Posts Tagged CNN

Man arrested after charging at Romney’s SUV – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Security on November 30, 2012


Man arrested after charging at Romney’s SUV

 

Posted by

CNN Political Unit

 

 

(CNN) - The Secret Service said an unidentified man was arrested Thursday at the White House after running at the vehicle carrying former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney to a lunch there.

The man reached into Romney’s open vehicle window as the SUV stopped at a White House gate. He was yelling the candidate’s name when he was hauled away, apparently by a security officer.
“This afternoon an individual interfered with a motorcade,” the Secret Service said in a statement. “He became combative with uniformed Secret Service agents, and was arrested for assault of a police officer and unlawful entrance.”

The individual did not appear to physically contact Romney.

Romney was visiting the White House for a lunch with President Barack Obama. The White House said in a statement the “focus of their discussion was on America’s leadership in the world and the importance of maintaining that leadership position in the future.”

 Man arrested after charging at Romney’s SUV – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

GOP must avoid the fiscal cliff – CNN.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in GOP, Politics on November 24, 2012


GOP must avoid the fiscal cliff

By William J. Bennett

November 21, 2012

Watch this video

 

 (CNN) – After much introspection, the GOP faces its first true post-election test: the so-called fiscal cliff. Will House Republicans hold out against President Barack Obama’s tax hike demands, or will they be willing to make a deal?

Plunging off the fiscal cliff should be the GOP’s last possible resort, even if that means making a “grand bargain” first. If Republicans are seen (or portrayed in the media) as purposely trying to push the country toward the fiscal cliff for political reasons, then it will only further affirm the “47%” stereotype that has haunted the party.

According to the 2012 exit polls, Obama won voters who said a candidate who “cares about people” is their most important quality by a dumbfounding 81% to 18%.

William J. Bennett

William J. Bennett

Republicans must change this narrative, and they can’t if they rely solely on resistance to tax hikes. While tax hikes alone on the richest Americans will not solve the debt problem or avert the fiscal cliff — a point Republicans rightly make — neither will the status quo.

Instead, Republicans should go on offense with a serious, comprehensive budget plan that will educate the public to the larger conservative principles of fiscal responsibility and governance, even if it means compromising on tax rates for the wealthiest Americans.

Some conservatives will disagree about this for some legitimate reasons. Yet if Republicans spend the next two months on their heels defending the current tax rates for the wealthy, they will lose the issue. The 2012 election taught us that class warfare is a powerful tactic if not properly rebutted. Obama was able to paint Republicans as defenders of the rich who did not care about the poor and middle classes. The Republican response was inadequate.

This time around Republicans must educate the public as to how their plan to avoid a fiscal cliff — preventing tax hikes, cutting the deficit and saving eroding social safety nets for those who need it most — actually protects the poor and middle classes. And that the president’s intransigence on tax hikes and inability to lead on budget or entitlement reforms will hurt the poor and middle classes the most in the long run.

The Republicans can take the lead and offer a framework structured around the Simpson-Bowles commission and Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan on Medicare reform.

Mayors urge fiscal cliff compromise

Progress made in fiscal cliff talks

Compromise, however, does not mean capitulation. Republicans can distinguish, as British politician Duff Cooper said, between the willingness in principle to compromise and the willingness to compromise on principle.

First, and most importantly, Republicans must insist on real, tangible spending cuts (not cuts in the rate of growth) that commence immediately. They cannot make the same mistake that Ronald Reagan and the GOP made in the early 1980s. Reagan agreed to a “balanced” approach in the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 that should have amounted to $3 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases. As we know, the tax hikes came, but the spending cuts never followed.

If Republicans do compromise on tax rates, it should only be to return those making more than $500,000 a year to just below Clinton-era rates (39.6% for the highest-earning married household). The tax hike should be temporary and tied directly to the spending cuts. Without the cuts, the tax hike would be void. Other revenue options could be on the table as well, such as closing loopholes or capping deductions for highest earners. These measures could be partly offset by cutting the corporate tax rate, which many Republicans and Democrats already agree on.

Next comes entitlement reform. Ryan and Democrat Sen. Ron Wyden had partnered together in the past to propose a bipartisan premium support alternative to Medicare (while keeping the option of traditional Medicare). House Republicans can also push a Social Security overhaul through raising the retirement age and offer revenues in the form of means testing for Medicare and Social Security.

There is optimism for such a deal. Ryan returns to the House with more gravitas and credibility than he had during last year’s debt-ceiling standoff. In the 2012 presidential election exit polls, Mitt Romney and Ryan won a majority of voters over the age of 45. One could argue that Ryan’s Medicare reform was in fact a winning issue and not the death knell its critics claimed it would be.

