Romnesia

In Crooks and Liars, Karoli gave her views on Obamas speech in Virginia to the woman voters. She starts by giving kudos to Obama for his creative tactic to get the woman voters reeled in. The president led to believe Romney is sick and the disease is Romnesia. Since most of us have dealt with women we all know that women tend to put a name on everything. Examples: pet names for her significant other. This suggests that our president knew what he was doing. He appealed to our feminine side whereas just talking politics and not relating to us as a gender. Obama then goes on to tell what the symptoms are for Romensia, "If you say you’ll protect a woman’s right to choose, but you stand up at a primary debateand said that you’d be “delighted” to sign a law outlawing that right to choosein all cases– man, you’ve definitely got Romnesia.

           This was a promising blow to Romney showing Obamas versatile attacks. Karoli if being a male or female, didn't say much about the speech. For one to be a accurate writer you have to be able to engage your audience with your own work. Obama has been doing this for a long time and knows the ends and outs on how to please and how to appeal. His slogan four years ago proves that, Change! It would have been nice to hear something original from the writer and not just a two bit summary of what we already heard. He/she instead stood back and let it talk for itself, proving to be as he/she summarized Perfect Pitch!

Guerilla Tactic

After reading an opinion commentary on the first presidential debate, I was worried. A college professor named Jeremy D. Mayer commented on how flawed Obama's tactics were in the debate. He said Romney came with "articulate brief attacks and points that were largely substantive." Obama on the other hand never tried to attack Romney but used a subtle approach leaning towards his already supporters. There was question as to why didn't Obama use what Ted Kennedy said about Romney being multiple choice towards abortion. Obama could have been a power house using Romney’s contradictory statements against him such as; the 47% people, tax cuts etc. Although this seemed like an easy win debate for Obama, I believe he knew exactly what he was doing. People always say slow and steady wins the race! The author even took it as far as criticizing whoever instructed the president in making this more calm approach. Professor Mayer’s specific job is teaching Public Policy so I’m sure he knows his facts. That still raises question on where he stands in this election. I'm not sure if he's pro Obama or not. His arguments sounded more like disappointment toward Obama and not exactly excited for Romney either. His commentary sounded like he was mainly talking to the public in general. If he was in the position of being potentially re-elected, I’m sure he would agree that arguing all the time is only going to label you a bigamist. At the end of the article he did include that there were still two more debates to go and Obama could make a comeback. He added that the same could go for Romney as well. His statement was sound but it didn’t sway me on my own opinion. It however, irritated me by not understanding guerilla tactics. If one could hide and wait for the kill versus being seen and killed. I would just hide and then strike!