Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Mitt's Biggest Turnaround Yet
5 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Oct 5, 2012, 6:24:56 PM10/5/12
to
By Robert Stacy McCain
Romney wins the first debate so decisively, even liberals can't deny it.
How decisively did Mitt Romney win Wednesday night's debate? All you had
to do was watch the most pro-Obama network to see it. "I personally do
not know who won this debate," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said as soon as the
debate ended. She was obviously the only one who didn't know.
When Maddow brought on her colleague Ed Schultz, he moaned that
President Obama "created a problem for himself tonight on Social
Security. He agreed with Mitt Romney.… I thought he was off his game."
Nor did the president's performance send a thrill up the leg of Chris
Matthews. "I don't know what he was doing out there," Matthews
complained. "He had his head down. He was enduring the debate rather
than fighting it."
If ever there were a night when conservatives wanted to watch MSNBC,
this was it -- an all-you-can-eat buffet of schadenfreude, as one after
another of the liberal network's personalities tried to come to grips
with what was perhaps the most one-sided presidential debate since JFK
beat a shifty-looking Richard Nixon in 1960. "In terms of debate
tactics, Romney was on the offense most of the night," a glum Howard
Fineman acknowledged, while a shell-shocked Chuck Todd admitted that the
result "automatically elevates Romney as a credible alternative" and
later added, in reference to the Obama camp's post-debate mood: "They
know they lost tonight."
Everybody knew it. The "flash" polls after the debate by CBS and CNN
both showed that viewers scored it a win for Romney by better than
2-to-1 margins. John Hinderaker at the conservative Powerline blog said,
"It wasn't a TKO, it was a knockout. Mitt Romney was in control from the
beginning. He was the alpha male, while Barack Obama was weak, hesitant,
stuttering, often apologetic." A similar view was shared by one of
Obama's most ardent fans in the blogosphere, Andrew Sullivan, who called
the debate "a disaster for the president." Sullivan derided the
president's "effete, wonkish lectures," and concluded: "Obama looked
tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of
passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which
may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong
moment."
The wrong moment for the Democratic incumbent perhaps, but absolutely
perfect for Romney, who came into the debate after enduring a month-long
media beatdown on his campaign. All the criticisms of the Republican
convention, all the furor over the "secret video," all the polls
portending doom for Romney -- all of this negativity became suddenly
irrelevant in the wake of the GOP challenger's decisive debate victory.
Romney took charge from the outset, reacting to Obama's opening barrage
of accusations about taxes. "I'd like to clear up the record and go
through it piece by piece," Romney said. "First of all, I don't have a
$5 trillion tax cut."
After defending himself, Romney then pivoted to focus onto Obama's own
economic record. "Under the president's policies, middle-income
Americans have been buried. They're just being crushed. Middle-income
Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a tax in
and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing. At the
same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric
rates are up. Food prices are up. Health care costs have gone up by
$2,500 a family."
It was these facts which flummoxed Obama. He kept trying to talk about
his plans for the next four years, but Romney kept hammering the
president's record during the past four years, which undermined Obama's
credibility whenever he offered proposals for the future. This reality
-- that the president's policies have been an abject failure -- did not
seem to register with Obama's supporters on MSNBC, who afterwards
complained about their man's listless performance and also tried to
blame moderator Jim Lehrer's handling of the debate.
Admittedly, Romney scored points for style. He was aggressive, clear and
specific and, in the superficial calculus by which candidates are
measured in the TV age, he certainly looked presidential. Yet the style
would have done Romney little good if he had not also delivered
substance. "You raise taxes and you kill jobs," he replied to Obama at
one point. "That's why the National Federation of Independent Businesses
said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don't want to kill jobs in this
environment." Later, Romney accused the president of a "trickle-down
government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better
job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working. And
the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is
1 out of 6 people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32
million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that
is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work."
These are simply facts and, in a setting where Romney could point out
the facts of Obama's record directly to the people -- with no
intervening media filter -- the one-sided nature of the debate perhaps
shouldn't have surprised anyone as much as it did. But the surprise was
entirely pleasant for Romney's supporters, including Reason magazine's
Matt Welch: "That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama
for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car."
It will not be easy for the president to bounce back quickly from his
debate debacle. The next scheduled debate is Oct. 11 between Vice
President Joe Biden and Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan,
and Obama won't meet Romney again until Oct. 16. In the meantime, Romney
can expect to be riding a sudden surge of momentum, while the incumbent
Democrat will just as suddenly find himself plagued by the same kind of
gloomy poll numbers and naysaying criticisms that had hitherto been
Romney's problem. Of all the turnarounds Romney accomplished in his
career at Bain Capital, perhaps none was so significant as the one he
pulled off in 90 minutes last night.
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Romney wins the first debate so decisively, even liberals can't deny it.
How decisively did Mitt Romney win Wednesday night's debate? All you had
to do was watch the most pro-Obama network to see it. "I personally do
not know who won this debate," MSNBC's Rachel Maddow said as soon as the
debate ended. She was obviously the only one who didn't know.
When Maddow brought on her colleague Ed Schultz, he moaned that
President Obama "created a problem for himself tonight on Social
Security. He agreed with Mitt Romney.… I thought he was off his game."
Nor did the president's performance send a thrill up the leg of Chris
Matthews. "I don't know what he was doing out there," Matthews
complained. "He had his head down. He was enduring the debate rather
than fighting it."
