Damn. It's not about the last four years, but the next, just as President Obama said to....well, everything. From the replays I'm seeing, at least.
Of course the Republicans say that about the media. It's their crutch for everything, this amorphous idea of the "liberal media". And, the teleprompter is just a snide remark from a real **** in Guiliani. What politician doesn't use a teleprompter? I seriously doubt Obama was shocked that a political opponent was going to come at him hard in a debate. It's not his first go around. He hasn't, though, debated in 4 years, so I think that had a part of it. I do think that he was more taken aback, though, more by the nature of Romney's attack. Romney was much different tonight than he was in the primaries and I tend to think Obama was expecting that Romney, not the one he got tonight.
Specific? How could you possibly ascertain any ideas from Romney tonight? He spoke in vagaries and said things like "it's really complicated" when pressed. I understand you like the guy, but there's no way that anyone came away tonight with a real sense of what Romney will do as president.
Yes. And even people sympathetic to the President have said as much. President Obama came to Washington to -- in his mind -- recast the place as one where dialogue wins. His first two years in office he tried to do this and realized the challenge involved. His last two years he played politics. Fine. I think now he is stuck in the middle. He wants to be a guy with vision and bold ideas, not just someone who is great at manipulating political levers like Clinton was. And tonight it seemed to polarize him. Do I want to be the attack dog who needles Romney about the 47-percent? Or someone above that, the guy who talks of citizenship at the convention? Just my two cents. Edit: And I say this as someone who truly admired the first half of Obama's convention speech. It was all the good small "r" republican ideas pretty well laid out. And since I saw it in person it made it more meaningful, at least for me.
Obama got his ass kicked tonight. There's no spin that can be put on it on what "type of Romney" he expected. He lost, and it wasn't even close. He's the one in scrambling mode, and I think, objectively, we have a different race tomorrow morning than we had at 8:59 tonight. It's going to be a photo finish. Obama will have plenty of time to prepare properly for the next debate and make up for it, but he's going to have to improve a hell of a lot if tonight is any indication.
I actually felt Obama was a bit more specific than Romney, but neither were rife with them. What struck me was how prepared and energetic Romney was throughout. Whether he was being vague, untruthful, etc. was likely overshadowed by the conviction he displayed - he came across very believable and I think that is what a lot of folks will take away.
Uni, he explained virtually every single idea he outlined the entire debate. Obama attempted to use your criticism and was met with a flood of specifics from Romney. I think reasonable minds can disagree as to whether or not you subscribe to his ideas, but he clearly outlined his position the entire night. Hell, even NBC said that Obama's and your "lack of specifics" argument fail dead flat because Romney effectively explained himself all night. Let's just call it like it is. Romney was really good tonight. Obama wasn't. If Obama whips Romney's ass the next go-around, I'll be the first to say it.
Of course Romney won tonight, on style definitely. And, Romney doesn't lay anything bare. I watched him tap dance around the immigration issue in his Univision talk. But, really, I wouldn't be so sure Romney will do anything like tonight on those issues. What little snippets he's given on these issues hasn't been well received by much of the electorate. I wouldn't turn tonight into fool's gold.
I have no problem saying Romney won, but I'm utterly perplexed by the idea that Romney was in any way specific, outside of cutting that massive government boondoggle of PBS. What specifics do you speak of? What's the education plan he outlined? Health care? We're going to put it in the hands of the states? What does that mean? Sorry, he won, yes, but ask the average person what Romney wants and they'll have no definitive answer. That's because neither did Romney.
Oh, it'll be tighter tomorrow, but a "photo finish" isn't likely to happen unless Obama tanks the two other debates like tonight and the auto industry in Ohio craps out in the next few weeks. Romney is still in deep, deep shit in the electoral college and tonight isn't the magic elixir for his campaign. It'll take a lot more than one night to right his sinking ship.
I didn't really get the Obama mad stuff and the clear victory for Romney. I just found them both to be going through their rhetoric. Blah blah. But, for the pundits, it seems to be a clear Romney victory. Whatever that means.
First, what does "put it in the hands of the states" mean? It means exactly what it says. Romney would replace the comprehensive regulatory scheme of Obamacare and replace with a less comprehensive set of regulations that still control aspects like preexisting conditions, and he would allow the states to craft their own comprehensive legislation. I don't know how much clearer that could be made. Second, what's he going to cut? He's going to cap government spending at 20% of the economy, when it's now 42%. He'd evaluate each and every department, and has a standard upon which to measure its adequacy and whether it needs to be continued. You know who else said they'd do the same thing when running first term? Barack Obama. It's essentially exactly what Barack Obama said and didn't do. I don't recall anyone saying that wasn't specific enough.
And, he won't do either if elected. The job's always different than what the candidate says. In any event, the health care explanation is still vague and he didn't expand on it tonight anywhere near where you are suggesting. And, "evaluating each department"? That's specific? That's the same bland nonsense every candidate gives when they need filler to prove they are smart with the budget. Romney could get away with being vague in the debates if he had spent his campaign filling in details, but he hasn't. The criticism for his lack of clarity and focus, or explanation for his proposed programs is pretty universal. He's even admitted he doesn't want to say much about his plans because he doesn't want them picked through. Sorry, but you're the only one I would know that actually believe Romney outlined anything tonight. The one good line Obama had tonight was "What, is your plan too good to share with us?", which effectively hit home the evasiveness of Romney.
He was pretty damn specific about how he would have handled the Wall Street issues, and how he disagreed with what was done. He was specific about the 90 billion dollars spent on alternative energy, but unfortunately this turned out to be a false figure.
In the beginning, i thought Romney was losing because he couldn't frame the debate on his terms, in the end, I thought Romney won and America lost because both candidates suck and there isn't a world of difference between them. Flame away, conservative brethren.
Who wouldn't be? I have never agreed with Santorum much, but he was on Letterman last night and was speaking rather convincingly about just how broken Washington is and how difficult it is to actually cross the aisle. I felt he was really on point for a lot of it and it seemed like a genuine, frank take on the situation, not just rhetoric.
Didn't watch one second of it as all I care about are for these next 33 days to be over, but I have yet to see a thing this morning that says that Romney annihilated him and that Obama looked awful. Did the (ballpark) 5-10% undecided in this election watch and were they convinced Romney is a better option. More specifically, did the 5-10% in the swing states think this?
