What I Heard Last Night

If one of the talking points Mitt Romney has about Barack Obama is that his presidency has disappointed us, I must say the Mittster’s nomination acceptance speech last night at the Republican National Convention did not differentiate him from the incumbent. I was not blown away by his rhetoric, his message or by his delivery. And, for sure, I was not provided an inkling as to how he would achieve his five point goals. Yes, they were lofty. But without specifics, it’s like my saying I would like a body as trim and buff as Paul Ryan’s. Unless I’m specifically willing to devote time to the exercise regimen Ryan endures each morning, it’s just not happening. 

You might already have read analyses about the speech, so I’ll try  to keep my take to a minimum of what I jotted down as Romney was smiling that awkward smile of his as he soaked up the love, if not the respect, of the conventioneers, who, honestly, seemed less enthusiastic than those I’ve seen at other party gatherings. 

First, I couldn’t believe Mitt said, “If you ask Ann and I...” I’m picky about grammar. The correct phrase is, “If you ask Ann and me ...”, “me” being the object of the verb “ask.” “I” cannot be the object of a verb. I suppose Romney might want to reconsider any suggestion to downgrade or eliminate the Department of Education.

Second, Romney said Republicans “united” behind Obama when he assumed office. What distant Bizarro world has he lived in since January 20, 2009? The only union Republicans made was with themselves in their effort to, in Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s words, make Obama a one-term president.

Third, Romney soft-pedaled the troubles Obama inherited from George Bush. He barely acknowledged Bush’s legacy—two wars, a failed economy, a rising deficit.

Fourth, he suggested the best feeling Americans had for Obama “was the day you voted for him,” ignoring the euphoria we all felt when we heard Osama bin Laden had been killed, on orders from a Democratic president.

Fifth, saying that Obama’s lack of business experience made him unqualified to be president, especially compared to his business background, Romney ignored the fact that some of our greatest or most important presidents were similarly inexperienced (FDR, JFK, Nixon, Reagan, Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt) or were failures in business (Truman, Lincoln, Jefferson).  

Sixth, Romney criticized Obama’s attacks on his record at Bain Capital, saying the president didn’t understand not every business succeeds. Fair enough. I would expect then, Romney would drop any future references to Solyndra, the solar energy company that received a $500 million federal investment but wound up filing for bankruptcy a year ago tomorrow. As Romney said, not every company succeeds.

Seventh, “As president, I’ll protect the sanctity of life,” Romney said to wild cheering. But what did he mean by that? Would he continue to defend a woman’s right to an abortion in cases of rape, incest or risk to her life? Would he work to outlaw contraception, as his running mate Ryan advocates? Would he support legislation to criminalize women and their doctors for abortions? Would he support legislation to extend rights to the unborn, from the moment of conception? Would he reject embryonic stem cell research? Would he reject federal funding for Planned Parenthood?  

Eighth, Mocking Obama’s promise “to slow the rise of the oceans and to heal the planet,” Romney said, “My promise is to help you and your family.”  His promise is a good one, but in denigrating Obama’s, he projects his disdain for the realities of climate change and pollution. It is indisputable sea levels are rising, that the world’s air and water are getting dirtier. To ignore the long-term implications is evidence Romney is living in a dream world of the 1950s.

Ninth, Romney resurrected Reagan’s question as to whether we are better off today than four years ago. To someone currently unemployed or in danger of losing their home, the answer is obvious. But let’s look at the trends. Unemployment is slightly higher, 8.3% compared to 7.6% when Obama took the oath of office. But the trendline points down and would be lower if not for the massive layoffs of state and local government workers. Job creation is up. The Dow Jones Industrial Index was 8,281 the morning of January 20, 2009. NASDAQ was 1,529. The S&P 500 was 850. This morning they were, respectively, 13,000; 3,049; and 1,399. Gas prices are almost double what they were, despite the highest level of U.S. oil production. Housing prices seem to be creeping back up, but too many homes remain under water (and I’m not referring to Hurricane Isaac). 

To sum up, economic statistics and trends can support Obama or Romney, which is why so many pundits believe Romney must make himself more likable, and Obama less likable, for the GOP to retake the Oval Office. Which brings up a most interesting question NBC’s Brian Williams asked Tom Brokaw last night—why is it that after six years of running for the presidency, Mitt Romney remains an unknown to much of the electorate? Brokaw didn’t have an answer.

An example of how much of a blank slate Romney is could be observed in the weird Clint Eastwood segment of last night’s convention. Eastwood said he never thought it was a good idea for an attorney to be president, an obvious reference to Obama’s Harvard Law School degree. The crowd laughed and cheered. I guess Eastwood and his live audience didn’t read Romney’s resume—he, too, is a Harvard Law School graduate, class of 1975. 

Chinese Fortune: Jon Huntsman Jr., the former governor or Utah and ex-Ambassador to China, was asked by Stephen Colbert to say in Mandarin what he really thinks of Romney. Here’s a translation: "All right!  Let me put it this way.  I think that two months from now Governor Romney will have a lot of success."

But as Nathan pointed out on http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=4158, “Unfortunately for Romney, the election's slightly more than two months away.”

Foreign Language: Finally, here’s another example of dumbness on the airwaves. Stephen A. Smith, an ESPN talk-radio host, said yesterday he would gladly learn Spanish if he knew he would be sent to Brazil to cover the 2016 Summer Olympics. His co-host, producer or anyone else listening in didn’t tell him Spanish would do him little good in Rio de Janeiro as Brazilians speak Portuguese. 

Sanitizing Santorum

I'm getting tired of always hearing about Rick Santorum’s humble background, that his grandfather was a coal miner, so he can easily identify with working class voters.

Why is it never brought out that his father was a clinical psychologist and his mother a nurse? (Both worked for Veterans Administration hospitals.) D’ya think it's because coming from educated, decently well-off parents might shatter Rick’s working stiff image?

Pundits were quick to point out Santorum has three higher education degrees and his older children attend college, even as he mocked President Obama for advocating post-high school education or training for everyone. But I’ve yet to hear anyone talk about his parents.

Santorum’s choice to ignore for the most part his parents’ background in favor of his grandfather’s is just the latest Republican camouflage of not so presidential behavior. Ron Paul disavowed bigoted newsletters that went out under his name for years. Newt Gingrich twice cheated on wives, even as he now professes to be religious and a faithful defender of marriage.

Santorum and his wife of 21 years, Karen Garver, are hyped as a model couple, with seven living children, all home schooled. But imagine, if you will, what Republicans would say about Michelle Obama if she had had an affair with a doctor 40 years her senior. And not just any doctor. This physician not only was the obstetrician who delivered Karen as a baby but also, during their six year relationship, was an abortion provider. GOP leaders and pundits would be excoriating Michelle if this had been her. But nary a word is said about Karen Garver’s years-long flirtation with Dr. Tom Allen of Pittsburgh.

Aside from policy, politics is an industry built on image. Newt may truly have loved each wife during her time with him, but his callousness in tossing them aside underscored his political treachery when he was a leader of the House Republicans. He gave his word to support a tax increase compromise under George Bush 1, then reneged on the deal when it came up for a vote. Ron Paul can’t say he was unaware of the newsletters, that they went out just once. His failure to stop their continued distribution spotlights his latent, true feelings. Santorum, and his wife, can claim to be straight-arrow Catholics. But let’s not be ready to superimpose their values on the rest of society.

A Blink Before Brinkmanship Returns

Now that House Republicans have blinked and joined their Senate counterparts in recognizing politics as the art of compromise, 160 million Americans can enjoy two more months of lower payroll taxes, while the unemployed can breathe easier for another eight weeks with jobless benefits before brinkmanship returns to the nation’s capital in the form of another exasperating debate on fiscal policy.

Try as I might to avoid political commentary, it’s virtually impossible. So here goes...

During his tenure representing the state of Wyoming in the U.S. Senate (1979-1997), Alan Simpson was not on my list of favorite senators. The tall, craggy 80-year-old conservative Republican could be quite charming, folksy and jocular, but his politics was clearly way to the right for my tastes.

Simpson, however, by his own admission on the Brian Lehrer Show on NPR Wednesday, would find it impossible to get a Republican nomination today as he’s an advocate of personal privacy, which means he supports gay rights and abortion rights. As co-chairman with Erskine Bowles of the Deficit Reduction Commission, he also acknowledged the need to raise more revenue through new or higher taxes, heresy among Tea Party members and the Republican faithful who have lined up like lemmings behind them.

Switching over to the EIB (Excellence in Broadcasting) Network to listen to some conservative talk show “wisdom,” I was disappointed Rush Limbaugh was on vacation. But his substitute, Mark Davis of WBAP in Dallas, didn’t fail to deliver more grist to the mill. He praised, for example, Republican members of the supercommittee charged with working out a deal on the budget for sticking to their guns. In other words, for not compromising. It was another unfortunate example of standing on principle at all costs, even if it meant the government might shut down, the public would be hurt and trust in elected officials to effectively govern and legislate decreased.

Davis also debunked the argument that conservatives are racist. His proof—they went “ga-ga” over Herman Cain and their favorite Supreme Court justice would be Clarence Thomas. At the same time he decried Attorney General Eric Holder for playing the race card to explain why he and Barack Obama are viciously attacked. It’s just policy differences that bring on the attacks, he said.

My need for some Rush was somewhat sated by a commercial featuring his mellifluous voice. He was pitching membership in the Heritage Foundation, a think tank dedicated, he said, to personal liberties. I wonder, though. What’s more personal than choosing your sexual orientation, or choosing whether to carry a pregnancy to full term? Not sure, but I would guess Alan Simpson would have a hard time being a member of this right-wing organization.

Simpson also had some interesting thoughts on Newt Gingrich and why so many Republican leaders have trouble supporting his candidacy for president. Seems that when Newt was Speaker of the House he agreed during a private meeting with President George Bush the First to a plan to buttress the economy that included a tax hike. Bush reluctantly agreed despite his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. But when it came time to vote, Gingrich publicly repudiated the agreement. He is untrustworthy, not a man of his word, said Simpson. Not surprising, therefore, that Bush 1 yesterday endorsed Mitt Romney.

Of course, Republicans aren’t the only ones dishing out disappointment this holiday season. Obama has indicated he would sign a bill permitting indefinite detention for not only foreign nationals but also for American citizens thought to be supporters of terrorism. Incarceration without trial could last as long as hostilities remain active. Since there’s no foreseeable end to terrorism, even after Osama bin Laden was killed, anyone detained could languish in prison forever. Obama has been as bad for civil liberties as Bush 2.

Big Government Enablers

It is commonplace to read America has a tradition of limited government versus the European-style social-welfare state. Republicans aggressively preach this aphorism, contending if we only let well enough alone our capitalist economy would provide for all, with no need for Big Government.

It sounds so inviting. In the wake of Congressman Paul Ryan’s (R-Wis) template for refashioning our national budget it might be instructive to take a historical look at the true enablers of Big Government. To put it bluntly, they are the Republican Party and Big Business.

Would we have the FTC if the Robber Barons of the late 19th and early 20th centuries not been so selfish and destructive of all competition?

Would we have a FDA if slaughterhouses and other food processing plants been more health and safety conscious, if drug makers could be counted on to sell only legitimate, safe pharmaceuticals?

Would OSHA been organized if mine companies and apparel manufacturers been more receptive to the safety and welfare of their workers, if they paid a living wage and didn’t exploit immigrants?

Would we have a SEC if Wall Street tycoons and bankers not almost destroyed our economy 80 years ago?

Would we have national parks if conservationists not trumped land developers who would have exploited and destroyed our country’s scenic beauty? (Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican, but his progressive stands on anti-trust legislation, immigration, conservation et al would not endear him to many current Republicans. Nor, for that matter, would the real Ronald Reagan be welcomed into the GOP or Tea Party tent, not with his record of raising taxes seven times in eight years. It’s because of those repeated tax levies that George Bush the Elder had to make his “Read my lips, no new taxes” pledge when he ran to succeed Reagan. He lost his re-election bid, in part, because doctrinaire Republicans couldn’t stand his compromise to raise some taxes during his first term.)

Would we have equality under the law if we left it to Republican legislators and governors? (Yes, Southern Democrats opposed civil rights, but since Richard Nixon’s time those Dixiecrats converted to rock-ribbed Republicanism.)

You get the point—the inaction and blatant disregard for the common folk practiced by Republicans and Big Business fostered social welfare legislation. To think they are repentant and not trying to turn back the clock under the guise of fiscal responsibility is foolishness taken to the nth degree.

David Brooks of the NY Times says Paul Ryan’s 2012 budget proposal implies “the current welfare state is simply unsustainable.” There no doubt is a need to reform federal and state budgets. Let’s fix or cut programs that don’t work. But let’s tax those who can afford it and give relief to those who can’t. Anyone who considers Ryan’s attempt at reform should keep one fact in mind—while he cuts money for safety net programs, he advocates tax relief for the wealthiest in our society.

It is chutzpah like that that has made Republicans and Big Business the enablers of Big Government.

The Bosch Affair

For how many years did Helen Thomas harbor an antipathy—let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and not call it a prejudice—toward Jews? A dedicated UPI reporter for 57 years upholding the profession’s ideal of objectivity, Thomas at long last was free, more or less, to say what she really felt as a columnist for Hearst during the last 10 years. She weighed in against George Bush, Dick Cheney and Israel, among others. Controversial comments were no stranger to her dialogue.

The soon to be 90-year-old daughter of Lebanese Christian immigrants, Thomas’ anti-Israel and anti-Jewish remarks may be explained away, but not condoned, as an outgrowth of her background. She wouldn’t be the first person to expose long dormant and repressed true colors given the opportunity.

I’ve got my own narrow-minded prejudices that express themselves in unusual ways. Take, for instance, my patchwork prejudice against anything German. Like many post-World War II Jews, I avoided buying German products, especially German autos, even though Israel welcomed Mercedes Benz cars and many of my friends drive them. I opted for Japanese cars. My avoidance of anything overtly German was sketchy, at best: I wouldn’t buy a Krups coffee maker, but Braun made its way into our household. At least one of our china patterns came from Germany. Overall, my prejudice against anything German had no rational design.

My biased-based boycott extended beyond German automakers. Henry Ford’s well-known anti-semitism prompted me to studiously avoid Fords as well, that is, after two years behind the wheel of a 1965 fire-engine red Mustang during my college years.

Ten years ago when we were remodeling our kitchen, Gilda wanted Bosch dishwashers (we were getting two). They were highly rated, among the quietest units on the market because of their steel interiors. I vetoed the idea. No way was I going to put a German name so prominently in our kitchen. Gilda was caught off guard. I explained that during World War I a nickname for the German army was “the Bosch.” Of course, during WWI, Germany did not persecute Jews. Indeed, Jews fought proudly for "Der Fatherland." That didn’t matter to me—my bias was set. We “settled” on steel-lined KitchenAid dishwashers.

Time now to replace our washing machine and dryer. The salesman at the local appliance store touted Bosch as the best value. I wasn’t up for another argument. I steered Gilda toward the Bosch units. To the rescue rode that All-American company, Sears. Its Kenmore brand washer and dryer rated better than Bosch, according to Consumer Reports (let’s not dwell on the fact that LG, a Korean company, makes the Kenmore appliances. I already expressed my leanings toward Asian manufacturing).

I’ll never know if I could have gone through with it, seeing Bosch-next-to-Bosch every day in the mud room leading in from the garage. The new washer and dryer arrived Friday. Kenmore sure does make a good product. Gilda loves them. So do I, for reasons beyond their cleaning power.