Such questioning did little
other than provide a platform on which Mitt could more easily work up his own version
of a political "game change" which to Romney seems to go beyond a mere change
in strategy, but instead, literally changing into your opponent.
In addition, such bromidic querying
by Schieffer -- who typically is notoriously on-point --also led to extended
periods of mundane meandering by both Romney and Obama, a development that probably
forced some viewers into channel surfing for a fix on one of those dizzyingly
deceptive super-pac -funded
attack ad to hold them over until things got a bit livelier over at the debate
table.
But it's probably safe to
assume that since "lively" didn't entirely work out for him during the second
debate, Mitt decided to play it safe by keeping the fireworks at minimum. To do so, Mitt just needed to offer Obama no opening
to challenge him, a task Romney employed by telling voters that if elected his policies
-- on issues involving nuclear arms for Iran, managing the turmoil in Libya,
Syrian and other Arab nations, "standing" with Israel, and dealing with China
-- would pretty much mirror those of the President.
Will it work? Well again, since neither life, nor politics
is essentially fair, there's a good chance that it might. Prior to the final debate, the election was considered
largely a dead heat meaning that the shellacking Romney endured in the
second debate did little to offset the bounce
created for Mitt resulting from the shellacking he gave Obama in the first
debate.
But a general inventory of noteworthy
moments during the three debates might well start with a keyword Google of the following: Big Bird; Benghazi; binders; and bayonets,
none of which leads to a narrative which holds a positive outcome for
Romney.
Yet, despite Obama's current
positive Electoral College outlook , the race remains up for grabs.
Which means that in an unfair
world it's completely plausible for someone to win the presidency even if that
someone proposes an economic plan that's a mathematical non-sequitur; openly
promotes a tax policy tilted toward people in the same pay grade as the
candidate himself; promises to eliminate health care coverage currently
available to millions; threatens to take away a woman's right to choose; offers
no foreign policy coherency and -- with
neither remorse, nor consequence -- lies about both he and his opponent's policies and achievements.
So in light of this, if Mitt
Romney were to be elected leader of the most powerful nation on Earth, could that
result be viewed as the perverse embodiment of the biblical denouement about
the meek inheriting the earth?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).