems to have lost its' meaning in Washington. Mitt Romney is continuing on with his attacks on Barack Obama on the Economy, On Social Issues and to note how he has a "different plan" to restore hope and opportunity. I checked out his speeches both at Liberty University and in Iowa recently on Faith and the Economy. Although I will assess his views on Faith for a different edition of the "Watch", I wanted to address his thoughts on the Economy.
Romney and Obama are polling evenly. The Economy in the US is not in th best of shape. As for foreign policy, despite what Gideon Rachman of the Financial Times noted as the "Bullseye"--ie.e the killing of the loser Osama Bin Laden--there is not really much to write home about. It must be noted, though, that he has taken the so-called Bush Doctrine to a new level by deploying more drones and killing more people than ever more. The Republicans cannot possibly fault him for that.
Barack Obama has his work cut out for him to make the case for re-election. This is simply because of the relentless media campaign about how "bad things are". The street in the US is nervous. For the Obama Campaign to prevail, it has to underscore what Romney's vew actually is. If they make the American People know that all Romney advocates is Tax Cuts and blind faith in the Markets, they will have a shot. They will need to talk about the record at Bain as Romney build up his personal fortune. The issue is not about success--the President himself noted how he's joined the 1%. The issue is one of vision and the roadmap to get there. What Joe Biden did apparently is part of the strategy that is also exemplified by the release of ads attacking the Romney record. However, such a strategy may well backfire if not executed.
One example of the subtle opposition is Steve Rattner, the so-called Obama Czar who is now an analyst at the US Cable broadcaster MSNBC. He noted how some of the criticism against Bain and Mitt Romney was "unfair" due to the good work Bain has done. I understand that underperforming companies need help. What I don't understand is how firms like Bain (and others) work on giving themselves hefty dividends and in some cases, thereafter allow such companies to go bankrupt. The purists who believe in an absolute blind faith in the markets believe that it is ok. In reality, though, the debate has to be about the creation and evolution of a post-capitalistic, pluralistic society that would insure a sense of fairness for all. A society that continues to see a continued widening of the divide between the haves and the have nots cannot be allowed.
As the debate gathers steam, the idea of governing also is something that seems to be ever more alien. John Boehner, the US House Speaker, came out drawing a line in the sand on the next debt ceiling debate--demanding cuts to offset the increase. The Tea-Party backed Republican US Senate Candidate in Indiana said that compromise was basically alien. He said that his definition of compromise was Democrats marching behind Republicans to implement the Tea-Party inspired agenda that is currently the prevailing way in Washington. As I listened to the gentleman who defeated Senator Richard Lugar, I wanted whether he understood what truly governing met. As Bill Clinton noted, if people did not compromise, the US Constitution would not have been created, the Federal Government would not have been born and America would not exist as it does today. When will there be some courage and backbone shown remains to be seen. Senator Lugar's Letter after his defeat underscores the yearning for such courage. I decided to publish this letter originally released after his defeat and reported on MSNBC for reference below:
[CENTER] Prepared Statement of Senator Richard G. Lugar on the Concluded Indiana Senate Primary
May 8, 2012
I would like to comment on the Senate race just concluded and the direction of American politics and the Republican Party. I would reiterate from my earlier statement that I have no regrets about choosing to run for office. My health is excellent, I believe that I have been a very effective Senator for Hoosiers and for the country, and I know that the next six years would have been a time of great achievement. Further, I believed that vital national priorities, including job creation, deficit reduction, energy security, agriculture reform, and the Nunn-Lugar program, would benefit from my continued service as a Senator. These goals were worth the risk of an electoral defeat and the costs of a hard campaign.
Analysts will speculate about whether our campaign strategies were wise. Much of this will be based on conjecture by pundits who dont fully appreciate the choices we had to make based on resource limits, polling data, and other factors. They also will speculate whether we were guilty of overconfidence.
The truth is that the headwinds in this race were abundantly apparent long before Richard Mourdock announced his candidacy. One does not highlight such headwinds publically when one is waging a campaign. But I knew that I would face an extremely strong anti-incumbent mood following a recession. I knew that my work with then-Senator Barack Obama would be used against me, even if our relationship were overhyped. I also knew from the races in 2010 that I was a likely target of Club for Growth, FreedomWorks and other Super Pacs dedicated to defeating at least one Republican as a purification exercise to enhance their influence over other Republican legislators.
We undertook this campaign soberly and we worked very hard in 2010, 2011, and 2012 to overcome these challenges. There never was a moment when my campaign took anything for granted. This is why we put so much effort into our get out the vote operations.
Ultimately, the re-election of an incumbent to Congress usually comes down to whether voters agree with the positions the incumbent has taken. I knew that I had cast recent votes that would be unpopular with some Republicans and that would be targeted by outside groups.
These included my votes for the TARP program, for government support of the auto industry, for the START Treaty, and for the confirmations of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I also advanced several propositions that were considered heretical by some, including the thought that Congressional earmarks saved no money and turned spending power over to unelected bureaucrats and that the country should explore options for immigration reform.
It was apparent that these positions would be attacked in a Republican primary. But I believe that they were the right votes for the country, and I stand by them without regrets, as I have throughout the campaign.
From time to time during the last two years I heard from well-meaning individuals who suggested that I ought to consider running as an independent. My response was always the same: I am a Republican now and always have been. I have no desire to run as anything else. All my life, I have believed in the Republican principles of small government, low taxes, a strong national defense, free enterprise, and trade expansion. According to Congressional Quarterly vote studies, I supported President Reagan more often than any other Senator. I want to see a Republican elected President, and I want to see a Republican majority in the Congress. I hope my opponent wins in November to help give my friend Mitch McConnell a majority.
If Mr. Mourdock is elected, I want him to be a good Senator. But that will require him to revise his stated goal of bringing more partisanship to Washington. He and I share many positions, but his embrace of an unrelenting partisan mindset is irreconcilable with my philosophy of governance and my experience of what brings results for Hoosiers in the Senate. In effect, what he has promised in this campaign is reflexive votes for a rejectionist orthodoxy and rigid opposition to the actions and proposals of the other party. His answer to the inevitable roadblocks he will encounter in Congress is merely to campaign for more Republicans who embrace the same partisan outlook. He has pledged his support to groups whose prime mission is to cleanse the Republican party of those who stray from orthodoxy as they see it.
This is not conducive to problem solving and governance. And he will find that unless he modifies his approach, he will achieve little as a legislator. Worse, he will help delay solutions that are totally beyond the capacity of partisan majorities to achieve. The most consequential of these is stabilizing and reversing the Federal debt in an era when millions of baby boomers are retiring. There is little likelihood that either party will be able to impose their favored budget solutions on the other without some degree of compromise.
Unfortunately, we have an increasing number of legislators in both parties who have adopted an unrelenting partisan viewpoint. This shows up in countless vote studies that find diminishing intersections between Democrat and Republican positions. Partisans at both ends of the political spectrum are dominating the political debate in our country. And partisan groups, including outside groups that spent millions against me in this race, are determined to see that this continues. They have worked to make it as difficult as possible for a legislator of either party to hold independent views or engage in constructive compromise. If that attitude prevails in American politics, our government will remain mired in the dysfunction we have witnessed during the last several years. And I believe that if this attitude expands in the Republican Party, we will be relegated to minority status. Parties dont succeed for long if they stop appealing to voters who may disagree with them on some issues.
Legislators should have an ideological grounding and strong beliefs identifiable to their constituents. I believe I have offered that throughout my career. But ideology cannot be a substitute for a determination to think for yourself, for a willingness to study an issue objectively, and for the fortitude to sometimes disagree with your party or even your constituents. Like Edmund Burke, I believe leaders owe the people they represent their best judgment.
Too often bipartisanship is equated with centrism or deal cutting. Bipartisanship is not the opposite of principle. One can be very conservative or very liberal and still have a bipartisan mindset. Such a mindset acknowledges that the other party is also patriotic and may have some good ideas. It acknowledges that national unity is important, and that aggressive partisanship deepens cynicism, sharpens political vendettas, and depletes the national reserve of good will that is critical to our survival in hard times. Certainly this was understood by President Reagan, who worked with Democrats frequently and showed flexibility that would be ridiculed today from assenting to tax increases in the 1983 Social Security fix, to compromising on landmark tax reform legislation in 1986, to advancing arms control agreements in his second term.
I dont remember a time when so many topics have become politically unmentionable in one party or the other. Republicans cannot admit to any nuance in policy on climate change. Republican members are now expected to take pledges against any tax increases. For two consecutive Presidential nomination cycles, GOP candidates competed with one another to express the most strident anti-immigration view, even at the risk of alienating a huge voting bloc. Similarly, most Democrats are constrained when talking about such issues as entitlement cuts, tort reform, and trade agreements. Our political system is losing its ability to even explore alternatives. If fealty to these pledges continues to expand, legislators may pledge their way into irrelevance. Voters will be electing a slate of inflexible positions rather than a leader.
I hope that as a nation we aspire to more than that. I hope we will demand judgment from our leaders. I continue to believe that Hoosiers value constructive leadership. I would not have run for office if I did not believe that.
As someone who has seen much in the politics of our country and our state, I am able to take the long view. I have not lost my enthusiasm for the role played by the United States Senate. Nor has my belief in conservative principles been diminished. I expect great things from my party and my country. I hope all who participated in this election share in this optimism.
There is of course some news on the political front. Both the Democratic and Republican Camps are on a frenzied fundraising drive. Obama's fundraising has dipped a bit as the Republican-Driven Superpacs seems to be ever more supercharged. There is one piece of interesting news; George W. Bush Endorsed Mitt Romney. I am sure that no one around the World is too surprised by it.
It is bound to be ever more interesting..........
| 11 |
| Vote |
Add Comments
Read More
