Posted on 10/06/2012 7:31:44 AM PDT by PJ-Comix
I'm trying to wrap my mind around this but it is being said that Obama MUST go on the offensive and be aggressive in the next debate. But how can he do this since the theme of the debate is foreign policy and he will have to answer questions (which he has so far refused to answer) about the debacle in the Middle East, specifically the storming of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and the death of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya? How can he justify clinging for long to the false excuse that the death of the Ambassador to Libya in Benghazi was due to a silly YouTube video when his own intelligence community knew withing 24 hours that it was a PLANNED attack? And why did he allow Susan Rice to stick with the video excuse on interviews days after the attack?
I just don't see how Obama can be anything more than very defensive on this but perhaps someone out there has some other insight on how he can win the foreign policy debate on Oct. 16.
I think BO is not going to show up at the 3rd debate because of “unavoidable circumstances” He can’t defend his actions and if he does poorly on #2 I don’t think there will be a 3rd.
And the millions of non-idiots in the viewing audience will groan and go vote Republican.
Social issues will not make for a memorable debate. Most proably won’t watch if that is what it turns out to be. On the other hand, BO will look like a gay loving weirdo and Mitt will support normalcy which is what most Americans support.
Send in the chair!
I’ve thought about this since Wednesday. After O’s dismal failure at the debate, I’m thinking that his handlers are going to urge him to go on the attack. He will overcompensate for his crappy performance and look like a complete a-hole to the viewing public. Then, for the third debate, they’ll tell him to rein it back in and he’ll screw that one up as well, looking like the mumbling, bumbling fool that he is again.
“So how does Obama go on the offense over a topic that is a loser for him?”
He can neither defend, nor mount a good offense. The problem is not that his record is “indefensible,” but that it’s a defense which requires a level of on-your-feet, on-the-fly sophistication that the guy may not be capable of, at least not anymore. It is not a matter of merely defending a poor position, but of doing so with a depleted army [intellect and con-artist skills] that was never all that strong or well trained to begin with, and which now has serious and irreparable supply disruptions and sinking morale. There are wholesale desertions. Reinforcements are not on the way. Neither an effective offense nor defense is at all likely, and a retreat is not possible.
The moderators, audience and media may try valiantly try to give him air support, but he is now horribly exposed, and the opposing forces occupy the high ground. His opponent is mobile, motivated, well armed, well trained, well supplied, well disciplined, well organized.
In a battle, Romney would send an envoy to ask for Obama’s surrender. In an election debate, this is not done.
Proper dosing with stimulants or other cognitive-enhancing drugs may substitute for intellect and a pleasing personality for the duration of a debate, but even those circuits seem to have been fried under chronic usage over the years. I think he’s done. What has been seen - a naked emperor - cannot be unseen.
I was surprised when Candy was announced as the next moderator. She is not as dyed int he wool leftists as the obamanoids want, having been in hot water at CNN not long ago for being too honest. I expected her to follow Lou Dobbs in exiting that fen of liberalism ...
The next debate, the town hall format, will take questions on both foreign and domestic issues.
Mitt will likely win the next debate very easily.
All he has to do right out of the gate is to cooly and calmly bring a line of attack that will cause the Marxist narcissist to become totally consumed with anger.
After that Obama will be off his game and easy to finish off.
I am expecting the moderator and the “undecided questioners” to all be there on a mission to prop him up and make him look acceptable, and for the “undecideds” to actually be seething liberals who were handpicked by the Zero campaign to shore him up and to vehemently attack Romney with barely veiled hostility. It will something akin to a debate version of Weekend at Bernie’s - let’s call it “Weekend at Bammy’s”. ;-)
LOL!
Interesting....thank you.
Interesting....thank you.
Fixed it.
Not all long islanders are socialist. Maybe the students, but there is a business school at hofstra and they might be conservative.
Obamugabe has the silly in this case rules of patriotism and deference on his side that are commonly observed when it comes to POTUSes and their foreign policies. I hope I’m wrong, but Romney may be too reluctant to attack the Kenyan “during the time of international crisis”
Can he claim to be unable to answer due to National Security?
I doubt Obama will put any blame on hillary. There will be Hell to Pay by Bill if he does. Oh how I’d love to see Clinton withdraw his support for zero.
I hope so. But it’s a long shot IMO
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.