Frankly, I thought Mitt Romney won the debate in the first 30
seconds when President Obama opened with the usual maudlin
reference to his wife and their wedding anniversary. (I’ve been
invited to this party every time I open the New York Times
website in the last three months.)
So Romney immediately responded, “Congratulations, but you’re
going to have to spend your anniversary here with me!”
Wow, did he really say that to the President? It was a complete
wakeup, just as disarming as Ronald Reagan’s famous, “There you go
again.” It sent an immediate message: Romney wasn’t going to be
intimidated or paralyzed by the President’s lachrymose
self-indulgences, nor was this debate going to be a polite volley
of memorized talking points. Romney was already off the cuff and
ready to play. And play he did.
Alright, Romney won the debate, hands down. Even Huffington
Post was willing to admit “Romney Wins the Night” 20 minutes
after the debate ended. CNN did a begrudging “Romney Sets a Winning
Tone” and of course there were the public meltdowns of the
obsequious Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan. There is plenty of
reason to celebrate.
But all these are just first-day responses. What is far more
important is how the press will regroup and continue to create the
mythical Best President Ever while throwing up a smokescreen
between Mitt Romney and the voting public. Give them a day or so
and they’ll recover. According to London’s Daily Mail,
David Axelrod has specifically asked reporters to start making the
debating points that Obama was unable to muster during the
evening.
What the first Presidential debate revealed is that President
Obama is basically an empty suit. By retaining his enigmatic calm,
the President has enabled the press to project any and all of their
fantasies upon him. Obama is the smartest President ever. He has
accomplished more than Roosevelt. He’s as charismatic as John F.
Kennedy. If he has trouble with particulars, it is only because he
is thinking of higher things. When Chris Matthews told the
President he could recover his mojo by watching MSNBC, he wasn’t
kidding. The subtext, of course, is: “We’re the ones who made you
who you are.”
Obama is a grown-up college Marxist. He probably hasn’t changed
his perspective much since he was an undergraduate. What he has
mastered is the academic trope of pretending to entertain all
different points of view before settling on the one furthest to the
left. He is a pure product of academia. All the President’s famous
faux pas — the rural folk seeking consolation in “guns and
religion,” the small business owners who “didn’t build that” — are
the routine scuttlebutt of faculty lounges.
There is nothing more frustrating to a junior professor who
scored 700s on his SATs and spent seven years earning his Ph.D.
than the moment when he goes back to his 15th high school reunion
and discovers that the dumb kid who used to sit in the back of the
class drawing pictures of jet airplanes on his forearm in indelible
ink has become a successful builder and is riding around town in a
Porsche. “If you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your
own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be
because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out
there.” I wonder who we’re talking about there?
So the question remains, if the press has essentially created
Obama, can they rescue him now that the blank slate upon which they
have been drawing has been shattered? Well, they can certainly try
and they definitely will.
Just to get a taste of what to expect, consider this. I just
searched “You Didn’t Build That” on Google News. Here’s what you
get from the last three days:
“Romney’s ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Attack: An Epic Failure.”
(Washington
Post)
“Poll: Didn’t Build That Message a Dud” (Politico)
“Surprise! Obama’s ‘You didn’t build that’ statement didn’t hurt
him at all with voters!” (Suburban
Life)
“The You Didn’t Build That Flap” (Minneapolis
Star)
“Obama Regrets ‘Syntax’ of ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Remark.
(ABC
News)
“Poll: ‘You Didn’t Build That’ Quote Didn’t Actually Hurt Obama,
but ‘47%’ Hurt Romney” (Slate)
“Mitt Didn’t Build That” (Huffington
Post)
“Does Obama Really Believe You Didn’t Build Your Business?”
(Inc.)
“Romney’s ‘47 percent’ Gaffe Hurts More Than Obama’s ‘You Didn’t
Build That’” (Business
Insider)
“Obama Raps About ‘You Didn’t Build That’ MC Hammer-style”
(Slate)
I’m not picking and choosing here. These are the top ten hits.
Outside back issues of The Wall Street Journal and a few
other conservative publications, it is impossible to find anything
in the press suggesting that there might have been something a
little regrettable about the President’s remarks.
So the press is primed and ready for damage control. The
question is, do they have enough material to work with? I would
suggest the job may prove tougher than they anticipate.
Let’s take Romney’s successful line of attack that the $90
billion Obama has spent on “green energy” projects could have hired
two million teachers. Solyndra came up, of course, but Romney also
mentioned a couple of others dubious investments, including the
Fisker and Tesla, two electric sports cars. At the end he remarked,
“I think half of them have gone out of business.”
The last comment is obviously incorrect. Although there have
been several highly visible failures, most of the $90 billion has
gone to projects such as weatherizing homes or cleaning up nuclear
test sites. So half of them obviously haven’t gone under.
Within hours, however, mainstream media outlets were challenging
the overall argument. Here’s a sampling from the first day:
“A Closer Look at Obama’s ‘$90 Billion for green jobs.’” Brad
Plumer,
Washington Post.
“$90 Billion for Green Energy? A Closer Look.” Matt Wald,
New York Times. (No collaboration there.)
“Romney Campaign Explains Fuzzy Green Math.” Andrew Restuccia,
Politico.
“Romney Decides That Thriving Electric-Car Startup Tesla Is a
‘Loser’ Will Oremus,
Slate.
“Fact Check: Are half of ‘green’ energy firms helped by stimulus
out of business?”
CNN staff.
“Romney zinger: Obama backs ‘green’ energy losers. Is he right?”
Laurent Belsie,
Christian Science Monitor.
“Romney tries to Solyndraize Tesla Motors, calling it a
‘loser.’” David Herron,
Torque News. (Yes, the liberal tilt in the media goes
right down to the level of Torque News.)
David Axelrod’s appeal is obviously not falling on deaf ears.
Just for good measure, the Hill published a gloating
report that “polls show the majority of voters are unfamiliar
with Solyndra.”
So maybe with a little help from the press Obama can fight back
on the matter of green subsidies? Well, I’d be careful. There are
treacherous waters here.
Take the Tesla, the supposed green energy success story. The
Tesla is a luxury sports car whose cheapest model sells for $50,000
after a $7,500 federal tax credit. Other models go for as high as
$84,000. How is Obama going to look when he starts defending that
investment? Or how about the Fisker, which was actually
manufactured in Finland and sold its first imported model to
Leonardo DiCaprio before the company gave up on a production plant
in Delaware? Fisker got a $529 million loan guarantee from the
federal government, only $6 million less than Solyndra. The Fisker
sells for $102,000. How’s that going to stack up when the
President starts talking about “tax benefits for the rich”?
Frankly, I think there’s only one thing that Romney hasn’t done
yet in the debate. At some point he should look voters in the eye
and say, “I solemnly promise that if elected President I will not
blame anything that happens during my administration on my
predecessor standing right here. On that you have my word.”
Let’s see the press try to punch its way out of that one.
