Recommence circular firing squad

So today Reince Priebus released the report on post-mortem on how the GOP lost the 2012 election. I thought it was a surprisingly realistic first step for the GOP, who haven't been exactly clear on the objective world for the past two years.

Some ideas I agree with:

• Don't piss off women so much. They're not just vessels for babies... now that they have the vote.. and jobs.. and that damned independent streak. They have less time for news (due to tons of other responsibilities), but word does get around if a party doesn't care whether women get contraception or not. Lots of women pay attention to that.
• Be welcoming to minorities. This will be harder because the GOP is the epitome of a white men's country club. Sure, there's room for a few more tokens to get up on stage and milk the party for support. But how many minorities are eager to sign up after watching the disrespect leveled at Obama and Holder and Sotomayor. Even white males who step out of bounds are hunted down like (as) RINOs. This is not a tolerant party. Good luck on winning skittish minority voters.
• Pass immigration reform. This could be a no-win situation for the GOP. Latinos aren't voting for Republicans in large numbers because the GOP are nasty to immigrants, who are largely Latino. But if there's a path to citizenship, that will mean more lower-wage and minority voters, who tend to vote Democratic. Tough dilemma--do you take the risk and try to turn it around? Or do you hold tight to principles and circle the drain?
• Shorter primary with fewer debates. Those debates did show the country a lot, including that audiences could be stacked, or they may be just a bunch of random yahoos. But it certainly was a pander-fest. A shorter campaign would help a little, but the bigger problem is pandering to the shrill conservative media. I don't think there were many suggestions about that.

The response from parts of the conservative spectrum were much uglier than my reaction. Limbaugh says "I’m sorry, but we’re not disrespectful to anybody." HAHAHAHA. Rush is personally disrespectful to the vast majority of humanity, so let's just say that he's so acclimated to disrespect that he doesn't smell it anymore.

It looks to me as though Priebus's outreach to the Ron Paul liberty wing is falling flat. You really need to read the hair-raising comments here. They include throwing someone under a lawnmower, stabbings, kissing back sides, and a few Jew comments too. But definitely, there is no way the Paul wing is going support fewer caucuses, another Priebus proposal. The base at HotAir isn't happy either, with the general sentiment being that it's another way for the establishment to muzzle the base.

I won't tell the GOP what to do. They aren't my party, and I've learned from experience that you can't manage anyone else's life from the outside. I hope they make decisions that are beneficial for them and for the country as a whole, whatever those decisions will be. So, best of luck, GOP. Try not to screw it up.

How the hell do I fix this?

Image: go.bloomberg.com

Extras. An insider at The Weekly Standard has written a moderate-length analysis of the GOP problem with a suggested, but unlikely, solution. A shorter version here to whet your interest.

The HotAir bloggers support the gist of the post-mortem. The commenters want to hang the traitors to GOP principles.

Erick Erickson at RedState: 'Meh. It just wasn't our year.' This response confuses me because it's completely anti-analytical.

No specifics again! Obama's turn

You might think that this will be another screed about Romney's vagueness. Well, not this time for a refreshing change. The culprit for this post is President Obama. Specifically, this line during the Oct. 22 debate:

"First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it's something that Congress proposed. It will not happen."

Whoa. If the sequester will not happen, what will?

That's a huge statement with no clarification of what he means by it. And Obama seems to have gotten away with it... as he should considering the precedent set by Romney and his definitive statements about the deficit and cutting government by attrition during the first debate. Romney was been getting away with not explaining these claims and for the lack of detail his tax plan and his economic growth plan. So it's only fair that Obama gets a pass on his sequester claim.

How will Obama keep the sequester from happening? Well, duh, they'll start negotiating right after the election, of course! The talks are obviously not going to start before the election. Obama could add that they'll also start negotiating the changes to the Bush tax cuts after the election too.

Do I need Obama to be anymore specific than that? Not really. By now I generally know his bargaining position. Getting too detailed could cost him some votes that he'll need, and Lord knows neither candidate is going to blow those votes at this point. Not Romney, not Obama. This doesn't make them equivalent in their vagueness, but it levels the playing field a bit.

 Image: washingtonpost.com

Prediction: Just the horse race now

The shape of the rest of the presidential campaign is now set. There will be no more surprises or major surges. At this point, it's just a matter of sucking up the few remaining persuadables and getting out the vote. I don't even think there will be a major gaffe. The candidates are too cautious and seasoned for that.

No-Hope Debate

Some may hope for a game-changer, perhaps at the final debate tomorrow. I doubt it. The debate is supposed to focus on foreign policy. Both candidates will project caution and credibility, so each will have a difficult time discrediting the other. Nothing in those complex, subtle issues will move the needle for the electorate. 

The Electoral Map

Since the campaign issues are now fully revealed and explored, the only variables are how the electorate is digesting the info. According to Nate Silver, Obama is favored about 2 to 1. Looking at Silver's blog and Real Clear Politics, that's believable. Both need either Ohio or a miracle, and Obama is ahead in Ohio by 2.1%. Silver puts Obama's chance of winning Ohio at 70%.

Even if Obama loses Ohio, he can still win if he holds onto Colorado, Iowa, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire. If Romney loses Ohio, he has to win those four states in which Obama now leads. That's quite a stretch. (To play with possible outcomes, I recommend this LA Times webpage.)

Another Lost Opportunity

I have to report that this outcome is disappointmenting to me. Neither politician has believably addressed the most important fiscal issues, which are reforming the tax system and government spending. Nor have they pushed the electorate to a clear understanding of the national challenges. The country seems as dumb and divided as before. Sigh.

Oh well, so there hasn't been the plain talk I'd like to see. That would be too dangerous a strategy for a presidential campaign.

The racecourse: High in the center and round at both ends

Image: facebook somewhere

What's good about the new Romney

As Romney surged in the polls, I focused on the problems with him. That's unbalanced and unfair, so this post is a corrective. (I have noted some pluses along with the criticism.)

Romney's debate performance definitely resonated with some non-aligned voters. Here's what I think worked for him:

• Not dogmatic that tax cuts will bring on growth. Lowering taxes wasn't a focus at all, but it could be a byproduct of a growing economy. The focus is growing the economy, but not through government spending, which also grows the deficit.
• Acknowedging that some of the goals of Obamacare were important, such as health coverage for people with pre-existing conditions.
• The sense that he wants to trim government down, both the spending and the regulation, but in well-considered ways. He's not ideologically opposed to either government or regulation, but it has to be practical and helpful, not massive and suffocating.
• Staying clear of that culture wars stuff about people being on the plantation, declining morality, no one taking responsibility anymore.

 He planned it this way?

Another big question is whether Romney's surge was due to incredible luck or incredible strategy. He was certainly lucky that Obama was wooden in the debate, but Romney deserves credit for throwing Obama off-balance. That was brilliant.

Despite his shift in emphasis to more moderate stands, Romney hasn't lost support from the conservative media. That was a real hat-trick, because they've been leery of him for the entire campaign. Here is an analysis of Romney's timing from a thoughtful, observant conservative:

So why didn’t Romney shake his Etch-a-sketch, or make his “pivot” to the center, earlier in the campaign? The answer is that after many months of being viewed with suspicion by primary voters, he couldn’t afford to depress Republican enthusiasm in what was shaping up to be a base election.

If Romney had attempted a “Sister Souljah” moment during the summer, conservatives would have bludgeoned him for months leading up to the election. If he had done it at the Republican National Convention, he would have turned off party loyalists at the precise moment they were paying closest attention.

Now Romney is subtly signaling he’s not an ideologue at a time when even conservatives fear he could lose. And when it helped him win the first debate, the right was happier about his strong performance than they were concerned about any coming betrayals. It may be risky, but Romney didn’t have many choices.

The author sees what Romney's doing and still isn't angry at him. Frankly, that's a realistic view because at this point, it's Romney or another four years of Obama. That's a no-brainer for anyone who's close to being a conservative. But we also know that many political decisions are emotional, rather than logical. Has Romney managed to win the conservative hearts? That would be amazing.

Image: copy of a copy

P.S. Have you noticed how I'm not writing about Obama at all? It's all Romney all the time. The major reason is that the media coverage is as superficial as ever--still no policy analysis. Sigh.

Lying his way to the White House

I'm amazed that Romney is so close to winning the election in 3.5 weeks. The turning point was the first debate, and the change was more due to a strong Romney performance. To many liberals, Romney is getting too damn close to a huge win for a huge liar.

Romney of the debates

To conservatives, debate was vindication that Romney could do what Reagan did in 1980. In that debate, also against a sitting president, Reagan showed that he wasn't a warmongering, jingoistic John Birch type, and he went on a landslide election.

Romney's performance isn't a sure repeat of 1980, but he made a hell of a lot of progress in that direction. Romney the debater said President Romney wouldn't raise the deficit through tax cuts--definitely not, not 'maybe not.' He would not be a slash-and-burn president on the federal government, unlike the terrifying impression most Tea Party adherents have projected. This reassuring performance, more than Obama's lackluster one, helped Romney in the polls.

Romney of CPAC

The debate probably wouldn't have salvaged Romney's campaign if he had delivered these talking points from his CPAC 2012 speech:

[In Massachusetts] if there was a program, an agency, or a department that needed cutting, we cut it.  In fact, a commentator once said that I didn’t just go after the sacred cows, I went after the whole herd.  And I can’t wait to get my hands on Washington... I will dramatically reduce the size of the federal workforce.  

