Posted on 10/07/2012 3:01:25 PM PDT by Kaslin
David Remnick's piece in The New Yorker, attempting to "understand" Obama's debate defeat, begins thusly:
When Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School, he was never known as a particularly good debater. In class, if he thought that a fellow student had said something foolish, he showed no forensic bloodlust. He did not go out of his way to defeat someone in argument; instead he tried, always with a certain decorous courtesy, to try to persuade, to reframe his interlocutor’s view, to signal his understanding while disagreeing. Obama became president of the law review—the first African-American to do so—but he won as a voice of conciliation. He avoided the Ames Moot Court Competition, where near contemporaries like Cass Sunstein, Deval Patrick, and Kathleen Sullivan made their names.
It is amusing to see Obama supporters try to spin these facts (all true except the part about Obama winning the Review presidency as a "voice of conciliation" -- he won boosted by conservatives, who saw him as the lesser of two evils, given the two finalists for the post) to justify the President's poor debate performance.
But as someone who knew Obama in law school, and now has observed his presidency, his avoidance of debate does seem to conform to a pattern. It has nothing to do with a gentlemanly or conciliatory reluctance to be aggressive. Rather, it has everything to do with a reluctance to be aggressive when his opponent ispresent -- where he can experience some push back from the person he's demonizing, and where his lack of preparation or knowledge can reveal him as foolish. (Hence, perhaps, the "decorous courtesy" in face to face encounters, where discourtesy might prompt a more vigorous blowback.)
Think about it. There's never seen such a trash-talking campaigner -- one who accuses his opponent of lying, who allows his campaign to call Romney a murderer and a felon, one who calls Americans with whom he disagrees "fat cats," or accuses doctors of performing unnecessary surgeries. He has no problem going after Romney the day after the debate, when he's no longer there face-to-face, and when Obama's trusty teleprompter is back. In fact, President Obama is one of the least gentlemanly and most uncivil men to occupy the Oval Office -- certainly publicly (Richard Nixon's private utterances put him in the running, too).
Notice that the only time Obama apparently shrinks from throwing a punch is when his opponent can punch back. That's not a guy who's just too "conciliatory" to get down and dirty -- that's a guy who's afraid to get down and dirty when it means he might have to suffer the consequences.
In my book, that's what's known as a "bully" -- full of big talk in the locker room (or on Letterman) . . . but considerably less cocky when he actually has to address his opponent face to face, unprotected by the friendly aid of the MSM.
Everytime we see Obama, it makes us want to vote for Romney more. The media has too much of Obama all the time. It is time to elect another President!
Has anyone ever divided a country more?
In other words, he’s a chicken $hit, which we already know.
Absolutely not
I feel the same way
Really good analysis. Bully=Coward
He’s also arrogant to boot
I would like to see the word “Coward” with the Obama logo in the ‘o’ .....
YOu ask a good question
has anyone ever divided the country more
No POTUS ever has
the issue of slavery and states rights certainly did but that was going to happen no matter who was President
No 0dumbo is the sleaziest most divisve POTUS we have ever had
Consider this, will you?
Obama met with Cardinal Timothy Dolan and a few other RC bishops in the summer of 2011. He promised them that there would not be a mandate to cover abortion and other procedures which would be against a religious person’s conscience as part of the Affordable care Act (Obamacare). Also, that he would allow conscience clauses in the implementation of the law.
Then when the mandate came down, he called Dolan on the phone a day or so before it was announced to tell Dolan that the mandate was firm and could not be changed. Immediately thereafter, he and the DNC bullies began the so-called “War on Women” nonsense. My impression is that this “war” is a thinly disguised war against religious persons of all pursuasions.
Obama is indeed a bully of the first order.
( sarcasm )Barack Hussein Obama, a bully? NO!
Why, that is such an astonishing assertion, I hardly know where to begin. ( / sarcasm )
But then again, he WAS a “community organizer”, and the job is pretty much using “persuasion” on the folks in the ‘hood, to either get out the vote “the right way” or to shut down dissent wherever it is found. And of course, to collect funds for the continued operation of the “community organization”, a sort of informal taxation on those unfortunate enough to find themselves trapped within this rat cage called the urban ghetto.
Then there was the confrontation (or rather the NON-confrontation) with Benjamin Netanyahu, concerning the growing problem with the saber-rattling by Iran. The solution offered by Obama? Israel should withdraw to the borders as they existed before the 1967 Six-Day war. Then, of course, Iran would be less “threatening”.
As if that strategy ever worked with Israel’s neighbors.
okie,dokie. I trust you, really,really I do.
Carol Platt Liebau
But as someone who knew Obama in law school, and now has observed his presidency, his avoidance of debate does seem to conform to a pattern. It has nothing to do with a gentlemanly or conciliatory reluctance to be aggressive. Rather, it has everything to do with a reluctance to be aggressive when his opponent is present -- where he can experience some push back from the person he's demonizing, and where his lack of preparation or knowledge can reveal him as foolish.
A ‘bully’ with panties!
He’s nothing BUT a PUNK BULLY!!! And he has STUPID MOronS supporting his actions...MORONS!! Like the MEDIA.
bkmk
AMEN!!! LIAR....BULLY....ANTI-CHRISTIAN or at least ANTI-CATHOLIC since they re the religon that is the most pro-LIFE!!
Romney can use this observation to great advantage.
At the end of his first response, Romney could take a few moments to address the issue, such as like this:
“Now that I have given a complete answer to the question and I note that I still have a minute of time, I would like to note that my opponent Mr. Obama has never called me a liar during debate, but that he and his campaign people have been calling me a liar afterwards behind my back. Mr. Obama, if you feel I am lying about anything in the first debate, this debate, or any future debate, please have the courtesy of bringing it to me face to face rather than waiting until after the debate, oe kindly grow up and learn to concede like a gentleman. That is dishonest. May I orhave your word of honr that we are both bound to this principle before we proceed any further in this debate. Thank you in advance.”
We have heard ad nauseum about Obama being president of the Harvard Review. That is a popularity prize. It would be far more impressive if he had been editor of the review. That is the position where brains are required.
http://www.nytimes.com/1990/02/06/us/first-black-elected-to-head-harvard-s-law-review.html
Romney reminded all of us last Wednesday of something we already knew—at least those of us who can say this isn’t our first rodeo—but possibly forgot: The way you deal with a bully is by facing him down. And that’s exactly what he did.
I’m so sick of the lies spun out to justify this boob’s existence. A story I read this morning talked about how “wow - maybe Romney is just as wonky as Dear Leader!” Funny, that’s not what I was thinking as Dear Leader was being shown for the boob he is.
Buchanan sure screwed up.
She was at Harvard Law with O and also on the Law Review. if I remember, she also accused him of laziness and always looking for the easy way out. Some things never change.
“When Barack Obama was a student at Harvard Law School, he was never known as a particularly good debater. In class, if he thought that a fellow student had said something foolish”......
I stopped right there. Probably the only person saying something foolish was Obama.
And it still is.
Carol Platt Liebau (Leebow - like ‘curtsy’)
has substituted for Hugh Hewitt on occasion for some years.
I was so happy to know a conservative knew BHO ‘back when,’ and relieved when she talked about ‘knowing him somewhat’ from Harvard Law.
Thought she would give us lots of ‘skinny.’
Not much really, but back 3 or so years ago, she did say something about he basically didn’t write or do anything at Law Review.
David Remnick - childhood friends with comedian Bill Maher
In “The Bridge,” Mr. Remnick seemed particularly interested in Mr. Obama as “shape-shifter,” how “Obama could change styles without relinquishing his genuineness.”
My colleagues Amy Davidson and John Cassidy did a brilliant late-shift job of analyzing last night’s disastrous debate performance for President Obama: his I-don’t-wanna-be-here-please-get-me-outta-here manner; his barely-able-to-rouse-himself incapacity to pounce on Mitt Romney’s empty and contradictory policy prescriptions; his unwillingness even to craft a solid two-minute closing statement. This is a President who could easily have made the argument that he inherited a catastrophic economic collapse and, despite all kinds of duplicitous right-wing opposition, managed to rescue the country from a full-blown Depression; who saved the auto industry; who … well, you know the litany, even if the President could not bestir himself to recite it last night with any passion or precision.
We already know that Obama didn’t manage to talk effectively, if at all, about “the forty-seven per cent” or women or so many other things. So let’s talk sports.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/obama-no-ali-in-debate.html
Has anyone ever divided a country more?
If re-elected he’ll be working on a consensus as Hitler was able to achieve...
“Has anyone ever divided a country more?<< Yeah. Jefferson Davis. He was a Democrat too.
Barack Obama is fully as dumb as Saul Alinsky..
No wait.. Saul Alinsky’s book “Rules for Radicals”
is being worked out in the entire federal givernment as we speak.. and beyond..
Beyond.... meaning in academia, main stream media, in all Police, Firefighter and Teachers Union’s in their “precincts”.. cloak rooms.. all over HollyWierd, in most Newspapers, Network News rooms, and Magazine editorial boards, in all manner of 501c organizations, The US Senate, The White Hut, Justice Department, a whole range of other Executive Branch Departments, on the internet, Givernment Websites both Federal, State and Local.. Most Junior Colleges and Trade Schools.. and even the Post-Office and Amtrack..
Just Maybe, Obama is not as dumb as he looks..
I don’t think The Won is dumb.
I do worry about a large sector of the electorate.
Good article.
Good article.
I remember posting something like this during 2008. I don’t know how to search back that far otherwise I’d link to it.
Obama is not an alpha male. He’s not a leader. He’s not being courteous. In terms of fight or flight, he’s flight. No matter what happens, his reaction to confrontation during a debate is basically a lose-lose proposition for him. He’s not a natural fighter and like most people who aren’t natural fighters, fighting back will not go well for him initially.
When Romney goes on the attack, Obama will respond in one of two ways:
1 - Obama’s natural reaction to in-your-face aggression is to shrink. To be defensive. You can see it in his body language, his face, his tone...everything. He’s in a defensive posture.
He’s afraid. The deep instinct in him is to flee but he can’t flee. So he does the next best thing - he covers up. He looks away. Folds his arms. These are positions people get into when they are hiding weakness.
For those of you who are not comfortable standing up and presenting to groups, think about what you’d do with your hands. You’d stuff them in your pockets or fold them across your chest. That’s the body doing what instinct tells it to - cover up so as to minimize exposure to danger.
That’s basically what happend last week.
2 - If Obama forces himself past his instinctual reaction and fights back, I think he’s in even more trouble. How can he expect to fight against Mitt Romney’s debate points when he’s fighting against how own self?
If he does decide to fight back it will come off as childish with a dash of sarcastic When it comes to fighting, he’s not used to doing it so he doesn’t know how. Fighting back may be an instinct but doing it well is a learned skill. Plenty of guys have the fight instinct but have no idea how to actually fight. They learn it over time.
Time, Obama does not have.
Since he’ll be in an unnatural state (fighting back), his instincts will be at war with his reasoning. This, plus his inexperience with doing it, are a bad mix for him. It’ll change his voice, his inflection, cadence. It’ll mess with his ability to draw on facts quickly, forget about coming up with something new.
For debaters, a debate is a left brain activity. The left brain is used for things like logic and reasoning. As Obama be fighting this war with his own instinct, he’ll be completely in his right brain - emotion, feelings etc..I’d say it’s very unlikely that something good can come of this approach for Obama
Lastly, Obama has another enemy on the stage: Adrenaline.
He’s been on stage a thousand times so he’s used to that. He’s done his fair share (pun intended) of debating so he’s used to that too. What he hasn’t done is stand up to an aggressive enemy that’s right in his face. The first few times he tries this against Romney, he’ll get an adrenaline rush. When that happens, he’ll have all sorts of extra physical energy and no way to release it. It’s not the kind of energy that can be channeled into mental acuity. He’ll be fidgety, shifting his weight, and unable to really focus the way he wants to.
Now all of this will happen very quickly - but it’ll happen. He’ll lose his “soaring rhetorical” voice, the deep sonorous tone we all hate. He’ll “ummm” and “uhhh” even more than usual. He’ll fidget around with a pen or piece of paper. His tone will be wrong.
He’ll try to look Mitt in the eye and may even succeed for a few seconds but he’ll look away before Mitt does.
My summation and prediction is that Romney has figured out how to get to Obama. Obama has about a week and a half left to come up with some kind of response which doesn’t make him look weak and/or childish.
I don’t think he’s going to get there. This isn’t the Rocky movies where he’d learn all new skills over the course of a 5-minute montage.
Obama’s in a lot of trouble these next few debates. Presidential-bid-ending kinds of trouble.
Guy nailed it.
“No 0dumbo is the sleaziest most divisve POTUS we have ever had”
In the debates his lies were on display for everyone to see.
Romney did what some of us hope Newt would do. Take it to Obama in ways he has never had to face. He has no rational defense for the disaster which has been his leadership.
Great post. I can’t wait for the next debate.
Good post. Agreed...
This made me realize that Obumbler has NEVER been tested in a competitive Repub vs. Democrap debate because last time, we were stuck with Milquetoast McCain who is pathetically inarticulate and non-aggressive.
It’s taken this long for US society to realize that the Emperor has no clothes. Thanks to Romney, he owned and outclassed Obutthole the whole debate.
This week with Paul Ryan and Job Bleeding (er... I mean Joe Biden) will be fantastic.
We have 2 incredibly articulate Pres & VP candidates this time
Great Post!
“The President has always been someone who takes the truth seriously and has a great faith in the American people and their ability to handle big ideas,” Burns said. “He doesn’t patronize them
I’m never sure any more whether a writer or speaker actually believes what he says. When it’s a leftist speaking, I can’t tell whether he is just flat out lying (frequently) or whether he has actually drunk the Kool-Aid and believes what he is saying.
When it’s someone on the right, there are still some who are liars and some who are Kool-Aid drinkers. But I see another phenomenon as well. I think that some conservative writers soft-pedal their message, saying things like “The President is a likable man, but we disagree on some policy issues.”
The reason they do this is so as not to alienate Democrat voters who might consider switching.
It is like the old joke where a man knocks on an old woman’s door and tells her her husband is up on the roof. (He’s dead, but he doesn’t want to blurt that out and shock her.)
The Democrat Party is dead, but many do not know it. Sometimes it’s better to break it to them gently.
well, to be fair the democrats hated Dubya utterly and we also felt the same about Clintoon.
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.
