The first of the 2012
presidential debates was held on October 3, and it sure does look like Obama dropped the ball on this one. More
importantly, Romney actually looked pretty fantastic. What's going on??
Romney seemed to have a firm grasp of
what he wanted to say and do, and he was by far the more aggressive
and confident of the two men--yet he remained respectful. Obama just looked... languid, like he was still in practice mode. Was this a strategy upon Obama's part,
to look like a total wimp? Is Obama trying the rope-a-dope strategy,
and just not letting us in on this?
Prior to the debate Romney was looking
pretty bad; news of his “47 percent” comment at a Florida
fundraiser that had incited intense criticism was still ringing in everyone's
ears, and he was behind Obama in the polls by as much as 4 percent.
But now he's riding high off of what appears to be a lead, according
to several prominent sources, including CNN.
What the happened, Romney? More
importantly, what happened Obama??
I'm coming from a biased standpoint
here; I like Obama—seems like a great guy—and I am a Democrat in
almost all respects (I like owning a gun, that's about all that keeps
me from being wholly capital D—can you blame me? I'm a Texan after
all). But I'm not a zealot, and I have room on my metaphorical shelf
for respect for Romney.
As the governor of Massachusetts,
Romney was quite moderate; he had a pro-choice standpoint and he
mobilized his Democratic-majority legislature to push through a solid
health care plan. It's obvious that, in order to appeal to
farther-right-leaning Republican voters—and more importantly to get
the support of the radicals in his party—he had to swing away from
the middle during his run for the presidency.
 |
| This is no time for sign language, Mitt. |
This always happens, candidates have to
swing toward their party. It's par for the course. It just means
that I can't respect him as much as a presidential candidate as I did
when he was a governor. So I support Obama.
Now isn't that a sad sight? I'm more
AGAINST the opposition than I am FOR my party's nominee. I can't
exactly blame Obama; this IS politics, and he has to appeal to his
voters and his party just like Romney. But what I CAN blame him for
his not showing us his strength. As a presidential candidate four
years ago, he was confident, charismatic, and opinionated. Old
Barack would not have stood for new Barack. Look how far all four of
you have fallen, future-and-past Barack and Mitt. For shame.
Well, maybe not so much shame for
Romney. The facts and the stances don't matter as much in a
televised debate; the performances do. Romney has changed his stance
since his gubernatorial days, but he has also shown in the debate
that he can confidently command a room, and look good doing it.
Obama didn't show his stuff; his performance suffered, and it's his
performance that is under attack here, and rightfully so. He was too
quiet, too cautious. Despite Romney having that seemingly-Republican
characteristic of occasionally putting his foot in his mouth, he
shined last night, and made Obama look like a player in a lesser
league. And for that, Romney should be praised.
If I had a president who was both
confident and commanding, and who supported ideals that I personally
support, I'd be more than pleased. And seeing as how most
politicians don't ever do what they say once they get into office—and
instead just do what they've always done—I may enjoy or even benefit from a
Romney presidency. So long as he ignores the radicals of his party
like he used to.
---
(I wrote the article above as an exercise in how NOT to write a news story. In time I plan on posting my actually news coverage of the first presidential debate, sans bias and informal language.)
