Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘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.

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 »

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 »

One thing that REALLY gets to me is when the news media, or opposing political party blatantly takes a comment completely out of context. Case in point is the recent speech by Mitt Romney where at one point, the words “I like to fire people” were uttered. So a number of opponents, as well as the news media, decided to make this a main stream story. So if you listened to the words used in the context they were intended, the discussion was about service provider choices – having a choice of insurance providers so you can make a choice to get rid of one that may not be serving your needs.  But the sound bite is trimmed to take on whatever meaning someone wants – even polar opposite to what was actually said.  Here’s the article from Fox News: Romney Defends ‘Fire People’ Remark, Says Comments Taken Out of Context

In this sound bite, 142 character, text message world we live in, people actually buy into this garbage.  They hear someone saying that Mitt likes to fire people and they believe it.  Why has politics become so rampant with dishonest representation of facts?  Someone, please tell me!!  The sad thing is that this kind of banter ends up demonizing a candidate making it difficult for people to take what they say seriously.  This country is hurting in many ways because of this type of rhetoric by both parties.  I encourage people to take the time and listen, become more familiar with the truth – read deeply into the stories – put the words in the proper context and stop believing what the “spinners” are telling you to believe because at best its only a half-truth and more likely a complete lie or grotesque distortion of the truth.  Let’s have honest discussions about where each person wants to take our country – not twist each word into an alternate truth which has no basis of fact.  The key is careful, deliberate, listening – with an open mind.  People in this country have lost the ability to listen and decide,  resorting to ignoring and distorting.

Wake up America and take time to listen and learn.  Think for yourself – that’s what freedom is all about!

Read Full Post »