Group items tagged

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.

This article highlights the significance of the Benghazi attacks for Obama as the foreign policy debate looms in his future. The author presents the developments to the story in manner sympathetic to Obama, pointing to the difference between "spontaneous" and "opportunistic" in the description of the attack and the "fog of war" Hilary Clinton has used to describe the evolution of the intelligence information. The author also selects the specific points that have become "politically petty": the vocabulary used in the initial attack, whether "terror" was meant in a general way by Obama or specifically geared toward the murder of the ambassador. A new development I hadn't heard about involves House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa, who endangered the lives of several Libyans by releasing information about their work for the US government at the Embassy. The Benghazi discussion is fascinating to me in a train-wreck sort of way: I agree with what Dan said in class about it basically being a non-issue, and has digressed into the candidates bashing each other on things that have nothing to do with the violence itself. In my opinion, one of two things should be happening: Romney and media outlets should either accuse Obama of deliberately covering up a terrorist attack if that's what they think happened, or they should drop the Benghazi issue if they recognize that extremely complicated events on the other side of the planet evolve over time instead of being obvious immediately. Topics like Obama's drone strike program and Romney's Iran prospects are really substantive and should be talked about at length, but rehashing Benghazi over and over again seems like a distraction from a broader foreign policy debate to me. In the end, I don't feel like the article really answered the question it set forth (why Obama is being attacked on what many consider to be a non-issue). In my opinion, Romney and eager media outlets are looking for a campaign game-changer where ther

Yeah, this was a huge non-issue that I think had no effect on the election whatsoever. Whether or not Romney did a good job of hitting Obama on it, after the debate in which Candy Crowley stepped in, the issue was over. I really didn't think this would be a big deal in the election, and sure enough, it wasn't.

I know the election is over and all, but I just got back from a Speech and Debate Tournament where my debate topic was foreign policy. This subject came up a lot, as I was arguing against the current policy, and it was very effective so I can see why this topic is still dogging Obama. Overall I think the foreign policy is bad and think it should be changed.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I think it is interesting, and absurd, how the Republican Party has looked for things to blame on some of their failings on. That being said, I also think it is unfair that past President's records affect prospective candidates chances, on either side of the political spectrum. Just because Romney is in the same political party as Bush dos not mean he will do similar things(even though he probably will do some). I agree with Anna that Romney and Ryan need to separate from Bush to establish that they are not the same and will not have the same results. Regardless of their policies I believe that candidates should be evaluated on their merits, and while the past should be considered, and their merits alone. To me, that is what this article is really saying.

Cameron, I agree with your idea - that parties can shift, and individual candidates shouldn't be bound into the economic principles of their party - but until Romney provides substantive plans for the economy, all anyone is going to hear from his campaign is the same conservative "free market" rhetoric that they heard from the Bush campaign. What he needs to do is lay out a specific plan and note what he's learned from the economic failure under Bush and how that has shaped his plan.

The Obama Campaign finally responds to the attacks made by Romney about his inability to "keep America safe". This post is important because Romney attacks Obama's National Security during his term in office, claiming Obama did not do a good job of keeping Americans safe.

The comment that the author cites from adviser Michèle Flournoy, that Romney has "no credibility since he's been both for and against our Libya policy," seems like a strong tactic for Obama to be using. This can't be the only aspect of Romney's foreign policy stances that the President could target as not very resolute. The other thing I can't help but think about whenever foreign policy is brought up during the debates is the unequal position the two candidates are in. The claim that you cite Romney making, that Obama has failed to "keep America safe," is an impossible claim for Obama to make about Romney. He has had no substantial hand in foreign policy as governor of Massachusetts. His foreign policy record is made up of things he has said, while Obama's is made up of things he has done and real circumstances he has led the country in. He has much more to criticize by default. In this way, I don't see accusations by Romney or defenses by Obama as that informative during debates and campaigning.

This is an article by a conservative columnist, Pat Buchanan, that my dad turned me on to. It addresses the fact that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administration allegedly knew about the attacks in Benghazi for a while and didn't take action. I do think that the administration mishandled it, and I think it's interesting to read the conservative perspective on the attacks. I think this is a direction that Romney's rhetoric is going to take in the coming weeks, especially during the foreign policy debate. I agree with what this writer says about many liberals wanting to absolve Obama and his administration from all blame for anything, especially at this stage in the election, and I think that reading articles from both sides of the argument will help form an objective understanding of the issue.

I completely agree that there was some sort of intelligence gap in the State Department. Whether or not Obama/Biden knew is open for debate, but I'm not sure that is really important. In reality, both candidates have pretty similar foreign policy stances. I highly doubt the Romney Administration would handle embassy security any differently. We saw it in the VP debate. Biden would challenge Ryan to talk about actual differences in foreign policy and Ryan couldn't really find any. I'm really bothered by this statement, "And lest we forget, we invaded Afghanistan to eradicate al-Qaida after 9/11. Yet today, we read of al-Qaida in the Maghreb, al-Qaida in Iraq, al-Qaida in Pakistan, al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula and al-Qaida in Syria. And Ansar Dine, an al-Qaida affiliate, has taken over northern Mali, a slice of land the size of France." This is a huge exaggeration of Al-Qaida's current power. They are doing really poorly, not well. I think that it is just a political tactic to relate America somehow being unsafe to the attack in Libya.

Today Hilary Clinton tried to take responsibility for the lack of security in Libya. John and Cody are right about this being the beginning of the Republican attack on Obama's foreign policy. This morning I heard a Romney advisor talking about how little influence and control we have in the middle east in the face of rising terrorism. His examples and questions included many cited in Buchanan's editorial. Buchanan was an early advisor to Nixon and encouraged him to stand against abortion even though it was different than Nixon's original view. It seems like Buchanan is a lot like Carl Rove, finds a weakness and an opening and goes for it.

I watched the debate last night and I could not help but feel sorry for Romney and every other presidential candidate that has had to debate the president on foreign policy. Obama had a distinct advantage in the fact that he has done things, where Romney never had that power. So, even if Romney had good points, Obama had past experience. Regardless, I think it was a good debate and I liked how Romney appeared to the public and didn't resort to petty needling.

Cameron, your point is interesting to me because I can imagine it going both ways: while Romney does not have the past experience of a foreign policy record as the governor of Massachusetts, that also means he has no record for people to criticize. For instance, he can berate Obama for his failings in the Benghazi attack without any fear of a similar criticism from the President himself. In this sense, I feel that a debate on foreign policy means pitting what Obama has actually done against what Romney says he will do. Romney can say basically whatever he wants, and this is the substitute for his foreign policy. During the rest of the campaign, I feel like we've seen the side I imagine playing out. During the debate, I agree with Cameron and Jonah that this dynamic was in Obama's favor.

Cameron, that whole comment about "you woud say what I said, only louder" is due to the fact that they have essentially the same foreign policy when it come to the Middle East. Even thought Obama definitely had an advantage, Romney was at even more of a disadvantage, because he has the same platforms as Obama. It's hard for Romney to say, look, Obama is doing a bad job, but I have the same policy, so vote for me.

I get so worked up when super-wealthy people act like they are somehow being persecuted when the Democrats asked them to "pay their fair share." I think this op-ed piece does a great job of explaining the frustration with the current socioeconomic divide. The author writes that "It is no accident that in America today the gap between the very rich and everyone else is wider than at any time since the Gilded Age." Although we can sit around and pretend that people "need to learn" from the rich. In reality, a of government policies are making it much harder to go from poor to rich, or even middle class. As the author describes the holes in the current American system, "Exhibit A is the bipartisan, $700 billion rescue of Wall Street in 2008. Exhibit B is the crony recovery. The economists Emmanuel Saez and Thomas Piketty found that 93 percent of the income gains from the 2009-10 recovery went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers. The top 0.01 percent captured 37 percent of these additional earnings, gaining an average of $4.2 million per household." This article doesn't blame Romney or Obama, it just explains why people are starting to have problems with the idea of the "1%." I personally don't think the outcry is against the actual members of the 1%, but rather agains the policies that it make socioeconomic inequality greater.

I think that what Mr. Potepan said in the talk really applies here. The idea is that when money is mobile, the economy is flourishing, but once the money gets locked up in the super-rich's bank accounts it doesn't help anyone because it's not being invested. It's always interesting to see historical examples of theories like these, and the thing about Venice seems like it illustrates Mr. Potepan's point well.

