By Artur Davis, on Mon Oct 29, 2012 at 10:00 AM ET
If it turns out the life of Barack Obama’s presidency is measured in months, left-leaning analysts will agonize over what went so wrong. Their explanations will range from confusion over how a stunningly gifted orator never mastered the greatest national pulpit, to consternation about the intransigence of Republicans and the eruption of the Tea Party, to sober hand-wringing about the intractable nature of 21st Century democracy.
But the mourning will not match the genuine misery and perplexity many Americans feel regarding the state of the nation. For all the explanations of how Obama has fallen short of his promise, the simplest one is in the discontent of those 23 million plus individuals who are under or unemployed, some for such long stretches that they have fallen through the cracks of the government’s official statistics. These men and women are the source of a national fury over why things are the way they are, and they and the Americans who know them have proved resistant to deflecting responsibility or changing the subject.
To be sure, as his defenders never cease to point out, Obama was greeted with the debris of a national calamity. The country seemed to be teetering on the edge of depression for stretches in late 2008 and early 2009, a casualty of a Washington environment that privileged and made unaccountable the giant government sponsored housing enterprises and a reckless Wall Street culture that took the risk out of lending for the mortgagor. But rather than tackle the crisis with single-mindedness, Obama veered off in too many scattered directions: a stimulus whose legacy is a slew of poor returns on investments in alternative energy and uncompleted construction projects, a partisan healthcare law that drained off a year of the administration’s efforts, a massive overhaul of the carbon producing economy that was too unwieldy for even many Democrats to embrace, a financial industry bill that has not stopped excessive leveraging in the capital markets. The portfolio is one that Obama and his allies have strained to explain, much less justify.
Read the rest of… Artur Davis: A Closing Argument for Mitt Romney
By Ronald J. Granieri, on Sun Oct 28, 2012 at 8:30 AM ET
As the late night comics and cable screaming heads continue to mock and skewer the small percentage of undecided voters who will tip the balance in next week’s presidential election — How can someone be so stupid as to not be able to tell the difference between the two candidates? — I learned that one of the smartest people I’ve ever met is among this derided consitituency.
Ron Granieri is a graduate of Harvard College, earned his PhD in History from the University of Chicago, and has served as a professor at an Ivy League university. Moreover, as a precocious college student — who happened to be my roommate — Ron’s near photographic memory would enable him to beat me at Trivial Pursuit without ever allowing me a turn.
I’ve asked Ron to share with the RP Nation the path of a Reagan acoloyte who became frustrated with the far right turn of the GOP, only to be later disenchanted with the promise of the Obama Administration.
Because it will be voters like Ron who could ultimately determine our next President.
When The RP approached me the other day to ask me to join in the round table of “closing statements” for one candidate or another in the presidential election, it forced me to confront something I have tried to avoid for many months.
We have all seen the skits and made the jokes about undecided voters. Saturday Night Live mocked them for being ignorant. [Watch the video at the bottom of this post — in which an undecided voter asks whether French kissing could lead to pregnancy.] The brilliant Steven Colbert recently took it even further, comparing the elusive undecided voter to Jodie Foster’s epically (if unintentionally) hilarious backcountry wild child, Nell.
I have enjoyed a few chuckles at these images myself. But deep down I have been hiding a shameful secret: I am one of them.
I never thought it would come to this.
Ron’s childhood idol
I have always been politically curious, going back to my childhood when I talked politics with my extremely political father. I can remember telling him I thought President Nixon should resign during the summer of 1974 (I was 7). By the time I was in high school in the early 1980s, I had become, following in the intellectual footsteps of my childhood idol, William F. Buckley, Jr., an enthusiastic conservative. My father, who admired Buckley in spite of rather than because of his ideology, was not completely happy about that, but he respected my positions, and we had some wonderfully spirited arguments. When the Georgetown School of Foreign Service application requested an essay outlining the one international problem I would most like to address in my future career, I wrote a perfervid essay on the need to combat international communism. No copy of the essay survives from that pre-word processing age, unless it is in a Georgetown archive somewhere, but I well remember being proud of calling communism “an international gangrene that threatens the health and safety of every society it touches.” I wonder what the folks at the Walsh School thought of it. I don’t know if it helped or not, but I did get in, even if I ended up going somewhere else.
