Friday, 05 October 2012 17:41

Obama Did Fairly Well in the First Debate

"Sandra Fluke called Obama after the debate last night to see if he was alright." (Greg Gutfeld on "the Five," describing how badly he believed Obama was beaten in the debate; 10-4, 12)

In the first presidential debate of 2012, Barack Obama found himself in a situation that he puts out every effort to dodge: where someone is able to confront him regarding his claims and actions, where he does not have specific questions but only general ones. This was a rare situation for him, and his facial expressions and overall demeanor showed he would rather have had someone give him forty whacks with a steel rod than have been there.

Obama’s narcissistic nature—which is a psychosis—that has been on full display for the last four years showed itself even moreso last night. One narcissistic trait is fear of situations where the narcissist might be challenged. Narcissists lust to have their views and themselves affirmed—they crave attention and are extremely self-centered. They loathe the idea of having to prove themselves; they are not stupid people. They are naturally manipulative and deceitful—hence the constant stream of lies and distortions that Obama has drowned the nation with the last four years.

 

Narcissists do not suffer well someone confronting them, because their sickened minds will not allow them to face themselves—to look at who they truly are, to face their many mistakes (and they make plenty). They therefore automatically stoop to blaming other people and various things and events for their failures—hence four years of Obama blaming Bush, tidal waves, kiosks and ATM machines (for killing jobs), the crisis in Europe, hurricanes, earthquakes, Congress, the lack of health insurance (which was supposedly causing consumer prices to go up), the Gulf Oil Spill, the Tea Party, futures speculators (who were causing gas prices to run up), the rich (who won’t pay their fair share, though 2% already pay more than 70% of all federal taxes collected), supply chain disruption in Japan, greedy bankers (first for making wild and crazy loans, then for being stingy and not making loans), Wall St., and an anti-Muslim video (that caused the entire Muslim world to erupt rather than Obama’s policies) for his failures.

When someone does confront narcissists, they tend to stammer, their thoughts become disjointed, and they get visibly agitated. We saw flecks and flakes of each of these in Barack Obama last night—but he managed to keep from coming completely apart. That’s why I say he did fairly well in the first debate, because knowing his personality, I did not expect him to do well at all in this type of setting.

As deep as Obama’s narcissistic psychosis is, if Mittens had realized what kind of personality he was dealing with (and I don’t think he does), he could have taken him out. Oh, Mitt had Obama on the ropes during most of the encounter, and it was easy to see that he knew it—he just could not put him on the mat and finish him.

Had Mittens done so the American people would have been sadly surprised and finally enlightened at the person they have put in charge of their nation—the person the media have built into a model genius and that the Democrat Party has built into another one of their little gods.

Along with his narcissistic personality, Obama has a superiority complex combined with a huge ego, which makes him super-sensitive to criticism and face offs. He loves monologue—not dialogue. He wants someone to pet him—not confront him. He lusts for approval—not disaproval.

To Obama, having to explain himself in any way is demeaning. After all, his superiority complex forces him to look at everyone else as his inferior. Indeed, just the idea that someone has the audacity to question him is like driving a hot needle into his eye—much less someone actually doing it.

Mittens has two more chances to put Obama out of contention—and I do mean it is very possible to do so, because Obama is the softest psychological target I have ever seen.

At this point, Mittens has complete control of the issues—and how to take them to Obama to show how he has failed. Now, he must master the art of jabbing at a blatant narcissist—whose ego defies description.

Here is how we here scored the debate:

Humor: MR 4 — BO 0

Style, Confidence, Coolness: MR 19 — BO 4 

Leadership: MR 10 — BO 0

Vision: MR 10 — BO 0

Policies: MR 4 — BO 0

Points/Counterpoints: MR 18 — BO 4

Quick Thinking: MR 14 — BO 2

Result: MR 80 — BO 10

CNN showed a record win for Mitt Romney: 62-25—a 47 point advantage.

I say that Romney did extremely well considering that his campaign allowed him to go behind enemy lines with Jim Lehrer—a well-known statist—the sole moderator. His team should have argued for two moderators, one who was at least not a pure statist.

Lehrer purposely prompted Obama with subjects at least three times when he was manifestly having trouble coming up with something to say—by butting in on Obama to remind him that "you need revenue and cuts in spending to reduce the deficit."

