In my latest column, I explore the scary similarities between Mitt Romney and George W. Bush on foreign policy:
Much as Romney is trying to distinguish himself on foreign policy, the fact is that if Barack Obama and George W. Bush had a foreign policy love child, it would be Mitt Romney. Rhetorically, Romney sounds almost exactly like George W. Bush. In terms of what he’d do on the ground in places like Iran and Syria, Romney sounds exactly like Barack Obama. So what will Mitt Romney do on foreign policy if elected? As with everything else about Romney, he’s so mercurial it’s impossible to know. But the signals are ominous.
You can read the full essay here.
In commentary for the American Prospect, I look at Mitt Romney’s absurd assertion in the second presidential debate that the way to reduce gun violence in America is for more people to get married. I mean, if that’s true (which it’s not) then why not:
Eunuchs for Peace: Since most murders in the United States are committed by men, and as long as the Romney campaign wants to deny contraceptive access to women, let’s give those birth control pills to men and hormonally alter their violent instincts
Read the rest of my creative crime fighting ideas here.
I was asked to add my $0.02 for FoxNews.com’s roundup of opinions on the second presidential debate. Here’s what I said:
If Mitt Romney hopes to stay viable in this election, he better do more explaining and less interrupting. And telling the truth would help, too!
You can read the rest of the responses here.
Is the second presidential debate a make or break moment for President Obama? Hardly…. Here’s my response to Politico’s latest Arena topic:
All President Obama needs to do is show up. If Mitt Romney yet again fails to provide details for his tax plan or backtracks on statements he’s made previously, the president should cede his time to give Mitt Romney a chance, once and for all, to honestly and fully tell the American people his plan for America. And then let’s see if Mitt Romney can win with the truth.
If you like my response, share it here.
Here’s an excerpt:
We’ll all be talking about debate styles for the next day or so. But the American people will be talking about the holes in Mitt Romney’s platform until Election Day.
And here’s the whole thing.
From my latest column:
The issue is not that Romney is wealthy. There have been many, successful wealthy candidates in American history — Kennedy, both Roosevelts, obviously plenty Members of Congress. In fact, it’s worth noting that President Obama’s net worth far exceeds that of the average American family.
The issue is that Romney seems out of touch. He just does not seem relatable and sympathetic with ordinary people and their struggles. It is this — and not his bland personality, his bad campaign management — which is sinking Romney’s candidacy.
You can read the full essay here.
From my latest:
Despite baseless Republican assertions to the contrary, Barack Obama has sought from Day One to take responsibility for his actions as President. So, after three and a half years in which Republicans have blocked every piece of legislation Obama has proposed and generally been as uncooperative as possible — economic recovery be damned — Obama repeated this weekend what he has said before: “I take full responsibility for everything that we do.”
And yet Mitt Romney still refuses to take responsibility even for his own tax returns.
Read the rest here and join me in mourning the erosion of maturity in politics.
A clip from a recent segment, courtesy of Fox News
On the heels of Mitt Romney insulting half of the nation, an excerpt from my latest for Salon:
Increasingly, I’ve come to think this debate is not really about conservative faith in trickle-down economics, which all real-world evidence gleaned over decades now proves just doesn’t work. Instead, I think Mitt Romney and many conservatives simply believe that the wealthy are more deserving and the poor are lazy. Therefore, we should reward the rich with whatever they want — lower tax rates, unlimited campaign spending, you name it — and punish the poor.
Read the rest here.
Reacting to the faux outrage on the part of conservatives in America that by denouncing a reckless anti-Islam film, President Obama was somehow abandoning the value of free speech, I wrote the following for Salon:
A month ago, when an armed man attacked the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C., conservatives blamed the fact that the organization had been labeled a “hate group” for inciting the attack. Never mind that the hate group label was intended to condemn the sort of violence that the Family Research Council’s extreme homophobic vitriol encourages. Tony Perkins, head of the FRC, said that groups that labeled his organization a hate group should be “held accountable for their reckless use of terminology.”
But now, when an offensive anti-Islam film promoted by a right-wing Christian preacher is clearly to blame for violent riots spreading thought the Middle East and appeared to have played a role in the death of a U.S. ambassador and three other Americans, the far right in America is defending extremist rhetoric against Islam and attacking the Obama administration for condemning the inflammatory film.
I hope you’ll read the rest — and join me in marveling at the hypocrisy.
NEW YORK TIMES PROFILE
SOCIALIZE WITH ME!
TV DOESN’T PAY THE BILLS
Make a tax-deductible contribution via our fiscal sponsor, the Grassroots Policy Project
