What the World Holds in 2014 - A Prediction

So that’s my review of 2013 over, obviously there were numerous stories that I missed. The horsemeat scandal that gripped Europe, elections in Japan and Germany, and the birth of Prince George. The biggest news story that I missed was documenting the progress within Iran. I was planning on writing more reviews, but revision for exams has cute into the amount of time I can afford to spend blogging. Perhaps when I finish exams I’ll do a few more reviews of 2013.

The point of this post is to predict what will happen to the world in 2014. The number in red is the amount of predictions I’ve made in the paragraph.

Pro-gay rights athletes will be arrested in Sochi during the Winter Olympics. Of the 100s of athletes attending, it seems unlikely that nobody will protest. Expect tensions to rise between the West and Russia. [1]

The European elections will be a mixed bag as the likes of France jump to the rights whilst Britain and several other countries jump to the left. I predict that Nick Griffin will lose his seat and Labour will have the largest MEP delegation from Britain. In France Nicolas Sarkozy’s UMP will have the most MEPs, followed by Marine Le Pen’s National Front. This will leave President François Hollande’s Socialist Party in third place.  [5]

Scotland will vote to remain in the union, although the vote will be closer than most unionists would like [1]

Scotland will also legalise same-sex marriage, as will Luxembourg and the Faroe Islands. Michigan and Virginia, by court ruling, will legalise same-sex marriage through the courts, whilst Ohio and Oregon will legalise it through ballot initiatives. The Supreme Court will reject Utah’s appeal, keeping same-sex marriage legal in that state. [8]

The November elections in the US will be mixed. Republicans will make a net gain in the Senate but will fall short of enough to take control. Little will change in the House of Representatives. Democrats will make a net gain in the governorship. [4] I’ll do a more in depth post about this later this month or in early February.

The bloodshed in Syria will continue, and by the end of 2014 nothing much will have changed unfortunately. There will be no Western military intervention in Syrian affairs. [2]

Obamacare will become more popular as its positive effects are felt. By the end of the year it will have a positive approval rating [1]

Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts will continue to gain popularity within the Democratic Party. She will eat away at Hilary Clinton’s lead in 2016 polls. New York City Mayor, Bill deBlasio, will gain national attention, also resulting in him being touted for a 2016 Presidential run. [2]

If I were to guess one person who is likely to die in 2014, I would chose President George H.W. Bush. We already know that he is in poor health and turns 90 this June. People who could also die this year include the Duke of Edinburgh, after all he turns 93 this June and had a number of health scares in 2013. Thailand’s King Bhumibol Adulyadej has had numerous health scares over the past decade and hence is also on the list of likely deaths. He turns 87 in June (I swear I have nothing against people born in June). Aging stars Bruce Forsyth (turns 86 later this month) and Betty White (turns 92 next month) could also die in 2014 without much surprise.

Excluding deaths, I have made a total of 23 predictions for 2014. I guess we will have to wait until 2015 to see how accurate they were!

The Fight Over Obamacare

Without a doubt Americans receive the worst healthcare the Western world has to offer. To make matters worse, Americans also pay more for the shoddy treatment. For years people from all ends of the political spectrum have been demanding reform. Republicans and conservatives have advocated for market orientated reforms whilst Democrats and liberals have preferred the idea of a single-payer system. That all changed after the 2008 election.

One of Obama’s 2008 elections promises was to finally bring a universal healthcare system to America. That fight would prove too difficult and so Obama settled on the next best idea, one that would mean fewer Americans were uninsured and healthcare insurance was generally better. Despite this it is a far cry from single-payer, despite what you hear from Republicans. Over the succeeding two years massive political fights were waged over the bill, officially called “The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Bill”, nicknamed Obamacare. The final bill divided people like no other in recent years, conservatives hated it and liberals loved it.

The strange thing is, Obamacare was originally a Republican/conservative proposal! It was first dreamt up in the 1990s by the conservative Heritage Foundation and implemented in Massachusetts by Republican Mitt Romney! Yet as soon as Obama tried to pass it, the Heritage Foundation immediately denounced it and Romney twisted himself into a pretzel formation trying to defend Romneycare whilst attacking Obamacare during the 2012 election.

In response to Obamacare (and other parts of Obama’s agenda) the radically right-wing republicans formed the Tea Party. With the help of the Tea Party’ fervour, the Republicans made a net gain of six Senate seats, 63 House seats, six governorships and 680 seats in state legislatures. Fast-forward three years and attitudes have changed. The Tea Party has started a Civil War within the GOP that could plague them in the 2014 elections. Opinion surrounding Obamacare has also changed, although national polls show it is still unpopular.

So why is Obamacare so important in 203? Well firstly the arguments over its constitutionality reached the Supreme Court. As well as that some of its provisions did not take effect until late 2013 and Republicans shutdown the government for 16 days because of it.

The biggest news that Obamacare made last year was at the Supreme Court. Parts of Obamacare were being challenged as unconstitutional and many Democrats feared that the conservative-leaning court would rule against it. When the news finally came that Obamacare had been held up as constitutional, Democrats were overjoyed and Republicans were furious. Yet it wasn’t a total victory for Obamacare, the part of the law that demanded states expand their Medicaid programs was ruled unconstitutional. This meant that in states with Republican control, many people would not receive the coverage that they would have had, had the Supreme Court ruled the other way. Baring in mind that the expanded coverage is funded entirely by the federal government for the next few years, then reducing to 90% funding thereafter, there is no reason for state governments to block it.

At the moment the following states are expanding Medicaid. The party of the states governor is in brackets.

Arizona (R)	Illinois (D)	Nevada (R)	Rhode Island (D)
Arkansas (D)	Iowa (R)	New Jersey (R)	Vermont (D)
California (D)	Kentucky (D)	New Mexico (D)	Washington (D)
Colorado (D)	Maryland (D)	New York (D)	West Virginia (D)
Connecticut (D)	Massachusetts (D)	North Dakota (R)
Delaware (D)	Michigan (R)	Ohio (R)
Hawaii (D)	Minnesota (D)	Oregon (D)

The following states are currently deciding whether or not to expand Medicaid

Missouri (D)

New Hampshire (D)

Pennsylvania (R)

Utah (R)

The following states are not expanding Medicaid

Alabama (R)	Kansas (R)	North Carolina (R)	Virginia (R)
Alaska (R)	Louisiana (R)	Oklahoma (R)	Wisconsin (R)
Florida (R)	Maine (R)	South Carolina (R)	Wyoming
Georgia (R)	Mississippi (R)	South Dakota (R)
Idaho (R)	Montana (D)	Tennessee (R)
Indiana (R)	Nebraska (R)	Texas (R)

This was far from the only headlines Obamacare made last year, one of the other major flashpoints involved a government shutdown. Every so often the US Congress has to pass a ‘Continuing resolution’ which appropriates funds for certain activities carried out by the federal government. Last year Congress had to pass a CR by the 1^st of October or the federal government would ‘shutdown’ due to lack of appropriated funds.  AS the deadline approached it became increasingly clear that a shutdown was on its way. The Republican controlled House wanted to pass  a version of the CR that would defund Obamacare, the Democratic-controlled Senate refused. A deal was not reached and the federal government shutdown on the 1^st of October. AS the shutdown continued it became increasingly clear who was getting blamed: Republicans. After two weeks under the glare of public opinion, Republicans caved and a version of the CR passed with no mention of Obamacare.

This was a major victory for Democrats and a major loss for Republicans.

Yet that was not the only reason Obamacare was making the news in October 2013. On the 1^st of October the healthcare exchanges opened and were plagued with problems. As well as a poor website, the initial signup was disappointing for Democrats. Yet as the months drew on, signups increased significantly with 2.1 million people having signed up by 2014.

Obamacare will continue to make headlines in 2014 as the law finally comes into effect.

America Has No Right To Be Embarrassed

The revelations of the extent of American spying has thoroughly embarrassed the Obama administration.

The original revelations that the NSA was spying on ordinary people and taking a drag net approach to internet information didn't embarrass them at all. They were just furious that the public had found out about their spying as it would mean that the programs might be properly scrutinised. What has really embarrassed the US is the revelations that the NSA had spied on the allies of the US. It was discovered that the NSA had bugged European Union offices in Brussels, infuriating the US' European allies. This week it was revealed that the US had tapped the phone of the German Chancellor Angela Merkel, needless to say Merkel was very unhappy. She called in the US ambassador and told him "frankly" to stop tapping her phone. What an awkward conversation that must have been for Obama.

Naturally this has raised tensions between the two countries. Things can only get worse for the President as not all of Edward Snowden's stolen information has been released.

To be honest I don't feel sorry at all for Obama or the American government. If they didn't want to be embarrassed then they shouldn't have spied on their allies. The revelation of Merkel's phone being tapped really shows that nobody is safe from the NSA. Who else have they spied on; Blair? Sarkozy? People within the American government? 

Day Six of the Shutdown

Day Six of the Shutdown

The shutdown of the US federal government is now in its sixth day and it seems as if there is no end in sight. As I’ve already written about, the fight is over whether or not to fund the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare. Many pundits have been predicting a short shutdown as it is deeply unpopular with the American people. Unfortunately this has not been true and the shutdown continues.

There has been a lot going on in the last few days that you should know about and I will endeavour to explain them to you.

Two factions are beginning to form in the Republican Party over this debate. On one side you have radicals like Ted Cruz and Michele Bachmann who are enjoying the shutdown and want it to continue as long as possible. Opposing them as the likes of John McCain and Peter King (when you make Peter King look like a moderate you know you’ve gone too far). Now it’s not like any of these more ‘moderate’ Republicans actually like Obamacare, they just recognise that staging a government shutdown to try and defund it is political suicide. The latter group’s worries are entirely justified; polling consistently puts opposition to the strategy at around 70% and Republicans are blamed more for the shutdown than the Democrats. In ways you also have a third faction, not radical enough to enjoy the shutdown but too scared to speak out against the Tea Party. If you were to split the 232 House Republicans into the factions, about 20 would be in the vocally anti-shutdown faction, around 40 in the radical faction and the rest form the silent majority. Think about that for a moment, if only 40 Republicans want the government shutdown out of 232, then why is it happening? The simple answer is fear and gerrymandering. The radicals here have come from districts that have been gerrymandered to the extreme and so they know they will never face the wrath of the voters, no matter how unpopular the policy. The silent majority fear the wrath of the Tea Party, if they do not do the bidding of the Tea Party then they face a challenge within the party and they lose their job.

John Boehner, the speaker of the House, also is deeply unpopular in his party. Earlier this year he narrowly was re-elected as speaker with just six votes to spare! If he upsets the Tea Party then he risks losing his job. John Boehner could end the shutdown any time he wanted. If he brought a government funding bill (with no mention of the Affordable Care Act) to the floor of the House, it would pass.

If you have been listening to any Republican over the past few days then you will have heard the talking point “Obama won’t negotiate”. As a tactic it has been working well and people are beginning to ask questions about this. The truth however is very different, the Democrats have already compromised! When you hear talk of a “clean continuing resolution” (sometimes referred to as a “clean CR”), what that means is; a bill to fund the government without anything else attached. So since the Democrats want a clean CR and Republicans want one that defunds the Affordable Care Act, Republicans argue that there has to be some sort of compromise. Sounds reasonable, right? Wrong. The clean CR is already a massive compromise for the Democrats as the funding levels provided are several hundred billion dollars lower than the Democrats want, almost exactly in line with the Republicans. So next time a Republican tells you the Democrats won’t compromise, you tell them the truth.

Another note of frustration for much of the general public is the fact that Congress still gets paid during the shutdown, while other federal workers are not paid. Some Congressmen have decided to give up their pay, or donate it to charity, as long as the shutdown is in effect. To be honest this doesn’t really matter to them as most are incredibly wealthy already. Those refusing pay include Harry Reid, Ted Cruz and John Boehner. Yet not all of members of Congress have given up their pay, some of the reasons are laughably ridiculous and show just how out of touch the current Congress is! Congresswoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) was quoted as saying “I need my paycheque, that’s the bottom line”, considering her husband is a surgeon, need might not be the word she was looking for.

Members of Congress get paid $174,000 per annum, which works out at $477 every day. If the shutdown goes on for a week, they get $3,339 for being incompetent, if it continues for a month (30 days) then they get $14,310 for being incompetent. And Congress wonders why its approval rating is at 10%?

What the coming week will bring us, I don’t know. The dynamics within the Republican Party are too difficult to predict. On the other hand I will happily predict that the Democrats will not buckle under the pressure and finally beat the Republicans in a policy debate on Capitol Hill. 

The US Government has Shutdown

The federal government shut down at around midnight last night after Washington failed to pass a bill to fund the government. The fight was all over the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) and whether or not to defund it. The Republicans were demanding that Obamacare be defunded or at least delayed. Naturally this was something that the Democrats were never going to agree to.

Quite what happens next, nobody really knows. Most pundits are predicting that the charade won't last long. The move is very unpopular and Republicans are getting the blame. A CNN poll showed 46% of Americans blaming Republicans for the shutdown, 36% for Obama and 13% for both. The longer they hold out, the worse it will get. If the Speaker of the house, John Boehner, were to table a bill that funded the whole government, it would pass as there are enough Republicans who support the measure.

It will be interesting to see how this all will effect the 2014 mid-term elections. The President's party should struggle as mid-terms never play out well for the incumbent. The likely outcome at the moment is a Republican House and a very tight Senate. If Republicans keep this shutdown for too long it could seriously hurt their chances. If they do the same with the debt ceiling it would be catastrophic.

Watch Them Crash and Burn

Today Republicans have gotten into a fight that they will lose and that should devastate their popularity. Already House Republicans have voted to repeal Obamacare on 41 separate occasions, naturally the attempts never went anywhere due to the Democratic Senate and Democratic President. Now they have tried a different tactic, one which the Senate cannot ignore. Periodically Congress needs to pass a bill funding the federal government, if a bill doesn't pass then the government shuts down. So naturally, you want a bill to pass. House Republicans have other ideas.

They passed a bill today that funds all of the federal government except it bans funds going to Obamacare. The bill passed basically along party lines 230-189 (one Republican nay and two Democratic yeas) and now it heads to the Senate. This isn't the first time Republicans have taken the country hostage, remember the debt ceiling crisis of 2011? The problem for Republicans is that this time there is no compromise possible, they will lose on this issue. Obamacare is the signature achievement of Obama's first term, he will never sign the bill that defunds it. As well as that there is the problem of the Democratic Senate. They would need to convince Harry Reid to bring it up for a vote and they would need to convince at least five Democratic Senators to vote for it, assuming there was no filibuster. If there was a filibuster then they would need the support of 14 Democrats, ignoring the fact that several Republicans including John McCain do not support the bill! This. Will. Fail.

Republicans may one day repeal Obamacare but I am doubtful of their chances. To repeal Obamacare they would need control of the House, presidency and a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. For a little historical perspective Republicans have not had this since the great depression.

If the Republicans do shut down the federal government, they will be devastated in the 2014 midterms. 

Proof that Birtherism = Racism

When Obama became President, a "scandal" started brewing, people started to believe that Obama was not eligible to be President. The idea was that Obama was born in Kenya, rather than Hawaii and therefore, according to the constitution, could not be President. These people, known as 'birthers', were labelled as racist by much of the left as many felt it wasn't a coincidence that the first black president was the first to have his eligibility questioned. Eventually Obama relented and released his birth certificate, this didn't stop the birthers who claimed it was fake.

Recent murmurs that freshman Senator Ted Cruz might run for President in 2016 has re-ignited the birthers in a different way. The Tea Party had always been associated with the birther movement, due to the overt racism of much of the Tea Party. Now the Tea Party is getting excited that Cruz might run for President as he is radically conservative and would push their agenda. But wait! Cruz was not born in America. Cruz was born in Calgary, Canada and he admits it. So the same people who insisted that Obama was ineligible for President for being born in Kenya (or so they say) insist that Cruz is eligible despite being born in Canada. How do they justify this double standard? Well Cruz's mother was American, so that makes him eligible. This argument falls through when you realise that Obama's mother was also American, she was born in Kansas and raised all over the US.

So let me get this straight, Cruz was born to an American mother and a foreign father (he was Cuban) and is eligible for President. Yet Obama, who was born to an American mother and a foreign father is ineligible. To many this proves that the birthers are racist and they only opposed Obama because he was black.

Obama's Not So Progressive Budget

This coming week will mark the beginning of the budget debate in the United States and will be fought as feistily as ever. Obama is expected to release his budget proposal later this week but we already know much of what will be contained in it. Unfortunately it is not particularly progressive, it will contain the following:

Ø  It is expected to reduce the deficit by $1.8 trillion in 10 years.

Ø  Change the structure of social security (including chained CPI)

Ø  Means testing parts of Medicare

Ø  $400 billion in healthcare savings/cuts

Ø  $200 billion from other areas

But don’t fret though as they are including some more progressive ideas:

Ø  Expanding access to pre-K

Ø  Set limits for tax preferred benefits for the wealthy

This has been met with shock and dismay by many liberals in the United States. The most painful part for Democrats is the chained CPI in social security. In ways Social Security to Democrats is much like the NHS to Labour, it is a sacred cow which must never be cut. What chained CPI actually does is cut the benefits to seniors collecting it. Currently the average 85 year old receives $1,200 a month, the chained CPI will result in a cut of $1,000 per annum! For the average 65 year old the cut will be $650. The budget also cuts benefits for veterans, the proposed changes will mean that a vet who was disabled in a war and is currently 30 will lose $1,400 pa by the time they are 45 years old, $2,300 pa by the time they are 55 years old and $3,200 pa by the time they are 65 years old! This has really got liberals up in arms, there is even talk of primarying Democrats who vote for the changes to social security.

There is a real chance that this can be defeated by Congress for several reasons. The Social Security changes are so offensive to many Democrats that many will vote against it, this could cause a real upset in the Senate where Democrats have control. For liberals this is where Republican’s hatred of Obama could come in handy; many Republicans in the House and Senate have such a vociferous hatred for Obama that they tend to oppose anything he proposes. If a significant proportion of Democrats and Republicans in either the House or Senate were to oppose the President’s deal, it could be defeated. 

Is There Hope For Gun Reform?

The NRA is arguably the most powerful lobbying group in the United States, it is probably the bulk of the reason why the US has the weakest gun regulations of any Western nation. Yet what has been happening in the last couple of months has been amazing in American politics. On the 14^th of December 2012, 20 young children and six adults were shot and killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. This changed America, there had already been several high-profile mass shootings in America over the past few years, the Gabby Giffords assassination attempt and the Aurora Theatre massacre to name a couple. This was the final straw for many Americans, hearing about the deaths of children around the age of seven was too much and many Americans demanded change. President Obama and Vice President Biden were very quick to begin trying to figure a way out of America’s crippling gun violence situation.

After a month or so of discussions about how to reduce gun violence, Obama and Biden came forward with a package of gun reforms; some of which needed the approval of Congress first. This was going to be difficult considering the NRA’s grip on Congress and the fact that the Republicans control the House. Nonetheless Senate Democrats began to try and push through new reforms. Particularly vocal was the Senior Senator from California, Dianne Feinstein, who had authored a prominent gun regulation bill that passed Congress back in 1994. Unfortunately it had been allowed to expire in 2004 by the Republican controlled Congress.  Feinstein’s bill put a ban on semi-automatic machine guns (the kind that fire many bullets in quick concession) and high capacity rifles. The idea behind it is that you do not need these guns, a hunter is not going to require a “spray” weapon to kill deer and you certainly don’t need it for self-defence. The high capacity magazines refers to ones that can hold more than ten bullets, the argument here is that you do not need more than ten bullets to hit a target, and if you do you probably shouldn’t own a gun anyway. This part of the package of reforms does have majority of support in America, around 57% of people say the support it, but it is unlikely to get passed the Republican controlled House.

Yet there is one extremely popular gun reform measure: background checks. Currently when buying a gun from a shop in America you have to go through a background check, to make sure you are legally allowed to own a gun (i.e. not a criminal or mentally ill). The problem is there is a huge loophole, if you purchase a gun whilst at a gun show or from another person, you do not have to go through a background check! It is estimated that around 40% of gun purchases in America do not involve background checks! So if you are not allowed to buy a gun in America, it is still extremely easy to buy one. What the new bill proposes is that every purchase should require a background check, regardless of who you are buying it from. This is extremely popular in America, NBC did a poll and 92% of Americans said they supported it, for comparison NBC’s poll showed background checks as more popular than Italian food, holidays and capitalism! Yet even this part of the bill, with this level of popularity, might fail in the Republican controlled House. When the Senate judiciary committee voted on it, of the eight Republicans, only Chuck Grassley of Iowa voted for it. Seriously.

Other parts of the bill increase funding for schools who wish to have guards as well as increased penalty for straw purchasers. Straw purchasers are people who buy guns for people who would not pass a background check at a shop.

Yet there is some hope that these bills could pass, that the NRA’s power could be dented. Mike Bloomberg, the Independent Mayor of New York runs a PAC called ‘Mayors Against Illegal Guns’ which attempts to aid gun reforms pass. Just recently the PAC made a $12 million ad buy in several states trying to get constituents to contact their senators and encourage them to support gun reforms. There is real hope now as Senators and Congressmen fear the NRA running adverts against them in elections; if a new group can raise as much as the NRA, then much of the NRA’s ‘power’ will disappear.

I wish America all the luck in the world, in most other western nations, only a handful of people are killed by guns every year. In America, the number is around 30,000. 

Democracy? Who Cares!

The Republicans lost the 2012 elections, Obama was re-elected as president and Democrats increased their majority in the Senate and gained seats in the House. Rather than change the outlook of their party the Republicans have a different plan: destroy democracy. Although that sounds a bit exaggerated, there is reason to believe that Republicans have had enough of democracy! Leading up to the 2012 elections numerous Republican controlled states attempted to introduce photo ID laws. The issue with this is that a significant proportion of the electorate doesn’t have photo ID and would therefore be disenfranchised! These people also tend to vote Democratic, coincidence? I think not. Naturally the people attempting to carry out these tactics won’t admit to doing so as controversy would ensue. What Republicans are using as an excuse to for their tactics is ‘rampant’ voter fraud. The problem with this argument is that the type of voter fraud that would be prevented by this is basically non-existent! We are talking about a dozen cases in as many years. So the Republican reasoning for disenfranchising up to 10% of the electorate is to stop voter fraud which happens roughly once a year in an electorate of 200 million. Fortunately most of the laws were blocked or struck down by courts before the November elections. If you don’t think that this is evidence enough that the Republicans tried photo ID laws to disenfranchise Democrats then I turn to the leader of the Pennsylvania House, Mike Turzai (R):

“Voter ID, which is going to allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania: done,”

If that’s not proof that the ID laws were only meant to help Republicans, I don’t know what is.

In 2012 this wasn’t the only anti-democratic moves made by the Republican Party. As a result of the 2010 mid-term elections Republicans took control of many traditionally blue states. Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin all gained Republican state Houses, Senates and governors. This basically mean that Republicans could do whatever they wanted, the same was true in most swing states. Unfortunately this meant that when the census figures were released, Republicans were able to re-draw the congressional districts to favour themselves. This is why the Republicans have a 33 seat majority in the House of Representatives despite Democrats winning 1.5 million more votes! The gerrymandering of congressional districts meant that results in several states were completely skewed. In Pennsylvania there were 100,000 more votes for Democrats than Republicans, yet Republicans won 13 seats to the Democrats five! In Michigan Democrats won 300,000 more votes yet only five of the 14 seats and in Wisconsin 50,000 more votes for Democrats meant only three of eight seats. Although Republicans did win more votes in other states such as Ohio and Virginia, the resulting House delegation was still disproportionate. In Ohio the difference in the vote was 5% but Republicans won 12 seats to the Democrats four and in Virginia the Republicans had 2% more of the vote but eight of the 11 seats!

This is terrible for democracy in America, when one party completely disregards the will of the people. Yet worse may still come. Republicans still control the state houses and senates thanks to Gerrymandering and now Republicans are considering something extremely radical. Some Republicans are floating the idea of rigging the presidential election as well as the House elections. What they want to do is allocate the Electoral College votes for president using the gerrymandered house districts! So far Republicans in Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Florida have all floated the idea, if they had done this before the 2012 election then there would be currently a President Romney, despite him trailing Obama by 5 million votes nationwide. Although in most cases the laws look likely to fail, Republicans fear a public backlash against such blatant disregard for Democracy. In a number of these states the balance of the chambers is such that only a few Republicans need to oppose the idea for it to fail. Quite why America can’t simply elect a President by who gets the most votes nationwide eludes me, until this can be resolved; America’s democracy will be under threat.

Obama's Inauguration

Barack Obama has been inaugurated for a second and final time in Washington D.C. yesterday. The significance of Obama’s second inauguration is no small thing, the breakthrough for African Americans continues. It’s also important to note what date his public inauguration took place, Martin Luther King Jr. Day. Without the work done by King and the rest of those in the Civil Rights Movement then it would have been impossible for Obama to say the oath of office.

Yet the big question is what will Obama try to do in a second term. If you listened to his inaugural address on Capitol Hill it might give you a clue. He spoke of tackling Climate Change, specifically he said “some may still deny the overwhelming judgement of science…” which most people took to be a dig at Republicans. He also brought up entitlements, Medicade, Medicare and Social Security and defended them against the accusations that they are for takers only. He implied the need for comprehensive immigration reform so that immigrants who were prepared to work and realise their dreams could become citizens. Yet one of the more memorable ideals that Obama included was that of gay rights. So not only has he become the first sitting US President to support gay marriage, but the first to include it in one of his inaugural addresses as one of his priorities! He mentioned Stonewall, the 1969 riots which sparked the gay pride movement and re-addirmed his commitment to gay marriage:

“Our journey is not complete until our gay brothers and sisters are treated as equal like everyone else, under the law. For if we are truly equal, then surely the love we commit to one another must be equal as well.”

