I really don’t care how well Romney does in the debates; nor do I understand the hoopla over his supposed outstanding performance that somehow clarified him as the “winner” of the first one. Sure, he looked great – “presidential," even – comfortable to be back in his starched shirt, tailored Italian suit and silk tie.
That cynical smirk was nearly as perfectly plastered in place as his freshly gelled hair: All in all, I suppose Romney appeared rather fetching. The strong timber of his voice hardly faltered – even when quibbling over who got to go first and close for the next question. (I was rather miffed at his lack of promised “zingers” – perhaps I just didn’t pick up on them?). And, that performance – what a stunning performance! I was truly convinced that Romney truly meant every word he said; it was as if I could truly feel the emotion behind those steely eyes.
There is no dispute: Romney is definitely in his own milieu on stage – and, Lord knows, he’s had plenty of practice. He plays his character to a tee – watching him, I wouldn’t doubt his conviction. Though rare, his pauses are effective. His stiffness of carriage well-becomes him and his body language appropriately accentuates his verbal points. His role at the podium is almost believable and, from an appearance standpoint, could be quite convincing – which is all-good if the dude’s going for a Daytime Emmy Award.
I could have sworn that a solid debate was supposed to be more about content than performance. (I may be wrong here but, despite my hideous allocution skills, I still got an “A” in Speech – presumably for the stellar substance of my subject-matter.) I recall something about presenting a clear and valid argument based on supportive evidence – as in factual – as in legitimate – as in truthful. The burden-of-proof is usually held by the speaker and one can’t just poorly reason his way out of that burden if the basis of fact does not exist. That would be unethical – and a sure “tell” of one’s rough critical thinking skills in the political hand.
For a man who has been chastised throughout the years of his campaigning for his “flip-flopping” on issues, Republicans don’t seem to mind the raving madness of his debate’s latest policy cartwheels. But, then, we’re talking about people who smoothly transitioned their support from Bachmann to Cain to Gingrich to Perry to Santorum without the merest flicker of an eye. (Though who really knows what gears grind behind a conservative’s droll facial expressions.) These folks would profess a love for the crow in their cornfield if it translated to a sense of common purpose – never mind the personal ramifications to their own farm’s prosperity.
I don’t know. I really am confused. Can Romney really be so elusive as to slip imperceptibly through the GOP’s cracks? (I assume there are many, but still.) And, how could Romney’s little talking-point gatherers fail to not grill him on the relevant facts? He’s been chided relentlessly for his blatant lying and obvious public deceit! What the heck is going on here? Shoot. If I leaned conservative, I would have ditched this chap long ago, obstinate and relentless devotee as I’m sure I would undoubtedly be (what with being a conservative and all). I think that I would still perceive the smallest sense of shame (albeit wholly insincere, what with being a conservative and all) or, at the least, a tad of internal disgrace (never, though, would I show outward embarrassment, what with being a conservative and all).
Debate-Romney discredits and dishonors the most heartfelt conceited and prideful emotions of all truly stalwart and disingenuous Republicans by beseeching the matters to which they so arduously cling. To have the audacity to claim that he wouldn’t blow Medicare and Social Security away; to proclaim to want to educate our kids; to say that all Americans will receive a 20% tax-cut (GOP: Ack! What? We never talked about that! Just the upper such-and-such percent, you stupid fool). … Oh, never mind: He won! (GOP: Didn’t our Mittster look great out there?! You did a fine job, Mitt, fine job out there. Of course, you will have to go around and “clarify” – wink, wink – if you know what I mean – a few things that you said but, we’ll talk about that tomorrow, eh?)
And, then you’ve got all of the idiot viewers at home. Dear, sweet … (I’ll omit that last word for sensitive readers, lest they suppose I use it in vain – rather than the elusive sarcasm with which it would have been intended). I haven’t ventured outdoors yet (it’s only Sunday), but I’ll bet the streets of Fort Collins, Colo., are still littered with red, white and blue confetti (to which a mix of orange will surely be added today, assuming a Bronco game). You know those Republicans – don’t give a surly damn about the environment – celebrating uncalibrated victory in typical audacious form for days on end without a care for disrupting the society of others.
I prefer a more reserved, understated countenance, myself. Just the sort as was tastefully displayed by President Obama. A truly judicious diplomat, thank the … (I’ll omit that last word, lest it be taken as facetious); I, for one, appreciate the caliber of such a man – he stood coolly by listening to all of Romney’s indiscriminate, unfettered trash-talking without the slightest sign of disturbance or irritation. You know the old adage: If you don’t have something nice to say, don’t say it at all. (I, of course, don’t strictly adhere to that one, myself, but I find it admirable none-the-less.) Now, that’s a demeanor, particularly under the circumstances, that I can sincerely appreciate in the fabric of a true president. Naturally, in my eyes, Obama was the true debate victor: He presented clear and valid arguments based on supportive evidence – as in factual – as in legitimate – as in truthful. And, he looked damn good up there, too.
Integrity-absent, Romney is (himself) debatable.
If you like to write about U.S. politics and Campaign 2012, enter "The American Pundit" competition. Allvoices is awarding four $250 prizes each month between now and November. These monthly winners earn eligibility for the $5,000 grand prize, to be awarded after the November election.