Skip to comments.Krauthammer: Romney Won Unequivocally; Obama's Responses Were Petty
Posted on 10/23/2012 4:31:30 AM PDT by RoosterRedux
CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER: I think it's unequivocal, Romney won. And he didn't just win tactically, but strategically. Strategically, all he needed to do is basically draw. He needed to continue the momentum he's had since the first debate, and this will continue it. Tactically, he simply had to get up there and show that he's a competent man, somebody who you could trust as commander in chief, a who knows every area of the globe and he gave interesting extra details, like the Haqqani network, which gave the impression he knows what he's talking about. But there is a third level here, and that is what actually happened in the debate.
We can argue about the small points and the debating points. Romney went large, Obama went very, very small, shockingly small. Romney made a strategic decision not go after the president on Libya, or Syria, or other areas where Obama could accuse him of being a Bush-like war monger. Now I would have gone after Obama on Libya like a baseball bat, but that's why Romney has won elections and I've never had to even contest them. He decided to stay away from the and I think that might have actually worked for him.
What he did concentrate on is the big picture. People don't care what our policy on Syria is going to be. They care about how America is perceived in the world and how America carries itself in the world. And the high point is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour. Obama's answer was ask any reporter and they will tell you it wasn't so.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
As one Freeper posted some days ago, even with Elmer Fudd sitting up there trying to debate Obama, I’d vote for Elmer Fudd.
Romney’s best line: ‘we cannot kill our way out of this”
Where was I?
On a different planet, apparently.
Romney was horribly inneffective.
You are exactly right, Old Teufel.
Well good thing you don’t run campaigns. Romney did what he needed to , look calm, collected, Presidential..its called winning baby. So what if he didnt try for a Perry Mason moment to satisfy partisans like you, he was not in the debate to prove anything to you, you will not vote for Obama anyway. That debate was good for another 1-2% points. This thing is and was over.
President Elect Romeny did what was necessary
I was sorry that Romney didn’t mention Libya, but perhaps there was a reason - Obama was clearly expecting him to bring it up, so perhaps Romney knew there was some kind of trap set for him there. In any case, the press has been so effective in covering it up that most Americans outside of Freeperland either haven’t heard of it or have forgotten the 20 second news report they saw on it a month ago. So probably Romney thought there was nothing to be gained there.
Obama got away with his usual airy lies, and while Romney called him on them from time to time, Obama just kept on free-associating. But I guess that’s what his fans like.
I thought Romney did a good job; he gave specifics on his programs, said that he felt a strong and well-armed America was vital, and criticized Obama’s apology tour. It didn’t seem very hard hitting, however, because Obama was in such fantasy-land that he just kept on spinning out the lies and completely ignored Romney.
At the same time, when Bambi wasn’t speaking, you could see the effort he was putting into remembering the lines they had obviously made him memorize before letting him go out in public - and it wasn’t a pretty sight. He was blinking rapidly and got those evil raccoon eyes whenever he looked at Romney, which he didn’t do very often.
just a resident...sorry for saying what I saw, I knew it would not be popular.
I heard two politicians explaining how they could fix an unfixable mideast.
Is the Kraut's proofreader on strike?
I think RCP transcribed this from Krauthammer’s chat on Fox. Check the video for the actually commentary.
I agree with what you said and felt the same way you did.
I’ll add that the Obama campaign seemed ready to spring a trap. Romney was wary. I’m still not sure how this will play with the undecideds.
Well good thing you dont run campaigns
You’re right. None of these idiots would have a job today.
Mr. “Main Street Republican” came out of the closet.. who is running this campaign?
At this point Obama needed a major Romney blunder. There were no blunders, major or minor.
Forget the debating points and look at the campaign:
Romney may have done what he needed to do politically here, but the meme that has gone on for some time about ‘we can’t kill our way out of this” is exactly the reason that the muslims are gaining huevos and ramping up.
Muslims understand violence, not feelgood or any other diplomacy. They use diplomacy as a means to stall effective action against them and as a propaganda tool to sap the determination of the west. All the libs and others perpetuating the cant kill crap simply ensure that eventually, when muslims have enough weapons and jihadis, we will either do that very thing oe be overrun.
Anyone who has read their very words stating the issues above can see it. Unless they are determined to go full ostrich. It’s time for a lot more shooting and a lot less fantasy that muslims are just like us and can be reasoned with. Hopefully Mitt will see the reality and most importantly ‘admit it’ once elected.
We can kill our way out of it. To the benefit of every non fanatic in the world. We just lack the will.
