The third and final debate came down to three men...mano-e-mano-e-mano...just Mr. President, Mr. Mitt, and Ashley Scheiffer, BMW.
And what an epic conclusion it was. I mean this debate had EVERYTHING! Foreign Policy; Domestic Policy; rhetorical attempts to bridge the gap between those concerned with only foreign or domestic policy; ambiguity; bayonets; battleships; a 1980's zinger taken straight out of a 1980's sitcom. I just wish we could have 3 more debates, maybe then we could find out what the next four years might consist of.
The Breakdown:
1) Performance: Obama had to have known that this would be his only oppurtunity to KO The Mad Mormon. Obama should've smoked Romney in a Foreign Policy debate...alas, it simply wasn't meant to be. The President had several chances to attack the jugular. He could've destroyed Mitt when he was talking about the ressurrection of Al Queada in Mali and Pakistan; he could've shut his pompous diet-soda hole up in the discussion of the Libya intervention; he could've and SHOULD'VE put the nail in the ivory coffin when they discussed future relations with Iran. Instead, Obama reitterated the same ambiguous points of past accomplishment over and over again. Granted, he did have a few stirring moments when he spoke of his visits to Israel and the Libyan Intervention. These moments were essentially the only times where he didn't appear hesitant. It also seemed like these were the only times in which he was letting his brain do the talking, as opposed to making a point of mentioning points he was made to remember to mention.
2) Zingers: These suckers seem like they've been taking lessons:
Zing after zing after zing!
- My personal favorite: Obama: The 1980's called, they want their foreign policy back! WHAMMY
- Notable zings:
- "horses and bayonets" is sure to get a lot of attention...I've actually got a few Facebook "friends" who've attempted to claim that the Military is indeed lacking horses and bayonets, citing specific instances of close-range combat in which bayonets would've benefited American soldiers.
- Romney made a couple zingers about Detroit that only Kid Rock and Guy Fieri laughed at.
- I also liked Romney's reference to our mutually beneficial relationship with Latin America due simply to "time zones". Touche.
3) Substance: Probably should've eliminated this category this week...the ambiguity required to bridge the gap between foreign and demostic policy when speaking to an audience in which the majority couldn't locate Iran, Syria or Mali on a map within 10 tries is astounding. I didn't expect them to provide too many details, especially the President (as it may be viewed as a National security concern), but there were some oppurtunities in which specifics could've really bolstered credibility but also may have mitigated any beneficial aspects.
For instance, the bulk of the debate (5 out of 6 topics) focused on relations with the Middle East. Instead of appearing more knowledgable through citing his understanding of the dynamics of Middle Eastern relationships (also: Northern Africa, Central Asia, Eurasia, Europe) and being open to the possibility of peace with Iran, President Obama found himself in a position where ambiguity and re-explaining the context of the situation were necessary. If he says YES to talks with Iran (which will likely occur if he is re-elected, anyways), he looks weak to the uninformed voter, who immediately percieves Iran as a threat due to oft-portrayed inaccuracies.
Romney, on the other hand, tended to repeatedly cite his "comprehensive and robust strategy" for containing violence and extremism in the Middle East. Uhhh...ok? He talked about Al Queda now being present in 10 or 12 countries (not 11 or 13)...might this be because we have spent trillions of dollars slaughtering anyone that Central Intelligence deems to be associated with them?
4) Strategy: I think Mitt may have had the better strategy, with this being the final debate, but I also thought it was neutralized by the President's performance. Willard made it a point early and often to reference that 1) Yes, he indeed knows that the country of Mali exists; 2) WOMEN! Am I right? They're important, huh? and 3) Education GOoD! Massachusetts' smart, see! All thanks to Mitt!
Obama decided to take a more debate-oriented approach. He called bullshit a little too often, especially at times when Mitt was able to refute his claims in a similar way that Obama refuted the "acts of terror" debacle of the debate prior.
5) Appearing Presidential: Mitt looked to be running for the coveted position of Commander of Douchetown
6) Closing Statements: Barack whooped up on Mitt in the closing statements...while Obama reitterated his stances on the importance of educations and rewarding American manufacturing (bridging the domestic-foreign gap), Romney reitterated the same vague platitudes that he's been running on for twelve years. However, politicking=Who's got the best vague platitudes?
7. Final Impressions: "Where the jobs go? You get me job? I need job NOW! Jobs good, indeed, jobs very good, indeed. China take Jobs???? Why?" -My impression of America
Other Notes:
- Obama's reputation in the Middle East, at its worst, will still be better than how Mitt handles the Middle East. As President, Romney won't (and should never) personally interact with the Middle East in any fashion that isn't appearence-oriented only. Obama actually has the ability to carry a conversation with those who will be so incricately involved in America's future.
- Also, Mitt + China= very confusing relationship? Do they like him because of his money-grubbing past and connnections to manufacturing or hate him because half of his Foreign Policy platform is punishing China for some reason?
3RD DEBATE WINNER: BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA
go on....
ReplyDelete