Posted on 10/05/2012 5:01:25 AM PDT by Kaslin
Mitt Romney, as was clear to all who watched the first presidential debate, channeled Ronald Reagan right down to the glistening hair and respectful smiling face that listened as his opponent tap-danced and stutter-stepped his way to a resounding thumping in the contest.
Several post-debate polls for varying news organizations such as CNN and Newsmax showed that the voters who watched the debate viewed President Obama's lackluster performance as a clear victory for Gov. Romney. So clear, in fact, as to outdistance the margin of perceived victory measured in most past presidential debates where same night post-debate surveys were conducted.
Most supporters of Obama will write this off to a one night off performance by their man. But a deeper examination of what took place would suggest that the president has, in many ways, created a deep hole from which he must now climb in the next two contests.
What has not been mentioned enough is the fact that this first debate was actually an introductory event for Mitt Romney. Most Americans did not watch the endless Republican primary debates earlier in the year. As a result, the image they had of Romney had been formed by brief moments from stories from the evening news or from some late night comedian. This was Mitt Romney's opportunity to introduce himself to most voters on his own terms.
And because President Obama has avoided long press conferences or other opportunities to speak extemporaneously, many voters who have seen him on cozy shows such as "The View," or in very structured interviews, such as his recent appearance on "60 Minutes," are having a hard time reconciling the Obama they thought they knew with the one who debated Romney in Denver.
Certainly the president will come out swinging in the next contest, and in coming days many a comparison will be made to Ronald Reagan's weak performance in his first debate against Walter Mondale during his 1984 re-elction bid. Reagan seemed weak and at times confused and came back to clobber Mondale in the next debate. But there is a big difference here.
First, Reagan was already known as the great communicator, and no one had ever suggested that he could only speak without the help of a teleprompter. When Reagan "bounced back" in his second debate, there was a high level of past performance to which he returned. No such record exists for President Obama. He bested John McCain in 2008, but McCain was himself a weak debater who often was lost in the same high weeds of policy and insider type talk that we heard from Obama in the Denver contest.
Reagan had no long term history of stuttering, grasping for words or uttering "uh" or "look" every few sentences while trying to respond to questions or make a point. To be honest, these stylistic problems that Obama highlighted in the first debate have been his hallmark throughout his presidency -- it is simply a matter of no one ever calling him out over them.
But Obama's debate problem runs deeper than a matter of his style and manner of delivering a message. In the first debate, he embraced several terms and pushed several concepts that could become deadly in a final contest where domestic policy can once again dominate the contest.
First, he chose to proudly adopt the term "Obamacare" as one that from now on will be considered a non-confrontational term. If Romney plays it right, Obama's decision might be tantamount to Herbert Hoover having proudly claimed ownership of the oh-so-nasty reference to the shanties and homeless hovels referred to in his days as "Hoovervilles." Obama now owns the term for better or worse.
More importantly, Obama has left open a huge door through which Romney may walk, should he so choose. By making a big issue out of the lack of specificity to Romney's proposals, such as cuts to future budgets, Obama is wide open to a last minute laundry list of specifics from Romney in the final debate. That would leave President Obama grasping at challenges to the proposals and with only days to come back with attacks. A basic rule in debate -- never let your opponent be vague and fill in all of the blanks late in the contest.
Given that President Obama's greatest problems are currently in an area most Americans don't follow, foreign policy, Romney has a sporting chance of taking two debates in a row. If that happens, the emperor may have no clothes, and once the public notices, the polling numbers may start to truly move toward Romney.
Hopefully, their disappointment and outrage will be focussed on 0bama, no matter how much the left tries to blame it on conservatives.
We may yet avoid an Ozombie Apocalypse.
Wrong...wrong...wrong! He's very,very intelligent.He is,OTOH,the most amoral President ever to serve.It's vitally important that we not confuse the two.We mustn't underestimate our enemy.
The funniest reaction out of the left was the hypothesis that he was sandbagging the economic debate to “come back strong” in the foreign policy debate.
I can only... what, fantasize?... that Romney will make some oblique reference to 0bama bowing to foreign leaders.
While I can’t fault your hypothesis for credibility, I do disagree.
I can not see doyens that posit such inept excuses and rationalizations operating with that degree of subtlety and stoic resignation.
The President has problems with short-term memor
And delivering real long term results
The vast majority of people don't follow politics like we here on FR do and they get most of their "news" from Liberal television and radio newscasters who cover for Obama.
The vast majority of people don’t follow politics like we here on FR do and they get most of their “news” from Liberal television and radio newscasters who cover for Obama.
So true. Watched debate, and IM a relative who supports O.
There response on watching the debate. Romney is stupid.
There’s not much hope with them as a voter, as they don’t want to see the
obvious truth.
Left it with , you should reconsider, as you are younger than us, and will bear the real harm O will bring if re-elected both financially, and security wise.
Hate these family differences, but you need to tell them the truth, and then drop it.
Point.
The only difference between Romney "looking him straight in the eye" and "trying to stare him down" is the reporter's attitude.
About his memory problem, that could come from the admitted early excesses in marijuana and other drugs or from alcohol. There are other possible causes, but no evidence for them.
"Well my 47% comment as Team Obama likes to do was taken out of context. My question is you said you are part of the 47% who does not pay federal income taxes correct? Well wouldn't you like to have a vibrant economy with many choices of good paying vocations for you and your family? You seem like a articulate, concerned person which you would like to be in a position of working, succeeding and prospering, to have the American Dream ..correct? I am sure you don’t want to depend on government for the safety and security of your family?(Killer question there, exposes the plant) President Obama wants you dependent, to have just enough to want more, to be dependent, that is very un-American. Thank you for your question.
See you take control by asking questions, old Zig Ziglar technique, you make the person sound irrational if they don’t follow you reasoning.
_____________________________________
You think that a narcissistic marxist who has the most powerful job in the world is going to intentionally throw it away????
Please explain your reasoning.
Otherwise known as "denial."
Me personally... I can not permit someone, relative or not, who "doubles down on stupid" to walk away with their dignity unscathed.
I boil all that down to he sometimes just doesn’t have his heart in it.
He sees the future and it is bleak. He see’s no way to successfully proceed within the shackles of liberal/marxist dogma. With a Republican House and the possibility of a Republican Senate, he can do nothing.
He is literally between a rock and a hard place.
And the Peter Principle
I don't want to discount your point about amorality, but how has he shown his "intelligence" in the four years of being President?
Politically-speaking, I think he's shown he can rule by thuggery. Like a tyrant. He surrounds himself with like-minded thugs. He'd rather rule by decree, than by the prescribed legislative process.
He's not a master politician in the sense that he can forge coalitions; he does not compromise; he's certainly not a statesmen (nor do I expect him to be one AFTER his presidency); he doesn't hold the country above his own self-interests.
If he is "intelligent," as you say, it's only that he can conform to radical poltical exigencies when there is advantage to be gained. He can be a good "front man" for radicals, but when actually called upon to show leadership and "intelligence," he falls way short.
Memory loss is a symptom of long term marijuana use. FACT.
What Romney should say is, I've given specifics on what I will do, Mr. President. My question to you is no what will you do because your plan isn't working and we can't survive another four years in that direction. My question to you is, what will you do differently?
Then he hits him with stats again, unemployment, SSI disability (those numbers are huge), food stamps, inflation, etc.
I find the hypothesis that Jim Lehrer sensed a mental defect in Obama fascinating. Unable to follow the intellectual thread or the thrust of the topic, Lehrer had to feed him the topic and redirect him to the questions. I sense there is something terribly wrong with Obama. If so, the next debate will just be the final nail in the coffin.
LLS
“Obama finally in real trouble.”
Not to the hardcore fourty-percenters.
IMHO
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.