The UM book of discipline 164B says: "The strength of a political system depends upon the full and willing participation of its citizens." In that spirit, I share a few comments regarding the third debate from various authors.
Charles Krauthammer
Obama lost. His tone was petty and small. Arguing about Iran’s nuclear
program, he actually said to Mitt Romney, “While we were coordinating an
international coalition to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were
still invested in a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the
Iranian oil sector.” You can’t get smaller than that. You’d expect this in a
city council race. But only from the challenger. The sitting councilman would
find such an ad hominem beneath him.
Throughout the debate, Obama kept it up, slashing, interjecting,
interrupting, desperate to gain the upper hand by insult if necessary. That
spirit led Obama into a major unforced error. When Romney made a perfectly
reasonable case to rebuild a shrinking Navy, Obama condescended: “You mentioned . . . that
we have fewer ships than we did in 1916. Well, Governor, we also have fewer
horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed.”
Such that naval vessels are as obsolete as horse cavalry?
Liberal pundits got a great guffaw out of this, but the underlying argument
is quite stupid. As if the ships being retired are dinghies, skipjacks and
three-masted schooners. As if an entire branch of the armed forces — the
principal projector of American power abroad — is itself some kind of
anachronism.
“We have these things called aircraft carriers,” continued the schoolmaster,
“where planes land on them.”
This is Obama’s case for fewer vessels? Does he think carriers patrol alone?
He doesn’t know that for every one carrier, 10 times as many ships sail in a
phalanx of escorts?
Obama may blithely dismiss the need for more ships, but the Navy wants at least 310 and the latest
Quadrennial Defense Review Independent Panel report says that defending
America’s vital interests requires 346 ships (vs. 287 today). Does
anyone doubt that if we continue as we are headed, down to fewer than 230, the
casualty will be entire carrier battle groups, precisely the kind of high-tech
force multipliers that Obama pretends our national security requires?
Romney, for his part, showed himself to be fluent enough in foreign policy,
although I could have done with a little less Mali (two references) and a lot
less “tumult” (five).
But he did have the moment of the night when he took after Obama’s
post-inauguration world apology tour. Obama, falling back on his base, flailingly
countered that “every fact checker and every reporter”says otherwise.
Oh yeah? What about Obama declaring that America had “dictated” to other
nations?
“Mr. President,” said Romney, “America has not dictated to other nations. We
have freed other nations from dictators.”
Obama, rattled, went off into a fog, beginning with “if we’re going to talk
about trips that we’ve taken,” followed by a rambling travelogue of a 2008 visit to Israel. As if this is about trip-taking,
rather than about defending — vs. denigrating — the honor of the United States while on
foreign soil. Americans may care little about Syria and nothing about Mali. But
they don’t like presidents going abroad confirming the calumnies of tin-pot
dictators.
The rest of Romney’s debate performance was far more passive. He refused the
obvious chance to pulverize Obama on Libya. I would’ve taken a baseball bat to
Obama’s second-debate claim that no one in his administration,
including him, had misled the country on Benghazi. (The misleading is beyond dispute. The only question is whether it was
intentional, i.e., deliberate deceit, or unintentional, i.e., scandalous
incompetence.) Romney, however, calculated differently: Act presidential. Better
use the night to assume a reassuring, non-contentious demeanor.
Romney’s entire strategy in both the second and third debates was to reinforce the status he achieved in debate No. 1 as a plausible alternative president. He
therefore went bipartisan, accommodating, above the fray and, above all,
nonthreatening.
That’s what Reagan did with Carter in their 1980 debate. If your opponent’s
record is dismal and the country quite prepared to toss him out — but not unless
you pass the threshold test — what do you do?
Romney chose to do a Reagan: Don’t quarrel. Speak softly. Meet the threshold.
We’ll soon know whether steady-as-she-goes was the right choice.
Victor Davis Hanson on the third debate
This week, the third and final debate offered Obama a last
opportunity to convince the American people that at least on matters of
foreign policy, Romney was either dangerous or ill-informed. That
challenge also ensured that Obama would have to crowd into the final 90
minutes near-constant attacks to crack the calm Romney facade. Even or
ahead in the polls, all Romney had to do in response was for a third
time keep acting presidential and prove that his earlier displays of
composure and competence were no flukes -- a no-brainer strategy clear
to anyone who had followed the first two debates.
