Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Mitt Romney’

On Republican Victories that Weren’t

October 1, 2013 Leave a comment

I often like to think about what might have been. I’m not going to contemplate a world without partisanship. I’m not going to ponder a world where everyone works together and sings kumbaya. Those are nice ideals, but within the reality of one-upsmansmanship and party message control, I can still see clearly a very different political path from 2009 to now; a path that starts with Republicans claiming a victory that was rightfully theirs, and would drastically change the political landscape in which we currently live.

It starts with a simple story of an idea: the individual mandate. As outlined here by FoxNews, the individual mandate made it’s way from the conservative think tank, the Heritage Foundation in 1989, into Republican-sponsored health care bill proposals in 1993 (by current mandate opponents such as Chuck Grassley), enacted by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts in 2006, and finally into another congressional bill proposal in 2007 co-sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat. Mitt Romney even referred to the rule as his “personal responsibility mandate.” In short, this idea was entirely of Republican origin and remained a popular means of reforming health care and reducing costs within the Republican party until very recently.

Let’s now think back on the 2009 health care debate. The Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, but did not quite have a filibuster-proof majority. They desperately wanted to have a public option in their health care legislation. Ultimately, the death of Senator Ted Kennedy and the strong opposition and threats to join Republicans in a filibuster by Democrat-turned-Independent Joe Lieberman crushed that plan. The end result is that a massive health care bill focused around Republican ideas and modeled after a Republican governor’s plan passed through the Democrat-controlled congress without having a public option attached. Just imagine if that’s how the story played out in the messaging.

Imagine that Republicans, seeing the embrace of a conservative ideal, participated in the framework and negotiations structuring the law. Imagine that upon the failure of the public option, a bipartisan bill was passed with Republicans claiming victory for the bill and their role in its success. Their idea had won the day. They had defeated the public option. They had, in effect, hijacked the President’s attempt at a signature piece of legislation. They had brought him along to an individual mandate he opposed in his primary against Hillary Clinton. What if what is now the signature polarizing piece of legislation of Obama’s administration was instead spun, messaged, and ultimately viewed (Republicans are pretty good at message control, after all) as a strong Republican minority exposing the President’s weakness. What if Obamacare was Boehnercare? What if, in 2012, Mitt Romney ran partly on the platform that the President’s greatest accomplishment was simply piggybacking off of his largely successful Massachusetts legislation? Might he have looked stronger? Maybe even won the election? Would Democrats still be clamoring for enough seats and votes to add a public option to the bill?

Certainly, we would not be here. Certainly, Republicans who embraced health care reform and undercut the President by taking most of the credit for it would not be orchestrating a government shutdown as a last-ditch effort to defund a bill based on a long history of their own conservative ideas.

Then again, if the Republicans didn’t shift the current debate to Obamacare, Democrats would probably be pressing them to undo the “sequestration” cuts in the new fiscal year. As it is, the Democrats are offering a “clean” continuing resolution, accepting the funding level reductions enacted by sequestration as the new status quo…. yet another Republican victory for which they are too partisan to notice and accept credit.

Advertisements

An Open Letter to Elected Republicans

November 6, 2012 1 comment

Hey guys,  I know it’s been a little bit of a rough day/night for you, and I want to be sympathetic, but I won’t pretend I’m not pretty pleased with the outcome. We all know that you and I have our differences. I imagine losing the presidential election to the incumbent despite poor economic conditions is pretty sobering. You’re probably looking in the proverbial mirror wondering what went wrong. More importantly, you’re probably wondering where does the party go from here. You tried the maverick in 2008. You swung right with the Tea Party in 2010. You went with prototype president version 2.12 in 2012. And yet, Barack Obama is still the president.

There are a number of possible reactions. Was Romney too moderate? Should the party push farther to the right? Maybe the party should continue to blur the lines between being a Republican and a Libertarian. There’s always the option of using a vast media propaganda machine to undermine the legitimacy of the 2012 elections, thus undermining the legitimacy of the Obama administration (thus also undermining the entirety of the American political process, but that’s collateral damage deemed worth it to many). Of all the reactions that you could have, however, I would like to offer one simple suggestion.

