Mitt Loses Debate, Wins Again

Tom Van Dyke 25 Comments

By all accounts from the blabosphere [CNN, Fox, MSNBC, the bloggies]–what y’d call a consensus because they all used the same words–Mitt Romney “passed the Commander-in-Chief test tonight.”

Google: “passed commander-in-chief test”  Beaucoup hits.  If David Gergen says it, it must be true.

President Obama captured the Miss Uncongeniality nod, and won yet another debate. Bigtime uncongenial in beating up on Mitt bigtime, just as his supporters wanted to see. But these aren’t “debates.” They’re much more:

They’re just part of the presidential beauty contest, and President Obama was neither beautiful nor presidential tonight, and that’s the name of that tune.

Last time, Barack Obama won the debate according to Gallup and promptly headed south in the Gallup poll, 51-45.

Ooops. Look out beloooooow…

President Obama won tonight’s debate according to the pundits and polls too, but I think we’re just giving him one last night of romance before we dump him in the morning.

It’s over. Nobody was listening to Barack, we’ve heard it all before—only to Mitt, just to make sure he’s not some warmongering nutburger.

I’ve been a Mitt man from the first [“Make Mine Mitt”, October 2011]  but I wanted and needed to see this last debate on foreign policy, just to make sure he’s not some Mormon/Christian/neo-neocon/Book of Revelation/armageddonist friggin’ lunatic.

Looks like he’s not.  I think.

[See Tim Kowal below for the blow by blow.]

Tom Van Dyke

Tom Van Dyke, businessman, musician, bon vivant and game-show champ (The Joker's Wild, and Win Ben Stein's Money), knows lots of stuff, although not quite everything yet. A past contributor to The American Spectator Online, the late great Reform Club blog, and currently on religion and the American Founding at American Creation, TVD continues to write on matters of both great and small importance from his ranch type style tract house high on a hill above Los Angeles.

More Posts

25 Comments

  1. I already voted for the President (it felt great)..

    Look folks, no matter who you plan on voting.. hedge your bets and VOTE BEFORE DEADLINE>>.

    Bring a registered friend who needs a ride. Ask your family if they have got theirs in yet. Be part of this great American experience, you will tell your grand kids about it some day.

    No intimidation, no rush, no hurry, just organized entry.. get your votes in, do it now. If you can’t vote early, you may want to ask your Representative how they let that happen to your state?

    VOTE~!

  2. The writer of this column is a fan boy of Mitt Romney .

    • D’ya think? Was it the

      I’ve been a Mitt man from the first [“Make Mine Mitt”, October 2011].

      part or the picture of Ronald “Dutch” Reagan holding a steinful of “courage”?

      Thanks for sort of reading, though. Hurry back. 😎

  3. Mitt once again succeeded by lying his ass off. If abandoning one set of positions for another is “leadership,” we’ve reached a pretty low point in this country. At least, this go round, Obama was prepared for Mendacious Mitt and called him out on a few of his more blatant lies. Because the press sure won’t do it.

    I thought Reagan was a pretty bad president, until Bush II came along and made him look good. Now, Romney is actually making Bush look less horrific. At least Bush had some core beliefs; Mitt’s only belief is doing whatever it takes to win. He’s pure, unadulterated slime.

  4. President Obama tried to paint Romney as a war monger and failed. Romney is promoting peace through strength. Obama’s foreign policy agenda has only emboldened our enemies. I’m not saying we need a cowboy like either Reagan or Bush but we sure don’t need an enemy appeaser in the WH.

    • Right. An ‘enemy appeaser’ who is taking heat from his own side of the aisle for being too aggressive in using drones, etc. to take out our enemies.

      If you’re going to criticize Obama for his foreign policy, at least use a line that passes the smell test.

    • Obama’s foreign policy agenda has only emboldened our enemies

      I hear this a lot, but I don’t actually see good explanations or examples. I’m having a hard time figuring out which of our enemies are a lot bolder now than they were 8 years ago.

      Some phrases are just cheap soundbites, meant to frighten and to put a stop to thoughtful consideration by ratcheting up the emotional response. “Emboldened our enemies,” without specific explanations, is one of those.

      • Bibi just called the president of the united states a *insert your own word for effeminate loser who wouldn’t dare to do anything to an Israeli* on national and international television.

        Basically, he’s trying to say that Israel (and he himself) can do whatever he likes, and the President of the United States won’t do a jack-damn thing to stop it.

        • Perhaps, but they won’t act to facilitate it, either (for example, by pressuring Iraq to allow Israeli aircraft to use its bases for fueling, or by providing AWACS support.)

    • Yes. Yes. And Yes. But you see, my dear, Romney is friends with our enemies.

      And I judge a man by his friends.

    • Given (and make no mistake, it IS a given) how cowardly and groveling Romney has been to whatever force is applied to him, from his base in the primary, to the opinion polls this week , he should want to avoid using any word like “appeaser”.

  5. Romney proved one thing last night: Republicans only policy is the negative space of not-Obama. The foreign policy of the primaries?

    Gone.

    Replaced by Obama policies that Mitt agrees to, but Mitt can do it better because he’s not-Obama.

    The policies of protecting ladies from their lady parts?

    Gone.

    Replaced by ‘no agenda’ and I’m in favor of contraception; but it’s not-Obama.

    The policies of the auto bailout?

    Gone.

    Replaced by promises of government loan backing, but it’s not-Obama.

    And nobody’s picked up in this in the MSM, but last night good old Romney again promised to repeal Obamacare; but with a qualifier — those parts still able to be repealed. (Reading on changes in the health-care industry because of Obamacare, that’s not a whole lot.) Hedge hedge hedge — Romney’s embracing Obamacare, only it’s Romneycare again; not-Obama.

    I’d always heard that it’s impossible to prove a negative. But I recently read that this is not. I offer the Republican Party of 2012 as further proof.

    • Hey, Zic, I see it more as a cynical game-theory ploy on the part of Romney.

      What’s the difference between these two guys on Foreign Policy? None, really. So since there’s no difference about Fo Po, let’s get back to talking about the economy…

      • Cynical being the operative word? Or game theory? Attention deficit disorder? Brainwashing? How about chaos theory? Perhaps whatever that human quality is that makes us turn toward cult or organized religion?

        Personally, I’d like to chalk it up to a tendency of believing in something without evidence. Is there a big fancy word for that, other then faith? The many faces of Mitt Romney, he can be whatever you want him to be. Just fill in the blanks and believe. Don’t hope, have faith.

        But I spoke with a realtor friend yesterday; her take on the election’s impact on the economy? Uncertainty. That would suggest chaos theory as the correct ploy.

        Hat tip to Roger Zelazny and The Chronicles of Amber.

        • It’s difficult to switch back and forth between explaining how important it is to be an adult instead of a naive adolescent who wants everything *AND* a pony when we look at Obama and then looking at Romney being cynical and seeing that as evidence of how bad he is.

          • And Obama’s FP is Bush’s. I expected no fireworks; FP is the most bi-partisan area of our politics. And frankly, the current situation scarcely compares to the Cold War era with 1000s of nuclear missiles aimed at each other and at the ready. [Thank God and Ronald Reagan…]

            Obama came out for a fight, but like the toreador, wherever Obama charged, Romney was no longer there. Someday people will realize that these debates are anything but debates, they’re auditions—you can win the debate but lose the part.

            In the end, on who’s qualified to be commander-in-chief, Obama got 63%, Romney got 60%. In more unsettling news for Obamans

            According to Public Policy Polling, a Democratic polling institution, 53% of viewers thought Barack Obama won tonight’s third debate on foreign policy; 42% thought Romney won.

            however,

            A PPP poll of independents who watched the debate found that 32 percent are more likely to vote for Obama after the debate, while 48 percent are less likely to do so. In the same vein, 47 percent are more likely to vote for Romney, with 35 percent less likely to.

            And PPP is a Dem-leaning org. So you tell me who “won.”

  6. Nobody was listening to Barack, we’ve heard it all before—only to Mitt, just to make sure he’s not some warmongering nutburger.

    They’re both warmongering nutburgers, Tom. They both are. You practically have to be one to even seek the office.

  7. LA Times had it best:

    “Romney Endorses Obama”

    • Is that because Romney has jumped soooo very far to the left?

      I honestly don’t know why that very headline doesn’t depress the heck out of Team Blue.

      • We (the imperial We) prefer to have a flawed policy excuted with skill than a sound policy executed by a blundering fool.

        For example, cornering Syria with skillful diplomacy may be flawed, but if executed well, can minimize any harm to America;

        Blocking Iran’s path to the sea with a cavalry charge with fixed bayonets in the Syrian desert may be a more sound strategic move, but We doubt Romney could effectively pull it off.

Comments are closed.