Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Anyway, from what I could see, Romney gave his best to return Obama's first debate favor of being Mr. Nice guy - except it did not work for Romney any better than it worked for the President. Mr. Romney should know that agreeing with your opponent constitutes a low-value chip-shot, and not the strategy whereby he came to be a Baker Scholar (top 5%) at the Harvard Business School. The only good chip-shot is one that lands squarely between the eyes of your challenger, we were taught.
In the first debate Mitt clearly bested Obama. In debate two, Mitt bullied the moderator while never inflicting any real damage on the President - and lost. In this last go-around, Romney needed to put it together, give props to the moderator while kicking the you-know-what out of the President. This did not happen. Obama was determined not to get punk'd again. Good for him.
The President expanded the ring by his quickness and polite obstructionism. Obama, regardless of his words, seemed to repeatedly communicate, 'with all due respect (which is none), my esteemed challenger is a flip-flopping, lying, sack of sh_t - and believe me, I know one when I see him'. O-man came off very credible.
So, what does it all mean? We really do need a third party. Too bad Ross Perot was such a screw-ball - we almost had a third chair. I think close races go to the incumbent. Sort of the devil you know versus a whole new Satan. And the new devil, in this case, is a two-fer - a politician and private-equity guy, and much much more scary (in my book).
Also, Mitt got any heart he ever possessed stolen from him twice at Harvard - beginning in law school, and finished in b-school - that's assuming he had one to start.
James C. Collier
READ MOST RECENT POSTS AT ACTING WHITE ACTING BLACK...
Technorati Tags: Obama vs. Romney vs. Giants, Debate, Politics, Punk'd, Election, Acting White
Posted by James C. Collier at Tuesday, October 23, 2012