“In the last four years you’ve cut permits and licenses on federal lands and federal waters in half,” Romney charged, turning to his opponent and hacking at the air.
“Not true,” Obama called out, eyes blazing. Then he looked away.
“How much did you cut the licenses by?” Romney continued, stepping closer to Obama. His finger jabbed the air. Obama tried to cut him off. Romney kept coming at him, and Obama got out of his chair, his head high and tilted back a bit, which felt like a silent taunt. (Say it again — I dare ya.)
Romney stepped forward, staring at Obama. The two men locked eyes.
You held your breath.
Obama looked away, and you let it out.
Time and again, as the tension built, Obama defused it with his eyes. It was a successful technique. He seemed to have decided that he would match Romney move for move, going so far at one point as to step toward moderator Candy Crowley’s desk so he was exactly the same distance away from it as his opponent...
Obama... didn’t match his opponent’s chilling gaze. Romney wanted a staring contest, but Obama didn’t take that bait. He shunted it aside, cutting his eyes to the audience. Or he’d diminish the threat with a joke...
Obama made a show of avoiding his opponent. He looked to Crowley with a grin, widened it to show his teeth, let out a chuckle. Finally, in a smooth legato, he delivered a crippling zinger: “You know, I — I don’t look at my pension.” He shot Romney a look, and just as quickly glanced away. He addressed the punch line to the audience:It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long. Great line, taken out of context, in a who-is-more-macho contest.
“It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
But Obama knew, perhaps intuitively, perhaps by virtue of a lifetime of guardedness, how to avoid escalation.Obama has a problem maintaining eye contact. Romney proved his dominance over and over. And the dance critic says Obama won with his dazzling grin and pirouetting away from confrontation.
He simply looked away.
Tell Putin, after the election I will have more flexibility.
Posts
79 comments:
Since Romney's charge is easily confirmed or reputed why doesn't this Sarah creature do that, rather than tell us about Barry's blazing - and therefor deeply stirring to Sarah and no doubt Althouse - eyes?
so I guess the "gifted" dancer who chooses NOT to execute a difficult move has proven they are great by not rising to the challenge ?
oooookkkkkkk ...
"Tell Putin, after the election I will have more flexibility."
#ObamatheBetaMale
#PutinGettingNervous
When those stare downs happened a few times the camera caught Obama's face straight on. He simply looked scared. He looked exactly like a teenager being grilled by an adult.
I felt embarrassed for my country more than anything. How is this guy seen by dangerous foreign leaders who got where they are though ass kicking and treachery.
“It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
#ObamaThinksWomenLikeSmallPenises
There was a Reuters story a couple weeks ago about how many European government officials were pulling for Obama's reelection. Of course they are. They enjoy seeing America being taken down by this inept fool of a president.
"I felt embarrassed for my country more than anything. How is this guy seen by dangerous foreign leaders who got where they are though ass kicking and treachery."
#OurPresidentisaPussy
This kind of nonsensical critique is exactly the reason I gave up on WaPo for my dance criticism needs.
I wonder if WaPo has asked their insect issues reporter to write an article on whether the liberal cocoon will close completely before or after the election.
(There you go Ann, favorite tag wrapped in a bow.)
Do these people have anyself-awareness at all? Does Kaufman really think she's doing careful honest analysis? Is it possible she's not aware she's engaging in ridiculous excuse making?
Time and again, as the tension built, Obama defused it with his eyes. It was a successful technique.
Somebody needs to read more books about werewolves, diverting the eyes is losing the dominance game.
As my 19 year old son tweeted during the first debate: "Obama looks like a kid trying to get away with coming home high. #noeyecontact"
As my 23 year old son told me yesterday, "I could tell Obama was lying because he hesitated too long between words. When you hesitate like that you're thinking up a lie or don't know what you're talking about and just making something up."
Maybe we should call WaPo the groupie newspaper. But, that would really piss off the NYT. They're hoping for that designation.
Obama wins by losing.
Comes Nov. 6, Obama will win a landslide by losing big.
