October 16 and October 22, 2012
Well, they're over, and I'm glad. And the election will soon be over, too, after which politicians will cease tearing each other apart and return to governing the country. (Ha! Ha!) This essay is the last of ten op-ed blogs I have written about the election, especially about what I perceive to be Governor Romney's deficiencies.
Presidential debates are well covered by commentators; I will try to discuss what--to my knowledge--hasn't yet been written about. I will describe my favorite Obama Moment (OM) and my favorite Mitt Moment (MM) from the second debate; I will also discuss my What Took You So Long moment at the end of the second debate. I will use the third debate as an opportunity to sum things up.
My favorite OM came during the discussion about the siege of the consulate in Benghazi, during which four Americans were killed, including the American ambassador to Libya. Romney was blaming Obama for what he perceived to be lax security at the consulate, implying that Obama's lack of attention to security abroad is endangering State Department personnel everywhere. (This is particularly egregious, since Republicans removed 500 million dollars from the funds that provide this security.) Romney's criticisms were unfounded; he was taking advantage of a national tragedy in order to score some points with his continuing caricature of the president as someone who is a poor leader; a "nice man" who is in over his head. Obama called him out on this. He stared at Romney--and, via a well positioned camera, stared at us--and told him that to politicize this tragedy was inexcusable. (The murdered ambassador's father recently said the same.) Did you see the president's face? Yes, yes, yes, yes, the president finally showed some anger! It didn't last too long, but for a while he looked truly furious. Finally!
There have been theories about why the president, who has been insulted and provoked by his opponents perhaps more than any presidential candidate ever, has been so slow to react. Pundits have attributed Obama's inability to get angry to what I call the Angry Black Man Theory. It is the belief that if President Obama acted even a little like a Black Panther all the white cats wold scurry up trees in terror. And when they came down and resumed human form, they would. of course, vote red. (Relax, Mr. President, most of those white pussies are going to vote for Romney anyway.) I never believed this theory, although it might have some truth to it. Truth is--at least the way I see it--Obama is the type of person for whom expressions of anger do not come easily. He is an intellectual, a policy wonk, and does not enjoy confrontation. Neither does he enjoy the back-slapping, baby-kissing and supporter-fawning that are inevitable parts of politics. He has come a long way; he had too.
Remember the first debate? When I was a medical resident, one of the attending physicians who taught us was very coarse. One of the residents thought that she should be taken to Charm School by ambulance. Similarly, after the first debate Obama had to be taken to Debate School by ambulance. The second and third debate demonstrated that a brief stay in an undisclosed political Intensive Care unit resulted in a remarkable cure. Too bad he was too heedless to seek preventive care earlier, which might well have prevented his disastrous performance at the first debate.
My favorite MM (Mitt Moment) of the second debate also pertained to Libya. Romney was driving home the point that it took Obama fourteen days to call the attack on the Libyan consulate an act of terror. Obama gave a deadpan reply that he had called it an act of terror the very next day. Romney couldn't believe his ears. He feigned surprise that Obama was, well, apparently lying. Obama told him to check the record. The moderator stepped in ad said Obama did call it an act of terror the next day. And Obama, masterfully, called out, "Would you repeat that a little louder, Candy?"--which the moderator, Candy Crowley, vigorously did. Yes, Mitt couldn't believe his ears; those who prepped him undoubtedly told him to press this issue, which , they probably said, would expose Obama as incompetent, without a clue of what was really going on. Then came the MM: Romney raised his eyebrows higher than I ever thought possible in a human being. His supercilious look seemed to say, "What's the matter with these idiots? How dare they give me a slap in the face and prevent me from delivering a sucker punch which was my due?" The expression on this face was priceless; I will never forget it. (Romney missed an opportunity here: Obama was referring as an act of terror on the part of young men going berserk because of an anti-Islamic video; he had no knowledge at the time that had been a sophisticated attack carried out by members of al Qaeda .)
My What-took-you-so long moment came at the end of the debate. Obama was asked to correct the worst misconception about himself. He stated that people don't realize that he is an ardent supporter of capitalism and the free market, thus not a supporter of Big Government. He said on another occasion that government should never be larger than necessary. What's necessary is, of course, open to debate but not the type of debate the Republicans want: they want to come as close as possible to "eliminating the beast" of government. I always knew that Obama was a centrist and wondered why he never came out and said it. I am glad he finally did.
The last debate, like the second and so unlike the first, was a clear victory for Obama but, I think, not such a triumphant one as most commentators have asserted. They missed the strategy that Romney somewhat successfully implemented. He proved that he could be very aggressive in the first debate, thus shoring up his base. In the last debate he wasn't as confrontational for two reasons. First, foreign policy, the subject of the debate, is hardly Romney's strong point; hurling accusations at Obama on this subject would have the very real danger of ricocheting and hitting him, Romney, in the face. So he basically agreed with Obama on many foreign policy issues, even complimenting him for the death of bin Laden. The second reason for his show of amiability was his desire to reach out to the 4 to 5% of American voters who are still undecided. He well knows that if a citizen is still undecided at this point of the campaign, that citizen is obviously not the brightest bulb in the room. Those that pay less attention to substance pay more attention to appearance. Thus Mitt wanted to appear presidential and conciliatory, veering from hard-line right positions to soft-line moderate ones, cynically assuming the persona of Moderate Mitt to pander to the undecided just as he had assumed the persona of Radical Mitt to pander to the far right in order to get the nomination. (What is his true persona? Who knows? Yet we can be sure of this: this "well oiled weather vane" has little integrity.) He schemed to to play the role of Mr. Rogers pitted against Obama, who he hoped would play the role of the Condescending, or even better, the Angry Black Man; this devious plan had some limited success Obama did have substance on his side in spades, but he also appeared a bit too condescending and arrogant at times for the dimmer bulbs inside the heads of uncommitted voters. I imagine his demeanor turned some of them off.
Romney is undoubtedly performing better than he had been. Although he is wooden, and remains thoroughly incapable of emotionally connecting with his audience, he memorized his lines, and carried out the strategies of his advisers reasonably well. He was looking more presidential than before, especially, perhaps, to those who for whatever reason are unable to see beyond the facade. Contrary to some liberals, I do not despise Mitt Romney. Although I have lost nearly all respect for him, I do not deny that deep down he might be a nice man. But his relentless ambition has severely, severely, compromised whatever inner decency he still possesses. He will say anything at any time and at any place if he thinks it will help him win the election. As I stated before, it reminds one of King James I of England, who agreed to a deal that gave him access to the throne provided that he would remain silent about the execution of his own mother. He has been very willing to deny just about every previously held core belief in order to gain power; that's sad. It's even sadder that he felt he had no choice. The Republican party has veered so far to the right, necessitating Romney to turn 180 degrees from previously held views. One could well imagine that in the days of Eisenhower or Nixon, Romney could have found a good home in the party as a moderate, and might even have become a passable president. But we must not make the Republican mess and Romney's mess our own. Romney might be, deep down, a good, albeit cynical man, but those who would be swept into power along with him are a severe threat to the well-being of this country and to the well-being of the world. They must be stopped.
I want to thank those all over the world who have read, and sometimes commented, on my essays about the presidential election. I have, indeed, written them for you.
My favorite MM (Mitt Moment) of the second debate also pertained to Libya. Romney was driving home the point that it took Obama fourteen days to call the attack on the Libyan consulate an act of terror. Obama gave a deadpan reply that he had called it an act of terror the very next day. Romney couldn't believe his ears. He feigned surprise that Obama was, well, apparently lying. Obama told him to check the record. The moderator stepped in ad said Obama did call it an act of terror the next day. And Obama, masterfully, called out, "Would you repeat that a little louder, Candy?"--which the moderator, Candy Crowley, vigorously did. Yes, Mitt couldn't believe his ears; those who prepped him undoubtedly told him to press this issue, which , they probably said, would expose Obama as incompetent, without a clue of what was really going on. Then came the MM: Romney raised his eyebrows higher than I ever thought possible in a human being. His supercilious look seemed to say, "What's the matter with these idiots? How dare they give me a slap in the face and prevent me from delivering a sucker punch which was my due?" The expression on this face was priceless; I will never forget it. (Romney missed an opportunity here: Obama was referring as an act of terror on the part of young men going berserk because of an anti-Islamic video; he had no knowledge at the time that had been a sophisticated attack carried out by members of al Qaeda .)
My What-took-you-so long moment came at the end of the debate. Obama was asked to correct the worst misconception about himself. He stated that people don't realize that he is an ardent supporter of capitalism and the free market, thus not a supporter of Big Government. He said on another occasion that government should never be larger than necessary. What's necessary is, of course, open to debate but not the type of debate the Republicans want: they want to come as close as possible to "eliminating the beast" of government. I always knew that Obama was a centrist and wondered why he never came out and said it. I am glad he finally did.
The last debate, like the second and so unlike the first, was a clear victory for Obama but, I think, not such a triumphant one as most commentators have asserted. They missed the strategy that Romney somewhat successfully implemented. He proved that he could be very aggressive in the first debate, thus shoring up his base. In the last debate he wasn't as confrontational for two reasons. First, foreign policy, the subject of the debate, is hardly Romney's strong point; hurling accusations at Obama on this subject would have the very real danger of ricocheting and hitting him, Romney, in the face. So he basically agreed with Obama on many foreign policy issues, even complimenting him for the death of bin Laden. The second reason for his show of amiability was his desire to reach out to the 4 to 5% of American voters who are still undecided. He well knows that if a citizen is still undecided at this point of the campaign, that citizen is obviously not the brightest bulb in the room. Those that pay less attention to substance pay more attention to appearance. Thus Mitt wanted to appear presidential and conciliatory, veering from hard-line right positions to soft-line moderate ones, cynically assuming the persona of Moderate Mitt to pander to the undecided just as he had assumed the persona of Radical Mitt to pander to the far right in order to get the nomination. (What is his true persona? Who knows? Yet we can be sure of this: this "well oiled weather vane" has little integrity.) He schemed to to play the role of Mr. Rogers pitted against Obama, who he hoped would play the role of the Condescending, or even better, the Angry Black Man; this devious plan had some limited success Obama did have substance on his side in spades, but he also appeared a bit too condescending and arrogant at times for the dimmer bulbs inside the heads of uncommitted voters. I imagine his demeanor turned some of them off.
Romney is undoubtedly performing better than he had been. Although he is wooden, and remains thoroughly incapable of emotionally connecting with his audience, he memorized his lines, and carried out the strategies of his advisers reasonably well. He was looking more presidential than before, especially, perhaps, to those who for whatever reason are unable to see beyond the facade. Contrary to some liberals, I do not despise Mitt Romney. Although I have lost nearly all respect for him, I do not deny that deep down he might be a nice man. But his relentless ambition has severely, severely, compromised whatever inner decency he still possesses. He will say anything at any time and at any place if he thinks it will help him win the election. As I stated before, it reminds one of King James I of England, who agreed to a deal that gave him access to the throne provided that he would remain silent about the execution of his own mother. He has been very willing to deny just about every previously held core belief in order to gain power; that's sad. It's even sadder that he felt he had no choice. The Republican party has veered so far to the right, necessitating Romney to turn 180 degrees from previously held views. One could well imagine that in the days of Eisenhower or Nixon, Romney could have found a good home in the party as a moderate, and might even have become a passable president. But we must not make the Republican mess and Romney's mess our own. Romney might be, deep down, a good, albeit cynical man, but those who would be swept into power along with him are a severe threat to the well-being of this country and to the well-being of the world. They must be stopped.
I want to thank those all over the world who have read, and sometimes commented, on my essays about the presidential election. I have, indeed, written them for you.