Additionally, 20 Democrat Senate seats are up for grabs in 2014, compared with 13 Republican seats. Among the Democrats up for re-election are senators in traditionally red states, such as Mark Pryor in Arkansas and Mary Landrieu in Louisiana. Others up for re-election such as Mark Warner in Virginia and Kay Hagan in North Carolina are under pressure to avoid the massive defense sequestration cuts that would accompany a fiscal plunge. Republicans can exercise leverage here.

Certainly, such a compromise or grand bargain may fail regardless of Republican efforts. Democrats may resist serious spending cuts and entitlement reforms. But regardless, Republicans must demonstrate to the American people that they did everything they could to avert the fiscal cliff for the sake of all Americans — schools, churches, communities, individuals and families included — not just businesses and corporations.

To paraphrase British philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the way to appear to love people is to love them in reality. Republican fiscal policy can be both principled and caring at the same time.

 GOP must avoid the fiscal cliff – CNN.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Norquist responds to senator’s break with no-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Politics on November 24, 2012


Norquist responds to senator's break with no-tax pledge


November 23rd, 2012

 

Norquist responds to senator’s break with no-tax pledge


 (CNN) – Anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist said the latest Republican to suggest a break with a pledge to oppose any tax increase is a promise broken to his constituents, not him.

“If he wants to change his mind and become a tax increaser so we don’t have to reform government, he needs to have that conversation with the people of Georgia,” said Norquist appearing on CNN’s “The Situation Room” Friday of Sen. Saxby Chambliss’ recent move away from the no-tax pledge.



Two-term Sen. Chambliss, a Republican from Georgia, said Wednesday that Norquist’s pledge stands in the way of finding common ground on reducing the debt.



“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Chambliss told Georgia television station WMAZ, a CNN affiliate. “If we do it his way, then we’ll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”



Some Republicans move away from no-tax pledge

Norquist leads the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform and has been successful in getting a majority of Republican lawmakers in Washington to sign a pledge promising not to support any effort to raise taxes. Recently, however, with the looming fiscal crisis, a number of freshman conservatives have broken with the pledge.

Norquist’s comments come as congressional leaders and President Barack Obama stretch to reach a deal to reduce the nation’s deficit before the end of year deadline. Barring a deal, a series of mandatory tax hikes and federal spending cuts will go into place, known as the ‘fiscal cliff.’

 The two sides split on a means to raise revenue to tame the nation’s debt: Democrats push for letting the Bush-era tax cuts expire for wealthier Americans while Republicans have advocated for closing loopholes and tax deductions.



Chambliss and others’ break from the pledge has some pointing to a divergence within the party away from the constraints of a written promise not to support tax increases.



Norquist rejected the notion pointing to a number of Republican leaders, like House Speaker John Boehner and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell, who he says will keep their commitment to reduce federal spending and oppose increases in tax rates during ‘fiscal cliff’ talks, adding that the deficit negotiations should be televised on C-SPAN instead of behind closed doors for the sake of transparency.



Norquist also said the pledge belongs to the candidates who have signed it, including some Democrats.

“Mr. Chandler from Kentucky was elected, Ben Chandler, taking the pledge. He broke the pledge and he was defeated in the last election. People were unhappy that he pretended to be a conservative democrat, and he lost his election,” Norquist said.

“(Ben) Nelson, another Democrat, a senator from Nebraska, also got elected taking the pledge,” he continued attributing Nelson’s choice not to run for re-election to a lack of support after voting for Obamacare.

Norquist responds to senator’s break with no-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Politics on November 23, 2012


Chambliss fires off on Norquist's anti-tax pledge

Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge

killough.mugshot.4

Posted by

CNN’s Ashley Killough

(CNN) – A top Republican U.S. senator brushed off the anti-tax pledge pushed by activist Grover Norquist and embraced widely for years by GOP lawmakers.

“I care more about my country than I do about a 20-year-old pledge,” Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Georgia television station WMAZ, a CNN affiliate, on Wednesday. “If we do it his way, then we’ll continue in debt and I just have a disagreement with him about that.”

– Follow the Ticker on Twitter: @PoliticalTicker

Congress faces a year-end deadline to reach agreement on taming the U.S. budget deficit or take other steps to avert the so-called fiscal cliff of mandatory tax increases and spending cuts that experts say would push the country back into recession.

At the heart of budget standoff is disagreement over how to raise new revenues to help reduce red ink.

President Barack Obama and Senate Democrats call for an increase in tax rates for the wealthiest Americans, while House Republicans, who control that chamber’s majority, favor other approaches for bringing in money, such as closing certain tax loopholes and eliminating deductions.

