John
Moore/Getty Images
ROUND
TWO: Former governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama sparred in their
second debate.
President
Barack Obama, seeking to regain momentum in his campaign, battled with former
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney during a tense and highly anticipated rematch
Tuesday marked by repeated confrontations.
Just
three weeks before the election, Messrs. Obama and Romney disbanded the
debate's town hall-style format in offering competing plans for creating jobs,
expanding energy production and taxes.
In
contrast to their first debate, they repeatedly interrupted each other, accused
each other of lying and appealed to the moderator for more time. Tension was
evident as they paced toward each other and pointed.
Mr.
Obama, who was under intense pressure from supporters to be more aggressive
after his lethargic performance in the first one on Oct. 3, began attacking Mr.
Romney less than four minutes into the debate, noting his opposition to the
federal auto bailout. "Gov. Romney says he's got a five-point plan…He has
a one-point plan," Mr. Obama said of Mr. Romney's economic agenda.
"And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different
set of rules."
Mr.
Romney distilled his argument against the president to a simple theme: The
country can't afford four more years under Mr. Obama. "If you were to
elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get—you're going to get a
repeat of the last four years," he said. "The middle class is getting
crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes
to get the economy working again." He later added, "The president has
tried, but his policies haven't worked."
The
candidates fielded a range of questions from undecided voters, selected by the
Gallup Organization polling company, in a 90-minute debate at Hofstra
University on New York's Long Island.
Mr.
Obama took on Mr. Romney's positions on taxes, trade, energy and women's health
issues in an attempt to cast him as more conservative than the GOP candidate
has suggested in recent days. He also noted the former governor's 14% effective
tax rate and, in response to repeated questions from Mr. Romney about whether
he had looked at his pension, he said, "I don't look at my pension. It's
not as big as yours."
While
the first debate was a clear win for Mr. Romney, the second was far more mixed.
Matthew Latimer, a former speechwriter to George W. Bush, called it "very
aggressive on both sides" and said the constant interruptions could turn
off some voters, especially the dwindling number of those who remain undecided.
"Voters always say they want candidates who don't squabble. And there was
a lot of squabbling." Mr. Latimer said he thought the questions picked
seemed to favor the president.
"I've
not found it inspiring," said Tim Shriver, chairman and CEO of Special
Olympics, and nephew of former President John F. Kennedy. "It feels like a
boxing match with attempted knockdowns rather than political rhetoric with an
articulation of goals."
On
Libya, Mr. Obama for the first time accepted responsibility for the security
lapses that contributed to the death of the U.S. ambassador and three other
Americans on Sept. 11 in Benghazi. He sought to turn the issue against Mr.
Romney, accusing him of playing politics with a national-security crisis.
Mr.
Obama said he called the Benghazi attack "an act of terror" during a
statement in the Rose Garden the day after it occurred, challenging Republican
accusations that the administration had been misleading when it described the
attack as a demonstration sparked by an anti-Muslim video.
"I
want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14
days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror," Mr. Romney
said.
2. German giants join GM food fight in
California
DW
October 16, 2012
On
November 6, California will vote whether genetically modified food should be
labeled - a long-standing practice in Europe. The move has drawn fierce
opposition from US corporate interests - and two German firms.
The
often-used biblical account of David vs. Goliath doesn't always work when it's
applied to modern-day battles between two unequal adversaries, but in the fight
over labeling genetically engineered foods in California it does.
The
battle pits the combined resources of a vast coalition of agribusiness, food
industry and grocery manufacturers against a small group of organic farmers and
stores and committed individuals.
At
the center of the fight is Proposition 37, an initiative that will be on the
California ballot on Election Day and would make it mandatory to label
genetically modified food. In the US there is no national law requiring foods
containing genetically modified organisms to be labeled.
And
since an estimated 80 percent of food products sold in the US contain
genetically modified ingredients, a labeling law in California would force the
food industry to set up two entirely separated product streams.
Even
worse for the industry is Europe's record ever since the EU made GM food labels
mandatory in 1997: Even though GM foods are allowed, the law has de facto kept
genetically engineered foods off the shelves in Europe because consumers are
simply not buying them.
Failed
attempts
In
the US there have been many failed attempts to require labels for GM foods in
various states. But what makes Proposition 37 so significant is not just that
California would be the first state to institute GM labels, its California's
unique position and history among US states.
With
its 37 million residents California is not just the most populous state in the
union, but as a stand-alone economy it would be the ninth-biggest country in
the world by gross domestic product.
沒有留言:
張貼留言