Wednesday, October 17, 2012

just a few words ...

... about last night's debate.

The pivotal moment for me was when the President responded to Romney's attack on how he handled what happened in Libya. The President was angry, and let that emotion come through, but in a strong and definite manner. Obama has class. Romney kept flailing, trying to reiterate his accusation, even after the President called him out for being insulting and moderator Candy Crowley for being incorrect.

The virtual world was immediately meme-ing Romney's "binders full of women," but what struck me about his "answer" to a question regarding equal pay for women was how he thought he was trumpeting what a great guy and a great boss he was to try and get women on his cabinet, but how thoroughly condescending he sounded about the process. He just doesn't hear that. He has no clue how out of touch he is, and that's dangerous.

Some people thought Biden was rude last week, but Romney's constant interruptions and disregard for not just the President and the moderator, but also the group of undecided voters who wanted to ask him questions, was over the top. His base will still support him, but I doubt he won over lots of new folks from his performance. He seemed completely unable to directly answer any questions. He seemed to have been coached to repeat ad nauseum what a bad job Washington has been doing over the past four years (conveniently leaving out the preceding eight years), but he offered no real information on how he'd fix things.

Both men had their numbers ready, but no one listening really cares about the numbers. It always comes down to style and viewpoint. Their plans may be clear or indecipherable, even nonexistent to those home listening in. Rome wasn't built in a day, and anyone who thinks that an economy can be fixed "on day one" or in four years is seriously deluded. And has never been to Washington.

The polls and the media show the two candidates being neck-and-neck. But polls and the media are bout as reliable as political rhetoric during campaign season. It depends on who you're talking to and how they're skewing the numbers. Statistics can be framed to tell a story in just about any way you want them to. I don't spend much time reading polls or statistics.

So what it will come down to on Election Day if you haven't already made up your mind? I'm still baffled by people who identify themselves as "undecided." I think they should be more accurately dubbed the "I don't want to vote" or the "I don't care who wins." Romney believes the CEO approach will fix the country. I've worked for remote bosses and they don't really care about things like health care, family issues, reproductive rights, and the individual getting ahead. They may make money for the company, but it rarely found its way in my pocket. Their investors did fine, however. Lots of people would like to believe that they are one of the investors who will profit from a change in horses, but it's always a very small, select group that will benefit. The President really relates to what people are going through, is more connected. He is a realist, and understands how Washington works and how long it takes to get things done to achieve real change. That realism, that patience and perseverance  isn't a sound byte that sounds great on a campaign, but it is a viewpoint that I think would benefit the country in the long run.
Enhanced by Zemanta


Post a Comment