The presidential election and drone strikes: Five Questions

Not much has been said about the issue of drone attacks during the presidential election campaign. Robert Naiman suggests that there are five important questions that journalists should ask about the issue.

Robert Naiman is Policy Director at Just Foreign Policy. Among his other many pursuits he writes on U.S. foreign policy for the Huffington Post. Given that there has been little discussion of U.S. drone policy during the presidential campaign, Naiman along with others urged Bob Schieffer , who was moderator of the third and last debate between Obama and Romney, on foreign policy, to ask a question about drones. He did.

Schieffer asked the question only of Mitt Romney! He asked only Romney what his position on the use of drones is on the grounds that people already know what Obama's position is. Romney replied:

" Well I believe we should use any and all means necessary to take out people who pose a threat to us and our friends around the world. And it's widely reported that drones are being used in drone strikes, and I support that and entirely, and feel the president was right to up the usage of that technology, and believe that we should continue to use it, to continue to go after the people that represent a threat to this nation and to our friends."

One can see from this answer that Romney is in basic agreement with Obama on drones. In the election campaign, the two want to emphasize their differences, and hence they will not even bring the issue up.

To ask only Romney about the issue is strange. After all, Obama seems proud of his policy and considers it a success even though there are many criticisms. Schieffer could even have asked a critical question but I suppose that would be going beyond the pale.

However, Naiman and others have considered that even bringing up the topic was a step forward. In the Guardian, Mark Weisbrot said: "It was a victory just to have drones mentioned." Perhaps it is a big leap forward over Big Bird.

On MSNBC, Joe Scarborough said:

What we are doing with drones is remarkable. The fact that ... over George W. Bush's eight years when a lot of people brought up a bunch of legitimate questions about international law--my God, those lines have been completely eradicated in a drone policy that says that, if you're between 17 and 30, and you're within a half-mile of a suspect, we can blow you up. And that's exactly what's happening.

The defense of these attacks as protecting civilians in the U.S. shows how completely bizarre the discourse has become. There is no direct and immediate threat to anyone in the U.S. by most of those who are targeted. At most they are a threat to U.S. troops and those who might support them in Afghanistan. The way to avoid that problem would be to withdraw the troops as many in the U.S. want.

Naiman suggests it would be informative and useful if high-profile journalists ask some detailed questions about drone policy and engage in genuine critical discussion of the issues. I doubt that this is likely to happen, certainly not before the election in any event. Here are the five questions Naiman wants asked.

The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan recently said that the U.S. has an official count of the number of civilians it believes to have been killed since 2008 by drone strikes in Pakistan but the number is classified. What is the number? Why is it classified?

Researchers have reported U.S. secondary or follow-up attacks that target rescuers after drone strikes. Legal experts say these attacks are war crimes. The U.S. ambassador to Pakistan denies such strikes. What is the truth?

U.S. officials say that the Pakistani military secretly support the strikes. However, the Pakistan parliament has several times passed motions demanding the strikes stop. Is the U.S. violating international law and Pakistani sovereignty by the drone strikes when they are not approved by the Pakistani parliament?

U.S. officials claim the strikes are narrowly targeted on high level terror suspects. However, the U.S. also is said to use "signature strikes" based on suspicious activity. How is this consistent with narrow targeting? I think the answer to this is that it isn't but that officials do not care.

John Brennan, the White House counter-terrorism adviser, says that civilian deaths are exceedingly rare. However, data collected by a number of sources show otherwise, and that at least 15-30% of deaths are civilians. If the collateral damage is this high is the U.S. violating the principle of proportionality?

Those are all good questions but I would not expect the questions even to be addressed in the near future if ever. Certainly, they are unlikely to be answered before the election.

Whose speech had highest rating at recent presidential conventions?

It wasn't Barack Obama and certainly not Mitt Romney. So was it Bill Clinton or Clint Eastwood? No! Democratic Vice-President Joe Biden topped the ratings.

