The rhetoric of the Obama and Romney presidential campaigns has recently become harsher. Both sides have additionally issued highly misleading TV advertisements. The media have devoted significant attention to these controversies while sometimes failing to address underlying policy differences. Financial and health care reform notably deserve closer attention than they have received as of late.
Vice President Joe Biden has faced criticism for telling a racially diverse audience that, if Mitt Romney were elected president, he would "let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street" and "put you all back in chains." The Romney campaign took offense at these remarks, arguing that they were extremely misleading and divisive.
Biden's poor choice of words has effectively led part of the public and the media to look at his finger when he was pointing to the moon. The Republican Party staunchly opposed increasing financial regulation following the catastrophic 2008 financial crisis that was caused, to an extent, by the reckless investment strategies of certain Wall Street elements. Only three Republican House members and three Republican Senators voted for financial reform. The GOP affirmed that more financial regulation would worsen the stranglehold of "big government" over the economy by creating needless red tape. Romney himself depicted the relatively modest reform as gross overregulation. "Banks are afraid to make loans right now because of the government hanging over them like gargoyles," he said. Congressman Paul Ryan, his vice-presidential pick, voted against the new financial regulations, which run counter to his libertarian philosophy.
Whether Biden's reference to "unchaining Wall Street" was a proper metaphor or not, the facts demonstrate that the modern-day Republican Party is extremely averse to regulation in finance and other areas, from health care to environmental protection. Insofar as Biden was playing the so-called "race card" by telling his audience that Romney's stance towards Wall Street would "put you all back in chains," it was a counter-productive strategy given that the 2008 financial crisis and the ensuing Great Recession harmed Americans of all races and ethnicities. A compelling case for financial reform may be made by simply stating the facts and without resorting to language that is over-the-top.
Another major controversy has erupted over an ad issued by a Super PAC supporting Obama. The ad features Joe Soptic, a man who lost his job after his steel plant was closed in 2001 by Bain Capital, Romney's former company. The ad contends that, as a result, Soptic's family immediately lost its health insurance and that his wife died 22 days later because she could not afford proper care. In reality, Soptic's wife died around five years later. She also continued to have health insurance for a year.
The controversy over the Soptic ad is also eclipsing a broader analysis of Romney's approach to health care. The ad was utterly misleading in suggesting a simple cause-and-effect relationship: Romney closed the plant and then Soptic's wife died. However, Romney adamantly opposes efforts to establish a form of universal health care system in America. The fact that the United States is the only developed country without universal health care has led to the kinds of problems evoked in the Soptic ad: many people lack health insurance or lose it after being laid off, consequently struggle to pay for high medical costs, commonly face grave medical problems as a result, and sometimes die.
As with financial reform, a compelling case for health care reform may be made by simply stating the facts. Prior to the 2010 Democratic health care reform, around 50 million Americans lacked medical insurance while 25 million were seriously under-insured. Exorbitant medical bills already caused over 60 percent of U.S. bankruptcies in 2007, before the financial crisis and economic recession. Almost 80 percent of these persons had medical insurance but were ruined by out-of-pocket costs. Contrary to common misconceptions, this was not a problem faced primarily by poor people living idly "on welfare." Most of the bankrupted had attended college, owned homes, and had middle-class occupations. America was also the only developed country that let insurance companies deny coverage to people with preexisting medical conditions. Furthermore, nations with universal care have far lower medical costs than America and generally better health levels while ensuring treatment to everyone. Republicans nonetheless persuaded a large share of the public to oppose health care reform on the ground that America offered excellent access to treatment and that universal health care is too expensive.
There was a time when Romney seemed preoccupied with the absence of universal health care in America -- the kinds of issues that were (misleadingly) evoked in the Soptic ad. Of course, as governor of Massachusetts, he pushed for a state reform that actually became a model for "Obamacare." This appears to be what Romney intended, as he suggested that his plan could be a model for the nation back in 2009. "I think there are a number of features in the Massachusetts plan that could inform Washington on ways to improve health care for all Americans," he said. "The fact that we were able to get people insured without a government option is a model I think they can learn from." Yet, as a presidential candidate, Romney has embraced the immoderation of the Republican base and argued that "Obamacare" is a form of socialist tyranny that would somehow spell the end of America's market economy.
Dana Milbank, the Washington Post columnist, has disputed the claim that the tone of this year's presidential campaign is uglier than prior ones. "What's different this time is that the Democrats are employing the same harsh tactics that have been used against them for so long," he noted. Obama has indeed faced a host of calumnies during his presidency, from conspiracy theories that he is a covert Muslim with a fake birth certificate, to the allegation that he intends to establish a form of leftist dictatorship. Romney has notably asserted that, due to Obama, America is "only inches away from ceasing to be a free market economy." Amid myriad other declarations, let us recall Sarah Palin's canard that "Obamacare" comprised "death panels" or Newt Gingrich's claim that Obama "represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did." When the debate takes such a turn, the loser is democracy, regardless of who wins an election.
After being the target of relentless disinformation throughout his presidency, Obama should lead by example and avoid misleading claims. The Obama campaign should be able to defend the administration's health care and financial reforms based on the facts alone.
 |
 |
|
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Electoral Votes (270 to win) |
332 | 206 |
| Obama | Romney | |
|---|---|---|
| Total | 65,899,660 | 60,932,152 |
| Percent | 51.1% | 47.2% |
| Democrats* | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Current Senate | 53 | 47 |
| Seats gained or lost | +2 | -2 |
| New Total | 55 | 45 |
| Democrats | Republicans | |
|---|---|---|
| Seats won | 201 | 234 |
I submit to you that EQUIVOCATION has been our (Progressives) problem not compromise. For the past three years, DEMS/Progressives have compromised with an intransigent GOTP and felt the need for a shower afterward.
The problem has not been so much the compromise but the compromise again and again with nothing to show for it. Instead, we end up with good ideas watered down to good ideas with bad consequences. We reach this dark place by allowing the goal post to move time and again. Then when its moved so much in one direction that we are no longer on the field we are mad at all participants and ignore the part we have played by giving both sides equal measure.
But the way this takes place is that commentators, pundits, GOTPers and yes even DEMS/Progressives allow EQUIVOCATION to be interjected as a way to say its both sides. Yes, to a very minor degree that may be true, but to the largest degree it is a LIE.
Some do it as a way to appear Neutral, some do it as a way to cover their nonsense and some do it to curry favor.....However it's done it should be rejected.
So the next time someone puts forward the idea that its just both sides....REJECT it! The next time someone poses a question that suggests its both sides.....REJECT it! You will be doing your part in defeating this EQUIVOCATION, which allows intransigence to continue.
145 billion is taken from the financing of nursing homes and hospice care for the elderly.
255 billion is taken for investment, research and special equipment for the elderly and this next one is something to really take a look at.....
345 billion is taken for drug administration costs, the employment of state and government nutrition monitors and "special boards". This money, voted on behind closed doors, has already been taken!!!! Congressman's Ryan's plan is just a proposal..
This is all you need to know to vote against President Obama, unless you are promised one of the nutrition jobs, a hard core Democrat or a young person wanting to get rid of the elderly as fast as possible to get their riches...
To be otherwise would require them to admit that the GFC was a direct consequence of their economic ideology and the austerity packages ripping Europe apart is simply a continuation of that same free market/small government dogma.
President Obama is far from perfect, but to say that there is no difference is quite sad indeed.
O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou Mitt Romney?
As gov'nor you let taxes rise,
Now ev'ry tax you demonize.
You say regardless of the facts
You'd take an axe to the millionaire's tax;
You'd feed the greed of the richest few
The poor and middle class you'd screw.
Your tax returns you hide from view
What evil lurks there we've no clue;
If they're not bad why hesitate?
Is it that they incriminate?
O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou Mitt Romney?
At Bain you plundered with a flair
And walked away a zillionaire.
You shipped off-shore, good jobs galore
To China, India, Singapore;
A job creator you are not.
And to boast you are is tommyrot.
As a total fraud, Mitt's got no peer;
What we must do is crystal clear:
Let's give Obama four more years!
Yes, it's Obama – four more years!
FOUR MORE YEARS!
PART 1 of 2:
Poem by a 92-year-old former Judge and World War II veteran in a video gone viral.
http://www.sacbee.com/2012/08/18/4737067/romney-position-changes-recited.html
Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
You flip-flop here, you flip-flop there,
You flip-flop almost ev'rywhere.
You ballyhoo what you're gonna do
And then you pull a switcheroo;
You now malign what you found fine;
Seems like you've got a jellyfish spine.
Obamacare, by you begun,
Now you'd trash it on day one.
Gun control you did extol,
But now you're preaching decontrol.
O, Romney-O, Romney-O, Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
We've got no clue what you will do
Or what new view you'll pander to.
Time was you championed women's choice,
But you no longer heed their voice;
On gay rights, too, guess you withdrew
Support they once enjoyed from you.
Global warming, EPA,
Immigration, minimum pay,
Roe V. Wade, also fair trade,
All joined your flip-flop cavalcade.
O, Romney-O, Romney-O Wherefore art thou, Mitt Romney?
So many things that you were for
You've turned against and slammed the door.
Stimulus and cap and trade,
Education, foreign aid,
Campaign reform, tarp rescues, too,
All victims of your switcheroo.
You take your stand on shifting sand,
We never know where you will land;
You vacillate, you fabricate,
A wishy-washy candidate.