Obama, Romney Gear Up for Final Debate
Obama, Romney gear up for final debate (via AFP)
US President Barack Obama and his Republican rival, Mitt Romney, on Saturday began preparing for their final debate, with Obama hunkering down at Camp David and Romney staying in Florida. The third and last of their debates is scheduled for Monday at Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida. On Friday…
Share This
Related Posts
-
Something America and China Could Do Together
Posted on Apr 22, 2013
-
Tail-gunner Ted (Guest Voice)
Posted on Apr 21, 2013
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
I think one of the most serious flaws in Romney’s character is appropriately mentioned in this article—His notorious tendency to flip flop and then flip flop again! I do remember his self-characterization as being “severely Conservative,” when competing for the GOP nomination, but, he certainly has tried to portray himself as Mr. Moderate when competing with Obama.
The really amazing thing he can do, is convincingly persuade voters that, the policies he endorses, or did,or er, will endorse—whatever! Are in everyone’s best interests. Since the State of Florida is up for grabs, I assume that many elderly retirees in that state don’t really care if future generations are the first to endure changes made by instituting Ryan,s voucher system—since they have been convinced that the Republican solution to keeping Medicare solvent is harmless. Even more amazing—many of them must have bought the hype that Romney’s warnings about the financial ruin he expects from Obamacare, will certainly bankrupt the country, and that although their benefits are not questioned under Ryan’s plan, future generations will also receive the best medical benefits available. This despite the fact that Democrats are the ones that want to change the program in ways that will protect benefits from less severe and/or possible cuts. It’s also pretty amazing that any retiree, may be convinced to vote for Romney/Ryan, on the basis that they are the true saviors of Medicare.
Just a few of the other philosophical turn arounds he has had, include his constantly changing opinions about women’s rights, and his supposed commitment to the welfare of the middle class—while affirming that he will be everyone’s President—not just for the wealthy. this last one is especially amazing since he has been recorded as calling 47% of Americans, people who he “doesn’t worry about,” and “who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives.” How he has managed to convince many voters that he really will not work for policies that reduce their benefits or, make them the brunt of higher taxation, in light of his candid remarks, certainly “passes all understanding,” to quote the Christian faith!
Of course he’s going to make up for lost ground by attacking Obama about the Libyan embassy attacks and will have an advantage for doing so. Obama’s defense will include the many statements he made in regards to never yielding to terrorist’s attacks and, his promise to hunt down whoever is responsible. Although Obama claims that his people and he withheld an official decision until they received definite information from intelligence agencies, this may not help. Waiting, so as not to make premature decisions, is definitely one of Obama’s hallmark characteristics but,it will still be difficult to convince (rightly or wrongly) to the average voter that so much time was required to reach a definite conclusion.
One of Mitt’s most incredible flip flops includes that he had once vowed to repeal every part of Obama Care, but now pacifies voters by saying that he will keep some of the good parts—like no pre-existing conditions being used in order to deny coverage. In his own nearly Identical Massachusetts bill, he found out that an individual mandate was the only way to assure this provision. Also the health insurance industry is dedicated to making money, so how are they going to accept the idea that they can accept cancer patients, or any person with a costly and chronic condition, just because it is a good idea to be fair.
My biggest concern is that Romney promises jobs and prosperity without giving specifics about how he’ll do that, and what will have to be cut to promote economic growth. Most independent sources, including fact checking groups, feel quite strongly that his goals are impossible, given the priorities he requires. All Romney feels obliged to say is that he’ll let us know about which programs go under the ax, after he is elected—a great big DUHH!!
Even if he manages to create more jobs, what will those be–unskilled labor jobs at McDonald’s, or a clerk at Walmart?
I also find it pretty obvious that a businessman/president is not going to have a favorable opinion of Unions, the rights to decent living wages, and protection from adverse working conditions–or any of the many other rights that workers have struggled for. He is also very likely to limit food-stamp programs, as well as popular tax deductions which are keeping many in the middle class afloat.
Under Romney, we are likely to see an assault on safety nets and any other legislation which is considered part of the social contract to protect the rights and well-being of the middle class.
I have heard a lot of conservatives say things like, “Tough” jobs will pay what jobs will pay,” or that everyone including the lower classes “should be required to contribute their fair share also.” They often seem to think that poverty is exclusively caused by the laziness from freeloaders–having nothing to do with unfortunate turns of events, like a free-falling recession economy which left the economy damaged and damaged their ability to acquire work. I have even heard some ruthless social-Darwinists claim that those who can’t be self-supporting should just be allowed to die! This attitude is not what most of us consider to be the essence and soul of America—where all of us deserve equal consideration.
I often wonder if many of the Donald Trumps, Mitt Romneys or any given raging tea party members, would still cling to their beliefs if they had to experience real poverty. It is doubtful that they would then continue to perceive themselves as the masters of their own fates! One of the best challenges I have heard anyone propose for the upper 1% who feel that only they have the special talents to achieve and maintain wealth, is that ANY of them, should parachute into a country like Somalia, where until recently virtually no government existed, and where citizens were plagued by extreme poverty and vulnerability to hunger and disease—then attempt to amass a fortune there completely without help. I might add that when piracy is eliminated, as well as forms of political extortion, the options will become extremely limited.
No matter how good his sales pitches may be, anyone who really takes a look at the reality behind Romney’s promises, will not be so eager to give him their support!
I’m not so sure about that advantage. In the last debate, Romney pounced on the Libya situation, and Obama hit back hard. That exchange was one Romney clearly lost, and unless he comes better prepared on Monday, he might as well just not bring it up at all.
However, that’s not going to be an option, as the focus of the debate will be foreign policy.
If that focus is kept by the moderator, then all Mitt’s flip-flops on domestic policy will be irrelevant. His waffling between “severe conservative” and conciliatory moderate will be largely off the table.
This is a net positive for Romney, but it is balanced out by the fact that foreign policy isn’t exactly his strong suit. He’s got his talking points prepared, to be sure, and his phalanx of neoconservative advisers behind him (no doubt thrilled at the opportunity for another patsy who will implement their policies), but he just doesn’t have the experience. He’s about 4 years behind Obama on that count.
Mitt’s foreign policy stances are well known…a massive military buildup, belligerency towards Iran, belligerency towards China, revisiting Iraq, diving head first into Syria, and backing the Netanyahu government in whatever hare-brained schemes they dream up. These are all bad ideas.
What remains to be seen is which Obama will show up Monday night. He’s got the experience, and the contrast between the two foreign policy visions is clear. If the guy who shot down Romney on Libya shows up, and is able to convey his vision the way he did last time, then Mitt is going to have a much harder time of it come November 6th.
Strangely and timely, the “intelligence community” has finally “caught up” and has provided “information’ to cover both the video AND the “terror/terrorist” scenarios. So it looks like Mitt is going have a hard time catching this greased pig. Hmmm.
Perhaps he can at least point out the 149 Reps to 147 Dems vote when Obama says the Reps cut the funding. They can’t fudge that one it’s in the record.
Strange indeed. If the conventional wisdom is true, and defense, intelligence, and other related agencies are better served by a Republican administration, you’d think they’d be more than happy to throw Obama under the bus at this critical juncture, and insure ample funding for the next few years.
Instead, they’re backing him up.
CJ< Yes, because they think he will win and they might be tempted to help out. If Mitt were thought to have a very good chance, who knows you might have been correct.
I just want to correct part of my first post.
Near the end of the second paragraph, When talking about Medicare and the Democrats I should have said, “Democrats are the ones that want to change the program in ways that will protect benefits from more severe changes and/or greater possible cuts.”
How I put the word “less” in there is puzzling to me! Even if I hadn’t done that, the original version was not worded very well.
dduck,
At the present time things are going Mitt’s way, so why would the intelligence community want to take a gamble by supporting the wrong man? Although I have no proof, I would wager that our intelligence people, are less effected by partisan politics than we might think. I would think that they would have a great deal of pride in doing their jobs well, and would not be eager to support a President whose inconsistencies make them look bad. If they thought Obama to be totally at fault, they would not hesitate to say so.
I’ll go with the, “throw him under the bus scenario.”
petew,. maybe the IC is smarter than the polls or our petty biases and thinks O will win. I hope you are correct and the IC is a pure as the driven snow, history certainly proves that hypothesis.
dduck,
I didn’t say, “pure as the driven snow”–just that they have a great deal of pride when it comes to doing their jobs. All of IC may not be perfectly apolitical, but they probably accept such a concept as having pride in their jobs, and, strive to be as non-partisan as possible.
I hope so too.