2011 (1)
2016 (1035)
2017 (752)
2018 (978)
2019 (385)
2020 (175)
2021 (235)
2022 (101)
2023 (983)
奧巴馬總統是最聰明的人之一，他知道他在做什麽，隻是我昨晚看電視辯論不知道 。他似乎采取非常謹慎的行動：不願麵對直言的政治對手，敏感平衡侵略與合理。他說，選擇作為一個 underdog ，這反映了他一生的選擇。他最早的決定選擇與黑人一邊。選擇作為最後一分鍾的候選人是他贏得了哈佛法律評論 “ 主編的位置。這些例子很多 , 我無法得到答案。我發現下麵互聯網，大開眼界：
勞倫斯 B.“ 這可不是鬧著玩的。錯誤的羅姆尼，在錯誤的地方在錯誤的一天可能意味著一場新的戰爭在中東或更糟糕的事情。
我們隻是不能有一個多重性格的總統。 “
珍妮特 · 埃林森： “ 羅姆尼的大量的口頭攻擊的真相之前，全國觀眾是我的耳朵已經忍受了幾十年來最糟糕的事情之一，我感覺自己幾乎髒曾參與。誰知道那些什麽都不懂的目的是玩世不恭。但我們有很多人知道誰真的贏了，失去了。 “
“ 支持奧巴馬總統的表現，不是一個失敗的昨晚。我們都希望，他說了這樣或那樣的，但他說的是誠實的和一致的。我仍然極大地為他感到驕傲。
不過，我認識到，我們每個人都聽到和看到的完全取決於我們的偏見。我懷疑任何人被說服改變他或她將如何投票。
我認為，共和黨應該是很沮喪的羅姆尼說什麽。他們甚至聽嗎？或他們簡直太興奮，他的有力的風度聽到的話嗎？例如，米特 • 羅姆尼（ Mitt Romney ）給 Romneycare 證明他是能影響社會的立法與民主黨。這是蘭德 · 保羅希望從他的總統嗎？蘭德突然妥協，民主黨在參議院占多數呢？羅姆尼要麽不知道他的政黨或他說謊了。 “
約翰 · 麥克布萊德：
“ 米特 · 羅姆尼和共和黨所關注的並非事實。
他們隻是想運行的政府。自二戰以來，他們已經完善了科學的獲勝。昨晚教科書穆雷 Chotiner ： “... 你必須確定你的對手，從來沒有讓他定義一下。如果他這樣做，你通過 ... 然後，你發現你的對手的弱點 ... 移動，打難當 - 也不會停止 ... 永不放棄的選民超過他們可以處理。他們有自己的生活。大多數人無法吸收運動過程中的兩個或三個以上的問題。 .. 限製你的主題 ... 送他們回家。 “
許多獨立選民情緒做出決定。
總統競選是一個真正的公開招聘過程。擔任總統的人必須善於推銷自己。
誰明白 ? 公民是這個國家的 “ 員工 ” 昨天晚上，美國總統沒有表現出他完全明白，這不隻是關於他的。這是關於我們所有的人。
· 奧巴馬清理了他繼承的爛攤子嗎？ 保羅 · 克魯格曼 2012 年 09 月 10 日
克林頓這樣調侃共和黨不讓奧巴馬連任的理由： “ 我們留給他一個爛攤子，他清理爛攤子的速度不夠快。 ” 那麽，爛攤子真的在得到清理嗎？
· 羅姆尼山寨羅斯福不靠譜 羅斯 · 多塞特 2012 年 09 月 05 日
從羅姆尼的話中，人們能聽到羅斯福式的競選承諾。他學著羅斯福呼籲大膽而持久的試驗，但卻沒有明確具體措施，隻有泛泛而談的長篇大論。
“ 奧巴馬沒能在這次辯論改變自己的戰術
“ 羅斯福總統曾經說過， “ 銀行家恨我，我歡迎他們的仇恨。 ” 任何人都可以想像奧巴馬說類似的東西嗎？ “ （（ ROBERT G. KAISER ， ” 紐約時報 “ ）
卡羅琳 · 魯賓遜： MSNBC 評論員， ” 總統的缺乏有戰鬥力的說法，暗示奧巴馬缺乏拳擊。
在 2008 年奧巴馬敏感的平衡種族的動態，想起當時的 “ 憤怒的黑人男子 ” 可能會引發怎樣的形象對他的憤怒在我們的白人公民。，
科林 · 路德 · 鮑威爾說，裏根政府和布什家族促進了他的職業生涯。他是一個美國的政治家和退休的四星將軍在美國軍隊。 [1] 他是第 65 屆美國國務卿喬治 ·W· 布什總統的領導下，服務 2001 至 2005 年。他是第一個非裔美國人在這個位置上。 [2] [3] [4] [5] 在他的軍事生涯中，鮑威爾還擔任國家安全顧問（ 1987-1989 年），作為美國陸軍部隊司令部的指揮官（ 1989 ）和主席參謀長聯席會議員工（ 1989-1993 年），後者在海灣戰爭中的地位。他是第一個，也是迄今為止唯一的，非洲裔美國人擔任參謀長聯席會議。
賴斯說，她從來沒有主動追求一個更高的職位，隻有被別人提升了她。 “ 賴斯擔任第 66 屆美國國務卿，總統喬治 ·W· 布什擔任該職的管理是第二人。賴斯是非洲第一位女性美國國務卿，以及第二位非洲裔美國人（科林 · 鮑威爾）後，馬德琳 · 奧爾布賴特之後的第二個女人（）。在他的第一任期內，布什總統的國家安全顧問。在加入布什政府之前，她是一名政治學教授，她在斯坦福大學擔任教務長。
羅伯特 · 凱瑟：
我不認為有任何定義的 “ 贏 ” 字，可以使奧巴馬昨晚的辯論中的贏家。事實上，我一直在衝浪今天上午找權威人士或政客說，奧巴馬戰勝，我沒有發現。采取民意調查昨晚，所有不完美的，可以肯定，一致認為，羅姆尼贏得。最讓我感興趣的是 CBS 猶豫不決的選民投票。 46 ％ OPF 他們說 Romeny 贏得了 22 ％的人認為奧巴馬贏得 32 ％的人說，這是一條領帶。但我注意到了絕大多數， 54 ％，回升奧巴馬說： “ 領帶。 ” 羅姆尼的 46 ％，幾乎不構成井噴。這是他最近的全國民意調查中得到的比投全。
最後一點： “ 獲勝 ” 的辯論並不意味著贏得選舉。我記憶猶新的 2004 年布什和克裏的辯論。克裏贏得所有三個，很方便。他羞辱了布什在第一個，我想。這並沒有幫助他多在 11 月，沒了嗎？
Frizbane 曼利：
看吉姆 · 萊勒的可憐表現 - 什麽是所有這些開放式的問題 - 和捕捉幾個 “ 分析 ” 後，辯論隻是證實了我的偏見，在美國是一個輕率的，平淡的，陳腐，我們的政府是可悲的政治家已經圍得水泄不通在華盛頓的決策。美國機構在簡化我們的政治和社會組織。在辯論後分析，我聽到的是 “ 誰贏了？ ”...... “ 誰似乎更總統嗎？ ”...... “ 誰擁有最好的帶偏見嗎？ ”...... “ 誰從事件中得到了較大的顛簸？ ”...... 我想我在看 ESPN 。 “
實際情況可能是危險的：
美國 * 恨 * 膽小鬼準備的，如果你被認為是一個懦夫，你將失去這次選舉。
一個 11 歲的評論： “ 羅姆尼說，他的 5 個兒子是先天性的騙子 ... 她說： OMG ！他叫他的兒子騙子！
這是為什麽：
羅姆尼競選發言人埃裏克 ·Fehrnstrom ，去年春天。 Fehrnsteom 有人問如何堅定地保守的職位上，他采取了更中間派的立場，可能會吸引換屆選舉選民在共和黨初選羅姆尼能夠從。
“ 好了， ”Fehrnstrom 回答， “ 我想你擊中一個複位按鈕，為秋季競選。一切都在改變。這幾乎就像一個蝕刻素描。您可以動搖它，並重新啟動一遍。 “
“ 羅姆尼否認自己的稅收計劃。羅姆尼簡單地否認，並拒絕了所有他以前的不太受歡迎的計劃。你不喜歡一個全麵的板的減稅（他已經提供了好幾個月）的 20 ％？ OK ，我不會做它 - 我承諾放棄任何為富人減稅，或任何減稅。我個人看，作為一個明智的政策轉變，但它也是一個觸發器，令人印象深刻的，它可能是進入的奧運冠軍。我很好奇，保守分子會作何反應。 “ （羅伯特 ·KAISER ，紐約時報 ）
蘇東坡才智過人，但其人生經曆卻難以令人羨慕。蘇東坡 在政治舞台上受到重重打擊 ， 以此 人人 怨恨、個個切齒，把他誣陷下在獄中， 幾番要致之死地。 蘇東坡 曉得 一生 吃虧在 “ 聰明 ” 二字，然與其 聰明 反被 聰明誤 。便寫了一首感慨的詩， 蘇東坡 《洗兒詩》 ， 說： “ 人人 都說 聰明 好，我被 聰明誤一生 。但 願生 兒愚且蠢，無災無難到公卿。 ” “人家養子愛 聰明 ， 我為聰明誤一生 。 . 但 願生 兒愚且魯， 無災無害到公卿。”
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.
從美國總統的辯論中，你可以學到什麽？
來源: 北美老農 於 2012-10-07 21:33:17 [檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [轉至博客] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀： 4195次
字體：調大/調小/重置 | 加入書簽 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟貼 | 查看當前最熱討論主題
上周三，我和家人觀看了州長羅姆尼和奧巴馬總統之間的第一次辯論。他倆都是久經沙場的演說家。這場辯論可謂是“顛峰對決”。辯論包括準備好的台詞和即興演講。辯論後，很多人都在討論誰是這場辯論的贏家。但我想與大家分享我的觀察和可從辯論中汲取的教訓。
辯論的視頻和文字記錄：http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/10/04/us/politics/20120804-denver-presidential-debate-obama-romney.html#/?annotation=89dfece60
1。與聽眾要有眼神接觸和要注意力的集中
當你演講時，你一定要與你的聽眾有不斷的眼神接觸。當在正式辯論時，你要看著你的對手。
在周三的辯論中，奧巴馬花了太多的時間往下看，也許他正在做筆記，但他看起來沒有專注於他的對手，顯得不夠投入，不夠積極。相比之下，羅姆尼在奧巴馬講話時, 一直在注視著對手, 並保持微笑，他顯得更加自信，更加投入，和更加有熱情。
2。說話前要想好，避免得罪公眾
一個好的演講者或政治家，必須考慮在前，說話在後。在談論比如宗教，種族，國籍, 殘疾，和性取向時要非常小心，以免得罪你的一部分聽眾。我們更不應該得罪公眾喜歡的偶像。
州長羅姆尼犯了一個錯誤，在減少聯邦赤字的辯論中，他對公共電台(PBS)主持人吉姆•萊勒說：“我要停止補貼PBS,（雖然）我喜歡PBS，我愛大鳥。” 他不應該提到大鳥, 並把大鳥與減少赤字聯係起來。大鳥是PBS兒童節目中的一個可愛的偶像, 幾乎每個人都喜歡。羅姆尼要削減預算，讓大家聯想到大鳥節目被取消，他就得罪了公眾。他的這個即興講話使他失去了拉票的好機會。
3。要準備充分
當羅姆尼攻擊多德 - 弗蘭克(Todd-Frank)金融改革法案時，他指責法案中的兩件事情，一個法案中有保護大銀行的內容，另一個是模糊房貸定義對銀行貸款的負影響。奧巴馬沒有反擊或否定羅姆尼發難，導致很多人相信了羅姆尼的指控。奧巴馬和他的團隊似乎沒有準備好，沒有仔細研究Todd-Frank法案。
4。要使用簡單列表, 列出明確步驟讓人相信你是一個胸有成竹的人
羅姆尼談到自己的計劃時，他用了一個列表，他用一，二，三，四, 和五。簡單的開場白後，列出五項明確措施創造就業機會。他使聽眾相信他實幹,有一個明確的經濟計劃。奧巴馬也有相似的計劃可是他沒有明確地列出。他的計劃被埋藏在沉長背景說明中去了。因此，觀眾對羅姆尼印象更深。
5。要善用幽默
羅姆尼和奧巴馬都善用幽默, 但在周三的辯論中, 羅姆尼更放鬆, 常常笑裏藏刀。例如羅姆尼說: “你(奧巴馬)可擁有飛機, 擁有房子, 但你不可以擁有自編的數據。” “我有五個兒子, 我習慣了人們不說真話。” “你可能沒想到辯論會場成了你(紀念訂婚20周年)最浪漫的地方, (居然)和我在一起。”
總結：一個好的演講者（1）要與聽眾有目光接觸，注意力要集中到辯論對手身上,（2）要避免衝動, 想好再說以減少失誤，（3）要充分的準備, 預防”不測”，（4）要用簡短的清單講明計劃， （5）要善用幽默。
最後我想提一提的是：即使是經驗豐富的演說行家在重要場合也會犯錯，我們就更不應該害怕在大庭廣眾前發表講話了。當然，要想好了再說。
所有跟帖：
• 學到了政客的話就當是屁。 -壯士- ♂ (0 bytes) (3 reads) 10/7/12 18:48:02
• Yes. It stinks. -2544- (0 bytes) (1 reads) 10/7/12 19:03:00
• 學到了“一張嘴巴兩層皮，說進說出都是理”：））~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ -mysc1234- ♂ (0 bytes) (1 reads) 10/7/12 18:50:26
• 你那天談到大宋的問題，正好我曾在這方麵做過很多研究，本想寫個貼回應， -edison11- ♂ (38 bytes) (20 reads) 10/7/12 19:04:03
• 嗬嗬，您太認真了，俺從沒研究過大宋問題，俺這人懶，從不研究細節問題：））~~~~ -mysc1234- ♂ (211 bytes) (11 reads) 10/7/12 19:11:14
• 膚淺了些，比如第二條，讓黨派基本盤滿意才是重點，不可能讓所有人滿意 -mooseamoose- ♂ (27 bytes) (4 reads) 10/7/12 18:55:48
• 總結得好! 這幾點對咱們的孩子都非常有用，特別是debate team的孩子。 -旖旎風光- ♀ (0 bytes) (0 reads) 10/7/12 18:57:54
• 不服不行！這場辯論會可能會改變大選結果。 -周遊列國逍遙人生- ♂ (0 bytes) (8 reads) 10/7/12 19:00:52
• 失業率首次低於8%可以救回來了 -mooseamoose- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 20:26:34
• 太好了，謝謝。全部抄下來給女兒去學校討論 -伊敏- (64 bytes) (13 reads) 10/7/12 19:22:43
• 其實重要一點是奧吧幹了四年，有把柄可抓。蘿卜尼什麽還沒幹，無把柄可抓。 -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
• 學到通過辯論選總統是多麽滑稽的一件事。 -這個星球有點軸- ♂ (27 bytes) (27 reads) 10/7/12 22:23:05
• 隻通過辯論選總統是滑稽。但，如果辯論是在選民比較知道背景的情況下，還是很有幫助的 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 22:25:11
• 嗬嗬，如果因為一場辯論中口齒不靈就不能領導一個國家，那這競選跟兒戲也木什麽不同。 -這個星球有點軸- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/7/12 22:33:34
• 權利核心的背景選民知道什麽？辯論的議題都是選出來抓眼球的，這不是皇帝的新衣是什麽 -這個星球有點軸- ♂ (95 bytes) (16 reads) 10/7/12 22:39:39
• 中間選民一般是比較認真的選民，也是比較聰明的選民，一般不會因為辯論結果受到太大影 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (4 reads) 10/8/12 00:22:37
• 關鍵是他們也不知道什麽核心背景，本質上會有什麽差別呢？ -這個星球有點軸- ♂ (67 bytes) (5 reads) 10/8/12 00:51:53
• 在美國時間長了對核心背景都會很了解。認真的選民們也會做調查，聽聽各方麵的意見。 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (0 bytes) (2 reads) 10/8/12 00:57:57
• 連任基本上是對現有政策的信心。當然，很多對現有政策不了解。比如，知道Obama減 -老忽叔叔- ♂ (89 bytes) (40 reads) 10/8/12 01:02:13
• 可以學到如何演戲！ -zbj8888- ♂ (0 bytes
來源: edison11 於 2012-10-07 21:55:26 [檔案] [博客] [舊帖] [轉至博客] [給我悄悄話] 本文已被閱讀：788次
字體：調大/調小/重置 | 加入書簽 | 打印 | 所有跟帖 | 加跟貼 | 查看當前最熱討論主題
今天打電話給兒子，問他看了總統辯論沒有，他說看了，問他是否還支持奧巴馬，他堅定的說，那當然！我老婆也是奧巴馬堅定的擁護者，對辯論中羅姆尼和奧巴馬的表現跟我有完全不同的看法，她認定羅姆尼是撒謊者，以前說過的辯論中都不認帳，奧巴馬不好意思戳穿他，所以顯得奧巴馬在辯論中比較被動。顯然她認為奧巴馬道德高尚，羅姆尼是小人一個，雖然羅贏了嘴仗，卻輸了人品。所以她更加支持奧巴馬。這真讓我對美國的民主選舉有點失望。
民主製度有很多優點，但是也有一些缺點，那就是選出來的隻是最受歡迎的，而不是最好的。由於真理在開始階段總是掌握在少數人手中，所以民主選擇不可能選出來具有最先進，最正確的思想和政策的領導人，選出來的往往是平庸，隻會耍嘴皮的領導人。
象Ron Paul這種人就不可能得到大多數人的支持，Romney明顯的比奧巴馬更懂經濟，可是他的選票也比奧巴馬落後很多。美國這種製度決定了美國的國家政策要出現比較大的偏差和失誤，讓大多數人都認同了，才可能得到糾正。
[此博文包含圖片] (2012-10-06 11:46:54)
轉載▼
標簽：
美國大選
奧巴馬
羅姆尼
辯論
大鳥
分類： 美國紀事
一隻大鳥攪了美國大選
羅姆尼真的贏了首場總統辯論嗎？在辯論剛結束時人們都深信不疑羅姆尼贏了首場總統辯論，羅姆尼的競選團隊甚至徹夜無眠歡慶。
幾天過去了，美國人靜下心了，重新回味辯論，才發現羅姆尼在辯論中的滔滔不絕口不遮攔令其一下很被動，似乎那些沒有經過他的大腦脫口而出的話並沒有顯示他的機智，反而露出他根本不關心民眾的真實想法。
討厭羅姆尼的美國媒體這幾天一直在調侃羅姆尼在辯論中的一段話，一隻大鳥一下點中了羅姆尼的死穴：一個銜著金鑰匙出生在達官貴人家的綾羅錦衣官富公子怎能知曉民眾的疾苦？他上台後會不會令美國有更多的富者愈富窮者愈窮的馬太效應呢？
羅姆尼究竟說了什麽話？大鳥又就是是什麽呢？他在辯論中被問及如果削減財政赤字時對美國公共廣播電視服務公司（Public Broadcasting Service簡稱為PBS）的主管Jim Lehre（吉米·樂赫）說：“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. ”就是這段話目前在美國引起軒然大波，令美國大選峰回路轉。
這句話翻譯過來並沒有任何特別之處：“對不起吉米，我將停止給PBS的補貼，（雖然）我喜歡PBS，我喜歡大鳥（Big Bird)，我實際上也喜歡你。”這是美國一個文化背景的問題，一般外國人如果不了解來龍去脈，是很難理解為什麽這段話會有如此大殺傷力的。
老丹是這樣給我解釋PBS（Public Broadcasting Service簡稱為PBS,中文翻譯為“美國公共廣播電視服務公司”）和大鳥(Big Bird)的：在美國，看電視一般要花錢安有線電纜，才能看到更多的有線電視頻道。但是政府為了照顧普通低收入民眾，有特別規定，幾家主流電視台必須有免費頻道，如果民眾不想付錢看電視，也是可以看免費電視。美國公共廣播電視服務公司是一家非盈利的電視傳播網服務機構，注意這個“公共”字眼，是美國民眾一種共產的期盼，向公眾提供免費電視節目，其提供的最有名的一檔兒童節目是叫“芝麻街（Sesame Street）”，裏麵的一個主角就是大鳥。這個兒童節目絕對不同尋常，這是美國最長壽的兒童啟蒙益智教育節目。大鳥從一九六九年就陪著美國孩子們長大，它會教孩子們數學、拚字、唱歌、跳舞和滑冰，甚至寫詩歌，總之，所有孩子們快樂童年要學的，全能的大鳥都可以教你。人人公平，真真體現美國憲法開篇所說“人人生來平等”。
大鳥是老丹孩童時最銘心刻骨的一部分，就似我小時候所理解的“小叮當”或是“小喇叭開始廣播了”的節目（抱歉，因為出國太久，還真的不知目前國內小朋友看什麽益智節目，無法給出相關比喻）。老丹說連奧巴馬都是看著大鳥長大的。最重要的是，這是免費頻道播出的節目，不管家庭貧富，這個兒童節目對於所有的孩子都是均等的，孩子們都在自己的家裏學到大鳥教授的東西，機會人人均等。在學校共同談起大鳥，彼此是心靈相通津津樂道的，沒有城府，沒有貴賤之別。
老丹羅哩羅嗦解釋一大堆，我還不是很理解他的大鳥情結。我隻能想，就像小時候很窮，但是大家都很開心，在學校打乒乓球丟沙包踢毽子，就是快樂的童年，不需要彼此攀比昂貴的玩具。那真是單純爛漫的幼兒少年懵懂開心時代啊。像我不小心還考了一個什麽市文科高考狀元之類，讓爸媽不需要為我上大學的費用擔憂。
羅姆尼自幼長於高官富家，絕對是出身高貴，自是不知民間疾苦。他潛意識肯定沒有體會到普通民眾是多麽需要這些免費的人人均等的教育機會。當然，大鳥並不是窮人的專品，它儼然已是美國孩子們兒童時代的一部分。相信羅姆尼的孩子們也是看著大鳥長大的，它是一個大眾名牌，如果不知道，會被同伴們嘲笑的。大鳥其實是一個在美國民間公平的天真無邪不知等級的孩子們的品牌。因為在沒有有線電視以前，大家都是看免費無線電視的，隻是如今科技越來越發達，財富越來越集中，才越發誕生出很多需要金錢購買的東西，財富居然將孩子們無邪的童年也分出來貴賤。
美國大選，還是要贏中產階級，美國的中產階級龐大，從一年一個家庭三萬到十五萬美金的收入，都可以算中產，這幾乎覆蓋了美國百分之八十的民眾。得中產者得美國天下也。奧巴馬出身中產，深得其道，首場辯論中規中矩，就是不想得罪中產階級。
羅姆尼首場辯論，顯然是有備而來，鋒芒畢露，一時占得先機。但是對一隻大鳥的調侃，竟然一語成讖，給自己挖了一個坑，反而掉了進去。他說為了減少財政赤字而去削減對公共電視頻道的補貼，有可能使美國公共廣播電視服務公司PBS因為入不敷出而破產，而使大鳥無家可歸。
美國媒體譏諷羅姆尼：“Kids Can't Vote, But Moms Can！”孩子們不能選舉，但是媽媽們可以。如果羅姆尼不讓孩子們有公平的公共資源，肯定會失去媽媽們的選票。
羅姆尼一夢醒來，也許會明白造化作弄人，根深蒂固在他腦子裏的優越感才是他丟失民心的根本。
一隻大鳥真得要攪黃羅姆尼的總統夢嗎？
二0一二年十月五日晚美國時間於費城
一隻大鳥攪了美國大選
已經不再看大鳥節目的老丹：謝謝老丹不厭其煩的解釋，才讓吾茅塞頓開
一隻大鳥攪了美國大選
看看大鳥是何方神聖
frank-shanghai2012-10-06 13:34:49 [舉報]
富二代成大器者少、敗家的眾，關鍵他沒有貧困的體驗。
來自frank-shanghai的評論
推倒度娘大家上2012-10-06 13:47:05 [舉報]
當政者幫如沒有感受過民間的疾苦，永遠的屁股決定腦袋
來自推倒度娘大家上的評論
翟召峰2012-10-06 14:11:09 [舉報]
嗯，看了安替的文章，還在為奧巴馬遺憾，倒是不料羅姆尼一語成讖，富人不識窮滋味啊
來自翟召峰的評論
DMYO_O2012-10-06 14:45:40 [舉報]
#一個銜著金鑰匙出生在達官貴人家的綾羅錦衣官富公子怎能知曉民眾的疾苦# 所以憑借雄厚家族背景而走上政途的人哪懂民生
來自DMYO_O的評論
李鋒超2012-10-07 01:08:55 [舉報]
禍從口出，不經意間就給自己埋下了一枚定時炸彈。美國再富，其許多人民也喜歡免費產品與服務，若真是傷害了大眾的利益，在美國那樣的總統選舉製度中，當選堪憂啊！
來自李鋒超的評論
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
羅姆尼親口承認“我認為，我競選活動的重點放在他的政策及其政策失誤方麵。不過我不會濫用競選對他進行個人攻擊。我不曾試圖按照階層、地域或職業分裂美國人。我認為，我們是一個團結的民族，這是力量的源泉。搞分裂和人格詆毀，我認為是不好的做法，而且我認為不會得逞。”
作為貝恩投資的創始人、華爾街投行的CEO、前密歇根州州長的兒子，麥凱恩出身顯赫、財富累累。
米特·羅姆尼，美國政治家、企業家，馬薩諸塞州第70任州長。此外，他還曾擔任貝恩資本風險投資與杠杆收購公司CEO ，以及鹽湖城冬奧會組委會主席。他在美國共和黨內有著良好的口碑。2007年2月，羅姆尼曾宣布參加2008年的美國總統大選，但以失敗而告終。
2011年6月，羅姆尼再次宣布參加2012年的美國總統大選。
15年來，作為貝恩投資公司領頭人，米特·羅姆尼的所作所為證明他是一個非常有才也非常謹慎的商人。在他逐漸成長為金融家的歲月裏，他竭盡全力降低企業的風險，而對企業來說，風險和利潤通常相伴而來。他極力要求他的合夥人密切關注可衡量、能證實的數據，拒絕對商業前景作出主觀判斷，堅持依據實踐經驗作決定。
羅姆尼對數字的嗜好遠超常人。即使在擔任貝恩公司首席執行官期間，他在會議桌前一坐就是幾個小時，記了大量筆記，經常使用計算器，還手畫圖表。在抓機遇方麵，他比很多競爭對手都慢，對每一筆生意都要尋找隱蔽的漏洞。他征求反對意見，極少在沒有與合夥人達成共識前進行投資。貝恩投資公司讓他學會了把整個世界當作無窮無盡的潛在生意，其中多數是不好的。他避開了幾乎所有有可能失敗的生意，隻做穩操勝券的生意，從不參與他認為贏不了的遊戲。
競選之時，羅姆尼把自己的從商經曆放在首位，聲稱自己有私營部門的經驗，能夠挽救美國經濟。
毫無疑問，羅姆尼是一個成功的商人。
1984年，羅姆尼創立貝恩投資公司，並將3700萬美元種子基金變成了規模達數十億美元的管理資產。如今，羅姆尼積累的個人財富高達2億美元，這意味著什麽呢？羅姆尼的的財富=(尼克鬆+福特+卡特+裏根+老布什+克林頓+小布什+奧巴馬)×2。
雖然財富遠超奧巴馬，但這卻成了羅姆尼的軟肋。
美國的貧富分化在過去三十年裏不停加劇。頂尖1%的家庭現在掙了全國20%的收入，而四十年前他們才掙到全國收入的10%。美國人本不是非常仇富，但在經濟不斷“秀下限”之際，這1%的符號隻需繳納不到15%的稅收，而貧窮的大多數，特別是中產階層要繳納超過30%的稅收時，不滿之情自然溢於言表，當財富並不隨著時間而增加時，選民們自然開始仇恨貧富分化帶來的不公。
為了平息外界，特別是民主黨方麵對他稅務狀況的持續質疑，作為“最富有”的總統競選人之一的羅姆尼與2012年9月公布了自己和妻子2011年的納稅申報單。報單顯示，羅姆尼夫婦2011年收入約1370萬美元，繳稅194萬美元，實際稅率為14.1%，遠低於美國中產階級家庭的平均稅率，因而招徠一致聲討，在他們看來，這位總統候選人攫取了更多的財富卻沒有雨普通民眾一起承擔國家的責任和義務。而奧巴馬20.5%的實際稅率則顯得更為親民。
出身問題本已成為羅姆尼的劣勢，雪上加霜的是，羅姆尼居然還鄙視了大眾一把，在2012年5月的一個私人籌款晚宴上，羅姆尼直言所有支持奧巴馬的選民中有47%的人沒有繳稅，但卻自認為“他們有權享受健康保險、食物、住房等可以想得到的服務。”，這樣的說法無異於嘲諷47%國民靠政府養。
一係列的低級失誤加劇了羅姆尼與美國民眾的對立，而更加讓人不解的是，作為一個挑戰者，麵對“草根”奧巴馬的死纏爛打，羅姆尼居然選擇了一個更加錯誤的競選策略——攻擊奧巴馬。
羅姆尼將向選民指出，現任總統奧巴馬未能向他承諾的那樣為美國帶來“希望和改變”，羅姆尼將要求選民將選票投給自己，從而扭轉美國的經濟，消除奧巴馬“錯誤政策”帶來的影響。他還將明確指出，美國目前最需要的就是就業機會，
羅姆尼還會說，“許多人放棄了奧巴馬，但是他們不會放棄自己，也不會放棄美國。”他將要求選民一起“翻過令人失望的四年”。
羅姆尼對奧巴馬的攻擊招來一片批評質疑之聲，演講現場裏示威者的抗議聲一度讓他被迫中斷演講。《紐約時報》等媒體紛紛發表社論指責羅姆尼“為謀黨派私利甚至不惜把美國國家評級當做人質”，社論還貶損羅姆尼的演講是用嘴上抹蜜的腔調搭配怪異而模糊的笑容，他時不時甚至要激動落淚，但通篇都是陳詞濫調。
羅姆尼的策略：應如何應對奧巴馬？
從亨利·福特、威廉·赫斯特到羅斯·佩羅，很多“妄想”從商人晉級為總統的均告失敗。羅姆尼能否打破這個魔咒，關鍵在於其競選策略。
奧巴馬勝在和群眾打成一片，選總統很多時候有點像談戀愛，最後還有個說不出道不明的“討人喜歡”的人品人格因素。這個因素很難量化。常用的辦法是問選民願意和誰一起喝啤酒。喝啤酒代表和人民打成一片，而喝紅酒代表著和小資們互相往來，喝高級白幹則代表和大資產階級同仇敵愾。還
羅姆尼自然不會和選民喝啤酒、紅酒，他或許隻會和那1%的富豪喝高級白幹，在這樣的背景下，財富不夠頂尖的99%選民自然會產生疑問：“你能理解我們的價值觀並且代表我們這個階層的利益嗎？
毫無疑問，和選民打成一片，羅姆尼此路不通。
但田忌賽馬，以己之長，攻彼之短，羅姆尼有自己的優勢。
1992年，克林頓曾打出一句著名的競選標語：“笨蛋，問題出在經濟！”，一句話道出了總統競選的核心要義。2008年奧巴馬能相繼擊敗希拉裏和羅姆尼，亦是憑此醫改等經濟措施。四年的時間證明了奧巴馬在經濟上的“無能”，美國經濟依然低迷，這或許是商人羅姆尼最大的優勢——他比奧巴馬更懂經濟。令不少美國媒體失望的是，羅姆尼在演講中沒有詳細闡明如何拯救美國，卻把過多精力投入對奧巴馬的指責。更加令人費解的是羅姆尼幾乎閉口不談過往的投資經曆對他入主白宮後的指導意義。而其大談的經濟話題削減預算、降低稅率以及政府減少調控是早在裏根之前共和黨總統候選人一致宣揚的陳詞爛調。可能在他看來，這是複蘇經濟的有效措施，但總統選舉拚的就是說服選民，這些用了幾十年的陳詞爛掉難道真能讓選民興奮道投他一票？
更加糟糕的是，即使是這些’陳詞濫調”,羅姆美國大選,羅姆尼如何戰勝奧巴馬(李光鬥)
文章來源: 中新社 於 2012-10-05 16:25:18 - 新聞取自各大新聞媒體，新聞內容並不代表本網立場！
打印本新聞 (被閱讀 7262 次)
中新社華盛頓10月5日電(記者 吳慶才)過去一直成為奧巴馬競選“負累”的美國月度“就業報告”今天第一次成為奧巴馬助選的有力“武器”，與此同時一隻“大鳥”也正在成為奧巴馬的助選“盟友”。
美國勞工部5日公布的數據顯示，美國9月失業率降至7.8%，為近四年來首次低於8%。這對奧巴馬而言是一個重大利好消息，一些分析人士認為這一數據有助於他贏得仍在觀望的選民的選票。
5日，奧巴馬在弗吉尼亞的一場競選活動中充分利用了這份“就業報告”，他得意地告訴選民：“今天，我相信我們的國家再次向前邁進。”
奧巴馬說：我上任時美國每個月丟掉80萬個就業崗位，而過去2年半美國企業已創造了520萬個就業崗位，今天公布的失業率已降至我上任以來的最低點。越來越多的美國人進入勞動力市場，越來越多的美國人找到工作。
不過，奧巴馬也承認眼下仍有很多美國人正在找工作，但是他強調不能將其作為貶低美國經濟狀況撈取政治分的借口。
過去，奧巴馬在談論失業率時多處於防守位置；但是，今天他以更自信的口吻回擊說：“我們已經取得了太大的進步，不能重新回到為我們帶來危機的政策。我絕對不允許這樣的事情發生，這就是為什麽我要競選連任總統。”
奧巴馬攻擊羅姆尼最近試圖“重新定位、改頭換麵”，但是他怎麽改基本理念都是“自上而下”的經濟政策，他認為如果削減5萬億美元的稅收、如果取消更多針對華爾街的規則，“那麽我們的問題就會得到解決，就業和經濟繁榮就會像雨點那樣從空中落下，赤字就會神奇般地消失，我們從此就將幸福地生活。”
奧巴馬嘲諷羅姆尼提不出具體的、能夠奏效的削減赤字的方案，他所能想到的最好的一個例子就是對公共電視台開刀。
“讓你們的媽媽和孩子離開那裏？不要擔心，有人終於對‘大鳥’強硬起來了。”奧巴馬在當日的造勢活動上幽默地對一群年輕的支持者說：“艾摩(ELMO)也要擔心了，羅姆尼州長計劃讓華爾街再次像脫韁的野馬，但是他打算對“芝麻街”下重錘。”
“大鳥”和“艾摩”是美國廣播公司(PBS)電視節目《芝麻街》的主角，該節目是美國電視史上最“長壽”的兒童節目，從1969年開播至今陪伴幾代美國人的成長，也深受全球兒童的喜愛。
奧巴馬這番話源自3日晚美國總統競選首場辯論中羅姆尼的一句話，當時羅姆尼在被問及將如何削減赤字時說，他一旦當選將削減撥付給美國廣播公司的經費。他說：“雖然我愛PBS，我愛大鳥……但我不會繼續在這些事情上花錢”。
此言一出，引發一些家長和孩子的抗議。“大鳥”一詞也成為網絡熱詞。奧巴馬及其團隊看準這一點，迅速將“大鳥”納入自己的助選陣營，攻擊羅姆尼“狠心剝奪兒童樂趣”，試圖將其刻畫成無切實可行的施政計劃並且缺乏人情味的形象。完