Obama came out of his coma and said, Yes you do. But he (Romney) says he won’t raise revenues.

Romney explains that, No, I’m not going to raise revenues by raising taxes. I’m going to cut tax rates across the board, but I’m going to cut deductions on high income earners because they’re doing well in this economy and that will equal out. And he specifies: he will give high-earners a bucket to place $17-$20 thousand dollars worth of deductions in, excluding charitable, and that’s it.

Obama then begins to stammer again—lost—and Lehrer cuts in and says, "Mr. President, you’re saying that in order to close the deficit there has to be balance."

Obama responds by saying, Yes, that’s right. There has to be balance.

Moreover, Romney went into the debate demonized as a boob, a cold-hearted ogre, and had to overcome that. The pressure was all on his back. That’s what the Democrats do to their opponents.

But it’s often a problem for them, for then a candidate simply has to stand on the stage without falling—and he can pass the stink test, because heartless hyaenas that they are, they demonize their opponents to such a high degree that Satan himself cannot live up to such evil.

Indeed, Mittens did extremely well—considering.

For the truth: Tilly Rae Frederick

Important Note: All the way up to the next debate, expect the Liarcrats to try to convince the American people that they did not see what they saw in the first debate. Expect them to distort economic data, lie about what Romney has said and done—and anything else to misdirect the people’s eyes away from Obama—the failure, the liar, the distorter, the buffoon without a teleprompter.

Immediately after the debate, you could not find a leftist spinmeister—they were trying to figure out just how they could spin the debate to make Obama look sane. It took them a day, but they made their decision: tell the American people that Romney lied. And so, that’s what they’re doing. (I won’t dare go into all the excuses they made for their little god—they are too fantastic. They do show, however, what a low view they have of the American people to think they would believe the ludicrous lies they’ve told already to defend him.)

Don’t you believe that Romney lied. We monitored several shows on Current TV, the new Communist Network, and they all said the same thing: Romney lied. Well, even if he—and he did not!—why didn’t their little god correct him?

As example of what they’re doing, I suppose Jennifer Granholm (x-governor of Michigan), the lady who lied at the Dums’ Convention, one of which was that manufacturing is back (when in fact manufacturing crashed four months before she made that claim), was the worst of the lot. She claimed that Romney told six whoppers in the debate. This is—now remember—supposed to misdirect the American people from the fact that their president can’t talk without a teleprompter.

Out of the six claims she made, she lied about three of them and distorted the other three. One she distorted what Romney said and lied about that too. That was the one where Romney said you can’t take a "business expense for exporting jobs abroad." Granholm claimed he said "exporting business plants abroad," and then, I suppose because she could not find an accountant to back her up and because there is no such allowance in the IRS codes, she found a mysterious letter that roughly said expenses for moving a business are allowable. (I understand that of the six she lied about and distorted, even she’s backed off of this one.)

I have covered this one before—the Dums’ claim that Romney plans on cutting taxes for the rich yet wants to raise taxes on the other 95% of the people—especially the poor. Hell, poor people don’t pay income taxes; how can he raise taxes on them? It’s nuts, right. But some people do believe this falderal. 

They come up with this one from a study by a leftist think tank which claims that because Romney cuts taxes so much on the rich—that will force him to raise taxes on the rest of the people. This is a classic forced non sequitur, which is when the premisses won’t come to the conclusion you wish them to, force in your own conclusion.

As noted previously, the fact is, Romney’s tax plan has not altered: he says he’ll cut tax rates by 20% across the board. Then cut out a lot of the deductions for high earners—not the poor and the Middle Class. And he’ll cut business taxes to 25%—also doing away with some deductions. Absolutely no plan to "raise taxes on the Middle Class," as the Liarcrats claim. His plan is meant to clean up the tax code—and make it more simple.

Granholm also continues to beat home the lie that Romney has not shown his income taxes—which he has. We know that because we are informed—but don’t forget this: the majority of the American people watch ABC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, PBS, and listen to NPR—so they don’t know the truth about much of anything, because these are propaganda outlets for the Left, and especially Obama and his thugs.

So beware!! The lies and distortions will flood the papers and airwaves over the next few weeks. Don’t let the Liarcrats deceive you and misdirect you from looking directly at the Narcissist in Charge. He is without a doubt the most dangerous president this nation has ever had.

 

Share on Myspace