Is He Presidential?

October 22, 2012 at 9:54 PM 2 comments

The third and final debate is over.  Now, we simply wait for the proverbial “fat lady” to sing, I guess and that comes in about 15 days.

Well, what happened tonight?  Did Romney win?  Did Obama win?  Was it a draw?  Did they both lose?

First, I did not see the entire debate.  I came in at the second half.  Before I go any further, there are likely plenty of videos available of the entire debate or even snippets, but the entire transcript is available here and all quotes below are taken from that URL:

Immediately after the debate, the pundits began taking things apart and awarding imaginary points, determining who won.  Most gave points to Obama for “aggressiveness,” while awarding points to Romney for being more “presidential.”

Supposedly, there are people out there who refer to themselves as “undecided voters.”  Really?  What is that, a scam to get to be on television?  That’s what it appears to be to me.

And by the way, what IS it with those morons who gather around a television camera while some pundit is interviewing someone else?  They are so enamored with the fact that they can see themselves on a monitor.  They look like absolute idiots.  I hate it when news shows have live human beings behind them simply staring at them, or making hand signals so the camera can see, or laughing with one another, or receiving or making a phone call.  Get a life!  But I digress…

Charles Krauthammer essentially stated that while he would have hammered Mr. Obama with respect to Libya, he understands why (he believes) Romney did not do that.  In the end, Krauthammer said that Romney went large, while Obama went very small, even petty at times.

I think the reason for Mr. Obama’s aggressiveness was due to the fact that he was on the defensive, even though there are likely many who will believe and stated that Obama put Romney on the defensive.

Overall, Mr. Obama really offered nothing new and in fact, it is clear that he needs a teleprompter because when in doubt, he went back to some of the same points that he made in attacks against Romney during the second debate.  These were not only responded to by Romney but fact-checking proved that the assertions that Mr. Obama made against Romney simply were not truthful.

I was a bit appalled that Mr. Obama interrupted Mr. Romney, even saying (as he had done in the second debate) that the statements Romney had made were untrue.  Obama did this while Romney was still making his case.  Arrogance does that.  Respect for another does not engender this type of pettiness and unfortunately, Mr. Obama in attempting to present himself as aggressive may have proved to be more childish than anything else.

As usual, Mr. Obama spoke in platitudes and ideals.  He rarely gave specifics.  For Romney’s part, there were times during the debate where he seemed lackluster and not emotionally involved.  Yet, when he did nail Mr. Obama on several cogent points, he nailed him well.

An example of the platitude that Mr. Obama presented is when he stated, “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.”  This is a platitude because Mr. Obama does nothing to back that statement up, but simply and apparently expects people to believe it because he said it.

He went onto say that he believes Al Qaeda’s “core leadership has been decimated.”  That is seriously debatable and in fact, there are plenty of acts of terror continuing throughout the world on a daily basis.  Al Qaeda are like a home infested with cockroaches.  You kill a few of them, and many are back in the shadows waiting for their turn.

One of the things that Mr. Obama seemed to excel in during tonight’s debate (aside from speaking in platitudes) is attacking Mitt Romney on petty things.  Romney stated at least twice that Mr. Obama attacking Romney is not a plan.  What people want to see and hear from Mr. Obama is a real plan that will be used to cut the deficit and iron out our foreign policy.  If we as a nation are weak, then it really doesn’t matter what our foreign policy is like and that seems to be the model that Mr. Obama has been using.  Though he stated that trying to come up with a plan of workable sanctions against Iran is “meticulous,” the truth of the matter is that neither Mr. Obama or anyone else has truly played tough with Iran.

President Ahmadinejad has said countless times that his country will not stop until Israel is blown off the map.  There has never been any real tough talk from Mr. Obama, much less tough sanctions that have crippled Iran, or even put them in their place.

Romney scored a few points as far as I’m concerned by pointing out that Mr. Obama went on an apology tour shortly after he took office.  He traveled around the Middle East, stopping in Egypt and several other Arab countries, but willfully ignoring Israel.  This – as Romney pointed out – said something to those Arab countries and the Islamic Mullahs.  It said that they needn’t worry about America.

Another platitude Mr. Obama offered was when he stated without equivocation, “America remains the one indispensable nation. And the world needs a strong America, and it is stronger now than when I came into office.”

Mr. Obama likes to say these things as talking points because they sound good and his followers will blindly nod their heads in agreement without really thinking about what Mr. Obama has just said.  While Mr. Obama went on to say that “we ended the war in Iraq, we were able to refocus our attention on not only the terrorist threat, but also beginning a transition process in Afghanistan.

“It also allowed us to refocus on alliances and relationships that had been neglected for a decade.”

This is simply a talking point, but there is nothing to back up what he states.  Obama went further to say, “But what we also have been able to do is position ourselves so we can start rebuilding America, and that’s what my plan does. Making sure that we’re bringing manufacturing back to our shores so that we’re creating jobs here, as we’ve done with the auto industry, not rewarding companies that are shipping jobs overseas.

“Making sure that we’ve got the best education system in the world, including retraining our workers for the jobs of tomorrow.

“Doing everything we can to control our own energy. We’ve cut our oil imports to the lowest level in two decades because we’ve developed oil and natural gas. But we also have to develop clean energy technologies that will allow us to cut our exports in half by 2020. That’s the kind of leadership that we need to show.”

Mr. Obama made similar statements during the second debate, especially concerning the oil production here at home, etc., and they were proven to be false then and they are still false.  Apparently, Mr. Obama believes that by simply repeating them, they will become truth.  Romney was correct when he pointed out that Federal oil digging permits were down since Mr. Obama took office.  That is true.  The Obama administration has essentially cut them by more than half.  The U.S. is not controlling its own energy.  More coal mines have been shut down under Obama.  The Canadian/American pipeline has been stymied by Obama.

Again, these are talking points; platitudes.  They sound good but they bear no real fruit at all.  Why?  Because they have no real substance.

But the truth remains that Mr. Obama has his record of nearly four years and now he is (again) talking about creating jobs.  People have seen what he has done and what has been accomplished under Mr. Obama’s leadership and millions of people cannot find work.  Millions of others have stopped looking.  But now, close to four years later, Mr. Obama believes that people will come to understand that he is all of a sudden interested in creating jobs in America now that he has allegedly solved problems in other parts of the world through his foreign policies?

But Obama also says that he really wants to cut the deficit.  This is the same man who added nearly $6 TRILLION to that deficit in less than four years.  He now all of a sudden says he wants to cut it.  Why should we trust him?  We’ve seen what he has done and it has put our nation at terrible risk.

Romney, earlier in the debate, stated, “Former chief of the — Joint Chiefs of Staff said that — Admiral Mullen said that our debt is the biggest national security threat we face. This — we have weakened our economy. We need a strong economy.”

The debt grew to the current level under Mr. Obama.  He spent as much money as possible, giving millions and billions to “green” companies that have gone belly up.  He has not shown any real leadership or even the know-how to get our economy started and going.  He has thrown good money after bad and it has made the United States extremely unstable economically.  The world knows and understand this.

There were times throughout the debate where Mr. Obama simply attacked Romney without facts and unfortunately, Romney could not address them all, especially with Bob Scheiffer wanting to move things “forward.”  Mr. Obama stated that Romney’s small business policies simply do not work.

But, Governor, when you were in Massachusetts, small businesses development ranked about 48th, I think out of 50 states in Massachusetts, because the policies that you are promoting actually don’t help small businesses.

“And the way you define small businesses includes folks at the very top. And they include you and me. That’s not the kind of small business promotion we need.”

Immediately after this, Mr. Obama began talking about education, deriding Romney’s record there.  Romney wasn’t able to respond to the comments regarding small business policies, but he did speak to the charges Mr. Obama made regarding education.  He stated, “You know, under my leadership, what we’ve done is reformed education, working with governors, 46 states. We’ve seen progress and gains in schools that were having a terrible time. And they’re starting to finally make progress.”

