The first debate saw a sunken President, that in his own words was “too polite,” and a revived Romney on the offensive for the first time in this campaign.  The Vice-Presidential debate saw Biden on the attack – but there was sense that he overdid it.  Rolling eyes and contemptuous smiles are what sometimes become the seeds of defeat.

Debates are about managing expectations, but they are also about playing to those expectations perfectly.  Can’t be too aggressive than the expectation, can’t be too passive, can’t be too disagreeable, can’t be a relentless “agreer” either.  As Al Gore found out in 2ooo,  debates are about meeting that balance of expectations.

Obama faces the worst of all situations.  He was seen as too weak, too absent in the first debate.  He must come roaring back on the attack.  But what he faces is a equal threat of going too far.  If he seems too aggressive, he will be seen like Al Gore did as too “smug” and like Biden “disrespectful.”

Then again he can’t fail to meet the lofty expectations everyone now has of his coming performance.  He needs to keep a lid on the Romney resurgence.  He needs to plug the hole in his bleeding support.

A solid debate performance is everyone’s expectation.

Romney for his part faces another dilemma.  The expectations of him after that last debate are high.  He needs to beat Obama like he did last time.  If Obama is back roaring, he needs to match it and then more.  But he can’t go too far lest he  be seen as “smug” or worse.  He needs to match and beat Obama however much as far as Obama goes and only as much as needs too.

From the NYP:

‘It’s a further lowering of expectations ahead of the first debate in Denver next week. Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse tells Fox News he thinks Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney will win.’

(…)

‘ “Mitt Romney has had a lot more time to debate, the president has not debated in the past four years in terms, of a campaign debate. I think the president will hold his own, but he’s not known for sound bites. And these are 60 second, 90 second responses.” ‘

Plausible dribble.  Now for Romney’s turn:

‘ Meanwhile, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie predicted Romney will do “extraordinarily well” in Wednesday night’s debate.

(…)

But, Christie predicted after the first debate, “this whole race is going to be turned upside down.” ‘

It is a given that I am opposed to Ron Paul, considering his naive and dangerous view of world affairs. If he were able to defend the United States I would love him for his bold stances on economic liberty and constitutionalism. Rick Santorum would seem like a solid choice – a firm and consistent conservative from the Northeast. But he has clearly demonstrated in recent weeks why he is unsuitable as a Presidential candidate (and this not even getting into his penchant for Big Government) with his off-putting bombast. Santorum doesn’t even have a message; he just says whatever he pleases. I think that this may be dancing around the real issue with Santorum, which is that, simply put, he’s unlikeable, angry and uncharismatic; the 18 point loss of his Senate seat a testament to his negative qualities. And so we’re left with the sometimes-frontrunner, the perpetually unloved Mitt Romney. His good qualities: he has a solid record as a businessman, creating jobs and turning around flailing companies. He’s a handsome family man and a GOP Governor from the third most liberal state in the Union. He says the right things and has the right connections. He’s also the weakest major party candidate in living memory. Romney’s inability to connect with, well, anybody outside of the politically minded (those for whom voting Republican is an article of faith) has been attributed to many factors, not least of which include his ever-evolving political positions, his wooden demeanor (and cringe-worthy attempts to be folksy) and his knack for saying things in the most unpopular way possible. Supposed to appeal to the centre, he is extremely disliked by women and is in the difficult position of being distrusted by the conservative wing of the GOP (those who prioritize conservatism over voting Republican) and non-GOP moderates (who just plain don’t like him). Yet like Santorum’s problems, these are all symptomatic of one larger, overarching reason that the electorate views him with such caution. One need only ask one question: why does Mitt Romney want to be President?

What vision does Mitt Romney sell? Given that he’s changed his positions throughout his life in order to suit the circumstances (and while dexterity is essential in politics, poll-chasing is anathema to most voters) it’s hard to determine his core beliefs. Does he have a burning desire to help his countrymen? I’ve yet to see any evidence of it.  No, the most compelling explanation for the Mitt Romney candidacy is that he just wants to be President. It is not an entirely negative thing, for anybody willing to put him or herself through this gauntlet must sincerely have a desire to be President. But there must be a deeper sense of purpose to a Presidential candidacy. Mitt Romney has failed to connect because nobody can get a sense of what the man stands for. What does he want to accomplish? Why should he be put in office? It is not good enough, as many Republicans have foolishly argued, to be “not-Obama”. Contrary to political reasoning, elections are never merely a referendum; they are a reasoned choice between different options.  Jimmy Carter wasn’t elected because he was a great candidate; he BARELY won the Presidency because he was seen as better than the bumbling and incompetent Ford Administration, which had succeeded the ruthless and morally bankrupt Nixon Administration. To win elections politicians must connect with voters. While appealing to the wallet may work against weak opponents, appeals to a deeper aspiration in politics will always triumph. Despite his tremendous drop in popularity, Barack Obama still has a core of very dedicated and motivated believers; the fact that his Presidency has not dipped below 40% approval shows just how dedicated his left-wing base is. Mitt Romney is a tremendous business manager, but he cannot win in November because he sees politics as merely another function of an executive position. Romney would be an excellent administrator, but a campaigner he is not, and in November he’ll be going up against one of the most skilled politicians in recent generations. Politics, it has been noted, is not merely pitting resumes against each other. It is a battle of ideas and the ability to sell them. At a time of great crisis, the message of limited government, strong national defence and traditional values is more needed than ever, and no major Republican candidate is capable of articulating the conservative position. If Republicans are serious about transforming the country they must put forward strong conservative leaders.

So where are these leaders? Has the GOP run out of men and women in the mold of Ronald Reagan? Should we sit back and accept the inevitable demise of America? Let it never be so. There is no shortage of principled conservative leadership in the USA, and the best candidate in my mind is the junior Senator from Florida, Marco Rubio. But there are plenty of other talented and articulate conservatives. There are Jeb Bushes, Mitch Daniels’ and Chris Christies. There are Bobby Jindals and Nikki Haleys. There is a new generation of conservative leadership and if the old one is not willing to step up and lead, then maybe it is time for the new one to emerge. This race cannot keep going on like this. Another candidate must step up soon or at a brokered convention (which, despite the supposed inevitability of Romney, is still a possibility). There is a growing consensus that the current field just isn’t good enough. America and conservatism have never believed in just settling, and so 2012 must be a year for thinking big. The challenges of a government that wants to destroy individual discretion in health care, that strives to design a federal education curriculum and that launches unprecedented attacks on religious liberty cannot be met with more of the same. The status quo is no longer good enough, and the choice in 2012 is between continuing the downward spiral or enacting a radical return to limited government. Nothing less will do. It may be a cliché to quote Reagan, but in 2012 we would do well to remember his words from half a century ago: “You and I have a rendez-vous with destiny. We’ll preserve and for our children this the last best hope of men on earth or we’ll sentence them to take the last step into a thousand years of darkness.” For the cause of liberty, it’s time for somebody to step up.

That brings us back to Romney, who, in succession, has trained his fire on Perry, Cain, Ginrich (multiple times), and now Santorum.   It’s as if we’ve entered a rotating series of conflicts, with foes dying and subsequently re-appearing later on to challenge Kingdom Romney.

Except that the other kingdoms are tattered countries without any gold, populated with Kings with either bad advisers or Kings with notorious “zany” tendencies.    While on the topic of Ginrich, it seems like he almost disappeared somewhere in a Florida swamp.  Santorum meanwhile, who has everything to thank to Romney for not losing in Florida (if he had he would have never given Santorum the oxygen required to take Super Tuesday ironically), seems to be floating around marveling at his conquests hurling accusations at King Romney that he rigs CPAC straw polls.

No matter.  This contest, if it isn’t decided in the coming weeks and truly does go to a convention, will go to the convention not because of the strength of the Anti-Romney vote.  It will go because of the surprising weakness of Romney.

Firstly he has been critically unable to take wins in Florida and New Hampshire and turn them in sweeps.  Secondly the results in Maine (which have been overlooked) are  telling – Romney’s support plummeted from his results in 2008.  Meanwhile Ron Paul’s numbers doubled.   This was a state where Romney took an outright majority the last time around.  He’s been reduced to barely pacifying The King of End The Fed.

King Romney is weak – but not as weak as his splintered and quarrelsome opposition.  And until that basic reality changes, I think the end result of the GOP nomination is all but abundantly clear.

Obama’s camp I’m sure already have their ammo locked and loaded.  All they need to hear is the word.

Do endorsements matter in a competitive contest like the one we’re witnessing this year within the Republican Party?  You bet they do, although the result might not always be as planned!  Take, for example, today’s surprise announcement by real estate mogul and The Apprentice star Donald Trump that he was going to be endorsing Newt Gingrich Mitt Romney.  News that The Donald’s support of Candidate Romney had all of the trademarks of practically every peep that Donald Trump has made regarding politics during the past twelve months.  The Republican-turned Independent-turned Democrat-turned Independent-turned Republican has made a public spectacle of himself by openly debating whether or not he would enter the Presidential race as either a Republican or third party candidate, all while offering blistering criticism of the GOP and its official presidential candidates (including his now-favourite, Romney!) in a fashion that is most unbecoming of a successful, decisive business leader.

Trump might believe that he is driving moderates to the cause of the GOP frontrunner but he might in fact be doing a bigger favour to the former Massachusetts governor’s opponents.  After calling out the Republicans as being more than a few things the urbane New Yorker like Trump despises in political movements, it wouldn’t be surprising to see fence-sitting Republican members who have developed many reasons over the past year to detest Trump’s holier-than-thou lecturing deciding to render Romney guilty by association, especially in a race where the conservative purity of the candidates has been a central theme of the campaign and its debates.  Saturday will be telling…