Norquist, who heads the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform, has been successful over the years in lobbying a strong majority of congressional Republicans to sign his pledge to not raise taxes.

Many GOP candidates who ran for office also signed the promise, but earlier this year, a small number of freshman lawmakers rejected the idea that they were bound to the document.

Chambliss, along with 38 other senators and 219 House members entering the next Congress, have signed the pledge, according to the website for Americans for Tax Reform.

But Chambliss, who has previously criticized Norquist’s stronghold on anti-tax sentiments, said this week that the fiscal conservative’s ideas stand in the way of finding a solution for ballooning debt.

“Norquist has no plan to pay this debt down,” said Chambliss, who is up for re-election in 2014.

The anti-tax crusader has said he predicts congressional Republicans will stand firm and negotiate a deal that excludes tax hikes.

Asked if Chambliss is concerned Norquist may use his resources to combat a re-election bid, the senator said, “In all likelihood, yes.”

“But I don’t worry about that because I care too much about my country,” he said. “I care a lot more about it than I do Grover Norquist.”

The two-term senator from Georgia added he’s “willing to do the right thing and let the political consequences take care of themselves.”

 Chambliss fires off on Norquist’s anti-tax pledge – CNN Political Ticker – CNN.com Blogs.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Boeing Dreamliner makes U.S. debut Sunday morning – CNN.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Aviation on November 4, 2012


Boeing Dreamliner makes U.S. debut Sunday morning

By the CNN Wire Staff

updated 7:01 PM EDT, Sat November 3, 2012

Watch this video

 

Go inside Boeing’s new 787 Dreamliner

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

·         United will be the first airline to fly the 787 in the United States

·         The advanced aircraft has weathered production delays

·         It’s made of lighter material and will reduce fuel costs

·         Passengers will enjoy bigger windows and more bin space

(CNN) – The celebratory champagne should be well-chilled by now.

After years of manufacturing delays and cost overruns, the state-of-the-art Boeing 787 Dreamliner makes its North American debut Sunday morning, toting more than 200 eager United Airlines passengers from Houston to Chicago.

It promises to be a morning full of festivities, starting with a ribbon-cutting before the plane departs Bush Intercontinental Airport at 7:20 a.m. The aircraft touches down two and a half hours later at O’Hare International Airport, greeted by a water cannon salute.

United says the 787 — the airline has ordered 50 — will “revolutionize the flying experience for our customers and crew while delivering unprecedented operating efficiency, comfort and lower emissions.”

The Dreamliner saves airlines money on fuel because its body is made from lightweight composite materials. It features passenger comforts such as bigger windows, larger overhead bins and better ventilation.

U.S. routes announced for ‘sports car in the sky’

Sunday’s flight crew won’t need to kick the nose gear tires, size 40×16.0 R16/26PR to be exact, before taking off.

United received the Dreamliner flying Sunday on September 28. It was put through the paces in October before earning Federal Aviation Administration certification.

“Everyone’s very excited, even people who aren’t in the industry,” Phil Derner, founder of the aviation news site NYCAviation.com, told CNN in August. “There’s a ton of new technology on the 787. It’s efficient and performs well, and it’s also a very good-looking aircraft. It’s kind of like a sports car in the sky.”

In September 2011, Japan’s All Nippon Airways became the first carrier to receive the plane, which was three years overdue at that time.

Because of unexpected delivery delays, during November and December some domestic flights originally scheduled to use the 787 will operate with a different aircraft type, United said.

United says its Dreamliners will include 36 first-class seats, 70 premium-economy seats and 113 economy seats. It recently received its second 787.

 Boeing Dreamliner makes U.S. debut Sunday morning – CNN.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Matt Miller: Sandy’s closing argument – The Washington Post

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective on November 1, 2012


Matt Miller

Matt Miller

Opinion Writer

Sandy’s closing argument

By Matt Miller, Published: October 31

The universal impulse is empathy for those who’ve been hurt through no fault of their own and a determination to mobilize collectively via government to ease the pain and fix the damage. Yes, of course, there are utility contractors, religious groups and nonprofits like the Red Cross doing essential work – every hand is needed on deck — but we rightly expect government to lead when it comes to coping with calamity.

The perplexing thing is this: Why is our moral instinct so different when it comes to natural disasters like Sandy as opposed to slow-motion man-made disasters, such as the fate of millions of poor children languishing in failing schools? Why do some bad things that are outside people’s control elicit empathy and a thirst for urgent response – and other bad things outside people’s control persist for decades in the face of de facto indifference?

We can pretend otherwise, but indifference is ultimately what we’ve shown poor children in the United States. These kids come into the world with disadvantages beyond their control. As a society we then make matters worse by leaving them poorly fed and largely untutored before they reach school age and then by assigning most of them to the least qualified teachers and shabbiest school facilities in the country.

The impact on their lives – not to mention the loss to the economy, when so much human potential is left untapped – vastly exceeds any damage Sandy will do. Our indifference helps explain why upward mobility is now greater in most of Europe than in the United States.

Yet we don’t see wall-to-wall coverage. We don’t see Ali Velshi reporting for hours from urban classrooms whose kids are knee-deep in despair just as surely as if they were treading water in Atlantic City. We don’t see Erin Burnett tracking the tide of neglect that’s lapping at these students’ feet just as Sandy swelled the waters Burnett patrolled in lower Manhattan.

I know, I know, there’s no galvanizing event to focus media attention (and thus our own). And we’re less sure of how to improve the odds for these children than we are about how to save, say, a subway.

Still, I’ve always felt that a deeper appreciation of the role that luck plays in life could form the basis of a consensus for bolder measures to get serious about equal opportunity, economic security and a minimally decent life in America. For the truth is it’s not just poor kids nowadays who are buffeted by forces outside their control. When it comes to the fate of the middle class in an era of globalization and rapid technological change, the waters are rising all around us.

Sensitivity to this role of luck in life is not just a liberal impulse, by the way. No less a conservative thinker than Judge Richard Posner offered a striking articulation of this sentiment on his blog two weeks ago.

“I think that ultimately everything is attributable to luck, good or bad,” Posner wrote. “Not just the obvious things, like IQ, genes that predispose to health or sickliness, the historical era and the country in which one is born, the wealth of one’s parents …one’s height and looks and temperament …but also the characteristics that cause a person to make critical decisions that may turn out well or badly, characteristics that really are derivative from some of the previously noted ‘luck’ characteristics. …Talent is luck but so is the propensity for working hard … or not working hard.”

Polls have long shown that Europeans tend to believe one’s destiny is shaped by forces outside one’s control, while Americans see themselves mostly as masters of their own fate. I’ve long argued that American sentiment will start to look more like Europe’s as global competition and technological advance leave millions of unlucky U.S. workers at the mercy of economic monsoons.

If I’m right, this evolving sense of vulnerability – of being subject to loss through no fault of one’s own – will at some point bring demands for a stronger government response. We’re not there yet. But the volatile swings we’ve seen in recent elections are a symptom that voters know things aren’t working and new ideas are needed. Another symptom is eroding support for free trade even higher up the income scale.

Taking luck and its implications for public policy seriously is precisely why Obamacare is so important (as was Romneycare, on a smaller scale, before it). Americans through government are finally asserting that if you’re unlucky enough to lose your job or to be cursed with disease, you won’t go broke if you get seriously ill. It’s the health security equivalent of first responders pulling people to safety from the squall.

If we apply the moral instinct Sandy evokes more imaginatively, in other words, we can build a society that leaves all of us more secure in the face of the gales we’re in for in a global economy. What we need are leaders who can make these linkages compelling – who show us that a decent society can ease the burdens of bad luck even as it champions and rewards hard work, individual initiative and entrepreneurship.

Listen closely through the wind and rain and you’ll hear it. Think of it as Sandy’s closing argument.

 Matt Miller: Sandy’s closing argument – The Washington Post.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Romney FEMA Statements Compared – NYTimes.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Mitt Romney on November 1, 2012


November 1, 2012

Romney on FEMA, Then and Now

By ANDREW ROSENTHAL

 

 

At a Republican primary debate in June of 2011, CNN’s John King asked Mitt Romney for his views on disaster relief. “FEMA is about to run out of money, and there are some people who say, ‘Do it on a case-by-case basis.’ And there are some people who say, ‘You know what, maybe we’re learning a lesson here that the states should take on more of this role.’ How do you deal with something like that?”

Mr. Romney responded ““Absolutely. Every time you have an occasion to take something from the federal government and send it back to the states, that’s the right direction. And if you can go even further and send it back to the private sector, that’s even better.”

He went on to advocate cutting the federal budget, leading Mr. King to interject “Including disaster relief, though?”

“We cannot—we cannot afford to do those things without jeopardizing the future for our kids. It is simply immoral, in my view, for us to continue to rack up larger and larger debts and pass them on to our kids.”

I don’t see how you can read that and not conclude that Primary Mitt endorsed decreasing the federal government’s role in disaster relief with a possible end goal of having private industry take over.

Naturally Hurricane Sandy Mitt feels somewhat differently. His campaign released a statement Wednesday that reads: “”I believe that FEMA plays a key role in working with states and localities to prepare for and respond to natural disasters. As president, I will ensure FEMA has the funding it needs to fulfill its mission, while directing maximum resources to the first responders who work tirelessly to help those in need, because states and localities are in the best position to get aid to the individuals and communities affected by natural disasters.”

No mention of the private sector; or of how it’s “immoral” to amass debt and thus absolutely necessary to cut the federal budget. Just a bland assurance that FEMA will have “the funding it needs to fulfill its mission.” The reference to “states and localities” may sound like tough federalism, but FEMA already works with local first responders. He did not address whether he would cut other programs to pay for disaster relief (something his running mate, Paul Ryan, has endorsed.)

Naturally Mr. Romney didn’t acknowledge that he’d changed his position; he just changed it. As usual there’s no telling which position represents Mr. Romney’s authentic beliefs, or if he has authentic beliefs—or, most crucially, which position a President Romney would hold.

 Romney FEMA Statements Compared – NYTimes.com.

, , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Jack Welch says tweet on unemployment numbers should have included question mark

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Uncategorized on October 7, 2012


 

Jack Welch: I Should Have Added a Question Mark to Tweet About Friday’s Jobs Numbers

By Daniel Politi | 

Posted Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012, at 12:32 PM ET

 

84322080

Jack Welch says the latest job numbers seem “implausible”

Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images

 

Former GE CEO Jack Welch sort of wishes he could go back in time to edit his now-infamous tweet that strongly suggested President Obama’s campaign managed to somehow manipulate the job numbers released Friday that showed a decrease in the unemployment rate to 7.8 percent. That’s not to say he disagrees with what he wrote. Welch just thinks he should have made it clear he wanted to imply something, not state it outright, which obviously makes sense considering pretty much everyone agrees it’s a ridiculous assertion, as the Associated Press points out.

When CNN’s Anderson Cooper questioned him on what evidence he had to write what he did, Welch acknowledged that “A question mark would have been better,” before quickly adding that, “I stand by that these numbers have to be examined.” (Transcript available here.)

Welch, who frequently criticizes Obama’s administration, wrote early Friday on Twitter: “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers.”

When CNN’s Ali Velshi pushed Welch on the inaccuracy of the tweet, Welch fired back: “I should have had a question mark, Ali, at the back of it, let’s face it, OK?”

Velshi started out saying that Welch is “the best CEO in America” before harshly criticizing him: “To say something like this is like Donald Trump saying that president Obama is not an American citizen without any proof.”

Throughout the CNN interview Welch emphasized that what he was questioning was how “implausible” the numbers seemed considering they amounted to the “highest numbers of household employment since June of 1983, the biggest year of the Reagan recovery.” But he also was careful to emphasize that he was “not accusing anybody of anything.”

The New York Times’ Joe Nocera writes that while it’s “ludicrous” to suggest that “a handful of career bureaucrats” would manipulate unemployment data, it is true that there’s “something a little strange about the way the country derives its employment statistics.” But the lesson in this questioning of the jobs data needs to be that it’s a bit “absurd” to think that a presidential race could be decided on the unemployment rate. It’s not just because the short-term numbers aren’t really reliable, but also because no president has such a strong grip on the economy.

“There is rough justice in the way things are playing out,” writes Nocera. “Having spent the last year wrongly blaming the president for high unemployment, Republicans can only stand by helplessly as the unemployment rate goes down at the worst possible moment for them.”

 Jack Welch says tweet on unemployment numbers should have included question mark.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Mitt Romney wins the presidential debate: Did the Republican nominee have one good night or has he changed the race against Barack Obama? – Slate Magazine

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Politics on October 4, 2012


 

Romney’s Big Night

The first presidential debate was Mitt Romney’s best moment so far. Will it last?

By John Dickerson|Posted Thursday, Oct. 4, 2012, at 2:29 AM ET

 

153334254

Mitt Romney and Barack Obama after their debate on Wednesday night.

Photo by Saul Loeb/AFP/GettyImages.

When Barack Obama entered the debate hall at the University of Denver Wednesday night, the air was clear and warm. When he left, the winds where whipping and the temperature had dropped 20 degrees. Coincidentally, that was also the same number of undecided voters who thought the president had a good debate.

In two different polls of undecided voters by CNN and CBS, Obama received grim reviews. In the CBS poll, 46 percent thought Romney had done the better job. Only 22 percent thought Obama prevailed. In the CNN poll, 67 percent thought Romney had performed well. Only 25 percent could say the same of Obama.  In another poll conducted with a group of “Wal-Mart Moms” in Las Vegas, Romney also scored high. His image climbed 20 points, while Obama’s moved just 5. Many of the women had “somewhat tuned out Mitt Romney,” according to the findings reported by a bipartisan polling team. “After seeing him this evening several are now re-engaged and want to learn more about him. They were somewhat disappointed with President Obama’s performance. They do not believe he made the case for how another four years will be different or better.”

