Barack Obama--The Best Since Truman

As we come to the close of the administration of Barack Obama, journalists and historians are scrambling to write the early returns on the Obama administration.

As these analysts take a step back short term views of a captious press, and the withering right wing alt reality attacks on his administration, a consensus is forming that Barack Obama had a highly successful presidency.  And it's not just because millions of Americans are panicking at what they see coming after him.

If you look at the 12 post-war presidents, you find some presidents that did some great things, but who also had some big negatives.  Johnson with his Medicare, Medicaid and civil rights accomplishments, along with a good performing economy would have been considered in the great category, were it not for the Vietnam war.  Ronald Reagan is held in the highest esteem in some circles for, perhaps, hastening the end of the Cold War, and recording strong economic growth.  But then he ushered in the twin deficits:  massive federal deficits and trade deficits.  He also lacked vision in the key areas of any modern presidency, environmental steward ship and social progress, especially the AIDS crisis.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, has no big negatives to counter his accomplishments.  While some may point to the mounting debt, reasonable people must also acknowledge that he cut a trillion dollars off the annual deficits.  What he inherited was far worse than what Reagan inherited.  The economy was in freefall at the end of Bush 43, but not at the end of Carter.

With health care reform and the unmeasured (by GDP) value of the peace of mind, the reduction in the risk of another financial crisis (financial reform), unprecedented protections of the environment and social change, Barack Obama can claim the best presidency since Truman.

Don't be a Trump Chump

The election is over, but the publicity stunts keep coming.  The Carrier jobs story is only the latest.  Aside from the exaggerations of the numbers of jobs saved, we also don't know the cost to the country in tax breaks and so forth.  What we do know is that for Trump to equal the net job creation under President Obama, Trump will have to replicate this feat 18,000 more times.  Call us when you've done that, Mr. President-elect.

We will be subjected to many more cons and outright falsehoods in the months and years to come.  Our public debate will continue to be defiled. 

If there is one thing I would counsel during this 'time of troubles' is skepticism toward anything and everything that Trump says.

What counts is what he does.  So far, what he has done is appoint.  And that speaks volumes about prospects for our nation.  From general Flynn, to Scott Pruitt at EPA, WWE executive at SBA, on and on and on.  That's only the beginning.

Our country is about to take a giant step backwards, all while our problems get worse.  Our only hope is damage control, not a very bright future.

4-days Before the Election: The Main Stream Media Deserves More Blame for Trump Than You Think (Despite their preference for Hillary)

While it's almost certain that a vast majority of the MSM will or have voted for Hillary, their actions have brought Trump to the verge of the presidency.

They allowed themselves to be wholly manipulated during the Republican primaries to the point that other Republican candidates were completely displaced in media coverage.  Outrageous statements won the day in terms of media coverage.  While commentary and coverage helped spark outrage, the real effect was to put Trump on top, damaged as he was. 

He is now a Personality Cult

And this came at the expense of policy, which, at the end of the day, is what matters most. 

In all the saturation coverage of Trump, did you ever hear a journalist press him for evidence as to why he knows that NAFTA cost jobs (as opposed to advances in technology and other factors). 

Was he ever pressed on why another round of tax cuts for the rich, at a time when we have extremely lopsided wealth in this country, would produce different results than the tax cuts of George W. Bush?

Or was he ever pressed on why he has better scientific evidence than 98 percent of scientists on climate change, who evidently are part of a giant hoax?

No, no and no.

Frankly, with Trump we don't even get to temperament before he is disqualified.

And now in the waning days of the campaign, rogue FBI officials have circulated rumors and even opened a new review of Hillary's emails.

And without any substance whatever, the frenzied MSM is running with this story and it is having an impact on the polls. 

What if they gave this story the attention it deserved....a passing mention.  That would be responsible journalism.

Whatever happens in the election, we need a revolution in the media.  Stay tuned for what that revolution will be about.

11 Days to Election Day--Outsiders Should Not Be Allowed to Swing Our Election

Sometimes outsiders who are no friends of the U.S. have a preference for who leads the U.S.  We know Russia's favorite is Donald Trump.

We have a responsibility as Americans not to  reward those outsiders for their mischief and general desire to see a weaker U.S.

The Russian government through hacking and wiki leaks is combining to try to make Donald Trump president of the U.S.

Voters have to be really on their guard on this.

On top of that, extreme partisans in the U.S. government opposing Hillary Clinton are perfectly fine with using whatever ammo the Russians can provide their quest for the White House.  Even if Hillary Clinton wins, more investigations have been promised to throttle her administration. 

Is this the type of change voters want?

Hillary Clinton can make some bad judgements for sure and her email woes are one of them, but that should not tilt your vote to the far more flawed, Russian favorite, Donald Trump.

Last I heard, the U.S. was a sovereign nation.

12 Days to the Election--What is this 'Change' that People are Ready For?

The media frequently uses the word 'change,' to describe what American want in this election, but never defines it.  We know from the media that Donald Trump IS the 'change' candidate. 

But his 'change' is only his brash style and, for some, entertaining rally's.  But his policies do not constitute 'change' of any kind.

His signature issues are building a wall that will never be built and tearing up deals that will never be torn up.

Even more importantly, his bigger policies of tax cuts for wealthy individuals (dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 33%) and absolute denial of scientific consensus of the threat of climate change to the planet are not only not change, they are downright backward.

Going forward is change.  Building on recent progress is change.  And that is the major advantage for Hillary Clinton.

12 Days to the Election--What is this 'Change' that People are Ready For?

The media frequently uses the word 'change,' to describe what American want in this election, but never defines it.  We know from the media that Donald Trump IS the 'change' candidate. 

But his 'change' is only his brash style and, for some, entertaining rally's.  But his policies do not constitute 'change' of any kind.

His signature issues are building a wall that will never be built and tearing up deals that will never be torn up.

Even more importantly, his bigger policies of tax cuts for wealthy individuals (dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 33%) and absolute denial of scientific consensus of the threat of climate change to the planet are not only not change, they are downright backward.

Going forward is change.  Building on recent progress is change.  And that is the major advantage for Hillary Clinton.

12 Days to the Election--What is this 'Change' that People are Ready For?

The media frequently uses the word 'change,' to describe what American want in this election, but never defines it.  We know from the media that Donald Trump IS the 'change' candidate. 

But his 'change' is only his brash style and, for some, entertaining rally's.  But his policies do not constitute 'change' of any kind.

His signature issues are building a wall that will never be built and tearing up deals that will never be torn up.

Even more importantly, his bigger policies of tax cuts for wealthy individuals (dropping the top rate from 39.6% to 33%) and absolute denial of scientific consensus of the threat of climate change to the planet are not only not change, they are downright backward.

Going forward is change.  Building on recent progress is change.  And that is the major advantage for Hillary Clinton.

Clinton vs. Trump--Policies are Number 1

Charges are flying furiously in the Clinton vs. Trump campaign  and it is important to know which charges are valid and important and which are not.

But voters first task is to check the promised policies to see if they respond to the needs of the nation.
On that score, Hillary beats the Donald hands down.

Taxes--In an economy where growth is not getting into the middle class, Trump promises another round of trickle down with drop of 6.6 percent for the top incomes.

Environment--Trump views climate change as a hoax and therefore sees no reason to address it, even though the main measures (renewable energy sources, improved energy efficiency, better land use) to mitigate climate change are justified even without any consideration of climate change mitigation.

Foreign policy--In addition to insulting Muslims and others which would make people less receptive to adopting American values, Trump trashes the Iran Nuclear Deal, which, so far has accomplished two critical goals:  avoiding war with Iran and halting their nuclear weapons program.

Trade and immigration--Trump might have some points here that the Democrats have to answer to (and may in the upcoming debates), but his views are so extreme (deportation of 11 million people and building a 1,989 mile wall) and the possibility of implementation so remote as to render his main initiatives, at best curious.

Taken together, on a policy level, Donald Trump does not present a viable candidacy.

Marco Rubio--Young Guy, Old Ideas

Substantively, Marco Rubio would not be the subject of a blog, except for one thing.  He could possibly win the Republican nomination, if not in 2016, possibly any time over the next 20 years!

And that would not be a good thing.

Also troubling is that "the Media," right left and center all tend to give him high marks in the many Republican debates.

This is mystifying.  Though, one is beginning to hear more and more his performances described as "canned" "rehearsed" and "scripted".

But that's not the worst of it.  He has run away from the issue most important to him, immigration reform, with a substantial element of amnesty for undocumented workers.  (Romney did the same thing with Romney-care, which greatly undermined his credibility).  When candidate who comes off so sanctimonious as does Rubio abandons his core issue, where does that leave him?

It gets worse for Rubio.  Of course the Base of the Republican party is greatly soothed by attacks on President Obama.  Rubio takes it to a new level as one of the most relentless Obama-bashers in the Republican field.

That's a disservice to his constituency.  With the possible exception of Chris Christie, he is the biggest offender on this point.

It gets still worse.  As the youngest candidate, one would think that he would take science into account in his assessment of issues.  Not Marco, he's one of the biggest climate deniers in the field.

And Cuba?  For him it's better to leave a 50-year old sanctions policy in place and not look to a new relationship with the home country of his parents.

I wish it didn't get even worse, but it does.  Social Security and Medicare, for Rubio, undermined the family relationship, that's all.

But then what would anyone expect from a hyper-ambitious whippersnapper bought and paid for by the Koch brothers?

A Message from Trump that Republicans Should Actually Listen To

For all of the genuine harm he does with his reckless statements, Trump has at least one message that would serve Republicans well.  The message is that the U.S. should not repeat the mistake of the Iraq invasion--for which we got absolutely nothing, except 4,000 dead Americans, 3 trillion dollars squandered, a strengthened Iran, and Sunni rage against the U.S. in the form of ISIS.  Trump was recently asked by a CNN reporter whether America would be better off with Saddam Hussein in power, and without skipping a beat, he said “100%, 100%.”  He is right on that point.

Today, 12 years after the Iraq invasion, most Republican candidates maintain that there is a military course of action that will produce the magic solution to instability in Syria and to defeat ISIS, and that Obama is simply choosing not to follow that clear course of action.  The same people who understand the true magnitude of the damage of the Iraq invasion also understand that there is no such course of action available.  Most Democrats get this, while most Republicans do not.  So it is important that it comes from the Republican front-runner that military intervention, such as that advocated by Senator Lindsey Graham, will guarantee more of what we got out of the Iraq invasion. 

Republicans like Marco Rubio don't seem, to care or understand this risk, and are pounding the war drums for another ISIS-recruiting, American military intervention in the Middle East.  Chris Christie is even ready to shoot down Russian planes.  What the Republicans need to do instead is to transform into the Party of wise risk-taking and dismantle the neo-conservative-dominated foreign policy that has so damaged the Party and so harmed the U.S.  The so-called left-leaning mainstream media needs to play a role in this.  But, despite the lessons of Iraq, journalists still leave the public debate waters muddied, with American military intervention as a credible option for American foreign policy.

Third Republican Debate-Little Substance on the Economy, Big Attack on the Media

A Ted Cruz missile hit the moderators at the University of Colorado at the 3rd Republican Debate.  He appropriately pointed out the tendency of media folks to ask very pointed questions, not necessarily aimed at substance.

That said, most of the Republicans, rather than talk about their economic policies, chose whenever possible to attack Barack Obama's economic performance.  Their attacks began even in their answers to the opening question about what was their biggest weakness.  For the record please note that President Obama's economic record includes a reduction in the unemployment rate from more than 10 percent to a little over 5 percent, while knocking a trillion dollars off the federal deficit.  That's trillion with a "t".  If that's failure, then sign me up for failure.

So Cruz is right about silly gotcha questions from the media, but he is disingenuous at the least to imply that Republicans didn't have the opportunity to present their economic policies.  And all of their tax policies mean huge tax cuts for wealthy individuals, with cuts from the top 39.6% rate to anywhere between 10 and 15%.

Other takeaways are that we can see Bush's limitations more than ever to the point that one really isn't sure that he's the "smarter" brother.  Rubio has not been effectively challenged, but will be.  His very rehearsed pomposity may not wear well over time.

Trump communicated well and demonstrated good timing while the moderators failed to pin him down on policies.  He also pounded the one reasonable person on the stage, John Kasich, pretty soundly.  His connection to Shearson is not good for him.  Christie is appalling in his negativity which shows his degree of desperation to climb at least past Paul and Huckabee.


Note:  I have to admit that I was very wrong about Ben Carson's future.  I completely underestimated his appeal to the evangelicals in Iowa and so he's doing well.  Still he was out of his depth in talking about the economy.

Note 2:  January 3, 2016.  It does appear that I was just a little early in predicting the inevitable fall of Dr. Ben Carson.  We'll see what happens in Iowa in a few weeks, but I think it's clear that in terms of his reputation, he should have stuck to medicine, even if he sold fewer books.

The Iran Nuclear Deal is the Right Deal--For Everyone

Opponents of the Iran deal are simply not using logic.  The deal, worked out between the leading nations in the world and Iran, provides the best assurance that Iran will not be able to develop a nuclear weapon.  More than that, it is the only option, short of war, to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

All known sites and sources will have automatic inspections.  That in itself is a quantum leap ahead of where we are now in limiting Iran's nuclear program.

Although Sen. Barbara Mikulski cast the 34th, veto-proof vote to support the deal, those Senators who opposed the bill (Republican and Democrat alike) should be noted and held accountable in their next election.  Sen. Schumer's opposition to the deal, for example, should disqualify him from the Democratic leadership post in the Senate.  ALL senators must do the right thing for America, no matter what the vote count.

Finally, many non-politicians (as well as politicians) in Israel support the deal.  They can see, logically, that their country gains a huge security advantage by having inspections.  They also know that if Iran should cheat, all of the options that we have now to deal with Iran are still available.

First Republican Debate: New Faces, Old Ideas

The August 6, 2015 Republican debate in Cleveland, Ohio was entertaining, but not exactly inspiring.  It had its moments of conflict and humor, but in the end, what did we learn substantively about the Republican field?  We learned that they all want to repeal Obamacare, de-fund Planned Parenthood’s non-abortion-related healthcare activities (federal funding of abortion is already prohibited by law), and reject the deal with the Government of Iran to halt its nuclear program.  New faces, but the same old thing, negative, negative, negative.  Real quick how did each fare?

1.  Kasich probably did the best.  At least he showed the common sense to accept Medicaid expansion under Obamacare.  But there’s a war-loving streak in him that you will see all too soon.

2.  Ted Cruz despite his extreme rightwing views and supercilious attitude, didn’t miss a beat.  Haughty, but fluid throughout the debate.

3.  Mike Huckabee, another extreme rightwinger, managed to get his views out quite smoothly and with some humor.

4.    Chris Christie, thought to be dead in the water, breathed some life into his candidacy, taking on Rand Paul effectively and otherwise giving a reasonable accounting of himself.  Still there was a tinge of him re-inventing himself as a conservative and not all that convincingly.

5.  Donald Trump was thin on substance, but did the right thing from the beginning as negotiator-in-chief by not promising to rule out a third party run.  Had he done that, he would have forfeited his negotiating position.  His answer on his bankruptcies was stellar, characterizing the losers as not very nice people.  He did go too far in his answer to Megan Kelly, however, and surely turned off some voters.

6.  Marco Rubio by several pundits had a very good night, maybe second or third best.  But his answers were very canned and stiff and holier than thou.  A baby-face who tried to memorize his way through the debate.  He’s definitely a Tea Partier and does not support exceptions to abortion even for rape and incest.  Not sure there’s really much intelligence there as he’s given credit for.

7.  Jeb Bush seemed flat and fumbling for the most part.  His answer that the Iraq war was a mistake spun off into blaming Obama for ISIS.  He took it as a burden to call families who had lost soldiers in the war, as plain a display of self-centered elitist mindset as you’ll see.

8.  Rand Paul scored a few points, but looked rather wobbly even on the attack against Christie and Trump.

9.  Scott Walker really looked uncomfortable and unsure of himself, nodding robotically at anything Ben Carsons said.  The opposite of how he looked at CPAC.

10.   Ben Carsons was smug and completely out of his depth.  Probably won’t see him again on the stage.

The term wasn’t used in the debate, but the neo-conservatives are alive and well in the Republican Party.  The monolithic rejection of health care reform and diplomacy prove it.

Democrats Display of Courage is Long Overdue and Maybe Too Late

When you pretty much have the upper hand on almost every issue, then why should your party lose seats?

It shouldn't.

You can blame billionaire right wing propaganda and low information voters and on and on.

But there's one thing the Democrats have to blame themselves for.  Lack of Courage.

If the voter doesn't think you believe in your own policies, why should they?  Obama is an excellent president but a poor salesman.  Congressional and Senate Democrats are even worse.

They are losing the debate to a Party that offers basically no solutions to anything, not the economy, not environment, not foreign policy.  But the Republicans have limitless courage in saying the most outlandish things.

A lot of races are still winnable, within a few points, but time is running out, and continued back peddling will not win the day.

I watched  Jeanne Shaheen debate that guy who tried to hang on in Massachusetts.  She's doing very well and NOT running away from Obamacare.

Too many political consultants fouling up Democrats' brains.  Time to dump the lot.

Will Democratic voters reward the Republicans by staying home on November 4, 2014?

Pretty much everyone agrees that the party which succeeds in the November elections will be the one who does the better job in turning out its base the best.  In energizing your base, you also have to be careful not to energize the other guy’s base.

With what the Republicans’ performance in Congress since their rise to the majority in 2010, one wonders what additional motivation, or provocation, Democrats would need to turn out in droves on November 4, 2014.

But there has been a tried and true, albeit ultra-cynical, strategy employed by Republican strategists long before Barack Obama won election in 2008, “Tear down your opponents strengths.”  A non-stop barrage of negativity over some accomplishment or characteristic that should give your opponent an advantage.  

The classic example was Karl Rove’s “Swiftboating” of John Kerry.  Republicans and proxy PACs went on an advertising blitz to make John Kerry’s strong military record actually a liability.  Though Kerry faced enemy fire on multiple occasions and was wounded more than once, the negative ads about “what really happened” made people uneasy about Kerry.  He was re-defined as exaggerator rather than a hero.  All of this redounded to the benefit of George W. Bush, who had, ironically, compiled a dubious military record of his own, remaining stateside in the Texas Air National Guard, and going AWOL during the Vietnam war.

Karl Rove’s strategy worked.  In a close election, manufactured uneasiness about Kerry was just enough to tilt the election to Bush in a few key states.

The same has happened to Obamacare.

Obama care serves a huge need in America and its popularity will continue to grow, just as social security and medicare have.  As this happens, Obamacare will become a strong political asset that will put Republicans at further disadvantage.  There are Republicans who understand this, who did not support Obamacare and whose only option is to wage a propaganda war against it.

The propaganda works.  For example, many Kentuckians who have benefited mightily from Obamacare  will still vote for Mitch McConnell, one of the arch enemies of Obamacare.  It is a classic case of people voting against their own interests in favor of politicians, like Mitch McConnell, who are simply using them to get elected so they can pass out favors to their benefactors.

Something to think about on November 4, 2014.

The Core Principle of Today’s Conservative Ideology Is Its Fatal Flaw

 

Conservatives blame their 2012 electoral loss on poor “messaging” and “ground game” while also maintaining that they must not abandon their core principles.  Unfortunately, they are, again, self-deluded, because it is their driving principle that makes their ideology irrelevant to problems in the real world.  Their driving principle, the pursuit “smaller government,” is also their ideology’s fatal flaw.

Why?  Because using the requirement of “smaller government” as a litmus test to all policy-making ensures that today’s conservatives will opt for the wrong policies virtually always, especially in the areas of environmental protection and social safety nets.  Oddly, the main instance in which today's conservatives choose to violate the litmus test of “smaller government” is when it comes to war; they are willing to cast their “smaller government” ideology aside when a war beckons.  They call it “national security.”

Why does the core belief in “smaller government” guarantee wrong policies for the environment and social safety nets?  For the simple reason that the interventions required to address, for example, environmental problems such as deforestation, air and water pollution, and climate change, require the government to do something.  It has to regulate or tax in order to discourage carbon emission and other pollution.  (The private sector will not do this in any meaningful way on its own.)  When the government does a new thing, it becomes more powerful, and, in a way, bigger.  Even if it does not mean spending, it is interfering in our lives.  That violates today's conservatives' most precious principle.

The ideological conservatives cannot allow that.  But they also cannot admit that they are neglecting a problem that can devastate our country.  So, the only thing left to them is to pretend that the problem does not exist.  “Global warming is a hoax.”  "Taxes must always go down and never up."  Therefore, lopsided income distribution is ok; it’s a result of the free market.  "The federal government cannot spend more on safety nets."  Therefore, we should provide only vouchers to people on Medicare and privatize Social Security.  In other words, take the security and peace of mind out of these programs.  And so it goes.

This way of thinking is commonplace and is obstructing solutions to our nation’s problems.  There needs to be more voices to expose this fundamental flaw in the way today’s conservatism operates.  If not, our problems will continue to gain ground despite the best intentions of progressives.

What’s so wrong with being an ideologue?

 

Politicians are sometimes labeled as “ideological.”  It is a label intended to damn.  But being labeled an ideologue usually does not put the person on the defensive.  On the contrary, “ideologue” is worn as a badge of honor, particularly for many Republicans.  It says, “we stand by our principles no matter what.”

This label lacks sting because people think that it simply means being constant in one’s beliefs. Others might think it’s the same as being conservative because the label is used mainly against conservatives.  They don’t generally focus on the fatal flaw of the ideological approach.  

