Thursday, October 4, 2012

Romney Won the Debate 67-25

So, I am reading on the interwebs and hearing on the news shows that Romney won that debate last night by a score of 67 to 25. Did these people watch the same debate I did? I never saw a scoreboard once. I saw the timer clock a few times, but no scoreboard. I didn't even know they scored these things. If that's what they are doing now, then I think I'll start watching all of the debates, because I like watching sports.

Look, I know everyone is all "Romney destroyed Obama" today. I'm not in that group. I didn't see Romney destroy anyone. I'll concede that the guy won, and I'm happy about that, but destroyed Obama?

No, destroying Obama would have been asking a question like "what exactly have you been doing for the past four years Mr. President, and why do you think you will accomplish anything with another four?". I could make a list of a million ways Romney could have totally schooled Obama. Because Obama left himself open constantly.

I think Romney did well. And there were a few times where I didn't like what Romney said. I was very happy, however, that he kept plugging the "we don't need big federal government" line. That was something that I was sure a candidate like him would never say, but he did.

I'm not trying to argue that the debate was in anyway even though. If there is some scoring system, then sure, Romney probably won by 40 points or whatever. But the reason is, Obama totally sucked. And I don't buy into this idea that he was unprepared or too arrogant or any of that hogwash. That stuff makes it sound like Obama could have done a lot better if he hadn't underestimated Romney. The truth is, as I saw it, Romney wasn't really spectacular, so he couldn't have been underestimated, per se. No, it's that Obama is completely incompetent, and everyone finally got to see it last night.

Think back to the 2008 debates. Hilliary was ripping him constantly in the primaries, but Obama was the golden boy so it didn't matter. Then when Obama was debating McCain, it was just a battle of who was the worse debater. There weren't winners, just losers.

Basically, Obama can't debate. He can't explain anything, because he doesn't really understand any of it. And he has been protected and sheltered for four years by the media and his handlers to the point where he has no experience explaining anything he has done. All he has had are prepared statements on a teleprompter. He basically had no business being on the same stage as someone like Mitt Romney who is able to argue his ideas and speak clearly and concisely on his own. Romney was professional and clear. He made eye contact, and did all of the things you're supposed to do in that situation.

Obama was completely out of his element. No teleprompter, no media person putting words into his mouth for him (though Lehrer tried at least once that I can think of), and no way to deflect questions without looking like a fool.

So Romney didn't destroy Obama. Obama just completely fell apart, because he never had any business being a president or debating with someone who does. The contrast was so striking, it only seems like Romney tore him apart. But I think Romney could do that, and if he did, it would be one of the most memorable debates ever. Pundits have been talking all day about how Obama has "two more chances". That's silly...Obama doesn't have a chance. He has two more debates to try to survive through without breaking down and crying in the middle of one.

Hopefully, Romney does destroy him in one of those.

1 comment:

  1. I agree that Romney should destroy Obama in one of the remaining debates, hopefully the next one so that everyone can wonder if Zero will even show up for the third.

    Here's a tip for Romney, which my 3rd-grader understands (and I bet Romney does too, but it never hurts to be reminded): Part of your debate prep should be learning to argue the other guy's side better than he can (even if you don't believe what you'd be saying). That way, when Obama says something stupid that you're ready for, you can interrupt and immediately respond with "I can think of 7 reasons right off the top of my head why that's wrong" or "I can give you 15, no- 16 examples of where government has tried that before, and it didn't work, and I challenge you to name a single instance to the contrary" (and if your 16th example is "The Spanish Inquisition!" you lock in the Python-fan vote, which is pretty large), and since you can back up those wild numbers with the cases, you'll come across to the average human as a complete and total genius.

    Keep that in mind. I'm just here to help.