Filed under: CONLEEZA'S SPEECH, THE GOP CONVENTION 2012: SUMMING UP: SCHISMS REVEALED: POLITICS OF POLARITY CONFIRMED.
The GOP convention ended with a whimper not a bang. Mitt Romney was the last speaker and his speech was vague and full of meaningless slogans. Toward the end it turned jingoistic with veiled threats to Iran and Russia.
Nowhere in his speech were the nuts and bolts of specific steps he would take to achieve the broad policies he spoke about. Mainly improve the economy by cutting spending, cutting taxes and to take a stronger stance against perceived foreign enemies. Internally on a social basis we know he is against gay marriage, abortion, and other issues like gun control and for reduction of Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare. However he has flip flopped on these issues depending on whom the audience was and where he was speaking.
We know that his Vice Presidential nominee has taken positions on these issues quite different from his apparent stands. This was not reconciled nor was the party platform stance on these issues which are quite different from his reconciled at the Convention. This leaves vast schisms in the party yet to be healed. For instance the platform makes no distinction between abortion for incest or forcible rape. Would that be a no legal abortion situation? Will he follow the party platform, Paul Ryan’s stance or his own statements made from time to time that there would be an exception for those situations.
Ryan says he will save Medicare from The Affordable Health Care Act which he contends will take over 700 billion from Medicare. (Seniors would get the same care under the AHCA so this is another false issue). Yet he is on record as stating that he is in favor of a limited voucher system for seniors on Medicare. This means apparently they would buy health care through a private plan. Independent analysts estimate that it would cost an additional $6400 per year for a senior to obtain the same benefits they are now getting. The average Medicare recipient is on a yearly income of $22,000 dollars. Obviously this is not a solution but a ruse to end Medicare in order to lower taxes on the wealthy. If it is such a great idea why doesn’t he try it out on Congress before he takes it to all seniors to see how they like it? Of course the answer is obvious; the Congressional health plan is so far superior to Medicare as it is presently constituted or Ryan’s voucher plan he would be laughed off the floor when he proposed it. But the fact remains what’s good for seniors ought to be good for Congress.
Ryan’s emotional speech had many misstatements of fact like the innuendo that he was a working class kid who pulled himself up by the bootstraps. In fact he is the beneficiary of a trust based on the giant Ryan Construction company set up by his grandfather. He was a Congressman at 22 that dosen’t happen to a poor working class kid. He is worth many millions of dollars as is his wife who inherited $5 million. Both are lawyers. He is not mega rich like Romney but at least Romney made it himself.
Another misstatement, if it was a misstatement, was that somehow President Obama was responsible for the closing of the Janesville GM plant. Records show that this plant was destined for closure under President Bush and while Ryan was the Congressman for the Janesville district. If anyone bears responsibility it is Bush and himself. When President Obama took office he fought for policies that came too late for the Janesville plant but saved much of the entire United States Auto Industry including G.M.
Ryan’s speech was full of misstatements like he came up the hard way, Obama was responsible for The Janesville plant closing or the biggest one of all: he and Romney would fix Medicare with vouchers.
THE CONVENTION WAS A TRIBUTE TO THE POLITICS OF POLARITY
The convention was merely a meeting of the radical wing of the Republican Party to introduce up and coming radicals and to announce a foregone conclusion that Romney and Ryan would be the nominees.
The policies that would be followed are the same ones that George W. Bush followed: cut taxes on the wealthy by reducing government, limit government regulation, engage in fruitless foreign wars as a method to increase unfunded defense spending and in general starve government by creating huge deficets.
HISTORICAL ECONOMISTS SAY STUDIES SHOW IT TAKES SIX YEARS TO RECOVER FROM A FINANCIAL RECESSION.
Bush’s policies led to the current financial crisis which competent economic historians estimate will require at least 6 years for the country to recover from. This is based on research on financial crisis over hundreds of years where there are reliable records. This appears to be correct in the current case since the mortgage crisis which precipitated the problem still has over a million mortgages a year adjusting to new rates that drive the underwater mortgagees into foreclosure. Five years from 2008, the period when most mortgages will stop readjusting, is 2013 thus that is when we will see a general economic recovery and when new construction activity comes back. Construction activity is one of the main drivers of the economy.
Thus the convention was a confirmation of the GOP politics of the past and sharp political polarity. Polarity even within even in the GOP. This reminds one of Lincoln’s famous quote taken from the bible: “A house divided against itself cannot stand, Mark 3:25.”
THE ROMNEY-RYAN TICKET, FURTHER RIGHT THAN THE MAJORITY OF VOTERS. WHAT IS THE STATEGY? PROTECTION OF WEALTH.
Filed under: Mitt Romney, MITT ROMNEY: HOW DIFFERENT WOULD HE BE FROM GEORGE W.BUSH? ROMNEY WOULD BE BUSH III. Romney Has No Personal Record OF Achievement To Run On So He H.as To Attack Obama., Paul Ryan, Romney Ryan Stategy, Romney Taxes, Significance For The Presidential Race in 2012, Wealth Protection
THE BIG LAUGH
What motivation did Mitt Romney have to pick Paul Ryan as his Vice Presidential running mate? After a bruising primary where all his opponents were to the right of him Romney managed to win out because he was better organized and had more campaign money at his disposal to overwhelm his opponents trying to run on grassroots appeal to the far right. Then he picks one of the more conservative members of Congress who brings with him his own draconian budget proposal and is on record as being against abortion, contraception, Medicare, affordable healthcare, social security and most other social programs to help the poor, unemployed, disabled or old. He has voted against the dream act so the undocumented, mostly Hispanic, young adults who were raised in this country when their parents brought them here, mostly at a young age, have to face the prospect of being deported to a strange country and culture by now foreign to them. President Obama has given them a provisional remedy but it can reversed by if he is not reelected.
What is the strategy? By nominating Ryan Romney is alienating older voters dependent on Social Security and Medicare for survival, women who wish to control their own bodies and Hispanics who would like to see protection for un documented children who have been living here 15 to 20 years and are thoroughly American in all ways except citizenship. Didn’t Romney’s forbears forsake the U.S. for Mexico where they could practice polygamy without interference? He still has uncles and cousins in Mexico. He might be in the same situation if his father hadn’t chosen to come back to the U.S. earlier.
By moving to the right did he hope to solidify the base. Who were they going to vote for if they didn’t vote him? Paul a fringe candidate who has no chance of winning? Romney should have chosen a more centrist Republican to run with him perhaps a woman that way he would have been perceived as moderate republican no matter how he secretly intends to govern. Probably he will govern as the polls tell him.
Withholding his tax returns is dumb unless he has committed a felony which is unlikely as the IRS would already has discerned that. Probably as a result as the downturn in 2008 and after he has capital gains losses that lowered his tax rate perhaps to zero. However he should meet the challenge head on and say I made the money and I have a duty to protect my wealth for myself, my family and my descendants. Therefore my advisors said I was legally entitled to pay at the rate that I did.
That’s what the Republicans are all about anyway, protection of their earned or inherited wealth even if it means some children will starve or that the uninsured or elderly will perish without adequate health care or social programs that will ease poverty and the consequences of old age.