From what little I caught on the teevee and the peecee, President Obama's performance was steady and factual; Governor Romney came off as a bully who tried desperately to score points by talking over the president and moderater, as though that counted as substance.
I've never liked these presidential debates, even the ones in 2008 when Mr. Obama did so well against John McCain. Romney got to repeat his lies and distortions, and the president let him get away with it. All I learned from what I saw is that this race is still close.
\
"Romney’s focus though came at the cost of a few key things.
He basically tossed aside his own tax plan or said he would if his numbers didn’t add up. But then he insisted that he could find enough loopholes to close to afford a $5 trillion tax cut for upper income earners. These are more numbers on the table. That’s really what most of the debate was about — budget numbers. Romney insisted with a straight face that up was down.
The Obama team isn’t going to try to get into a fight about whether their guy was on his game. There’s no point. (This is what I meant a couple days ago when I said Obama is not a great debater. Not a great night. But I’ve never seen him great at debating.) What I fully expect, what they’ll do if they’re smart is go full court press on Romney’s numbers and press for details about his budget plan.
The numbers simply don’t add up. Over a few news cycles that can build up really fast. He says he’ll push massive upper income tax cuts and those have to come at the cost of much higher deficits or big tax hikes for middle income people. His campaign agenda is based on a massive deception.
That’s the vulnerability Romney brings out of this debate. And it may be bigger than people realize. "
"The Shrill One":
Romney’s Sick Joke
"OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.
Above all, there’s this:
I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.
And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.
Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.
So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale."
Above all, there’s this:
MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.
I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.
And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.
Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.
So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale."
20 comments:
Poor Chris Matthews should read your upbeat post. He was a blubbering mess last night. The thrill had gone from his leg.
You know it's bad for Obama when even CNN calls it for Romney.
Obama had better put down the basketball and the golf clubs and quit schmoozing with his Hollywood friends and study up.
I wouldn't be doing a victory lap yet, SF. This was a debate, not the election.
In 2004, John Kerry out-performed George Bush in all the debates, according to the pundits then. [Bush was reduced to having to wear a device so people could feed him answers.]
How did that work out for Kerry?
"Much serious policy was discussed at Wednesday night’s first Presidential Debate, and the incoming fact-checks are proving many of Mitt’s statements (and denials) false.
Still, much of a debate is won on likeability, and while Obama’s has had better form, he still comes across as the humble and measured leader that he is.
On the other hand, Romney acted like an unrestrained lap dog, interrupting Obama during his time to speak and talking over the moderator, fighting hard to get in more words. Romney was so aggressive that the moderator had to silence him by saying 'Let’s not' (hear anymore)."
shaw...don't forget...the goopers love loud-mouthed bullies...they think it's a sign of strength...just look at gingrich and christie...and a bunch of other fast-talking, charlatans...and where they are today...
"I wouldn't be doing a victory lap yet, SF. This was a debate, not the election."
You are right on that one, Shaw! No one has this election in the bag, but we've got to celebrate our little victories where we can.
The president is not a dumb man, and his political handlers are evil geniuses, so you can be he will come roaring back.
You must have watched a different debate than the rest of the world. Maddow said there was no winner and Shultz said Obama did terrible. Only Sharpton gave Obama the lead, that was a surprise.
This was only the first debate and I agree with you that swiftboat beat bush in the first debate and bush did better after that.
Obama was at a disadvantage because he had to run on his record and Romney did not. I doubt this will have much impact on the results because debates don't seem to matter.
@Shaw << All I learned from what I saw is that this race is still close. >>
I was thinking the same thing; close race.
There were two points in the debate when I was surprised the President didn't attempt to push back; said almost nothing:
1) when Romney directly pointed out that Obamacare cut over 700 billion from Medicare.
2) when Romney pointed out that Obama complained about 2.8 billion in oil tax breaks but put 90 billion into green energy.
On the latter, the President could have pointed out that the 90 billion was grants, loan guarantees and loans. He should have been able to rattle off that $3 billion went to carbon capture and storage projects needed to make coal clean; $11 billion went to energy efficiency; about $5 billion went to clean up old nuclear weapons sites; $4 billion went to modernizing the electricity grid; and about $2 billion went to research and development. It would have sounded very good and showed considerable preparation (helpful on the heels of the celebrity tours). I guarantee you Romney would have been able to rattle those points off.
Romney said that Obama sent money to firms whose executives had donated to his campaign. That is true in the case of Solyndra, however, investigations have not revealed any direct link between the loans for Solyndra and campaign support for the president.
I think most of the President's supporters would have liked to see more defensive action from him. Romney appeared able to attempt to deflect Obama's criticisms with preparation.
Same with the comments about Obama not acting on the Simpson-Bowles plan, or any other plan for the last four years, to lower the deficit. I expected some push back from the President and a list of plans going forward beyond raising taxes. He said nothing.
It's not that Romney was that strong; it's that the President seemed almost disinterested and wary of making mistakes. Like a football team playing prevent defense with a lead in the last half of the 4th quarter. Invariably the offensive team puts up quick points.
I didn't expect that from the President.
My disappointment is there was no Gary Johnson on that platform last night. A disgrace if you ask me...
But given the duopoly candidates Romney won round one.
Even Joe Trippi called for Romney.
Moderator gets HIGH marks for allowing discussion.
Loving the way the left is trying to SPIN this one in Obama's favor.
Obama, flat, eyes down, halting delivery, more class warfare rhetoric etc, etc, etc... Oh, and much more Govt. for us all
Romney, sharp, knew his data, unhesitating delivery, sharp focus on jobs, assertive, displayed leadership qualities, great private sector emphasis, etc, etc, etc...
It's only the first debate... BUT... if the candidates continue to perform as they did last night there just might be a change in the Oval office come January.
The supporters of the most government is the best government left are falling all over themselves spinning this one.
Must be getting dizzy eh?
Another liar as president?
That worked out so well when Bush won.
Obama showed just why this race is so close.
America showed again just how gullible they are.
Obama lost the perception race
Maybe the fact checkers can change that perception
"First we are going to take our money away from government, then we are going to kill off the government"
That's their definition of being faithful to the government the founders set up.
Shaw, I listened on the radio... I did not think it was a bad as I had heard... in other words, Obama was just terrible.
No mention of the 47%... no "Mitt that's not true' No "Mitt, what would you have done differently"
Perhaps Obama was doing the classic Ali "Rope a Dope" but as Andrew Sullivan said, he may have just lost the election.
This will energize the GOP at a time when they were on the ropes and ready to pull the plug on money and send it to down ticket races.
Now it will flow again to Romney.
Did he lie, or course he did, did Obama respond? Not at all.
My question is given that he was not playing golf in Vegas, and only took a couple of side tours, what was he doing, because he certainly wasn't preparing.
I'm seeing a lot of criticism of the reaction from the pundits at MSNBC, as well as CNN and many others. Frankly, I wish Chris Matthews would just STFU. Obama was off his stride last night. It was obvious from the way he looked the moment he walked on stage. Coupled with Lehrer's poor job performance and Romney's pit bull behavior, I really don't think he did all that badly. Not great but he sure hasn't lost the election over it for God's sake.
When one candidate lies every time he opens his mouth, it's pretty hard to refute everything he belches out. So much is said so fast that it's impossible to catch everything, so I recommend reading the transcripts, which can be found here.
Romney said he believed in "religious tolerance and freedom," and then in the next breath said , "We're a nation that believes we're all children of the same God."
Just another example of Mitten's flip-flopping idiocy. He can't even keep the same thought within the same sentence. And he obviously has no tolerance for anyone except people who believe in invisible sky gods. What an ass.
I basically agree with Oliver Willis:
"One of the things I love most about liberals is their passion. Passion motivates and gets you to fight for what’s right, often against better funded and organized opposition.
One of the things I hate the most about liberals is their passion. Passion makes the lows often lower than they need to be and a sense of angst overwhelms common sense and reason.
Romney won the first debate. Good for him. President Obama should have performed better. He made a bad move. Guess what? The world isn’t going to end. Debates do matter, and I would have certainly preferred the candidate I support to have done a better job, but the liberal drama over a single missed opportunity angers me even more.
What is with you guys? Why must you take every momentary setback as if it is the end of the world? Get a grip. If good debate performances were the single factor in an election, we’d be dealing with President Kerry or a second President Clinton now."
MORE
Obama is a long range planner. Was his performance part of a larger plan? Did they anticipate a Romney move to the center? Do they plan on using his statements last night to split the republicans? Only time will tell, but I found it disappointing that he let so many Romney statements go unchallenged. And he spent too much time nodding his head in what appeared to be agreement with what Romney was saying.
I agree with Steven D over at Booman Tribune. And I actually said this before reading his analysis:
"Partisans who watched the debate are not going to change their minds about who is the better candidate and for whom they will cast their vote. Maybe a few people who haven't paid attention to the election before will waver a little, but one debate does not change an election. Gore wiped the floor with Dubya in 2000 and look how that turned out. Guess who won the first presidential debate in 2004 to move into a tie in the polls with the incumbent? John Kerry. Anyone remember the Kerry administration?"
I remember, too, how pumped up the Gore and Kerry supporters were after their triumphs in debating George Bush.
The conservatives who are doing a victory dance apparently don't.
As Steven said, there was no President Gore or President Kerry after their victorious debates.
Snow White, Superman and Pinocchio are walking along. They see a sign: "Contest for World's Most Beautiful Woman." Snow White goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing a crown. They walk along and see another sign: "Contest for World's Strongest Man." Superman goes in, later comes out smiling, wearing the belt. They walk along and see a sign: "Contest for World's Greatest Liar." Pinocchio goes in, later comes out with his head down crying. "Who the hell is Mitt Romney?" Pinocchio sobs.
A lot of liberals agree that Mittens won the debate last night on style. On substance?
He lied and flip-flopped. It's now the day after, and even Mitten's team is walking back a lot of the crap he put out last night.
There are two more debates to go. Enjoy your very small victory while you can.
IMO, Romney came across as a bit
rude and arrogant. Base likes stuff like that.
Leslie, I know it sounds bad for libs to be critical of Obama, but if I am gonna call out the conservatives for not being honest about Mitt and being critical of their side when they suck, or simply underperform, I will do the same with our candidates.
Mitt won this debate in the only categories that matter... public opinion and the press/media.
Maybe Obama should have been spending some more time dealing with the press during the last four years, as the linked article below suggests.
He has avoided the national press, eschewed press conferences and kept the media at arms length his entire administration. This, from a president who promised the most transparent admin ever.
Romney performed as he had to because he was practiced and used to this type of atmosphere.
I think our willingness to be critical of our side is evidence of a more open and honest party, unlike the conservatives who delete negative comments and bloggers who openly tell people they will not allow negative comments about Mitt because they want him elected.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/obama-debate-media-strategy_n_1939793.html
Shaw, Romney won the debate for all the reasons people win debates. Baring any glaring gaffes the confident, self assured dude with the best delivery wins. Thus Romney took it hands down.
Don't be so confident Romney can't repeat, 2X's. His handles will stay on top of his coaching and preparation.
Now, What amuses me e is the fact that Obama was not completely truthful, yet have you mentioned his partial truths or stretches.?
I posted LINKS to fact checks by CNN, AP & NY Daily News over at my site. Fact is BOTH candidates were less than totally honest. Not at all surprising given American politics.
Fair and Balanced as I always say...
Factcheck.org covers both Romney's and Obama's answers that were less than the whole truth.
Post a Comment