Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Land Mines for Liberals

with 11 comments

I watched the debate. Much of it at least. Both Obama and Romney make my flesh crawl, so I had to take breaks. It’s over though. I don’t think a winner has been officially declared yet. I have debated the debate with some friends, and perused some Facebook Posts, but otherwise haven’t looked at how the pundits are reacting to the debate. My raw unscripted reaction as it were:

First off, I was appalled at how the mainstream media framed the debate. At least the channel I was watching made a big deal about how much “momentum” Romney had, and they so much as said that Obama had to win big to get back in the race. Yes, the election of the president of the most powerful nation the world has ever seen reduced to a shallow popularity contest at best. Racing cockroaches at worst. Hmm, did I type that aloud? As an aside from the facile shallowness of this approach to a presidential debate, it also sets Obama up to fail. Unless he dominates Romney, he loses. Say what?

Then, the questions. Every one I heard, and I heard most or all of them, seemed like a carefully constructed liberal land mine. IE a question designed to trip up liberals, basically questions that the conservative ideology on was very clear, so any answer that didn’t satisfy that was doomed to fail. There were no questions where Obama could shine. How the hell did this happen? Was the debate specifically set up so that Obama would fail? Hmm.

Worse, when presented with these clearly biased questions, instead of going on the offense, Obama fell back on liberal talking points. My favourite was the gun control question. Obama’s record on gun control is zilch, in fact he has let some gun control laws lapse without a fight. Even then, he has been endlessly pilloried by the right as a threat to gun ownership. So what does he do when the question comes up? He talks about gun control! He might as well have announced he was the anti-Christ. He could have pointed out that the Supreme Court had ruled that the second amendment guaranteed the Right to Bear Arms, and pretty much left it at that. It’s not like he was going to lose any liberal votes. Instead the next issue of the National Rifleman practically writes itself.

That in a nutshell was why I think by accident or design Obama threw the debate and the election. He preached to the choir, when he needed to appeal to Ron Paulists, intelligent conservatives, hard-core green voters, and militarists. I know this because I’m a card-carrying member of all four. Obama failed to redirect his message at the people he most needed to reach. This is the kiss of death. Granted Romney did no better, but he didn’t have to. All he had to do was look presidential while he pontificated, and he was golden. Romney looked Reaganesque to me, that may be all it takes to get a white back in the White House.

Granted I am biased, and there is absolutely no doubt that people’s preconceptions will colour how they view this debate. “They saw a game” as it were. I saw Obama set up to be a clown, and despite his best efforts, he came off as one. His liberal base is already crowing victory I see, but I also see that conservatives have ample new ammunition. There are advantages to having friends and associates from all over the political spectrum. I get to hear everyone’s prejudices. This makes me the most prejudiced one of all.

So my current thinking is that Romney is going to win the election, and the liberals are screwed no matter what happens. If things go great (snort, but it could happen) then of course Romney saved us all! And if things go to shit, it was all Obama’s fault!

Obama has been pwned. I hope I’m wrong.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Us under US copyright law. It’s not being used for profit, etc. It’s from the Facebook group: Binders Full of Women. yes, things move quickly in cyberspace. I used it because I thought it was funny, and an example of how quickly memes explode these days. Within an hour of the debate and Romney’s “Binders full of women:” remark there’s already a viral response to it. Such an age we live in. )


Written by unitedcats

October 16, 2012 at 9:56 pm

11 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. obama is throwing the media a bone to keep the race close and keep ratings up….lose the first one, even showing in tonight’s affair, and in debate #3…..he’l go on the attack and dominate. Americans have short memories, so he’s saving the fire for right before the election….

    Flea from the Red Hot Chili Peppers

    October 16, 2012 at 11:57 pm

  2. “Romney looked Reaganesque to me, that may be all it takes to get a white back in the White House.”

    I shall now unsubscribe and not read you again.

    Mike Goldman

    October 17, 2012 at 12:35 am

  3. I think you’re falling into the trap of assuming that the content of the candidates’ answers actually matters in deciding who won the debate. Doesn’t matter what they say so much as how they say it. Romney came off as aggressive and condescending so he lost. Coverage is already being dominated by a single “gaffe” (binders full of women). I didn’t see it as all that bad compared to a few of his others but there you go, that’s what the second presidential debate will be remembered for.


    October 17, 2012 at 3:23 am

  4. LOL This post was an off-the-cuff extemporaneous post about my first impressions, not a thoughtful analysis. I’m sure I got much or all of it wrong. And I was alluding to the thinly veiled racism on some of the right, not expressing my own beliefs. Thanks for commenting all. —Doug


    October 17, 2012 at 5:22 am

  5. Debate ? Laughing!

    My Official Ballot shows many other party candidates yet they were not allowed to be in the “debate” (cough)..

    In fact the green party candidates themselves were arrested for attempting to just SEE the debate last night in person… like just be in the audience! No No NO!

    WTF ? To call this a debate is a gross injustice. Wake the F up people.

    John Galt

    October 17, 2012 at 5:46 am

    • Word. As usual, you’ve garnered my applause John Galt. So-called “third party” candidates were locked out of the last debate also (anyone remember Ralph Nader being escorted away just for attempting to attend? I do.).


      October 17, 2012 at 2:53 pm

  6. I didn’t see it as an Obama loss (the little media coverage I saw marked it as a slight win for Obama).
    During the first “debate”, Obama was caught off guard by Romney’s pivot to the middle. Obama showed up prepared to debate the Romney of the primaries, but the Romney who governed Massachusettes showed up instead.
    This debate was about Obama shoring up his base. I think he (mostly) did that.
    In my mind, it really makes no difference who wins this election. They spend time arguing over technicalities and red herring, while they march in lock step on the important issues (ie quantitive easements, the future of empire, etc…)


    October 17, 2012 at 6:57 am

  7. I didn’t watch that or any other presidential “debate” this year. Couldn’t pay me to do so. Such a waste of time and brain cells. Such a useless horse race. :P

    Unfortunately, Doug, few give a hoot about the views expressed by members of the Green Party, or militarists, or Ron Paul-supporters, or intelligent conservatives. They have no voice in this “mainstream” duopoly contest.


    October 17, 2012 at 2:57 pm

    • It’s not a matter of giving a hoot, it’s a matter of getting votes. I don’t think Obama is going to win this appealing strictly to his base, he needs to get votes from people who are disenchanted with the two main parties.


      October 17, 2012 at 4:56 pm

  8. Hmmmmm….. I didn’t see anything Reaganesque about Romney in the debate. I felt like I saw the spoiled, rude, bully that people have talked about. Romney acted like he was the priviledged ruling class that should not be questioned nor contridicted. I read one person who said that Romney should have been fitted with a shock collar to be able to shut him up. I know I wanted to shock him. Doug, I don’t think you should brush off the binder comment and the way it is playing. You are not a woman and I can tell you that it did insult the women I know. But the truth is that neither of the candidates answered the questions honestly. I am tired of the talking points, even though it is entertaining to listen to Romney spin his in every different direction he thinks will win the election. If the majority of Americans select Romney then I have to conclude that he is the President America deserves. The interesting point that I take away with Romney is his desire to increase imigration for skilled technical workers. Corporate America says we don’t have people with the skills they need. The truth is that we don’t have the skilled people they need at the salary they want to pay.
    Overall, it may not matter who wins as President. But it makes a hell of a lot of difference the power that congress will have. If corporate America and the Religious right win, then intellect can kiss it’s ass goodby.

    Lee Whittaker

    October 20, 2012 at 7:16 am

    • It’s not how liberals see Romney, it’s how many on the right and centre see him. A wise, benevolent, and strong leader, a gay who spins confidence. I agree he’s a spoilt brat, but worse have been elected. Bush was re-elected. The corporate right wins no matter who wins in any event. While I wholeheartedly agree on the social policy issues, I am not so sure that this might be winning a battle but losing the war. Interesting times indeed. —Doug


      October 20, 2012 at 9:22 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: