Mitt

Another presidential election is nearly upon us and it is bringing out the worst in our electorate.  Perhaps Plato was right when he suggested that democracy was the child of oligarchy and would only work if every elector were a philosopher.  Given that some people are voting for the President because he gave them free cellphones, I think it's safe to assume that not every elector in this election is a philosopher.

Watching and listening to debate is both entertaining and frightening.  The one casualty of the discourse appears to be reason, as most discussions deteriorate into namecalling, shouting, talking over the top of one another and crazy analogies that have little or no relation to the topic at hand.  And I'm not even referring to the presidential debates.

Go on XM Radio and find a politically-slanted station.  On the Left, the discussion -- if it can be called that -- is downright stupid.  When you have the likes of Al Sharpton leading the charge, that's bound to happen.  But he's not alone, almost proving Plato's point.  The Right, although somewhat better in tone, has its Sharpton's, denigrating callers and hanging up on them.  It's shameful and hardly paints us as leaders of democracy.

But radio isn't alone.  Television is enlightening more for the omissions than the commissions.  The major networks -- ABC, NBC and CBS -- glaringly omit any mention of the attack in Benghazi that, if you watch Fox at all, has all the makings of a Watergate-like scandal.  Fox, meanwhile, is virtually apoplectic about the lack of attention the story's being given and demanding answers from the White House.  But supporters of Obama are indifferent to this media hypocrisy and their opponents' anger, to the point that Jay Leno joked about an inexpensive Halloween costume being to wear a Re-Elect Obama button and call oneself a journalist.

Social media is another eye-opener.  Again, given the virtual courage the ethernet provides, some will go out and thump their chests until either facts or numbers get in their ways.  One savant tried to defend the White House's handling of the Benghazi attack by holding up the mother of one of the murdered SEALs who criticized Romney for politicizing the issue.  When confronted with the interview the father of the other murdered SEAL gave to Fox, he disregarded it because it holds no truth.  When asked what exactly held no truth (The attack? The AQ connection? The deaths of the SEALs? The father's grief? Or the fact that Fox is reporting this story?), he engaged in a favorite tactic, tergiversation.  He never answered the question.  But he remains steadfast in his opinion that nothing untoward can be ascribed to the White House's handling of the Benghazi attack, and he's probably unpersuaded to vote for the President.

What's troubling about this is that political debates or discussions are little about sharing information or persuading the other side and a lot about shouting loudly and belittling one's opponents.

In 2000, I wasn't impressed with either George W. Bush or Al Gore.  I thought Bush was stupid and Gore knew anything.  What resolved the issue for me was that Bush knew he wasn't the brightest person around while Gore never gave me the feeling that he didn't think he wasn't always the brightest person in the room, and I loathe know-it-alls.  I hoped Bush would surround himself with smart people and he largely did that, although there were some notable failures and Dick Cheney turned out to be a far different Dick Cheney than the one who had advised Bush Sr. 

That being said, I am voting for Mitt Romney.  I'm not wild about him, but the other ticket scares me for a variety of reasons.  To get one issue out of the way quickly, Joe Biden is positively moronic.  If Osama Bin Laden said that they should take out Obama because that would leave us with Biden as POTUS, that automatically made him smarter than more than half the American electorate.

President Obama's big mistake, I feel, was in putting healthcare first.  The most pressing need facing the country when he was voted into office was economic.  That he chose healthcare over jobs shows me his judgment is flawed.  Perhaps he was trying to affect his legacy.  Perhaps he was playing politics.  Whatever his motivation, it was the wrong choice.

The President also chose wrong in putting so many resources into renewable sources of energy.  I agree completely with the notions of solar and wind energy.  But $90M???  And then to have several of those companies go belly up?  Again, his judgment flawed to some degree.

The little-noted meeting at the nuclear summit, the President told Russian President Medvedev to wait until after the election, when he would have more flexibility.  That is astounding to me.

Whereas former President Bush was rightly mocked for his speaking gaffes, President Obama is given a pass.  Not here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_AAMa_X2dM&feature=related

The Benghazi snafu is still unfolding.  It's too soon to know for sure what happened.  But what bothers me as a citizen is that the President and his minions are dragging their heels, obfuscating all the way, about what really  happened and what they knew prior to the attack.  That they didn't know everything all at once is forgivable, but what is unforgivable is to attempt to deceive the electorate by flaunting a story that they knew had no basis in reality.

In watching the debates, I was stunned by the lack of presidential bearing that Obama brought.  In the first debate, he was sorely unprepared.  I don't know if he was bored or simply underestimated Romney -- whom he had stated was known to be a good debater -- but if he's unprepared for a debate that could be instrumental in his reelection, what does that say again about his judgment?  How is he going to judge enemies of this country?  How will he estimate Iran when it has nuclear capabilities?  That's worrisome.

But what shocked me was the absolute rudeness with which the President treated Romney in subsequent debates.  I understand the notion of being more aggressive after the dismal showing in the first debate, but to interrupt repeatedly, misrepresent and condescend...I expect better from my President.  The President should be held to a higher standard.  He's an elected official.  He shouldn't behave as if he's on social media.

Romney may turn out to be no better than either Obama or Bush.  But at this point, he's a change.  This country needs a new direction.  I don't believe the president possesses the requisite judgment for the job.  I don't believe he's surrounded himself with quality advisors.  And he's made too many mistakes to ignore.

(c) 2012 The Truxton Spangler Chronicles