Romney Wins The Night

Many pundits on the right are praising Mitt Romney for his performance in debating President Obama last night.

There’s no question that Romney’s assertiveness and lack of deference to the moderator helped him win the debate.  There is one question though…why is he still so vague on details when discussing his economic plan for the country?

The Huffington Post

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney spent much of his first presidential debate Wednesday walking back some of his core primary positions and highlighting similarities with President Barack Obama — from keeping bank regulations in place, bringing in more teachers, maintaining taxes on the wealthy, to making sure those with pre-existing conditions have health insurance.

But the president failed to respond effectively, drifting into his professorial demeanor and barely attempting to veil his annoyance with Romney. It wasn’t pretty, but Romney won, according to the general consensus among reporters and political operatives after the debate at the University of Denver.

Romney appeared more relaxed than Obama, who spent much of his time explaining policies he would likely rather be done selling by now. He hardly looked Romney in the eye during the debate.

There is one critical caveat, of course, in determining the winner of a debate: It’s difficult to know how the millions of voters, whose prisms are radically different than those of mainstream reporters, took in the debate. But, at minimum, Romney cleared the most critical bar, by appearing presidential.

Still, one issue continued to plague Romney: details. While he said he would end Obama programs, he was vague on how he would do so without eliminating a host of components he pledged to keep.

“At some point, you have to ask, is he keeping all these plans to replace [programs] secret because they’re too good?” Obama said. “Families are going benefit too much from them?”

Continue reading here…

 

Related articles

8 comments

  1. My disappointment in Obama is difficult to express.

    Let’s face it. The guy never learned to fight. He grew up w/o brothers (or, for that matter, sisters close to his own age) or even a father to push against. His unthreatening personality is one of the reasons he got to where he is. Had he been a fighter it would have shown up earlier in his life and it would have held him back.

    I’m not only angry, as an African American I am embarrassed to see even our nation’s President “stay in his place”.

    I’ll vote for him just as a vote against Romney – who I think would be infinitely worse for our country at this point in its history. But I do not really feel it for the guy any more. He’s a weakling. Screw him.

    Like

    1. LTL, were you watching NOW with Alex Wagner prior to posting your comment? I have to say I only saw a few minutes of it when Prof. Dyson was mentioning something on the lines of what you said in your post.

      I was so embarrassed for our President, words can’t express it fully. Romney won from being a bully and a liar. Is that the requisite personality to hold the highest office in the land? Noting how the GOP in Congress act, it probably is.

      Anyway, what happened last night is behind us. Now on to the VP debate and then the Presidential Foreign Policy debate where I know Obama will do substantially better.

      Like

      1. I do try to regularly watch Alex Wagner. I think she is extraordinarily smart, as well as up on what’s trendy and so cute. But I had not yet recovered enough from the debate to even bear to hear any T.V. commentary on it.

        Like

    2. But I do not really feel it for the guy any more. He’s a weakling. Screw him.

      OMG, I hadn’t read your comment in its entirety.

      LTL, I’ve seen you do this before, No one knows what behind the scenes event threw President Obama off his game. You get upset with him but give Romney a pass for bullying the moderator and the POTUS, not to mention the lies he told to win a mere 7-10% of the undecided electorate.

      Admittedly, Obama seemed like he didn’t want to be there but no one could read his mind…only his body language and that sucked big time. YET, to imply he’s a wimp because he didn’t have a brother or a father figure to teach him how to fight is way off base. Look what he had to fight through to get the Presidency, LTL. Look at the birther BS, the disrespect (“you lie!”)
      the lies (Larry Sinclair and others) and a host of things that NO OTHER PRESIDENT in history has had to endure. Cut him a little slack, LTL. I was embarrassed for the president because he failed to be “Obama”. His handlers told him to stay presidential and above the fray. BAD, BAD ADVICE.

      *********

      Many can see behind Romney’s flip flopping. He knows he has his base so depending on what state he’s in or what television program he’s on he may have a different answer in each instance…to the same question! He’s been getting away with it for decades with complete success, so there’s no wonder he probably said “screw it…lying works. And anyway, everybody hates Obama…so…why not?

      Like

      1. “Look what he had to fight through to get the Presidency, LTL. Look at the birther BS, the disrespect (“you lie!”)
        the lies (Larry Sinclair and others) and a host of things that NO OTHER PRESIDENT in history has had to endure.”

        That’s the problem. He has been ENDURING disrespect for close to four years – not fighting back – not making anyone pay. I refuse to give him credit for ENDURING an ass whipping during the debate.

        Obama should have seen Romney as prey for whom Obama should have been salivating for the opportunity to expose as a lying fraud, bent on obtaining and using the most powerful position in the world for his own personal gain. It should have taken all of Obama’s self control to keep himself from walking across the stage and going upside Romney’s head, and that should have been apparent by Obama’s throwing of words instead of hands.

        Obama is not a fighter. He is a conciliator (he thinks). But some attitudes are so entrenched in our nation’s DNA that Obama is a fool to think those attitudes can be overcome with charm.

        Obama will lose every debate.

        Like

  2. Interesting read. I was watching with some fascination from this side of the pond (2am start, ugh!) and thought that Mitt Romney came across ‘presidentially’ and that Barack Obama had none of his 2008 fight about him: with the possible exception of the President’s barbed comment about Romney’s difficulties in sitting down on Day 1 with Democrats at the same time as trying to dismantle Obamacare.

    I’m going to be following from a British perspective on my blog: have a look at my thoughts ahead of last night’s debate: @tommygilchrist: Change we (still) believe in? http://t.co/keNP1iqF

    Like

  3. Obama will lose every debate.

    LTL, I strongly disagree and I’ll go one step further: Obama will win a second term.

    One more question: Did he “wimp” his way through the 2007-2008 campaign too? I think not.

    Like

    1. I never said I thought he wouldn’t win a second term. I just said he wouldn’t win a second debate. He’s good with talking smack from a teleprompter. But he’s not a “happy warrior”. Fighting isn’t really fun for him.

      As for the 2007-2008 campaign, no one attacked him then the way everybody and his right wing brother attacks him now. Also he could get away with not being particularly aggressive with Hilary. You know why.

      But the nature of Romney’s campaign should, by now, have produced some kind of displays of temper from Obama if he had it in him.

      Nevertheless I still believe he will win a second term simply because I do not believe most Americans are stupid.

      (On the other hand vote suppression and count manipulation are other worrisome factors.)

      Like

Comments are closed.