First off, in case you missed it, The Houston Chronicle endorsed Mitt Romney for President on Sunday. Yes. I will give you a moment.
Texas on the Potomac has a copy of the print edition here. It said in part it:
Like so many others, we were captivated by the Illinois senator’s soaring rhetoric and energized by his promise to move American politics beyond partisan gridlock and into an era of hope and change.
It hasn’t happened. Four years later, President Obama’s deeds have failed to match his words, much less his specific vows to cut the national debt by half and bring the nation’s unemployment rate to 6 percent. As Texans, it is a particular vexation that this president’s attitude toward the interests of our state has occasionally bordered on contempt, particularly in decisions relating to the NASA budget and the energy sector. The hurtful symbol of this attitude of insensitivity to Texans’ feelings was the administration’s choice to deny Space City’s bid to become home to one of the retired space shuttles.
We do not believe four more years on the same plodding course toward economic recovery is the best path forward for Texas or the nation. And so we endorse the Republican team, Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan, in the belief that they can do better by Texas and the nation.
……………………………….
Romney’s ability to negotiate successfully across party lines in the Bay State stands in contrast to the president’s baffling disengagement from the national health care debate.
Now on to the debate last night. It was without fireworks, and pretty boring actually. What I keep hearing from pundits is there is little difference in foreign policy between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. That may be true, but last night was really about Mitt proving that he is as knowledgeable and commanding on the issue. He indeed did that. Snap polls suggest Obama won by a small margin, but that it was basically a tie. I doubt winning or losing this debate means much. This debate was more about making sure Romney is up to the task. There was no doubt that was true.
The President’s naval joke about “horses and bayonets” brought quite a few snarky tweets from soldiers that there are not fewer bayonets, and we still use horses. Daniel Foster of NRO had this to say, and it says it all.
“On a serious note, a mom of two Marines just put it to me very well: “Amb. Stevens would have loved a horse or a bayonet or a Marine with either one.”
Obama seemed to want to use some kind of death stare on Romney. I suppose to intimidate him. No such luck. Mitt always forcefully looked directly at Obama to make his case, without a hint of being bothered by his stare or snarkiness. Obama’s snark, “We have these things called aircraft carriers,” came across as petty and unnecessary. Romney’s main strategy was to be calm, rational, smart, and in control. He could not have done better on those things.
Romney was able to destroy the repeated lie by Obama that Romney would have simply “let Detroit go bankrupt,” meaning the auto industry would have been liquidated & denied federal assistance. Romney explained how he called for a managed bankruptcy with federal guarantees and support, just without Obama’s give aways to the unions. I think it was good that Romney got that straight for the American people, although that had little to do with foreign policy.
Mitt Romney did not get into the Libya debacle, which drove many conservatives crazy. They felt Romney should have bashed Obama on what was clearly a major screw up, and possible a cover up. But I think Romney realized that what Americans are focused on is the economy. They understand something went terribly wrong in Libya, but just arguing with Obama as Obama spins things around claiming he can’t talk about things that are under investigation, would have proven worthless. So, I think Romney was right as he brought home the facts that Obama has failed economically for the last four years. Romney emphasized that take-home pay is down, 23 million are struggling for work, and the national debt has grown from $10 trillion to $16 trillion. Obama could not defend that, nor did he hardly try to.
I think Mitt was right to say to Obama, “Attacking me is not an agenda.” Americans are tired of attacks. They just want solutions.
The lines of the night to me was when Romney was explaining to Obama what he meant by saying Obama went on an “apology tour.” Obama called it a “whopper,” but Romney explained it clearly; “The reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East, and by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel … You said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said on occasion Americans had dictated to other nations. Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations; we have freed other nations. It frees people from dictators.”
I wonder how many Americans heard for the first time that Obama had said that there were times America was dismissive and derisive and had dictated to other nations? I’m betting quite a few heard that for the first time. It highlights the difference on how Obama and Romney see America in a very fundamental way. Where Obama is critical of America on the national stage, Romney sees it as Ronald Reagan did, a shining city on a hill.
From Sam Feist, CNN Washington Bureau Chief:
CNN post debate Poll asked, Can Obama handle job of Cmdr. in Chief? Yes: 63%. Can Romney? Yes: 60%.
CNN poll of debate watchers asked, Who did debate make you more likely to vote for? Obama 24%, Romney 25%, Neither 50%.
So, ends the Presidential debates. Yesterday started early voting here in Texas. I went yesterday in the mid afternoon, and the line was wrapped around the building. I always early vote, and I have never seen that. And remember, we don’t live in a swing state.
We live in interesting times. Go vote.