Getty Images
One of the main drawbacks to televised political theatrics is that we tend to evaluate the events in an unconstructive way. We see players on a stage, after extensive rehearsals, playing to a packed house, and we judge them as if they are actors -- who seemed "crisp" and looked "confident."
In other words, we invariably value political theater on its theatrical qualities, watching to see who knew their lines and delivered them more effectively.
By this measure, when it comes to determining who "won" last night's debate in Denver, I'd argue the conventional wisdom is right: it wasn't close. Based on style and performance, Mitt Romney did all of the things a "winning" debater is supposed to do.
Did he know his lines? Obviously, yes. Did he deliver them well? Flawlessly. I argued last week that Romney's "strength as a debater is wildly underappreciated" and "if Democrats expect Romney to falter in the debates, they're making a big mistake." Last night illustrated what I was talking about.
President Obama, meanwhile, was listless and timid. He stumbled on his words. At times he seemed distracted and unfocused. There were key opportunities for the president to go on the offensive, but for whatever reason, he chose not to engage. For pundits checking boxes -- who gave the appearance of being "in control"? -- Romney excelled.
But all of this overlooks an element I like to think is sometimes important: substance. The men on the stage last night aren't actors; they're candidates for the nation's highest office. Delivering lines well is a nice quality, but as the dust settles, it's worth pausing to reflect on whether those lines were true and reflect reality in any meaningful way.
Indeed, it seems to me Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it.
Romney told viewers his proposed $5 trillion tax cut isn't really his proposed $5 trillion tax cut. He suggested he could eliminate a $1 trillion deficit by going after Big Bird. He said his non-existent health care plan protects those with pre-existing conditions when in reality the exact opposite is true. He cited trumped up "studies" from far-right ideologues as if they're legitimate, assuming the public won't know the difference. He said a deficit that's shrunk has actually "doubled."
And when Romney wasn't repeating falsehoods, he was furiously shaking an Etch A Sketch, rolling out yet another version of himself.
This new model -- version 8.0? 9.0? -- likes regulations of the financial industry, wants to work with Democrats, thinks his Massachusetts health care law was a great idea, and has no use for the goals of his running mate's budget plan that Romney enthusiastically endorsed. Does this in any way reflect the candidate who's been running for president the last year and a half? No, but the Republican assumes most voters won't realize and most news organizations covering the campaign won't tell them.
He might very well be right.
But as Romney and his supporters take a victory lap this morning, it's fair to note their success was a triumph for style over substance.
Leave a Comment:
President Obama's debate tactics were absolutely brilliant. Mitt's contrived debate "win" will not mean an election win. However, his debate loss would divert big money to down ballot races, which could be a disaster.
Mitt's lying spree is a surprise plus.
Romney won the engery part of the debate and Obama miss a chance to land some serious blows. That said,
Romney made no head way in closing the women gap since they really did not talk about women only issues
Romney did not close the immigration gap since nothing was said
Romney did not close the senior health care gap since AARP like during the Bush II years does not agree with Romney current or future policies
Those concerned about the debt are the real losers in the debate with Romney. It is simply not creditable the Romney can have a 5 trillion dollar tax cut with serious adjustments from the public that coupled with 2 more trillion for the military had to put debt focus focused folks with imaged of a big spending republican like Bush. His statements will have negative consequences for him.
For those undecided folks that are looking for thoughtful reasons to vote for Romney but are concerned about budget and tax impacts, Romney was very confusing and only reinforced his lack of trust issues. My guess is that al least 30 percent of undecided folks fall into this category.
Yes Romney won the debate. But you have to really wonder how he really played to the swing folks in the swing states and many in his party are already very upset with what he said in the debate. He needs a heavy turnout and many in his party do listen to what he says.
Your boy got spanked! Obama doesn't pick winners and losers... he picks losers because he is a loser. BTW, nice save on Chris from Rudy. How many baby wipes did it take to clean him up?
"Romney thrived because he abandoned the pretense of honesty"
Nine words. We could write volumes and never come close to capturing the essence of Myth Romney as perfectly as these nine words do.
Romney was prepared. Obama did not want to talk about his own record. If the liberal media fact checker calls something a lie who cares. Romney had an audience of 65 million people and he could have discredited any liberal media fabricated lie that Obama brought up. Obama was protecting your delusions from scrutiny. Romney did lie on purpose. But they were the same lies Obama tells to persuade voters. How can Obama criticize him for that. Plus Obama has already had a chance to deliver on his promises and failed. By any metric 23 million unemployed and 4 dollars a gallon for gasoline is a failed Presidency. Romney has credibility because his tax, borrow, spend and regulate plans will encourage economic growth, restore liberty and the rule of law. The conga line of MSNBC hosts do not realize how foolish they look when they pretend to sincerely believe the lies that they fabricate. What Romney was observing was that 47% of the American Electorate are beyond being capable of understanding. Therefore it is a waste of time trying to use reason to persuade them. A girl once told me that Ash Wednesday was postponed until Thursday as she stood there with the ash dot on her forehead. I have never understood people who care so much about what other people think of them that they will believe something that from their own life experience they know is not true. Obama's stain is on everything American's cherish and you don't condemn him. Yet you call Mitt Romney a liar for just words that have not hurt anybody yet. Yeah, we started the rumor to prove how gullible people are. When Romney disagrees with a mass media fabrication they call in a mass media fact checker and say Romney lied. Through 25 comments I have not seen anybody use independent critical thinking to evaluate anything that Romney said. You the victims of Obama's and previous Progressive Public Policies, who are not living the American Dream, are the very people who should be witnessing that the Radical Plan to de-develop America is really hurting people. Anybody who has lived through the past 4 years knows that Obama and the Democrats do not know how to govern a prosperous Country. Abraham Lincoln said, "woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." In a Republic the citizen has a moral obligation to vote for values, politicians and policies that help their fellow citizens.
For the first 30 minutes Romney sounded like a Democrat. Debating him was like trying to wrestle an eel. And Obama looked tired; he does have a full-time job besides running for President.
I keep reading comments from people who refer to President Obama as "very liberal", or a "liberal ideologue", and as a liberal, all I can think is that these people have never met a REAL liberal. If anything about the Pres. is confusing to us liberals, it is that he is not liberal enough! For real!
I believe the President's strategy was brilliant. Allowing Romney to make his statements without contridiction encourages him to continue. As a result, he has locked himself into a couple of really un-favorable positions like the Medicaid voucher program, cutting funding for the arts and many social programs ect... and the largest lie during the debates "I have been in business for 25 years, and I don't know of a tax law that would allow a company a tax deduction for moving over-seas." What a liar, he netted $12,000,000, last year in investment income from those same companies!
-Ray
Ray, I don't know about that. While I know we all want to believe Romney lied, I can't find proof of that. All the footage of THIS campaign I've found has Romney saying exactly what he said in the debate. So how was I so wrong about Romney? A couple things I can pinpoint.
1) Maybe I just assumed Romney supported all of Ryan's budget. I found dozens of films that show Romney stating which parts of Ryan's budget he likes, and what parts he rejects.
2) Maybe I took for granted that the commentators I like were telling me the straight scoop. I'm nowhere near done, but what I've found so far is that I'd hear about a Romney statement from a site I read (I tend toward MSNBC and HuffPo) and I didn't like much of it. But when I went back yesterday and today to see the original film of Romney, what he said didn't match what I'd been told he said. But it did match what he said in the debate. In other words, there really was a lot of spin that made me dislike Romney.
So, I don't know. Like I said, I was leaning Obama until the debate. I won't say I'm necessarily leaning Romney now, but it's a possibility. I do know that I want folks to tell me the truth in the news, good or bad. I have a mind, and I'd like to make it up for myself. I know Fauxnews spins it all to the right. Can't we get a channel that just tells the facts?
I agree that this debate was judged on style over substance.I don't know what was wrong with President Obama considering he is a very good debater as he showed in 2008, although I myself have suffered altitude issues when visiting Colorado. I certainly hope he wakes up before next debate!
But Romney? This was more than style! As I watched him I thought this guy is doping. He had a total personality change, even his countenance was different. I have seen the effect of performance enhancing drugs in the gym and I realized as I watched Romney that I was seeing a similar effect during the debates. I did a little investigating and discovered that, as Romney ran the Olympics, he invested in a company that made performance enhancing drugs
"Bain Capital helped turn Nutraceutical International of Park City, Utah into one of the nutritional supplement industry’s leading companies. When Bain took the company public under Romney’s helm in 1998, it was a huge success.Romney left Bain in 1999 to run the Olympics, but was still harvesting the rewards of the drug company from the retirement package he negotiated which paid him a share of Bain’s profits.Nutraceutical, at the time Romney was running the Olympics, was making at least 16 products under the brand names Kal, NaturalMax, Solaray and Ultimate Nutrition that include either ephedrine or dehydroepiandrosterone (DHEA), both of which are performance-enhancing drugs banned by the Olympic games, according to a 2002 report in the Boston.
"It speaks to the question of character when a person who is running the Olympics is also benefiting financially from a company which manufacturers products that are banned by that organization," Massachusetts Democratic Party Chairman Phil Johnston said.
"According to Herald report, Romney continues to hold investments in a pharmaceutical company whose dietary supplement products are prohibited from use by our Olympic athletes. The contradiction in what Romney preaches and what he does is alarming," he said.
Herald."http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/as-romney-ran-the-olympics-he-invested-in-a-compa
Romney is no stranger to performance enhancing drugs and definitely has access to them. Should we require candidates to be drug tested immediately following a debate? I'm starting to think the answer is yes!
Performance enhancing drugs=Style over substance!