OKAY! Debate #1 was last night. How did it go?
Well for starters, full disclosure: I am a registered Republican, but not a fan
of either candidate. I have not been
happy with some of President Obama’s policies, in particular his handling of
foreign affairs. I don’t like his
playing with our civil liberties as if he’s King of the Mountain. Asserting his
right to order the death of any and all Americans he deems “terrorists,” with
no due process (bad precedent to set, yes?), is right at the top of the list. He is also killing thousands of innocent women and children with his massively under-reported drone war in Waziristan (NW territory of Pakistan). And the calamity that is his botched handling
(some say outright lies) of the terrorist attack on the US Embassy in
Benghazi makes me want to punch something.
There are a number of moral issues in play with the president's foreign affairs, and that pretty much makes him a no-go as far as I'm concerned. I have already discussed the health care situation in previous posts, so
please feel free to peruse them if you have any interest.
Mitt Romney has been an empty shirt. I have referred to him several times as 2012’s
John Kerry. Essentially a suit with a
spray tan, great smile, and not much else.
I’ve never doubted his business acumen, he has a reputation of strong
business skills, knowledge and intellect - if he were not a Mormon, he would
have been the VP candidate for McCain in ’08. I generally ignore the Bain Capital garbage
because anyone who’s ever invested in any company has contributed to the
closing of failing businesses and lost jobs.
I will say Bain’s willingness to support a failing company long enough
to secure loans and extended financing – and then let the failing company fail
anyway, pocketing the difference as profit on the failure – does give me some
pause, but it’s not an uncommon business tactic for corporate raiders. Sad but true.
But on the whole, I haven’t seen anything from Romney that tells me I
should vote for him – rather, I’m wishing in general that both candidates would
stop giving me reasons to NOT vote for them.
My candidate would be a cross between Jill Stein (Green Party, Mass.)
and Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party, NM).
But neither of them will win, so we’ll just move on. On to the debate…
Jim Lehrer
retired from doing debate moderating after the 2008 debates, only to be lured back by the prospects of
a different, not often used format: Six
segments on separate-but-related topics of domestic policy. 2-minute answer, 2-minute response, and then
an 11-minute free flow discussion, with the candidates handling the discussion
on their own – with Lehrer cutting into to move the discussion along or move on
to the next segment. Nice idea, gives
the candidates a chance to riff off of each other. But ultimately we got a back and forth of
repeating themselves like broken records, and each one cutting off Lehrer when
he tried to manage the time. Lehrer
liked the format because he likes “officiating,” rather than dictating the
discussion. So he did give them leeway
when they cut him off, provided they stayed at least in the ballpark of “on
topic.” The problem with this, is it limited his ability to inject new questions into the discussion, often only asking how one candidate's view differ from the other one. And because they focused so heavily on the fiscal, domestic social issues were left out, like gay marriage, abortion, contraception, and immigration (hopefully, the town-hall format on the 16th at Hofstra will allow audience members to inject some of these topics into the debate). The free discussion was just
asking for the time to get away from them, and it eventually did. They ended up with only THREE total minutes
between both candidates to discuss their views on partisan gridlock. I personally think this was the most
important issue on the docket, as it has frozen our country in it’s tracks – if
they can’t fix that, their views on anything else are irrelevant, because the
next four years will be the same as the last four, and we can’t afford
that. So I’m sure I’m not alone in
thinking that 90 seconds apiece usually gets you nothing of substance. So Lehrer, while relatively successful in
keeping them talking, let the time get away – the only real “failure” in his
moderation. For a format that was
sure to cause this problem, he did okay.
