Slog

News & Arts

The Stranger Suggests

Critics' Best Bets
Music Arts & Food


Line Out

Music & the City
at Night

Friday, October 5, 2012

This Is the Debate I Saw

Posted by on Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 7:40 AM

Brenda Peterson at HuffPo:

The pundits loudly credit Romney for his combative style, his aggressive, in-your-face energy and his hyper-attack mode. They applaud these debate tactics as if this was not a presidential debate, but a bloody prizefight. In fact, the September issue of The Atlantic magazine ran a cover story, "Slugfest: Obama vs. Romney." On the cover, Romney and Obama jab in prizefighter gear: Slugging it out, sweat flying, Romney lands a knockout punch to President Obama's jaw. Is this what our uncivil union has come to — a prizefight?

This prizefight metaphor was also much in display in the pre-debate coverage. As I switched between MSNBC, CNN and FOX, the debate was framed as two candidates stepping into the Big Ring for a political brawl. And when it was over, the pundits, mostly white males, proclaimed Romney's "big win." But there is always a her-story behind the his-story. And this was evident in the feminine response.

Romney really said nothing new, and did not speak to the public but simply focused his energy and anger on Obama. I just can't see how this is going to help him regain the ground he has lost over the last two months. We are not in a period of war, the economy is not crashing, Europe is not imploding fast enough—why all of this aggression?
Romney's fervent goal of seizing the presidency was evident in his body language, his snobbish smirks, his false sympathy for those of us "crushed" in the middle class — those 47 percent he so contemptuously dismissed when he was among his rich cronies. Romney's combative dogfight stance may impress men or those who have held power so long they assume it belongs to them. But women, or anyone who has been in an underclass or faced racism, read this behavior as arrogant and overly aggressive — the language and habit of dominance.

We've had bosses, fathers, boyfriends and co-workers like Romney who invade our space, try to dominate every discussion and see every encounter as a chance to "win," rather than dialogue. It's the old patriarchal model that women have endured for way too long.


Also, Obama did not give him one serious misstep to exploit (the entire purpose of his approach). In fact, the papers for the past 24 hours have been filled with three stories: Romney won, Romney lied, Romney hates Big Bird. As for Obama, he was "lackluster."

 

Comments (21) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
I saw this, too. I was so surprised at the pundits saying Romney "won." Glad to see the followup coverage. Also, however, the debate was boring. Perhaps because of the lackluster-ness of Obama.
Posted by bareboards on October 5, 2012 at 7:58 AM
gloomy gus 2
The wildest response I've seen is Kevin Baker's for Harper's blog, "The Man Who Would Be Ex-President", in which he declares Obama's debate performance "unforgivable". Here's the opener:
Maybe he really is a secret Muslim terrorist from Kenya.

I mean, think about it. He runs for president as a populist, soaking up all the liberal energy for change in the country. Once in power, he surrounds himself with failed conservative advisers, and squanders most of his mandate. Then, just as it looks as if he will still be able to defeat his clueless Republican opponent, he turns in the worst performance any presidential candidate has ever given in a general-election debate, tanking the race and turning the country over to a party of fanatical Ayn Rand acolytes and warmongers.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2012/10/h…
Posted by gloomy gus on October 5, 2012 at 8:01 AM
Sargon Bighorn 3
Why Americans want to elect Louie the 14th or Marie Antoinette, millionaires to govern them is beyond me. And when they talk millions, billions, trillions of dollars I suspect most people's eyes glaze over. No one gave a shit when the gov was spending like a drunken sailor, as long as the common folk had jobs and could buy what they wanted. This decline is not over and when America hits bottom then and only then will there be real change in America. Until then the well to do will be telling the common folk what's best for them, and the common folk will nod their sweet little heads and say, "yes please may I have more."
Posted by Sargon Bighorn on October 5, 2012 at 8:04 AM
4
We are not in a period of war? Is this what progressives have convinced themselves of now that the Commander in Chief is a Democrat? What's really changed in our Middle East foreign policy and military interventions since the Cindy Sheehan days?
Posted by cliche on October 5, 2012 at 8:13 AM
Charles Mudede 5
@4, im speaking for the general mind not the real mind.
Posted by Charles Mudede on October 5, 2012 at 8:16 AM
6
Of course he was playing it safe. Obama's worst enemy at this point is himself committing a major gaffe. The media was primed to call Romney the winner regardless of what took place.
Posted by GermanSausage on October 5, 2012 at 8:19 AM
Pope Peabrain 7
Obama knows how to vanquish his enemies. He's letting Rmoney get cocky and smug. He knows Rmoney will blow it with his big mouth.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on October 5, 2012 at 8:31 AM
8
Thank you, Charles. I was getting bored with the paternalistic take on the debate like it was the only way anyone was seeing it. I thought Romney came across as an aggressive boor and Obama was just giving him enough rope to hang himself.
Posted by originalcinner on October 5, 2012 at 8:41 AM
Theodore Gorath 9
Our testosterone kind of forces us to think that way. We see pretty much everything as a competition at first glance. Kills us faster too.

