From where I sit, the President redeemed himself in the wake of his lackluster performance during the first debate. (Al Gore theorized that Obama's recent arrival in the host city of Denver may have been a factor: trouble adjusting to that area's high altitude). For whatever reason, he appeared tired and careworn during that event while Mr. Romney was all abubble.
But last night, President Obama seemed clearly in command. Commencing with a discussion of the auto industry bailout, his rhetorical engines were revved up right from the start. However, when Romney stated that prices at the pump had increased dramatically, Obama did overlook the most practical rebuttal; no single nation has any control over the price of oil. ( Regardless of its country of origin, all oil is sold in the global marketplace). But he did emphasize that we've made progress toward increasing reliance on domestic energy sources, including green technology.
Anyway, here are the two highlights of this debate that really grabbed my attention (aside from the moderator, Candy Crowley's on-the-spot fact-checking expedition: Romney claimed that Obama took two weeks to recognize the tragedy in Libya as a terrorist act; a video transcript proved otherwise).
First, Romney insisted that his tax reform plan wouldn't expand the deficit despite reduced tax rates for everyone, eliminating loopholes (but not disturbing the low rate on capital gains and investment income), and ratcheting up the military budget. Despite numerous authoritative citations that the numbers would not add up, Romney thundered, "Of course they add up! I ran a business and balanced the budget!" He followed that up with a statement approximating, "Look at me! This is who I am!"
Second, the coup de grace: Obama's closing statement. Last May, Romney informed some well-heeled supporters that 47% of this nation's households do not pay federal income tax. (True, but most pay state and local taxes as well as payroll taxes, many of which are generally more regressive). The Governor then accused these 47-percenters of being slackers and feeling a sense of entitlement: takers, not givers.
Well, Obama went to work. "Who was he talking about? Hard-working people who don't make much money, soldiers, retired folks. .... The GI Bill was not a handout."
Throughout the debate, the President spoke in his normal even-toned, professorial manner. It might have been nice to witness some genuine indignation. But still, a hard act to follow.
Sorry, Dan, I can't share your enthusiasm, which I feel is based on your preference for Mr. O. Although I too prefer Obama, he still missed opportunities to effectively rebut Romney.
ReplyDeleteAbout prices at the pump, both men blew that discussion. Prices DO vary from state to state, town to town, your observation about a common pool notwithstanding. No president can control
this other than instituting price controls, which would make right-wingers (and oil barons) howl.
Candy Crowell was no better a moderator than Jim Lehrer, both were weak, allowing Romney repeated interruptions. Ms. C's role was not as a fact-checker, and had no way to back up her agreement with Mr. O. about his "it was terror" Rose Garden speech until afterwards.
It strikes me that you seem to ignore that the whole presidential debate scenario is staged and controlled by the Presidential Commission on Debates, a creature of the RNC and DNC. Where is objectivity, truth-telling, informing the public, therefore? The Town Hall questions were vetted beforehand; if the question varied from the pre-approved, the audience member's mic would be turned off. This is no secret, it was announced before the 2nd debate.
Can't say I really disagree with any of the points you've made. Yep, admittedly I am partisan, so I didn't really make any attempt to mask my enthusiasm.
ReplyDeleteBut restrictions imposed by the debate organizers notwithstanding, I believe Mr. O. performed well. That said, a case could be made that the better debater may not necessarily be the most dedicated office-holder. In the Metro Chicago arena, consider Joe Walsh v. Tammy Duckworth.
Are you saying Joel Walsh is a better debater?--Yecchh!
DeleteWhat passes for debates in the last generation is a JOKE, compared to what we in Debate Society did in 1950s-60s' Texas. There was no over-talking permitted, no interrupting the moderator, no going over time, no adducing extraneous to the "Be it Resolved...". Yes, there had to be pro and con regarding the resolution of the moment for something to be properly termed a debate.
RE: Mr. O's Professorial manner, that too is not what the U.S. really needs in the White House, just as being a professor hobbled President Wilson back in the day.
No, I'm not suggesting that Joe Walsh is a better debater, just a more aggressive one. However, in the wake of last night's meetup on public television, I'll probably have to eat some crow. Got some catching up to do.
DeleteRegarding the quality of recent debates, I agree with you, Amber. Your standards are ideal, but I reckon they're a tad too exacting for 2012. A lotta folks seem to dig the theatrics, so there you have it.
I still prefer having a professor in the White House as opposed to a bullying, all-too-full-of-himself CEO.