So through this primary process, Mitt Romney emerged as the winning Republican candidate. Not a popular candidate with many, including in his own party, but he managed to outspend and outgun his opponents.
I have my reservations about him and some of his prior policy activity but his inspired choice of running mate, Paul Ryan, gives America a really great opportunity to elect a real no-nonsense conservative. The key will be how the partnership between Romney and Ryan will function.
If Romney is foolish enough to restrict Ryan to the largely ceremonial role normally reserved for VPs, then he will miss a great opportunity to exploit a great mind and a person recognised for his integrity and common sense approach and for his 'right-thinking' ways as regards taxes and the US deficit and debt.
I wonder if there is any restriction on Ryan serving in a dual capacity - VP and Treasury Secretary? Starting off with a cost saving measure - two jobs for the price of one - wouldn't hurt!
So what about Obama? Will he ditch Biden (or will Joe stand down) and then pick Hillary as a running mate?
Reading the partisan and widely pro-Obama press, one gets the idea that the Romney-Ryan ticket has got the Obama campaign rattled. Romney was pushing Obama but now that Ryan is on-board, I think that the Republican ticket will start to pull marginally ahead.
Obama can't look to the economy for help. While US Federal spending remains high and, if Obama has his way, goes higher still, the only solution is to raise taxes - and we are not talking about on rich people, we are talking about on the huge swathe of middle class Americans - that's the only place where the revenues raised can start to make any kind of impact on the deficit numbers.
Then there's Obama's failed foreign policy initiatives and promises - what did he say about troop levels in Afghanistan? They are higher now, than when Bush left the White House. Dialogue with Iran? How did that work out? I still don't get how this 'leading from behind' is supposed to work. Don't recall seeing Obama being feted in Tripoli! Can see him (and America) being castigated for inaction over Syria, where the Assad regime and their Iranian backers pursue a 'slaughter of the innocents' policy. Meanwhile China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and angering neighbours in Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines and where is America? And all the time, Chavez and the 'loco lefties' in Latin America nip and pinch at American interests, with impunity.
To go back to the start of this post, it is perhaps a measure of Romney's previously shaky support, that the Republicans are not 'streets ahead' in the polls, given the idealistic incompetence of Obama and his team. Let's hope for Romney's sake and especially for the sake of America (and right thinking folks, everywhere) that the addition of Ryan, to the ticket, brings political and economic competency to the White House to allow the world to see that fine words and speeches a la Obama don't amount to much if they are not backed-up with action.
Here though is a question for Democrat party supporters. Okay so Obama got his health care bill through and he continues to suck-up to Public Service unions but in your heart of hearts, in the dark of night, when you are alone and quietly thinking, do you not see that the last 4 years have been a wasted opportunity? Be honest now!
I have my reservations about him and some of his prior policy activity but his inspired choice of running mate, Paul Ryan, gives America a really great opportunity to elect a real no-nonsense conservative. The key will be how the partnership between Romney and Ryan will function.
If Romney is foolish enough to restrict Ryan to the largely ceremonial role normally reserved for VPs, then he will miss a great opportunity to exploit a great mind and a person recognised for his integrity and common sense approach and for his 'right-thinking' ways as regards taxes and the US deficit and debt.
I wonder if there is any restriction on Ryan serving in a dual capacity - VP and Treasury Secretary? Starting off with a cost saving measure - two jobs for the price of one - wouldn't hurt!
So what about Obama? Will he ditch Biden (or will Joe stand down) and then pick Hillary as a running mate?
Reading the partisan and widely pro-Obama press, one gets the idea that the Romney-Ryan ticket has got the Obama campaign rattled. Romney was pushing Obama but now that Ryan is on-board, I think that the Republican ticket will start to pull marginally ahead.
Obama can't look to the economy for help. While US Federal spending remains high and, if Obama has his way, goes higher still, the only solution is to raise taxes - and we are not talking about on rich people, we are talking about on the huge swathe of middle class Americans - that's the only place where the revenues raised can start to make any kind of impact on the deficit numbers.
Then there's Obama's failed foreign policy initiatives and promises - what did he say about troop levels in Afghanistan? They are higher now, than when Bush left the White House. Dialogue with Iran? How did that work out? I still don't get how this 'leading from behind' is supposed to work. Don't recall seeing Obama being feted in Tripoli! Can see him (and America) being castigated for inaction over Syria, where the Assad regime and their Iranian backers pursue a 'slaughter of the innocents' policy. Meanwhile China is flexing its muscles in the South China Sea and angering neighbours in Vietnam, Japan and the Philippines and where is America? And all the time, Chavez and the 'loco lefties' in Latin America nip and pinch at American interests, with impunity.
