Skip to comments.Well, that's what happens with an affirmative-action debate team...
Posted on 10/06/2012 7:50:57 AM PDT by ken5050
The first debate is over. Obama had his hat handed to him by Mitt. James Taranto, in an excellent piece in the WSJ this week, suggests that Obama's failure was inevitable, because he's been coddled, pampered by the MSM for more than 4 years, and thus the first time he faced an articulate, prepared, challenger, Obama wasn't ready.
The problem with this argument is that it suggests that next time Obama will be much better prepared, bring his A-game.
What if that's just plain wrong? What if what we saw Wednesday night is the best that Obama has to offer?
Then, "community organizing." Well...was he successful at it? Logic tells us there are both "good" and "bad" community organizers. Which was Obama?
Then politics. He started in the Illinois State Senate..handed a sure-thing Democrat district, where he ducked most votes.
Obama then tried for the big leeagues..a House seat. Incumbent Black House Democrats either die in office, or are run out of town by a scandal. There was no opening, so Obama attempted to force his way into the game.
He challenged Rep. Bobby Rush, and what happened?: He lost, rather, he got clobbered. Rush beat him by a 2:1 margin.
Delicious aside: Pretty neat that to date it's two "Rush"es who've made life most miserable for Obama.
FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HIS LIFE, OBAMA FACED A TOUGH, SMART, DISCIPLINED, ORGANIZED OPPONENT.
It was a slaughter.
Then, 2004. The teleprompter gave a speech at the Democrat Convention, and the teleprompter leapt onto the national stage. Obama ran for the open Illinois senate seat, and won, mainly because the sordid details of GOP opponent's sealed divorce records magically leaked all over the place.
He beat Hillary for the 2008 Dem nomination. His inability as a debater was masked by her equal ineptness. And Hillary went easy on Obama in the debates, fearful of antagonizing the black vote.
Then he bested a tired, listless McCain in the debates, and the election, when the country was just plain tired of eight years of Bush. Obama uttered nothing but banal platitudes, and won easily.
In his first term, Obama has avoided the press, and press conferences to an extent not seen since the end of WW II, preferring instead the soft interviews of local media, and the fawning acolytes of "The View."
Again, remember, the ONE and ONLY time he faced a capable, organized, candidate, Obama lost badly.
Thus, we can reasonably deduce that Obama didn't fail Wednesday; he wasn't somehow "off his game"
What we saw was indeed Obama at his best. That's it...that's ALL he has to offer, to bring...and it's just not enough.
FYI..thought you might enjoy this..
No matter what is asked, he makes statements that are totally irrelevant to the question.
Right now...he's on a Big Bird roll....And EVERYTHING is connected to Big Bird.
No, the problem is there are still too many idiots in this country who STILL haven't or won't accept that his debate performance was indicative of his "A" game.
I think Hillary DID go easy on Obama...at the parties command....How’d that work out for you Hillary??
His handlers may try (will try) to get him to fight back in a way that is alien to Obama.
He has been trained and conditioned to expect the world to be handed to him on a silver platter (all he has to do is smoke a little choom, get laid back, and let the world come to him). If he tries a new persona, he may fail even more miserably than last time...he may even crack.
In the next debate Romney will be discussing Russian collusion with Iran's nuclear ambitions and zero will still be complaining about Big Bird.
Obama is the empty chair, empty suit president.
I am stealing a theory from the comments section in Friday’s wsj: the president suffers from short term memory dysfunction (CRS), which prevents him from marshaling an apropos rebuttal to what Romney has just said, or Lehrer’s question, in the first place. It’s a serious disadvantage in a freewheeling debate. Personally I think it will be less so in the “town hall” format of the 2nd round. (not even addressing fact that Obama’s essential positions are anathema to most people and indefensible).
Just one more example of the coddling of Obama.
And now Obama is facing the perfect storm...his adoring fans are disappointed, he realizes that he is intellectual soft by being coddled, the press is beginning to poke fun at him, the economy sucks, his foreign affairs approach is unraveling, and his opponent is an extremely diligent and well-prepared type A overachiever with a plan.
It sucks to be Obama.
We finally got a glimpse of the real Obama during the Denver debate. This product of lifelong affirmative action went up against someone who has actually worked and achieved his entire life, and the results weren’t pretty. (for Obama)
Fascinating..I hadn’t seen that theory before. The Town Hall format will be an advantage for Obama..especially so if he knows the questions before hand..
If so, it's probably a result of all the 'weed' he's smoked.
Everything this pretend president touches turns into a confused mess. I feel certain that if his sealed history were subjected to the light of day, his entire scholastic and political record would reflect similar results. He has demonstrated a pathetic lack of ability to organize, tell the truth, or lead.
His adoring fans are IGNORING their disappointment. That’s what 47% do!!
that would be foolish for her, as there is no way a white person - male or female would ever win any black votes over even the most stupid, effete black person.
Axlegrease said that BO would probably not prepare any more than he did for the first one. He still can’t defend his record when he’s one on one with anyone.
The comments are amazing because so many of them are in favor of Romney.
If Romney is beginning to attract not just independents but fed up Libs...this upcoming election is going to be a rout.
You have to remember that the libs are convinced that their political philosophy of governance is correct..that's why they won in 2008, of course. Therefore, the ONLY reason the can lose in 2012 is if Obama does a lousy job as a candidate...IOW, it's NOT the message, therefore, it's gotta be the messenger.
I think Obama will do a little better because he will be pre-programmed with a few more zingers. He can deliver a speech, but I have NEVER thought him to be particularly intelligent. He just uses a good vocabulary and an attractive delivery cadence, and marries it with faked demeanor of a “cool”, smart a$$ punk to give the appearance of competence and confidence..
Obama has neither history, sound policy, nor fact on his side. His arguments for his governance, four more years and Romney’s shortcomings are ALL based on a pack of lies. My prediction: he will have more fight in him at the next debate, but he will be out-gunned by the truth, logic and sound, reasonable policy proposals.
It would be great if an empty suit (a la the Invisible Man movie) would be sitting in that chair. Photoshop anybody?
Or might there be an explanation associated with that visibly long scar on the back of his head. One would think that such a feature would bring a host of questions and some kind of explanation.
Romney will back off, and try to look firmly presidential. Less aggressive. He'll get as many touchy feely questions as they can throw at the uncaring creepy Republican.
For Obie's part, the format won't allow him to be his best, which is 100% teleprompter. He has no best in this townhall debate, which I assume is a similar debate, but with questions from the audience. He'll be able to spew his platitude to the fawning questioner, but Mitt will bring him back to reality in short order.
And to top it off Romney was rather kind and gentlemanly. He really stuck to basic facts and economic principles.
Romney barely scratched the surface.
It is racist to hold Ubama to the same set of rules as Romney.
Thats simply not so.. your analysis is deeply flawed.. Obama did not mention any of the things his campaign has invented
and promoted with hundreds of millions of dollars.. even up to the day of the debate..
Its is/was scripted for Romney to WIN.. (to save face)
because Obama will eviscerate him in the next two..
(You know... the two just before the election..)
Its mind boggling how slow republicans can be..
Not even embarrassed by playing PollyAnnas GLAD-Game..
**Note: No doubt about it Saul Alinsky was so far ahead of republicans they have no defense against his schemes.. and machinations..
I expect Obama will throw Hillary under the bus at the next debate. Her fault foreign policy has collapsed.
***he will have more fight in him at the next debate***
Or will be even more stoned, just so he can make it through.
That is a deep, dark,cynical, and scary viewpoint...we shall see
No, Obama is like a typical Communist apparatchik, a gensec, full of Marxist ideology and nothing else.
The irony of course is that by the advanced stage of the Soviet Empire the apparatchiks spouting the empty phrases no longer believed them, unlike the academic marxists of the West who remain true believers having never experienced the consequences of the radical policies they propose, or having somebody to blame for their failures, unlike again those gensecs who could no longer blame the Western Imperialists.
With Obama, James Taranto may be too polite to say it, but there is no there there.
