Wednesday, October 17, 2012

What I learned from the second Presidential debate

It wasn't the bloodbath that debate #1 (which I missed, but heard plenty about) was, but nothing about this debate swayed me from my opinion of either candidate.  Barack Obama is still an ineffective, thin-skinned Campaigner-in-Chief, while Mitt Romney - while far from my first choice as Republican nominee - has gotten results in the past as a governor and a businessman.  My Dad was a successful businessman (and did it without compromising any ethics) so this carries a lot of weight with me.  I think it's sad we've come to a point in our society where the successful are automatically demonized as crooked and undeserving.  I don't hold past success against anyone.

Things I learned in last night's debate:
  • Obama is apparently incapable of giving a straight, simple answer to challenging questions.  "Do you consider $4 per gallon gas the new norm?"  We still don't know because he danced around that question.  It's a simple yes or no question - is it or is it not the new norm?  But apparently, according to Obama, $1.80 per gallon was indicative of a failing economy.  If that's the case, what is $4+ per gallon (and in some places here in Southern California, north of $5 per gallon) indicative of?  Don't know, because he wouldn't answer.
  • People or persons who haven't passed a budget during their entire term in office, but added more to the nation's debt than almost all other previous Presidents combined (after criticizing his predecessor for running up deficits) shouldn't rip other people or persons spending plans and tax cuts, especially when those people or persons have also balanced budgets and passed them in the past.  Just sayin'.
  • The Chinese probably aren't thrilled with Romney this morning.  I don't have a problem with that.  He's running for President of the United States, not China or the United Nations.  Putting America first - not kowtowing or making spineless, unnecessary apologies on her behalf - is a quality I like in a candidate for the White House.
  • Another question Obama danced around that was also pretty straight forward was this: who in his administration declined the request for additional security at our embassy in Benghazi, and why?  Very simple - who and why.  Again, he blathered on about finding out who was responsible for the security failings there, but failed to answer the questions that were actually asked.  Because he didn't want to answer it, at least not honestly, because that would have meant taking the heat for it.  And on top of that he actually had the nerve to play the "buck stops here" card when not only was he evading the question, but on the day after his Secretary of State fell on her sword and took the blame for the lack of adequate security at the embassy.  Then he lied about how long it took him to actually label the attack for what it was, an act of terrorism, and not some justifiable protest about some crappy little movie on the internet gone awry.
  • Speaking of that last one, how about that Candy Crowley gaffe?  The much-maligned former NFL replacement refs are probably ordering a gift basket for her since they are no longer the most responsible for interfering with events she and they were supposed to be objective about.  It's not like I expect anyone in the mainstream media to be politically objective these days - they've made it clear it's been awhile since they gave a damn about that - but could they at least try not to be so blatant?  In addition to favoring Obama time-wise, there was also the now infamous faulty fact-check that Crowley busted out to try and save Obama from a damning accusation that's been dogging him since 9/11/12.  From the linked article: 
The most shocking exchange took place on the Benghazi attack that left the U.S. ambassador to Libya and three others dead.

Mr. Romney: “You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror? It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you’re saying.”

Mr. Obama made no defense. “Please proceed, governor.”

“I want to make sure,” Mr. Romney said. “Get the transcript,” the president said. Then Ms. Crowley jumped in to do her own fact-check, on the spot. “It — it — it — he did in fact, sir. … He did call it an act of terror.”

The truth is, he didn’t. The day after the attack, he said only this: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” It took another two weeks before the White House would label the attack an act of terror.
Obama can't run on his abysmal record, the MSM is flailing (and failing) to make him seem Presidential and worthy of reelection, and he can't man up and answer the tough questions.  Four years of blaming President Bush, partying with celebs, golfing, blowing off security briefings and passing a healthcare plan so awesome that he, his family and the Congress that passed it exempted themselves from it is more than enough.  Time to give someone else a shot at it.  I don't know how good or bad Romney will be as President, but I am pretty sure of one thing - he can't possibly fuck it up as much as his predecessor, and my guess is that whatever happens, one thing he won't do is spend the next four years blaming Obama and/or the mess he "inherited".

Enough is enough.  Yeah, that's what I learned from last night's Presidential debate.

No comments: