I would have to watch the beginning of the Presidential debate again in order to give a good response to this. I do remember my gut reaction being extreme sympathy for Obama’s situation, though, throughout the debate.
Let me again clarify: I am not an Obamaphile. I do have a great deal of respect for the man as my commander in chief, and I’ve been very happy with how he’s handled foreign policy. Perhaps it’s the Marine in me that gets a little upset when someone gets in cheap potshots at the POTUS. With all this in mind, this was my reaction to the Presidential debate:
I saw an energized Romney slamming a tired Obama. I think most in the GOP saw that as a sign of Obama’s weakness and inability to stand on his record. I saw Obama as a guy whose real job was interrupted by politic-ing.
The SINGLE valid point that I remember sympathizing with Romney on was this: Why was the President spending all his political capital on Obamacare in the midst of a depressed economy? Other than that, I felt that most of his attacks were easy potshots, and because he spent so much time of this I remember nothing substantive about an economic plan. All I heard is “cut taxes, spend more money, close unnamed loopholes [fact check: not the biggest ones that could actually make a dent in the budget].”
Once again: not voting for them, don’t support many of their policies.
I agree that there is more substance now than there was a month ago, but I still don’t see it. Debate performances are all about every single thing that “this administration” has done wrong, all the way down to beating the horse of an intelligence failure (VP debate). Show me an administration without an intelligence failure. The government, military, and intelligence community are imperfect systems.
IbnFiktur admit to being too lazy to cut and paste appropriate sections but here is my overall response.
You said Romney trounced a "tired’ Obama. Why would he be tired? He hasn’t acted as President for months. Right after our Ambassador was killed he flew to Las Vegas and was smiling and telling jokes. Seemed pretty energized there. When world leaders were at the UN he couldn’t be bothered meeting with Netanyahu or other Middle East leaders although it was clearly a powder keg with violence, riots and the attack at Benghazi. But he had time to go on the view and talk about White House beer. And while at the UN he spoke of the YouTube video, not about AlQaeda.
Do you understand why people point this out? I don’t think it’s a cheap shot, I think it’s a valid criticism. Think back on past Presidents (my first memory was Kennedy so it does reach into the 60s). Did any of them spend so much time in frivolous activities, particularly when the economy was in the dumps, the Middle East was on fire, and we had a terrorist attack killing four Americans? I don’t think so. GB43’s spending made me crazy but I had complete confidence that he was doing everything he could to keep us safe. Obama’s lax attitude does not inspire that same confidence.
As to Obamacare, since this is my field I was involved daily, watching the legislation, the proposals from both sides and the process. The Republicans (and some Democrats) opposed Obamacare (and the Stimulus) BECAUSE IT WAS A BAD PIECE OF LEGISLATION. Somehow this meme has developed that because Mitch McConnell said his job was to get Obama out of office (as is the case with the opposition) that Republicans opposed poor legislation out of spite. Obamacare is a BAD BILL. It was shoved through with bribes and special back room deals, with false assurances that abortion wouldn’t be a part of it, and when Scott Brown was elected, using some questionable tactics.
As to working with Republicans, Obama has made a sport of setting them up to provide (name removed by moderator)ut, then taunting them with comments such as “Elections have consequences and I won.” Read Woodward’s book (his Obama’s War as well) and see how Obama and the Dems “worked with Republicans.” He worked them over…and the result was the drubbing in the 2010 election.
It’s admirable that you still want to give Obama the benefit of the doubt but I think what he’s done has been disastrous for the economy, healthcare, the debt/deficit, and frankly his foreign policy is naive at best. I think the Russians see us as “weak sauce” as do many in the Middle East. I am also dismayed that the pull out date for Afghanistan has emboldened the Taliban and frightened the Afghanis who were supporting us. I want out of Afghanistan,tomorrow if possible. But telling the enemy when you’re leaving is a set up for failure.
As to his war on the Church, I find it absolutely demoralizing that our first freedom is under attack so he can IMO pander to Big Feminism, one of his few remaining constituancies. Someone is bought and paid for and who cares more about their trivial demands than the Constitution should not be President of the United States.
I think Obama deserves to lose and I think Romney is well qualilfied by his experience and his temperament to deal with our economic issues particularly. So I don’t see this as “lesser of two evils” but the opportunity to get a failing President out the door and bring in someone whom I think can do a much better job.
It does amaze me that Obama still has supporters, other than the few niche groups to whom he has been loyal. For most of America he is an unmitigated disaster.
Lisa
