This began as a political blog but turned into a "serious whining" blog when I decided to visit my house in Maine. Also, the political environment in the U.S. is so depressing that I had to stop fretting about the state of the world for a bit. I spent the night of the recent debate in a hotel bed in Portland, reading (actually rereading) a Barbara Pym novel, with absolutely no interest in watching the debate. I was partly afraid of watching as unlike so many others on the left I don't have much faith in Obama, certainly not in his debating skills. The only reason he won debating points in the last election is that John McCain was (and is) so inept.
Mitt Romney is a bit of a gaff machine but it's more when he speaks off the cuff than when he debates. In the Republican primary debates, he was overall the most aggressive. But in reading about the recent debate, I do find it difficult to believe that Obama didn't mention Romney's gaffs, particularly the 47% comment. It appears that Obama believes the hype about himself, that he walks on water. A friend commented that he had expected so much more, that after all he was a scholar of Constitutional Law. Let me remind all those who don't understand the academic world, Obama was not a scholar of Constitutional Law. He published no major papers or books in the time he taught at the U. of Chicago. I'll also remind my readers that when he was in the Illinois House, he voted present some 130 times. And his present votes, which he claimed were inadvertent as he didn't understand the machinery for voting, were almost always on delicate issues that could come back and bite him when ran for higher office, and it's quite evident from his history that he had always planned to run for higher office.
To all those who claim that Obama is leading us into European socialist (how I wish he were), he is far from being a socialist. If this were 1970, Obama's position on war and on domestic policies would place him in the Republican Party. Still, he's better than what is offered. At least from the New York Times, it appears that Romney moved drastically to the center during the debate, and in this country where so few people read (if they can read) this move will go right over their heads. Why, oh why, is Hillary not running!
Right about Hillary over Obama, although the past events in Libya lead me to doubt her competency in foreign policy. Sorry to say this is not 1970 and Obama has and will continue to be a disaster both domestically and on foreign policy.
ReplyDeleteThis country was not built on "redistribution". One just has to look across the Pond at that mess. A model for the U.S. - No thank you.
Our reading of American history is quite different. In my history books, America is all about redistribution. It redistributed the lands that belonged to the native peoples, forcing them off their lands until the few left that weren't killed or starved to death were forced on to reservations. That's redistribution on a grand scale.
ReplyDeleteNot sure what you think Secretary Clinton should have done about Libya, perhaps pull a George Bush and involve us in another war?
I'm always amused by those who talk about the horrors of Socialist Europe without having lived there as I have. In fact, the European countries that fared the worse in the economic downturn where those who followed, slavishly, American banking practices. Those who stuck with the European model, Germany, Sweden, and many other countries, are doing quite well, far better than the U.S. I'd suggest you stop watching Fox. Try reading an economist or two instead. Perhaps Paul Krugman.
Grace
Both Hillary Clinton and Obama should have told the truth from the beginning - not blamed a video aired in July. As for Sweden, I do have friends in Sweden and they bemoan the government/healthcare, etc. whenever I speak with them. They have lived here and wished they could have remained in this country. I confess to not having any knowledge of the workings of the German government.
ReplyDeleteI will continue to watch Fox which has been much more accurate in their reporting/analysis than any other news channel. In turn, I suggest you read the background on David Axelrod. I truly have no interest in reading Paul Krugman or the N.Y. Times.