Obama laughed when Romney borrowed his famous bold expression, saying “look” followed by a brief pause before a declarative statement. The technique simultaneously interrupts the flow of conversation, dismisses the opponent’s argument (no matter how valid), and enshrouds the speaker in authority (no matter how absurd the statement that follows). It’s used as a verbal riposte in political sparring matches. Debates and interviews have become chess matches to see who can slam their opponent with a well-timed “look” statement. It’s all about the timing of your ‘looks.’ If I was cornered in a debate situation I would counter ‘look’ by shouting, “Smell!” just to ridicule easily-influenced listeners!
Willard “Mitt” Romney slipped up when he mentioned needing to fire his accountant because he didn’t receive a tax break for shipping plants overseas. Unfortunately, Obama’s political advisers wanted him to maintain likability instead of going on the attack. This allowed Romney to blast the president’s positions and trumpet republican ideals over democratic ones with all the usual arguments. He had the advantage in preparation and also in having studied the president’s typical explanations and arguments. Obama had less information about Romney’s plans, only some generalizations about contrasting Romneycare with Obamacare. And so, Romney had an easy job. He was coached to counterstrike President Obama’s every point and argument with rehearsed attacks, finishing with long lines of, sometimes off-topic, practiced speeches that disregarded the moderator and ran over time.
It seems Romney believes what he says and has genuine concerns and good-hearted, though not well-thought out, intentions. Obama seems genuinely concerned about the poor and those relying on government, believing in basic human decency and that for every 1 person taking advantage of the system, that there are 20 others who are hardworking.
I think the numbers for Romney would indeed show a boosted economy with more jobs. But jobs at what cost? He would open federal lands to the exploitation of oil and coal and logging companies, stripping our natural resources. We’d be on par with China’s toxic practices in a short time. The problem is that corporations further their own interests, which aren’t always horrible, but we should have protective oversights. For example, British Petroleum pursued profits to the detriment of safety. Sometimes this is understandable. They aren’t complete devils, they are a fulfilling their duty to their shareholders. However, the cleanup, not the bleeding vein of oil, was the real disaster. BP was interested in cleaning only one thing, their company image (to minimize profit loss). They threw some money at the problem with a mismanaged oversight of dispersing the funds. They also withheld information, looped video, shut out help from other countries who were willing to help cleanup. FEMA should have recruited help from our top scientists, geologists, and engineers. Emergency funding could have boosted our National Guard (and created some temporary government jobs). BP could have outfitted fishing boats with special equipment and paid out-of-work fishermen to assist with the oil cleanup.
The free market structure makes sense but, if left unbridled, classes would rapidly segregate and mega-corporations could strengthen partnerships to maintain monopolies in specific industries, applying a stranglehold to consumers and small business. I like Ron Paul’s ideas but they are too extreme to be accepted, although he would make the perfect president because congress would temper most of his actions and his principles would be brought into the conversation. Also, many programs need a transitional phase, instead of pulling the plug on everything. I think our military can be streamlined and smarter. When I was in high-school, people signed-up for the military mostly when they had no prospect for college or couldn’t expect an inherited position from a friend or family business. This works in some cases but shouldn’t our military recruit our best and brightest? Why can’t we monitor the world with satellites and drones and spies and conserve human life? Hostile areas can be bombarded with cruise missiles from afar. We don’t need our military men and women standing guard, policing locals, risking roadside bombs, suicide bombers, and snipers. Our war on terror is an ideological battle. You can’t change people unless you change their culture. A real attempt at this would require brutal Nazi-style tactics such as re-educating their youth, and destroying their culture and religion but these practices do not fit the American way.
Obama’s plan to recruit more teachers is more aligned with our future. The American working-class would gradually become specialists and technicians with higher pay. Manual labor and assembly-line work would apply to a smaller group of people such as the illiterate, mentally-handicapped, and documented illegal aliens. Romney’s plan to drop corporate taxes, tax imports (penalizing China), and eliminate entitlements would spike the economy in the short-term, but would set us back to an assembly-line America with more jobs at the cost of more pollution, less pay, employee rights and benefits, and general upward mobility. In short, he would cripple our future for his political gain. Romney would turn America’s working class into Mexico. The 47% would function as bottom-class worker drones to serve the elite.
