No mystery about the trajectory of this race. It was static for months as President Obama held a marginal lead. Then came the conventions. The Republicans squandered Tampa; the Democrats got a 3- to 4-point bounce out of Charlotte.
And kept it. Until the first debate. In 90 minutes, Mitt Romney wiped out the bump — and maybe more.
Democrats are shellshocked and left searching for excuses. Start with scapegoats: the hapless John Kerry, Obama’s sparring partner in the practice debates, for going too soft on the boss; then the debate moderator for not exerting enough control.
The Obama campaign’s plea that the commander in chief could find no shelter under Jim Lehrer’s desk did not exactly bolster the president’s standing. Moreover, the moderator’s job is not to control the flow of argument, but to simply enforce an even time split.
Lehrer did. In fact, Obama took more time than Romney — 4 1/2 minutes more — while actually speaking 500 fewer words. Romney knew what he thought and said it. Obama kept looking around hoping for the words to come to him. They didn’t.
After the scapegoats came the excuses.
1. Obama had a bad night. He was off his game.
Nonsense. This is Obama’s game. Great at delivering teleprompted addresses to adoring Germans and swooning students. But he’s not very good on his feet.
His problem is that he doesn’t think so. He not only believes his own press, he believes his own mythology. He actually said (in 2007): “I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters. I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And … I’m a better political director than my political director.”
Obama is a man of considerable intelligence. But he’s not half as transcendently smart as he thinks he is.
He needs a servant in his chariot reminding him that he’s not an immortal.
Of course, after the debate the entire Democratic Party told him he’s a dud. Wrong again. He’s neither lord nor commoner. He’s just an above-average politician who needs a very good night in one of the next two debates.
2. He was weighed down by the burdens of office.
Ah yes, the burdens of office. Like going on “The View” while meeting with not a single foreign leader at the U.N. Like flying to a Vegas campaign rally the day after a U.S. consulate is sacked and the ambassador murdered. Like rushing off to New York for a night with Jay-Z and Beyonce.
Rocky Mountain altitude is a better excuse than that. (Thank you, Al Gore.)
3. Reductionism.
Stephanie Cutter and David Axelrod both said (amazing coincidence) that Romney won on “style points.”
So, the most charismatic politician since Pierre Elliot Trudeau was beaten by an android — on style? I concede that Obama’s reaction shots were awful. But he lost on radio, too. And in print. Read the transcript. This wasn’t about appearances. Romney didn’t win on style. He won on an avalanche of substance, on a complete takedown of six months of Obama’s portraying Romney as enemy of the middle class, friend and footman of the rich.
That was the heart of the Obama campaign. After all, with crushing debt, chronically high unemployment and the worst economic recovery since World War II, Obama can’t run on stewardship. Nor on the future. He has no serious agenda. Nothing on entitlements, nothing on tax reform, nothing on debt, nothing on the fiscal cliff.
So when Romney completely deflated that six-month “kill Romney” strategy — by looking reasonable, responsible, authoritative in demonstrating how his policies would help the middle class by stimulating economic growth — what did Obama have left?
Big Bird. The stupidest ad in memory. Has any president ever run an ad so small and trivial? After an unprecedented shellacking in a debate about very large issues, this is his response?
The Middle East is ablaze, the country drowning in debt, the fiscal cliff looming — and Obama’s great pitch is that only he can save the $130 million enterprise that is the Sesame Workshop?
An inspiring second-term agenda: subsidies for Big Bird and free contraceptives for Sandra Fluke.
Obama has two debates to come up with something better. If he can’t, he will double down on his “Romney the menace” line. It might still work. But a word of advice: Your administration having prevaricated unceasingly — and scandalously — about the massacre in Benghazi, I’d be cautious about the “he’s a liar” line of attack.
Charles Krauthammer is a columnist for The Washington Post. Readers may email him at letters@charleskrauthammer.com.
A writer for the Washington Post actually writing a negative article on the bleeding heart left.
At least the Washington Post makes an effort at introducing some balance in their opinion pieces and blogs. You might want to also check out the following piece on Benghazi by Jennifer Rubin:
Questions on Benghazi http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/questions-on-benghazi/2012/10/13/8179efc0-1533-11e2-ba83-a7a396e6b2a7_blog.html
Krauthammer just touches on the greatest scandal of all: Benghazi. Obama, along with a complicit press, has been fabricating any excuse he can in order for his administration to avoid any responsibility for the unecessary deaths in Benghazi. Biden continues the charade in the VP debate by stating that “we” weren’t aware of the requests for additional security in Libya. So now the State Department is not part of the administration? This is a scandal and hopefully Obama and his administration will be held accountable.
Sounds like you’re pretty happy that there is a scandal to ruin the President despite the lives lost. How gross.
You sound like your more intent on keeping this president’s lies and lack of competency hidden than about why these lives had to be lost to begin with.
Nothing in my post indicated that. Nice try, but it still disgusting to politicize these things.
Just making a similar “observation” the same as you did. As for “politicizing”, if no one was paying attention or saying anything about it, people like yourself would accept the lies, shrug and say…oh well. Many don’t think it is being “politicized” and think it is a disgrace that people did die because of incompetence and then to try and cover it up is what is disgusting.
I really don’t think that was what happened and you want to know why? Romney pounced IMMEDIATELY on Libya before there was even this narrative about lies and whatever else you guys all seem to be on script with. Romney was talking about how the President was weak and was apologizing. When that line of attack failed, he tried something else and that’s where ou guys are now.
This isn’t about uncovering any truths. You guys have a pretty weak history of caring about the truth. This is politics and it’s obvious. You can keep trying to turn it around and use this “I know you are but what am I?” bit, but it doesn’t change anything. You’re politicizing this tragedy and it’s gross.
This might help you understand how the budget was cut by the Republicans for embassy security
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.xml
So the budget was cut. I suppose that means then you don’t use what resources available where it may be needed the most? Are these people so smart that they can’t figure out when and where it might be wise to move resoursces around especially during certain key dates…like 9/11? Especially AFTER they were asked for it in a place….like Lybia? Maybe you need the NYT to make a stupid argument about this admin’s lack of competency and no matter what, it still doesn’t excuse the plain and simple fact…it was lying to us. That may meet your standards but it s unacceptable to a lot of others.
Hello?
The Republicans CUT the SECURITY budget.
The lives that were lost is on Obama, how gross is that.
Yeah, anytime anything bad happens it’s Obama’s fault, but he gets absolutely no credit when something good happens. That’s hypocrisy.
the Republicans held a public hearing and stupidly revealed the fact that the CIA was right next door to our Embassy there.
You mean the CIA was right there? What a surprise! They are at just about every embassy we have. What the real issue is, when the U.S. is attacked, the pres and the vp had no clue and weren’t informed? After all, an embassy is considered the same as being American soil so I would be more concerned about the lies being told to us and the total disregard and incompetenece that allowed this to happen than another phony attempt to cast blame elsewhere.
I had better listen to you then obviously you know all about where the CIA is at any given time
Maybe you should you might learn something.
Sure thing Mr. Nick Danger.
Where you are wrong is that the president and VP DID have a clue. Face it, Obama messed up in a big way and if he wasn’t a democrat, this would still be the top news story every single night.
No chance he will be held accountable. Complicit press says it all. The only place where Obama has been publicly criticized is on Fox News and democrats want to shut that down.
Just silly — I don’t know many who are trying to scapegoat with this. Mitt won on style alone, the President should have been better about calling Mitt on his lies — like how Biden did with Ryan. But really, I know it would throw me off if my debate opponent suddenly emerged an entirely different person. From “severely conservative” to a friendly bi-partisan moderate? Romney will say anything and hold any position it takes in that moment to get him further.
‘I know it would throw me off if my debate opponent suddenly emerged an entirely different person.’……….. Really? It was a DEBATE for crying out loud. When you go to a gunfight and bring a pocket knife you are in big trouble. Obama off teleprompter is no debater. He is a stuttering, stammering ah machine. Yes he is a good reader but he is no debater. Blaming the opposition for out talking you during a debate is weak. Very weak. Pathetic if fact. If Romney lied like you say it was up to Obama to DEBATE the points. He didn’t do that because he can’t. He simply isn’t capable of it. You want him to. You wish him to. But you know he can’t. Mitt won on style because he has some. Jimmy Obama is going down.
You’re literally just stringing together irrelevant talking points. Then you’re screeching to me, exactly what I said. I am disappointed Obama didn’t call Mitt out of his lies and flip-flopping. Biden was much more effective at doing it. There are still two more debates.
Sorry. I will try to slow it down for you. Screeching? Really? Bottom line. Jimmy Obama is going down.
The President will be re-elected.
The bloom is off the rose. Hope and change never came. You can only run on that once. He has spent the past four years blaming Bush. Who would he blame the next four?
I notice how Republicans can’t run away from George W Bush fast enough.
Why is that?
Not me. I would love to go back to the Bush era where we had a real president.
Now THAT is funny! Thanks for the laugh!
Laughing is the closest thing to crying. After four years of Obama I can’t laugh and I feel like crying. Maybe that is why Biden was laughing during the vp debate. He feels like crying too! He has crushed the middle class by his own admission.
Go sell crazy someplace else Harry.
Crazy? Who laughed his way through the vp debate! Hmmmmm.
Go sell crazy someplace else Harry.
You are repeating yourself. Symptom?
Ok Harry, you get the last word.
WOW, what a great segue. “A is kind of like B…speaking of B, let me go on a huge and irrelevant tangent.”
Again, just an irrelevant comment from you. Do you have an issue with addressing things head on? Seems so.
Why don’t you let the readers and commenters decide on what is relevant and irrelevant? That is what the like button is for. I could waste alot of time judging your comments worthy but I don’t. The likes speak for themselves. By the way I don’t have any issue addressing things head on but you seem to have an issue with anyone who responds to you.
lol, I guess the readers have decided.
Riiiight…Biden was more effective at it. The only things Biden was more effective in the last debate were his condescension, arrogance, rudeness and lies – especially regarding Benghazi.
Funny how ou guys go on and on about how being politically correct is bad, how the President is weak — then when someone does exactly what you guys advocate, you cry like big babies. Just more hypocrisy.
You don’t get it, do you? It is possible for someone to come across as strong, positive and forthright in a debate without also appearing to be a jerk.
See under First Debate – Romney, Mitt.
Apparently, neither Obama nor Biden have figured that out yet.
No, what it is is that no matter what happens, people like you will have a criticism. Then if you take those criticisms and try and create a rubric, you can’t because the criticisms aren’t based up principles, they’re based upon disdain. The things people like you complain about are just complaints for the sake of it.
You complain that liberals are entitled whiners, but then you throw a fit when someone laughs at your ridiculous proposals.
Romney only “won” the debate on style. In terms of substance, Obama was the clear winner.
So you’re right in saying that, without their teleprompters, Romney puts on a better performance than Obama, and you’re also correct that Obama failed to call his opponent out on his nonsense and lies. Fortunately, on both counts, Biden succeeded where his partner failed.
I would like to know what is Romney’s plan for fixing the economy. He’s been campaigning for many years now. It ought to be clear at this point.
Krauthammer is nothing but a paid shill of the right wing, pure and simple. You always know what you’re going to get when you read one of his diatribes, or have the misfortune to see him on one of the panel discussions it seems he was born to appear on. He has been cheerleading for the neocons for decades, and he knows what side of his bread is buttered. A chronic liberal-hater, he can be counted on to parrot the right wing talking points, utterly predictable as Old Faithful geyser. He even seems to bore himself with his words… I have seen him roll his eyes at his own tired pronouncements. He will pick up any storyline that has been approved by Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck, and run with it as far and as long as his masters tell him to.
An embarrassment to journalism in our age, or any other. Why the Post continues running his essays is one of those mysteries that will never be answered…
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/15/opinion/republicans-have-no-shame.xml
So much for the Republican’s embassy security argument.
If you vote Democrat or Republican, you are part of the problem. Both parties are guilty of selling out this country, putting us $16 trillion in debt, and fiddling while Rome burns. We need 535 INDEPENDENT farmers and fishermen in Washington before it is too late. Men with character, spine, morals, and vision. We have none of these now with our current crop of dim wits. Voting for either of the two major parties is asking for more of the same. Thank you sir, may I have another. Are the American people masochists? Or are we just too tired to care anymore?
As usual, excellent and thoughtful commentary