According to Nielsen ratings 14.7% of the 289.7 million in the U.S. in homes with televisions watched Joe Biden's speech at the Democratic national convention. Obama managed 13.7% and second place with Mitt Romney coming third at 12.5%. Former President Bill Clinton came in fourth with 10.9%. Clinton however was competing with the NFL opening game. Clinton had more viewers. The rather bizarre performance by actor Clint Eastwood at the Republican convention had 9.9% for his viewing audience. The three major U.S. networks had an hour coverage for each of the two conventions. Perhaps the 43.6 million people who tuned in to see and listen to Joe Biden expected him to make some historic gaffes as happens often in Biden speeches. I include three memorable gaffes by Biden. Biden certainly certainly does not denigrate his opponent Hillary Clinton in order to become Vice President of the U.S:

“Hillary Clinton is as qualified or more qualified than I am to be Vice President of the United States of America. Let’s get that straight. She’s a truly close personal friend. She is qualified to be President of the United States of America. She’s easily qualified to be Vice President of the United States of America. Quite frankly, it might have been a better pick than me. But she’s first rate.” — Sept. 10, 2008, speaking in Nashua, N.H.

In describing Barack Obama Biden gets all tongue tied in politically incorrect praise:

I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.” - Jan. 31, 2007, describing Barack Obama during the Democratic primary. Biden later apologized.

Finally Biden appears to be counting challenged but at least he had the spelling correct:

Look, John’s last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs.” — Oct. 15, 2008, speaking in Athens, Ohio.

Obama raises more cash than Romney in August

For the first time in several months Obama and the Democrats raised more money than Romney and the Republicans. However, Romney probably still has more cash on hand than the Democrats.

The Democratic Party raised $114 million in August slightly more than the $111 million that Romney and crew were able to scrape up. Both parties hope to raise about $750 million before the election on November 6.

During the earlier part of the campaign in June and July Romney was able to bring in over $100 million a month while Obama and the Democrats brought in around $75 million each month. Campaign manager for Obama Jim Messina said:

"The key to fighting back against the special interests writing limitless cheques to support Mitt Romney is growing our donor base, and we did substantially in the month of August."

Messina claimed that the Democrats had added 317,000 donors who have never given before to the campaign. Messina went on:

"Fueled by contributions from more than 1.1 million Americans donating an average of 58 dollars - more than 317,000 who had never contributed to the campaign before - we raised a total of more than 114 million dollars."

In July Obama spent about $50 million mostly on ads. Romney is seen as having more cash which will no doubt be used to mount a surge of TV ads towards the end of the campaign. They will be directed against the president.

The Republicans claimed to have $168.5 million cash on hand at the beginning of September. The Democrats did not say how much cash they had on hand to start September.

Polls show that Obama is gaining more support and increasing his lead on Romney after the Democratic National Convention. A Gallup seven-day rolling average released Sunday showed Obama at 49% against Romney at 45%.

The amounts raised by each party only tell part of the story as both sides also are supported indirectly bu Super-PAC's. Conservative groups such as American Crossroads and Restore Our Future have raised more funds than their Democratic counterparts.

Independents and the few who are undecided will determine who ultimately wins the presidency. Former Clinton adviser Paul Begala noted in Newsweek

.".. when you factor out the undecideds in securely red or blue states (since their votes won’t change the Electoral College results), the election comes down to “around 4 percent of the voters in six states.”

No doubt the two parties will be spending all their cash on hand and then some with a deluge of ads to try and sway those undecided voters in those states their way.

Discussion about the election is always framed in terms of Democrats and Republicans. Although there are a number of other parties running and other presidential candidates they seem to fall under the radar of main stream media. Perhaps they have not raised enough money to be considered a player in the high stakes game of U.S. politics.

Romney and Obama do not differ much on foreign policy issues

The U.S. election focuses mostly on domestic issues such as the economy even though the U.S. is the prime global power. On foreign policy issues Romney and Obama are often not far apart although there may be some difference in tone.

While the U.S. remains a global power there is relatively little campaigning on foreign policy issues. No doubt Americans are more interested in issues that they see as having an immediate impact on their own lives such as the economy, jobs and health care. Yet foreign policy is also significant. There are still casualties returning from Afghanistan. There are still huge costs of fighting the war on terror. The U.S. spends almost as much on the military to support the U.S. global power presence as the rest of the world as a whole. Another reason why foreign policy issues may not be discussed often is that Romney and Obama do not differ all that much on policies. The two contenders want to illustrate the difference between them and use that difference as a means of attracting votes. Since they have few differences on foreign policy talking about those issues would not differentiate the two in the minds of voters.
An article by Frida Ghitis on CNN shows that there are considerable similarities between Obama and Romney on foreign policy. Both Romney and Obama are strong supporters of Israel. Romney however is often shown as being more pro-Israel and even criticized for the extent to which he has supported Israel. Yet both court the support of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. and both agree that Israel is a key ally and that Israeli security is a non-negotiable part of U.S. foreign policy. The rhetoric may differ but the substance is on the whole the same. Given that Romney is not in power it is easier for him to up the rhetorical tone on Middle East issues.
Recently in order to highlight his differences with Obama on Israel, Romney said that Jerusalem was Israel's capital. Romney was criticized for his statement. However as the featured video for this article shows Obama said the same thing and went even further saying:
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided."
Even on Iran whereas Romney tries to up the rhetorical heat his proposals are for more economic sanctions. Both he and Obama take the position that Iran cannot be allowed to develop nuclear weapons and that all options are on the table to deal with the problem.
Both Romney and Obama cheer on U.S. greatness although on this issue Obama had to learn his lessons. At first back in 2009 he was less bombastic in his praise of America and American exceptionalism noting that the Greeks probably believe in Greek exceptionalism and the British in British exceptionalism. He learned his lesson.
Romney tried to take advantage of Obama's relative humility and realism but even he after all his rhetorical flourishes about the U.S. as world leader and promoting U.S. moral principles adds that policy must be "tempered by a healthy humility about the extent of our power."
About the war in Afghanistan where Americans are still dying almost nothing is said during the campaign. While Romney has made vague criticisms of Obama on the war he is on record as supporting Obama's withdrawal plan. Actually the withdrawal plan is combined with another long term agreement that will keep the U.S. in Afghanistan until at least 2024. There seems to be no discussion of this. General Allen has noted that 68,000 U.S. troops will remain in Afghanistan after the summer fighting season is over.
There are differences between Obama and Romney on the defense budget. Obama plans to cut the budget by 500 billion over ten years. Romney would spend more to expand the navy and looks at China as a looming rival. However Obama too sees China as a rival and is adjusting his strategy accordingly to post more troops in Southeast Asia and also naval support. Overall there is basic agreement between Obama and Romney on foreign policy. Obama has even moved closer to a hawkish policy. He has extended the range of drone attacks considerably from the Bush era and is also beginning to challenge Beijing in the South China Sea. Perhaps neither side sees any value in discussing foreign policy when Americans are interested in domestic issues and differences between Obama and Romney are not that great.

Satire video on Romney: Disillusionment video on Obama

 Every form of media is used in the U.S. 2012 election campaign for the presidency including You Tube music videos. There is a very clever and catchy video on Romney called ""I am a Romney Girl". The tune is for the 1990's hit Barbie Girl. The lyrics are critical of  Romney and his wealth. The Swiss Miss who is a Romney Girl is attracted by Romney's wealth and all the perks. She sings of tax shelters, Bain capital, and outsourcing in a very upbeat appealing way.  I just wonder if the upbeat rhythm of the song will not cancel out the informational content and actually make people feel favorably towards Romney. The video is funded by the Agenda Project Action Fund.
   The Obama video is downbeat compared to the Romney video. The tune is Gotye's "Somebody that I used to know".  The song is of promises not kept and disillusionment. Obamacare only went so far and then left the singer strapped like a dog to Romney's car. No doubt this is an allusion to Obamacare being copied from Romneycare and not a single payer system. There is also mention of drones a topic not very hot on the campaign trail! Personally I liked the Romney video much better than the Obama video at least in terms of entertainment value! The Obama video is produced by Just New Productions and can be found here.

Twelve Things you Should Know about Paul Ryan

By now most people know that Mitt Romney has chosen Paul Ryan a Republican Congressman from Wisconsin as his vice-presidential running mate. A recent article byIgor Volsky in Truthout continues the parade of negative volleys fired by those opposed to the Republican slate. Nevertheless some of the factoids listed are interesting. First Ryan supposedly embraces extreme individualism and has heaped praise on Ayn Rand. I have always been puzzled that politicians would dare to become associated with the views of Rand. It must be due to choosing very selectively from her ideas.

