Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Mitt holds his own

in Debate #2--IMO, it was a draw.  None of the debaters, not even Candy Crowley, scored a clean knockout (Candy had to walk back her factually incorrect interjection on Libya immediately after the debate).

The feeling heading into the debate was that the pressure was on Obama to change the trajectory of the race, and I'm not sure he did that.  Panels of independent voters on multiple networks (including MSNBC!) agreed that Mitt had won, although CNN's snap poll showed the President with a slight lead.

A few observations:

-Crowley was horrible, just like Raddatz.  The clear bias that a GOP candidate has to deal with, debating an opponent and a moderator, is just absurd.  Luckily, Crowley was so obvious in her bias, her excessive interruption and "fact checking," and so wrong (as the record now shows), that perhaps we will finally see a change to the ridiculous format of our Presidential debates.  I don't want to see a moderator.  A timekeeper will suffice, then let the candidates have it L-D style on a pre-arranged set of issues/questions.

-Obama drips with so much condescension, I can't even stand to hear his voice or see his visage any more.

-Romney absolutely decimated Obama when rebutting on the question of "What have you done over the past 4 years to earn my vote again."

-Romney completely fudged the end of the debate, failing to hit the President effectively on his obfuscation of the situation in Benghazi.  He also did not challenge the President's faux outrage over Romney challenging his decision to go to Vegas the day after the murders.  Mitt should've come back with something like this: "Mr. President, you seem very passionate about this now, in a debate.  I would have liked to see that passion in your actions after the murder of our Ambassador.  I would have been rescheduling fundraisers and political events to get facts and respond appropriately.  Your priorities were different."  Instead, Mitt said nothing.

-Obama is still wrong on Benghazi.  Even if Obama had called it terrorism in his Day 2 press conference (which his intentionally vague statement did not, sorry Candy), it would just make the rest of the Administration's actions even more curious.


SheaHeyKid said...

Completely agree. Romney missed a golden opportunity to bury Obama on Libya, and I thought he could have been somewhat stronger on his response to women in workplace (he really has strong track record here that he could have trumpeted number of hires). But the most important takewaway that will stick with undecideds is how he absolutely crushed Obama on economic record. He does a phenomenal job listing each failing of obama's policies for four years, and how he will do things differently.

That's why I find it especially amusing that the liberal chattering class and MSM truly believe Obama won last night. He only won among the Chris Matthews of the world, which are irrelevant. He did not win among undecideds and those who will simply see Romney as a more than legit alternative to the failed economic plans of the last 4 years.

SheaHeyKid said...

The other way mitt keeps winning is just by showing who he is. For those who only know him by the negative ads run by Obama, it is clear at each debate that he is NOT that person.

He is also way too modest about his personal life. I wish the next time someone says 47% he should say 34%. That's the amount he gives to charity. If he truly didn't care about the least fortunate then why would he donate to charity at all? The other number is $369 - the average amount Biden contributed to charity each year for 10 straight years. Outrageous.


Bookmark and Share

Always sniffing for the truth

Always sniffing for the truth

Blog Archive

Follow by Email