Instant polls are a small sample and they only take a momentary impression, but that’s all the Romney camp needed. Going into the debate Romney was on the long end of three bad weeks. Romney’s advisers were looking simply for a pause in the race—a moment for voters to take a second look at Romney. They got it Wednesday night.

Romney had two tasks. He had to explain why the president was a failure while also seeming appealing enough for voters to think he might have policies will succeed. The risk was that he would get the mix wrong. He’d come off as too aggressive and turn people off. Romney was certainly aggressive. “You’ve had four years, “ he told the president during the discussion of deficit reduction. “You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later. We still have trillion-dollar deficits. You found $4 trillion to reduce or to get closer to a balanced budget, except we still show trillion-dollar deficits every year. That doesn’t get the job done.”

Romney seemed alive to the challenge, almost like he was enjoying himself. He looked in command, like he belonged on stage with the president. Voters polled by CBS after the debate showed a dramatic increase in the number who thought Romney cared about them. Before the debate, only 30 percent said they thought Romney “cares about your needs and problems.” After the debate, 63 percent believed he was more empathetic of others.

It was clear from the start of the debate that Romney was going for kinder and gentler. He spoke of two different voters he’d run into who were struggling in the economy. “I was in Dayton, Ohio, and a woman grabbed my arm, and she said, ‘I’ve been out of work since May. Can you help me?’  Ann yesterday was at a rally in Denver, and a woman came up to her with a baby in her arms and said, ‘Ann, my husband has had four jobs in three years, part-time jobs. He’s lost his most recent job, and we’ve now just lost our home. Can you help us?’  And the answer is yes, we can help, but it’s going to take a different path.”

The president’s numbers also improved among those voters polled by CBS on the question of caring. He started with 53 percent, and by the end of the night, 69 percent said they thought Obama cared about them. It was the only bright spot of the night for Obama, who otherwise seemed listless and detached. When Romney spoke, Obama looked down at his notes and smiled, which conveyed something between low-stakes bemusement and “I can’t believe I have to listen to this guy.” Perhaps that’s what happens when you’re president and people don’t often tell you that you’re wrong.

In debates over Romney’s tax plan, health care, and Medicare, Obama didn’t prosecute his case nearly as powerfully as his opponent. At times the president seemed to think merely by appealing to voters’ deductive reasoning he’d make his point. “Does anybody out there think that the big problem we had is that there was too much oversight and regulation of Wall Street? Because if you do, then Governor Romney is your candidate.”  That’s a circuitous way to make a rather simple point. Obama did that again and again.

The president seemed thrown off by the fact that Mitt Romney was far more like the man who won the governorship in Massachusetts than the one who had won the Republican primary. In a debate about tax cuts, Romney consistently denied that his tax cuts would total $5 trillion. Shouldn’t Republicans boast about cutting taxes? What Romney meant is that his 20 percent across the board cut would be revenue neutral and not increase the deficit. That doesn’t mean, however, that they won’t also be large tax cuts.

Romney also seemed to moderate his tone on regulations, particularly Dodd-Frank. Previously, his criticism of the bill had been much harsher, but in Denver on Wednesday night he seemed to say that it’s big problem wasn’t so much the regulations but the fact that the regulations were unclear.

Romney bragged about his Massachusetts health care plan, his ability to work with Democrats, accused Obama of giving a “kiss to New York banks,” and insisted that he wouldn’t cut taxes on the rich. “I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the—the revenues going to the government,” Romney said, sounding unlike the self-described “severe conservative” of the previous 18 months. There might have been a time when this would have upset conservatives, but as GOP strategist Michael Murphy put it, conservatives “have tasted losing for the last couple of weeks.” They’re not going to complain now after a night that “tastes like winning.”

Obama’s point—and one he’ll hammer home in the coming days—was that Romney’s numbers don’t add up, if for no other reason than he hasn’t been specific. Romney is promising to cut taxes and increase defense spending while also balancing the budget. How does he get there? Romney doesn’t really say. If the president were on his game, he might have argued that Romney will make up the difference by squeezing the 47 percent he spoke of so derisively in that video. But the president didn’t draw that argument very clearly.  The closest he came was during a discussion of block granting Medicare, when he said, “Now, you know, that may not seem like a big deal when it just is—you know, numbers on a sheet of paper, but if we’re talking about a family who’s got an autistic kid and is depending on that Medicaid, that’s a big problem. And governors are creative.” That’s hardly a line of attack.

The president’s team will immediately begin to hammer Romney on his lack of specificity. Romney promised the moon, but when you look at the details (or the lack of the same) there’s no way it can all add up. Once again, though, the president made his case by backing up into it. “I think the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason that Governor Romney is keeping all these plans to replace secret because they’re too good? Is—is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them? No, the—the reason is because when we reform Wall Street, when we tackle the problem of pre-existing conditions, then, you know, these are tough problems, and we’ve got to make choices. And the choices we’ve made have been ones that ultimately are benefiting middle-class families all across the country.”

This was Mitt Romney’s best night of the campaign. Now he has to sustain it. In the past, debates haven’t stuck with voters for long. There wasn’t one Romney moment that voters could take home and replay at work the next day. Romney seemed competent and in command, but how does that get passed around to other voters? Perhaps it’s enough that many voters who were looking at him for the first time didn’t see an indifferent millionaire. But his reputation for ideological malleability may help the Obama team argue that Romney is reinventing himself again. That will probably mean a pretty brutal round of charges about his ability to tell the truth.  As the campaign heads deeper into October, the president is going to have to regroup, shake off the chill, and turn up the heat.

Mitt Romney wins the presidential debate: Did the Republican nominee have one good night or has he changed the race against Barack Obama? – Slate Magazine.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Do U.S. presidential debates matter? – CNN.com

Posted by Michael B. Calyn in Opinion, Perspective, Politics on October 4, 2012


 

Do U.S. presidential debates matter?

By Nick Thompson, CNN

updated 6:10 AM EDT, Thu October 4, 2012

 

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will face off three times in person ahead of the 2012 U.S. presidential election on November 6. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney will face off three times in person ahead of the 2012 U.S. presidential election on November 6.

Obama and Romney match wits

STORY HIGHLIGHTS

·         Obama, Romney to debate domestic and foreign policy over three debates

·         Telegenic John F. Kennedy outshined Richard Nixon in first debate in 1960

·         Romney emerged victorius from primary season that included nearly 20 debates

·         Then-candidate Obama easily handled Republican John McCain in 2008 debates

 

(CNN) – After months of talking about each other and their policies, the world finally got to see Barack Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney go toe-to-toe on the same stage in the first of three televised debates ahead of the U.S. election.

Unlike other countries, such as the United Kingdom, where the prime minister must defend his policies under televised duress from the opposition nearly every week, face-to-face showdowns between the two men fighting for the White House only happen every four years.

And while debates rarely swing the outcome of an election, a gaffe — or a silver-tongued swipe at the opposition — under the bright lights can alter the perception of the two contenders, for better or worse.

What’s the history of U.S. presidential debates?

Presidential debates are a relatively recent phenomenon. The first televised debate was between Republican Richard Nixon and Democrat John F. Kennedy, on black-and-white TV in 1960.

More: Presidential debates by the numbers

Debates enter the TV age

Many people listening on the radio to that first of four Nixon-Kennedy debates thought Nixon had won – but on live TV, a tan and youthful-looking Kennedy trounced a sweaty, haggard Nixon (who’d recently suffered a staph infection) in the appearance department. While Nixon improved in later debates, Kennedy went on to win the election.

There were no debates again until Jimmy Carter took on Gerald Ford in 1976. Since then, the Republican and Democratic hopefuls have matched wits in a series of (usually three) debates every election year – and twice, in 1980 and 1992, an independent candidate has joined the duo onstage.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter refused to take part in the first debate with Ronald Reagan because John Anderson, an independent candidate, had been invited to take part. Carter’s boycott led to a dramatic decline in the anticipated viewershiip for that depate. The second was cancelled, and Anderson was wiped off the program for the third round several weeks later.

What are the debates about?

In recent election cycles, the three debates have consisted of a domestic policy debate, a foreign policy debate, and a general debate in a town hall format, where members of the audience also offer up questions. Vice presidential candidates also face off in a single debate in the run-up to the election.

Generally speaking, candidates are asked questions by a moderator, who in recent years has come from one of America’s major broadcast news networks. Candidates then have a set period of time for responses and rebuttals.

More: 10 debate moments that mattered

A coin-flip determines the order of answers at debates. Tonight Obama will answer first, but Romney will have the final word.

The dates and sites for the debates, which typically take place at universities across America, are chosen from a list of applicants by the non-partisan Commission on Presidential Debates.

Do debates even matter to the public?

While the debates offer Romney and Obama a chance to expand on their views and rebut each other’s plans directly, experts say that the vast majority of Americans have already decided who they’re voting for along party lines.

But although debates aren’t typically seen as deciding an election’s outcome, there have been a few exceptions over time.

Kennedy’s telegenic dominance of Nixon during the first televised debate helped swing momentum in the Democrat’s direction in 1960.

Reagan: ‘There you go again’

In a 1980 debate, facing a barrage of assertions and accusations from incumbent Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan coolly replied with a smile: “There you go again.” His famous retort momentarily took the wind out of Carter’s sails. After entering debate season behind in opinion polls, eventual winner Reagan left the podium with the advantage over Carter.

More: Get latest updates at CNN’s Election Center

Sometimes it’s not the debate that hurts a candidate – it’s the post-game review. In 2000, cameras caught a visibly annoyed Al Gore sighing and shaking his head when George W. Bush spoke.

Al Gore sighs while Bush speaks

The clip was played over and over again and lampooned on television, to the point that “people began to project onto Gore a personality trait of just annoyance and irritation of people in general,” according to historian Doris Kearns Goodwin. A clear favorite before the debates, Gore lost his lead during the debate season. He eventually lost the controversial election after the Supreme Court ruled in Bush’s favor.

Are Romney and Obama any good at debating?

As mentioned above, American politics don’t involve many head-to-head debates between Republicans and Democrats, but both candidates are seen as more than competent debaters.

Obama handled Republican John McCain in all three contests four years ago, says debate coach Todd Graham, staying on track in his arguments, showing poise, and refusing to take attacks on his policies personally.

Obama’s quick wit may have backfired on him during a 2008 Democratic primary debate. He responded to Hillary Clinton saying he was likeable with, “You’re likeable enough, Hillary.” The audience laughed, but many viewers saw the remark as a mean-spirited swipe.

More: Coach says Obama, Romney are top debaters

Graham says despite Obama’s reputation as a great orator, his debate performances have not lived up to the standards of his speeches – and that at times the president can be awkward and long-winded in his debate answers.

Romney is currently the better-practiced of the two, having emerged victorious from a Republican primary season that featured nearly 20 debates. Graham says Romney is consistently solid, has great opening lines to questions, and has a firm grasp of the issues.

More: Inside debate prep with Mitt’s sparring partner

Romney’s biggest weakness, according to some experts, is that he often comes across as fake. Graham says Romney’s broad smile and “thank yous” following heated answers make it seems like “he’s practicing his speeches,” not debating his opponent.

1984: Reagan jokes about Mondale’s youth

Are debates about great politics or great theater?

Long stretches of presidential debates involve dry policy speeches, but it’s usually a single gaffe or clever one-liner that comes to define a debate in the annals of national memory.

Reagan was already the oldest president in history in 1984, and when asked during a debate about whether age would be an issue for him, the 73-year-old famously replied: “I will not make age an issue of this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.” Even Democratic challenger Walter Mondale, then age 56, had to laugh.

More: Doris Kearns Goodwin’s top debate moments

Bush checks the time

Sometimes body language matters more than words in a debate. In 1992, President George H. W. Bush took a glance at his watch while an audience member was asking a question – a move that made Bush, whose re-election hopes were rapidly slipping away, seem uninterested in the concerns of the public.

1988: Bentsen: ‘You’re no Jack Kennedy’

1992: ‘Who am I? Why am I here?’

Perry forgets which agency he will cut

John McCain sparked controversy when he referred to Obama as “that one” during the second 2008 presidential debate. At a dinner attended by both senators several days later, Obama joked that his first name was Swahili for “that one,” according to the New York Times.

Vice presidents and their counterparts have delivered just as many memorable lines as their bosses have over the years. Lloyd Bentsen’s sharp “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy” reprimand of Republican vice presidential candidate Dan Quayle in 1988 remains one of the all-time greats — along with Perot running mate James Stockdale’s “Who am I? Why am I here?” debate opener in 1992, which drew guffaws from the audience.

A bad enough gaffe can help derail your campaign long before the first primary votes are cast, as Republican Rick Perry showed in late 2011.

At a primary debate in Michigan, Perry became the first candidate in history to say “oops” during a debate after forgetting the name of the third government agency he’d pledged to cut.

When pressed for an answer, Perry said: “The third agency of government I would do away with, the Education … uhh the Commerce, and, let’s see. I can’t. The third one, I can’t. Sorry. Oops.”

After the debate, Perry owned up to the gaffe as only a Texas governor could: “I’m sure glad I had my boots on because I sure stepped in it out there.”

 Do U.S. presidential debates matter? – CNN.com.

Related articles

 

, , , , , , ,

Leave a Comment

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 265 other followers

%d bloggers like this: