Watching the second Obama/Romney debate …

[aadler]

 
… and slamming back Bloody Marys. Because that makes it so much easier.

• Obama isn’t as bad as in the first debate. That doesn’t mean he’s good.
• Romney isn’t as much better than Obama as he was in the first debate. That doesn’t mean he’s bad.
• Obama is (as everyone on Planet Earth knew he needed to be) more engaged and aggressive in the second debate than in the first. None of that changes the fact that he’s sitting on three and a half years of failed policies, and insisting that we give him another four years to do more of the same.
• Romney is talking about what he wants to do. What he wants to do is theoretical; the proof is in the doing. Nonetheless, Romney has a track record of setting goals and meeting them, whereas Obama has a track record of talking big and accomplishing precisely dick.
• Benghazi just came up. And, predictable as the rising of the sun, Obama tried to criticize Romney for ‘playing politics’ by criticizing the administration’s actions and responses. NEWS FLASH, OBAMA: YOUR CHOICES AND ACTIONS WERE POLITICAL EVENTS. The results were political results. The failures thus become political issues. If you don’t want to deal with the political fallout from your political actions, don’t go into politics.
• Candy Crowley (the moderator) appears to be interrupting Romney about five times as often as she interrupts Obama. Once that’s been set aside, however, her conduct does not reach the level that would demand that she be tarred and feathered and launched by air cannon to Iran (where modern American liberalism can be properly appreciated). She wasn’t entirely, precisely fair and objective, but she wasn’t grotesquely, undeniably UNfair. Miracle of miracles.
• I’m not an uncommitted voter. People who are committed on either side are unlikely to have their minds changed by the debate (they may be disappointed by their candidate’s performance, but that’s a different matter). The partisans are already decided, which means the ‘independents’ are the ones who will swing the election one way or the other: not because they’re anywhere near a majority — there are fewer independents than self-designated conservatives OR liberals — but because their vote, added to either side, is enough to tilt the balance. What will uncommitted voters conclude from this debate? I can’t really guess. I’m not objective, and I know it. Every time Obama opens his mouth, I start shouting at the screen. (And frequently cursing. His blathering, and his politics, really do offend me that much.) But I absolutely can’t tell how this debate will affect anyone who hasn’t yet made up his/her mind.
• Once again, Obama got four more minutes of speaking time than Romney did. And, once again, it didn’t actually make him look that much better.
• In the final analysis, two candidates are standing in front of the cameras. Both are saying, Vote for me, and things will get better. The difference is, one of them hasn’t actually done anything on the national stage yet (which means his claims are theoretical, which is another way of saying ‘hopeful’); the other has spent 3½ years implementing policies about which the best that can be said is, Well, they haven’t destroyed the country YET.

I don’t feel that ‘my side’ (conservatives) lost any ground. I don’t doubt in the least that people who oppose me in every particular will feel exactly the same about their side.

The actual result will become clear three weeks from now, on Election Day.

Comments

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Obama looks like what he is: a failed incumbent.

Yeah, it is difficult to make an argument from his position and fight off the back foot. I told my wife all summer that the race was going to tighten up in the final two months, after the "normal" people (non political-junkies) had a good look at the options and the chance to take a big step back and ask, "What have the last four years really been like?" Higher food prices. Higher energy prices. Lower wages and profits. Tight household budgets. Mass unemployment and underemployment. Sluggish economic growth. Short sales on mortgages. Rising crime rates. Austerity budgets and service cutbacks. Political junkies deal in memes and identity politics and vague generalities, but it's bad out here in the real world of death and taxes. I know it's been a rocky run for me.

Some of the talking points the president's campaign has lined up have struck me as a little insane, actually. For instance, the "access to contraceptions" line of argument hits all the warm fuzzy spots for hard left-wingers ("Those Republican prudes want to ban condoms!"), but scratch it with the tiniest fingernail and you'll see it's all about creating a government subsidy for products that are widely and cheaply available. So basically, the re-election campaign is now focused on winning over people who are already so glibly partisan that they equate "free" birth control with "access" to it, and demonize anyone who notes otherwise. Orwell's greatest literary villains would be jealous of these wordsmiths.

I wasn't the biggest Romney fan, but I'm starting to think I've got a handle on the man, and what a Romney presidency might look like. I agree there is some promise there. I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a quiet landslide brewing. If Romney takes Pennsylvania... it could start to look very 1980-ish.

[aadler]

> I’m actually starting to wonder if there is a quiet landslide brewing.

God willing. But don’t just pray for that; vote for it.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Oh, we'll be voting bright and early. Unfortunately, my state isn't remotely in play for this election, but that's never stopped us before.

(P.S. Nice icon, but shouldn't the tagline read, "NOPE")