Peggy Noonan - wrong again...

The October 3 debate in Denver, between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, was the seminal moment of this campaign. And Peggy Noonan, in her analysis, gets what happened there exactly backwards.

Why was the first debate so toxic for the president? Because the one thing he couldn't do if he was going to win the election is let all the pent-up resentment toward him erupt. Americans had gotten used to him as The President. Whatever his policy choices, whatever general direction he seemed to put in place he was The President, a man who had gotten there through natural gifts and what all politicians need, good fortune.

What he couldn't do was present himself, when everyone was looking, as smaller than you thought. Petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself. He couldn't afford to make himself look less impressive than the challenger in terms of command, grasp of facts, size.

But that's what he did.

What happened in Denver had nothing to do with Barack Obama. It was never going to be - he's been the President for four years, with all of his speeches and actions, and their consequences. People's feelings about Obama and the job he's done are essentially set, not to be significantly changed by one more 90 minute television appearance. No, the debate was all about Mitt Romney.

The Obama campaign, recognizing that things are not going well, has spent the last year attempting to define Mitt Romney in such a way as to render him unacceptable to the majority of voters. The impact of Denver did not come from Obama's behavior, but from Romney's. In one night, he destroyed the caricature that the Obama campaign had spent a year building.

The threat to Obama's re-election was never the President's behavior. It was always the bad economy and an acceptable alternative. Mitt Romney's performance in Denver told the American people that there was not only an acceptable alternative, but one who knew how to deal with the bad economy. Obama's behavior - "petulant, put upon, above it all, full of himself" - didn't really show until the next two debates. And it's behavior that he's been demonstrating for his entire time on the public stage. The difference in Denver was that there was a contrast for everyone to see.

The Final Debate

As I've been saying...

Yuval Levin:

It was absolutely clear that both candidates understood that this debate was entirely about Mitt Romney. Romney’s only goal was to seem presidential, and Obama’s only goal was to make Romney seem not presidential. By that measure, Romney clearly achieved his aim and Obama clearly did not. Romney did this by treating this debate very differently than the other two. He didn’t really try to score points, and he wasn’t afraid to express agreement with Obama, which he did remarkably often. His goal was to answer every question with a calm, responsible attitude and convey sobriety and level-headedness. The calculation must have been pretty simple: voters are not greatly concerned with foreign policy this year, but they wouldn’t elect someone they don’t trust on foreign policy. So having clearly conveyed his differences with Obama on domestic issues and his own domestic agenda, Romney merely needed to be a plausible commander in chief—to convey deep knowledge and the right attitude, to avoid getting rattled, to deny Obama the chance to label him a war monger or an amateur, and to waive off attacks on himself by returning to his core domestic message and reminding voters that the president is running on nothing.

Yup.

And Romney did not lose, so he won. Whether it was a tactical victory or not, it was clearly a strategic victory. The race is going Romney's way - has been since the first debate - and nothing that happened last night, or in the second debate, or in the VP debate, changed that.

Presidential Debate 3

My live twitter stream (with a few morning-after thoughts interspersed)...

I repeat what I said before 2nd debate - Romney can hurt himself, but Obama can't help himself.

The only question tonight - is Mitt Romney a credible President?

1980s-1950s-1920s line was good. Wrong, but good. Romney needs a response.

Russia is a geo-political foe. 100% correct.

Not going to give Mr. Putin "more flexibility after the election." Instead, more backbone. Good.

[Morning after - This was a great sequence for Mitt, and a great line. But how many people are aware of the "flexibility" quote? It may be one of those lines that should draw blood, but doesn't, because the target audience doesn't recognize the reference. That's not something the mainstream press played up - after all, Obama's not a Republican.]

Saying Assad has to go... And that's accomplished what, exactly? Right, exactly nothing...

Does Obama really want to go back to Libya? Is Romney going to let him get away with that?

[Morning after - And the answer is, "yes, Romney let him get away with that." Clearly, the strategy for the evening was not to get confrontational on Libya. Whether to avoid another dose of indignant protestations of virtue from the President or for some other reason, I do not know.]

"Our debt is is the biggest national security threat we face..."

"America is stronger now than when I came in to office." What the hell are you talking about?

Math teachers. One of the men on that stage needed math teachers at some point. Or better ones, at the very least...

Obama: "Hey, have you heard that Romney's proposing $5 trillion in tax cuts for the rich?"

Fewer ships...also fewer horse and bayonets... Really? The President of the US thinks that sarcastic snark is a legitimate argument?

[Morning after - some people liked that sequence from the President, thinking that it was a reasonable analogy, because technology has changed. I thought it was a dreadful (and clearly scripted) line and that it made him look very bad as he delivered it, but maybe not...] 

15 more minutes without a collapse, and Romney wins the election.

Romney's comments on the auto industry in 2008. Romney right, Obama wrong. Or lying. Or both...[Romney's 2008 NYT Editorial about the auto industry]

[Morning after - The President has made this accusation in two debates, and the VP made it in his debate, and it's a blatant lie. Not a misstatement, not a mis-representation, a blatant lie. And the four fact-checkers of the apocalypse are apparently too busy attempting to pin down Paul Ryan's marathon time to pay any attention to it.

You know, if we had taken your advice, Governor Romney, about our auto industry, we'd be buying cars from China instead of selling cars to China...You were very clear that you would not provide government assistance to the U.S. auto companies even if they went through bankruptcy.

- Barack Obama, last night

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

- Mitt Romney, 2008

OK? The President is lying.]

The verdict? Good enough. Basically a draw on the evening, which is all that Romney (the next POTUS) needed...

Like Lehrer in the 1st, Schieffer let the candidates debate. That's a plus for the voters.

Obama's performance tonight didn't do anything at all to break Romney's increasing momentum.

romney looks/sounds like a president

RichLowry

Obama took more time than Romney. Again. Democrats get more time in each of the four debates...

Romney finished stronger than he started.

Chris Wallace fact-checks Obama on Iraqi status of forces agreement: Romney was right.

McCormackJohn

Romney demonstrated that he is Presidential in every way.

jack_welch

Krauthammer: I think it's unequivocal: Romney won, not just tactically but strategically.

McCormackJohn

Will media call Obama on lying - again - about Romney's position on the auto-industry bailout?

If Romney's tied or leading coming in, as seems likely, with the momentum, does tonight change that? No. Ergo Romney win.

"Act of Terror"

How wrong was Barack Obama, and Candy Crowley to bail him out the other night?

American Crossroads: "Act of Terror"

When did Obama label consulate attack "terror"?

It's sad to praise someone for just doing the bare minimum in their job requirements, but CBS news is so in the tank for the left in general, and the Obama campaign in particular, and has been for so long, that it's shocking to see a news story like this from them.



Obviously, Barack Obama lied repeatedly the other night, but it's still shocking to see CBS, of all people, actually report it...

2nd Presidential Debate tweet-stream

Here's what I was thinking, or at least tweeting, during the late afternoon and 2nd Presidential debate last night.

Left looking for a strong performance from Obama tonight. But Obama's performance is irrelevant.

He's already lost his "control" of the election. All about Romney now.

Romney could lose it tonight, but Obama can't win it....

How badly has Obama lost ground among women? Well, right now Romney is tied with the president among the eyeless "Julia" icons.

jimgeraghty

Can't be as forceful as what he's done last four @SalenaZitoTrib @ZekeJMiller Obama will make "very forceful statement...next four years"

Mitt in full pander mode. Because all of that federal money flowing to the colleges are guaranteeing affordability, right?

just isn't true! Mitt challenged him - finally! - on the GM bankruptcy. And Obama accuses him of lying.

As with Biden the other night, I'm sure the lefties are loving the class warfare they're hearing from the President

I'm used to being interrupted. By who, Michelle? Joe Biden? Not Romney, who's let him speak...

The top-5 five percent will still PAY 60% OF ALL FEDERAL TAXES. Nice way to sneak that in...

If we're serious about the debt... Yeah, sing it, Barack. Your credibility here is strong...

This has been a disappointment... Understatement of the night, so far...

Well, no, it's not... Sounded like Reagan to me...

I fear Republicans, but really, I'm undecided... "Thank you, what a great question...." Ugh...

Is Planned Parenthood really that beloved amongst the electorate that it's sacrosanct?

Obama: Flat economy explained low gas prices at start of term, but low illegal immigration flow is all about my great policies, not economy.

RameshPonnuru

Just guessing here, but I suspect Obama thinks he won...

Essentially a tie. Strong points both sides. Doesn't change the trajectory, which is all Romney, so effectively a Romney win,

And why do we care what people who are too lazy or stupid or disinterested or careless to have chosen between these two yet think?

Or put it this way: Obama says it was an act of terrorism ... and then goes to a party in Vegas? That's their new story?

gabrielmalor

I'm skeptical that it was as good a night for Romney as Luntz' focus group makes it seem. Or the Fox coverage in general.

But it was good enough. Again Romney was good. Again, Romney was Presidential.

As I said earlier, Obama was irrelevant to this. This was all about Romney's performance. It was good, therefore success...

Obama wasn't doing that great until he touched rings with Candy and said, "Wonder Twins power activate!"

Frank J. Fleming

Obama's performance tonight? Irrelevant...

The conventional wisdom, which crystallized within hours of the first debate, was that Obama had a  dreadful performance, and that was the source of the Romney win. 

I think that's wrong.  I believe that Obama was fairly typical Obama.  He is never particularly good when he doesn't have a teleprompter, and much of his appeal four years ago was a result of vacuous rhetoric and the ability of people to project on him the post-racial President of a post-racial America that they want to see.

So the issue in Denver was not Obama - it was Romney. Romney was excellent, demonstrating both a likeable persona and a detailed grasp of the issues.  The problem for Obama in Denver was not that he wasn't Presidential - it was that Romney was. 

All of the conditions on the ground - high unemployment, low job growth, almost non-existent economic growth, exploding deficits and debt, a wildly unpopular health care bill, the appearance of a collapse of diplomacy in the middle east, including the recent murder of a US Ambassador on US sovereign soil, and the accompanying lies and deception - make this a very bad environment for an incumbent running for re-election.  And you only have to look at the campaign that Obama has run to see that.  He has no accomplishments to run on, and he recognizes that.  (He does have accomplishments, as both the stimulus and Obamacare are significant accomplishments, but they're also both losing issues, so he can't run on them.)  So the entirety of his election campaign has been focused on Mitt Romney.  "Mitt's mean to dogs, he's going to take money from the poor and give it to the rich, he lays off people and gives cancer to their wives, he doesn't pay any taxes," yadda, yadda, yadda.  No pro-Obama, just anti-Mitt.  The strategy works as long as the challenger is never able to pierce the caricature.  It works as long as the incumbent can maintain the fiction that it's his election, and he's in control of it.  It works as long as you can maintain the air of inevitability and invincibility. 

That air was shattered in Denver.   That's why the conventional wisdom is that Obama had a horrible night (he did) and that it was Obama's performance that caused it (it wasn't).

That conventional wisdom, that Obama performed poorly, leads directly to the conventional wisdom going into tonight's debate, that Obama needs to be much better.

That's wrong, too.

Here's the reason that the Democrats are starting to reek of desperation: it does not matter, in the slightest, what Barack Obama does tonight.  It's irrelevant.  This election is, as it was always bound to be, a referendum on the first term Presidency of Barack H. Obama.  With no suitable alternative, the incumbent will be re-elected.  If a suitable alternative is discovered, the election hinges on the facts. 

And the facts are very bad for President Obama.

What happened two weeks ago in Denver was that Mitt Romney demonstrated to the American people that he is a suitable alternative.  So tonight's debate is not about Obama - it's about Romney, again.  It does not matter what Obama does.  He cannot change the trajectory of the race.  Oh, he'll try.  And the media will do all it can to assist him.  (You know that the "Barack Obama, The Comeback Kid" headlines are already written and set for the morning editions.)

But he can't.  Only Romney can change it, with some massive screw up, something that renders him unfit in the eyes of the soft supporters and undecided middle.  He could commit some glaring gaffe that's suitable for wall-to-wall obsession for the next week on the part of the press.  Absent that, though, the preference cascade continues.

Mitt Romney could do something to lose the election tonight.  But Barack Obama cannot do anything to win it. 

Joe Biden Says What He Means

You had to know that this was coming, the instant that the bloviating gasbag uttered the line...

Debate reaction roundup

Primarily from the right side of the internet...


Michael Barone

Joe Biden appealed to Democratic partisans, firing them up by attacking and, even more often, smirking at Paul Ryan’s arguments. But smirks only work when your audience starts off agreeing with you. That would be the case with strong Democratic partisans, but it’s not at all that clear that it appeals to Independents, or to those who are undecided or moveable. He was trying to dismiss Ryan’s arguments as ridiculous, in line with Democratic talking points that no rational person could possibly agree with him, but I think that only works with people who are already convinced. He may have increased Democratic voters’ enthusiasm—down in the dumps after Barack Obama’s performance eight days ago—but he didn’t do much in the way of converting those who are not already converted.

Fred Barnes

The only good thing about Thursday night’s debate for the Obama campaign was that it involved Biden rather than Obama. As a result, it’s not likely to have any impact in the election and may not even affect the polls over the next few days.

What were the Obama strategists thinking? Yes, Biden’s performance may have pleased the Democratic party’s liberal base. So what? Their votes are in the bag. Obama needs to attract the small bloc of undecided and swing voters. They’re not likely to lurch his way on the basis of the show Biden put on.

...

There’s a way to disagree with your opponent without acting like a jerk. The most recent example: Romney’s firm but polite disagreements with Obama in their debate last week. One can be assertive but affable, tough but cool. Come to think of it, that was Obama’s style in the entire 2008 presidential race. It worked brilliantly. Biden did the opposite in front of tens of millions of American voters. It didn’t work brilliantly.

Randy Barnett (quoted by Glenn Reynolds)

Ryan had to pass the vice president test tonight or the ticket would have suffered. He did, which against the hard charging Joe Biden was no mean feat. So there is no change in the current dynamic of the race.

Mark Levin

Joe Biden was off his meds, flailing with his hands, interrupting, repetitive, and whiny, which is what most of his base has wanted. And Paul Ryan was calm, cool, and collected, with a better second half in the debate.

Paul Mirengoff

Joe Biden was always going to be an attack dog tonight. After the presidential debate, the Democrats needed him aggressively to promote their post-debate excuse that Romney is all smoke and mirrors. Moreover, Biden is well suited for the attack dog role.

I didn’t expect, however, that Biden’s demeanor would be so off-putting. The ridiculous toothy smile didn’t come as a shock. But the smirking, mocking, laughter, constant interruptions of Paul Ryan, and cranky interaction with moderator Martha Raddatz, whom he chided at one point for allegedly misstating the facts, did.

My sense is that Biden’s demeanor cost him the debate.

Bruce Kesler

Quick reaction around the networks and websites: Both Biden and Ryan scored some good points. Biden's sneers and constant interruptions were a turn-off, disrespectful in the extreme, to those who value courtesy in personal communications. The CNN tracking of men and women Independents throughout the debate found women favoring Ryan over Biden. That's a reversal from the past leaning of women toward Obama (now, Obama and Romney are about even in the polls with women). Biden's condescending attitude came through as consistent with Obama's. That's a negative for those tired of being talked down to by those whose promises and self-regard are hollow.

Biden may have encouraged his base by his boorishness, and Ryan may have not met his base's expectations of being tougher on Biden's assertions -- even when wrong as to facts. But, for many Independents the comparison comes down to Ryan's civility Vs Biden's rudeness.

Wall Street Journal

So now we know what Team Obama's comeback plan was following last week's defeat in the Presidential debate. Unleash Joe Biden to interrupt, filibuster, snarl, smirk and otherwise show contempt for Paul Ryan. The carnival act contributed to the least illuminating presidential or vice presidential debate of our lifetimes.

From the opening bell, Mr. Biden seemed to take to heart the interpretation that President Obama offered this week of his debate performance—that he had been "too polite." That was not a problem for the Veep, whose marching orders were clearly to steamroll the overmatched moderator Martha Raddatz and dismiss everything Mr. Ryan said with a condescending sneer.

By unofficial media counts, Mr. Biden interrupted the Republican some 80 to 100 times. Mr. Ryan let the bully get away with too much for our tastes, at least until he finally pushed back on the interruptions or until Mr. Biden lost steam in the last half hour. But as anyone who's been in a tavern past midnight understands, it's hard to win a fight with a guy who is shouting from the corner bar stool.

...

But this 90 minutes wasn't about an exchange of ideas or a debate over policies. It was a Democratic show of contempt for the opposition, an attempt to claim by repetitive assertion that Messrs. Ryan and Romney are radicals who want to destroy "the middle class." Mr. Ryan's cool under assault was a visual rebuttal of that claim, and we certainly know who looked more presidential.

Mollie Hemingway

No one won this debate. And I suppose you could interpret that as me saying that Rep. Paul Ryan lost. But you'd be wrong. I think Vice President Joe Biden lost by being horribly belligerent and unserious. Ryan lost by not aggressively responding to Biden. And Martha Raddatz lost by interrupting at inappropriate times.

...

I'm even willing to give this debate to Biden, in the very short term. But in the long term, I bet he lost it. Think about what will stay with people after the debate. They'll remember a rude, interrupting man.

I have no doubt that these things will fire up the Democratic base. They were looking to get fired up and Biden showed some passion.

But think about how it comes off to women. Heck, think about how it comes off to average Midwesterners. Does that persona age well?

...

While the media might enjoy the narrative shift for a few hours, I think it's going to be hard to overcome Biden's many misstatements, his blustering persona, and his shocking lack of seriousness about the office he holds and the problems we face.

VP Debate

Collected here are my tweets from last night, some of which were retweets of other comments I liked. There are also a couple of comments which are retrospective, as I was on the road for the first half of the event.

Twitterstream:

Will be on the road, listening and not watching for most of tonight's debate.

I'm concerned that expectations are such that Obama gets a boost from Biden not falling asleep on stage. Or off it.

Only real question of the night is this - can Paul Ryan make people think, "I like these guys - they know what they're doing..."

If so, regardless of Biden performance, Romney/Ryan momentum continues...

(As noted above, I was not online or viewing when the debate started.  The next four comments are recorded afterwards, but they represent my thoughts at the time.  Let me just say that, while Biden's interruptions were beginning to grate, I was not happy with what I'd heard when I arrived at home.)

Listening to the first set of answers, on Libya, and Ryan sounds tentative.  Biden sounds forceful and knowledgeable. 

Biden got all of the class warfare buzzwords in there with the 47%, didn't he?  Given that he had to know it was coming, Ryan's response sounded weak.

Ugh.  Great story about the family in Northboro, but not at all responsive to the question.  GM shouldn't be an asset for the administration, and Ryan lets it stand as one.

Worse, he lets the accusation that R &R would have allowed American car industry to go down the tubes to stand.

I think that the Obama/Biden base is probably stoked right now. The independent middle that they need - not so much...

Rachel Maddow, Chris Matthews, Ed Schulz - they're a lot happier tonight than they were last Wednesday.

Energetic class warfare, shouting down the Republican - the leftist base has got to be swooning...

I listened to the first 40 minutes or so. Biden did not sound obnoxious for the first 20 or so, but the interrupting got bad.

Did it wear thin faster with pictures?

John Dickerson on CBS: Obama said he was too polite; can't be said of Biden.

- Ramesh Ponnuru 

I like Paul Ryan... for a politician. That's like having a favorite mold.

- Frank J. Fleming 

 Lesson: liberal base hates civility. Loathes it.

- Dan McLaughlin 

Slow Joe clearly thought he was reprising Bentsen-Quayle. But Ryan's not Quayle and Biden's not Bentsen. Fail.

Biden claims state dept at fault over Libya cover up but we will know when Iran goes nuclear. Which is it? State dept is or isn't competent?

- Chuck Woolery 

Krauthammer: On radio, Biden won. On TV, Ryan won. I agree...

My takeaway - Biden was obnoxious, Ryan took a while to get started. Bottom line, no change in momentum, so that's positive for Romney...

Laughing at the Luntz focus group, so impressed by Biden's grasp of the facts. Easy enough if you just make it up as you go along.

A couple of next day thoughts:

• If the fact checkers were truly objective, or "fair and balanced," they'd go to town on Joe Biden's "malarkey." I'm not sure that there's enough time left between now and the election to cover all of the misstatements and misleading statements he made last night. But he's Joe Biden, he's been doing it for years, and I don't expect much coverage of it. And it really doesn't matter, except that the Obama campaign has made such a commitment to the narrative myth of Romney mendacity. 
• There was no Bentsen-Quayle moment.  (Biden thought that he could make one.  He was wrong.)  Paul Ryan came across, particularly as the evening went on, as knowledgeable, capable, intelligent, and prepared.  Oh, and polite, particularly compared to the gentleman on the other side of the table.What the Romney campaign needed was a performance without gaffes, a performance that prevented the narrative from turning, today, to "selecting a VP was the first big decision and he failed miserably."  Paul Ryan had to come across to undecided voters as a likeable person and a credible VP candidate.  Period.  While the expectations were cranked up unrealistically high, the actual requirements of the performance made for a relatively low bar, and Ryan crossed it easily.
• It is depressing to consider that our political future is in the hands of the likes of the group of "undecided" voters that Frank Luntz had gathered for his panel last night.
• One thing I can't be sure of is how much of a disparity there was between the radio and TV perceptions last night.  It could be that Biden was much worse, and Ryan better, on television than radio.  And it could also be that Biden was better during the first half and Ryan worse.  Since I listened to the first half and saw the second, either possibility would account for my perceptions. 
• If Barack Obama thought that he was "too nice...too polite" in the first debate, what does he think about VP Biden's performance last night?  I suspect that he's not quite delusional enough - close, but not quite - to think that he should behave that way when the second Presidential debate takes place next week.  Though I'd love to see it.  It would effectively end the campaign (and not the way that the Obama fanboys want it to...)

Going in, the momentum and fundamentals were all on the side of the Romney campaign. Nothing happened last night to change that. Therefore, it was a net plus for the Republicans.

Obama Campaign Policy - New and improved, with Even More Lies!

On Sunday night, I walked out of the general store in Stockbridge, MA, site of so much Americana produced by the great Norman Rockwell, behind a couple who were discussing politics. And what caught my attention was their lament about Obama's debate performance. "Obama's just too nice," one said to the other. At which I chortled, and they moved away.

That followed two days in which my liberal Facebook friends were all overjoyed to have Obama out on the stump lying about Romney again, after getting called on it during the debate on Wednesday night.

So this piece in the WSJ amused me...

Obama Test-Drives a New Tone

During his California trip, Mr. Obama, who will spend the weekend preparing for the debate, got an earful of suggestions for how to approach the next debate. "After the debate, I had a bunch of folks come to me: 'Don't be so polite, don't be so nice,' " Mr. Obama told a San Francisco crowd.

Yeah, that's the problem. President "I won" is just too nice. President hey-he's-lying-and-he-abuses-dogs-and-causes-cancer-in-laid-off-worker's-wives is just too darned good for this cruel and imperfect world in which he finds himself.

Let me just say this - I think he could make his base really happy by going full-bore aggressive in attacking Governor Romney in the next debate. And achieve for himself a pyrrhic victory, by turning off all of the non-base voters that he desperately needs...

Obama 'believed he had beaten Romney'

As if we needed more evidence that President Dunning-Kruger doesn't know what he doesn't know, that he's completely oblivious to his own flaws and shortcomings, Toby Harnden breaks the stunning news that Obama thought he won the first debate.

When President Barack Obama stepped off the stage in Denver last week the 60 million Americans watching his debate against Mitt Romney already knew it had been a disaster for him.

But what nobody knew, until now, was that Obama believed he had actually won.

Delusional. Utterly delusional.

Here's the shocking thing - even his supporters are not delusional enough to think he won, but he walked off thinking that everything was hunky-dory.

And if you're running his campaign, I don't know how you fix that...

So, I guess we know those answers now...

I was unsure what the impact of Clint Eastwood's performance at the RNC would be.

I was unsure what the impact of Mitt Romney's debate performance would be as seen through the media firewall.

I think that this says it all...

Odds and ends

A couple of stories caught my eye this morning.

Rand Simberg thought, as I did, that the Denver debate Obama was pretty much the usual Obama:

I guess I didn’t realize how poorly Obama was doing because he didn’t look any different to me. I’ve just never seen the Chicago Jesus that everyone else seemed to. It’s almost like the scales have fallen off everyone’s eyes, and I never had them. Was this the moment that everyone else finally noticed that the emperor was wearing nothing but his birthday suit?

I thought I wrote something about that yesterday - I know that I talked about it. But yes, I thought Obama was pretty typically Obama during the debate. I've never thought he was a great speaker, and I've commented on it before. Several times. But he's never been challenged. On anything. He's great at burning straw men, but when faced with a real man, he's considerably less impressive. As I did say yesterday, "The real Mitt, as opposed to the straw Mitt, is tougher for them to deal with..."

(There's also an interesting exchange in the comments on Simberg's post about Romney's proposed tax rate reduction proposals, and whether or not it can be revenue neutral, and, if it's revenue neutral, why you'd bother doing it.)


Whose tail could still wag? Eric Scheie notes that there are still Democrats pushing the Seamus story as making Mitt a bad man.

Now, I can’t ask Coco directly, but I know dogs, and if I put myself in the position of a dog, I think I would prefer to be in my crate on top of the family car I love, with them inside it below, than finding myself on a winding journey through a conveyor belt system leading God-knows-where, only to have the box grabbed and moved by total strangers, then driven in a strange vehicle to an even stranger thing, and then be crammed into a weird sort of room with a bunch of other humans’ suitcases and then have my ears assaulted with unknown noises, my sensitive ears feeling strange and hitherto unknown pressures, and a sense of enormous and rapid movement that cannot be seen towards places unknown and unimaginable.

I would far prefer the familiarity of the former to the terrors of the latter.

Yet had Mitt Romney placed Seamus on a plane, he’d have been entirely blameless, even if the dog had gotten sick in the air.

I’m not saying there’s anything wrong with putting dogs on planes, mind you. Only that this attack on Romney is so completely without logic that I cannot ignore it.

Yup. Obviously I'm in complete agreement with Eric, and have written about it.

As much as the incessant harping on that incident irritates me, as much as it is completely irrelevant to anything having to do with who should win the Presidency, as mind-numbingly irrational it is to keep harping on one candidate's non-cruel behavior to his dog when the other has actually EATEN DOG AS A MEAL...

I've actually asked people pushing this story what Mitt did wrong. What I've gotten back is, "I hope you don't own dogs." When pushed, the next response was, "would you do that with a child?" When I noted that no, I wouldn't, but children aren't dogs in any ways that I saw as relevant to this particular issue, so I still didn't see what the problem was, how the dog had been mistreated, I got just silence. They can't answer the question as to how it was cruel, because it's apparently self-evident. It's so self-evident, that they can't even formulate a basic rational sentence in support of that position. What it seems to come down to, based on all I've seen, is that it was cruel because Mitt did it, and they haven't come up with anything else to impugn him with.

Mitt clobbers Obama - in Taiwanese animation...

Not everyone will love this, but I laughed out loud...

"The Chickens Come Home to Roost"

Paul Rahe explains a big part of the reason why the debate went the way it went...

Obama inherited a recession and, without bothering to disguise what he was up to, dedicated himself to exploiting it for the purpose of jamming through a radical program, dear to his party, that never had public support. About the recession, he did nothing, assuming that the economy would bounce back quickly, as it usually does, and that he would get the credit for the recovery. In fact, everything that he did do when he and his party were fully in control -- the looting bill thinly disguised as a stimulus bill, Obamacare, and Dodd-Frank -- retarded the recovery by running up the deficit, loading on new taxes, and making it more expensive to do business. To this the President added the threat of further tax increases -- targeted on the investing class: those especially apt, when future developments are exceedingly unclear, to be hesitant to risk their hard-earned capital in funding new ventures or in expanding old ones. The truth is that the programs passed by the Democrats, when they had the initiative, produced stagnation and prolonged and deepened the downturn.

Truth.

Another indicator...

This is apparently the best take that the Democrats can come up with on last night's Presidential Debacle (at least from the Obama point-of-view)...





Wow. Just wow.

That's some pretty weak tea...

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...

The first debate

I live-tweeted the debate last night. Some comments are my opinion, some are retweets of others comments that I liked, and some are just lines from the candidates, mostly Romney, that I thought were noteworthy.  Here's that twitter stream, chronologically from top to bottom... 


Not looking forward to the debate. Know that, regardless of what happens, media will proclaim Obama the winner

Tough when the judges are on one of the teams, choose the winner, and then write the analysis...

Jim Lehrer? Is he still on TV somewhere?

Good God, how much more "investment" in education and training do we need?

It's not like we're not already spending money on those things...

"New business startups are down to a 30 year low..."

Obama will be fine, as long as voters realize Romney has been president for 4 years

@iowahawkblog

"1/4 of all employees ... you're going to take them from 33% to 40%" - Romney is hammering Obama right now...

"Save me, Jim! Help meeeee!!!!"

"Maybe I'll make it up in the swimsuit competition" - Inside Obama's head

@iowahawkblog

"Look at the evidence of the last four years..."

"Going forward with the status quo is not going to cut it for the American people..."

"Not moral for my generation to keep spending massively more than we take in...and passing it on to the next generation..."

"Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for?"

If this were a fight, they'd stop it. It's going to be fascinating to see the "Obama won" spin tomorrow...

"Spain spends 42% on govt., we're now spending 42% on govt. I don't want to go down the road to Spain..."

Romney is the worst possible matchup for Obama because he is so specific and so precise and so knowledgeable and so quick on his feet.

@DavidLimbaugh

Amen RT @robertcostaNRO Romney's strength, broadly speaking, is that he's speaking in paragraphs. Fluid. At ease. Knows the details.

Medicare's the big driver of our deficits? You keep saying it's two wars and tax cuts!

The great secret about Obama is that, unlike Clinton (and Romney) he's not a wonk. He's always been a faux policy guy. It's showing.

@JonahNRO

"My experience is that the private sector typically has a better product at a lower cost."

"Dodd-Frank - Unintended consequences - too big to fail..." JL: Would you repeal? MR: Repeal and replace.

How can Dodd-Frank be good. Look who it's named after.

@greggutfeld

BREAKING: Joe Biden looking into options to get Obama off the ticket.

@DrewMTips

We need all health care providers to be cheaper than average. #2012

@jamestaranto

Yes, costs will go down under ObamaCare -- like they did with the Post Office and Amtrak food service. Govt is a cost-saver's dream!

@AnnCoulter

Obama was convinced he was prepared for this debate the way he was convinced he was prepared to be president.

@jimgeraghty

Obama better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare.

@DennisDMZ

BO: Board can't make decisions on treatments. Right, only on coverage. If govt. is paying, distinction without a difference...

“@NoelSheppard: Apparently Obama spent as much time preparing for this debate as he has reading national security briefings!”

@EWErickson

Congratulations MSM, your failure to ask the president hard questions for 4 years has left him soft and unprepared. #irony

@JonahNRO

Obama is rolling down a mountain like Homer Simpson hitting every rock along the way.

@greggutfeld

BO: "Ryan budget wasn't very detailed." Enough details for you and yours to attack him as cruel and heartless...

This has been a rout. But. What does it turn out to have been when the media spin is done with it?

Who won? Well, Rachel Maddow says that she doesn't know - that tells me everything I need to know. Romney cleaned his clock.

Stephanie Cutter blaming Jim Lehrer for Obama's performance is yet another indicator of the size of the can of whup-ass opened by Romney

Romney didn't know it was a damn show! He thought it was a damn fight!

@baseballcrank

Obama's just continuing the expectations-lowering game, building towards a REAL October surprise in that last debate...

It could have been worse for Obama...Mitt could have given him cancer.

@DrewMTips

(There were a couple of minor edits made cleaning up typos...)