Mitt Romney’s campaign can effectively be boiled down into two parts. One was his first debate appearance, during which he aggressively attacked President Obama’s abysmal record and vigorously explained and defended his own policy proposals. During the other part of his campaign — encompassing his convention speech, his subsequent two debate performances, and his many months on the campaign trail — Romney (for the most part) didn’t aggressively attack Obama’s record or vigorously explain and defend his own policy proposals. One of these two parts of Romney’s campaign clearly worked, and one clearly didn’t. Republicans would do well to heed the results of this costly experiment. During that memorable first debate, Romney particularly scored by rebutting Obama’s contrived charges that Romney’s tax plan would be a boon for the rich at the expense of the middle class; by explaining his pro-growth tax and regulatory policies in a way that wisely positioned the GOP as the party of small business and Main Street; and by attacking Obama on his fiscal profligacy, his “green energy” crony capitalism, and Obamacare.
It’s worth reviewing that entire performance, but here are some of the highlights of Romney’s finest hour (and a half):
“[V]irtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate….What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That’s part one….Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it….And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families…
“[L]et’s get at the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring the rates down, [and] at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth, so we keep getting the revenue we need. And you’d think, well, then why lower the rates?...And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people. For me, this is about jobs….
“[The deficit is] a critical issue. I think it’s not just an economic issue, I think it’s a moral issue. I think it’s, frankly, not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in, knowing those burdens are going to be passed on to the next generation and they’re going to be paying the interest and the principal all their lives….What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test…: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare’s on my list….
Read more...
Same Old Obama5:10 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By FRED BARNES
President Obama the self-proclaimed compromiser sounds the same as Obama the partisan politician running for reelection. At his press conference Wednesday, he harped on what had been a chief talking point of his campaign—raising taxes for the wealthy.
He not only brought it up in his opening statement, it was the thrust of those remarks. He touted the tax hike on the top 2 percent of taxpayers in response to questions about that subject specifically and to a question about the “fiscal cliff.” And he used arguments for the tax increase lifted directly from his campaign speeches.
The voters, he said, endorsed the idea, in effect giving him a mandate. The majority of voters agreed with me, Obama told reporters. “By the way, more voters agreed with me on this issue than voted for me.”
According to the exit poll, that’s not true. It found that 47 percent of voters prefer to raise taxes only on the wealthy. Obama got 51 percent of the total national vote.
It was Obama’s first press conference in 8 months and his first lengthy discussion of issues facing the country since his reelection last week. While all but demanding that congressional Republicans accede to the tax hike, he said repeatedly that he is eager to compromise with them.
“If we’re going to be serious about the reducing the deficit,” Obama said, it’s important to raise taxes on the rich. In their case, he wants to increase the rate on individual income from 35 percent to 39.6 percent, curb their deductions, and also raise the tax rates on capital gains, dividends, and inheritances. This would be achieved by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire at the end of 2012 for the affluent.
He said this is “the foundation for a deal” during the lame duck session of Congress after Thanksgiving. The deal would retain the Bush tax cuts, Obama said, for 98 percent of taxpayers and 97 percent of small businesses. Such a deal would help the economy, protect the middle class, create jobs, and give “businesses confidence that they’re going to have consumers during the holiday season.”
The president didn’t advocate any other proposals to curb a 2013 deficit expected to exceed $1 trillion for the fifth straight year. He said he’d take a “serious look” at entitlement spending and is “willing to look at” discretionary spending as well. But again, no specifics. His emphasis was solely on raising taxes.
Obama was asked why he extended the Bush tax cuts in 2010 for all taxpayers but would deny them now to taxpayers making more than $250,000 a year. “The economy was in a different situation” then, he said. “We were still very much in the early parts of recovering from the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.”
But rather than gain strength since then, the economy has grown more slowly than it had in 2010. Obama didn’t address that, nor did he deal with the role the wealthy play as investors and job creators. By increasing their taxes, he insisted, “We are actually removing half of the fiscal cliff, half of the danger to our economy.”
Read more...
Cathy McMorris Rodgers Elected House GOP Conference Chair4:28 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By MICHAEL WARREN
Washington Republican Cathy McMorris Rodgers was elected by the House Republican conference as its chair for the upcoming Congress, reports Jill Jackson of CBS News. McMorris Rodgers, who defeated Georgia congressman Tom Price for the position, will rank fourth in the House leadership. Price had significant support from House conservatives like Paul Ryan of Wisconsin and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, but McMorris Rodgers was understood to be the favorite of most of the Republican leadership team.
House Republicans picked other leaders Wednesday afternoon, reelecting Eric Cantor of Virginia for majority leader and Kevin McCarthy of California for majority whip. Greg Walden of Oregon was elected to run the National Republican Congressional Committee, the House Republicans' campaign arm, while sophomore James Lankford of Oklahoma was selected for policy chair.
Given the GOP retained its majority in the House, Speaker John Boehner is expected to win reelection when the body convenes in January.
CIA Still Has ‘Detention Authority’4:02 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Marc Thiessen reports that, in fact, the CIA still has "detention authority."
A CIA spokesman recently denied claims the agency was holding prisoners at its Benghazi annex, declaring:
The CIA has not had detention authority since January 2009, when Executive Order 13491 was issued. Any suggestion that the Agency is still in the detention business is uninformed and baseless.
This last part of that statement may (unfortunately) be true, but the first part is simply incorrect.
There is no evidence that the CIA was in fact holding any prisoners in Benghazi (and, quite frankly, the agency is so traumatized by what it has been put through under the Obama administration, I’d be shocked if they were). But the CIA does in fact have authority to hold prisoners — even under the executive order issued by President Obama.
While Executive Order 13491, signed on January 22, 2009, orders the closure of all CIA detention facilities (aka “Black Sites”), Section 2(g) specifically states:
The terms ‘detention facilities’ and ‘detention facility’ in section 4(a) of this order do not refer to facilities used only to hold people on a short-term, transitory basis.
Don't Forget About Security of Afghanistan3:53 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Max Boot writes:
[T]he vague charges being lodged against John Allen are imperiling his standing to provide objective advice to the administration as it decides how quickly to draw downtroops in Afghanistan and how many to leave after 2014. Many senior voices in the administration, led by Vice President Biden, will counsel for the smallest commitment possible. It is Allen’s job as the U.S. military commander to provide objective advice and realistic options, including presenting the risks of maintaining too few forces. But his ability to push the best military advice is imperiled by the cloud hanging over his head. His nomination to be supreme allied commander, Europe, is already on hold and could be withdrawn altogether. If that were to happen, he would have to retire in disgrace. He is thus hardly in a good position to push back against senior administration officials dedicated to the illusion that a few thousand troops will be sufficient to safeguard long-term U.S. interests in Afghanistan.
It would be beyond unfortunate–it would in fact be a cosmic tragedy–if one of the victims of this unfolding scandal were thus to be the entire nation of Afghanistan, which is in real danger of being abandoned to the ravages of a civil war that various warlords are already preparing to fight.
Obama: I Made Susan Rice Talk to the American People About Benghazi2:42 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
President Barack Obama revealed at his press conference this afternoon that he is responsible for sending U.N. ambassador Susan Rice to speak to the American people a few days after the September 11 Benghazi terror attack.
"As I said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her," Obama said at the press conference, defending the statements the ambassador to the U.N. made regarding the Benghazi attack.
Rice has been widely criticized for giving misleading statements about Benghazi. She maintained that the killing of four Americans stemmed for a spontaneous protest that got violent.
Later evidence, however, revealed that U.S. officials had real-time updates from Americans on the ground in Benghazi, and that terrorists were immediately suspected.
"When they go after the U.N. ambassador, apparently because they think she’s an easy target, then they’ve got a problem with me," Obama said today.
Earlier today, Senators John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and Kelly Ayotte said they would oppose any move by Obama to make Rice the next secretary of state. That is what Obama was responding to today.
Obama: 'I Hope and Intend to Be an Even Better President in the Second Term' 2:19 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
At today's press conference, President Barack Obama made a second term pledge:
"I hope and intend to be an even better president in the second term than I was in the first," said the president.
Now Obama Lavishes Praise on Romney 2:13 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
With the election over, President Barack Obama lavished praise on Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney at today's press briefing:
"There are certain aspects of Governor Romney's record and his ideas that I think could be very helpful," said Obama. "Well, and to give you one example, I do think he did a terrific job running the Olympics."
Obama added, "He presented some ideas in the course of the campaign that I actually agree with."
During the campaign, praise from Obama for Romney was hard to come by.
Israeli Army: 'We Recommend That No Hamas Operatives ... Show Their Faces'1:28 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
The Israeli army gives fair warning to Hamas terrorists on Twitter:
 IDF ? @IDFSpokesperson
We recommend that no Hamas operatives, whether low level or senior leaders, show their faces above ground in the days ahead.
14 Nov 12 Reply Retweet Favorite
Fiscal Cliff Calamity 1:20 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By IRWIN M. STELZER
Let’s be clear what the bargaining over the fiscal cliff is all about. It is not about a long-term solution to our run away deficits and the iceberg looming in the distance: entitlement spending that will sink our fiscal ship. It is not about extracting more revenues from “the rich,” however defined. It is about how to avoid triggering a combination of tax increases and spending cuts that just might tip our still-fragile economy into recession. It is about how, not whether, to increase taxes on higher earners who everyone agrees will end up paying more, perhaps because they should, perhaps because that is what the election results dictate, perhaps because … pick your own reason.
Republicans have indicated a willingness bordering on eagerness to eliminate many of the special tax privileges of upper income people. (Lobbyists for these groups have yet to be heard from, however, and have a special place in the hearts of the Republican establishment.) Even House Republicans, or at least the sane members, are willing to limit deductions, end special treatment of hedge fund operators’ income and dividend income, reduce deductions for interest on large and on second-home mortgages. All these changes would not only add revenue for the Treasury, but increase the efficiency of the economy, most especially by ending the diversion of capital into the housing sector, and talent into financial services. That is a long-term Republican goal.
All of these changes would hit upper income taxpayers especially hard, with collateral damage to the housing sector, charities, dividend paying stocks, hedge fund operators and those who live on capital gains. But they would not interfere with incentives to work hard and take risks (although some argue that small business start-ups would suffer because entrepreneurs start these firms with the hope of selling them, the proceeds to be taxed as capital gains, while other point out that despite favorable treatment of these gains new business formation is at its lowest level in over 30 years).
The president has a different view. He is not in the efficiency business; he is in the class warfare business. He seems not to worry about reducing incentives to take risks and to work hard. So he wants to get more from the rich by raising the top marginal income rate to pre-Bush tax cut levels, regardless of the effect on total revenue going to the Treasury. Obama probably knows that Romney adviser Glenn Hubbard is right to say, “Higher marginal tax rates distort behavior and reduce activity.” But that has nothing to do with his policy goal, which at least in the short-term, and most probably in the longer run, is a fairer rather than a more efficient tax structure. A dollar of added revenue that improves the efficiency of the economy is of less interest to him than a dollar of new revenue that makes the rich understand that he means to take from them to support his programs, and the Republicans understand that “I won.” It might be argued that by getting what he wants he will remove some of the objections to the way market capitalism distributes income, but that is surely not his goal.
Read more...
Israel Takes Out Top TerroristHamas’s military apparatus is tied to Iran.12:42 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By LEE SMITH
Earlier today, Israel struck at dozens of targets inside Gaza, including Ahmed Jabari, Hamas’s chief of staff and a senior official in the organization’s military outfit, the Izz ad-din al-Qassam Brigades. Jabari was behind the abduction of Gilad Shalit, and planned the 2007 coup that left Hamas in complete control of Gaza. Sources claim that other passengers in the targeted car riding with Jabari were also killed, including his son, his bodyguard, and Ahmed al-Zahhar, the brother of Hamas’s cofounder Mahmoud al-Zahhar. According to some sources, the assassination of Jabari may be Israel’s most successful direct hit since it targeted Hezbollah commander Imad Mughniyeh in Damascus in 2008.
In addition to eliminating Jabari, Israel has also reportedly killed another military official, Raed al-Attar, Jabari's second in command. What Israeli officials are calling Operation Pillar of Defense has also concentrated on Hamas’s arsenal, especially its long- and medium-range missiles, some of which are believed capable of reaching Israel’s northernmost cities. “Israel has had more than 800 missiles fired on its citizens over the last year,” an Israeli official told me this morning. “We held fire for a year but decided that it’s enough. We won’t let Hamas hold our cities hostage.”
If Hamas retaliates by firing more missiles at Israeli cities, the official told me, “Ground forces will be sent in. Already ground forces are on high alert and heading to the Gaza border. We can expect at least a few days of heavy action, if not more. There is no time limit for this operation.”
Israel’s last large campaign against Hamas, Operation Cast Lead, was waged shortly before Obama’s 2009 inauguration. The timing of the current campaign should allow the Israelis much more flexibility in achieving their goals, which in addition to eliminating Hamas figures also includes degrading the military capacity of Gaza’s ruling authority. Presumably, the Iranians will be watching very closely how the White House treats the situation, whether it tries to restrain the Netanyahu government or encourages and even assists Jerusalem in a campaign against what are effectively Iranian assets.
Hamas’s military apparatus is tied to Iran, says Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies. “Anyone who is part of the Qassam Brigades gets Iranian training.” Schanzer believes that today’s operations against Hamas positions in Gaza are likely related to last month’s bombing of a factory in Sudan, believed to have been the work of the Israeli military.
Read more...
Video: Israeli Military Bombs Top Hamas Commander12:25 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Here's video, courtesy of Israel Defense Forces, which is said to show the direct bombing of a top Hamas commander, Ahmed Jabri:
The video is titled, "IDF Pinpoint Strike on Ahmed Jabri, Head of Hamas Military Wing."
And here's the description from the Israel military of the targeted strike: "On Nov. 11, 2012, the IDF targeted Ahmed Jabri, the head of Hamas' military wing, in the Gaza Strip. Jabri was a senior Hamas operative who served in the upper echelon of the Hamas' command and was directly responsible for executing terror attacks against Israel in the past."
Killer ReviewThe 'New York Times' eviscerates Guy Fieri's new restaurant. Is that such a bad thing?12:00 PM, Nov 14, 2012 • By VICTORINO MATUS
Let me preface this item by saying I am not the biggest fan of Guy Fieri, the Food Network celebrity with the bleached-blonde spikey hair who hosts Diners, Drive-Ins & Dives. I pretty much lost all interest in him when he started doing ads for T.G.I. Friday's—are you honestly craving that Chipotle Grilled Steak Sandwich, the one with two kinds of cheeses, lettuce, tomato, onion, Chipotle mayo, and roasted plantains? You're actually eating a steak sandwich with bananas?
Celebrity chef Anthony Bourdain is probably Fieri's most severe critic. As he told TV Guide, "I look at Guy Fieri and I just think, 'Jesus, I'm glad that's not me.' You work that hard and there's not a single show of yours that you'd want to sit down and say, 'Hey, I made that last week. Look at that camera work. It's really good, huh?' I'm proud of what I do." Bourdain recently mused that if tattoo artist Ed Hardy had sex with a juggalo, the result would be Guy Fieri.
Now comes a New York Times review of Fieri's Times Square outpost, Guy's American Kitchen & Bar. Restaurant critic Pete Wells, who previously issued a scathing critique of Le Cirque (now in search of a new chef), had much to say—and hardly any of it good.
Wells constructs his review in the form of a plaintive letter directed at Guy:
Did panic grip your soul as you stared into the whirling hypno wheel of the menu, where adjectives and nouns spin in a crazy vortex? When you saw the burger described as “Guy’s Pat LaFrieda custom blend, all-natural Creekstone Farm Black Angus beef patty, LTOP (lettuce, tomato, onion + pickle), SMC (super-melty-cheese) and a slathering of Donkey Sauce on garlic-buttered brioche,” did your mind touch the void for a minute?... What exactly about a small salad with four or five miniature croutons makes Guy’s Famous Big Bite Caesar (a) big (b) famous or (c) Guy’s, in any meaningful sense?
Were you struck by how very far from awesome the Awesome Pretzel Chicken Tenders are? If you hadn’t come up with the recipe yourself, would you ever guess that the shiny tissue of breading that exudes grease onto the plate contains either pretzels or smoked almonds? Did you discern any buttermilk or brine in the white meat, or did you think it tasted like chewy air?... And when we hear the words Donkey Sauce, which part of the donkey are we supposed to think about?
Read more...
Remain Focused on Benghazi11:30 AM, Nov 14, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER
Paul Wolfowitz writes:
[F]ascination with the general’s personal story must not divert attention from the very significant policy failures that helped produce a chaotic security situation in Libya. Petraeus was not principally responsible for those mistakes, nor for similar mistakes that continue in Syria, nor for the misleading suggestion that killing Bin Laden had dealt a fatal blow to Al Qaeda.
Congress should stay focused on the policy mistakes leading up to the Benghazi attack, the question of the commander-in-chief’s role the night of the attack, and the misleading claims afterwards that this terrorist attack was a response to an anti-Muslim video. In chronological order:
- Why did the US leave the principal responsibility for arming the anti-Qaddafi forces in Libya to countries which favored Islamist militias, so that many of the most powerful armed groups in Libya today are Islamist – and even Salafist – despite the fact that the Libyan people emphatically rejected the Islamists in the recent elections? Was this the result of the hasty and ill-conceived UN Security Council Resolution that imposed an arms embargo on all parties in Libya? Or was it a deliberate policy of “leading from behind” and outsourcing critical tasks to countries who did not share our interest in a democratic and pluralistic Libya? These are questions that fall principally within the responsibility of the secretary of State, not the director of the CIA.
- Why did the US continue with that policy failure after Qaddafi’s fall, taking a “mission accomplished” stance and leaving a democratically-elected and pro-American government largely powerless in the face of armed militias? Again, this was principally a State Department responsibility, but the Department of Defense should have pressed for a more active role as well.
Whole thing here.
|
