Two kinds of shock
It occurs to me that last night’s debate was a shock to both left and right.
The left was shocked because they had really believed Obama’s hype, and he fell so far below their expectations—although perhaps it would be more accurate to say he failed so abysmally to live up to their beliefs.
The right was shocked because they really believed the negative media spin about Romney and he rose so far above their expectations—although perhaps it would be more accurate to say he succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
And maybe that says even more about the difference between left and right than it does about the difference between Obama and Romney.
Those of us who distrust “the narrative” put out by the “MSM”, well…not so much.
Teh Won knows he’s better that anyone at anything.
Can’t be told different.
It was joyous. I was not surprised by Mitt. I run a small business. To have the kind of success he has enjoyed he has to be a smart man and a great leader. The man has accomplishments. Truly, the only accomplishments I can count for his opponent was his ability to get the divorce records of his previous opponents unsealed.
Any “open minded” adult who watched last night can’t possibly think Obama would be a better president than Romney. Imagine it was a job interview. One guy has had the job for four years, has failed miserably by all measures, is making promises to do this and that, even though he has had four years and hasn’t gotten any of it done. The other one has a stellar resume: business, government, olympics and he outshines his opponent.
If this doesn’t change the outcome of the election we are doomed.
Dare I suggest that we saw on display last evening an illustration of the difference between
a genuine ivy league grad, and
an affirmative action ivy league grad?
That is a very interesting point about how each side might have been surprised in a different manner.
And I think the “conservative surprise” might have the most important effect of all in November. I watched the debate last night with three other conservatives. All three went from “I’m planning on voting against Obama” to by the end of the evening “I want to go vote for Romney.”
Just looking at the 2010 mid-term voter turn out we already know that there is a seismic type rumbling from the Right. Giving the Right someone they want to vote FOR might just blow the lid off.
M J R, I thought exactly the same thing. Obama’s been coddled by teachers, Professors, and the Media. He’s been promoted and scholarshiped because of Uber good liberals who could feel so good about helping this young “articulate, and clean” in Biden and Harry Reid’s words. He’s been given faux teaching assistant jobs he claims were professorships and mad President of the Harvard Law Review without EVER writing a paper of his own. With no sycophants or a TelePrompTer to protect him OR the Emperor’s adorers, he was stripped bear and naked to EVERYONE. They FINALLY saw the empty screen where they projected all of their fantasies. They saw a small, petty man. The REAL Obama, and not the “likable” guy they all told themselves he was. VERY stunning! Let’s see if the left and the Media propagandists try to replaster the Emperer’s clothes back on.
Can they reconvince themselves? I’m guessing the Hollywood, Upper West Side crowd are storming their therapists offices and upping their meds. This ain’t pretty. But it CAN be the first step to mental health for some. I know MY seratonin levels shot up very organically last night.
I’ve always considered our fellow citizens that voted for this man (not the “true believers”) but our friends and family to be the big puzzle. They believe the Democrats care about them and “the average” or “poor” man. On the basis of what? Last year at Thanksgiving we were with a conservative, (Carmel, CA) politically active group of retirees (our daughter’s in-laws & their friends). There was much discussion about who to support among the Republican contenders. I was the only one present emphatic about Romney because I felt of all the contenders he stood the best chance of appealing to the true independent or the Democrat whose eyes finally opened to the “empty suit” Obama is. I feel more than satisfied that my support for Romney is validated. Until this President I had no idea that projection could operate on a national level. Everything the Left ever accused George W. Bush of doing and being this man has done and is. I will be praying that the lying and cheating that the Left has long embraced won’t work this election, for the sake of my children and grandchild.
I have never understood why the left and MSM (redundant?) see Romney as so unqualified. On paper he has to be one of our more prepared and capable candidates. He earned an MBA and JD simultaneously. He rescued the Summer Olympics for no pay. He was governor of a populous state. He earned hundreds of millions of dollars from a business he developed. You can’t do all that and be unintelligent.
We were very pleasantly surprised by Romney’s debate performance and will become more active in supporting him. I was worried about how Romneycare could be used against him. He did a nice job of turning back that attack by contrasting it as a bi-partisan accomplishment in contrast to the way Obamacare was passed. He said some other stuff that pleased us Tea Party types. The line about not funding programs using money borrowed from china struck a chord.
Obama looked like a fish out of water. He has never impressed me as a speaker or debater, but he fell below even my low expectations.
Mr. Frank-“Republicans are dumb” is one of the most time-honored canards of politics. While GWB was President I always challenged people to pretend I am Barbara Bush and tell me my son is dumb after I cite his record of achievements and accomplishments. It is an admirable record. When every time they would stand there dumbfounded, I would then ask them what measure they use to qualify whether someone is intelligent and successful or not. I would then point out that GWB exceeded both Gore and Kerry in all measures. The truth unfortunately is often buried while the blatant lie is bandied about and embraced.
Mr. Frank Says (4:11 pm), “You can’t do all that and be unintelligent.”
If you’re one of the know-it-all class, if you express leftish views, you’re intelligent, for leftism is a mark of intelligence. If you express rightish or pro-business views (not the same thing!), you’re unintelligent.
Period.
Neo, I hate to disagree with you, but outside certain ones in the Punditry I don’t think too many people on the right were overly shocked. You never know; that is why they play the games; however, anyone paying attention to the real Romney and the real Obama was pretty hopeful going in.
one side learned where their lies get them in the long run game
and the other side learned where beliving lies gets them in the short term game
I was gratified by Romney’s performance in that, based on previous debates, I expected the moderator to get in some good rabbit punches on Romney, and generally comport himself pretty much like a referee at a professional wrestling match (the one who never sees any of the cheap shots of the bad guy).
Bain Capital specialized in taking over struggling companies and turning them around. Romney must have faced hundreds of high-powered executives in tense meetings like last night. His experience sure showed.
One more sinking ship to right, Mitt!
@Mr. Frank
He rescued the Summer Olympics for no pay. He was governor of a populous state.
He was also governor of MA for no pay.
I am so pumped I may even come out of the closet. My family and some friends know I’m no longer a lefty… but, I may actually come out on Facebook.
So, maybe you’re right, Neo. Maybe I am surprised by Mitt. Or, more likely, I’m surprised that he trounced the POTUS so badly that most on the left aren’t even trying to pretend that Obama won.
When are you going to move aside the apple and come out, by the way? We need the courage, now, I think. From all of us Chik-Fil-A eating people who just want to be left alone and raise our families in a country lead by people of accomplishment.
Winter Olympics, by the way, people.
Oldflyer: I disagree. My notion that people on the right were shocked is based on the comments I saw all around the right side of the blogosphere last night. It’s not that people didn’t already think Romney was bright, or had some competence, or could string a few words together, or would be prepared. But they were absolutely gobsmacked that he was relentless, aggressive, intense, emotional but not overly so, and at the same time seemed to be relaxed and enjoying himself.
I wanted to make this post sort of pithy so I didn’t explain myself quite as much as I usually do, but that’s more what I was thinking. People were astounded that he blew Obama out of the water.
Of course, there are a couple more debates…
When Jon Stewart is wondering if Obama is as smart as he thought – it’s a very good day!
The only problem with that estimation is that nearly every mind has been made up and what the Right calls “hype” means something very different to many others
I regret to say that I didn’t watch live last night, but I’ve watched the Smirk video three times today. as well as having watched the video of the Luntz focus Group.
I’m definitely shocked. All the CV leading up to this debate has been blown out of the water .
Neo;
I’ll second your comment at 5:47 – Yes, I believed that Romney is bright (afterall, he couldn’t have the stuff he has done being stupid); but, I was afraid that he was “too nice” to give Obama the beating that he gave last night.
I am glad to see that I was wrong on that account. So, I agree with you – some of us on the right were surprised. And delightfully so!
The most satisfying part of last night’s debate was finally seeing someone challenging Obama to his face; refuting his statements right after he’s made them. I think the only other time I’ve seen this is that fabulous 7 minute take-down that Ryan delivered to Obama during his Healthcare Summit. It was divine.
One of the Morning Joe panelists (maybe Joe Klein?) surmised that Obama was unprepared because he & his team haven’t listened to Romney since the RNC. He then cited a few instances where Obama claimed Romney had never specified his plans when in fact Romney had covered it in a recent speech. The thing is, the MEDIA hasn’t covered Romney (or Ryan) since the RNC, and so WE haven’t heard anything about these recent speeches containing additional details on Romney’s vision. All we’ve heard about are the “gaffes.” So Romney not only scored because of his style and performance, he managed to break the media blockade and convey information that has been suppressed. Having the media partially at fault for Obama’s unpreparedness was the icing on the cake.
