.jpeg?1371057738)
 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
First Debate Open Thread
I see some of you are eagerly commenting on last night’s debate on the earlier debate thread, so I thought I’d give you a fresh one.
I watched most of the debate. Eight p.m. at my house is not a good time to concentrate on anything. But I saw enough to conclude, as so many others have, that the president got stomped. “Listless” is the word that kept popping into my head as I watched Obama sleepwalk through a train wreck.
Alex Massie at The Spectator sums it up better than I can:
Everyone says that the debates don’t change the dynamics of a presidential race very often. President Barack Obama better hope that remains the case this year. Last night’s debate wasn’t even close. Mitt Romney thumped Obama in Denver. It was, as they say, an old-fashioned ass-kicking. Any Democrat who pretends otherwise is either deluding themselves or trying to kid you.
Will it shift the dynamics of the election? Perhaps not. The best Obama’s supporters could say last night is that the President avoided the kind of blunder that might hand Romney an obvious advantage. Maybe so but that kind of defensive mindset seemed somehow to have seeped into Obama last night. He seemed sluggish, even lethargic, hesitant, distracted and oddly unable to land any heavy punches on Romney. Much of the time he was pictured on the split-screen with his head down. Doubtless he was scribbling notes but it had the effect of making him look weary and disheartened. Defeated or despondent, even.
The Daily Dish has a great roundup of reax here.
You can find a transcript of the debate here.
One of the most surprising aspects for me was watching Romney dance, dubiously at times, to the moderate center, while the frowning, drowsy president barely protested. It’s a failure that may very well change the course of the election, although First Read wonders whether some of Romney’s more remarkable dance steps will come back to haunt him:
If Romney won the instant reactions from last night’s debate, it is more than possible that the Obama camp can win the next 24 hours. Why? Because Romney said several things that could make life difficult for him today or in the next debate. First, Romney declared, “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.” But in addition to supporting the extension of the Bush tax cuts, which are skewed heavily to the wealthy, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center says that Romney’s tax plan would give the Top 0.1% an average tax cut of more than $246,000. Next, he stated that “there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” While he has said his plan will be paid for, he’s yet to lay out any SPECIFICS on how he’ll pay for it. Romney also said, “I’m not going to cut education funding. I don’t have any plan to cut education funding.” But the Ryan budget plan, which Romney has said he’d sign into law, leads to long-term spending reductions in education. And Romney also didn’t disagree with the description that his Medicare plan would consist of “vouchers” for future retirees. Winning a “debate” is always a two-part deal — the night itself, and then the aftermath. This is now an opportunity for Team Obama and a challenge for Team Romney.
So now, against my better judgment, I toss it to you, oh Commentistan. Let’s see how long we can go before someone decides to deploy the word “ghetto.”
I completely agree that Romney put in the better debate performance. However, he also contradicted several things that he has been saying and continues to say. He has talked repeatedly about a 20% reduction in tax rates. That translates to a $5 trillion tax reduction. Now he says that he would never advocate a tax reduction that is not revenue neutral. He has yet to explain how he would do that and their is no obvious solution.
Romney has more explaining to do and this debate brought more attention to the contradictions he has not adequately explained.
The one who has explaining to do is President Obama. He’s offering the same policy arguments from 2008 and less because they have been proven to be failures. He’s offered a budget that doesn’t address the nations economic and fincail problems but is trying to critique Romney’s when his plan is a clear failure.
The key thing people should recognize is that the Obama’s plan is to bankrupt the federal government and then raise taxes on everyone. He wants to dissect Romney’s numbers because he cannot explain his own. I thought it was hilarious that Obama said today that its wasn’t the “real” Mitt Romney in last night in Denver. Obama apparently thinks he was debating an alien that not even President Clinton could beat. Now there’s a birther issue for YOU!
Obama made that same $5 trillion remark in the debate. And if you listened to Romney’s response, you found out the President was flat out wrong. Apparently the President was fooled by his own propaganda, leaving out the other half of the equation -removing loopholes, deductions and other incentives to make it revenue neutral. Romney even explained why its worth doing even though its revenue neutral. How could the President be so misinformed as to walk into that? He reacted like he never heard that part of it before, and apparently many other Americans had never heard that part before -which should make some people wonder about the credibility of their news sources.
Even Stephanie Cutter has (finally) been forced to concede as much. One could argue Romney’s steps won’t completely close the $5 trillion (as Cutter has shifted to doing), but at least that’s an honest argument to make.
So there was no “contradiction” on Romney’s part. Just (apparently) a lack of understanding on the President’s part.
Romney has talked about removing loopholes, deductions and exemptions just on the wealthy to make his tax cut revenue neutral. However, you could remove every loophole, deduction and exemption from the wealthy (those making more than $1,000,000/year) and you would not make his tax cut revenue neutral. He has yet to explain where he gets the rest.
Bad performance by Obama. Just goes to show what happens when your debate prep is with the ladies of the View, mainstream media, Letterman and “Pimp with a Limp .”
Sue
Thought I might check out your references there. While “mainstream (lamestream?) media is ill derfined, I think everyone knows about “The View” and “Letterman”. “Pimp with a Limp” left me going huh?
Ok. Quick search. “Pimp with a Limp” is Miami’s top-rated Cuban-American disc jockey, Lazaro Mendez, stage name “DJ Laz” — “The Pimp with a Limp.”
These aren’t “debate prep”. They’re the modern equivalent of the old fashioned whistle stop. You want votes, you go where the voters are. Obama is leading, double digits, with women, younger voters, and Hispanics. Wonder why
First presidential debates are notoriously bad predictors. They get over-emphasized because of the first televised presidential debate in 1960. However, what is more relevant are those debates where an incumbant president debates a challenger. These are 1976 (Ford v Carter), 1980 (Carter v Reagan), 1984 (Reagan v Mondale), 1992 (Bush v Clinton), 1996 (Clinton v Dole), 2004 (Bush v Kerry). There are six of these. In five of six the president lost the first debate. And largely for the same reasopns. But the president won three of six elections.
Elections are complicated and debates are only one factor among many.
Obama’s problem with regard to the debate is that he is by nature cautious. He makes sure he’s on solid ground before he acts. Which means debate is not his best forum. However, it would be stupid of Republicans to underestimate him.
What I think is going on here is a classic military tactic which can be described as the Horns of the Bull. Two opposing armies face each other. The advancing army heads straight in to the center of the opposing force. The advancing army does not see either the left or right flank of the foe. As the aggressor advances the other army stands and then breaks into a head long retreat. The advanciing army follows them into a trap as left and right flanks close in, cut off their escape and butcher them
Repulicans think they have Obama in full retreat but Democrats are already closing the trap with fact checking, Big Bird, and pollitical ads that are obviously too polished to have been done overnight.
At this point we just wait and see.
” He makes sure he’s on solid ground before he acts.”
No, he’s ineffective and tries to lead from behind. He’s not a leader, he doesn’t think on his feet, he’s weak and it’s just that simple why he lost so bad to a true leader.
” Which means debate is not his best forum.”
He’s used to going on the View and answering softball questions from people who are 10 brain cells above a sponge. He finally had to answer questions and he was an abject failure, I’m sorry if LIBS are realizing that for the first time in 6 years.
Mr Abernathy,
You and I obviously have very different ideas about what constitutes a good leader..
So I’ll just quote Ghandi and leave it at that. The quote comes from an interupted interview. Ghandi was talking to a reporter when a group of people passed by them obviously on their way to a rally. Ghandi excused himself and said “There go my people and I must follow them for I am their leader”
Last I checked, this was still a democracy and it seems to me that the leadership style you dismiss as “lead from behind” is what’s appropriate.
“You and I obviously have very different ideas about what constitutes a good leader..”
Well sure we do, you live on Gov’t help and I pay taxes to support you.
“the leadership style you dismiss as “lead from behind” is what’s appropriate.”
Hate to break it to you, but “leading from behind” is being a follower. The exact opposite of a leader. I’m not sure how/why you won’t try to understand that. Hey on a side note do you have one of the “Obama phones”?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpAOwJvTOio
For what it’s worth, this from FactCheck.org:
“Q: Has the Obama administration started a program to use “taxpayer money” to give free cell phones to welfare recipients?
A: No. Low-income households have been eligible for discounted telephone service for more than a decade. But the program is funded by telecom companies, not by taxes, and the president has nothing to do with it”.
The program, mis-identified as “Obama phone”, is called “SafeLink”. It provides very low income people with a basic cell pnone and one hour per month of free service. It was established in in 2008 under Bush. Programs to provide universal access to telephone service go back to the administration of Woodrow Wilson
You need to double check before you post outlandish accusations based on some silly youtube on the net
Romney charged like a bull while President Obama played the matador. We all know how these contests end.
If you mean B0 got the horns? Then yes, your right. Is that covered under Obamacare?
Something tells me you have not been to a bull fight in Spain.
Doesn’t matter if I’ve been to Spain or not, I know B0 had his rear handed to him, if you can’t admit that then that’s on you.
We have all had time to sleep on what we watched in the presidential debate. For whatever reason I have slept well during the nights that have followed and the morning directly after I awoke and over coffee and my morning paper I started thinking about the Hail-Mary hail of words that Mitt Romney threw out from behind his podium in Denver.
Did Romney win more fence-sitters than he lost Libertarians? He appeared to be thrusting himself out there as a guy who if president would out Obama as Obama—an Obama Light or an Obama Heavy?
Apparently Romney’s supporters are now to stop believing in or just forget what he has been saying during the months of campaigning right up until this debate in which with straight face he did a full flavor version of Yogi Berra’s quip, “I never said most of the things I said.”
As a person that has found no reason to believe anything Romney says, I don’t know what anyone that wants to find something to believe is going to believe at any given moment that keeps pace with what Romney has just said, or said he did or didn’t say, or will say next.
I think Romney has gone well beyond the political flimflam that comedian Steven Colbert coined as “truthiness.” Romney seems to have moved at warp-speed into a far-out cyber world of “sayiness.”
Five paragraphs to say absolutely nothing, you truly are and Obama “man”.
“Did Romney win more fence-sitters than he lost Libertarians?”
Would love to see where you read he “lost” Libertarians? Only a kool aid drinking LIB would think that Romney didn’t out prepare, out focus and out sell himself for Pres. during that debate.
An old fashioned Grandpa might have reason to be – befuddled at times, and some times I am. But I still see the amusement when I read the President’s own transcript words……….. “And let me tell you exactly what “Obamacare” did. Number one, if you’ve got health insurance it doesn’t mean a government take over. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. They can’t impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance —” And let me tell you exactly what “Obamacare” did. Number one, if you’ve got health insurance it doesn’t mean a government take over. You keep your own insurance. You keep your own doctor. But it does say insurance companies can’t jerk you around. They can’t impose arbitrary lifetime limits. They have to let you keep your kid on their insurance — your insurance plan till ……….you’re 26 years old………… And it also says that they’re — you’re going to have to get rebates if insurance companies are spending more on administrative costs and profits than they are on actual care. ………………………………………………… I see a large void in reason here. If you have no living parents and you see fit to be a parent when you are almost seventeen, but can’t sign legal documents until you are eighteen, it would stand to reason you are only responsible for your children for somewhere around eight years? Do the math.
Moeller,
I don’t see the point in posting an entire passage of what looks to be a botched unedited transcription (no link no citation. where did you get this version) to make a point that makes absolutely no sense.
Everybody—except, apparently, you—knows that under ACA it is the child who stays on the parent’s health insurance until the child, not the parent, is twenty six years old
If you are going to post, be serious. Please
“So now, against my better judgment, I toss it to you, oh Commentistan. Let’s see how long we can go before someone decides to deploy the word ‘ghetto.’”
Thank you, Todd.
Would it be at all possible to add “drink the kool-aide” to the list of tiresome posted cliches? Maybe conservatives find the murder of nearly a thousand people funny, but I don’t.
” Maybe conservatives find the murder of nearly a thousand people funny, but I don’t.”
Right, Conservatives are trying to get to the bottom of “Fast and Furious” where there have been a few hundred deaths and I don’t hear the left clamoring for any investigation. Talk is cheap.
Mr Abernathy,
Accusing people who disagree with you of “drinking the Kool-Aide” is both stupid and, given the reference, highly offensive. “Fast and Furious” has nothing to do with it.
Besides that, easy access to lethal weapons in the United States is what’s responsible for the high number of people killed in Mexico’s drug war, not a botched attempt (begun during the Bush Administration) to track how these weapons are being smuggled across the border
“When Obama got on the stage, he met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney.
But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.
The real Mitt Romney said we don’t need any more teachers in our classrooms, but the fellow on stage last night, he loves teachers, can’t get enough of them.
The real Mitt Romney said if you need money to go to college ask your parents.
The real Mitt Romney said 47% of Americans do not pay taxes, do not want to work and he does not care about them. (Elderly, Retired Military, disabled)
The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called pioneers of outsourcing jobs to other countries, but the guy on stage last night said he doesn’t even know that there were such laws that encourage outsourcing. He’s never heard of them!
Never heard of tax breaks for companies that shift jobs overseas? Mitt said that if it’s true he must need a new accountant.
Now, we know for sure it was not the real Mitt Romney because he seems to be doing just fine with his current accountant.
So, you see, the man on stage last night does not want to be held accountable for the real Mitt Romney’s decisions and what he’s been saying for the last year. And that’s because he knows full well that we don’t want what he’s been selling for the last year.”