This is just absolute garbage.  Both my wife and I have been involved in public school education.  Under George W. Bush, there was such a thing as “No Child Left Behind.”  Teachers unions hate it because it makes teachers accountable.  Mr. Obama extended this program.  But what’s happening now?

My wife works with an educational consulting company – has for a number of years.  What do they do?  They go into school districts that are in danger of being taken over by the Federal government and they first, audit what’s going on in the classrooms and then work with administrators and teachers to try to fix those problems.  The money comes from the Federal government to pay for the work that my wife does.  However, that has begun to seriously dry up in many parts of this country.

When my wife goes into one of these districts across America, she is normally met with teachers who are completely resistant to what she is trying to help them accomplish.  Many teachers do not attend these “mandatory” meetings.  On some occasions, she has been “grieved,” which means that the teachers complain to the unions about her (or others working with her).  Teachers complain about having to actually prepare lesson plans or – God forbid – turn them in to allow their administrators verify that they are done.  Now fortunately, this is not the way every school handles the situation.  Many willingly do whatever needs to be done because it’s ultimately for the students and the teachers want their students to learn.  They want to know what they are not doing correctly and how to correct it.

Mr. Obama really has nothing to do with this, except that he extended a program that began under his predecessor, George W. Bush.  The most tragic part is how many school districts throughout the United States are in danger of being taken over by the Feds because of severely low test scores.  It’s tragic and it still exists.  Even though money in some areas is drying up, more and more school districts need the type of auditing and accountability that my wife and her colleagues bring to the table, all for the purpose of helping teachers teach better so that students can learn better and more efficiently.  The gains that districts are making are being seen now because the process started when Bush was president.  My wife has been working with numerous school districts for more than four years.  But Mr. Obama would like to take credit for that.

Of course, another lie that Mr. Obama focused on was where he stated (again) that Romney has a $5 TRILLION dollar tax cut.  Romney doesn’t have that, but again, Mr. Obama apparently believes that if he states it enough times, it will become truth.  Think about it.  In less than four years, Mr. Obama has added $6 TRILLION dollars to the national debt.  According to Mr. Obama, Romney is planning on cutting $5 TRILLION dollars in tax cuts.  Does that make sense to you?  Does that make sense to anyone besides the Obama administration?  Even I know that cannot be done.

On another occasion, after explaining his position on Iran and Israel and noting what the Obama administration’s posture has been, Mr. Obama responded with, “Nothing Governor Romney just said is true, starting with this notion of me apologizing. This has been probably the biggest whopper that’s been told during the course of this campaign. And every fact checker and every reporter who’s looked at it, Governor, has said this is not true.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Obama, it is true.  Romney responded with, “Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because you went to the Middle East and you flew to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and to Turkey and Iraq. And by the way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend in the region, but you went to the other nations.

“And by the way, they noticed that you skipped Israel. And then in those nations, and on Arabic TV, you said that America had been dismissive and derisive. You said that on occasion America had dictated to other nations.

“Mr. President, America has not dictated to other nations. We have freed other nations from dictators.”

Mr. Obama is the first president that I’m aware of who went to Arab nations and bowed before their leaders.  He is the first president I’m aware of that has said that America has been arrogant.  He is the first president that I’m aware of who has stated that America is no longer a Christian nation.  That is debatable of course, but the truth of the matter is that by simply making that statement without noting our Judeo-Christian history, the entire dynamic origin of this country is eradicated in one swell swoop.

It has been clear what Mr. Obama’s attitude toward Israel has been and Romney rightly pointed out that even those in Mr. Obama’s own party (38 Democrats) sent him a letter urging him to repair the damage of a broken relationship with Israel.

Mr. Obama tried to pound Romney on the auto industry stating, “If we had taken your advice Governor Romney about our auto industry, we’d be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China.”

Aside from the fact that the point is extremely petty, it’s simply not true and I’m glad Romney was able to respond to it.  He stated, “But the president mentioned the auto industry and that somehow I would be in favor of jobs being elsewhere. Nothing could be further from the truth.

“I’m a son of Detroit. I was born in Detroit. My dad was head of a car company. I like American cars. And I would do nothing to hurt the U.S. auto industry. My plan to get the industry on its feet when it was in real trouble was not to start writing checks.”

Here is an interesting part of the transcript where again, after making a point, Mr. Obama calls Romney a liar.

OBAMA: Governor Romney, that’s not what you said…


OBAMA: Governor Romney, you did not…

ROMNEY: You can take a look at the op-ed…


OBAMA: You did not say that you would provide government help.

ROMNEY: I said that we would provide guarantees, and — and that was what was able to allow these companies to go through bankruptcy, to come out of bankruptcy. Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet. And the idea that has been suggested that I would liquidate the industry, of course not. Of course not.


OBAMA: Let’s check the record.


ROMNEY: That’s the height of silliness…


OBAMA: Let — let — let’s…


ROMNEY: I have never said I would liquidate…


OBAMA: …at the record.


ROMNEY: …I would liquidate the industry.


OBAMA: Governor, the people in Detroit don’t forget.


ROMNEY: …and — and that’s why I have the kind of commitment to ensure that our industries in this country can compete and be successful. We in this country can — can compete successfully with anyone in the world, and we’re going to. We’re going to have to have a president, however, that doesn’t think that somehow the government investing in — in car companies like Tesla and — and Fisker, making electric battery cars. This is not research, Mr President, these are the government investing in companies. Investing in Solyndra. This is a company, this isn’t basic research. I — I want to invest in research. Research is great. Providing funding to universities and think tanks is great. But investing in companies? Absolutely not.

Mr. Obama was trying to assert that Romney wanted the auto industry to go through bankruptcy without the government providing any help.  Romney said the industry should go through bankruptcy to “remove excess debt,” but also said they could receive help in the form of guarantees, etc. from the government.  He wasn’t saying he would leave the industry high and dry.

I agree with Romney that Mr. Obama’s remarks were the “height of silliness” and Mr. Obama will be shown as being wrong.

As the debate wound down, Romney again pointed out the record of Mr. Obama’s first term.  It’s abysmal.

The closing comments of both men were interesting.  The bottom line and real question is which individual appeared to have a handle on what he would like to accomplish in the next four years and which individual appeared to be more presidential?

Romney came out with facts and even though he appeared to be tired at times, really didn’t give an inch to Mr. Obama when he tried to back Romney against the wall.  Mr. Obama’s aggressiveness might better be classified as someone who appears desperate because he has a lot to lose.

In the end, though the liberals will say Mr. Obama won last night’s debate, he did not win it on substance but on demeanor if that demeanor is seen as aggressiveness.  Romney won on quality of responses.

But all of this is moot really because it will boil down to who actually wins the election in about two weeks’ time.

Entry filed under: 9/11, alienology, Atheism and religion, Barack Hussein Obama, Barry Sotero, Communism, Demonic, dispensationalism, Eastern Mysticism, emergent church, Gun Control, Islam, Islamofascism, israel, Judaism, Life in America, Maitreya, new age movement, Posttribulational Rapture, Pretribulational Rapture, Radical Islam, rapture, Religious - Christian - End Times, Religious - Christian - Prophecy, Religious - Christian - Theology, Romney, salvation, Satanism, second coming, Sharia Law, Socialism, temple mount, Transhumanism, ufology. Tags: , , , , , , , .

Media is At It Again…KPHO Benghazi and the Lies the White House Has Told…


  • 1. Sherry  |  October 22, 2012 at 10:43 PM

    Great debate assessment, modres. I could not believe that Obama used the same ol’ tired lines from the previous debates and his campaign. The “whopper of a lie during this campaign” was not Romney’s mention of the Apology Tour but Obama’s continued mention of the $5 trillion in tax cuts. Do any one of Obama’s yes men let him know when he has spoken amiss? I wonder…

    • 2. modres  |  October 23, 2012 at 9:38 AM

      That’s a good point you make, Sherry. The $5 TRILLION dollar tax lie is one of Mr. Obama’s biggest. It’s ridiculous that anyone believes that.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 7,646 other followers

Our Books on Amazon

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 836,030 hits

%d bloggers like this: