Rmoney WANTED Obama To Attack Him, But Obama Outsmarted Him

I know there's been much discussion on why Obama didn't hammer Rmoney with the 47% thing and all the other "red meat" gaffes Rmoney has made over the past few months. Place me firmly in the "Obama was right NOT to bring those things up" camp. Not only am I pretty sure that Rmoney had rehearsed, canned "zingers" for all of them, I'm now pretty much convinced that Rmoney was actually BAITING Obama, hoping he'd bring them up.

As I was watching my recording of the debate a couple days after the fact, I noticed that at the end of the debate, Rmoney got desperate and hung a slow-breaking curve over the heart of the plate, just daring the President to take a cut at it. Towards the end, Rmoney repeated one of Ted Strickland's lines from the Convention. When discussing budgetary priorities, he said something to the effect of, "Where you put your money is an indicator of where your loyalties lie." Ted Strickland used that line as a segue into a zinger about Rmoney's offshore accounts, but I'm convinced Rmoney said it on purpose, hoping Obama would seize on it in the exact same way, thus opening the door for one of his pre-rehearsed, canned "zingers." But Obama didn't take the bait.

Now, I suppose Rmoney MIGHT have said it, honestly believing it was a great line to attack Obama, and not knowing how the exact same line was used at the Convention. And I suppose there's a possibility that Obama let the slow, hanging curve go right over the plate, not realizing he'd let a pitch right in his wheelhouse go by. But what are the chances that either one of those are true? Do we REALLY think that no one in the Rmoney campaign watched the Democratic Convention, and that his use of that phrase came out of the blue? And do we HONESTLY believe that Obama just didn't catch the fact that he said it, and that it matched up perfectly to something Ted Strickland said just a few weeks ago?

No, I believe that Rmoney was HOPING that Obama would respond with the Ted Strickland line about his offshore accounts. And I think Obama outsmarted him by NOT responding the way he'd hoped. But for all the people who are upset that Obama didn't bring up all the controversial ammunition he has against Rmoney in the first debate, I have this one question: How many people who would tune in to watch a Presidential debate do you think DON'T ALREADY KNOW about all those things? Do you REALLY think that someone would watch a debate, and an hour into it go, "What?!?!?!? What's he talking about? Mitt Romney said WHAT?!?!?!?" All Obama did by NOT bringing them up is fail to give Rmoney a chance to explain them away (which I'm sure he spent about 50 of his 55 preparation hours preparing to do).