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 ...
Couldn’t agree more. Getting the job is number 1 and getting the job done is number 2.
Couldn’t agree more. Getting the job is number 1 and getting the job done is number 2.
I agree. I was looking for work recently. I have to consider my resume, telephone interviews and face-to-face interviews. Each has a different goal.
The purpose of a resume is to get an interview. The purpose of a telephone interview is usually to get a face to face interview. The purpose of the face to face interview is to get the information (both sides) to make a decision about whether or not you should be hired and whether or not you want to work there.
The function of the debate is not to hammer the other guy, justifiably or not. The function of the debate is to get voters who are not already planning on voting for you to make a decision to vote for you. This can be done not only with tangible data, but also with presence and attitude.
Romney’s goal was not to hammer Obama. Rather, obama was an anvil against which Romney used a hammer to shape the undecided voter’s view of Romney.
It worked and has been working in the debates.It is about rising above low hanging fruit. It is about voice inflection. It is about body language. It is about showing compassion for your opponent by NOT atttacking when even the undecided’s are looking for it.
There was an old cigarette commercial jingle that is considered to be one of the most effective ever created. It repeated the tune, “You can take Salem out of the country, but, you can’t take the country out of salem.” But the last time it is sung it ends with “but...”, causing the listener to finish it in their head.
In a real way, Romney did similar stuff last night and throughout the debate. He didn’t attack where a lesser man would have. And the reason is simple: He didn’t need to. He let the listener finish it in their own head, making them the “owner” of the thought.
This causes undecided’s to switch to Romney but, more importantly, it causes democrats that would NEVER vote for a republican to be so ashamed of Obama that they will simply sit it out and “wash their hands of the man.”
I was not going to vote in this election (see the last line above) but Judge Roberts forced my hand. Now that I’m paying attention, I’m finding that I actually LIKE Romney.
My hope is that all these years he has been a “RINO” because he had to be to survive in MA and his conservative side will come out once elected.
I have the utmost confidence we will find out.
I heard two politicians explaining how they could fix an unfixable mideast.
I agree. I feel the same way when they discuss the economy.
Imagine a Romney victory. That would be great.
Now what?
We are electing a president, not a spin doctor. If people really want a spin debate then let Axelrod debate one of Romney's political advisors.
“who is running this campaign?
Watching Romney in these debates was like going to a new car dealership with buying a car in mind but I couldn’t test drive the one I’m interested in. All I could do was to sit there and watch a video of a test drive but since I know something about cars and the difference between the old one and the one I know I should buy, the decision was an easy one to make.
Freepers who are upset about Romney’s strategy miss the big picture. The undecideds don’t know the foreign policy issues but they do know how human interactions should work.
We should find common ground with those we disagree with: Romney stated many times on the things he agreed with Obama
We should be calm and be slow to anger: Romney did that and caused Obama to be reactive
We should remain thoughtful and focused on long term solutions rather than resorting to picking fights: Romney obviously side stepped Libya criticism while giving a visions for the future.
Romney used the debate to demonstrate his demeanor in handling conflict and by doing so delivered a very strong nonverbal performance.
It wasn’t Romney that has to clarify it, but Obama sure should. Read it again and find an answer for what is Obama’s explanation of “we did everything we could” after receiving the phone call;
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;”
I’ve listened to people from CNN talking liberals to newspaper writing liberals giving Romney credit for thoughtfulness and non-bellicosity.
So, if it is true that he was trying to appeal to undecided, female moderates, the bulk of remaining undecideds, then those reactions from the liberal media might be an indication that Romney had a good night despite our wishes that he’d been Mr T in Rocky III.
My gratuitous and poorly constructed football analogy: Your team is performing effectively on the field and is comfortably ahead in points with 1 minute to go. You don't risk fumbling the ball on the 15-yard-line and you don't want to get any key players injured. (By this time most of the fans are in the parking lot anyway.)
It goes beyond most Americans not knowing the details about Libya. On a forum I use that has nothing to do with politics, a subforum now allows political discussion. It has given me my first contact with people who are truly undecided at this late date. And they are not stupid people...but they don’t care much about politics. Day to day, they do not follow politics. They don’t start listening until the debates, and then they don’t have enough facts on hand to follow a detailed argument.
After the second debate, when Libya was raised, their response was, “Of COURSE Obama was lying! He was embarrassed and so he lied. ALL PRESIDENTS DO THAT! Romney will lie too, if he gets elected. So what?”
And given Romney’s flip flops, I had no response. It isn’t that they are happy about Libya, but they don’t follow politics enough to see the link between Obama’s apology tour and his pro-muslim policies in the ME and what happened in Libya. It would have taken Mitt 10 minutes of calm discourse to explain how they are linked, and there was no way the moderator or Obama would have allowed him to make the case without interruption.
So Romney was RIGHT. Attacking Obama on Libya was a waste of time. It wouldn’t convince anyone who is capable of being convinced now.
The Frank Luntz group, and others disagree. And the condescending tone of Obama saying “I am glad you realize Al Quaida is a threat” and poo pooing Russia as a threat turned off undecideds.
This was all about undecideds and women voters.
Obama was painting Romney as a warmonger. The big brawls in the last debate alienated women.
Romney went big picture I’m leading this race no mistakes. Obama see,Ed petty and obnoxious.
Romney won this. It wasn’t about motivating his base or slamming Obama. Not what he was there to do.
I think your football example is on the money. Thanks.
I don’t know how many will remember the pictures of US Special Forces personnel on horseback with Afghan rebels 2-3 years ago, but we DO still use horses when necessary....
Romney played this debate perfectly, actually. He didn’t have to go on the attack, because when you are going on the attack that means you are behind. He had to win the first debate because Romney was behind in the polls, and he had to beat Obama (in which he did, hands down).
Obama needed to do the same in the last two debates, but didn’t. He may have slightly won the last two debates on points but he didn’t hit neither one of those debates out of the park, like Romney did in the first debate.
But in this debate, Romney had to keep an even keel to avoid Obama’s trap on foreign policy, in which is exactly what he did. If Romney would have came out hard against Obama on foreign policy, it would have made him look like another G.W. Bush -—that’s exactly what Obama was trying to do-—and it failed.
At least someone does ;)
As you know I’m not a Mitt fan (understatement) but even I can see what he was doing. I can’t say I ‘like’ it, but I understand it and it was likely the best course of action considering so many people can’t deal in reality/accept that hard truths are still truths.
Our entire standing military at the beginning of the 1900's was around 100,000. Today we have about 240,000 active duty and reserve Marines. ALL OF WHICH ARE TRAINED IN THE USE OF AND CARRY BAYONETS.
Perfectly stated. I also felt I was a watching Romney carry out a strategy. My impression is that Romney is a very intelligent man. I hope this strategy works.
You mean like, say, the trap Obama and Crowley set for Mitt in the second debate? Yeah, Mitt was smart not to go there, since no doubt Obama and Schieffer had something planned...
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.