If you ever felt kind of silly rehearsing for a job interview, seemingly back in your high school years before the big school play, and maybe even cringing at looking at yourself in a mirror answering questions to yourself - well, don't! If there is one thing that is evident from watching the recent televised debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it is that everything from posture in the chair down to facial expression use is scripted.
These guys are preened, practiced, prodded, pushed, poked and perfected (hopefully) into shape in an intense set of rehearsals that makes the whole thing appear to be as much soap opera as it is a live debate off the top of their heads. Last night there were too many apparently scripted one-liners that I don't have time to go into them all, but if such candidates have to prepare like that for a job interview, then you and I shouldn't feel any embarrassment at our own little rehearsals!
So who won, I hear you ask? Well, the first debate was a clear win for Romney. Debate two was a much closer affair, with perhaps a slight edge to the candidate of your choice, because there were good arguments for each candidate's performance. Debate three was yet another type of beast, this time with Obama on a clearly offensive path, and Romney this time coming over more passively presidential, not rising to much of the bait dangled above him.
It might depend on your individual view as to who got it right. Yes, Obama jabbed at him, and pointed out various holes in his statements, but as has been the case since day one, Obama prefers this approach for a very good reason: attacking the candidate means less time discussing either his own record or his agenda for the next four years.
"Listen, attacking me isn't an agenda!" said Romney, in a rare direct response to being jabbed.
Many pundits believe that the overall approach by both individuals was a sign that Obama was feeling like he had something to prove going into this debate, placing much less comfortably in national polls than his team had predicted months ago for this stage. They thought it would be all nicely wrapped up by now. So his demeanor was that almost of the underdog, who had to attack the candidate.
In Romney's case, he adopted an already pseudo-presidential style, staying calm, acting all statesmanlike, and refusing to rise to the jabs and barbed comments. Whether this will work with the voters is not yet clear, but you can be sure it was not due to sudden exhaustion or of-the-moment thinking: this was put in place days ago.
"The Governor needs maybe to look more into how our military works today. We have less planes than 1916, but we have less horses and bayonets too! We have things called aircraft carriers which planes land on, and nuclear submarines that go under the water."" quipped Obama, referring to Romney's criticism of a dwindling military. Ouch!
Of course, inevitably, due to the fact that for very different reasons the two candidates wince a little when it comes to foreign policy, we were shifted regularly back to the economy, even in this foreign policy debate. But that was to be expected, not least given Romney's argument that weak economy at home weakens foreign policy everywhere, and due to the fact that almost 25 million unemployed Americans might not give a damn about foreign policy today - they care about domestic policy that has spent trillions on two wars while their lives were eroded to pay for it.
Thus it all comes back to the economy, ground where both would rather stand and fight, but it is where Romney does have an edge, simply due to the fact that the incumbent has had four years to show his hand and if the nation is struggling then that can be argument enough. In contrast, Obama is able to claim (as he did!) that it is ancient, outdated policy that got the country into this mess, and why would anyone want to go back to those same Republican policies again?
Of course the fact checkers went into overdrive after the debate, and I think it is accurate to say that there were inaccuracies in statements by both men; but isn't that par for the course?! When do we ever hear a vigorous political debate based on truth and facts?! It is all about perception, smoke and mirrors, twisting the truth to suit one side, and if all else fails, drop in some outright lies and hope that a certain percentage of the audience believes it and might change their minds and their votes.
It was ironic that it was the President who attacked, via preemptive strikes, as a form of defense against predicted nastiness by Romney that would target recorded weakness in his leadership and performance. Conversely, the candidate, not the incumbent, sat back and remained calmly focused on his claim that four more years of the same was not going to be good for anybody, and seemingly put to bed fears about his volatility in the face of pressure. It was all about appearing to be presidential, more than willingness to get into a dogfight with Obama.
Overall, if I assume that the Obama people wanted to rattle Romney via the attacks, and force some kind of unscripted meltdown which would ruin his image with the American public, then that strategy failed. Additionally, if it was the clear intention of the Romney people to appear almost more presidential than the incumbent, and confident enough in their status to not rise to the bait and get into the dirt, then it worked. On this rationale alone, Romney took it.
I think it was a very measured debate and it had something for everyone. The general tone of keeping it civil was best, and both men resisted certain nasty digs that they could have gotten in, for the benefit of each other. Irrespective of the actual score, the clearest thing of all is that neither camp (nor the electorate) truly expected them to be where they are today - neck and neck. It is actually that close, and way too close to call.
The debates more or less have mirrored that situation. Although I think that as a candidate facing an incumbent who has had, let's say, a rough four years, Romney definitely had an advantage and he used it well to gain an edge and considerable momentum, the fact is that it has become reminiscent of Bush-Gore in 2000. Crazy kind of close.
Crazy kind of close is right next to scary kind of close! When only a few hundred votes decide the outcome in a country of over 300 million, you know that governing is going to be far from easy considering the fact that the country is as equally split in two as the house of representatives. So it would be essentially a repeat of the mess the nation has lived with certainly since the mid-terms of 2010. Not an appealing prospect. Oh well, two weeks to the big night! - Kevin Mc
No comments:
Post a Comment