In debate, Romney goes for exceptional
One large, strategic question at the center of the presidential race: In order to beat President Obama, does Mitt Romney need to be an exceptional candidate or merely an acceptable one?
For much of the campaign, Romney and his team have operated according to the acceptability theory. Obama, in this view, is a vulnerable incumbent who will eventually be undone by a stagnant economy. With 54 percent of likely voters already agreeing that Obama does not deserve re-election, Romney (the argument goes) just needs to be a viable alternative—an imaginable president—in order to defeat an incumbent in the process of failing.
Romney’s convention speech was the triumph of this theory. It was designed for reassurance, not persuasion. It emphasized Romney’s admirable background and values. It was almost entirely devoid of policy arguments, unexpected outreach or effective attacks. It was unambitious for a reason—because acceptability seemed the safest policy.
But the approach didn’t work. After the party conventions, it became clear that Obama has a hidden source of electoral buoyancy. Many Americans don’t fully blame him for economic conditions and seem resigned to a new normal of high unemployment and stagnant growth. It is a historical paradox of the first order—the candidate of hope made viable by diminished expectations. But Obama, it is now evident, will not fall by force of gravity.
This was the broader significance of Romney’s performance in the first debate. It was more than an excellent technical performance. It was an admission that acceptability is not a sufficient strategy. For the first time in the general election, Romney seemed to realize that the presidency will not be awarded by default—that defeating Obama will require exceptional skills, strategy and ambition. And all were there when Romney needed them.
Romney was on the offensive from first to last, dominating the tone, content and flow of the debate. This seemed more than aggressiveness; something approaching authority. Romney’s attacks were genially relentless. Instead of merely criticizing Obamacare or the Dodd-Frank financial legislation, he dissected them. His fired statistics like shotgun pellets—23 million unemployed, one in six in poverty, 50 percent of college graduates can’t find jobs. His critique was organized by a memorable theme—“trickle-down government.” (Obama’s apparent theme—a “new economic patriotism”—went entirely unexplained.)
Romney’s effective indictment of Obama’s record managed something difficult and important. It simultaneously steadied the confidence of Republicans in their own candidate while allowing Romney to adopt a more moderate, bipartisan tone on taxes, education and entitlements. This is politics successfully conducted at a high degree of difficulty.
Romney did not announce or emphasize unexpected policy—which is generally not the purpose of debates. But his summaries of existing approaches were crisp and comprehensive. He not only pronounced, he explained. And he employed vignettes like political chess moves—a little hopelessness in Missouri, a little despair in Wisconsin, a little disillusionment in New Hampshire.
Romney constantly and seamlessly humanized his arguments. He even outlined a philosophy of government that includes compassion for the needy—probably a fragment of his prepared response to the 47 percent challenge that never came. If women voters in battleground states were watching, they didn’t see the stereotype they expected.
Romney prepared for the debate intensely, and it showed—which means it didn’t show. He had not only practiced his material but internalized and mastered it, leaving a composite impression of ease and authenticity. He seemed eager to make the points he was primed to make—pleased to be finally answering months of accumulated attack ads.
Obama had not debated in years, and it also showed. He is a political orchid, thriving best in a hot, wet atmosphere of praise. Presented with serious, sustained criticism, he first seemed puzzled that his idiom wasn’t working properly. Then came the avalanche of tweeted adjectives: annoyed, grim, unhappy, disengaged, glaring, defensive. For me, the low point came when he protested, “I’m going to make an important point here, Jim.” Show, as they say, don’t tell.
Obama’s words were instantly forgettable. But his performance will be remembered, studied and mocked for its body language. He looked down. He looked away. It was the surrender of the averted gaze.
The best news for Romney is this: He rose to the most difficult moment. When the need was greatest, and the stage was largest, he was exceptional. It is one of the things that presidents do.
Michael Gerson is a columnist for the Washington Post Writers Group; email michaelgerson@washpost.com.
Oct 7, 2012 at 10:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI, there's a very good reason that you paraphrase, misquote and insinuate what others, including myself, have said instead of directly quoting them. If you were to do the latter, it would change the meaning and context of what you claim was said.
