Debate 2012 | My Political Hat

And Then There Were None!

Posted on October 23, 2012 by Justin

We made it, people! The 2012 Presidential Debate Death March is over! Congratulations on surviving your various drinking games, meme onslaughts, and spin room prevarications! (There will be a moment of silence at the end of this article for those who didn’t make it to the end, the lightweights.)

I think we saw one Commander-in-Chief on the stage last night. I was looking for consistency from Governor Romney, and I didn’t get it. I don’t expect him to hold the same views he’s had all his adult life, or even for the six years he’s been running for President. I recognize that people can and do change. They learn new things. Circumstances change, and we should allow for that without automatically labeling someone a “flip-flopper.” Governor Romney, unfortunately, couldn’t remain consistent through the ninety minutes he appeared on stage last night.

Not to denigrate the mentally ill, but his positions were positively schizophrenic. On one issue, he seemed eager to reassure the public he wasn’t afraid to strike first, hard, and with vigor. On others, he was trying to project calm and reasoned reflection before acting. Neither position was convincing, and I think he pretty much reversed when each was appropriate.

A lot of political hay (and memeage) will be made of the “horses and bayonets” moment, but I don’t think it was that significant. Very few voters – outside the shipyards of Virginia – are going to make their decision on how many ships the government procures over the next four years. That being said, it was a devastating take-down of an unprepared candidate by a Commander-in-Chief who clearly knows his stuff.

I was hesitant about Obama in 2008. I wasn’t sure he was ready to be President, primarily for foreign policy reasons. I’m glad to say he’s proven me wrong. I disagree with about 75%-80% of his foreign policy positions, but I can’t deny that he knows what he’s doing and that he has a vision for the future of the world and America’s role in it. I wish I could say the same about Romney. Perhaps he will grow into it, but on balance I’m not willing to take that chance.

All in all, it was a good debate. Nowhere near as good as the second one, which really was one for the ages, but still a good example of the genre. Onward to November 6th!

[insert moment of silence here]

Conspicuous in Their Absence

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Justin

I didn’t realize it earlier, but the topics for tonight will be:

* America’s role in the world
* Our longest war – Afghanistan and Pakistan
* Red Lines – Israel and Iran
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – I
* The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism – II
* The Rise of China and Tomorrow’s World

Conspicuously absent will be:

1) The eurozone crisis
2) Latin America
3) Russia
4) Africa
5) Foreign economic policy
6) India
7) North Korea

I really doubt this thing moves beyond the Middle East (specifically: Libya and Iran/Israel) and a smattering of “he said/he did” saber-rattling on China.
Expect no or very little mention of any of the following: the incipient civil war in Syria; extrajudicial execution via drone strikes pretty much everywhere; any discussion about Israel and the Palestinians that doesn’t involve what time of day it’d be best to nuke Iran; and the ever-absent global threat of climate change.

What don’t you expect to come up tonight?

The Most Important Issue

Posted on October 22, 2012 by Justin

The Most Important Foreign Policy Issue hasn’t been discussed in the debates. And odds are it won’t be mentioned tonight.

Climate change continues to be the single most important, most pressing, and most urgent foreign policy issue facing the United States. A report out today from reinsurance company Munich Re reinforces this fact. Munich RE have no reason to lie about the details. They’re the ones who are left footing the bill as our coastal cities wash away and our inland cities blow away.

From the press release:

…[T]he study now provides new evidence for the emerging impact of climate change. For thunderstorm-related losses the analysis reveals increasing volatility and a significant long-term upward trend in the normalized figures over the last 40 years. These figures have been adjusted to account for factors such as increasing values, population growth and inflation. A detailed analysis of the time series indicates that the observed changes closely match the pattern of change in meteorological conditions necessary for the formation of large thunderstorm cells. Thus it is quite probable that changing climate conditions are the drivers. The climatic changes detected are in line with the modelled changes due to human-made climate change.

There is next to no chance climate change will come up in tonight’s third and final 2012 Presidential debate, and we will be all the poorer for its absence.

Even David Brooks agrees with me.

