Where's H. Ross Perot When You Need Him?
Taking an overview of the 2012 election can quickly lead one to some awfully cynical conclusions, such as "American politics is broken," or the more succinct "Washington is broken." After all, politics is supposed to be about issues, but politicians (especially on the campaign trail) are more interested in high-flown language rather than getting all nitty and gritty with details. The whole situation leaves me with a rather bizarre feeling: missing the likes of H. Ross Perot.
In 1992, the candidates from both major American political parties seemed to come to a handshake agreement that certain issues would be conveniently ignored on the campaign trail. Which was part of the whole rise of Perot on the scene. Perot paid for his own infomercials where he would use folksy, down-home language to describe the problems he thought were being ignored (with exhortations like: "You have to pull the car over the side of the road and look under the hood!"). This, eventually, forced Clinton and Bush to talk about things they would really rather have not addressed in the campaign.
This election season, both Mitt Romney and Barack Obama will lay out their "vision" for "reforming" things like the tax code or the federal budget, but to the best of my knowledge, neither has so far directly addressed an event that is going to happen in a few short months: the "fiscal cliff" we face on New Year's Eve. Neither man wants to describe what will happen at that point. Congress -- both parties -- came to what used to be called a "gentlemen's agreement" to punt the entire thing into the "lame duck" session of Congress, which will happen after the election but before the end of the year. They decided this early in 2012 -- it's not like it's secret or anything.
Which sets the stage. We've got several very important decisions which must be made or radical changes to the budget and the tax code will happen automatically. That last bit is important, because Congress (this one in particular) is not generally known for getting anything done. This time around, if nothing gets done several axes will fall simultaneously. The drastic budget cuts from the "sequestration" will happen automatically. Taxes will revert back to where they were before the "Bush tax cuts." At least Congress removed one of the axes -- raising the debt ceiling -- kicking that can a few months down the road so it won't happen at the same time. But the consequences of the ones which remain will be profound, if allowed to happen.
You'd think, with such a serious fiscal crisis staring us all in the face, that it would be an issue in this campaign. Largely, you would be wrong. It's the 800-pound gorilla in the room nobody wants to bring up. "Gorilla? What gorilla? I don't see a gorilla," both candidates tell us. Come November and December, the gorilla will be all anyone in the political world is talking about. But both parties have agreed to keep quiet over it during election season.
This is, to put it bluntly, pathetic. It is an abject failure of our political system. That the parties could collude to kick this can down the road is bad enough, but when they're both agreeing to do so in order not to have to tell the voters what they're going to do is downright irresponsible. It's a major dereliction of duty for these politicians. They're betting that Americans won't notice. The sad thing is, they're probably right.
As I said, that may sound cynical, but it certainly is realistic. I'm not holding either Obama or Romney or either political party as being solely responsible for this situation, either. They're all colluding on this one. Politicians shy away from telling the public bad news of any sort, and "compromise" has been a dirty word in Washington for years now. So the sacrifices to be made, for the most part, will not even be addressed. Obama, to his credit, has been saying for two years that the upper-income Bush tax cuts are going to expire, and Romney, to his credit, has been talking about reforming entitlements, but neither man has come out with "here is my plan for what to do this November and December" in any great detail (aside: I realize that Romney, even should he be elected, won't be able to do anything until sworn in, but in this case Congress will likely kick the whole can a few months down the road so the incoming president can negotiate the deal).
This is where a Ross Perot would certainly come in handy. Some outsider who is not beholden to either political party or to politics-as-usual. There was supposed to be such a "centrist" candidate in the race at this point, but the entire "Americans Elect" effort went nowhere, apparently.
But it would indeed be refreshing to have some upstart loudly proclaim "neither candidate for Emperor has a stitch of clothing on!" and by doing so force the issue. "This is a big deal, both literally and figuratively -- it will necessitate a large deal or grand bargain between the parties, and it will have huge consequences for America -- so let's have a discussion about it."
Conventional wisdom is you don't give away your bargaining position before the bargaining starts, which is why we're being kept in the dark currently. Maybe it's naive to think that a candidate could win by laying out his plans as one of the centerpieces of his campaign (and then after a sweeping election victory using the leverage to get what he wanted out of the losing party). Maybe that's a fantasy, given our political and media environment.
Think about it: we have a huge crisis approaching within a few months, and none of the candidates for office are willing to talk about it. Hard negotiations, sacrifices, and bargaining are barreling down on us like a freight train, and yet nobody wants to admit the train's coming. Even though everyone's paying attention to politics right now because it's election season.
That, once again, is pathetic. And it's why it'd be nice if there were some H. Ross Perot character in the race, pointing it out to the voters.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
This is where a Ross Perot would certainly come in handy.
It's also where a press corps would come in handy, if we still had one. Unfortunately for America, they're way too busy talking about Big Bird.
Speak of the devil... http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/big-bird-wants-out-of-campaign-ad/
Speak of the devil... http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/10/09/big-bird-wants-out-of-campaign-ad/
First Obama pisses off the Navy SEALS...
Now he pisses off Big Bird...
Who's next?? Mother Nature??
"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"
-Parkway Margarine Commercial
On another note, here we have ANOTHER quote of Senator/Candidate Obama's coming back around to bite him on the arse..
"When a candidate can't run on his record, he makes a BIG election about little things"
Having said all that, I have to agree with CW about Ross Perot. 1992 was the first election that I was really paying attention and Perot really shook up the campaign. Plus he came up with the funniest political line ever...
"If you have a better plan well then I'm all ears.."
Perot was my kind of candidate in that he held BOTH political Partys in disdain...
Unfortunately, Perot's presence really didn't change things...
It's like one theory of time travel..
You can make minor alterations, turn left when you turned right before, but the flow of time is set and always moves inexorably towards a (temporally speaking) pre-determined outcome.. This theory was epitomized in Guy Pearce's rendition of HG Wells in the 2002 remake of THE TIME MACHINE... A thoroughly un-appreciated remake...
Perot made some ripples, but didn't change the course of the river...
And we are all the poorer for that...
Michale....
Speak of the devil
good to have you back michale, and my condolences on your loss. all this stuff about big bird, and anyone here still thinks the press corps is bright enough to notice the candidates' stances on real issues and values? obama's policies have tended toward the opposite of the values he professed the first time around, while romney's could be anything or its opposite, depending on what day of the week it is.
hear here, i third the motion, let's bring back perot!
~joshua
Thanx joshua.. It's an unbelievably rough time, but made a little better by all the genuine support and sympathies witnessed here..
obama's policies have tended toward the opposite of the values he professed the first time around, while romney's could be anything or its opposite, depending on what day of the week it is.
Really can't argue with that, except to say both are consummate politicians...
Which is NOT a compliment.. :^/
Michale
"It's not nice to fool Mother Nature"
-Parkway Margarine Commercial
That should be PARKAY, not Parkway... My bust. :^/
Michale.....
Michale, I'm praying for you and your mom, whether you like religion or not. Welcome home to Planet Weigantian (or whatever the heck you call it). Missed you, bud.
How do you think the Ryan/Biden debate is gonna go down?
Michale, I'm praying for you and your mom, whether you like religion or not.
Very much appreciated. Regardless of beliefs, it IS the thought that counts..
How do you think the Ryan/Biden debate is gonna go down?
I honestly can't see Biden fairing better than Obama. On the other hand, forewarned is for-armed..
I think Biden has a LOT of pressure on him to put up a fight. Unfortunately for Biden, when the pressure is on, he seems to let his mouth run w/o engaging his brain first...
My prediction is, it's either going to be very very GOOD for Biden or very very bad.. I doubt there will be any middle ground...
Ryan's problem will likely not be holding his own against Biden. I honestly believe that the danger for Ryan is that he will be TOO aggressive and will appear to be bullying Biden, thereby generating sympathy for Biden and, by extension, Obama..
In short, the possible outcomes are all over the place...
"He's all over the place.....500ft....now 1500ft.....what an asshole"
-Air Traffic Controller, AIRPLANE
:D
Michale.....
Part of the reason both parties have agreed not to talk about the fiscal cliff is because both parties are responsible for the fiscal cliff. It was a stupid idea with impecably bad timing - January 2013?? Who on earth thought that would be a good idea??
Now both parties are running on the idea that this election is a referendum on both their proposals to deal with it - except, as you pointed out CW, they won't actually tell you what specifically those proposals are!
So they're having a 'referendum' where you have to guess what you think each party might do! Although a vote for Romney is pretty much a guess at what he might do in all policy areas, not just this one ;)
It was a stupid idea with impecably bad timing - January 2013?? Who on earth thought that would be a good idea??
My guess is Team Obama thought they would be facing the Clinton/Dole election and Camp Romney thought they would be facing the Carter/Reagan election.
Both sides likely figured that the election would be so utterly one-sided that the fiscal cliff wouldn't matter...
Although a vote for Romney is pretty much a guess at what he might do in all policy areas, not just this one ;)
As was a vote for Obama in 2008... :D
Let's hope the country fairs better under a Romney Administration...
Michale.....
Speaking of Big Bird...
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/entertainment/2012/10/actor-who-created-big-bird-makes-about-314000-year/57774/
Apparently, Big Bird is one of those demon-spawn 1% that the Left keeps demonizing...
But yea... Let's keep giving him taxpayer money, as he (apparently) *really* needs it... :^/
Michale.....
Thought this was a pretty good analogy from the Tax Policy Centre:
"Suppose Governor Romney said that he wants to drive a car from Boston to Los Angeles in 15 hours. And suppose some analysts employed tools of arithmetic to conclude that "If Governor Romney wants to drive from Boston to LA in 15 hours, it is mathematically impossible to avoid speeding." After all, the drive from LA to Boston is about 3,000 miles, so to take only 15 hours would require an average of 200 miles per hour. Certainly other road trips are possible — but the particular one proposed here is not.
The Obama campaign might put ads out that say Romney wants to speed or is going to speed. Romney's campaign might respond by saying the study is a "joke" and "partisan," that he supports speeding laws and would never, ever speed, and it is ridiculous to suggest that he would. The Romney campaign and its surrogates might say that the analysts must be wrong because they don't even know what his road plan is or which car he would drive. Besides, Romney never really said he wanted to go LA, he might want to go somewhere closer; he could get to LA without speeding if he took more than 15 hours; he could get somewhere else in 15 hours without speeding. And so on.
With a few substitutions, this is almost exactly how the tax debate has evolved....Romney can't do all of the tax cut proposals he has advocated, remain revenue neutral, and avoid taxing households with income below $200,000 or cutting taxes for higher income households."
With a few substitutions, this is almost exactly how the tax debate has evolved....Romney can't do all of the tax cut proposals he has advocated, remain revenue neutral, and avoid taxing households with income below $200,000 or cutting taxes for higher income households."
Considering Obama's vow not to tax people below 200K (which is EXACTLY what ObamaCare does), I don't think it's a smart idea for Team Obama to remind voters about broken promises of no new taxes...
It's always an iffy proposition for a candidate to blame an opponent for something that they themselves are guilty of...
Michale.....
Part of the reason both parties have agreed not to talk about the fiscal cliff is because both parties are responsible for the fiscal cliff.
This idea of punting the "fiscal cliff" is interesting.
Why? Well, we know that Republicans don't make gentleman's agreement. To me, that means Republicans felt they had more to lose than Democrats.
The reason for this is that during these crises is one of the few times that what conservatives are doing tends to get much press. And when people do find out what conservatives are actually doing (as opposed to what they're saying), they're usually not too fond of it.
Because of this, if Dems read their cards right, I think they'd approach conflict differently. And relish it a bit more rather than agreeing to some so-called gentleman's agreement.
-David
"Considering Obama's vow not to tax people below 200K (which is EXACTLY what ObamaCare does)"
Returning to that old song again, are you? For the umpteenth time... just because SCOTUS says the ACA's tax penalty is constitutional under federal taxing authority doesn't make the ACA a tax. Though you insist on misrepresenting it. It would be more accurate, (if you were interested in accuracy,) to say that people have the ability to raise their own taxes by refusing to purchase health insurance. The same could be said for speeding tickets, but, strangely, no one claims traffic laws are a tax.
"Because of this, if Dems read their cards right, I think they'd approach conflict differently. And relish it a bit more rather than agreeing to some so-called gentleman's agreement."
David,
You seem to be falling into the trap of advocating emulating the Republicans unethical behavior. While its certainly possible for Democrats to emulate Republicans and put partisan politics ahead of the national interest, doing their jobs, and governing, we'd all be worse off if they did, and we've enough problems already.
"These crises" are manufactured by Republicans so, yes, if people pay attention to what's really going on the Republicans look bad. But what is needed is the elimination of manufactured crises not Democrats extending and capitalizing on them, or worse, manufacturing crises of their own!
The manufactured debt ceiling crisis has already cost us our credit rating and the "fiscal cliff" threatens to seriously up the ante. Republicans may only care about gaming the system and thwarting the democratic process, but their tactics are not cost-free. They are do serious harm to the nation. Since Republicans have never shown any fiscal responsibility I wouldn't expect them to care, but Democrats should, we should, and somebody has to if this nation is to survive.
Returning to that old song again, are you? For the umpteenth time... just because SCOTUS says the ACA's tax penalty is constitutional under federal taxing authority doesn't make the ACA a tax. Though you insist on misrepresenting it. It would be more accurate, (if you were interested in accuracy,) to say that people have the ability to raise their own taxes by refusing to purchase health insurance. The same could be said for speeding tickets, but, strangely, no one claims traffic laws are a tax.
Ahhhhhhh I missed this.. :D
LD, the difference is that, with a speeding ticket, is that you are being penalized for DOING something..
With the ObamaCare tax, you are being penalized for NOT doing something....
Further.....
"Further-The-Less is NOT a word! Stop using it!!!"
-Charlie Sheen, SPIN CITY
:D
Anyways, further... The action you are NOT doing has absolutely NO effect on anyone else...
To put it into it's proper context, it would be the same as if you refused to purchase a car from Government Motors..
Yes, you MIGHT need a car in the future.. It might be a GOOD or even a GREAT chance you will need a car in the future... But, for whatEVER reason you choose (this *IS* America, remember???) NOT to buy a car...
And, up until Obama and the Democrats totally shredded the US Constitution, such was YOUR RIGHT...
So, please.. Get off your high horse about this being moral, ethical and/or Constitutional....
It's NONE of those things...
It's a power grab by Democrats to FORCE the American people to do things the way DEMOCRATS want them done..
You DO remember the Great Democrat Shellacking Of 2010, right??
WHY do you think that happened???
Because the American people don't WANT to do things the way that DEMOCRATS want things done..
It's THAT simple...
On 7 Nov 2012, it will become a LOT more clearer for ya'all :D
Michale.....
While its certainly possible for Democrats to emulate Republicans and put partisan politics ahead of the national interest, doing their jobs, and governing, we'd all be worse off if they did,
Which is EXACTLY why we are where we are...
Because Democrats figured they could further their agenda by being more Republican than Republicans...
Since Republicans have never shown any fiscal responsibility I wouldn't expect them to care, but Democrats should, we should, and somebody has to if this nation is to survive.
You are operating under the mistaken assumption that Democrats care more for the country than they do for their own agenda..
There is absolutely NO evidence to support this assumption and PLENTY of evidence to disprove the theory...
One only has to look at the attitude of the Democrats re: the Debt Ceiling when we had a GOP President vs the attitude of the Democrats re: the Debt Ceiling when we had a DEM President...
Michale.....
You seem to be falling into the trap of advocating emulating the Republicans unethical behavior.
LD- Not at all. What I am arguing for is Democrats taking a stand. When you run into a group of people who it is impossible to negotiate with, one way to deal with this is by taking your case to the American people.
Obama has done this at times but faces a media that at many times simply isn't interested. Unless there is conflict.
While I do not advocate made up crises ala Republicans, sometimes you have to call a bluff.
-David
WHAT in the world is Team-O thinking, with this Big Bird commercial?!?!? http://www.soopermexican.com/2012/10/09/new-obama-video-makes-a-mockery-of-election-campaign/ This is their idea of damage control????
WHAT in the world is Team-O thinking, with this Big Bird commercial?!?!?
"When you don't have a record to run on, you make a big election about little things."
-Senator Barack Obama
Apparently, Team Obama doesn't believe they have a record to run on..
I just CAN'T understand why Obama won't talk about Libya???
On the plus side, from all appearances, Barack Obama is a great husband and father...
This saying something nice every time is a LOT harder than I thought..
Michale
David,
LD- Not at all. What I am arguing for is Democrats taking a stand. When you run into a group of people who it is impossible to negotiate with, one way to deal with this is by taking your case to the American people.
The problem with that is that Democrats know (or at least they SHOULD know) that the American people are NOT on the Democrats' side on many MANY things...
Yes, you can cherry pick a position or two that, when framed or spun properly, the American people will buy into...
But, overall, the American people simply don't like the direction the Democrats are taking this country in...
Remember ObamaCare??
That's a perfect example of Democrats leading where the American people simply will not follow..
Michale.....
I just CAN'T understand why Obama won't talk about Libya???
ROFL! A real mystery, isn't it? The press is working hard to keep the story quiet, too — except for Fox, needless to say.
"LD, the difference is that, with a speeding ticket, is that you are being penalized for DOING something..
With the ObamaCare tax, you are being penalized for NOT doing something...."
Right. The government imposes a financial penalty if you don't meet the law... let's see now--there's only a few tens of thousands of precedents for that one, since nearly every law ever written imposes financial penalties for noncompliance.
"But, overall, the American people simply don't like the direction the Democrats are taking this country in...
Remember ObamaCare??"
The American people are fine with Obmacare. Its the fantasy Obamcare spun by Republicans that they're against. People are also fine with the direction of the country is heading. The complaint is that isn't enough or fast enough, for which they can thank Republican obstructionism.
"LD- Not at all. What I am arguing for is Democrats taking a stand. When you run into a group of people who it is impossible to negotiate with, one way to deal with this is by taking your case to the American people. "
Its the Presidents job to keep the government's wheels, on not to be an advocate. Congress is responsible for legislating, not the President. Everyone, Left and Right, chooses to ignore that minor fact because going after the President is easier than targeting Congress.
With the most obstructive and least productive Congress in history, during the second greatest recession in history, it would be irresponsible for the President to "take a stand" instead of doing his job. The Republicans "took a stand" and we're all paying for it in increased debt and reduced credit-ratings.
With a belligerent Congress refusing to cooperate the worst thing the President could do is be more confrontational. Legislating is the job of Congress, its the Presidents job to keep the government functioning. Causing government shutdowns over legislative proposals would be grounds for impeachment. Just because the President, as the head of the majority party, normally has the clout to pursue legislative agendas doesn't make it his job, or, as we see now, even guarantee that he has the ability.
The Republican are taking advantage of the separation of powers to game the system. They have been trying, for years, to generate public outrage at the President for the failures of Congress. That they're having any success is due to the stupidity of voters, Right, Left and Center!
"Take his case to the people?" What case? Its not the Presidents job to legislate! Congress alone has that power. If they refuse to act the President is powerless, and rightly so. What you want is for Democrats to emulate Republicans and ignore Constitution instead of accepting its limitations. President Obama promised not to do that, and, thankfully, he hasn't done it.
It isn't bad enough we have a minority party, both in Congress and SCOTUS, betraying their oaths and responsibilities, circumventing both the democratic process and the Constitution, you want the other major party and the President, to do the same?! Why? To make it explicit that the Constitution doesn't mean anything to anyone?
I see the New York Times is doing its usual darnedest to help the White House out with the Libya debacle and coverup: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/10/new-york-times-nothing-significantly-new-in-libya-138170.html
Right. The government imposes a financial penalty if you don't meet the law...
If you don't meet a law that forces you to do something against your will, that you might never need or use...
Where is the line??
If the Government can force you to buy health insurance, where is the line??
If this stands, the Government can force you to buy firearms, can force you to buy broccoli, can force you to NOT buy cigarettes...
You don't find it the LEAST bit ironic that the Democratic Party, THE Party that epitomizes personal freedom and diversity, is the one bringing about 1984???
I realize that the ONLY reason ya'all are behind this is because the current President has a '-D' after his name..
Do I really need to point out how ya'all will do a complete 180 once we have President Romney and a GOP Congress???
CB,
I see the New York Times is doing its usual darnedest to help the White House out with the Libya debacle and coverup:
Yea.. There is no Obama bias in the MSM...
{/sarcasm}
Michale.....
"If you don't meet a law that forces you to do something against your will, that you might never need or use...
Where is the line??
If the Government can force you to buy health insurance, where is the line??"
Now you're concerned with imaginary arbitrary lines? Earth to Michale, the "lines" are known as the Constitution, "The Peoples' House" and "the vote." That's why the Founding Fathers were so concerned about little things like the Constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, states rights, and the Bill Of Rights. The only hard-and-fast lines are the articles of the Constitution.
None of which, however, serves to justify or excuse your lying about the ACA being a tax.
Now you're concerned with imaginary arbitrary lines? Earth to Michale, the "lines" are known as the Constitution, "The Peoples' House" and "the vote." That's why the Founding Fathers were so concerned about little things like the Constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, states rights, and the Bill Of Rights. The only hard-and-fast lines are the articles of the Constitution.
So, find me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase a product that they don't want and may not ever need..
Hint.. It AIN'T there...
Would you be OK if the Federal Government ordered every American to purchase a firearm???
Michale.....
"So, find me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase a product that they don't want and may not ever need..
Hint.. It AIN'T there..."
Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase military forces they don't want and may not ever need..
Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase roads they don't want and may not ever need..
Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase parkland they don't want and may not ever need..
Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase retirement plans they don't want and may not ever need..
Hint.. Your argument is STUPID!!!...
Show me the part of the Constitution that allows the Federal Government to FORCE Americans to purchase military forces they don't want and may not ever need..
Seriously!???
You are comparing the purchase of health insurance for private use to the Federal Government maintaining a standing army PER THE CONSTITUTION..
There is DEFINITELY something stoopid here, but it's not my argument.... :D
Your entire argument is based on the completely ludicrous idea that Americans purchase items that the Federal Government provides for PRIVATE use..
It's ludicrous...
Michale....
For the record, I seem to remember something in the US CONSTITUTION about providing for the common defense...
Maybe we're reading two different Constitutions..
Michale.....