Annoyed In Ohio

          Okay, I'm officially annoyed with Romney after his VMI speech concerning foreign-policy. I look for a couple of things in a candidate, distinction and detail. What would they do differently and specifically what would they do differently. I get none of that with this guy.

          The differences between his positions and Obama's appear rhetorical rather than substantial. That's annoying. I guess he's doing well with people who don't know the facts of the matter, whose memories don't extend beyond....the last speech he made.

          Take, for example, Romney's criticism of Obama's mishandling of Iran. The President hasn't set a "red line". True. Setting a redline limits your options. What red line would you set, Mitt? The Israelis want a red line at a certain percentage of uranium enrichment, which they will have to guess has been achieved. The Neoconservatives want Iran to have no nuclear capability, military or peaceful. This is against the law, which doesn't really matter much if you're above the law. So what would you do, Mitt? In previous speeches, Romney said he advocates crippling sanctions, positioning our military for action if necessary, and keeping a military option on the table. These three things are currently the policy of the Obama Administration. Just pointing it out. I certainly don't agree with all of Obama's foreign policy choices, but he did put together an international coalition to levy the most crippling sanctions in history on Iran. Last week, there were riots in the streets of Tehran because their currency has lost half its value. The candidates in next years Presidential elections pledgeD that Iran will move towards a moderate and secular stance. Sounds like something might be working.

          So lots of smoke, but I can't find fire. Romney criticized Obama for failing to reconcile Palestine and Israel. He would do better but doesn't say how. Frankly, I don't think Moses, Jesus, Mohammed and Hillary (the US seems to always be in the mix)could reconcile that lot in six party talks.  Perhaps Romney could invite Bibi for a sleepover. In May, Romney called a two state solution unthinkable. How many supporters remember that? I guess its now thinkable. That boy has gained his mind.

          Romney is very skillful at creating an impression, leading the uninformed to a certain conclusion, of stating sharp differences and personal competence when none are visible. It will all work out, trust me is not a plan, Mitt. But he knows the conclusions he draws are not true. When you know you're lying and Bubba doesn't, I have a problem with that. Let the Bubba beware.

          Romney is drawing these distinctions to win an election. I don't care who is the best campaigner. I don't care who's great at winning the popularity contests we call elections. I care who will provide effective governance and leadership.

          Another annoying example, during the debate (I point out that I have avoided the details and mudslinging at both candidates in the past, but I'm in a slinging mood), Romney implied that $90 billion was wasted when Obama picked a few pet losing investments in alternative energy. The facts are that only a small percentage of this R&D money went into the fields of solar and electric cars. For instance, $30 billion went into cleaning up a polluted nuclear site. Billions went to clean coal research, which still doesn't exist. We do need to maximize domestic energy production and minimize dependence on foreign energy. However, the main reason Obama's a loser companies failed was not because of corruption but rather competition. Solyndra failed because the Chinese make solar panels cheaper than we possibly can, plus their accounting was goofy. Tesla didn't fail and still rocks.

          We are far behind the rest of the world in green energy. We need to be the head and not the tail. We need a breakthrough in solid-state hardware and battery power and other stuff that blows the world away. We need to dominate this market rather than play catch-up.

          Another debate example, Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare. Hear that, grandma? Vote for me. I'll put $700 billion back into Medicare. It is a fact that Obama took $700 billion out of Medicare in the Affordable Care Act, but he took this money away from the insurance companies. The law then puts $700 billion back into Medicare to keep it running for eight more years, and close the doughnut hole for seniors. This makes Medicare stronger and more sustainable. Mitt apparently wants to give $700 billion back to the insurance companies. Got that, grandma?

          Now I'm not a big supporter of Obama's leadership on healthcare reform. I have a memory. Obama asked Congress for only two things he wanted included to their Bill, and didn't get either of them. So much for Obama's contribution to Obamacare. I recall that Obama abdicated leadership on healthcare to Congress and it became a liberal feeding frenzy. That's also annoying. Plus this giant omnibus pig of a law sucks. That's what happens when insurance companies write your laws.

          So Mitt's solution to this giant omnibus pig of a law, which was based on Romneycare, which was based on Clinton's model, which was based on Nixon's model, which was based on Truman's model, which goes all the way back to Teddy Roosevelt (not kidding), is to have each State create their own Romneycare. That sounds efficient.

          And don't forget that panel that's going to get between you and your doctor, that panel that decides what treatment you get. Mitt made this last point three times during the debate. Spoiler alert....the fact is that this is an advisory panel, not a governance panel. It is against the law for them to prescribe treatments. Like other advisory panels, they look at an ocean of numbers and medical outcomes, and pick out efficient "best practices", and recommend these changes to Congress, which Congress may pass the changes or tell these guys to take a hike. So the fact is that rather than having too much power, these guys have no power. That's the law. Sorry, Sarah.

          So I'm not interested in how well Romney can run a race and win an election. I'm interested in distinctions and specifics, and until I get some, I will remain annoyed.