Right (far right) on the Issues
The Presidential debates have served us well, I think. Voters know pretty much where the candidates and parties stand on issues important to them. Democrats, their impressive field now winnowed to two, aren’t that far apart but have argued vociferously on the two biggest domestic and foreign policy issues that worry the American people: how to provide affordable health care for all, and how to end the Iraq war.
By contrast, the Republican presidential debates have given short-shrift to voter concern over how to survive the world’s most costly and dysfunctional health care system. The response has been “let the market work” which translates: “you’re on your own—don’t expect any help from us”. As for the misguided, unnecessary, unwanted war in Iraq, leading candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney quarrel endlessly over who would keep our troops there longer. (Mike Huckabee chimes in that he still believes if we stay there long enough we may find those weapons of mass destruction).
While it is true that presidential candidates in both parties appeal to their base in primary elections, it is obvious to almost everyone that the Democrats can take their primary fight straight to the general election and not change a note. Over at the RNC, they know it’s a far different story. Almost every week there is a Republican incumbent in Congress who gauges public reaction to the debates and opts not to run for re-election.
Leave it up to Karl Rove to get it all wrong. He says Republicans are carrying out a “serious debate about serious ideas” and chides Democrats for “running a nasty race that has as its subtext race and gender.”
Hey Karl—what you call a “race and gender” subtext is the Democratic party making history. Either an African-American or a woman will be their Presidential nominee and the prospect has voters bubbling with anticipation. (Even the Republican Weekly Standard concedes: “Democratic primary turnout has doubled from 2004, reflecting a level of enthusiasm among Democrats that hasn’t been seen for decades.”)
Just for the heck of it, let’s examine those issues GOP candidates have been wrangling about and see how they might make sense to the majority of voters this fall. The two “biggies” have been supporters of the war in Iraq and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Every poll tells us where most voters are on the Iraq war—they want it over. As for the treasury-draining Bush tax cuts, the idea of making them permanent is almost as big a loser as being pro-war. McCain voted against it twice because it “unduly benefits the wealthy.” Now that he’s a Republican presidential candidate, he’s for it
While McCain and Romney squabble over who supports the war more and the tax cuts not to pay for the war, they do agree on how to pick up the $15 billion monthly tab the war is costing us: cut spending for entitlements. That’s the fraying safety net for the sick, retired and disabled: make tax cuts permanent for the rich while forcing grandma out of her nursing home. Sure, that will play well in November.
By contrast, the Republican presidential debates have given short-shrift to voter concern over how to survive the world’s most costly and dysfunctional health care system. The response has been “let the market work” which translates: “you’re on your own—don’t expect any help from us”. As for the misguided, unnecessary, unwanted war in Iraq, leading candidates John McCain and Mitt Romney quarrel endlessly over who would keep our troops there longer. (Mike Huckabee chimes in that he still believes if we stay there long enough we may find those weapons of mass destruction).
While it is true that presidential candidates in both parties appeal to their base in primary elections, it is obvious to almost everyone that the Democrats can take their primary fight straight to the general election and not change a note. Over at the RNC, they know it’s a far different story. Almost every week there is a Republican incumbent in Congress who gauges public reaction to the debates and opts not to run for re-election.
Leave it up to Karl Rove to get it all wrong. He says Republicans are carrying out a “serious debate about serious ideas” and chides Democrats for “running a nasty race that has as its subtext race and gender.”
Hey Karl—what you call a “race and gender” subtext is the Democratic party making history. Either an African-American or a woman will be their Presidential nominee and the prospect has voters bubbling with anticipation. (Even the Republican Weekly Standard concedes: “Democratic primary turnout has doubled from 2004, reflecting a level of enthusiasm among Democrats that hasn’t been seen for decades.”)
Just for the heck of it, let’s examine those issues GOP candidates have been wrangling about and see how they might make sense to the majority of voters this fall. The two “biggies” have been supporters of the war in Iraq and making the Bush tax cuts permanent.
Every poll tells us where most voters are on the Iraq war—they want it over. As for the treasury-draining Bush tax cuts, the idea of making them permanent is almost as big a loser as being pro-war. McCain voted against it twice because it “unduly benefits the wealthy.” Now that he’s a Republican presidential candidate, he’s for it
While McCain and Romney squabble over who supports the war more and the tax cuts not to pay for the war, they do agree on how to pick up the $15 billion monthly tab the war is costing us: cut spending for entitlements. That’s the fraying safety net for the sick, retired and disabled: make tax cuts permanent for the rich while forcing grandma out of her nursing home. Sure, that will play well in November.
posted by Victor Kamber | 12:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home