Thursday, October 4, 2012

1st Debate: The Aftermath

I have talked so much shit about Mitt Romney, only to have my candidate drastically under perform during the first debate.

As much as it hurts, Dennis Miller gets the tweet of the night award:

"Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare."

 and Van Jones wins for best synopsis of what went wrong:

“I think he took Romney too lightly. I think he did not expect Romney to throw that kind of heat” 

Romney looked Obama in the eye and politely and assertively tore him to pieces. Obama looked pissed, looked to the moderator for mercy, and looked to the audience. When Romney made a questionable accusation, Obama just shook his head and smiled, and then didn't answer the charge when his time to rebut came. He reminded me of George W. Bush in his first debate with John Kerry back in 2004. He looked like someone who couldn't take a punch, and wasn't used to people talking to him 'in just any way'.

Obama clearly has contempt for Romney, and didn't expect that he would need to lower himself to engaging too directly with him. He also--I believe--is not used to defending the top spot: he's used to being the underdog, and is used to attacking the guy in the top spot. Like George Bush did in 2004, he also seems a little arrogant. His mannerism under attack was, 'I don't have to take this shit from you...'

But Mr. President, you do have to take that shit from him. And you have to fight back. You have to assert yourself. You're not going to lose any of your loyalists at this point. I'm not going anywhere. But you do have to sway those folks who don't normally follow this stuff, and you'll do that with your affect. Here's to the next two debates, and goddammit Joe Biden, you better curb stomp Paul Ryan.

Listening to Glenn Beck crow over Romney's p.r. victory this morning was the hair shirt I donned for assuming this was going to be a cake walk. I hope we're all adequately humbled, and are ready to go into the next couple of debates a little hungrier.


Lodo Grdzak said...

People keep underestimating Obama, but the guy's never lost at anything in his life. Least not that I've seen. One debate is meaningless, and I'm not sure what "winning," the debate really means, unless you mean Romney looked more Presidential and aggressive. But if you listen to the content of what Romney actually said--and not just the way he said it; he basically loves everything he did as Governor in Massachusetts; will not be giving any tax breaks since they'd raise the deficit (a reversal of 1.5 years of campaign promises); and wants to institute a Medicare voucher plan. Dont really see that as a winning platform/formula no matter how sharp the suit is that's selling it. But hey, maybe the $250 million dollar Caucasian Republican has a chance after all.

Spencer Troxell said...

The swing voter doesn't care about content.

Lodo Grdzak said...

I really dont think that's fair to say Spence. Its still an election about a guy/party/policy that's going to directly effect people's lives. The content does matter--though maybe not as much in that first debate where we got to see the guys finally go mano v mano on stage the 1st time. But with (2) more debates, people are going to start listening carefully. You dont want Obamacare? Well what are you going to replace it with? And how will you deal with a Dem controlled Senate? (And possibly House.). I fail to see how anyone who wanted Santorum, or Perry, or Ron Paul, or Gingrich could have liked what they heard out of Romney. Now he's in the center on taxes,immigration, and socal issues? Really? Hmmm. Sounds like more flip-flopping to me.

Spencer Troxell said...

I could be wrong, but I think the people who are undecided at this point are the people who don't pay attention, and tend to go on impressions and gut feelings. I question their willingness to delve too deeply past the bullshit.

I hope I'm wrong though, because Romney lied his ass off in that debate.

Lodo Grdzak said...

Well, in actuality, I think Romney was being more truthful in the debate than he's been at any other time. The real lie has been everything he's said up to the debate. He's actually (at least in my mind) a non-ideological moderate running at a time when his party's shifted hard to the right. I dont think Romney gives a crap about half the social issue stuff he's had to champion or rail against; and during the debate you saw the real Romney. Or at least, where Romney would really like to be. But the question is, if he stays where he went during the debate, how many hardcore Repubs will he lose for every independent he gains? IN the end, its just proof of what Romney really is down to the core--an opportunistic flip-flopper.

Spencer Troxell said...

I agree with your assessment of Romney 100%.