A lot of people in the media and some left-wing bloggers are starting to scratch their heads about the inability of Obama and other members of the campaign and the regime to stop talking about how badly he did in the debate. "Okay, you had a bad night. Forget it; move on. Why keep talking about it? Why keep reminding people how badly Obama did?" Ann Althouse in Michigan has an interesting theory about this, and I'll paraphrase her.Paraphrasing me all the way to Michigan.
She said, essentially, that the reason the campaign will not let go of how poorly Obama did is that they want everybody to think that's what happened. It wasn't that Romney was good; it wasn't that Romney was anything special. The reason that debate happened the way it did is because Obama had an off night. Obama was the shock and surprise. Obama was off his game. Obama was pathetic. Obama was pitiful.Here's the post, de-paraphrased. I got Rush Limbaugh's "great thinking" stamp of approval, which might get me in trouble out here in the vicinity of Lake Michigan.
You keep repeating it over and over and over again because you don't want people to realize how great Romney was. That's her theory, and I like it. It's unique. It's great thinking.
My post was also linked in James Taranto's Best of the Web today. He says:
Saying that Obama had a stinkeroo of a night is a way of avoiding the possibility that Romney is simply the better candidate.Here's the Matt Bai piece, which I haven't read yet but will.
If the remaining debates make the latter conclusion inescapable, watch lefties shift their focus to what a stinkeroo of a politician Obama turned out to be (now they tell us!). This, too, would entail a degree of wishful thinking. If Obama is undone, it will be not only because his political skills are lacking, but also because his record is poor.
And his record is poor because his ideas are bad. But as Matt Bai observes in the forthcoming issue of the New York Times magazine: "Political partisans will go to extraordinary lengths to blame the messenger rather than question the orthodoxies of their message."