October 22, 2012
-
Politics Again
I suggest that anyone still undecided or hesitant about their presidential choice watch the debate tonight and look for some not-often-mentioned visual and verbal clues - especially with Romney, as he seems to be the most closed and devious of the two candidates.
With Obama, what you see seems to be pretty much what you get; though I think he is a good deal more centrist and conservative that some of his followers expected. Despite GOP claims, he has put forward a pretty straightforward and detailed agenda for the next four years: He wants a budget deal that includes both spending cuts and tax increases; he has put forward rather detailed deficit-reduction proposals (to reduce the deficit by $3.8 Trillion over a decade) He has supported the Dream Act, a number of jobs bills, and rather detailed proposals to adjust the tax code. Romney's suggestions, by contrast are pretty much what Republicans have proposed in the past with the addition of promises to kill medicare and obamacare as well as reduce taxes. All of these proposals are very general and depend on changed political and economic situations.
Romney presents a rather "closed"and stern demeanor during most of his public appearances. His attempts to be "one of us"are obviously rather strained. That's not necessarily a bad thing - we have had lots of patrician-appearing presidents -one of the best, FDR was a good example. Eisenhower was another. but Romney more often given the appearance of an angry CEO who doesn't like any criticism or questioning - which seems to jibe with his history. His attitude toward Obama during the debates is an example of his apparent attitude toward those he considers inferior - if some of his body language and "keyword"comments are indicative.
Another problem Romney has is his constant position changing and refusal to allow himself to be pinned down or most social issues. He also seems to be a smart person super-focused on what used to be called micro-economics with little interest or knowledge of the world outside his narrow vision - rather surprisingly, he seems to be depending on a good many experts from the failed Bush administration in the field of foreign affairs; not, in my opinion, a good idea.
He apparently has little interest in those things which make up a modern developed nation, other than a sort of bottom line view of the economy. He apparently really believes that Wall Street and large corporations doing well will translate into an economic surge. Remember he considers Bain Capital and other hedge funds as "Small businesses".
It's apparent where my choice lies. If you want a rather ignorant, arrogant, and devious president, by all means vote for Romney.
Comments (6)
LOL! Everything Obama says is a lie.
After viewing the debate, it seemed to me that Romney decided to play it safe and just agree with pretty much everything Obama has done regarding foreign affairs - only indicate that he could do it better (?)
A clear case of what Obama refers to as "Romnesia"- since this stance is at odds with most of his past year's comments about foreign affairs.
I doubt that this final debate changed many opinions about the ability of the candidates.
I don't like either of them and it bugs me that a few days before the election I still don't know what to do. One of my problems is I wonder what the president really does anymore. It seems he makes recommendations to the congress and they are the ones that really decide what will be done. If the congress can't work together within themselves then it just comes to a standstill. When was the last time the congress and the president really worked together? I was still kinda young but it seems that Reagan was the the last time. I guess Clinton seemed to get things done too. Bush 2 did right after 9/11 but to me that doesn't count as really working together and that made a terrible mess of things. So really how to I make a decision? I don't think either of them will be able to really get any thing they want done through the congress.
@rush24a - Presidents generally fall into one of two groups: Those who see themselves as pretty much Executives carrying out the governmental wishes of the people as expressed through congress and just managing the government. Examples of this kind were Coolidge, Nixon, Carter, Ford, GHW Bush.
Others saw themselves as active leaders - the most memorable being FD Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Clinton.
Reagan and GW Bush were fairly passive presidents with strong cabinet members and advisors who pretty much pushed them into action - though Eisenhower and Reagan both had the reputation of being pretty bullheaded ( I once had a prof who had been in Eisenhower's cabinet and who liked to tell stories about his legendary blow-ups.)
Obama's main problem has been the absolute openly declared refusal of the Republicans in congress to cooperate with any of his proposals. The assumption is that their stance will change with his reelection - they really will have nothing to gain by continued obstruction except to make themselves look worse than they have already.
Standing back and looking at the big picture seems to show that Obama has been more affected by racial prejudice that it at first seemed. Apparently many Republicans see themselves as the last stand of the "Good Old Days"when WASPS were the majority and things ran as they were supposed to with dagos, spics, niggers and other despised minorities (including women) knew their places and didn't try to rock the boat. The 1950's - Eisenhower's generation - were the last of this era and now times have really changed, but some Americans really dream of that bygone era. I think that's one reason the GOP selected a Mormon businessman as their candidate - Romney really is one of the best living examples of that era and attitude - as is his running mate, Paul Ryan.
You can't go home again and Obama, with all his flaws, is pretty obviously the future - like it or not.
When I grew up - 1930-45 - it was pretty much under one president - FD Roosevelt - something that can't happen again (he was elected FOUR times).
The US has come a long way since then - it's a much better place.
I look forward and don't worship the past - though I know a good deal about it.
Frequently, a lower interest rate emerges with a buy
here pay-here for those who have income to put down.
You can definitely see your enthusiasm within the article you write.
The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who aren't
afraid to mention how they believe. All the time follow
your heart.