Ironically, despite the clarity
with which the Romney budget was debunked, virtually every post-debate snap
poll declared Romney as having made the strongest impression during the debate's
economic segment. But that anomaly
simply highlights just how thoroughly Obama cleaned Mitt's clock in the other
areas of the debate.
Perhaps the most
widely-publicized example -- outside of Romney's "binders full of women" remark
which has been called
into question -- took place during the foreign policy segment. Since
the day it occurred, the embassy attack in Libya
has offered the keenest insight into the perils of a political party that functions
in a sheer reactionary mode. Critics of Romney's
premature denunciations of the Administration's handling of embassy attack -- issued
as the event was unfolding -- were perhaps astounded that over a month later,
Mitt remained confused about the timing
of Obama's characterization of the event as an act of terrorism.
As we know now, Mitt's insistence
on pressing Obama on that issue prompted the widely-reported fact-check
intervention by moderator Candy Crowley.
Aside from the obvious -- which is Mitt's cluelessness in the area of
geo-politics -- the episode further illustrates the need for reactionary parties
to choose their standard-bearers more prudently by demonstrating that if you
are prone to shooting yourself in the foot, you should probably keep your foot
out of your mouth.
But as to the stark difference
in the style and tone of the President's performance in Debate Two, there's no
way for me to know if "rope-a-dope" was indeed the strategy all along. But, if it was, and if it works out, it would
have to go down as one of the ballsiest strategic moves in recent memory.
Nevertheless, with regard to
strategy, it is safe to say that Romney left Tuesday's debate grimly aware
of the strategic blunder he committed when he hand-delivered his "47 percent" comment
over to Obama for use in the President's closing statement. But based on the way he's reacted to other
gaffes, one can also safely assume that Romney also left Long Island blissfully
unaware that he and his Party's real
problems run even deeper.
Since Tuesday's debate, the
image of both Mitt his party on the issue of the equal right of advancement for
women in business, politics and maybe even life itself, is at least for now bound
by the compassionless "binders full of women " perception that Romney
clumsily injected into political and cultural folklore.
As a party of old white men
facing a dire future demographic landscape, alienating yet another potentially
receptive voter bloc is really not in the GOP's best interest. Knowing this, one can only imagine what Karl
Rove might be saying: "Thanks a lot,
Mittens!"
But maybe it's time for Rove
and others to look elsewhere for blame. Mitt's not the cause; he's the symptom. He's just a rich and awkward plutocrat who travels
with the family dog on the roof of his cars, loves trees that are the "right height",
and often relies on "binders full of women." In other words, he's the kind of odd fellow
who, when rich, is considered eccentric but if poor, is just plain nuts.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
