Willard ain't got a Soul [View all]
Podium rocks in the crowded waves.
The speaker talks of the beautiful saves
That went down long before he played this role
For the hotel queens and the magazines,
Test tube genes and slot machines
Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
Even Richard Nixon has got it, soul.
Hospitals have made him cry,
But there`s always a free way in his eye,
Though his beach just got too crowded for his stroll.
Roads stretch out like healthy veins,
And wild gift horses strain the reins,
Where even Richard Nixon has got soul.
Even Richard Nixon has got soul.
I am a lonely visitor.
I came to late to cause a stir,
Though I campaigned all my life towards that goal.
-- Neal Young; Campaigner
Tonight’s debate between President Obama and Willard Romney can be regarded as the “rubber match,” to decide the one-to-one split thus far. Although Romney lied virtually every time he spoke in Debate #1, he was given credit for a “victory.” Barack Obama then thrashed Willard in the next contest. Because tonight’s debate is supposed to focus on “foreign policy” -- and Romney’s “experience” is limited to friendly financial dealings with the most brutal, vicious of El Salvador’s “leaders,” sending US jobs to foreign lands, and investing his profits off-shore -- we can expect him to actually lie even more tonight. In fact, it is impossible for Willard Romney to tell the truth, because he is a lie. And he doesn’t even have a soul.
Thus, I thought it might be interesting to consider two questions: (1) What can we expect from President Obama tonight ?; and (2) What do we wish President Obama would say or do? I am hoping that a wide range of forum participants will take the time to answer both of these questions today, not because I’m authoring the OP, but because I think that there might be both value and entertainment if a good discussion follows. Here is my opinion.
#1: As always, a campaign has three groups to consider. The first is its base, or those who will generally be in agreement with your campaign on most issues. The second is the opposition, which can be counted on to disagree with most things from your campaign. And third is the “undecided.”
As a general rule, a campaign should motivate the base; not stir up and energize the opposition; and appeal to the “undecided,” especially in a close election contest. A good example of this balance is found in President Obama’s performance at the second debate. Because of the wide-spread perception that Romney “won” the first debate -- no matter if we agree with that or not -- it was essential for President Obama to appeal to his base. He did. But he didn’t strike any hornets’ nests, to provide the opposition with something to use against him. And he presented solid reasons for any sincere “undecided” voters to support him.
This doesn’t imply that he can merely have a repeat performance. The Romney camp will surely be looking to reach new lows, and Obama must be fully prepared for each new lie that Willard spouts. And that brings us to question #2.
A lot of good people, both on this forum and beyond, would like President Obama to say that Willard is a liar. This includes many who want the President to use that word -- “liar.” The reason that he will not use that word are found in each of the three groups. First, it would energize the opposition; the corporate media would definitely add fuel to the fire, and fan the flames up until Election Day. Second, that would result in the “undecided” leaning towards Romney. And third, it would force the base to waste time by responding to the “controversy.”
Instead, what I hope to see is President Obama exposing Romney’s “errors” in such a way that it appeals to the entire audience to decide if Romney is a pathological liar, or just a dangerously ignorant damned fool. That energizes the base, by allowing them to exercise control over the post-debate discussions. Why is Romney saying these things? Is he purposely fronting for the neoconservative war party? Is he that stupid? Or a combination of both?
It also appeals to the undecided voters. And it does more: it forces the republican voters, especially the republican women, to evaluate if they can actually vote for Romney. I’m not concerned about what they may say in public, or how they respond to poll-takers. What matters is how they vote. And I can say that the two registered republicans that I talk to about politics the most have decided to vote for President Obama. They know that Willard Romney ain’t got a soul.
What do you think will happen tonight?
= new reply since forum marked as read
