The outcome of the first presidential debate has been historically important. (Remember, I don't watch the debates themselves.) Spinmeisters are probably correct when they say this is the first time President Obama has gone in front of so many potential voters without the protective force field set up by his adoring fans in the news media.
I'm not for either candidate. The great Quotemeister of the Internet, Edward Frey, found a quote (see his 12 October 2012 post) from Business Insider pointing out that Ben Bernanke has not been mentioned yet in either debate. How careless of them! Yea right. The only solid reason for voting for Romney is that he has said he won't reappoint that narco-Keynesian clown.
But what Romney has completely failed to do is come out with both guns blazing about breaking up the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. From George Will today we have:
Speaking of inexplicable and regrettable policy, why do Romney and the Republican Party in general think that 'All war, all the time' is a vote-winner? Do they still think this is six months after the Twin Towers fell and the American people are solidly behind any act of revenge aimed at the Muslim world? When are they going to get it through their heads that a solid majority of Americans are sick of being lied into useless wars?
Thus it would be good for the Republican party in the long term if Romney's opportunity were lost because, in the second debate, he sounded like a George W. Bush-era, neocon warmonger. Perhaps only a disaster like this would break the neocon choke-hold on the GOP once and for all.
I'm not for either candidate. The great Quotemeister of the Internet, Edward Frey, found a quote (see his 12 October 2012 post) from Business Insider pointing out that Ben Bernanke has not been mentioned yet in either debate. How careless of them! Yea right. The only solid reason for voting for Romney is that he has said he won't reappoint that narco-Keynesian clown.
But what Romney has completely failed to do is come out with both guns blazing about breaking up the Too-Big-To-Fail banks. From George Will today we have:
It is inexplicable politics and regrettable policy that Romney has, so far, flinched from a forthright endorsement of breaking up the biggest banks. This stance would be credible because of his background and would be intelligible to voters because of its clarity. As the campaign reaches what should be a satisfying culmination, they would be astonished by, and grateful for, the infusion of a fresh thought into the deluge of painfully familiar boilerplate. Having tiptoed close to where Fisher [ed., the president of the Dallas branch of the Federal Reserve] stands, Romney still has time to remember Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s axiom that, in war, all disasters can be explained by two words: “Too late.”George Will put it mildly. What the American people really want to vote for is someone who promises to send the Too-Big-To-Fail (TBTF) CEOs to the guillotine.
Speaking of inexplicable and regrettable policy, why do Romney and the Republican Party in general think that 'All war, all the time' is a vote-winner? Do they still think this is six months after the Twin Towers fell and the American people are solidly behind any act of revenge aimed at the Muslim world? When are they going to get it through their heads that a solid majority of Americans are sick of being lied into useless wars?
Thus it would be good for the Republican party in the long term if Romney's opportunity were lost because, in the second debate, he sounded like a George W. Bush-era, neocon warmonger. Perhaps only a disaster like this would break the neocon choke-hold on the GOP once and for all.
Comments
I do agree the big banks need to be broken up!
If you can catch Ross Perot's interview, it might be worth your while.
What do I say? I've heard the Democrats accused of many things, but of believing in individual freedom? That's a new one!
In a way I agree with you about the Democrats in the White House: they are less likely to start a major new war. I dislike the party on everything else.
Yes, the democrats support individual freedoms. The problem is that it costs a lot of money to do so.
You have your religious fundamentalists having a very strong impact on the Republicans these days. Bible thumpers and that is their evidence to deny all human expression. If they had their way, everyone would live the straight and narrow, obey all authority, and behave themselves. This conformity ensures them a predicatable world, the masses uneducated and ignorant, and thus easy to control.