No doubt her praise of free market capitalism and of the individual that attracts some. While as Volsky points out she does praise selfishness as a virtue and criticizes altruism as evil, she also condemned Christianity and faith in general. It seems simply weird that someone such as Ryan who is said to be a devout Roman Catholic would praise her. Rand was also pro-choice rather than pro-life as Ryan is. Not surprisingly in 2012 Ryan has now rejected her views! They might be a political liability

Ryan's GOP budget would raise taxes for the middle class and cut them for millionaires.. There would be just two brackets 10 per cent and 25 per cent. This would involve cutting the top rate from 35 per cent. Revenue collected would decline by about $4.5 trillion over the next decade. However to cover that loss there would be massive cuts to social programs although he also wants to close tax loopholes and shelters which would be a good move if it actually came about. But most of the savings would come for programs that benefit the middle and working classes. Ryan would extend the Bush tax cuts but not those of Obama targeting those with lowest incomes. Ryan's plan would see those households earning over a million a year get a tax cut of almost $300,000 a year.

Number three of the twelve things you should know involves increased costs to seniors for Medicare. Ryan would introduce a premium support system rather than a guaranteed benefit. Future retirees would receive a government contribution from which the pensioners could purchase private insurance from an exchange of private plans or traditional fee-for-service Medicare. However the voucher would not keep up with increasing health care costs so over time pensioners would pay more. Ryan would also raise the age of eligibility to 67. Ryan's plan manages to ensure that private ensurers would profit from the system since the vouchers would be used to buy private insurance. This article is already getting long. The other nine remaining things you should know can be found at this link. . .

U.S. Defense Secretary promises U.S. enduring presence in Afghanistan after 2014.

Many U.S. officials and the Obama presidential campaign stress the pullout from Afghanistan and turning over security to the Afghans in 2014. However, Panetta in a recent interview on ABC pointed out the rest of the story.

Karzai and Obama signed an agreement that will see the U.S. stay in Afghanistan until 2024. Panetta said:“Well, the most important point is that we’re not going anyplace. We’re gonna, we have an enduring presence that will be in Afghanistan,”

There are two narratives. The Obama campaign narrative stresses the pullout and is addressed to those who oppose the Afghan war and want Americans home.On the other hand there is the hawk narrative peddled by Panetta that stresses the enduring presence with troops staying until 2024.

The hawk narrative can be flown when Romney attacks Obama for setting a withdrawal date. The actual number of troops to remain and issues such as immunity for U.S. troops from Afghan law apparently are not settled. Off course the partnership agreement that was signed was never passed by the Afghan parliament nor debated by the U.S. congress. For more see this article.

Romney's Bain Capital donated more to Democrats than Republicans

Mitt Romney's Bain Capital is a firm that Democrats love to hate. There is a bit of irony in this because the figures for contributions show that actually Bain capital prefers Democrats to Republicans!

Doug Henwood of the Left Business Observer in an article points out that 72 per cent of contributions have gone to Democrats. So although Bain Capital does give considerable amounts to Republicans they give Democrats even more. In fact Bain capital gives a larger percentage of its donations to Democrats than the AFL-CIO.

The top recipients are well known Democrats such as Al Franken, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi etc. They also contribute to the Democratic National Fund. No doubt this generosity of Bain to the Democrats could have something to do with their thinking that the Democrats were likely to win. It is a type of hedging!

One prominent Democrat Cory Booker defended private equity firms such as Bain against Obama's campaign attacks. It just so happens that Bain capital gave funding to his own campaign. See here.

While Private Equity firms and Hedge Funds may not be as happy with the Obama administration as before the campaign attacks are no doubt mostly rhetoric meant to capture votes. In case people have forgotten Wall St. was a big supporter of Obama a few years back. Hedge Fund giant Paul Tudor gave a 500 guest fundraiser for Obama. For more see the full article.

Oil Billionaire Harold Hamm chairs Romney energy advisers.

Harold Hamm an Oklahoma oil billionaire became one of Romney's top energy advisers in March. A few weeks later he also gave985,000 dollars to the Restore Our Future Super PAC a pro Romney PAC.

Continental Resources, Hamm's company has oil fields in North Dakota and Montana. On his website Hamm complains that the Obama administration has done everything in its power to stop fossil fuel usage. I doubt that many environmentalists would agree with that assessment!

Although PACs are by law supposed to be independent the contributions do not contravene the law even though the optics may not be good! The overlaps between campaigns and PACs is bipartisan it would seem.

The pro-Obama Priorities USA Action Super PAC was co-founded by Bill Burton a former Obama press official. Romney's 2008 national political director Carl Fort co-founded Restore Our Future.

Hamm has been named chair of Romney's Energy Policy Advisory Group. Hamm debunks Obama's emphasis on "green" energy. Hamm is an avid supporter of the oil industry and an advocate of less regulation. He also promotes a quick building of the Keystone XL Pipe line project and is critical of Obama's subsidies to green energy projects. For much more see this article.

Robert Reich on how Romney made himself rich

Robert Reich has an article plus a video demonstrating how Romney made his money at Bain capital. Reich is Professor of Public Policy at the Goldman School of Public Policy, part of the University of California. Reich served under three administrations Ford, Carter and Clinton.

Romney borrows money and uses it to buy a majority stake in a company. After taking over the board he votes his company Bain a large management fee. He borrows from the company's bank to pay back those who loaned him money. The money also pays bonuses for Bain managers.

The Bain managers cut the number of employees, benefits, and much else to help pay back the bank loan. For much more see this article and the appended video.

Rep. Allen West (R-Fla): 78 to 81 Democrats in congress are members of the Communist Party

I am sure that the CPUSA will be astonished to know this and will be checking their membership lists. Of course the claim is nonsense. However in U.S. politics that does not seem to matter.

A spokesperson for West defended his nonsense:"The Congressman was referring to the 76 members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. The Communist Party has publicly referred to the Progressive Caucus as its allies. The Progressive Caucus speaks for itself. These individuals certainly aren't proponents of free markets or individual economic freedom," Certainly the Caucus probably supports controls on markets and controls on individual freedom to rip people off but then they also support capitalism and business. No doubt the Communist Party see the Progressive Caucus as supporting the working class more than others. This does not make the caucus members of the Communist Party USA.

There is a photo of Mitt Romney signing the Romney care bill in Massachusetts. Behind him is the late Ted Kennedy who supported the bill. Romney even thanked him for his support. No doubt Ted Kennedy must have been a member of the Republican Party. Oh maybe I got that backward. Mitt Romney is a member of the Democratic Party. Republican conservatives would like that conclusion.

The Communist Manifesto calls for free education for all children in public schools. Omigosh Americans are already commies. See this libertarian analysis. See also the appended video of West speaking.

Romney would deny coverage to uninsured people with preexisting conditions

According to David Edwards in this article the front-running presidential candidate Mitt Romney claims not only that the Obamacare law ought to overturned but that people with preexisting conditions should be denied coverage.

This certainly would seem to be the implication of what Romney said on a recent Jay Leno show. Leno said that he knew people who could not get insurance before the Obama health care bill passed. Leno told Romney that he thought that people with preexisting conditions should be covered by insurance.

Romney noted that people with preexisting conditions who had been insured before would continue to be insured even if Obamacare were overturned. Leno then says:“Suppose they were never insured?”

Romney replies:.“Well, if they’re 45 years old, and they show up, and they say, I want insurance, because I’ve got a heart disease, it’s like, `Hey guys, we can’t play the game like that. You’ve got to get insurance when you’re well, and if you get ill, then you’re going to be covered,’” So if you cant get insurance because you have preexisting conditions Romney says you should not be insured. You must get insurance when you are well! Edwards conclusion seems correct from what Romney replied.

While Romney thinks people should get insurance when they are well one might think that he should be in favor or forcing them to do so as Obamacare does for everyone. For more see the full article. A video of the interview is at the bottom of the article.

U.S. presidential campaign very expensive

Reuters has posted a partial list of money raised and expenditures up to Feb. 29 during the U.S. presidential primaries and campaign. See this article.

The information is taken from Federal Election Commission filings. The data also contain information on the Super PAC's that can raise and spend unlimited amounts. Here are a few of the dollar figures.

