Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

2012 ElectionOpinionPolitics

The Great Debate: Surreal and Dissatisfying

As one of the 67 million watching the Romney-Obama debate, it wasn’t a very satisfying experience, even though Mr. Romney “won” according to about 45 million viewers.  Mr. Romney will have won the debate only if he wins the election. If he loses, we all lose.  That’s why I’d like to see him fight as if our lives depend on it, because they do.

Watching this first debate was both unsatisfying and surreal.  On the one hand you had the challenger with enough fire power to devastate the President.  Yet he withheld his hand.  Romney could have utterly lambasted Obama on the economy and jobs.  He could have mashed him up on spending and deficits. But he preferred jabs and a few upper cuts.

It’s true Obama’s horrendous performance, blended with the expectation he would take Romney apart, accounted for the effusive ratings given Romney.  Saying Romney won largely because Obama stumbled so badly is more accurate than saying Romney was vastly superior.  These are the main reasons for the disquieting sense of dissatisfaction with the debate.

The surreal aspect comes up in thinking about the cordial comportment of the “combatants.” It was all so genteel, until the next day, when Obama, no doubt humiliated and enraged, launched into his real Chicagoan self, calling Romney a cheat, a liar and a fraud.  Perhaps in the second debate he’ll say it to Romney’s face instead of just pitching red meat to his ObamaPhone junkies. So it was surreal watching the not-so-articulate, messiah-not fumble and stumble his way to defeat last Wednesday.  It was also surreal watching the especially vicious and deceptive Obama try playing it like Mr. Cordial goes to Washington.  It was like watching Dracula barely achieving self-control at the blood bank.

Look, it’s no secret Obama wants to destroy our capitalist republic and build a communist state on the rubble, so isn’t it about time we cut to the bone and stop pretending the opposing candidates simply represent different dimensions of Americanism?

The other surreal dimension of the debate was Romney treating Obama like an old pal.   From congratulating him on his anniversary to smiling and joking at the end, Romney, a true gentlemen, nonetheless treated Obama with the respect he is not due. One suspects Romney deeply dislikes and distrusts Obama, as any rational person should.  After all, this president has been reversed more than the 9th Circuit: most of the time by his own choice, without regard for consequences.  In other words, the man is a chronic liar.

Worse than the lies, his treasonous behavior.  Wherever you look, from “Fast and Furious“, to the recent Benghazi atrocity, to whispering capitulation to the Russians, to bowing to the Saudi king, to releasing state secrets, to telegraphing the end game in Afghanistan, to unauthorized war in Libya, to accommodating terrorism, to breaching security talking about the killing of bin Laden, to throwing Israel under the bus, to submitting to Iran’s murderous nuclear ambitions, this President has steadily put America in a progressively weaker position and helped our enemies gain the upper hand.

And we might mention Obama’s many violations of the Oath in his efforts to subvert and violate the U.S. Constitution —

So yes, it’s surreal watching a good man treat an evil man as if he is a good man.  It is understood that in the effort to attract votes a candidate must proceed with dignity.  Romney is correct to approach the debate and the occupant of the Office with respect and dignity, at least in the first round.  But is it disrespectful to call it like it is, and press this poser until he taps out? 

With the entire future of the country riding on the outcome, it’s hoped Romney will take the next debate from the surreal to a slug fest, something resembling a bar fight, John Wayne style.  You can be sure Obama will bring his street fight, and every underhanded trick that comes with it, as all his communist forebears have done, including Saul Alinsky, Frank Marshall Davis, Eugene Debs, V.I. Lenin and Karl Marx.

Removing a traitor from the White House may mean a few chairs and bodies flying out the windows, but if that’s what it takes, so be it.   

Image: Lincoln-Douglas Debates, 1958 American Civil War commemorative issue; courtesy of U.S. Post Office; public domain

Allan Erickson

Allan Erickson---Christian, husband, father, journalist, businessman, screenwriter, and author of The Cross & the Constitution in the Age of Incoherence, Tate Publishing, 2012.

Related Articles

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *