A Return To Cheneyism, Ctd

Contra me, Frum suspects that "Romney's foreign policy will be even more cautious than Barack Obama's":

If we've learned anything from this campaign, it is the supreme overarching importance to Republicans of tax reduction. The current proposal is to make Cheneypermanent the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003, and then go further with an additional cut to a maximum top rate of 28%.

Of course, George W. Bush cut taxes while mounting a very aggressive foreign policy. But here's the difference: over the past five years, the Republicans voting base of older voters has suddenly become acutely conscious that today's deficit implies tomorrow's tax increase. (Robert Barro, collect your Nobel Prize.) Mitt Romney seems to have internalized that argument too. And if your top priority is reducing debt so as to obviate the tax threat – well, the sheer daunting cost of foreign policy entanglements will temper your adventurism.

Not. Buying. It. Sheldon Adelson paid for a war against Iran and a war he will surely get. These people don't care about a deficit caused by wars, or by tax cuts; they care about a deficit caused by the sick and seniors and the poor. But some reporter should surely ask Romney how he intends to pay for the next war the neocons are planning. Or the 4 percent of GDP defense spending pledge. Since when does someone who has a foreign policy strategy simply put a percentage number on defense spending?

I guess, unlike David, I don't trust Romney's ability to resist the neocon war machine, even if he wanted to (and there is no sign he does). And the modern GOP is very pro-war (check out how McCain bigfooted Rand Paul yesterday). The argument that Romney "seems to have internalized that argument" does not exactly convince me. Let's see what rhetoric he deploys tonight. But if it is anything but Cheneyism, I'll be surprised.

(Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

Tampa, Day Two: Reader Reax

A reader writes:

Am I watching the same convention as everyone else?  I feel like for the second night in a row the reaction in the hall is hardly enthusiastic.  Except for a few genuine moments of applause, for the most part you can feel the delegates really "wanting" to be excited but they just can't seem to muster it.  That large stage just swallowed Ryan up.  And he's getting nailed by the blogs AND the press for the lies he told in his speech.

I have to say, going into the convention I was worried that Romney and Ryan might pull off a bounce and ride it into November.  At this point, barring an amazing speech by Romney, I feel more confident than ever that the American people won't fall for this crap.

Another:

How can you base an entire convention on one out-of-context quote ("You didn't build that")? This is like a coach telling his team at halftime that their girlfriends are sleeping with the other team – a motivating but big lie.

Another:

Sounds like Ryan last night gave the nation a taste of what Wisconsin has seen for years. He's got a very extraordinary talent at seeming amiable, approachable, reasonable … even safe. People hear and see him speak and walk away thinking, "Well, he seems like a nice guy, very well-spoken and reasonable. I think he really wants to look out for everyone's best interests." And then they actually are shown his positions and either think "Holy shit, those are crazy!" or "Holy shit, why are they trying to smear this nice young man?!" It's what's won him elections here for years, because more people, bafflingly, think the second rather than first thing. And once that second "Holy shit…" statement is in their heads, there's no getting it out.

Another:

I have been very curious that no one has yet mentioned how steeped in Cold War imagery Ryan's speech was.

I keep hearing from the conservative writers how fresh and sunny it was, instead there are a lot of references in there – some veiled, some not so veiled – to an image of the left that seems stuck in 1960s tropes. Not just the central planners line – or the line about us not living in freedom! – but the "fading Obama posters" line. What this seem to be trying to evoke is the trite image of the failed college student enamored with the romance of communism, looking longingly at a Che Guevara poster.

I know it is important to pierce through the lies in Ryan's speech, but perhaps it would also be interesting to reveal the bigger framework on which those lies were placed: that since 2008 somehow the United States is not a free country, controlled by central planners, where children have been indoctrinated or deluded into buying the romance of tyranny in the captivating image of a young revolutionary called Obama. The US of Cuba if you will.

Another:

On last night's NBC Nightly News, Brian Williams interviewed Jeb Bush live for a few minutes. Jeb managed to talk his way around Williams' question about the Republicans pretending his brother doesn't exist and he downplayed the criticisms of Republican "stupidity" that he leveled a while back. The one startling thing he said came when he was talking about the need to diversify the party. He aid that the GOP needs to focus on Latinos and Asian Americans because they "care about family" and ought to be receptive to Republican policies. African Americans were not mentioned. Does he believe black people don't care about family or that they just aren't worth the trouble to pursue?

Another:

There was a stanza that hit me very hard in former Secretary Rice's speech last night in Tampa:

A little girl grows up in Jim Crow Birmingham, the most segregated big city in America. Her parents can't take her to a movie theater or a restaurant. But they make her believe that even though she can't have a hamburger at the Woolworth's lunch counter, if she wants to, she can be president of the United States – and she becomes secretary of state.

Rice's resume includes an undergrad degree from the University of Denver, master's from Notre Dame, and Ph.D. from University of Denver. She now holds an academic position at top-flight Stanford University.

The point is: there is little difference in Rice's story and President Barack Obama's. Both are the ideal Republican narrative of triumphing despite considerable adversity (perhaps Obama'a even more so, being raised by grandparents and a single mother). The two figures both determined their own futures, worked hard as hell, and have changed the course of history. Yet when Obama tells his story, he's believed by many to be a foreigner with a faked birth certificate, a weak affirmative action beneficiary who can't give a speech without a teleprompter, and contemptible. When Rice tells her story she is greeted with raucous applause and old folks moved to tears.

I shook my head when I heard Rice tell her story, because despite it beauty and inspiration, Republicans don't care about stories like that unless they can use them for their own political grandstanding. I hear the stories of Barack and Condoleeza, and also the respective treatments of the military records of John McCain and John Kerry, and I vote Democrat.

Blogger reax here.

A Poem For Thursday

Reeds

"The Argument of His Book" by Robert Herrick (1591-1674):

I sing of Brooks, of Blossomes, Birds, and Bowers:
Of April, May, of June, and July-Flowers.
I sing of May-poles, Hock-carts, Wassails, Wakes,
Of Bride-grooms, Brides, and of their Bridall-cakes.
I write of Youth, of Love, and have Accesse
By these, to sing of cleanly-Wantonnesse.
I sing of Dewes, of Raines, and piece by piece
Of Balme, of Oyle, of Spice, and Amber-Greece.
I sing of Times trans-shifting; and I write
How Roses first came Red, and Lillies White.
I write of Groves, of Twilights, and I sing
The Court of Mab, and of the Fairie-King.
I write of Hell; I sing (and ever shall)
Of Heaven, and hope to have it after all.

Ask Obama Anything

Obama_notbad

Reddit scored big with the online interview. And beat Time's tired formula by a day. New media marches on. Update from a reader:

An important thing to note about Obama's AMA: Ron Paul has a very active fan base on reddit and at the very moment their own party plays dirty tricks to shut them up at the RNC, along comes Obama and at least implies through his use of the AMA that he is listening.

Meep Meep

Christie’s Burst Balloon

In describing how Christie's speech borrowed heavily from Obama's 2004 convention address, Steve Coll draws some tart conclusions:

Christie said repeatedly, "Mitt Romney will tell us the hard truths." Really? Is that Romney’s reputation with voters, or is it Christie’s? The Governor also said, "Real leaders don’t follow polls. Real leaders change polls." That’s a terrific line—but who was it intended to promote? Was the "real leader" in question Romney in 2012 or Christie in 2016? Obama came to Boston as an unknown and left as a rising star. Christie came to Tampa as a rising star and obviously hoped to acquire Obama-like momentum as the Republican Party’s "truth teller," a more salable alternative in competitive "purple" states than Paul Ryan will be in the next election, if Romney loses this one…. But as Ryan showed in his superior speech on Wednesday night, there are more effective ways than Christie found to weave autobiography with partisan argument.

Campaign Spam

Patrick Ruffini observes that “we are seeing campaign digital departments being run more and more like marketing departments for major brands”:

Compared to the same period four years ago, the Obama campaign is sending more than twice as many emails, and informative state-of-the-race missives from the campaign managers are practically gone. According to nycsouthpaw, where those Obama ’08 emails had “data, strategy, and an air of knowingness,” Obama 2012 emails are “hectoring, manipulative, full of angst, and there are just way more of them.” A selection of subject lines: “SO COOL,” “Up late” and my personal favorite: “(No subject).”

There is a simple reason for all of this: Because it works.

But it’s so fucking painful.

The Lies And Lies And Lies Of Paul Ryan

Dylan Matthews fact-checks Ryan's speech. I noted most of these lies last night. But there weren't just lies; there was a total abdication of personal responsibility in an attack on president Obama's alleged lack of responsibility. Ryan on Bowles-Simpson, which he killed:

"[Obama] created a bipartisan debt commission. They came back with an urgent report," Ryan stated. "He thanked them, sent them on their way, and then did exactly nothing." But the bipartisan debt commission itself didn’t come back with a report. There were not enough votes to agree upon recommendations, in part due to opposition from committee member, er, Paul Ryan. The statement misleads viewers by implying that Ryan supports the proposal, when he aggressively opposed it, and by using the third person to avoid noting that Ryan was on the commission and voted no.

