2011 (1)
2016 (1035)
2017 (752)
2018 (978)
2019 (385)
2020 (175)
2021 (235)
2022 (101)
2023 (983)
奥巴马总统是最聪明的人之一，他知道他在做什么，只是我昨晚看电视辩论不知道 。他似乎采取非常谨慎的行动：不愿面对直言的政治对手，敏感平衡侵略与合理。他说，选择作为一个 underdog ，这反映了他一生的选择。他最早的决定选择与黑人一边。选择作为最后一分钟的候选人是他赢得了哈佛法律评论 “ 主编的位置。这些例子很多 , 我无法得到答案。我发现下面互联网，大开眼界：
劳伦斯 B.“ 这可不是闹着玩的。错误的罗姆尼，在错误的地方在错误的一天可能意味着一场新的战争在中东或更糟糕的事情。
我们只是不能有一个多重性格的总统。 “
珍妮特 · 埃林森： “ 罗姆尼的大量的口头攻击的真相之前，全国观众是我的耳朵已经忍受了几十年来最糟糕的事情之一，我感觉自己几乎脏曾参与。谁知道那些什么都不懂的目的是玩世不恭。但我们有很多人知道谁真的赢了，失去了。 “
“ 支持奥巴马总统的表现，不是一个失败的昨晚。我们都希望，他说了这样或那样的，但他说的是诚实的和一致的。我仍然极大地为他感到骄傲。
不过，我认识到，我们每个人都听到和看到的完全取决于我们的偏见。我怀疑任何人被说服改变他或她将如何投票。
我认为，共和党应该是很沮丧的罗姆尼说什么。他们甚至听吗？或他们简直太兴奋，他的有力的风度听到的话吗？例如，米特 • 罗姆尼（ Mitt Romney ）给 Romneycare 证明他是能影响社会的立法与民主党。这是兰德 · 保罗希望从他的总统吗？兰德突然妥协，民主党在参议院占多数呢？罗姆尼要么不知道他的政党或他说谎了。 “
约翰 · 麦克布莱德：
“ 米特 · 罗姆尼和共和党所关注的并非事实。
他们只是想运行的政府。自二战以来，他们已经完善了科学的获胜。昨晚教科书穆雷 Chotiner ： “... 你必须确定你的对手，从来没有让他定义一下。如果他这样做，你通过 ... 然后，你发现你的对手的弱点 ... 移动，打难当 - 也不会停止 ... 永不放弃的选民超过他们可以处理。他们有自己的生活。大多数人无法吸收运动过程中的两个或三个以上的问题。 .. 限制你的主题 ... 送他们回家。 “
许多独立选民情绪做出决定。
总统竞选是一个真正的公开招聘过程。担任总统的人必须善于推销自己。
谁明白 ? 公民是这个国家的 “ 员工 ” 昨天晚上，美国总统没有表现出他完全明白，这不只是关于他的。这是关于我们所有的人。
· 奥巴马清理了他继承的烂摊子吗？ 保罗 · 克鲁格曼 2012 年 09 月 10 日
克林顿这样调侃共和党不让奥巴马连任的理由： “ 我们留给他一个烂摊子，他清理烂摊子的速度不够快。 ” 那么，烂摊子真的在得到清理吗？
· 罗姆尼山寨罗斯福不靠谱 罗斯 · 多塞特 2012 年 09 月 05 日
从罗姆尼的话中，人们能听到罗斯福式的竞选承诺。他学着罗斯福呼吁大胆而持久的试验，但却没有明确具体措施，只有泛泛而谈的长篇大论。
“ 奥巴马没能在这次辩论改变自己的战术
“ 罗斯福总统曾经说过， “ 银行家恨我，我欢迎他们的仇恨。 ” 任何人都可以想像奥巴马说类似的东西吗？ “ （（ ROBERT G. KAISER ， ” 纽约时报 “ ）
卡罗琳 · 鲁宾逊： MSNBC 评论员， ” 总统的缺乏有战斗力的说法，暗示奥巴马缺乏拳击。
在 2008 年奥巴马敏感的平衡种族的动态，想起当时的 “ 愤怒的黑人男子 ” 可能会引发怎样的形象对他的愤怒在我们的白人公民。，
科林 · 路德 · 鲍威尔说，里根政府和布什家族促进了他的职业生涯。他是一个美国的政治家和退休的四星将军在美国军队。 [1] 他是第 65 届美国国务卿乔治 ·W· 布什总统的领导下，服务 2001 至 2005 年。他是第一个非裔美国人在这个位置上。 [2] [3] [4] [5] 在他的军事生涯中，鲍威尔还担任国家安全顾问（ 1987-1989 年），作为美国陆军部队司令部的指挥官（ 1989 ）和主席参谋长联席会议员工（ 1989-1993 年），后者在海湾战争中的地位。他是第一个，也是迄今为止唯一的，非洲裔美国人担任参谋长联席会议。
赖斯说，她从来没有主动追求一个更高的职位，只有被别人提升了她。 “ 赖斯担任第 66 届美国国务卿，总统乔治 ·W· 布什担任该职的管理是第二人。赖斯是非洲第一位女性美国国务卿，以及第二位非洲裔美国人（科林 · 鲍威尔）后，马德琳 · 奥尔布赖特之后的第二个女人（）。在他的第一任期内，布什总统的国家安全顾问。在加入布什政府之前，她是一名政治学教授，她在斯坦福大学担任教务长。
罗伯特 · 凯瑟：
我不认为有任何定义的 “ 赢 ” 字，可以使奥巴马昨晚的辩论中的赢家。事实上，我一直在冲浪今天上午找权威人士或政客说，奥巴马战胜，我没有发现。采取民意调查昨晚，所有不完美的，可以肯定，一致认为，罗姆尼赢得。最让我感兴趣的是 CBS 犹豫不决的选民投票。 46 ％ OPF 他们说 Romeny 赢得了 22 ％的人认为奥巴马赢得 32 ％的人说，这是一条领带。但我注意到了绝大多数， 54 ％，回升奥巴马说： “ 领带。 ” 罗姆尼的 46 ％，几乎不构成井喷。这是他最近的全国民意调查中得到的比投全。
最后一点： “ 获胜 ” 的辩论并不意味着赢得选举。我记忆犹新的 2004 年布什和克里的辩论。克里赢得所有三个，很方便。他羞辱了布什在第一个，我想。这并没有帮助他多在 11 月，没了吗？
Frizbane 曼利：
看吉姆 · 莱勒的可怜表现 - 什么是所有这些开放式的问题 - 和捕捉几个 “ 分析 ” 后，辩论只是证实了我的偏见，在美国是一个轻率的，平淡的，陈腐，我们的政府是可悲的政治家已经围得水泄不通在华盛顿的决策。美国机构在简化我们的政治和社会组织。在辩论后分析，我听到的是 “ 谁赢了？ ”...... “ 谁似乎更总统吗？ ”...... “ 谁拥有最好的带偏见吗？ ”...... “ 谁从事件中得到了较大的颠簸？ ”...... 我想我在看 ESPN 。 “
实际情况可能是危险的：
美国 * 恨 * 胆小鬼准备的，如果你被认为是一个懦夫，你将失去这次选举。
一个 11 岁的评论： “ 罗姆尼说，他的 5 个儿子是先天性的骗子 ... 她说： OMG ！他叫他的儿子骗子！
这是为什么：
罗姆尼竞选发言人埃里克 ·Fehrnstrom ，去年春天。 Fehrnsteom 有人问如何坚定地保守的职位上，他采取了更中间派的立场，可能会吸引换届选举选民在共和党初选罗姆尼能够从。
“ 好了， ”Fehrnstrom 回答， “ 我想你击中一个复位按钮，为秋季竞选。一切都在改变。这几乎就像一个蚀刻素描。您可以动摇它，并重新启动一遍。 “
“ 罗姆尼否认自己的税收计划。罗姆尼简单地否认，并拒绝了所有他以前的不太受欢迎的计划。你不喜欢一个全面的板的减税（他已经提供了好几个月）的 20 ％？ OK ，我不会做它 - 我承诺放弃任何为富人减税，或任何减税。我个人看，作为一个明智的政策转变，但它也是一个触发器，令人印象深刻的，它可能是进入的奥运冠军。我很好奇，保守分子会作何反应。 “ （罗伯特 ·KAISER ，纽约时报 ）
苏东坡才智过人，但其人生经历却难以令人羡慕。苏东坡 在政治舞台上受到重重打击 ， 以此 人人 怨恨、个个切齿，把他诬陷下在狱中， 几番要致之死地。 苏东坡 晓得 一生 吃亏在 “ 聪明 ” 二字，然与其 聪明 反被 聪明误 。便写了一首感慨的诗， 苏东坡 《洗儿诗》 ， 说： “ 人人 都说 聪明 好，我被 聪明误一生 。但 愿生 儿愚且蠢，无灾无难到公卿。 ” “人家养子爱 聪明 ， 我为聪明误一生 。 . 但 愿生 儿愚且鲁， 无灾无害到公卿。”
Obama says he was ‘too polite’ in first debate with Romney
By Olivier Knox, Yahoo! News
•
• Share0
•
• Print
President Barack Obama pauses as he speaks at a campaign event at The Ohio State University Oval on Tuesday (Carolyn …President Barack Obama said in an interview broadcast Wednesday that he was "just too polite" in his first debate with Mitt Romney—a new explanation for the incumbent's widely panned performance in that prime-time political bout.
"What happened in the debate? Everybody wants to know," radio host Tom Joyner asked Obama. "Was that some kind of genius strategy to rope-a-dope him in?"
The president ducked the Muhammad Ali comparison but said "I think it's fair to say I was just too polite" and promised to be more combative at the second and third debates, to be held October 16 and October 22. "We're going to take it to him."
Obama sought to reassure panicked Democrats who have watched as post-debate polls seem to show the race now narrowly in Romney's favor in battleground states.
"This was always going to be a close race," Obama insisted. "Governor Romney kept on making mistakes month after month so it made it look artificially like this was, might end up being a cakewalk. But we understood internally that it never would be."
"The good thing is that we've got a lead and Tom, you guys know a little bit about basketball. You know, you have a seven game series, we're up two zero and we lose one" he said.
Joyner cut him off: "Yeah, but you had the open shot and you didn't take it!"
"Yeah, I understand, but you know, what happens though is that when people lose one game, you know, this is a long haul," Obama said. "It's very important for folks to just make sure that they understand that as long as people stay focused we will win this thing."
"By next week I think a lot of the hand wringing will be complete because we're going to go ahead and win this thing," Obama said.
Obama tried to explain away his subdued performance in the debate.
"You know, it's hard to sometimes just keep on saying 'what you're saying isn't true,'" he said."It gets repetitive."
"But, you know, the good news is, is that's just the first one," the president said. "And, you know, I think it's fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one."
0users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
Debbie 22 secs ago Report Abuse
WOO HOO! You know, I was thinking that since he can't strut on his own record - since his record sucks - that that's why he's deflecting to Romney's small mistakes and trying to make them huge. I never knew he had said that himself! Awesome. (I honestly try not to listen to him speak whenever I can possibly avoid it. Causes heartburn, headaches, and those little hairs on the back of my neck stand straight up just upon hearing his voice...)
• 8users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
Max Passion • 10 mins ago Report Abuse
• Just let it go Obama. The damage has been done. The hole your campaign is digging is getting bigger and bigger. You had your Bill Buckner moment. 72users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down7users disliked this comment
Obama's Stash • 21 mins ago Report Abuse
Obama gave us his 2012 election strategy....in his 2008 convention speech:
".... if you don't have any fresh ideas, then you use stale tactics to scare the voters. If you don't have a record to run on, then you paint your opponent as someone people should run from. You make a big election about small things."
Cue Big Bird.....
It's time to move on.
• 11users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
Heff • 4 mins 26 secs ago Report Abuse
"Bush did it", "Big ditch", "You're racist", "It was the altitude", "Out of context", "European headwinds", "GOP", "Congress", "It was the movie", and now add "Too polite". THOSE ARE EXCUSES, NOT THE RESULTS WE WERE LOOKING FOR.
•
14users liked this commentRate a Thumb UpRate a Thumb Down0users disliked this comment
Michael • 13 mins ago Report Abuse
Just a suggestion if Obama wants to write a book about anything besides himself. A compilation of all his excuses! It would be reminiscent of the Arabian Nights, with Sharazade making up a new story every night!
Sting Like a Butterfly
Posted by David Remnick
•
•
•
My colleagues Amy Davidson and John Cassidy did a brilliant late-shift job of analyzing last night’s disastrous debate performance for President Obama: his I-don’t-wanna-be-here-please-get-me-outta-here manner; his barely-able-to-rouse-himself incapacity to pounce on Mitt Romney’s empty and contradictory policy prescriptions; his unwillingness even to craft a solid two-minute closing statement. This is a President who could easily have made the argument that he inherited a catastrophic economic collapse and, despite all kinds of duplicitous right-wing opposition, managed to rescue the country from a full-blown Depression; who saved the auto industry; who … well, you know the litany, even if the President could not bestir himself to recite it last night with any passion or precision.
We already know that Obama didn’t manage to talk effectively, if at all, about “the forty-seven per cent” or women or so many other things. So let’s talk sports.
While talking to friends, flipping around the usual channels, and clicking through the onrush of Twitter remarks and discussion, I heard more than a few sports analogies. What was Obama up to? Well, he was like Dean Smith’s old North Carolina basketball teams sitting on a lead and going into the time-wasting four-corners offense. He was like a modern football team playing a “prevent” pass defense. You heard about Barack Obama playing “rope-a-dope.” And this morning, Joe Scarborough, on MSNBC, compared Obama to Mike Tyson when he lost, inexplicably, in 1990, in Tokyo, to a tomato can named Buster Douglas.
Obama is an almost alarmingly fanatical sports fan. His visitors invariably come away impressed by his granular knowledge of the N.B.A., in particular. So when he gets around to assessing his own performance last night, he will know that these analogies have a certain familiar ring. Basketball teams that go into a four-corners, time-killing strategy too soon lose their momentum and sense of purpose; and they lose. Football teams that go into a prevent defense too soon give up way too much ground too quickly; and they lose. Buster Douglas beat Mike Tyson because Tyson was out of shape, cocky, and uninterested in training for a seemingly unworthy opponent. All of these resonate with Obama’s inexplicably wan performance last night.
