Dear Commons Community,

The first presidential debate came and went last night without any “zingers” or defining moments. Both President Obama and Mitt Romney presented themselves well and knowledgeable.   The entire debate focused mainly on the economy, government spending and deficits.  I was pleased to see that both candidates interjected issues related to education into their responses.  Romney commenting on school choice and Obama on Race to the Top and community colleges.  On these issues, I thought Obama had more to say.  However, the overall evening  was won by Romney who appeared energetic and happy to be at the debate. Obama on the other hand appeared tired and at times seemed to be someplace else.  Chris Matthews of MSNBC, commented afterwards that Obama was “enduring” the debate.  Obama never mentioned the 47 percent, Bain-Capital or any other “hot-button” campaign issues that have generally put the Romney campaign on the defensive.

A New York Times article has a good description of the evening as:

“But for all of the anticipation, and with less than five weeks remaining until Election Day, the 90-minute debate unfolded much like a seminar by a business consultant and a college professor. Both men argued that their policies would improve the lives of the middle class, but their discussion often dipped deep into the weeds, and they talked over each other without connecting their ideas to voters.

If Mr. Romney’s goal was to show that he could project equal stature to the president, he succeeded, perhaps offering his campaign the lift that Republicans have been seeking. Mr. Obama often stopped short of challenging his rival’s specific policies and chose not to invoke some of the same arguments that his campaign has been making against Mr. Romney for months.

…For much of the debate, the candidates commandeered the stage, taking control away from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, as they kept trying to rebut one other. At times, the moderator seemed as if he had walked off the stage, a result of new rules that were intended to allow for a deeper and more freewheeling discussion.

On a basic level it was a clash of two ideologies, the president’s Democratic vision of government playing a supporting role in spurring economic growth, and Mr. Romney’s Republican vision that government should get out of the way of businesses that know best how to create jobs.

Mr. Romney sought to use his moment before a prime-time audience of tens of millions to escape the corner Mr. Obama and his allies have painted him into, depicting him as an uncompromising adherent to policies that have been tried before. He instead turned the focus on his opponent’s record.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

The Daily News had a short piece yesterday on Mayor Bloomberg  “trashing” the state teachers’ union for what he deemed its irrational backing of the state Senate Democrats.  Bloomberg was responding to a Daily News report detailing how the New York State United Teachers was planning to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to help the cash-strapped Democrats re-claim the Senate majority.

“I don’t know what rational person would want to go back to those days,” he said of the chaotic two-year period, 2009-10, when the Dems ran the chamber.

“And before we go back there, they should get their house in order and figure out how to convince people that they would act as adults if they did,” Hizzoner added.

Bloomberg said NYSUT gave money because it believes the Dems will be sympathetic to union issues.

“Why would they give the money if they didn’t think that it  would have the legislators that they are supporting vote their way?” he asked.

“That’s the reason I gave the money,” he said of a recent $1 million donation to the state Senate GOP and another of $75,000 to the IDC, a dissident group of four Democrats.

“I want somebody that’s good government,” he said. “I want somebody to stand up and say we have to have evaluations and the best teachers in front of the kids and run the school system for

As the News first reported, the union is skirting traditional donation limits by going the independent expenditure route, which allows an entity to spend as much as it wants to support a candidate as long as it’s not done in coordination with the candidate’s campaign.

Senate Democratic spokesman Michael Murphy accused Bloomberg of backing a Republican conference that has turned its back on many of the mayor’s core issues.

“On the issues Mayor Bloomberg claims to care about, the record is clear — from sensible gun laws to women’s rights to government reform, the Mayor agrees with Senate Democrats and the Republicans are obstacles to progress,” Murphy said.

“The Bloomberg agenda will go nowhere if Republicans retain control and will advance if the Democrats recapture the Senate.

I am not sure I follow all of Mayor Bloomberg’s argument.  I agree that it is not the best system where money influences elections but I don’t understand why it is okay for him to donate millions of dollars to candidates who are sympathetic to his views but it is not okay for the UFT to do the same.

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

On the eve of the first presidential debate tomorrow night, New York Times‘ columnist, David Brooks, provides advice to Mitt Romney to salvage his candidacy.   Here is an excerpt of what Brooks thinks Romney should say:

“I’m a nonideological guy running in an ideological age, and I’ve been pretending to be more of an ideologue than I really am. I’m a sophisticated guy running in a populist moment. I’ve ended up dumbing myself down.

It hasn’t even worked. I’m behind. So I’ve decided to run the last month of this campaign as myself.

The next president is going to face some wicked problems. The first is the “fiscal cliff.” The next president is going to have to forge a grand compromise on the budget. President Obama has tried and failed to do this over the past four years. There’s no reason to think he’d do any better over the next four.

He’s failed, first, because he’s just not a very good negotiator. Obama spent the last campaign promising to be postpartisan and then in his first weeks in office, in the fullness of his victory, he shut down all cooperation with Republicans and killed any hope of bipartisan cooperation….

The second reason there’s been no budget compromise is that Republicans have been too rigid, refusing to put revenue on the table. I’ve been part of the problem. But, globally, the nations that successfully trim debt have raised $1 in new revenue for every $3 in spending cuts. I will bring Republicans around to that position. There’s no way President Obama can do that.”

Brooks provides excellent advice to Romney but it will not be enough to turn the tide against President Obama.  Too little too late!

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

I recently gave an interview for The Evolllution, on the topic, Exploring the Dangers of the American Education-Industrial Complex. You can hear the complete interview at:  http://www.evolllution.com/featured/audio-exploring-the-dangers-of-the-education-industrial-complex/

Here is a brief excerpt:

Question:  Is there anything you’d like to add about the educational-industrial complex and its impact on the expansion of online learning?

“…the education-industrial complex has definitely expanded online learning in this country and higher education, and to me that’s good. But I think some of it has been done at the expense of quality and unfortunately there’s been a number of unscrupulous providers of online learning who see this as strictly a cash cow and a way to make significant profits. If you look at some of the for-profit colleges in particular, you’ll see that they’ve reaped… in excess of $1 billion in federal financial aid tuition in the past year or so.

I think there’s significant money to be made here and there needs to be a certain amount of federal regulation, particularly with financial aid, to make sure that we’re not sending students down some path that looks rosy but is full of thorns.”

Tony

Dear Commons Community,

Paul Krugman in his New York Times column, posits that the this year’s presidential election is becoming a referendum on whether or not the American people support the need for a social safety net.

“Republicans came into this campaign believing that it would be a referendum on President Obama, and that still-high unemployment would hand them victory on a silver platter. But given the usual caveats — a month can be a long time in politics, it’s not over until the votes are actually counted, and so on — it doesn’t seem to be turning out that way.

Yet there is a sense in which the election is indeed a referendum, but of a different kind. Voters are, in effect, being asked to deliver a verdict on the legacy of the New Deal and the Great Society, on Social Security, Medicare and, yes, Obamacare, which represents an extension of that legacy. Will they vote for politicians who want to replace Medicare with Vouchercare, who denounce Social Security as “collectivist” (as Paul Ryan once did), who dismiss those who turn to social insurance programs as people unwilling to take responsibility for their lives?

If the polls are any indication, the result of that referendum will be a clear reassertion of support for the safety net, and a clear rejection of politicians who want to return us to the Gilded Age.”

Amen!

Tony