... to President Obama for his handling of international affairs. I sympathize with those on the left who criticize him for his use of drone strikes to take out Al Qaeda leaders and their gang of terrorists; I too shudder at the use of deadly force. But then I am not the president, and I do not have the responsibility of protecting the lives of the innocent people these miscreants plan to attack. I believe that in this world we humans have created, our leaders are constrained to undertake actions we civilians would eschew, and certainly disapprove. I wish it were otherwise.
But reading and hearing what his opponent had to say in Israel yesterday, for the benefit of the right-wingers there and in this country, I am reminded what a good job this president has done. His calm, thoughtful response to challenging, potentially destabilizing, sometimes chaotic events in other parts of the world has done much to restore this country's image as a strong center amidst the storms. What Governor Romney seems to promise is a return to Bush-like bellicosity--the last thing the world needs. His vision of America's place in the world is in stark contrast to the president's, and blithely ignores the realities of a new century in which co-operation is sorely needed in the place of enmity.
We should, by now, have left the twentieth century behind us. Obama, in my view, has done that. As in so many other matters, Romney appears to be stuck there. On his "world tour," he looks like a dinosaur trampling clumsily through the morass.
Tuesday, July 31, 2012
Monday, July 30, 2012
A QUESTION...
... for Governor Romney. A Buddhist question,
really. What are your plans for addressing the needs of the poor, the
sick, and the aged?
It's a serious question. I’m
pretty much clear about the answer I’d get from Obama and the Democrats: it’s a
civilized society’s responsibility to provide help for those unable to help
themselves. They support long-standing programs like Social Security and
Medicare, along with all those government programs that provide needed help for
the disabled and the poor. They
believe that it’s the government’s responsibility to assure educational
opportunity for all.
With Romney and the Republicans, I remain bewildered. I know that they oppose “big government”
in virtually all its functions except the military. I understand that they wish to make huge cuts in the
programs that the poor, the sick, and the aged have come to rely on for their
security and well-being. But I
have yet to hear from any of them any clear statement on how, having made their
cuts, they plan to address those needs.
The needs, we can be sure, will not simply go away. People will continue to get sick and
grow old. People will continue to
struggle with poverty. So my
question for Governor Romney is a genuine one: what are your plans for
addressing the needs of the poor, the sick, and the aged? And I want to hear specific answers,
not generalities. The poor, the
sick and the aged cannot survive on generalities.
I would love nothing better than to enter into serious dialogue with
those who do not share my point of view—those who would call me “liberal” and consider
themselves “conservative.” And
serious dialogue, as I understand it, means coming up with alternative
proposals for the real problems that we face. I am familiar with all the negative arguments. I’d like to talk about positive
solutions.
Friday, July 27, 2012
ROMNEY
When I thought about starting this "Vote Obama 2012" blog, I promised myself that it would concentrate only on the good and useful things that the president has accomplished, or tried to accomplish, during his time in office; and on what I saw to be his fair-minded approach to the country's problems, as well his substantial character and intellect. I have reached the point in my own thinking where a less "fair and balanced" approach is called for. With the Republicans working insidiously to stack the deck by manipulating the vote and exploiting the money advantage assured by their plutocratic supporters (now unleashed from any public accountability by Citizens United) it's becoming clear to me that a different approach is needed. We need to talk not only about Obama's strengths, but also about his opponent's all-too evident weaknesses.
Do you think, for example, that Romney's current "world tour" will score points? London, Israel, Poland. Not sure why Poland--given his propensity for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, he may come up with a light bulb joke or two, I suppose. But seriously, after his dubious performance in the UK, he has a ways to go in establishing his international diplomatic credentials. He also has work to do in improving the image he projects on the television screen, where he seems to me insufferably smug. But perhaps that's just me.
He was at pains, on NBC this morning, to distinguish his campaign--all about "the issues facing this great country"--with that of Obama, who descends, he says, to personal invective. I have heard some uncomplimentary references from Obama's lips, directed at his Republican opponent; but they seem, frankly, rather mild and generally justified when compared with some of the insults sent his way. The Romney campaign resorts indiscriminately to words like "complete failure" to describe his presidency, his handling of the economic crisis, of social issues, of international affairs (the latter, incidentally, the issue where the polls give him the greatest credit.) There's a sustained and unrelenting attempt to cast a blanket of failure over everything the president has done, without mention of the fact that he has been stymied at every significant corner by a determined and implacable opposition to his smallest effort to move ahead.
From Romney, contrary to his protestations, I hear nothing by generalizations, unproven assertions and vague claims that he'll do a better job. From Obama I hear concrete plans, specific proposals, hard facts and reasoned arguments.
In a rather cowardly manner, I thought, Romney distanced himself in the NBC interview from his wife's Olympic aspirations for her horse in the dressage contest--this despite the fact that he has apparently used the animal to provide himself with a substantial tax deduction. I'm guessing that he prefers to downplay this association with an upscale, elitist, rather dandyish sport. It would be a different story, I'm sure, if she was entering a car in a NASCAR speedway race.
Is this all relevant? Is it fair game to point out the man's deficiencies? My own feeling is that it all goes to character, and that Romney has some serious gaps to bridge to demonstrate his qualifications for the Oval Office.
Do you think, for example, that Romney's current "world tour" will score points? London, Israel, Poland. Not sure why Poland--given his propensity for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, he may come up with a light bulb joke or two, I suppose. But seriously, after his dubious performance in the UK, he has a ways to go in establishing his international diplomatic credentials. He also has work to do in improving the image he projects on the television screen, where he seems to me insufferably smug. But perhaps that's just me.
He was at pains, on NBC this morning, to distinguish his campaign--all about "the issues facing this great country"--with that of Obama, who descends, he says, to personal invective. I have heard some uncomplimentary references from Obama's lips, directed at his Republican opponent; but they seem, frankly, rather mild and generally justified when compared with some of the insults sent his way. The Romney campaign resorts indiscriminately to words like "complete failure" to describe his presidency, his handling of the economic crisis, of social issues, of international affairs (the latter, incidentally, the issue where the polls give him the greatest credit.) There's a sustained and unrelenting attempt to cast a blanket of failure over everything the president has done, without mention of the fact that he has been stymied at every significant corner by a determined and implacable opposition to his smallest effort to move ahead.
From Romney, contrary to his protestations, I hear nothing by generalizations, unproven assertions and vague claims that he'll do a better job. From Obama I hear concrete plans, specific proposals, hard facts and reasoned arguments.
In a rather cowardly manner, I thought, Romney distanced himself in the NBC interview from his wife's Olympic aspirations for her horse in the dressage contest--this despite the fact that he has apparently used the animal to provide himself with a substantial tax deduction. I'm guessing that he prefers to downplay this association with an upscale, elitist, rather dandyish sport. It would be a different story, I'm sure, if she was entering a car in a NASCAR speedway race.
Is this all relevant? Is it fair game to point out the man's deficiencies? My own feeling is that it all goes to character, and that Romney has some serious gaps to bridge to demonstrate his qualifications for the Oval Office.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)