Horses and Bayonets

There was a Monday night football game and a baseball play off tonight, so I'm not sure anyone beyond the crew at PBS was watching, but from my view out here in New Hampshire, Mr. Obama made Mr. Romney look like an inept amateur tonight.

Mr. Romney, as I'm sure most people will hear tomorrow morning, tried to attack Mr. Obama as a wrecker of the national defense, as a man who had weakened America by cutting back on our armed forces. Why, we have fewer ships today than we did in 1910, Mr. Romney said, scandalized.

Mr. Obama smiled slyly and replied, "That's because you have no idea of what real strength is. Yes, we have fewer ships, and we also have fewer horses and bayonets in our armed forces, but that's because we have these things called aircraft carriers and these ships that go underwater, called submarines. You have to know how military forces need to be constructed in the 21st century. "

And another exchange, Mr. Obama remarked, "You want to return to  the wars of the 1980's, the social policies of the 1950's and the economic policies of the 1920's." 

At least, that's the way I remember it.

One thing I do remember is Mr. Romney and his running mate Mr. Ryan both said, quite clearly, during prior debates we do not want to draw a line in the sand and say we will leave Afghanistan at 2014, because then we tell the Taliban all they have to do is wait until that date. But now, with the ever changing kaleidoscope which is Mr. Romney, we are all for a clear date, Taliban planning no longer mentioned.

Romney did what Romney does:  He spun his tale about how everything has collapsed around the world and it's all because Mr. Obama has been a failure as a President.  Those who want to believe that will believe that. 

For whatever reasons, some people want to believe Mr. Romney wouldn't be so bad, and he'd be better than Mr. Obama.

To paraphrase The Wire, Mr. Obama has to be saying to himself, "I can be right about Afghanistan; I can be right about the economy; I can be right about Social Security and I can be right about Medicare, but tomorrow morning, I still wake up Black in a country which isn't."

We'll find out what this country is made of on November 6.

Republican Pie: Romnesia Rhubarb

Once upon a time, there was a lovely Princess named Prosperity, and there was a handsome prince, called Romnesia.   Prosperity wanted to visit every house in the shire, and shower them with goods and services and bank accounts bursting at the seams and F-150 pick up trucks (made in the USA) and Sig Sauer hand guns and Winchester rifles and bottles of beer and long, long vacations. 

But there was an evil spirit in the shire:  Government Regulation and his evil twin, Government Interference, and they stood between the Princess and all her people. Together they worked their nefarious will through something caused "taxes" which made all the good, rich people in the shire afraid to come out and do all the good things rich people like to do, like hire poor people and send over Thanksgiving turkeys and allow everyone to visit their country clubs, right after the proper respect had been paid by mowing the lawns and power washing the decks of the rich people.

But I digress. We were talking about the bad twins, Government Regulation and Government Interference, who tried every day to bring bad things like socialism and  Medicare and Social Security to the people of the shire, who, if those things were allowed to grow would have found themselves turning into worthless, dependent slackers who felt government owed them a living.

Fortunately, Prince Romnesia came along and fought many battles against many nasty foes, like the troll Newt and the wizard RonPaul and the horney toad Pizzaman and the sorcerer Santorum and the winter queen Bachmann. One after another, Prince Romesia slew each with his nifty rightward dodge: Every time one of his foes swung a  blade at the Prince, the Prince jumped to the right, and got behind his foe and kicked him to the ground.

But then, Prince Romnesia had to face the ultimate Radical, who had been born in No Place, and had no birth certificate and who had wandered through youth from parts of the globe where bad thoughts come from: Indonesia, CALIFORNIA, and Hawaii (which isn't so bad, but it's not really America, as Alaska is.)

There was a great tournament and Prince Romnesia stalked the Radical, and the Prince swung his sword many times, and hard and he was very brave. But he was also very clever, because this time, he jumped, not to the right, as he had before, but to the left. And he made friends with Government Regulation, and he said we all should love Government Regulation, because it is necessary for free markets. And the Prince split the alliance between Government Regulation and Government Interference, and he was smart to do this, because you can divide and conquer.

So, the Prince became the great champion of Government Regulation and he even said he would make sure the rich people did not pay any less in taxes. But what he really meant was the total percentage of all taxes paid by the rich would not be any less. This did not make the rich people afraid because Prince Romnesia said he would make everyone pay less in taxes and the proportions would all stay the same. 

And while he was cutting taxes, he would swing his magic sword and cut the deficit into little, little pieces. 

And everyone lived happily after.

"I'll Be Happy To Guard Your Henhouse"

Romney and The Contemptible Poor

When Mitt Romney told his rich donors there are 47% of the American people who are slackers and free loaders, whose votes he will never get and doesn't really care about because these because  those 47% are the slackers and free loaders who don't pay the income taxes, he was, of course, embracing the basic Republican ethos: We deserve what we've got. The poor people who are not paying income taxes,because they are making only $20,000 a year, and soldiers serving in Afghanistan, those people are parasites, and beneath contempt. Doesn't matter if they pay payroll taxes, they are parasites. Not like us. Not like me. Why, I paid 13%!

