The New Yorker posted by John Cassidy 10/22/12
Let’s start with the blindingly obvious: President Obama won last night’s debate in Boca Raton, and won it easily. According to a CBS instant poll of uncommitted voters, his margin of victory was thirty points—fifty-three per cent to twenty-three per cent—a bigger margin even than the one Mitt Romney enjoyed in Denver a few weeks ago. On the question of who would better handle terrorism and national security, the split in Obama’s favor was almost as large: sixty-four per cent to thirty-six per cent.
These figures are hardly surprising. From Obama’s very first answer, when he said to his opponent, “Your strategy previously has been one that has been all over the map,” to near the end, when he said, “Governor Romney, you keep trying to airbrush history,” he was the more aggressive debater, the more polished, the more persuasive, and the more punitive. Before the first debate, his aides proclaimed him above the use of “zingers.” On this occasion, he came with his pockets bulging with them, none more zingy than his crack about the military having fewer bayonets and horses than it did in 1916—a riposte that clearly had been prepared for use if Romney repeated his line about the U.S. Navy having fewer warships now than it had almost a hundred years ago, which indeed he did. Not content with mocking his opponent once, Obama proceeded to do it twice more: “We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them,” he said. “We have these ships that go underwater, nuclear submarines.”
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Asked about the United States’ role in the world, he said: “Our purpose is to make sure the world is more—is peaceful. We want a peaceful planet. We want people to be able to enjoy their lives and know they’re going to have a bright and prosperous future, not be at war.” In response to a question about how he would go beyond the Administration’s efforts to topple the Assad regime, he said: “I don’t want to have our military involved in Syria.” Nor in Afghanistan. Where previously he had questioned Obama’s commitment to bring all the troops home by 2014, he now declared: “We’re going to be finished by 2014, and when I’m President, we’ll make sure we bring our troops out by the end of 2014.” Around the country, conservatives were watching with increasing alarm. “How many times has Romney said the president is right tonight,” Rich Lowry, the editor of the National Review, tweeted about fifteen minutes before the end. “i thought he shld try to be a little above the fray, but this is a bit much.” Brent Bozell, founder of the Media Research Center, agreed, tweeting: “Romney’s closing statement better save this performance, or he’s a big loser tonight.”
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...Afterwards, however, there was some suggestion from the pundits that his entire performance had been a fiendishly clever attempt to ape what the Gipper did in 1980, during a debate with Jimmy Carter: come on all lovey-dovey and peace-loving, and thereby put to rest fears that, should he be elected, he would promptly loose one off on the Soviets. “Mitt Romney did something pretty important tonight,” David Gergen said on CNN. “He came across as a responsible-sounding Commander-in-Chief.” Over on Fox, Charles Krauthammer developed this argument further: “He stayed away from the pitfalls. He did not allow himself to to be pictured as a warmonger. I think this could help him win the election.”
I don’t buy it. If Romney does win, it will be despite this performance rather than because of it. In refusing to engage in detail about what happened in Libya, he gave up his one chance of really embarrassing the President on a specific foreign-policy issue. In constantly siding with Obama on issues of military policy and counter-terrorism—did I say he loves drone attacks?—he undermined his argument that the President’s term of office has been a failure and he needs running out of town. And in constantly reversing his previous positions, he raised anew the question that has plagued him all along: Does he actually believe in anything?
After the debate had finished, I went to a bookshelf and pulled out my copy of “The Real Romney,” a meticulously reported biography of the G.O.P. candidate that I’ve cited before because it’s probably still the best thing written on him. In their prologue, the authors, Michael Kranish and Scott Helman, two reporters at the Boston Globe, recall the Mittster’s 2008 campaign, when, with John McCain and Rudy Giuliani occupying what passes for the moderate center in the G.O.P., Romney decided to recreate himself as a right-winger, shamelessly courting the social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, religious conservatives—“any conservatives he could find.”
The trouble was that it looked too much like opportunism—or worse, insincerity, given his long record of syncing his political views with the party’s moderate wing. “Everything could always be tweaked, reshaped, fixed, addressed,” said one former aide, describing Romney’s outlook. “It was foreign to him on policy issues that core principles mattered—that somebody would go back and say, ‘Well, three years ago you said this.’ ” The perception of expedience, along with lingering bigotry against Mormonism, helped bury his hopes.In 2012, Romney has largely overcome any anti-Mormon feeling in the party, and the country. But, as last night’s debate demonstrated, the perception of expedience will never go away because it is perfectly accurate. Indeed, it is getting worse. Where once he repudiated things he said three years ago, he now repudiates things he said three months ago, or even three weeks ago. Fourteen days from now, we will find out whether his outrageously cynical approach to campaigning pays off. Given the way the polls are going, such a possibility can’t be wholly discounted. But last night, I suspect, he went too far. The voters may be gullible. But are they that gullible?
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/johncassidy/2012/10/mitt-the-shape-shifter-falls-on-obamas-bayonet.html#ixzz2ACCOAeRZ