Thursday, October 04, 2012

More evidence of Romney's domination...

... comes in this morning's NY Times. And you don't even need to read the editorial, as their position, and Romney's triumph, is made clear by the title - An Unhelpful Presidential Debate.
The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election...Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.
If it were possible to spin last night as a good night for Barack Obama, the Times would not consider the debate to have been "unhelpful."

The amusing thing is that, despite the highlighted contention that the debate "provided little guidance," the contrast between the candidates is both clear and stark, and it showed last night.  One of the memes making the rounds on the left this morning is how ineffective Jim Lehrer was, and in a sense, that's true.  He did not control the debate.  But that actually left us with the two candidates sharing their positions, criticizing and explaining their positions, and enlightening viewers on policy positions, philosophy and communication and leadership style.

Of course the editors of the Times did not like what they saw last night - they are Obama partisans.

Of course they think the debate was "unhelpful" - they are Obama partisans.

Of course they think Romney's was speaking "blatant nonsense" - they are Obama partisans.

Of course they think viewers were not well served by Jim Lehrer - they are Obama partisans.

For those who are not Obama partisans, for those interested in the differences between the two men and their positions, for those seeking to determine which is the better choice to lead the country for the next year, this debate was indeed helpful.  And the Times' petulant reaction is just further confirmation of how helpful it was for the candidacy of Mitt Romney...

Labels: , , , , ,



Blogger Mary said...

But i think that's what a debate moderator is supposed to do. :) State the rules, then ask the particpants questions, then let the participants answer those questions. :) But i've never been on a debate team. I believe the moderator is supposed to be neutral? Not saying i've changed my mind. Just trying to be fair. (And sorry for the long winded comment.) :) again.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Lyford said...

It's very hard - no, impossible - to separate out partisan reaction from overall debate reaction. That said, I thought it was an excellent debate of the kind that people are always saying they want. Excellent details, contrast between the candidates, long answers, interaction between them, not limited to 30 second sound bites and moving on - very valuable.

But again, everything about it is colored by my reaction to the performances of the two candidates...

1:12 PM  
Blogger Mary said...

I thought it was good too. And i liked Jim Lehrer as a moderator. I think many were diappointed that Romney wasn't challenged. Which is a little humorous, because i haven't heard anyone say Obama should have been challenged. In fact, leftie that i am, i really didn't like Obama last night. The look on his face was quite petulant, and you're correct when yo say Obama isn't used to being challenged. I think the Left is flailing a little because they're shocked it went the way it did. An unexpected thunderstorm, so to speak. And though i support Obama, i decided a few weeks ago, that whoever wins.. wins. I won't whine or complain. :)

1:25 PM  

Post a Comment


<< Home

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link