Tom Rinaldo's Journal
Member since: Mon Oct 20, 2003, 06:39 PM
Number of posts: 15,376
Number of posts: 15,376
For those who worry about such things as potentially vote flipping electronic voting machines, I suspect that threat has receded now from whatever level it was at just one week ago. Hurricane Sandy saw to that.
There is no longer a plausible narrative that can be spun invoking an under appreciated late breaking surge for Romney that could be used to explain Romney at the last minute winning states that most observers and pollers expected him to lose. In truth whatever momentum Romney got from the first debate stalled weeks ago, but that wasn't enough to drive a stake through the heart of Romney's Momentum Myth. Sandy was though.
Sandy stopped the campaigns and shut down whatever election expectation programs had been running. Now America are turning to a fresh rebooted screen. On it we see government aiding its citizens and President Obama clearly in command, and just about everyone expects Obama to benefit from a positive "bounce" in voter support as a result. Romney can't change the new narrative between now and Tuesday. He is going to have to lose this election all on his own.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Thu Nov 1, 2012, 04:00 PM (10 replies)
It’s not subtle, it’s stark. Rarely has a major party candidate for President so positioned himself to ride any and all prevailing currents, regardless of the facts, the way that Mitt Romney has during this presidential run. His is a full spectrum candidacy, a self proclaimed “severe conservative” now waxing poetic on bi-partisan rule; a man who swore fidelity to Grover Norquist on taxes now pledging to end gridlock in Washington by “reaching out” to Democrats.
Not in living memory has any Party in Congress pursued such an obstructionist agenda as have Republicans against the current President. Obama took office with a strong popular mandate during a near catastrophic national economic crisis, while our nation was fighting two foreign wars. His political honeymoon wasn’t short, it was nonexistent. On the same day Obama was inaugurated, Republican leaders secretly gathered in D.C. plotting how to best sabotage his presidency. Not just this or that aspect of it, but how to thwart everything Obama might attempt to accomplish, calculating that the President’s failure was the surest path to a Republican return to power. This isn’t a matter of conjecture; it has all been fully documented. You can ask Paul Ryan, he was there.
By choosing Paul Ryan, a key member of the Republican Congressional leadership, as his Vice Presidential choice Mitt Romney not only wed himself to Ryan’s economic budget, but to Congressional Republican obstructionism as well. While the Republican House of Representatives kept busy holding dozens of symbolic votes to repeal Obamacare, Republicans in the Senate easily smashed all previous records for use of the filibuster to block Obama’s agenda.
Romney’s current homage to the spirit of bi-partisanship is just the latest of his efforts to reap the benefits of voter dissatisfaction caused by Republican Party actions, and as such it is illustrative of his opportunistic nature. It is hardly the most significant example though. For that just look to the economy: The current misleading ads that Romney is airing regarding Jeep moving production to China captures his methodology in a Mitt shell. Chrysler’s Jeep division actually just invested over 1.7 billion dollars to expand U.S. production, with 1,000 new jobs slated for Toledo Ohio and another 1,000 workers already added producing new Jeeps in Detroit.
Romney conveniently leaves all that out with his latest disinformation campaign, focusing instead on the fact that Jeep is increasing production in China also, to keep up with rising demand there.. Romney used one piece of data pointing to an international economic recovery, which is beneficial to Americans,, and twisted it around to play to voter fears about outsourcing American jobs to China. This coming from the man who founded Bain Capital which pioneered the actual outsourcing of American jobs to China.
Outsourcing American jobs was beneficial to Mitt Romney then, but blaming it on the President is politically expedient for Romney now, even while he continues to reap political rewards from outsourcing today.. How you might ask? Simple; just look at Mitt Romney’s political campaign contributions (to the extent that today’s Republican Supreme Court’s bastardized campaign contribution laws allow you to anyway). The same corporate order that reaped huge profits from the outsourcing American jobs is the one financing Mitt Romney today. They now which side their bread is buttered.
But controversy over one misleading Romney campaign ad barely hints at the full opportunistic nature of his entire Presidential campaign. Romney used a national Presidential debate to warn the American people that:
"If you re-elect President Obama, you know what you’re going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years”.
In so doing either Romney was predicting another catastrophic global financial system meltdown, or he was expecting the electorate to develop amnesia. Count on it being the latter. The Great Recession, the greatest international economic crisis in over 80 years, happened on the last Republican watch, and was aided and abetted by Republican economic and regulatory policies virtually indistinguishable from the ones that Mitt Romney now champions. But America’s suffering produced a political opportunity for Mitt Romney.
Yes, he says, it’s been a rough four years, but don’t dwell on why it happened. Instead blame it on the man who inherited the crisis from day one, faced it to a stand still, and then turned the tide toward a full recovery with precious little help from Republicans, and constant gale force opposition from the Congressional G.O.P. leadership. Almost all current economic indicators now are looking up, but Mitt Romney will never acknowledge that while another man remains President. Right on cue, for now all good news for America stays stubbornly “disappointing”.
Which is only what should be expected from a presidential candidate whose much self proclaimed business success was, literally, firmly rooted in opportunism. Bain capital didn’t make products, they made “strategic investments”, and the strategy employed was always the same, to take advantage of whatever opportunity presented itself, to advance the financial interests of the principals. If that meant taking control of an undervalued asset to expand on and profit from, fine. If that meant bleeding another asset dry, bankrupting it, shedding “liabilities” like worker pension funds, and then dismantling it for parts, that too was fine. So long as Mitt Romney and his fellow travelers profited from the deed., it made no difference. Money could be made betting against America just as easily as it could by betting on it.
Mitt Romney can changes his positions on issues weekly, and the public tone he takes hourly, but one thing does not change. He stays an opportunist.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Mon Oct 29, 2012, 12:20 PM (1 replies)
When you can't see the forest for the trees it becomes easier to get lost. President Obama's swing state scramble has sent a number of political analysts off barking up the wrong tree, failing to grasp the larger picture.
They view the President's current hectic travel plans as an indicator of electoral anxiety, an admission that a second term might be slipping away from Obama, swept away by an incoming Romney tide. Though basic facts don't actually support that view, political pundits as a lot are addicted to tea leaves; they just can't read enough of them. Reporting from the bottom of their cups, a narrative has emerged. Fearful of losing, Barack Obama is now scrambling for every vote, with his re-election chances seen hanging by a slender thread. It's not just the President's travel schedule that is being used to buttress that viewpoint. It's also Obama's campaign ads themselves, most notably the one that reminds us all of the breath taking closeness of the 2000 Florida vote that could have kept the Supreme Court out of it had just 538 more Florida Democrats voted for Al Gore in that election.
Conventional punditry sees all this as plausible proof that Barack Obama is anxious about his chances against Mitt Romney, more so than Mitt Romney is about his own Presidential chances. Hogwash, to use the polite way of putting it. No doubt neither side will be sleeping easy at night until this election is finally settled, but in private both sides exude at least equal confidence in the outcome. There is nothing coming out of Chicago to indicate a pessimistic outlook (nor should there be but more on that later). So why the seeming difference in the public tenor of the race?
The answer is straight forward. Obama, not surprisingly, is courting undecided voters, but that isn't just the tiny indecisive sliver of the electorate that polling outfits assign such importance to. Obama is reaching out to a much bigger group of potential supporters, one that lately has slipped below the primary polling radar. He is calling out registered voters who are not yet fully committed to voting. He is appealing to people who are undecided on whether they will actually cast any ballot at all. Not only does this demographic lean more heavily toward Obama than do those deemed "likely voters', it holds a much bigger reservoir of potential votes than do the ranks of those more typically viewed as "undecided" or uncertain.
The best way to reach those voters is to ratchet up the stakes. The way to motivate them is to heighten the sense of drama that this election elicits. That follows a long evidenced political truism; Democrats traditionally do best when voter turn out is high, and voter turn out is traditionally highest during high stakes Presidential Election years. So the single most effective way for President Obama to increase his likely margin of victory during the time remaining in this election campaign is to goose voters, who are undecided about voting itself, off of their butts and into the polling booth. Obama can't accomplish that by sitting on a lead and employing a prevent defense. Obama must instead convey a sense of urgency about this election, and his words and actions are now calibrated to do just that. Romney on the other hand does not benefit by ramping up tension about the outcome, nor does he benefit by stressing the point that 2012 is an extreme3lya pivotal election to anyone outside his core base . Romney believes they will show up on election day, driven by their fervor for an extremist ideological agenda that Romney would rather not draw further attention to now, and by the hatred of the President. It is moderates and liberals who Romney hopes to leave sleeping with soothing noises about relative continuity, only better yet.
Forget any narrative that shows Romney favored to win, because the facts show that Obama is clearly ahead in this Presidential Election, where the winner will ultimately be declared by the Electoral College. Sure it is obviously still possible for Romney to win but the odds are against it. Romney consistently still trails in too many states that he needs to take in order to have a chance. Yes Mitt Romney had a spurt of momentum after the first Presidential debate. President Obama had his own after the Democratic National Convention. Those spurts are history now, both of them. They have run their course. We are back to where we were earlier in the Summer, when Barack Obama was favored to win. Time is running out for Mitt Romney. Barring some very dramatic unexpected event, all the potential game changing moments have come and gone.
We always knew what they were: Romney making his VP choice, two National Political Conventions, one VP debate and three Presidential debates. All lie in the past now and Barack Obama remains a popular incumbent President. There was one other potential game changer that the pundits all used to repeatedly cite before we ran the board on the others. They used to talk about the unemployment rate, specifically they mused on whether or not it would drop below 8% before election day. That used to be considered the ultimate game changer in this Presidential race. If that rate rose at all, Romney became the odds on favorite. If it held fast it would then be a toss up race. But if the unemployment rate fell below 8%, an Obama second term became much more likely. That is where we are at now and there is nothing predictably left to change the fundamentals of the race, which broke in the President's favor. Since "winning" Debate One, the Republican team lost the three that followed. The last bounce, whether big or small, went to the Democrats.
Obama no doubt is taking nothing for granted, but he is fighting for a mandate now, and a governing majority. He is fighting for Democrats in down ticket races who all become more likely to win if Obama can motivate the true undecideds, his secondary pool of supporters who may or may not decide to vote in the 2012 Presidential Elections. That is how to measure his remaining words and actions
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Oct 26, 2012, 10:33 AM (11 replies)
It wasn't so much his policy shifts, which pretty much left him endorsing Obama's foreign policy agenda - though there certainly was that too. It was the personality transplant that Romney underwent before the last debate. Gone was Romney the assertive dominating bully who stalked the first two debates, replaced for the season finale by "nice guy" Mitt instead. Nice guy Mitt made sure to give the President ample credit for a plethora of correct strategic moves, but even more striking, nice guy Mitt was dutifully respectful to the debates' moderator. This Mitt Romney left his bulldozer parked at home.
At no point was that more striking than when Romney checked his bullying instincts in the face of a gentle Bob Schieffer reprimand. After momentarily reverting to aggressive form by demanding a chance to respond to what he characterized as a long list of Obama's objectionable assertions, Romney meekly folded his cards when Schieffer noted that he too had previously rattled off a similar litany of charges against the President, to which Romney conceded that the moderator had a point. This wasn't the same Romney who nearly engaged in hand to hand combat with Candy Crowley. Something was clearly amiss. Once again, the chameleon’s skin has turned.
Over the last few years, Mitt Romney has become the archetype of the political chameleon, morphing how he displays himself to blend into a changing political landscape. But rarely has he changed colors as quickly and dramatically as he did in front of America last night. Less anyone forget for a moment, Mitt Romney is after all a card carrying Republican, and Republican’s always go on the offensive against Democrats in whatever area they perceive the Democrat to be strongest. Both Romney and Ryan have tried that this year in areas of traditional Democratic strength like Medicare and Social Security. Confronted with a Democratic President who actually got Bin Ladin, Mitt Romney had consistently played true to form, attacking hard from the Right; that is until last night.
Last night Mitt Romney embraced humanity and earnestly promised to give peace a chance. That line change was clearly manifest on the policy front, but it was even more starkly evident in Mitt Romney’s new pleasantly compliant persona. So what exactly was going on during this last Presidential debate? Well, in politics there is always more than one theory. Some would argue that the electorate was simply were given another dose of “Moderate Mitt”, the proverbial and much anticipated move toward the center that Romney came perilously close to never getting around to this year. That fails to pass the smell test however.
Republicans have traditionally been viewed as suspect by much of the middle class when it comes to economic allegiances. A move toward the center on economics is understandable, and sure enough, belatedly, they made one there. National Security is a different matter. Republicans long reveled in being the “Daddy” Party in America. Their ace card repeatedly is to make Democrats seem week. Last night Mitt Romney made President Obama look strong Democrats can make a damn good campaign ad if they want to out of snippets of Romney praising the President’s foreign policy
It could also be argued that Mitt Romney was trying for a repeat of his “throw the President off stride” strategy used in the first debate, when he unexpectedly denied supporting almost everything he had vehemently supported over the last few years. In a word to that one; Nah. Barack Obama is a smart man. His debate prep team is not made up of slouches. Whether or not Romney chose the debate stance most expected, he no longer had recourse to an element of surprise. Obama was not caught off guard, nor could Romney have expected him to be. Changing one’s positions on the cusp of a national election comes with a real set of risks. Romney would not attempt it simply on the off chance to throwing Obama off.
The most plausible theory offered in any way favorable to Mitt Romney goes something along these lines. Mitt Romney was playing prevent defense, trying to avoid any mistakes that would blunt his supposed electoral momentum that has him on an alleged trajectory to win. Americans it appears are overall comfortable with the Obama foreign policy, so if Mitt Romney is comfortable with that too, well then Americans should be comfortable with Romney also. No scary new world order to worry about from Romney, just Barack Obama’s policies without Barack Obama.
If Mitt Romney had a clear and easy path to an Electoral College majority, perhaps a prevent defense strategy could be tempting, but the lay of the land doesn’t bear that scenario out. At best it can be argued that there is a path possible to 270 votes for Romney but there is nothing clear and easy about it. There is no way it can be argued that Mitt Romney is attempting to sit on a “safe” lead. Projecting mildness is not a winning strategy for unseating a personally popular President.
I think the real answer lies in the nature of real chameleons. They don’t change colors because they are frustrated art majors; they change colors to protect themselves from danger. When a political campaign senses trouble there is usually some shake up at the top. In this case the shake up was in Mitt Romney himself. The sudden emergence of “Nice guy Mitt”, and make no mistake it has been sudden, indicates a problem, some type of political threat. I don’t have access to the Romney team’s focus groups, or to their own internal polling, but I suspect there is something going on there that made them change their stripes.
Mitt Romney was down right passive during the final Presidential debate, and we all saw what that did for Barack Obama during the first one. Why play that roll now, especially on foreign policy, where so much emphasis is routinely placed on the ability to face down real or potential adversaries? My guess is that Mitt Romney’s negatives were rearing their ugly heads. My guess is a lot of voters feel leery about electing a bully to be President, especially one who represents a party that shouts loudly and carries a big gun, with a long standing inclination for starting new Middle East wars.
During the second Presidential debate Americans saw Mitt Romney try to run over Candy Crowley. This time he backed down and let Bob Schieffer scold him. The chameleon changed again. That’s because he had something to fear.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Tue Oct 23, 2012, 11:13 AM (137 replies)
This is something that we collectively can accomplish, starting now, to ensure that the results of 2012 Presidential election are consistent with the expressed will of the voters who participate in this critical election. There is a way for us to expose any willful systematic effort to manipulate the tallying of the actual votes cast by the American people for our next President, for illegal partisan ends. We can do this nationwide at very little actual cost. We can do it with complete transparency using data available as public record with methods that can be replicated and independently verified by any organization, public or private, concerned about the validity of our findings. With a large, multi-talented, and widely dispersed national membership, the Democratic Underground can take the lead in protecting a fair 2012 Presidential election. Here is what I propose, it has several basic elements.
We require a database that includes every election precinct in the nation. That database should include the means being used by each precinct to record and tally the votes cast within that precinct. That needs to be as specific as possible. Where voting machines are used the manufacturer of the machines being used should be recorded. Those who are given the legal responsibility to service those machines, and to physically secure them, should also be recorded. How the precinct vote tallies of votes that were cast at the precinct level gets transferred for central tallying should be recorded as well. All of this is public record. So, of course, are the precinct level vote totals themselves as they are initially recorded. As they get announced we need to enter those precinct records into our database. And it is also public record which political party in every precinct controls the government oversight of elections function. That too needs to be recorded into the database.
How votes are recorded in America varies from locality to locality, from State to State certainly, but often the technology used is mixed within States as well. This provides acute observers with an ideal opportunity to detect statistical anomalies among voter returns as they become public. Lots of raw data is available for “crunching”. Not just the voting results, but also the percentage of “spoiled ballots” and of “over votes” etc. In a fair election, the percentage of “problem votes” should be tiny and there should be no pattern of deviation between precincts using the same methodologies.
When and where recounts are conducted, deviations from original announced results should evidence no partisan distortion, in other words mistakes tallying Republican and Democratic votes should happen in both directions at a frequency consistent with the proportion of votes each side initially received. That should hold true between precincts, counties, and even states, just as much as it holds true within individual precincts.
If we compile a thorough enough database, not only can we cast a light on the integrity of the voting process in an individual precinct, county, or State, but we can do so nationwide. It becomes statistically noteworthy, for example, how vote tallies obtained through one voting technology in one area of the nation compare with those recorded in a different area using either the same technology or a different one. Either way comparisons can be insightful, or even potentially explosive if systematic vote manipulation actually is attempted, be that in a handful of precincts in a key swing state, or nationwide through manipulation of the software used in voting machine from certain vendors.
The amount of raw data available to statisticians to work with in America today is staggering, with so much of it readily accessible by computers. For example, a socio-economic region like Appalachia crosses county and state lines. This is well documented in census records and the like. So a cross check that shows counties with very similar socio-economic demographics, very similar party identification rates in registered voters rolls, and virtually identical media markets, registering starkly differing voter preferences in tallied votes in a clear partisan pattern that collates tightly with a difference in the manufacturer of the e-voting machines used, could be eye opening.
Even a pattern of divergences from exit polls, or even from predictive polls, can prove meaningful if that divergence manifests unevenly based on variables (such as voting technology) that should be value neutral.
If our goal is primarily to PREVENT election theft, and only secondarily to expose it after the fact should it occur, then this effort needs to be high profile IN ADVANCE of the actual election. In other words anyone who might consider screwing around with the vote count needs to be put on notice NOW that we will have the capacity to expose them if they attempt anything on a scale likely to effect the outcome of the Presidential election. That would require some help beyond the Democratic Underground in getting the word out – media allies like some hosts on MSNBC and organizations like Organized Labor and national advocacy groups like Move On cooperating in getting advance word out on this.
DU Members having skills that I personally lack would need to design a comprehensive but straight forward database for compiling the information we would need to record. All of us would need to do our homework gathering the info needed both before and after the vote Data analysis is a world in itself but collectively I know DU and our allies have the skill set to document any patterns that may emerge from voting results that would point to election theft occurring.
Yes this would be an ambitious undertaking, but not one beyond our collective means. And the stakes could not be higher.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Oct 19, 2012, 08:43 AM (4 replies)
Seriously, it's just a single word. Obama should retire the use of the word "mess" from his description of the economy he inherited from Bush. That word should replaced by "disaster" or another word closer to that magnitude. A "mess" is something that happens on a personal scale that can be tidied up with a little effort. A disaster is what befell New Orleans due after hurricane Katrina. At the very least, eight years of Republican rule brought this nation and the world to the brink of an economic catastrophe. President Obama does himself a disservice to describe what he was asked to deal with from day one as simply "a mess".
That's it, my entire inventory of armchair quarterbacking critiques of the Presidents performance in the second debate . Obama was brilliant. Simply put, he showed why America why we were right to choose him to be President of the United States in the first place.
Romney is a one trick elephant. His whole case comes down to his assertion that a second Obama term means America settling for another four years like the last four. That is of course blatantly absurd. The degree of economic growth America has experienced during Obama's first term in office is a direct consequence of the Republican calamity Obama inherited when he stepped into the Oval Office. It's hard to reach the surface after you fall down a mine shaft. Even Mitt Romney, as craven as he is, doesn't predict for this country another four years like the last four. Obama's first term in office began during a global economic panic, a total meltdown of the world's financial systems,
The Republicans did far more than leave you with a mess to clean up, Mr. President. They almost plunged the world into another Great Depression. It is remarkable that you pulled us all the way back from that AND ended the war in Iraq AND hunted down the terrorists who attacked America AND put us on a glide path out of Afghanistan AND overhauled health care in America AND re-invested in America's technological future and so much else, virtually simultaneously. It was more than a mess that you inherited from Republican misrule. It was a package of epic challenges that only confront most nations two or three times a century. Call it like it was.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Wed Oct 17, 2012, 09:09 AM (14 replies)
At the last debate a lot of voters woke up to see an actual human being on stage there debating Obama, rather than the cartoon villain version of Romney lodged in a lot of voters minds. The real Romney was able to speak in full paragraphs without sounding like he was on drugs (well, maybe speed but not hallucinogenics). People realized Romney actually had a case he could make for himself, and that he could do so forcefully. Obama kind of seemed a bit listless by comparison, and so it all went.
A lot of post debate discussion focused on the theme of two Romneys, the severely conservative one who had been campaigning for President over the last year and the newly reinvented so-called Moderate Mitt who showed up to debate Obama that night. Yes there were those two Romneys, but the true odd couple really was flesh and blood Mitt vs cartoon caricature Mitt , and flesh and blood Romney wildly surpassed his cartoon version. That was the gut take away for most people about Romney, not whether they actually liked him or could warm up to having Romney address our nation as President for four full years.
Now that Mitt Romney is seen as having a plausible chance of actually winning the election voters will, once again, see him differently tonight. They will ponder Romney being President, and that thought will not seem all that appealing. To turn an old conventional wisdom on its head, I think what President Obama has to do tonight, when all is said and done, is give people a good enough reason to vote against the flesh and blood Mitt Romney.
On edit let me add: I am not trying to imply that Obama just has to come across as a nice guy tonight, compared to Romney, in order to win. Obama has to display strength, he needs to show confidence, he needs to defend his record and attack Romney; all of the standard stuff. Clearly Obama has to hold his own, but if he does so he will win, because most Americans are innately comfortable with Barack Obama and not at all so with Mitt Romney.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Tue Oct 16, 2012, 07:11 AM (8 replies)
It was one mean mother fracking recession that the last Republican administration left us with, not at all like the 11 more or less garden variety previous recessions that the United States experienced since the end of World War II. If you are old enough to vote you are old enough to remember at least one or two prior to the Great one that we are now slowly recovering from. Do you recall hearing the term “Global Panic” applied to any of those? Nope, use of that phase was previously reserved for descriptions of the Great Depression. When something that bad happens it takes a LONG time to dig out from under it. The Great Depression officially lasted over 3 ˝ years, from August 1929 to March 1933 and the economy was so fragile coming out of it that we reentered a deep Recession in 1937 which required another year for us get out from under. It took U.S. involvement in World War II before Americans got to see anything that looked “like a real recovery.”
No one likes remembering their fear. Maybe that’s why Mitt Romney can’t seem to hold onto a picture of what the world plunged into in September of 2008. Perhaps excerpts from this piece, first published by Fortune in December 2008, might serve to remind him:
“(Fortune) -- The world changed forever on Sept. 15, 2008, the Monday Meltdown, a day that will live in the annals of finance alongside Black Tuesday, Oct. 29, 1929. We are still odds-on to avoid a depression like the one that followed Oct. 29, but the Monday Meltdown made one more likely, and has claimed trillions of dollars of wealth worldwide and triggered a global recession. Understanding the financial shock that occurred that day is vital to finding a way out of our current mess…” http://money.cnn.com/2008/12/15/news/economy/monday.meltdown.fortune/index.htm
Three months after that epic crash and sentences like “We are still odds-on to avoid a depression like the one that followed Oct. 29, but the Monday Meltdown made one more likely…” were still being made. One month before Barack Obama was sworn in as President of the United States, the possibility that the world might yet slide into another Great Depression was still being discussed as entirely plausible. Unemployment rates hit 26.7% in the U.S. during the 1930’s Great Depression (when women weren’t really considered as part of the permanent work force).
The author of that Fortune piece, Jeffrey D. Sachs, also wrote: “The Monday Meltdown turned a boom-and-bust cycle centered mainly in the U.S. and U.K. into a global financial panic.” Those are precisely the type of fear inducing words, “meltdown” and “global financial panic”, that Mitt Romney seems to have purged from his political memory banks. That is what Barack Obama was facing when he took the oath of office to become President of the United States in January of 2009.
Sachs concluded with this:
“Only the work of historians will tell us whether the Fed, White House, and Treasury might have saved the day through a softer landing for Lehman Brothers. The answer would seem to be yes--if the authorities had used the preceding months to put an emergency-response plan in place."
"Starting next month, President Obama must work to assuage panic, give a sense of direction, cooperate effectively with the rest of the world, and ensure the liquidity and fiscal stimulus to get the global economy out of the Critical Care Unit and onto a path of recovery.”
Obama did all that, though you wouldn’t know it from the credit he hasn’t gotten. Instead Mitt Romney has the gall to say “This is not what a real recovery looks like.” Under the Obama Administration the U.S. economy has now netted a small overall job gain, despite the fact that job losses were hemorrhaging at 800,000 per month when he first stepped into over the Oval Office, and despite substantial job cuts in the public sector. Under 8 years of President George W. Bush our economy barely added a million jobs, total. Since the U.S. economy bottomed out in February 2910 over 4 million new jobs have been created to date under President Obama.
You could argue that President Bush’s job creation numbers looked a lot better too before the Recession hit, and that’s true, but the Great Recession happened on Bush’s watch, not Obama’s. During President Obama’s first term in office private sector jobs have cumulatively grown on average .10% annually despite his having inherited the worst economic downturn since the 1930’s. Now compare that to George W. Bush’s second term when they grew at just .06%, or better yet compare that to Bush’s first term when private sector jobs actually shrank at a minus .21% rate (those job losses fortunately were offset by job gains in the public sector): http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/15/business/low-jobs-numbers-for-obama-but-lower-for-his-predecessor.html?_r=1
President Obama turned the American economy around and, unlike under Bush, the private sector has grown, not retracted, during his first term in office. Unlike the United Kingdom, the United States avoided falling back into a double dip recession, even though the eurozone contracted again during the second quarter of 2012. Now look at these additional markers:
In July U.S. home prices rebounded to levels they were last at nine years ago: http://money.cnn.com/2012/09/25/real_estate/home-prices/index.html
In September the U.S. unemployment rate fell to its lowest level since Barack Obama took office: http://economywatch.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/05/14240541-unemployment-rate-falls-to-78-as-economy-creates-114000-jobs?lite
In October the Dow Jones Index hit its 5 year high: http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/markets/2012/10/05/sept-jobs-markets/1613559/
In October U.S. indebtedness shrunk to a six-year low relative to the size of the economy: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-09/u-s-downgrade-seen-as-upgrade-as-u-s-debt-dissolved.html
Some might note that Barack Obama isn’t running for re-election against George W.Bush, he’s running against Mitt Romney. True, but Mitt Romney is running on the exact same standard Republican playbook; more tax cuts and deregulation. You remember deregulation, don’t you? If not let’s return to 2008 again, when top economists like Jeffrey D. Sachs were explaining how we got ourselves into such a mess in the first place:
“Deregulation abetted the massive over-extension of credit by enabling Wall Street to expand trillions of dollars of lending and tens of trillions of dollars of derivatives trading on a base of households with shaky creditworthiness. The seeds of trouble were sown.”
All of the above may be true, but why should any of that excuse President Obama’s failed promises? After all Barack Obama promised back in 2009 that the unemployment rate would drop below 6% by 2012. Yes he did say that then, and yes our recovery is slower than the President initially forecast. But it turns out that the recession itself was far worse than experts were characterizing it as when Obama actually made his recovery projections. That fact was revealed in revised figures documenting the actual GDP loss during the recession that were retroactively released by the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Economic Analysis:
“The overall pattern of quarterly changes during the downturn was similar in both the revised and previously published estimates, though the revised estimates show larger decreases for 2008:Q4 (-8.9 percent compared with -6.8 percent) and for 2009:Q1 (-6.7 percent compared with -4.9 percent).”
In other words, bad as we all knew the economy was back when Obama made that original forecast, none of us actually knew how bad it really was. That was one mean mother fracking recession that the last Republican administration left us with. I would like to see how Mitt Romney would manage a global crisis like that any better. Then again, maybe not.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Mon Oct 15, 2012, 06:44 AM (7 replies)
Only 3% of small businesses report over $250,000 in earnings. I love that he said it, I love that he stressed it. And I live that he pointed out that Hedge Funds can qualify as "small businesses" due to accounting procedures. Republicans love to talk about how this or that "hurts small businesses" even though those same measures help middle class Americans. At least 97% of the time, small business and middle class describe the exact same people When Democrats defend the interests of middle class Americans, we defend the interests of small business owners, period. Republicans love to fudge that equation over a tiny percentage of people who qualify as small business owners who may have taxes go up (on their income OVER $250,000 only). Biden did not let them get away with it this time. We need more of that from leading Democrats.
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Oct 12, 2012, 01:58 PM (6 replies)
That's the real take away form last night. Biden broke through as a real person who personally cares deeply about the ramifications of the issues that were debated. No one can remember a full 90 minutes of discussion, instead we take away impressions. Any heated debate will cycle viewers through several competing impressions, but ultimately one ends up dominant.
Joe Biden is real, he is passionate, he cares deeply about the middle class and public service, Those are indelible takeaways. And for someone who in the past has been accused of using an excess of words, Joe Biden was as clear as Arizona mountain air when it really counted, and as blunt as a New York City cabbie. "We will leave Afghanistan in 2014", "We will not allow Social Security to be privatized", "Medicare will not become a voucher program on our watch" (yes these are paraphrases but Biden's actual words were equally clear).
When Joe Biden looked into the camera and made those pledges to the American people, viewers knew he meant it. He is a leader Americans know they can trust to level with them, who will to his damnedest to keep his work. Ultimately that was the difference last night, when all else is said and done. Joe Biden is genuine and this year's Republican ticket pales in direct comparison to him on that fundamental character issue. For that reason alone, Joe soundly won last night's Vice Presidential debate
Posted by Tom Rinaldo | Fri Oct 12, 2012, 10:19 AM (3 replies)