Newt vs, Obama

Submitted by sara (United States), Oct 29, 2012 at 18:10

Yes, it would have been a treat to watch such a debate, but unfortunately there are other components necessary to win an election, and that is the ultimate goal, is it not?

If the goal were simply to vindicate conservatives who are frustrated with the rhetoric of the left leaning press and pundits, with the partisanship on display in every avenue, with the clear cover given to a serious national security bungling (and worse, followed by the President reaffirming that his job is to save lives and that they are going to get to the bottom of this- -- after the election), then I would agree wholeheartedly. Even though I thought Mitt did well in all debates barring his whiff about the rose garden- Libya mangled opportunity.

If we were to indulge ourselves with fantasies of these items being addressed by the Republican nominee, we would be ignoring the judgement of the campaign, to portray what was needed in order to win over voters who are not already voting for Romney. I think he did a masterful job in being calm and neutral, and by default, made Obama seem petty and mean and un-presidential. Those folks who don't have the facts, they might have been given a viable alternative to Obama. You have to hand it to Mitt- to circle around Obama and manage to come up behind him to his left, that was amusing, at least for me.

What happens after the election in terms of these issues is extremely important, but they will only matter after Mitt is elected, not before.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".