In the eye of the beholder, I guess
Oct. 6th, 2012 12:39 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dreamsharkI watched most of the presidential debate, and although Romney's performance was certainly not embarrassing it was obvious to me that Obama "won." The president seemed relaxed and sure of himself while Romney looked ill-at-ease, desperate and profoundly insincere. Although they both made use of slanted presentations of the other fellow's positions, Romney twisted the facts a lot more (esp. the charge about "cuts" to Medicare, which was almost funny when juxtaposed with his crack about the Democrats just repeating and repeating false statements).
I also had to wonder why nobody seems to care about the fact that Romney's stated policy positions were seriously at odds with pretty much everything he said when he campaigned for the Republican nomination. In fact, he started out pretty much agreeing with Obama on almost everything and then attacking small details of the current policies as if they were all that mattered. For instance, he began his "attack" on Dodd-Frank with a little speech about how much we need regulations in the market, and agreed that most of the regulations in Dodd-Frank are good ones, then focused all his wrath on "too big to fail." He really couldn't hide his pride in the signature accomplishment of his governorship (health care), and was virtually unable to point out any differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. The only 2 points he could come up with were the unsupported assertion that it would only work at the state-by-state level and an unfocused attack on the "unelected board" in the Federal model (which Obama countered effectively by pointing out that it was a "best practices advisory board"). And then there were Romney's multiple assertions that he has no intention of providing tax relief for the wealthy. Is that the candidate that all those wealthy contributors thought they were backing? Don't they even care that he just reversed his position?
But apparently I saw a different debate than everybody else in the country, as I understand that the one that everyone else saw was a devastating win for Romney.
I also had to wonder why nobody seems to care about the fact that Romney's stated policy positions were seriously at odds with pretty much everything he said when he campaigned for the Republican nomination. In fact, he started out pretty much agreeing with Obama on almost everything and then attacking small details of the current policies as if they were all that mattered. For instance, he began his "attack" on Dodd-Frank with a little speech about how much we need regulations in the market, and agreed that most of the regulations in Dodd-Frank are good ones, then focused all his wrath on "too big to fail." He really couldn't hide his pride in the signature accomplishment of his governorship (health care), and was virtually unable to point out any differences between Romneycare and Obamacare. The only 2 points he could come up with were the unsupported assertion that it would only work at the state-by-state level and an unfocused attack on the "unelected board" in the Federal model (which Obama countered effectively by pointing out that it was a "best practices advisory board"). And then there were Romney's multiple assertions that he has no intention of providing tax relief for the wealthy. Is that the candidate that all those wealthy contributors thought they were backing? Don't they even care that he just reversed his position?
But apparently I saw a different debate than everybody else in the country, as I understand that the one that everyone else saw was a devastating win for Romney.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-06 06:18 pm (UTC)I guess the conventional wisdom-mongers would have liked Obama to reference the etch-a-sketch. I would too. But that wasn't the plan.
On the other hand, Obama's speeches the next day were INSPIRED.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-06 06:30 pm (UTC)In the presidential debate, Obama kicked serious ass. He was calm, above the fray, and spoke plainly about what worked and what needed to be done. He got in a few mild zingers, but nothing of sound bite material. It took him an hour to call Romney a liar. He didn't talk about Bain or the 47% or much of the cannon fodder that passes for political discourse these days. His whole administration has been like that: Emphasis on getting things done.
Lehrer was overwhelmed, and doesn't seem to have been bothered by it. He didn't mind that the debate was a lot of give and take; fine as far as it went, but it would have been nice if he had called Romney on a few of his major lies.
As Jon Stewart says, "Don't these people know we have videotape?" This is why Stewart will never moderate a debate.
Romney came off as a better snake oil salesman than Obama came off as a law professor. So many in our post-attention span world think that constitutes a "win". Sad, really.