When I thought about starting this "Vote Obama 2012" blog, I promised myself that it would concentrate only on the good and useful things that the president has accomplished, or tried to accomplish, during his time in office; and on what I saw to be his fair-minded approach to the country's problems, as well his substantial character and intellect. I have reached the point in my own thinking where a less "fair and balanced" approach is called for. With the Republicans working insidiously to stack the deck by manipulating the vote and exploiting the money advantage assured by their plutocratic supporters (now unleashed from any public accountability by Citizens United) it's becoming clear to me that a different approach is needed. We need to talk not only about Obama's strengths, but also about his opponent's all-too evident weaknesses.
Do you think, for example, that Romney's current "world tour" will score points? London, Israel, Poland. Not sure why Poland--given his propensity for saying the wrong thing at the wrong time, he may come up with a light bulb joke or two, I suppose. But seriously, after his dubious performance in the UK, he has a ways to go in establishing his international diplomatic credentials. He also has work to do in improving the image he projects on the television screen, where he seems to me insufferably smug. But perhaps that's just me.
He was at pains, on NBC this morning, to distinguish his campaign--all about "the issues facing this great country"--with that of Obama, who descends, he says, to personal invective. I have heard some uncomplimentary references from Obama's lips, directed at his Republican opponent; but they seem, frankly, rather mild and generally justified when compared with some of the insults sent his way. The Romney campaign resorts indiscriminately to words like "complete failure" to describe his presidency, his handling of the economic crisis, of social issues, of international affairs (the latter, incidentally, the issue where the polls give him the greatest credit.) There's a sustained and unrelenting attempt to cast a blanket of failure over everything the president has done, without mention of the fact that he has been stymied at every significant corner by a determined and implacable opposition to his smallest effort to move ahead.
From Romney, contrary to his protestations, I hear nothing by generalizations, unproven assertions and vague claims that he'll do a better job. From Obama I hear concrete plans, specific proposals, hard facts and reasoned arguments.
In a rather cowardly manner, I thought, Romney distanced himself in the NBC interview from his wife's Olympic aspirations for her horse in the dressage contest--this despite the fact that he has apparently used the animal to provide himself with a substantial tax deduction. I'm guessing that he prefers to downplay this association with an upscale, elitist, rather dandyish sport. It would be a different story, I'm sure, if she was entering a car in a NASCAR speedway race.
Is this all relevant? Is it fair game to point out the man's deficiencies? My own feeling is that it all goes to character, and that Romney has some serious gaps to bridge to demonstrate his qualifications for the Oval Office.
1 comment:
I'm assured that Romney will continue to shoot himself in the feet after his Olympic gaffe in the UK. His limited tour has pitfalls awaiting so it's likely to compare poorly with Obama's strong clear foreign policy. The largest issue that may turn the election may be his unwillingness to reveal his tax history. Mrs Romney recently told the press that "you people have seen all the tax information need to see." This is an attitude that separates them from us.
“Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored.”
Aldous Huxley wrote.
Post a Comment