Mitt is slick about his con--saying the rich will pay the same 60% of total income tax collected in this country they now pay. but that still leaves individual millionaires paying only about 35% of their incomes.  Of course,  60% is not nearly enough. We're not talking about the overall slice of the pie, we are talking about what an individual billionaire pays. And 60% may sound like a big share, but not when you look at the wealth pie--80% of all wealth and income in America go to just 20% of the people. So if the share of the billionaires rises to 70% or even 80% of the total, is that unfair? 

Nobody wants to go back to Eisenhower Republican days, when the top earners paid over 60% of their individual incomes in income tax. We are talking about Clinton, going up to, say, 38%. Or something. Let's not get lost in the numbers. Keep the ideas out front: They can pay more and still have way more than they deserve.

Of course, it's not freeloading for the rich to have off shore bank accounts, to have their Congressmen in their pocket so that's legal, to arrange their income so none of it is "ordinary income" but comes from "capital gains" or some other category that doesn't get taxed. That is not government teat feeding, that's just the game.

But here's the ad I'd like to see: 
Picture of Romney:
"Vote for Mitt:  
1. End legal abortion
2. Lock in a Supreme Court owned by Republicans
3. Kill Medicare
4. Apply for your membership in Mitt's country club.
5. Hold your breath."

Something simple, like that.

The Pitchman vs The President: Con Artist vs The Captain

"Oh, we got trouble. We got trouble right here in River City."
"It's offensive. It's offensive that you would use the death of any American as a political football. I had to greet those flag draped coffins when they came home."

Finally!

Okay, so the man can throw a punch, not just a single punch but a flurry.
Admittedly, I may not be the most objective viewer, but I thought Mr. Romney looked for all the world like the cheap hustler he is, with his breathless pitch, trying to sell you the home you cannot afford, and Mr. Obama said, "Oh, suddenly you are the champion of the middle class: the man who scorns the 47%."

It's what we wanted to hear out here in the Shire.

Romney did shout out that line "Government cannot create jobs! Government cannot create jobs!"  which I wish someone would finally say,  "But it sure does every day."

But in the end, Mr. Obama stuck it to Romney for voucher care, for refusing to tax the wealthy and for shipping jobs overseas.

Once again,  the moderator allowed Romney to bully his way into the time space, and you could see it on the clock behind him, but Candy was not nearly as inept as Jim Lehrer and the President got enough time to land his punches.

Mr. Obama does have a halting, thoughtful delivery which in some ways works to his advantage, when juxtaposed to that rapid fire, breathy motormouth, try to get-in-that whole-sale pitch style of Mr. Romney. "Oh, we got trouble, we got trouble in River City." I half expect to see him with the boater hat soft shoeing across the stage.

I'm still not sanguine we'll see a reversal of that nugget: "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public." The people I talk to in my office every day are just as thick and slow and prepared to vote Republican as you can imagine.  I do not for one second believe "voters are not fools." Voters elected George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan twice.  So you have to have a very delusional notion of what the American electorate is like to hold out much hope for Mr. Obama's chances.

But we can always dream,  and for the weekends before the election, Mad Dog will be knocking on doors and doing whatever he can, for all the good it does. 

But tonight, at least, Mad Dog will sleep happily, as if lulled by a glass of port after a bracing swim through the waves.

Provided we are done with the earthquakes--Hampton, New Hampshire had a dilly tonight. 4.6. I did not consider it a good omen.  At least, we are told it was just an earthquake. Mad Dog thought the Seabrook Nuclear plant had blown. Could have been worse. Say the same for the debate.
But maybe that earthquake was portentous: Maybe that's what hit Mr. Romney tonight.  Tonight he was unmasked. What looked like confidence and aggressiveness last week turned out to be hucksterism, a phony sales pitch that hung all over Romney like a cheap suit.

Debating the Chameleon: Obama vs Romney

Mitt Romney, in his first debate derailed the President by embracing the idea that government regulations are necessary to the operation of a free market and he also said he would not resist taxing the billionaires.  "I never said I wouldn't be open to that."

So how do you argue with the man who suddenly agrees with you on the two most important points you have been hammering him on?  

You might point out this is a jail house, a death row, conversion, and no more convincing. 

Suddenly Mr. Romney is only against bad government regulations, and he will not specify exactly which regulations those might be--although you can expect him to have a list this Tuesday.  Until now, Mr. Obama might point out, Republicans have been saying all the only thing standing between prosperity and the American people are government regulations and interference, but now, regulations are a good thing.

And suddenly, after adamantly refusing to tax the billionaire, who Mr. Romney has insisted is the "job creator," after saying you don't want to burden these rich people who might react by simply not hiring any body, suddenly, he is open to this idea.

