THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: DID HE WIN ON SUBSTANCE OR STYLE?

Did you listen to the debate between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? If not here is the video. Since there is a substantial difference between what the candidates are selling, you will probably find it worth your trouble.

Alternatively, you can either listen to the debate or read the transcript here.

What did I take away from the debate? Because Socialism cannot work, Romney won on the substance. Here is what Romney said about the role of government.

The role of government — look behind us: the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The role of government is to promote and protect the principles of those documents. First, life and liberty. We have a responsibility to protect the lives and liberties of our people, and that means the military, second to none. I do not believe in cutting our military. I believe in maintaining the strength of America’s military.

Second, in that line that says, we are endowed by our Creator with our rights — I believe we must maintain our commitment to religious tolerance and freedom in this country. That statement also says that we are endowed by our Creator with the right to pursue happiness as we choose. I interpret that as, one, making sure that those people who are less fortunate and can’t care for themselves are cared by — by one another.

We’re a nation that believes we’re all children of the same God. And we care for those that have difficulties — those that are elderly and have problems and challenges, those that disabled, we care for them. And we look for discovery and innovation, all these thing desired out of the American heart to provide the pursuit of happiness for our citizens.

But we also believe in maintaining for individuals the right to pursue their dreams, and not to have the government substitute itself for the rights of free individuals. And what we’re seeing right now is, in my view, a — a trickle-down government approach which has government thinking it can do a better job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it’s not working.

And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is one out of six people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work. (from here)

Why is any other role for government unacceptable? Well, consider what Romney offered as his first criteria for cutting government spending.

What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test — if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. “Obamacare” is on my list. I apologize, Mr. President. I use that term with all respect.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I like it.

MR. ROMNEY: Good. OK, good. (Laughter.) So I’ll get rid of that. I’m sorry, Jim. I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I’m going to stop other things. I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for it. That’s number one.  (from here)

Think about the sheer idiocy of loading our children and grandchildren under mounds of debt. What for? So they can watch Big Bird on PBS? Yet that is only the half of it. Consider what Romney did not say. The power to tax entails the power to destroy. It means you are willing to confiscate people’s property or send them to jail if they do not pay.

Are you willing to send people to jail to pay for Big Bird and Jim Lehrer’s salary? If not, then by what right are we forcing people to pay taxes for these programs? Just how many government programs do justify violence when people refuse to pay up?

That’s the root problem with Socialism. In order to make Socialism work, Socialists must throw those of us who oppose them into prison, or they have to kill us.

So what will happen in the next debate? We will see what we are already seeing. Biden will tell us (and then Obama in the last two debates) just how hateful Romney and Ryan are –what liars they are — for opposing their Utopian plans.

When people give up on logic, they resort to violence. That violence begins in character assassination.

About these ads

About Citizen Tom

I am just an average citizen interested in promoting informed participation in the political process.
This entry was posted in 2012 Election, Mitt Romney, President Barack Obama and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to THE FIRST PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: DID HE WIN ON SUBSTANCE OR STYLE?

  1. lowlyw says:

    Looks like George Romney painted your background image. Let’s hope Mitt is a Paine.

    Like

  2. Lyn Leahz says:

    Oh my goodness..you went to my awards page, which is a mess! LOL I have all my photos there I use for my webpage linked to! or ones that I was going to use or have used..I’m so embarrassed! I thought no one would ever see that! ;-)

    Like

  3. Lyn Leahz says:

    You know the BIG secret! ;-)

    Like

Comments are closed.