With All Due Respect, David Gregory

David Gregory’s big moment comes Sunday when he interviews Mitt Romney on NBC’s Meet the Press. Gregory will be tested to determine if he truly is a worthy successor to the late Tim Russert.

Romney has been adept at deflecting questions, refraining from answering them with specifics, if at all, about his post-election plans should he win the presidency. Gregory’s challenge will be to offer respectful resistance to Romney’s obfuscations. He must pose follow-up questions to get specifics and if necessary challenge the veracity of Romney’s attacks against President Obama and claims about his own programs. Perhaps Gregory’s most important phrase throughout the interview will be, “With all due respect ...,” which is code for, “stop bullshitting me and the American public, answer the question, this is an interview not a stump speech opportunity.”

Just in case Gregory needs help formulating questions, here are some I’d like to see posed:

The time has come to give specifics, Gov. Romney—what cuts to specific programs would you make to balance the budget?

President Clinton in his speech to the convention said more manufacturing jobs were created under President Obama than in last 50 years. That doesn’t sound like failure. How would you characterize it?

If Obamacare is repealed, specifically what would be included in your replacement program, or would the American public go back to a time when insurance companies could exclude you from coverage because of a pre-existing condition? Would your plan cover non-working children through age 26? Would you cover the donut hole for prescriptions for senior citizens?

Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has said cooperation between his county and the U.S. is the best ever, so why do you say Obama threw Israel under the bus? What more would you have done? As for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, even George W. Bush never moved our embassy, so why should we hold President Obama to a higher standard than all previous presidents?

Do you support legislation for equal pay for equal work for women?

If Planned Parenthood closes down because you defund it, do you have an alternative where women can get screenings and other medical services they could not afford to get in traditional health care facilities?

Since cabinet secretaries must reveal several years of tax returns to get confirmed, why should the public not expect to see at least the same from someone seeking the highest office in the land?

To combat what threat do we need the budget increase you have proposed for the Pentagon when the Joint Chiefs of Staff haven't asked for it?

Many of your foreign policy advisors counselled President George W. Bush. Why should that make Americans confident in your foreign affairs leadership considering the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan we entered when they advised President Bush?

Would you intervene in Syria? To what degree?

Many European countries implemented fiscal restraint programs, government cutbacks, similar to what you advocate for the United States. Given their problems and your repeated comments that we don’t want to be another Europe, why should we have confidence government cutbacks would work here to help stimulate the economy?

Your campaign has said it won't be bound by fact checkers. Specifically, fact checkers have disputed your campaign’s claims about President Obama’s welfare reform program, the timing of the closing of the General Motors plant in Janesville, Wisconsin, the $716 billion in Medicare savings proposed by President Obama and included in Congressman Ryan’s budget proposal. Are the fact checkers wrong or will you continue to say what you've said before?

Your wife portrayed your early years together as if they were a struggle, eating tuna and pasta off an ironing board serving as a table, using an old door as a desk. Were you indeed living a typical student’s life, or were you buttressed by a sizable trust fund from your parents?

After six years of running for president why don't more Americans say they know you?

You ran for governor of Massachusetts as a moderate. Is there any specific event that prompted you to shift your governing philosophy to conservative? 

In defending your record at Bain Capital you have said not all businesses succeed. So why do you criticize the administration’s failed investment in Solyndra? What is your position on solar energy?

Bain Capital relied heavily on leveraged debt to acquire companies. Since you obviously know a lot about debt, and that the interest in borrowed money is at an all-time low at present, why would it be wrong to borrow money today to invest in rebuilding our nation’s infrastructure?

The General Motors and Chrysler bailout has been successful. Why would a managed bankruptcy, as you preferred, been better for the auto workers employed by GM, Chrysler and the other companies that supply the automakers?

Scorecard: Obama gave a rousing speech last night, but it lacked specifics just as Romney’s did. And he didn't push for the election of Democratic Senate and House candidates. In other words it was just words, not a call to action. I rate his and Romney's speeches a draw as they appealed to the party faithful, not to independents. Any bounce Obama gets will come from Michelle and Bill Clinton.

Passing Hail Mary

With the clock ticking down the final seconds of a close game, a trailing football team often resorts to a last-ditch scoring effort. The quarterback fades back and lofts toward the end zone a long, arcing “Hail Mary” pass, so named because it will take an answered prayer to succeed in overturning a seemingly inevitable loss.

With his address to the nation in front of a joint session of Congress Thursday night, Barack Obama is about to launch a Hail Mary pass, aptly timed to coincide with the opening night of the new National Football League season after a spring and half-summer of labor-management unrest and ultimate compromise.

Unlike the owners and players who worked out a deal to get the games going again, there is no realistic partner to work with Obama. Despite vague language from some Republicans about the need to stimulate the economy to jumpstart more hirings, anyone who believes the president and the GOP/Tea Party will reach a fair, equitable and non-acrimonious settlement also believes the Cincinnati Bengals will hoist the Lombardi Trophy at the conclusion of the next Super Bowl.

Obama’s ratings are lower than a quarterback who throws more interceptions than completions, who fumbles the snap before he can hand off to a running back. Even a rookie presidential candidate, the nationally untested governor of Texas, Rick Perry, beats Obama in a head to head contest, 44% to 41%, according to a new Rasmussen poll.

The president’s Thursday night speech will define his intentions over the next 14 months. He will either involuntarily concede his impotence by tossing out an often repeated and unaccepted pitch for bi-partisan compromise, or he will morph into a chief executive with backbone by staking out an irreversible battle plan to rekindle the passion of those who supported him in 2008.

He has shown an inability to connect with Republicans. So why bother extending an olive branch. They’d only reject it. How often must he be humiliated? When push comes to shove, they’ll corner Obama and the Democrats into accepting their cuts, their budget, on their terms, which means no tax increases for the wealthy, continued loopholes for the rich and corporations, no viable plan to energize job growth except by reducing or eliminating consumer and environmental protections.

If Obama recognizes, at long last, the GOP prevent defense, he can perhaps salvage his re-election drive by forcefully decoding the X’s and O’s that differentiate the Republican agenda from his own. He shouldn’t be afraid to use tables, charts and graphs (a la Ross Perot and even Michele Bachmann) to illustrate how under Republican stewardship the nation’s working and middle classes suffered while the rich benefited, and how more of the same could be expected should they succeed in the next election.

Don’t think for a moment a measured tone in the well of the Congress will accrue civility and points from the opposition. Obama can and must use this forum to get the attention of Congress and the American people that he intends to fight for the welfare of the country as a whole, not for an elite, special interest minority.

He needs to convincingly detail how supporting GM and Chrysler when they were bankrupt saved the American automobile industry, how millions of jobs were saved, from the small shop that supplies new car mats to the huge plant that makes car batteries. He needs to push for jobs to rebuild infrastructure, for teachers to educate future generations.

Republicans already label him a deficit spender. He needs to reassuringly explain why short term debt is necessary to rebuild an economy shattered by two wars started by a Republican president, by that president’s profligate Medicare drug reimbursement plan, by that president’s eight year reign of terror on government oversight of the financial markets that led to the current woes on Wall Street and around the world.

Does he have it in him? Does he have the arm to reach the end zone? Hail Mary passes seldom work, but when they do they can be a game changer, turning a loser into a winner. Obama has nothing to lose by playing offense. Indeed, it’s his only hope of reaching the end zone—securing four more years in a residence paid for by The American taxpayer.

The Bin Laden of U.S. Politics

Sarah Palin is the Osama bin Laden of U.S. politics. She’d blow up much of the government we know if given a chance, all in a quest to restore America to its original state, much like Osama wanted to turn the Muslim world back in time, to an era when it was dominant.

Americans wonder with more than a little trepidation if the popular Arab spring uprisings in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Syria, Yemen et al will result in democracy or in a different version of tyranny, one tinged with Islamic fervor and intolerance. Our eyes seem to focus on the uncertainty overseas while unable to visualize that populism at home has its dangers, as well. Palin and Tea party members are intolerant of any principled position that doesn’t adhere to their vision of America. Too often they resort to ridicule and aspersion to de-legitimize their opponents, ignoring the foundation reasons why America has become vulnerable, economically and militarily. Most of those reasons developed from 2001 to 2009, during the Bush presidency.

Osama bin Laden got lucky when the Twin Towers collapsed, but his real strength was manipulating the media. For 10 years we waited with our hearts in our throats for his next electronic message. He commanded attention, though not a military response during the Bush years. Similarly, Sara Palin has the media wrapped and warped around her finger. The media desperately want a “story line” for the 2012 election, now that President Obama has seemingly cleared up doubts among all but ignorant, intolerant non-believers that he’s Hawaiian-born.

Trump proved to be a chump. Daniels’ on-off-on-again wife would have sent the press into a frenzy trying to dredge up details. Alas, Indiana Mitch chose family stability and privacy over national exposure. Huckabee (and his wife) learned it’s a lot comfier spreading the gospel of conservatism when handsomely paid to do so. For all his alleged credentials, Gingrich showed no more political savvy than a newt. He did perform a public service, however, enunciating the tyranny of the right’s attempt to socially engineer Medicare and showing the world what happens to a politician who dares deviate from party dogma. So much for the GOP being a party of ideas worth debating.

