With Election Day couple days away, Republican nominee Mitt
Romney seems poised to become the next President of the United States. A largely
unfavorable image of the incumbent was etched into the minds of once-undecided
voters following Barack Obama’s abysmal debate performances; his seemingly
assured victory was called into question. Those who already demanded his removal
from office, be it in response to his failed economic policies or equally
disheartening stance on civil liberties,Load the precious minerals into your mining truck and be careful not
to drive too fast with your heavy foot. finally seem vindicated. The warnings
that Obama’s enthusiasm and courageousness were the result of a teleprompter,
once brushed off by Democrats as nonsensical, are finally being accepted as
fact.
When viewed in combination with the latest major political scandal, this administration’s mishandling of the recent embassy attack in Benghazi (which despite what the government claims was very obviously just that—a terrorist attack, from the start), it is hard to make a strong argument in favor of granting Barack Obama four more years on the taxpayer’s payroll.
Republicans believe this is proof that they need to be given control over the presidency, and it is to their benefit that the public has largely forgotten that they abused and disrespected the same office during the eight years George W. Bush was in the Oval Office. It is possible, given how unpopular Barack Obama has apparently become in recent weeks, that their claims could be viewed with some degree of credibility; however,Our technology gives rtls systems developers the ability. Mitt Romney is hardly an inspiring figure.
Though the former Governor of Massachusetts undoubtedly appeared to be the more presidential figure during the debates, many of his views, particularly those that pertain to foreign policy, are dreadfully misinformed. His support for the rebels in Syria, a large portion of which are jihadists who seek to remove Assad from power in order to implement what will undoubtedly become an even more repressive and dictatorial regime, shows an inability to comprehend world history or a complete lack of foresight. History repeats itself; the revolution in Egypt, once hailed by Western pundits as a great triumph of democracy over oppression, has secured power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Though we have seen that the Arab Spring typically does little more than replace pro-American despots with anti-West tyrants, Romney highlighted the supposed success of the Egyptian uprising as evidence we should aid the Syrians.
His erroneous belief that people who are given the ability to vote will always support “peace,” as was stated during the televised debates, is just not true.Western Canadian distributor of ceramic and ceramic tile, Democracy has never bred passivism,A wide range of polished tiles for your tile flooring and walls. which has been proven time again by the behavior of post-Soviet Russia and even the United States. The fact of the matter is that even if the majority of the public opposes war, as they usually do, the decision to actually engage in armed conflict is out of their hands. If Romney’s logic held true and voters inevitably supported peace over war, the fact of the matter is he could never be elected.
That’s not to say Barack Obama is any better when it comes to ending violence abroad. The president who used drones to kill and maim civilians, engaged in an unconstitutional war in Libya and scaled back on civil liberties domestically can hardly be positioned as the “peace” candidate, though that is how his starry-eyed supporters continue to market the Obama/Biden ticket.
The debates were nothing more than two pro-war, neo-conservative candidates trying to defend their belief that the United States needs to become more heavily involved in international affairs, despite the fact it was our meddling that gave rise to Osama bin Laden, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and dozens of other anti-American bogeymen. Obama and Romney are more than happy to distort these facts and ignore well documented history in an attempt to convince voters they represent something new and patriotic.
Why then, if he was consistently wrong on history, economics, and foreign policy, is Romney’s debate performance touted as a monumental moment in the campaign? How could a largely scripted “debate,” where not a single controversial issue (the NDAA, the failure of NAFTA, the humanitarian crisis on the West Bank, to name a few) was even briefly addressed be praised as evidence of an inevitable Romney presidency? Because voters were only allowed to hear Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and someone doesn’t need to be particularly impressive to win a two-person debate; they just need to be the better arguer. Anyone would have seemed spectacular against President Obama’s failed track record and lethargic live performances. In this case,If you want to read about buy mosaic in a non superficial way that's the perfect book. Mitt Romney just happened to be that “anyone.” Romney expressed the same views during the Republican primary debates, but was widely dismissed by the Tea Party as a phony, uninspiring moderate. Why? Because he had to compete with more voices, some of which were substantive and thorough.
When viewed in combination with the latest major political scandal, this administration’s mishandling of the recent embassy attack in Benghazi (which despite what the government claims was very obviously just that—a terrorist attack, from the start), it is hard to make a strong argument in favor of granting Barack Obama four more years on the taxpayer’s payroll.
Republicans believe this is proof that they need to be given control over the presidency, and it is to their benefit that the public has largely forgotten that they abused and disrespected the same office during the eight years George W. Bush was in the Oval Office. It is possible, given how unpopular Barack Obama has apparently become in recent weeks, that their claims could be viewed with some degree of credibility; however,Our technology gives rtls systems developers the ability. Mitt Romney is hardly an inspiring figure.
Though the former Governor of Massachusetts undoubtedly appeared to be the more presidential figure during the debates, many of his views, particularly those that pertain to foreign policy, are dreadfully misinformed. His support for the rebels in Syria, a large portion of which are jihadists who seek to remove Assad from power in order to implement what will undoubtedly become an even more repressive and dictatorial regime, shows an inability to comprehend world history or a complete lack of foresight. History repeats itself; the revolution in Egypt, once hailed by Western pundits as a great triumph of democracy over oppression, has secured power in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. Though we have seen that the Arab Spring typically does little more than replace pro-American despots with anti-West tyrants, Romney highlighted the supposed success of the Egyptian uprising as evidence we should aid the Syrians.
His erroneous belief that people who are given the ability to vote will always support “peace,” as was stated during the televised debates, is just not true.Western Canadian distributor of ceramic and ceramic tile, Democracy has never bred passivism,A wide range of polished tiles for your tile flooring and walls. which has been proven time again by the behavior of post-Soviet Russia and even the United States. The fact of the matter is that even if the majority of the public opposes war, as they usually do, the decision to actually engage in armed conflict is out of their hands. If Romney’s logic held true and voters inevitably supported peace over war, the fact of the matter is he could never be elected.
That’s not to say Barack Obama is any better when it comes to ending violence abroad. The president who used drones to kill and maim civilians, engaged in an unconstitutional war in Libya and scaled back on civil liberties domestically can hardly be positioned as the “peace” candidate, though that is how his starry-eyed supporters continue to market the Obama/Biden ticket.
The debates were nothing more than two pro-war, neo-conservative candidates trying to defend their belief that the United States needs to become more heavily involved in international affairs, despite the fact it was our meddling that gave rise to Osama bin Laden, the Ayatollah Khomeini, and dozens of other anti-American bogeymen. Obama and Romney are more than happy to distort these facts and ignore well documented history in an attempt to convince voters they represent something new and patriotic.
Why then, if he was consistently wrong on history, economics, and foreign policy, is Romney’s debate performance touted as a monumental moment in the campaign? How could a largely scripted “debate,” where not a single controversial issue (the NDAA, the failure of NAFTA, the humanitarian crisis on the West Bank, to name a few) was even briefly addressed be praised as evidence of an inevitable Romney presidency? Because voters were only allowed to hear Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, and someone doesn’t need to be particularly impressive to win a two-person debate; they just need to be the better arguer. Anyone would have seemed spectacular against President Obama’s failed track record and lethargic live performances. In this case,If you want to read about buy mosaic in a non superficial way that's the perfect book. Mitt Romney just happened to be that “anyone.” Romney expressed the same views during the Republican primary debates, but was widely dismissed by the Tea Party as a phony, uninspiring moderate. Why? Because he had to compete with more voices, some of which were substantive and thorough.
没有评论:
发表评论