In their first debate, President Obama seemed blindsided and bewildered by Mitt Romney’s tidal wave of lies and denials of reality. Obama came to the debate ready to battle over issues and Romney came with sacks of manure to pour out at each opportunity. As has been discussed since, it is truly shocking that a man can stand in front of America and lie so openly and the Mainstream Media, knowingly hands a “win” to him and Presidential standing for being so successful at convincing Americans of deceptions.

It is a disgusting travesty, how the MSM calls a man that they know is lying to the country, the winner of a debate based solely on how aggressive he was in his lies and attacks and because his opponent chose to discuss issues instead of returning personal attacks…as if this was a WWF match where the winner is determined by the one who was most hostile and the dirtiest fighter.

For any of those out there who learned to debate in school, am I remembering all of this wrong but wasn’t the winner of a debate the one who used documented facts and reason to best convince those watching to their viewpoint? Does anyone remember a debate being won by someone who claimed he was right because he said so and was simply a smooth liar?

Add to this, the fragile and panicky Democrats who have been running in circles with their hair on fire because of this one positive week for Romney. Obama has had around two months non-stop of good news and one week that goes to Romney is the end of the world? Being seen as losing a debate because his opponent was an aggressive liar is the end of the Obama campaign? To this I say “pshaw” and I say it loud.

There are three more debates, the debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan tomorrow (we’ll be live chatting throughout it here so do join us!) then two more between Obama and Romney. It is likely that this bounce for Romney will be short lived and the high point of his campaign. Why? Follow me over to the Obamatron 9000…

OBAMATRON 9000

Predictions For Upcoming Debates

1. Joe Biden will beat Paul Ryan in tomorrow night’s debate

Joe Biden is the butt of many a joke, laughed at for what a gaffe-machine he is, he’s discounted and ridiculed. So he doesn’t go into the debate as a big favorite. Paul Ryan is (curiously) seen as an intellectual of the Right and a brilliant guy who can carry the flag for the Right Wing. He is not seen as being outmatched in a debate. So, here are Joe Biden’s Advantages as I see them:

a. The low opinion of Biden on the Right and in the MSM is a benefit, making it easier for him to outperform expectations than it was for Obama.

b. Joe Biden is actually a great debater. In the 2008 Dem primaries and against media sensation Sarah Palin, Biden was skilled, effective and successful. Not many could have taken on Palin without looking condescending or bullying…or weak for not going after her enough, Biden threaded that needle with great precision.

c. Joe Biden is a “regular guy” who blue collar voters like and relate to. Many of the undecided voters remaining are in this demo and Paul Ryan is the kind of smarmy, nerdy brat that doesn’t appeal to them.

d. Biden can get tough because he doesn’t have to worry about Fox News branding him “an angry black man”. He can go after Ryan with a tenacity that is not natural for Obama, not Presidential nor problematic in a still-racist society. And if the first Obama-Romney debate has taught us anything, it’s that substance is less relevant to who the MSM crowns the winner of a debate than aggression. And between Biden and Ryan, I’ll take Biden as the tougher fighter and Ryan as the weaker wonk. If Biden wins as I think is likely, then the momentum for Romney evaporates.

e. Paul Ryan is not greatly experienced in debates or national campaigns. He is also not an inspiring speaker. Most importantly, he is the architect of plans that destroy Medicare, Medicaid and a broad swath of most social programs so he will be the perfect punching bag for a populist like Joe Biden.

Typically, VP debates don’t change the dynamics of a Presidential race in a big way but seeing how fragile the undecided vote is this year and how it swung after the first Obama-Romney debate, it isn’t unreasonable to presume that it will have a meaningful impact.

The VP debate then ramps up to the second Obama-Romney debate.

2. President Obama will beat Mitt Romney in their second debate.

a. The debate format is Town Hall style. An audience will surround them and ask questions. Obama draws energy from being around people, he’s far more comfortable in that format than standing behind a podium. Meanwhile, Romney’s insincerity is on full display when interfacing with human beings. Yes, he will be slick and well rehearsed with “humanizing” statements but he will be far more vulnerable to being seen as a phony in that environment.

b. A main topic will be foreign policy. When it comes to foreign policy, Mitt Romney is an empty suit with no concrete opinions or solutions. Sure, he’ll attack and blame Obama for events he had no control over (would Mitt have sent troops into Egypt to stop the people from overthrowing their tyrannical leader?) but Obama has many accomplishments and specifics to tout including killing Bin Laden, killing many Al Qaeda leaders, helping oust Gaddafi from Libya, etc. And while Romney wails about Obama on foreign policy, his “stands” are either identical to Obama’s or non-existent. Romney loses on foreign policy.

c. Romney has shown his hand and is a one trick pony so Obama will be well prepared in the subsequent debates. In the first debate, Romney surprised Obama by being wholly shameless about lying about everything. This can be a bit disorienting when a man who has frequently declared that he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy by 20% as part of a $5 trillion tax cut suddenly states that none of that is true and that unicorns really exist. Obama may have had low expectations about who Romney was but it seemed clear, he hadn’t imagined Romney was THAT unprincipled. Now however, Obama knows that. Romney has no surprises left, all he can do is play this hand again and again. Lie, lie, lie and deny the truth about his policies and stands on the issues. This “strategy” was effective as a stunt and surprise in Debate #1 but it will become redundant and less effective each time he tries to use it. And might Obama have put any thought into how to deal with it in the future?

