Posted on 10/04/2012 3:50:20 PM PDT by tobyhill
Conventional wisdom about politics is usually wrong. That is why I often disagree with it.
But I can’t recall a time when I disagreed more profoundly with the conventional wisdom that has coalesced around a major news event.
In last night’s debate, I just didn’t see the overwhelming, game-changing victory for Mitt Romney that his supporters are touting all over television and the Internet today.
I didn’t see the humiliating defeat for President Obama that some liberals saw as they began their bellyaching about how President Obama has lost his momentum and could now lose the election.
I saw a serious, substantive policy debate in which neither candidate slipped up or neither candidate delivered a knockout punch. I saw a match that basically ended in a draw.
There was no one moment that I could point to as evidence that either candidate “lost” the debate.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Like him or not, in terms of executive leadership Mitt Romney is probably one of the most competent and effective men ever to run for the White House. I'm not a huge fan of the guy, but after having dealt with a number of people at the executive level in U.S. corporations over the last couple of years I was not surprised at what I saw from Mitt Romney last night. This is the way CEOs operate, and many of them have a number of common traits that serve them well and were put on full display by Romney in that one-sided "debate." These traits include: (1) an even-keeled approach to any situation, even an adversarial one; (2) a strong, powerful memory that enables them to pull facts and figures out of thin air without struggling to remember them; (3) an ability to be likeable even if the job requires a sense of detachment; and (4) a strong, almost pathological focus on keeping the best interests of an organization in mind and achieving a set of clear objectives.
As I posted several times in recent weeks, this is the kind of campaign Romney is running. The "organization" in question is his political campaign, the set of clear objectives includes a successful run for the White House, and I can guarantee you that everyone in his campaign is going to do whatever it takes to get this done even if we don't understand what they're doing and/or don't agree with their approach.
I can, I have watched everyone of these since 1988.
The killer last night was Obama “You might want to move on to the next topic Jim.”
Every debate has moments that resonate in voters minds. That one is going to stick. Obama looking to the supposed ref to rescue him. The common thread in most voters comments to pollsters is “we want a leader who will show us how to get out of this mess”
Romney showed he is a leader last night while Obama showed he is not.
Last night Frank Luntz, the gold standard of focus group pollsters, had 24 undecided voters watch the debate with him. 13 of the 24 were Obama 2008 voters.
More the half said the debate persuaded them to vote for Romney. Luntz said he has never seen results like that before.
It really was that bad for 0.
Poor Juan. Romney decimated Obama. Main reason is that leftism benefits nobody but the ones at the top. How do you make a case for that?
Like O.J., I live in a fancy home in a fancy, mostly white, neighborhood. I eat at the finest restaurants and pal around with other millionaires. Still, I never stop identifying with the "little people" who have actually no place in my life, unless you count my maid.
What do you smoke, Juan?
No high-grade Hawaiian choom could mess a brain up so badly.
Someone should tell Juan Williams that “Denial” isn’t just a river in Egypt.
LLS
Romney had the opportunity to rip several new a$$holes for OBAMA , BUT HE PASSED. Romney was taking debate notes, something few people noticed, or commented about, Obama had nothing in front of him.As a result of Romney’s structured approach to debate, there were several places where Romney could have literally killed Obama, slayed him in fact.But Romney passed.
I believe Romney was wrong in cutting Obama any slack. Romney had the opportunity to achieve absolute victory over Obama, but he refused, or cowardly did not want to suffer the slings and arrrows from the left for creating an outright defeat of Obama on prime time TV. Instead Romney chose a subtle defeat, one in which after several debates, Obama is supposed to die from a death of a thousand cuts.The proplem is, that with that approach, it earns few votes from the electorate.
I believe Romney’s failure or refusal to really clearly and convincingly lay Obama out when he had several opportunities to do so, yet refused, was a horrible mistake that may cost Romney the presidency.
Juan, delusion is not just a river in Africa.
/Joe Biden
Give me a break.
You might consider that Mitt knew what he was doing and had a plan. Given his performance and the response to it, I'd say that whatever was his plan - he succeeded brilliantly.
Consider too that there is no shame in a hunter coming home with unspent ammunition - if he bags a big one...
Agreed. I have some residual discomfort with Romney, though. First, let me say that I believe he is an exceptionally decent man, with a high moral sense. At the same time, if he truly understands financial issues; which he must in order to run complex industrial organizations...then he is seriously lying about what he OR ANYONE ELSE can do about the current fiscal situation within the US economy without a reduction in GDP that is certain to cause a very, very deep depression. And potentially civil unrest. By this I mean, the amount of spending that has to be cut to move towards a balanced Federal budget (as one simple example) is enormous. And he’s not talking about it. Now, maybe he’s not talking about it because he knows he (or anyone else) would be unelectable if they told the truth; or maybe, as part of his corporate skills, he is a terrific liar. This is what troubles me about the Mittster. Yes, I know this conflicts with my opinion statement that he is a moral individual.
Give me a break.>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes,no problem. I always give a break to those who think they are a master debater.
Consider too that there is no shame in a hunter coming home with unspent ammunition - if he bags a big one...>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Obama ,his handlers and the MSM underestimated the hunter. That won’t happen again. Romney will not be allowed to EVER get a clear shot at Obama again.Just watch the fix go in on the remaining debates.
Romney missed the only chance he likely will have to defeat Obama utterly on prime time TV, which he should have done.
As long as Juan and his friends vote on Nov. 14th, then everything will be ok...
You are forgetting that Republicans are not allowed to do that in the MSM arena. If Romney had started talking like Rush Limbaugh, all the talk would not be about him winning the debate, but about "Who is this mean, vicious, racist bastard who insulted Obama? Of course the President performed poorly - he didn't want to respond in kind!"
Given the MSM's biases, Romney played it perfectly - even Chris Matthews had to concede him the victory.
Given the MSM’s biases, Romney played it perfectly>>>>>>>>>
I do not give a $hit about MSM bias. The fact is that we have a liberal fascist as president bent on the ruination of our country.Romney should have hit him hard enough so that Obama let down his thin veneer of civility. The public needed to see the beast Obama is under that mask.
Romney failed, and in reining himself in, he has done the nation a profound disservice.
Well Jaun, if you would remove your lips from Obambies ass for two seconds the fresh air would clear your vision...
Nothing to debate, your comment was simply nonsense.
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.