Republican debate highlights foreign policy differences (The Christian Science Monitor)

Saturday nighta€?s Republican debate saw no major stumbles or gaffes, nothing in what CBS News and the National Journal ostentatiously called a€?The Commander-in-Chief Debatea€

In fact, of all the (it only seems like) hundreds of debates so far, this one seemed the most substantial, focusing on national security and foreign affairs – life-and-death issues that President Obama polls relatively well in.

While the range of differences stretched from tough to tougher – except for Ron Paul’s isolationism and Jon Huntsman's more experienced, more nuanced outlook – there were points at which differences were highlighted.

MONITOR QUIZ: Weekly News Quiz for Nov. 6-11, 2011

Still, nothing happened to alter the basic candidate ranking as post-debate polls are likely to show – Mitt Romney and Herman Cain neck-and-neck at the top and Newt Gingrich enjoying a boomlet that may or may not last.

“The debate illustrated again that the divide in the GOP presidential field on foreign policy is between those who know what they are talking about and those who don’t,” observed Jonathan Tobin, senior online editor of the neoconservative Commentary magazine.

“A clear grasp of war and peace issues won’t transform Rick Santorum into a first tier candidate from an also-ran,” Tobin blogged following the debate. “But his lack of command of the issues does make it difficult, if not impossible, for Herman Cain to put forward a plausible argument for himself as a potential president…. While it must be admitted that he’s come a long way from the comical ignorance he displayed on this topic when he began his campaign, he still came across as the weakest of all the contenders.”

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

Unable to tout his signature “9-9-9” tax scheme (although he did throw in another “9” citing what he said are the number of countries with nuclear weapons) or to exhibit his folksy style, which would have seemed inappropriate given the debate’s focus, Cain fell back on the cautious and fuzzy.

Several times when debate moderators tried to pin him down, he said he’d have to consult with military commanders – “a dodge that allowed him to avoid being drawn into several topics moderators pressed on,” as Jonathan Martin and Ginger Gibson at Politico.com put it.

Cain is definitely against torture, he said, although that does not include waterboarding as “enhanced interrogation.”

Here was a subject on which Ron Paul and Jon Huntsman stood out as the only ones opposed to the controversial interrogation procedure banned under international law, opposed by former POW Sen. John McCain, and for which Japanese officers were prosecuted by the United States after World War II.

Rep. Paul called waterboarding “immoral” and “impractical.”

"We diminish our standing in the world and the values that we project, which include liberty, democracy, human rights and open markets, when we torture," Huntsman said. "We lose that ability to project values that a lot of people in corners of this world are still relying on the United States to stand up for."

Most of the presidential hopefuls applauded the recent killing of major Al Qaeda figures, including Osama bin Laden and Anwar al-Awlaki. (Again, Ron Paul was the major exception.) That and the winding down of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan a€“ favored by most Americans a€“ made it harder for them to criticize the Obama administration on its approach to terrorism.

"I don't think there's a very strong narrative," Bush administration spokesman Tony Fratto told the Associated Press. "Is it a significant issue for a majority of Republican voters? No. It's not."

But recent reports of Iran’s activities to develop nuclear weapons gave an opening to threaten tougher sanctions and even a US military strike.

"If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon. And if you elect Mitt Romney, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon," said Romney.

Rick Perry’s most memorable point of the evening was his statement that “every country is going to start at zero dollars” in American foreign aid. “Does that include Israel,” the moderator quickly asked? “Absolutely,” Perry said.

“Obviously Israel is a special ally and my bet is we would be funding them at some substantial level,” he said. “But it makes sense for everyone to come in at zero and make your case.”

Heading off what could have been seen as anything less than full support of Israel – an essential for any American politician seeking national office –  @PerryTruthTeam quickly tweeted, “Perry is a friend to Israel, understands challenges faced by the country.”

Still, the comment drew criticism.

“Perry's idea is bad news for Israel and shows how little he understands its needs,” wrote former CIA officer Bruce Riedel, now a senior fellow in the Saban Center at the Brookings Institution.

Perry’s proposal “would have a very disruptive impact on Israeli military planning and Israeli security,” Riedel wrote at Newsweek’s Daily Beast web site. “The reality is military budgets are planned on a multi-year cycle. Friends don't rethink their friendships each fiscal year.”

