Romney v. Obama—Round 1

The first debate was held last Wednesday night (10-3-2012) in Denver, Colorado.  That is, if you call it a debate.  Consensus is Romney trampled Obama and won the debate.  Yeah, he won, but not sure if a debate is what he won.  He won an aggressive speaking contest, kind of like an eating contest without the food.  As a Republican, I am happy for Mr. Romney.  Regardless which candidate is actually the better debater, the election must be a referendum on liberal vs. conservative policy and as I have mentioned in several blog articles since The 7 Train was launched in November 2011, the conservative way is America’s only option right now to avoid national bankruptcy.  But I have also said on other blog articles that America is a republic, or representative democracy, and who we elect to represent us and our stands on the issues is more important than the issues themselves.  That if we are going to get conservative legislation passed through a deeply divided congress, to which I have made clear they can only break up the divide with the consent of their constituents who elected them, we need a leader.  We gave Obama four years and though I am not at all critical of the man’s character outside the scope of politics, has demonstrated weakness as a leader, even to his own liberal constituency.  Mitt Romney has won over a large chunk of undecided voters with his war of words victory Wednesday night, but did not convince me he can lead conservatism to victory as this is not the time for cowboy democracy.

Both sides of the aisle agree the Obama plan, if implemented, can be fueled only by raising taxes and in particular, raising taxes on the middle class as raising taxes only on the rich will not generate sufficient revenue and will be counterproductive to job creation—and the penultimate conundrum associated with economic recovery is how do you get tax money from the unemployed?  The Romney plan calls for tax breaks to the middle class and taxing the wealthy more not so much by raising their rates, but by eliminating deductions so they actually pay full fare.  Make sense to you?  But a plan that makes sense is not good enough if it can’t be implemented; we [fellow conservatives] need a leader to get it through both houses of congress.  Mitt’s technique for winning the debate exposes probable weakness in leadership, and that concerns me.  If Obama is re-elected, one of two things will happen; we will get full-blown Obamacare, higher taxes, minimal job creation, and further doubling of the deficit potentially putting America in an irrecoverable state, forcing this great nation to declare bankruptcy, or simply the conservative block in congress will make him a lame duck, and the White House will be reduced (metaphorically) to a hillbilly shack where there is nothing to do but sit on the front porch and watch the deterioration.  Alas, fellow Republicans, we have to take a chance on Mitt Romney.  But Mitt has to demonstrate in the next debate he is capable of winning, or at least making a good impression playing by the rules with respect to time limits, not interrupting the moderator, and the like.  With respect to a recent contributor’s article on snake-oil politics, let me make one thing perfectly clear, whether or not the substance in that medicine bottle actually works or not is irrelevant if the salesman can’t sell it.

My advice to Mr. Romney is to approach the next debate cool as a cucumber, as it typically Obama’s style, but to speak the conservative gospel rather than the liberal one.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: