Romney’s Debate Assignment

OK, Mitt, you’re up.  And since I’m a professor, I’m used to giving assignments.  Here is my assignment for you tonight.

Don’t go into the ring with the intention of beating up the president.  You don’t have to pummel him.  His performance will do that for you.  The economy stinks, unemployment is much higher than official estimates, foreign policy is in a shambles, and the Apologizer-in-Chief has been too busy golfing and campaigning to take his daily security briefs.  He’s his own worst enemy.  If Obama wants to apologize to someone, he needs to apologize to the American people, especially the poorest among us.

Be yourself, Mitt.  You have a thousand times more grace and poise than he does, and you have actual business experience to bring to the podium tonight.  For all your faults, Mitt, at least you’re not haughty.  You’re actually a likable fellow.

While you don’t have to appear offensive to demonstrate your abilities, there is one major part of this assignment you must not fail:  you must, at every opportunity, turn the problems of the nation back on Mr. Obama.  This is his economy.  This is his record unemployment.  The violence in the Middle East and the recent death of our ambassador are his to own.  Make him claim it.  Don’t let him dodge.  And don’t let him blame George W. Bush.  That’s old news.  You don’t have to defend Bush.  You have to demonstrate to America that you’re honest, likable, and ready to call a spade a spade.

President Obama will be his cool, haughty self.  But under his collar he’s sweating.  Keep up the heat, but do it with a smile, with good humor, and with charm.  Obama will paint you as an out-of-touch rich guy who doesn’t understand the average American.  All you have to do is deflect his blows with the same light touch as Ronald Reagan did with Jimmy Carter:  “There you go again ….”

Oh, don’t expect a good grade from the Central Barack System (CBS), the American Barack Company (ABC), the National Barack Corporation (NBC), CNN (Current News Network for Barack), or MSNBC (My Special National Barack Corporation).  They’re in the tank for Obama even if he says nothing tonight.  They’ll proclaim him the winner every time.  George Stephanopolous (ABC) has a track record that is indicative of what to expect tonight.  His “objective reporting” gave the upper hand to Gore against Bush in 2000, Kerry against Bush in 2004, and Obama against McCain in 2008.  He’ll give the victory to Obama tonight, for sure.

Rasmussen puts you within 1 point of the president, Mitt.  You’re not talking to the Obama supporters.  They’re a lost cause.  And your supporters are already wishing you well tonight.  The audience you’re really addressing is that small group of undecided “moderates” and independents.  Be presidential.  Be of good cheer.  And return the ball every time it lands in your court. 

Mitt, you don’t have to paint Barack Obama as anything at all except what he is:  a failed president, a disastrous leader, a partisan who has divided us by race and by economic status.  To win tonight, all you have to do is point out the truth.  Do it with vigor and a smile.  Then do it again.  Do it over and over and over.

Good luck, Mitt.  I’ll see you in class tomorrow and assign a grade to your performance.


8 thoughts on “Romney’s Debate Assignment

  1. You seem to be hung on the recent death of our ambassador. I don’t understand what impact the President has or could have had on that situation.

    Also, while I can appreciate the energy, your overloading of the network news names (e.g. Central Barack System) comes off as childish and undermines your effort to convince people with opposing viewpoints.

    Lastly, is your vote for Mr. Romney part of a bigger plan to reform the GOP? I’m eager to hear those details if that’s the case.

    • Hi Drew. Thanks for your comment, and thanks for reading the blog. I’ll take your inquiries and comments one at a time as I offer what I hope you’ll find to be at least a reasonable response.

      1. You don’t understand the impact the president could have made on the death of our ambassador? Really? You’re throwing me a softball, right? How about going to daily security briefings? How about granting the request for additional security funding denied shortly before this attack? How about ordering all embassy and consular personnel to prepare for an attack since the date was September 11th? There are a thousand things the Commander-in-Chief can do to prevent the death of an ambassador. Being present to the security risks is the first step. At best he’s been naive. At worst, criminally negligent. Am I hung on the death of our ambassador? Yes, forgive me, I am. It was an unnecessary and unjust end to a human life. The man had a reputation for building relationships and understanding. His loss is not just personal to his family, but is the loss of a good civil servant to a nation … and for no good cause.

      2. I accept your criticism of my playfulness regarding the central media networks. I was only attempting to introduce a bit of levity. Some folks find political issues a bit boring, so I like to include some fun on occasion. I am sorry if it came across as childish. On the other hand, laughter releases endorphins and endorphins increase alertness and memory. So perhaps giving my readers a chance to chuckle is actually good for them!

      3. Regarding reform of the GOP, yes, it’s a goal of mine. Getting rid of Barack Obama is my first goal, however. Maybe I’m the one who is naive, but on one thing I agree with Ron Paul. Changing the Republican party requires “r’evolution,” a form of slow, gradual, constant movement toward a more constitutional-minded party. We can’t do it overnight.

      Best wishes to you, sir!

      • Points on #1. I absolutely agree. What are the sources for those allegations, though? Specifically, the denial of additional security funding and the failure to attend the PDB (do we mean the PDB or another briefing distinct from the PDB?)

        However, my next question on that is – *is* it the President’s job to look out for the safety of the embassies? Are there not other parts of the administration that are any closer to those operations? But, you do have a point. In the end, this is Obama’s administration. And under their watch, we experienced a failure.

        Fair enough on point #2. This is your blog and you can write it the way you want it. I felt obligated to let you know how I interpreted it.

        So we’re after a more libertarian paradigm. And the current president represents everything that is against said libertarian paradigm, right? Please don’t misunderstand, there is plenty from Obama’s administration that I didn’t appreciate (lackluster environmental sustainability policies and creation of another government agency [Consumer Protection something…] come to mind). That said, I don’t have enough facts in front of me to definitively stand behind one candidate (to include the fringe ones like Ron Paul or Gary Johnson).

      • How bout how he illegally authorized the bombing of Libya without Congressional approval. That may have something to do with the discontent in Libya against the US Government.

      • Hi Fred. Thanks for the response.

        About the Libyan bombing. How did he break the law (what law was broken, that is) and can you point me to a reference explaining as much?


        Thanks again!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s