This is an August 15, 2012 response from a friend across the Pacificafter he read my August 13 oped on Obama in United Daily. Very
observant and worth reading.
這是一位太平洋彼岸朋友看過拙作後的評論，極有內容，
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi, Chong-Pin,
Well, now that the Olympics are over, the only remaining major spectator "sport" in town -- here, I mean -- is the presidential election campaign. (Baseball isn't as popular as it once was, though I suppose people will care which team wins the World Series.)
I liked your article. No quarrels with the main thrust and themes. The only small problem I saw was your reference in your 4th point to insulting Israel (汙辱了以色列) -- in fact, the Israelis were delighted with Romney's words. He insulted the Palestinians, though, by presenting the bizarre view that economic prosperity is related to "culture" -- thus implying that the Palestinians, another ancient people, somehow lack "culture" (and not the opportunity to focus on the economy owing to their current circumstances including occupation by Israel).
Beyond that, the polls currently show Obama in the lead by small, but statistically meaningful, percentages -- nationwide (by 3-7% depending on poll and time the polling took place), and in most, though not all, of the so-called swing states. Most projections now suggest that Obama would win slightly over 300 electoral votes.
Romney's selection of Paul Ryan to be his running mate bespeaks discouragement and some desperation on his part. Forget about the initial media reporting -- prompted by the usual "spin" by Romney's campaign team and the docile, lazy mainstream journalists -- that the choice signified Romney's decisiveness, determination to make the campaign about big issues, and judgment that Ryan would bring energy and intellect to his campaign. Nonsense. Ryan and Romney do not agree on key economic issues, and this has already become plain only a few days after Ryan was chosen. Ryan in the past has criticized Romney's health care law in Massachusetts. Ryan and Romney have fundamentally different public positions on Medicare and Medicaid. Ryan has been painted by the media as the "intellectual" and "ideological" leader of the Republican Party. He may be the latter, or one of them, but he surely is not an intellectual leader. The numbers in his so-called economic plan do not add up, and every respected economist in the country, including Republicans, has criticized it. Romney doesn't HAVE an economic policy -- only rhetoric -- and this becomes more clear with every passing day. Neither Romney nor Ryan has any serious foreign policy position; they both mouth, poorly and insincerely, the short sound bites fed them by staffers and advisers, most of them left-over neocons and other advocates of a "strong military" above all else. Neither Romney nor Ryan comes across to me as being especially intelligent. What they have in common would be: (1) wealth, (2) stereotypically "sincere" and "handsome" faces, (3) a reasonably courteous public style, and (4) policy views that are heavily influenced by the wealthiest people in the nation who of course are eager to see election of a president who is also wealthy, who "understands" the issues and concerns of the super-wealthy, and who can be counted upon to preserve all the special tax breaks for the wealthy.
The Obama campaign's constant drumming away at the wealth-related issues have taken a great toll on Romney's image with the public. His "negatives" (i.e., in approval ratings) now are slightly in excess of his positives, an astonishing turnaround given Romney's prior reputation and his accumulation of enormous campaign funds permitting nearly unlimited advertising. But for now, Romney, who won his party's primary chiefly because he had access to so much money, and secondarily because his opponents were uncommonly weak, has faced a steady barrage of questions about how he earned his money (first, he inherited a lot of it; second, he built his fortune through what Newt Gingrich called "vulture capitalism" -- the Bain Investment company he founded; and third, he preserved it through offshore banking and other special tax arrangements), what he has paid in taxes (very little as a percentage of his annual income as most would define it; why he has maintained bank accounts in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands; and whether he understands even slightly the economic situation and worries of those who are not millionaires.
All this has denied Romney his anticipated chance to attack Obama on failure to steer the U.S. economy out of the doldrums. Even there, a majority of Americans polled believe that while Obama has done only about a C+ job on the economy, the fact is that he inherited the situation from Bush's bungling, from crooked Wall Street investment banks, and from Congressional Republicans who stated early and often their one goal was to defeat Obama -- even at the cost of rejecting legislation that might be good for the country in the short term.
The Congress currently "enjoys" a public approval rating of around 10-12%. It is regarded as irresponsible, ideological, dysfunctional, in thrall to vested financial interests, and probably corrupt. That is true of both parties, but the Republicans in particular get tarred in the public mind for their idiotic, ideological brinksmanship aiming to shut down the government if they didn't get their way on deficits and, by extension, reduction of social policies without any increase in taxes. I think the public has increasingly seen the realities.
Beyond that, Paul Ryan, the supposed intellectual leader and apostle of responsible economic policy, voted for all of the Bush administration's costly adventures, worked to get federal benefits and monies for his district in Wisconsin ("pork barrel" projects), and railed against the TARP bailout but quietly solicited some of that money also for his district and state.
Presidential and vice presidential debates rarely change the dynamics and momentum of a campaign, though that sometimes happens and cannot be wholly discounted as something to watch. For now, though, I would expect Obama to annihilate Romney in the debates. People like Obama's manner, and they dislike Romney's; Obama is plainly more intelligent and a better debater; Romney, like many of the super-wealthy, is not accustomed to being challenged or questioned, and he shows his irritation and anger when this is done; Obama has an infinitely deeper understanding of policies and policy choices; Romney has been unwilling to make explicit ANY of his policy preferences. No contest. The vice presidential debate isn't worth mentioning. These things just don't matter.
For Obama, things can still go wrong over the next several months. For example:
A serious setback in Afghanistan or Iraq
A successful terrorist strike against the U.S. or U.S. interests
A marked downturn in the economy as measured in unemployment rate, stock market average, cost of gas at the pump, or (unlikely) inflation.
A conflict with Iran -- started by Israel in a deliberate effort to engage the U.S. during election season
Major new problem over North Korea, Russia or some other hot spot
A major corruption scandal of some sort
None of these things are especially likely, but any one of them could be sufficient to turn the tide in the campaign, especially if the Republicans are able to claim credibly that it was the "fault" of Obama in some fashion.
Obviously, that's just a very short, quick overview of things. Right now, it looks like Obama will be reelected. But nothing is ever certain, and virtually every U.S. election in the end is a fairly close one.
All the best,
留言列表
出版書籍/books published (9)
