Wednesday, October 17, 2012
You Don't Have to Settle
I thought last night's debate was pretty much a draw. Obama started off strong, but after about forty minutes, Romney was clearly getting under his skin. He looked petulant for the remainder of the debate.
Obama's response on Libya was a demonstrable falsehood, as anyone paying the slightest bit of attention to the murder of Ambassador Chris Stevens well knows. The debate schedule is working to Romney's favor: the final debate is on foreign policy. With each passing day, the terrorist attack in Libya and the Obama administration's incompetence and obfuscation of it looks worse and worse. Romney will have ample opportunity to make that point next week.
Of course, most voters are focused on the economy. Libya, however, is Exhibit 2 in why this administration needs to go.
I hope that in the next debate they use podiums. I found the stalking around the stage off-putting. That moment when the candidates got in each other's faces was uncomfortable to watch.
The selection of questions was tilted to favor Obama.. (Pay equity? Really?) But as Republicans, we're used to that.
Romney had the best line of the night: You don't have to settle. It summed up the mediocrity and incompetence of this administration, and the patheticness of its so-called recovery It reminded Americans that we can be great - it evoked American Exceptionalism in a way that was Reaganesque. Romney and Ryan need to hit that theme relentlessly between now and the election.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Neel - I accidently deleted your comment when I went to publish so am cutting and pasting it here:
The next debate will in fact have podiums; the walking around is a quirk of the town hall format.
I'm curious why you think pay equity is a silly or liberal-slanted question? Perhaps as a liberal I just can't see it, but to me as long as a question is phrased in neutral language, it can't play favorites. If the conservative view on a given topic is unfavorable (and thus the question is liberal-biased), well, perhaps they should reconsider their position, no?
In response to Neel's comment, let me say that I felt the selection of the equal pay question was Candy's way of giving a soft ball to Obama to shore him up with women voters, who have been leaving him in droves. I do not condone discrimination based based on sex (or anything else). However, the reason it was a silly question and the reason it has not been an issue in the campaign is that there is no pay gap between unemployed men and unemployed women. The focus has to be on getting all people back to work who want to work. This is as true for women as it is for men. Given that more women now go to college and graduate schools, the market will address the glass ceiling and disparate pay problems.
While yes, unemployed men and women are in the same boat, and getting the economy on track is important, we've already addressed the issue plenty.
Women's pay is not a self-correcting problem. The issue is not simply one of education, as you believe that more women going to college and grad schools will address the pay disparity. The truth is that women are currently paid less than their male counterparts when they both do the same work. This already corrects for the relative dearth of women in upper level jobs because we are talking about men and women doing the same jobs.
While the glass ceiling *may* correct itself, the pay issue has to be addressed legally. Sexism, ageism, racism...none of these are acceptable reasons to deny someone fair work and fair pay.
Neel, I appreciate the comment. I agree with you that sex, race, age and so forth are not an acceptable reason reason to pay someone less for doing the same work. In fact, the women in the Obama White House make 18 percent less than their male counterparts. That is not acceptable.
Post a Comment