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:
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?