Govern. I know, it sounds crazy, right? But after 4 years of trying tooth and nail to limit the actions of the government and the administration, you’ve received a loss. The plan did not work. In 2014, and again in 2016, if you want to make gains and see results, perhaps you should consider giving the people something concrete for which they can vote. Show us that you can work with others and not just against them. We understand that you’re really good at obstructing. We realize that the congress elected in 2010 passed the least amount of legislation of any in recent history by a long shot. Well done.

Now, in a center-right country with a weak economic recovery, you still lost to a Democrat. Maybe what’s missing is the “center” in the center-right. Maybe the rigid adherence to ideology at the expense of results is holding you up. Maybe, over the next two to four years, you should try to give the people something to vote for instead of someone to vote against. Move on from this loss quickly; don’t dwell on the election and try to undermine its results or question its mandate. And when you move on and return to legislation, don’t point fingers across the aisle, but instead look inward and ask, “what can I do within my principles and within the legislative reality that will improve my country?” Try for collaborative accomplishments. I promise you, this strategy more than any other will lead to the results that you want. Until/unless that happens, look for more of the same: a center-right country begrudgingly electing Democrats.

Good luck,
Max Gross

On The Second Presidential Debate… and how stupid it was

October 17, 2012 1 comment

Tonight was a fun night to love politics. I went to an event where a room full of policy students watched the debate together. There was some mild frustration, there were a lot of laughs, and there were some tense moments that drew audible reactions. And somewhere in the middle of it all, it hit me just how stupid this whole spectacle was.

Look, there are plenty of issues to discuss from the debate. There were plenty of potentially big moments. The fact checkers will assuredly be busy. But does any of it matter? Much as cable news has devolved into entertainment, so too has political discourse–and no longer only from the talking heads. The candidates for the highest office in the land themselves are engaged in entertaining the viewers.

In the first debate, Mitt Romney was “aggressive,” which meant he interrupted. That scored well, so now everyone interrupts everyone–each other, moderators, and I’m pretty sure Obama interrupted himself once, though that may have just been a stutter. Romney said he had binders full of women, and the internet lit up with a facebook page and a blog of memes posted before the debate even ended. Obama said that the gang-bangers should be deported, and facebook newsfeeds and twitter went wild. I’m part of this. I enjoyed it. I thought that it was all pretty hilarious.

Did you see what happened when the candidates got a chance to talk to a Hispanic voter? The one who asked about undocumented workers? Did you catch her name? Because the candidates sure did. They each asked her name. Romney asked, checked, re-checked. Then Obama got his chance, and also checked to ensure he had her name right. We need the Hispanic vote! We better get that name right!

And the bickering. When are we going to learn that the only way to moderate a debate is to bestow upon the moderator the power to turn off microphones? The most blatant abuse was when Candy Crowley stated that she had to move on, and Mitt Romney said, point blank, “No.” That was the trend all night. Talking at each other, over each other, over the moderator, around the topic, off the topic, returning to topics long-since-passed.

Zingers. One-liners. Gaffes. Social media trends. Focus-tested word choice. Oh, the focus-tested word choices. You say “illegal,” I say “undocumented.” The middle class has been “crushed” and “buried.” China “cheats.” The term “good-paying jobs” was big tonight, and has always bothered me. How is that grammatically correct? Good is an adjective. Well is an adverb. If something is describing how something else pays, why don’t you use the adverb? I’m getting off track, and that’s exactly the point.

Tonight, I was a commodity. I was marketed to. Tonight, focus groups and advisers went to work to win my allegiance. And I was not convinced; I was instead entertained. This is similar to when you go to see the latest action movie and within minutes decide that it’s clearly a comedy even though it wasn’t intended to be. “So bad it’s funny,” you might say. Tonight, politics was so bad that it was funny. If only it wasn’t supposed to be so important.

On Taxes. I’m So Sick of Writing About Mitt Romney’s Tax Plan

October 16, 2012 Leave a comment

I think I’ve finally made sense out of the rhetoric about Governor Romney’s tax plan; of the independent reports and of the “6 reports” that disputed the first report. I think I know what’s going on. It was hidden in Romney’s answers tonight, of all places. Listening to President Obama and Romney discuss Romney’s tax proposals reminded me of the old Highlights Magazines in doctors’ office waiting rooms. There are two pictures side by side, and you have to pick out the differences. They’re subtle, but they’re there. Did you hear it? Were you listening?

Here it is. Obama talks about the tax rates for the top 2% (generally couples above $250,000; individuals above $200,000). If you cut those tax rates by 20%, as Romney proposes, then there don’t appear to be enough deductions to eliminate to make up for the lost revenue just from that bracket.

However, Romney talked about the top 5%, and maintaining the same share of the tax burden as they currently pay (about 60% of income taxes). Now, first of all, maintaining the same share of the tax burden does not rule out a tax cut if everyone else is also getting a tax cut. But that aside, the 5% versus the 2% is how they make the numbers work. If the top 5% are getting deductions eliminated, then revenue neutrality can be achieved even if the top 2% are getting a cut, paid for by reduced deductions for the 95th-97th percentiles (the next 3%).

I don’t know the general income numbers for those percentiles, but I have a hunch that it lines up fairly well with Martin Feldstein’s defense of Romney’s plan which called for eliminating deductions for all those making over $100,000 a year. And thus, if you make between $100,000 and $200,000 as an individual or the equivalent tax bracket as a couple, Mitt Romney’s tax plan is likely to hurt you. And that’s what we learned in tonight’s debate. Obama’s plan hurts the top 2%. Romney’s plan will probably help the top 2% on the backs of the next 3%. And hopefully, I’ll never write about Mitt Romney’s tax plan again.

On How the First Segment of the Debate Should Have Gone

October 4, 2012 Leave a comment

If you watched the debate tonight, you’ll know that for what seemed like forever, Mitt Romney and Barack Obama talked in circles mostly about Romney’s tax plan and what it would or wouldn’t do to various groups of people. It started out with Barack Obama mentioning some numbers that various independent analyses have estimated based on the general premises put forward by Mitt Romney. It went on into what looked like Obama endlessly harping on numbers and facts that Romney had already shot down quickly and with acuity. Without regard as to who was right and who was wrong, the segment (and many others) clearly looked to be “won” by Romney. But before we dig into what happened/should have happened tonight, a little background is in order.

Background

The general premises of Romney’s tax plan as it has been previously outlined are as follows: he will cut rates 20% across the board (that is lower each bracket to 4/5s of its current rate); he will close loopholes and eliminate/limit deductions in order to make up for lost revenue; he will promote growth through benefits to job creators; he will not raise taxes on the middle class.

The primary independent analysis of this generalized plan found the following: that the plan would cost $5 trillion in revenue over the next ten years; that you could not eliminate enough deductions to prevent this from resulting in a tax cut for the upper class; and that the plan would either result in increases in taxes to the middle class (through deduction eliminations that exceed their rate cuts) or abandon the goal of revenue neutrality, thus expanding the deficit.

A refute of that analysis stated that the math could be made to work… if you define upper income as $100,000 or more, then those below it will see no tax increase, and those above it will be revenue neutral; of course that would be accomplished by increases for many of those making between $100,000 and $200,000 and decreases beyond that point.

It’s all complicated and full of assumptions and guesses, mostly because the plan has not been made specific enough to be accurately scored.

The Debates

Again, Barack Obama referenced the numbers from the analysis, especially the $5 trillion in lost revenue going mainly to the rich and the potential for an increase on middle class taxes. Then, Mitt Romney claimed that he would do no such thing. Romney claimed that he would not create a net reduction for upper income tax payers, and he would not enact any plan that would lose revenue once accounting for growth (I have a feeling that his growth assumptions are likely a bit fudged, but everyone gets to make assumptions). What followed was a mercilessly long back-and-forth during which Obama said “$5 trillion” at least three more times, and Romney cleverly and repeatedly made the case that no one can say what his tax plan will or will not do because it’s his plan and he will only enact a plan that does none of those things. It was difficult to watch and it should have exposed some gigantic holes through which Obama could have jumped, but didn’t.

What Should Have Happened

Let’s pick up after Romney said that any tax plan he enacted would not reduce taxes on the wealthy, would not increase taxes on the middle class and would remain revenue neutral (not cost any money). Here’s a potential Obama response:

“Ah, this is one of those etch-a-sketch moments. Look, it’s easy to look good in a debate when you argue for a plan that is completely different than the one you’ve been proposing all along. For months, we have heard you talk about helping the wealthy–you call them ‘job creators,’ and many of them are. But we know what you mean: you mean the wealthy, and you have always touted that your plan would give back to them. For months, you have stated that your plan was to cut tax rates across the board by twenty percent and make up for the lost revenue through undisclosed loophole and deduction elimination. Well, that math didn’t work out very well–it couldn’t be done. Now, you are telling us that whatever plan you enact will be one in which the math works. So let’s hear it. You’ve had more than enough time, Governor, to come up with a plan that adds up and to share it with the American people. If you want to change your plan now, for this debate, on national television, why not give us the details, and I’ll debate them.”

Romney’s response likely would have involved several of the things that he actually did say during the circular clusterfudge of dialogue. They probably would have included that many papers came out to dispute those studies, that the math did work, and that he isn’t changing his tune. In the name of specifics, he likely would have trotted out exactly what he said in the real-world debate: “one way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number — 25,000, $50,000. Anybody can have deductions up to that amount. And then that number disappears for high-income people. That’s one way one could do it. One could follow Bowles-Simpson as a model and take deduction by deduction and make differences that way.”

And then Obama could respond: “I understand that there are various reports that say various different things about Governor Romney’s tax plan and the numbers. I’ve read them, too. The ones that make Governor Romney’s math work do so by declaring those who make over $100,000 as part of the upper class, not the middle class. Now I don’t know about you, but I think that a lot of Americans making $100,000 would still consider themselves part of the middle class. A lot of them are stretched a little thin.

“I also want to point something out, and it’s important. I’ve noticed that Governor Romney talks a lot about the things that he will do or he won’t do. He says unequivocally that he will not raise taxes on the middle class. That he will repeal Obamacare ‘on day one.’ However, whenever he is asked for specifics, he doesn’t talk about himself anymore, and he doesn’t talk in absolutes. On taxes, he says ‘one could create a cap on deductions,’ and ‘one could follow Simpson-Bowles.’ He never commits himself to doing anything. He never reveals his true intentions. He doesn’t state that something should happen or will happen, but just that it could happen. Again, Governor Romney, you’ve had more than enough time to come clean with the American people on your tax plan. Do you keep the details of your plans secret because they’re too good? Is — is it because that somehow middle-class families are going to benefit too much from them?”

That last piece of sarcasm was actually an Obama quote, but I felt like when he used it nearly two-thirds of the way through the debate and mired in a rambling health care answer, it lost some of its punch. If it was a closing line in the opening segment, maybe it carries a little more weight. But what do I know?

Anyway, I was frustrated with this exchange. I thought Romney basically equivocated his way around the tax discussion and turned it into a debate about whose numbers you believe. I think that Obama should have made it about the lack of specifics and played on the tendency of Romney to say different things about his plan to different people, making him seem wishy-washy at best, pandering and dishonest at worst. That wasn’t the only part of the debate that went poorly for Barack Obama. Hopefully soon, I’ll discuss what a failure his answer about the role of government was, and lay out my own.

On Why I Will Not Vote for Mitt Romney

October 2, 2012 3 comments

This is part 2 of a 3-post, pre-debate series on my feelings about each candidate and why I am voting the way that I am voting this November. Part 1, “On What I Don’t Like About Barack Obama,” can be seen here. Part 3, “On Why I am Voting for Barack Obama,” can be seen here.

When I was growing up, I remember commenting to my mother that it was silly that people voted so passionately on issues that were “less important,” rather than focusing on the real issues which I believed that the government should be tackling. By these less important issues, though I didn’t realize it at the time, I was talking about social issues. I just couldn’t understand why the government was even concerned with things such as abortion and gay rights when there were budgets to make and foreign policy to craft and safety to ensure and safety nets to weave. I now understand that these issues are so important to people because there are people who feel exactly the opposite of me. They can’t understand how the government could sit idly by and let things like abortion and homosexuality go forth unhindered. And thus, my desire that the government not concern itself with such things is matched by others’ insistence that the government be active in that arena. And it was this realization that pretty much ruled out most Republicans for me for the foreseeable future.

However, there are times when my childhood instincts kick in; there are times when events call for other issues to be prioritized above the social issues. At times like these, I might consider voting for someone even with a stated refusal to believe in and/or understand basic science or what I consider common decency if that person was clearly and uniquely qualified to address a specific crisis. The fiscal and economic mess in which the country currently finds itself is actually one of those times. If there was a Republican who I thought was clearly the most able to bring the nation back to fiscal and economic health through responsible and compassionate means, I would absolutely be willing to give that man four years. Mitt Romney is not that man.

I have previously stated that the Republican idea of lowering taxes (especially for the wealthy) to spur economic growth is a myth. Today, I had the pleasure of listening to Bruce Bartlett–a former Treasury Department official under Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush–in person as he frankly stated that this Republican assertion is bunk (he used coarser language). The data backs up the viewpoint of Bruce Bartlett and me. I honestly am not entirely sure how the opposing view persists in the face of so much data, but that’s an entirely different blog post that I’ve already written.

Here, we’re discussing Mitt Romney’s plan. As is well known by now, a Tax Policy Center report claimed that Romney’s plan is mathematically impossible without raising taxes on the middle class or abandoning revenue neutrality. Republican Marty Feldstein has argued that the Tax Policy Center Report is wrong. And then an article in Forbes pointed out that Feldstein’s numbers might be feasible, but they would constitute a likely tax increase on all those making above $100,000. As you can see, the Romney plan is a mystery wrapped in an enigma wrapped in a mythical version of growth economics that makes the rest of the debate moot. Romney’s views on the capital gains taxes further benefit the rich, and fly directly in the face of Ronald Reagan, a man Republicans love to channel but whose policies they choose to ignore. Reagan counted capital gains as conventional income for taxation purposes, and yet investment did not dry up.

Outside of tax policy, Romney wants to make blunt, across-the-board cuts to non-defense discretionary spending without accounting for which departments can or can’t absorb those cuts without affecting potentially important services. This is a lazy man’s budget cut devoid of the sort of in-depth analysis I would prefer for important decisions. Meanwhile, he wants to increase defense spending to 4% of the GDP. A fiscally responsible plan rarely involves increasing your largest expenditures while cutting taxes. On top of that, he wants to repeal the federal health care bill that was so closely based upon his state bill that learning about their tenets separately seems redundant (and I have been taught about both of them in a classroom setting over the past month).

So leaving aside the reputation of being an out-of-touch rich guy; leaving out the comments about the 47% that do not pay federal income taxes; leaving aside even the social issues with which I vehemently disagree, I could not vote for Mitt Romney. His prescriptions for the economy are recycled, debunked economics that clearly plays favorites to those who need no additional help. His answers on the budget are to make cuts that disregard who is impacted, but most likely hit the safety net and the poor the hardest. And his qualifications for doing these things are that he is, himself, a representative of a special interest group–rich business owners who make their money through capital gains. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, but claiming that running a business prepares you to run the economy is like claiming that being a student qualifies you to be a teacher. Like his budget ideas, and like his tax policy, it just doesn’t add up.

On What I Wanted to Hear from Obama

September 7, 2012 Leave a comment

President Obama gave his official acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention last night, and it was by normal standards, a good speech. It was a good speech in the same way that candidate Obama was known for giving good speeches. It was full of hope and optimism; it was level-headed and mostly fair-minded; it provided a laundry list of goals. But it was not an effective speech. In my mind, the convention speeches exist not just to rally the political base, but also to grab onto what few undecided or loosely-committed voters are left in the process who may be tuning in for the first time–or who at the very least will be hearing about politics somewhat more than during non-convention weeks. In this regard, I think Barack Obama failed.

As I noted about the Republican National Convention last week, there are always certain goals in terms of themes to hit and arguments to be made during the course of a convention. In my unprofessional opinion, the goals for the president this week should have been to 1) cast a positive light on his record and 2) explain how his next four years would be better for the American people than Mitt Romney’s next four years. This approach would still allow him to attack the policies of his opponent, but would also fight back against two key arguments made by his detractors: that he is avoiding his record because he has nothing to brag about and that he lacks a clear vision for America’s future or the ability to deliver on that vision. Embedded in that task, though, is to also make a case for his vision.

Seen through that light, I can’t say that I was overly impressed. The speech started out very strong, with a simple reminder that campaigns can wear on all of us as minor issues become major distractions from the real job at hand. He also did an excellent job of subtly highlighting his vision for the role of government (though I thought it should have been far less subtle). In fighting the notion that he is nothing but a big government quasi-socialist, Obama stated that “not every problem can be remedied with another government program or dictate from Washington.” He clarified that government “has a role” in preparing the American workforce for the jobs that are available at home, but added that “teachers must inspire; principals must lead; parents must instill a thirst for learning, and students, you’ve gotta do the work.”

However, it wasn’t all shying away from government. Obama also stated that “those of us who believe government can be a force for good should work harder than anyone to reform it, so that it’s leaner, and more efficient, and more responsive to the American people.” (emphasis added). Meanwhile he called on the notion of citizenship and working together to push back against the idea that he attributes to his opponents: “that bigger tax cuts and fewer regulations are the only way; that since government can’t do everything, it should do almost nothing.” These lines were probably pretty good and should probably have been included in any version of his speech.

But enough about what he did say. Let’s talk about what Obama should have said. If I were Barack Obama, early into the speech I would have addressed my opponents’ biggest criticism head on. I would have stated that “my opponent claims that I have no record on which to run. My opponent says I’m running away from my record instead of running on my record. So let’s address my record as president.” Then, issue by issue, I would follow format of 1) What I’ve done; 2) The positive effects of that action; 3) What still needs to be done; 4) My plan to accomplish part three.

For instance, Obama could have said of health care that he signed into legislation the largest health care reform bill in modern American history which will extend coverage to X number of people, end denial based on pre-existing conditions, set up transparent insurance exchanges in each state. However, more must be done to slow the rising costs of health care and to ensure that Medicaid and Medicare become financially viable. My plan to do so is ______.

On the military, Obama could have said that he ended the war in Iraq and ordered the successful mission to kill Osama bin Laden, but we still have troops in Afghanistan and terror remains a force against which we must be vigilant. With the input from my military advisers, I have a plan to wind down the fight in Afghanistan and on the home front, [insert security plan here].

On the financial collapse, he could have outlined the purpose and intent of the Dodd-Frank Act, the mortgage relief plans and settlement, and how they helped… but also what they failed to accomplish. And then he could have laid out an idea for how to accomplish more on those fronts (especially the home markets).

On jobs, he could highlight the reversal from job loss to job gains and the declining trend of the unemployment rate, but stated the obvious that too many Americans are still without work. Instead of using this as an opportunity to mention that his jobs bill is still stalled in Congress, he could have re-stated or re-packaged some of the more popular ideas from the bill as a means to move forward.

By now you get the idea. The point I’m making by dragging this exercise out for so long is two-fold. First, you’ll notice that I left a lot of blanks in there. That’s because even after beginning his speech by criticizing his opponents for stating what they want to do without how they want to do it, Obama’s speech mostly went on to do the same. That is a very basic mistake that was picked up on immediately by Fox News and several others.

Secondly, though, is to highlight that on virtually every single issue facing the country right now, a plan has been hatched, action taken, progress made, and more is left to be done. I have yet to get around to writing my blog about what I don’t like about Obama and his presidency, so for now you’ll have to take my word that I think he’s solidly mediocre. I think he has made mistakes. I think the recovery could have and should have gone better. But I also do not think he is moving the country backward because all observable data save the national debt tells me that isn’t the case. On every single issue, work is being done. I didn’t even mention energy (higher domestic oil production, lower foreign reliance), women’s rights (I’m talking Lilly Ledbetter, not contraception), gay rights (repealed don’t ask, don’t tell), and a host of other issues.

If I was Obama (or even his speechwriter), I even would have stepped into the debt conversation last night. I would have said that I hate debt and deficit as much as anyone, but that our country was in a crisis and it needed help; that George W. Bush, John McCain and Barack Obama all saw that reality–and there’s not much on which all three of those men agree. I would have acknowledged that debt caused more challenges for the future, and that now that we are on the road to recovery, the debt issue has to be tackled. On that note, I would have been certain to point out that no tax cut (to my knowledge) has ever reduced a deficit. Even when accelerated growth occurs, it is not enough to supplant the lost revenue. But I would have focused on making it known that skyrocketing debt was a function of the crisis and that since the initial bailouts, government spending has grown at only a snail’s pace.

Such a speech would have made clear to the American people that 1) Obama has a record and cares about the issues important to you, 2) Obama has moved in the right direction toward mutually-agreed-upon goals, 3) Obama is not so out of touch that he doesn’t understand the shortcomings of the past three years, and 4) he has substantive plans to make the next four years better than the past three years. If I felt those four things were true, it would be pretty easy to vote to give this man more time. Absent those things–which is the reality of his speech–you have to wonder if maybe he is a bit out of touch (like his opponent). Absent them, if you were on the fence going into the night, you might still vote against his opponent, but you probably won’t vote for your president.