Skip to comments.Er, no, Obama didnít win the debate last night
Posted on 10/18/2012 8:46:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Weve 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 presidents performance, but frankly, they were going to do that anyway. As long as Obama didnt 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 Romneys policies that his campaign has been flogging for the last two months, the president simply lied theres 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 doesnt know, hes the only one who doesnt. His position that were still waiting to assess the attack isnt judicious; its 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 Romneys 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 do something 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 Obamas 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-graders 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 MSMs assessment this morning that the president staged a comeback in this debate is information about the MSM, not about the candidates or the debate. Its like theyre narrating some invisible drama that no one else can see.
I dont think Romney dominated last nights debate as he did the first one. But neither did I see the debate as a draw. Only if it counts as successful communication to use demagoguery to create itch-scratching images for your own base did Obamas performance equal Romneys. Obamas statements would have had little appeal outside his own base. And indeed, so many of them were simply false that, to my mind, it requires assuming that your fellow Americans are fools, to think that his communications were probably more effective with them than they were with you.
The constituency for the real Obama is a minority in America, no bigger than the minority that votes for Democrats in every election cycle, and perhaps not that big. Much of Obamas 2008 support has peeled away, precisely because theres no consistency between his actions, his rhetoric, and blunt reality. Romney came off last night as he did in the first debate: as someone with experience who does operate on the basis of reality. For my part, I think the world in which Obamas oratorical flourishes carried the day exists only inside the heads of MSM pundits. Reality is giving the rest of us a big-time check.
J.E. Dyers articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentarys contentions, Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.
This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.
Agree!!! It’s a dangerous thing to ask a question for you do not know what the answer will be. In the ensuing confusion the point can be diminished or lost. Make the point and then answer the objections. Assert, do not ask.
Lefties loved it because Obama told the same lies they tell themselves.
I watched this debate and honestly think Romney did a much better job than his opponent even though he was under unfavorable liberal conditions in a room filled with past Obama voters and with a moderator who deliberately broke the debate rules. He did not need to be bailed out by the moderator several times or asked extra questions to help him along. When he was making his points and doing a fine job of it, he was interrupted so that his answer might not be heard or completed. And yet, he said enough to show he had an intelligent response with a clear plan. Romney was the candidate that presented reasons for choosing him this November.
As soon as the debates are over (the last word from the candidate’s have been uttered) I mute the TV so I do not have to listen to the liberals trying to persuade the gullible their nonsense.
I do like to listen to the conservative radio talk show hosts like Hugh Hewitt and his conservative “experts”, Frank Pastore, Mike Reagan, and or Larry Elders. But I don’t need them to tell me what I just heard or tell me who “won”.
They do offer valuable information like checking the facts and offering more information about what was said.
Let us pray.
The media all proclaim O won and right after that, Romney clearly pulled ahead in the polls. You aren’t the only one that is sick of bs from the President. The teflon is flaking fast onthis guy. The media is his last hope.