[Vision2020] Brenda Peterson: "Why Romney Lost the Debate with Women: It's Not a Prizefight"

Fri Oct 5 17:52:37 PDT 2012

30% or so thought Obama won the debate.  An empty chair would have probably garnered just a bit less by default.  On the flip side 17% of registered voters think Obama is a muslim.  Romney won on image alone.  He looked presidential and he was aggressive which is what stuck with most people watching the debate - some people are just influenced more on visual appearance than by analytical statistics.  Obama's handlers have already stated that they would change up their strategy.  Romney's handlers will also probably change things up as well in the next debate and I'm guessing he'll not be lying so much in the second round.

Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2012 14:21:45 -0700
From: starbliss at gmail.com
To: vision2020 at moscow.com
Subject: [Vision2020] Brenda Peterson: "Why Romney Lost the Debate with	Women: It's Not a Prizefight"

While many proclaim Romney won the presidential debate, I did not think so, based on making fact based logical arguments as a criterion for winning.  Many of Romney's so called facts were false, which to my mind totally discredits the arguments resulting.  Obama also stretched the truth on some issues, as the second source here indicates: "Romney’s Successful Debate Plan: Lying": http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/romneys-successful-debate-plan-lying.html  "Obama vs. Romney Presidential Debate Fact-Check: Who Lied?" http://current.com/community/93919215_obama-vs-romney-presidential-debate-fact-check-who-lied.htm

I thought this analysis pasted in below regarding why Romney's combative debate posture might have negatively impacted female voters put into words why I did not think Romney won, though I would not exactly say Obama won either.  There was no winner.  Everyone loses with a so called debate of this limited intellectual depth and integrity, with the debaters talking past each other to score points with the public.  As the article proclaims "This was a sports event, not an exchange of ideas affecting us 
all deeply."  Note how many of those in the media, all men, proclaiming Romney won, described the event as though it was a fight.  Give me a break!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brenda-peterson/mitt-romney_b_1940508.html

												Why Romney Lost the Debate with Women: It's Not a Prizefight

						Posted: 10/04/2012  5:25 pm

Brenda Peterson

As the blogosphere proclaims Governor Romney the winner of the first 
debate, I believe that he actually lost stature and huge points with 
women -- and the already considerable gender gap will widen even more. 
Romney's masculine skills were on full display, but his feminine skills 
were sorely lacking.

The pundits loudly credit Romney for his combative style, his 
aggressive, in-your-face energy and his hyper-attack mode. They applaud 
these debate tactics as if this was not a presidential debate, but a 
bloody prizefight. In fact, the September issue of The Atlantic magazine ran a cover story, "Slugfest: Obama vs. Romney."
  On the cover, Romney and Obama jab in prizefighter gear: Slugging it 
out, sweat flying, Romney lands a knockout punch to President Obama's 
jaw. Is this what our uncivil union has come to -- a prizefight?

This prizefight metaphor was also much in display in the pre-debate 
coverage. As I switched between MSNBC, CNN and FOX, the debate was 
framed as two candidates stepping into the Big Ring for a political 
brawl. And when it was over, the pundits, mostly white males, proclaimed
 Romney's "big win." But there is always a her-story behind the 
his-story. And this was evident in the feminine response. 

The women I spoke with who watched the debate were dismayed by 
Romney's rude interruptions, his high-handed dismissal of the venerable 
PBS moderator, Jim Lehrer, his turning away from the audience -- who 
should be his primary focus -- to fix his feisty attention all on 
President Obama. While Obama calmly addressed the audience and moderator
 and the world audience, Romney was riveted on Obama as if he were the 
only person in the room. This is the way a predator focuses on prey. 
It's not the behavior of someone seeking to serve and heal a country 
divided. This was a sports event, not an exchange of ideas affecting us 
all deeply.

Romney's fervent goal of seizing the presidency was evident in his 
body language, his snobbish smirks, his false sympathy for those of us 
"crushed" in the middle class -- those 47 percent he so contemptuously 
dismissed when he was among his rich cronies. Romney's combative 
dogfight stance may impress men or those who have held power so long 
they assume it belongs to them. But women, or anyone who has been in an 
underclass or faced racism, read this behavior as arrogant and overly 
aggressive -- the language and habit of dominance.

We've had bosses, fathers, boyfriends and co-workers like Romney who 
invade our space, try to dominate every discussion and see every 
encounter as a chance to "win," rather than dialogue. It's the old 
patriarchal model that women have endured for way too long. And we can 
end its reign. How many women would choose to go to a prizefight over a 
community meeting to solve real, difficult issues that affect our lives?
 How many women prefer a president who is considerate, calm and 
thoughtful as opposed to an aggressor who is intent on seizing the 
prize-- whether that's a person or a country? 

Romney's pugilism may play well to pundits' ringside. But many women 
are weary of angry, entitled white men controlling our bodies and our 
workplaces. The prizefight is not our focus. Our future is. We can 
choose to continue supporting a president who was raised by a strong, 
thoughtful mother. She taught him to listen, to dialogue, to be gracious
 and always consider the people he serves. Romney is perfect as a 
corporate raider and billionaire. For that he needs to be fighting for a
 prize, to be relentless, pushy, compassionless and feverishly ambitious
 to get to the top. To qualify for a job as the leader of this country, 
he must learn to listen, to share his wealth, to practice diplomacy and 
most of all to be steady and calm when making world-altering decisions. 
Pugnacious pugilist? Yes. But Presidential? No. 

We already have a president who has distinguished himself by using 
both his masculine strengths -- respected Commander-in-chief, firm 
foreign policy, steadily dismantling of Al Qaeda and finally killing bin
 Laden -- and his feminine skills -- diplomacy, cooperation, seeking 
equal footing and health care for all, especially our children.

As we look toward the next debates we can ask for more than a 
prizefight. We need respectful debates of ideas. Remember, the 
definitions of "debate" according to dictionary.com includes:

3. deliberation, consideration

4. archaic. Strife; contention

In the first debate, we've chosen to applaud the patriarchal, 
old-style, "archaic strife and contention." That prizefight is over. Now
 can we please focus on the  "deliberation and consideration?" Because 
our country doesn't need a prizefighter. We need a president. And we all
 win with a civil discourse, a civil union.

Brenda Peterson is the author of 17 books, including Duck and Cover, a New York Times "Notable Book of the Year" and I Want to Be Left Behind, which was named as a "Top Ten Best Non-Fiction Book of the Year" by The Christian Science Monitor. Her journalism has appeared in The New York Times, Utne Reader, and Oprah Magazine. Her new book is The Drowning World. For more: www.BrendaPetersonBooks.com
------------------------------------------
Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett

=======================================================
 List services made available by First Step Internet,
 serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
               http://www.fsr.net
          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
======================================================= 		 	   		  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20121005/43d41eff/attachment.html>