Romney's Arrogant, Unprecedented Evasions of Disclosure Democratic Strategist
by staff,
October 22, 2012 10:17 AM EST
Mitt Romney has already made some history -- no other presidential
candidate in the modern era has refused to disclose more basic information
about his policy proposals. As Thomas B. Edsall explains in The New York
Times:
With the presidential election just two
weeks away, Romney's gamble may be paying off. He has failed to specify where
he would wield the budget knife, and he has defied, with a striking degree of
success, the relatively quiet group of people who have called for him to honor
a host of traditional disclosure and campaign practices.
It hasn't mattered. The Obama v. Romney
all-poll average is now tied on RealClearPolitics and down to a tiny 0.4 point
advantage for Obama on the Huffington Post politics section's Election
Dashboard.
Romney's evasions of traditional
disclosure have been ongoing and almost insolent.
In July, when Romney refused to release
more than two years of tax returns -- in contrast to previous candidates of
both parties, among them his father -- there was a huge uproar. National
Journal published a list of 17 prominent Republicans, including four sitting
senators, who called on him to release 10 or more years. Editorials in papers
across the country denounced Romney's secrecy. The conservative columnist
George Will declared that Romney "must have calculated that there are
higher costs in releasing them." Will warned Romney that he was losing the
argument "in a big way."
But it is Romney who appears to have won
the argument. His tax returns are a dead issue, except on the left and liberal
fringe.
The following article, by Democratic strategist and organizer Robert
Creamer, author of Stand Up Straight: How Progressives
Can Win, is cross posted from HuffPo:
As Election Day grows closer, some pundits seem almost breathless in
their prediction that the Presidential election will be close. Well, of course
it will be close. It has been obvious from the campaign's first day that it
would be close. But there is overwhelming evidence that President Obama will
win.
Why is the race so close?
1). First and foremost, the Republicans' trickledown,
let-Wall-Street-run-wild policies sent the economy into a catastrophic
recession just as Obama took office. This was not your run of the mill business
cycle recession. It was caused by a financial collapse the likes of which
America had not seen since the Great Depression.
The historic evidence is very clear that whenever there is a recession
induced by a financial collapse, it take years for an economy to recover.
American did not fully recover from the Great Depression itself until World War
II -- almost twelve years after the stock market collapsed.
Had the Republicans remained in office and responded as Republican
President Hoover did in 1929, the same fate could have awaited America once
again. But instead, the Obama Administration moved immediately to stimulate the
economy and shore up the financial system -- and especially to rescue the auto
industry -- using policies that in most cases the GOP opposed.
Those policies have set the economy on a path toward sustained growth.
But the Republicans have been hell-bent on stalling growth with the expressed
purpose of defeating Obama this fall. They have sabotaged the economy by
preventing even a vote on the Americans Jobs Act that most economists believe
would create another 1.7 million jobs and would have prevented massive layoffs
in state and local governments.
Mitt Romney is like an arsonist who complains that the fire department
isn't putting out his fire fast enough, then tries to convince America to allow
him to take over the effort armed with buckets of gasoline -- the same failed
policies that caused the fire in the first place.
But the Republicans are right about one thing. It's hard to get
re-elected in a tough economic environment -- even one that is improving. That
is the main reason this election is close. If unemployment were at six percent,
Obama would be re-elected by the same kind of electoral vote margins the Bill
Clinton piled up in 1996.
2). The election is close because Wall Street -- and super-wealthy
right-wing oil tycoons like the Koch Brothers -- have spent huge amounts of
money to defeat Obama. This week alone, Romney and his outside group allies
have booked $57 million in TV time.
Their financial advantage has been neutralized by the spectacular
Obama fundraising operation -- particularly the incredible small donor program
that has raised funds from over 10 million individual contributions.
And its effect has also been ameliorated by the fact that TV spots can
be bought by both campaigns at the lowest possible rate, and super PACs or
outside groups must spend much more per television viewer.
But the fact remains that all of those negative attack ads about Obama
have kept the race close.
3). The American electorate is closely divided. In 2008 the economy
had collapsed under Republican rule. The GOP candidate was not very popular.
And the Republican incumbent President was downright radioactive. Regardless,
the Republican candidate still got 47 percent of the popular vote.
Of course the race will be close.
But there are at least eight very good reasons why Obama will win. The
first four have to do with extreme right wing policies Romney has advocated
that have made it clear to key blocks of voters that he is simply not on their
side.
No comments:
Post a Comment