Alrighty then.....debates are a terrible way to pick a President. Don't get me wrong. I may have been way too young to vote against Richard Nixon in 1960, and I'm glad he lost (If only he would have lost eight years latter.) but really. Disqualified because of a sweaty upper lip. All because he was too vain to wear makeup. And the whole "There you go again." line. Clever theater, but not a reason to elect the fount of all of our current troubles.
I think I know why Barack Obama did so poorly in the first debate. I don't think he was prepared to argue with a ten year old. Walk in to any room with a ten year old and a broken lamp for an example. The lamp is broken, in pieces on the floor, and the kid will tell you he didn't do it. Point out the obvious, that as the only person in the room when the lamp was broken, he has to be responsible, and it will be something like this. "I didn't throw my football across the room." Doesn't have anything to do with the smashed lamp, but he will stick with it. Point out to Romney that cutting taxes on the wealthy, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, and increasing defense spending will not lead to a balanced budget, and he just denied he ever said that. Oh no, closed loop holes, the rich will still pay the same, strong military can be paid for with cutting other things. Nonsense, but if it's said enough it must be true. Poor Barack, he brought facts to a fantasy fest.
The second debate was better. It helped that the aging Jim Lehrer was replaced by a moderator this side of ninety. Candy Crowley was still walked on, but at least she was able to impose the slightest bit of order. Mitt Romney, AKA the Lyin' King, continued to say what ever came to mind with no regard for any past statements. That brings us to the big question. Does Mittens have an ideological bone in his body? I think so. I think he has the ideology of the marketeer. If one line doesn't work, move on to something else. The customer forgets. Of course the moneyed interests don't forget, so keep that in mind. Just don't say it too loud. Or say it behind closed doors you 47% you. Still, it was nice to see Obama engaged and willing to fight back. I know both guys, at one time or another, talked over the other one, but really. Must Romney keep saying, "I'm talking know." If he's going to stand up to Russia, China, Iran, and all of his other enemies, both imagined and real....Well, I doubt Putin will shut up when told. Is it just me or have others noted a tendency of Mittens to chant when painted into a corner? "Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs. Government does not create jobs." I thought I was at a social Darwinist ashram.
I was just checking out some of the instant polling for the final Pres. debate, and I was surprised to see a clear win for Obama. Now, I thought Obama won too, but I'm very partisan. Looking at things objectively, Mitt didn't do all that bad. How could he. He endorsed the Obama foreign policy. Of course, he then went on to decry a lack of leadership, even though he agreed with almost everything that O has done. And then we got back to the mythical apology tour. Once again, the Repugs embrace the idea that people will believe anything that's repeated enough. Sadly, many do. Bit those people were probably voting Repug anyway. At least O got the chance to look the Lyin' King in the eye and, politely, call him a liar. And the best line of all three debates, the one about not having as many horses and bayonets as we used to. Romney keeps making this point about how we don't have as many ships as we did before World War 1. The President pointed out the obvious. One aircraft carrier, one nuclear submarine, is worth whole navies from 1916. So what does the instant polling signify? Perhaps the American people are seeing the empty suit, and wondering why they should vote for a guy who doesn't believe in anything beyond making money.
Oh, and least we forget, Joe Biden mopped the floor with Paul Ryan-Rand. AKA, Kid Fraudster.
No comments:
Post a Comment