“an explanation associated with that visibly long scar on the back of his head”
Kimberly Guilfoyle said that Hussein is a robot programmed with a certain number of phrases by his handlers. You stick a quarter in his mouth and junk like “fair share” spews forth. That scar could be where a chip has been inserted.
can’t argue the analysis. :)
I don’t think we’d be any better off with Hillary!. The monumental failures in the Middle East have shown what an abysmal politician she really is.
Highly, highly overrated, even compared to Obama.
You nailed it. Four years ago, Biden and Bill Clinton spoke of the facade, “I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy. I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”...”This whole thing is the biggest fairy tale I’ve ever seen.”
Obama cannot win a debate on substance. He needs a “you’re no Jack Kennedy moment.”
Sarah Palin recently issued a warning that the Obama team is “not going to go down without swinging. Theyre going to pull something.” Axelrod may pull the stunt he used when he first hit the political stage 1984 as Paul Simon’s communication director, and within weeks, co-campaign manager (wiki).
SEN. PAUL SIMON: LOSING TAUGHT HIM TO FIGHT BACK
Lexington Herald-Leader (KY) - Sunday, December 13, 1987
Author: Andrew Cassel Knight-Ridder News Service
CHICAGO — Illinois television viewers could not have been more surprised if they had just seen Mr. Rogers spank a child. There on their screens was courtly, mild Paul Simon, wagging his finger at his opponent and calling him a liar.
It was Oct. 18, 1984, and the second televised debate between Simon and the man he was trying to unseat, Republican Sen. Charles Percy, had just begun. Tossing aside a question about the CIA’s activities in Nicaragua, his baritone voice rising in volume, Simon let fly: “Chuck Percy, you have put on the air a TV ad, a sleazy TV ad that is crude, intentionally distorts my stand on the deficit, and you know it intentionally distorts that stand. You have in fact lied to the people of the state of Illinois.”
It would have been strong stuff coming from most politicians; coming from Simon, it was a shocker. In 28 years in Illinois politics, he had become known as the state Boy Scout, principled, high-minded and slow to disparage opponents. The son of a Lutheran minister, he had a personal style that made him well liked even by many of those who gagged on his New Deal-style liberalism. “I want to win,” he told the audience that night, “but not so badly I’ll lie to the people of Illinois.”
Even so, the dukes-up posture didn’t come naturally. Simon’s aggressive opening was carefully rehearsed, and he spent hours practice-sparring with staffers, trying to anticipate all of Percy’s moves. Remembers aide Vicki Otten, “Anyone who knew him could see a little bit of squirming in the chair when he had to attack Percy.”
The verbal assault shook people’s image of Simon. The 200 people watching the debate live were nonplused: “Half the room started applauding, and half booed
because he wasn’t playing by the rules,” Ms. Otten said. A private poll taken immediately afterward showed Simon down by 11 points.
Still, said Axelrod , “It was cathartic. Sort of like those ‘Rocky’ movies, where Stallone pushes the bad guy off him.” His advisers decided to abandon the rough stuff for the remainder of the race. “In the simplest possible way, we put Paul Simon in front of a camera and we had him discuss his political principles,” Axelrod said. Simon dug in, working harder and demanding the same of his staff.
“Something clicked in those last three weeks,” Axelrod recalled. “He became a flawless candidate — he knew exactly what he wanted to say, and he projected the image of a man who was sure-footed and reliable.” That image, which carried him into the Senate by 90,000 votes, is the one he is banking on this year to capture the biggest prize of all. It showed up in the first Democratic debate in July when he told voters that “if you want a candidate slickly packaged like some new soft drink, I’m not your man.”
Setting the stage:
Obama ad says Romney lied about tax cut plan
Obama Adviser Axelrod Calls on Media to Attack Romney
And so today, as the day after, I think the question for you [the media], for the American people is really one of character and whether or not a candidacy thats so fundamentally rooted in hiding the truth and the facts from the American people and deception is the basis of trust on which you assign the presidency to a person.
So that is what we are going to focus on moving forward. Were going to hold Governor Romney accountable for the things that he said last night and were going to make him justify those claims as I hope you will make him justify those claims.
Because we need an an honest and a genuine and realistic plan to move forward and not a bunch of lines designed to get you through a debate.