Binders Full of Libya

Posted on October 19, 2012 by Justin

I have been quiet about the second 2012 Presidential debate for several reasons. First, I agree with Lawrence O’Donnell that picking a winner is difficult. That being said, I do have some thoughts on the debate and what it means.

I thought it was a good debate. I certainly enjoyed watching it. The questions could have been better, but you can only work with what you get in a forum like this.

Romney let his inner asshole out to play, and was a bit too aggressive with the moderator, but sometimes that plays well at home with voters. It comes across as asshollery to most of us, but to a substantial minority it looks like strength. “He made the President sit down and wait his turn.” “He didn’t take any guff from the moderator.” “He caught the President in a lie about calling the attack on the US consulate in Benghazi a terrorist attack.” (Even though everyone agrees he lost that point when he got bogged down in the word used.)

Professor Obama showed up. If you believe in 11-Dimensional Chess, which I don’t, then you can see the first debate as the ultimate rope-a-dope approach. The same Romney showed up for the second debate. Against a real opponent – Professor Obama instead of Uncle Fluffy – his approach was much less effective.

This was a make-or-break moment for the President. He needed to reassure his base that he still wanted the job. I think he did that. He also needed to reframe Romney as an out-of-touch Plutocrat. The jury is still out on whether he managed this or not.

On the topic of Libya and the death of Ambassador Chris Stevens, I thought Romney had a good point. The Administration dropped the ball on this, and the President is rightly criticized for his handling. The argument that Congress cut funding for embassy security holds no water for me. If it is a priority, you have to fight for it. the Administration did not. In the aftermath, it was several days before it was clear that the reports of demonstrations at the Consulate preceding the attack were incorrect. The Administration is rightly criticized for either not knowing this or for not being clear about it.

Romney screwed this one up, however, by focusing on whether the President said the magic words “terrorist” or “terrorism” in his Rose Garden speech. The real criticism is the handling of the following weeks. Romney missed his chance to raise this issue when he thought he’d caught the President in a lie. Incidentally, I think Paul Ryan in the Vice Presidential debate did a much better job of pinning the issue on the Administration than Romney’s Gotcha! tactic did.

I’m looking forward to the third and final debate. Perhaps the topic of climate change will finally put in an appearance. It is a national security issue, after all.

The Beltway Debate

Posted on October 4, 2012 by Justin

The more I think about last night’s debate, the madder I get.

Mostly, I’m mad at Jim Leher. He should join MacNeil in retirement. His befuddled demeanor and lack of stage presence allowed Romney to walk all over him. Romney, for his part, refused to acknowledge that the debate should be moderated at all. He told Leher what was going to happen, and then did it. This may look like bold leadership to some, but it came across as bullying entitlement from where I was sitting.

Obama wasn’t any better. He was listless, his answers were rambling, and he didn’t seem to want to be there. If he’d checked his watch, the transformation would have been complete!

But beyond all that, I blame Jim Leher for asking asinine questions. Here’s a little-known fact about the deficit and the national debt: outside the beltway and local Tea Party meetings, no one cares about the deficit or the debt. It just isn’t a consideration. In the abstract, everyone knows the national debt will eventually be a bad thing (although a growing economy will make it less painful to pay off than our politicians like to scare us into believing). As a practical matter, the deficit and the debt have nothing to do with our everyday lives.

What do people care about?

Housing (credit is still effectively frozen for people without pristine credit and/or extensive wealth)
A real discussion of gun violence
Ongoing, systematic voter disenfranchisement, including voter ID requirements and polling place/time shenanigans
Women’s healthcare (birth control and abortion)
The rising cost of a higher education
The nonexistent job market
Climate change

That’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure you can make your own list at home. Nothing was asked in these categories in more than a cursory way, and yet these are all domestic issues that the American people care about. For some reason, they weren’t even on Jim Leher’s radar. Maybe one of the moderators will ask a question about climate change in the National Security debate, but this was pretty much the only chance to get into these things before election day.

This was a Beltway Debate, pure and simple. The pundits surely slept well last night, with visions of cat food dancing in their heads.

Next Up: A “town hall” style debate, with a room full of people who claim they haven’t made up their minds yet. More on why (or how) someone can still be an undecided voter later…