Did you watch the first presidential debate? If you didn’t, you missed out. Wednesday night’s debate at the University of Denver could well mark a turning point in the campaign. For the past month Mitt Romney has been lagging in key swing state polls. (Most states are either red or blue, meaning they contain a majority of Democrats or Republicans and will almost certainly cast their delegates for their respective candidates. Only a few “swing” states are truly undecided). In addition, Romney was hurt by a leaked video of him speaking at a private fundraiser. His remarks were controversial and hurt him in several important states. In fact it seemed like President Barack Obama would be coasting to victory for the next month.
Obviously, I wasn’t so thrilled with the prospect of another four years with Obama, but whether or not you want Obama or Romney to be president, its hard to believe that after Wednesday night Obama can still turn on cruise control and slide into his next term.
As I watched the debates, it seemed like President Obama just did not want to be there. He sounded flat and frequently stammered. Commentators on television remarked after the debate that Obama sounded too professorial. Some even said that he came off as preachy and pretentious. Although both candidates had problems with the substance of their debate (just check out factcheck.org), Romney made the better case when it came to substance. At one point, Obama claimed that Romney’s tax plan would cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans by $5 trillion. Romney responded to this accusation by simply calling it false. When the President tried the same attack again, Romney responded by saying that if he says that this isn’t part of his plan, then he won’t do it as president. To me, this made Obama look bad.
After last night’s debate I, along with other Republicans, can renew my hope in this election. Romney seemed like a reasonable person, and the points he made were clear and, for the most part, easy to follow. Meanwhile, President Obama was hard to understand and had a hard time attacking Romney effectively.
What did you think of the first debate? Can Romney keep his momentum alive? What about the next debate; will Obama make a comeback? Who will prevail in the vice presidential debates, Paul Ryan or Joe Biden?
Ethan Brown • Oct 8, 2012 at 5:23 pm
Thank you Alicia for your comment. This was an issue I should have addressed in the article, but I will do so now.
In response to your comment Alicia, I did search the statistic you cited and found an article from thinkprogress.org, a self described liberal blog.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
This site is clearly partisan. The article accuses Romney of lying no less than 27 times, but doesn’t even mention a misleading statement by the President. Many of Romney’s 27 “lies” are simply not lies. In fact one of them, the “lie” that Romney would not give the wealthy a $5 trillion tax cut, has been judged by media such as CNN that President Obama’s accusation was a half truth and that Romney’s defense (that he does not have such a plan) was true.
While there is nothing wrong with an opinionated blog, factchecking should be left to unbiased organizations such as factcheck.org or politifact. It makes sense to trust such organizations because they make an effort to be unbiased and fair.
Factcheck.org on the first presidential debate:
http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
Alicia, while your impression of Romney is perfectly sound, I would recommend that you use an unbiased organization like factcheck or politifact. You will find that both candidates are guilty of truth bending.
Alicia • Oct 7, 2012 at 6:15 pm
Romney may have sounded good during the debate, but the fact-checkers got him afterward. One group (and you can Google it if you’re interested) counted 27 LIES in 38 minutes. I’d be surprised if that weren’t some kind of record. Think about sports: if a player cheats or does something he or she shouldn’t, that player may be taken out of the game, and the team may be penalized. Sadly, politics (which affects all of us, instead of just fans or teams) is a different game; it’s the only one I can think of where the players are frequently rewarded for telling lies and stepping on others.
In politicians’ defense, I believe that most people go into politics with good intentions – with the belief that they can make their town/state/country a “better place” (whatever “better place” means to the candidate) – but I don’t think that Romney knows what he stands for. For a while, it looked to me like he was choosing his position on issues by trying to be the opposite of Obama; anything Obama was for, Romney was against. And, without making any Etch-A-Sketch jokes, I’d mention that at the debate it seemed like Romney couldn’t even stick with positions he had held (and stated publicly) in the past.
I agree that Obama’s performance was weak, but when you look at the substance of what was said it’s more like a draw; it’s time we stop calling Romney a “winner,” or else look forward to having a con-man for a president.