Skip to comments.Presidential debate: Will the Obama of 'change' show up this time?
Posted on 10/16/2012 2:23:38 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot
Alt. title: Are voters looking for CHANGE in 2012?
.... Many commenters have suggested that the president's problem in Denver was that he seemed disengaged, even disinterested. That's easy enough to correct; it's just a matter of displaying the combativeness Obama shows on the campaign trail.
But as tempting as it may be for Obama to believe, is the president's problem merely stylistic? ..... There's at least two problems with that reasoning, though. First, much of the debate was focused on policy details, such as whether Romney's proposed tax cuts would shift tax burdens from the rich to middle- and lower-income Americans, or whether Obamacare would let the government dictate how doctors treat patients. So while there were obvious differences in presentation, there were also big differences in substance. And maybe those differences were just as persuasive, if not more so, than the candidates' energy gap.
And second, Obama faces a challenge on substance that's tougher than Romney's. As the incumbent, the president has to persuade people to stick with his approach to governing. That's hard to do when unemployment is high and economic growth is anemic. Obama could have tried to overcome this handicap by laying out a big, bold plan to create jobs and get corporate America moving again, then blaming Republicans in Congress for blocking it. Instead, he's been offering small-bore proposals for more than a year. ....
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Obama was the change candidate four years ago, but that was about transforming the way Washington operated, something Obama hasn't done with much success. The change many voters want now is in the economy and their prospects for the future. If Obama is to reverse his slide, he needs not just to match Romney on style points at Tuesday's debate. He has to offer a more compelling reason why he's the candidate for voters who want this year's version of change.
Surprising find, even with the obligatory Obama spin.
Disinterested means impartial.
The word is uninterested.
B-R-U-T-A-L! with LA Times’ filter in place to screen out the more bombastic, too.
About the only compelling things Obama's done is fly around the world to apologize for America, and ... play golf.
Obama is toast in Romney's presence.
In theory, yes. But in practice it's getting hard to maintain the distinction. Usage was murky from the beginning, and more often than not today, "disinterested" is used with the "wrong" meaning.
Headline reminds me of the film O Brother Where Art Thou
“We can’t run on re-form, you ninny! We’re the incumbents!”
In 2012 he is the full diaper.
No matter how nobama acts tonight, you still can not make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear.
In the debate,Romney needs to do a preemptive strike against media bias . His opening line should include:If you Candy Crowly interrupt me or allow Obama to interrupt me , if the questions you picked are gotcha questions against me then you prove the media is biased to the American people and every time Candy interrupts him , he should call her out for media bias.
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.