Round Three – Final Debate

The third presidential debate is now history.  I have to admit the three presidential debates were actually decent debates – a bit more energetic, a chance for some good back and forth discussions, and finally a chance for Mitt Romney to illustrate the differences between him and Obama.  The third debate was focused on foreign policy, and you would expect the President to have the upper hand here.  First of all, he has 4 more years of on the job experience dealing with world issues, as well as privileged information from many security briefings.  Out of all three debates, I saw this one as the most favorable for an Obama win.  Obama improved from debate one to debate two (which was something he could have done by just waking up), and he did seem more energetic in the third. But – he still did not deliver anything close to a knock out – nor did he win.

It appeared in this final debate, up 2 to 0, Romney decided to be a bit calmer, play prevent defense and protect the lead.  He pushed back on a few issues, but for the most part wasn’t as aggressive as in the first two.  He also came across more presidential – which in turn made Obama seem more like the challenger.  Obama again kept trying to explain what Romney’s positions are by misrepresenting specifics.  I found this quite annoying as he would spend more time on that then explaining his own policy?  I must say, that overall, Obama did hold his own in this debate, but I still would give the win to Romney – a close call, but a win none the less.

The spin rooms and fact checkers lit up cyberspace with tons of information – and this was something I found to be the most intriguing about the debates.  Go back to Round 2 – right after the comment around “act of terror” the day after Benghazi in the Rose Garden speech – I’d say it wasn’t more than 45 secs or so after that comment a tweet hit the airwaves linking the full transcript – Romney was correct.  Similarly in round three – Romney did indicate he supported government guarantees on loans for GM as they emerged from bankruptcy (had Obama not bailed them out), Obama vehemently denied that Romney would support this.  The op-ed piece was pushed to the airwaves in minutes – Romney correct again.  Obama’s “facts” were full of holes.  I don’t understand why a good portion of Americans do not take a moment to look through the lies, the misinformation that is being thrown about by the Democratic party machine that is desperate to stay in power.  Misinforming the country about Mitt’s position is disdainful, but look at the pattern within this administration – misinformation on Benghazi is reprehensible.  Based on everything I’ve read, it seems to be very clear the attack in Benghazi was pre-planned and carried out by skillful militia with knowledge in setting mortar trajectories.  This attack was certainly not spontaneous, not a riot due to a YouTube video (that had been posted 6 months prior).  It wasn’t a carry over from the Cairo protests – which also weren’t about the film but about releasing prisoners.  The truths are being redirected by this Administration in an attempt to spin the events into a new story line most favorable to Obama.  It’s time to STOP this madness.

I’m hoping change will come on Nov 6 which will bring back truth and integrity to the American people – and to the world.

Round Two – To Romney

Well – spin this as you might, but judging from the various reactions of the “non-spinners”, I do believe Mitt pulled off another victory.  I do agree President Obama  did step it up a notch for this debate, and he had a couple of moments, although I don’t know I remember what they were.  I certainly don’t think responding to everything your opponent just said as “none of that is true” each time it’s your turn is a proper debating technique.  Obama was weak on energy and taxes, and did not provide any convincing argument around fixing the economy.  The interesting thing about Obama is he did seem to get into a better groove towards the end of the debate.  His tirade on his activities around Libya and his bravado that the buck stops with him seem to give him more energy and confidence, but he never answered the question asked of him about the refusal to provide additional security – or if you take his answer as what he actually said – security was refused and its his fault because he was responsible.  He forfeited his final statement of the debate by not taking an opportunity to again answer the question posed.  Instead he chose to bring up the 47% statement of Romney and continued his negative attack.  The question posed offered Obama a chance to counter how his opponents are portraying him and to talk about himself in a positive light – maybe he just didn’t have anything he could say? Romney had a number of good moments, challenging the President on drilling permits for oil and natural gas production on federal lands and laying out the litany of failures of the President over the past four years.  I think the moderator tripped up Mitt a bit with the unusual “life line” she threw Obama on the “act of terror” comment – which in the end, Mitt was actually correct.  Mitt lost the opportunity at that moment to slam Obama on the continued confusion the administration has created over the terrible Benghazi attack.  One other thought – the questions chosen were a bit lame and I really think they should give the debaters 3 minutes each instead of the two.  I did not like this debate as much as the first.

