-
Assessing a Week of Scandal
May 17, 2013 | 135 comments
-
After Obamacare
May 16, 2013 | 24 comments
-
The New Paternalism
May 3, 2013 | 39 comments
-
Please Point the C-Span Camera This Way
April 29, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Knuckle Draggers and the Pro-Life Enlightenment
April 26, 2013 | 85 comments
A Further Perspective
Romney’s Obstacle Course
He was strong despite the expectations, the questions, the moderator, the audience…
Conventional wisdom going into last night’s debate was that Mitt Romney should cruise, having already decimated the president once. As long as Romney turned in a solid performance, as long as he brought back some of the magic of two weeks ago, Mitt-mentum would keep pushing deeper into the swing states.
Instead the opposite happened. Romney almost became a victim of his own success. Expectations for Barack Obama were so low that there was no question the president would shine. That plus an off-base moderator, a moronic audience, and several questions that seemed lifted from the DNC field manual meant Romney had his work cut out for him.
He was still impressive. But it’s a testament to Romney’s debating skills that he was able to survive last night’s obstacle course.
First the expectations. There was no way Team Obama was ever going to allow a repeat of the last debate, which Romney won according to the highest percentage of voters since 1984. And since the bar was so low, all the president had to do was top his last tongue-tied bumble-fest. He did and the off-key choirs of liberalism are singing his praises. For them, Obama won when he made it through his first sentence without going mute or spontaneously combusting. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief.
But despite his handicap here, Romney was steady. He didn’t overcompensate by arguing picayune details or trying to commandeer the debate. He didn’t become angry like Obama did at the end. (“YOU KNOW I MEAN WHAT I SAY!” the president declared after discussing Libya.) Instead he stuck to his arguments and drew the grand contrasts where they mattered.
He also delivered what might be the most illuminating and brutal assessment of the Obama presidency that we’ve heard all year. “You know these last four years haven’t been so good,” he began. Then he methodically went through unemployment, food stamps, the deficit, and health premiums. He contrasted all the president’s promises with reality before finishing with: “He’s great as a speaker and describing his plan and his vision, that’s wonderful. But we have a record to look at.” I don’t think we’ve yet seen the truths of this election captured that eloquently.
They sure weren’t captured by the questioners. Every one of these average Joes claimed to be an undecided voter from New York, and I believe it. Why they selected interlocutors from a state that gave Barack Obama a 27-point victory over John McCain in 2008 is beyond me. Was the entire state of Ohio unavailable? Did Virginia have a thing?
So a questioner voiced concerns over equal pay for women, a Latina asked about DREAM Act immigrants, and a woman wondered how, since Republican George W. Bush singlehandedly ruined the country, Mitt Romney could possibly be different. That’s all fine, but there wasn’t a single counterbalancing question that could have originated from a conservative point of view.
The most necessary question, left until the end, was about Libya. This was when the entire debate almost fell apart. Obama claimed he’d called the attacks on our embassies “acts of terror” in his day-after Rose Garden press conference. Romney challenged the president, saying it had taken him two weeks to use the term “acts of terror.” “Check the transcript!” Obama called out. Candy Crowley then confirmed that the president was right. The audience, apparently half-wits on loan from Jon Stewart’s studio, clapped like harp seals in the background.
Crowley was right in that Obama did use the phrase “acts of terror” in his September 12 address. But she muddied the context. Here’s the full quote from the Rose Garden speech: “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” The president used the phrase generally, but not in specific reference to the embassy attacks.
That might seem like semantic parsing, but it has significant meaning given what happened next. Two days later, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney declared that the matter was “under investigation” and “we don’t have and did not have concrete evidence to suggest that this was not in reaction to the film [Innocence of Muslims].” Two days after that, U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice called the attacks “a direct result of a heinous and offensive video”.
As late as 13 days after the attack, the president was speaking with the hostesses of The View, refusing to call anything terrorism.
Crowley, to her credit, later admitted on a CNN panel that Romney’s debate answer about Libya was right, though she still said he “picked the wrong word.” He didn’t. Precise semantics matter in diplomacy. Obama never directly condemned the attacks as terror in the Rose Garden and his aides said the exact opposite. But Crowley tried to fact-check Romney, came up short, and gave left-wing blogs days of laughing gas. (“ROMNEY SHOT DOWN IN DEBATE FACT CHECK” goes the current Huffington Post headline.)
And if Crowley was trying to fact-check, she completely missed invalidating some of the president’s whoppers. Romney was unquestionably correct that drilling permits on public lands are down, but Crowley didn’t batter Obama when he objected. She also didn’t jump in when Obama repeated that Bain Capital invested in “pioneers” of outsourcing, even though Romney wasn’t at Bain when most of the outsourcing occurred.
CNN’s flash poll found that Obama won the debate by a seven-point margin. But Romney wins in my book for playing strong on a tilted field. It’s one thing to debate; it’s another thing to debate when the expectations, the moderator, the audience, and the questions are all undermining you.
One final thought: Romney deserves some criticism for abandoning the conservative argument on student loans. During the debate, he pledged to protect Pell Grants and the government’s loan program. He let the president get away with bragging that he “cut out the middleman” on student loans by federalizing the whole program. Education prices have ballooned since the creation of the federal lender Sallie Mae and have skyrocketed during Obama’s term. I know Romney can’t seem unsympathetic to indebted young adults. But this is a real opportunity to explain the failures of social engineering. It’s a shame he won’t.
About the Author
Matt Purple is The American Spectator’s assistant managing editor.
Appleby| 10.17.12 @ 6:55AM
The questions chosen by the liberal moderator were about what I would have expected -- and the one about Bush was gratuitous Saturday Night Live fodder that made me laugh although I was alone at the time. Of all the important things we need to discuss, THAT was the best she could do? And by the way, as a woman I was astonished at the way he spoke of women as if we are stupid little girls that need somebody to lead us by the hand. Had he been talking to my Bible College classmates in 1967, we would have hooted him off the stage.
Denver Todd| 10.17.12 @ 11:03AM
Appleby, I don't understand what you said here: "And by the way, as a woman I was astonished at the way he spoke of women..." Who are you referring to here?
PolishKnight| 10.17.12 @ 1:08PM
In both cases, both candidates patronized women because that's what feminism has been about since it began. Women can only be "equal" via handholding and special help. Consider Romney's answer about the women leaving early to take care of the kids. That's because most women still want men to be breadwinners or they wind up alone as single mothers hence they are "stuck" with the caregiving. The goal of women doing whatever they please with men paying the bills and looking after the kids hasn't worked out quite as they expected.
In the future, Republicans to win elections will need to get down and dirty on the 500 lb elephant in the room and observe that the best way to help women is to help men. If they want those 1950's breadwinners, they'll need to stop pushing men out of the workplace. Men need to be there and do the work anyway so the "equal" women can blow off of "work" early.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.17.12 @ 4:35PM
Romney did win the debate and if he wins the last one then I won't vote for Obama. But Romney is misrepresenting himself: a conservative who doesn't believe in conservatism is junk:
Nixon, Bush 41, Bush 43.
Alan Obama Fan Brooks | 10.17.12 @ 4:38PM
"Republicans to win elections will need to get down and dirty on the 500 lb elephant in the room"
Considering Crowley's girth, the above has interesting connotations-- but count me out, I prefer quality to quantity.
supremecourtlegislator| 10.17.12 @ 7:23AM
I watched Townhall and listened to Fox radio. Without the geese hissing, hen cackling, duck quacking of Demo-progressive, co-opted media.
The debate wasn't particularly close. Romney won.
KennesawJack| 10.17.12 @ 8:49AM
Agreed. Problem is, as far as the great masses of dumbasses go, perception is always one's reality and the perception purveyed by the media was Obamarx with a slight edge. Romney won and it wasn't all that close.
artinocala| 10.17.12 @ 8:15AM
Pretty good article, Matt. You could have left the last graph on the floor. Just when did Romney have the chance to "explain the failures of social engineering." You note he had many obstacles, and yet you find time to nitpick this. You ruined your good thoughts with this criticism.
Von Mises Jr| 10.17.12 @ 8:50AM
Mitt chose Paul Ryan exciting the TEA Party base and then dissembled Obama in the first debate. He has the conservatives 100% behind him save a few loony disaffected Ron Paul enthusiast.
The job now is to continue to win over those that were not paying as much attention and have been contaminated with Obama lies. So I am very satisfied with his calm, concise, logical and presidential manner in this second debate.
If you score two long TD passes in the first quarter and lead 14-0, then you run the ball. If you keep the ball out of the other team’s hands, and you grind out another couple scores, they will not catch up as long as you control the game.
Obama tried to interrupt and Mitt just kept talking. Barry tried in-the-hood physical intimidation by invading Mitt's space, but Mitt stood his ground and continued to pummel him verbally.
In sales, people typically buy from people they like. Mitt was awful likeable compared to that disgusting pig of a moderator and the petulant bombastic Ozero.
William L. Gensert| 10.17.12 @ 9:03AM
It almost didn't sound like these were undecided voters -- perhaps disappointed voters instead. Which I suppose is the best you'll do in New York City and its environs. Yet, despite finally having things comfortably within his pay grade, Obama in many respects was no better than the first time.
He lost the first debate on style. He lost this one on content.
Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com.....z29YqUHGJx
William L. Gensert| 10.17.12 @ 9:05AM
Crowley may have thought she was helping the President by saying he called the death of our Ambassador to Libya a terrorist attack from the beginning, but her legalistic parsing of what the President actually said in the aftermath of the Stevens' assassination will only remind voters of Clinton, famously questioning what the definition of "is" is.
Read more of my article: http://www.americanthinker.com.....z29Yr6Du9D
PolishKnight| 10.17.12 @ 1:23PM
Clinton won his second term, however, due to two factors which do not apply here:
1) A great economy (thanks to him ironically being too busy managing his scandals to ruin anything seriously.)
2) A weak opponent, GHB, who had reached across the aisle and broke a campaign promise to not raise taxes and then wound up with a knife in his back.
Other than leftist zealots and race, gender, or welfare entitlement seekers, there is no rational reason for someone to vote for Obama. He's not even particularly likable.
But that said, there are still tons of stupid people out there. I hate to say that (since the left loves to bash their opponents by default as stupid) but it applies in this case. Why do people who have nothing to gain personally vote for a morally and economically bankrupt agenda and candidate?
CJW| 10.17.12 @ 3:00PM
Clinton won in 1992 because of the tax issue, and Perot took a lot of votes from the Republicans.
Bob Dole and Jack Kemp were so bad in 1996 that you have forgotten they ran!!
Stormzeye| 10.17.12 @ 9:10AM
Has Obama, on his best day, ever looked or acted Presidential? Has Romney, on his best day, ever looked anything but Presidential? Romney for President of the Free World.....without a doubt!
gene| 10.17.12 @ 9:29AM
The man held his own against a stacked deck. President Obama won a battle but lost the election last night. He will have to appear in one more Debate where Foreign Affairs will be at the top of the list. With another moderator, he will not get away with his deception on the embassy attacks. And at the same debate, he will have to deal with hundred of Mexican citizens who were shot to death (To include one of our Border Patrol Officers) with automatoic weapons that his Department of Justice sold to Mexican Drug Cartels. His decision of "Executive Priveledge" will never be able to carry him through. It is over.
Poor Chris Matthews.
Alan's Girl| 10.17.12 @ 9:40AM
The comparison that I drew from last night's debate was Romney's consistency in demeanor, his poise despite circumstances & his passion for all Americans to do well. No, he is not "one of us". His life path has led him to boardrooms, but he sincerely conveyed that he can relate to what we are going through. Mr. Obama cannot relate to my world, my family or my difficulties. His inconsistent behavior in the debate forum from event to event does not provide any encouragement that he 'has a handle' on issues OR his emotions. Did anyone else notice in the background while Romney was speaking that Mr. Obama was using his "Biden face" & gestures?
SUBVET| 10.17.12 @ 10:21AM
Naw...........I was still looking at John Candy dressed in dragg....sorry john but IT could be your twin sister.
Who Knows?| 10.17.12 @ 10:52AM
That wasn’t a debate. It was an attempted body slam of Romney by his opponents, namely Obama, Crowley and most of the questioners in the audience. Talk about biased!
Here’s an added point.
Sister Crowley, a Candy assed vegetarian, by her own admission, is fat. What??? Aren’t vegetarians supposed to be lean?
As a longtime vegetarian, and a complete vegan for ten years or so, myself, I was at first thrown off. Anyone who eschews, not chews, meat SHOULDN’T be as fat as her.
Then it hit me.