That stuff is poison.
Posted by Theodore Gorath on October 5, 2012 at 8:43 AM
10
I, too, was surprised when I found out Romney "won" the "debate".

I wonder if the problem is that, in addition from corrupting the meaning of the word debate into some sort of platitude-off, we've lost the handle on what it is to win one of these things?

I mean, if this is merely some sort of sideshow prizefight, more or less disengaged from the election process, I can see giving the event to Romney, but I do not believe this performance advanced his campaign or helped him make up a significant portion of the deficit in votes he's running.

Ultimately this is about November and the next four years after that, isn't it?
Posted by Party Son Hack on October 5, 2012 at 8:46 AM
11
Judged only within the context of the hour and a half of the debate, Romney clearly "won". Obama spent too much time rambling and rarely made a coherent point. Romney was noticeably better in these regards.

However, the problem is that Romney's rhetorical win was based solely on substantive lies or, if they weren't lies, more of his serial flip flopping.

To people paying attention, the debate just reopens the question of who Romney is and what does he actually believe? It changes day to day (and sometimes minute to minute).

To those who are tuning in to the election for the first time, Romney probably seemed like a pretty good alternative to Obama.
Posted by MR M on October 5, 2012 at 8:47 AM
12
I think the real outcome will be what both teams do with the material from the debate.

I think Obama's team has the easiest job.
They can just piece together the various parts where Romney promises to cut taxes by 20% and raise military spending without driving up the deficit (and the debt).

Romney's team has a harder job.
Nothing that Obama said during the debate was anything new.
They can claim that the numbers are bad (jobs / welfare / deficit / debt / etc) but without a specific policy point to address any of them, then they're just running as the I-am-not-Obama candidate.
Posted by fairly.unbalanced on October 5, 2012 at 8:58 AM
biju 13
Good post Charles.
Posted by biju on October 5, 2012 at 9:12 AM
14
Romney was incredibly enthusiastic and well-spoken. I just don't think that he actually believes any of what he was saying. And he should probably lay off the cherry pepsi (or amphetamines) before the next debate.
Posted by suddenlyorcas on October 5, 2012 at 9:17 AM
NotSean 15
I'm with the 'enough rope to hang himself' strategy.

The more Romney talks, the more there is to illustrate his wrong-headedness. It's the same reason he was avoiding saying too much all this Summer.
Posted by NotSean on October 5, 2012 at 9:35 AM
16
Hopefully this will help to kill off presidential "debates". They're useless, made for TV events anyway.
Posted by atown on October 5, 2012 at 9:43 AM
Original Andrew 17
This rang true for me. In addition to totally insulting our intelligence with preposterous lies, Romney is a bully and an asshole. These traits are perceived as "strong leadership skills" by a large number of men in this KKKuntree, which is how we ended up with eight years of Dumbya.
Posted by Original Andrew on October 5, 2012 at 9:46 AM
18
Thank you! That's what I've been telling everyone I know. Romney was trying to bait Obama into a fight or a stupid error, and Obama didn't take the bait. Other than letting Romney's glaring lies go unanswered, Obama didn't do anything cringe worthy that would endure for years and seriously jeopardize his reelection. This whole Romney-crushed-Obama story will go away in a couple days.
Posted by floater on October 5, 2012 at 10:43 AM
Pick1 19
@16 I actually really liked the Newsroom episode about how to remake debates to be informative and useful again.

It won't happen, but good lord, can you imagine?
Posted by Pick1 on October 5, 2012 at 10:45 AM
20
I never read my political mail, but I did today. You know all the pundits were getting after him about letting the 47% comment slide? Well, what was the big visual inside? "Two Candidates. Two Visions. Do we want a President who serves all the people, or just half of them?" And quotes Romney verbatim.

Obama has done this before -- played it tight and close and then gets what he is after -- DADT is a perfect example. I love this guy.
Posted by bareboards on October 5, 2012 at 1:19 PM
21
I got a big laugh out of something else in that mailer. The letter enclosed was going on about the same ole, same ole -- about Republicans not having a plan, or at least not willing to share it. Here's the paragraph that made me laugh:
"And that's because they've got the same plan they've had for 30 years: Tax cuts, tax cuts, gut a few regulations, and then give some more tax cuts. Tax cuts when times are good. Tax cuts when times are bad. Tax cuts to help you lose a few extra pounds, tax cuts to improve your love life."
Wha? Still makes me laugh.
Posted by bareboards on October 5, 2012 at 1:28 PM

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact Info | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy