We arm-chair quarterbacks can be merciless and I am no exception when analysing last night’s second debate between Mitt Romney and President Obama.
Unlike the first debate, Barack Obama was present and accounted for. Obama¡s agressiveness at times made him appear a whinny brat as he kept calling for the moderator to keep track of the time. At times Obama was yelling as though he was angry about being asked such questions. But, other times, Obama seemed as if he knew the question was coming in advance and had a practiced response. In general, Obama did much better than he did in the first debate. His very best score was his last upper cut attacking Romney on his 47% remark while knowing Romney would have no opportunity to respond. That was a good strategy on the Presidents part.
Mitt Romney did well in last night’s debate. He just didn’t do as well as I would have liked. In my opinion, Romney needs to improve his sales pitch for his five point plan to get the economy growing and creating jobs. I don’t think the people are understanding as well as they should. It is the most important difference in the two candidates and the thing that weighs heaviest on the voters minds. Mitt Romney showed again that he can’t be pushed around by debate moderators or by the President. Romney got in Obama’s face over his and the President’s income in blind trusts that invest in some China companies and have accounts in the Cayman Islands. That was probably appreciated more by us red meat eaters than by anyone else. I thought Romney won points on the issue of increased oil and gad production. No one is buying that Obama is responsible for that. But, I wish that Romney had nailed the president over his ignoring a court order to permit off shore drilling and I wish he had mentioned the President’s latest plan to lock up nearly half of the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska from energy production. [Ny the way, friends, we need to worry how a Lame Duck President Obama might continue such agency edicts in the three months until Romney would take the reins.] I am not sure which candidate won the argument over the attak on our embassy in Benghazi, Libya and the death of four Americans including the Ambassador. I wish Romney would have said that the American people would like tp know why our security was so lacks in such a dangerous part of the world. The American people would like to know if the low security profile was a White House policy because it is hard to believe that the security professionals in the State Department would not have wanted more security for our embassy staff in Libya.
High gasoline and food prices have come up in both presidential debates. and, although I think Romney wins on that point, I wish he would not give The Bernanke a pass on this issue. Ben Bernanke’s Quantitative Easings are devaluing our dollar and that causes commodities like oil and food grains to go up in their dollar based prices and Americans are feeling the pain. I suspect that Romney and his advisors are afraid that to explain the effect of The Bernanke’s Quantitative Easing that Romney would have to get too far out in the weeds. I don’t agree. Bernanke’s efforts to support this administration’s run away spending policies need to be exposed and it can be done in simple to understand terms. The people who made this cartoon, which I snagged from Frankenstein Government, had no problem explaining The Bernanke’s bad effects on our economy. The video refuses to embed for some reason but you can watch it here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=40hNSJEKUgo
All in all, if this humble observer had been the judge of last night’s debate, I would have given the President a slight edge. I think Obama’s well planned last-minute attack on Romney’s 47% remark was enough to barely win the debate. I will be surprised, however if the President gets any bounce in the polls. I don’t think independent voters (or undecided voters if any such thing exist) were all that impressed with Obama¡s performance last night.
Well, now you know what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?
Infidel de Manahatta
October 17, 2012
The President “seemed to know the questions were coming.” Thank you mr. objective media. Certainly not trying to get the Sun God reelected.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
Yeah, it may be sour grapes on my part; but it did seem that he had prepared responses to some of the questions.
Mustang
October 17, 2012
I think Obama did fine if we regard spewing distortions and falsehoods an acceptable behavior from “servants of the people.” I think Romney did fine; he was aggressive, clear, knowledgeable, and of course, he was debating two people simultaneously. I was impressed by the fact that about 70% of independents in one “reaction survey” indicated that they’d be voting for Romney, rather than Obama. Although, dead voters in Illinois and Ohio could still make this an Obama victory.
Take a look, Jim: http://wp.me/p2OPO8-1
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
Short of a very gross misstep, I think Romney has this election won. There were no undecided voters at that townhall meeting. But there were some stupid people there.
thanks for that link. why can’t people understand that climate does change. It always has and it always will. Vested intrest is the answer and that makes me mad!
silverfiddle
October 17, 2012
Unfortunately, talking about Bernanke and monetary policy would have put most viewers to sleep.
It is a crime what they’ve done to our money, but the issue is too complex for soundbites.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
It is a crime. It is a crime that we will end up paying. Bernanke is very much aware of that.
bunkerville
October 17, 2012
I look forward to the polls in the next few days. We may be too hard on Mitt and our cause. We wanted a knock out, but perhaps we were being unrealistic.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
John Galt reports that Romney is five point up! If that is true, Obama is toast.
john galt - America's Chronicle
October 17, 2012
The debate was like most debates usually are, a washout in the polls. The First debate and the Vice-Presidential debates were unusual and different in the fact that they did move voters preferences. The damage done by Biden with 54% of the electorate – women – was not corrected by yesterday’s debate. It could have been made even worse because of the ungentlemanly and complaining whimpering behavior of Obama.
Recent polls have proven my thesis right about women’s vote with a poll indicating a 49-49 tie, which is 7 points swing to Romney for what it was in 2008, and what it was just a month ago. In my thesis I am calculating just 47% for Romney for a gain of 7 million votes favorable balance to 2008.
That will give the election to Romney.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
You did nail it, John, before anyone else. Things are looking up!
john galt - America's Chronicle
October 17, 2012
I just published the latest figures we get from Gallup daily and they are incredible.
The election is breaking for Romney. Look at our Gallup Graphic Poll Numbers at the top of our front page.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
OUTSTANDING!!!
5etester
October 17, 2012
I think it’s quite clear at this point the election is over and Romney will win. Now let’s talk about really important stuff like the Tigers winning the World Series.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
That is the best Idea I’ve heard in a long time. All of Venezuela will be watching the Tigers and Miguel Cabrera.
Steve Dennis
October 17, 2012
I think it was pretty even last night, although ROmney got flustered on Libya once candy bailed Obama out. I agree about Obama’s closing remark, I think it was smart to hold the 47% until the end when Romney couldn’t respond. Romney will have a second chance because next week’s debate is all about foreign policy.
Conservatives on Fire
October 17, 2012
I trust that Romney will get himself prepared to destroy Obama on Benghazi; but I hope he doesn’t get too Gung Ho on Syria. He could come off as a warmonger and that is what Obama wants him to do.
john galt - America's Chronicle
October 18, 2012
Jim, it is true that people don’t want to hear about new wars, but if Romney is going to become president he needs to acknowledge the necessity to do more in Syria. Syria is an strategic important country in the Middle East and a present partner of Iran and Russia for mischief.
PD. Jim, I will be away for a couple of weeks. I am going to finally test my mettle
against the best in the world . . . .
I shall return (whole or in parts).
John Galt
Conservatives on Fire
October 18, 2012
Yes, John, it is true. Please see my post today. I see Syria as a trap for Romney.
azleader
October 18, 2012
You characterized the debate very accurately.
To me it came across as two heavyweight champions battling to a bruising 15-round draw. Both bloodied up the other but neither scored a knockout punch. I thought it the best debate so far.
I’m like you when wishing that Romney had dug deeper into Obama over several issues. The “terrorist attack” challenge was a blunder.
I’d like Obama’s energy policy better exposed… all the ammunition needed is in plain sight for all to see. And, of course, have Obama’s lack of a plan to fix the economy highlighted instead of swept under the rug.
I’d really, really, really like to have one reporter… ANY reporter… ask Obama, Biden or Laura Tyson where the “5.2 million private sector jobs in 31 months” came from and then make them explain it.
Conservatives on Fire
October 18, 2012
Like I said. It is easy for arm chair quarterbacks to criticize. Out there in front of the cmaras in can be hard to remember every point you wanted to make. The moderators of these debates don’t help either.
Castle
October 21, 2012
The truth is neither party is interested in talking about the Federal Reserve and the consequences of the monetary policy supported by both parties. This is why many libertarians don’t believe anything will change even if Romney wins. The foreign policy stays the same, as well as the monetary policy. What is left are issues like who is going to increase the debt slightly less than the other guy.