Barack Obama raised 120.1 million. He spent 135.4 million. However , he still has 42 million on hand with oustanding debt just over 30,000 dollars.

The second place Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum raised 15.6 million while spending 13.1 million. He has 2.6 million on hand. No doubt he will need to go up against Mitt Romney. He has outstanding debt approaching one million.

Among the Super PACs Restore Our Future which supports front running Republican candidate Mitt Romney raised 43.2 million while spending 32.7 million so far. In contrast Endorse Liberty a Super PAC supporting Ron Paul raised only 3.7 million and spent 3.5. For more see the full article. U.S. election cost big bucks and no doubt big contributors expect a return on their investment through policies friendly to their cause. As someone--I forget who-- said: "The U.S. has the best democracy money can buy.""

Paul Krugman: Ignorance is Strength

That is the title of his article on U.S. education in his New York Times blog. Krugman notes that historically the U.S. has strongly supported education. However Krugman says Republicans have turned against more support for education at least education that most Americans could afford.

Krugman maintains that a new hostility to education seems common in both the social and economic conservative wings of the Republican Party as evident in the views of Rick Santorum and Mitt Romney.

Santorum claimed that Obama wanted to raise college enrollments as the colleges are indoctrination mills which among other things destroy religious faith. I wonder what wall the faith based colleges think about that! Krugman thinks the Romney the economic conservative has views that are even more detrimental to educational development.

In answer to a question from a high school student about high cost of college Romney said: "Don't just go to one that has the highest price. Go to one that has a little lower price where you can get a good education. And, hopefully, you'll find that. And don't expect the government to forgive the debt that you take on."

In other words aid will be replaced by loans. Even the less expensive route of going to a public university rather than a private one is becoming more and more expensive and the debt load more onerous.

Public universities have been under siege in terms of their budgets and in response have increased tuition fees in order to gain more revenue. State support for higher education has been falling Krugman notes. Over the last five years it declined 12 per cent but in some states such as California the fall is much steeper. Support in California is down 20 percent.

Tuition increases at public colleges over the last decade adjusted for inflation are above 70 percent. Even the lower priced college may be beyond the reach of many students. Krugman does not compare the U.S. with countries such as Finland which has no fees for post-secondary education. Finland has no special riches or resources just a political culture that considers education at all levels as a right that must be made a priority. The complete article can be read here.

Gingrichonomics

   An editorial in Bloomberg calls Gringrich's ideas on economics "..  a mixture of the alarming, the implausible and the banal." On taxes the article notes how Gingrich panders to the well off and corporations.
   Gingrich says he would cut the corporate income tax rate to 12.5 per cent from 35 per cent. He also would make the Bush tax cuts permanent. Gingrich would go further and eliminate taxes on estates, dividends, interest income and capital gains. He would also have a flat tax of 15 per cent. If you did better on the old system you could opt for that.
   The Tax Policy Center has estimated that in 2015 Gingrich's tax reductions would reduce government revenue by 1.3 trillion compared to the present system. Gingrich  complains that the calculations do not adequately factor in the huge growth rate all his tax cuts will cause.
   How much the economy might grow is uncertain but what is certain is that Gingrichonomics is great for the rich. The plan is estimated to save the top .1 per cent of taxpayers an average of 2.3 million each. Mitt Romney pointed out that under Gingrich's plan he would have paid no taxes in the last two years. Perhaps the editorial is a Romney inspired creation! For much more see the Bloomberg editorial.

Republican candidates for president all favor policies to increase inequality

  Tomorrow in Iowa the first primary to nominate the Republican presidential candidate takes place. Mitt Romney has been picked out as a candidate who represents the proverbial one per cent. But as the chart at the end of the article here shows all of the candidates support policies that favor the one per cent.
    All the candidates favor increasing tax breaks for the rich and for corporations as well. At the other end of the scale they all favor ending Medicare as it is at present. They also want cuts to Social Security to help lower the deficit.
   These policies will increase economic inequality. Cutbacks will decrease demand and no doubt decrease growth. Lack of growth will mean less revenue and a worse debt situation. Of course on other issues the candidates do differ. Ron Paul for example is a thorn in the side of Republican hawks and the Republican establishment generally. Nevertheless they all  opt for policies that will increase inequality.