As IF Times

link Romney energizes campaign with feisty debate performance | Fox News.

By now, the media is all a-twitter about the big collapse.  No, not the Ryder Cup, that’s another story.  We’re referring of course to last evening’s first Presidential debate.  As we skim through the expected comments by pundits in the aftermath of the great debate, the most striking tone that emerges is the surprise at how well Mitt did versus the relatively flat performance of Barack.

This is amusing because Romney did not do anything different than he has been over this entire campaign and really, since he started public life.  It has been the reporting of it and the perception that has been exposed.   There were no surprise policy positions offered at the debate, nothing that hadn’t been pooh-poohed by the media for months.  For anyone who has been paying attention to the content and not the editorials of his positions, what he offered has been there for everyone to consider for at least the past year.

What changed was the stark juxtaposition of Romney’s pragmatic positions versus the ideological ramblings of Obama’s, laid bare for everyone to see, stripped of spin or embellishment.  It’s akin to the old chestnut about how the young man at 25 years of age, is amazed at how smart his once clueless father became over the past 10 years of their lives.

What I find truly amusing, actually alarming, are the comments by the so-called independents who admitted to being swayed by last night’s debate.  It truly illustrates the shallowness of most of the voting public.  It also shows the residual power and influence of the general media which, though subtle can greatly influence opinions by steadily offering a concocted version of events.

Despite inarguably having the greatest access to education and information in the history of mankind, the ability of people to think independently is overwhelmed by an American Idol culture in which groupthink is rampant.  Many people think that popularity equals legitimacy.  It is a particularly unique trait of humans to do things that are actually detrimental to their own survival, something that you would never observe in the animal world, with the obvious exception of lemmings.

Conservatives shouldn’t take too much joy in last night’s debates as far as swaying the hard core liberals.  We know that even if the liberal candidate were found to have bodies stuffed in a freezer in his house, he’d still get the liberal vote. In the 2010 elections, Californians had the choice of candidate A, a person with renowned business skills who ran a multi-billion dollar enterprise employing thousands and who spent their own money on their campaign; versus candidate B.  This candidate was a relic from the past who essentially had no plan but was a darling of the entertainment community.  Californians were faced with crippling debt loads, massive flight from the state because of taxes and regulation and in dire need of proven fiscal management expertise.  Sure enough, the B team won.

link Obama Promises He Will Win Virginia and the Election.

Those that care for this kind of thing will note that the media are ratcheting up for this year’s pivotal U.S. elections.  Accusations and claims upon the character of the respective protagonists are fired like bullets at a Palestinian wedding, which means randomly in the air and mostly harmless. Nevertheless, political spin-meisters from both sides are feverishly attacking each other in a political fight to the death.   The classic barbs are expectedly thrown; liar, cheater, stupid and of course corrupt.  Clearly there are no Marquess of Queensberry rules governing political scuffles.  But calling a politician a liar is pretty lame these days, it would be like calling Michael Moore a slob, it really has no shock value.

There is a lot at stake in this election; it is not a simple Coke vs Pepsi issue of personal preferences.  In the case of the election, choosing one over the other does say much about the value system  of the voter.  As is the case with professional sports teams, fans will be loyal to their side (mostly) regardless of how badly their team fares.  Tribalism is a strong human urge and manifestations of this via sports of all stripes are obvious for all to observe.  I mean seriously, what rational person can be a Leafs fan?  Politics is the same thing.  In the U.S. case, it’s not only about tribal associations, it’s also about money.  Both sides of the political divide will have their die hard adherents.  Regardless of actual performance records, the rabid supporters will champion their side despite any evidence of logic to do so, even to the point of their own negative self interest.  We would not find this in the animal world.  In the animal world, we don’t have the variable of money which can strangely pervert human activity.  So both sides of the political spectrum will have their hard wired supporters.

That leaves the group which the media refers to as, “the independents” , those that have no formal party or ideological affiliation.  This is a myth.  It is impossible not to have an established set of values  based on one’s personal life circumstances.  One cannot be ambivalent about issues concerning personal freedom and self determination, social responsibility, free markets and ability to progress in life.  The linked article describes that Obama promises to win the election.  Of course anything is possible.  His base will certainly be loyal.  But if the “independents” are to be counted upon to support him, we can only conclude that there must be parts of the country which don’t have access to current news.

On the one side, we have a guy who has successfully built up his life and the lives of hundreds of employees via job creation, has held public office and successfully run an Olympics, both without pay and who has experience in running and administering complex businesses.  He is for self determination and the reduction in the scope of government intrusion in people’s lives.  On the other side is a guy who has a murky past, whose supporters are peppered with felons, has never held a job in the private sector and has always nursed at the public teat.  He also nakedly endorses  the philosophy of governments being actively involved in peoples’ lives including what to eat.  If this stark choice between the candidates is a difficult one for the “independents”, we really are in trouble.

While it may have been fashionable to vote for the exotic guy 4 years ago, the passage of time since has shown that like the character Chauncey Gardner in the 1979 film “Being There”, there is no substance to the soaring rhetoric that mesmerized people back then.  Aside from political spin, there have been no achievements, none, made during his term in office which can be pointed to as advancing the plight of the American people.  Quite the contrary;  by any measure, economic, social, legal, international affairs, it has been a dismal and catastrophic 4 years.  So when the President promises that he will win the upcoming election, he is either pathologically delusional or believes the electorate is.