While Mr. Obama boils down Mr. Romney's domestic plans to cutting taxes, the only proposal Mr. Obama counters with is raising them on the wealthy, which should be done, but it's high on rhetoric and populism and lacking in actual policy. In the foreign policy "debate", there was far more hand shaking and back patting then there was actual discussion. It would have been somewhat pleasing to have got something substantial to sink one's teeth into. But the candidates played safe.
Their attempts to discuss the Iranian and Syrian situation either was on the cuff - in lieu of revealing state secrets, perhaps - or incredibly sophomoric and elementary. While it seems that the president and presidential candidate should have been able to offer a better grasp on facts, there may be some legitimate reasons why both were closely guarded in their approach toward describing their foreign policies. The only one that comes to mind is that neither wanted to screw up.
Well short of revealing any state secrets - one could argue short of revealing well known secrets, the foreign policy "debate" quickly evolved into what can more aptly be described as a foreign policy "survey". At one point, again with careful regard to state secrets we can imagine, Mr. Romney attempted to describe the basic structure of the Israeli government; while highly enlightening (thank you very much) and well rehearsed, this type of basic instruction barely nudges top secret discussion. And we all know that Mitt Romney's got barred gates over top secret info as we saw on his trip to the UK.
So what was actually revealed by this the third and final presidential debate? Not much.
Neither candidate was willing to honestly discuss our role in Iranian foreign policy, nor the fact that the US has stationed military forces in the Middle East that completely envelope Iran, including aircraft carriers in the Persian Gulf, the southern border of Iran, hence the sea, Mr. Romney. It's a classic bait and switch and US bullying at its worst. But Mr. Romney is too intent on ignoring American mistakes - his "no apology approach" - and Mr. Obama is too intent on campaigning on American strength and doing anything but supporting peace - his "droning on drones approach" - which Mr. Romney also would adopt.
Listening to the two squabble over the ticky-tacky choices of one word versus another begins to make the US look like the old man on the corner complaining about newfangled fads but prone to watch the world go by. Would it hurt either candidate to have shown a little understanding of the past 60 years? Would it be pitiful for either candidate to mention that Iran is a signatory of the Non-proliferation Treaty? Mr. Romney mentioned Russia as a signatory but casually sidestepped Iran.
Granted these are far more complicated issues than can be covered in an hour and a half, but either candidate was willing to admit it. In the end, Americans look at Iran as "bad guys" thanks to Mr. Romney's simplistic characterizations, and Israel as our most trusted ally in the region who seems to be intent on getting the US into another war - some kind of help is the kind of help we all can do without.
Talk of Syria bordered on the mundane. The case of Syria is far more complicated than either led on. There will be no easy solution there. If Mr. Assad does step aside, what happens then? Syria will become another Islamic republic torn by different religious factions. Mr. Assad had offered the kind of governance that has taken hold in Turkey - a non-religious, democratically elected civilian government. Mitt Romney said that the US does not destroy countries, we build them up. But that is counter to what the US has done in Iraq. No one could argue that Iraq is better off today than they were prior to the US invasion.
So what do we now know after three debates? Well it can be safely assumed that most of the way the US works today will change little regardless of the next US president. Congress holds the keys and much of the country seems to be careening into conservatism. America may be headed into another middle ages of sorts. Our country may very well be headed into a time when science is devalued, minority rights move backward, and our country becomes more religious. Evangelists will be out en masse come November, that much can be guaranteed, because for them, as far as foreign policy goes, Islamization is grounds for war.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
If after the first two debates frustration with the two major parties is your overwhelming emotion, then you may be relieved to learn that options exist.
The folks at Politics1.com have assembled a comprehensive list of presidential candidates that fit each voters ideal characteristics for a candidate.
Perhaps neither Mr. Romney nor Pres. Obama have been strong enough in their feelings about abortion. There are candidates in favor and opposed. Find the party you're most aligned with and make sure they get your vote.
The Ku Klux Klan has a party (American Third Party) as well as several different socialist options. The difference between Pres. Obama's right-wing labeled "socialism" and some of these socialist platforms are fairly stark.
If Bible thumping's your thing, there's the Prohibition Party's Jack Fellure. As for policy, Mr. Fellure is "For : Making Homosexuality illegal. This will stop much of the AIDS plague."
The Romney/Ryan ticket has much to learn from Jack Fellure. It's one hell of a platform. As an evangelist, why vote for the Mormon Romney and Catholic Ryan when you could elect an authentic, 100% fundamentalist?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romney and Ryan Won't Name a Single Loophole They'd CloseThese are the largest expenditures:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2011/05/study-44-million-could-lose-medicaid-coverage-under-gop-plan.html
http://www.economist.com/node/21564175
10 Things Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan Don't Want Americans to Know | Alternet
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Then there's this guy. He must not have thought much about the flak Todd Akin faced. Or he just hasn't though much.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And yet another knuckle head for the biblists: Charlie Fuqua proposes to implement executions for rebellious and disobedient children. Nice.
No comments:
Post a Comment