Perhaps you should read what the sister of Mitt Romney's assault victim told ABC News:
"The older sister of Mitt Romney’s former high school classmate said she has no knowledge of any bullying incident involving her brother and the GOP presidential candidate." [ http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201... ]
You tell me, how can they say the first-hand accounts are inaccurate if they had no knowledge of the incident?
I encourage you to read the whole article. I would also encourage you to directly quote my comments instead of paraphrasing them to suit your purpose.
Oct 7, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
Poohboy......"Exaggerating the statements"?? Huh? You're the one that made them buddy! You were very clear in the fact that Obama violated international law and constitutional law when going into Pakistan and when doing so sanctioned the murder. I plan on continuing to bring up the pathetic lack of character and conviction. What kind of person would stay quiet in vilifying a presidential candidate that they believe sanctioned murder regardless of who the victim of the crime was? A sad testimony into the life of poohboy:(
By the way, the next time you post the haircut story make sure to include what the "victims" family released regarding the incident.
"Betsy Lauber, one of John Lauber’s three sisters, spoke with ABC News Tuesday night regarding the accuracy of the story. “The family of John Lauber is releasing a statement saying the portrayal of John is factually incorrect and we are aggrieved that he would be used to further a political agenda. There will be no more comments from the family,” she said"
Because of your somewhat obvious lack of character, I'm sure your "forget", so I'll take it upon myself to include the family's comments for you.....no thanks necessary.......
Oct 7, 2012 at 4:08 p.m.
Suggest removal
Newt Gingrich: Romney Flip-Flopped On Tax Cuts
"Newt Gingrich called out Mitt Romney on Sunday for backing off his promise to cut taxes on the wealthy after winning the Republican nomination.
“I think it’s clear he changed,” Gingrich said on NBC’s “Meet The Press” roundtable, admitting that Romney had shifted from wanting to lower taxes on all Americans to promising that his reform plan would not lower taxes paid by the wealthy.
In February, during a GOP primary debate, Romney said, “We’re going to cut taxes on everyone across the country by 20 percent, including the top 1 percent.”
On Wednesday, facing down President Obama, he insisted, “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.”" [ http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/... ]
Oct 7, 2012 at 3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
916WI said, "During this election cycle you have brought up the haircut story multiple times--3 or 4 times in the last couple of days."
And you have replied every time with the same exact set of comments. Downplaying the assault as a haircut, while exaggerating my statements about the disregard for international law. I plan on continuing to to bring up Romney's sordid history of bullying every time it is appropriate, so keep your comments handy.
And by the way, the person you're talking about that Obama "murdered," to use your word, is Osama Bin Laden. I don't think you're going to find too much sympathy amongst American voters on that one, 916WI.
Oct 7, 2012 at 1:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
Poohboy......Apparently in your eyes one doesn't defy the other! During this election cycle you have brought up the haircut story multiple times--3 or 4 times in the last couple of days. A story that the "victim's" family has denounced. Yet not one negative word in either of these debate articles about a man that you considered a murderer not more than a year ago. I don't believe there to be an absence of logic at all. You just have a disgustingly warped set of priorities. You seem to hate Romney and the Republican party to a degree where you would rather downplay what you consider murder just to see them lose. Pretty pathetic, but not at all unexpected:(
Oct 7, 2012 at 11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
916WI said, "How many posts do you have in these articles vilifying Obama? I'll help you with that answer......it's zero posts condemning the man you consider a murderer."
You first ask how many posts I've had that vilify Obama. In the very next breath you claim I consider him a murderer. If one were to believe the truthfulness of your question and answer, they are absolutely incongruous. One defies the other. A total absence of logic in that construct. There's as much truthfulness in your comment as there is logic: none.
Oct 7, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poohboy--my comment is "very confused"?? I think my comment was very clear and concise. In several articles dealing with the debates, you have well over a dozen posts vilifying and condemning Romney. How many posts do you have in these articles vilifying Obama? You know, the same guy who you labeled as sanctioning murder and breaking constitutional and international law a couple of months ago. I'll help you with that answer......it's zero posts condemning the man you consider a murderer. It sure would seem to anyone from the outside looking in that you want someone who you believe committed murder leading this country....no?
Stay classy buddy!:)
Oct 7, 2012 at 10:59 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poohboy--my comment is "very confused"?? I think my comment was very clear and concise. In several articles dealing with the debates, you have well over a dozen posts vilifying and condemning Romney. How many posts do you have in these articles vilifying Obama? You know, the same guy who you labeled as sanctioning murder and breaking constitutional and international law a couple of months ago. I'll help you with that answer......it's zero posts condemning the man you consider a murderer. It sure would seem to anyone from the outside looking in that you want someone who you believe committed murder leading this country....no?
Stay classy buddy!:)
Oct 7, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
916WI, you have responded to my criticisms of Obama and my comments that I will not be supporting Obama, which makes your comment just like Romney's budget math...very confused.
Oct 7, 2012 at 8 a.m.
Suggest removal
Poohboy......too funny! The boy's whole family was so "haunted" by the haircut to a point where they don't even remember it happening! If the haircut story has affected you to the point it seems to have.....with you posting the reported details from it over and over again.....I'm surprised we don't read of you speaking out against Obama more than we do? After all, in your eyes, he didn't cut someone's hair.......rather sanctioned their murder by having them shot in the head and breaking international and constitutional laws in the process.....I guess you would rather have someone you consider a murderer as the president of this country??
Oct 7, 2012 at 6:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
poo...divert, divert, divert. Typical.
Oct 6, 2012 at 10:15 p.m.
Suggest removal
Why endanger your perfect record of irrelevance, wislady?
Oct 6, 2012 at 9:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Poobah
Let's talk about Obama's drug filled college days.....that would be relevant.
Oct 6, 2012 at 4:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Calling Romney a bully is based on more than the debate. This bullying goes all the way back to when he was a teenager. Some things never change, do they?
"Bottle-blond bangs swept over one eye - this, the other boys whispered, was not a man's haircut. One of them - a popular, handsome specimen - grew particularly incensed at his classmate's new look. He formed a posse and found a pair of scissors. After locating the blond boy, the gang tackled him. The boy screamed for help, but none came. Lock by lock, his hair was lopped off.
Soon after, the boy disappeared from school. Eventually, he returned, his hair clipped short and back to its natural brown color.
There was no disciplinary action, but the incident would forever haunt everyone involved, save for the lead attacker, Mitt Romney. He forgot about it, married a pretty girl, produced five handsome sons, and made hundreds of millions of dollars. Now he wants to be president." [ http://www.citypages.com/2012-05-30/news... ]
*****
"Perhaps Romney really doesn't remember the assault on John Lauber nearly a half-century ago, despite the fact that so many of the other people who were there have never forgotten it. Or perhaps he decided that claiming ignorance would be the safest course of crisis management. But what he said told people nothing about the man he is today and how he has changed and grown over that time. We're all different people than we were in our youth, and we all have regrets. The 17-year-old Mitt Romney may have been a privileged, entitled boy with a mean streak. The 65-year-old Mitt Romney missed an opportunity to convince us he's something different." [ http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/11/opinion/wa... ]
Oct 6, 2012 at 3:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
If the tables had been turned....Obama would have been touted as showing leadership. Since the obvious leader on the stage was Romney...he gets called a bully instead. Obama had a pathetic showing at the debate, truly exposing the real Obama.
Oct 6, 2012 at 2:09 p.m.
Suggest removal
An exceptional bully and liar.
Oct 6, 2012 at 1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Obama is some kind of egocentric sociopath. Even after the debate he still tells lies about Romney to people he talks to on teleprompter. And the sad thing is some people still think Obama is the messiah, to save America from its sins.
Oct 4, 2012 at 7:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
@lindaf: No idea what you are trying to say. Did you see the debate last night?!?
Oct 4, 2012 at 6:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
exceptional what??A------!!Thats all!!!
Oct 4, 2012 at 4:45 p.m.
Suggest removal
Romney Ryan in 2012...
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.