Monday, October 22, 2012

The Debate

Obama was assertive, confident, accusatory in spouting the same old highly practiced campaign rhetoric and fabrications he’s been using since the 2008 campaign.

Romney was more diffident, more reserved, less assured, stammered too much, but was in possession of solid provable data as opposed to Obama’s fantastic projections, self-serving exaggerations and dubious visions presented as fact.

Obama, as usual, was rude, disrespectful, and small-minded, but cloaked it successfully in an aura of righteous dignity. He did a good job as an actor pretending to be strong and authoritative. Romney behaved like the perfect gentleman he undoubtedly is. 

As it was with the other avowedly liberal moderators, Bob Schieffer let Obama step all over Mitt Romney's lines with impunity. 

So what else would you expect?

PREDICTION: The public tends to equate loud, fast and aggressive with intelligent and competent, ergo the public will perceive Obama as the winner.

That is why The Beatles were able to say with perfect confidence fifty years ago that they were more popular than Jesus.

Unfortunately, there were no surprises during the debate with the possible exception of Romney's failure to attack Obama over the Benghazi fracas, which is being spun by most conservative pundits as great tactical wisdom on Governor Romney's part.

Que sera era!

~ FreeThinke


Early Headlines With Links From Lcom.

American Thinker, by Karin McQuillan    Original Article

Investor's Business Daily, by Editorial    Original Article

Creators Syndicate, by Thomas Sowell    Original Article

Politico, by Maggie Haberman    Original Article

Daily Caller, by David Martosko    Original Article

Vanity Fair, by Jim Kelly    Original Article

Commentary Magazine, by Jonathan S. Tobin    Original Article

Washington Examiner [DC], by Michael Barone    Original Article

CNN, by John D. Sutter    Original Article

Weekly Standard, by Jay Cost    Original Article

Boston Herald, by Howie Carr    Original Article

New York Post, by John Podhoretz    Original Article

ABC News, by Rick Klein    Original Article

Washington Times, by Editorial    Original Article

Daily Beast, by Brett O'Donnell    Original Article

Weekly Standard, by Fred Barnes    Original Article

National Review Online, by Frederick H. Fleitz    Original Article

New York Sun, by Editorial    Original Article

Breitbart's Big Peace, by Joel B. Pollak    Original Article

Washington Times, by Charles Hurt    Original Article
Washington Times, by Gary Bauer    Original Article

Associated Press, by Staff    Original Article

CBS News, by Brian Montopoli    Original Article

Real Clear Politics, by Ian Schwartz    Original Article


  1. I, too, noticed that Romney stammered a lot during last night's debate. I wondering why he did so. Is he one of those fellows who speaks better when moving around instead of being anchored to a chair In any case, all that stammering did not help Romney's credibility.

    Obama did indeed emit an aura of righteous dignity. I also noted an air of righteous anger on Obama's part. Obama also came across as a dismissive expert, the one with foreign-policy experience; the incumbent typically does have the advantage in that regard.

    Romney never went after Obama on the matter of the changing stories about Libya. Why not?

    I also noted that Romney agreed with Obama a lot -- not all the time, but a lot.

    In my view, Romney's closing statement was much better than Obama's. Almost Reaganesque and certainly optimistic; right now, Americans can use a dose of optimism, whether particularly realistic or not. Obama's closing statements was the same old crap.

  2. Thank you, AOW. It seems we think alike.

    I wish Mr. Romney had been sharper, more assertive and less agreeable. Obama essentially indulged in an hour and a half of mouthing quotes from his practiced campaign rhetoric, and should have been challenged in the pretentious shallowness he displayed.

    Unfortunately, "perception is reality" in politics and Mr. Romney appeared "weaker" than the president, even though he was more truthful, more thoughtful, more honest, if less bombastic.

    Obama deserves an academy award for Colossal Effrontery. He certainly knows how to put on a show, especially when the chips are down.

    Unfortunately, it's just acting in my never humble opinion. There's nothing behind the mask but contempt and derision for the America "we" have known and loved.