The Chinese call this the dead chicken defense: a dead chicken wins by rigorly holding it's legs up so the cook cannot close the lid of the pot. The fun is lost in translation, sorry.
DADvocate:"I could tell Obama was lying because he hesitated too long between words. When you hesitate like that you're thinking up a lie..."
Don't be silly, the lovable Candy said he talked slow and deserved 9% more time to make his points.
This does seem to be a stretch.
Obama is very likely an INTJ.
If so, the "look away" move is more one of thinly veiled disgust--a lifelong habit, no doubt.
In a dog contest, "looking away" is rolling over and peeing on yourself. These are the confrontations Obama can't win with facts. Fortunately for him, he isn't expected to use any.
I don't think that it was a successful technique at all. Do Alpha males refuse to make eye contact? Not in this country. Do the American people truly want a Beta running this country, esp. after seeing what 4 years of sucking up to despots has done to our national security? - esp. in view of the attacks on us in Lybia, Egypt, etc., Iran getting nuclear weapons, etc.?
Who would you trust more to keep America safe? To turn our economy around? The Alpha or the Beta? If Obama can't stand up to Romney, how can we expect that he will be able to do so with professional bullies like Putin? Or, indeed, some of the union thugs he paid off with money borrowed from China.
That is the problem - the Presidency is the most powerful job in the world, and many, if not most, of us prefer the more powerful person in that position. Besides, humans are wired to respond to strength, which is another reason that this is going to hurt Obama.
Interestingly, this vying of strength is common in Presidential contests, but nowhere, in my memory, has it been so obvious which was the dominant and which was the submissive. Remember Gore intentionally intruding into GW Bush's space? And, Biden the other night? All attempts to show dominance over their opponents. I think that it is unlikely that Bush would have beaten Gore, if the latter had been successful.
I think that this may be one of the big reasons why Romney seemingly is continue to climb, while Obama falls behind, even after the last debate, because Romney clearly dominates Obama at times on stage, and Obama never dominates Romney.
Looking away, in a confrontational situation like this, means you've submitted and accepted the dominance of the other. I'm just curious how many times Obama bowed to him during the debate.
"Obama is very likely an INTJ."
Yes, Myers-Briggs! We should skip the third debate and just have the two candidates submit to Myers-Briggs type indicator tests. Then role play some situations.
You think I'm kidding but I am in love with this idea.
In an earlier comments thread, I said that I thought Obama missed a great opportunity there. Romney was pretty aggressive with his body language and his stare. Obama could have taken a page from Bush and defused the confrontation humorously. If he had, it would have been a "Dingell-Norwood" moment. Instead he went beta.
I generally draw a line in the sand.
@ Bruce Hayden - It's his play for the women's vote. Don't liberal women prefer beta males?
I kept seeing replays of the Libya exchange on TV yesterday, and was stuck by the look On O's face as waited for Romney to spring the trap O thought he set for him. It wasn't pretty. He looked like a cornered rat, his eyes darting about. Looked like Nixon.
Romney wanted a staring contest, but Obama didn’t take that bait.
In other words, he lost.
I thought Obama's body language and baring his teeth when the interchange about the drilling permits started was pretty obvious, and it certainly was not about the senior executive seeking to defuse the situation!
This phrase of "drawing a line in the sand" irritates me.
You draw a line in the sand on the beach, and the next tide washes it away. In the desert it is buried by the next dust storm.
I like the word "successfult". It seems Palinesque, like "refudiate".
Obama was successfult in debate, while Romney was failular.
"Alan said...
Looking away, in a confrontational situation like this, means you've submitted and accepted the dominance of the other."
True of all mammals. My cats plays this game with me regularly...a fantasy confrontation. He startes and Istare back. Sometimes he will turn sideways and puff up his fur...and attack. Other times he will look away and drop his head...submission. It's what animals do. People too.
They really should just build a new wing onto the White House and move the WaPo and NYT in. If there's room, add MSNBC, NBC, ABC, CBS, PBS, Kos, Huff ... OK, nevermind.
Obama looked like the sullen teenager, angry and afraid at the same time.
I am amazed that they even want to bring up the eye contact issue. Isn't inability to maintain eye contact supposed to be an indicator of deception or untruthfulness? I am sure it isn't all of the time, but I think it has enough of a reputation for meaning that to make anyone think about that interpretation when they read the WaPo story.
My daughter has a dog. The dog has a rope. The game is you pull on one end of the rope and he pulls on the other [yes, yes, not exactly original]. After a while, you let him have the rope and he celebrates by jumping around with it.
If a certain amount of time goes by, and you don't let go, he gets a look ... like, I can't believe this, doesn't __________ know that I'm supposed to win, he's supposed to give up? It's very confusing for him, because almost everyone always let's him win.
Zero = the dog.
anyone else think its weird we have a president who has no clue about his pension?
elkh1 - you're right. I'm sorry.
It's just as a slow talking, slow walking Southerner, none of those damn Yankees ever gave me more time to say what I wanted to
I have said it before and I say it again: Debates are a stupid way of determining the leader of the free world. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
After this article, I'm imagining Obama losing by ten points on November and some WaPo editorial portraying it as a "masterful stroke to ensure his return in 2016, as planned".
I am amazed that they even want to bring up the eye contact issue. Isn't inability to maintain eye contact supposed to be an indicator of deception or untruthfulness? I am sure it isn't all of the time, but I think it has enough of a reputation for meaning that to make anyone think about that interpretation when they read the WaPo story.
Did you see the bulge in the ass of Obama's pants? Depends. It's hard to look confident when you are filling one of those. Have you ever seen the look on a dog's face when he's taking a crap? That's it. It's deep in the reptile part of the brain. It's a visual signal to predators that says "don't eat me, I stinky."
They might as well just say:
"Our guy is toast."
It would save a lot of space and spare us the pop psychology blather.
Re: Althouse:
Obama has a problem maintaining eye contact. Romney proved his dominance over and over. And the dance critic says Obama won with his dazzling grin and pirouetting away from confrontation.
Yes, her attempt to make out that Obama crumpling was a masterstroke is kind of silly. But at the same time, how important is it really that our President demonstrate conventional dominance signals? I don't think that's absolutely essential for leadership.
Aaron said:
"I wonder if WaPo has asked their insect issues reporter to write an article on whether the liberal cocoon will close completely before or after the election."
"I wonder if WaPo has asked their insect issues reporter to write an article on whether the fact that the President and the Vice President are completely focused on getting their women what they want means that they envision American society as similar to that of the bees, as an insect society dominated by Queen bees and their daughters.
"Debates are a stupid way of determining the leader of the free world."
Agreed, and it's even dumber to be putting so much into the opinions of people who are still undecided. At this point, in this race, "undecided" means uninformed, lazy and mush-headed. Which is why there is so much time spent on dogs, binders, war on women, etc. It's a battle to see who can fool the easily fooled.
My nephew used to rationalize a lot of stuff when he was a kid and I jokingly dubbed him the Excuse Guy. And he grew out it - he has worked his balls off and just got accepted to med school.
Anyhoo, the drive-by media is like Obama's Excuse Machine.
I never knew looking guilty was #Winning
"how important is it really that our President demonstrate conventional dominance signals? I don't think that's absolutely essential for leadership."
Not at all.
See how Obama has been a great leader without it? It's just an overrated concept innit?
When he refused to look at the Romster in the first debate, everybody knew what was happening.
It happened again, but this time the Lefties are trying to spin it like it's a good thing.
The joy of bowing and surrendering is Obama's method to defuse the fights he is not winning. He plans to wait until he can get the opponent with a surprise drone strike or get him into an ill advised Budget Sequester trap to destroy the country.
That quits working the moment an opponent knows he will do it and simply escalates the pressure.
That is why the rest of the world has no respect for Obama's America and cannot wait to finish us off.
Which is also why Romney is winning the women voters back. Women want a man who will fight to protect them.
The most romantic moment on any date is when your partner looks away from you, unable to make eye contact. That's how you know you're #Winning.
You know what we always tell people trying to convince someone of something? Look at your shoes. They are interesting. People just love shoes; maybe they'll look at them too. Then we can talk about shoes.
No one ever says look at me when I'm talking to you, they'd rather you examine the patterns in the carpet; it shows an appreciation for art.
Tank said...
Zero = the dog.
President Obama said...
They talk about me like a dog.
Hagar, I think you need to read some of the myths about the Alamo to get an appreciation for "drawing a line in the sand". Or maybe watch the movie with John Wayne.
" But at the same time, how important is it really that our President demonstrate conventional dominance signals?"
I can see it as very important. Most, if not all, of us are actually influenced by it subconsciously at some level. It virtually can't be ignored, and isn't by people you will negotiate with, some of whom are from power system where it is central to interactions.
I think it's kind of clear that Reagan's demeanor had a substantial influence on how Iran, and the USSR both responded to his positions. They simply could not see him backing down. Maybe they thought he was crazy or just too assertive to do it, but they clearly believed he meant what he said. The collapse of the USSR may have been triggered by just such a simple thing in one man.
It's one of two things already mentioned here:
a beta move
a disdainful move
neither is a recommendation for a leader.
"Balfegor said...
Yes, her attempt to make out that Obama crumpling was a masterstroke is kind of silly. But at the same time, how important is it really that our President demonstrate conventional dominance signals? I don't think that's absolutely essential for leadership."
Actually, its pretty important, if not often discussed these days with current technology. Reagan was a master at this stuff, and likely lead to his incredible success as a Cold War President. If somehow Reagan in his prime as debating Obama, Barry would have pissed down his pants leg.
Losing eye contact, or avoiding it, is really pretty wimpy and passive-aggressive. I expect Obama sees it as dismissive of who he has been interacting with and it probably works with his underlings. But Romney is not an underling and he is not going to back down.
Jack Wayne said...
Hagar, I think you need to read some of the myths about the Alamo to get an appreciation for "drawing a line in the sand". Or maybe watch the movie with John Wayne.
It may not be a myth, although historians take it with a grain of salt.
The story is attributed to Louis Rose, the only member of the garrison who supposedly took Travis up on his offer, which was made 3 days before the battle. He told the story to a farm family he encountered about 2 weeks after the battle.
The Gospel According to Saint John of Ford applies here.
It's the one who breaks the eye contact who loses. I remember Mike Tyson having probably the greatest staredown in boxing.
Here's Mike Tyson on eye contact and intimidation:
Most guys were just pretty much intimidated. They lost the fight before they even got hit. I knew the art of skullduggery. I knew how to beat these guys psychologically before I even got in the ring with them.
I walk around the ring, but I never take my eyes off my opponent. I keep my eyes on him, even if he’s ready and pumped and he can’t wait to get his hands on me as well. I keep my eyes on him. I keep my eyes on him. I keep my eyes on him.
Then once I see a chink in his armor. BOOM!
And one of his eyes may move and then I know I have him. Then when he comes to the center of the ring, he still looks at me with his piercing look as if he’s not afraid.
But he already made that mistake when he looked down for that one-tenth of a second. I knew I had him. He’ll fight hard for the first two or three rounds but I know I really broke his spirit.
Watch the video:
http://youtu.be/S9MtJ164XJI
40 comments and no one has mentioned the bow to the Saudi?
Look, we all know the man's a pussy. Everyone knows that even when he says something forcefully, that it's quite possible for him to find a way to weasle out of it, and with no regard to how obvious the weaseling is.
Right now this whole meme he's pushing about how he always said it was a terrorist attack is a perfect example. Even with tons of footage of him and his surrogates saying just the opposite, he still floats that turd. And people are buying it!
47% are Obama's abused spouses, still standing there with a black eye, buying his crap one more time.
It virtually can't be ignored, and isn't by people you will negotiate with, some of whom are from power system where it is central to interactions.
You would probably also want to study the culture of the person you are meeting with, as these kinds of rules change. I remember in an Intl business class I took in college, we talked about the differences in countries and spent a few minutes talking with a classmate in a manner that would be acceptable in those countries (the example I remember is trying not to talk with ones hands, that was really hard!).
I will add that this behavior does not necessarily prove weakness. In fact, I don't tend to stare people down at all, and am pretty shy, but that's due to a basic accommodating nature I have. I avoid confrontation, and consequently I rarely negotiate. In business, I have a position, I state it, and unless I find out my facts are wrong, I don't give, period. I usually offer my best right up front.
A couple years ago when I was in a year long negotiation to buy a company, I gave my best offer on day one. 12 months later after hundreds of emails, letters, and conversations with lawyers and principles, the ending contract was nearly identical to my original offer.
I actually wish I could negotiate better, I'd probably getter better deals, by asking for more than what I'm willing to take, but it's just not in me, and I can't fake it.
The difference is that people know Obama will give, weasle, lie. They don't trust him, or shouldn't.
As Stephen Green the Vodkapundit put it during his drunk-blogging this last debate: “Thing I like best about Mitt? First GOP candidate since Reagan who doesn’t come on these things with a permanent deer in the headlights look.”
"Yes, her attempt to make out that Obama crumpling was a masterstroke is kind of silly. But at the same time, how important is it really that our President demonstrate conventional dominance signals? I don't think that's absolutely essential for leadership."
I think I agree with this pretty much.
And I think that there is a point of trying-too-hard that sort of signals anti-dominance. Obama being "tough" is cringe inducing. But people think that this is what tough looks like. I don't think that bullies are often "alpha". If you're "alpha" what's the point of bullying?
Obama, btw, was signaling dominance by instructing the moderator.
Obama's joke about the size of pensions saved a disaster for him where he admitted that he had no interest and no clue about money. At least to anyone who cares about the economy that was devastating to Obama. But a laugh diffused it.
Still the whole idea that defusing tension is a method of dominance is ridiculous. And maybe knowing "by virtue of a lifetime of guardedness, how to avoid escalation" is real, but it's from being a girl. Perhaps the idea is that it's also from being black in America, this habitual guardedness and need to defuse, but I honestly can't see it as a trait belonging to black men (or women).
(And honestly... someone has had to have done something with "it's not as big as yours" by now, right?)
for Obama's next trick: submissive urination.
It will lure Romney into a false sense of security.
Ah... think I wanted defuse consistently; though I suppose diffuse might work in a pinch in the sense of soften or spread out. Spell check liked them both and I didn't notice until after I hit publish.
Bah.
Re: Ryan:
Actually, its pretty important, if not often discussed these days with current technology. Reagan was a master at this stuff, and likely lead to his incredible success as a Cold War President. If somehow Reagan in his prime as debating Obama, Barry would have pissed down his pants leg.
I don't know about that. If we think about past leaders, it's not clear to me that those who displayed dominance in the conventional way were the most effective.
I occasionally reference gloomy Lord Salisbury as the last, best representative of the pre-professional politician. Even in his own day he was described as womanish, both in that he had a tendency to somewhat waspish sarcasm, and in that he never engaged in any conventional masculine pursuits (hunting or sport). We know him to have been extraordinarily shy, to the point that he would apparently cross to the other side of the street simply to avoid meeting someone he knew even after he became the leading political figure in Britain. He was the opposite of a backslapper.
But if we compare him to a more conventionally energetic alpha male rival, like Lord Randolph Churchill with a firm manner and a firm handshake, it certainly seemed to the public and the press like Churchill was dominating Salisbury in the first year of Salisbury's administration, but in fact Salisbury maneuvered Churchill into a swift, premature retirement. After which Salisbury went on to become Queen Victoria's longest serving PM, and Churchill went mad and died.
Similarly with Arthur Balfour -- things fell apart during his prime ministership, but he made his political repuation as "Bloody Balfour," ruthlessly crushing the Irish beneath his effete, airily philosophical boot. Again, about as far as one could possibly get from conventional masculine dominance without actually turning into a limp-wristed parody of a homosexual, but effective in his prime.
Men who engage in conventional displays of dominance may find it easier to persuade anonymous voters to put them into leadership positions -- it's the kind of thing that fueled Randolph Churchill's rise and hundreds of populists after him. It doesn't mean they'll be any good at those jobs, though, or that a different sort of personality won't run rings around them politically.
"It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
Heh! I get it!
Funnily enough, Romney doesn't have a pension only his own investment portfolio from the money he earned at Bain. When he was MA governor he didn't take a salary & thus isn't entitled to the public pension that goes with that position. Obama, of course, does have a public pension as POTUS to the tune of $191,000 a year for life plus travel expenses (estimated lifetime value $6 million).
Romney, btw, has already said if he becomes POTUS he will not take the salary.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/49450057/
"for Obama's next trick: submissive urination."
OK, that got me laughing out loud. I can go to work now. Thanks.
A person who repeatedly looks away when you're talking to them is undoubtedly a liar.
If Obama keeps triumphing like this, he's toast.
Has anyone checked in with Mark Bittman, the cook at the NY Times?
I want CNN to have a numerologist, a graphologist, a puppeteer and a mime on deck to give some trenchant analysis.
Surely, I'm not alone?
Obama doesn't have to look at his pension, its bullet proof. Ours, not so much.
Balfegor 12:13 -
"Some of these homos make the worst killers."
- Ian Fleming, Diamonds Are Forever, Chapter 14
Also - dare I go Godwin? - read Rise and Fall of the Third Reich for some tasteful gossip on Nazi Party bigwigs, including Ernst Roehm of the SA.
Not to circumscribe the topic to "right-wing fascism" - c.f. Stalin's Nikolai Yezhov, the Poison Dwarf, author of the Yezhovschina. Among his confessed crimes at his show trial were various moral depravities.
Oh and who does Yezhov resemble?
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_KgBT8kIRgBo/SjfPai3M4GI/AAAAAAAAFf4/g4k2LtM2cnI/s320/Ezhov.PNG
(also on wiki, etc)
Re: Nichevo:
Oh and who does Yezhov resemble?
Yes, yes, I see.
Actually, when I was watching the rabid anti-Japanese TV drama "Bridal Mask" (각시탈) recently, I thought the actor for the villain, Kimura Shunji, had a strong resemblance to the President. They have similar smirks and similar glowers.
The younger Bush had a low center of gravity and was not easily caught off balance. The amused look in his eye when he nodded to Gore and dodged the thrown shoe established his dominance without making it some kind of contest. That's one of the perks of being the son of a rich, powerful man. Self assurance is second nature....I suppose Romney won the staring contest, but the fact that there was a staring contest doesn't inspire confidence in either man. They're both paid to negotiate conflicts with more sang froid than that which was exhibited.
Shiftless.
"anyone else think its weird we have a president who has no clue about his pension?"
The president's pension, last I heard, is like $200,000 per year for life. It's probably his Illinois pension which is unlikely to be much since he's never had a job.
The bully defenders here don't seem to get that refusing to look an asshole like Romney in the eye is a sign of condescension and disrespect, meted out in equal proportion to the disrespect the Outsourcer spewed at the president.
And in the end, the hate he took was equal to the hate he gave.
Re: Ritmo:
The bully defenders here don't seem to get that refusing to look an asshole like Romney in the eye is a sign of condescension and disrespect,
Wha-aat? For reals? If Obama had never glared into Romney's eyes and just sort of nodded Bush II-style, you might have a point. But that's not what he did. He engaged in a (stupid) staring contest with Romney and lost.
I mean, I think this is a silly thing to look at in determining who you want as a President, sure. But this isn't something where you can turn around a show of superficial weakness and credibly make-believe it was a show of superficial strength.
“It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
See what being half white does to you.
Post a Comment