Skip to main content

Home/ Dole Group/ Group items tagged record

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
cody s

Barack Obama's economic record: End-of-term report | The Economist - 3 views

www.economist.com/21561909

barack obama economy record employment unemployment obama

shared by cody s on 04 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • cody s on 04 Sep 12
     
    I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • mabel taylor on 08 Sep 12
     
    I think this article does a good job of summarizing Obama's relationship with the economy in a methodical and detailed way. It gave clear descriptions of the steps through which Obama has attempted to restore the economy, balancing heavily number-based evidence with explanations of how Obama's personal initiative comes into play in the world of policy. There is also a good transition in the article to discussing how Obama will tackle issues if he has a second term, which discusses how Obama's often lofty promises, like saying he will not "not to raise taxes on 95% of families" are simply unrealistic and do not make a lot of sense. There is often a general feel that the promises presidential candidates make will be hard to bring to life, so having straightforward evidence to support this was helpful.
  • John West on 09 Sep 12
     
    The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Sep 12
     
    I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.
Cameron G

Final Debate: Unfair from the Start - 2 views

www.cnn.com/...index.html

shared by Cameron G on 23 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Cameron G on 23 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • Jonah Schacter on 28 Oct 12
     
    If the two were running for the first time Obama came out confident and acted like the leader of a nation. Yes Obama is the president and he is supposed to know foreign policy and he displayed his knowledge of the topics well. Even with the advantage that Obama has, Romney still could have come out and tried to act like a leader, but he was all over the place and did not seem very commanding.
  • Cameron G on 28 Oct 12
     
    I disagree. If anything, Romney looked more like a leader. He was more conservative in his arguments and his body language and tone were more commanding than they have been in the past. Obama on the other hand took opportunities to get sharp jabs and sarcastic comments such as, " You would say what I said, only louder.", which is not true. Overall, Romney did a very good job in a debate always slated in the president's favor.
  • John West on 29 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • Eli Melrod on 30 Oct 12
     
    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.
miles henderson

Campaigns See Latino Voters as Deciders in 3 Key States - 3 views

www.nytimes.com/...s-press-for-latino-voters.html

Romney barack obama obama economy finance latino voters mitt romney

shared by miles henderson on 20 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • miles henderson on 20 Oct 12
     
    As the election approaches, each candidate is doing anything in his power to obtain more votes. In Colorado,Florida and Nevada the Latino voting population could possibly determine who wins the 2012 election. President Obama has a "leg up" on Romney with the Latino voters, but will Romney be able to do anything to make himself more appealing to Latino voters? If not, how devastating will the outcome be for his campaign?
  • ...1 more comment...
  • John West on 20 Oct 12
     
    In the research I've done for the issues project in our class, I've thought a lot about just how critical this voting bloc is in deciding the results of the election. From what I can tell, it's essential. It was key in Obama's victory in 2008, and I expect it to play a bigger role this year. In my opinion, Romney is going in the wrong direction for appealing to Latino voters, like you're saying. The red flag for me is the line in the article where he asserts that the economy is much more important to Latinos than immigration. This is the same mistake I think he's made with women's rights: if you look on his site, he talks about the Obama administration being "unkind" to women because of how many more are unemployed. In both issues, I feel like he is sticking too close to comfortable territory (the economy), rather than making tough statements about things he is not as experienced in. Lastly, it I don't feel like either candidate has done much to inspire confidence in Latino voters: immigration, an important issues for the voting bloc, has been a shady area for both candidates. Obama has conducted a record number of deportations and only introduced reform ideas right before the campaign, and Romney flipped his hardline policies entirely between the primaries and the presidential race.
  • cody s on 21 Oct 12
     
    They are chasing the latino votes, definitely. Their discussion of this in the last debate was interesting - Obama accused Romney of considering the Arizona immigration law as a "model for the country," which as far as I can tell just isn't true. Who knows with Romney, though - he certainly has been associating with the guy who designed that law. In response to John's point, I think the Romney campaign is kind of forced to stick to the economic aspects of gender discrimination and Hispanic issues. The fact is that the Republican party has a worse record on rights for minorities, so they're playing up their statement that the improved economy under Romney would help get rid of the gender/racial inequities in the country.
  • Eli Melrod on 11 Nov 12
     
    It's clear now that the Republicans have a serious problem with Latino support. I wonder how they will deal with this problem in the future. I think bipartisan immigration reform could be a big deal. I see that being the big issues in the next couple years. It seems like demographically, if the Republicans can't get any support from people of color, are going to have an issue as Latinos are the largest growing population in America.
miles henderson