Grade: B-
Barack Obama did
not want to be in the room last night. I’ve
always gotten the impression from him that he just tolerates people – he doesn’t
want to justify himself to anyone, and his attitude betrays that. You can see this same attitude in many of his
press conferences. He just looks offended
that someone calls him out to account for anything. I’ve often wondered if he likes the power and
title and of President of the United States, but doesn’t really want the job. He spent most of the debate looking down at
his podium, appearing to take notes. But
as predictable as most of the answers were going to be, I suspect he may have
just been doodling… or playing Sudoku… or a crossword. He was completely disengaged, and he kept
giving that now very well known smile of condescension he gives while looking
down, when he disagrees with something someone says. You know, that “Oh-aren’t-you-cute-with-the-thinkin’“
smile. He did the exact same thing to
John McCain in the 2008 debate. That
attitude didn’t hurt him in 2008 because people didn’t know him yet, and McCain
wasn’t going to win the election. Bush
had soured so much of the country on the Republican party that all Obama had to
do was not give them ammunition that could be used against him. Very little vetting of him was done in ’08,
and so little was known about who he really was, that they didn’t have much to
go after him with. How do argue against “HOPE
and CHANGE”? There was simply no where
to go, and McCain was fighting a losing battle, unable to shed the coattail of
Bush. But it’s 2012, there’s now 3½
years of his decisions and policies and actions (and inactions) to hit him
with, and he simply doesn’t want to justify himself. Instead of attacking Romney on philosophical
things that were supposed to hang him out to dry (Bain Capital, the 47%
comment, etc.), Obama kept bringing up the same "$5 trillion in tax cuts, $1
trillion in extending the Bush tax cuts, and $2 trillion in military spending “that
the military didn’t even ask for.” Even
when Romney rebutted him, he just kept saying the same thing over and
over. With every repetitive rebuttal,
Romney’s position bolstered. He couldn’t
have helped Romney more. Major debate no
no – try it once, but never give your opponent a chance to strengthen his
position. Ironically, that last 3 minutes, that normally
would give no room for substance, was the only substance (albeit minimal) to
come out of the debate, because it was about philosophy and mindset. Romney stated that, as Governor of
Massachusetts, 87% of his legislature were Democrats – but he still managed to
accomplish a lot by getting them to work with him and the Republicans to move
the state forward. What was Obama’s
response? After saying he listens to all
suggestions that come his way, and another 45 seconds about the handful of
successes, he said “…occasionally you have to say no.” He quickly added “…to folks, both in your own
party and in the other party.” The sentiment
reminded me immediately of his first State of the Union, when he told the
country that if he doesn’t get what he wants from Congress, he’ll issue
executive orders. He has said he’ll go
it alone many times, and that attitude has cost him in his first term. His obvious disinterest in this debate
showed, and he angered even his own party with it. This was supposed to separate the men from
the boys. He was supposed to run Romney
over and end the election right now. In
that endeavor, he could not have done worse.
Grade: C-
Mitt Romney was
not supposed to even be in this, let alone perform well. In the last two weeks, I heard and read many
comments from the DNC and Obama himself, attempting to pump up expectations for
Romney (calling him a masterful and skilled debater) and lower them for the
president (saying he was an okay debater, and was practicing hard to compete well). Not caring about either candidate, I laughed
it off as posturing for the sake of gamesmanship. I was wrong.
Romney came out swinging and swinging hard. His points also lacked the same substance as Obama’s,
but in presentation of canned rhetoric and live stump speech and ad quotes, he
could not have performed better. While
the president looked down at his podium dismissively, Romney maintained
consistent eye contact, attempting to engage the president over and over,
despite Obama’s unwillingness to be engaged.
Romney did dismiss Lehrer a couple of times when Lehrer tried to move
along – likely unintentional, but no less unprofessional, and easily corrected
before the next debate. He clearly
relished Obama gift-wrapping him those repetitive rebuttals, growing more
confident, pointed and determined with each one. He lucked out, Obama never forcing him into
discussions about Bain or the 47%, although it probably good that Obama left
the 47% thing alone. Giving Romney
another rebuttal to knock out of the park (and you know he had one) would have
just bitten him in the rear again – and Obama’s too slender for that many
bites. If he wins the election, Romney
owes a Director of Communications job to whoever is schooling him, especially
if he can deliver in the next two debates.
Not a fan of his, but Romney owned Obama last night – one hell of a job,
and his polls and money will likely reflect that. And worse for Obama, the Foreign Policy
debate will give Romney a Gallagher-size Sledge-O-Matic to hammer him
with. This election was supposed to be
over last night – clearly, it just started. Grade: A
Debates are never a place to go for substance. If you’ve seen their advertising campaigns, you
generally have already seen the debate.
The hitch in this year’s set up is the format. The 11-minute discussion period gives a hefty
load of leeway for riffing off each other and jabs. The substance overall will likely still lack,
but they’ve found a way to possibly make it interesting. I wasn’t looking forward to this debate – I had
to convince myself to watch it, in fact – but I am looking forward to the next
one. And I am really looking forward to
the VP debate next week (nine 10-minute segments) – who knows what comes out of Joe Biden’s mouth with
this open format…
No comments:
Post a Comment