The Right Opinion
It's Important to Understand Why Romney Won
Understanding why Mitt Romney so decisively won the first presidential debate is as important as the fact that he did. Why? Because once we know the reasons, almost everything about President Barack Obama and this election becomes clear.
First, Obama lost because he, like virtually the entire left, lives in a left-wing bubble.
Left-wing academics live in this bubble. There is no greater uniformity of thought than at our universities; their much-ballyhooed commitment to diversity is about race and ethnicity, not about ideas.
So, too, the great majority of news media people live in the same bubble, the left-wing herd that covers national and international news. Reading The New York Times, The Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times or Le Monde or listening to the BBC is essentially reading or listening to the same selection and presentation of the news.
One reason leftists talk to, read and listen to only fellow leftists is that they are certain that there is no other way to think rationally, compassionately or morally. Therefore, there is no reason to debate conservatives, let alone expose oneself to their ideas.
Obama is a man of the left. Leftism is his Weltanschauung, his value system, his way of understanding the world. Every one of the president's mentors whom we know about was a leftist, usually a radical leftist. The church he was married in and the pastor he adored were leftist. His work -- "community organizer" -- was left-wing work.
When you live in a bubble -- be it religious or political -- you cannot successfully debate opposing views. You're not even familiar with what those opposing views are. This debate was the first time in Obama's presidency -- if not his life -- that he had to defend the policies he believes in against an articulate conservative.
He couldn't.
The second reason for his defeat was that Obama lacked two things that have been essential to his popularity for the past four years.
One was a teleprompter. Most people would sound articulate if they could rely on teleprompters to speak words they and/or others wrote. But there were no teleprompters last Wednesday night.
Were a Republican president as dependent on a teleprompter as this president has been, the media constantly would report -- and mock -- the fact.
Which brings us to the news media's protection, the other thing the president was deprived of at the debate.
In the increasingly inglorious history of the mainstream (i.e., liberal) media, nothing has matched their four-year protection of this president. To cite but one of countless examples, when President George W. Bush signed the Patriot Act and incarcerated terror suspects at Guantanamo, the press was relentless in its attacks on him for allegedly undermining civil liberties. When Obama extended the Patriot Act and kept terror suspects in Guantanamo, the press was virtually silent.
A third reason for the Romney victory was the debate format. Moderator Jim Lehrer and new guidelines allowed the debaters to actually debate. The reason the liberal media have been so contemptuous of Lehrer is that, perhaps for the first time in the history of modern American presidential debates, the moderator did not attempt to dominate the proceedings. And what the left cannot control it fears.
According to Reuters, Obama spoke a full four minutes more than Romney did. But because Lehrer allowed Romney to actually respond to Obama, Romney didn't need any more time than he took.
Obama also lost because he is not intellectually deep. He is extremely bright. But he is not intellectually deep. If you read, rather than only listen to, any of his speeches -- from Berlin and Cairo until today -- you will discover how essentially empty they are. But because he never is challenged and because he delivers his largely nice-sounding vapidities so smoothly and authoritatively, many Americans are fooled.
He could not get away with this in the first debate. And though Obama surely will be much feistier and more aggressive in his second debate, if Romney is allowed to respond and challenge as he was in the first debate -- very possibly a big if -- there is no reason to believe that he will get away with his platitudes then, either.
Finally, Romney won because he understands how the economy works much better than Obama does -- and because he understands what America stands for much better than the president does.
The great unknown is whether enough Americans will come to realize all this by Election Day.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

10 Comments
Capt. Call in New Mexico
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 10:51 AM
Yes! Hang in there, Mitt! Do not give this Presidential fraud an inch! Close the toy box lid on Obama and send him to Kenya where he belongs!
Barry Payne in Merritt Island, Fl
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 11:39 AM
Both Parties live in a bubble. In the end Romney's plan puts us trillions further in debt during his term. Romney's passion and preparation in presenting his plan to not balance the budget was much better the Obama's.
Romney won because the bar is so low.
McGoo in The Villages FL
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 11:55 AM
Barry. You weren't listening to Romney or don't want to hear the truth. His plan designed to get the economy moving again by lowering taxes, not tax revenues, which will eventually lower the debt.
John Q Citizen in Colorado
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 12:20 PM
"A third reason for the Romney victory was the debate format....... the moderator did not attempt to dominate the proceedings. And what the left cannot control it fears." Not only it fears what it can not control, it hates it as well.
JAC in Texas
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 1:39 PM
You can bet the Democrats will do a much better job of coaching the moderator this time and in selecting the questions. Notice how they're roundly criticizing Lehrer because he wasn't able to bail out Obozo. Lehrer made the mistake of asking solid, open-ended questions, then (horrors!) letting Romney answer them. Obozo, on the other hand, didn't feel the need to prepare because he expected the usual fawning treatment he usually gets. Believing his own and the press' hype, he thought by just showing up he would destroy Romney. He has no idea how to answer a tough question, because he's never had to. I'm willing to bet the dems will try and ensure this doesn't happen again--the questions will be geared toward Obozo's canned responses, and Romney won't get the same leeway to respond. I also assume Obozo will get the questions in advance, anyway.
Abu Nudnik in Toronto
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 1:40 PM
I note at the CPUSA that the Communist Party has endorsed President Obama. I guess they're not running their own - oh wait - never mind.
When has a Communist Party ever backed a "mainstream" party? Only once: 2008.
Marilyn Spooner in Murrieta, CA
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 1:53 PM
Dennis is correct in ALL of his observations. Obama cannot win this next election. Much of the media should be fired, as they do not report the actual facts...........mostly innuendoes.
Bob in San Antonio
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 5:03 PM
Oh the joy of watching a solid, thoughtful, coherent and mature person square off with a petulant lefty dunderhead. I pray that Mr. Ryan, without getting too wonkish, can express himself equally effectively against the Vice Dunderhead.
Orf in Pennsylvania
Tuesday, October 9, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Dennis Prager said Obama is "...extremely bright. But he is not intellectually deep." How in hell can Prager say this? What bizarre criteria can he have to label Obozo as bright? He is a narrow-minded, obtuse moron who isn't fit to be a garbage collector. This is as bad as those conservatives he claim Obozo is likeable. He is repulsive, arrogant, ignorant, and morally obtuse.
KarenS in Tujunga
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:36 AM
I thought the same thing: how can someone lack intellectual depth yet be considered extremely bright?