Here is my first level analysis…
Been reading about, looking up some stuff, checking things, etc…
Romney is easier to analyze here. Whether Romney was “on the ropes” or not, or any other kind of excuse, the major point was that until last night, Romney has had no way to directly connect with the people of the united states — thanks to media (while Obama has gotten tons of free advertising, and more).
Unless you were an aggressive researcher looking specifically at the very least for actual stuff, you would either not see anything, or see some really amazing things (if you could step back) — but always in line with the party message, and the “our leader” behavior.
NY Daily News seemed so far to drop acid, and now they do all kinds of funky Photoshopping and even adding cartoon balloons with “funny” comments (as if their paper is a interesting print version of Americans stupidest criminals or something).
In fact this behavior is so over the top, only the most dimwitted would not notice it’s slanted so bad, horizontal is the new vertical.
So I can understand the whole Romney thing from that point. He and his campaign knew that last night was the ONLY real chance they had to contact and connect with a huge number of people (of any stripe), and not have it be filtered or modified, balloon commented, omitted, edited, etc.. So they made the most of it within the rules and good sportsmanship and all that. To put it simply, Queensbury rules do not mean you don’t get your head knocked in and laid out, it means it’s done fairly and no one cheated going about it.
Obama is a bit harder as most of what happened is a combination of a whole lot of things, not just one easy leftist thing, and some of the things will still be in effect in the near future.
The problem for Obama is that despite reading all this left red diaper baby crap and steeping and stewing in it, he didn’t learn its greatest faults, laid out from day one in terms of what happens AFTER power acquisition, which is governance. People, who climb ladders other than the one labeled merit, tend to fail after achievement as their method of acquisition is always a form of shortcut. These are your surface (cargo cult) image is enough, play the crowd, etc kind of people vs principals, ones word is ones bond, morals with a basis, etc…
So at a very fundamental level the dysfunction of the left is amplified by this core.
To understand this core is to really understand so much of why and what they do, and all kinds of stuff one would think would be impossible to intuit.
A core not built on merit is a shaky base, and so, they live in fear, a fear so deep they fear even others knowing this fear. Unable to accept ‘magic’, and incapable of learning principals of operation (outside manipulating people) in a intuitive way, the world is a scary place. You don’t know how economics works, so capitalism is something you fear. The idea of no captain and there being no real direction to go in, scares the bejesus out of such people. So busy creating things that appear real, you lose your ability to see real, or know it exists. Lastly, like Nancy Pelosi and many others, you finally reach the point where you no longer believe that merit was ever real or even exists. At this point, everything reduces to camps of manipulators trying to out thumb wrestle each other, with “lack of substance” always wondering why they can win, but cant hold on long, and lose to “substance” which does not exist (so they must be more powerful, secretive, etc).
All this informs the choices that were made in 2008, that now move to this point in 2012, and in a few days beyond.
In 2008 the fix was in, the opposition put up was weak, and so on and so on. It was a cargo cultist’s dream, with every visual thing that could be thought of up until they became a parody of 1933, not the least of which was the playing of the communist international before Obama stumped. Lenny Riefenstahl, minus the fetish for torches, seemed to be directing from an Ouija board.
But here is where these two views of the world differ mostly. In their choices of what to do, what is acceptable, what you prepare for, etc. For Obama it was critical to shut out all negative ties from the past as much as possible, from lots of dead gay guys, to records sealed, and on it went. Why? Because the past was not created by merit, but by image, and fronts and affirmative action, and so on.
So rather than build up a winning team to follow the winning election. Ie. Turn a win created by image into a substance in governance. In fact, that is what everyone who is competent on the left projected. That he resorted to this image demagoguery and games to win, and not that this image front and orchestrating such was how he saw the world (as did is contemporaries).
He surrounded himself with people who would be servants to him, not oppose him, and he could delegate everything to. A person of merit would not build such a team. Such a team is what the left builds, what I see in academia bureaucracies, and so on. These function by a hierarchy of dependency, not a interconnected group of capable people.
As long as no one was willing to say the emperor was naked, they could fake the whole thing. He did NOT pick a strong vice president. In fact, the whole of it was constructed to create an image where everyone would see him higher than he was, by lowering the next office.
Why didn’t he prepare? Two reasons. One. Prepare for what? They don’t believe in substance and merit, they don’t think Reagan had that, nor anyone else. So why would they think that Romney had substance, and that would have to be prepared for? Two. Bad habit developed over years of screwing around golfing, vacationing, avoiding meetings. Their dominance of the press box, meant 4 years of pop Warner softball. His freak out angers meant, no hard anything.
So ultimately, this lead to an image with no substance to consolidate it. The worry that historical people had (And still have), is that such people never historically go for the long term merit play. That they got to the top of the hill is enough, because of what they do to negate the process of leaving the hill. (and this is what shadow lurks behind everything now. To that in a second).
If things are playing out sincerely, which the analysis is assuming, then these prior choices are all colliding. From bad habit of not keeping oneself challenged and letting any skills one may have had atrophy, to picking a weak vp, who now has to go against Ryan, a man who set Obama off with a few simple questions and blew him away.
If they are not playing out sincerely, and the debates outcome never mattered, then that also explains behavior, but in a more sinister way.
Given the levity of the current spirit, I will just leave that for another day..
And for the people apt to shadenfreude, I will leave this bit of candy. I will bet that Ms Obama and her husband are not quite familiar with the rules of leaving office (as with governance), and will be very surprised that they will not be allowed to keep the gifts, and lots of other stuff… bought with tax dollars and or given to you in office, it goes into storage, not onto your mantel piece in Hawaii.
Anyone who was obsessive enough to pay attention to all of the Repub Primary debates was not surprised.
In those debates, Romney was heavily challenged over time. Early on, he showed signs of being a frightened rabbit, and he showed signs of being ashamed of his own wealth, and he showed signs of petulance and arrogance and condescension. However, over time, Romney showed that he is immensely talented: he got better, and better, and better. Not every candidate gets better in the way Romney got better. Getting better takes talent and discipline. By the last Repub Primary debate, it was clear that Romney had mastered the format and had bested his Repub competition.
Therefore, anyone who was obsessive enough to watch all those debates … knew that Romney would represent himself well in the Presidential Debates. He was tested tough, and talented, and disciplined in preparing himself.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The debate format (which I loved, and would love to see more of in future) helped Romney. Romney was able to perform in the debate as he has spent his life performing in business meetings.
In future debates, the moderators will eliminate some of the freewheeling format of the first debate; will force the candidates into “debate participant” boxes. The moderators will ask loaded questions.
Romney will still be very strong, yet not as strong, b/c Romney has not mastered the art of deconstructing the false premises of a leftist question. Among modern day candidates, only Newt Gingrich, and maybe Fred Thompson and Rudy Giuliani, have mastered the art of deconstucting the false premises of the leftist question, and of using the false premises to give an object lesson the difference between conservative principles and leftist doctrine.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As some others, I, also, was very impressed by Romney’s growing understanding of small government principles. In his understanding, he still has a long way to go, and yet he is matriculating in the right direction. He is a talented executive, in part, b/c he is a learner. I give the man full credit for that.
Artfldgr,
There are many jewels in your 7:26 post. Thank you for your often brilliant insight. (Although you far too often use a shotgun to kill the annoying fly on the ceiling.) 😉
gcotharn: “I, also, was very impressed by Romney’s growing understanding of small government principles. In his understanding, he still has a long way to go, and yet he is matriculating in the right direction. He is a talented executive, in part, b/c he is a learner.”
Romney continues to surprise me. May he continue to do so.
Sorry neo, but I wasn’t shocked by either performance. I’ve been telling people for years that Barky is a stone-cold idiot with an IQ hovering around 84 – which has always been obvious. Mitt just performed about the same as he usually does. Nothing different, really. He still left a lot on the table and let Barky go on lots of things but it didn’t really matter.
Barky is an idiot. A fool. An imbecile. he makes dumb mistakes in just about all of his PREPARED speeches and stupid utterances spill out of his mouth in tsunami-like fashion. It has ever been so. Barky would have lied more during the debate but most of the time he didn’t even understand what Mitt was saying.
The ones who really ought to be embarrassed about that debate are Columbia and Harvard Lawn School who gave laughable degrees to this mental midget who couldn’t reason his way out of a wet paper bag.
The difference in this debate was that it was more like an actual debate with a good deal of interaction between the two, rather than the usual “talking points series” that are called “debates” and which are nothing but rote regurgitations – for Barky usually just phonetic regurgitations … and he can’t even get lots of those correct – “corpse-man” … “Oh’-ree-ahn”!!
Rush Limbaugh
and your right parker (about the fly)…
Neo,
I’m shocked in the amount of lefties actually admitting what we saw with our own eyes that Romney won.
They have been so brazen that I thought they would just fake a win.
I’m watching Romney and Ryan on Hannity right now.
I think I have to buy striped ties now. I have always hated striped ties but they are both wearing striped ties and they looks so damn good.
1 in 6 americans in poverty. 49 million american on food stamps.
Ryan: Can’t keep spending money we don’t have and we don’t have that much time.
Hannity just asked Romney about the 47% video.
Romney’s answer was good.
Artfldgr Says:
October 4th, 2012 at 7:26 pm
Or as the saying goes, “First-rate people hire first-rate people. Second-rate people hire third-rate people.”
Which means that first-rate leaders are confident in their abilities, and want the best possible people they can find to serve under them.
On the other hand, a second-rate leader will be terrified that his underlings might outshine him, so he will pick people who he is certain won’t.
This is why I’ve always believed that Sarah Palin has the makings of a great President. I think she’s first-rate all the way.
There were several very choice results from last night’s debate, but among them must be listed the posts and reponses threads from Neo’s site.
Susan’s comment that Romney may have actually given us someone to vote *for* rather than just someone to vote against is really vital – and I know it was true for me.
Neo has proven her wisdom (once again) by having been ahead of this curve for months, and some of us are only now understanding the support she’s been providing for Romney all along.
Art’s laserbeam illumination of Obama’s character and history is one of his more impressive and sharp – I’ll be using several of his points in conversation over the next few weeks.
It’s both refreshing and mildly embarrassing to be enjoying this overnight renaissance, having been myself a bit pessimistic about the outcome of this election. But, hope feeds hope, so I think we’ll be the beneficiaries of and contributors to this new momentum. Only a few more weeks to go!
“The right was shocked because they really believed the negative media spin about Romney and he rose so far above their expectations”
We all saw some glimmers of this around the time he picked Ryan but the media push against him caused him to pull back (no matter what he said; he was wrong for awhile). I hope this is how he governs.
While I was not a Romney supporter during the primaries, I do have to admit that I’ve grown to like him more as time has passed.
He seems to be a genuinely decent man of character. That counts for a lot, especially considering what we have now.
His pick of Paul Ryan as VP was the best he could have made.
I didn’t watch last night’s debate. I haven’t watched a single debate in this entire political season. I haven’t been able to stand to see or hear Obama since mid-2008. If Romney had had a mediocre night and Obama had done his usual preenin’ and posturin’, I would have been tempted to take an axe to my TV.
Now I wish I had watched. It was apparently as good as any of us could have hoped for, and then some.
I heard an interesting story on Glenn Beck’s show today. We all know how the Obamas behave like royalty, or Third World dictators, living the good life at taxpayers’ expense. They stay in posh hotels, and dine on lobster and caviar every chance they get. Meanwhile they paint Romney as the Evil Rich Guy, hopelessly out of touch with regular people.
Beck said that backstage after the debate, one of Romney’s sons was making peanut butter sandwiches for everybody, with a plastic knife.
“and your right parker (about the fly)…”
Never use a shotgun when a fly swatter will suffice.
Baklava: yes, I forgot to mention that kind of shock—shock that pundits like Chris Matthews didn’t try to spin it as a win. I read some joking comment somewhere that said that Obama did so badly it was unspinnable. But of course everything is spinnable. Problem is, you sound like Baghdad Bob if you try to spin something that’s too absurd. I think some of the leftist pundits felt that their dignity would be affronted if they tried to do that—they have their limits, which surprised me.
I also think they really believed the hype, so as true believers they were actually shocked by Obama and had trouble masking their shock. They were going through an emotional upheaval right on camera and they had trouble dissembling. And remember, it was actually a double shock to them: Obama’s bad performance and Romney’s good one, simultaneously.
rickl,
We, and the rest of the world, are in for a hell of lot of trouble in the next 4-8 years; but we in the USA could certainly do worse than 4-8 years of R&R. The immediate future is going to be a bumpy road but the the only available course is to take it step by painful step.
rickl: I’m sure you could watch the debate online, probably C-Span and/or YouTube.
All: Listening to WABC radio today was enough to give you whiplash. First Rush Limbaugh, at his most expansive and genial, crowing about how Romney demolished Urkel.
Then the “news” break, from Planet ABC: “Some pundits say Romney won the debate last night — BUT New Yorkers aren’t so sure.” And they did MITS (Man-in-the-street) interviews with some librul weenies, saying things like, “I don’t think either man landed a knockout blow,” and “Obama did a good job of presenting his ideas,” etc.
NOT ONE QUOTE from any of their usual water-carriers amongst the pundit-wallahs who were rending their garments yesterday. NOT ONE quote from ANYONE with an IQ above room temperature who watched the debate and realized that Romney won by a mile and Urkel looked like the mendacious fool he in fact is.
Not one mention that everybody, even Chris Mathews, conceded the fight was Mitt’s.
It was amazing.
I met a person who used to work at ABC in the “news” division: she said that they absolutely have a blacklist for any conservatives/ Republicans and will not hire them; nor will ABC “News” allow anything to be broadcast that makes their team look bad. She had to be completely secret about her patriotism, which they consider [rightly] a “tell.”
Artfldgr
Enjoyed your essay. Others have also mentioned that one reason for ∅bama’s abysmal performance was that years of a docile press meant that he had little practice in handling tough questions- and little need for preparing for tough questions. His disengagement from the nuts and bolts of actual policy has been apparent these 4 years, so it is not a surprise that a knowledgeable person like Romney gobsmacked him with superior knowledge. You are the first I have seen who has added that the longstanding lib contempt for Pubs, such as for Reagan, was an additional reason why ∅bama didn’t feel the need to prepare. Dumb Republicans- a Democratic Party theme since at least Adlai’s time.
Could you provide links about the Internationale being played during ∅bama’s campaigning in 2008? Thanks.
@10:03 PM Instapundit links to Rand Simberg whose review of the debates includes the following quote (from Paul Rahe?). I think it really needs to be repeated:
This is the reality that the left has yet to understand. What happened? This is Obama as he is, not as he has been painted by the MSM. As many commenter here have noted, those of us who have been unimpressed by Obama from the beginning are surprised only to the point that Obama did even worse than we expected. No, he is not a consummate speaker and no, he is not the most intelligent man to sit in the oval office.
As an erstwhile Gingrich supporter I must say I am most impressed with Romney’s performance last night. I supported Gingrich because he seemed to be the only Republican who would and could re-frame liberal attack questions and respond in a way as to disarm the liberal source. Romney didn’t exactly do that last night, of course there weren’t any real “gotcha” type questions from Lehrer. Still Romney demonstrated yet another quite successful way to carve a turkey. He did it with flair and with respect and in his own way he disarmed his opponent.
Well done.
Neo, I guess I shoud have specified that I was speaking pretty much from my own perspective; and an unkown number who share it. I disregard Pundits, and most in the blogsphere. for the most part. Or I should say I take what is said with a very high level of skeptical scrutiny. You, naturally, being an exception.
I never doubted that Romney had a ruthless streak. I don’t claim that I knew what his strategy would be in the debates, but I did not doubt that he could be tough.
I worked for a company that got its seed money from Bain. Bain’s relationship with our company was ruthless when the company did not meet expectations, and they ultimately pulled the plug. No, hard feelings. We would probably never have come into existence if Bain had not stepped up in the beginning.
But, I know that Romney’s company could act when the chips were down. In addition, we all heard the whining througout the primaries that Romney was playing hardball.
If Obama and his merry trolls did not anticipate that Romney would be tough, they did not do their homework.
I consider Romney a very nice, even a kind man; but I do not doubt that in the cut throat worlds of politics and business he can hold his own. That is all good–as President he will operate in a cut throat world.
This was a classic affirmative action performance. The beneficiary has only to appear to touch second base and the guilty imaginations of his target audience (white liberals) will call it a triple. That’s why he was looking bored at points. He showed up, he moved his lips at appropriate points, and believed that was enough. He had demonstrated that he met at least the minimal qualifications for the office. Usually that’s enough.
Problem with that approach is that it’s not adequate in a direct confrontation with a genuinely ambitious and talented opponent. You can’t go through the motions and win a boxing match against such an opponent.
Another factor, not discussed here, is that Obama’s performances can be notoriously uneven. He did give a great speech at the 2004 Democratic convention but it’s almost the only memorable speech he’s even given. I still recall the Times reporting that Iowa democrats were going to his campaign events in 2008 expecting to hear at least a bit of the 2004 orator and were instead getting a rather flat Obama. When he hits his stride, he can be effective, but there are long gaps. I heard him speak once before an audience that had waited for several hours in a hot sun and he was less than banal. No one said it out loud afterwards though because they had seen the messiah.
Somewhere on the internet there is a video of Obama taking questions from the press following some sort of economic summit in Asia. He looked tired, over his head and way out of his league. Sort of like last night.
That doesn’t mean he won’t do significantly better in the next debate. He may be one of those people who respond aggressively when cornered or threatened. Maybe he’ll find out who made Jennifer Granholm’s coffee.
This was a classic affirmative action performance. The beneficiary has only to appear to touch second base and the guilty imaginations of his target audience (white liberals) will call it a triple. That’s why he was looking bored at points. He showed up, he moved his lips at appropriate points, and believed that was enough. He had demonstrated that he met at least the minimal qualifications for the office. Usually that’s enough.
Problem with that approach is that it’s not adequate in a direct confrontation with a genuinely ambitious and talented opponent. You can’t go through the motions and win a boxing match against such an opponent.
Another factor, not discussed here, is that Obama’s performances can be notoriously uneven. He did give a great speech at the 2004 Democratic convention but it’s almost the only memorable speech he’s ever given. I still recall the Times reporting that Iowa democrats were going to his campaign events in 2008 expecting to hear at least a bit of the 2004 orator and were instead getting a rather flat Obama. When he hits his stride, he can be effective, but there are long gaps. I heard him speak once before an audience that had waited for several hours in a hot sun and he was less than banal. No one said it out loud afterwards though because they had seen the messiah.
Somewhere on the internet there is a video of Obama taking questions from the press following some sort of economic summit in Asia. He looked tired, over his head and way out of his league. Sort of like last night.
That doesn’t mean he won’t do significantly better in the next debate. He may be one of those people who respond aggressively when cornered or threatened. Maybe he’ll find out who made Jennifer Granholm’s coffee.
Obama was not a surprise. Mitt turning out a masterful performance was quite surprising – he’s not the kind of warrior that Newtzilla or Chris Christie are. I was looking for a field goal to tie the game up, and Mitt just scored a touchdown, got a 2 point conversion, and sent Obama deep into his own territory. Wow.
It’s still a long way to go, but Mitt is Mittens no more, and that is what I wanted to see.
Want to talk about two kinds of shock? It’s even worse than we suspect. To say Obama is a “one-trick pony” is not just a metaphor it’s literally true. This article from Reason.com (H/T HotAir) juxtaposes Obama 2008 to Obama 2012. Almost word for word.
http://reason.com/blog/2012/10/04/obama-plagiarizes-own-debate-promises-fr
So Obama’s talking points from 2008 are the same as his talking points for 2012? It’s no wonder he’s done nothing about them in 4 years. If he accomplished any of this he’d have to seek out new issues.
I’m in favor of recycling, too, but this is ridiculous.
Late to the dance, as usual, but something that Artfldgr wrote that struck me, to wit: …Such a team is what the left builds, what I see in academia bureaucracies, and so on. These function by a hierarchy of dependency, not a interconnected group of capable people.
Working as I have (and still do) in the Third World, this is precisely the dynamic I’ve seen among our local employees. The company’s Europeans, Aussies, and other North Americans function very much on a merit-based system. The Indonesians, however, duplicate the patronage systems you find throughout Indonesian society, with lower-ranked employees giving their superiors gifts, to include cash, to curry favor among these seniors, and expecting to be taken care of in return. Merit has nothing to do with any of it. And Thailand was exactly the same in this regard. The senior Thai managers got rich off the backs of their employees, and not through their productivity, either. So this is the type of Third-World “team” that Obama has formed. Scary.
BTW I know I pulled a “Biden” with my use of the term literally abive (@8:00 AM). That’s what I get for trying to be coherent before the first cup of coffee has taken hold.
I blame Bush.
And yet another shock:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/obamas_debate_con.html
Normally I would dismiss this as wild-eyed conspiracy theory, but with the Obama-Axelrod-Plouffe team, I’m not sure that’s wise.
@artfldgr
Now that is positively the most accessible thing I’ve ever read of yours, artfldgr.
…add in that it was both accessible and illuminating, and …well …
Kudos.
…and thanks.
…for, as always, an interesting and thoughtful POV.
UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE: The liberal mindset and agenda in this country has brainwashed us—especially the younger generation—to such an extent that the first charismatic (drumroll, please) black candidate was elected president without being properly vetted. As a consequence, his inexperience, incompetence and ineptitude is leading our country to ruin. This was (finally) made clear to all unbiased observers this past week. We need to be led by the best person for the job (of any color, by the way) not by someone who assuages our consciences.
Beside being finally some good news after so much doom and gloom, the revelations were astounding.
Which revelations? For us here, the fact that Obama is nothing but a stuttering idiot when robbed of his teleprompter crutch has been an open secret for so long. But now it was laid bare for tens of millions of viewers to see. As the writers at PJ Media have put it, the real Romney and the real Obama were on display here; Romney won by bypassing the MSM for the first time.
By bypassing the MSM for the first time?! Think on these words! Think on the terrible truth behind them! A carefully crafted fictitious narrative regarding Obama was maintained, with no dissent allowed on the mainstream route, and had this debate not broken the blockade, a large portion of the American public might have stayed blind to Obama’s stuttering idiocy, to his economic treason, to Fast & Furious, to Benghazigate and everything else that shatters the smoke and mirrors. Just once was the public allowed to peer beyond the smoke and mirrors, and what a change it wrought!
The revelations were not primarily about the vacuity of the suit worn by Obama. They were about the misplaced, unearned, unelected, unaccountable and dangerous power of the MSM first and foremost. That should always be kept in mind.
Let a Romney presidency last even two terms, and let them be as good as Reagan’s, but if the problem of the MSM isn’t dealt with, those years would be squandered as were the Reagan years, destined to be years of plenty forgotten by subsequent years of dearth. The MSM will not fold if Romney wins. It will go back to its dirty tricks of the Bush years, of latching onto every tiny word said by the Republican president and blowing it out of proportion. It will be single-mindedly geared towards making his presidency look bad no matter how good it actually is.
Democracy means, among other things, elections and the doing of the will of the people. With the MSM, both principles are dashed to pieces: The MSM is neither elected, nor does it care about the will of the people (“bitter clingers,” “right-wing extremists,” you name it). Maybe in the far past the MSM was a watchdog, but no more–this is the Internet-based media’s torch now. Today the MSM is the greatest saboteur of democracy worldwide. Yes, worldwide, not just in America. If, anywhere in the free world, it is the will of the people that, say, all the Muslim colonists be kicked out of their country (be it France, India or Israel), the MSM is there to make sure that the will of the people is painted as the “racist fringe opinions of a few extremists.” Thus the treasonous status quo is maintained.
This debate has proved it most decisively: The greatest task for the forces of good in our time is not the election of this or that president (though of course that’s important–four more years of the Teleprompter Marxist would be disastrous), and is not confined to the United States of America. That task is to break the power of the Marxist-owned MSM beyond all regrowth. Let us pray it will not take a civil war for this goal to be achieved.
I think the debate and the Romney campaign’s low profile of the last month was part of a rope-a-dope strategy that suckered Obama and the news media. Romney is strategic, logical, and disciplined. He has a passion for facts. He did his homework.
http://unapprovedthoughts.blogspot.com/2012/10/romneys-rope-dope-of-obama.html
Bernard,
Liberalism is all about assuaging consciences.
Ziontruth wrote: “The MSM will not fold if Romney wins. It will go back to its dirty tricks of the Bush years, . . .”
I absolutely agree. They will keep doing the same thing, but I think they will no longer get the same results. When they eviscerated Bush they were still operating under the veil of at least some credibility. Now with 60% of Americans distrusting the MSM (and that %age is growing) I suspect that they will find themselves to truly be the court eunuchs—no satisfying results.
I think the left and right were shocked when they found out they were both supporting the wrong candidate.
she said that they absolutely have a blacklist for any conservatives/ Republicans and will not hire them; nor will ABC “News” allow anything to be broadcast that makes their team look bad.
Good Party discipline.
I’m in favor of recycling, too, but this is ridiculous.
Recycling speeches is nothing. In California, we recycle politicians. And used diapers. Which have a lot in common, come to think of it.