Falling Short: Obama Again Fails to Reveal Mitt the Monster

A Commentary by

US President Barack Obama's performance in Tuesday's debate was much improved, but he continues to miss the target. Even as his campaign ads attempt to paint challenger Mitt Romney as a cold-hearted capitalist, Obama allowed Romney to present himself as Mr. Average. This opens a door of opportunity for the Republican challenger.

Photo Gallery: The Second TV Battle Photos
REUTERS

On Tuesday evening in America, there were two different Mitt Romneys on display. One Romney stood on the stage at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York for the televised debate with President Barack Obama, watched by a TV audience of 60 million. The other appeared in campaign spots both before and after the debate, in the endless attack ads that the Obama campaign has been airing for months.

The president's campaign team believe they have managed to tame the first Romney. Seldom has a sitting US president been so determined going into a campaign debate. After his debacle in the first debate in Denver, an advisor must have mustered the necessary courage to tell the most powerful man in the world that in a live debate, it doesn't hurt to show a little life.

From the first minute onwards, Obama reproached his rival for being untruthful and deceptive. He blasted the Republican candidate for promising a tax model that can't possibly work. He accused him of criticizing China even as he has been active in the country as a private investor. And he attacked him for trying to attract female voters even as he intends to treat them unfairly on the labor market.

In short, the president meticulously laid out why he believes that Willard Mitt Romney is an untrustworthy, perhaps even a brazen, politician. Obama made clear that he sees Romney as little more than average. Even conservative Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer, speaking to Fox News, said that "on points, Obama came out ahead."

But the president has a problem. The Mitt Romney that he vanquished in Hempstead has little to do with the Romney in the attack ads aired by the Democrats. In the spots, Obama's campaign team doesn't portray him as Mr. Average. Rather, he is depicted as Mr. Monster.

No Follow-up

In the ads, they indirectly accuse the Republican of having stopped at nothing when buying and selling companies as the head of Bain Capital. They accuse him of being a cynical politician who simply ignores the concerns of half of the electorate and sees nothing wrong with paying a lower tax rate than the average secretary. They portray him as a hypocrite who belts out "America the Beautiful" while bunkering his millions in tax havens around the globe.

But did Obama present this Romney on the stage in Hampstead? No, and that is his greatest failure. When Romney, worth an estimated $250 million, dodged the question as to why he thought his lower tax rate was justified, the president didn't follow up. He failed to land a blow aimed at Romney's car elevator in his beach-front home in La Jolla, California, or at the sinfully expensive dressage horse belonging to his wife Ann. He even waited until the very end to mention the secretly taped video in which Romney seems to accuse 47 percent of the American population of being lazy.

This Romney, the evil candidate from the campaign ads, was not unmasked on Tuesday night.

Whereas Obama may have won "on points," he didn't follow his campaign's plan of attack. Early on, it was clear to the president that he couldn't win re-election on the strength of his White House accomplishments alone -- his record is simply too mixed. Instead, his advisors are determined to "frame" Romney, to paint an image of him as an ice-cold capitalist who can't be trusted by average Americans.

It is a strategy that George W. Bush pursued to perfection in 2004. Even then, he was unpopular, but his Democratic challenger John Kerry couldn't capitalize because the Bush campaign was successful in painting him as a "flip-flopper."

Might Be Enough

During the campaign, Bush stayed on message, even in the debates. But Obama seems to be veering back and forth. In the first televised debate, he didn't come close to presenting Romney as Mr. Monster, in the second he did so only half-heartedly. If Obama had kept true to the kinds of attacks aired in his ads, the public would have come away wondering if Romney was indeed cold-hearted, the candidate of the 0.1 percent who would divide America.

There is plenty of room for doubt as to whether Romney would have had good answers to such an onslaught. As it was, he wobbled several times, when discussing US policy in Libya, for example. But without a constantly attacking Obama, Romney had plenty of time to accuse the president of not doing enough for economic growth and, more importantly, to present himself as being the opposite of cold. And the more often Romney can do that, the more Americans will warm up to him.

There is an historical parallel for that scenario too. In the 1980 campaign, the Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was in trouble. Gas prices were rising, the unemployment rate was on the upswing as well and US hostages were imprisoned in Iran. Nevertheless, Carter was slightly ahead in the polls until the very end because many Americans didn't trust Ronald Reagan, who Carter's campaign tirelessly portrayed as an unpredictable Cold Warrior. But in televised debates, Reagan came across as harmless, in contrast to the image Carter's ads painted. And Reagan ended up winning in a landslide.

That isn't likely to be the outcome when Americans go to the polls on Nov. 6. Obama is a stronger president than Carter was and Romney is a weaker candidate than Reagan. The margin on election night will be razor thin. Partly, that is because Romney has the easier task. He doesn't have to present himself as a new political messiah, as the second-coming of the candidate Obama. For Romney, refraining from frightening the electorate could be enough.

Article...
  • For reasons of data protection and privacy, your IP address will only be stored if you are a registered user of Facebook and you are currently logged in to the service. For more detailed information, please click on the "i" symbol.
  • Post to other social networks

Comments
Discuss this issue with other readers!
4 total posts
Show all comments
    Page 1    
1.
retarded-freak 10/17/2012
I refuse on every level to see anything serious in this two-party charade. They are like two puppets behind a light-screen hitting each other over the head.
2. Small detail - Romney is no monster
Guitta Dabe 10/19/2012
1) Obama's biggest problem is not that his record "is mixed", it's that it's awful. That's the reason why he needs to resort to calling Romney a monster. Based on Obama's record of failure, all Romney has to do is present himself as a reasonable alternative. 2) It's difficult to characterize someone as a monster when that person has been contributing 30% of his income for many years to charity. 3) In the US, calling someone "rich" is not automatically an insult. We tend to admire people who have achieved, especially if their their wealth was earned, not inherited. Romney has successfully built businesses, saved the Olympics games, and was a governor of a state that had more than 80% of its legislators from the other party (he obviously had to be effective working with his political opponents). He's not perfect, but his is an enviable record of success. 4) It is not Romney who will divide Americans as the author suggests, it is Obama who already has. He has made black people hate white people, has told hispanics that Republicans are their enemies (on Spanish radio), and has demonized a huge percentage of the electorate during the last 4 years. The list includes but is not limited to: insurance companies, doctors, bankers (difficult to remember the word without the qualifier "fat cat"), rich people (top 1%, "millionaires and billionaires", Republicans, George Bush, the whole fossil fuel sectors (yes, that does include oil, gas, and especially coal), the private sector, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular, Israel, those who criticize Islam, et. Based on this record, it's amazing that he might still win!
3.
retarded-freak 10/19/2012
Zitat von Guitta Dabe1) Obama's biggest problem is not that his record "is mixed", it's that it's awful. That's the reason why he needs to resort to calling Romney a monster. Based on Obama's record of failure, all Romney has to do is present himself as a reasonable alternative. 2) It's difficult to characterize someone as a monster when that person has been contributing 30% of his income for many years to charity. 3) In the US, calling someone "rich" is not automatically an insult. We tend to admire people who have achieved, especially if their their wealth was earned, not inherited. Romney has successfully built businesses, saved the Olympics games, and was a governor of a state that had more than 80% of its legislators from the other party (he obviously had to be effective working with his political opponents). He's not perfect, but his is an enviable record of success. 4) It is not Romney who will divide Americans as the author suggests, it is Obama who already has. He has made black people hate white people, has told hispanics that Republicans are their enemies (on Spanish radio), and has demonized a huge percentage of the electorate during the last 4 years. The list includes but is not limited to: insurance companies, doctors, bankers (difficult to remember the word without the qualifier "fat cat"), rich people (top 1%, "millionaires and billionaires", Republicans, George Bush, the whole fossil fuel sectors (yes, that does include oil, gas, and especially coal), the private sector, FoxNews, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party, Christians in general and the Catholic Church in particular, Israel, those who criticize Islam, et. Based on this record, it's amazing that he might still win!
Still, when campaigns cost too much money, it makes it seem that your qualifications for president are good business sense, when being good at business and making money do not entail good leadership. A poor person could be bad at business and only have a small savings, but have better leadership and diplomacy skills. That is the flaw of the American elections, that materialism is considered the limits of understanding and accomplishment. Hence, almost every president fails to fulfill promises that they make prior to elections, Obama as well. These institutions like the Oil Bloc and Catholic Church are not really humanitarian organizations. At one time the Catholics backed the homicidal Croatian regime and embraced Ante Pavelić, who regularly received gifts from the Ustashi of baskets filled with Serbian eyeballs that had been plucked fresh as Dalmatian oysters from innocent women and children. All of which the Catholic church was aware of. And even though Croations started the Bosnian war, we in the USA still protected them against the Serbians. Germany even armed former Ustashi members. Are we really the bad-guys in the West?
4. His real problem is reality
jas88 10/21/2012
Obama's fundamental problem here is reality. As a candidate, he could promise the earth: he had almost no track record to judge him against, yet. "He blasted the Republican candidate for promising a tax model that can't possibly work." By Obama's own figures, Romney's plan is 20% from break-even before taking office; Obama, four years on, is a long way short of that. "He accused him of criticizing China even as he has been active in the country as a private investor." Allegations of hypocrisy which are damaged when you learn Obama's own Illinois pension is also invested in China! "And he attacked him for trying to attract female voters even as he intends to treat them unfairly on the labor market." Which bit does Obama disagree with? Trying to attract female voters, or treating them unfairly - as he does, with women in his White House being paid on average substantially less than men? He won in 2008 on vague promises to be bi-partisan - then took office and greeted the Republican leaders with the words "I won, you didn't" - to cut the deficit - having called a $400b deficit "unpatriotic" on the campaign trail, before breaking the trillion dollar mark himself - to close Guantanamo ... in short, he is running against his own string of broken, empty promises, and that would be a tough fight whoever ran against him. Yes, Romney has an expensive horse - which competed for America in the Olympics this year. Yes, he pays little tax - because he gives so much money to charity instead. Romney is rich, because he is successful in business; Obama was in debt and living far beyond his means until he got his hands on the nation's finances to fund his billion-dollar indulgences, flying around in his personal 747. If there is a "monster" in this race, it isn't the one who declined the government salary and worked for free for years, giving vast amounts of his own money to charity.
Show all comments
    Page 1    
Keep track of the news

Stay informed with our free news services:

All news from SPIEGEL International
Twitter | RSS
All news from World section
RSS

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2012
All Rights Reserved
Reproduction only allowed with the permission of SPIEGELnet GmbH





European Partners
Facebook
Twitter