Obama Campaign Hits Back on Romney Foreign Policy Speech - 1 views

thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/...n-romney-foreign-policy-speech

romney barack obama economy Finance obama election conservative_values mitt romney campaign

shared by miles henderson on 09 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • miles henderson on 09 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • John West on 14 Oct 12
     
    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.
Anna Schutte

Mitt Romney's Missing Foreign Policy - 2 views

www.nytimes.com/...ys-missing-foreign-policy.html

mitt romney

shared by Anna Schutte on 09 Oct 12 - No Cached
  • Anna Schutte on 09 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • John West on 14 Oct 12
     
    This connects pretty well to Miles' most recent post, and reinforces the feeling I have that foreign policy isn't that substantial in this election. It seems like a tool Romney can use to attack Obama, to, as you said, "sense an opening." The economy is not just what people seem more concerned about, it's the part of the race that substantive debate actually comes out of. Both presidents have good and bad marks on their record in terms of economy, while I still think Romney has little substantive to say about foreign policy. What you are saying about a "benign" influence is part of what I think Ryan flubbed during the debate: when asked if the US should intervene for humanitarian reasons, he started stuttering and going back to only putting troops on the ground for US security. Whether you believe in a "benign" reason for US action in the Middle East, I agree with the author that Romney needs to work harder to put this image forward, true or not. I'm a little confused about the author's claim that Romney is going to do things the same as Obama: in terms of Iran and his stance on the scale of US military power, they seem entirely different to me. Also (the article reminded me of this), what does Romney/Ryan hope to gain by pushing the whole Russia-as-a-threat angle? It seems pretty pointless to me.
  • cody s on 14 Oct 12
     
    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.
  • Eli Melrod on 16 Oct 12
     
    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.
miles henderson

Romney Vows to Deliver Country From Economic Travails - 3 views

www.nytimes.com/...ry-from-economic-travails.html

Romney ryan obama conservative_values economy Finance

shared by miles henderson on 11 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • miles henderson on 11 Sep 12
     
    This article stood out to me because of how badly Romney attacks the Obama campaign. Romney takes a shot at the president by saying, "If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama?" I enjoyed the article because it shows that Romney has a plan that he thinks will genuinely work, but I dislike like fact he was not giving the Obama administration credit for anything positive. Romney briefly gives Obama credit for giving Seal Team 6 the order to take out Bin Laden, but then blames him for making every American less safe because of his failure to secure Iran's nuclear threat.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • cody s on 12 Sep 12
     
    I agree that this speech did a good job attacking Obama and evoking the harsh economic conditions of his term. One thing that really bothered me, though, about this speech was Romney's claim that the Republicans made a good faith effort to support president Obama. I understand what he was doing, trying to identify with disillusioned Obama voters, but the fact is that the Republicans, in Congress and elsewhere, did everything they could to spite Obama while he was in office. Mitch McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, gave a speech where he said his "number one priority" - above the economy, above welfare reform, above literally anything else - was to make Obama a one term president. In my eyes, it looks like Romney's claim that he and the Republican party wanted Obama to succeed is just blatantly untrue.
  • John West on 16 Sep 12
     
    I agree with Cody's last point, and I would definitely extend it beyond the presidential race. From what I can tell, a widespread Republican tactic during the past four years has been obstructing Obama's policy with filibusters, etc. I would totally understand trying to put your opponent down during a race, or even opposing his policy decisions during the term if there are viable alternatives, but I see this comment as lying about the partisan track-record here. The point Miles brings up about Romney's plan seems like a strong direction for his campaign to me, especially with the new spin being put on the governor's background. This is genius to me. At face value, he shuts down all of the criticism Democrats throw at his about his distance from the middle class by using his business background as an asset. So when he presents a plan he thinks will work, like you said, it comes from a guy whose credentials make him appear like he knows what he's talking about and can "get it right."
  • Cameron G on 17 Sep 12
     
    I enjoyed reading this article because it shows that Romney is doing something I have wanted him to do for a long time, which is humanize himself. This election is going to be won by speeches and connection with voters. President Obama is, by far, one of the best speakers I have ever heard and that is why he gets a lot of his votes. While I am slightly upset that Romney attacked Obama in such a harsh manner, I don't get the sense that that was it's main purpose. The way I see that speech is that it was an attempt to reason with and connect to voters in a way Romney has not done before. I posted before about the importance of connection and I still believe that it is charisma and connections that will provide an edge in this election and I am happy to see Romney is starting to realize that.
  • Eli Melrod on 18 Sep 12
     
