How Romney “Won” the First Debate
I want to clarify something. I was angry the other night. Mitt spent the better part of the debate lying, and you could see in his eyes how hard he was trying, and I even saw signs of rage and desperation, and the president, while pointing out some of those lies and misrepresentations, never really found his stride. And then there was the post-debate commentary, which was simply awful, even by the dismal standards of such commentary.
By no means do I wish to argue — I didn’t then and don’t now — that Obama “won” the debate, in any sense of that word. By the terms of presidential debates, which are about theater, not substance, it was pretty clear that, to put it mildly, he underperformed, though I would note that he has never been much of a debater. Whatever the reason(s) — he was disengaged, Romney’s constant lying and pretending to be a moderate threw him off, he was intentionally trying to remain calm and above it all, not wanting to go negative — he was just… off. Romney left the door open so many times with his blatant dishonesty, and there were many occasions for the president to drive a point home, either about his own record or about his Romney’s right-wing policies and/or complete disingenuousness, but instead of engaging he stood back and let Romney take the debate to him, setting the tone and otherwise scoring points with little pushback from Obama.
Yes, there’s a reason so many of Obama’s liberal-progressive supporters, including some high-profile media figures, almost lost their minds. Myself, I was live-blogging, and so often listening more than watching, but I found myself saying “come on… come on… come on…” numerous times, pulling for Obama to step up and tear down his lying opponent. But with a few quiet exceptions it was not to be, and so the result was that Romney “won” — such is the clear consensus that emerged, and I can’t say I disagree.
But what made me angry in terms of the reaction was that Romney only won by the standards of the debates that entirely ignores substance… and the truth. And this was being pushed all throughout the media, including by supposed non-partisans. I encapsulated my thoughts in the caption to the photo I included at the top of our live-blogging post:
Mr. President, I’m gonna win this by lying, dissembling, hiding my real views, not answering direct questions, acting all aggressive, stringing together complete sentences, treating the voters like idiots, playing right into the media’s need for drama, and exceeding ridiculously low expectations by not drooling all over myself.
It was all an act, you see, and Romney was the better actor, at least according to expectations of how one ought to conduct oneself during such an event. Ultimately, I wrote this:
I suppose this could reset the expectations for the next two presidential debates… Maybe if Obama shows some passion, like, say, by jumping up and down on Oprah’s couch, the media will give him some credit. But of course far be it from the media to talk policy, to hold Romney accountable for pushing unpopular plans with math that doesn’t even come close to adding up and refusing to answer questions about what his positions actually are what he would actually do as president. Much easier to say Romney was passionate and held his own and Obama looked like he didn’t want to be there.
Simple “analysis” from simple minds, as usual — from the likes of Gloria Borger and John King, two of CNN’s embarrassing crew.
Again, I don’t wish to suggest that I thought Obama did well. But I do think it was closer than the CW would have us believe, mainly because I think Romney actually hurt himself, perhaps badly, by lying so much, by throwing the right-wing Republican base under the bus in his quest to come across as a moderate with appeal to independents, by presenting himself as a shameless, flip-flopping opportunist who will say anything for votes, and by providing the Obama campaign with so much ammunition. Yes, it was Republicans who were so gleeful after the debate, and the day after as well, and still now, saying that Romney’s supposed trouncing of Obama resets the campaign and gives Romney the clear advantage, and the polls will likely show some tightening, but over time Romney may well have added to his troubles — if Obama can take advantage of his lying and if he performs better in the two debates to come. (And thankfully, as David Axelrod noted yesterday, adjustments will be made.)
Am I just trying to find a silver lining? Maybe. But I do think substance — and the truth — matters, and while Obama may not have “won” the battle Wednesday night, he may have gained simply by being on the side of truth. And while Romney may have scored points by coming across as Obama’s “equal” up on stage, holding his own against the far superior Obama (which is what this suggests), he frequently came across as an arrogant prick without an authentic core, reinforcing the image that over the course of the campaign has come to define him, an image based on a huge amount of evidence.
There is still much for Obama to do. He has powerful ads running in the key swing states, and he has successfully defined Romney as an out-of-touch plutocrat who doesn’t give a shit about those below him on the socio-economic ladder, but he needs to use the platform of these debates to remind voters of Romney’s 47%” remarks, of his job-destroying / outsourcing record at Bain, of his tax shelters, of his massive proposed tax cuts for the rich, of his plan to destroy Medicare, and so on. This is all being communicated in other ways, but voters need to hear it from the president himself.
Next time, he must not allow Romney to get away with it.
(Cross-posted from The Reaction.)
Share This
Romney won the debate by not being Romney, and certainly not by being a Tea Party approved republican. Essentially that is a good thing. I’m all for more sensible republicans of yesteryear. Just coming this late in the game it might add more fuel to his rep as a flip flopper. The usual suspects in the conservative sphere seem to let pass comments that no doubt would have been cause for outrage during the primaries as being too moderate. I’m sure at this point they realize the trouble Romney’s campaign is in and are willing to bite their tongues to let Romney tack to the middle if that’s what needs to be done to give him a chance in the election.
Well he did say one true thing – he wants to fire Big Bird. The TPers will love that, it might even cause them to vote for him after all. (snicker)
Sarcasm. “He lied”, he lied, and the other guy stood there and took it. Oh well, like all the guys that lost to Mike Tyson used to say well I should have done this and that and he did this and the Jets would have won if they had a different strategy. See, it’s all crying over spilt milk and making excuses.
BTW: this is the first criticism of Obama’s performance for me, but all the Monday morning quarterbacking is lame.
Your guy lost and while you give a little criticism your big effort is not in being honest but trying to min the damage by trashing his opponant. It comes off as sour grapes. It’s weak and wont help you with anyone but Obama supporters. Now it’s pretty bad when we do come to except a certain amount of untruths from our politicians but there is simply no way to pick which one is worse. Mitt doesn’t plan on tax cuts, just lower the rate and offsetting with removing deductions. Now I get that it may be hugely optimistic to expect growth to make up any difference, but that is his plan and it just isn’t honest or accurate to say Mitt’s calling for tax cuts. Call him out on his Pollyanna optimism and/or his bad math, but the repeated use of tax cuts was inaccurate and hurt the president.
That’s just it Slamfu, they will let Romney leap-frog to the center a bit to let him win. But as soon as the elections over they’ll yank that leech hard and Romney will be back to the far right.
Rambie
I think you mean leash, but maybe you do mean leech?
LOL, yes, I mean leash. My finger get ahead of my brain sometimes.
EEllis, why then won’t Mitt explain exactly WHAT deductions he proposes to eliminate? He has been asked a dozen times but won’t say. Could it be that his “deductions” and loopholes won’t be NEAR enough to effect anything, like the $5 tril he wants in tax cuts. George Bush gave us a big tax break 10 years ago, bless his heart but it cost the US 3.3 Tril in lost revenues over the last 10 years. Now the bill is coming due…for ALL of us. The rich included. You don’t think 5 tril will be hard to cover?? You think there are enough corporate jets and holiday junkets to offset that?
Because the plan is to hold open hearings and get input from the public and others before making the cuts. What you’re pissed because he doesn’t want to act unilaterally?
Look it’s not just loopholes it’s deductions, like home mortgage interest, personal deductions, energy compliance deductions, the list goes on. And sure he would have to hack the crap out of just about everything and even then it probably wouldn’t cover the rate reduction but I think the idea is that the simplified taxes will end up getting more, and more honest filings thus increasing the governments take but also that it would help small businesses and the boost to the economy would cover any difference.
Straight up that just isnt reality its single dimension mathematics. Changing taxes changes the economy and peoples behavior which effects taxes. There are plenty of examples of increased taxes lowering income as well as the opposite.
I think if we get real economic growth in a turnaround them 5 tril will be easy. I also thing if we stay as we are we will have much slower growth meaning we will all be taxes higher and that in turn will slow growth even further.
C’mon EEllis, let’s not be silly. We’re ..disconcerted, because he gives the half of the plan that everyone likes — yay! 20% tax cut! — and refuses to give the half of the plan that tells how it will be paid for on the backs of middle and poor class people, or raise the deficit. He is trying to take credit for the tax cut part (which will certainly favor the wealthy) and blame the loss of important programs for the middle and lower classes on a Congress who will have the job of acting out his half-assed “plan”.
That’s more specifics than Mitt Romney has ever given. Why? Because people like those deductions. He also knows that if he takes away the deduction for mortgage interest, all analysis shows that it will mean lots of the people whose recent home purchases are spurring the recent growth in real estate (finally!) will have to lose their homes. Anyone looking to sell now (again, finally!) will see their home’s value drop again. Romney knows that this is a non-starter, as the crash in home values was one of the most devistating parts of the recession to middle income people. Dissembling as if taking away this deduction might not happen is riduculous. Put out the plan, let people assess whether they think it would be a good thing, and let the cards fall where they may.
EEllis.Do you honestly think Mitts “deductions” are ones that nobody ever thought of before? Better minds that Mitts have pondered some of these solutions but realize they would hurt the middle class..badly. Mitt doesn’t care about that. It’s the upper classes and corporations he is interested in protecting. If that weren’t so, then he would be all over giving specifics. He wouldn’t dare what with the election looming. He is hiding his plans the way he hides his tax returns.
It’s sad to have to say this because I don’t think conservatives are a bad lot in general but Mitt Romney is anything but above-board. He is the epitomy of the deceitful politician. He always has something to hide. He won’t be clear on any of this plans,he refuses to release his tax returns, he expresses how he really feels about half of this nation, but does it behind closed doors, he says one thing one minute and says the opposite next, and he downright lies when confronted with what he has been documented saying! He is not a Republican I trust. We already had one of those slimy characters in office, “tricky Dick”. I don’t think we need a “mixed- message Mitt”.
Even tricky Gingrich conceded this morning on Meet the Press that “Romney Wasn’t Honest About His Tax Plan During Debate”