That is precisely what Romney pulled off. As in the second debate,
Obama might have done well enough to come away with a tie or even a
narrow win on points, but he probably didn't fare well enough to reverse
his slide in the polls. If Obama sought to shatter Romney's image as a
compassionate and competent captain of industry, he more likely damaged
his own once carefully crafted image as a nice guy.
Here is some fact-checking
President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney faced off last night in
the third and final presidential debate – focusing on foreign policy –
at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.
The Fox News Brainroom provides us with a fact check and in-depth analysis of some of the key claims made by the two men.
Topic: Military spending
Obama: “We spend more on our military than the next 10 countries combined.”
PROBABLY TRUE.
* As the Washington Post clarifies, it is REALLY difficult to get (a) reliable and (b) comparable figures:
“However,
raw numbers can be misleading. The official Chinese figure of less than
$100 billion a year is believed to be dramatically understated; SIPRI
pegs it at around $100 billion. The Defense Department believes the real
number for the Chinese military to be $150 billion.
Even that
doesn’t tell the whole story, because it costs China less money to buy
the same goods and services as the United States. Carl Conetta,
co-director of the Project on Defense Alternatives, who edits a Web page
on Chinese military power, says that using a rough calculation of
purchasing power parity, the correct figure for Chinese defense spending
would be as much as $240 billion.
That’s still less than the
United States spends, of course, but it is an indication of how fuzzy
some of these calculations can be. The comparison to China also does not
include the fact that because it is not a global power, Beijing may
actually spend more on its military in the western Pacific than does the
United States.
There is also a question of whether one counts
just the base military budget or also the spending on the wars such as
in Iraq and Afghanistan.
An administration official said the
president’s statistic was derived from an examination of a classified
version of the CIA Factbook, which presumably would show higher levels
of spending for countries such as China.
If war spending is
included, then the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next
12 countries combined, the official said. If only base budget outlay is
counted, the U.S. military budget is larger than those of the next
eight countries. So the White House decided to split the difference,
which is why the president said the U.S. budget was larger than the
budgets of “roughly” the next 10 countries combined.
[source: Washington Post]
Topic: Romney’s investments in a Chinese oil company working in Iran
Obama:
“And the fact is, while we were coordinating an international coalition
to make sure these sanctions were effective, you were still invested in
a Chinese state oil company that was doing business with the Iranian
oil sector.”
CORRECT. (Romney
will say the investment was in a blind trust over which he had no
control, despite the fact that the blind trust liquidated these
investments right about the time Romney ratcheted up his anti-China
rhetoric).
* Starting in October 2009, Romney’s trust made three
investments in CNOOC (the Chinese national oil company) with significant
dealings with Iran. He sold the investments in August 2011 for a profit
of about $11,000.
* As the Financial Times reported on September 24, 2012:
“Mitt
Romney’s trust invested in Cnooc at a time when the US was growing
concerned about the Chinese oil company’s multibillion-dollar dealings
with Tehran, according to the 2011 tax return released by the Republican
nominee for president.
…
Mr. Romney has repeatedly said he
had no control over the decisions by the blind trust that held the
investments, which are controlled by a trustee named R. Bradford Malt.
…
The
first investment by Mr. Romney’s trust in Cnooc Limited, in October of
2009, was made about seven months after the group’s state-owned parent
company was widely reported to have signed a deal with Iran to develop
the huge North Pars gasfield for an LNG export project.
Mr.
Romney’s blind trust made two subsequent investments in Cnooc and then
sold all the shares – for a profit of about $11,000, in August of 2011.
That was about the same period when Mr. Romney began ratcheting up his campaign rhetoric against China.”
[source: Romney’s China holdings criticized, by Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, September 24, 2012]
Topic: The killing of Usama bin Laden
Obama: “Romney said he would not move ‘heaven and earth’ to get bin Laden.”
PARTIALLY TRUE. He used those words, but the quote ignores the larger context.
* As Politifact states:
“An
Obama campaign ad suggested Mitt Romney wouldn’t have aggressively
pursued Osama bin Laden by citing Romney’s statement that, “It’s not
worth moving heaven and earth and spending billions of dollars just
trying to catch one person.”
