Posted on 10/08/2012 4:40:06 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
The flood of excuses for why the president performed as abysmally as he did in the first presidential debate last Wednesday has risen up to the firmament … of higher education. In The New Yorker’s now-infamous cover story—the illustration for which shows the debate stage with an empty chair at Obama’s lectern—editor David Remnick samples the opinions of “Obama’s old friends” from academe (h/t James Taranto).
Included are Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe and another teacher, Christopher Edley. Tribe explains Romney’s rout of Obama by insisting that the president’s “instincts and talents have never included going for an opponent’s jugular. That’s just not who he is or ever has been.” (Tribe’s right. Obama’s style is more taking shots at his opponents behind their back, snidely ridiculing them in front of crowds of well-wishers, knowing that they are comfortably out of retaliatory striking range.)
Edley’s take is more flattering. “The reason I hate campaigns is that being right on the substance isn’t good enough,” he says, adding, “I admire [Obama] for caring more about the substance than the tactics … We know that Obama skews cerebral.” (Maybe so, though you’d never know it from his unteleprompted syntax. The Examiner quotes the president as starting off an apology to his Hollywood supporters with the observation, “Everybody here are [sic] just incredible professionals.”)
The excuse makers aren’t limited to Obama’s old pals, or at least not those who have a personal acquaintanceship with him. The New York Times offered up its two cents on Sunday, writing:
Mr. Obama does not like debates to begin with, aides have long said, viewing them as media-driven gamesmanship … Mr. Obama made clear to advisers that he was not happy about debating Mr. Romney, whom he views with disdain. It was something to endure, rather than an opportunity, aides said.
John Podhoretz quotes that passage from the Times piece, then states:
On the face of it, this is absurd: If [Obama] views Romney with disdain, why wouldn’t he relish the opportunity to crush him in a debate? Debates aren’t dates or dinner parties or business meetings; they are contests, and Obama is a very competitive person. Why would he only ‘endure’ one, given how utterly wonderful he is? As for ‘media-driven gamesmanship,’ what does Obama call going on David Letterman’s show, or Jay Leno’s, both of which he seems to enjoy mightily?
This Herculean joint effort to explain away the events of last Wednesday would not be necessary unless Obama’s thumping was of heroic proportions. A new Gallup survey indicates just how heroic it was. The poll asked, “Regardless of which candidate you happen to support, who do you think did the better job in last/Wednesday night’s debate?” Among all debate watchers, 72% answered “Romney,” while 20% said “Obama.” Among independents, the margin was a point greater, with only 19% expressing the opinion that Obama did better. The difference—52%–is the largest in Gallup history!
Other polls show the effect of outcome on voter preferences. Today’s Real Clear Politics average has Romney trailing by half a percentage point, 47.9$ to 47.4%.
The question for the Democrats is what they do next. Podhoretz repeats the party line, which is that Obama will do better in the next debate, then asks, “But how? By calling Romney a liar? Does the Obama team think Romney will have no effective response to that accusation in the next two debates?”
It will indeed be interesting to see what happens next.
Obama is a bully! Acts real tough until confronted by someone who won’t take it anymore.
Now we need a republican trifecta.
Nixon, Reagan, Romney 49 state win.
obama only knows dirty tricks. He cannot run or hide from his record anymore. The cover-up artists at the Maim Stream Media have also been pulled out of their bunker holes defending Obama. They want to promote and defend a liar? They are guilty for not reporting the truth in the first place.
Act real tough in a gang, but one on one, not so tough.
All these excuses remind some of us of all of Jake’s excuses why he dumped his ex-fiancée in “Blues Brothers”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE
“The question for the Democrats is what they do next. Podhoretz repeats the party line, which is that Obama will do better in the next debate, then asks, “But how? By calling Romney a liar? Does the Obama team think Romney will have no effective response to that accusation in the next two debates?””
I was just talking about this with my wife.
For the left to say that Obama will “comeback”, he would have to have some measurable talents to utilize in order to do that.
Obama has always stunk at debates. He has had no real history of dominating them because the answers cannot be rehearsed and read off of a teleprompter.
On top of that he has had 6 years of people covering for him while Senator, as a candidate and as president. No one was allowed to question him, no one was allowed to openly challenge him, and the press made sure of that! He has no ability to defend himself by himself.
Obama’s supporters openly engaged in the scam that this guy was intelligent to the point that they forgot that it was a scam. That’s how good of a scam it was!
Both O, and all of the lefty flunkies went into the debate fully convinced of the BS they have passed back and forth for the past 4 years only to have it blow up in their face.
Oh dont get me wrong, the press and Axelrot were fully aware of how stupid this guy is, and THATS what the past month’s worth of attack press reports, saturation negative ads, and proclamations of a guaranteed Obama win were about. They wanted to run Romney down so hard that he would go into the debates stunned and cowering. That he would be so far back in the polls (rigged ones) that it would not matter what he did.
Well we know it failed totally. And I dont think Obama recovers at all. Again, recover with what?! People now see exactly how inept this guy was! Now the polls will have no choice but to stop trying to prop up Obama because the jig is up. The press will have to veer off of the narrative.
Sorry for the rambling. This stuff was sort of pouring out.
O is a punk. Has been from the beginning and always will be, the Orambo bs not withstanding.
I won’t be satisfied unless Romney wins at least 53 of the 57 states!
LOL!! Good luck with that!
Did you see the first Tyson/Hollyfield fight. Same thing. A big bully finally met someone not afraid of him who had the capacity to stand up to him. He freaked out, couldn’t handle it, so he but Hollyfield’s ear off.
Don't kid yourself. Assuming Obama's performance is even a sliver better than in the first debate, the MSM will go bonkers over how well he did, how much improved he was, how presidential he seemed this time, ad nauseum.
Obama has set the bar so low, he could surmount it rolling over in his sleep.
All of these “helpful” Obama friends need to understand that they’re not helping him.
Unless you’re a died-in-the-wool Obamabot, the only true conclusion is Obama lost big to Romney in that debate.
Telling people it wasn’t so because of this or that only implies that the viewing public’s eyes and ears are liars or they’re not smart enough to understand the nuances...
This doesn’t sell at all and only hurts their “product”.
The best recourse at this point is to admit the truth and move on to the next debate.
But these clowns are never wrong so they’re just going to double down and refuse to let it lie.
Their hubris is causing them votes even now. Delicious!
So? Let them.
They have lost control of the narrative. Romney has shown himself more competent, and far more astute than the press made him out to be. That cannot be unseen by Obama not acting like he didn’t do a line of coke in the next debate.
Romney for sure wont do poorly. Obama can only suck a little less.
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.