To go back to the start of this post, it is perhaps a measure of Romney's previously shaky support, that the Republicans are not 'streets ahead' in the polls, given the idealistic incompetence of Obama and his team. Let's hope for Romney's sake and especially for the sake of America (and right thinking folks, everywhere) that the addition of Ryan, to the ticket, brings political and economic competency to the White House to allow the world to see that fine words and speeches a la Obama don't amount to much if they are not backed-up with action.
Here though is a question for Democrat party supporters. Okay so Obama got his health care bill through and he continues to suck-up to Public Service unions but in your heart of hearts, in the dark of night, when you are alone and quietly thinking, do you not see that the last 4 years have been a wasted opportunity? Be honest now!
i think you'll find that the Obama administration has been beefing up its presence and influence in the south china sea as it seeks to dominate the sea lanes as these are the main supply routes for China's oil from the Middle East and Africa. this has perhaps accounted for the US's limited actions elsewhere in the world.
ReplyDeleteRegarding energy policy, vote for Romney for an America reliant on fossil fuel. Vote for Obama and you'll have mostly fossil fuel but some green energy. either way, with triple digit oil prices economies that are reliant on oil will grow very slowly if at all, regardless of the policies of the left or right.
Maybe too little, too late. I suspect that maybe the American administration doesn't want to be too strong with the Chinese since the Chinese hold so many Treasuries (US debt). Obama spoke of re-focusing toward the Pacific from Europe but I sense there is quite a way to go.
DeleteAs regards Energy policy, the US have got it right, in exploiting their shale reserves. This is changing the face of US energy supply and if other areas are opened-up, then this can only serve to improve America's energy security. Let's face it, we will ALL be reliant on fossil fuels for many years to come. The so called renewables just can't deliver. The only realistic alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear and the 'greens' will always scare-monger that option.
It's a pity that the UK is so slow in exploiting its shale reserves (Poland also). Apart from a much-needed boost to Treasury finances and jobs, this would improve our energy security.
I don't think that energy costs are a significant factor in current economic growth. The salient issue is debt. The US and European economies are weighed down with massive debt and so are their financial institutions. The banks need to face up to this and write off debts etc. (including sovereign debt) and the governments need to reduce spending - tax increases are just a sop to the masses. Cuts are the only tool that will bring meaningful relief.
Thanks for taking the time to comment.
To get a balanced view on debt, you should read the NY Times article by Paul Krugman - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/02/opinion/krugman-nobody-understands-debt.html. There's a lot of scaremongering going on by the Republicans by exploiting our lack of understanding.
DeleteIf you doubt the ability of high oil prices to restrict growth look at the link between oil prices and global recessions starting in the 1970s. Similarly look at global growth when oil prices were low.
I think the US Republicans have got their policy towards energy wrong. Exploiting all their remaining reserves will boost their GDP and provide much needed jobs for a while but it's not sustainable. Joseph Stigligtz is right to call for more transparency on GDP by trying to understand what is sustainable GDP and what's not e.g. GDP generated by extracting finite resources.
Better to leave those last reserves to future US generations who will surely need more when global reserves dwindle even further. Surely the current generation of Americans have gorged themselves on enough cheap energy without paying the cost of the negative externalities caused by burning oil? Renewable energy would be much more attractive if only we had to pay the fully burdened (extraction, distribution and environmental) costs of burning fossil fuels.
Someone like Krugman is, in my view, automatically discredited because of his flawed global warming views. I realize that probably sounds bigoted but why give any credence to him?
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt the research that shows the causes of past recessions. My view is that this one is fundamentally a debt fueled recession. One caused by excessive spending by governments using money that they simply didn't have and realistically have no hope of getting. Pure and simple.
The 'elephant in the room', as regards energy policy (and this applies globally) is nuclear power. At this time this is the only viable long term solution and until such time as people accept this, exploiting existing fossil fuel options, just has to continue. That is the reality.
The environmentalists will continue to deny this and speak of risks etc. and will mention the Japanese tsunami, Chernobyl and such but consider, how many people died from radiation at Fukashima? Answer is none. How many at Chernobyl - answer was recently reported as 43.
The green 'deniers' and their well-funded lobbyists know this but don't publicize it because it doesn't serve their ends. They also know that Solar and Wind and Wave are not now and never will be viable alternatives to either fossil fuels or nuclear power, based on existing technologies. These people want a permanent 'recession' that is sustained negative growth so that we cease all economic activity that includes the use of fossil fuels - forget the benefits that accrue, all needs to cease. The masses of starving people, those dying of cold or heat exhaustion - they are just 'collateral damage' on the road to a green nirvana!
Oh! and well done to Andy Murray! A great end to a great summer of sport and sporting success for Great Britain.