The Obama campaign is right that
Romney used those words, but by cherry-picking them, it glosses over
comments describing his broader approach. Romney said he wanted to
pursue all of al-Qaida, not just its leaders.”
[source: Politifact]
Topic: Trade with China
Obama: “We doubled exports to China since I took office.”
NOT QUITE
– an increase of 49% from 2008 to 2011 ($69.733 billion versus $103.94
billion in 2011) and we are on track for an increase to approximately
$105 billion in 2012.
* This also ignores that fact that, despite
our increase in exports, our trade deficit with China has increased
under President Obama (from $268 billion in 2008 to $295 billion in 2011
– an increase of about 10%).
Year Exports to China Trade deficit
2008 $69.733 billion -$268.040 billion
2009 $69.497 billion -$226.877 billion
2010 $91.881 billion -$273.0632 billion
2011 $103.939 billion -$295.423 billion
2012 (thru Aug) $69.9995 billion -$203.1215 billion
[source: U.S. Census]
Topic: Would Romney have let U.S. auto companies go bankrupt?
Romney:
“I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was
able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of
bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to
help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested
that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.”
CORRECT.
*
In his New York Times op-ed, Romney called for a managed bankruptcy,
with the federal government providing guarantees for post-bankruptcy
financing.
* Here is the relevant part of the op-ed:
“The
American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer
and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only
path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would
permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate
costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for
post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties
are not at risk.
In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government
would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal
their fate with a bailout check.”
[source: New York Times op-ed, "Let Detroit Go Bankrupt," by MITT ROMNEY, November 18, 2008]
*
He further clarified that he was not prepared to let the companies
liquidate in a November 28, 2008 interview with Wolf Blitzer:
Blitzer:
Richard Wagoner, the GM CEO says if they were to do any of those
things, go into Chapter 11 or file for bankruptcy, it would even make
matters worse because people would be reluctant to buy a GM car knowing
that they could have problems getting spare parts or warranty guarantees
along those lines. Is he right?
Romney: Well actually, him going
to Washington and saying that the companies are going to disappear
unless they get $25 billion is already a signal to consumers.
Going
into Chapter 11, I’m not convinced would have that big of an impact,
particularly if Washington were to say quite clearly we’re not going to
let these companies go away. We’re going to guarantee the warranties for
anybody who buys a U.S. made automobile this time going forward for
some period of time.
We’re going to help with the post-bankruptcy
financing that allows these companies to thrive and grow. We basically
need to restructure them and then help them get back on their feet and
make sure that their future is bright. But just putting money into them
as is, is not going to help anybody and frankly is going to lead to
these companies losing market share long term and perhaps facing
liquidation way down the road. That’s the wrong way. That we don’t want
to see.
Blitzer: If these companies don’t restructure very, very quickly, are you willing to let the U.S. auto industry, in effect, die?
Romney:
Well, I don’t want to see it die, that’s the wrong course and the union
and management and the state officials are not going to let that
happen. There’s no reason for that to happen. The U.S. automobile
industry is making very good cars these days. They’ve been, actually,
really remarkable in designing cars like the Chevy Malibu, the Ford
Mustang. There are some — you know, the Chrysler 500.
These are
really innovative designs, they’re ranked very well. The companies don’t
have to go away. But what has to go away is the excess burden we’ve
laid on them and that’s the burden that’s the cause of managers that
show up in corporate aircraft and eat in executive dining rooms. That
spreads the resentment throughout the company that makes it difficult
for labor to do what needs to be done on that front. These are companies
that are not going to go away. We shouldn’t have them go away. But we
should help them get on their feet so they can compete and finally beat
back Toyota and Nissan and Honda and BMW, all of whom make cars right
here in the U.S.
[source: Interview With Mitt Romney, November, 23 2008, CNN]
Topic: The 2009 protests in Iran
Romney said that Obama was “silent” on the protests in Iran.
FALSE. However, similar to Libya, there was an evolving language and response to the protests in Iran by President Obama.
On
June 13, 2009, Iran announced that incumbent President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad won a landslide victory, prompting mass protests from
supporters of the key opponent, Mir Hossein Mousavi.
Here is how
Obama put it in an interview with CNBC on June 16: “Although there is
amazing ferment taking place in Iran, the difference between Ahmadinejad
and Mousavi in terms of their actual positions may not be as great as
has been advertised. We’ve got long-term interests in having them not
weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah
and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this
election.”
Obama finally toughened his stance a week later, on June 23, after more violence erupted.
“The
United States and the international community have been appalled and
outraged by the threats, the beatings and imprisonments of the last few
days,” Obama said. “I strongly condemn these unjust actions, and I join
with the American people in mourning each and every innocent life that
is lost.”
Topic: How many ships does the U.S. Navy want?
Romney stated that the Department of Defense has asked for 313 ships and President Obama only approved the building of 282.
FALSE
*
In February 2006, the Navy presented to Congress a goal of achieving
and maintaining a fleet of 313 ships, consisting of certain types and
quantities of ships. On March 28, 2012, the Department of Defense (DOD)
submitted to Congress an FY2013 30-year (FY2013-FY2042) shipbuilding
plan that includes a new goal for a fleet of about 310-316 ships.
The
Navy is conducting a force structure assessment, to be completed later
this year, that could lead to a refinement of this 310-316-ship plan.
Because
of the retirement and decommissioning of some ships and the building
process of new ones, the Navy’s size is constantly varying.
The Navy reached even lower levels during the Bush years, hitting a bottom of 279 in FY 2007.
FY
2005………282
2006………281
2007………279
2008………282
2009………285
2010………288
2011………284
With programs like the Littoral Combat Ship increasing production, shipbuilding is higher now than in previous years
FY…………..ships procured/requested
07……………5
08……………3
09……………8
10……………7
11……………10
12……………11
13……………10
President
Obama has never said that the Navy’s size should be at 282 ships, and
the size of the Navy will increase, not decrease.
[Source: Navy Force Structure and Shipbuilding Plans: Background and Issues for Congress, 8/9/2012 CRS]
Topic: U.S. troops in Iraq
Did Mitt Romney say recently that he wanted to keep troops in Iraq?
MOSTLY TRUE.
Romney’s Remarks at Virginia Military Institute in Lexington, Virginia, 10/8/2012:
“In
Iraq, the costly gains made by our troops are being eroded by rising
violence, a resurgent Al Qaida, the weakening of democracy in Baghdad,
and the rising influence of Iran. And yet America’s ability to influence
events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt
withdrawal of our entire troop presence. The president has tried. He
tried, but he also failed to secure a responsible and gradual drawdown
that would have better secured our gains.
The president has also
failed to lead in Syria, where more than 30,000 men, women and children
have been massacred by the Assad regime over the past 20 months. Violent
extremists are flowing into the fight. Our ally Turkey has been
attacked. And the conflict threatens stability in the region.”
[Source: CQ]
Topic: The defense budget under Obama
OBAMA: (paraphrase) Defense budgets have gone up every year under my administration.
TRUE. But in the FY2013 request, the base budget will decrease
Defense Base Budgets Under President Obama
…………………
FY2009………513.2
FY2010………527.9
FY2011………528.2
FY2012………530.6
FY2013………524.4 (request)
[Source: Defense Department Comptroller]
2) Obama: “First of all, the sequester is not something I proposed, it’s something that Congress proposed. It will not happen.”
In
fact, the idea may have come in part from Obama’s current chief of
staff, Jack Lew. The Washington Post’s Bob Woodward reported in his book
“The Price of Politics” that Lew, then-Office of Management and Budget
director, and White House Legislative Affairs Director Rob Nabors
broached the idea of a defense sequester as a threat to Republicans
during negotiations over raising the debt ceiling.
The resulting
Budget Control Act, which allowed the U.S. to borrow more money but set
caps on federal spending over the next 10 years, was passed with
bipartisan support in the House and Senate, and signed into law by the
president. It led to the creation of the deficit-reduction
“supercommittee,” which failed to agree on $1.2 trillion in debt
reduction and as such triggered the automatic onset of those cuts on
Jan. 2 – unless Congress averts them. Rep. Paul Ryan, Romney’s running
mate, voted for the Budget Control Act.
Obama’s avowal on
sequester that “it will not happen” is the strongest statement that he
or any Democrat has made in the more than year-long standoff over the
potential cuts, but it wasn’t immediately clear whether Obama was taking
his veto threat off the table or expressing confidence that lawmakers
could reach an agreement when they return next month.
[Source: Politico]
No comments:
Post a Comment