Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.
In this testosterone-infused second presidential debate the personal antipathy
was on display for all the world to see.
On the issues, Mr Obama won this debate
by a clear though not overwhelming margin, however time might show that
his real victory was in provoking Mr Romney to reveal the snappy, irritable
side of his character and, implicitly, his fitness for the highest office.
Time and again Mr Romney allowed Mr Obama to get under his skin, in what was
clearly a deliberate strategy to tackle the man as much as the questions,
with direct attacks on his record that were designed to impugn his
integrity. The plan worked.
"You'll get your chance in a moment. I'm still speaking," snapped Mr
Romney when interrupted by Mr Obama. Such peevishness – and there were
several incidences - is very dangerous when addressing a sitting president.
This is a 'threshold' issue. If a candidate cannot take a bit of ribbing from
an irritating debate opponent, how will he cope in negotiations with Iran's
Ayatollahs or even worse, China's zero-sum trade negotiators?
It is perfectly true that Mr Obama took a cheap shot when he accused Mr Romney
of having investments in Chinese companies – which of us with a pension
scheme does not? – but Mr Romney's response was all wrong.
"Have you looked at your pension?", he said, invading the president's personal space, "Have you looked at your pension, Mr President?" he pressed again, voice shrill with indignation.
"I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours," flashed back Mr Obama, the smart kid in the playground, raising a ripple of laughter. It was a telling moment. Mitt wanted to 'step outside' while Barack was saying (infuriatingly) 'keep your hair on'.
These are the moments – like Mr Romney's bungled confrontation over the Benghazi attacks - that give Mr Obama precious momentum heading into the final showdown on foreign policy in Florida on Monday.
Like it or not, the medium of televised debates means these contests are not decided on the minutiae of policy, or the day-after comebacks of the fact-checkers. The raw files of personal interaction cannot be so easily over-written.
Mr Obama discovered this in Denver. The morning after, he lamented Mr Romney's alleged 'lies' and inconsistencies, but it was too little, too late. The damage was already done by an abstracted, arrogant performance that made voters feel like he didn't care. He didn't make the same mistake twice.
Mr Romney did not absolutely fail this test – on the economy, on immigration he remained equitable and plausible – but on the much more fundamental question of equanimity and likeability, he provided voters with too many reminders of his weaknesses.
These might seem like small things, but history shows that, for better or worse, television debates are decided on the broad sweep of a candidate's demeanour. Presidents and would-be commanders-in-chief need, above all, to exhibit coolness under fire: Mitt Romney didn't always do that.
Article Via http://www.telegraph.co.uk
"Have you looked at your pension?", he said, invading the president's personal space, "Have you looked at your pension, Mr President?" he pressed again, voice shrill with indignation.
"I don't look at my pension. It's not as big as yours," flashed back Mr Obama, the smart kid in the playground, raising a ripple of laughter. It was a telling moment. Mitt wanted to 'step outside' while Barack was saying (infuriatingly) 'keep your hair on'.
These are the moments – like Mr Romney's bungled confrontation over the Benghazi attacks - that give Mr Obama precious momentum heading into the final showdown on foreign policy in Florida on Monday.
Like it or not, the medium of televised debates means these contests are not decided on the minutiae of policy, or the day-after comebacks of the fact-checkers. The raw files of personal interaction cannot be so easily over-written.
Mr Obama discovered this in Denver. The morning after, he lamented Mr Romney's alleged 'lies' and inconsistencies, but it was too little, too late. The damage was already done by an abstracted, arrogant performance that made voters feel like he didn't care. He didn't make the same mistake twice.
Mr Romney did not absolutely fail this test – on the economy, on immigration he remained equitable and plausible – but on the much more fundamental question of equanimity and likeability, he provided voters with too many reminders of his weaknesses.
These might seem like small things, but history shows that, for better or worse, television debates are decided on the broad sweep of a candidate's demeanour. Presidents and would-be commanders-in-chief need, above all, to exhibit coolness under fire: Mitt Romney didn't always do that.
Article Via http://www.telegraph.co.uk
Sign up before Midnight to watch our video,
“Biggest Ponzi Scheme in U.S. History to Crash,”
and get our daily e-letter Investment Contrarians.
We respect your privacy!
We will never rent/sell your e-mail address.
That’s a promise! And you can opt out at any time.
No comments:
Post a Comment