October 22nd Presidential Debate

A Delicate Balancing Act


(11:15 pm)  I always watch the commentary after the debates because they always remind me of several points that were made that I had forgotten, or that I had missed altogether.  So, maybe this will help you in a similar way.

Both candidates seemed to be trying to stay on the "tightwire" by not offending their base constituency while not offending the independent/undecided voter.  The result:  they sound a lot alike, but strongly maintain that they are different, while saying, as often as they can get away with it, that they actually agree with their opponent.  Are you confused yet?

Here are some of the notes I made during the debate.  By the way, if you want to "fact check" the candidates' statements, please do.  A good place to start is FactCheck.org, and there are others; just do a search for fact check.


On Libya & Lebanon

Obama said he did everything he could to protect our personnel (in Benghazi).  Did he?  There is a lot of disagreement about that.  Romney didn't push the issue - maybe because of his earlier premature statements.

Romney made the point that, besides just killing the terrorists (which has been compared to playing "Whack-A-Mole"), we need to be helping Muslims reject radical Islam by helping them improve their quality of life.  Sounded a bit like "nation-building to me.  But consider how both Russia and China have gained great influence in many parts of the world (Africa, Latin America, Middle East, etc.) by doing just that - helping a culture improve its life with infrastructure and technology.  Maybe we just need to modify HOW we do it, so it is less costly and less offensive.

Romney also pointed out that it has been 1 year since Obama said that Syria's Assad "had to go" and was wondering why Assad was still not gone.


On Our Role in the World

Obama said that America is stronger (many would disagree with that), that there has been progress in education (depends on what one considers progress), and that he wants to hire more teachers.  No doubt that he does want to hire more, but we had more teachers and it didn't solve the problem, and, can we afford it?). 

Romney said we need to focus our economic efforts on Latin America, that it has as much or more potential than China.  Haven't heard much about that from the candidates so far.


On Israel & Iran

The candidates were asked if each would consider an attack on Israel as an attack on the U.S.  Both answered Yes, but Obama danced around a bit before answering.


On Afghanistan

Both were asked if we should leave even if the Afgans are not ready to defend themselves.  Romney said they will be ready.

I didn't catch what Obama's reply was, but he went on to say that he has done a lot to take care of veterans, and that veteran unemployment is lower now than when he took office.  That’s true for veterans generally but not for veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.  See FactCheck.org  [http://factcheck.org/2012/10/false-claims-in-final-debate/]


On the Rise of China

Of interest to me was that Romney seemed to try to balance the need to confront China (on its efforts to manipulate its currency and ignore the violations of copyrights) with the need to work with China to have a mutually beneficial trade relationship.  He said that China does not want a trade war because their economy depends on selling their stuff to us.

In General

Obama called Romney's policies wrong, old, and unworkable, but offered weakly supported defense of his own policies.  A line by Romney that may stick in the news was something like, "Criticizing me is not a policy." 

Obama spoke with eloquence and with "presidential" pauses.  But I don't quite see presidential results after 4 years in office and 2 years with his own party controlling both houses of Congress.  Al Qaeda seems to be resurging, not dying, and the whole Middle East is in more turmoil, not less.  I've seen the interactions between Obama and Netanyahu, and they were not those of "good buds."

By the way, just before the debate started, I saw a clip of an interview with Gary Hart (previously a Democratic Senator and presidential candidate)  that I think is worth mentioning and thinking about.  He mentioned that everyone is talking about the Middle Class these days, but nobody is speaking for the poor.  He also said something to the effect that  people might be more willing to help the poor if they weren't so concerned about their own poverty.


Well, the formal presidential debates are over for this cycle.  I've watched all 4, and I still cannot endorse either candidate.  But that's not to say that I won't vote against one of them.


One closing thought today: 

Since, to me, the debates are not conclusive on who to vote for, maybe I need to look beyond the debate performance, which seemed like not much more than coached acting anyway. 

We're looking for someone to manage the Executive branch of our government, the branch that actually DOES the work of the government (supposedly).  And he has another unofficial but real function: to inspire and motivate the country.  These 2 functions require unique skills.  And most Americans want something else: a strong character of honesty and integrity and adherance to true American values (as best we can identify them clearly).

In choosing, it seems important to know WHERE the president will be leading us and how effectively he will manage the resources we have given him.  And, according to that great and wise philosopher, Dr. Phil McGraw (among many others), "The best predictor of future behavior is past behavior."

So maybe we need to look at SKILLS, CHARACTER and VALUES, as demonstrated by PAST PERFORMANCE.

I'll try to get to those soon;  they may be more helpful than the debates.

"Thatch"