OPENING STATEMENT
Romney's
opening statement was much better. He was looking at the camera,
modulating his voice well (and not engaging in his typical whine), and
coming off as more heartfelt. Obama was looking at Lehrer and was just
too stiff and academic. During the rebuttal, Romney was looking at Obama
while firing off criticisms - it just felt more persuasive. And of
course this is coming from a viewer who is heavily biased against
Romney.
TAXES
I don't like how they both
got bogged town in taxes and accusations. Most of America has already
made up their mind about what they expect Romney to do on taxes if he
wins. Obama suggested that a study showed Romney will never be able to
cut taxes and increase military spending while keeping the deficit from
growing, and that the rich will enjoy most of the tax cut. Romney
denied that and said that he wants to cut taxes on the middle class.
Then Obama comes back and basically calls him a liar. Then Romney
refuted it again. Back and forth, citing this tax rate and that study - a
waste of 10 min. A tough way for the American people to start watching a
2 hr debate: tax analysis. Either the public believes Romney (and his
brand new tax plan from tonight) or not, so move on. Obama should have
gotten off that (it was going nowhere) and instead explained how gov.
spending (fueled by fair taxes) and regs can and have led to economic
growth. He should have explaind how gov. spending helped keep the
economy going during the Recession.
Then Romney got a little petulant, interrupting Lehrer
and Obama, and even crying that he deserves to get the last word on
taxes because "Obama spoke first." Yeah, Obama is starting to look at the
camera and Romney is focused on Lehrer. He's rambling, spouting off too
many stats, and I think is losing some of the audience.
DEFICIT
Now it's Obama's turn for
rambling. They get 2 minutes apiece. Can't try to touch on 4 or 5
points in that time period. People won't remember even if you're making
great points. KISS (short and simple). Romney is making it sounds like
Obama wants to raise taxes on a weak economy and waste the money on some
stupid projects, in line with his inept socialist stereotype. He has to
shoot that down. It's not that Obama wants to raise taxes, but that
current taxes are dangerously too low for certain payers. That money can
be better spent on cutting the deficit and investing in infrastructure.
He touched on it a bit, but he needs to get more explicit. And then he
walked into the trap on taxing Exxon more, which allowed Romney to bring
up Solyndra and "big gov. picking winners and losers" in the green
energy game. I don't know if Obama wants to refute the perception that
he is much more anti-business than Romney, but he is not doing a good
job so far.
ENTITLEMENTS
Obama said that he
and Romney feel similarly on SocSec. D'OH!!!!! Come on man, that was the
perfect oppportunity to go after the Ryan plan right out of the
gate. It's been a while since Ryan was announced as VP and the GOP
convention, so you gotta remind voters of what he stands for. Obama made it
sound like he is on the defensive, and let Romney even confirm that he
doesn't want to cut entitlements (for current and soon-to-be beneficiaries). Forget the
specifics, he got to say that he doesn't want to cut. Don't let him off
the hook! He let Romney shoot first with the"700 billion" cut to
Medicare to pay for Obamacare comment, which Obama didn't even refute or
explain. Of course that is exactly the same cut that Ryan wants, but the
audience heard it from Romney first, so he won that point.
Later Obama brought up the Ryan voucher program, but
it's probably too late, and they got bogged down in the wonky details of it's hypothetical administering. Plus Romney has probably practiced this
scenario and knows some clever pivot quotes. Obama is losing people by focusing on unmemorable numbers. People know
that he knows the numbers and policies. He doesn't need to explain
health care economics to us. Now it's time to bust out the big guns,
play to people's emotions and fears! The GOP don't get to have a
monopoly on fear-mongering. Just get the accusations out there, and let
Romney fumble with an explanation. Plant the idea in people's mind that
Romney wants to cut, but Obama wants to protect and care for grandma. Now Romney is saying that Obama will cut and he will preserve. Come on
Obama don't let your biggest advantage go to waste, or even become a weakness.
Obama brought up the well-known point that Medicare has
lower admin costs than private insurance. Thank goodness Romney didn't
counter that that is only true because private insurers have to deal
with different regs for 50 states. Romney did get to say that he thinks
the private sector can do things better than gov., and Obama left it at
that. Boo.
REGS
Romney gets to say that he
supports smart regs, and makes Dodd-Frank sound like a bailout to giant
banks (when most voters don't know the contents of that bill). Obama
then recounted the history of what his admin. did regarding banking
rescue (he made a good point that the banks have repaid all the bailouts
with interest), but failed to indict the laissez-faire,
GOP-endorsed policies that are mostly still in play. He did have a great
line of, "If you think too much Wall St. regs were the problem behind
the financial crisis, then Romney is the candidate for you!"
HEALTH CARE
Obama's gotta tug at
the heart strings here. "Because of the Affordable Care Act, Angie gets
the dialysis she needs to keep going to college and build a better life
for her family. Romney and the GOP want to take that away just so
billion-dollar insurance companies can keep more profits." At least
Obama brought up Romneycare in Mass., but stopped short of calling
Romney a hypocrite. That opening let Romney explain how his plan was so
much better than Obamacare, because it was "bipartisan", "didn't raise
taxes or kill jobs", etc. Obama didn't respond to any of that, and
didn't explain that Obamacare will lower costs in the long run. And
then Obama has to explain the legitimacy of the "death panels" and what
they actually do. C'mon you don't have to go there. Just say they implement proven ways to reduce waste and improve care outcomes. More
bang for buck. But he let Romney counter that gov. has never cut
costs or innovated better than the private sector. Maybe that's actually
true. And again it plays to the narrative that Romney is a champion of
business, business can solve our problems better, and Obama's gov. is
just in the way wasting money and stomping on freedoms. Obama is not refuting that and it's
terrible.
Another good line from Obama: "Do the voters think that Romney is keeping his plans on taxes, replacing Dodd-Frank, and
replacing Obamacare secret because they're so good?"
But Romney got to fire back that he "knows how to work with"
the other party, and won't shove policies "down people's throats." He
got to say that Obama+Pelosi+Reid forced Obamacare on us, and are taking
rights away from the states. Again no response from Obama. Congress has
horrible favorability ratings now. Obama just got linked to them. Why
doesn't he link Romney and Ryan to the GOP Congress' faults (fiscal
cliff, Todd Aiken, Tea Party craziness, corruption, McConnell saying
their top priority is kicking Obama out, etc.)? Come on, go big or go
home. Romney said that he believes in principles of liberty and self
responsibility. Then Obama should have countered that insurance only
works when the young and healthy pay their fair share to support the
sick. If only the sick buy private insurance, of course it will be
unaffordable and with too many restrictions.
ROLE OF GOV.
Obama can really go
after Romney here like, "The American free economy is amazing, but gov.
projects can do things that the private sector can't. No one wants a Big
Brother government restricting our freedoms, but what about Romney and
the GOP's vision? They don't seem to believe in the free market because they want to give preferential treatment to those among us who
have the most." But he didn't, and ceded the "freedom" agenda to Romney.
Romney got to cite the Constitution and American
valiues, making him look more patriotic and American. Romney also
claimed that the "proof" that the big gov. plan is not working is our
current state of the economy. Obama should be able to destroy that
reasoning, but he didn't. Each and every time, Obama let him off easy.
It's like he's a football team with only enough players for defense. I
don't get it. I know Obama is like Spock and he fights with honor, but
why not score some cheap points, or at least don't let Romney off so
easy? There's no downside, and it makes him look more genuine and
caring. He's not a professor, he's a candidate trying to win. Millions are depending on him to win.
CLOSING
Finally Obama acts a
little human. Fighting for the middle class - keep up that stuff. But
overall it was an opportunity lost and a great chance for Romney to reframe
himself after his recent gaffes. Sucks.
----------
For the first time I'm concerned that Romney could win on style, of all things. He successfully executed the 'etch a sketch' strategy on the issues while being energetic and engaging in a surprising way. A good example of form over substance. And he got away with it because Obama let him. I'd like to see Hillary or Bill as designated hitters in the remaining debates
----------
I agree. The Clintons know how to win. In the debates Obama is not the president anymore, he is a prize fighter trying to hurt the other guy. I don't think Obama is as skilled as Clinton on wearing different hats at the right times. It's too bad - nice guys finish last. He doesn't have his 2008 mania to rely on anymore. Now the thirst for change is against him. He was almost aloof and apathetic up there. He is fighting for his life, and for millions of Americans who depend on him. Doesn't that fire him up? Come on, give it all you got. People always respond well to passion. It's not that Romney necessarily won, but Obama lost it as you said. Romney did cleverly reinvent himself (or in some cases introduce himself) to the public tonight. He actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. Obama should have known that was Mitt's strategy and threw roadblocks in the way. You can't give your opponents a big gift basket like that!
My wife and I also noticed how animated and engaging Romney was, it's like black and white vs. his demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go and keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch!
----------
I think Romney made a really big all-in play on the media's stupidity tonight, and I'm curious how it plays out.
----------
I guess his push to the center is the Oct. surprise? Unless Obama's strategy team are a bunch of morons, they should have anticipated this possibility from Romney's camp, at least remotely (especially due to Mitt's track record, and that he needed to get more populist after the leaked video). Heck even the "etch a sketch" comment had been circulating in the media prior to the debate. So your game plan turns out to be wrong or your opponent pulls a surprise, no problem - ADJUST! As the POTUS he should know how to be agile, absorb new info on the fly, and outsmart. There are only 3 debates here, show some urgency (or is he too confident in the polling?). No wonder why Congress screwed him over year after year.
It wouldn't have been that much of a stretch or a risk to be like, "Hm Governor it's strange - for an entire year during the GOP primaries, you've taken some fairly extreme positions on the debt, taxes, regs, entitlements, and such. It's in the record: (cite a few noteworthy quotes). You chose a fiscal extremist (and kind of a social issues extremist too) as your running mate. And now in our first debate you are totally presenting a different story. Some major conservatives criticized you because they weren't sure what Romney they were going to get (pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage or against, etc.). Now all of America may be wondering the same thing. Can you explain why your views have changed so drastically, almost overnight? Because they're not really compatible."
I guess the candidates aren't really allowed to directly address each other, but I am sure he could have injected some of that here and there, instead of getting bogged down in policy minutia that most don't care about and few will remember. Don't leave it to the media to call him out - you had the stage and there was no better time. Put Romney on the defensive - don't give him a pass and let this debate be his coming-out party to the center.
Romney actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. My wife and I also noticed how animated and captivating Romney was; it's like black and white vs. his poor demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is more in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go (for fear of getting hit), and so then he keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch! What does Obama have to lose? Even if he presses on Mitt hard, it's not like Mitt is the most sympathetic victim figure in the public's eye to make Obama look like a bully.
-----------
Classic guerilla warfare. Now Romney owns the "change agenda", and he got to accuse Obama and the left of basically being Republicans: trickle down, undemocratic, cronyist, out-of-touch, and bullies who just push unpopular, extremist policies down our throats. Time after time Romney snagged the talking points first (liberty, small business, job creation) and repeated the stereotypes that Obama is just a money-wasting, big gov't, no business sense, job killer, and Obama barely fought back. The debate made it sound like Romney was the champion of the uninsured, working class, and elderly!
----------
For the first time I'm concerned that Romney could win on style, of all things. He successfully executed the 'etch a sketch' strategy on the issues while being energetic and engaging in a surprising way. A good example of form over substance. And he got away with it because Obama let him. I'd like to see Hillary or Bill as designated hitters in the remaining debates
----------
I agree. The Clintons know how to win. In the debates Obama is not the president anymore, he is a prize fighter trying to hurt the other guy. I don't think Obama is as skilled as Clinton on wearing different hats at the right times. It's too bad - nice guys finish last. He doesn't have his 2008 mania to rely on anymore. Now the thirst for change is against him. He was almost aloof and apathetic up there. He is fighting for his life, and for millions of Americans who depend on him. Doesn't that fire him up? Come on, give it all you got. People always respond well to passion. It's not that Romney necessarily won, but Obama lost it as you said. Romney did cleverly reinvent himself (or in some cases introduce himself) to the public tonight. He actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. Obama should have known that was Mitt's strategy and threw roadblocks in the way. You can't give your opponents a big gift basket like that!
My wife and I also noticed how animated and engaging Romney was, it's like black and white vs. his demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go and keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch!
----------
I think Romney made a really big all-in play on the media's stupidity tonight, and I'm curious how it plays out.
He
basically repudiated everything he's run on so far and made a big push
towards the center. It was most obvious early on when he told us that
$5T in tax cuts isn't his plan. Well, up until that moment right there,
it had been. As that campaign insider promised a couple months ago,
Romney's gone out and shaken the etch-a-sketch and become a different
candidate.
I think Obama got caught off-guard
by that. He threw a couple jabs early on, being very specific about what
Romney's plans said, and Romney dodged it by repudiating those plans. I
don't think Obama, or really anybody, was prepared for Romney to get up
on stage and tell everyone that he was a pro-regulation candidate who
wasn't going to make any unpaid-for tax cuts, and that anybody citing
previous his previous statements was just not telling the truth. You
could see it in some of those huge grins on Obama's face as he's going
"holy shit I can't believe he's saying this."
So
I think after those first tax-policy jabs got dodged, Obama decided to
draw him out, to play it safe and not take any big shots, just get
Romney's new ideas out in the open. Then tonight Obama can go back and
figure out a new strategy for this etch-a-sketch candidate he's facing.
But I don't think he was ready for that candidate, and he didn't want to
make up a new strategy on the spot just to appear to win a debate.
The big question is how the media responds, whether they call Romney out on his flip-flopping or if that's left to Obama.
----------
I guess his push to the center is the Oct. surprise? Unless Obama's strategy team are a bunch of morons, they should have anticipated this possibility from Romney's camp, at least remotely (especially due to Mitt's track record, and that he needed to get more populist after the leaked video). Heck even the "etch a sketch" comment had been circulating in the media prior to the debate. So your game plan turns out to be wrong or your opponent pulls a surprise, no problem - ADJUST! As the POTUS he should know how to be agile, absorb new info on the fly, and outsmart. There are only 3 debates here, show some urgency (or is he too confident in the polling?). No wonder why Congress screwed him over year after year.
It wouldn't have been that much of a stretch or a risk to be like, "Hm Governor it's strange - for an entire year during the GOP primaries, you've taken some fairly extreme positions on the debt, taxes, regs, entitlements, and such. It's in the record: (cite a few noteworthy quotes). You chose a fiscal extremist (and kind of a social issues extremist too) as your running mate. And now in our first debate you are totally presenting a different story. Some major conservatives criticized you because they weren't sure what Romney they were going to get (pro-life or pro-choice, pro-gay-marriage or against, etc.). Now all of America may be wondering the same thing. Can you explain why your views have changed so drastically, almost overnight? Because they're not really compatible."
I guess the candidates aren't really allowed to directly address each other, but I am sure he could have injected some of that here and there, instead of getting bogged down in policy minutia that most don't care about and few will remember. Don't leave it to the media to call him out - you had the stage and there was no better time. Put Romney on the defensive - don't give him a pass and let this debate be his coming-out party to the center.
Romney actually sounded compassionate, centrist, and knowledgeable, while not betraying core conservatism. My wife and I also noticed how animated and captivating Romney was; it's like black and white vs. his poor demeanor on the stump. Maybe he is more in his element here (well he has been rehearsing for a month!). Obama often looked slow, weak, unsure, and disconnected. It was frustrating to watch. Like the boxing matches when the losing guy just won't let his hands go (for fear of getting hit), and so then he keeps getting hit. You won't win if you don't punch! What does Obama have to lose? Even if he presses on Mitt hard, it's not like Mitt is the most sympathetic victim figure in the public's eye to make Obama look like a bully.
-----------
Classic guerilla warfare. Now Romney owns the "change agenda", and he got to accuse Obama and the left of basically being Republicans: trickle down, undemocratic, cronyist, out-of-touch, and bullies who just push unpopular, extremist policies down our throats. Time after time Romney snagged the talking points first (liberty, small business, job creation) and repeated the stereotypes that Obama is just a money-wasting, big gov't, no business sense, job killer, and Obama barely fought back. The debate made it sound like Romney was the champion of the uninsured, working class, and elderly!
No comments:
Post a Comment