Before I get too influenced by the talking heads, here are my initial reactions to tonight's debate.
President Obama did what he had to do in "showing up" to this debate. The town hall forum was more to his style, and his performance was much better. As for Romney, I think he did exceptionally well-as he did before, except for one small criticism.
Obama's worst moment came when a man asked who refused the requests for enhanced support for our people in Libya.
Obama did not answer the question. He talked about what he did after the attack and the orders he gave, but the actual question was not answered. A point of contention came when Obama said he called the Benghazi attack a terror attack during his speech in the Rose Garden. Romney challenged him on that point. The actual statement Obama made was , "No acts of terror will ever change this great nation's resolve". I guess we can quibble about that.
Another Romney highlight was when the African-American gentleman asked the President why he should vote for him again. In his retort, Romney effectively outlined the President's failures.
I though Romney missed a great opportunity when Obama was asked by a lady how we can eliminate the AK-47s on our streets. Both were weak in this area talking about education, parents and job opportunities. Romney did mention Operation Fast and Furious, but did not seem to have a firm grasp on what happened. All he had to do was drop the platitudes about education, schools and parents and accurately describe the Fast and Furious scandal. It would have been devastating.
As far as the format is considered, I have to question why they gathered 82 undecided voters to submit the questions. Sorry, but I don't consider undecided voters in this election to be particularly well-informed.
Now it remains to see how the polls are affected.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Neither candidate gave a direct answer to any question. That's been standard in such debate formats for years. A question is not something to be answered, it's an opportunity to take the floor and say what the candidate wanted to say.
It would be worth ten points in the polls to the first candidate for office who gives a direct answer, then elaborates with what the candidate considers relevant to understanding that answer.
The obvious question for Romney is, "Where's the beef?" He's talked in the vaguest terms about all the wonderful things his "plans" will deliver, without telling what his plans consist of. No deposit, no return, if he's elected.
The other question is "Who are you, and what have you done with Mitt Romney?" He's not the guy we saw stake out his principles in the Republican primary. What, if anything, does he really believe?
I haven't seen so many plants since I went to the Botanical Gardens. The fix was in and it showed.
Predictably, most MM coverage I have caught, both print and TV, awards victory to Obama, using such terms as "devastating" to describe how he destroyed Romney.
I happen to believe that this debate was just about a wash or a dead heat. Obama certainly did better, but in my view, Romney certainly held his own, which in some circles, given the power of incumbency alone, might be called a slight victory for him.
I must agree with Gary that Romney missed a couple (even several) opportunities. I would mention that it tickled me when Obama took off on Romney's haveing investments in China and I believe elsewhere, and Romney came back that those were blind trusts and noted, accurately or otherwise, that Obama's own pension (presumably from his State Senate time, or wherever??)also invested in China. That's what I call a wash.
A wash is generally not considered a good reason to replace an incumbent with a wash-out, even if the whole thing was a wash.
Post a Comment