-
The Prince of Madrid
May 14, 2013 | 16 comments
-
French Fears, French Fantasies
April 30, 2013 | 262 comments
-
The Prince of Monte Carlo
April 23, 2013 | 362 comments
-
Winning and Staying Honest in America’s Game
April 1, 2013 | 1 comment
-
The Kenya Syndrome
March 21, 2013 | 13 comments
Another Perspective
How to Win a Debate
How Mr. Romney will have to come out swinging.
If it is true the TV quiz show-modeled exercise in unpresidential “zingers” and “sound-bites” matters, then you may as well go for the K.O. Fortunately, there is a simple hit the governor can use to score in the first seconds of the first round. It is this:
No matter the topic, the question, the format or anything at all, the moment Mr. Romney is invited to speak he should say: “Mr. President, why haven’t we bombed Benghazi?”
If the moderator is too surprised to react, or if he says, “Governor, the question was — “, either way, Mr. Romney looks into the cameras and continues:
“My fellow Americans, there are many issues of public policy before us. We are a large, complex, rich and diverse country, and there always will be many such issues before us — how to educate our children; how sustain an economy of job-creating growth; how to insure Americans have access to the best health care in the world; and many more. In a democratic republic such as ours, it is normal that we should disagree and argue about how to manage public affairs. We debate and discuss all these issues and choose among various proposals to resolve them or muddle through, and we can do this in a civil and polite manner.
“But there is also an overarching issue this year. It is not a public policy issue, although it has policy implications. It is a moral issue, a national moral issue. It concerns the kind of country we are and the place of our country in the world today. It is indeed best encapsulated by the question I just put to President Obama: why haven’t we bombed Benghazi?
“A couple of weeks ago, a savage mob murdered Americans in Benghazi, a town in Libya. We, along with our British and French allies, gave support to rebels in Libya during a civil war in 2011; without our support, they would have failed in their objective, which was to overthrow the 40-year regime of Moammar Gaddafi, a very bad man.
“It is not a stretch to say the Libyans owe their new-found freedom to us, and particularly to the good and dedicated American public servants they murdered. Benghazi happens to be the historic center of opposition to the Gaddafi tyranny and it is the most important city in the new Libya, even if Tripoli remains the official capital. But Benghazi is important because most of the leaders of the victorious rebellion are based there. It is not illogical to expect that Benghazi should be a hotbed of pro-Americanism, since so many people there know, or should know, they would be dead and Gaddafi would still be dictator had we not helped them.
“Let me put it this way: imagine the year is 1782, just after the conclusion of the American Revolution that logistically and otherwise was aided by the French government, and a mob in New York lynches the French ambassador, New York being at the time the capital of the young United States. Say what you will about the French monarchy of the late 18th century, and its motives for helping us in our fight for freedom, I think you will agree the French would have been justified in feeling outraged.
“They might even have considered, they surely would have considered, sending some naval vessels into New York harbor and giving the New Yorkers what-for, and I don’t think they would have gone about it with Marquis of Queensberry rules.
“Now of course, this is a pure fantasy for the purpose of getting a grip on what happened at Benghazi a couple weeks ago. It never happened and it could not happen: the American revolutionaries were serious about the professed aims of their revolution. They were fighting for their rights, their property, their freedoms, and they had expressed the large principles under which they proposed to organize themselves once independence from Great Britain was achieved.
“They took these principles very seriously: they explicitly stated in the most famous document of the American national movement that they owed it to mankind, by which they meant both contemporary international public opinion but also their own and other civilized societies’ posterities, to justify what they knew was an extraordinary and dangerous course of action. They took the full measure of the rebellion they launched and the war they pursued. It was absolutely the most serious thing ever in their lives, and they wanted no one to think they had done all this under false premises.
“Not at all: they said they were rebelling because they believed in freedom, in the rule of law, in the rights they knew were theirs, as Englishmen and human beings. They said they had no recourse because the Empire was repressing their freedoms and their rights.
“Such men, such patriots, would not have mocked the very principles for which they fought and died scarcely a year after winning what had taken nearly a decade to achieve. They would not have thumbed their noses at the very principles of civilized government by permitting mob rule and terrorism to rampage in the streets of their major city.
“But that is what happened in Libya.
“What we saw in Benghazi was this: in the Libyan affair, we were played for fools, suckered by political gangsters who pretended to aspire to freedom in order to get us to help them take the place of other political gangsters.
About the Author
Roger Kaplan, a Washington-based writer, covers the Middle East and Africa (and tennis) for The American Spectator.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (17) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Roger Kaplan
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/10/03/how-to-win-a-debate
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- The End of the Castros?
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
- Obama’s Drone War
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Moe Blotz| 10.3.12 @ 6:45AM
Stick with the tennis.
Bob K| 10.3.12 @ 7:58AM
Right! Romney should not attack Obama's and Clinton's foreign policy. Wimpout is the word for the day of the debate!
Bob K| 10.3.12 @ 8:02AM
And why not?
Most everybody here is predicting that Romney will lose the debate and the election. Wimpout is the word for today!
Appleby| 10.3.12 @ 7:11AM
They'd never let him grab the ball and run with it like that; Romney is no Reagan in that respect.
My own suggestion for a takeaway line is "Mr. President, Get Off the Party Bus and Get Back In The Oval Office." I'd say "Party Bus" as often as I could stick it into any question or answer. "Mr. President, why was your response to the murder of our people in Libya TO TAKE YOUR SEAT ON THE PARTY BUS and head to Vegas?"
Obama doesn't want to be President because of any love for America. Obama wants to RIDE THE PARTY BUS. I'd ride him about that.
Mike G| 10.3.12 @ 9:22AM
If Romney attempted to do that, my guess is that the LSM would pull the plug on the broadcast and feign technical difficulty. Anything to keep the truth from coming out.
Al Adab| 10.3.12 @ 11:49AM
This "debate" like most of the others is just a set up. Jim Lehrer, a government employee of PBS is moderating. Big deal that.
We should have a true debate along the lines of: Resolved, the main purpose of the federal government is to redistribute wealth, or Resolved: the best method of dealing with international terrorism and national enemies is to engage in negotiations to settle their grievences. Those would be interesting conversations.
We should hear from Romney what he proposes to do about the impending tax increases in capital gains, dividends, estate taxes, medicare rates, etc. automatic on Jan first.
Occam's Tool| 10.3.12 @ 5:09PM
That's why Romney needs to simply ask (and reply to himself) as follows in his closing remarks:
"My fellow Americans, are you better off than you were 4 years ago?
Mr. Reagan asked that of our country when Mr. Carter was in office and debating him, and Mr. Carter had no lucid response, as Mr. Obama has none today.
I plan to follow Mr. Reagan's economic approach, modified for today's deficit. I also plan to follow his foreign policy approach of "peace through strength" and "no better friend, no worse enemy." We will not have another embassy attack situation on my watch, as we had no further embassy hostages under Reagan. I may not have his eloquence, but I do possess his management skills, and understand the approach needed for economic growth and the protection of our citizens.
If you believe you are better off because of Mr. Obama, vote for him. But, if you believe that you are worse off since January 2009, please note that Mr. Obama's plans for the future and Mr. Carter's plans in 1979 are very similar: high taxes and job destruction. Mine is low taxes and job creation. For more information, check my website, which lays out specifics in considerable detail.
G-d Bless my fellow Americans, and G-d Bless the USA.
Short, sweet, and to the point. Five paragraphs, two of which are simple sentences. Feel free to use, Mr. Romney, and G-d Bless You.
Occam's Tool| 10.3.12 @ 5:11PM
I guess there should be quotation marks after USA, above.
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.3.12 @ 8:29AM
Best thing Romney can do is ask if the economy is better off now than it was four years ago.
PolishKnight| 10.3.12 @ 10:28AM
Such a question, especially asked repeatedly, would be political suicide.
The USA went to war in Afghanistan, with popular public support, after 9-11. Since then, the war has bogged down and many in the public are weary of it. The last thing they want to hear is us getting involved in a third military adventure. And for the "neo-cons" here, that goes for Iran as well.
What matters to Americans right now is domestic policy with two main factors: jobs and gas prices. Inflation would be good to pound on as well. Many in the lower class that love Obama for his Obama-phones might think twice when it's pointed out that their precious sugar has skyrocketed due to sugar and ethanol subsidies and cartels.
Al Adab| 10.3.12 @ 11:53AM
Gasoline and groceries both hit the poorer amongst us hardest. Thank you Mr. President for devalung the dollar.
War making is one thing while nation building is quite another. The blurred distinction is what has led this foreign policy astray for about the last ten years. The wars ended quickly while misguided attempts to "democratize" nations continue to cost lives and money.
Occam's Tool| 10.3.12 @ 4:54PM
PK: a mild thought: our port security sucks. Iran can easily false flag a primitive nuclear weapon carrying container ship.
Here are some ports: NYC, Houston, Galveston (Texas City is across the bay), LA, SF, Seattle.
You may wish to ignore Iran. Rest assured, Iran will NOT ignore you. How is it "neo-con" to want to protect our ports?
Pleasant dreams.
SUBVET| 10.3.12 @ 10:32AM
I say NEWT should be picking and posing the questions to the black Jesus tonight.
Who Knows?| 10.3.12 @ 10:42AM
Univision is bombing Obama, NOW.
Dave Williams| 10.3.12 @ 12:37PM
King Zero could skin and boil kittens onstage tonight, and the lamestream media will STILL declare him the winner. And a solid chunk of this brain-dead country will STILL vote for him. I am sad, depressed, and angry, and I do not like to think what America will be like in 5 years....
Bob K| 10.3.12 @ 1:38PM
Do you think he could get away with clubbing a seal pup?
Occam's Tool| 10.3.12 @ 4:55PM
Yes, Obama could easily club a seal pup to death and say that's what Romney wants to do to the ANWR. Don't give him ideas.