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.
CORRECT
You are spot on. Romney won the debate but all it accomplished was to momentarily stop the Media led parade proclaiming the inevitability of the 0ne's reelection.
R/R had better be prepared to withstand the unleashed fury of the Chicago thugs and all of the political chicanery that such fury involves. Lets face it, the electoral math is precarious. The One only has to defend a handful of the so called swing states while R/R almost has to sweep all of them.
Thinking about Obama in trouble, I can’t help but think about a wounded, cornered animal. Very dangerous and unpredictable...
Given how far they have already gone, how audacious their lies have already become, I worry about how much uglier things might get, if Team Obama really starts to think he will lose.
invent a false story and plaster it all over the news.””
We already got one:
The “7.8% Unemployment”.
If that number is correct, I am Marilyn Monroe.
As good as it is to see Zero’s roosters coming home...this is NOT the reason he sucked. He sucked because HE HAS NO SUBSTANCE. Period.
Excellent point
OK,fair enough...I should have mentioned another factor in addition to amorality.Osama Obama,in terms of raw intelligence,is,very likely,in the superior range.Probably even 120's...not Mensa,but noticeably above average.What many here,including you (perhaps),mistake for "stupidity" is actually amorality combined with a breathtaking lack of wisdom and experience.I know that some argue that "wisdom" must be factored in when determining intelligence and,depending on how broadly you're defining the word,that might be appropriate.When *I* speak of intelligence I define the word rather narrowly and then,in a detailed discussion,address "wisdom","experience" and "morality" as well.
But,as was once observed,Osama *is* clean,he *is* articulate (very articulate) and has a certain charisma (to some).I point out Osama's superior intelligence in order to remind folks that an *intelligent* psychopath (e.g.,Osama) is *far* more dangerous than is a stupid one (e.g.,your typical gang banger).
It is good to hear that some are finally waking up
Obama is by far the stupidest man to ever serve as president. I still am dumbfounded how he managed to fool so many people for so long.
Obama is the poster child for affirmative action.”””
I also think that Obama has put back advances that blacks had made in this country by as much as 200 years.
White & Hispanics are more than angry about the preferential treatment given blacks under Holder & Obama. That isn’t going to die down quickly, IMO.
Obama has given PAC’s & Romney so many ad possibilities that they have a bountiful harvest of items to choose from. Time to hit him hard!
He is a charlatan, and if are you familiar with the Piper of Hamelin, that should explain it also.
"You're going to make a lot of Democrats mad when you repeal Obamacare." Wow. That was just golden!! Use it in an ad!
Already in motion.
(1) The pretend employment numbers.
(2) Holder just announced a crackdown on a big Medicare fraud which will make Obama appear to be tough and proactive. Chances are this was discovered a couple years ago, but it’s been held back to pull out of his ass as an October Surprise. Also, these medical (alleged) fraud situations frequently have no base and are used to intimidate physicians, etc. Surprisingly, the targets are supporters of the opponent.
“Obama is by far the stupidest man to ever serve as president. I still am dumbfounded how he managed to fool so many people for so long.”
He is not at all stupid. But he is a far-left liberal, and he has to pretend he is someone he is not in these debates.
Add to the fact that he is a lazy narcissist and is never challenged by the compliant media and its not easy for him to fake being someone he is not.
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2940554/posts
Thanks to FReeper ridesthemiles.
LLS
The real trouble begins when Holder and Obama are out of office and a new US AG is sworn in to pursue these corrupt bastards...
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.