Well, Mr. Obama might say, since you agree we need some government regulations and we need to tax the billionaires so they pay their fair share, you really can concede right now. 

I'd love to hear Mr. Obama heap scorn on this man, who is and always has been and always will be in the pockets of the big money men who have bought and paid for the Republican party, senators and congressmen and presidents, suddenly, he is willing to tax these big spenders.

The big question is: Does Mr. Obama have it in him to trade punches with a slippery and dishonest opponent? 

U.S. Elections Global Perspective

Mad Dog is stunned to see how many viewers follow Hampton, New Hampshire from Australia, France, India, Korea and places most people in New Hampshire could not reliably be counted on to be able to find on a map. 

(Mad Dog has found the little function key which shows where people viewing his blog are located. Viewing does not mean following or even liking, but at least Mad Dog can see, there were some people out there watching.)

Here in the Shire, the rest of the world is just some blurry smudge over the horizon, and on the Seacoast, the farthest we can see is, on a clear day, the Isles of Shoals, which are 15 miles off the coast, but on a clear New Hampshire day, they look as if you could reach out and touch them, if you just waded out a little way into the surf.

Angela Merkel, David Cameron, Silvio Berlusconi are names which mean nothing to most of the folks here in Hampton. They may have heard of Dominique Strauss Kahn, but they could not tell you he was a likely next head of state of France, until his behavior in a New York hotel made headlines.

So why would a reader in Korea care about what a Mad Dog Democrat in New Hampshire thinks?  Why should someone in Australia log on to Mad Dog's blog?

It cannot be our politics are more interesting than those in Europe, Asia or Australia.

Maybe we are  simply bizarre enough to be entertaining.  After all, we elect a half Black man, whose middle name is Hussein, following a half witted Texan/New England dunce.  This new President, is, like the rest of us, from nowhere, or from everywhere, from Indonesia, Hawaii, California, New York City, Cambridge, Massachusetts, Chicago, and he emerges, this chimera, who is one of the finest writers of his time, who is thoughtful, elegant and incapable of bombast, and he gets elected in a country of Joe Sixpacks, guys who love guns, women who watch American Idol and the Karkashians, and as soon as he starts, before he can even start, he has to grab of wheel of an economy which is careening toward the cliff, headed straight for the next Great Depression. Somehow, at the last moment,  in a scene worthy of American Graffiti, he swerves us clear of the abyss, rejecting the "Austerity" solution of Europe and driving us down the middle road to a slow but steady recovery.

But then, a chameleon of a Republican, who says the only thing standing between America and a booming economy is government intervention and regulation, until his first debate when he denies all that, and the chameleon accuses the President of not being a good dance partner, not wanting to be bipartisan when for almost 4 years his the Republican party has been cleaving to the Tea Party of no compromise, no cooperation, government is bad and gridlock is good, which makes it the President's fault for not cooperating.

I guess, I can see it now. This American soap opera beats even the hijinks of  Berlusconi and DSK, the stupidity of Cameron and Merkel, the resentment of the Northern Europeans over the indolence of the Southern Europeans. 

We are simply the best show in town. 

Chrystia Freeland and the One Percent

Karl Marx said capitalism grows with a poison pill embedded in its roots: Eventually the winners will take all, leaving the rest, the 99% frustrated and ready for revolt.

At the Democratic national convention they showed a very effective cartoon of people climbing up rope ladders and reaching the cliff at the top and some pulled up those ladders and tossed them back into the abyss while others leaned down and offered hands to pull up those behind them. The Democrats did not have to say who the people who were offering the helping hands were, or who the people who did not were.

Chrystia Freedland in todays New York Times (10/15/12) notes that there is historical precedence for states which fail when the winners are allowed to throw away those ladders so others cannot join them atop the mountain: She cites 14th century Venice.

But history is one long argument and who really knows what happened in Italy in the 1300's?  What she does provide is information about what is happening in the USA in the 21st century, where of the 400 richest Americans in 2009,27 paid 10 percent or less, none paid more than 35% (the top bracket) and  6 paid no federal income tax at all. 

Most people here in New Hampshire stop listening when numbers are trotted out, but they can understand this:  The truth is when Mitt Romney talks about the 47% of Americans who are caught in a habit of dependence on the federal government, he means those people who do not pay income tax because they are either not making enough to reach even the lower brackets, or soldiers who are on active duty in Iraq or Afghanistan.  He does not mean the upper 1% who have Republican candidates and Congressmen in their pockets, who are dependent on the sweet deals and the laws their bought an paid for Congressmen and Senators have sent their way, ensuring they continue to live off the fat of the land while the middle class folks labors under the weight of having to carry those fat cats on their backs.

Inexplicably, the Democrats have never shown that cartoon from the convention again, as far as I know.  It's another example of the Democrats simply failing at mass communication--snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Hopefully, President Obama will have the presence of mind to mind America of all this, Tuesday night, and hopefully he'll find a way to say it forcefully enough to get the message down to the least educated Joe Sixpack.