Posted on 10/18/2012 4:52:06 AM PDT by Eleutheria5
This evening's presidential debate, the second between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, featured some very sharp disagreements over facts that almost no viewers can judge (such as the licenses issued for drilling in federal lands) and agreement on the topics where viewers have strong opinions (such as capitalism).
Perhaps this debate will move those few undecided voters in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida, but it leaves the rest of us judging the debate according to which candidate we'd rather have as a dinner companion.
Put differently, Romney missed an opportunity by not discussing larger issues but letting himself get mired in details.
Obama got away with saying that he had characterized the attack on the Benghazi consulate as a terrorist incident because the moderator confirmed his point (Moderator Candy Crowley helped Barack Obama on Libya, but not for long). In fact, he misrepresented the facts when he said "The day after the attack, governor, I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that … this was an act of terror." (Actually, he called it "senseless violence.")
.....
(Excerpt) Read more at israelnationalnews.com ...
Right. All of us are "low information" voters who only care about "likability" and dinner companionship. How utterly condescending.
Or, if Romney had done this, Pipes would write:
Put differently, Romney missed an opportunity by not showing his mastery of the details and let himself get carried away discussing vague concepts.
“...but it leaves the rest of us judging the debate according to which candidate we’d rather have as a dinner companion.”
Ridiculous. Once you read a sentence like this you may stop reading further.
Put differently....maybe details are the point.
Maybe after four years of nebulous hope and change people are ready for a number cruncher.
Maybe after listening to a marketing fool for four years talk about look-and-feel, we want to hire an accountant that knows the bill of materials or an engineer that knows how the product is assembled.
“Maybe after four years of nebulous hope and change people are ready for a number cruncher.”
or perhaps just want an adult running the business of our Constitutional Republic again. It’s been awhile.
HOW did Obama KNOW that Crowley had the TRANSCRIPT from the Rose Garden....”read the transcript Candy”......hmmmmm.
Let's hope so.
They were obviously in cahoots.
Romney had to respond to Obama’s distortions of his record and policy and get into details. If he didn’t “get into the weeds” he would have lost the debate, because the media would have proclaimed he wasn’t responding because Obama was right. The 1st debate was the absolute perfect mix of details and philosophy that Romney could have hoped for, the 2nd debate was just a brawl of details which probably confused most undecideds, but I think a good majority are already leaning Romney because Obama can’t give them a reason to vote for him again.
And we have a POS POTUS who turns this around by saying "Romney's record is one of standing in front of a coal plant in massachussets and shut it down."
But whatever the deal with details and facts, one fact came out clear after the debate, that Obama couldn’t call a terrorist attack a terrorist attack. So in that sense, if this were a knife fight, Obama cut Romney a little here and there. If all you do is count cuts, Obama cut more often. But Romney slit the jugular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.