What makes less sense is the analogy I’ve heard most often: the rope-a-dope comparison. In 1974, in Zaire, Muhammad Ali leaned on the ropes for several rounds against a powerful but lumbering slugger, George Foreman. In the process, Ali absorbed an ungodly amount of punishment. Here’s an early-round example:
But as all scholars of pugilism know, Foreman exhausted himself by banging away at Ali’s arms, gloves, and ribs, and, by the eighth round he was flailing at thin air. All the way, Ali was further depleting Foreman with what cornermen refer to as “sneaky” jabs, right leads, and left hooks. Finally, with twelve or so seconds left in the eighth round, with Foreman wobbly and vulnerable, Ali put an elegant end to it, knocking his opponent to the ground and onto what used to be called Queer Street. (Believe me, that term is hardly the only indefensible thing about boxing.)
Comparing Obama’s tactics last night to the rope-a-dope doesn’t work. Getting beaten up is not rope-a-dope. Because he was so passive, and because he never managed, or bothered, to turn any rhetorical energy against his opponent, Obama’s eighth round never came. He had a chance to put a lock on this Presidential race and he let it pass by. As a performer, Romney won the fight (even if his arguments were full of holes and hypocrisies, as Amy and John and many others rightly note). Now the G.O.P faithful will feel far greater energy than they did after the convention in Tampa, a greater sense of possibility. By early next week, the polls will tighten up.
There are, of course, more debates to come, and incumbents almost always lose the opening round. But there is no guarantee that Obama will improve markedly. He has myriad skills as a thinker, as a speaker, and as a President. But this episodic unwillingness to connect, to show up, while entirely human, puts him in peril. This strange incapacity is nothing new. On the floor of the Illinois State Senate, Obama often got whacked around, particularly by Democrats to his left. When he ran, unsuccessfully, for Congress, in 2000, he wasn’t much of a debater and, to my eye, at least, Hillary Clinton was sharper, hungrier, and clearer in 2008 than Obama. There are two debates left. Obama may not like the format. He may even harbor disdain for it. Too bad. If he keeps playing not to lose, he puts his Presidency and everything he cares about in jeopardy.
Photograph: AP.
• John Cassidy on why Romney won and how Obama can bounce back.
• Amy Davidson on the seven chances Obama missed.
• Steve Coll on the policy differences behind the debate.
• Transcript of debate live chat with New Yorker writers and editors.
Keywords
• Presidential Debates
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/obama-no-ali-in-debate.html#ixzz28vHbmkzn
73 comments | Add your comments
I think the rope-a-dope analogy is apt when you consider that President Obama was not trying to tire Romney out but may have been giving the governor an opportunity to say something controversial by allowing him to speak more. And Romney delivered. In the mainstream media, chatter about who fared better in the debate has been replaced with Big Bird. It’s all about Big Bird now. Big Bird was even on Saturday Night Live last night! So, Obama won even though he lost; Romney lost even though he won. The first debate is the equivalent to Rounds 1-5 in a prize fight, where rope-a-dope or not it makes sense to keep most of your powder dry. Look for President Obama to ramp up his aggressiveness in the next debate (Round 6-10) and then look for his best oratory in the final debate (Rounds 11-15), as he goes for the knockout. The last debate is likely all most will remember when they head to the polls. And if you’re like me, and a growing number of voters, you have already voted, thus relegating all of this as nothing more than theatre.
Posted 10/7/2012, 8:19:41pm by AMoore1
Report abuse
Romney is the GOP's JFK.
Posted 10/6/2012, 11:55:37pm by AlgerHiss
Report abuse
I agree the rope-a-dope analogy is weak, although remember that a large part of Ali's strategy was to undermine Foreman psychologically, not just to wear him down physically. By belittling Foreman's strength ("Is that all you got, George? Can't you hit harder than that?"), Ali took away the only real weapon his opponent possessed: that other fighters were always afraid of being hit by him. But the Obama team is playing a different kind of long game. I think they're well aware that Obama can be his own worst enemy when he tries to come on strong in a debate (he got slammed for coming across as arrogant and cocky against Hillary Clinton in 2008), and that the President could afford to take a mild hit in order to further 2 main objectives: #1- Keep the base engaged and Democratic turnout efforts and fundraising up. If the Dems think Romney has a chance of actually winning, local voter turnout efforts will increase, especially in the all-important swing states. Complacency can be an incumbent's worst enemy. #2- Get some choice soundbites of Romney contradicting almost every previous statement he's made during the campaign, and change the conversation to, "Who is Mitt Romney, and how can we possibly trust him- on anything?"
Posted 10/6/2012, 1:00:06pm by Turalura
Report abuse
Michael Jordan was sometimes over confident it is true but in the big games he never came out flat. I am as big an Obama supporter as any here but I was beginning to expect him near the end to look at his watch.
Posted 10/5/2012, 5:12:07pm by BenDuke44
Report abuse
ad hominem, caspary
Posted 10/5/2012, 4:58:06pm by mimm
Report abuse
Hey LowellTT, How far have we fallen that 7.8% unemployment guarantees your election? Especially when the numbers are heavily skewed to part-time and government workers? Besides, when you analyze an economy---you do not solely base it on unemployment. Does a one month figure discount the fact that our deficit has increased by 100%, that we are artificially deflating our currency and encouraging inflation by artificially pumping millions upon millions into the economy every month? Does it make up for the fact that gas is twice as expensive, and that the cost of everyday items has increased dramatically under his tenor. Does it make up for the fact that median incomes have dropped sharply? It is this sort of intellectual simplicity---which is shrouded in superb vocabulary in the New Yorker---that is the real problem. So Obama spends 800 billion on a stimulus, many more billions bailing out a car company that now makes un-profitable cars, many more billions pouring money into a "green energy" sector that is basically just his hand picked favorites, and then keeps interest rates at zero and artificially prints money every month, devaluing the dollar!!!! And you think that because unemployment drops .2% that changes everything? Sir, the man has not been able to get a budget passed in 4 years. In addition to the above economic idiocy he has created massive uncertainty with multitudes of continuing resolutions, a fiscal cliff that has not been addressed, and a healthcare plan that is unpopular with almost anyone that actually reads it. Quote BB King when you talk about blues music--not policy. Get your head straight.
Posted 10/5/2012, 4:35:05pm by McClain
Report abuse
Hey Dave, Obama is notoriously self-confident - and a great admirer of another great Chicago athlete you curiously forgot to mention - Michael Jordan. As a fellow AfAm Chicagoan, the writer of the recent book, "African Americans in Chicago" and a recovering adman, I can only say, in the words of that great political advisor, B.B. King - "looks like you (and your Monday morning pundits) made your move too soon" Obama must have known the new unemployment figure would do his talking for him. 7.8% gets the last line in the debate...and probably the election. Right? http://buythecover.com
Posted 10/5/2012, 3:23:34pm by lowellt
Report abuse
Not a bad article, but flawed in the sense that it compared the Thrilla to Round 1 of the Debates. Obviously, the President was surprised by Romney's tactic. That element of surprise is now lost and Romney will have to explain in detail to the Professor how he 1. expects his nonsensical "plan" to work, 2. how he can repudiate all of his prior statements wholesale, and 3. whether or not anyone should trust him given his willingness to deny his own documented statements. Which is to say that Romney went for a knockout in round 1 and didn't get it, not even close. Round 2 (Biden) and 3 and 4 will be very different as the manic Romney ties himself in knots while the Professor lets him flail.
Posted 10/5/2012, 3:10:56pm by pbh51
Report abuse
Daronson, while it is true that to the fighters in the ring and the judges who were at ringside Ali may have seen to be in control,most people worldwide saw the fight on closed circuit broadcast. From this less privileged vantage, you can believe me, it looked like Foreman was destroying Ali. Remember he had taken out the two men Ali could never convincingly beat in less than two rounds and that Ali was considered to be well past his prime.We saw Ali delivering the odd straight right but mostly focused on Foreman, who we considered unbeatable, belaboring Ali on the ropes (where we all believed he could not be if he was to have any prayer of winning). Even in the clip in the 8th round it looks bad for Ali if you try to look at it without knowledge of what is to come only seconds before the end of the round. It is to this satellite TV audience that the impression of miracle turnaround was formed.
Posted 10/5/2012, 2:12:36pm by BenDuke44
Report abuse
Sports are for entertainment. You are promoting a dangerous trend by this poor sports analogy that votes should be awarded to whomever who seemingly delivers a knockout punch. Have you forgotten that the President has more than a full time job running a dysfunctional country (pretty damn well considering) and if he is a little tired and distracted when going up against a full time campaigner and practiced liar it's no wonder he isn't providing you with your desire for entertaining fireworks. Despite this, there was plenty in the President's performance that deserves commendation. Unless your motivation is to help cause an upset, why don't you write a few positive sentences about what he did well?
Posted 10/5/2012, 12:58:16pm by Jambrone1
Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/obama-no-ali-in-debate.html#ixzz28vJQtirl
Rope-a-dope
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
"Ropeadope" redirects here. For the American record label, see Ropeadope Records.
The rope-a-dope is a boxing fighting style commonly associated with Muhammad Ali in his 1974 Rumble in the Jungle match against George Foreman.
In competitive situations other than boxing, rope-a-dope is used to describe strategies in which one party purposely puts itself in what appears to be a losing position, attempting thereby to become the eventual victor.
Contents
[hide]
• 1 Origin of the term
• 2 Technique
• 3 Notable fights
• 4 In popular culture
• 5 References
[edit] Origin of the term
According to Angelo Dundee, the idea for the strategy against Foreman was suggested by boxing photographer George Kalinsky, "Sort of a dope on the ropes, letting Foreman swing away but, like in the picture, hit nothing but air." Publicist John Condon then polished the phrase into "rope-a-dope".[1]
[edit] Technique
The rope-a-dope is performed by a boxer assuming a protected stance (in Ali's classic pose, lying against the ropes; by leaning against the ropes, much of the punch's energy is absorbed by the ropes' elasticity rather than the boxer's body) while allowing his opponent to hit him, providing only enough counter-attack to avoid the referee thinking the boxer is no longer able to continue and thus ending the match via technical knockout. The plan is to cause the opponent to "punch himself out" and make mistakes which the boxer can then exploit in a counter-attack.
[edit] Notable fights
The maneuver is most commonly associated with the match between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, known as the Rumble in the Jungle. Foreman was considered by many observers to be the favored to win the fight due to his superior punching power. During the match Ali purposely angered Foreman, provoking the latter to attack and force him back on the ropes. At the time some observers thought that Ali was being horribly beaten and worried that they might see him get killed in the ring. Writer George Plimpton described Ali's stance as like "a man leaning out his window trying to see something on his roof." However, far from being brutalized, Ali was relatively protected from Foreman's blows. Ironically, Ali's preparation for the fight, which involved toughening himself up by allowing his sparring partners to pummel him, contributed to observers' sense that Ali was outmatched. When Foreman became tired from the beating he was delivering, Ali regrouped and ended up winning the match.
Eight-division world champion Manny Pacquiao skillfully used the strategy to gauge the power of welterweight titlist Miguel Cotto in November 2009. Pacquiao followed up the rope-a-dope gambit with a withering knockdown.
Nicolino Locche, Argentine boxer nicknamed "El Intocable" (The Untouchable), used this technique extensively throughout his career. He would get against the ropes and dodge nearly every single punch until his opponent would tire, then he would take him down with combinations.
"Irish" Micky Ward utilized this strategy during many of the fights in the later part of his career. Ward would wait for his opponent to become fatigued and would hit with either a left hook to the body or any number of other combinations. This strategy led him to the junior welterweight championship of the WBU where he took the belt from Shea Neary.
从美国总统的辩论中，你可以学到什么？
来源: 北美老农 于 2012-10-07 21:33:17 [档案] [博客] [旧帖] [转至博客] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读： 4195次
字体：调大/调小/重置 | 加入书签 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟贴 | 查看当前最热讨论主题
上周三，我和家人观看了州长罗姆尼和奥巴马总统之间的第一次辩论。他俩都是久经沙场的演说家。这场辩论可谓是“颠峰对决”。辩论包括准备好的台词和即兴演讲。辩论后，很多人都在讨论谁是这场辩论的赢家。但我想与大家分享我的观察和可从辩论中汲取的教训。
辩论的视频和文字记录：http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/04/us/politics/20120804-denver-presidential-debate-obama-romney.html#/?annotation=89dfece60
1。与听众要有眼神接触和要注意力的集中
当你演讲时，你一定要与你的听众有不断的眼神接触。当在正式辩论时，你要看着你的对手。
在周三的辩论中，奥巴马花了太多的时间往下看，也许他正在做笔记，但他看起来没有专注于他的对手，显得不够投入，不够积极。相比之下，罗姆尼在奥巴马讲话时, 一直在注视着对手, 并保持微笑，他显得更加自信，更加投入，和更加有热情。
2。说话前要想好，避免得罪公众
一个好的演讲者或政治家，必须考虑在前，说话在后。在谈论比如宗教，种族，国籍, 残疾，和性取向时要非常小心，以免得罪你的一部分听众。我们更不应该得罪公众喜欢的偶像。
州长罗姆尼犯了一个错误，在减少联邦赤字的辩论中，他对公共电台(PBS)主持人吉姆•莱勒说：“我要停止补贴PBS,（虽然）我喜欢PBS，我爱大鸟。” 他不应该提到大鸟, 并把大鸟与减少赤字联系起来。大鸟是PBS儿童节目中的一个可爱的偶像, 几乎每个人都喜欢。罗姆尼要削减预算，让大家联想到大鸟节目被取消，他就得罪了公众。他的这个即兴讲话使他失去了拉票的好机会。
3。要准备充分
当罗姆尼攻击多德 - 弗兰克(Todd-Frank)金融改革法案时，他指责法案中的两件事情，一个法案中有保护大银行的内容，另一个是模糊房贷定义对银行贷款的负影响。奥巴马没有反击或否定罗姆尼发难，导致很多人相信了罗姆尼的指控。奥巴马和他的团队似乎没有准备好，没有仔细研究Todd-Frank法案。
4。要使用简单列表, 列出明确步骤让人相信你是一个胸有成竹的人
罗姆尼谈到自己的计划时，他用了一个列表，他用一，二，三，四, 和五。简单的开场白后，列出五项明确措施创造就业机会。他使听众相信他实干,有一个明确的经济计划。奥巴马也有相似的计划可是他没有明确地列出。他的计划被埋藏在沉长背景说明中去了。因此，观众对罗姆尼印象更深。
5。要善用幽默
罗姆尼和奥巴马都善用幽默, 但在周三的辩论中, 罗姆尼更放松, 常常笑里藏刀。例如罗姆尼说: “你(奥巴马)可拥有飞机, 拥有房子, 但你不可以拥有自编的数据。” “我有五个儿子, 我习惯了人们不说真话。” “你可能没想到辩论会场成了你(纪念订婚20周年)最浪漫的地方, (居然)和我在一起。”
总结：一个好的演讲者（1）要与听众有目光接触，注意力要集中到辩论对手身上,（2）要避免冲动, 想好再说以减少失误，（3）要充分的准备, 预防”不测”，（4）要用简短的清单讲明计划， （5）要善用幽默。
最后我想提一提的是：即使是经验丰富的演说行家在重要场合也会犯错，我们就更不应该害怕在大庭广众前发表讲话了。当然，要想好了再说。
所有跟帖：
• 学到了政客的话就当是屁。 -壮士- ♂ (0 bytes) (3 reads) 10/7/12 18:48:02
• Yes. It stinks. -2544- (0 bytes) (1 reads) 10/7/12 19:03:00
• 学到了“一张嘴巴两层皮，说进说出都是理”：））~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -mysc1234- ♂ (0 bytes) (1 reads) 10/7/12 18:50:26
• 你那天谈到大宋的问题，正好我曾在这方面做过很多研究，本想写个贴回应， -edison11- ♂ (38 bytes) (20 reads) 10/7/12 19:04:03
• 呵呵，您太认真了，俺从没研究过大宋问题，俺这人懒，从不研究细节问题：））~~~~ -mysc1234- ♂ (211 bytes) (11 reads) 10/7/12 19:11:14
• 肤浅了些，比如第二条，让党派基本盘满意才是重点，不可能让所有人满意 -mooseamoose- ♂ (27 bytes) (4 reads) 10/7/12 18:55:48
• 总结得好! 这几点对咱们的孩子都非常有用，特别是debate team的孩子。 -旖旎风光- ♀ (0 bytes) (0 reads) 10/7/12 18:57:54
• 不服不行！这场辩论会可能会改变大选结果。 -周游列国逍遥人生- ♂ (0 bytes) (8 reads) 10/7/12 19:00:52
• 失业率首次低于8%可以救回来了 -mooseamoose- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 20:26:34
• 太好了，谢谢。全部抄下来给女儿去学校讨论 -伊敏- (64 bytes) (13 reads) 10/7/12 19:22:43
• 其实重要一点是奥吧干了四年，有把柄可抓。萝卜尼什么还没干，无把柄可抓。 -林起立- ♂ (0 bytes) (4 reads) 10/7/12 21:37:03
• 是啊。 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (0 reads) 10/7/12 22:15:36
• 学到通过辩论选总统是多么滑稽的一件事。 -这个星球有点轴- ♂ (27 bytes) (27 reads) 10/7/12 22:23:05
• 只通过辩论选总统是滑稽。但，如果辩论是在选民比较知道背景的情况下，还是很有帮助的 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 22:25:11
• 呵呵，如果因为一场辩论中口齿不灵就不能领导一个国家，那这竞选跟儿戏也木什么不同。 -这个星球有点轴- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 22:33:34
• 权利核心的背景选民知道什么？辩论的议题都是选出来抓眼球的，这不是皇帝的新衣是什么 -这个星球有点轴- ♂ (95 bytes) (16 reads) 10/7/12 22:39:39
• 中间选民一般是比较认真的选民，也是比较聪明的选民，一般不会因为辩论结果受到太大影 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (4 reads) 10/8/12 00:22:37
• 关键是他们也不知道什么核心背景，本质上会有什么差别呢？ -这个星球有点轴- ♂ (67 bytes) (5 reads) 10/8/12 00:51:53
• 在美国时间长了对核心背景都会很了解。认真的选民们也会做调查，听听各方面的意见。 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/8/12 00:57:57
• 连任基本上是对现有政策的信心。当然，很多对现有政策不了解。比如，知道Obama减 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (89 bytes) (40 reads) 10/8/12 01:02:13
• 可以学到如何演戏！ -zbj8888- ♂ (0 bytes
来源: edison11 于 2012-10-07 21:55:26 [档案] [博客] [旧帖] [转至博客] [给我悄悄话] 本文已被阅读：788次
字体：调大/调小/重置 | 加入书签 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟贴 | 查看当前最热讨论主题
今天打电话给儿子，问他看了总统辩论没有，他说看了，问他是否还支持奥巴马，他坚定的说，那当然！我老婆也是奥巴马坚定的拥护者，对辩论中罗姆尼和奥巴马的表现跟我有完全不同的看法，她认定罗姆尼是撒谎者，以前说过的辩论中都不认帐，奥巴马不好意思戳穿他，所以显得奥巴马在辩论中比较被动。显然她认为奥巴马道德高尚，罗姆尼是小人一个，虽然罗赢了嘴仗，却输了人品。所以她更加支持奥巴马。这真让我对美国的民主选举有点失望。
民主制度有很多优点，但是也有一些缺点，那就是选出来的只是最受欢迎的，而不是最好的。由于真理在开始阶段总是掌握在少数人手中，所以民主选择不可能选出来具有最先进，最正确的思想和政策的领导人，选出来的往往是平庸，只会耍嘴皮的领导人。
象Ron Paul这种人就不可能得到大多数人的支持，Romney明显的比奥巴马更懂经济，可是他的选票也比奥巴马落后很多。美国这种制度决定了美国的国家政策要出现比较大的偏差和失误，让大多数人都认同了，才可能得到纠正。
[此博文包含图片] (2012-10-06 11:46:54)
转载▼
标签：
美国大选
奥巴马
罗姆尼
辩论
大鸟
分类： 美国纪事
一只大鸟搅了美国大选
罗姆尼真的赢了首场总统辩论吗？在辩论刚结束时人们都深信不疑罗姆尼赢了首场总统辩论，罗姆尼的竞选团队甚至彻夜无眠欢庆。
几天过去了，美国人静下心了，重新回味辩论，才发现罗姆尼在辩论中的滔滔不绝口不遮拦令其一下很被动，似乎那些没有经过他的大脑脱口而出的话并没有显示他的机智，反而露出他根本不关心民众的真实想法。
讨厌罗姆尼的美国媒体这几天一直在调侃罗姆尼在辩论中的一段话，一只大鸟一下点中了罗姆尼的死穴：一个衔着金钥匙出生在达官贵人家的绫罗锦衣官富公子怎能知晓民众的疾苦？他上台后会不会令美国有更多的富者愈富穷者愈穷的马太效应呢？
罗姆尼究竟说了什么话？大鸟又就是是什么呢？他在辩论中被问及如果削减财政赤字时对美国公共广播电视服务公司（Public Broadcasting Service简称为PBS）的主管Jim Lehre（吉米·乐赫）说：“I'm sorry Jim. I'm gonna stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm gonna stop other things, I like PBS, I like Big Bird, I actually like you too. ”就是这段话目前在美国引起轩然大波，令美国大选峰回路转。
这句话翻译过来并没有任何特别之处：“对不起吉米，我将停止给PBS的补贴，（虽然）我喜欢PBS，我喜欢大鸟（Big Bird)，我实际上也喜欢你。”这是美国一个文化背景的问题，一般外国人如果不了解来龙去脉，是很难理解为什么这段话会有如此大杀伤力的。
老丹是这样给我解释PBS（Public Broadcasting Service简称为PBS,中文翻译为“美国公共广播电视服务公司”）和大鸟(Big Bird)的：在美国，看电视一般要花钱安有线电缆，才能看到更多的有线电视频道。但是政府为了照顾普通低收入民众，有特别规定，几家主流电视台必须有免费频道，如果民众不想付钱看电视，也是可以看免费电视。美国公共广播电视服务公司是一家非盈利的电视传播网服务机构，注意这个“公共”字眼，是美国民众一种共产的期盼，向公众提供免费电视节目，其提供的最有名的一档儿童节目是叫“芝麻街（Sesame Street）”，里面的一个主角就是大鸟。这个儿童节目绝对不同寻常，这是美国最长寿的儿童启蒙益智教育节目。大鸟从一九六九年就陪着美国孩子们长大，它会教孩子们数学、拼字、唱歌、跳舞和滑冰，甚至写诗歌，总之，所有孩子们快乐童年要学的，全能的大鸟都可以教你。人人公平，真真体现美国宪法开篇所说“人人生来平等”。
大鸟是老丹孩童时最铭心刻骨的一部分，就似我小时候所理解的“小叮当”或是“小喇叭开始广播了”的节目（抱歉，因为出国太久，还真的不知目前国内小朋友看什么益智节目，无法给出相关比喻）。老丹说连奥巴马都是看着大鸟长大的。最重要的是，这是免费频道播出的节目，不管家庭贫富，这个儿童节目对于所有的孩子都是均等的，孩子们都在自己的家里学到大鸟教授的东西，机会人人均等。在学校共同谈起大鸟，彼此是心灵相通津津乐道的，没有城府，没有贵贱之别。
老丹罗哩罗嗦解释一大堆，我还不是很理解他的大鸟情结。我只能想，就像小时候很穷，但是大家都很开心，在学校打乒乓球丢沙包踢毽子，就是快乐的童年，不需要彼此攀比昂贵的玩具。那真是单纯烂漫的幼儿少年懵懂开心时代啊。像我不小心还考了一个什么市文科高考状元之类，让爸妈不需要为我上大学的费用担忧。
罗姆尼自幼长于高官富家，绝对是出身高贵，自是不知民间疾苦。他潜意识肯定没有体会到普通民众是多么需要这些免费的人人均等的教育机会。当然，大鸟并不是穷人的专品，它俨然已是美国孩子们儿童时代的一部分。相信罗姆尼的孩子们也是看着大鸟长大的，它是一个大众名牌，如果不知道，会被同伴们嘲笑的。大鸟其实是一个在美国民间公平的天真无邪不知等级的孩子们的品牌。因为在没有有线电视以前，大家都是看免费无线电视的，只是如今科技越来越发达，财富越来越集中，才越发诞生出很多需要金钱购买的东西，财富居然将孩子们无邪的童年也分出来贵贱。
美国大选，还是要赢中产阶级，美国的中产阶级庞大，从一年一个家庭三万到十五万美金的收入，都可以算中产，这几乎覆盖了美国百分之八十的民众。得中产者得美国天下也。奥巴马出身中产，深得其道，首场辩论中规中矩，就是不想得罪中产阶级。
罗姆尼首场辩论，显然是有备而来，锋芒毕露，一时占得先机。但是对一只大鸟的调侃，竟然一语成谶，给自己挖了一个坑，反而掉了进去。他说为了减少财政赤字而去削减对公共电视频道的补贴，有可能使美国公共广播电视服务公司PBS因为入不敷出而破产，而使大鸟无家可归。
美国媒体讥讽罗姆尼：“Kids Can't Vote, But Moms Can！”孩子们不能选举，但是妈妈们可以。如果罗姆尼不让孩子们有公平的公共资源，肯定会失去妈妈们的选票。
罗姆尼一梦醒来，也许会明白造化作弄人，根深蒂固在他脑子里的优越感才是他丢失民心的根本。
一只大鸟真得要搅黄罗姆尼的总统梦吗？
二0一二年十月五日晚美国时间于费城
一只大鸟搅了美国大选
已经不再看大鸟节目的老丹：谢谢老丹不厌其烦的解释，才让吾茅塞顿开
一只大鸟搅了美国大选
看看大鸟是何方神圣
frank-shanghai2012-10-06 13:34:49 [举报]
富二代成大器者少、败家的众，关键他没有贫困的体验。
来自frank-shanghai的评论
推倒度娘大家上2012-10-06 13:47:05 [举报]
当政者帮如没有感受过民间的疾苦，永远的屁股决定脑袋
来自推倒度娘大家上的评论
翟召峰2012-10-06 14:11:09 [举报]
嗯，看了安替的文章，还在为奥巴马遗憾，倒是不料罗姆尼一语成谶，富人不识穷滋味啊
来自翟召峰的评论
DMYO_O2012-10-06 14:45:40 [举报]
#一个衔着金钥匙出生在达官贵人家的绫罗锦衣官富公子怎能知晓民众的疾苦# 所以凭借雄厚家族背景而走上政途的人哪懂民生
来自DMYO_O的评论
李锋超2012-10-07 01:08:55 [举报]
祸从口出，不经意间就给自己埋下了一枚定时炸弹。美国再富，其许多人民也喜欢免费产品与服务，若真是伤害了大众的利益，在美国那样的总统选举制度中，当选堪忧啊！
来自李锋超的评论
Oct. 5, 2012, 6:30 p.m. PDT
The Washington Post News Service with Bloomberg News
(c) 2012, The Washington Post.
For Mitt Romney, it was the number that proved everything. Since the very first speech of his campaign, the Republican candidate has used a simple figure to bolster his argument that President Barack Obama couldn't fix the U.S. economy: 8 percent.
In this campaign, begun in the midst of a staggering downturn, monthly unemployment reports have been a running scorecard. They distill a vast and complicated economy down to terms simple enough for a stump speech: a number and a direction, up or down.
For Romney, any number above 8 percent proved he was right and Obama was wrong.
Obama had promised, Romney told audiences repeatedly, never to let unemployment get that high. Instead, Romney said, the jobless rate blew past 8 percent and got stuck there.
Until Friday.
The 0.3 percent dip in unemployment in September, from 8.1 to 7.8 percent, deprived Romney of one of his central campaign themes.
It was enough to put him on the defensive just as he was basking in the afterglow of his debate performance Wednesday, the best moment of his campaign against Obama so far. It wasn't because the figures showed a healthy economy — they didn't — but because the economy had crossed a threshold that Romney had implied it would never cross without him.
"We can do better," Romney said Friday at a rally in the Virginia coal-country town of Abingdon. It was the same argument he has used throughout the campaign, but without the number he'd always used to hammer it home. "There were fewer new jobs created this month than last month. And the unemployment rate . . . has come down very, very slowly, but it's come down nonetheless."
The political importance of the 8 percent threshold was driven home, in a backhanded way, by a few conservatives who floated a conspiracy theory that Friday's dip had been engineered to give Obama a boost.
Former General Electric chief executive Jack Welch wrote on Twitter: "these Chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so change numbers."
The Bureau of Labor Statistics said the data were worked out the same way as always, with no interference. And Welch later conceded that he had no evidence of a conspiracy.
There is no special economic magic to 8 percent. A truly healthy economy, experts say, would have a rate far lower.
"Eight is bad, 7.9 is bad, 8.1 is bad," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former director of the Congressional Budget Office and an adviser to GOP nominee John McCain in 2008. "We want to be at six."
But the figure assumed its political significance in early 2009, before Obama had taken office, in a report written by a pair of his advisers, Christina Romer and Jared Bernstein. That report projected, with caveats, that if Congress passed a large stimulus package, unemployment would peak at 8 percent.
The stimulus passed. But the rate kept going up.
It reached 10 percent in October 2009 and then fell only slowly, despite the billions pouring in from the government. Before last month, the rate had hovered between 8.3 and 8.1 percent. Obama's advisers later said they had not understood the depth of the country's economic troubles when they made their projection.
The figure became one of the constants in Romney's stump speeches and fundraising talks: It meant that Obama had failed, even by his own standards.
"We've had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent," Romney said in closing in the Denver debate.
Obama appeared Friday at campaign rallies in Cleveland and at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va., evidently still smarting from his poor performance in Wednesday's debate. He seemed to be throwing out comebacks to Romney that he wished he'd thought of on the debate stage back in Denver.
"Someone is finally getting tough on Big Bird!" Obama said, responding a day and a half later to Romney's promise to take federal funding from PBS.
But he was clearly heartened by the job numbers, citing them as proof that he is the right leader to guide the economy.
"Today's news should give us some encouragement. It shouldn't be an excuse for the other side to try to talk down the economy just to try to score a few political points," Obama said in Cleveland. "It's a reminder that this country has come too far to turn back now."
The dip in the jobless number was caused, in part, by a surprising jump in one measure of employment.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, a branch of the Labor Department, uses two main sources. One is a survey of 141,000 businesses. The other looks at 60,000 households, asking if the people in those households were working or looking for work in the last month. The household survey captures data that the business survey doesn't, such as people who are self-employed or who work on farms.
The September survey of businesses indicated a relatively modest gain in hiring: Payrolls rose by about 114,000. But the household survey indicated a much greater boost in hiring, with about 456,000 people no longer unemployed.
The number of newly employed people in that survey jumped by the largest amount in nearly three decades. On Friday, economists said that it was probably an exaggeration, an outlier made possible by a relatively small sample.
"The numbers just seem too big to be real real. But everything moved in the right direction," said Chad Stone of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal think tank. "These numbers really do jump around a lot. You never want to read too much into one month's unemployment data, because the next month could look really different."
The data for October will be released Nov. 2, four days before Election Day.
On Friday, Welch's suggestion that the numbers were fixed was picked up by a few conservatives. The most prominent was Rep. Allen B. West, R-Fla., who posted on his Facebook page: "Somehow by manipulation of data, we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the presidential election."
That assertion was denied by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which compiles its reports in an intense and highly secretive process,carefully guarding access to the data before the official release. The bureau currently has no political appointees; its interim director is a career civil service employee.
On CNBC on Friday morning, Labor Secretary Hilda L. Solis said it was "ludicrous" to suggest that the data have been manipulated to boost Obama.
"I'm insulted when I hear that, because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the BLS," Solis said. "They've been doing these calculations. These are our best-trained and best-skilled individuals working in the BLS, and it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement."
Later in the day, Welch told MSNBC's Chris Matthews that he had no hard evidence that the data had been fudged.
But he said he stood by his suspicions.
"I don't want to take back one word in that tweet," Welch said. "These numbers defy logic."
- - -
Rucker reported from Abingdon, Va. David Nakamura and Nia-Malika Henderson contributed to this report.
bc-campaign-jobs
罗姆尼亲口承认“我认为，我竞选活动的重点放在他的政策及其政策失误方面。不过我不会滥用竞选对他进行个人攻击。我不曾试图按照阶层、地域或职业分裂美国人。我认为，我们是一个团结的民族，这是力量的源泉。搞分裂和人格诋毁，我认为是不好的做法，而且我认为不会得逞。”
作为贝恩投资的创始人、华尔街投行的CEO、前密歇根州州长的儿子，麦凯恩出身显赫、财富累累。
米特·罗姆尼，美国政治家、企业家，马萨诸塞州第70任州长。此外，他还曾担任贝恩资本风险投资与杠杆收购公司CEO ，以及盐湖城冬奥会组委会主席。他在美国共和党内有着良好的口碑。2007年2月，罗姆尼曾宣布参加2008年的美国总统大选，但以失败而告终。
2011年6月，罗姆尼再次宣布参加2012年的美国总统大选。
15年来，作为贝恩投资公司领头人，米特·罗姆尼的所作所为证明他是一个非常有才也非常谨慎的商人。在他逐渐成长为金融家的岁月里，他竭尽全力降低企业的风险，而对企业来说，风险和利润通常相伴而来。他极力要求他的合伙人密切关注可衡量、能证实的数据，拒绝对商业前景作出主观判断，坚持依据实践经验作决定。
罗姆尼对数字的嗜好远超常人。即使在担任贝恩公司首席执行官期间，他在会议桌前一坐就是几个小时，记了大量笔记，经常使用计算器，还手画图表。在抓机遇方面，他比很多竞争对手都慢，对每一笔生意都要寻找隐蔽的漏洞。他征求反对意见，极少在没有与合伙人达成共识前进行投资。贝恩投资公司让他学会了把整个世界当作无穷无尽的潜在生意，其中多数是不好的。他避开了几乎所有有可能失败的生意，只做稳操胜券的生意，从不参与他认为赢不了的游戏。
竞选之时，罗姆尼把自己的从商经历放在首位，声称自己有私营部门的经验，能够挽救美国经济。
毫无疑问，罗姆尼是一个成功的商人。
1984年，罗姆尼创立贝恩投资公司，并将3700万美元种子基金变成了规模达数十亿美元的管理资产。如今，罗姆尼积累的个人财富高达2亿美元，这意味着什么呢？罗姆尼的的财富=(尼克松+福特+卡特+里根+老布什+克林顿+小布什+奥巴马)×2。
虽然财富远超奥巴马，但这却成了罗姆尼的软肋。
美国的贫富分化在过去三十年里不停加剧。顶尖1%的家庭现在挣了全国20%的收入，而四十年前他们才挣到全国收入的10%。美国人本不是非常仇富，但在经济不断“秀下限”之际，这1%的符号只需缴纳不到15%的税收，而贫穷的大多数，特别是中产阶层要缴纳超过30%的税收时，不满之情自然溢于言表，当财富并不随着时间而增加时，选民们自然开始仇恨贫富分化带来的不公。
为了平息外界，特别是民主党方面对他税务状况的持续质疑，作为“最富有”的总统竞选人之一的罗姆尼与2012年9月公布了自己和妻子2011年的纳税申报单。报单显示，罗姆尼夫妇2011年收入约1370万美元，缴税194万美元，实际税率为14.1%，远低于美国中产阶级家庭的平均税率，因而招徕一致声讨，在他们看来，这位总统候选人攫取了更多的财富却没有雨普通民众一起承担国家的责任和义务。而奥巴马20.5%的实际税率则显得更为亲民。
出身问题本已成为罗姆尼的劣势，雪上加霜的是，罗姆尼居然还鄙视了大众一把，在2012年5月的一个私人筹款晚宴上，罗姆尼直言所有支持奥巴马的选民中有47%的人没有缴税，但却自认为“他们有权享受健康保险、食物、住房等可以想得到的服务。”，这样的说法无异于嘲讽47%国民靠政府养。
一系列的低级失误加剧了罗姆尼与美国民众的对立，而更加让人不解的是，作为一个挑战者，面对“草根”奥巴马的死缠烂打，罗姆尼居然选择了一个更加错误的竞选策略——攻击奥巴马。
罗姆尼将向选民指出，现任总统奥巴马未能向他承诺的那样为美国带来“希望和改变”，罗姆尼将要求选民将选票投给自己，从而扭转美国的经济，消除奥巴马“错误政策”带来的影响。他还将明确指出，美国目前最需要的就是就业机会，
罗姆尼还会说，“许多人放弃了奥巴马，但是他们不会放弃自己，也不会放弃美国。”他将要求选民一起“翻过令人失望的四年”。
罗姆尼对奥巴马的攻击招来一片批评质疑之声，演讲现场里示威者的抗议声一度让他被迫中断演讲。《纽约时报》等媒体纷纷发表社论指责罗姆尼“为谋党派私利甚至不惜把美国国家评级当做人质”，社论还贬损罗姆尼的演讲是用嘴上抹蜜的腔调搭配怪异而模糊的笑容，他时不时甚至要激动落泪，但通篇都是陈词滥调。
罗姆尼的策略：应如何应对奥巴马？
从亨利·福特、威廉·赫斯特到罗斯·佩罗，很多“妄想”从商人晋级为总统的均告失败。罗姆尼能否打破这个魔咒，关键在于其竞选策略。
奥巴马胜在和群众打成一片，选总统很多时候有点像谈恋爱，最后还有个说不出道不明的“讨人喜欢”的人品人格因素。这个因素很难量化。常用的办法是问选民愿意和谁一起喝啤酒。喝啤酒代表和人民打成一片，而喝红酒代表着和小资们互相往来，喝高级白干则代表和大资产阶级同仇敌忾。还
罗姆尼自然不会和选民喝啤酒、红酒，他或许只会和那1%的富豪喝高级白干，在这样的背景下，财富不够顶尖的99%选民自然会产生疑问：“你能理解我们的价值观并且代表我们这个阶层的利益吗？
毫无疑问，和选民打成一片，罗姆尼此路不通。
但田忌赛马，以己之长，攻彼之短，罗姆尼有自己的优势。
1992年，克林顿曾打出一句著名的竞选标语：“笨蛋，问题出在经济！”，一句话道出了总统竞选的核心要义。2008年奥巴马能相继击败希拉里和罗姆尼，亦是凭此医改等经济措施。四年的时间证明了奥巴马在经济上的“无能”，美国经济依然低迷，这或许是商人罗姆尼最大的优势——他比奥巴马更懂经济。令不少美国媒体失望的是，罗姆尼在演讲中没有详细阐明如何拯救美国，却把过多精力投入对奥巴马的指责。更加令人费解的是罗姆尼几乎闭口不谈过往的投资经历对他入主白宫后的指导意义。而其大谈的经济话题削减预算、降低税率以及政府减少调控是早在里根之前共和党总统候选人一致宣扬的陈词烂调。可能在他看来，这是复苏经济的有效措施，但总统选举拼的就是说服选民，这些用了几十年的陈词烂掉难道真能让选民兴奋道投他一票？
更加糟糕的是，即使是这些’陈词滥调”,罗姆美国大选,罗姆尼如何战胜奥巴马(李光斗)
文章来源: 中新社 于 2012-10-05 16:25:18 - 新闻取自各大新闻媒体，新闻内容并不代表本网立场！
打印本新闻 (被阅读 7262 次)
中新社华盛顿10月5日电(记者 吴庆才)过去一直成为奥巴马竞选“负累”的美国月度“就业报告”今天第一次成为奥巴马助选的有力“武器”，与此同时一只“大鸟”也正在成为奥巴马的助选“盟友”。
美国劳工部5日公布的数据显示，美国9月失业率降至7.8%，为近四年来首次低于8%。这对奥巴马而言是一个重大利好消息，一些分析人士认为这一数据有助于他赢得仍在观望的选民的选票。
5日，奥巴马在弗吉尼亚的一场竞选活动中充分利用了这份“就业报告”，他得意地告诉选民：“今天，我相信我们的国家再次向前迈进。”
奥巴马说：我上任时美国每个月丢掉80万个就业岗位，而过去2年半美国企业已创造了520万个就业岗位，今天公布的失业率已降至我上任以来的最低点。越来越多的美国人进入劳动力市场，越来越多的美国人找到工作。
不过，奥巴马也承认眼下仍有很多美国人正在找工作，但是他强调不能将其作为贬低美国经济状况捞取政治分的借口。
过去，奥巴马在谈论失业率时多处于防守位置；但是，今天他以更自信的口吻回击说：“我们已经取得了太大的进步，不能重新回到为我们带来危机的政策。我绝对不允许这样的事情发生，这就是为什么我要竞选连任总统。”
奥巴马攻击罗姆尼最近试图“重新定位、改头换面”，但是他怎么改基本理念都是“自上而下”的经济政策，他认为如果削减5万亿美元的税收、如果取消更多针对华尔街的规则，“那么我们的问题就会得到解决，就业和经济繁荣就会像雨点那样从空中落下，赤字就会神奇般地消失，我们从此就将幸福地生活。”
奥巴马嘲讽罗姆尼提不出具体的、能够奏效的削减赤字的方案，他所能想到的最好的一个例子就是对公共电视台开刀。
“让你们的妈妈和孩子离开那里？不要担心，有人终于对‘大鸟’强硬起来了。”奥巴马在当日的造势活动上幽默地对一群年轻的支持者说：“艾摩(ELMO)也要担心了，罗姆尼州长计划让华尔街再次像脱缰的野马，但是他打算对“芝麻街”下重锤。”
“大鸟”和“艾摩”是美国广播公司(PBS)电视节目《芝麻街》的主角，该节目是美国电视史上最“长寿”的儿童节目，从1969年开播至今陪伴几代美国人的成长，也深受全球儿童的喜爱。
奥巴马这番话源自3日晚美国总统竞选首场辩论中罗姆尼的一句话，当时罗姆尼在被问及将如何削减赤字时说，他一旦当选将削减拨付给美国广播公司的经费。他说：“虽然我爱PBS，我爱大鸟……但我不会继续在这些事情上花钱”。
此言一出，引发一些家长和孩子的抗议。“大鸟”一词也成为网络热词。奥巴马及其团队看准这一点，迅速将“大鸟”纳入自己的助选阵营，攻击罗姆尼“狠心剥夺儿童乐趣”，试图将其刻画成无切实可行的施政计划并且缺乏人情味的形象。完