Er, no, Obama didn’t win the debate last night

Spread the love

Loading

J.E. Dyer @ Hot Air:

We’ve reached a watershed here, where we either live in our own heads affirming reality, regardless of spurious inputs from demagoguery or sentiment, or we give up on reality and let demagoguery and sentiment take over at the decision table. Did the president pull off a performance last night, in terms of sounding passionate and full of conviction? To some extent, yes. Does that mean he won the debate, or even achieved a draw with Romney? No.

The mainstream media immediately launched a volley of positive soundbites about the president’s performance, but frankly, they were going to do that anyway. As long as Obama didn’t collapse on the stage, they were going to say he had his mojo back.

The problem is that in order to sound passionate and full of conviction, Obama had to belt out a remarkable string of untruths. Besides repeating the same tired lies about Romney’s policies that his campaign has been flogging for the last two months, the president simply lied – there’s nothing else to call it – about the trend of drilling permits under his administration (Romney is right; permits have been slashed).

Obama insisted to Romney that he had called the Benghazi attack terrorism on day one, when in fact, he had not. He lied about the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, repeating a lie the Democrats have persisted in since the law was being debated in the Arizona statehouse. The law is carefully and explicitly written to prohibit ethnic profiling stops by law-enforcement officers. Immigration-status checks can only be done in connection with a stop on another, unrelated basis, such as a traffic stop.

Obama did try to assume the moral high ground on Libya with a riff on Americans’ safety and his responsibility, but it was a cringe-worthy performance from the man who waited until after the Benghazi attack to bring diplomatic-mission security up to a normal standard, and who professes, 36 days after the attack, to still be waiting to find out what happened. If he really doesn’t know, he’s the only one who doesn’t. His position that we’re still waiting to assess the attack isn’t judicious; it’s absurd. Mentally substitute George W. Bush for Obama in this scenario, and try to imagine the MSM giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for 36 days and counting.

I had my concerns about Romney’s performance last night, if only a couple. Probably the biggest was that he tended to put his most powerful material at the end of each statement, and got cut off just as he was articulating it.  The response to the woman who asked about keeping jobs in the US was a case in point: Romney made a rather convoluted case about China as a currency manipulator, and only after dealing with that arcane topic mentioned that if we want to keep America job-friendly, we have to stop regulating ourselves into an economic coma.  He got cut off saying it; that should have been his opening point.  The American people can dosomething about that.  And whether or not the point about regulation resonated with that particular questioner, it would resonate far and wide among other Americans.

Romney is typically succinct and direct on the economy, and he should apply that style to everything he says in a debate.  He would have made the point about Obama’s own passive investment in China much better by simply stating it outright, rather than repeating the same question to the president – “Have you looked at your pension lately?” – until it began sounding like a second-grader’s taunt.  Just make the assertion, already.  “Mr. President, your pension is invested in China.”  That simple – and, without the weird build-up, slyly devastating.

But rhetorical glitches aside, Romney had substance last night.  He whaled it out of the park on energy and immigration, and came off as genial and presidential.  Interestingly, the Frank Luntz panel saw the same thing.  The MSM’s assessment this morning that the president staged a comeback in this debate is information about the MSM, not about the candidates or the debate. It’s like they’re narrating some invisible drama that no one else can see.

Read more

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of

2 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I would like to address the issue of MATH. Obama is now claiming that the math does not add up for the Romney proposals.
The problem is not in the math. The problem is in the assumptions. An inherent part of Democratic budget proposals has always been the presumption that individual financial decisions will not be affected by a change in the law. Endless cases can be brought forth; I will mention only one. It was theorized that a new tax on individual items costing $100,000 or more (large boats, private airplanes) would bring in a lot of money. So the new tax was implemented. The presumption was wrong. Persons who intended to purchase big-ticket items CHANGED their minds about their purchases. Boat and airplane manufacturers saw large decreases in their sales. Folks started buying used. Job loss ensued; a manufacturer cannot continue to keep employees if there is no demand for their product.
Thus it is with the Romney proposal. Lowering taxes will change the decision making. Folk will be more likely to start businesses, which will pay taxes and create jobs, and revenue will rise. Raising taxes will change the decision making. Folk will be less likely to start businesses and reduce employment, which will reduce taxes.
Classical economics never discusses the evidence that those who make money are intelligent; they follow the changes in the law; their decisions are based on what the law is and will be; they adjust their decisions accordingly.

Only Republicans regard individuals as persons free to make their own decisions.

@mathman:

I would like to address the issue of MATH. Obama is now claiming that the math does not add up for the Romney proposals.
The problem is not in the math. The problem is in the assumptions.

That is exactly right, when people are talking about how the Romney/Ryan plan’s “math” does not hold up, or is “impossible”.

The original “study” linked to by those saying the above is the TPC (Tax Policy Center) report on the plan. In that “study”, the authors of it make many assumptions heavily tilted towards showing how the RR “plan” does not add up. As well, they also leave out many assumptions that trend favorably towards the RR “plan”.

Granted, it is an ambitious plan put together, and some details are not given (because they cannot be given, as it will be the job of Congress to figure it out), but it’s a far cry better than what we have been hearing, and been given, for the past four years. If it works, which indications and past history suggest that it would work, millions more people will be working, taxes lessened, and government revenue continue to grow.