When asked, the American people frequently choose ending the war in Iraq as Obama’s greatest first term achievement. Obama also plans on ending the war in Afghanistan by 2014, which led him to say “a decade of war is ending”. America has been in a perpetual state of war since 2001 and it will soon end. One of the big questions is will there be a peace dividend? If America is to balance its budget, there’d need to be one.

Unfortunately for Obama, one of the biggest problems on his second term will be Republican obstructionism. After the 2010 mid-terms when Republicans took control of the House, Obama has had trouble with the no-compromise section of the Republican Party that has meant that the 2010-2012 Congress was the most unproductive there’s ever been. Trying to get many of his policies through the House will be extremely difficult, but I think Obama has learnt from his first term, he needs to go in all guns blazing. 

US Elections

The biggest election news of the year was certainly Barack Obama’s re-election as President of the United States. Obama won 51% of the vote and 332 Electoral Colleges to Romney’s 47% and 206 Electoral Colleges. Although the victory was decisive for Obama, all through the race the media outlets were calling the election neck-and-neck. Some pundits believed that it would be the closest election the US has ever seen (clearly forgetting just how close the 2000 election was). Apart from Romney, one of the biggest losers was Karl Rove. Rove sees himself as a kingmaker having helped George W. Bush get elected in 2000 and 2004 and helping with the election of Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms. Despite his previous successes, his future is uncertain thanks to his failure in the 2012 elections. Rove ran two superPACs, American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS, together the PACs spent over $300 million on the Presidential race and some Senatorial races. In every single race Rove invested in, the Republican in that race lost. Combine that with his live meltdown on Fox news during the election, Rove’s future is certainly unsafe.

Obama can certainly be delighted with his win, he is only the fourth president in the last century to win two elections with over 50% of the popular vote, the others were FDR (1932, 1936, 1940 and 1944), Eisenhower (1952 and 1956) and Reagan (1980 and 1984). For Democrats the election was also good downticket, picking up seats in the House, Senate and many state legislatures. Despite this, Democrats still won’t control the House even though they got one million more votes than Republicans! You see Republicans won control over many state legislatures in 2010. This meant that when the census figures were released and Congressional districts were redrawn, Republicans redrew them to favour themselves. This form of anti-democracy gerrymandering is performed  by both parties, for Democrats it was just unfortunate that it happened right after Republicans swept to power. As well as success for offices, liberal ideas also succeeded at the ballot box.

In Massachusetts and Connecticut voters decided to legalise medical Marijuana, whilst Arkansas rejected a similar ballot measure. Although Oregon rejected outright legalisation of Marijuana, both Colorado and Washington legalised it for recreational use! Gay rights having failed in 33 of 34 ballot initiatives prior to November, including in North Carolina in February, actually saw serious successes for the first time! In November the three states that had legalisation of gay marriage on the ballot, gay rights won! This meant that Maine, Maryland and Washington became the first states to legalise gay marriage by popular vote. In Minnesota voters rejected adding a constitutional amendment to the state constitution that would ban gay marriage. This will embolden Democrats in Minnesota who take control of the both houses in the state legislature in 2013 to try and legalise gay marriage.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, 2012 wasn’t a completely blue whitewash, Wisconsin spelled out a big defeat for them. When the republican state legislature and governor, Scott Walker, passed anti-union legislation in the state it infuriated Democrats and Unions. A similar law had been passed by Republicans in Ohio but was repealed when Ohio voters forced a referendum on the issue. Unfortunately for Wisconsinites this option was not available to them, so instead they tried to recall the governor. They got enough signatures on the ballot, but despite all their best efforts, Walker survived the recall election.

Despite that rather major setback, Democrats can certainly say that 2012 was a good year for them and their beliefs. 

Obama hugging Michele after winning the race
source: Obama's facebook page

So What is the Fiscal Cliff?

If you’ve been listening to American politics at the moment you will almost certainly have heard of the term ‘fiscal cliff’. Basically it is a series of tax rises and spending cuts that will go into effect in January 2013 unless Congress brokers a compromise and passes new legislation. The combined effect of the spending cuts and tax rises, most experts agree, would push America back into recession during the summer of 2013 (remember a recession is defined  as two quarters in a row with negative growth in an economy).

So what are the tax rises and spending cuts? Well most of the spending cuts are a result of a political battle that took place last year. Basically in 2011 the political system of the US was in disarray, the Republicans (who controlled the House) were refusing to raise the debt ceiling (and therefore cause America to default on its debts and send the American – and world – economy into freefall), unless they got certain radical laws passed. The Democrats who controlled the Senate and Presidency were unwilling to give in to all of the radical demands. A deal was finally agreed just days before the US reached the debt ceiling and defaulted. Part of the Budget Control Act of 2011 was that if Congress did not pass a deficit reduction bill worth $1.2 trillion by the 2^nd of January 2013 then automatic cuts (sequestrations) would take place across the board, half from defence, half from domestic spending. As well as this, federal unemployment benefits, the bush tax cuts and the payroll tax cut would all expire, tax thresholds would return to their 2000 level and new taxes would be imposed.

Part of the problem here is that Republicans want to take more from domestic spending rather than defence (which is the Holy cow to Republicans), whereas Democrats are on the opposite side. Obama is trying to persuade the Republicans to let the bush tax cuts expire, but only for the top 2%, the tax cuts for the other 98% would be made permanent. There is also talk of cutting social security, which has infuriated ordinary liberals and many Democrats in congress as social security doesn’t contribute to the deficit and actually has a surplus!

To make matters worse, the Republican Speaker of the House, John Boehner, has just suffered a humiliating, self-inflicted, defeat. John Boehner tried to pass a bill in the House called ‘Plan B’, which was basically a Republican wish list of everything they wanted. Boehner knew it would never even get looked at in the Democratic Senate, so he didn’t pass it for policy reasons. Boehner was trying to put on a show of strength and make the Republicans seem united against President Obama. The only problem; he had to cancel the vote when he realised that he would not have the support to get it through the Republican House. As a result he sent the House of Representatives home for Christmas. Seriously. Although they will be back after Christmas, there will only be six full days until the new year. American politics could get very interesting over the next couple of weeks; if Congress and the President fail to reach a compromise then the effects will be devastating. Expect stock markets to plummet across the globe instantaneously, and here in Britain we will almost certainly experience a triple dip recession. Yay. 

Petraeus Scandal No. 2

David Petraeus has been engulfed in scandal again, only weeks after the details of his affair destroyed his career. The scandal only came to light when the Washington Post released a tape that had been leaked to it, the tape consists of David Petraeus speaking ‘off the record’ to Fox News contributor, Kathleen McFarland in early 2011.

In the tape McFarland is passing on some information from her boss, chairman of Fox News Roger Ailes. She explains to Petraeus that Ailes wants him not to accept any position the Obama administration offers him, except chairman of the joint chiefs, resign in six months and run for President (as a Republican). As the conversation continues Petraeus reveals that this is not really new information, the owner of Fox News, Rupert Murdoch, had already approached Petraeus about running for President against Obama and promised him to ‘bankroll’ Petraeus’ campaign! At one point McFarland says the following:

“The big boss [Murdoch] is bankrolling it. Roger’s going to run it. And the rest of us are going to be your in-house.”

This should prove to everyone, what many people already believe, that Fox News is a media wing of the Republican Party. Simple as. You can argue whether that is good, bad or it doesn’t matter, but you can’t argue whether it is a wing of the party.

Regardless of the fallout from this case, we should take note of this in the UK. When speaking to Lord Justice Leveson Murdoch claimed he never asked a politician anywhere for anything, anyone could tell that he was lying. This proves it, Murdoch meddles in politics wherever he is, he is dangerous and he must be stopped, he simply has too much power. 

What is the Petraeus Scandal?

If you have been watching the news recently you have probably heard of a scandal in the US involving a man named David Petraeus, the CIA and an extra-marital affair. The short (short) story is that General David Petraeus resigned as head of the CIA after his affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, was made public. The reality is, the episode is much more complex/

We do not yet know what date the affair began between Petraeus and Broadwell, although this might seem like an uninteresting detail, it could be very important. The reason: it’s illegal for a member of the US military to be involved in an extra-marital affair! So if the affair began before 31^st of August 2011, when Petraeus retired from the military, he could face trial in a military court! This is pretty straight forward, the rest is like a spiders web of connexions and people extending across various arms of government. Let’s start with Paula Broadwell; she sent threatening emails to a friend of Petraeus, Jill Kelley, telling her to back off from Petraeus feeling they were getting too close. She sent the emails anonymously under the pseudonym, ‘KelleyPatrol’. Kelley was worried about the threatening letters in these emails and asked a friend at the FBI, Frederick Humphries II, to investigate. Humphries got an investigation going, but did not get assigned to it. Growing increasingly impatient as nothing was moving, he phoned two House Republicans, Eric Cantor and Dave Reichart, in the (false) belief that the Obama administration was trying to cover something up due to political intentions. As the FBI began to probe into the emails, they found another individual was in this complex web, General John Allen, Petraeus’ successor as commander of the US forces in Afghanistan. It was discovered that he had sent 20,000-30,000 emails to Jill Kelley; these emails were supposedly flirtatious and inappropriate in nature. Despite these emails, both parties deny any affair taking place! Allen wasn’t the only person Kelley was getting attention from; the FBI agent had sent her topless pictures of himself to her!

That is a summary of what happened before the information went public, what came next was a storm.

As soon as the election finished and Obama was declared the winner, the scandal fell out of control and turned into a full-blown crisis. The White House received word of the looming crisis on the 7^th of November, the day after the election. Obama’s National Security Advisor, Tom Donilon, decided to wait to inform Obama until the next day. Once Obama heard of the situation he said that he was not ready to allow Petraeus to resign and that “he wanted to sleep on it”. It wouldn’t be long before he was forced to accept the resignation, on the 9^th of November CIA director, General David Petraeus resigned. It was also immediately clear that the career of General John Allen was also in jeopardy when he was implicated in the scandal. To make matters worse, Allen was scheduled to appear before the Senate as he was going to become the top US military official in Europe. The discovery of the excessive volume of emails between Kelley and Allen caused the hearings to be suspended.

Naturally the politicians were furious; Obama had no chance to formulate a response before the public knew, nobody had even told him about the investigation being conducted or anything related to it. Many Republicans found it suspicious that the revelations occurred immediately after the election, was the Obama administration hiding something? The relevant Committees in Congress were also angry about being kept in the dart for so long about the FBI investigation. The whole mess is far from sorted, Obama has to draw up a new cabinet, sort out this mess in the military/CIA/FBI and he’s going to try and broker a deal with Republicans regarding the fiscal cliff; all in the ‘lame duck’ session of Congress. There doesn’t seem to be anything ‘lame’ about this current session.

If you still are struggling to understand this situation, I hope this spider's web of information will be of help.

The Future is Bright for Gay Rights in America

Last Tuesday’s election was important for a whole range of reasons, one of the less discussed is gay marriage. For the first time in American history, gay marriage was legalised in a referendum, and it happened in three states, Washington, Maine and Maryland. Voters in Minnesota also rejected adding a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage. There are a number of advantages that gay marriage had over the other referendums held previously.

1.       All four referendums were held in blue states

2.       More time has elapsed (support for gay marriage seems to continuously rise)

3.       They were the first referendums in which President Obama’s support could affect the result. Obama’s support particularly affected black voters, this could have proved divisive in Maryland where black people make up 30% of the population.

Supporters of gay marriage should pay attention to the above three reasons. Undoubtedly Tuesday a success, but what does the future hold? Well currently gay marriage is being discussed in four state legislatures; Illinois, Rhode Island, Delaware and Minnesota, all four are blue states with Democratic control of the state legislatures and governorships, bar Rhode Island which has an Independent governor. In Colorado and Wyoming the legislatures are discussing civil unions and in Ohio the gay rights side is trying to collect enough signatures to put marriage on the ballot in 2013.

If I was a gay rights organisation in America, I would try to get gay marriage on the ballot in as many states as possible for the 2016 Presidential election. I say that for two reasons, firstly presidential elections have the highest rates of voter turnouts which should favour legalisation and secondly four years will have passed. If the growth in support for gay marriage continues at its current rate most people in most states should support it. Before 2008 only Massachusetts had legalised it, since then it has been joined by eight states and DC. By 2016 the gay rights movement should try and get gay marriage on the ballot in every state that voted for Obama in 2012 that has not yet legalised it.

Prior to this year gay marriage had usually been defeated by massive margins when on the ballot. In fact the average margin of defeat was a whopping 35%! It was so badly defeated that in only two circumstances was the margin less than 10%; in South Dakota in 2006 and California in 2008 the margin was 4%. You might think with this historical precedent that it’s amazing that gay marriage actually won. To fully understand why this was the case you need to delve into the figures, of the 32 states that voted to defeat gay marriage, 22 voted for Romney whilst 10 voted for Obama. Of the ten Obama states, six are swing state and the two that rejected gay marriage by the highest margins held their referendums in 1998 and 2002. A lot of progress has been made in the last ten years.

The gay rights movement know it has a long way to go before LGBT people are given the same rights as everyone else; women are still fighting for equality despite the suffragettes beginning their campaign over 100 years ago! And they represent 51% of the population! Despite that the movement knows that progress is coming thick and fast, within the next decade I predict a majority of American states to have passed gay marriage, as well as a majority of countries considered to be ‘Western’. It’s a tide of opinion that the conservatives cannot, and will not, defeat.

Obama Wins!

Barack Obama has been re-elected as President of the United States of America. There were scenes of jubilation last night at Obama HQ in Chicago as the networks called Ohio, and therefore the presidency, for Obama. The scenes at Romney HQ in Boston were much quieter with some people even crying. Many were expecting a very close night; one which kept Americans up to dawn as they waited for a network to call the election. The reality was surprisingly different, at 11:15pm EST (4:15am UK time) NBC called the entire election for Obama.

On Twitter I called the election much earlier, after the networks declared Pennsylvania so quickly I believed that Obama’s chances were very, very high. The only electoral votes that Obama won in 2008 and lost in 2012 were Indiana and Nebraska’s Second Congressional District, both of which were expected results and North Carolina, which Romney won by 2.2%.

Florida was extraordinary again last night; both candidates were basically tied the entire night! At one point just 3,000 votes separated them despite over 6.4 million votes already being declared. People began to wonder if Florida would be the controversy that it was in 2000 when just 500 votes decided who won Florida and therefore the presidency. Either candidate could still win as provisional ballots still need to be counted, after this happens if the margin of victory less than 0.5% then an automatic recount occurs.

At the beginning of the evening a lay person may have thought that Romney was running away with it in Virginia. For the first couple of hours after Virginia’s polls closed Romney was leading by up to 17 points! The reason for this massive margin? Republican counties were releasing their results much faster than the Democratic ones. This explains why the networks called Wisconsin for Obama despite Romney leading at the time, simply it was down to which counties had reported their votes thus far.

Here are the swing states and their margin of victory for the winning candidate:

State	Margin	% reporting
Colorado	O - 4.7%	95%
Florida	Not called
Iowa	O - 5.6%	99%
Nevada	O - 6.6%	99%
New Hampshire	O - 5.7%	99%
North Carolina	R - 2.2%	100%
Ohio	O - 1.9%	99%
Wisconsin	O - 6.7%	99%
Virginia	O - 3.0%	99%

Yet Romney did make a bit of history, although it’s not something he’ll be telling people: He lost his home state by the largest margin that a Republican or Democrat has ever done. He lost Massachusetts by 23.2%, his nearest rival is Herbert Hoover who lost Iowa by 18 points in 1932!

Yet the presidential race is far from the only election that occurred last night, 10 governorships, 34 Senate seats and 435 House seats were up for grabs as well as positions in state politics and numerous ballot initiatives and referendums.

The Senate turned out very well for the Democrats, considering they were expected to lose control of the Senate at the beginning of this cycle. They managed to flip Indiana and Massachusetts from red to blue as well as pick up a seat in Connecticut which had previously been held by an independent. The open seat in Maine went from a Republican to an independent, Angus King. He is expected to caucus with the Democrats. The only piece of good news for Republicans here was the gain of Nebraska from the Democrats. The makeup of the Senate will go from 51 Democrats, two independents (who caucus with the Democrats) and 47 Republicans to 53 Democrats, two independents (who are expected to caucus with the Democrats and 45 Republicans.

There was excellent news for the Republicans in the House; they managed to retain their majority. In fact, there is barely any chance from 2010, currently there are 193 Democrats called, the same number as the current congress; so not a great night for Democrats in this area.

In the Gubernational Elections there has only been one change so far, North Caroline flipped from Democrat to Republican. Indiana, North Dakota and Utah all stayed red whilst West Virginia, Delaware, Vermont and New Hampshire all remained blue, Washington is still undeclared.

The election was a good one for left-wing ideals, both Washington and Colorado legalised Marijuana for recreational use. In Maine, Maryland and Washington gay marriage was legalised or upheld whilst Minnesota voted not to ban it. Considering that before this election gay rights had only won one referendum (which was later overturned in another referendum), a clean sweep of all four is a major victory.

This election was undoubtedly a success for the Democrats, yet the results have meant that there is going to be barley any change in Washington DC. The Democrats still control the Senate and presidency; the Republicans control the House and can filibuster in the Senate. In fact things could get even less bi-partisan in the Senate, the three Republicans being replaced by democrats or independents are all ones open to compromise; Olympia Snowe in Maine, Dick Lugar in Indiana and Scott Brown in Massachusetts. With fewer moderate voices on the Republican side, it is easy to see how this Congress could actually be worse than the last. And there’s nothing Obama can do about it.

What About a Tie?

The results of the presidential election are likely to be extremely close, in both the Electoral Colleges and the popular vote. To become president of the US you need a majority in the Electoral Colleges. The problem here is that there are 538 college votes, which is an even number; so a tie is at least theoretically possible.

It is unlikely that a tie will occur in 2012 but it is far from impossible. Of the nine swing states, if Obama wins Wisconsin, Ohio and New Hampshire whilst Romney wins Nevada, Iowa, Colorado, Virginia, North Carolina and Florida then they both receive 269 votes and the race is tied.

So what happens next? Any normal person could reasonably assume that you would defer to the popular vote! If you though that then you would be wrong, instead a complex system kicks in where the presidency could be temporarily be held by Joe Biden, Paul Ryan or even the Speaker of the House, John Boehner.

When the race is tied, the House of Representatives gets to decide who is President. You might expect that each of the 435 Representatives gets one vote each – an odd number so no chance of a tie! Yet, once again, the American electoral system departs from sanity. Instead of 435 Representatives voting, they have to vote as 50 states. This is extremely disproportionate, consider this; California has a population of 38 million people and has 53 Representatives, yet only gets one vote in a tie. On the other hand Wyoming has a population of 560,000 people and has one Representative in the House, yet it gets the same amount of votes as California in a tie. To make matters worse, 25 states have an even number of Representatives so the process could be slowed if their internal voting is tied.

You might have thought that the insanity would stop there, but you’d once again be wrong. So whilst the House picks the President, the Senate gets to pick the Vice-President. This could result in the President being a Republican and the Vice-President being a Democrat, or vice versa. Now, unlike the House the Senate is already disproportionate in how seats are allocated; every state gets two Senators regardless of population.  This also causes more problems as there are 100 Senators, which means that there is (again) a risk of a tie. Great.

If the House is having trouble picking the President and the Senate has already picked the Vice-President then he/she becomes acting President. But if both branches of Congress are having trouble then the Speaker of the House becomes acting President until someone gets chosen!

So how would things work out for this Presidential election? To an outsider you would think that the elected members of congress would vote for whoever won the most of the popular vote. To someone who has an understanding of what American politics is like now, I wouldn’t be too sure. Bi-partisanship is dead in America, particularly on the Republican side. In primaries across the country incumbent Republicans were chucked out by the party base in favour of those who promised to end compromise. This is most notable in the case of Indiana Senator, Dick Lugar. The Republicans in Congress are being held hostage by their base; a Republican would know that they risk losing their party’s nomination if they were to vote for Obama: a man the Republican base hate vociferously. If Romney wins the popular vote, I could see some Democrats voting for Romney out of respect for democracy, but many would vote against him.

So suddenly if becomes very important as to who wins Congress. In the House it is highly likely that the Republicans will maintain control and in the Senate it is likely that the Democrats will maintain control. As each state gets one vote, individual congressional races become very important on a Presidential scale! Polling is quite scarce for individual House races, so it would be easy for some states to go either way. It’s easier to predict the Senate as there are only 33 Senators up for election and polling is more common for Senate races.

If we were to take the polls as definite for the House, then you see Republicans having a majority of representatives from 31 states, the Democrats taking a majority in 16 states, two states are impossible to tell and one (New Jersey) is expected to be split.

Blue for Democratic Majority
Red for Republican majority
Orange for Tossup
Purple for Tie

In the Senate if we take the polls as definite and combine them with the Senators not for re-election you would find a Democratic majority of four or five. The following map indicates what it looks like (red for two Republican Senators, blue for two Democratic Senators and Purple for states with one from each party).

So if there is a tie, the House will likely vote for Mitt Romney and the Senate for Joe Biden. That could make some interesting meetings… 

Obama Vs. Romney Round III

Last night Romney and Obama sparred for the last time in Boca Raton, Florida attempting to put on their best show to woo the nation. Although I do believe that the debate was very close, with Obama having the edge, a CBS instant poll put it much more pro-Obama. These are the results: Obama 53%, Romney 23% or a tie: 24%. This is far larger than I would have thought, but it may not have much of a lasting effect. Most Americans care about the economy more than anything else; Bill Clinton didn’t say “It’s the economy stupid” for nothing!

Although the debate was built to be about foreign policy, it was basically a discussion on the Middle East. America’s close allies in Europe never got a mention, the special relationship never came up, the BRIC countries (bar China) didn’t get discussed. Latin America was largely ignored, the drug wars in Mexico didn’t even get mentioned despite the escalating violence and instability. Sub-saharan Africa was not even mentioned as well as America’s alliances in the South-East Asia and Pacific region. Another big miss was the economic crisis in Europe, considering its potential to send the world economy into freefall, its absence was notable. So basically the whole 90 minutes was spent on the Middle East, in particular Iran and Israel. Iran was mentioned 47 times, Israel 35 and America’s (supposed) closest ally, the UK was only mentioned twice.

The issue of Iran last night was an interesting topic, Romney accused Obama of going soft on Iran. He said that Iran saw America as being weak. What an absolutely ridiculous statement to make, Obama easily took this fabrication apart. The fact that Iran is the most isolated and the weakest it’s ever been is a testament to Obama’s leadership on the international stage. Iran’s currency has lost 80% of its value since the new sanctions came in place and its oil exports have plummeted to record lows. The main discussion around Iran centred on its nuclear programme and how to stop it. Neither candidate fully  told us quite how they’d stop Iran getting nuclear weapons. All we know is just how bad it would be if they did get WMDs. Obama said that the current sanctions were working very well, having caused the Iranian economy to collapse.

On the topic of Israel, Romney was very critical of Obama, when Obama took his first foreign trip as president he went to the Middle East without visiting Israel. Romney said that had emboldened Israel’s enemies and made America look weak. For some historical context no Republican president has ever visited Israel during their first term, not even Ronald Reagan. Obama’s main reply to the claims are the fact that America and Israel are sharing an unprecedented amount of military technology and information.

Beyond Israel and Iran, other Middle Eastern topics included Libya, Egypt and Syria. If you were watching last week’s debate you will remember the Benghazi question, the one Romney totally botched. This week the focus on Libya was not on Benghazi, rather the revolution that had taken place in 2011 that overthrew Gaddafi. Both candidates, last night, agreed that the administration had done the right thing in Libya. Yet Obama to time to remind Romney of how, during the Libyan intervention, he had accused Obama of ‘mission creep’, suggesting America should pull out. In regards to Libya’s neighbour, Egypt, Romney criticised Obama for not reacting to the revolution faster. This is despite Obama being one of the first world leaders to call for the dictator, President Mubarak, to resign. When they spoke on Syria Romney seemed to have the same position as Obama! They both support the rebels, they both would consider arming rebels (but they both worry about arms falling into extremists’ hands) and they both ruled out the prospect of an intervention which involved a land invasion. Although Romney declared it a disgrace that Assad was still in power and that Obama should do more, he failed to articulate what Obama should be doing. The discussion on Syria turned downright stupid when Romney said the following:

“Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab World. It’s their route to the sea.”

If you have a basic understanding of the geography of the Middle East you’ll know that this is an extremely bizarre statement. Firstly Iran has no border with Syria at all; Iran would need to go through Turkey or Iraq if they wished to take that route to the sea. Yet more importantly is the fact that Iran has 2,440km of coastline (according to the CIA World Factbook). Just take a look at the following map!

 

Just let that sink in, Romney doesn’t even remotely know the geography of the Middle East. This is something every Congressman and Senator should know, never mind the President.

Somewhat surprisingly, an important part of all three presidential debates is the issue of what to do about China! For Obama this would be a relatively easy area to score some points, Obama has doubled exports to China, as well as this he has brought twice as many cases to the WTO of Chinese trade malpractice as Bush did in eight years. More importantly, he has won every case that has been decided. When Obama brought one particular case to try and save 1,000 jobs, Romney called him “protectionist”. Yet despite these facts Romney continues to try and attack Obama on the issue.

Overall I feel that Obama probably did slightly better, but it will not be foreign policy that decides this election.

Romney and Obama in the Midst of the debate