Mitt was cautious, and it seems to be planned. Those of us who wanted him to bury Obama with the facts didn’t get what we wanted, but we’re voting for him anyway.
Mitt’s performance wasn’t directed toward us, so it’s natural that we might be a bit disappointed.
If it’s true that a lot of men will have been watching the NLCS, or Monday Night Football, then Mitt’s handlers concluded that undecideds and women would be the target audience.
I disagree with this strategy, I think he would have been better served to take a swing at the many balls Obama teed up for him, but maybe the handlers are right.
At any rate, he didn’t lose me, and it’s possible some brain-dead undecideds, and females who had purchased the “crazy Mitt” meme Obama and the media had been selling us, will change their minds.
Yes, you and I are on the same page here...
Disclaimer: I only watched the first 40 min. or so of the last night’s debate.
Romney’s first answer was a disaster, IMO. Instead of talking about Libya — THE most important event in the past month — he rambled about the Mideast in general. In that and other questions, he kept “agreeing” with Obozo’s plan of action. Big mistake.
I happen to believe this debate was watched, by and large, only by the political junkies. Casual observers are bored with the debates by now. Men were watching football. Monday nights are usually busy for moms (popular night for school meetings). Romney would have been better off shoring up his base, and uneasy conservatives, with some good hard hits instead of playing the concilitory middleman.
The one place in the debate that I jumped up in glee, believing Mitt would blast the ball off of the tee was the Moderator’s direct question on whether they would go on record stating that an attack on Israel was an attack on the US. I thought the peacocks answer was nuanced e.g. “We will stand with them’”. I had hoped Mitt would look the camera in the lens and say, an attack on Israel is an attack on the US. As the peacock was babbling it did cross my mind that Israel is attacked on a daily basis and the question might have been more nuanced itself than I first perceived. None the less, it was the democrats that said ‘No Israel, No Israel, No Israel’, three times before their DNC leadership disregarded their vote and did the political expedient thing, overriding their vote on the platform. Their words and vote stand however not only on Israel but more importantly on their vote on God in their platform. ‘No, Israel, No Israel, No Israel, no God, No God, No God’
The consequences of this will not go away on November 6 but a battle in the war of ages may be won.