-
Artur Davis Says Scandals Are Real
May 19, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Good New Book: ‘Precipice’
May 19, 2013 | 1 comment
-
A Long Record of Obamite Thuggery
May 16, 2013 | 4 comments
-
DeMint Supports Defense
May 14, 2013 | 5 comments
-
Update on Tom Perez
May 14, 2013 | 0 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Barack Obama was more aggressive and didn’t come across as if in despair tonight, so he didn’t get routed. But Mitt Romney still came across far better: a bit more likeable; more believable; less of a broken record; more substantive; more forward-looking; and, importantly, still more in control. On that last front, there were several really odd visuals that struck me: Several times, Romney was talking directly to Obama and looking directly at him, but Obama WOULD NOT look at Romney, either in listening to him or in answering him. It’s as if he just couldn’t look him in the eye. I’ve never been big into this theory of the “alpha male” on stage being the KEY determinant of who “wins” a debate. But it IS at least AN ingredient. And Romney was clearly more alph: He was direct; Obama wouldn’t look at him, which is what the “weaker” person does, in terms of body language.
Romney got off good shots on a number of fronts without sounding like he had rehearsed sound bites, but as part of the conversation that flowed naturally. He did so on gasoline prices doubling; he did so on Fast and Furious; he did so on Obama’s arithmetic being less trustworthy than his own because Obama hadn’t lived up to his own arithmetical promises while he, Romney, had spent his whole life making budgets balance.
The Chris Matthewses of the world will say Obama won this debate. Their headlines were written before the debate even started. But they are wrong. Romney didn’t dominate this one, but he did win. Obama certainly didn’t change the momentum back in his own favor. Romney kept his campaign moving in the right direction tonight. He was strong and solid, especially with his closing answer.
The only saving grace for Obama was that he got to speak last, so he was able to raise the “47 percent” thing without Romney getting to answer (or to bring up the “you didn’t build that” or the “cling to guns and religion” gaffes by Obama). But it wasn’t enough to make him a winner. Going forward, Romney has the edge.
View all comments (41) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/10/16/romney-won-again
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 10:49PM
Indeed.
Now, can we act like men and set our demands for the next debate or are we going to put up with these stacked, ridiculous manipulations and farcicals?
DRed| 10.16.12 @ 10:56PM
Oh good-if you're bitching about the questions that means my gut reaction was right-Obama won that debate handily. Mittens was obviously rattled, still couldn't answer simple questions about his plans, and was a disrespectfully bully to the moderator.
mike 3/505| 10.16.12 @ 10:59PM
No way he was a bully...She's got at least 50 pounds on him. She also came pretty close to outright lying in support of Obama's position. She's gonna take some heat for that too.
That said, Romney wasn't quite as smooth as previously.
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 11:00PM
"Disrespectful, " DRed.
You say "won the debate." I don't think the word "won" means what you think it means. Stopping punches with your face does not indicate a boxer of great skill. Or, to put it another way, the price of gas has not escalated due to an economic boom.
DRed| 10.16.12 @ 11:13PM
Worldwide demand for gas is much, much higher now than it was in 2008. Look at gas prices during the W administration, occam. What was the peak price? The fact is that the US president doesn't have a whole lot of control over gas prices.
And tell me, what's mittens tax plan again? 3 debates and still no specifics. If I didn't know better i'd say the whole thing was a fantasy. Obama mauled mittens on that one.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:21PM
Perhaps you may have noticed but refuse to see that your teleprompter has no plans for anything let alone a record that he can tout as all he does is smile, smirk, distract, blame everyone else, and lie through his teeth. Oh, I forgot, pout, refuse to look a man in the eye, skirt the questions, and make a fist.
People saw this clearly and he will pay for it....
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 11:42PM
However, doing your best to reduce supply is a bad idea when demand is going up, DRed. Especially as this allows more money to go to, say, Iran, to build bombs with.
If the Obama plan was drill baby drill along with encouragement of coal mining and gasification, Obama would have won by now.
DRed| 10.16.12 @ 11:54PM
Have you seen any recent protests in Iran because international sanctions have wrecked their economy? They're not exactly making out like bandits, occam.
I notice you dodged my question about Bush. What was the peak price for a gallon of gas under ol'dubya? Was he anti-energy?
MikeBee| 10.17.12 @ 11:47AM
DRed,
Gas prices are directly related to Supply and Demand. When Clinton was King, he said that he was not going to drill in ANWR because that would take at least ten years to deliver results. When W was King, the Democrat Congress said that they were not going to allow drilling in ANWR or anywhere else, because it would take ten years to deliver results. Obama has continued four more years of this nonsense.
Let's see: 8 years of Clinton, plus 8 years of W and a Democrat congress, plus 4 years of O. If I believe Clinton and the Democrat Congress about results, we would have had a severe reduction in gas prices ten years ago, had we been drilling in ANWR and completed that pipeline from Canada, and drilled offshore, when Clinton was King. You're right that there's not much a President can do about gas prices, but the government CAN get in the way, and have, by standing in the way of drilling.
