A Slightly Less Dumb Fish In a Very Stupid Pond

[babylonsister]

http://www.politicalgarbagechute.com/a-slightly-less-dumb-fish-in-a-very-stupid-pond/

A Slightly Less Dumb Fish In a Very Stupid Pond
October 2, 2012
by James Schlarmann


Why does everyone keep saying Mitt Romney is better in debates than Barack Obama? What criteria are they using, exactly? As far as I can tell, Mitt Romney has in fact done a lot of debating. Then again, running for President for nearly a decade will give you that opportunity. But outside of the last two Presidential elections, he’s also run for office a couple more times, and if my math is correct, he’s only held one elected office. He didn’t even seek re-election for that position either.

So it would kind of stand to reason that since he’s failed in every other election attempt so far, that he’s probably not fared well enough in any of the debates, right? Wouldn’t you imagine that someone who was a master debater (goddamn I love when I can use that term with a straight face) would have won more elections than he’s lost? In 1994 he lost his Senatorial campaign to perennial juggernaut Ted Kennedy. Something tells me those debates were a hoot, and clearly Mitt’s skills at the podium weren’t enough in that election. Then in 2008 he ran for his party’s nomination against John McCain and a cavalcade of Republican contenders. He lost those primaries big.

snip//

Let’s also not forget one very important thing as well: Mitt has never been tested on the biggest debate stage of them all. There is no bigger or more important debate any candidate can have than the actual Presidential debates. Sure, the national spotlight was on him during both the ’08 and ’12 primaries, but now he’s racing for pinks. The debates that start his week or for all the marbles. In the wake of the American embassy attack in Libya, and just after the “47%” video broke, one thing became clear: high-pressure situations are not Mitt Romney’s forte.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe there’s something that Mitt’s been hiding up his sleeve for the last nearly twenty years. But the evidence that I see before me is that he’s a politician who has gotten more lucky than he has won elections on his merit. He is undoubtedly very good at what he does in the private sector. But the Presidency isn’t about harvesting companies for profit. It’s not about making sure the “job creators” get to keep their tax breaks. It’s about getting the country all the way back on its feet. And when Bill Kristol, a figurehead in his own party, says that Obama has managed to put the country back on the right path after Bush II fouled everything up, the narrative of Obama’s failed economic record is not going to play on this stage.

The bottom line is this: it’s foolish to declare anyone a winner of either the debates or the election at this point. But it’s also not a foregone conclusion that Mitt will wipe the floor with Obama in this first debate. The truth is that Obama does have more experience debating someone on national TV while competing to sit in the Oval Office for the next four years. He’s also a highly likable candidate, which Romney most certainly is not. At best this first debate on domestic policy on Wednesday is a tossup, and I’m starting to think Obama may just shock the world and swing a mighty big bat at the plate.

It’s about to get really fun, but then again any time Mitt Romney opens his mouth, comedy ensues.

[Vincardog]

1. It is a foregone conclusion that Mitt will wipe the floor with Obama, he will use his big brain

to show how little Obama really knows. Did anyone mention that BO is Black? Does anyone really think that a Black man could beat a White man in a debate? The thought is ludicrous on its' face.



.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
sarcasm

[freshwest]

2. But when the author says 'He is undoubtedly very good at what he does in the private sector,'

I need to relate something that I heard this week. From a person I thought of as a Republican. Talking about tax rates and how banks compute gross and net income in loans. The person said that banks consider us to be paying to be 28%.

I joked saying, 'well, if it was Mitt Romney, they could figure the tax rate at 13%. Or nothing at all.' To which the person responded 'I wish I was rich too. Romney is a smart businessman.' To which I replied, 'but he's a very mean man.'

Another person tuned into our conversation with interest nearby. The person I thought was GOP said, 'Yes, he cost a lot of people their jobs to make those millions.'

I went into the Gordon Gecko scene which was like the Obama campaign video, 'Stage.' The story of the workers at a plant who were ordered to build a stage for Romney to stand on and give them an announcement.

It was so similar to the Wall Street scene, where the workers were there thinking since they'd done such a good job and the company was making profits, they'd get an 'attaboy' from the big man.

Instead of getting praise for a job well done, they were laid off and Michael Douglas flew off in his helicopter. The person asked if the movie scene happened. I said I didn't know, but Romney did it for real. Romney did the same thing, leaving behind brokenhearts and destroyed communities.

I saw the pain on their faces as we talked. We agreed Romney was not the type of man we wanted leading our country. I think they were closet Obamanistas. They're out there, you know...

[babylonsister]

3. I think "good" means successful, a money maker, not necessarily nice.

How can anyone be 'nice' and be so cutthroat? I agree, I don't think he's a nice man at all, at least not to us peons.
And I know they're out there; I've been reading a lot about people changing their minds. Now if only EVERYONE was paying attention, there'd be a lot more changed minds, I'm thinking.