The Denver Debate: A Second Look

No one challenges this verdict. Even President Obama’s most ardent supporters concede it by way of the truly laughable excuses to which they’ve resorted in accounting for the decisive drubbing that their candidate received.

But while the conventional wisdom concerning the victor is sound enough, the conventional wisdom concerning the debate’s loser is not so much.

Obama, we are told, was “off his game.” From Denver’s altitude to personal family issues, every conceivable rationale has been offered by the President’s admirers to explain how or why he was “off his game.”

No explanation is necessary, however, because there is nothing to explain: Obama was not off his game.

The Obama who arrived for his showdown with Romney is the same Obama that we have been seeing for the last four to five years, the Obama who clashed with and defeated John McCain in 2008. He was cool and collected. He spoke reasonably well. He smirked and didn’t spare the occasion to look down his nose at his rival a time or two. He threw out the same sound bites to which the country has had the great misfortune of being subjected for what now seems like an eternity.

Things like the widely accepted notion that Obama’s heart didn’t join the rest of his body in Denver are what happen when illusion and reality clash.

The illusion is what we may call “the Messianic syndrome” (TMS). Obama suffers from TMS, it is true, but so do his supporters.

Jesus’ closest disciples came to recognize Him as the Messiah before He was arrested, tried, and crucified. Yet upon witnessing His Passion, they lost faith. From the debris of their shattered messianic expectations doubt and even despair took flight. It took the Resurrection to resurrect their belief in Jesus’ true identity.

Obama’s disciples have also had messianic expectations for their leader to fulfill. In part this is because Obama himself has done everything to give rise to those expectations. Yet it is also partially owing to the fact that his followers—particularly his followers in the media—have been just as diligent in creating those expectations as has Obama himself.

The problem, though, is that Obama and his accomplices in the media have been laboring away at this enterprise for so long that they have actually come to believe their own hype. Obama, they are convinced, truly is the Messiah. Because of this, he deserves to be recognized as such by everyone—including his opponents.

Messiahs are supposed to be bottomless fonts of wisdom and virtue. Messiahs are supposed to be more intelligent than everyone and anyone else. Messiahs are expected to prevail over all countervailing forces.

And this is all because Messiahs are expected to redeem those to whom they have been sent.

Just as Jesus’ disciples were paralyzed with shock when they saw their Messiah crucified, so too are Obama’s followers still reeling in shock from the sight of the verbal crucifixion that their messiah suffered courtesy of Mitt Romney.

Of course, because Jesus really was the Messiah, His glorious Resurrection was more than enough to vindicate the faith that His disciples had placed in Him. The reality, as opposed to the illusion, is that Obama, on the other hand, is no kind of messiah at all. Thus, rather than accept this, he and his followers have no option but to avail themselves of any and every means—however preposterous—that enables them to evade reality.

And the cold, merciless reality is that their candidate lost, and lost resoundingly, not because he was unprepared or disengaged. He lost because, for at least the first time since he has been in the national limelight, Obama had to square off with a man who is in every respect his superior.

Whether measured in terms of intelligence, worldliness, articulation, or even physical appearance, Romney outshines Obama by miles.

Still, reality is persistent. It has a way of creeping into the consciousness. Things are only going to get worse for the One and his followers.

Obama will be more fired up during the next debate, for certain. But it will be to no avail. Romney can no more desist in overshadowing Obama than the Sistine Chapel can desist in eclipsing “piss Christ” as an artwork.

Thanks.

Left to his own "wits," armed only with flashing a toothy smile which, when implemented at inappropriate times, reveals its own disconnection from the topic and moment, he uncloaked himself before the world.

With that said, the writer's placing of the name of the Messiah and the caricature of "a messiah" presented by this puppet of the forces of "progressivism" in the same article, though intended to differentiate between, is a little troubling.

The first spoke with authority, as "the Word made flesh."

The second uses a voice, a speaking style, and an acquired ability to "act" before audiences, with the help of prompters and teleprompters, to sound authoritative.

There is no comparison, nor should there be.

One came to reveal the Source of individual life, rights, liberty and a way to pursue happiness in keeping with Creator's law.

Others throughout history have come to entice individuals to forsake individual liberty and their unalienable rights in order to serve them and those who send them.

Would suggest to any who wish an authentic history of the ideas underlying America's founding a visit to this web site, at which Richard Frothingham's outstanding 1872 "History of the Rise of the Republic of the United States" can be read on line.

This 600+-page history traces the ideas which gave birth to the American founding. Throughout, Richard Frothingham, the historian, develops the idea that it is "the Christian idea of man" which allowed the philosophy underlying the Declaration of Independence and Constitution to become a reality--an idea which recognizes the individual and the Source of his/her "Creator"-endowed life, liberty and law.

Is there any wonder that the enemies of freedom, the so-called "progressives," do not promote such authentic histories of America? Their philosophy puts something called "the state," or "global interests" as being superior to individuals and requires a political elitist group to decide what role individuals are to play.

In other words, they must turn the Founders' ideas upside-down in order to achieve a common mediocrity for individuals and power for themselves.

So, the still-revolutionary idea stated by both Ryan and Romney about the Source of our rights became fodder for the current President's disdain recently, when he declared that they were "reruns" from the 20th Century and better suited for "black and white" television. (Actually, Mr. President, they are from a time much earlier than that.)

As Jefferson wisely observed:

"History, by apprising the people of the past, will enable them to judge of the future; it will avail them of the experience of other times and other nations; it will qualify them as judges of the actions and designs of men; it will enable them to know ambition under every disguise it may assume; and knowing it, to defeat its views."

All of which reinforces our conviction that the ideas of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution are as revolutionary and objectionable to tyrants as they were in 1776 and 1787!

I’m not terribly worried about the town hall format. Sure the format is a little more relaxed and I’m sure there will be a couple of dubious questions. But the reality is all of the facts are on Romney’s side, and Romney is a capable pitchman.

All Obama has left are talking points and zingers. For For example, lets say the topic of spending cuts comes up,and Obama whips out the “he doesn’t want to get tough on Wall Street, he wants to get tough on Sesame Street” line. If he does that he’s a fool as he opens himself up to an enormous zinger.

Mitt: Mr. President, these are serious times, and you are making silly arguments about defunding government programs we can no longer afford. Middle class Americans are having to make hard budget decisions of their own, can we afford that new car, how do we pay our mortgage this month, how can we afford college for our kids? How can we expect people to make these kind of tough economic decisions without tightening our own belts in Washington. For years both parties have been spending on the backs of our kids and grandkids, and it needs to stop.

Obummer would have no answers other than more Uhhhs and Ummmms.

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.