This brings me to the audience participation section of this post: What should Obama do to deal with Romney’s lying in the next debates? Your thoughts and comments on this question are invited, desired  and welcomed. To get the ball rolling, here’s my suggestion:

President Obama shouldn’t try to address each and every lie Romney spouts in two minutes because they simply can’t all be covered in appropriate detail in Obama’s two minutes (or whatever time limit they’ll have). When someone is shooting a lot of arrows at you, don’t try to catch each arrow, you take his bow away. Meaning, Obama should attack Romney as an untrustworthy liar and use each question or response to drive that point home. If Romney can be seen as the rampant liar he is, it won’t matter what claims he makes if he’s not believed by voters.

There are many effective ways to approach this (just calling Romney a liar isn’t one of them). First, Obama could preface answers and responses by saying that Romney will say whatever it takes to win the Presidency and that he simply can’t be believed or trusted with the Presidency because he isn’t a person who is open and honest with the public. He’s hidden his tax returns, he’s hidden the hits that the middle class will take to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, he’s hidden what he’ll do on health care for the uninsured…we don’t need another Republican in the White House who hides the truth from the American people and destroys our economy in the process (linking him to Bush without mentioning Bush seems like a good strategy).

Second, Obama should ask Romney questions that put him on the spot about his statements and his record instead of asking him about policy specifics about which Romney can simply lie. He could ask Romney details about his 47% speech or about his inability to stand up even once to the racists and misogynists in his party. The one question I would like to hear Obama ask is, “As a matter of displaying how principled you are, name just three principled positions you’ve held for the last ten years without flip-flopping on them.”

Your turn, what do you think Obama should say in his next debate with Romney?

 

70
Leave a Comment

Please Login to comment
16 Comment threads
54 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
10 Comment authors
agrippabitoKQµårk 死神MarylAuntieChrist Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
agrippa
Member
agrippa

I am not worried about the ‘debate bounce’. Basically, I think that people who are going to vote have already deciced who they will vote for. In that sense, there are very few’undecideds’. I think that the true ‘undecideds’ are those who have not decided if they will even vote.

And, I know nothing about polls: who they talk to; how they decide who to talk to; the questions they ask. And, poll results have nothing to do with who I will vote for. It is my civic duty to vote.

AuntieChrist
Member

I don’t care what anyone says, you’ve got to admire this President.

http://angryblackladychronicles.com/2012/10/10/president-obama-tells-radio-show-audience-i-got-this/

bito
Member

Towards the end of the interview, Obama sought to assure listeners that he was still confident, alluding to an internet meme that features him: “As some of these emails that go around with my picture on them say, I can’t quote the entire thing, but ‘I got this.’

[img]http://angryblackladychronicles.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/20121010-173129.jpg[/img]

AuntieChrist
Member

Thank you Bito, that looks much better. One of these days I’ll figure out how to do that.
My Inner Homer Simpson voice is saying to me, “dumb brain… Be more smart!”

bito
Member

How can Obama or anyone break down facts and lies in any kind of format of debate that are presented in this article? This study will be lucky to get out of the nerdy blogs let alone in the broadcast media

Romney’s $4,000 Tax Tale
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/romneys-4000-tax-tale/

Mitt Romney falsely claims in a series of TV ads that President Obama “will raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000.” That’s nonsense. The ads cite a conservative group’s study, but even the group itself doesn’t say Obama will raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers. It says his budget could result in a “potentially higher tax burden” over the next 10 years.

[…]

The first of these ads — titled “Who Will Raise Taxes?” — touts the AEI report as an “independent, nonpartisan study.” It also says, “The same organization says the plan from Mitt Romney and common-sense conservatives is ‘not a tax hike on the middle class.’”

Although the group bills itself as “nonpartisan,” it is a conservative pro-business organization whose board of trustees includes prominent Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and major GOP donors who are actively helping to elect Romney.