If ever there were a night when conservatives wanted to watch MSNBC,
this was it -- an all-you-can-eat buffet of schadenfreude, as one after
another of the liberal network's personalities tried to come to grips
with what was perhaps the most one-sided presidential debate since JFK
beat a shifty-looking Richard Nixon in 1960. "In terms of debate
tactics, Romney was on the offense most of the night," a glum Howard
Fineman acknowledged, while a shell-shocked Chuck Todd admitted that the
result "automatically elevates Romney as a credible alternative" and
later added, in reference to the Obama camp's post-debate mood: "They
know they lost tonight."
Everybody knew it. The "flash" polls after the debate by CBS and CNN
both showed that viewers scored it a win for Romney by better than
2-to-1 margins. John Hinderaker at the conservative Powerline blog said,
"It wasn't a TKO, it was a knockout. Mitt Romney was in control from the
beginning. He was the alpha male, while Barack Obama was weak, hesitant,
stuttering, often apologetic." A similar view was shared by one of
Obama's most ardent fans in the blogosphere, Andrew Sullivan, who called
the debate "a disaster for the president." Sullivan derided the
president's "effete, wonkish lectures," and concluded: "Obama looked
tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of
passion or argument; he wasn't there. He was entirely defensive, which
may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong
moment."
The wrong moment for the Democratic incumbent perhaps, but absolutely
perfect for Romney, who came into the debate after enduring a month-long
media beatdown on his campaign. All the criticisms of the Republican
convention, all the furor over the "secret video," all the polls
portending doom for Romney -- all of this negativity became suddenly
irrelevant in the wake of the GOP challenger's decisive debate victory.
Romney took charge from the outset, reacting to Obama's opening barrage
of accusations about taxes. "I'd like to clear up the record and go
through it piece by piece," Romney said. "First of all, I don't have a
$5 trillion tax cut."
After defending himself, Romney then pivoted to focus onto Obama's own
economic record. "Under the president's policies, middle-income
Americans have been buried. They're just being crushed. Middle-income
Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a tax in
and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing. At the
same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president. Electric
rates are up. Food prices are up. Health care costs have gone up by
$2,500 a family."
It was these facts which flummoxed Obama. He kept trying to talk about
his plans for the next four years, but Romney kept hammering the
president's record during the past four years, which undermined Obama's
credibility whenever he offered proposals for the future. This reality
-- that the president's policies have been an abject failure -- did not
seem to register with Obama's supporters on MSNBC, who afterwards
complained about their man's listless performance and also tried to
blame moderator Jim Lehrer's handling of the debate.
Admittedly, Romney scored points for style. He was aggressive, clear and
specific and, in the superficial calculus by which candidates are
measured in the TV age, he certainly looked presidential. Yet the style
would have done Romney little good if he had not also delivered
substance. "You raise taxes and you kill jobs," he replied to Obama at
one point. "That's why the National Federation of Independent Businesses
said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don't want to kill jobs in this
environment." Later, Romney accused the president of a "trickle-down
government approach, which has government thinking it can do a better
job than free people pursuing their dreams. And it's not working. And
the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is
1 out of 6 people in poverty. The proof of that is we've gone from 32
million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that
is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can't find work."
These are simply facts and, in a setting where Romney could point out
the facts of Obama's record directly to the people -- with no
intervening media filter -- the one-sided nature of the debate perhaps
shouldn't have surprised anyone as much as it did. But the surprise was
entirely pleasant for Romney's supporters, including Reason magazine's
Matt Welch: "That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama
for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car."
It will not be easy for the president to bounce back quickly from his
debate debacle. The next scheduled debate is Oct. 11 between Vice
President Joe Biden and Romney's running mate, Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan,
and Obama won't meet Romney again until Oct. 16. In the meantime, Romney
can expect to be riding a sudden surge of momentum, while the incumbent
Democrat will just as suddenly find himself plagued by the same kind of
gloomy poll numbers and naysaying criticisms that had hitherto been
Romney's problem. Of all the turnarounds Romney accomplished in his
career at Bain Capital, perhaps none was so significant as the one he
pulled off in 90 minutes last night.
--
"Re-electing Obama is like backing The Titanic up and hitting the
iceberg a second time."
Orval Fairbairn
Oct 7, 2012, 2:05:46 PM10/7/12
to
In article <k4rr62$lij$1...@dont-email.me>,
I turned MSNBC after the debate -- it was like a fox had been let loose
in the chicken yard!
in the chicken yard!
clairbear
Oct 7, 2012, 3:04:35 PM10/7/12
to
Orval Fairbairn <orfai...@earthlink.net> wrote in
news:orfairbairn-5E10...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
Saw a bit of it it was the best comedy on TV in years
news:orfairbairn-5E10...@70-3-168-216.pools.spcsdns.net:
Juris Diction
Oct 7, 2012, 8:12:38 PM10/7/12
to
> By Robert Stacy McCain
>
> Romney wins the first debate so decisively, even liberals can't deny it.
>
Romney's lies destroyed his own credibility even more.
>
> Romney wins the first debate so decisively, even liberals can't deny it.
>
Nobody believes him any more because they know he's going to have
another "turn around" opinion tomorrow.
Regardless of what other's said, Obama won the debate, cause guess what
all the news has been about since: Romney the liar, his bullying, all
the issues Romney has been lying about, what they think Obama should
have said, and so on.
You call that a win??? HA HA!!!
--
* Fuck The Alamo, Remember The Bush Error
cloud dreamer
Oct 7, 2012, 8:18:30 PM10/7/12
to
http://www.loscerritosnews.net/2012/10/04/romney-tells-27-lies-in-38-minutes/
..
0 new messages