Could that gay Kenyan Muslim be this diabolical?

I think we all agree that Obama’s oddly lethargic demeanor handed Romney the win in Wednesday night’s debate. But did it also . . .

  • . . . . deny Romney any opportunity to put his own spin on the 47% video? I’m sure he had a crisp and well rehearsed answer. All he needed was the question, but it didn’t come.  He was locked and loaded, 70 million viewers and their 140 million eyes were waiting, but the question didn’t come. Poor guy had to go on Hannity the next night and present his case to barely a tenth of the audience.

. . . .  boost the chances for Democratic ‘down-ticket’ candidates? Even before the debate, party and PAC money was shifting away from Romney into the war chests of Republican Senate and House candidates. But the dollars did a quick U-turn after the debate because Romney wasn’t a loser anymore! Which is pretty good news for the Democrats who are running for those Senate and House seats.

I don’t beleive it either, just fishing for a silver lining.

45 responses to “Could that gay Kenyan Muslim be this diabolical?

  1. Obama is a much better public speaker than he is a debater. Considering that his opponent in ’08 was John McCain, I guess we didn’t get the chance to see how he would fare against an aggressive, skilled debater like Romney.

    Like

    • No offence intended to Senator McCain.

      Like

    • So that would explain why I remembered his debate against McCain as being so much better. I was puzzling over that.

      Like

    • D.I.D., I agree. Obama has given some simply stunning speeches, but he’s never been fast on his feet otherwise. Often sounds like he’s reaching for the right word. Apparently he used something like 500 fewer words than Romneyin the debate in spite of using more time. That’s the pauses . . .

      Like

  2. I have zero evidence for this, but I can’t help the suspicion that the President had other, distracting and important stuff on his mind that night. S**t happens, you know. All the time.

    Like

  3. Being a longtime member of Toastmasters international, I would argue Obama’s public speaking prowess. He sounds worst than most new members of our local clubs.

    As for his debating skills, this was his first real test and he failed. McCain is a horrible debater and Mrs Clinton is only slightly better. Very few politicians could hold their own against Mitt Romney, not that makes him a better president.

    It will make the other two debates interesting to see if Obama can pull himself together, but domestic policy was his bread and butter category so I would not hold out for a better performance in the future.

    Like

    • Patriot – if my guy doesn’t ‘win’ the next one, this may be the first presidential election lost by debate. I hate to even think that – I deeply beleive he’s the better candidate – but it’s there.

      Like

    • Also, re foreign policy, I disagree with you. Romney has so far shown very little understanding of the currents swirling in the Middle East – he seems to think it’s all about Israel and standing up for America. He is wrong. Obama should be strong here.

      Like

  4. I am rather convinced that the omission of the 47% was intentional. They had to have concluded that he had worked at a response to that. The down-ticket idea is intriguing. There has been talk that the concerns about the turkish-syrian issue may have had him worried. I dunno. I expect a better performance on debate 2

    Like

  5. Some say President Obama is good at thinking ahead, so he may of hard something up his sleeve.

    Interestingly, time has shown that candidates rehearse answers and then pivot their answer so they can go into their speech. That said, too many people determine the winner by the conviction of the answer … unfortunately, not on the substance and accuracy within their answer.

    Like

    • Most people actually care more about the strength of others than about what they say the believe in or want. A weak ally is less respected than a strong enemy.

      Like

      • Here’s one of those times where you and I agree jonolan. While pundits were yakking about Romeny’s lies (and yes, I’d say they were blatant) what 70 million people took away from the debate was the optics. People like a winner. And Romney looked strong. That really matters.

        Like

  6. Some days we all just suck. It seems Obama is like the rest of us. 😉

    Like

  7. Reblogged this on The Last Of The Millenniums and commented:
    I’ve heard that Team Obama didn’t mention the 47% because they didn’t want to give Romney 70 million viewers vs the 3 million he had the next day at FOX.
    But given the debate performance, I can’t really credit Team Obama with that much savvy.

    Like

    • Thanks for the reblog fatherkane. Always feels good!

      And yeah, must have been quite disappointing to Romney that he only got to give his 47% answer to the FOX audience. A waste of words for him.

      Like

  8. But as an executive, someone who has voted both sides of the aisle my entire life–this man has no idea how lead.

    One must listen, negotiate and NEVER vilify business for it is backbone of our country. One must never ever blame the other for not accomplishing something. Irrespective of what he has not accomplished, he refuses to accept responsibility and blames others–that in and of itself is disgusting. He is a demagogue.

    Only those voters who are scared, lack the courage to break free of group think will recognize the reality of his lack of leadership coupled with our fiscal situation and exercise Independent thought.

    http://useurheadpolitics.wordpress.com/2012/10/09/global-recession-same-old-solutions-are-not-going-to-work-we-need-a-surgeon/

    Like

    • Welcome userhead, always nice to see a new face. While (surprise!) I pretty much disagree with what you’ve said here, I will concede this: Obama – and the Dems overall – have failed to make the strongest case against income inequality. It shouldn’t be argued on a haves/have-nots basis. It should be argued on the basis of what is good for a country. HIstory (our own and others) have shown over and over again that income inequality is toxic and leads to instability. It’s a bad thing and must always be pulled back when it happens. That, in my opinion, is the proper argument.

