October 04, 2012


How's this for a crappy analysis of the debate I missed most of? I was doing a drag show at XL and only saw snippets of it before the show. Just because so many people focus on buzz lines and appearances without analyzing the facts and figures, I must add in this vein that there may never have been a better-looking pair of presidential debaters. Right? I got home and tuned into MSNBC, the liberal news channel which was basically saying that Romney finally put himself on the map by regaling us with a tale of a woman whose husband was underemployed--and asked if could Romney help them. MSNBC's Chris Matthews concluded that we'd never seen this sensitive side of Romney. That's because he doesn't have one! He crafted one based on what he needed to come across as in this debate so of course we haven't seen this side of him before. This devil will change ANY position to win. He mentioned the cornerstones of his campaign. Two weeks ago, his campaign memo was Create Specifics About Specifics because all he has are cornerstones. Why would a qualified leader be nailing down specifics about his economic plan this close to the election?

Another superficial observation: Obama kept looking down (not the body language of confidence) while Mitt smirked at him patronizingly as a failure. Easy to do when you don't have a position except rob the poor to give to the rich in times of economic hardship. People, Mitt represents the wealthy and just scoffed at the bottom 46% of us who rely on some form of government assistance--from veterans to seniors to the infirm. I know that Obama needs to seem presidential and he's entitled to a weaker than usual debate performance. But Huffingtonpost.com, which was liberal before AOL bought it, features a headline claiming that Romney won. So a reverse Robin Hood who robs the poor to aid the mega-rich, who just insulted 46% of the country, whose numbers which he made up at the last minute don't add up, and who made a living slashing jobs and then became the governor of a liberal state with completely different positions on so many issues from insurance to abortion and whose party chose him as a last resort because he had the dough to run, FINALLY PUT ON ONE GOOD/DECENT PERFORMANCE TONIGHT AFTER A DISASTROUS FEW WEEKS. I wonder if Obama would have "won" the debate if he'd said: HOW CAN YOU DISCUSS YOUR DESIRE TO CREATE JOBS WHEN YOUR PARTY HAS BLOCKED ALL MY EFFORTS TO CREATE JOBS? HOW CAN YOU CURE WHAT'S AILING THE ECONOMY BY REVERTING TO BUSH'S POLICIES WHICH PUT US IN THIS FINANCIAL HOLE? BUSH, THE PRESIDENT THAT THE GOP CAN BARELY MENTION, WHOSE FLOP POLICIES PUT US IN THIS MESS?

Would this have been seen as too aggressive and unpresidential to be on attack mode? Seems to me that's the only mode you can be on when you're running against a lying asshole. Would it be out of bounds for Obama to say that without an economic plan with specifics, Romney will need his magic Mormon underwear to make his funky math work? Go get him, Obama! How could he possibly win with so little to offer the American people? HOW?