The fatal flaw of the ideologue is the pursuit of a particular policy prescription even when the context of that policy guarantees that it will fail.  The most common example in the political realm today is ideology in tax policy:  taxes can only be cut, and can never be raised.  This ideological stance has its clearest expression in the pledge (promoted by anti-tax lobbyist, Grover Norquist) that elected officials have signed never to raise taxes, regardless of the circumstances. 

But what are the prospects of success of a tax cut or even avoiding a tax increase:  (i) If the country has a serious debt problem?  (ii) If the debt increase is, in substantial measure, because of a drop in revenue?  (iii) If the income tax share of GDP is historically low, much lower than during high economic growth periods?  (iv) If the recipients of most of the tax cut are relatively wealthy and, therefore, are highly unlikely to spend a significant portion of it?  These are the circumstances today.  We learned previously from George W. Bush’s tax cuts, which were implemented under conditions that were more favorable to tax cuts than they are today, that they were more costly than beneficial.

To some people, it is ok if you are an ideologue.  You press on with the ideological position.  The country suffers and its national security is damaged through fiscal weakness, but you dismiss it with a slogan or a false claim about the free market.  In reality, labeling someone an ideologue is a condemnation, tantamount to calling someone ignorant or delusional.  The label is not meant as an innocuous acknowledgement that someone has strongly held beliefs. 

Next post—The crux of the conservative ideology and its fatal flaw.

Obama's Hand--Straight Flush or Jack High?

We should be cautious about critiquing President Obama's methods.  After all, he had a historically successful first term.  But one has to wonder why he caved on the $250,000 income threshold.  Instead of 2% percent of Americans' taxes going up, it's going to be only 0.6%. 

This is not a game where progressives make Republicans cry "uncle;" it's an effort to close the deficit to a sustainable level.  Yes, the Republicans finally caved, though by default only, on their ideological position.  But how much revenue was lost by unnecessarily raising the tax cut threshold to $450,000?

Fiscally responsible Americans can only hope that when spending starts to be cut, there's another trimming of tax goodies for the upper income. 

The Hope and Change Is Staring You in the Face

It is not uncommon to hear pundits and journalists lament about the promised hope and change that they imply may not have materialized during Obama’s first term.


But the hope and change are right there for all to see. Could anyone imagine a greater change from Bush 43 than Obama?

• Ending the war in Iraq while killing Osama Bin Laden and reversing the destructive course of the neoconservatives.

• Historic health care reform which curbed the worst abuses of health insurance companies and expanded insurance coverage to 30 million additional Americans (by 2014).

• Reforming Wall Street to reduce the risk of another financial meltdown—180 degrees from Republican ideological opposition to regulation.

• Equal pay for women and expanded civil rights for gays, vigorously opposed by Republicans.

The change couldn’t be clearer, and it is for the better. Yes, there’s still Guantanamo, financial reform could have been stronger and it would have been great to get the public option. But we all know the political climate that the president faced. These were impressive legislative victories in the face of the Republican money machine and we can build on them.

The president’s record gives us hope. He has indeed delivered. And what kind of hope would there be under Mitt Romney? Economic, social and environmental policies of the 1920s. America cannot afford four to eight years of regression and re-application of discredited policies.

We need to keep going forward with the hope and the change offered by President Obama.

Election 2012: Should Americans Reward a Political Party that Nearly Destroyed the Economy and Then Did Everything It Could to Sabotage Its Recovery?

As the storm rages through the Eastern United States, we can interrupt our political passions and step back for a moment and get a big picture view of the 2012 national election. We know about all of the disagreements between President Obama and Governor Romney and between the Democrat and Republican candidates in general:

• Targeted tax cuts vs additional tax cuts for everyone including the top 5%

• Should we be looking to fight a new war in the Middle East or should we place stricter criteria on when we engage in war?

• Are the health care protections achieved in the Affordable Care Act worth preserving?

• Who should serve on the Supreme Court?

• Whether climate change is real and should be addressed

• The extent of women’s reproductive rights

• The extent of gay rights

These are all important issues and the dividing lines are clear.  But Americans need to ask one more question of themselves before they cast their vote:

Should Americans lend their support to the party that nearly destroyed the economy by 2008, and then, when they lost power, proceeded to obstruct every initiative of the new president whose job it was to repair the economy? 

What message would that send to political parties in the future if they did?

With the economy currently on the mend, it's easy to forget where we were four years ago.  But we also need to consider how far ahead we would be today were it not for those who have gambled on prospects for political gain through obstruction over the interests of the country.  Karl Rove, with his superpac, is betting you will forget.