The media needs Sarah Palin to spice up a bland Republican primary season. Palin needs the media to keep her standing as America’s picture of lost innocence. Her poll numbers among all voters are paltry. Her reality show failed to secure a second season. She does, however, talk in sound bites, and for that the media is eternally grateful. She’s also the best looking GOP pol out there (sorry Mitt).

If she could only talk sense. It might be au courant to tweet, but the public deserves leaders who can think beyond 140 characters. 140 characters lets you get off some nifty one-liners; governing, however, requires nuance and complex programs. Of course, Palin decided governing the great state of Alaska was too limiting a challenge, so her bona fides as a leader working within the system are not especially developed. Her Fox News gig has netted her big bucks, but she has failed to put forward a creditable platform.

Yes, she wants to put America back to work. She wants a strong military. She wants to rein in spending. But what does it all mean? Would she have allowed GM and Chrysler to go under? Would she have sent troops to Libya? Would she have had the foresight to send backup helicopters on the Seal Team 6 mission to get bin Laden? Does she believe the economic stimulus plan prevented a worse disaster? Does she believe government has a responsibility to patrol the workplace to ensure workers do not toil in unsafe conditions? Does she believe the government has a responsibility to ensure the safety of our food and water? Does she believe corporations would act humanely if there were no government inspector looking over their shoulders? Does she believe we were better off in the Happy Days time when women mostly stayed home raising children?

It’s almost impossible to say. She refuses to talk to the media except if they are hand-picked and part of the Fox-wing conspiracy. Yet reporters and editors chase her more doggedly than Bush pursued bin Laden. Palin is a weapon of mass media destruction. Instead of focusing on issues, the media points klieg lights on her. I’m no fan of Michele Bachmann, but at least she has a record we can scrutinize (and shake our heads at).

Campaign 2012

It’s all over but the shouting. Actually, the shouting hasn’t really stopped, as the GOP and its Conservative/Tea Party cousins have already embarked on Campaign 2012 to make Barack Obama a one-term president. In the two-year run-up, they are determined to block any meaningful attempts at bi-partisanship and will try to roll back achievements of his first two years in office.

The first job of any politician is to get elected. The second job is to get re-elected. The third job is a source of contention. It is within that conflict we may distinguish leaders from parasites of the public trust. The countervailing forces confronting a politician are: a) faithfully representing his or her constituency (even if it is backward and bigoted), or, b) advancing the welfare of the country even if it runs against the grain of the voters who elected him or her to office and might mean defeat at the next election.

Whether written by JFK or Ted Sorensen, Profiles in Courage is a book that should be required reading for all who serve in government. Published in 1955, the book, in the words of Wikipedia, profiles eight U.S. senators “who crossed party lines and/or defied the public opinion of their constituents to do what they felt was right and suffered severe criticism and losses in popularity because of their actions.”

Obviously I disagree with the majority, if not all, of the “thinking” of the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party. They have a right to their beliefs. What I object to is their disdain for the process of government, of compromise, their willingness to obstruct responsible stewardship of our land and people. Is there no one of principle in the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party, no one with sufficient patriotism to put country ahead of conceit?

Equally fervent is my disappointment with the Democratic Party and its willingness to cave in. Instead of fighting brass knuckle tactics with equal measure, Democrats shrink from their responsibility. The failure of the Obama administration and the Democratic majority in Congress has been its inability to inform the American public. They allowed the opposition to frame the debate on health care, financial bailouts, Bush tax cut extension and other hot button issues. Instead they supplied a “could’ve been worse if we didn’t do anything” message.

Obama et al have no time to waste. They must start now lauding provisions of Obamacare, provisions that guarantee coverage for children post-college, that restrict insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions. The Midwest is full of companies dependent on the auto industry. Without the bailout of GM and Chrysler, millions would have lost jobs. Democrats permitted the Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party to tarnish the benefits of the bailout program. Yes, it’s hard to defend an economy that tanked under your predecessor and has not responded to the financial stimulus package. But there have been success stories. Aside from the rebounds at GM and Chrysler, the bank bailouts will not cost anywhere near the billions originally forecast.

The American voter is fickle, shifting allegiance seemingly at whim, not sufficiently patient to “stay the course” beyond any one congressional election cycle. The next two years will be hell for those who care about responsible government. Republican/ Conservative/Tea Party spokesmen have vowed to downsize government. Democrats will fight to salvage consumer, social, workplace and environmental protections, but will be hard pressed to succeed. At the state level, given the new dominance of the Right, there will be massive changes. It is hard to imagine our country maintaining its infrastructure, educational system, and quality of life.

Perhaps that’s for the long term best, for without first hand exposure to what life in a Boehner-McConnell-Palin world would be, Americans might be deluded in 2012 into voting for a continuation of a government of “NO.”