We do have a big choice ahead of us – and let me stop for a moment and say, I do believe Obama is a good man, father, and husband.  I’ve always thought he was intelligent and a skilled campaigner.  My biggest concern with Obama is his inexperience as a leader.  It shows he does not have what it takes to be a good, strong leader – a leader that has the skills to bring opposing ideas together in a way that develops a new approach to solving the most difficult issues.  He’s a smart man, who promised hope and change and was skilled at least at selling that “product”.  He just did not deliver – you can’t step into the job of POTUS and learn leadership skills “on the job”.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney HAS leadership skills.  He is driven to succeed at what ever he takes on.  He does understand the private sector – he must, given his success.  Knowing how to examine a business, understand its strengths and weaknesses, and devise a path to improve the health of that business is what Mitt has been doing.  We can not stay on the path we are on for another four years.  A change must be made now in the course of America before it’s too late.  We need to change direction quickly and decisively to keep this grand experiment, the United States, alive and growing.

Round Two – The Veeps

Biden-Ryan debate – ok, if you want to call it that.  I did not enjoy this one as much as the Obama-Romney debate, at all.  Biden was very disrespectful in his demeanor through the fist half of the debate.  The laughing, interruptions and other gesticulations were not that of a Vice President, but of a calculating politician trying to distract and divert the viewers for focusing on what Ryan was saying.  I do feel Biden had some moments were he seemed more in control, more in command with his convictions in his answers, but for the most part he was simply put – rude.  In a debate, you orate on the topics by describing your philosophy, your approach, your stance, etc.  You then allow the other debater to do the same.  Each presents his point of view, presenting facts to support those views.  By calling someones views malarkey, stuff, or laugh it off is childish and quite disrespectful.  It also creates an air of hostility and confrontation which prevents good intentioned people to listen to find common ground.  Simply look at this administrations methods of dealing with concepts they may not agree with (as illustrated clearly at this debate) and you wonder why we have gridlock in congress?

A couple of points in this debate I’d like to hit on:

Biden indicated he did not know of any requests for security for our consulate in Benghazi – I think the phrase was “we weren’t told”.  I do not know which “we” he is referring to,  my assumption is the “we” was him and Obama?  From testimony in congress earlier this week, and has been reported in previous weeks, there was definitely requests for additional security that apparently were denied – not once, but multiple times.  So, the requested may have been handled below POTUS, and therefore, Biden’s statement may technically be correct, however, since he is in a position of leadership and responsible for the safety of Americans abroad, then this is a clear example of incompetent leadership.  ON this same subject, Biden threw the Intelligence Community under the bus as well.  Seems like with this administration, there are always others to blame when things go wrong – Where is the leadership this country deserves, where is the backbone to stand up and take responsibility – not just for things that go right – but for those things that went wrong?  A leader does not throw his team under the bus!

Another irritating point in this debate is the preponderance of misinformation and the use of supposed facts that are complete distortions.  The 5 trillion tax cut, the voucher program, the $6000 increase  for seniors due to the Romney plan.  Just because Obama and Biden continue to spout these numbers every time they speak, does not make them facts, or endearing truths – they are what they are – complete and utter distortions of the facts.

Finally – the 2014 timeline for Afghanistan.  Yes, we’ve been there too long, and we need to bring an end to our involvement.  But to lay down an ultimatum as Biden did in public, in front of the enemy (sure this kind of information gets to them) is just plain irresponsible.  I would agree we want the Afghans to provide for their own security.  I also agree a timeline to leave provides incentive for them to pick up their responsibilities.  However, we need to be mindful, assessing the situation at frequent intervals to determine when and how we extract ourselves from the theater.  We privately drive deadlines to the Afghan leaders, we push them to be ready.  BUT, we don’t tell the world we are leaving “period” in 2014 – even if the situation would prescribe otherwise??  We leave at the wrong time and we lose everything we fought for over the past 12 years and reset this region to become a safe haven for future Al-Qaeda and Taliban recruits.  Biden basically is saying – we’re out, even if your really not ready, even if the Taliban is simply waiting us out, even if we lose everything we’ve gained. Irresponsible.

I give the win to Ryan, who was polite and patient.  He seemed a bit weak at times and sometimes frustrated with Biden’s interruptions   but he kept his cool.  Biden did have moments, but erased his successes with his disrespect.  I’m looking forward to next Tuesday as the setting changes once again – Can Romney pull off another decisive win?

A Blow Out!

What an event!  Anticipation had been building for weeks – the first of a three game series.  There had been lots of trash talk going on for the month leading into the event – name calling, accusations, misrepresentations.  One team was seen as having an edge, favored to win – even though the past month had been kind of tough.  The other team, looking at reality, determined to minimize damages and lower expectations, took up the role as underdog.  The night arrived and both teams prepped, scrimmages against surrogates, and practiced their one liners.  Obama won the coin toss and chose to take the first question – and it went down hill from there.

The debate actually was one of the better ones in recent years.  While Jim Lehrer had difficulties keeping the two warriors on track, the exchange of wit and wisdom was exciting.  Romney took the ball and went on the offensive – he explained his position clearly, and the scene morphed into that of a teacher lecturing his student.  Throughout the duration of the debate, Romney remained energetic and on the offensive.  Obama struggled less the teleprompter, and repeating his 30 sec commercial sound bites became monotonous.  Rhetoric vs sensible explanations wins every time.  When the dust settled, and the last word spoken, it was a very clear win for the challenger – delivering at a level beyond expectations.  Time of possession favored the incumbent (42 min, 40 sec), versus the 38 min, 14 sec for Romney.  Romney did have more words though…

For those on the fence, this must have been able to push them over to the Romney camp – if they listened and watched carefully.  Even the liberal media conceded the win to Mitt – and immediately looked for who or what to blame on his poor performance.  Al Gore contributed his poor performance to the Denver thin air (interesting as it appeared Romney was breathing the same thin air).  Others wondered if he was distracted by something – his anniversary, pressing Presidential duties (next visit to The View), something had him off his game.  I’m waiting for this to be George’s fault!

The key plays of the night:

When Mitt asked Obama why he spent his first two years shoving Obamacare legislation down the throats of congress instead of focusing on jobs – given the President “inherited” such a messed up economy.

When Mitt explained how he worked across the aisle in Massachusetts where he faced an 87% democratic majority.

When Mitt asked why Obama did nothing with the Simpson-Boles legislation when it was presented – why did he not lead and bring the parties together to work out the differences.

When Obama reached out to Jim to move on to the next topic when he had no answers to Mitt’s questions – when he really couldn’t defend his rhetoric.

The choice was never made clearer in this first debate – Mitt Romney wants to help this country get back on track, and he has the experience and drive to make it happen.  One down, two more to go (plus the VP debate – which also is going to be quite entertaining!).  I’m looking forward to the next game – Obama has a lot of work to do if he thinks he can even this series up.

Truth in Advertising – What if?

If there is one thing that boils my blood is a political ad – almost any political ad, especially the ones that explain to you how the other person is worse than the devil and is likely to eat your first-born.  I decided to look at the truth in advertising laws and I’m perplexed how first amendment rights trump truth in advertising for political ads?  Let’s look at some info regarding some aspects of TIA:

Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive.  Why is that?  The FTC defines an ad as deceptive if it contains a statement, or omits information that:

• Is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances, and
• Is material – that is, important to the consumer’s decision to buy or use the product

OK – the 60 sec, 90 sec clips that run between shows – typically called ads, are played to encourage consumers to consider buying or a particular product or service.  There are all sorts of ads run about products and services that must comply with these laws.  And most people believe the ads, believe they are truthful, and even know the FTC will go after violators of this law.

So here’s my problem – How does a normal everyday American, watching television, distinguish between an ad that is legally required to tell the truth, and a political ad that – well, is not?  Let’s modify the lines above:

Political Advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive.  Why is that?  The FTC defines an ad as deceptive if it contains a statement, or omits information that:

• Is likely to mislead voters acting reasonably under the circumstances, and
• Is material – that is, important to the voter’s decision to vote for a particular candidate

The FTC looks at both expressed and implied claims when reviewing deceptive ads – not only what is expressly claimed, but also what is being implied.  Can you just imagine if all the political ads run this season would have been subject to this law?  You might think with all the deception and other BS thrown at us every day and night, how refreshing it would be to hear what each candidate will actually do for us, what we can expect them to accomplish when they are elected.

Maybe it’s time to amend the current Truth in Advertising law to include political advertisements.  Any takers?

Tired of the Obama Spin

Only 42 days until the election – something like that.  I’m so tired of the Obama spin I’m dizzy.  Coming from a business background, I truly believe it is time to put a successful business man into office.  When you dive into what makes Mitt tick, you find a caring, genuine man, who does care for people.  He’s been a good steward of his God-given talents, using his skills to build successful businesses, manage a successful Olympics, and run the government of a large state.  His ambitions are to be successful at what he attempts to do – so why wouldn’t it be a blessing for this country to let him become a successful president?  The Obama campaign paints Romney as an uncaring wealthy businessman who is out of touch with the middle class.  The misuse of information is simply rampant in the democratic camp – and the frustrating thing is there are many Americans that seem to be buying into the “Obamaspin”.  This is most definitely a significant election and there is a distinctive choice for all of us.  Obama believes in an overreaching government that meddles in all areas of our lives, attempts to redistribute wealth, and drives us into a socialistic society.  It is not the way to bring about the innovation, ingenuity, and greatness this country can achieve.  The US Government has bloated to a point it must be trimmed.  We must re-energize our economy.  We must strengthen our position as a world leader.  It is time a strong, sensible, leader step up and turn this country around.  Someone who can apply successful techniques to bring efficiencies to the government and make it work for the people, not the other way around.  Mitt Romney has a good track record that can not be ignored or spun. He has good ideas on how to revive our economy, and has the leadership skills to work with congress to break the partisan gridlock we see today – due to ineffective leadership.  It’s time to get America back on track – this socialistic experiment has run its course.

So – Mitt does care about the 47%, he does pay his fair share in taxes, taxing the wealthy will most likely not affect the deficit, and more than likely could even increase it, he will not destroy medicare, he didn’t kill Joe’s wife, he will not destroy the environment, he will not ship all of our jobs out of the country.  Oh, and by the way, even Obama said his ads have contained mistakes and went overboard with the truth.  The spin and distorted BS needs to stop now (and that goes both ways).  I trust the upcoming debates will clearly outline what each of the candidates will do to make America strong again – not simply spout half-truths and outright lies about each other.

President or Perpetual Campaigner

Just four months to go and we’ll elect the next president of the United States.  The campaigns are gearing up to rev up their supporters and sound bites fill the air with half-truths at best, and in many cases, outright lies.  Words or actions are twisted like a pretzel to portray the candidate as if they are monsters.  That seems to be the method of choice for most campaigns, and based on the handlers that look at reaction to these negative campaigns, they seem to work.  I’m not certain if that’s a good reflection on either the campaigners or the people it sways?  Negative campaigns in most political contests are expected at some level, but at the presidential level, it seems to really lower to prestige of the office.  This country is really suffering – suffering from mistakes of the past, from global economic realities, from lack of exceptional leadership.  President Obama is not a skilled leader, but a talented campaigner.  He’s been in campaign mode since he started his quest for office – and is still in that mode.  Any of the policies he has desired to push through have not been promoted with a healthy debate on the merits, but mainly by negatives (typical campaign approach) related to alternate approaches.  This constant barrage of negativism over the past 3 1/2 years is  further divided congress and the American people.

