Okay, I admit it, my prognostication for
the debate was wrong. The question parts I wrote about were largely unanswered
as I thought, but the outcome was different than predicted that each candidate’s
supporters will think their candidate won. Well, 25% of Obama’s did that, but
for the most part everyone agrees that President Obama got his butt kicked. There
I said it. I don’t know why the usually eloquent and clear thinking man I’m
used to didn’t show up but he didn’t.
On the other hand Romney stepped up to the
plate and flat stomped on it (I love to mix my metaphors.) His arguments remind
me of the Heinz commercials. Folk who use Heinz catsup know it is tasty stuff
but if you try to get it out of the bottle it is a pain in the arse. Heinz
seizing upon this malady advertised it as a wonderful attribute; so slow and
tasty; no it still is a pain in the arse to get out of the bottle unless it is
in an obviously democratic squeeze bottle container. Romney Heinzed it (I also
love creating words.)
Romney was absolutely Reaganesque in his
ability to say things that are impossible to accomplish and convince people he
could do it. Remember Reagan promised to lower taxes, increase military
spending and improve everyone’s income, balance the budget etc which was
impossible and didn’t happen; surprise surprise. [That was the beginning of the
massive transfer of wealth from the middle classes to the upper 1%.] Romney
made the same impossible statements and says “trust me it will work” and of
course, it cannot possibly work. The only thing we know for sure is the rich
will get richer. And didn’t you just love how he twisted the trickledown theory
into a government maneuver? You just have to give him points for that.
For those who like lists for why Romney won
the debate, the Washington Post gave a good one. 1. He controlled the format,
he was a master rebuttler. 2. Obama seemed frazzled; the always upbeat Obama was
decidedly uncomfortable and it showed. 3. The politics of preemption; Romney
knowing he was going to get hammered for raising taxes on the middle class made
it seem plausible that it would be Obama raising taxes on them – slick. 4.
Obama didn’t get his big talking points in; where was the auto bailout, the
sleaziness of Bain Capital and all that? 5. The expectations were low; folk
expected Obama to win significantly and Romney was supposed to goof up; Romney
won the curve expectations. 6. Romney avoided a stumble; for a guy who
frequently suffers from hoof and mouth disease he seemed entirely cured.
I will make no predictions about the vice
presidential debates as both are impossible to predict as to what they will do;
besides their debate won’t make any difference anyway.
One last comment, I think that Obama occasionally
suffers from over accommodation. Some folk are accommodating and others not.
Throughout his presidency Obama seems to have tried to play fair with his
political opponents and has been bitten on the gluteus maximus each time. Or
maybe he just took a nap.
I'm asking Romney for a voucher for PBS!!
ReplyDeleteAfter more reflection I find that I am more confused by the Presidential debate than enlightened. I am confused by Obama who failed to counter-punch rather some rather obvious things. Robert Reich points these out well.
ReplyDelete5 times Romney accused Obama of taking 716 million from Medicare which is plainly not true. Obama also failed to show clearly how Romney's budget favors the rich over the middle class. He did not attack Bain Capitol nor Romney's 47% speech. He did force Romeny's hand on Replacing the Dodd-Frank and Affordable Care Act without get to specifics.
Romeny's record as government seems a far cry from how he pictured it and working bipartisan; he didn't. The NY Times showed how partisan it was and how he vetoed with glee many democratic bills. The times sees Romney as a ineffective and overly partisan leader. He takes credit for revamping a debt ridden budget and helping schools but that was more the result of the democratic legislature. He was good as a businessman in find more efficient ways of doing things and modernizing job programs. His health care program was what democrats had been working for for years. He loved the veto for things like rejecting a subsidy to Medicaid so nursing homes could give kosher meals to Jewish residents. He claims success in making their schools number 1 in the nation but that work really took place 10 years earlier under Governor Weld. He takes credit for refunding 250 million in capital gains taxes, but that was the result of a court ruling that they had been illegally withheld in 2002.