GorT is a big fan of soccer and one of the issues with the sport is "flopping". That is, to intentionally fake an injury in order to attempt to draw a card or penalty against the other team. When you watch soccer on TV, you can generally spot these, especially if the coverage replays apparent contact and you see how there really wasn't any contact but the player falls to the ground, wincing, and holding his ankle, calf, etc.
Over the last three days, GorT has heard from two separate people the theory that Obama "flopped" the first debate on purpose in order to set him as the underdog. Let's assume this is true for a moment - what does this say about Obama and his campaign?
First, they need to rely on intentionally losing and then the media cooperation to cast Obama as the underdog in order to win. So the President that they are trying to convince people to vote for is one who would intentionally muff a debate rather than address real issues and point out where Romney was wrong or misleading people?
Second, can Obama really be cast as the underdog? He is the incumbent. By definition, he should be the favored candidate...unless he really botched the job. It would be one thing if he were the Vice President and was running for the top spot after a two-term President had to step aside.
Third, just as in soccer, "flopping" is not admired at all. So why should anyone admire Obama "flopping" one of only three Presidential debates. And why would a supporter defend such actions? Hey, my guy is awesome. So awesome, he intentionally punted on a debate watched by over 60 million people in a politically calculated move.
I'm hoping that, if true, the American public pull out the yellow card and book Obama on this. But honestly, I discount this theory. I might actually put more stock in the Al Gore "altitude sickness" theory.
The Wisdom of a Ukrainian Plumber
14 minutes ago