To the list of one-issue voters (e.g., supporters of Israel, pro-choice or anti-abortion champions, environmental advocates), David Brooks of The NY Times wants to add another—Medicare cost containers. He wants you to cast a vote for the candidate who “can slow the explosion of entitlement spending (Medicare) so we can devote more resources toward our future.” He reluctantly, it seemed to me, believes it would be Mitt Romney, unless Barack Obama can come up with a credible alternative plan (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/opinion/brooks-guide-for-the-perplexed.html?_r=1&hp).
I applaud his willingness to cross party lines in the latter case, but regret his narrow-minded argument. Though it’s true spending on Medicare (Medicaid and Social Security, as well) must be contained, Republican budgets with their no-new-taxes foundation fail to balance for at least 10 years, during which time Romney-Ryan and their acolytes will have gutted all investment in our future—investments in education, in infrastructure, in the arts, in parks and recreation, in support for the disadvantaged, in women’s health, in the environment. In short, in everything but the military (perhaps they realize they’ll need a strong armed forces not to defend us from outside attack but from a revolt from within. Just kidding, I hope.)
Simply put, a vote for Romney-Ryan is a vote into the past, a vote to solidify the polarization of our society economically, socially and educationally, though not politically, as that has already been achieved (a rather ignominious, but nevertheless accurate, descriptor).
Obama is not the perfect candidate, but at least he plausibly addresses our needs for the future. By focusing just on Medicare, Brooks fails to see the dangers lurking in a Romney presidency. He’s like the Naderites who cast an absurd ballot for Ralph Nader in 2000, thereby condemning the country to the tragedy of George W. Bush, whose mess Obama has had to clean up, with no assistance from Bush’s Republican mates.
The headline of Brooks’ column was “Guide for the Perplexed.” What is perplexing is how a normally astute and reasoned commentator could be so narrow-focused when Medicare is but one challenge facing the country.
Akin for More: Speaking of one challenge, it’s easy to focus on and deplore Todd Akin’s misguided and ill-informed views of rape, women and their reproductive systems. It’s easy to dismiss them as an aberration, not just by Akin but also by any other Republican who shares those ideas.
The true measure of Akin and the problem or benefit Republicans have being associated with him, depending on one’s political point of view, is his advocacy of other extreme positions including, according to Sean Sullivan of The Washington Post, an end to federal support for the National School Lunch Program, his comparing federal student loans to stage 3 cancer, and his belief that civil rights should be re-litigated.
Akin is a deeply religious man. That appeals to many Missouri voters. But his reactionary positions on social welfare issues, not just abortion, demonstrate he has very little compassion for his fellow man, woman or child.
Money Votes: Campaign finance is one of the big stories this election season, what with all the “soft” money going into funds, especially conservative leaning ones, that do not have to disclose their donors. Coupled with Romney out-muscling Obama for the third month in a row in raking in millions of dollars in disclosed campaign contributions, the GOP looks like it is winning the vote among those willing to put their money on the line.
But for those who missed an intriguing story in Tuesday’s NY Times, here’s a different read of the political winds. Under the headline, “Investors in Health Care Seem to Bet on Incumbent,” the article revealed how companies with a stake in the future of Obamacare have made acquisitions based on their belief the president would be re-elected
