In a recent speech about poverty at Cleveland State University, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) struck a moderate tone while doubling down on policies that will take us back to an era when our most vulnerable neighbors were on their own.
Mitt Romney’s proposal to boost defense spending until it reaches “a floor of four percent of GDP [gross domestic product],” as he proclaims at his official website, is an insult to history.
President Obama’s quip about bayonets and a game of battleship got a few laughs at the final presidential debate. But our national security and naval readiness are no joking matter.
America’s naval power – which is projected abroad by our aircraft carriers, destroyers, amphibious ships, and submarines – has protected America’s interests, assured our friends, and deterred potential aggressors for decades.
If you believe the likely voter polls, President Obama has hit a wall at 48 percent. Therefore, Governor Romney would narrowly win the popular vote, with the Electoral College a narrow tightrope walk away from a Romney presidency. However, if you believe the registered voter polls, it is Romney who hits a ceiling of 47 percent, enabling Obama to win both the popular vote and re-election in the Electoral College.
Home Depot did it. RIM, E*Trade, and Best Buy did it, too. So did Hewlett Packard and AIG. At companies of all shapes and sizes all over the world, chief executive officers are fired for bad decisions or poor performance. Should the standards be different for the world’s most powerful and prominent CEO?
The President of the United States is the CEO of our federal government. He’s in charge of executive branch departments and agencies. The president sets policy, and with Congress, guides the vision of government, and is entrusted with America’s national security.
Just like the CEO of a major corporation, the person occupying the Oval Office must present a vision, propose policy initiatives to meet goals, achieve buy-in from stakeholders, and demonstrate results. But over the last four years, President Obama has failed to meet most of his own benchmarks, let alone those of the nation.
How will the hurricane influence the election? The conventional wisdom holds that power outages, interrupted work schedules and other factors in the storm’s aftermath could depress turnout and hurt President Obama’s chances, including in swing states like Virginia and New Hampshire. Under this scenario, Sandy would end up a net plus for Romney.
But aside from sheer logistics, how does the storm fit into or alter the narrative that’s been established during the campaign? Natural disasters are normally seen as emergencies where government relief and aid are not only necessary, but deeply valued. Such emergencies demonstrate a core government role, bringing water, food, shelter, power and safety to those who have been afflicted through no fault of their own.
The electoral college is like the infield fly rule in baseball. Only when it matters do we pay attention to the way it works. From 1888, when Benjamin Harrison lost the popular vote but defeated President Grover Cleveland in the electoral college, until 2000, hardly any American thought too much about how we actually elect a president. Then George Bush pulled a Harrison, and beat Al Gore on points.
With polls showing the presidential race to be dead even, Mitt Romney would do well to remind voters in key swing states of his position on social issues like marriage, life and religious liberty. They could tip the scale in this election.
The Karl Rove wing of the GOP and the Republican elite have succeeded in keeping social issues off the table in this general election, deeming them to be “divisive.” They’ve understandably focused their campaign on the Obama record, especially as it relates to the economy. But Obama also has a record on social issues, and that record puts him at odds with a large majority of voters in key swing states. Unfortunately, voters in those states haven’t heard much about the Obama record on marriage, life and religious liberty, and Romney himself hasn’t done much to make these issues a central part of his messaging. This is a key strategic mistake that he should remedy while he still has the chance.
I was very disappointed to read Stephen Schneck’s recent column, which questioned Mitt Romney’s morals on the basis of his plan to return control of our nation’s Medicaid program to the states. Not only was his column extraordinarily misleading, but it was insulting to me as a fellow Catholic.
To be clear, I share Mr. Schneck’s commitment to serving others; after all, our faith does call us to care for “the least of these.” The difference, however, is that I fulfill my responsibility by tithing, volunteering in my community and supporting privately funded charitable organizations; I don’t believe it’s the government’s role to fulfill our responsibilities as Catholics for us.
There's an evangelical pastor in Washington, DC, Jim Wallis, who said something that has always stuck with me: we don't need to go further to the left, we don't need to go further to the right, we all just need to go deeper.
With less than two weeks remaining until Election Day, I'd like to ask you to do something radical: STOP. That's right - just stop. A pretty uncommon ask from a politician, eh? Politicians are usually asking us to DO something. I'm asking you to take a few minutes and just stop.