• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Newt Beats Down the Room (Official SC Debate Thread)

ArlingtonDeac said:
2&2 trying to convince himself that Obama is both dumb and a poor speaker on his feet is one of the more curious attempts I've seen on this board. He's neither. In fact, he's very good in both categories, and those two things are why he managed to beat a massive favorite in Hilary Clinton, then basically walk over McCain. The idea that Obama can't stand toe to toe with a guy like Newt Gingrich and sell his viewpoint is crazy. That's the guy Obama wants to face.

Anyone thinking Obama would get worked over by Gingrich hasn't been paying attention to how good Obama is at debate, and at selling his campaign message. He's excellent at staying on course. Obama never gets perturbed, which is his greatest asset in debating, and he always has a good command of his talking points. Go watch his debates again. He's fantastic at verbal sparring. Meanwhile, Gingrich, while intelligent, is quick to anger and will say just about anything when roused. Obama might be the perfect foil to exploit that.

And that's not the whole of it. The character juxtaposition would be glaring and omnipresent during any debate. The body language, patience, and demeanor juxtaposition would be overwhelmingly in Obama's favor. Watching Gingrich get more and more worked up next to an unflappable Obama would be bad for the GOP.

I doubt Gingrich's camp would even want to have their guy physically standing next to Obama for more than ten seconds at a time. The image would be bad for Gingrich--a tall, young, fit, semi-handsome, sardonically smiling Obama beside a red-faced, stumpy, fat, scowling, old man Gingrich. As silly as it is, these things matter in a presidential debate. McCain looked a thousand years old when he was debating Obama. Gingrich will look like he's one breath short of a heart attack. And since neither guy is going to go out there and flounder, these impressions would be more important than you might think.

None of the above applies to Romney, which is why Obama would prefer anyone else. It applies double to Ron Paul (minus the character issues).
Click to expand...

People have seen for the last 3 years that he is dumb, we don't need any additional evidence of that. So, he just needs someone to ask him questions for which he doesn't have canned answers.

As with any debate featuring a controversial person, your opinion of him going in is going to determine your opinion on how he performs. I think the guy is as substantively dumb as a rock, so unless he changes the content of his answers then I am going to say he sucked and was just blowing hot air. For someone who slurps his nuts, Obama can spew the same empty BS that he has since he came onto the national scene and his supporters will praise his glory.
 
Whatever you have to tell yourself to make you feel better.
 
TuffaloDeac10 said:
Dr. Paul is not fat like Newt
Click to expand...

No, but as Paul gets more and more agitated he tends to fall into serious "old man" mannerisms. He'd look more antiquated than McCain did standing next to Obama. No one gets worked into a fast-paced rambling lather like Paul does in a debate. It's the opposite of Obama's patient approach. It's entertaining as hell, but in a sideshow kind of way. To me, he doesn't exhibit the demeanor of a guy I want in charge of the country. He seems too prone to moods and tangents.

Paul and Obama would both do fine sparring on the facts, because they both have a good command of their arguments. But Paul's often wide-eyed, incredulous delivery, super-elderly appearance, tendency to ramble and bounce from point to point, and overall lack of structure would be severe detriments.

All just my opinion.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
People have seen for the last 3 years that he is dumb, we don't need any additional evidence of that. So, he just needs someone to ask him questions for which he doesn't have canned answers.

As with any debate featuring a controversial person, your opinion of him going in is going to determine your opinion on how he performs. I think the guy is as substantively dumb as a rock, so unless he changes the content of his answers then I am going to say he sucked and was just blowing hot air. For someone who slurps his nuts, Obama can spew the same empty BS that he has since he came onto the national scene and his supporters will praise his glory.
Click to expand...

To me that's just you not liking Obama, not a cogent analysis of Obama as a public speaker or debater. I don't think nearly anyone on either side of the aisle shares your opinion that Obama is dumb.
 
I think (as does Kanhoji) that Paul's performances in the debates have been steadily improving as this campaign goes on. By the time the general comes along, he might have stage presence.

I do think he'd be prone to losing his cool, like when Cain said he wants a Greenspan-type at the Fed. LOLOLOLOL that was classic.
 
Also, if he made it there, would the moderators in the debates for the general just ignore Paul for almost the whole time?
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
To me that's just you not liking Obama, not a cogent analysis of Obama as a public speaker or debater. I don't think nearly anyone on either side of the aisle shares your opinion that Obama is dumb.
Click to expand...

Its not just that 2&2 dislikes the President. He blindly hates him. To put it in board terms, Obama is to 2&@ as Bush is to bkf/rj. And he has even less ammunition to work with than bkf and rj do.
 
I actually supported W on immigration and a few other things.

Of course W was easily one of the five worst POTUS by his actions. He did do the one thing that no POTUS should ever do-send US heroes to die based on intentgional lies. That is unforgivable.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Because he's the only one on the board who ever agrees with you?
Click to expand...

No, because he has more than a scintilla of objectivity of which you absolutely have none. At least politically speaking, shoo. Jmho
 
DeaconSig said:
Its not just that 2&2 dislikes the President. He blindly hates him. To put it in board terms, Obama is to 2&@ as Bush is to bkf/rj. And he has even less ammunition to work with than bkf and rj do.
Click to expand...

I don't blindly hate him, I think he is a nice guy who means well, I like his appreciation for sports, and I think he is a fantastic scripted public speaker / political salesman. I think he would probably be someone I would be friends with if I knew him in a social setting. However, I think his domestic policy ideas (or the ideas of whoever it is who is feeding him) are for the most part completely idiotic, bass ackwards, lacking in substance, and undercut many of the basic foundations of our country.
 
DeaconSig said:
Its not just that 2&2 dislikes the President. He blindly hates him. To put it in board terms, Obama is to 2&@ as Bush is to bkf/rj. And he has even less ammunition to work with than bkf and rj do.
Click to expand...

I voted for Barack and still give him tepid support. But I have grown weary of his speeches. I hardly stop and listen anymore. I read the Times and the Journal to hear what he has to say and view differing takes...but the thrill is gone. You can come at it from the different ends of the liberal spectrum...from the staid Erskine Bowles to the outspoken Matt Damon...lots of disappointment out there.
 
ArlingtonDeac said:
To me that's just you not liking Obama, not a cogent analysis of Obama as a public speaker or debater. I don't think nearly anyone on either side of the aisle shares your opinion that Obama is dumb.
Click to expand...

I think his content sucks and panders to the general stupidity of the American public. When I am evaluating someone in a debate setting, I am evaluating their content, not their delivery. The objective of the delivery is to convince the listener of the content. He can slide it out there like Jimmy Swaggart or fumble it out there like Stuttering John, but if the content sucks then my opinion is that he sucks. It is his job as a debater to make it appear as if the content does not suck, and he has never done that for me. He has never once convinced me that any of his proposals make sense in one of his speeches or debates (other than Osama after the fact).
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I think his content sucks and panders to the general stupidity of the American public. When I am evaluating someone in a debate setting, I am evaluating their content, not their delivery. The objective of the delivery is to convince the listener of the content. He can slide it out there like Jimmy Swaggart or fumble it out there like Stuttering John, but if the content sucks then my opinion is that he sucks. It is his job as a debater to make it appear as if the content does not suck, and he has never done that for me. He has never once convinced me that any of his proposals make sense in one of his speeches or debates (other than Osama after the fact).
Click to expand...

LOL. Credibility on this topic shot. Moving on.
 
Shooshmoo said:
2&2, do you think you're smarter than Obama?
Click to expand...

insert Morgan Freeman voice over and begin:

"I think what people are coming to is that there is a very real difference in someone's being "smart" as compared to someone's being "wise".

But not Andy Dufrene...
 
Gingrich has tapped into a deep frustration that many Americans have with the mainstream media. He seems to be converting this frustration into votes. Remarkable turn of events last night.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top