While many liberal political pundits were clamoring for President Obama to have a decidedly more impressive showing last night than his seemingly uninterested attitude at the prior debate in Denver, voters in Tampa and across Florida learned three key points about both candidates that will help determine the outcome of the November 6th Presidential election:
Candidate Barack Obama vs Candidate Mitt Romney
1. It is abundantly clear that side-by-side, candidate Mitt Romney has more ‘Presidential’ qualities than the incumbant Obama. Romney was relaxed, organized, focused in thought and in speech and answered more from his heart and less from scripted one-liners.
Unfortunately, however, after 180 minutes over the first two debates, American voters witnessed two entirely different characters in Barack Obama : first, the bored and flagrantly annoyed version who, when challenged by Romney, appeared arrogantly “put-out” to have to answer for his record in his first term, and in most cases didn’t bother to even challenge or address Romney’s many persistent attacks on Obama’s lackluster results.
The 2nd version of Obama, as seen last night, was an angry, hostile version that smiled rarely, interrupted often and refused to confront the realities of the consequences of his policies, even when politely asked by the town hall participants. Obama’s default response in various forms blamed George Bush and Republicans, while taking credit for socializing health care and providing billions of dollars in funding to several now-bankrupt alternative energy companies run by 2008 campaign donors, and calling for more investment in such failed enterprises.
2. While Mitt Romney has an action plan to turn around the circumstances of our economy consisting of several points, of which include creating jobs, reducing dependence on foreign oil, balancing the federal budget and repealing socialized medicine, President Obama appears instead to be adamant about unilaterally focusing on dividing the nation into ‘have’s’ and ‘have nots’ by continuing to vilify the very job and wealth creators whom America depends on for employment (entrepreneurs, business owners,etc) and instead insisting on sticking to his plan for ‘leveling the playing field’ and demanding that those with more, share more of their income and wealth with those who have less.
Unfortunately, Obama’s own actions don’t mirror his expectations for wealthy American taxpayers to shoulder a greater financial burden by turning over a larger percentage of their personal income. Currently, over 60% of the taxes collected by the IRS are taken from job creators and economy builders, yet Obama believes and continues preaching that it should be more.
However, when given the opportunity to share his own personal fortunes, he could stand to learn from Mitt Romney. In 2011, Romney gave nearly 30% more of his own personal income to charity than Obama, and Paul Ryan gave more than 300% more to charity than Vice President Joe Biden. Clearly, when given the opportunity to give without requirement from the IRS, Romney and Ryan set an admirable example for both Obama and Biden to follow.
3. Most troubling from the debate last night was the question focused on the terror attack in Benghazi on September 11, 2012. Prompted by the question raised from an audience member, Mitt Romney carefully and respectfully outlined the details and timeline of events as it relates to how the Obama administration handled the dissemination of information related to the attack, while President Obama categorically lied about the factual and proven details recorded since then.
While all of the details have yet to emerge, it appears Obama and his administration have a major problem on their hands regarding their handling of this issue and the murders of American citizens. Below are two scenarios that could possibly represent what really happened immediately following the attack, and neither are appropriate responses:
~Scenerio A: Hillary Clinton & President Obama truly were provided inaccurate information about the attack as they claim. As early as September 12, 2012 several media outlets (including CBS NEWS) indicated that the incident in Benghazi appeared to be a deliberate, planned act of terror, at the same time Clinton and Obama continued escalating the story that there had been a “peaceful demonstration that had spontaneously turned violent because of a reported video produced by an American disparaging the muslim faith and relevance of the prophet Mohammed.”
Obama continued promoting this story repeatedly to the U.S. media and even mentioned it multiple times in his address to the United Nations, going so far as to empathize with the attackers purported ‘outrage’ and went on to apologize to muslims for the insensitive nature of the video and lack of tolerance it showed. Not until 14 days later, did Obama indicate with certainty that this incident was indeed a terror attack, well long after imbedded media sources had already made that clear.
~Scenerio B: After being provided information regarding the attacks in Benghazi, someone in the administration made the decision to attempt to cover up the attack in an effort to minimize the impact that such an attack on 9/11 would have on the appearance of Obama’s foreign policy and failed relationship building efforts in the middle east over the past 3 years.
As we know today, some 35 days later, the attacks and murder of innocent American’s on 9/11/12 in Benghazi were deliberate, planned and executed with no challenge from those who would normally protect such interests, as their earlier request for added protection was denied by Clinton, and added to the unfortunate consequences that day.
With less than three weeks until the November 6, 2012 election, both candidates have little time to re-tool their platform, and will instead work to strengthen their core base of supporters and attempt to reiterate their strategic direction for the United States to those undecided with a final push of political ads and the 3rd and final debate.
All things considered, candidate Obama’s demeanor, strategy, policies and three years worth of disastrous results both domestic and abroad have given voters more than enough reasons to fire him next month and choose a new President and path for America.
Ira Pickett 