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?
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.