In their current form, Social Security and Medicare are unsustainable... When it comes to Medicare, tomorrow's seniors should have the freedom to choose between traditional Medicare and a range of private plans. If these future seniors choose a more expensive plan, they would bear the additional cost.

Mine will be a pro-life presidency. I will ensure that organizations like Planned Parenthood get no federal support... I fought for abstinence education in our public schools.

I pushed for a stay of the [same-sex marriage] decision, fought for a marriage amendment to our constitution... On my watch, we fought hard and prevented Massachusetts from becoming the Las Vegas of gay marriage. When I am President... I will fight for a federal amendment defining marriage as a relationship between one man and one woman.

There are those who say you can’t talk straight to the American people on these key issues and still win an election. I say we can, we must, and I will!

So the Romney of the debate was not the Romney of CPAC 2012. Well, that's no surprise, because that speech was delivered during a hard-fought primary against more conservative contenders. Does this mean that Romney is the biggest liar who might end up as president?

May the best one win

I'm not going to judge who's the biggest liar because it's always a matter of degree of falsehood, something for which we don't have a scientific measure. Most people blast the lies of the other side, and give their side a pass. You aren't impartial either, so don't trust yourself to judge who is the worse liar. I will, however, point out what Romney said and didn't say.

I notice one interesting parallel. I wonder if Obama won the Democratic nomination in 2008 because he was a better liar than Hillary. How ironic if Obama now loses to Romney because Romney can shift his positions more suavely than Obama can.

Perhaps this is our pattern for the future--our president will be the person who is most adept at obscuring what they've done and what they plan to do while pleasingly speaking lovely words. But that's nothing new. "He lied his way to office" is something we hear every presidential election. This year may be a change in degree or brazenness, or it may be more of the same. Presidential campaigns aren't for the scrupulously honest.

Image: eclectablog.com

Extras.
Peggy Noonan's useless advice to Romney: "Be serious and fight." A real conservative reveals Romney's CPAC lies.

Romney shuns the right flank of his party?

Romney was sounding like a level-headed moderate in the debate last week. His conservative supporters, far from panicking, rejoiced, though more over his strength and steadiness than over the content of what he said. Let's just review a few things he said:

• On individual income taxes: "We ought to bring the tax rates down... But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions, so that we keep taking in the same money..."
• On taxes for high-income folks: "But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy."
• On tax cuts and the deficit: "My number-one principle is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit."
• On cutting government workers: "'ll make government more efficient and to cut back the number of employees, combine some agencies and departments. My cutbacks will be done through attrition, by the way."
• On education funding: "All right, I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and -- and grants that go to people going to college."
• On the spending cuts he'd make: Obamacare and PBS and programs such as Medicaid "that are currently good programs but I think could be run more efficiently at the state level." Medicaid is the only such program that he mentioned, but it's big.

Consider the conservative orthodoxies that he didn't talk about:

• The 20% tax rate reduction that is still on his campaign website.
• Tax reduction on "job-creators."
• Lower deficits than Obama's been running.
• Cutting off all funding of Planned Parenthood.
• Cutting as many lazy, overpaid federal bureaucrats as possible.
• Outlawing abortion.

These orthodoxies he did affirm:

• Strengthen the military.
• No tax increases.
• Repeal Obamacare.
• Obama doesn't know how to turn around the economy.
• Taking $716 billion from Medicare was horrible.

Romney the moderate?

If Romney is able to turn around his campaign on this platform, he won't owe very much to the right flank of his party since he will have won based on a much more moderate version of GOP conservatism.

That doesn't mean that the GOP right flank will acknowledge this change or the debt that they would owe the more moderate Romney should he win. It also doesn't mean that Romney will govern this way once in office. Bush, "the compassionate conservative" changed almost immediately. Obama couldn't or didn't enforce the transparency and bipartisanship he promised.

Romney's change in tone during the debate doesn't guarantee anything. The only real change is a change in possibility-- Romney has shown that moderation has some power to influence opinion. Actual governing is much trickier, as every president finds out.

Romney 5.0: No longer the severe conservative

Image: washingtontimes.com

Just to be clear, I used to think Romney was a moderate, but not after the entire primary season and this summer. I am thoroughly disabused of that thought. He's no moderate by ideals, but he plays one when it's opportune.

Debate 1 reaction

So I made myself watch the entire debate. It wasn't as painful as I was expecting because 1) I was forewarned, 2) I'm well aware of the weaknesses of both candidates, so I'm not surprised to see them.

Romney did the better job covering over his weaknesses during the debate, but he's positioned himself for a lot of uncomfortable followup questions. Obama just needs to sharpen his message and shorten his answers. He also needs to practice with someone other than John Kerry (Mr. Long-Winded Answers). I'm not sure who would be a good stand-in for the short, snappy, but polite answers that Romney gave. No Democrat comes to mind, and that's a sad commentary on the Dems.

Summary

Here is my overall impression of the debate:

• Romney was strong on the attack, but purposefully vague about his own plans.
• Obama was moderately good in his defense. Unfortunately, he let his points get lost in too much detail.

Neither is talking specifically about what they would do if elected because this has pitfalls for both. Neither can definitely deliver what the electorate would like to hear--a low-pain transition to fiscal health. So they each hide the respective pain they'd inflict. Since they're both vulnerable, neither is attacking future plans as forcefully as they should be.

Their Weaknesses

Romney is declaring that he won't increase the deficit. He's not even claiming he'll lower the deficit, as a good fiscal conservative should, but only that he won't be worse than Obama on this score.

Yet he has to be vague because he did promise to cut tax rates by 20%, and he'll need to offset that by removing deductions. It looks to me as though his tax rate cut is no longer a promise, and he can probably be nailed on that. However, once he admits it, then the funny math stops being a disadvantage to him, unless of course it costs him the GOP base.

Romney has similar problems with healthcare for people who aren't covered by employers and the future of Medicare. The solutions he proposed in the primaries don't really hold water in the general. He has no answer for the uninsured, and his Medicare proposal is a voucher program that throws seniors into a tough marketplace.

Obama is mealy-mouthed about spending restraint generally. He states that he wants government to help give people opportunities, and most of us know that translates into lots of programs that suck up revenue. He doesn't sound like he's really committed to fiscal restraint.

He overreached in accusing Romney of supporting a $5 trillion dollar tax cut. He could have scored on some very pointed criticism, but now Romney has him sounding like a liar. Obama might have thrown away a big advantage there, but I hope not, because it's a strong, valid point.

Neither candidate had a strong closing statement. Obama was scattered. Romney basically said that another four years of Obama will be awful, but he (Romney) won't be awful. That didn't resonate with the audience (or CNN's focus group), and it's hardly a positive argument for electing him.

Their Strengths

Romney was detailed about what he wanted to do with Medicaid--block grant with 1% increase per year, and give the states the freedom to develop their own programs and priorities. This sounds a lot like what happened with welfare reform, which was successful in turning a huge ongoing headache into a more respectable social program. Notably, it was the only issue where Romney was specific about what he would do.

Romney is making sure he doesn't sound like a heartless robber baron who'll slash education, Medicare, Medicaid, and most government departments. He's back to saying, as he did last fall before the primary heated up, that he'll shrink the government by attrition of government workers, not by sheaths of pink slips.

Overall, Romney sounds like someone who sensibly sees that government has grown too large, and he doesn't want to grow it anymore. Instead, he wants to slim it down gently. This is a good contrast to Obama, who is still building it up.

In Obama's $90 billion for green jobs, Romney has found a great, multi-purposed stick to bash Obama with. Obama wants to spend more on teachers- bam, that $90 billion would pay for a lot of teachers. Want to close a $2 billion loophole for oil companies, bam, you spent 50 years of that money on green jobs.

Obama's strengths are in his explanation of Obamacare and restraint on Medicare spending. His critique about throwing seniors into a nasty healthcare insurance market with only vouchers rang true over and over. Romney had to keep saying that it wouldn't affect today's seniors (but damnation for the rest).

What They Won't Talk About

Neither candidate talked about the sequester, or the "fiscal cliff"--the combination of the sequester and the expiration of tax cuts. This is the hard stuff, the actual cuts, and neither candidate will touch it. Neither is offering even smaller deficits, even though deficits are still running over $1 trillion per year. There are no medals for courage awarded here.

Neither talked much about what they'd do about the Bush tax cuts, even to attack the other. Only one mention of these tax cuts -- amazing. This must be where both are extremely vulnerable, so neither will make it an issue. The moderator should have put them on the spot.

Romney continues to use Simpson-Bowles as another club with which to beat Obama. However, he doesn't embrace S-B. He pretends that he likes it, only he's got a better version. Considering how well I know Simpson-Bowles, I can declare that this is hogwash, otherwise known as craven, corrupt lying on Romney's part. However, I'm happy that Simpson-Bowles continues to be a touchstone. It doesn't die because it's a great plan.

Take-away

I notice that there isn't a lot of video circulating from this debate. There was no knock-out moment. Romney looks like a stronger opponent, but the same weaknesses are still there. Obama will be able to reverse this setback, and Romney has very little he can capitalize on. Romney may have won the debate on style, but it's not a lasting or substantial victory.

That's either Jim Lehrer or the truth.

Image: politicalhumor.about.com

Transcript here.