Romney to speak at JU commencement

22 Jan 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »

For Republicans, might makes right is back in fashion.

President Barack Obama has been chafing for months at the notion that he’s a lame-duck president. The most notable Republican reaction to President Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night did not come from official respondent Joni Ernst, the rookie senator from Red Oak, Iowa, with the camouflage high heels.Former Massachusetts Gov. and 2012 GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will give the keynote address at Jacksonville University’s commencement in Florida on April 25, the school announced Wednesday. “We are delighted to offer our students the opportunity to hear from one of the leading figures in industry and public service of the past three decades,” said JU President Tim Cost. “Gov.

With 2016 fast approaching, CBS Local takes a look at the potential Republican and Democratic presidential candidates looking to make a run for the White House. Obama’s foreign policy “was based on the premise that if we were friendly enough to other people and if we smile broadly enough and press the reset button, then peace is going to break out around the world,” Romney said. But in contrast to how he discussed his domestic agenda, the president wasn’t really asking Congress for much when it comes to the rest of the world. Romney has established an outstanding track record of accomplishments, and is sure to offer insight and inspiration to our campus community.” In laying out Mr. His aides insist that Obama plays his best in the fourth quarter of the game, and they want him to finish strong, from an opening with Iran to closing Guantanamo.Obama owns foreign policy for another two years.

On his Facebook page, Romney countered Obama’s speech by zeroing in on the president’s proposal to pay for $235 billion in middle-class tax breaks, as well as new spending on education and infrastructure, by raising taxes on capital gains and inherited assets for the very wealthy by $320 billion. “His tax proposal is a maze of new taxes and complexities,” Romney wrote. “The best way to lower the tax burden on all American families is straightforward: lower rates and simplify the tax code.” This reaction may seem entirely predictable—after all, Romney spent his entire 2012 presidential campaign calling for across-the-board tax cuts that independent analysts found would disproportionately benefit the top 5 percent of taxpayers. Romney’s biography, the university noted that as Massachusetts governor, he “passed landmark health care legislation for his state and helped eliminate a $1.2 million budget deficit.” His support for the state’s health care law, which some have credited for laying the foundation for Obamacare, could once again be an issue for GOP primary voters if Mr. What’s striking about Romney’s reaction, though, is precisely that it is such a rehash of his 2012 stance at a time when he has been seeking to recast himself as a different sort of Republican, one far more concerned with poverty, inequality, and middle-class wage stagnation. On Iran, he asked Congress not to do anything, threatening to veto any new sanctions that might undermine international negotiations over that country’s nuclear program. At a GOP gathering last week in San Diego, Romney lamented that, “Under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse, and there are more people in poverty than ever before,” and called for Republicans to tackle the “scourge of poverty.” The GOP’s new anti-inequality platform has one problem: The party remains committed to fighting solutions that would come at the expense of the wealthiest Americans.

In part, this reflects this White House’s recent strategy of doing as much as possible on foreign policy without having to involve Congress, but it also reflects something more universal about second-term presidents. He is also scheduled to speak at Mississippi State University later this month, which also mentioned his signing into law “a private, market-based reform that ensures every Massachusetts citizen will have health care insurance” in its announcement. But the political lens is already beginning to shift from Obama to the three politicians who, according to the polls, people would most like to see run in 2016: Republicans Mitt Romney and Jeb Bush, and Democrat Hillary Clinton. Tickets, from $19.50 to $39.50, at ArtTix. • The documentary “Sol LeWitt,” examining the life and career of the renowned conceptual artist and designer, screens at the Utah Museum of Fine Arts, 410 Campus Center Drive, University of Utah campus, Salt Lake City. But when President Bush drew upon this support to make war with Iraq, and the result was chaos, and not the discovery of WMDs, the Might Makes Right faction in Republican politics took a blow.

The former Florida governor appeared to be the early favorite to win the Republican presidential nomination before Romney started creating 2016 rumbles. Bill Clinton deepened his involvement in the Northern Ireland peace process ahead of the Good Friday Agreement in 1998 and launched the U.S. intervention in Kosovo.

External events, and surprises, surely push the pendulum of public opinion in one direction or another, but it inevitably swings back to the center of gravity. Bush attempted to reboot his unpopular foreign policy in his second term with a new troop surge in Iraq, a new initiative to combat AIDS in Africa, and an ultimately unsuccessful push to restart Middle East peace talks. Because the public perceives what Brookings’ Bill Gallston calls “an arc of crises” from Europe to North Africa and throughout the Middle East, with the U.S. seeming unable to influence their disposition, Republicans sense opportunity. It’s an experience that will always hold a very special place in my heart, but I wouldn’t put myself or my family through it again for anything in the world.

The libertarian senator from Kentucky is already taking shots at Romney, saying that the former Massachusetts governor had his chance and it’s time for someone new. The reason why second-term presidents take a greater interest in foreign policy initiatives isn’t just because they’re out of other options—it may be partly a reflection of political incentive. In the Oct. 22, 2012, debate, Obama made breezy comments about how Al-Qaeda’s core leadership had been “decimated,” but a somber Romney had it exactly right: “It’s really not on the run.

Just look at what has been the first order of business for Republicans after they won full control of Congress for the first time in eight years this past fall. It’s not expanding the earned income tax credit, but rather pushing a Wall Street wish list for tweaks to weaken the Dodd-Frank financial reform law of 2010. This is a group that is now involved in 10 or 12 countries, and it presents an enormous threat to our friends, to the world, to America long term, and we must have a comprehensive strategy to help reject this kind of extremism.” It was a devastating exchange, in hindsight.

Are you really (to paraphrase Fritz Kraemer) “so weak of will that you accept no risks and want to intervene with real force only when no sacrifices can be required?” Politicians who project strength at all cost tend to win these contests, even though Americans are operationally much more skeptical of actually intervening then they appear to be. And it was compounded by Obama’s glib claim that he had been right to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq in 2011: “What I would not have done is left 10,000 troops in Iraq that would tie us down. Bill Clinton calls this the tendency to embrace “strong and wrong” over “smart and right.” Surprises and shocks can move the needle a bit, but this preference is pretty stable. Bush during the latter stages of the Iraq War), then the probability that Congress will pass a bill on a domestic issue that moves policy toward the president is only about 20 percent. In 2002 and 2004, after the rally effect died down, the Republicans deliberately linked their political opponents to the ideological misjudgments of their enemies.

Having my hypothetical abortion discussed on television and in newspapers because of my father’s response to a reporter’s question about what he would do if I became pregnant. Talk all you want about restoring shared prosperity, Obama is saying, but this is the kind of reform it will take to bring balance to an economy that has gotten so top-heavy and out of whack. He dismissed Obama’s strategy of engagement, said he wouldn’t need congressional authorization to strike Iran militarily, and warned of the threat of an Iranian nuclear weapon: “We can’t afford to wait much longer, and we certainly can’t afford to wait through four more years of an Obama administration.

The proposal will implicitly admonish not only Republicans but also Hillary Clinton, should her own Wall Street sympathies and upper-bracket aspirations keep her from adopting an aggressive platform to tackle inequality. This could be because legislators are less likely to make concessions to a leader viewed as incompetent, or it could be because foreign policy crises may start to crowd domestic issues off the agenda. By then it will be far too late.” That was too militaristic: By the last debate, Romney had softened his tone but he still seemed to take his policy cues from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

That they could do this and get away with it might well give media critics something to write theses about for decades, but the simplest explanantion is that the Republicans did it because the party leadership figured out what their base believed and stuck to it like leeches stick to blood. The extreme example of this was Lyndon Johnson, whose domestic initiatives were hindered late in his presidency by growing public opposition to the war in Vietnam. Some White House officials chafed at this fratricide in her 2014 memoir, “Hard Choices.” When I reviewed the book last year, I listed a series of issues where “Clinton displayed good judgment as secretary of state and understood some important issues earlier than her boss, President Obama.” Among Clinton’s prescient moments was her early embrace in 2009 of what became the “pivot” to Asia; her caution about dumping President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt in 2011; her support for arming the Syrian opposition in 2012 after the breakdown of U.N. mediation efforts; and her early warning in 2013 that trouble was ahead with Russian President Vladimir Putin. These are the real stakes at play, Cannon and Obama both recognize, and they haven’t changed just because Romney and a handful of GOP presidential hopefuls have decided it’s time to show a new, more caring face.

The data set in the paper is limited to military engagements rather than diplomatic initiatives or other foreign policy acts, but the finding does suggest that a foreign policy failure may hinder a president’s agenda more than success helps it. A large number of liberals (anywhere from pluralities to majorites in polls) do not support President Obama’s counter-terrorism strategy when it’s described to them.

Your clothes, your more colorful extended family members, the way you talk, if you’re too edgy, if you aren’t edgy enough, what music you listen to, where you live, who you hang out with. The president used Russia’s economic woes as an opportunity to take a shot at Republican critics of his Ukraine response Tuesday night, though he surely realizes that U.S. sanctions against Putin’s government got a major unexpected assist from falling oil prices. A number of opportunities still on the table, including a trans-Pacific trade deal, further normalization with Cuba, a global climate treaty, finally shuttering Gitmo, and a nuclear deal with Iran, could be subject to quite a bit of politically draining resistance from Congress.

If the economy remains strong and the Affordable Care Act becomes more popular, the best argument for change is that Obama, with Hillary Clinton’s essential help, squandered American power by trusting too much in feckless international institutions and too little in America’s innate superiority. She says she will be making an announcement early this year about what her intentions are for 2016, but it seems pretty clear that she has a clear shot to the Democratic nomination. It is not just a rejection of your personal beliefs on the direction of your country that your parent personifies, it is a rejection of your entire family unit.

The popular senator from Massachusetts has consistently said she would not run, despite many Dem officials thinking she could make a dent in the primaries. When you believe in someone you love, and believe that they can change history and make your country a stronger, better place, it trumps everything else. Especially given that this time will most likely be harder than the last, not easier, and a lot of people in the party are looking for new, fresh blood to inspire voters.

Here you can write a commentary on the recording "Romney to speak at JU commencement".

* Required fields
All the reviews are moderated.
Twitter-news
Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

About this site