Just Let Me -- G -- Indoctrinate You!

Tuesday, October 23, 2012

It's Peace Arguing with a False-Sense of Security Thing

Dear America,

As expected, it is dizzying the number of ways we could go with this this morning.  It's the Day After the third and final presidential debate.

One thing's for sure, old G is gonna attempt to take this slow and easy...kind of like our measured Mitt of last night, who began the evening with this:

"But we can't kill our way out of this mess.  We're going to have to put in place a very comprehensive and robust strategy to help the -- the world of Islam and other parts of the world, reject this radical violent extremism, which is -- it's certainly not on the run.  It's certainly not hiding.  ..."
Obama's first chance to respond went like this:

"Well, my first job as commander in chief, Bob, is to keep the American people safe,  And that's what we've done over the last four years.  We ended the war in Iraq, refocused our attention on those who killed us on 9/11.  And as a consequence, Al Queda's core leadership has been decimated..."

This is where Romney had an opportunity to go on the attack, but chose not to -- he could have immediately questioned all of what the president had just said, beginning with something like 'not all Americans have been kept safe, we just lost our first Ambassador to Islamic Extremists AND three others!, first time in like thirty years....even after he asked for reinforcements, even after your administration turned him down, even after the consulate had been attacked twice before....Bin Laden may be dead as you have made perfectly clear over and over again, even to the extent of "spiking the football" @ your convention... but Al Queda is alive and well, as we have clearly, horrifically, seen in the last few weeks."

NO.  He didn't go that way - - our measured Mitt.  He took the high road all night long, all the way home.

And more important, Romney never took the bait.

"Well, my strategy is pretty straightforward, which is to go after the bad guys, to make sure we do our very best to interrupt them, to -- to kill them, to take them out of the picture.  But my strategy is broader than that.  That's  -- that's more important, of course." Mitt
It wasn't long after this, the entire debate went south, in my humble opinion.

We arrive at the first sign of the core character of the man Romney was sitting next to ---

"Governor Romney, I'm glad that you recognize that Al Queda is a threat [oh you pompous ass], because a few months ago when you were asked what's the biggest geopolitical threat facing America, you said Russia, not Al Queda; you said Russia, it's the 1980's and they're now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War's been over for 20 years...you seem to want to import foreign policies of the 1980's, just like social policies of the 1950's and the economic policies of the 1920's...."

catty, petty, arrogant  and chock-full of disrespect.  It sounds like we've got Peace arguing with the False-Sense of Security in you, Mr. President.

And accordingly,  liberals far and wide this morning think this sort of performance should be rewarded; this is the kind of president and Commander-in-Chief they Like -- if the office of the presidency were a facebook page, his page wins.

"Well, of course I don't concur with what the president said about my own record....but I can say this, that we're talking about the Middle East and how to help the Middle East reject the kind of terrorism we're seeing, and the rising tide of tumult and -- the confusion.  AND -- and attacking me is not an agenda.  Attacking me is not talking about how we're going to deal with the challenges that exist in the Middle East...

...Excuse me.   [Russia] It's a geopolitical foe, and I said in the same -- in the same paragraph I said, and Iran is the greatest national security threat we face.   ..I have clear eyes on this. I'm not going to wear rose-colored glasses when it comes to Russia, Mr. Putin. AND I'm certainly no going to say to him, I'll give you more flexibility after the election..."

And you know what else, Romney wore the bigger Flag on the lapel, nana nana na na.

Sure.  I could go through the entire debate.  Page by page, zing by zing.

But long before sunrise, America imploded with 'horses and bayonets' -- what more is there to say on that?

We're totally beating a dead horse by now. badump ba


"Well, I'll be quick.  What you just heard, Governor Romney said is he doesn't have different ideas.  And that's because we're doing exactly what we should be doing to try to promote a moderate Syrian leadership and a -- an effective transition so that we get Assad out.  That's the kind of leadership we've shown.  That's the kind of leadership we'll continue to show."

So on a positive spin  -- didn't the president just say they are equally measured?

It's like Peace arguing with a False-Sense of Security.

Oh it doesn't matter.

In the end, the overall third impression left upon the voters is what stays with us.

And if we are keeping tabs -- in the aftermath -- Obama is said to have won in debate sputter and zings; but Romney won on behaving like a president.

Romney seemed relaxed (maybe too relaxed).  Romney held his tongue.   He was the one who kept taking the step back to look at the bigger picture.

Obama looked like he had daggers in his eyes.  He looked evil.  I can only imagine what this guy is like across the table from Bibi...especially that evening when he left Bibi hanging downstairs while he went up to have dinner with Michelle and the girls.

The thing is, Romney had a plan -- a strategy for the night, if you will -- and it wasn't exchanging jibes and swings below the belt all night long [and me thinks that's a pretty good omen for Romney's foreign policy of the future].

As much as many of us would have wished we were watching a pay-per-view, with Round Two of knock down drag out ringing our bells -- Romney selectively opted to take the road less traveled by politicians.  He chose the high road and simply gave the sitting president a night with all due respect. For the president, not so much.

For example, as Romney duly noted with regards to the Navy -- he said,

"The Navy said THEY NEEDED 313 ships to carry out their mission.  We're now at under 285....that's unacceptable to me."

we get from BO:
"You mentioned the Navy, for example, and that we have fewer ships that we did in 1916.  Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed...And so the question is not a game of Battleship, where we're counting ships."

I know, after just saying we didn't need to go 'horses and bayonets," I just did.  But what's one more comment on horses and bayonets, right?

Folks, just listen to the petulance, the snippy-ness, the grandstanding upon a remark from this president of ours...

It's like Peace arguing with a False-Sense of Security.

But this is where Romney had a chance to come back and come back hard, but he didn't.  He let it go.  Not out of weakness, but out of strength.   FACT CHECK:  The Navy said THEY NEEDED more ships -- it wasn't just something he thought of all by himself.  And that Battleship dig...really?  That says something more about Obama's sophomoric knee-jerk reaction, then one of a measured diplomat... black-hawk down.

And wait, there's more, only seconds later, from BO: "and you know, we visited the website quite a bit and it still doesn't work."  [referring to Romney's plug of his plan on the website]  ooooh burn....

Grow Up, Mr. President.

YOUR foreign policy is not working no matter how many times you say --

"...now that you have a democratically elected government in Egypt...."   yeah right.

"...I will stand with Israel if they get attacked...we have created the strongest military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries in history."  yeah right.

"...and so we decimated Al Queda's core leadership in the border regions between Afghanistan and Pakistan.."  yeah right.

"roads and bridges"

go teachers.

Oh my, and how enlightening the final thoughts on the night....

Included in Obama's, he says "and we've been through tough times but we always bounce back because of our character, because we pull together..."

On that note, perhaps you should stop asking for transcripts and get yourself a mirror.  Do you like what you see?  

Is the Obama we saw last night putting his best character forward?
How can he even speak character and keep a straight face after the way he acted?

After all, doesn't this behavior personify what we see as being wrong with Washington -- that being, the bitter partisanship that has blocked the possibility of real reform?   This behavior of the president just might explain everything.

Ugh.  How did we get here -- when the community organizer with NO foreign policy experience at all, when the guy who had to bring on Biden to give him substance on the subject (oh the irony) -- decides to chide and ride Romney all the way through?   Unbelievable.   Send away 'the crown' and bring me a leader.

Here's Romney --

"This nation is the hope of the earth.  We've been blessed by having a nation that's free and prosperous thanks to the contributions of the greatest generation.  They've held the torch for the world to see -- the torch of freedom and hope and opportunity.  Now, it's our turn to take that torch.  I'm convinced we'll do it.

We need strong leadership.  I'd like to be that leader with your support.  I'll work with you. I'll lead you in an open and honest way, and I ask for your vote.  I'd like to be the next president of the United States to support and help this great nation and to make sure that we all together remain America as th the hope of the earth."

Romney came in peace and left.... exhibiting it in every way.

And Obama, well as much as Obama wants to believe, what's happening in the Middle East is not the rise of democracy, all thanks to him.  This line pretty much says it all:

 "One thing I think Americans should be proud of, when Tunisians began to protest, this nation -- ME, my administration -- stood with them earlier than just about any other country."  

first, he sounds juvenile...we stood with them before anybody else; but second, it's that ME thing that gets me every time.

the third -- [just G, revisiting a little thing called Iran] "well, first of all those are reports in the newspaper. They are not true."

so there you go...  What I, Me, Obama got wrong is not true; what I, Me, Obama got right, is everything else, and as to Mitt, well, he just wants to copy me...[cue the tongue sticking out]

It gets down to who do you believe and trust more.

It gets down to who do you believe IS more presidential.

I believe that the entire night could be characterized as Peace arguing with a False-Sense of Security.
Good Job, Mitt.

But let's get back to this morning.

The reality is, as Americans, we must  not be feeling very secure in our commander-in-chief - - otherwise, our response to the debate last night would be more demonstrative; our natural, organic gut check this morning, from sea to shining sea, would be far more evident; our hearts would be at peace...  

...and it's not like that at all.

As a matter of fact, we wouldn't even of needed to watch the debate on foreign policy if we felt good about what's going on around the world;  we would have just watched the game, instead. But that wasn't the case, now was it?  We needed to be convinced, reassured, and told the truth for an hour and a half.  Not sure if we got that either.

Of course, as we are all well aware, there is a virtual tie going on between the two sides; our loyalties are in stone.

Thankfully, come November 6, independent thought and decision will reign. Hopefully, it is in favor of the only candidate who truly stands for self-reliance, independence, free enterprise, and peace...lots and lots of peace.

Make it a Good Day, G 

Need more feedback on the night?  Go hereOr here. Or here (yeah, you're right, this one is not like the others...but run with it anyway... free your mind a little.)

No comments:

Post a Comment