The overall impression I got from the rest of the debates was that, sure enough, we have politicians running for the nation's highest office. I don't think any of them are dishonest, as portrayed by their opponents. Well, maybe Paul Ryan is. Or maybe I just think that because I really don't like him. However, what they all repeatedly demonstrated is that they will cherry pick statistics and anecdotal cases to support their views. That's not a good way to make a strong logical argument, but strong logical arguments are not really what politicians do anyway. They want to present us with a vision of what they hope to accomplish. Preferably, a vision that distinguishes them from their opponents, but most importantly a vision that will attract a majority of voters.
Personally, I think that's awesome. I don't agree with the negative stigma attached to being a politician. It is irritating to hear candidates run on the "I'm not a politician" platform. Really? Not a politician? Are you sure you want us to hire you to do a politician's job? As if somehow "businessman" will do a better job at running the country? I can't imagine anyone accepting the converse - that perhaps a politician would do a better job running a company than someone with business expertise. That's absurd. As an aside, it's the primary reason I don't support term limits. Can you imagine being required to change professions after you've finally been in it long enough to become an expert?
So anyway, in my opinion the debates did exactly what they needed to do. They presented us with a vision. Winners & losers? Hard to call and probably influenced by subjective political beliefs anyway. What's important is that at the end of the debates, regardless of specific details about whatever plans the various candidates could propose we know basically the direction they're going on any issue.
Well, that and the debates were fun to watch. More combative. I understand that turns a lot of people off who would prefer to see a civil exchange of ideas. You know what though? This is a high stakes contest that is so much larger than just the two men on the stage. The candidates had better be willing to go to the mat for it. They each have of millions of supporters counting on them.
I've got to admit I mostly watch the debates for entertainment value. That's why I went to hear Joe Biden speak, why I went to see the President Thursday when he was here at Austin Straubel Airport. When my Mom was up she asked if I planned to go to any of the Republican events or hear any of the Republican candidates speak. "Why?" I asked. "Because you're a smart open minded individual who wants to know what they have to say," she answered. Well, yeah, okay. I like to think that about myself, too. The thing is, I already know what they have to say. Nothing any of the candidates said in any of the debates was a surprise. At least not if you've been following them for any period of time. I can't imagine they'd say anything I don't know about them at a rally event. But it's fun to watch, man. Big picture democracy in action. They're good speakers (something politicians have to be and businessmen don't, btw) and good speakers are wonderful to listen to. Unless what they say is sending your blood pressure through the roof. So yeah, I'll continue to stay away from Republican events.
What this election comes down to for me is two big issues.
(1) Obamacare. I like Obamacare. There may have been a time when adequate health care was a luxury, but we've come farther than that. One of the tag lines from Obama's first big DNC speech, like 8 years ago now, that really touched me was something along the lines of "It is a shame that in richest, most technologically advanced country in the history of the world people die because they can't get a pill they need. That's unacceptable."
I'm willing to believe Obamacare has flaws. I mean, it's legislation crafted by imperfect people compromising among each other to get something done. Obamacare moves us in the right direction, though. It can be modified as needed by future legislation. Within a market based system, I think it's about as good a solution to health care access as we're going to get.
It drives me absolutely bonkers to hear it portrayed as a government take over of health care. Hogwash. In fact, early in Clinton's administration when he was tackling health care reform and people were really concerned that a government take over was on the table, it was Republicans who proposed the individual mandate that is central to Obamacare. "We want health care coverage to remain in the market place, so let's just require everyone, by law, to participate in that market place and buy insurance." At the time it was Democrats who shot it down. "Are you serious? Give insurance companies carte blanche to hike rates as high as they want!? No way."
Turns out that it really can be done in the market place as long as there are good, reasonable regulations in place. It's what Romeny did as Governor. It's kind of funny to hear him go back and forth now on Obamacare being either an offensive government take over of health care or just a good idea that's more appropriate to implement at the state level. Politician, you know. Nothing wrong with the equivocation. The details of how his various statements fit together are less important than the overall vision. He wants to repeal Obamacare.
(2) Iran. Above all else I want to not go to war in Iran. I mean, I've got 3 sons age 13, 15 and 19. Our military has been through the ringer for a decade now. How unreasonable is it to worry about a draft? But you know, even if there is not a draft, every young man considers the military as an option. At least every young man in America that I've known has considered it and most of them at least talked to recruiters. I did. Jackson did. I will be surprised if Sam and Ben don't. I have real mixed feelings about that. I mean, I would be incredibly proud of my sons if they became soldiers. However, as a parent, it would be a nerve wracking choice to watch them make even if the country were at peace.
Regarding Iran though. Both presidential candidates say the right things they have to say about war being on the table, but being a last option to deal with the threat of a nuclear armed Iran. However, we have seen how Obama approaches international issues for four years now. I think it's the right way. I've read it described as "leading from behind". He builds coalitions of international allies acting together on common interests. I trust that Obama really will resort to war with Iran only as a final option. Just as importantly, if it does come to that, we will have a broad range of international support.
I can't say that about Romney. It bothers me that he's hired many of the same advisors Bush had when he took us into Iraq. I worry that the Project for a New American Century people haven't given up on their regional hegemonies vision and they've just adjusted in the Middle East. "Iraq hasn't turned out like we hoped. Maybe we should try Iran." Whenever Romney talks about Iran I hear the same drumbeat Bush was sounding as he built up popular opinion against Iraq. Maybe Romney really is serious about avoiding war with Iran if at all possible. But I trust Obama to do a better job at it.
My Dad and I actually have a bet riding on Iran. He thinks we'll be at war there within a year of the election regardless of who's elected. I think we will be if Romney is elected, but not Obama. I guess it's not entirely clear how the bet will play out in a situation like what if Romney is elected and we don't go to war . . . but the important thing is that next time my Dad and I get together we're going out for a steak dinner. We'll figure out who pays for it later.
So anyway. It's pretty clear that with those two issues being most important for me, Obama is my candidate.
