Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Presidential Race’ Category

Well, it’s over – the incessant negative ads, the robo-calls, the debates and all of the spin.  All said and done, Barack Obama pulled off a win by playing a politically savvy ground game.  I’m disappointed  to say the least, as I really believe our country just got it wrong.  It seems as though the country was just to lazy to make the tough choice and move in a direction where hard decisions and hard work would bring back America’s greatness.  In essence, the country was left in a condition on November 7th it was in on November 5th.  A divided congress and a community organizer in control.  I guess that was just the easy choice?  Barack took the job of Commander-in-Chief four years ago with little to no experience in business, foreign policy, or leadership.  Four years later, well, you can see what lack of experience gives you as the days and weeks after the election bear the fruit of our choice.  The hidden scandals, the Benghazi story of the week, the mess in Egypt and the Middle East, and it goes on and on…

Do I sound bitter?  Maybe, but my biggest disappointment of all is the missed opportunity America had within its grasp to have a genuine leader in the White House.  Was Mitt the most slick politician? The most skillful debater? Was he the one with the all the best solutions?  I think we could agree the answers to those questions are probably a no.  The thing is, Mitt has been successful as a businessman, a governor, a leader, and a great man.  He’s quietly helped many people in his life, through his time and talents, and yes, his success as a businessman.  America lost a shot at having someone with an exemplary character actual lead this nation to become something it hasn’t been for a while.  Our experiment with socialism has pushed us closer to a country of entitlements, high taxes, and a business suffocating government bent on redistributing wealth at the expense of our country’s greatness.

What would have been so bad if we had tried, even just for four years, to have a true leader help drive us back towards greatness?  America lost on November 6th.  Mitt is truly a great father, husband, and leader who cared passionately for this country – who wanted a shot at helping America turn around – and who would have worked hard to make it happen.  America lost.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

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?

Read Full Post »

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.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »