Debate Impressions

          The first of the Presidential debates is behind us. Romney’s performance was aggressive and effective, and Obama’s was insipid and lackluster. It is strategically unclear why Obama was so reticent, but he is historically so during debates. He chooses to go for the capillaries rather than the jugular.

          This exchange was fraught with untruths, illogic, and vagaries. Romney came in as a national unknown, even though he's been campaigning for eight years. His campaign emerged energized and renewed. This is because they have a new candidate, one we have never seen before. Will the real Mitt Romney...

          Both contenders struck me as men not having a clear plan. It will all work out, trust me. That's not a plan, sorry. Romney did say with certainty that he would encourage Congress to repeal some laws, mainly Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act. I remind our gentle readers that Presidents can't repeal laws. They are not a king. Congress repeals laws. Hence the first campaign promise that can't be delivered.

          Another specific was a Republican promise to cut Federal funding of PBS. So based on these two specifics, we can expect celebration on Wall Street and despair on Sesame Street.

          In some ways, Romney reminded me of George Bush, Jr. during the 2000 election. He advocated a moderate political stance, bipartisanship, compassionate conservatism, marketplace regulation, State-provided healthcare.... who is this masked man?  

          I'm told by insiders that Romney's performance more accurately reflects his authentic persona. What will the extremist legislators and media sense makers make of the new Romney? If he genuinely is a moderate, will he have the courage and integrity to push back against extremist elements?

          For gentle readers confused about the numbers and statistics posited by the candidates, don't worry about them. They’re not true. Modern politics is driven by ideology rather than facts. One is more likely to be blinded by illogic than science.

          Both sides were untruthful with facts, although Romney was more masterful in his mixture and delivery of fact and fiction. Facts were used to “give in impression”of the opponent that was not accurate.

          Rather than a contrast of clear plans forward, the Presidential race is characterized by broad ideological roads meandering in different directions. During a global recession and facing an entrenched Congress, Obama”s more of the same is unlikely to produce significant benefits, particularly in the short term. Obama wants to make a lot more strategic investments in infrastructure, education, energy, etc. If any strategic investments do make it through Congress, they will take 10 to 30 years to bear fruit. The private/public partnerships which produced world class schools and the electronics, telecommunications, computer industries in the 1970s began under Eisenhower.

          Contrasted to Obama's current business as usual is Romney's former business as usual. Broadly, Romney's direction reforms the tax code and creates many high-paying jobs. The budget is balanced not by raising taxes, but by more working Americans paying taxes and increasing revenues. Romney's economic approach sinks or swims on the creation of high-paying jobs. Romney did cite accurately the over $4000 per capita decline in household income. Every month, incomes for the average worker continue to fall and the Middle Class continues to erode. A study released last week indicated the average worker makes what they did in 1979.

          The logical disconnect is that Presidents can't make companies pay their workers more money. Obama can't and Romney can't. Congress can't make employers pay their people more money. No law or regulation can do so. American business is currently as productive as it was before the Crash, even with 12 million fewer jobs. We have learned to do more with less and we pay the less less. Corporations are sitting on over $2 trillion in cash, but wages continue to fall. Of all the vagaries of Romney's economic plans, increasing worker pay is a central tenet. I would love to see the connection between business profits and worker benefit restored. Unless Romney has a clear plan to achieve this, his smoke and mirrors are mainly smoke.

          So Romney emerged a kinder, gentler candidate and Obama just seemed weary. Following the debate, much backpedaling is occurring as Romney distances himself from these warm and fuzzy policy positions. I would love to see a Presidential candidate who trust the People enough to tell them the truth. For decades, we've done what I baseball players do. We've substituted steroids for actual muscle building.  We've injected massive amounts of credit and debt into our economic system for an extended self-gratifying binge. We are going to have to pay for that. When candidates don't trust the People with the truth, they don't receive the trust of the People 

        We need a  Presidential candidate who presents solutions and vision at the scale of the problem.  Don't tell us we can build a prosperous future painlessly, that we can get it all from rich people or pending. As it is, we have two candidates both promoting hot fudge sundae diets, promising growth and prosperity without personal discomfort and inconvenience.  Such talk makes people anxious. Without vision, the people perish.

         So what am I looking for in a candidate? We nee Wto cut spending  We have made promises to future generations we can't keep. We need to raise revenue, not just cut spending, because we need to continue to invest in the sources of our strength. I'm Looking for a candidate who comes to the American people honestly and intelligently with a clear plan that matches the scale of the problem. The plan should be fair. Everyone should pay.  The rich should pay more because they've been fortunate for the last few decades, but everyone should pay something. Finally, I look for a plan that's aspirational, inspiring the nation to greatness. I don't see our current choices offering more than talking points.   

       Romney’s moderation was not entirely unanticipated. Over the last month, he’s been retooling his public presentation into a five-point stump speech whose subjects mirror Obama’s stump speech. He talks about (1) exports, (2) domestic energy, (3) retraining programs, and (4) deficit reduction. The two diverge in their emphasis of a final point. Romney emphasizes small business and Obama emphasizes national security. Romney continues to strike me as a smart and caring man trapped in a Party that forces him to adopt extreme and impossible positions. Obama may face something far worse than a talented debater. He may be facing an authentically moderate Republican.