She’s a liberal. Liberals LIE.
Who can say she doesn’t cheat, and does eat meat, on the sly? Besides, even vegetarians can overeat.
I googled Crowley, and she does eat dairy products, so she’s what’s known as a lacto-vegetarian. And, dairy products---like ice cream, say---can contain lots of fat.
Just saying.
Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 12:53PM
She forgot to say she eats all her veggies coverd in cheese or ranch dressing.
John II| 10.17.12 @ 2:01PM
" . . . an off-base moderator, a moronic audience, and several questions that seemed lifted from the DNC field manual meant Romney had his work cut out for him."
Well--yes. And he comported himself with great dignity under circumstances that will dog him throughout his presidency: smugly biased media and viciously biased foreign potentates, a half-educated electorate degraded by entitlements and egged on by thoroughly moronic talking heads, and a culture dangerously in decline.
The debate qua debate was merely farce. The real significance of last night's show was Romney's demonstration of his personal qualification for the job and the Professor's display of his unqualification.
That single difference--the dominant impression of the canvas, as the artists say--will be recollected long after the brush-strokes are forgotten. Certainly until November 6.
Drunken Sailor| 10.17.12 @ 2:15PM
Gallup +6 Romney 10/16/2012
AmericanCynic| 10.17.12 @ 6:23PM
Dear Governor Romney,
After the attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, you felt it important to address the nation before the President of the United States had a chance to. This is before the death of our ambassador and three others had even been announced! While “consoling the nation” you also thought that was a wise time to score some “political points” and criticize the president…OUR president’s foreign policy. Did you expect the American public to pat you on the back and call you “clever“for this?
If Senators Al Gore or John Kerry had decided to address the nation about 9/11 before President Bush had a chance to, would you have thought that was appropriate? Of course not. Is it just because President Obama is a Democrat that allows you to disrespect the Commander in Chief, or is it something else about him? Or maybe, Gov Romney, it’s simply because you think RULES DON’T APPLY TO YOU. Either way, kind of a douche’ bag move.
Yes, I know there’s an election coming up, but there are established rules about how to handle national security issues during election season. During a national crisis, Americans want to hear from their elected leaders NOT some candidate trying to create a “bull-horn moment” for himself.
Sincerely,
A member of the 99% AND the 53%
spike59| 10.19.12 @ 2:52PM
had Romney NOT criticized the OBVIOUS and LETHAL incompetence of ObaMao's foreign policy, ESPECIALLY while campaigning to be his replacement, he would be guilty of a lack of seriousness and integrity-when the POTUS is screwing up to the point of getting innocent people killed, and then LYING about it to preserve his re-election prospects, it's the DUTY of American citizens, candidate or not, to call him out on it-anything less is unconscionable. ObaMao's administration, which includes the State Department, ignored Ambassador Stevens' pleas for more security, ignored the obvious threat of al-Qeuda activity in Libya, for political motives; to try to maintain an illusion that 'they LOVE us now, al-queda is dead', when reality CLEARLY says otherwise-Ambassador Stevens and 3 others died to veil ObaMao's incompetence and secure his re-election...too bad for ObaMao that it's had the opposite effect. perhaps he can use his lavish pension to stock up on Bon Ami to try to wash the blood from his hands
AmericanCynic| 10.17.12 @ 6:38PM
http://www.nationaljournal.com.....a-20120912
John II| 10.17.12 @ 8:18PM
Dear AmericanCynic:
You're absolutely right. I am glad someone has finally shown the courage and integrity it takes to point out that Our President is the greatest statesman in the history of the Republic and that, concomitantly, Governor Romney is a douche bag.
And to think that I was going to vote for a douche bag before National Journal's timely revelations of the superior statecraft of Our President. Indeed, I take your optic and expressiveness as conclusive evidence that I too need to spend more time in Las Vegas.
Sincerely,
A chastened member of the 20% who earn at least a tad more than 72 grand a year AND the 66% who belong to the Country Party.
AmericanCynic| 10.18.12 @ 2:07PM
Sarcasm is the tool of a wimp, Dope John II.
Put down the thesaurus and stop knocking down straw-man arguments my letter never addressed.
Romney being a douchebag is the only part you got right!
:)
spike59| 10.19.12 @ 2:40PM
stupidity is the tool of the stupid, AC...and yet you keep pounding away