In college I became one of the most visible conservatives on campus, editing Harvard’s monthly conservative student paper, the Salient. It culminated in my being featured in a full page of the graduation issue of the Crimson in 1989, as one of a handful of notable graduates of my class. That article, I discovered, is still available online, but when I think of it I think of the yellowing clipping that my mother framed and hung on the wall in what used to be my bedroom in Niagara Falls.
Graduation Day: Ron at far left, The RP, second from right
I had opinions on everything back then. Some of them I still hold; some I do not. A few of them make me shake my head in affectionate embarrassment for a young man who was awfully full of himself. Nevertheless, I had a pretty clear sense of where I stood on things; I voted in every election I could, and my votes followed those convictions. It was not always easy to be the most conservative person in the room (an experience that followed me from college to graduate school to at least the start of my academic career). But it worked well thanks to lots of good friends and plenty of mutual good will and respect for differences.
In 88, Ron supported Bush 41, but teen hooligans made him a sleeping billboard for the liberal Dukakis
Gradually, however, my sense of having a clear political home began to shift. Part of it was seven years living in the wonderful state of South Carolina, birthplace of both Steven Colbert and Strom Thurmond. In the final years of the last century and the early years of this one, I saw a Republican party that became increasingly focused on issues that did not appeal to me. On the local level I saw a rising tide of anti-intellectualism, anti-urbanism, and nativism. The national party displayed those traits as well, but mostly became fixated on slashing taxes, and too often responded to serious discussions about how to provide enough revenue for existing programs with vaguely neo-Confederate rhetoric about shrinking government disconnected from political reality. It was the party of the suburbs, of the Sun Belt and the Evangelicals. None of those traits much appealed to me, an Italian-Irish Catholic intellectual from a Rust Belt industrial town who prefers Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson and believes the Good Guys indisputably won The War of the Rebellion. The Cold War conservatism that I had embraced so closely, with its sense of national purpose, was dying out, and the new individualized Right was leaving me cold.
I remember well the moment when I really felt that things were slipping away. It was in spring 2000, on the eve of the South Carolina primary. I answered the phone and it was someone from the George W. Bush campaign team taking a poll. She was very pleasant, asked me if I had decided whether to vote for Bush or John McCain, and I admitted I was thinking it over. She then launched into a critique of McCain that trumpeted Bush’s plans for immediate tax cuts that would give the budget surplus back to the voters. I responded that I liked a lot of things about Governor Bush’s “compassionate conservatism,” which I took to mean conservatism based not simply on individualism but which included a sense of shared community responsibility. At the same time, I told her I did not really think that it made sense to rush to cut taxes when we still had a national debt in the trillions. (This was even before Afghanistan, Iraq, Medicare Part D and TARP, of course.)
An embarrassed pause followed. Then she curtly thanked me for my comments and hung up.
I should have taken that as a clear sign of where the Bush campaign stood and where my concerns fit into that agenda. But breaking up is hard to do. Even as I felt increasingly alienated from the GOP, it continued to get my votes. At least, that is, until 2008, when my frustration with the party and where it had led the country moved me to turn my back on them and vote for Barack Obama.
There, I said it. College friends may need a moment. I’ll wait. I recommend deep breaths.
Read the rest of… Ron Granieri: I’m An Undecided Voter — And Yes, I Know How Babies Are Made
By Jonathan Miller, on Fri Oct 26, 2012 at 9:15 AM ET
As you may have noticed, we are only 11 days away from what some call the most important presidential election of our era.
OK, they say that every 4 years…but it is certainly clear that the American people are being offered two highly contrasting visions of the nation’s future.
This week, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are offering their closing arguments to the American people — summations of why they have earned your vote.
That’s why we are dedicating a week at The Recovering Politician to Campaign 2012: The Closing Argument. Over the course of the week, a dozen of our contributors — of course, representing both sides of the aisle — will be making their own summations for the candidate of their choice.
And you can, too. We are calling on the RP Nation to join in as well. Send us a closing argument for your presidential candidate — Obama, Romney, or a 3rd party candidate if you prefer. If it is only a paragraph or two — or just one strongly worded sentence — feel free to leave it in the comments section below. If it is longer — up to a maximum of 1000 words — you can email it to Staff@TheRecoveringPolitician.com. To ensure its publication, please send it to us by Noon, Thursday, November 1.
And who knows, maybe a campaign staffer picks up your ideas, shares it with the candidate, and you will have changed the course of American history. Or perhaps you just get a kick sharing your thoughts with thousands of other readers across the country.
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 9:00 PM ET
As Barack Obama and Mitt Romney duke it out, several of our contributing RPs — including Krystal Ball, Michael Steele, Jeff Smith, and Rod Jetton — will be providing their live commentary of the debate. Read below.
And you too can join the fun. Simply go to your normal Twitter account and use the hashtag #RecoveringPol. Your tweets will appear below LIVE!
By Jonathan Miller, on Tue Oct 16, 2012 at 12:15 PM ET
As many political commenters have noted, the first Obama/Romney debate a few weeks ago was our nation’s first Twitter debate. Twitter commentary during the debate was as potent, if not more, than the traditional post-debate spin from the talking heads.
Tonight, the RP Nation is being empowered to join in the fun. During tonight’s second debate (which begins at 9:00 PM EDY), we will be running a live feed on our home page that will include up-to-the-second tweeting of our bipartisan group contributing recovering politicians, including Michael Steele, Krystal Ball, Jeff Smith, and Rod Jetton.
And you too can join in. Just use the hashtag #RecoveringPol, and your tweets about tonight’s debate will be broadcast live at The Recovering Politician.
So bring on your spin, commentary, observations, and jokes. We look forward to opening the civil discussion to a whole new audience.
Recently, while cleaning up his law firm files, Friend of RP Harvey Burg uncovered a gem of a speech by the late Michigan Governor (and HUD Secretary) George Romney, who’s earning greater renown as the father of the GOP’s current presidential nominee.
In vivid contrast to his son — and to the current direction of much of his own Grand Old Party — George Romney makes a well-reasoned appeal to stimulate private participation by investors, by having the government prime the pump and put in place appropriate and coordinated programming. Mitt’s dad understood that federal government programming on a major level was required to stimulate the economy.
Here are several excerpts:
Speaking about his Republican government’s accomplishments in 1969, Romney states:
“Despite the worst credit crunch in modern times…we were able to keep enough capital flowing into the mortgage market to sustain housing production…”
Speaking about needed ingredients of a national housing policy, he lists among his components:
“adequate levels of government assistance for housing low income families.”
“efficient administration and prompt processing in government programs” and
“effective concern for the economic and social implications of housing, including equal job and enterprise opportunity for minority citizens.”
Read the rest of… RP EXCLUSIVE: A Full-Throated Appeal For Government Stimulus…By George Romney
Like all adolescent girls, I went through a phase of being attracted to charming jerks, since anyone who actually treated me well must have had something wrong with him. And although most of us eventually outgrow that phase, it was hard not to be reminded of it lately as Paul Ryan emerged as a political heartthrob. Those steely eyes! That chiselled chin! Those archaic, reactionary views! This political bad boy may not be the pot-smoking, school-failing rebel of our teen years, but for those of us raised by liberal parents, what better way to rebel than to fall under the spell of a right-wing Republican? Besides, just like with the bad boys, usually we just want to look at him, not listen to his ideology. (There’s a reason why, for at least a few days, the #1 Google search was “Paul Ryan shirtless”. Hasn’t the runaway success of “50 Shades Of Gray” proven that women fantasize about a powerful, conservative man who will patronize us?)
Here’s my tribute to Mr. Ryan’s appeal (sung with my tongue firmly in my cheek):
“Come now, let us reason together,” says the LORD. – Isaiah 1:18.
“I seldom think of politics more than 18 hours a day.” Lyndon Johnson
The next few months the political discourse will continue to get worse as a tight presidential race brings out the worst in both parties.
Unfortunately, that’s not unusual and remains a sad commentary on our modern politics. And in the modern world of social media – it is going to show up on Facebook.
So for those of us that politics is a passion – how do we manage our passion in a way that is respectful to those who don’t agree with us or could care less.
One thing that needs changing is the nature of political discourse. That’s a whole different note. I respect anyone who disagrees with my views – and I want to hear their views. I want to hear their perspective. I respect their views – and don’t doubt their patriotism or faith because they disagree with me. Unfortunately, a lot of people have spent the last four decades attacking politicians and then wonder why nobody trusts or believe in our government.
I’ve been a partisan Democratic activist (with the exceptions of times when I was in the media and it was a conflict of interest and tried hard to be very fair) since I was 18. Those who know me knows it is a passion.
Most of the time, my posts are designed to educate those who agree with me. I’m not trying to pick fights or debunk someone else. I have scores of fellow Democratic activists who are friends on here – including two running congressional campaigns.
But if our nation is going to move forward, both parties really need to listen and listen to each other. And as much as I enjoy hearing that one of my friends won a campaign Tuesday, I also want to read that my friend from middle school went to the National Tea Party rally. And if I chat with my friend Tony Boone, I know we’re going to talk football and the Oakland Raiders and he’s going to talk about motorcycles and probably bash the president. It’s okay. I respect his opinion.
Facebook reflects who we are and what we are doing now. A lot of people I grew up with are just now grandparents. I’m seeing a lot of grandchildren pictures. A lot of our kids are playing sports and we’re bragging on that. Lindy Suiter is going to talk about Racer basketball. Neal Bradley is going to be witty. Michael Buehle is going to talk Notre Dame football. Brian Clardy is going to talk history and African-American culture and wines and jazz and Democratic politics. Bryon Counsell is going to tee off on my politics. John Y. Brown III and I come from way different backgrounds, but when I read what he is writing, I realize we have a lot in common. And faith comes from Baptist preachers and Catholic priests.
But they are all my friends. They are all the fabric of my life – and the fabric of America. I need to hear – and more importantly, listen to all their voices. That’s why I talk politics – and talk politics on Facebook.
And by the way, the Bible verse was President Johnson’s favorite.
I LOVE the Ryan pick. We need less government involvement is everything we do, and we MUST address the nation’s debt. Perfect Man for the position.
L.B.
I can’t stand Paul Ryan either. I just wish they would quit calling him a Tea Partier. He is nothing more than a moderate neocon. As in moderately tolerable. Here’s the radical right wing take.
K.M.
I too was pleased with the Ryan selection.. Maybe we can have meaningful dialoggue now on the truly critical issues instead of this endless nonsense on Bain Capital, tax returns, welfare reform, GPAs, etc., etc
S.K.
The difference in this election could not be more clear, the republicans want to take one half of the poor mans bologna sandwich to pay for another steak for the top 2%.. Thanks for the e-mail very good reading.
E.L
In the last Governor’s election I voted for Steve Beshear, and I am a conservative. I am a registered Democrat, but I want the best person in the office…….NOT the party line. This country has to elect the Romney-Ryan ticket this fall or we get the Cloward- Piven Strategy = BHO Socialist Republic.
F.B.