    Despite all that, Mr. Romney has become more and more LIKABLE with each debate appearance. He's much warmer, much more engaged and genuinely humane than his opponent who may have appeared "formidable" last night, but the president comes off as facile, chilly, remote, flint-hearted, condescending, contemptuous and hubristic.

    In short Obama may be a superior filibastard in comparison to the less incisive Governor Romney, but he is at the same time a vain, decidedly inferior human being.

    ~ FT

  3. @FT -- I wish Mr. Romney had been sharper, more assertive and less agreeable.

    Come on FT, his handlers told him to lay off the talk about bombing up Iran. It scares the clientele.

    Any one figured out why these empty suits always refer to "America and our allies" and never have the honesty to say Israel?

  4. Believe it or not I share your concerns about the domineering influence of The Jewish State on AMERICAN foreign policy, Ducky.

    It is not cowardice on the part of the candidates so much as prudence, however. The both know that NO ONE who gives even the faintest hint of bucking The Israel Lobby will be permitted to survive in American politics.

    If I were running for office -- or attempting to win a popularity contest -- I wouldn't dare say that, but as a totally independent commentator beholden to no one other than my broker and my accountant, I don't care what anyone thinks of me.

    That, of course, is the beauty of the blogosphere and why authoritarian print media is MORIBUND.

    ~ FT

  5. Just another reason to add to an already long list of reasons to vote for Gary Johnson.

    America can and will survive another 4 more of Obama, should that come to pass.

    Perhaps by 2016 America will have had enough, take the sand from it's eyes, boot the oligarchs off their perch, and vote real change.

    I won't however, be holding my breath. American's have been trained to accept the continuation of the status qou. So, it is more likely the beat will go on rather than not.

  6. I thought Romney came off as Mr. Nice Guy last night. Of course Obama continued his strategy of personal attacks concentrating on the idea that "the math doesn't add up" when the story called for it as Romney would point to the dismal results of the amping up imposed of socialism over the last four years.

    My reading of Obama is that he's definitely seeing some vision of what he wants done over the next term, although he's not explicit about it yet. Could be that he envisages more "redistribution" on a more global scale rather than within the confines of the borders of the country. He's hinted at that and that would fit in with the larger global vision of a centralized global system of command and control. He's moved the ball forward to that end over his first term, so why wouldn't that be amplified over the next term?

    Can Mitt Romney be expected to change direction after what has been done previously? I'd doubt it since he's a politician, an insider who plays the game as he's expected to.

    Real change comes from the outside and starts as a small fire in the minds of smaller groups of people who are capable of articulating a vision and exposing bankruptcy of the status quo.

  7. What's up with the global stock markets this morning? Is that any way to celebrate an Obama victory? Or just more central bank maneuvering?

  8. Earnings are in the dumper today and they're worried about Europe again.

    Got a hunch, buy the dip.

  9. In all honesty, foreign policy debates between an incumbent president and his opponent are fairly meaningless for a few reasons. The chief reason is that 99% of the opponents are going to have ZERO foreign policy experience.

    The other reason is that you can say whatever you want about what you plan on doing, but in reality what you actually end up doing will largely be based on the real circumstances you face.

    Obama wanted to get the troops out of Iraq sooner, but he couldn't once he realized how things were happening. He wanted to get the troops out of Afghanistan, but instead he realized he had little choice but to order a surge.

    I've heard about Obama's remark on the US Navy. He clearly has a child's understanding of how the modern US Navy works. He apparently thinks that air craft carriers are these little floating fortresses that can do anything, anywhere at any time.


    They're highly effective for bombing and long range air defense, but they are sitting ducks at close range, pretty terrible at anti-ship warfare, and their anti-sub capabilities are almost non-existent.

    That's why they go out with whole strike groups that usually consist of four to five "small boys" (as we call them in the navy).

    The TR strike group, for example, rolled with 1 cruiser (the San Jacinto--don't make fun of me, we never hit a sub when I was on board), 2 destroyers (the Oscar Austin and the Donald Cook), and a sub.

    Our job was to protect the carrier when stuff got bad.

  10. Got a hunch, buy the dip.

    Don't try to catch a falling knife.

  11. These things are rarely about ACTUALITIES, Jack. They serve as SHOWCASES so the public can see how the candidates respond to challenges, pressure, hostility and stupidity, etc. and whether or not they have sufficient wisdom, insight, imagination and characterto be able to lead should a crisis arise.

    Obama is a proven flop. He's all mouth. By rights he shouldn't even be running for a second term, but "EFFRONTERY" is his middle name. He has very little going for him, but he DOES have colossal gall.

    What we saw last night -- and increasingly on the campaign trial -- is "The Community Organizer."

    That's what he really is -- and all he ever has been -- or should have been.

    The public is too apt to confuse bravado with genuine confidence, and logorrhea with competence.

    So, the debates have GREAT value in their ability to provide revealing glimpses of the "inner man" in each candidate.

    The trouble is few people have enough perception to know how to read between the lines anymore. We live in a dreary LITERALISTIC that ignores or denies the SPIRIT in every day phenomena. A great mistake in my never humble opinion.

    Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge."

    And I say WISDOM is more important than either.

    ~ FT

  12. Jack, I'd say that a single Ohio class sub has as much power as the entire 1916 Navy and Romney made an utter ass of himself.

  13. Ducky: "I'd say that a single Ohio class sub has as much power as the entire 1916 Navy..."

    That will be my candidate for understatement of the year.

  14. >>...I'd say that a single Ohio class sub has as much power as the entire 1916 Navy and Romney made an utter ass of himself.

    I'd say that anyone who refers to himself as "Ducky" has made an utter ass of himself.

    [Of course, my comment shouldn't bother him; he should think of it as 'water off a duck's ass'.]

    ~ D-FensDogg
    'Loyal American Underground'

  15. Thankn you all. I appreciate your staying on topic more than I could say.

    ~ FT

  16. Over at my site, Brooke observed that Obama frequently wore a petulant expression on his face during the debate. Petulant is the exact word, IMO.

    Such petulance is so adolescent. Sheesh.

  17. FT,
    In short Obama may be a superior filibastard in comparison to the less incisive Governor Romney, but he is at the same time a vain, decidedly inferior human being.

    Filibastard needs to become a recognized word in every lexicon!

    Romney comes across as taking the high road. I do wonder if the high road matters to the 21st Century electorate.

  18. Well, AOW, I share your concern. One wonders if most people these days are capable of RECOGNIZING the high road when they see it so perverted is the orientation given by the public schools, the Marxist-infested universities, and the enemedia by which I mean both the News and Entertainment industries.

    ~ FT

  19. By the way, I designate the supposedly "conservative" Bill O'Reilly as one of THE most prominent and most obnoxious of all the filibastards in public life.

    I absolutely HATE it when hosts, moderators or debate participants INTERRUPT each other, or allow them to talk OVER one another.

    When they all start shouting at once, I immediately turn to another channel. I'd rather watch an INFOMERCIAL than put up with a panel discussion that turns into a shouting match or the moral equivalent of a barroom bawl.

    ~ FT

  20. Almost makes you long for the days when conservatives like William F. Buckley would simply look into the camera and wink at some rude "progressive" bloviator's boorish behaviour, instead of shouting back, doesn't it?

    ...but then back then, before the Western cannon was banished from the university "core", there were people educated sufficiently well enough to know that they weren't required to "wink back".



We welcome Conversation
But without Vituperation.
If your aim is Vilification ––
Other forms of Denigration ––
Unfounded Accusation --
Determined Obfuscation ––
Alienation with Self-Justification ––


Gratuitous Displays of Extraneous Knowledge Offered Not To Shed Light Or Enhance the Discussion, But For The Primary Purpose Of Giving An Impression Of Superiority are obnoxiously SELF-AGGRANDIZING, and therefore, Subject to Removal at the Discretion of the Censor-in-Residence.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.