I agree with Cody that the point of the article is that successful states are those that give everyone access to economic opportunity and that inclusiveness as opposed to exclusiveness makes for a more prosperous country. The "book of gold" is a powerful image for the special access and privilege the elite had in Venice that continues today in access to better education tax breaks, etc. That access is something people don't want to give up. The African-American president at Brown who didn't want to give up legacy at admissions, since she had a granddaughter shows how once you have privilege, you don't want to let it go.

This article addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this

I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.

I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.

Week 4. This opinion piece looks at the foreign policy credentials of both candidates, especially in light of the embassy storming in Libya and other similar incidents in the Middle this past week. The author paints this interval as weak for both Romney and Obama: Romney for his bizarre and inflammatory comments just after the murder of the ambassador and members of his staff, and Obama for not painting a clear picture of American intentions regarding the attack ("the only thing that can be said for Barack Obama's leadership this week is that he's not Mitt Romney"). He points to the increasing public unease about our presence in the Middle East as the perfect opportunity, a "teachable moment," for Obama to make his position clear. The author presents a conflicting message: as a foreign policy advisor, he would suggest this type of speech, but as a campaign advisor, he would warn against it. With all the talk of the Bush legacy in mind, I think this topic could be of huge advantage to both candidates (more so for Obama) if it were used properly. Obama has the chance to distance himself from the early-2000's surge that much of the public regards as a disaster, and distinguish the profile he plans on having in the region from bumbling foreign policy. I think the strides he has made in his first term toward ending our conflicts are pretty questionable. However, he seems in a prime position right now to ride out whatever he has accomplished for the next few months. Romney kind of made a fool of himself after the attacks, and Obama is not really capitalizing on this. It seems he's been doing good work on this front (the way he has been handling the protests in Egypt, according to the article, has been really skilled and professional) and he should flaunt it more. Similarly, a really strong statement of purpose in the Middle East might help Romney recover. The way he described foreign policy during the RNC does basically nothing to distinguish him from Bush for me. As

The is an article pre vice presidential debate about medicare. It talks about Paul Ryan's medicare a lot in comparison to the current system and Obamacare. I understand each side and there plans for this system. but I think that the problem is the unwillingness to make compromises between parties which is really holding the government back right now. Just wondering thoughts on medicare and the opposing plans.

Yeah, Romney's plan and Obama's plan are still in the phase of theory, because neither has been enacted. I've read economic analysis that supports both; it really comes down to the economist being a liberal or a conservative. I think we can do as much speculation as we want, but the key difference is that Obamacare worked in Massachusetts, while Romney's current plan has never really worked anywhere.

I agree with Eli. Although this article gives some specific information about why the market based approach to medicare could be more effective in lowering costs than the political. They're both theoretical. Obama's board of experts have had much of their power taken away by Congress, so it will be very difficult to see how effective it could really be if it were given the right kind of power. The vouchers lowering the cost of medicare drug benefits is encouraging, though hard to imagine how something like that would work with a much more complex medical system.

This article is a great explanation for the article that Miles posted last week, "Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama." Obamacare is the epitome of a centralist solution to healthcare, but the Republicans in the house are too caught up in politics to admit that it is actually a good compromise. It is interesting looking at Romney's own plan for Massachusetts in comparison to Obamacare, because they are essentially the same plan. Because Romney has taken up the issue of "repealing Obamacare," he has really dug himself a hole, because what is the conservative alternative? No healthcare plan? It seems to me that this kind of partisan politics is the reason that Romney is doing so poorly in the election.

This article is the best. It provides such a clear, concise explanation of Obamacare. And it really does, if you know this, invalidate Romney's entire platform. Obamacare is a centrist healthcare plan, and it's just like Romneycare. Romney is running on a platform of "anti-Obama," and all he's saying that he'll do is remove and replace Obama's policies -- but with what? Romney isn't saying. It really is astounding how much vitriol there is in America directed towards Obama, who is largely a centrist in his policies.

This article, like the Obamanomics, shows how too often politics takes precedent over policy. It's very disturbing that when something is as critical as health insurance for as many people as possible, is lost in a political battle. It sounds like even though the Democrats and Republicans agree on the most important aspects of Obamacare, it became mired in its present battle because the White House "rammed the bill through Congress." And the Republicans "lashed back with a vengeance." These political battles seem so petty when so much is at stake and everybody basically agrees on policy.

This article, about Obama's relationship with the economy, discusses the reality of policy work and the difficult task of assessing how he has handled the deterioration of the economy after the financial crisis. What is interesting in this article are the several dichotomies and contrasting, multi-faceted issues that are often highlighted when discussing the recession. First, there is Obama's assumption that with enough "policy help... on the way," the economy could sustain itself and not follow "the disturbing pattern of financial crises." Thinking that strong and focused policies could completely prevent the well-known aftershocks of an economic crisis left the Obama administration unprepared for "the downturn" that was "fundamentally different from a big, relatively brief recession." The article quotes Obama saying that his main mistake as President has been losing sight of the fact that there is more to fixing a problem then creating laws. Another interesting contrast mentioned in this article is that Obama has not failed in presenting the reality of the economy to the public, but "the story he and his advisers told themselves" was falsified. Related to the first point, Obama and his administration decided how they thought the economy would survive and while the information they used and told others was not factually inaccurate, they consumed and interpreted the facts incorrectly. This altering of understanding obviously has had large impacts and the article concludes by saying that while Obama says he has "done as well as could reasonably have been expected," the truth is he mistakenly avoided harder-to-accept concepts and construed them in an unrealistic way.

I'm sure that sometimes the conflicting desires of presidential candidates do interfere with economic recoveries. On one hand, they want to present a positive image of the economy, especially if they've been in office for a while. On the other, sometimes they have to take drastic measures to help the economy's recovery. It seems to me that these two things would necessarily conflict with each other, and I wonder which one is prioritized most often.

I have heard that the "bubble" that Obama has been in during his 4 years in the white house has really had an effect on him. I was watching CNN the other night and James Carville, one of my favorite analysts who worked in the Clinton administration, was on doing some after debate coverage. He talked about how presidents are constantly surrounded by people telling them that they are doing a great job and sheltered from negativity. Although I'm sure this is an over simplification of what goes on at the white house, I'm sure there is some truth to the fact that it is easy to become out of touch as president.

Just a final thought before this blog thing ends. I think about how heated the election got and everything, but in the end we have a president and we all must support him in his troubles. Speaking of which, there are a LOT. Already a drone has been shot at, the head of the C.I.A has stepped down and a general has been implicated in the scandal. Overall, what do you guys think is the most pressing issue facing Obama in this new term?

I think domestic policy will be much more important than foreign policy over the next couple of years. Republicans and Democrats are pretty much in consensus on foreign policy concerns. Domestic policy however is a much different story. This "fiscal cliff" problem is a huge issue that Republicans and Democrats will have to deal with. Probably nobody will happy with the out come. I think wealthy people's taxes will go up and entitlements will also be cut; is that compromise or is everyone losing? I guess that's more of a philosophical question, but it's something I've been thinking about a lot recently.

This article spoke to what I thought about the presidential debate. I would be really interested to hear what the candidates had to say about the Euro-zone crisis or other real issues, but they were forced to tailor their comments to appealing to people in Ohio and other swing states. Classic American political system messing up real conversations from taking place.

I noticed the same thing Eli and also become frustrated when politicians' definition of foreign policy is dominated by historical problem countries in the Middle East. It's especially confusing considering that situations in Europe can be more relevant to the US' economic situation and future and that America really has little power when it comes to influencing the Middle East. I don't know a lot about the Euro-zone and I think that really relates to how little politicians bring it up, the problem is cyclical, if people don't talk about Europe, not a lot of people will know about it, and if few people know about Europe, politicians aren't going to want to talk about it... It's not that productive.

It does seem like the debate and most of the election focused on foreign policy issues that involve controversies about trade, oil, and military intervention. The broader issues that effect the world like climate change, nuclear proliferation and the economic troubles in Europe are not as compelling.

I think that looking at the historical economical failures and successes of democratic and republican economic policies is a good way to come to a conclusion about which candidate would actually help the economy. The candidates themselves are just spewing rhetoric about tax cuts and the middle class, so this third party analysis of economic growth under Democrats vs. Republicans is really interesting. Check it out.

It is sometimes extremely hard for me to understand the argument for conservative economic philosophies, because while they might seem great paper, have NEVER worked. "Trickle down" economics tend to stagnate the economy, not help it. While I definitely read a lot of liberally biased news sources, I still find that unbiased analysis of economic policy points to liberal policies almost every time. Jonah, if a person is still undecided, I would say they are definitely not going to vote on social issues. If social issues were more important to them than the economy, they would absolutely have already decided who to cast their vote for. It is very clear where the candidates stand on social issues, but is much less clear to the average undecided voter who is "the best candidate to help the economy."

It's great to see the economic facts laid out in this way. I read an article earlier written by two economists who quantified the effect of tax increases on the wealthy and found that tax increases had little effect on job growth or the economy. Again, this article proves that "trickle down" economics isn't based on facts. I wonder why it is so compelling. Of course people would rather believe that independent investment would benefit the economy more than government investment. It's part of the American mythology. The only way to bust a myth is with facts like these.

This article stood out to me since it discusses a topic that I often find myself drawn to, which is the appropriateness of identity politics and how they affect not only Democrats, but politics more broadly. While this is a rather brief overview of a large issue, it efficiently mentions where the legacy of identity politics has its roots and how the Democratic focus on minorities has been successful in creating policies that strive for more equality. The article then goes on to discuss how identity politics can alienate key voters who are supporters of the party, but find themselves "excluded from" the focus on topics and issues they, as generally white and older citizens, cannot relate to. Though identity politics began as a way to bring in a more diverse audience of supporters and voters who were often left marginalized by other parties and politicians, the Democrats can easily make their campaigns and policies too specific and exclusive, leaving those not affected by more common forms of prejudice forgotten. I like that this article finishes with the idea that shifting the Democratic focus from tailored appeals to minorities to broader campaigns about unity would avoid the problem Democrats face, but I find it hard to imagine Democrats giving up a type of campaigning that their Republican rivals really struggle with when it gives them such an advantage, even with the alleged cost of forgotten white voters.

While I was reading this article, something about it didn't resonate with me. This is the line that really threw me off, "But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me?" Well, for this salesman what's in it for him is a more fair tax code, a medicare system that will guarantee him health care longer into his life, the list goes on. I don't see how "identity politics" are hurting the Democratic Party, because there are so many issues in politics. I really don't believe the equal rights stance of the Democratic Party would alienate middle-class white men, because the Republican Party's economic policy will hurt these middle class men more. Now, all of my views on this issue are completely biased by my liberal politics, but I just disagreed with what this article was trying to get at.

Interesting article and a great discussion. Identity does impact political leanings, and middle class white men more often vote Republican. I agree that it seems like the Democrats would have a lot to offer the "plain old white insurance salesman," but working class white guys don't seem to see it that way. If only women voted in this country, Republicans would not have a chance. Indeed, you can say the same about Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, immigrants, the poor ... And Republicans have their base groups as well -- white men, evangelical Christians, rural voters and those in the ex-urbs, etc. It turns out that how you vote is enormously impacted by citizenship status, race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.

This article is very interesting because of the timing of Romney's softer tone in the critique of Obama so soon after many voters heard about the 43% comment Romney made. I think if Romney wants any chance of winning, he really needs to watch what he says and make sure he isn't made out to seem like more of a bad guy in the media. Although Romney compliments Obamacare he still points out what he does not like about it, showing his strong stance on what he thinks is positive and what needs change. It is unique that Romney is pointing out positive aspects of Obama care, because the GOP have often used Obamacare as one of the reasons why he should not be president again.

Yeah, this is an interesting call for Romney. I'm happy about it, but it certainly does seem calculated, especially his response of that he wants to keep "the part about pre-existing conditions." The phrase pre-existing condition is such an agitative buzzword, and it seems that this is a move intended to remove that specific buzzword from Obama's arsenal of rhetoric intended to pump up the base.

I agree with what you said John about how this could be part of a Romney tactic of moving towards the center and I am curious what aspects of Obama's policies and ideas Romney would consider taking on. It's interesting to think about this in the context of your comment Eli, because it seems like a lot of the concepts that Romney latches onto simply don't work with the reality of a policy or with the Republican platform. Saying that he supports coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions could make Romney more appealing on a human level, but if it is so detached from his general stance, it ends up being useless. I think a more well-thought out focus on centrists could be really beneficial.

I have been hearing a lot about the "60 Minutes" appearances by both candidates on Sunday night. This article picks apart the key points that both candidates made in what the author describes as the "pre-debate." While Obama and Romney were interviewed separately, the juxtaposition of their interview was a clear struggle for undecided voters. The author highlights a controversial handling of foreign policy questions by Obama, as well as a pretty spectacular gaffe by Romney, in which he suggests that emergency room care is an effective way to take care of the 50 million uninsured Americans. From what the author says, the interviews were a compelling look at the candidates without their armor. The article includes a link to the video (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?tag=contentMain;contentBody) With a lot of rhetoric from each candidate that we've had to decode in stump speeches and at the conventions, it's nice to see content that is a little more upfront. The opinions the candidates voiced, while they have stirred up critics in either party, strike me as a more honest representation than their own descriptions of themselves. Obama's commentary on the Middle East was complicated for me. While I don't think it was very tactful and clearly on the spot, it seems to coincide with his policy quite well. After the discussion we had in class concerning his drone-strike campaign, the comments he made about Israel as peripheral and our alignment with democracy strike me as more satisfying for more liberal Democrats. I have trouble thinking of the way Romney handled the emergency room question as anything but a mistake. I know very little about healthcare policy, and it's totally clear to me that what he proposes isn't sustainable on any level. From the maintenance of a healthcare system that runs like this to the cost on the individual family, his proposal demonstrates very little thought to me, which might be

Very interesting to see Obama's full quotes and partial quotes used out of context to support his position. Romney's answer on health care and emergency room seems to show his lack of economic sense.

This piece talks about why the South continues to be extremely conservative politically. I've never been to the South and have always wondered what's going on with the political conservative climate, because it seems to me that conservative economic policy actually hurts a lot of regions in the South. These "Room for Debate" pieces on the NY Times are awesome, because they provide a lot of different perspectives. I'd love to hear all your guys take on this: San Franciscans and Atlanta peeps alike.

Great post Eli. I think this article makes many valid points because in the south, the conservative history is very apparent. Being from Georgia especially during election, President Obama is not widely respected and people often criticize his policies harshly. I hate to say it but I do believe that racist southern ideals are partially the reason for some of the unpopularity of Obama in the south. Relating to the conservative tendencies in southern states, I believe the reason the south has remained predominantly right sided is because tradition is such a big part of southern culture, and with southern tradition comes conservative values.

For me this brings up evidence to support people not being able to move past their moral compass even if it means progress in their socioeconomic outlook and progress in the nation. It makes sense to stay true to their self, but it is not justifiable to hurt yourself and your nation by preventing forward progress. In theory it makes sense to try and change their minds, but it is a lot easier said than done and would take a great amount of time and we have to be patient about it.

We have spent a lot of time on this group talking about the bias of particular news-sources, particularly the New York Times. It is interesting to look at more straight-forward endorsements that the paper makes and go back through history to see who else the paper has supported, seeing the first endorsement of Lincoln to their current one for Obama is particularly astounding, considering how often Obama references Lincoln in his speeches. Though most papers try to maintain some bipartisanship, when they do make their political allegiances clear they send a powerful message. I wonder how much influence their endorsements make, especially if they are already a left-leaning or heavily conservative paper and their readership is similarly aligned. But with a paper as widespread and respected as the New York Times, I am sure it has some influence on undecided voters.

I wonder as I look through the changing parties in the endorsements how much it indicates changes in the Democratic and Republican parties and how much it reflects editorial changes. Early on the paper endorsed many Republicans and haven't for many years recently. It was particularly interesting to see how many times they endorsed candidates running against FDR. I would have imagined that the editors of today's paper would have endorsed him during each election.

Cody, I don't think it has much to do with "endorsing along party line" as it has to do with the fact that the editors for the NY times tend to be liberal. I don't think they are just like "oh, we'll support the Democrat." I'm sure it has more to do with the policies and beliefs of the candidates and those beliefs and policies that align with the NY Times tend to be Democratic candidates. I also don't mean to be foolish here, but it seems like liberal policies have worked for the most part. Whenever we here about another era in America, it always harkens back to times with bigger government, higher taxes.