MikeBee| 10.17.12 @ 11:48AM
(lack of room again, so, continued:)The only way to move away from the 30% of oil which is supplied by the Middle East is to drill at home. Plenty of supply here; the Democrats will not let us get to it. Therefore, the Democrats want us beholden to the Middle Eastern countries.
As far as Mitt's tax plan, he has been very specific, and is following the successful practices already laid out by J.F. Kennedy and Reagan. When the feds lower tax rates, the rich begin to pay their fair share again, and Treasury receipts skyrocket. JFK even mentioned that not lowering tax rates meant that the rich would simply not pay their fair share. Lowering them provides incentive to the rich to pay the lower rates, instead of devising schemes to avoid paying taxes. Romney knows this, and knows that his plan to lower rates will mean higher tax receipts to the U.S. Treasury. Very simple plan, enacted by three U.S. presidents in the past, and successful every time it's tried.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:10PM
I said nothing about the questions. The constant interruptions, the cutting off and not allowing Romney to finish but giving free reign to teleprompter, the unequal time allotments, the change at the last minute to control what questions there would be, and the inappropriate participation in the debate by a moderator as if they were in the debate themselves is what I object to and I am sick and tired of your ilk and their insistence on running the whole show so as you can prop up your incompetent lying idiot.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:34PM
Perhaps you could explain to us why you and your comrades insist on complete control of these debates and under all your rules and qualifications, too afraid of a real debate, man to man?
CJW| 10.16.12 @ 11:11PM
Obama did not and cannot defend his record so he attacks Romney because of his income. If obama had a record to run on he would be talking about his record. But his record is 10% unemployment, 47 million on food stamps, 6 trillion in debt, a bungled BenghaziGate with a bungled coverup, and an idiot for a VP.
Landlslide to Romney. Obama showed up, he was energetic, but he had nothing to say. All bark.
DRed| 10.16.12 @ 11:18PM
Did Mitt have something specific to say about his plans? All I heard was vague assurances, talk about the olympics, and bragging about giving healthcare to everyone in Massachustes. Oh, and a binder filled with women. That one deserved some follow ups
CJW| 10.16.12 @ 11:21PM
What did Obama do the last four years?
You sound like Obaman. Give it up, like purpie, it is over.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:15PM
Your messiah got his ass kicked and you know it despite the FACT that you would never admit it as you did not admit in the last debate whereby 70 percent of the rest of us, the public at large, believed Romney won and won decisively. You are a lame troll, a small squeaky and irrelevant little keyboard claptrap.
DRed| 10.16.12 @ 11:32PM
I said Obama won the last debate? Odd, I thought he lost. If the public thinks Obama got his ass kicked tonight I'll be shocked. I though Mitt looked and sounded rattled all night. Obama got the better of the majority of their exchanges. Mitt had nothing to offer, and unlike last time, Obama did a good job standing up to some of his more egregious lies and flip flops.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:37PM
Did you hear something, Mildred? No, it is just the wind whistling...
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 11:44PM
Sorry, at best for Obama, a draw---personally, I think he got his tail handed to him. November 6 will be the day the MSM and Liberals in the US get their very well deserved paddling.
I will be eating Lemon Meringue Pie and drinking Liberal Tears.
Ich Weis| 10.17.12 @ 12:08AM
Gee DRed, our fave cigarette troll. How could Romney be a bully to big butch beer-hall putsch Candace the manly woman? Hey - I know what the difference between you and Candy Crowley is - about 10lbs.
Nancy in NC| 10.17.12 @ 8:23AM
Obama's plan...four more years of the same.
Skippy| 10.17.12 @ 12:26PM
More cowbell.
It needs a little more cowbell.
Oldefarte| 10.17.12 @ 11:56AM
No Obama is a LIAR and he lied constantly during the 90 minutes. Some don't know that because they're stupid and will again vote for him. Some do however very well NOW realize that he is a LIAR, that he does lie with a lawyer's straight face and they will not now [or again] vote for him!!!!!!!!!!!
Occam's Tool| 10.16.12 @ 10:55PM
“It is not enough merely to win; others must lose.” ― Gore Vidal
kingsmill| 10.16.12 @ 10:56PM
BHO is the affa (affirmative action) male.
Oldefarte| 10.17.12 @ 11:58AM
And in addition, he's a LIAR!!!!!!!!
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.16.12 @ 11:02PM
I prefer that they be separated. I hate when they walk toward each other in a confrontational style, trying to out-Biden Joe Biden.
I really didn't like Crowley's interjection of herself into the debate, taking it upon herself to "correct" Romney. In fact, Obama and his team took several days to drop the false videotape story.
I don't think either of them "won" in the sense that polls will be moving a whole lot. However, Obama had to come out and do BETTER than Romney, and he didn't do it. Instead, he indulged in tiresome demagoguery and told a few falsehoods.
At one point Obama said low gas prices were a result of a terrible economy. Huh? Plus he told a whopper about Arizona's immigration law. Police cannot just stop someone who looks suspicious, as Obama claimed. The law says they have to be caught doing something else before their immigration status can be checked. I wondered if Obama had actually read the bill, or whether he just glories in his ignorance.
