THE FIRST DEBATE
The President was insufficiently aggressive; his opponent, insufficiently truthful. In today’s America, guess who won? But it’s still worth noting. Even if you think some of the 31 “lies” in this video might better be termed merely “misleading” or “unfair,” its basic point stands.
Yesterday, I promised “four billionaires.” They’re coming! But today I feel impelled to ask questions.
Whoever “wins” tonight, do we want a President who’s a good debater — or a good President?
A President who said he wouldn’t go into Pakistan to kill Bin Laden – or a President who killed Bin Laden?
A President who would have let the auto industry go bankrupt – or a President who saved it and used the occasion to double fuel efficiency standards that in the long run will cut our gasoline bill in half?
Do we want a President who’s pledged to cut the estate tax on billionheirs from 45% to ZERO – one of the few pledges, frankly, he’s never wavered on — or a President who would rather invest that tax revenue to repair our bridges, modernize our schools, and fund basic research?
A President who thinks 47% of us can never be persuaded to take responsibility for our lives – that wasn’t a misspeak, it was heartfelt and detailed – or a President who knows how much responsibility it takes to work two jobs and pay social security tax and sales tax and raise a family?
A President who will say anything to get elected – or a President who has pretty much said the same thing all along?
A President who belittles the green energy investments that are our future – or a President who helps fund the game-changers that will put us back in the lead?
A President who thinks corporations are people and favors unlimited corporate money in politics? Or one whose campaign has been funded by more than 10 million separate contributions – and who for five years has refused to take a dime from federal lobbyists or PACs?
I’m sorry if this list is getting tedious, but this list is what the election is all about.
Ask yourself: which team and whose policies – President Obama’s or Governor Romney’s – remind you more of President Clinton’s team and policies? Which reminds you more of President Bush’s?
Now ask yourself, if you’re old enough to have lived through them both: which eight years did you like better?
And ask yourself: If record low tax rates for the very wealthy create jobs – where are the jobs?
Ask yourself: If raising taxes on income above $250,000 kills jobs – how did we create 23 million new ones under Bill Clinton?
Ask yourself: What does Governor Romney believe? What he says now? What he said a month ago?
Governor Romney wants to add $2 trillion in military spending the Pentagon doesn’t even want. Ask yourself: who’s going to pay for that?
Is Big Bird what got us into financial trouble? Or was it putting two wars on a credit card while we slashed tax rates on folks like Governor Romney, who pay a lower proportion of their income in taxes than their secretaries?
Ask yourself: why is the other party working so hard to make it hard to vote? Is that not unAmerican?
We face a choice between continuing to move forward – or going back. Between investing in the future — or out-Hoovering Hoover. Between rebuilding our infrastructure – or retrenching.
Together we have averted an economic catastrophe and seen job growth for 30 straight months . . . launched an educational race to the top . . . made college affordable for millions more kids . . . launched reform that will make health care more available, effective and efficient . . . restored respect for America’s role as the world’s indispensable nation.
There’s much more to do, including the “grand bargain” we need to strike to get our long-term finances on a sustainable path. But we’re headed in the right direction.
“Lobbyists ready for a comeback under Romney.” Here, in Politico:
President Barack Obama’s gone further than any president to keep lobbyists out of the White House — even signing executive orders to do it.
But the mood on K Street is brightening.
Industry insiders believe that Mitt Romney will unshackle the revolving door and give lobbyists a shot at the government jobs their Democratic counterparts have been denied for the past four years, a dozen Republican lobbyists said in conversations with POLITICO. . . .
The company’s FDA submission didn’t get fast-tracked, but Guru expects approval will come by April. He thinks the company, currently valued at a little more than $100 million, could within three years be worth more than $300 million . . . so if others agree, the stock should trend up toward that goal over time. Or not. As must by now be evident, these speculations are truly to be made only with money you can afford to lose.