Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘presidential race’

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 »

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 »

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!

Read Full Post »