Romney's debate trifecta
The presidential campaign, hitherto tedious beyond words, began to dance in Denver. There a masterfully prepared Mitt Romney completed a trifecta of tasks and unveiled an issue that, because it illustrates contemporary liberalism's repellent essence, can constitute his campaign's closing argument.
Barack Obama, knight of the peevish countenance, illustrated William F. Buckley's axiom that liberals who celebrate tolerance of other views always seem amazed that there are other views. Obama seemed uncomfortable with a format that allowed fluidity of discourse.
His vanity — remember, he gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod whose menu included two of his speeches — perhaps blinds him to the need to prepare. And to the fact that it is not lese-majeste to require him to defend his campaign ads' dubious assertions. And to the ample evidence that his supposed rhetorical gifts are figments of acolytes' imaginations.
Romney was lucky that the first debate concerned the economy. The topic helped Romney accomplish three things.
First, recent polls showing him losing were on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophesies by discouraging his supporters and inspiriting Obama's. Romney, unleashing his inner wonk about economic matters, probably stabilized public opinion and prevented a rush to judgment as early voting accelerates.
Second, Romney needed to be seen tutoring Obama on such elementary distinctions as that between reducing tax rates and reducing revenues, revenues being a function of economic growth, which the rate reductions could stimulate.
Third, Romney needed to rivet the attention of the electorate on this choice:
America can be the society it was when it had a spring in its step, a society in which markets — the voluntary collaboration of creative individuals — allocate opportunity. Or America can remain today's depressed and anxious society of unprecedented stagnation in the fourth year of a faux recovery — a bleak society in which government incompetently allocates resources in pursuit of its perishable certitudes and on behalf of the politically connected.
Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to ObamaCare's creation of “an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of (medical) treatment you ought to have,” Obama said, “No, it isn't.” Oh?
The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism's itch to remove choices from individuals and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability.
Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by Congress by Aug. 15 of each year. If Congress does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB's proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by Congress. Without being signed by the president.
These facts refute Obama's Denver assurance that IPAB “can't make decisions about what treatments are given.” It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals.
Before Denver, Obama's campaign was a protracted exercise in excuse abuse and the promise that he will stay on the statist course he doggedly defends despite evidence of its futility. After Denver, Romney's campaign should advertise that promise.
George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post and Newsweek.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- LaBar: Hulk Hogan wants to fight Brock Lesnar?
- Pirates’ Axford overcame long odds to reach majors
- Rossi: Time with Penguins taught Bylsma importance of stability
- New Kensington slaying victims identified
- Century-old rivalry ending this season with Kittanning, Ford City meeting one last time
- Led by top QB, South Fayette offense among WPIAL’s all-time best
- Starkey: Stupid Steelers
- Tuition pays for this?
- Kiss’ makeup has changed, but their impact remains strong
- Steelers notebook: Keisel dresses, but doesn’t play
- Will soft foes mean fast start to the season for Pitt football team?