IN PICTURES: Republicans in the 2012 presidential race

View the original article here

Top Republican says bill on China yuan is "dangerous" (Reuters)

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – A U.S. bill to pressure China into letting its currency rise in value, which has drawn warnings from Beijing of a possible trade war, ran into opposition from the top Republican in Congress on Tuesday.

The strong misgivings of House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner were the first clear sign the currency legislation might fizzle out, as similar bills have done since lawmakers began targeting China's yuan policy in 2005.

"I think it's pretty dangerous to be moving legislation through the United States Congress forcing someone to deal with the value of their currency," Boehner told reporters.

"While I've got concerns about how the Chinese have dealt with their currency, I'm not sure this is the way to fix it."

On Monday, the U.S. Senate voted to open debate on a bill that calls for U.S. tariffs on imports from countries with deliberately undervalued currencies, prompting an angry rebuke from China.

House speakers normally get their way on legislation. But this time Boehner has to contend with signs of growing support from rank-and-file members of his own party for the currency bill and tough talk about China from top Republican presidential candidate, Mitt Romney.

Democrats piled the pressure onto Boehner, urging him to keep a promise he made when he took office in January and let the House to "work its will.

"For some inexplicable reason, the Republican leadership in the House is siding with the Chinese government. This is not the time to go soft on Beijing," said Democratic Senator Charles Schumer, a co-author of the currency bill.

"The Chinese only understand one thing: being tough," he said on the Senate floor, rejecting calls from other senators for multilateral talks.

China has accused lawmakers of pandering to U.S. voters ahead of next year's presidential and congressional elections.

China's central bank and the ministries of commerce and foreign affairs accused Washington of "politicizing" currency issues and putting the global economy at risk of a trade war.

U.S. critics of the bill have also warned it could stoke trade tensions just as the world economy is facing a sharp slowdown in growth.

In a hint of unease about the bill at the White House, a top U.S. official said the Obama administration has begun discussions with lawmakers about whether it is "the right approach" to the long-running currency issue.

Acting U.S. Commerce Secretary Rebecca Blank told CNBC television the best solution to what American officials view as an undervalued Chinese currency remains "an open question," despite signs of bipartisan support for legislation that has raised angry warnings of a potential trade war from Beijing.

"The administration is talking with people in the Senate about whether this bill is the right approach or whether there are other approaches to take," she said.

ANGRY CHINESE RESPONSE

White House spokesman Jay Carney said the administration was still reviewing the currency bill.

"We share the concerns of members (of Congress) about the valuation of the currency and the need to appreciate it," he told reporters aboard Air Force One. The administration wanted to be sure any measure met U.S. "international obligations."

Senators voted 79-19 on Monday to open a week of debate on the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011, which would allow the U.S. government to slap countervailing duties on products from countries found to be subsidizing their exports by undervaluing their currencies.

Many of the world's top economic policymakers have long urged China to allow its currency to strengthen as a way to help fix the imbalances in the global economy that have been blamed for contributing to the financial crisis of 2007-09.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday the yuan policy, as well as contributing to high inflation in China, hindered "a more balanced growth path."

Many economists say China holds down the value of its yuan currency to give its exporters an edge in global markets. China says it is committed to gradual currency reform and notes that the yuan has risen 30 percent against the dollar since 2005.

In an argument that has gained traction with U.S. unemployment stuck above 9 percent and as 2012 elections draw near, supporters of the bill say that if the yuan was allowed to rise, U.S. exports to the fast-growing Chinese market would increase, cutting an annual trade gap of more than $250 billion and creating jobs in the United States.

Republicans are split on the yuan issue. Many lawmakers in the party traditionally oppose actions that might violate free trade principles. But Republican presidential hopeful Romney has said he would name China a currency manipulator on his first day in office if elected.

Despite Boehner's expressed doubts about the bill, backers of the legislation in the House said the measure now has 225 co-sponsors, including 61 Republicans. The bill is expected to face a vote in the Democrat-led Senate later this week.

(Additional reporting by David Morgan, Tom Ferraro and Laura MacInnis; Writing by Paul Eckert; Editing by Mohammad Zargham, Vicki Allen and Eric Walsh)

View the original article here

Top Republican Cantor exits budget talks (AP)

WASHINGTON – House Majority Leader Eric Cantor pulled out of talks with Vice President Joe Biden on a deficit reduction-debt ceiling deal, saying they had reached an impasse over Democratic demands for tax increases to be paired with spending cuts wanted by the GOP.

