One presidential candidate showed up to debate Wednesday night. His name is Mitt Romney.
President Obama was often grim, mostly disengaged, and generally ineffective in their first showdown. He could have been standing next to anyone; he never seriously challenged Romney on any point he made. Romney was sharp, aggressive, and “likeable enough,” to borrow a phrase from candidate Obama in 2008.
Comments
Ms. Vennochi has been so deep in the tank for Obama that she couldn't breath under water. Amazing that she wrote this last night. It sounds like she had a nightmare, woke up and wrote it down for her therapist. Interestingly, but wthout real significance, Obama couldn't even get his happy anniversary straight to his wife last night. He acted like he was on Ambien. He was somnambulant, walking in his sleep, and so snoozy he could have been lounging on a sofa sipping cocktails. Well, "folks" if you are in the business of picking losers like Solyndra, you may choose Obama in this election.
You're only amazed because you're a blinkered partisan, profox - not just your name but your generally contemptuous tone give you away! By the way, incumbents often stumble in the first debate, eg, Reagan, Clinton, and both Bushs, because they're out of practice, while the challenger is fresh from a string of primary debates. On your last point, though: actually, Obama's picked lots of winners as well during his term, and Mr. Romney plenty of losers over the years. Of course, his predatory company, Bain Capital, made sure they'd sucked KB Toys and the like completely dry and loaded them with debt before they tanked. Today, Mitt and his partners sit on the millions of $ diverted from employees' salaries, health insurance, and retirement funds. Furthermore, KB, Sealy, and many of the firms that Bain acquired were doing fairly well before they were scooped up and ravished. That's not a partisan political assertion, profox, but well-documented fact.
>>Ms. Vennochi has been so deep in the tank for Obama that she couldn't breath under water.
That's better than being so deep in the tank that you've sprouted gills. I'd recognize you anywhere.
Joan: I applaud your title - it sums up the last 4 years nicely. And it seems that Clint Eastwood was right - without a teleprompter, just an empty chair!
Joan, I feel the problem President Obama has is he's be coddled by the media, never questioned on any issue, for crying out loud you people cover for him. Now he confronted with the issues and can't handle it. the media hasn't done any favors for the president.
Gov.Romney never did explain how he can cut taxes and not lose revenue. Without that explanation he continues to be an empty suit.
You weren't listening, were you? He clearly stated 3 times, 'I will cut the tax rate while at the same time eliminating many of the tax deducitons and tax breaks so that in total, revenues would remain unchanged.' He also stated, 'I will eliminate most tax breaks and deductions, pick a number, say $25,000, and the higher the income those tax deductions would be phased out'. I got it, I just hope you DVR'ed it, so you can too.
Is the concept of offsetting rate cuts with deduction eliminations just too hard for you to comprehend?
Thank you Joan for a straight forward, albeit brief, analysis of last night's debate. If you turn on NPR this morning, it's a disgrace to listen to them scrambling to discredit every punch that Romney delivered and to not utter one single negative word of anything Obama said. It's a perfect example of the coddling provided by the media mentioned in a previous post. The difference here is the media is usually spinning an event that no one really saw. Here, everyone saw what happened last night and the coddling suddenly looks obvious and partisan. Once he is elected, I hope Romney yanks the federal taxpayers support for NPR as well as PBS. It's shameful.
If this was Obama's last debate, I'd be somewhat concerned. But since it's not, I'd be very worried about the next 2 if I was a Republican. If this was a horse race, I like Obama's position on the rail, letting Romney think he's got the lead maybe by a neck heading down the home stretch. He's been the leader of the greatest nation on earth and the free world for the last 4 years folks, and he is therefore very good at coming back to win when he needs to (health care?). Don't get too comfortable just yet Repubs. Obama is on the rail looking stronger than ever, and Romney is now out of gas, having shot his load, and in big trouble.
The first debate and the VP debate are all that matters. The last two have almost no impact. And Romney just sealed the deal. In twenty days, even these phony polls won't be able to hide the fact that Romney is ahead.
This comment has been removed.
Sad to say he can't walk on water after all!
This comment has been removed.
Without a teleprompter, Obama is useless. Finally, he was asked the tough questions that the liberal media has failed to do the last four years. MSNBC was going off the rails last night with Obama's performance. No tingle in the leg for Chris Matthews. Thought that Rachel Maddow was going to have a stroke. Let's hope that John Kerry keeps prepping Obama for the next two debates.
This comment has been removed.
I'm not convinced Obama even wants to keep the job. He looked like he would be just as happy if not more to simply hit the golf course. He knows he is in way over his head and it is starting to show without that teleprompter.
This comment has been removed.
What, no outragous lie using facts from Scot Lehigh today?!? Needs an extra day to put it together eh? I thought for sure he would run a day early. His column tomorrow will be a real test of what is left of his credibility...
Joanie babe... interesting point you raise about Teddy's 1994 situation. . . But let me offer this for your pontification . . . 'Mr. Obama, you're no Teddy Kennedy'.
BOATWROTE: "Mr. Obama, you're no Teddy Kennedy.' FACTS: You're right, boatwrote: Barack Obama was elected president of the United States, and he succeeded in getting health care reform passed. I voted for Teddy every time, but despite all his accomplishments I believe it will be Mr. Obama who goes down in history as the more successful leader. One more thing: saying "Joanie babe" kinda outs you as a jerk. Just sayin'...
nimitta, What does name calling say?
This comment has been removed.
As I've said many times here and elsewhere, I don't believe being good or bad in a "debate" has much -- or anything -- to do with what kind of person you will be in elected office. The skills involved aren't related. Nevertheless, many voters depend on the debates because that may be the only exposure they have to the candidates other that political ads.
I was a debater in school and --- like politics -- it involved saying whatever was necessary to win over the judges. It was all about weaving selective "facts" without regard for the facts.
Obama was unprepared and Romney was not. Obama didn't practice enough or memorize enough, nor was he prepared for some additional Romney flip-flops that occurred over the past few days and on the air last night.
I was pretty disappointed, and I will freely admit that Romney "won" the night. I hope that doesn't mean he'll be elected, but who knows. I certainly don't.
Another debate outcome like last night they will have to place Chris Matthews in a straight-jacket! As he was yelling into the camera, Maddow looked like a bobbleheaded moonbat....I love it!
It's not a jousting match between between TV commentators, or blogs, or newspaper columnists, much less a contest between posters on this forum.
It's about the Presidency and the future of this country. If TV commentary is what matters to you, do us all a favor and stay away from the polls.
I am guessing grief councilors are on high alert at Morrisey Boulevard!!! The first time the president had to actually deal with someone who was man enough to tell him to his face he is doing a terrible job, and has the facts to prove it!! It wasn't the usual Globe or MSNBC or New York times puff not looking at the facts.
Michael Moore said it best, when you have Liveshot Kerry giving you help debating, what do you expect! The president, like Kerry, believes they are to be worshipped and we work for them!! Imagine actually having to stand by his record. Why do you think he said I am here to talk about the future?
Final score, America 1- Moonbats 0
This comment has been removed.
Ahh the children of the right totally incapable of enjoying a win dash to their keyboards to write out comments that cause "independents" to vote for the other guy. "I love Mitt" let me turn off another voter. I wonder how many votes these so called supporters have cost him throughout the country. Instead of hitting the keyboard expressing the good things Mitt said, even though I don't believe him, if I worked for him I'd be repeating them. Not you folks lets get out there and turn off independent voters with our hyperbole.
Well before you get to excited. I doubt this debate will change much. This election is a base election, it is getting your folks to the polls. It is convinincing those who may not vote to vote for your guy. Throwing the school yard taunts never got anyone elected.
Romney is in an easier position, challenging Obama's record, but only as he describes it to be. He talks about ideas that sound good but don't work for multiple reasons: because the President does not control Congress and can't determine what passes, because he talked about principles without much detail, because the ideas don't work since there is not enough money, etc. If health care is a moral obligation and a right (which I believe it is) then it can't be left to individual states to do if they want to on not. US healthcare is NOT the best in the world (as Romney said it was) and it's twice as expensive as other nations health care that is of better quality. There will not be enough money from reducing tax deductions to pay for the increased revenue to fund spending unless those reductions are so significant (ie, the mortgage deduction) as to whack the middle class as it loses them. Not taxing the rich at a high rate is a travesty. It absolutely is good to fund new developments, for example in green energy, and a few failing companies is the price you pay -- any venture capital firms knows that well. So, for Mr. Romney bring that up as a negative is disingenuous. I don't think Obama was tired, but I do think it gets tedious to have to keep addressing things that are obvious to thinking people. The greater percentage of the population is uninformed and can't think things through very well for themselves. So, they rely on sound bites, "principles" stated to wave the flag and get them emotional, and the opinion of others who are usually both much better informed and with an agenda (ie, not objective) -- may have been bought by special interests, or self-interest.
Obama tries to address the substance of questions, and he tries to give the other person a full hearing. When Mr, Romney says SOME regulation is necessary, some is too much or obsolete, but we need to reduce the latter, that is correct -- but, actually, what he has now said it not what he said earlier when he focused on reducing regulation, and what he said has NO operational meaning. It's a platitude. The devil is in the details and he is generally not telling you what those details are.
The one thing I would say is that I agree that Obama need to go more on the ofensive and get emotional about what Mr. Romney is saying. For instance, it's immoral and outrageous to say that people can only get health care if they live in a state that has decided on a plan. It's ridiculous to thing that we could eliminate the deficit only by reducing deductions (the middle class would be in huge pain). Furthermore, the US is not a "start-up" country and is not going to be able to grow at a high rate (like China) to grow ourselves out of our revenue shortfall. It's rediculous to speak as if we can.
One more thing, I would suggest that Mr. Obama really take it to Mr. Romney by insisting that Mr. Romney answer what the details will be that will allow for unrealistic resolutions. And if Mr. Ronmey can't or won't supply those details then Mr. Obama should show him some (carefully crafted) disrespect.
This comment has been removed.
"system" This one wasn't so bad there is actually some meat to the comment. I agree. I don't think Obama needs their advice either. By the way I don't think this will have much of an impact on the election. I never did. Now tell me truthfully did either say anything of value. I'd say no.
Just like Obama, the Red Sox were a mess before Bobby, they were a mess with Bobby, and they will be a mess for at least a while after Bobby. You can't blame this on Bobby. On the other hand, it is clear that nothing will improve and nothing will change for the better with Bobby in this situation. Bobby has to go. It's not his fault, but he can't fix it. That means he MUST go! The EXACT SAME THING is true for Obama!!!! He didn't create Clinton's housing recession that ran into the wall a decade later, but he has also proven that he isn't experienced enough to fix it and it is clear that nothing will improve anytime soon if we continue to follow his fantasies of how economics works (and doesn't work). Obama didn't make this mess, but he can't fix it either! Obama needs to go! Just like Bobby! It's not Bobby's mess but Bobby can't fix it, so he is out! And so is Obama!
I think I might have been too pessimistic about the effect of Obama's performance in the debate. Romney was fast talking and flipping himself from the right to the middle. Just maybe it was one flip too many and flop with the voters.
This morning's Gallup rolling poll shows Obama gained a point on Thursday, and now this morning's jobs report...