The Debate: Before the Storm

[monk222]

(Source: Sully's dish)

* * * *

2155

The storm happened and it just about wiped away Obama's campaign. Obama phoned in his performance and allowed Romney to shake up that Etch A Sketch as often and as freely as he pleased. I think Romney succeeded in putting this albatross of an economy back around the president's neck, while painting himself as a white knight coming to the rescue rather than another version of Dubya and the Ayn Randian Republicans who have put us in this mess. So, Obama does not have a cake walk to the next inaugural. We have a contest.

Comments

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

This isn't really from the debate, which actually has yet to start, but this seems like a good place for the campaign funnies.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.

There are two more debates left. I have experienced many times the feeling that Obama just isn't in it, that he's on the ropes and not fighting back, and then he pulls it out. He got a little better over time tonight. But he pulled every punch. Maybe the next two will undo some of the damage. But I have to say I think it was extensive.

-- Andrew Sullivan (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/live-blogging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

“i can't believe i'm saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”

-- Bill Maher tweet (http://ohnotheydidnt.livejournal.com/72468564.html)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

PolitiCartoons (http://politicartoons.livejournal.com/3310101.html)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Well, I’m with all the other talking heads: Mitt Romney won this debate. Barack Obama lost it. I mean, he got his butt kicked. It was, in fact, one of the most inept performances I’ve ever seen by a sitting President. Romney — giving credit where it’s due — was calm, clear, convincing (even when he was totally full of it) and nearly human. The real mystery was Obama. Where on earth was he? Why was his debate strategy unilateral disarmament? Why did he never speak in plain English? “Mitt, you’re selling a fantasy. Bill Clinton proved it. He raised taxes on the wealthy and the economy boomed. George Bush lowered taxes drastically and the economy tanked. How’s your plan any different than Bush’s?” Actually, the President did say something like that, but it was well past most of America’s bedtime, about an hour into the debate — and he didn’t do it clearly, concisely or directly.

-- Joe Klein (http://swampland.time.com/2012/10/03/the-debate/)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Tonight’s debate saw the return of the Mitt Romney who ran for office in Massachusetts in 1994 and 2002. He was obsessive about portraying himself as a moderate, using every possible opening or ambiguity – and, when necessary, making them up – to shove his way to the center. Why he did not attempt to restore this pose earlier, I cannot say. Maybe he can only do it in debates. Or maybe conservatives had to reach a point of absolute desperation over his prospects before they would give him the ideological space. In any case, he dodged almost every point in the right wing canon in a way that seemed to catch Obama off-guard.

-- Jonathan Chait (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-first-debate-blog-reax-ctd.html)


There’s no use pretending this doesn’t shake up the race. It surely does. How much, none of us knows. The Democratic spinners need to get busy on the fact-checking front. But this is mostly about Obama. Romney caught him totally flatfooted with the Rockefeller Republican move, and Obama didn’t know how to respond. If this is the new Romney, he'd better figure out how.

-- Michael Tomasky (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/the-first-debate-blog-reax-ctd.html)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car.

-- Mark Hemingway (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/tweets-of-the-day.html)

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Best debate joke.



Obama really was hardly more effective than Clint Eastwood's empty chair.

[hardblue.livejournal.com]

Scott Adam's take.

_ _ _

I didn't watch the entire debate but I tuned in just in time to watch Mitt Romney use the President of the United States as a bar rag. I wondered if I was the only viewer who was thinking that one of the worst public speakers of all time was drop-kicking one of the best speakers of all time, but I see today that most pundits agreed on two points:

1.Romney lied 500% more than President Obama.
2.Romney totally won the debate.

That tells you everything you need to know about the value of presidential debates. Sure, the fact-checkers weighed in afterwards, but by then the damage was done. Truth is literally an afterthought in politics, and apparently overrated.

The thing that impressed me most about Romney's performance is that he invented an entirely new class of political lie that I have named the pre-flop. It's a vast improvement over his old flip-flopping ways. With the traditional flip-flop the thing you say today is the reverse of what you said in the past, and that can bite you in the ass. The pre-flop is a brilliant innovation that combines the flip and the flop in the same pledge. Allow me to paraphrase the debate to illustrate.

Romney: My economic plan is (blah, blah)

President Obama: Economists say your plan will increase the deficit by $5 trillion.

Romney: I keep telling you that I won't do anything that increases the deficit.

See? The flip-flop is built right into the campaign promise. It's an unmistakable wink to independent voters that he plans to be a pragmatist. Pragmatism looks like flip-flopping because it requires opinions to change as the situation and the available information change. It also means you'll lie to get elected, but it's just a strategy, and everyone does it, so don't worry.

I think Romney has a hypnotist for an advisor, or at least someone skilled in the dark arts of psychology and influence. I just watched him repeatedly lie to me and came away thinking he'd be a good choice for managing the economy. I'm not saying he actually would be a good choice, but he did something impressive: He made me think he wouldn't cut taxes at the same time he told his base he would. As a trained hypnotist myself, I rank his debate performance as breathtakingly brilliant. (Seriously.)

Meanwhile, President Obama was learning the hard way that the worst time to have anniversary sex is right before a debate. He looked a bit too relaxed. I think he should have lit a cigarette, taken a long puff, exhaled, and told the crowd that Romney would do for the country what the President just did for the First Lady. That would be totally bad ass. Then he could toss in a zinger about how awesome the sex was right after killing Bin Laden. I think we all know that evening was ear muff time for the Secret Service.

Jim Lehrer, who apparently died several months ago, moderated the debate. The pundits have been harsh on him today. But who else do you hire for the first debate? Do you hire someone who works for a Republican news network or someone from a Democrat news networks? Apparently the debate producers scoured the United States and decided that the only non-partisan left was a cadaver.

This is a good time to remind you that I don't support either candidate for president because neither of them meet my minimum standards, which frankly aren't that high. And I'm not convinced that voting for the lesser evil is better for the country in the long run than supporting low voter turnout which could create an opportunity for a third-party candidate someday.

-- Scott Adams (http://dilbert.com/blog/entry/presidential_debate_2012/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+dilbert%2Fblog+%28Dilbert.com+Blog+-+UU%29&utm_content=Google+Reader)