Obama and Romney both "met my expectations." This means they both lost. Romney won for "speech performance style" - but lost his opportunity to get me to vote for him. (I don't care if a president sounds better in a TV debate; I care that he has better ideas.) Obama lost his opportunity to lead bi-partisan-ly; he stayed conservative (as I predicted, he didn't risk his probable "election win" by being too aggressive) and since I was leaning towards Obama before the debate, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama in November.
Obama did say, "Umm" and "Err" a lot in his speeches - in fact, he sounded much more like the Saturday Night Live exaggeration ("Stick with someone who is barely adequate, or take your chances with the other guy.") than the (less soaring than 2008 but still soaring) Obama of the 2012 DNC convention.
Romney did not put forth the specifics to get my vote. He did bring up a "potential maybe of capping potential tax deductions (at some number to be decided in the future)" - but that is not a plan. Plans have upsides and downsides, and then you defend your plan by saying your plan has the most upsides and the fewest (unfortunate) downsides. Romney had his chance to reveal his "plan" - but he didn't say anything with a downside (if he gave actual specifics, they would have a downside, and that would (gasp) cost him votes!). Instead, he gave his "justification" for why he doesn't share specifics:
"You don't get alot done if you have specifics. I'm like Reagan, I only present principles for Congress and then we'd work on it together to get stuff done."
Umm, Mr. Romney, that is a (very) fake "justification" for not sharing specifics. At some point, when Congress is working on specifics, they are going to bring specifics to you, and what, is it THEN (after you are elected) that you will reveal what specifics you are for and against?
Romney opened with his "5 point plan" from the RNC. (We heard that before and are not impressed) And Romney had opportunities to provide specifics. Instead of specifics he offered "principle for tax cuts:"
- No tax cuts that will increase the deficit. (which I guess means there will be no tax cuts, since it will be pretty tough to cut that much spending.
And these principles for which programs to cut:
- 1. Is project critical that we need to borrow from China to pay for it. (He specifically stated Obamacare and cutting PBS. But is that really ALL that he is going to cut? After election, he might decide, "You know, we don't really need to maintain the highway system. If businesses want roads, they can pay for it privately!") The only thing that Romney believes is critical is a high military budget. Without defining "Critical" Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."
2. Is it better at the state level? Romney seems to think that healthcare is better at the state level. What's his justification? (Other than he was governor of Massachusetts when he passed Romney care, and he needs a "reason" to repeal Obamacare.) Are conditions really that different state to state? The "individual mandate" of Obamacare still allows for some flexibility state to state as well, I think - does there need to be more?
On the other hand, Romney seems to think that state/local schools need a federal hand, to "increase competition"? Can't states decide that on their own?
Without saying how to evaluate if it's better at the state level, Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."
3. Is it better to combine agencies? He mentioned that there are 47 government training programs across 8 departments, and that he can decrease overhead by sending it to the state level. It'd be great if he mentioned how setting combining the departments would help. (We could save $2 million in xerox costs!) Sure, there may be some jobs that are duplicated, but he needs to show that the 8 departments addressing different point of views is not more effective than 4 departments doing twice as much work...
Am I being unfair because Obama doesn't exactly have specifics for his next 4 years either? Maybe, but I don't need Obama to be specific, I have a good feel that his values are (at least) "barely adequate" and he's not going to gut the interstate highway system.
Obama missed his opportunity to EARN my vote in the debate as well (more on that in my next post) But I believe Obama can be president for the next 4 years, Romney had his chance to convince me that he could be president, and he missed his chance. Unless something amazing happens, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment