Falling Short: Obama Again Fails to Reveal Mitt the Monster

[sysop]

US President Barack Obama's performance in Tuesday's debate was much improved, but he continues to miss the target. Even as his campaign ads attempt to paint challenger Mitt Romney as a cold-hearted capitalist, Obama allowed Romney to present himself as Mr. Average. This opens a door of opportunity for the Republican challenger.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...-a-861751.html

I refuse on every level to see anything serious in this two-party charade. They are like two puppets behind a light-screen hitting each other over the head.

[Guitta Dabe]

1) Obama's biggest problem is not that his record "is mixed", it's that it's awful. That's the reason why he needs to resort to calling Romney a monster. Based on Obama's record of failure, all Romney has to do is present himself as a reasonable alternative.
2) It's difficult to characterize someone as a monster when that person has been contributing 30% of his income for many years to charity.
3) In the US, calling someone "rich" is not automatically an insult. We tend to admire people who have achieved, especially if their their wealth was earned, not inherited. Romney has successfully built businesses, saved the Olympics games, and was a governor of a state that had more than 80% of its legislators from the other party (he obviously had to be effective working with his political opponents). He's not perfect, but his is an enviable record of success.
4) It is not Romney who will divide Americans as the author suggests, it is Obama who already has. He has made black people hate white people, has told hispanics that Republicans are their enemies (on Spanish radio), and has demonized a huge percentage of the electorate during the last 4 years. The list includes but is not limited to: insurance companies, doctors, bankers (difficult to remember the word without the qualifier "fat cat"), rich people (top 1%, "millionaires and billionaires", Republicans, George Bush, the whole fossil fuel sectors (yes, that does include oil, gas, and especially coal), the private sector, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular, Israel, those who criticize Islam, et. Based on this record, it's amazing that he might still win!

Originally Posted by Guitta Dabe

1) Obama's biggest problem is not that his record "is mixed", it's that it's awful. That's the reason why he needs to resort to calling Romney a monster. Based on Obama's record of failure, all Romney has to do is present himself as a reasonable alternative.
2) It's difficult to characterize someone as a monster when that person has been contributing 30% of his income for many years to charity.
3) In the US, calling someone "rich" is not automatically an insult. We tend to admire people who have achieved, especially if their their wealth was earned, not inherited. Romney has successfully built businesses, saved the Olympics games, and was a governor of a state that had more than 80% of its legislators from the other party (he obviously had to be effective working with his political opponents). He's not perfect, but his is an enviable record of success.
4) It is not Romney who will divide Americans as the author suggests, it is Obama who already has. He has made black people hate white people, has told hispanics that Republicans are their enemies (on Spanish radio), and has demonized a huge percentage of the electorate during the last 4 years. The list includes but is not limited to: insurance companies, doctors, bankers (difficult to remember the word without the qualifier "fat cat"), rich people (top 1%, "millionaires and billionaires", Republicans, George Bush, the whole fossil fuel sectors (yes, that does include oil, gas, and especially coal), the private sector, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular, Israel, those who criticize Islam, et. Based on this record, it's amazing that he might still win!

Still, when campaigns cost too much money, it makes it seem that your qualifications for president are good business sense, when being good at business and making money do not entail good leadership. A poor person could be bad at business and only have a small savings, but have better leadership and diplomacy skills. That is the flaw of the American elections, that materialism is considered the limits of understanding and accomplishment. Hence, almost every president fails to fulfill promises that they make prior to elections, Obama as well.

These institutions like the Oil Bloc and Catholic Church are not really humanitarian organizations. At one time the Catholics backed the homicidal Croatian regime and embraced Ante Pavelić, who regularly received gifts from the Ustashi of baskets filled with Serbian eyeballs that had been plucked fresh as Dalmatian oysters from innocent women and children. All of which the Catholic church was aware of. And even though Croations started the Bosnian war, we in the USA still protected them against the Serbians. Germany even armed former Ustashi members. Are we really the bad-guys in the West?

[jas88]

Obama's fundamental problem here is reality. As a candidate, he could promise the earth: he had almost no track record to judge him against, yet.

"He blasted the Republican candidate for promising a tax model that can't possibly work." By Obama's own figures, Romney's plan is 20% from break-even before taking office; Obama, four years on, is a long way short of that.

"He accused him of criticizing China even as he has been active in the country as a private investor." Allegations of hypocrisy which are damaged when you learn Obama's own Illinois pension is also invested in China!

"And he attacked him for trying to attract female voters even as he intends to treat them unfairly on the labor market." Which bit does Obama disagree with? Trying to attract female voters, or treating them unfairly - as he does, with women in his White House being paid on average substantially less than men?

He won in 2008 on vague promises to be bi-partisan - then took office and greeted the Republican leaders with the words "I won, you didn't" - to cut the deficit - having called a $400b deficit "unpatriotic" on the campaign trail, before breaking the trillion dollar mark himself - to close Guantanamo ... in short, he is running against his own string of broken, empty promises, and that would be a tough fight whoever ran against him.

Yes, Romney has an expensive horse - which competed for America in the Olympics this year. Yes, he pays little tax - because he gives so much money to charity instead. Romney is rich, because he is successful in business; Obama was in debt and living far beyond his means until he got his hands on the nation's finances to fund his billion-dollar indulgences, flying around in his personal 747.

If there is a "monster" in this race, it isn't the one who declined the government salary and worked for free for years, giving vast amounts of his own money to charity.