Mitt Romney won the first Presidential Debate walking away. It was such a blowout that liberal spinmeisters were left sputtering excuses and searching for explanations.
MSNBC’s Chris Matthews was feeling no tingles last night – not up his leg, not anywhere. “Where was Obama tonight?” he lamented after the debate. Andrew Sullivan observed, “this was a disaster for the president…and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.”
If Romney was at the top of his game, Obama’s performance was, to be charitable, lackluster. Is it possible that even he gets tired of repeating the same lame liberal talking points over and over again?
Romney has experience in the real world of business and finance, and it showed. Obama has a background in academic theories and “community organizing” – and that showed.
As opposed to lame liberal talking points, Romney’s points (mirabile dictu) actually made a great deal of sense. After four years of the Obama Administration I had almost forgotten what sense sounds like.
I liked a lot of what Romney had to say. I liked the way he really seems to understand how badly off so many people are. He said, “My priority is putting people back to work in America. They’re suffering in this country.” With Romney I don’t get the feeling that those are just glib statements meant to garner votes, but that they are heart-felt. He gets it: “Under the president’s policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They’re just being crushed” he added.
I liked the way he wants to make America energy independent. I am so sick and tired of sending petro dollars to the Muslims and Venezuela I can’t tell you. Romney said that he wants to make “North America energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs.” Again, I believe he means it.
I liked Romney’s test for whether a government program or agency stays or goes: “Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? …if not, I’ll get rid of it.”
I liked his respect for our founding documents and his clear-eyed understanding of what a free republic should be about.
Romney said near the end of the debate, “[ I ] believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a—a trickle-down government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working. And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is 1 out of 6 people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.”
I liked what Romney said last night. I liked it a lot – what he said made sense. More importantly, I believe he means it.
Born June 4, 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. Worked as a commercial diver in the waters off of Scotland, India, and the United States. Worked overseas in the Merchant Marines. While attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student in 1998 was presented with the “Carol Burnett/University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award,” 1st place undergraduate division. (The annual contest was set up by Carol Burnett with money she won from successfully suing a national newspaper for libel). Awarded US Army, US Navy, South African, and Russian jump wings. Graduate of NOLS (National Outdoor Leadership School, 1970). Member of Mensa, China Post #1, and lifetime member of the NRA and UDT/SEAL Association.
Jim can be reached at:
Pursuant to Title 17 U.S.C. 107, other copyrighted work is provided for educational purposes, research, critical comment, or debate without profit or payment. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for your own purposes beyond the 'fair use' exception, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. Views are those of authors and not necessarily those of Canada Free Press. Content is Copyright 1997-2017 the individual authors. Site Copyright 1997-2017 Canada Free Press.Com Privacy Statement