The first presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Romney took place on Wednesday night. Romney and Obama discussed topics including health care, taxes, how to lower the deficit, and energy.
Both candidates walked out to the stage smiling. They shook hands and got ready to start attacking each other’s policies and views. Obama came out talking about the resilience of the country and how things are on the rise. Romney came out talking about how we need a “different path,” and how the current path isn’t working. He said big government and trickle down government will not work for America.
The rest of the debate went like that. Obama on defense while Romney was on offense. When Obama brought up something attacking Romney, he dodged it and put the focus back on things such as the rising deficit and unemployment. Romney was able to pull this off with ease. It was hard to watch Obama get slammed.
“Obamacare” was a popular subject and Romney drilled Obama on it. Romney drilled him saying how OC will take cuts from Medicare. How OC will mean families will have to pay $2,500 more. He also attacked the “death panels” that OC will put in place. He questioned why Obama has fought so hard for OC instead of creating more jobs. Whether or not these statements are true or not doesn’t take away from the fact that he made Obama look bad.
One thing I did notice is Romney distinctive lack of details about his plans. Obama tried to capitalize on this, but couldn’t pull it off well. Romney was vague about which loopholes he would close to lower the deficit, what he would replace OC with, and what his views are with using Dodd-Frank. Obama’s best quote of the night: “[We] don’t know the details…Will his plans benefit us too much?” That is a valid point. What does he have to lose in telling us what he will do? When the moderator asked Romney what he would replace Obama care with. He answered that it would be a “lengthy description.” Really, Romney? You can’t explain your amazing health care plan in a presidential debate? This would have been something for Obama to jump on, but he didn’t.
A lot of the debate was both of the candidates just going on about how important education is. That seemed to be focused on to much considering their views weren’t all that different.
Romney also went on about how his plans are “not like anything that has been tried before.” His plans are in fact very similar to plans in 2001 while under George Bush. Romney is no different from any other Republican. He will not make huge changes to the economy. Nothing will change. Things will only get worse. Obama said about Romney’s deficit plan that “It’s not possible to only find loopholes that only effect higher class without raising the deficient or burdening middle income. Its not possible. Its arithmetic.” It’s true. He can’t generate all the money from tax cuts by closing loopholes. Especially when Romney wont even say what these loopholes are.
The biggest joke of the night was the performance of Jim Lehrer of PBS. He was steamrolled by both Obama and Romney. He did such a bad job that they lost a 1- minute segment because he couldn’t get them to stop talking. At one point he told Romney “no, no, no…”. Romney ignored him.
Al Roker tweeted, “I hope Jim Lehrer gets the license plate of the truck that drove over him in this debate.” Ouch.
Conservative columnist John Podhoretz called Lehrer possibly “the worst moderator in the history of moderation.” It wasn’t that bad, but it wasn’t pretty either. The main problem is that his questions were so open ended that he couldn’t expect them to answer in 15 minutes. It was also his job to jump on Romney’s vagueness, but he didn’t do that either. Hopefully, the next moderator does better.
It will be very interesting to see if this debate affects the polls in swing states such as Florida and Virginia. Before the debate, Obama held the lead by several points in both states. And with Romney’s win, I wouldn’t be surprised if his lead decrease by a few points.
In the end, Romney did win. Even though Obama had better policies and ideas, Romney was the better debater. He came out swinging and didn’t stop until he won. He drilled Obama and dodged attacks with ease. I think Obama underestimated Romney and was caught off guard. If Obama can shape up his debating skills, he has to win the next debate.
ars • Oct 6, 2012 at 1:31 PM
Romney may have sounded good during the debate, but the fact-checkers got him afterward. One group (and you can Google it if you’re interested) counted 27 LIES in 38 minutes. I’d be surprised if that weren’t some kind of record. Think about sports: if a player cheats or does something he or she shouldn’t, that player may be taken out of the game, and the team may be penalized. Sadly, politics (which affects all of us, instead of just fans or teams) is a different game; it’s the only one I can think of where the players are frequently rewarded for telling lies and stepping on others.
In politicians’ defense, I believe that most people go into politics with good intentions – with the belief that they can make their town/state/country a “better place” (whatever “better place” means to the candidate) – but I don’t think that Romney knows what he stands for. For a while, it looked to me like he was choosing his position on issues by trying to be the opposite of Obama; anything Obama was for, Romney was against. And, without making any Etch-A-Sketch jokes, I’d mention that at the debate it seemed like Romney couldn’t even stick with positions he had held (and stated publically) in the past.
I agree that Obama’s performance was weak, but when you look at the substance of what was said it’s more like a draw; it’s time we stop calling Romney a “winner,” or else look forward to having a con-man for a president.
Daniel Poskus • Oct 8, 2012 at 12:36 PM
Listen, I agree. Romney isn’t a winner in general, but he did win the debate, regardless of what he said. The impression that he left on people was that he is a confident guy who sounded. Unfortunately, that is all that is going to matter to a lot of people.
ghj • Oct 8, 2012 at 10:22 PM
classic ad-hominem. Attacking Romney AKA “con-man” instead of the points made by the candidate.
ars • Oct 11, 2012 at 3:55 PM
I mentioned two rather important points: first, Romney lied on several topics. Obama glazed over some important facts (from Factcheck.org’s coverage of the debate: “Obama correctly states that manufacturing jobs have increased by more than half a million since hitting bottom, but he fails to mention that the number regained is less than half the total lost since he took office.”), which is not being honest with the American people – but Mitt Romney out-and-out LIED. That’s not a personal attack; that’s a fact.
Second, I said that “I don’t think that Romney knows what he stands for.” That’s an opinion, and I gave my reasons for it. Until he can give some straight answers as to what he’s doing, WITHOUT saying something different behind closed doors, THEN maybe I can disagree with his opinions. Right now, I don’t know what his opinions are because he changes them to fit the occasion.
Finally, Dictionary.com defines “con man” as “[a] person who swindles another by means of a confidence game” or “someone who makes a living by swindling people.” If you go look up “con artist” it says “a person adept at lying, cajolery, or glib self-serving talk.” Romney’s show was full of confidence. He swindled people. His talk was self-serving, since he’s now ahead in some polls. He’s trying to sell himself to the public by using lies and confidence; I can think of other terms for people who sell themselves…but those terms don’t apply to this situation, and I’d have a hard time defending a statement like that. Your definition(s) of “con man” may be different from mine, but I have reasons (as listed above) for what I said; I wasn’t simply being mean or calling him names.
A Concerned Voter • Oct 6, 2012 at 12:16 AM
“Even though Obama had better policies and ideas, Romney was the better debater.”
If this article was supposed to present unbiased “news,” the dependent clause in the above sentence is misleading; it suggests that Obama having better policies and ideas is a fact.
If this is supposed to be opinionated, you need to work on antithesis. A counterargument is powerful, but it cannot discredit an opposing side with mere opinion. That simply does not make sense.
To get out accurate news, we must learn how to present news accurately.
Lauer • Oct 6, 2012 at 2:22 PM
This is an opinion piece. You can tell because of two things: 1. The writer’s picture is next to it; and 2. It’s labeled as a Column.
jforwdaer • Oct 8, 2012 at 10:24 PM
Thank you, I was unclear about the intention of the article.
Nevertheless, an opinion piece should be supported with factual information, not more uninformed opinions.
ugh • Oct 6, 2012 at 12:13 AM
“Really, Romney? You can’t explain your amazing health care plan in a presidential debate? This would have been something for Obama to jump on, but he didn’t.”
There wasn’t enough time in the debate to detail his entire health care plan. He did describe it sufficiently, though, noting that Americans would not lose their autonomy in deciding which healthcare plan fits them. He also said his healthcare plan was bi-partisan. That already seems like an upgrade from Obamacare.
“Romney is no different from any other Republican. He will not make huge changes to the economy. Nothing will change. Things will only get worse. It’s true. He can’t generate all the money from tax cuts by closing loopholes. Especially when Romney wont even say what these loopholes are.”
How can you make those assertions? What’s your evidence that “nothing will change”? If you’re going to make these claims, you need to back them up with specific examples of how Romney’s plans for the economy and Bush’s plans are identical. This article makes plenty of claims saturated with bias, and gives little to no evidence.