Debate Aftermath: It’s Going to Get Ugly
One telling barometer of the extent of Obama’s debate debacle has been the ferociously critical response of his those he reliably counts as his admirers. The New York Times called him “President Xanax”. Daily Beast commentator Andrew Sullivan, usually one to openly gush with affection for Obama. said his performance was “terrible”, “political malpractice”, and a “rolling calamity”. Chris Matthews, his leg now tingle free, said Obama looked like “the prey”. The National Election Pool, a consortium of the major television networks and AP, cancelled exit polls in 19 states, presumably unhappy enough to report bad news in 31.
In a fit of generosity, however bizarre, Al Gore attributed Obama’s lackluster performance to the altitude:
“I’m going to say something controversial. Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don’t know …”
Personally, I like my president at his best regardless of elevation but I can see how one might find that excessively demanding.
How will the president and his campaign respond to the seemingly endless torrent of mortification? A wave of dark and dirty campaigning that will make his previous approach look like courtship. Already, Obama’s ad hominem machine is in full throttle:
“I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn’t be Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow onstage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.”
Obama went on to claim that the real Romney has no interest in creating more teachers and wanted to outsource more American jobs overseas:
“The man onstage last night, he does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been saying for the last year. And that’s because he knows full well that we don’t want what he’s been selling for the last year.”
No need to read between the lines: he’s saying Romney is a phony. The worst, the most vicious, however, will continue to come by proxy. Obama’s top strategist, David Axelrod, was even less restrained, calling Romney an “artful dodger”, calling his debate performance “well delivered but fraudulent”, “devoid of honesty”, and “rooted in deception”. These were the nicest of his comments. He offered no theory about the impact of Denver’s altitude.
One sizable disadvantage Obama had at the debates, besides the absence of a teleprompter whispering brilliant ideas in his ear, was his reluctance to draw upon the malignant caricatures of Romney that have dominated his ad campaign. He stayed away from the robber baron straw man and generally steered clear of depicting his business experience as a record of capitalistic rapine. Why the self-restraint? Maybe he didn’t want to appear bitterly acrimonious and therefore, un-presidential (note to president: you did anyway). Maybe he couldn’t muster the gumption with the subject of his attacks in plain view, locking his gaze upon Obama for the duration of the debate. Maybe, and this is likely the most plausible possibility, Obama understood how ineffective these attacks would be with Romney in the room, simply radiating good guy magnanimity and political moderation. Either way, without the inexhaustible reservoir of angry calumny, Obama seemed disarmed.
But now that the debate is over he can shoot his slanderous bombs from afar, prepare for a maelstrom of deprecations. It will be worse this time, much worse, because Obama now feels the pressure of a real race, now senses his own very real electoral vulnerability. And while the press couldn’t shield him during the debates (and Jim Lehrer did the best he could) they will do their best to give him a free pass on the most invidious defamation.
Also, and maybe more significantly, Obama left that stage looking personally wounded, not just defeated but humiliated. It is now well-known that he is the thin-skinned type, hypersensitive despite all these years in the public eye, just as quick to take umbrage as he is to dispense it. This is all a very personal affair to him. One could say, without much hyperbole that it’s all personal to him, every last inch of political life, but even more intensely now. He doesn’t merely want to win, he wants to eviscerate and shame. He has just over a month to do it and an ocean of cash.
This is going to get ugly.
—
Ivan Kenneally is Editor in Chief of the Daily Witness.
Category: Election 2012, Featured
Subscribe
If you enjoyed this article, subscribe to receive more just like it.
Ivan, I agree with what you wrote, but THE reason for the debates going the way they did (other than the obvious preparation one candidate put in and the other did not) is that Romney forced the discussion on Obama’s abysmal record. A candidate (especially the incumbent President) can only offer so many excuses, and Obama gave the usual excuses, before people see an abdication of leadership. The other thing I noticed was that Romney spoke from a comfortable position of knowledge. There were some very obvious rehearsed remarks, but most of what he said flowed from a man who has confidence/experience with the topic. Obama’s sub-freshman level economics, as presented in this debate, showed he does not understand Romney’s basic economic premise. In various ways Obama asked multiple times how Romney could make up ~$5T of tax revenue without greatly taxing the middle class. Romney gave good answers, but did not get overly specific.
I believe that questions about Obama’s economic plans are perfectly in order and should be debated. Something along the lines of: his budget received a 99 – 0 vote against in the Senate for his first submitted budget and the second time around it was 97 – 0 against in the (Harry Reid/Democrat controlled) Senate &, as a bonus, it was 414 – 0 against in the House. (But at least there was bi-partisan agreement on how bad this budget is/was!) A corollary to this follows from Obama’s promise to cut the national debt in half (which Romney wisely brought up in the debate) and that is that Obama’s submitted budgets which increase the national debt by $6T more over the next 10 years with the bulk of the ‘belt tightening’ having to be done by successive administrations while Obama continues his $1T+ deficits while he is presumably in office.
All good points. I actually think Romney could have been even better, meaning hard hitting but there’s a fine line in these debates between forcefulness and command and the an excess of aggression the publicly generally finds distasteful. Overall, i think R hot the right balance. The pressure will be on O in the next debate-you’re right that his primary disadvantage is the fact he’s dead wrong
It will get ugly with obama – perhaps then, more truth about the actual situations will come to light in the heat of his anger. Romney is up to it – he is cool under pressure and will win again.
I think he’s up to the task too-the debate itself was confirmation of his fortitude