Romney was fairly good, but not very inspiring. No reference to the founding fathers this time. I hope next time we get a better moderator and a better format. This one, aside from a couple of confrontational moments, was pretty boring.
C. Vernon Crisler | 10.16.12 @ 11:17PM
Watching Hannity. The focus group of Undecideds swung to Romney. That's a bit surprising. My view is that anyone who is undecided at this point is probably a moron, but as long as the morons don't throw all their votes to Obama, Romney may win this.
Simon Templar| 10.16.12 @ 11:27PM
Why are you so surprised? The guy did fantastic in the face of an aggressive, staked debate format and moderator who ran obvious interference for the opponent. Perhaps, this was even obvious to the so-called morons. It is these people who count, not the talking heads nor the MSM liberal corrupt elite.
JeffP| 10.16.12 @ 11:02PM
I'm sorry, yours is apparently a different debate than I saw. In the one I was watching, Obama blustered and lied his way through 90 minutes ably assisted by his minion, Candy Crowley. Meanwhile, Mitt was vacillating and timid.
"Presidential Debates" have as much in common with real debates as the WWF has with Greco-Roman wrestling. It is all for show.
Obama, for all his dissembling, was the more dominant participant, and the night was his.
Albert Constantine Jr.| 10.16.12 @ 11:07PM
I thought Obama was himself, which was to say weak when he had an opponent to look him in the eye, or counter his false assertions.
I thought Romney was good, but missed an opportunity on the assault weapons question when he didn't open with "The Presidents plan regarding AK47s is to send them all to Mexico.
CJW| 10.16.12 @ 11:19PM
Albert,
Obama drank some of Joey's Red Bull, and he was full of bull. He said he knew it was a terrorrist attack on Monday. Romney looked shocked and did not know what to say. Crowley tried to help obama by saying check the transcript. Obama did use the word terror on Monday but he did not say it was a terrorrist attack. Clinton taught us to pay attention to the words.
Now the Reps can make ads showing Obama on Letterman, the View, the UN, etc blaming the attack on the movie.
Hillary's plan worked. She took "responsibility" in a devious Clintonian (redundant) manner by saying she is responsible for the State Dept, but the security people handle security. She goaded Obama into taking responsibility.
Another win for Romney.
Crassus| 10.16.12 @ 11:08PM
The town hall format needs to be scrapped and buried. Quoth the raven, "Nevermore."
MTB| 10.16.12 @ 11:13PM
"Romney has the edge."
I hope you're right, Quin. America cannot afford 4 more years of Marxist governance. Obama & Co have to go.
David T| 10.16.12 @ 11:31PM
Romney once again had all the substance, but the fact that Obama appeared to have a pulse tonight will make him the clear winner in the eyes of the media. Plus he got a big assist from the moderator...
Red Phillips | 10.16.12 @ 11:40PM
"more forward-looking"
It's a good thing that a conservative is "more forward looking?" I think we need more back looking, back to the Constitution.
Ich Weis| 10.17.12 @ 12:10AM
Look - it was a two-to one fight with CC on BHO's side. Romney won. O's a winner in the eyes of the liberal media, but I'm being redundant.
Ross Kaminsky| 10.17.12 @ 12:14AM
I thought Romney got slightly the best of the debate, though Obama's getting the last word probably hurt Romney more than anything else Obama said during the evening.
For what it's worth, betting odds show a very slight (about 2%) increase in Obama's odds, and stock index futures have dropped from before the debate, implying that some folks think Obama did better than I think he did.
By the way, is it not remarkable that stock index futures are a good indicator of perception of a debate, and that they go up when Romney does well and down when Obama does well?
(Again, I don't think Obama beat Romney tonight, but he did a lot better than his disaster of a couple of weeks ago.)
Simon Templar| 10.17.12 @ 12:40AM
This is what some undecided people thought, not an index or a betting outlet.
http://www.theblaze.com/storie.....4bGFkrqDm-
RAM| 10.17.12 @ 8:09AM
I won't fall into the trap of naming the more artful liar as the winner. Romney provided substance and fact far more than his deceitful opponent did.
Oldefarte| 10.17.12 @ 12:09PM
Once again, any debate IMHO is partially worthless as to who best is qualified for a position. Both of these candidates previous histories should be studied by voters to determine same, but sadly that rarely occurs. Therefore debates [or minute snipits of truth] are the only vehicle used by said voters. These current debates [to someone who has stupied each's histories] are glaring neon signs on the interstate of life to me. Romney is professionally and educationally qualified to be POTUS whereas Obama is not, since the job demands an administrator or manager over this nation's government. Additionally, Obama does not desire to act as same, as his true interests lie elsewhere [maybe on a golf course or a basketball court, who knows or cares]. This country is dying and is heading for an economic brick wall at 90 MPH, and if voters don't vote in the nation's [and therefore in their own] self interest, our historical way of life as Americans will be lost forever [as with the old saying that you can't place spilled milk back into its bottle]!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!