There have been a number of attacks on Romney by the Obama campaign that are either simply false, or at best a twisted version of reality.  Romney is a businessman who knows what it takes to run a company, to drive profits and grow businesses.  You do this by understanding how business operates, and understanding how to improve efficiencies.  Companies that are profitable can expand, can grow, can hire, and can help other companies to grow (by using them in the supply chain).  Expansion may even take place in other countries (yes, we operate in a Global economy).  That’s what business is about – growth through innovation, growth through efficiencies, growth through expansion.  It’s clear that our bloated, inefficient government could use some proven business processes to reduce expenses and run more effectively.  Let’s have a healthy debate on that – instead of calling Romney a felon, let’s have a discussion on how Obamacare is going to be an efficient program that will truly help our health care system?  Instead of calling Romney the king of outsourcing, lets talk about elimination of wasteful government spending.  Let’s stop talking in sound bites and have a discussion on how we can reduce the size of the government and improve the lives of all Americans by getting America back to work.

I think the most frustrating thing is many Americans make decisions just on sound bites, because it’s too hard to understand the reality of the facts. Wake up America – before it’s too late!

Separation Run A Muck

Separation of Church and State – let’s get real!  Atheists Raging War on Soldiers’ Memorial is something that is absolutely an insane waste of time, money, and should be utterly condemned.  This one just totally sets me off, I’m not sure I can even write about it and be calm and rational.  91 years ago, the community (probably a few Christians on the town council, or volunteers at the fire house) of Woonsocket, MA, wanted to pay tribute to the fallen soldiers of their community who fought in previous wars.  They erected a monument with good faith of heart that they thought would honor those who died, including three brothers who were killed in WWI.  They erected this monument with no malice towards anyone, with no pretense to offend or even convert anyone – just to honor the dead in a respectful manner.  91 years later, an atheist, decides to sue the town to remove the cross that is part of the memorial – and not only that, but demands they remove an image of an angel and “the Firefighter’s Prayer” from the Woonsocket Fire Department’s website. What makes this even more outrageous is that a group which is heavily funded is attacking this small town knowing damn well the town can’t fight back as it will bankrupt Woonsocket.

When this monument was erected, I can only assume that the good towns people of Woonsocket wanted to honor their fallen, and they felt comfortable building the monument as they did.  This monument then has captured a time, culture, belief of a group of people and is a mark in time, a mark in history.  No one today, has the right to change the decisions made 91 years ago about how to respect their loved ones.  The Constitution of the United States has never meant that we should have freedom from religion – the first amendment was to protect America’s religious freedom.  To allow all faiths and non-faiths as it may be to choose their belief system.  This in no way shape or form means images of a specific religion must be removed, even from state or federal property, just because this image is outside the belief system of another person. There may be other legitimate reasons, but not because one person complained.

This country was founded on religious freedom, the ability to choose to believe or not believe.  Different belief systems can be a good thing – it can help people open their minds to how other people see things.  Many religions do have symbols that represent their faith, and it’s part of their practices to use these symbols.  Even outside of religious beliefs, many cultures have different practices, and if we are truly freedom minded people, these symbols and cultural norms must be tolerated and even embraced.  An atheist who demands a cross be removed from a monument erected 91 years ago is trampling on the free expression of a people who simply wanted to respectfully honor their dead at that moment in time, and is now ingrained as a part of the history of that small town – and that’s all it is.  Tearing it down would be a complete and utter disrespect of those people who chose to erect it.  Leaving it in place as is captures a town’s moment in  time, and how it felt and dealt with tragedy.  How can this cross, representing a deity an atheist doesn’t believe exists, trample on his first amendment rights?  It almost seems completely opposite – he is trying to impose his belief system through a “demand (law)” which is what the first amendment protects us from!

God bless America!

America Needs Leadership

What in the world is happening to America – what is going on in DC – Where have all our leaders gone?  I’m sorry to say that President Obama is NOT a leader.  He came to power with limited management experience, and his approach to governing is abysmal.  His approach to almost everything is to blame someone else – blame Bush, blame oil companies, blame oil speculators, blame wall street, blame insurance companies, blame the rich…it goes on and on.  Blaming others for problems that exist is not leadership – its victimship.  Victimship is where you create a “villain”  and then use this villain to be the reason why something isn’t going right for you.  Let’s look at a few examples – we have a health care issue in the United States – let’s create a villain in the Insurance Industry – blame them for the problem, then let’s create “The Affordable Health Care Act” and let the government regulate and in essence take over the industry.  Or, gas prices are going up – let’s turn oil speculators into villains and let’s go after them.  That is NOT leadership – it’s more like “lack of”.

So, what is leadership?  Leadership is part great manager, great coach, great listener, and great visionary.  Each one on its own is not enough, but a combination of all of these brings about a strong and viable leader.  If healthcare is an issue, understand what the real issue is (great listener), build a positive vision that has elements of support across the aisle (great coach), manage expectations (great manager), and drive the vision forward (great visionary).  Unfortunately, due to lack of leadership, partisanship has reached a poisonous level.  To be president of the United States, there are many traits important, but most important is a level of experience in a leadership role.  Mr.Obama is an educated man, successful lawyer, but has fallen short in his current role – mainly due to lack of significant experience as a leader.  He really only knows how to be a politician, and is in a continual state of running for the next election – this has totally diminished his ability to lead.  The problems we face in this country have grown too large to continue to play these political games.  The time has come for our elected officials to come together and focus on solving our problems together – let’s dig deep and discover the root causes of problems, and solve them.

As we head towards the fall of this year, we as a country must recognize that America’s leadership in the world is also diminishing. Our march to a more socialistic society is debilitating our ability to sustain growth at levels we’ve enjoyed in the past.  The size of our government is putting our country in financial straits that will be difficult to dig out of.  In November, we will have the opportunity to re-think our direction, re-evaluate our principles, and renew our country’s prosperity.

Understanding Supply and Demand

Gas prices go up and down, driven in part by speculation, part by supply and demand (the two are tied together).  Gas is a refined product made from oil, and as such, the price of oil drives the price of gas.  The current administration is steadfastly focused on green energy, and currently, for green energy to be commercially viable as a mainstream source, oil prices need to remain relatively high.  With oil and gas prices high, the need to look towards alternate energy sources becomes viable – but from a market perspective, they will only be viable if the costs are similar.  America has been dabbling in alternative energy for decades upon decades.  Hydro, solar, nuclear, wind, battery.  Where it made sense, economically, each of these methods has been a viable solution to generate electricity in lieu of fossil fuels, coal and oil.  But as vast as America is, we need to consider our energy needs are a complex mix of ALL sources, including fossil fuels.

Back to supply and demand – oil is a global commodity, and thus the demand is global.  Emerging economies such as China and India are driving up demand, so it is important to push more oil on the market to meet this demand and stabilize and even drive down speculative prices.  America has significant untapped oil reserves that can be added to the global supply – oil in ANWR, the Gulf and East Coast shelf will all add to the supply to reduce speculative pricing, even with unrest in the Middle East.  New technologies and recovery methods have helped tap into additional oil unrecoverable just a decade ago.  This oil can be recovered with minimal impact on the environment.  So what’s the hold up?  Good people with different views, concerns, and visions are putting unrealistic expectations on the speed of market acceptance of “green” technologies.  The realities are the US economy’s successful growth is dependent on a range of fuel costs much lower than the $4-$5 gallon level at this time.  High fuel costs are a serious growth killer, as it takes energy to produce everything, AND, it takes fuel to deliver everything – so higher costs drive prices up across the board.  This is much more of an issue with moderate to low-income citizens – much like a regressive tax.  There is too much political fodder going on today – and this needs to stop.  Embrace Keystone (responsibly routed), accelerate permits for drilling (responsibly), Utilize clean coal technologies, and educate on conservation.  Oh, be careful of what numbers are being bantered about 2% of the world’s oil reserves, 25% consumption…hmmm, not so sure on that 2% number (check this out).

We will eventually move away from fossil fuels, eventually, the global economy will rise such that gas prices will rise to a level that makes alternatives much more viable and marketable.  However, today, in the year 2012, America needs to utilize all the resources at its disposal to drive economic growth which in turn will spur the kinds of innovations required to take us in to the next decade and beyond.  Having the government force a change in market behavior is a waste of our hard-earned dollars (ie. Solyndra).  I just don’t think the people in this administration get it (comparing technological advances in cell phone technology to high power mechanical engines is ludicrous – read here).  For now, we need to focus on conservation,  increased supply,  and alternative energy solutions that make sense.