The Virginia Republican said in a statement that the Republican-dominated House simply won't support tax increases, and that he wouldn't participate in the budget meeting scheduled for Thursday. Cantor said that it's time for President Barack Obama to weigh in directly on the budget because Democrats insist on negotiating some tax increases.

Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, who is representing Senate Republicans in the talks, also dropped out. White House press secretary Jay Carney declared the talks "in abeyance" but said they had been successful in identifying areas of common ground.

The GOP moves seem aimed at drawing Obama more directly into the talks. Cantor expressed frustration earlier this week that the president had not been more involved. Whether the tactic generates hard feelings that could jeopardize an agreement remains to be seen.

House Speaker John Boehner, an Ohio Republican, met with Obama Wednesday night at the White House to discuss the debt limit, Carney said.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid shrugged off Cantor's announcement. "I'm disappointed that he would walk out, but obviously he felt he couldn't do any more and wanted to kick it up to Boehner," he said.

Officials have said repeatedly in recent days they expected that those involved in the Biden-led talks would turn their work over to Obama, Boehner and other congressional leaders by week's end.

In the wake of Cantor's announcement, both Democrats and Republicans publicly doubled down on positions that are at odds with achieving an agreement.

"President Obama needs to decide between his goal of higher taxes or a bipartisan plan to address our deficit," said Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky. "He can't have both."

"It will take Democratic votes to pass any debt-ceiling agreement," said Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y. "As a result, certain things are going to have to be true. We cannot make cuts to Medicare benefits. We have to allow for revenues like wasteful subsidies for ethanol and oil companies. And we have to do something on jobs."

Cantor said that plenty of progress has been made in identifying trillions of dollars in potential spending cuts to accompany legislation to raise the $14.3 trillion cap on the government's ability to borrow money. Passage of the legislation this summer is necessary to meet the government's obligations to holders of U.S. Treasuries. The alternative is a market-shaking, first-ever default on U.S. obligations.

Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., said that including tax increases on the wealthy is only fair, and that he's disappointed that Cantor has left the talks.

Baucus said that almost every deficit reduction deal in the past has involved a mix of tax increases and spending cuts. He said upper income Americans have seen a significant increase in wealth, so balancing the budget only through cuts in programs that serve the middle class and the poor is not fair.

"Revenues must be included so everyone can participate in addressing a critical national problem," Baucus said.

Cantor said that once the tax issue is solved, negotiators could quickly seal agreement.

"It is time for the president to speak clearly and resolve this tax issue," Cantor said. "Once resolved, we have a blueprint to move forward to trillions of spending cuts and binding mechanisms to change the way things are done around here."

The Biden-led group has been meeting since early May, trying to come up with areas of agreement on curbing a budget deficit that's requiring the government to borrow more than 40 cents of every dollar it spends. Areas of tentative agreement include trimming farm subsidies, auctioning electromagnetic spectrum to communications companies, and cutting student loan subsidies.

But with Republicans unwilling to accept some higher taxes — even in the wake of a sweeping Senate vote to eliminate the ethanol tax subsidy — Democrats were unwilling to agree to tougher steps like curbing Medicare and Medicaid.

All along, it was anticipated that the Biden group would only be able to get so far and that the toughest decisions, such as taxes and cuts to federal health care programs, would be kicked upstairs. Obama and Boehner sealed agreement in April on legislation to fund the government through the end of September.

"I would to expect to hear from (Obama)," Boehner said Thursday. Of Cantor's decision, the House speaker said: "I understand why he did what he did. I think those talks could continue if they're willing to take the tax hikes off the table."

There are only 5 1/2 weeks remaining until an Aug. 2 deadline for enacting an increase in the nation's debt limit to prevent a U.S. default. Economists warn that could damage the nation's credit rating and force the government to pay higher interest rates to continue to borrow the $125 billion a month it needs to finance its operations.

But increasing the borrowing cap is a politically poisonous vote for lawmakers, especially the tea party-backed Republicans controlling the House. Even while there's agreement between Obama and top congressional leaders that the debt cap simply has to be raised, a majority of the public — especially core conservative GOP supporters — says the debt limit shouldn't be lifted.

___

Associated Press writer Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar contributed to this report.

View the original article here