By Nancy Thorner and Ed Ingold -
As expected, the President stuck to his talking points in Tuesday night's second presidential debate without anything to back them up. But how could his approach have been any different? Obama's failed record speaks for itself. But to Obama, if distortions of his dismal four-year record are repeated often enough, without deviating from the script, they will resonate with voters and stick in their minds come election time. But will this approach work? The second presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 seems to have engendered a different result.
In a championship fight, the challenger can't win on points. He needs a knockout! In a split decision, the champion prevails. In the first debate, Governor Romney was the clear champion, in what the boxing world would call a TKO - Technical Knockout. When the contender can't count to ten on his own, the referee counts for him. In the second debate, Romney stayed on his feet, punched and counterpunched. Obama tried to regain the belt, but failed to knock Romney to the mat. He didn't even win on points, unless "Talking" points count.
The victim mentality went a step further when a question about Libya was asked during the 2nd presidential debate. CNN debate moderator, Candy Crowley, quickly stepped forward and out of her official moderator role to defend Obama, from what she perceived as a Romney attempt to victimize Obama, when Romney suggested the President had failed to call the Benghazi attack a" terror" attack in the Rose Garden on the day after 9/11, or for many days thereafter. The next day Obama was no longer a victim when Crowley had to walk back her untimely and uncalled statement and admit that Romney had been correct in his debate analysis.
According to an article by Dave Boyer published in the Washington Times on Thursday, October 18, Obama has yet to confirm the "terrorist" act in Libya, as he attempts to avoid the stench and the fall out from the 9/11 consulate attack.
If you believe the Obama campaign in its ongoing effort to win over women voters, Governor Romney doesn't care about women or their votes. Translated, this means Romney is against abortions, or at least averse to paying for them with borrowed money. Ask yourself, "How many women do I know who have had an abortion?" Then ask, "How many women do I know who are looking for work or whose husbands or children are looking for work?" Instead, women are concerned with the economy and the welfare of themselves and their families, such as the increase of food prices at the grocery store, how much it costs to fill up their vehicles, and the inability of recent college graduates to find jobs. That's why 51% of women got in step with Romney after the first debate.
How ironic that the Obama campaign should accuse Romney of a so-called war on women. A former aide to the Obama administration once called the White House “hostile” to female employees. Anita Dunn, who recently served as Obama’s moderator during debate prep, was also the former White House communications director. Dunn was quoted in Ron Suskind’s book Confidence Men as saying, “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace … because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
Consider the question asked about tax policy. Once again President Obama repeated his claim that Governor Romney and the Republicans refuse to make the rich "pay a dime" to offset the deficit. Obviously, that's not what either the Republicans nor Governor Romney said, before, during or after the debate. In fact, the "rich" pay the vast bulk of the income tax collected. The top 1% of earners pay 40%, and the top 10% pay over 80%.
The President wants to take more from the big pieces of the pie and distribute them to those with smaller pieces. But it's always "THE pie," as if it is the same pie yesterday, today and forever! Governor Romney's plan would keep the same distribution of taxes at the present level, but structure it so that the makers and shakers of the economy have an incentive to make the "pie" bigger, and keep more of the "pie" they make grow. Everybody, including the government, would get bigger pieces. We need this incentive to move forward, unlike the paltry, one-time tax breaks the President would grant for hiring veterans, windmills on the rooftops, or whatever.
On energy Policy, the President countered Governor Romney by stating that oil and gas production is at an all-time high. Romney accurately responded that the growth is from drilling on private land, and that leases for government land have declined 40% under the current administration, and no new permits have been issued in the Gulf (all permits approved by this administration were initiated under President Bush.) When challenged over the drop in permits, the President dodged by repeating his claim that oil production is up, this time louder, and in Romney's face.
Unfortunately neither candidate brought up the fact the the EPA is actively trying to shut down "fracking" operations and coal mining. Over 20% of our electric generation capacity is threatened with shutdown because they are older facilities which use coal. The pipeline from Canadian oil fields to refineries in Texas was blocked by the President, and replaced with a segment (along with 19 other pipelines) from Kansas southward. Nobody said it, but this is "The Pipeline From Nowhere."
It is amazing that Obama's approval ratings remain so high among the American people. One thing the two presidential debates have so far indicated is that the millions of dollars Obama spent on ads, prior to the two debate to define Romney as an unacceptable presidential candidates, seems to have represented Democratic campaign money thrown down the drain. Through his two debate appearances, Romney was elevated to an equal footing with Obama by the American people. Many asked themselves, "Where is this mean, uncaring rich person that we saw portrayed on our TV's day-after-day?"
Romney spoke and was heard. Hopefully enough of the American people will have heard and will decide that four more years of Obama would give this nation and its people more misery with further deterioration of jobs and economic wealth, especially among the middle class. If Obama should win another four-year term, this nation might never be able to recover from the consequences of continuing Obama's already failed policies, let alone all the executive orders and mandates he would issue as a run-around Congress to put in place the "share the wealth" philosophy that he so fervently embraces.
Obama likes to say "Everybody should have a fair shot." What, exactly, is a "fair shot." The only solution he offers is to tax the rich and give to the poor. Cut up the big pieces of pie and stick them to the smaller pieces. This is a destructive solution. It's like the "bounty system" recently scandalizing the NFL, where the strategy was to injure the good players so that the weaker players would have a "fair shot" at the championship. That worked well, didn't it.