Lies and lies to portray not just a different version of the truth but its inverse. Avik Roy attempts to defend Ryan's hypocrisy:

It’s true that Paul Ryan voted against the Simpson-Bowles recommendations. He did so because Simpson-Bowles raised taxes while doing little to nothing about health-care spending, the biggest driver of growing deficits. However, by rejecting Simpson-Bowles, Ryan felt morally obligated to put forth his own plan, and did so—several times, in the form of his Path to Prosperityand his 2011 and 2012 House budget resolutions.

Chait counters, noting that "defenders sometimes assert that [Ryan] only voted against the plan because it failed to include privatized Medicare, but in fact Ryan opposed a compromise that would do that, as well." Then the irony that struck me the most:

Incredibly, the larger theme of Ryan’s speech was to assail Obama for failing to take full responsibilities for this state of affairs — Obama is "shifting blame," "blaming others." It is the single largest motif of Ryan’s speech. Let’s review: Ryan helps to create a massive structural deficit, repeatedly and almost single-handedly prevents a solution, then runs for vice-president, blaming Obama for the structural deficit and further blaming him for his unwillingness to agree that this is all his own fault. The really amazing thing is that it could possibly work.

The debt rating downgrade was my personal low. Really: an entirely GOP-engineered crisis that deeply damaged the country is now Obama's fault? My jaw kept dropping. Joyner unpacks Ryan's line about a GM plant in his district closing (discussed in the above video):

Petty parsing of the facts aside, Ryan’s attack here is just weak. Not only are voters more likely to blame the Congressman who’s spent his whole life in the town than the president of the United States for not saving the plant, this is a ticket that opposes government bailouts of auto plants! "Let Detroit go bankrupt" and all that.  And, it should be noted, both President Bush and President Obama gave GM billions of dollars to stave off collapse.

Claim: We will protect Medicare! Truth: Ryan banks more savings from Medicare than Obama does and throws out all the cost control experiments that might – just might – bend the cost curve downward. Claim: We will balance the budget! Truth: by slashing taxes and revenues and by boosting defense, they won't, by their own accounting, for another two decades.  If we really cannot wait, how do two decades of more debt accumulation help? Claim: we protected the auto industry. Truth: they wanted Detroit to go bankrupt. Claim: the only thing the stimulus did was add debt. Truth: yes it added debt, but it did so in large part by tax cuts that Ryan approves of. And so you have an alternative empirical universe in which a deeply radical platform that would transform Medicare for the young, while retaining it in full for the biggest generation, and increase the debt for two more decades, is portrayed as a multicultural rescue of Medicare and the economy.

Even Fox News tackled Ryan's "blatant lies and misrepresentations." Tomasky outlines the challenge for Democrats:

Democrats have to raise their game. They’ve never had to encounter this kind of buttery demagoguery before. Their campaign is going to have to be almost as much against Ryan as against Romney. (Does anyone think Romney’s speech is going to be more effective to the intended audience? I’d be awfully surprised if it is.) They have to rebut his lies, and they have to do it without sounding bitter or afraid or superior or haughty. That’s not easy to do. But it’s the challenge of this campaign. If they can’t win the Ryan war, they’re done.

Scott Galupo's verdict:

Paul Ryan is a talented, well-intentioned man who has been groomed by, and cultivated in the eco-system of, Washington’s conservative intelligentsia. His speech, for all its many fine qualities, is an emblem of the superficial attractiveness and substantive bankruptcy of this intelligentsia.

Lizza's bottom line:

Ryan started this race with a reputation for honesty. He’s on his way to losing it.

When a Randian is speaking of a priority for the poor and weak, you know you have a world-class bullshitter.

Why Not Martinez?

A reader writes:

You asked during live-blogging last night why Romney didn't choose Susanna Martinez as veep. I was loosely following her after an excellent profile in Newsweek a few months ago. I began to like Martinez, but also feared her as a game-changing veep candidate – the anti-Palin. At least as far back as April, however, she was making public statements that veep was not something she was interested in at this stage of her life. She is focused on running her state and taking care of her family, which includes a disabled sister. This makes me like her even more.

Another:

I suppose that any dramatic step by Mitt Romney would be game-changing, but picking a female governor with 1.5 years of service in a small population state would bring with it immediate comparisons to … her.

Another points out:

Her grandparents were illegal immigrants, thereby defying the GOP's entire immigrant platform. No way to shore up white vote with a Latino who had her family come here illegally.

Update from a reader:

Turns out they probably did not immigrate illegally. And even if they did, I doubt it would be much of an issue, even for Republicans. I mean, it was over a century ago.