Governor Romney’s pick of Congressman Paul Ryan is a bold and thoughtful decision.
I do believe that Ryan comes with baggage because he has a record of actually voting and taking a stand, which is not done that often in Washington D.C. What Romney did in his choice is tell the country that he is candidate to be President not because he picked Ryan to be the Republican Vice President candidate. Ryan will act as the COO in a Romney Presidency and Ryan has the experience for that role. One of the reasons that McCain lost was because some people were not comfortable that Governor Palin should or could be President. Senator Obama (which is was when he made his decision on VP), needed someone more “experienced and presidential” to fill out his ticket too. Romney’s pick is someone who knows how to operate within the beltway and can be an adviser to him. Romney is telling the public and insiders in both parties (politely and firmly) that he is the only one who needs the experience to be the President (CEO) of the United States. So for a guy who is being accused of not taking a position, I think we all just saw what kind of President he can and will be.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently warned consumers about a potentially dangerous counterfeit version of Adderall tablets being sold on the Internet – the tablets contained the painkillers tramadol and acetaminophen rather than the active ingredients of the authentic ADHD drug, Adderall. In addition, thousands of packages containing unapproved and counterfeit drug products sold to unsuspecting Americans on Internet sites continue to be seized by US Customs and Border Protection. The Web sites peddling these products place Americans’ health at risk, distributing products that can cause more harm than good.
The AWARXE consumer protection encourages consumers to make an informed choice when buying medications online by using resources provided by the National Association of Boards of Pharmacy® (NABP®). As part of its mission to protect the public’s health, NABP has reviewed, more than 9,800 Web sites selling prescription drugs. AWARxE alerts consumers that only 3%, or 328, of these sites appear to be in compliance with state and federal laws and NABP patient safety and pharmacy practice standards. The other 97% of these sites are considered rogue sites and are listed as Not Recommended on the AWARxE Web site, www.AWARErx.org.
Of the sites reviewed, those currently listed as Not Recommended are characterized as follows:
87% do not require a valid prescription
50% offer foreign or non-FDA-approved drugs
59% use an online questionnaire to evaluate patient health and medication needs, which can be very dangerous
24% are located outside of the United States and selling drugs illegally to patients in the US
Lives have been lost due to people buying medicines from sites that send dangerous drugs without medical oversight that may have been tampered with, expired, or even fake.
FDA regulations and federal and state laws help ensure a secure drug supply chain for products distributed within the US, such as those purchased by patients at the local community pharmacy. In fact, the US drug supply chain is one of the safest in the world. But what happens when consumers go outside of this safety net by purchasing drug products on the Internet that are shipped from locations around the world?
Read the rest of… Carmen Catizone: Americans Can Protect Themselves from Web Sites Selling Dangerous Counterfeit Drugs
If it turns out the life of Barack Obama’s presidency is measured in months, left-leaning analysts will agonize over what went so wrong. Their explanations will range from confusion over how a stunningly gifted orator never mastered the greatest national pulpit, to consternation about the intransigence of Republicans and the eruption of the Tea Party, to sober hand-wringing about the intractable nature of 21st Century democracy.
To be sure, as his defenders never cease to point out, Obama was greeted with the debris of a national calamity. The country seemed to be teetering on the edge of depression for stretches in late 2008 and early 2009, a casualty of a Washington environment that privileged and made unaccountable the giant government sponsored housing enterprises and a reckless Wall Street culture that took the risk out of lending for the mortgagor. But rather than tackle the crisis with single-mindedness, Obama veered off in too many scattered directions: a stimulus whose legacy is a slew of poor returns on investments in alternative energy and uncompleted construction projects, a partisan healthcare law that drained off a year of the administration’s efforts, a massive overhaul of the carbon producing economy that was too unwieldy for even many Democrats to embrace, a financial industry bill that has not stopped excessive leveraging in the capital markets. The portfolio is one that Obama and his allies have strained to explain, much less justify. 