    Cameron, I really don't see Romney winning on his ability to connect on a human level with the electorate. Obama will beat Romney on likability right up until election day and that will not change. I don't think that Romney going down the route of telling his life story help him that much either. Much of what was said about him was an attempt to make it look like he is a normal, which he frankly is not; he won't even release his tax statements. Romney will win on coming across as someone that is ready to take on the economic problems not on who is more likable.
Eli Melrod

The Elephant in the Room - 5 views

campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/...uthat-the-elephant-in-the-room

romney campaign

shared by Eli Melrod on 12 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Eli Melrod on 12 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  • John West on 16 Sep 12
     
    I think learning from Bush-era policies, like you said, is the best way to figure out what to do (or not do). When we talked in class about how complicated and unrelatable fiscal policy is, I kept wondering what ideology *actually* works and how we can be certain. Looking back on past failures seems like the only way to relly know. If we implement the policies you're talking about, which arguably led to the recession, why should we expect something different? I don't know that much about economics, but I agree with you. If Bush's fiscal policy is what really did set the stage for the economy to tank, I can't discern big enough differences in Romney's platform - "generic conservative rhetoric" - to expect something better. If anything, the article describes Romney's plan as a watered-down version of Bush's, which raises different concerns for me.
  • Anna Schutte on 17 Sep 12
     
    It is always interesting to hear about Republican positions like the idea that Romney is not doing well because "left controlled education shaped the Millennials." There is probably something to this. Also, I agree with Eli as far as the specifics that Romney and Ryan have offered so far. They sound just like George W. Bush and it is pretty clear that politically he needs to separate himself from Bush. I just read and posted an article on the effect of tax cuts on economic growth. It is pretty clear that historically tax cuts have not done much to improve growth. However, this article says that the Republicans acknowledge the failings of the Bush plan and promise more responsibility. Maybe they do know they need to offer more and will hear about tax reform and other things in the debates. It is pretty clear from Romney's behavior this week that he is not taking a more nuanced position on foreign policy.
  • Cameron G on 17 Sep 12
     
    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.
  • cody s on 19 Sep 12
     
    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.
Anna Schutte

Calculating Campaigns - 0 views

www.newyorker.com/...120924ta_talk_surowiecki

Finance

shared by Anna Schutte on 24 Sep 12 - No Cached
  • Anna Schutte on 24 Sep 12
     
    This is a very interesting article about using "micro-targeting" to tailor messages to the "favorably disposed but need a push to actually vote". The writer, James Surowiecki, cites a new book, The Victory Lap, that describes the increasing use of studies done by political scientists to plan political strategy. The studies found out that the best run campaigns perfect the mix of new technology to get specific data about individual shopping habits, voting histories, charity donations to target potential voters and then reach them using the concrete, personal door to door , face to face discussions. It's interesting to read that all the hundreds of millions spent on ads do little to recruit new voters or convince them to go to the polls. It turns out that good old social pressure is one of the most powerful forces to get people to vote. Since voting records are public (something I didn't know), one study used the threat of notifying neighbors if you didn't vote. It motivated most people to get to the polls. What's most interesting to me about this book and the studies it cites is that this kind of information hasn't been used sooner in campaigns. Why waste all that money on adds? Use it to improve schools or something that can truly make a difference.
  • John West on 25 Sep 12
     
    The mechanics that you're talking about are really interesting to me, mainly because of how completely foreign they are. Having grown up in California for my whole life, I get the feeling that I'm missing out on a big part of the process that a lot of the country experiences. What you're saying about the small impact of ads is honestly terrifying to me, given how much money is funneled to a candidate through these Super PAC's, etc. These makes the "free speech question" with respect to campaign finance seem totally irrelevant to me: whether free speech or not, the amount of money spent on ads is totally flagrant and inexcusable if they are not even accomplishing much at all. The way you mention cash being directed to better causes makes me think of the "working hard, not working smart" quip that the author makes. From what I can tell, it would be really hard to set lasting limits on soft money in campaigns, but the least the candidates could do is spend it in an effective way, not just airing primetime ads because it seems like the thing to do.
1 - 8 of 8
Showing 20▼ items per page