Good points. Benghazi’s like Watergate - it’s becoming a criminal investigation. That usually shuts down communication.
Many political junkies and hard core believers from both sides want and believe the “hammer” tactical approach to shock and therefore gain instant approval (perhaps) is always better than the subtle strategic approach which will have a broader and longer term effect on voters.
In this case Romney did exactly what he needed to do and that was to present himself as presidential before the American people. He did this well and over the course of the 3 debates the R/R team came off as being the incumbent while the O/B team looked to all as the ones challenging and going about it in a most desperate way.
R/R have momentum and seem to have the lead at this point so Romney’s performance could be seen as the equivalent to taking a knee in the NFL with 15 seconds left in the 4th quarter.
I don't know if Romney was ineffective, but I was amazed at how 0bama could make a collapsing Middle East policy sound so good. Romney made his point that 0bama is not leading, the question is does the electorate understand that? Romney has a lot to fix if he wins. And tackling having to deal with the Muslim Brotherhood as government leaders in the Middle East ....?
Today the big talking point is Obama's line about horses and bayonets, but the pettiness and smallness of it may be his undoing with independents.
he did well enough to assure himself the presidency.
Obama’s “these things called aircraft carriers” remark was incredibly childish. I couldn’t believe he said that crap. While I agree Romney missed many opportunities, he almost didn’t have to go after Obama since he was his own worst enemy.
I think you're right on that. It probably threw him somewhat.
Had Romney come out sounding like a war monger ready to unleash the full fury and might of our military on the sh*theads in the M.E. some here would have cheered.
However the election would have been over at that point and Romney would not have even come close.
Free speech is a double-edged sword.
I’ve heard the word “snarky” used alot this morning.
Which is why I said what I did about doing what he had to politically.
But once elected he better see reality. And act on reality, not the feelgood unicorn approach we have taken to muslims thus far.
I am sorry this is not popular.
Mitt looked and acted like a beaten dog.
The punk kicked his ass.
Just sayin what the uninformed , much coveted “undecideds “ are thinking.
I certainly thought Obama had his moments, but often times I thought Obama looked small and like the prototypical petty Liberal with his sarcastic remarks.
I was very, very impressed how presidential Romney looked. Calm, confident, even-keeled. In fact, after one answer I turned to my spouse and I said, “There is the next president of the United States.”
The pundits all wanted a war. They wanted Romney to be aggressive against Obama. Because he was not, they said Obama won “on points” whatever the heck that means. But I came away from that denate even more confident that Romney has the tools to be a very good or even a great President if he sticks to Conservative roots.
Krathammer received a smackdown after his post-debate cpomments last time.
“Today the big talking point is Obama’s line about horses and bayonets, but the pettiness and smallness of it may be his undoing with independents.”
0 looked very negative, and almost deranged at times. He doesn’t come across well without the big grin and comic approach.
I’m sure he lost quite a few likability points - Romney’s passed him there recently.
That is because many think these things are best scored by determining who is aggressive. Obama was the aggressor for the most part through the night. However, Romney had no problem going on the offensive when he wanted to and did so effectively on a number of occasions.
Both candidates also had some effective counter-punching.
But, a person is blind if they did not seem that Romney had decided to gamble on strategy. The gamble was that his strategy for the debate would continue his rise in the polls.
What was that strategy? He wanted to appear in control, unflappable, amiable, knowledgeable, and thoughtful. No one disagrees that that is the persona he was attempting to project.
Now the question remains: did that strategy work? Only the polls will tell over the next few days.
If he does not go down in the polls, then he had a partial success. If he continues to climb in the polls, then his strategy was measurably successful. If he goes down, then he made a strategic blunder.
As I judge these things, it was a draw. Moreover, neither candidate made some sound-bite blunder that will haunt them through the remainder of the campaign.
Was Romney right NOT to engage in a tit-for-tat on Benghazi? To be honest, I think he was. I think Obama showed that last week when he replied that he had called the embassy attack an "act of terror." We can argue all we want about that, but the fact remains that all week not one commentator was able to say anything more that "yes, he did say 'act of terror' but he didn't specifically relate it to Benghazi." I think that made any argument coming from it a "he said, she said."
Anything about timelines, video, response teams...all of it...is mere conjecture. In fact, Romney might have assessed that he was getting more mileage out of it with the media and congress interested in the events than he was if he left an impression on the American mind that Obama had successfully fended off a "debate" question during a few minutes of time.
As it stands now, the free media is able to continue hammering it.
That leaves us with the economics side of the argument. Romney clearly won that with the simple statement that "we can't be weak economically and strong militarily. A poor nation can't afford a great military." Moreover, in my view, the ONLY reason Obama wants to cut out the "bayonets and horses" is because the economy is so bad that he can't afford them. (Wish that point had been made.)
Romney won the economic side of the argument.
So, in total, it was a tie.
If Romney's strategy works, then Romney is the winner.
In my mind, no matter the result, it shows him to be a thinker.
unvarnished truth is that there is no solution to these problems. We just need to elect the person who’s values best represent what we all feel the USA stands for and hope they don’t make things worse. Pragmatic people understand this which is why foreign policy should be about shoring up your allies and trying to take down a bad guy when the opportunity presents itself, like we could have in Iran a few years ago. There will never be a solution, ever and sitting around expecting to hear one is a fools errand.
Since Barry is rated slightly higher than Romney ONLY in foreign policy, I expect Barry and Co to pull out a few tricks over the next few weeks, like a drone strike and maybe the Iran deal, which will look curiously like the Nork deal when closely examined. Iran wants Obama because he is weak on Israel and they will do whatever they can to keep in place. I just want to see Obama give a “peace in our day” statement after it goes down.
The old Mitt Milquetoast was in full form last night. He could have K-O’d Obama instead he let him up off the mat.
I like your thoughtful analysis. Thank you.
Yeah, I think you were.
As his ridiculous beltway attitude should have, what is this ..like a make up call?
Romney needs to grow a pair.....if he hasn”t by now it’s not going to happen.
I know you all think that I am a troll or something, I assure you that is not the case.
Romney is a schmuck, Ryan is a good dude.
You are right Rock, free speech is a double edged sword.
Disagree, Obama’s statement on our consulate in Benghazi has a lot more explaining to do;
Obama “Now with respect to Libya, as I indicated in the last debate, when we received that phone call, I immediately made sure that, number one, that we did everything we could to secure those Americans who were still in harm’s way;”
First, Aid the Living
October 21, 2012
On September 11, at about 10 p.m. Libyan time (4 p.m. in Washington), Ambassador Chris Stevens and a small staff were inside our consulate in Benghazi when terrorists attacked. The consulate staff immediately contacted Washington and our embassy in Tripoli. The White House, the Pentagon, the State Department, and numerous military headquarters monitored the entire battle in real time via the phone calls from Benghazi and video from a drone overhead.
Our diplomats fought for seven hours without any aid from outside the country...
Okay. You win. Vote for Obama. You’ll be welcome to his screeching and pettiness.
Please find transcript online of debate and read - I was unable to listen to any of debates - have had to rely on transcripts.
Tonight everyone is saying that Mitt lost- I disagree if you read the transcript towards the end there is foreign policy question posed to Mitt Romney- he makes a compelling argument- although he is constantly interrupted by Obama and Schieffer- he ties a strong economy to strong USA.
I posted on another thread that Romney made compelling argument- I had response from someone who watched debate- freeper agreed that argument came across live the way I read it.
Having said that to anyone reading - we know what Obama is- can we afford another 4 yrs of is vision of America- or should we take chance of different view that Mitt is proposing.
I know what I will do do you??
I believe it may be get undecideds on board.
As to not watching debates- I am unable to listen to sing song cadence of Obama- since his first speech 5yrs back- it is similar to finger nails on chalk board
Loved the soviet music in the background. The only thing it was missing was the smug mussolini chin lift by Obama!!!
By the way, you didn't go to Israel.
By the way, they noticed.
Obama wanted to goad Romney into a mud fight. Romney refused to take the bait.
Was that the right strategy? We’ll know in two weeks.
Sometimes being a man is letting your opponent self-destruct on national TV.
When Obama said “I” stood with the people of Tunisia and Libya, Romney should have hammered him with the fact that both countries are unstable messes. He should have then reminded Obama that he also stood with the people of Egypt and that nation is also a disaster. Yet when the people of Iran called for freedom, Obama said nothing.
Ah... I said Romney did what he had to do. WTF are you taking that screws with your cognition so effectively? Whatever it is, stop.
I’m going to disagree because I know how that debate would have handled it. Romney would have had about 2 each 2 minute shots at cramming a gazillion details on a still-unfolding situation into a coherent argument.
I watched Bret Baier’s hour long documentary on Benghazi the other night. Even THAT ended with Bret saying there are many questions. So, if with graphics, living humans, and expert commentators, Bret had to consume an entire hour, then Romney would have had a heck of a time selling that message in 4 minutes worth of talking time.
But, I could be wrong.
The polls will tell if Romney’s strategic approach last night was a victory or a blunder.
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.