So apparently declaring Obama the winner of the first Presidential debate is about as bad as me declaring Virginia Tech the winner of their game against UNC (just in case you missed it...they were not).
By most accounts, Obama was shellacked, hammered, eviscerated, devastated, destroyed, smacked-down, swatted about, obliterated. In a CNN poll, some 67% of respondents gave the first debate to Romney while a mere 25% said Obama did better. The only thing it looks like I got right, as I noted repeatedly during my liveish blogpost, is that Jim Lehrer had a really awful night has moderator.
First, let me say this: I will not be blogging livesh during another presidential debate. Clearly I did not do it during the VP debate, which I didn't even watch. It's fun to do a stream of consciousness kind of thing for the occasional soccer match and it worked out okay during the two party nomination acceptance speeches during the GOP and DEM campaign conventions. But the debates are just too long, too fast paced, and a wee bit too dull to really blog about live. In short, I didn't enjoy myself, and as this blog is still a labor of love it doesn't seem worth doing again.
But the one thing the first debate did do was help me solidify my choice for this November. A lot of you probably saw this coming, but I think I can say with a good deal of confidence that I will be voting for Obama, and I will be doing so for the following reasons:
1. Romney has, so far, not arrived at the gate of my place of employment with a dozen fresh (not fundraiser) donuts. Nor has he engaged the elegant Anne Hathaway to do it for him. The offer still stands: If Romney meets me personally at the gate of Newport News Crackerjack Factory with a box of fresh Krispy Kreme donuts, or if he sends Anne Hathaway in his stead in any state of dress or undress, I will vote for him.
2. Whatever I think about Obama as a leader (and that is, honestly, not much) I find myself agreeing with him on most matters of policy. The only thing I think I agree with Romney on is entitlement reform with regards to Social Security and Medicare, but I don't know if I agree on the mechanism. From a purely self-interested standpoint I also stand with Romney on military spending because my job depends on it (Newport News Crackerjack Factory is the Navy's leading supplier of top quality crackerjack); but if you pressed me I would probably say that our military doesn't have to be so large, though if we are looking to downsize we need to seriously re-think our role in the world. As big as our military is, it may not be big enough to do everything we ask of it.
But otherwise on most things I tend to agree with Obama, especially the government's role in creating a sort of equality of opportunity, Obamacare, and his plan to reduce the deficit. Though I would also admit that on any plan to reduce the deficit, I think Romney is more likely to actually carry it out.
3. On social issues, which were not touched on in the last debate, I know that I agree more with Obama than I do with Romney.
4. One thing that wasn't mentioned either in the last debate -- or really at all this campaign season, save a blip during Obama's presidential nomination acceptance speech, was Global Warming. I did mention during Obama's speech that I have my doubts on the issue. But I didn't have the chance to explain what I meant.
On the underlying science behind the theory I have no doubts. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. Human activity is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and that would increase the overall global warming effect (an effect that is necessary to sustain life on our planet, by the way).
I also believe (with one reservation, which I will touch on) that over a span of maybe the last 150 years or so we have seen global average temperatures rise at a relatively rapid rate. The climate is undoubtedly changing in many ways.
The question for me is one of cause and effect. Are the increased greenhouse gasses responsible for increased temperature? If they are, to what degree (ha ha ha!)? Or is it just nature running its course? After all, ice core records show that there have been similar temperature fluctuations in the past. Is there a problem with data due to the urban heat effect, and the shutting down or more rural weather stations? These are the questions I find myself asking at this point, and I am not sure they have been adequately answered.
And no, these are not simply objections raised by Michael Creighton in his book State of Fear (though he does raise them); I'm actually making an effort to, very slowly and in my few moments of spare time, learn more about the problem. This is just where my reading and thinking takes me for the present moment. It is just one reasonably educated man's opinion, but it has been thought out.
With so many questions, the answer is not to stick one's head in the sand and say that Global Warming is not happening and there is nothing we can do about it. Rather, I think we need to aggressively study the problem and start to think about ways we could either live with climate change or curtail it somehow. Obama is much more likely to do something like that than Romney is, I would say, though sadly I think he still isn't very likely to do it.
I would also note that this is the thought that initially started to solidify my support for Barack Obama. I am not a single issue voter, but I think that climate change is a very important matter that requires more investigation. Obama is more likely to agree with that. Maybe Romney is too, but its something he writes down in his Hello Kitty Book of Shame every night before he goes to sleep and shares with no one
5. To vote for Romney validates the strategy of the right wing media (it is out there, I assure you, for all the talk of the media as a liberal juggernaut) and some Republican law makers to make Obama a one term president, a goal they have had in mind since day one of the Obama administration. It feels to me in many ways that the 2008 election never actually ended.
To send Obama packing would not only give them the glory, but it would also encourage the Democrats to do the same thing to Romney. The current state of politics is disastrous, and I do not want to see the cycle continue as it has. I want to send Obama back the white house not with a clear mandate to whatever he wants, but rather with a message to both parties that its time to start, you know, actually governing the People of this Republic.
So there you go. My vote, probabably for Obama.
No comments:
Post a Comment