Editorial
Why Obama Must Win in 2012
Well … He said he’d create 12 million jobs within the next 4 years. How would he do it, we wondered? He said he’d do energy and then also crack down on China and outsourcing [what??] and some other things that got lost in translation. And guess what? The pundits and many writers online and in the main stream press seemed to give him a pass.
It seemed as though Mitt Romney had slipped them his plan – completely bypassing the audience and those voters who might want to see something on paper. And even his tax plan – something that seemed to shift all over the place – was an apparition. Obama called this whole thing ‘sketchy,’ and this attack – delivered in the form of a question to Romney about non specific business plans and strategies – seemed to resonate.
By the end of the night, although the pundits said that Gov. Romney had an economic plan [supported by the majority of those who watched the debate], it just seemed as though making the case over and over again that he’d create jobs was enough to convince people that somehow, the Romney Plan is going to magically transform the economy.
But this is where the pundits are at fault. Why are they effusive in not calling out this lack of detail? Yes – CNN’s fact checkers tried to show that the Romney plan was not as clear as Obama’s. However, the pundits – those who were supposed to be a little more knowledgeable than the rest of America – basically seemed to affirm that Romney had a plan. And if these pundits say something, there is a chance that people will believe that there’s sense behind those faces.
The simple fact is this: Pundits are American. They are either progressives or conservatives. They either want Obama to win or would like to see Romney try his hand at the White House. There are so many good reasons for either man to be taking the ultimate oath in January next year.
America is a strong country that, in spite of disparate ideology can survive either political party. At the debate, Obama made a strong case for the middle class – including many immigrants. Romney made a case for 100 percent of America. Coincidentally, The Economist run a cover story on True Progressivism: The New Politics of Capitalism and Inequality. Simply, it was like listening to Mitt Romney make a case for compassionate conservativism. Rational as this article tried to sound, true progressivism cannot come from capitalism or from conservative principles. True progress for most of the people has to come from no where else but from the people themselves. Filtered and influenced as he might have become over the years, Obama made the better case for most of these people. Mitt Romney was as specious in his arguments were delivered.
And the pundits? Well … Most tried to hold back their enthusiasm for the president’s message. Others tried their best to hide the disdain they held towards the president and were angry that Mitt Romney’s performance was wanting. Of course, Fox News went its own private direction: Their pundits said Romney won the second debate against the president simply from talking about a plan that was curiously soft on details and about how most of us would benefit from his leadership. That is why Obama must win.
Dennis Matanda
Editor – [email protected]
