I think it’s funny that Mitt Romney’s cynicism bit him in the ass last night. For the first time, I watched a debate on CNN so I could watch the moment-to-moment reaction of their survey group. Every time that Romney said something bellicose the audience reacted negatively, which seemed to vindicate his overall strategy of backtracking on all his tough talk on foreign policy. But that was an effort to win a bunch of small skirmishes that caused him to lose the war.
The segment of the population who actually knows what Romney has been saying about Iran and Pakistan and Israel and Iraq and Egypt and Libya noticed that Romney was flip-flopping and changing his positions. Those who didn’t know his record noticed that he was basically endorsing and approving of Obama’s policies.
I’ve seen analysis that Romney was debating like he had a lead. It may have seemed that way, but he doesn’t have a lead and he never has had a lead. And that’s not what he was thinking. He was thinking that the foreign policies he has been espousing poll very badly and that Joe Biden exposed that in his debate with Paul Ryan. It’s not that Romney thought he could coast to victory. It’s that he had nothing to say that could possibly help his cause.
But, here’s the thing. Romney would have been better off espousing unpopular opinions in a confident manner than he was in jettisoning his whole foreign policy critique and looking weak as a result. He should have learned that from his success in the first debate in which he lost on substance but won by being the more dominant personality.
The Bishop didn’t debate and acted as if there were no meaningful foreign policy differences between him and the “weak” Obama, mainly because rightwing neocon militarism and “Hitlerian Ayatollahs Must Be Bombed!” crapola has lost some of its usual luster and excitement. Instead, Willard the Peacenik showed up—sort of like Bolton dressing up as Gandhi for Halloween, haha.
So Willard’s team went with the “diplomatic” and “presidential” strategy—which Obama pulled in the first debate, apparently disastrously. At least that was what the corporate media decreed when Obama pulled it—also, too, he didn’t have much “energy”. Now when Rmoney shows up with no energy or spunk or contradictions, we’ll see if the same criticisms are deployed, and whether this debate was a “rout” as the first one was declared 24/7. My guess is no, Rmoney will instead be praised for it by the corporate headlice.
The Repubs have the whole team out today decrying the “cheap shots” of Obama having the temerity to mock the silly “Where’s Our WWI Battleships?” argument Willard trotted out at a prior debate. And that the (negro) prez treated the heroic white plutocrat as “unworthy”!!—“How dare Obama use mocking sarcasm against such an honorable (and rich) white man? Deplorable!” So it looks like we are back to racial tribalization as the final loathsome tactic of our fine “conservatives”.
But that was probably inevitable. A leopard cannot change its spots, after all.
President Obama has effectively created a post-partisan consensus on foreign and military policy, leaving only the neocons out in the cold.
Moonbat leftists would do well to recognize the President’s strength and cunning because tonight demonstrated every single one of the political benefits of his plan. He’s smarter than you.
He’s containing China, he’s savaging the Iraninan working class over a hysterically trumped up nuclear weapons program that continues to be the dog that doesn’t bark, he’s surged into Afghanistan, he’s got a goddamn international kill list, for goodness sake.
The Republicans have no case against him. Not one they could ever make. He’s stolen their soul.
Yeah, a neutral observer could question the wisdom and cynicism of the counterinsurgency and training mission in Afghanistan. Yeah, a neutral observer could question whether targeted killing (while stupendously effective at eliminating suspects at low-cost and low casualties to civilians) leaves partner states too precarious and unstable in their own domestic politics to be a sustainable solution to the conditions that breed terrorists in the first place.
But what the fuck kind of Republican (other than the nasty Paul family) is ever going to do it? Nobody.
We saw every strategic and political move the President has made in the last six years come together in one place last night, and the dividends were as striking as I’ve ever seen.
Moonbat leftists would do well to recognize the President’s strength and cunning because tonight demonstrated every single one of the political benefits of his plan. He’s smarter than you.
Ummm … I suppose there are some on the left who criticize Obama and imagine that the general public is offended at targeted assassinations, drone killing of civilians, no habeus corpus, etc.
But a lot of us criticize those things realizing that most Americans love that shit.
I’ll say no more right now. There is an election to win, and the lesser of two evils has a slight lead, which given the only viable alternative is a good thing.
Don’t look now, but I think there might have been some snark in that post.
CNN Poll:
25 percent more likely to vote for Romney after the debate, 24 percent more likely to vote for Obama, 50 percent no difference.
Wow–what an ass-kicking!
Interesting: no linky. Have a donut for fabrication.
oh, it’s true. Dave Weigel has a link up on Slate.com.
it’s the only good bit of news from last nights debate that Repubs can point so they are glob bing onto it like craxy
And the CNN poll was overweighted with Republicans, as all their debate polls have been.
Pretty good wrap up from Le Monde (french)
Rough translation of key paragraph:
“The only repeated attack from an ill at ease Romney consisted in reproaching Obama’s diplomacy for lacking “toughness” and “leadership” or determination. But, on the way in which Romney would have slowed the Iranian nuclear program, nothing. On what policy he would have pursued in relation to the “Arab Spring”, nothing. On the conduct he would adopt in relation to Syria, nothing. On how we would emerge victorious, as he insists, from Afghanistan, nothing. On the need to pursue a balanced relationship with the partner-competitor China, nothing.”
Basically, Romney’s strategy was that foreign policy doesn’t matter in the election so there’s no need to have an actual vision.
Of course Romney wussed out. He may be inconsistent on many things, but in one area he is now and always has been consistent. He is consistently a coward.
Romney’s sweat was that of a liar who’s trying to push his last menu of lies up his mountain of yesterday’s lies. He simply ran out of road.
But just as Obama introduced Romnesia, last night he also brought with him not just revelations on Mitt’s illness(es) but an Obamacare-like rescue from the insanity.
very nice!!!
The scene on stage at the end of the debate also in the video clip: is it part of Romney’s personal cowardice that he can’t go anywhere without being surrounded by his huge multigenerational entourage? I found the optics very strange last night. really highlighted his unwillingness to reach out to anyone, his family as a buffer, as you pointed out after the second debate. Michelle demonstrated her usual graciousness, looking friendly and, with her body language, making herself part of the circle although from what I could see the R family all ignored her.
Video above doesn’t show it but I noticed the Romney grandchildren were very fascinated with the President. And he would lean down to listen to and talk with them. When Mitt picked one of them up, the kid reached out to touch Obama’s face. In the debate thread, I think I commented that even Mitt’s grandkids like Obama better.
Or they were just intrigued because they never saw a black person before.
Yeah, the grandkids looked like adoring fans! Awkward for Mittens, I’ll bet.
yes, I saw your comment on the other post. Obama right away greeted one little boy and looked to be having a good conversation with him, but I didn’t see the part where R picks him up. if it was about skin tone he probably would have reached to touch him when Obama was bending down to talk with him
Did you also notice the wannabe first lady holding him (arms literally around his waist) in case he fell off the stage while shaking hands with the crowd and then literally pulling him off the stage as she realized everyone else had left already and they were alone out there? Weird.
As for the debate Mitt got smoked but this election is so much about the people who simply hate Obama and just want him out. These people would gladly trade a recession, senseless war or terrorist attack to get him out. Romney could have broken downin tears last night and they would vote for him.
I know! Last night I was really struck by the rude, and odd, behavior of Romney’s family as Michelle shook hands with them. It seemed to me that they barely looked at Michelle, barely touched her hand before they dropped it.
It’s like Romney’s entire family was raised by wolves. (Apologies to the wolves.)
glad you noticed them and Michelle. And she was so gracious, moving around, making herself part of the circle (otherwise, can you imagine the outrage over photos of her being marginalized like they were actually doing) and I believe she talked with Anne. The family did seem like a pack though. I think vis a vis Michelle, they are so male oriented, and used to being around each other. Did other candidates have their grown children around them all the time?
They probably couldn’t wait to get backstage and slather on the hand sanitizer.
With this ad, the Obama campaign is clearly marketing Obama in the way that speaks to the low information voter.
Maybe the only way to influence the low information voter is for them to see other low information voters model the desired behavior?
The message:
“It’s time to make a decision – I mean, see, everybody else is deciding – and they are deciding in favor of Obama. It’s okay, you have your answer now.”
Two weeks from the election, only low information voters haven’t made up their minds
Completely agree. I just think it’s such a smart ad. They clearly know the first rule of communications: know your audience.
I’m struck how Romney’s “bully” was apparently cowed by Obama’s & Candy’s correction on his Benghazi screw up at last week’s debate; so much so that, just like every bully when someone stands up to them; they fold like a house of cards.
Mitt was actually afraid of Obama last night. Perhaps this was a first for him where money couldn’t buy him sway; but all I could picture was a Mitt presidency trying to negotiate with Putin after that weak performance.
Mitt entered the debate nervous but he left beaten.
The first debate loss was not just personality, it hit the substance. Obama let assertions lie unanswered. For example, Obama said that Romney would have a 5 trillion cut that he claimed with be paid for with deduction cuts, but hadn’t indicated which deductions. Romney countered that he was going to simply cap the aggregate of deductions at whatever number was needed to achieve balance. You and I know he has no intention of doing this, as it actually would be highly progressive. But that’s what he said. Obama’s response was to repeat that Romney had not specified the deductions, which was a non-sequitor and really did make it seem like Obama was micharacterizing his position and making unfair arguments.
It was a brilliant move for Romney, if profoundly dishonest, but he had made one mistake. He had telegraphed it a few days before the debate, meaning Obama should have been ready, pointing out that eliminating all itemized deductions would not cover the rate cuts and mocking ROmney’s pick a number line. Obama was not ready and stuck obliviously to an attack ROmney had rendered moot.
And when Obama did strike back, it was with Big Bird.
Overall impressions: Obama was incredibly well prepared both strategically and tactically (this really comes out in the transcript). He has memorized specific points for sure but he also comes from a comprehensive and integrated understanding of the role of America in the world. His presentation is at an incredibly professional level. He was also relentless in pointing out the evasions and distortions of Romney. He expertly developed over the course of the debate several complementary themes, on the one hand the theme of his record in global leadership, on the other the theme of Romney’s unreliable record of evasions, flip-flops, and just plain moronic statements, said live or in the past. He was totally ready for Moderate Mitt and he went after him with gusto while at the same time presenting a compelling argument for his record and his understanding of America in the world.
The competence gap was astounding. Romney babbled about routes to the sea and apology tours. Obama developed in detail how international relations actually work. Obama presented a specific and substantial perspective backed up by facts. Romney presented a series of superficial gambits and temporary calculations that benefit him personally.