KQµårk 死神
Member

As far as strategy goes Obama has to do what Bush did in his second debate in 2004. He’s got to make the point to America that someone who changes positions all the time and has no core cannot do that in the oval office when you literally face hundreds of tough decisions. You can’t be pro choice one minute and anti-abortion the next when the final decision is made whether to sign a piece of legislation or not. You can’t waiver on touch foreign policy choices waiting for a poll to tell you what to do. You can’t tout only the popular parts of policy like the $5 trillion tax cuts and then hope the unpopular parts are done by congress. Obama has to make the point that’s not leadership. If anything that’s the vulnerability Romney set himself up for the most to be attacked.

agrippa
Member
agrippa

In that second deabte, GWB kind of ignored Kerry.
Obama should concentrate on relating to the audience and their questions and concerns.

bito
Member

Excellent KQ, how would a leader of fellow G-20 nation take Mitt’s ideas? Would they have to be constantly second/third guessing Mitt’s foreign policy?

KQµårk 死神
Member

Romney used a debate technique called spreading. Basically when it’s used with lies it’s akin to trying to baffle the audience with bullshit. It’s been outlawed in many debate formats just because it’s to difficult to determine the veracity of claims quick enough to evaluate a debate performance. Climate change and other denialists use this technique extensively to undermine truthful public discourse.

That being said Obama should have been ready for anything because Romney has used this technique to a lesser degree before.

A non-partisan pollster someone on MSNBC quoted last night said ‘when conservatives see a poll they don’t like they want to kill the pollsters but when a liberal sees a poll they don’t like they want to kill themselves’

There is some truth in that because the left seems so beaten down by the right since the Reagan era that some of us do have a tendency to withdraw.

SueInCa
Member

I fully expect Biden to get his sincere on tomorrow night and say something like this:

“Listen folks, I have been at the President’s side countless times over the past four years and you are not going to get a more caring man who thinks about you in everything he does.”

He will go on, but I expect he will give a re=run of parts of his convention speech for the people who were not there to hear the original

foodchain
Member
foodchain

AdLib, Here’s what bothers me: the economy is important and is doing as well as can be realistically expected and we lost that debate. We lost is because no one seemed prepared for Mitt to lie. Fancy that! Or they expected a news moderator to demand the truth. Fancy that! They prepared no contingencies: if Mitt lies, if he challenges, if he’s peevish, is he’s aggressive, not one contingency plan. Fancy that! Civility toward a thief and a liar is viewed as weakness; do no self harm against a thief and liar is not possible with some type of self defense and no one understood that letting yourself get punched makes you look weak. Fancy that!

All that said causes me to worry. Foreign policy is even harder to explain than the economy. The changes in the Middle East that we can’t control (Get Rummy to put another Shah in Iran, yeah right) don’t work into the average or under-informed voter’s mind set because the time frame is too long. Mitt’s foreign policy of America first, be strong, and don’t apologize is a hard card to play against even though is dangerously simplistic.

So, what to do? Understand every position Mitt has stated related to foreign policy. Have a damn good answer for the embassy killings. Be ready to talk about the money “bully wars” cost such as Iraq. Talk about how many of the GOP can’t leave Afghanistan because you can’t announce a timeline and what will Mitt do with that? Stay indefinitely like McCain would do? Point out what the GOP has stalled on re veterans affairs and support. What would Mitt do differently and what would he cut to pay for it?

I think a strong strategy would be to tie everything to cost and cuts. Mitt wants a balanced budget, a type of austerity related to spending. Make him explain how he would pay for anything and everything. I still want someone to explain how wealthy individuals create jobs. I know corporations are people but last time I looked wealthy people were not corporations. They hire maids, lawn caretakers, nannies and so on. Not much trickle there.

If the economy is readdressed, there is an abundance of data showing that most of the jobs created under George were federal. Under GOP state stewardship, federal and state jobs were cut. Why didn’t George’s trickle down work? Why did Reagan raise taxes? Why have jobs increased under Obama even under the government of NO and corporations which refuse to commit to our economic growth?

I love Joe, always have

KQµårk 死神
Member

I agree that Obama should have been ready. Big difference on foreign policy though. Romney really really does not know his shit on foreign policy. So his lies won’t make any sense. His foreign policy speech was bluster and vapid at the same time. In other words it will just be harder for him to lie.

SueInCa
Member

This was written by someone I do not know but I belong to a couple of groups on FB and it was posted there. WARNING***** He does not hold back with the language but if you are not sensitive to such talk, it is a pretty good post and a good spanking for Obama supporters or the left in general.

http://www.thesadbastardbar.com/2012/10/have-you-all-lost-your-goddamn-minds.html?m=1

Maryl
Member
Maryl

Great article! I don’t think I’ve ever posted here before but I enjoy your posts very much.

As to the debate, he could always try Reagan’s line: “There you go again!” It could sound something like this: “There you go again! Last week you said “blah”, tonight you’re saying “blah”. In response to what you are NOW saying…(fill in the answer).

KQµårk 死神
Member

Welcome great to see new folks.

AuntieChrist
Member

The damnable thing about the whole first debate was that if the President had asserted himself more forcefully in calling out Romney’s continual spew of untruths, the MSM would have said that he came across as an angry black man. As it was, I believe that the President, being an honest man and wanting to actually have a real debate was taken back by the sheer dishonesty being vomited from the mouth of Mitt.
Romney reminded me of Linda Blair’s Regan in The Exorcist. Every time he opened his mouth and said something was like a never ending stream of unbelievable lies — And President Obama was probably wishing he had some holy water and a couple of priests.

Since Romney pulls things out of his ass without a qualm, the President should be be able to do the same and insist that there’s an old saying which fits Mitt and it goes something like this: You change positions more often than a whore with a bad back.

…of course that won’t happen, President Obama respects the people of this country, which is why he was ready to debate the truth, only to be surprised when Regan showed up, head spinning and vomiting over everything decent.

What’s not to like about that?

Auntie Christ

SueInCa
Member

Bingo AC, I said the same thing. And whoever said being an angry black man was a bad thing anyway? Oh yeah I get it, that means they are about to pull off a crime. Yet the angry white man is ok? Hell they even made a good movie about 12 Angry White men.

AuntieChrist
Member

Hi Sue,
Since you brought up a film from 1954, let me close the loop from a film made 13 years later:
At the next debate when President Obama shakes RMoney’s hand he should pull a Sidney Poitier and say aloud, “THEY CALL ME MR. PRESIDENT!”

…And hopefully, Mitt will be caught totally off guard in the heat of the night.

SueInCa
Member

Auntie

That is a great comeback. I love it. They call me Mr. Tibs was another great movie. Would you believe I just saw To Sir With Love for the first time about a month ago? I remember my brother watching all his films but I never did. I am going to make it a point to catch up though.

AuntieChrist
Member

I *still* haven’t seen To Sir With Love.
I’ll have to see if that’s on Hulu.

foodchain
Member
foodchain

Mitt Romney, the only candidate so incapable that he can publicly say that people are commodities and corporations are people. There seems to be no limit to the debasement of the GOP.

SueInCa
Member

Adlib

Good post. One thing everyone should think about at this point is that many people have already voted. Those votes are cast in stone and cannot be changed. All reports I saw indicated that Obama was leading in Iowa and Ohio as voting got underway. So a certain percentage of voters have already cast their votes in stone. The next segment of the population is the party loyalists, they have also made up their minds and will vote accordingly.

So my suggestion would be to speak to the undecided (what I refer to as low information) voter. These are the people who do not pay a great deal of attention to the lead up to the election. I am not saying they have to be political junkies like the rest of us, but a little information please. Speak to those voters. Don’t leave out the rest of us for that small segment who would be butt hurt, but really speak to undecideds. Point out to them how Romney has taken different sides on all issues depending on the way the wind blows. Encourage them not to take your word for it, see for themselves. Tell them you have remained steadfast in your beliefs except for occasions when you have done some serious soul searching and decided your beliefs had changed by life’s experiences, not just because you want a certain group to like you. He has to be passionate with these people because professorial does not work, it frightens them because they are not that deep. Then stay at the end and work the rope line. I remember at the town hall debate last year how people were impressed that the Obamas did that and the McCains took off.

Of course he also has to speak to all of us but a bit of an adjustment for the undecideds needs to be in the cards. I am not sure how he can remind people of Romney’s flip flops without calling him on it everytime but he certainly needs to make it clear when a position has changed. Perhaps he asks if that change appears to be from soul searching or just to appeal to a voter block and if so how can they trust he will support them in the White House.

If it was me I would just ask the audience, do you want the Mormons in charge of a Romney administration? Evangelicals were in charge of Bush’s and look where that got us. But I would probably lose too.

empi
Member
empi

The president was on Tom Joyner’s radio show today. All of the hand wringers and fretters should have a listen. Get a grip folks. It was only one debate and you are falling into the MSM’s trap of making a mountain out of a molehill. Have a listen. The President knows what’s happening.

http://www.blackamericaweb.com/content/president-barack-obama-tjms

KQµårk 死神
Member

Hey empi great to see your moniker on the planet. I sure will listen to the recording.

SueInCa
Member

Thanks for the link Empi. I don’t think I have seen you before here so welcome from SueInCA too. Hope you find this site as great as I do. Adult conversation is refreshing after you have surfed other sites.

empi
Member
empi

You haven’t seen me because I haven’t posted here on POV for a long time. KQuark and I are old friends. I read the POV posts every day but I don’t always post because of time constraints, but since I know everyone is going crazy overreacting to the debate, I thought this might calm and sooth some nerves.

Thanks for the lovely note. I appreciate it

MurphTheSurf3
Editor

Of course, I am still nervous as hell and wearing a track in the carpet from worried pacing.

(You knew that did you not?)