... Mr. Romney won because he actually knows what he’s talking about, because he has a superior vision and program for America, because he’s bright, articulate, experienced, and energetic, a proven leader, and a decent, honest man who appreciates America’s founding principles (individualistic, free-market), and as president, would at least try to re-apply some of them. I’ve explained my views on the Romney-Ryan ticket at greater length in another essay at Forbes. But Mr. Obama, in contrast, is nearly the reverse of Mr. Romney, in all these key ways. The opposite of Romney’s many achievements and virtues can be found, I think, in Obama’s many missteps and vices. For me, this is mostly about substance, not style.
........
Mr. Obama has emotional, left-leaning convictions, and for most of his upbringing he was steeped in leftism, but mostly he’s hollow at his core; he relies on others to craft his speeches and remarks, which he can deliver only by teleprompter. In public he tends to address only adoring, supportive crowds (or reporters), and then counts on whipping them up with populist, rich-bashing rhetoric and hate speech; whenever his more incendiary and offensive material surfaces before a broader audience, he is bailed out, papered over, or excused by media sympathizers. The key to his debate loss, she concluded, is that he suddenly had none of the things which he had come to rely on so heavily – no remarks written out for him by others in advance, no teleprompter, no boisterous and adoring crowd, no biased moderator or media contingent on stage, willing and able to bail him out or prop him up. Had he deployed his usual repertoire of race-baiting, envy, class warfare, or rich-bashing he would have looked simply crazy. He had to stand there fully exposed and completely himself – a cypher, facing a superior man and candidate.
..............
No matter what pain his policies cause or what dreams they crush, Obama thinks he’s all about ‘fairness.’ He pretends that he’s the nation’s sole advocate of justice – of what he calls ‘social justice,’ which is, in fact, brazen injustice, since it entails taking from each according to ability and giving to each according to need.”
.............
forbes.com |
