Krauthammer said it:
Romney went large; Obama went very, very, small, shockingly small.Exactly right. It looked like the roles of president and challenger were reversed, with all the defensiveness (mixed with generous measures of condescension, pettiness, and peevishness) on Obama's side. Romney was confidant, calm, and level throughout, and it worked.
One low-light for me: Obama's horribly failed attempt to show Romney up as a behind-the-curve ignoramus on military matters. Sarcasm and condescension are what Obama uses as substitutes for wit, and what they reveal about his character isn't attractive. But that's who he is, and he apparently thought this would be effective:
(Does anyone believe Obama knows how our military works? Me neither.)
I wish I could describe husband's reaction to that part (short version here), which I replayed for him a few times, just for fun. It involved some serious head-slapping and sputtering, including something about how many ships are needed to protect a single aircraft carrier. So, a lot, I guess, but surely our uber-competent Commander-in-Chief knows all about that? And he must also know that bayonets (see Steyn: Cold Steel) and horses (scroll down) are still in use, right? His comprehensive knowledge is just another reason to be #ProudofObama:
Jim Messina: "Tonight America saw its commander in chief and someone who’s not ready to be commander in chief." #ProudOfObamaWishing won't make it so.
— Barack Obama (@BarackObama) October 23, 2012
Michael Walsh on Obama's instructive little lecture:
First, speaking as the son of a Marine Corps officer and the brother of a Navy officer, I think Obama’s “horses and bayonets” wisecrack wasn’t his biggest miscalculation. All that did was lose him the military vote in the Norfolk area and thus, most likely, the state of Virginia.I suspect Virginia was already lost, but yeah, Team Obama most likely sealed that deal. Oopsie!
More from Walsh:
Rather, it was the weird way he kept conflating the war-fighting purpose of the military with “taking care” of the veterans after they come home. Military personnel deeply resent the implication, so earnestly peddled by the bed-wetting civilians at the New York Times, among others, that returning vets are just a PTSD psycho hair-trigger away from going postal. They’re soldiers, Mr. President, not crybabies.My friend PoliticaljunkieMom took exception to that, too:
So you'll give that Vet a pick axe to rebuild roads? WTH!
— politicaljunkieMom (@pjMomblog) October 23, 2012
Another low point was this big fat lie, aptly illustrated below by reader Pseud O'Nym:
As Krauthammer noted above, Romney deliberately steered clear of the Benghazi debacle. Perhaps it was wise to do so, but that doesn't let the liberal media or the president off the hook. The Commander-in-Chief still needs to explain why nothing was done to try to save American lives during the siege of Benghazi.
Most recent posts here. Follow us on Twitter here. Amazon store here.
Jill,
ReplyDeleteI've read up on the Benghazi issue. Yes, it as a hanging curve for Romney to hit, but he refused intentionally. Why? Because he saw the "cover story" creeping out in the last few days. Already, he knew that Obama was going to pounce on the fact it wasn't his fault that intel gave him bad info.
The only way Romney wins is to engage, call Obama a liar, point out he- according to reports- watched the attack in real time. That they depended on Libyans to come to the aid of the ambassador, and were beaten back TWICE by heavy fire and snipers. He could also point out, if he could pivot quick enough, that on SHIPS in the Med were Marines with bayonets that could have helicoptered in and saved at least the last two people who didn't get killed until six hours into the raid.
However, what Romney could take away from that is that Obama lied to the people about the video and the spontaneous crowd deal because he knew better, as did Panetta, Biden, the CIA and State. They all watched the attacks in real time.
But we know that. The people paying attention to this race know that. So outside of making Obama squirm, Romney gains nothing.
He went in a different direction intentionally, to look Presidential against a man who never grew in office and is the same petulant, disconnected narcissist that was elected in 2008.
This is about squeezing out the last four percent of the voters. Romney wants to keep them from swinging to Obama because Romney is a "warmonger". In that light he was successful, but he gave up some ground.
On the other hand, Obama will self destruct on camera if given the chance, and you've pointed out more than one incident. I would have kept more pressure on him all night. The more pressure the stupider he gets.
From my blog.
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2012/10/23/romney-and-his-dont-lose-the-lead-losing-the-lead-debate/
Here is my post on the Libya incident. Too complicated to deal with in a debate.
ReplyDeleteBesides the comments about the ships that go under water called submarines is a classic.
Freaking Haaavaard educated lawyers are dumber than a bag of hammers. I swear it must be something in the water.
http://truthandcommonsense.com/2012/10/22/cbs-points-out-the-hardest-truth-of-benghazi-six-hours-passed-before-the-last-man-died-and-obamas-people-watched-it-in-real-time/
It's truly TV's fault that this "debate" wasn't what it should have been. Obama is the abysmalist possible CIC. He doesn't even do sarcasm right, and ends up sounding like he's on Sesame Street. Well, I guess TV's worth something for showing us that.
ReplyDelete