The Rope-a-dope of Romney, a Second Presidential Debate Review by Michael L. Johnson

The Rope-a-dope of Romney, a Second Presidential Debate Review
by Michael L. Johnson

For those who may not know, to “Rope-a-dope” someone means “to take everything your opponent can throw and then send them canvas diving.” The term was inspired by the outstanding fighting strategy Muhammad Ali used against the then world heavyweight champion, George Foreman. President Obama's performance in last night's debate was almost the political equivalent of a Ali coming off the ropes and winning against the great George Foreman, back in the day. It was just that good.

Although Governor Romney is not as strong politically as Foreman was as a pugilist, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt as a giant-like challenger, given his performance in the first debate (and also given the racism that supports him in his corner). One thing I am sure of is that last night's debate felt a hell of a lot like a professional prize fight. Honestly, at times, I thought the two political adversaries were going to come to blows. Fortunately, that didn't happen (even though that would have made for some damn good television).

Early on, what was clear in this second debate was that President Obama came to fight, and fight he did. He looked ready from the opening bell of questions. In this second meeting, Romney didn't have a chance. In my review of the first debate, I made the point that “performance” matters, more than facts do, in presidential debates. I maintain my position, but I must add a qualifier: if knowledge of facts is a part of the performance, then facts do matter. To say that Romney's performance with regard to knowledge of facts was weak would be an understatement. At one point in the debate, the moderator, CNN's Candy Crowley, had to correct Governor Romney over facts he got wrong related to the Libya embassy attacks. He got caught, very publicly, in a lie (or at the very least, in an embarrassing ignorance). That's kind of like a referee in a prize fight giving a warning for a low blow.

In this second debate, President Obama needed no such warnings in the context of his political boxing. He came out swinging and swinging on target. Success and failure in presidential debates always comes down to who looks more “presidential.” Obama won handily in this department. In fact, in response to a question about who should or shouldn't be blamed for possible security issues related to the terrorist attacks in Libya, he actually said the words, “I am the president...they [Hillary Clinton and others in charge of U.S. International security] work for me!” He stood up, showed backbone and took responsibility for any security problems that may exist (vowing to rectify them). That's what men do. They stand up and battle back when challenged. You can't get much more emphatically presidential than that. It seemed like Romney took a few steps back from Obama after he made that passionate declaration, almost like he got hit. Simply put, President Obama tore Governor Romney a new asshole in the second debate. That said, President Obama needs to keep on swinging his intellectual combinations. The fight for the presidency is far from over.

The good (President Obama): He stood up, went toe to toe with facts, exuded strength, and looked like what you would expect of the leader of the free world. He thinks well on his feet.
The Bad: He went a too long on several questions, which made it appear as if the rules of the debate did not matter.

The good (Governor Romney): He made it a good fight.
The Bad: He was still lying his ass off, and he went woefully off-track on several questions (the stuff that SNL parodies are made for). His gaffes on foreign policy issues could not be hidden. He also went too long on several questions.

The Rating (1 to 5 where 5 is best):

President Obama: 4
Governor Romney: 2

--MLJ