      Like

      • income “inequality” only becomes toxic when it is used to pit one group of people against another. If I am wrong, please point to a historical event that shows such.

        Like

        • How about the conviction of Leona Helmsley for tax evasion, she who famously said, “Only the little people pay taxes.” ? Admittedly, the calculation of Leona’s sole impact on society would be small, but, FL, she had a lot of pals in her swanky society, didn’t she? I’m talking about the “Let them eat cake” crowd.

          Like

          • I know of middle class Americans that have been convicted of tax evasion, a difference in income level does not cause criminal acts.

            Like

            • @ FLPatriot,

              A difference in income level does indeed cause criminal acts, at least in the sense that it is a primary motive for tax evasion. Just ask Martha Stewart. I’m speaking here of greed, and for evidence you only have to look as far as the statistical structure the IRS uses to determine whom to pick for audits. The greater the income the greater the chance of an audit. QED.

              Like

            • Greater chance of an audit does not correlated to a greater likely hood of committing tax fraud. The IRS audits those that they feel they can more from. All though I think there are other reasons for the IRS to target the wealthier there is also the increased number of tax regulation on those that earn more to consider, it is harder to get your taxes correct the more you make which then results in a higher number of audits.

              I agree that tax fraud is a symptom of greed, but not income level, and income level is not a measurement of greed.

              Like

        • [income “inequality” only becomes toxic when it is used to pit one group of people against another]

          Exactly right–otherwise, it’s just peachy; such as during the business class’s war on labor, women, the poor, the sick, and the weak, relentlessly waged since 1980. Yet if somebody today has the temerity to mention that little fact, our Masters of the Universe pound their fists and shriek “CLASS WAR!” to anybody stupid enough to listen.

          Like

        • FL, it’s not a matter of its being ‘used’. It’s the very fact of the thing that causes societal discontent.

          Examples n history? You might want to take a look at the French Revolutioon.

          Like

          • Or take a look at Russia in 1917.

            Like

          • See, that’t why I like you Mo, you make a valid and intelligent argument. Now, enough with flattery 🙂

            I would agree that on the surface the income inequality in Russia 1917 or in France before the revolution was horrible and is a valid cause of the revolutions in both cases.

            First point I would make is that America is no wheres near either of those cases. Secondly, both of those cases where created by an all powerful central government.

            I would say that both cases got to the point of revolution more from the lack of option to provide for your own needs than the fact that the royalty was wealthier than the commoners.

            I would say that the people of Monaco are fine with their wealth inequality. There is no doubt that the royal family have a disproportionate amount of the wealth than the average inhabitants, and there is no call for revolution. Could it be that the royal family there care for their citizens and they have a capitalist based economy that allows for opportunity?

            Like

            • Well, let me get all nit-picky here. Monaco’s land mass is UNDER one square mile. It is a principality. It’s population is 36K and its per capita income is about $150K. Almost four times the US. They pretty much don’t compare to anything else in the world (maybe the Vatican?).

              Norway and Sweden have monarchies, rich ones, and are a blend of capitalist/socialist. There is no disconent in those countries of any consequence. And they have much much more social equity than we have.

              Like

              • Yeah, one definitely can’t use Monaco as a reference. Nearly all of it’s working class are not residents of the principality. They live outside the borders and commute cross-border to work.

                Like

              • I will concede that Monaco may not be the best example.

                Now I am interested in your use of the phrase “social equity”, can you provide your definition? As we discussed before, a lot of unnecessary arguments come from misunderstood terms and I would like to make sure we are talking about the same thing before commenting.

                Like

  9. I hate to be so blunt Moe … but I think what Obama received was an old fashioned “bitch slap”. All excuses aside, in the war of debate … in that one, he was unarmed.

    Like

  10. UNCLE JOE BETTER BLAST THAT LITTLE TWIT AND SHOW HIS BOSS HOW TO DO IT

    Like

  11. Ms. Holland ,

    On a lighter note. Who is that cartoon villain? Snidely Whiplash ?

    Like

    • Your’re right Alan, it is. And I didn’t even realize it – just went googling around for the right image and this one jumped off the page for me.

      Like

  12. Pls, come back; all is foregiven. I miss your posts.

    Like

  13. The comment on Obama as a “failure” made me realize Romney/Ryan will “succeed” no matter how far they advance the customary Republican agenda of tax cuts, deregulation, privatization, and cuts to social services. Once the electorate has accepted both the yardstick of “jobs” as the measure of prosperity, and the doctrine of “personal responsibility” as the method used to deal with the issue of poverty, the added incentive of an eviscerated social safety net is sure to nudge them in the right direction. Picture the resulting free market utopia, workers toiling at minimum wage zero-benefit jobs, their self-discipline automatically maintained by staring into the void of the jobless and the hopeless. But the unemployment rate will drop below seven percent, so the Republicans will “succeed” where the Democrats “failed”! Of course, the GOP’s next order of business will be to “reform” that job destroyer, the minimum wage law…

    Like

    • Oh yeah ojmo – you are so right. It’s far past time to be going after minimum wage (yet again) – I’m surprised it hasn’t popped up this time. But in good time . . .

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s