Despite the chattering classes' verdict giving the win to Obama
last night, I feel all three players were less than stellar. Candy
wasn't dandy, although a Romneyite said she was. Obama
defended himself without offering specific proof (a bill number,
name of an act or an executive order, etc.) regarding his
administration's efforts to better secure student college funding.
On his record about achieving energy independence, again, no
easily verifiable facts put forward....just actions minus details.
How can anyone look up such claims? How, therefore, can
such claims be believed?
Believability is impossible with Romney, who changes his facts,
positions and passions as often as most of us change clothes.
It's one thing to change your mind after discovering more and
better evidence, quite another to do it as often as Romney has
lately. Remember that infamous '72 McGovern weather vane ad,
showing the wind blowing the weather vane back and forth,
implying McGovern was a loose cannon? The Democrats at
the DNC should produce the same piece, but with Romney's
None of the presidential debates since the League of Women
Voters stopped their sponsorship in 1988 have been legitimate
or of high-calibre professionalism. The LWV said then that
the Commission on Presidential Debates, a creature of both
the RNC and DNC, is a "closed-door masterpiece".
....A masterpiece of tragicomedic proportions. Shakespeare's
still right: "Life is a comedy to those who think, and a tragedy
to those who feel". Sadly, no one has bested the Bard.