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

Marseille lays bare G7 differences and lack of policy room (Reuters)

MARSEILLE (Reuters) – Vague pledges and a lack of action by G7 countries underscored differences between Europe and the United States and a lack of room to maneuver in the face of the worst loss of confidence since the credit crisis.

After weeks of market turbulence, finance ministers and central bankers from the Group of Seven industrialized nations pledged a coordinated response on Friday to the global slowdown, but offered no specific steps and differed in emphasis on Europe's debt crisis.

While the United States called on Europe's biggest economies to provide "unequivocal" support to struggling peripheral states to overcome a debt crisis that is crippling the world recovery, euro zone paymaster Germany said the priority was cutting deficits.

"There is no sense of direction, which is entirely expected given that there is no agreement on the path for fiscal policy between the U.S. and Europe, and there is no agreement on the path of monetary policy either," said Gilles Moec, senior economist with Deutsche Bank in London.

"In a way, it's a communique which is a list of constraints which policymakers are facing," he said of a final statement host country France pushed other reluctant G7 members to produce at the end of talks that overran by nearly two hours.

Despite initially saying there was no need for a communique, France changed its tune to send a signal of unity to markets after Wall Street slumped nearly 3 percent on Friday.

"The communique was at the insistence of the French but in practice it's meaningless. We can't even agree on the problems so how can we agree on an analysis," said one G7 delegate.

Already battered markets were roiled by Friday's resignation of the top German official at the European Central Bank in protest at the bank's bond buying program, laying bare divisions within the European policymaking sphere just as the G7 illustrated global differences.

NO TALK OF COORDINATED STIMULUS

The final "terms of reference," less binding than a formal G7 communique, acknowledged tensions in markets and clear signs of a slowdown in global growth.

"We are committed to a strong and coordinated international response to these challenges," it said, but provided no further specifics beyond urging growth-friendly fiscal adjustments.

The statement voiced support for U.S. President Barack Obama's $447 billion jobs plan and for Europe's July 21 decision to beef up the powers of the euro zone's EFSF bailout facility, but papered over cracks in policy differences.

Speculation had swirled in some quarters that G7 central bankers might flag a coordinated monetary stimulus involving quantitative easing, but a second G7 delegate said that possibility was not even discussed.

"It is not realistic for the market to expect us to put hundreds of billions on the table every time we meet," he said.

Geithner told Friday's meeting he was confident the U.S. government would get at least a substantial part of Obama's jobs package through Congress despite Republican resistance, another delegate said.

But U.S. officials said most of the meeting was devoted to Europe's debt crisis and the health of its banks.

Seeking to allay fears over European bank funding, ECB President Jean-Claude Trichet told the meeting European banks held some $5 trillion in collateral eligible for access to central bank funds.

While Japan said it had received G7 blessing for unilateral foreign exchange action, delegates said the issue had not really even been discussed in depth by the meeting, and the statement had simply used the wording of previous statements.

(Additional reporting by Giselda Vagnoni; Editing by Catherine Bremer/Mike Peacock)

View the original article here

Obama: Still differences on debt, new talks Sunday (AP)

WASHINGTON – Beset by a weak jobs report, President Barack Obama on Friday called for swift action by Congress to raise the nation's borrowing limit, saying the uncertainty over the debt ceiling has hindered hiring in the private sector.

In remarks in the White House Rose Garden, the president linked two of the most high profile issues facing his presidency — the weak economy and a massive budget deal to meet an Aug. 2 deadline to increase the debt limit.

"The sooner we get this done, the sooner that the markets know that the debt limit ceiling will have been raised and that we have a serious plan to deal with our debt and deficit, the sooner that we give our businesses the certainty that will need in order to make additional investments to grow and hire," Obama said.

He made his remarks just hours after the government reported anemic job growth for June and a new, higher unemployment rate of 9.2 percent.

Obama said uncertainty over raising the debt ceiling — currently capped at $14.3 trillion — was one of several factors that have contributed to an economic slowdown and weaker job creation. He also listed natural disasters, high gas prices, state and local budget cuts and the fiscal crisis in Greece.

"The economic challenges we face weren't created overnight and they're not going to be solved overnight," he said.

Obama met Thursday with the top eight leaders of Congress and has called them back for a rare weekend meeting on Sunday. He met privately Friday morning with the top House Democrat, Nancy Pelosi, amid Democratic concerns over proposals to cut spending for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid as part of the budget deal.

Obama and congressional negotiators are looking at closing some tax loopholes and cutting popular social benefit programs as they struggle to reach an agreement between Republicans and Democrats, but Pelosi and many House Democrats oppose cutting the benefit programs. Pelosi was getting an opportunity to air her views as she met privately with Obama.

"We are not going to balance the budget on the backs of America's seniors," Pelosi said Thursday.

The endgame on the debt talks was approaching as the Labor Department reported hiring slowed to a near-standstill in June. Employers added the fewest jobs in nine months and the unemployment rate rose for the third month in a row, climbing to its highest point this year.

That gave Republicans fresh ammunition to attack Obama's handling of the economy even as the shape of an agreement remained in doubt. All the while the nation is moving closer to an Aug. 2 deadline to raise the government's debt ceiling or face an unprecedented default on U.S. obligations that the administration warns could add a perilous new crisis on top of the already quavering economy.

Obama was pushing for an ambitious deficit reduction plan of roughly $4 trillion, the biggest of three options he laid on the table. It would require sizeable tax revenues, which many Republicans oppose, and spending reductions for entitlement programs, opposed by many Democrats. But the idea of a potentially historic deal was well received by the meeting participants, officials said later, even though the details remained in dispute.

After Thursday's 90-minute session, Obama said Democrats and Republicans should be prepared to show their bottom-line demands when they return to the bargaining table Sunday.

The negotiating stakes are high. Without a deal on deficit reduction, Republican leaders say they don't have enough GOP votes to increase the nation's borrowing authority, raising the danger of the first ever U.S. default on its debts when the current $14.3 trillion debt ceiling is tapped out.

"Everybody acknowledged that we have to get this done before the hard deadline of Aug. 2 to make sure that America does not default for the first time on its obligations," Obama said. "And everybody acknowledged that there's going to be pain involved politically on all sides."

That leaves little time to agree on 10-year deficit reductions of $2 trillion to $4 trillion.

The major clash centers on how to reduce spending on major entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, all prized by Democrats, and on tax changes that would close loopholes and end certain corporate breaks. Republicans insist that any tax changes be used to lower rates on corporations and individuals; Obama wants them also to generate more tax revenue.

Increasing the debt ceiling through the end of 2012 — a date favored by the White House — would require authorizing about $2.4 trillion in additional borrowing. House Speaker John Boehner has insisted on a 10-year deficit reduction figure that, at a minimum, matches the amount of additional borrowing. One aide to a lawmaker in Thursday's meeting said Obama made it clear he wouldn't sign a budget and debt agreement that didn't extend the debt ceiling until after the November 2012 presidential election.

In the meeting, Obama told the leaders that they faced three options — a small deficit reduction plan, a medium plan that would reduce deficits by $2 trillion over 10 years or a big agreement that would shoot for up to $4 trillion in deficit reductions over the next decade. Obama indicated he preferred the largest number.

In the meeting, Boehner and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky backed Obama's bigger, more ambitious goal, said Democratic officials familiar with the talks. Their lieutenants, Senate GOP Whip Jon Kyl of Arizona and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, indicated they believed the medium-size option was more realistic. Both Cantor and Kyl had participated in talks led by Vice President Joe Biden that had already identified about $2 trillion in deficit reduction.

The negotiations are politically difficult for both parties.

Raising the debt ceiling is unpopular with voters, especially those who vote Republican, increasing concern among GOP lawmakers that they could be challenged by fellow Republicans in primaries across the country.

The big entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid have long been protected by Democrats in Congress.

Underscoring the political stakes, the Pew Research Center reported Thursday that in a recent poll it found that six of 10 of those surveyed believe it is more important to maintain Social Security and Medicare benefits than to reduce the budget deficit.

___

Associated Press writers Ben Feller, Andrew Taylor, Alan Fram, Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Erica Werner and Laurie Kellman contributed to this report.

View the original article here