Voice of the Kingfisher speaks out …from a different perspective
by Elinor Montgomery
October 17, 2012
And what did we see last night in the second presidential debate, if not two very different men with two very different ideas for the role of government and the methods used to make it work? It has been my experience in games and sports alike that if one cheats or lies, that person is immediately disqualified. President Nixon did the honorable thing for the sake of the office and resigned upon being discovered at the heart of lies and a cover-up. But, then, he was a Republican and it seems Americans have developed a double standard, one for Republicans and another for Democrats, as dictated by the media.
It is okay for Democrats to blatantly lie to the people, such as President Clinton when he perjured himself and accused innocent women of lying, while, all the time, lying himself. Again, we have tolerated a Democratic President Obama, presently in the throes of massive cover-ups both at home in the operation of the Fast and Furious scandal and abroad in the events surrounding the terrorist attack on the American Embassy in Libya, in which the American ambassador and three American soldiers were killed.
It is a puzzle to me how any presidential debate, which results in one candidate blatantly lying about the facts in a deliberate attempt to deceive the public, can even be considered a credible candidate, not to say a winner of the debate. Yet, such was the case among the commentators who declared Obama the apparent winner. These included seasoned political pundits such as Brit Hume and Charles Krauthammer. Others called it a toss-up with the victory going to both sides.
Not all agree, including the LubbockOnlineBlog, which declared that Mitt Romney’s performance in this second presidential debate will not only keep up the voter momentum in favor of Romney, but will also accelerate his rise of popularity in the polls and his dominance in the swing states. The blog put forth the idea that though Obama prevailed in many areas of the debate, the results were, at best, a draw between the two men. Most importantly in the blog were the reported results of the Frank Luntz Focus Group on Fox News. This was a group of undecided voters, the majority of whom voted for Barack Obama in 2008, but after the debate last night, the vast majority of the group said they were now going to vote for Mitt Romney.
Frank Luntz and author and commentator Dick Morris agree that Romney won the debate and increased his favorability and momentum among voters. The Focus Group was specific in its support for Romney. Their remarks in describing him included words such as forceful, compassionate, presidential, confident, realistic, enthusiastic, our next president and ‘a dynamo winner’, all words used to describe Romney’s performance. Frank Luntz declared that the results of this test group were as dramatic this time as they were after the first debate when then, also, almost the entire group swung in favor of Romney.
Romney pointed most effectively to the dismal failure of Obama in almost every area of his policies, from unemployment and poverty, to Obamacare, tax policies and regulatory policies, all of which kept the economy from growing. Obama stated that he believed Romney to be a good man, yet he has accused him and his policies of wanting to throw granny over the cliff and of providing unclean water for the American people. He has accused him constantly, as he did last night, of being a liar. Which is it, Mr. President – a good man or a mean-spirited liar? You can’t have it both ways, or is that all just part of the lies and political rhetoric coming from the Left?
It is my belief that the key sentence spoken last night was by Mitt Romney when he advised his audience to look to the policies as opposed to the rhetoric. If one does so, one sees strong, firm, economic policies on one side of the political stage and a weak cover-up of failed policies masked in a sea of rhetoric on the other side. On one side of the stage, one sees a face full of vigor, with a strong desire to right the economic situation for the nation, while, on the other side one sees a long, dark face with unsmiling eyes, trying to convince the public that all is well in ‘la-la-land’, and there really is no economic problem, and no war on terror.
How is it that all can be so rosy while, at the same time, this lovely, imaginary situation is the result of Obama’s policies, which he recognizes to be a dismal situation because of former President George Bush’s policies? Which is it, Mr. President, have you transformed America into an imaginary Never-never-land, where the economy and jobs are growing, or is America still in economic pain with no jobs because of that mean and uncaring president called George?
Which is it? Is Obama a job creator and a solver of economic woes, or is he handicapped by Congress who is mean to him along with silent George, who is still responsible for the mess of the last four years? It can’t be good and bad at the same time. If George is responsible, then doesn’t that mean that nothing new has happened for which Obama can take credit? Which is it, Mr. President?
I saw two very different men in these debates. The President, with a morose-looking face, promised nothing more than the same, because he believes more time is all that is needed along with his policy of continuing to spend and increase the deficit as the solution for his failed policies. Opposite him stood an invigorated man with a pleasant countenance, chomping at the bit to put his policies in place, which have already been proven to produce jobs by creating successfully-run businesses and a successfully-run state government. He is asking for the opportunity to apply the same principles of success to the Federal government, as opposed to a man, asking the nation to hang onto a sinking ship, with the hope something will come along to save it by clinging to the principle of ‘hope and change’. Which one would you choose – the positive or the negative?
I believe Bill Clinton should have been removed from office for lying and trying to put one over on the American people with a cover-up at the same time. I believe that Barack Obama should be stripped of the Office of the President for the same reasons. To Clinton’s credit, he has bolstered up this president in speeches of support, all the while disliking the man and his policies. However, you cannot turn a pig’s ear into a silk purse no matter how hard you try.
Obama has lied, has cheated the taxpayers to reward his political supporters, has stolen the livelihood of many American families, has been the supporter of the illegals, as opposed to the legals, has lived the life of the rich and famous while Americans lose their homes and their jobs. He has become the master of blaming everyone but himself for the failure of this nation and its dramatic decline on the world scene as a world player, under his regime.
Will he find an excuse to escape the next debate? Will he even put ground forces in Middle Eastern countries in order to escape the coming election by declaring war? This president is capable of doing anything, and the sad thing is that he has been given a free hand to do so when he should have been dismissed from office months ago for over-riding the laws of the land and establishing a singular law for Barack Obama, the imposter and the liar.
How is it possible to call a debate between Mitt Romney and the illegitimate President a draw? It seems to me that the political pundits should take a good look at the results of both Frank Luntz’ Focus Groups of undecided voters to see that the public out there is much wiser in their choices when presented with the real person and not the media creation. Candice Crowley is part of that media, which has supported the lie and, true to her colors, did so again last night when, as moderator, she couldn’t resist throwing her support behind the lie to cut off the truth of Romney. Was it not possible for the committee responsible for the selection of the moderator to have done a little better job of providing an unbiased moderator who would have kept her biases to herself?
I find myself having to agree with Sean Hannity. There was ‘no contest’ last night, for it was over before it ever began; there was a wall of truth, separating the two men with one on the side where the tree of the knowledge of good and evil rules and the lie reigns supreme, and the other, on the side where the tree of life rules and truth reigns supreme. How is it even possible for engagement when there is such a separation between the two, and we are forced to compare lemons with apples?