The left seems to feel that a hyper-aggressive Romney beat up a passive and hesitant Obama

Since I was turned off by NRO, I went to the left-wing site Daily Kos to see their reaction. The first thread I clicked on had an initial post by “Astral66,” with the title, “A Complete Disaster for Romney.” But that hardly seems to be the majority view among the commenters. Indeed, almost all are saying that Romney dominated Obama, though unfairly.

I am fascinated by how differently different people see the same event. The Kos commenters are fixated on aspects of the debate that didn’t occur to me. Also, seeing how distraught the Kos-ites are, I can understand better why the NRO people are so happy.

“Astral66” writes:

Romney spewed more lies tonight than any of us could possibly list, but the journalists will be poring over them for the next week, and matching them up with Romney’s previous statements. Obama hung back and let Mitt hang himself. Mitt abandoned his platform, his campaign, his party tonight.

Obama wasn’t aggressive, wasn’t rude, wasn’t smug. He gave his critics nothing new to put in a campaign ad. Romney has provided a wealth of lies to be used as contrast to his previous positions and statements.

I’m watching heads explode on MSNBC right now, but I think they missed it. Hayes and Sharpton seem to get it, the rest are disappointed that Obama wasn’t an aggressive belligerent, as if he ever played that role.

I’m not worried, Obama has this.

That’s followed by a comment from “Cato”:

Agreed, though Obama could’ve stepped in and shut Romney down, but chose not to.

Obama just got shredded by Romney, he didn’t challenge his constant lies, wasn’t on the offensive at any point in the debate. Where the hell was the 47%?? Obama should’ve pounded that all damn night, instead he was constantly trying to explain/defend himself from Romney’s relentless attack. If you’re explaining, you’re losing. And let’s not kid ourselves, Obama lost that debate, and lost it handily.

He could’ve buried Romney tonight, but I assume the campaign decided they would just fight to a draw, and that would be good enough given Obama’s current lead. Well I think that strategy sucks, and I think this capaign just got a lot tighter.

I’m pi**ed.

“Parent” replies:

Did you miss the part where he told everybody 55, 54 years old to listen up, ‘cause Mitt wants to take away our Medicare?

And the part where he said do we really think that Mitt is hiding the details of all these plans because the details are really so good?

“Cato” replies:

Point taken, he had some good moments, so excuse my hyperbole. I still think Romney took that one going away—and i think the snap polls are showing the same. A few good one liners don’t make up for Romney controlling the tempo of the debate, and making himself look more enthusiastic about being President than … The President.

The thread continues, with many saying that Romney was lying, and too agreessive, and unpresidential (isn’t that a funny criticism to be hearing from leftists?), but that he had it all over Obama who was passive.

In this vein, “Codyup” writes:

THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE IS A FINE LINE BETWEEN BEING POLITE AND JUST PLAYING THE PART OF A PUNCHING BAG….

we all know he is better than he looked BUT people vote on both …

BARACK BETTER GROW SOME BALLS IF THE WANTS TO END THIS ROPE-A-DOPE PERFORMANCE …

I KEPT WAITING FOR A KNOCKOUT PUNCH … AND WAS SADLY DISAPPOINTED

[end of excerpts from Kos thread.]

Here is another Kos thread. The overwhelming, even unanimous, consensus (hmm, if a consensus is unanimous, is it still a consensus?) is that Romney the aggressive, rule-breaking, dastardly liar (the Kos-ites didn’t actually say “dastardly,” that’s my equivalent for the unprintable words they did use) had it all over a weak, passive, underprepared Obama. In fact, they are sounding the old-fashioned notes of leftist self-pity, as though they feel they’ve lost the election. I’m astonished at this, and also, I must say, excited, because recently I have felt (though I hadn’t said this at VFR, not wanting to sound too defeatist) that the odds of Obama winning were 10 to 1.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 04, 2012 01:01 AM | Send