Mitt Romney and President Obama have two entirely different fund-raising styles that perfectly reflect their political personae. Mitt Romney seems to specialize in $50,000-a-plate fundraisers, while President Obama welcomes donations of as little as $5. Obama also keeps advertising the fact that they'll draw a name from everyone who makes a donation during a specific period of time, and you can win a chance to have dinner with the President.
Can anyone imagine Romney doing something like that?
I can actually imagine Romney's reaction to someone in his camp telling him he should try some fund-raising where he'll have dinner with someone who donates as little as $5.00. "What? You mean eat? With one of the little people? God, WHY?!?"
President Obama should stick to caring about, standing up for and directing fundraising efforts to the people who can only afford to give $5 or $10 at a time. Governor Romney should stick to rubbing elbows, fighting for and fundraising from the rich and the "elite". When November 6th comes around, we'll get a chance to see which type of people outnumber the other.
Monday, October 15, 2012
Friday, October 5, 2012
The first Presidential Debate
The first Presidential debate occurred on Wednesday night in front of an estimated audience of 58 million people.
Most political pundits watched the debate and decided that Mitt Romney won the debate, simply in terms of body language, overall style and his seeming to be much more engaged in the process of the debate than President Obama was. President Obama spent a lot of time looking down at his podium, making notes on what Romney was saying and seemed to go out of his way to not argue with or correct the bullshit statements that Romney made time and again. Obama also often directed his statements to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, or the camera, where Romney addressed most of what he said directly to Obama. Romney seemed to be showing an especially aggressive or dominant side of himself, which Obama might have been responding to by looking down and refusing to engage. (Showing your back to someone who is trying to dominate you is the most profound way there is to put the other person in their place and show them that you are not at all worried about them. Maybe this was Obama's tactic.)
It could be that Romney's camp told him that in order to combat the perception that he is not a very exciting or passionate person, he should be very aggressive and enthusiastic during the debate. Maybe. Or he ate a lot of sugar before the debate and was working off a sugar rush.
However, debates and politics are not only about body language and who is trying to be the Alpha dog. Facts and policy are a very important part of it, at least to me. Showing the American audience the main differences between yourself and your opponent is incredibly important and probably one of the main reasons people tune in to the actual debate instead of just watching the wrap-us later.
The enthusiasm Romney showed was just one of the changes he seemed to make at the debate on Wednesday night. The same ultra-conservative Mitt Romney who has spent the past year and a half stumping about things like his desire to cut taxes 20% across the board, saying that regulations are responsible for killing jobs and ruining the economy suddenly became a moderate who claimed to have never said he'd cut taxes for the very rich, and that he liked regulations and understood that they were necessary. Mitt Romney, who also said that 47% of the country were dependent on government and would never vote for him so he wasn't even going to worry about them, has now changed his view to see that people out there are hurting and he is "running to help 100% of America".
Obama could have simply and handily "won" the debate by uttering one simple phrase in response to anything Romney said about his own policies: "Since when!?!?" Or perhaps, when given a chance to ask Romney a question directly, asking him "Who are you and what have you done with the real Willard Mitt Romney?" Because the man at the debate standing opposite President Obama seemed to be less the ultra-conservative out-of-touch millionaire that he has portrayed himself to be over the past year and a half and more a new-and-improved moderate Mitt Romney who wants policies that are only slightly to the right of Obama's, instead of all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. Some of the things Romney said directly contradicted statements he had made within days of the debate. While it's almost a given at this point that Romney likes to re-invent himself, the degree to which he did it at the debate borders on the utterly ridiculous and fantastical.
With only 32 days before the election, I'm wondering how many revisions of Romney his campaign can fit in between now and then. On Election Day, we might be on Romney version 20.0. Who knows what his beliefs and policies will even be by then.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There have been a number of articles written in the days since the debate that fact-check everything that was said in the debates. If you're looking for the absolute truth of what was said, please read these. They can get sort of number-driven and wonkish, though. Politi-Fact.com, The Washington Post, Politico.com and USA Today.
Most political pundits watched the debate and decided that Mitt Romney won the debate, simply in terms of body language, overall style and his seeming to be much more engaged in the process of the debate than President Obama was. President Obama spent a lot of time looking down at his podium, making notes on what Romney was saying and seemed to go out of his way to not argue with or correct the bullshit statements that Romney made time and again. Obama also often directed his statements to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, or the camera, where Romney addressed most of what he said directly to Obama. Romney seemed to be showing an especially aggressive or dominant side of himself, which Obama might have been responding to by looking down and refusing to engage. (Showing your back to someone who is trying to dominate you is the most profound way there is to put the other person in their place and show them that you are not at all worried about them. Maybe this was Obama's tactic.)
It could be that Romney's camp told him that in order to combat the perception that he is not a very exciting or passionate person, he should be very aggressive and enthusiastic during the debate. Maybe. Or he ate a lot of sugar before the debate and was working off a sugar rush.
However, debates and politics are not only about body language and who is trying to be the Alpha dog. Facts and policy are a very important part of it, at least to me. Showing the American audience the main differences between yourself and your opponent is incredibly important and probably one of the main reasons people tune in to the actual debate instead of just watching the wrap-us later.
The enthusiasm Romney showed was just one of the changes he seemed to make at the debate on Wednesday night. The same ultra-conservative Mitt Romney who has spent the past year and a half stumping about things like his desire to cut taxes 20% across the board, saying that regulations are responsible for killing jobs and ruining the economy suddenly became a moderate who claimed to have never said he'd cut taxes for the very rich, and that he liked regulations and understood that they were necessary. Mitt Romney, who also said that 47% of the country were dependent on government and would never vote for him so he wasn't even going to worry about them, has now changed his view to see that people out there are hurting and he is "running to help 100% of America".
Obama could have simply and handily "won" the debate by uttering one simple phrase in response to anything Romney said about his own policies: "Since when!?!?" Or perhaps, when given a chance to ask Romney a question directly, asking him "Who are you and what have you done with the real Willard Mitt Romney?" Because the man at the debate standing opposite President Obama seemed to be less the ultra-conservative out-of-touch millionaire that he has portrayed himself to be over the past year and a half and more a new-and-improved moderate Mitt Romney who wants policies that are only slightly to the right of Obama's, instead of all the way to the other end of the political spectrum. Some of the things Romney said directly contradicted statements he had made within days of the debate. While it's almost a given at this point that Romney likes to re-invent himself, the degree to which he did it at the debate borders on the utterly ridiculous and fantastical.
With only 32 days before the election, I'm wondering how many revisions of Romney his campaign can fit in between now and then. On Election Day, we might be on Romney version 20.0. Who knows what his beliefs and policies will even be by then.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
There have been a number of articles written in the days since the debate that fact-check everything that was said in the debates. If you're looking for the absolute truth of what was said, please read these. They can get sort of number-driven and wonkish, though. Politi-Fact.com, The Washington Post, Politico.com and USA Today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)