Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Presidential debate’

The third presidential debate is now history.  I have to admit the three presidential debates were actually decent debates – a bit more energetic, a chance for some good back and forth discussions, and finally a chance for Mitt Romney to illustrate the differences between him and Obama.  The third debate was focused on foreign policy, and you would expect the President to have the upper hand here.  First of all, he has 4 more years of on the job experience dealing with world issues, as well as privileged information from many security briefings.  Out of all three debates, I saw this one as the most favorable for an Obama win.  Obama improved from debate one to debate two (which was something he could have done by just waking up), and he did seem more energetic in the third. But – he still did not deliver anything close to a knock out – nor did he win.

It appeared in this final debate, up 2 to 0, Romney decided to be a bit calmer, play prevent defense and protect the lead.  He pushed back on a few issues, but for the most part wasn’t as aggressive as in the first two.  He also came across more presidential – which in turn made Obama seem more like the challenger.  Obama again kept trying to explain what Romney’s positions are by misrepresenting specifics.  I found this quite annoying as he would spend more time on that then explaining his own policy?  I must say, that overall, Obama did hold his own in this debate, but I still would give the win to Romney – a close call, but a win none the less.

The spin rooms and fact checkers lit up cyberspace with tons of information – and this was something I found to be the most intriguing about the debates.  Go back to Round 2 – right after the comment around “act of terror” the day after Benghazi in the Rose Garden speech – I’d say it wasn’t more than 45 secs or so after that comment a tweet hit the airwaves linking the full transcript – Romney was correct.  Similarly in round three – Romney did indicate he supported government guarantees on loans for GM as they emerged from bankruptcy (had Obama not bailed them out), Obama vehemently denied that Romney would support this.  The op-ed piece was pushed to the airwaves in minutes – Romney correct again.  Obama’s “facts” were full of holes.  I don’t understand why a good portion of Americans do not take a moment to look through the lies, the misinformation that is being thrown about by the Democratic party machine that is desperate to stay in power.  Misinforming the country about Mitt’s position is disdainful, but look at the pattern within this administration – misinformation on Benghazi is reprehensible.  Based on everything I’ve read, it seems to be very clear the attack in Benghazi was pre-planned and carried out by skillful militia with knowledge in setting mortar trajectories.  This attack was certainly not spontaneous, not a riot due to a YouTube video (that had been posted 6 months prior).  It wasn’t a carry over from the Cairo protests – which also weren’t about the film but about releasing prisoners.  The truths are being redirected by this Administration in an attempt to spin the events into a new story line most favorable to Obama.  It’s time to STOP this madness.

I’m hoping change will come on Nov 6 which will bring back truth and integrity to the American people – and to the world.

Read Full Post »

Well – spin this as you might, but judging from the various reactions of the “non-spinners”, I do believe Mitt pulled off another victory.  I do agree President Obama  did step it up a notch for this debate, and he had a couple of moments, although I don’t know I remember what they were.  I certainly don’t think responding to everything your opponent just said as “none of that is true” each time it’s your turn is a proper debating technique.  Obama was weak on energy and taxes, and did not provide any convincing argument around fixing the economy.  The interesting thing about Obama is he did seem to get into a better groove towards the end of the debate.  His tirade on his activities around Libya and his bravado that the buck stops with him seem to give him more energy and confidence, but he never answered the question asked of him about the refusal to provide additional security – or if you take his answer as what he actually said – security was refused and its his fault because he was responsible.  He forfeited his final statement of the debate by not taking an opportunity to again answer the question posed.  Instead he chose to bring up the 47% statement of Romney and continued his negative attack.  The question posed offered Obama a chance to counter how his opponents are portraying him and to talk about himself in a positive light – maybe he just didn’t have anything he could say? Romney had a number of good moments, challenging the President on drilling permits for oil and natural gas production on federal lands and laying out the litany of failures of the President over the past four years.  I think the moderator tripped up Mitt a bit with the unusual “life line” she threw Obama on the “act of terror” comment – which in the end, Mitt was actually correct.  Mitt lost the opportunity at that moment to slam Obama on the continued confusion the administration has created over the terrible Benghazi attack.  One other thought – the questions chosen were a bit lame and I really think they should give the debaters 3 minutes each instead of the two.  I did not like this debate as much as the first.

We do have a big choice ahead of us – and let me stop for a moment and say, I do believe Obama is a good man, father, and husband.  I’ve always thought he was intelligent and a skilled campaigner.  My biggest concern with Obama is his inexperience as a leader.  It shows he does not have what it takes to be a good, strong leader – a leader that has the skills to bring opposing ideas together in a way that develops a new approach to solving the most difficult issues.  He’s a smart man, who promised hope and change and was skilled at least at selling that “product”.  He just did not deliver – you can’t step into the job of POTUS and learn leadership skills “on the job”.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney HAS leadership skills.  He is driven to succeed at what ever he takes on.  He does understand the private sector – he must, given his success.  Knowing how to examine a business, understand its strengths and weaknesses, and devise a path to improve the health of that business is what Mitt has been doing.  We can not stay on the path we are on for another four years.  A change must be made now in the course of America before it’s too late.  We need to change direction quickly and decisively to keep this grand experiment, the United States, alive and growing.

Read Full Post »

What an event!  Anticipation had been building for weeks – the first of a three game series.  There had been lots of trash talk going on for the month leading into the event – name calling, accusations, misrepresentations.  One team was seen as having an edge, favored to win – even though the past month had been kind of tough.  The other team, looking at reality, determined to minimize damages and lower expectations, took up the role as underdog.  The night arrived and both teams prepped, scrimmages against surrogates, and practiced their one liners.  Obama won the coin toss and chose to take the first question – and it went down hill from there.

The debate actually was one of the better ones in recent years.  While Jim Lehrer had difficulties keeping the two warriors on track, the exchange of wit and wisdom was exciting.  Romney took the ball and went on the offensive – he explained his position clearly, and the scene morphed into that of a teacher lecturing his student.  Throughout the duration of the debate, Romney remained energetic and on the offensive.  Obama struggled less the teleprompter, and repeating his 30 sec commercial sound bites became monotonous.  Rhetoric vs sensible explanations wins every time.  When the dust settled, and the last word spoken, it was a very clear win for the challenger – delivering at a level beyond expectations.  Time of possession favored the incumbent (42 min, 40 sec), versus the 38 min, 14 sec for Romney.  Romney did have more words though…

For those on the fence, this must have been able to push them over to the Romney camp – if they listened and watched carefully.  Even the liberal media conceded the win to Mitt – and immediately looked for who or what to blame on his poor performance.  Al Gore contributed his poor performance to the Denver thin air (interesting as it appeared Romney was breathing the same thin air).  Others wondered if he was distracted by something – his anniversary, pressing Presidential duties (next visit to The View), something had him off his game.  I’m waiting for this to be George’s fault!

The key plays of the night:

When Mitt asked Obama why he spent his first two years shoving Obamacare legislation down the throats of congress instead of focusing on jobs – given the President “inherited” such a messed up economy.

When Mitt explained how he worked across the aisle in Massachusetts where he faced an 87% democratic majority.

When Mitt asked why Obama did nothing with the Simpson-Boles legislation when it was presented – why did he not lead and bring the parties together to work out the differences.

When Obama reached out to Jim to move on to the next topic when he had no answers to Mitt’s questions – when he really couldn’t defend his rhetoric.

The choice was never made clearer in this first debate – Mitt Romney wants to help this country get back on track, and he has the experience and drive to make it happen.  One down, two more to go (plus the VP debate – which also is going to be quite entertaining!).  I’m looking forward to the next game – Obama has a lot of work to do if he thinks he can even this series up.

Read Full Post »