P.S.
Make no mistake; Mr Obama is again disinterested, uninvolved and arrogant. When the New York Times writes a piece like this, you know the brass is tarnishing rapidly:
Obama’s Enthusiasm Gap:
All the post-game punditry aside, President Obama didn’t really blow Wednesday night’s debate in any spectacular or memorable way, the way George H.W. Bush glanced at his watch, or the way Al Gore sighed dramatically. Mr. Obama’s transgression was that he seemed to simply endure it. It was as if he had turned to his advisers at some point and said, “OK, I’ll show up at this thing with Mitt, but I am not getting drawn into some kind of debate.”
In this way, Mr. Obama’s performance, the first of three in any event, probably didn’t change the essential arc of the campaign, which was always going to tighten in the final month. But it did tell us something about what many feel is missing from his presidency.
Watching the president grimace his way through the restrained back-and-forth reminded me of a conversation I recently had with a friend in Democratic politics, who posited that Mr. Obama simply doesn’t love being president. Not that he doesn’t want the job or believe he should have it, or that its challenges don’t give him plenty of cause for stress or solemnity — just that he doesn’t appear to actually enjoy the daily business of running the country.
Mr Obama is better than this, better than you, better than me, better than all of us. And we’d damned well best realize it.
I thought the format accomplished its purpose, which was to facilitate direct, extended exchanges between the candidates about issues of substance. Part of my moderator mission was to stay out of the way of the flow and I had no problems with doing so. My only real personal frustration was discovering that ninety minutes was not enough time in that more open format to cover every issue that deserved attention.
I have to agree. One important duty of a moderator is to “get out of the way” of the candidates.
In my opinion, Mr Romney made any number of statements regarding facts that Mr Obama simply did not refute. Obama obfuscated and changed topic.
Romney: “We know that the path we are taking is not working.”
Bingo.
Mr Romney proved that he has so much more experience than Mr Obama as to be ludicrous. As governor; as a businessman; as a meeter-of-budgets; as a job creator; as a private business owner; as a manager; as a LEADER.
In this first debate, I would give a serious nudge to Mitt Romney as a winner; Obama stood tall but he fell back on repeated statement with few facts. Both men withheld themselves. Obama emphasized he was a fighter for the Middle Class. But that was a massively hollow argument when his actions prove that he couldn’t quite care less about the Middle Class. The only thing about “class” Mr Obama understands is that of CLASS WARFARE.
A brief bit of Roaming Through History with presidential debates:
Clinton’s “debate moment” against GHW Bush:
Al Gore, in 2000, tries to physically intimidate George Bush during the debate by violating his personal space:
Here, Obama kicks John McCain to the curb (truly, not too terribly difficult, considering):
I repeat: Romney ahead. He kept composure and fought with facts. He came out more aggressively than I suspected he would — and good for him.
Obama, when confronted with actual FACTS — as I insisted Romney do — Mr Obama had little if any cogent retort. He seemed to be intensely scrutinizing his notes many times, head down.
I repeat: kill Obama with nothing more than FACTS.
Leftists.
Leftists.
Leftists.
Leftists.
Make Barack Hussein Obama “hit the road” in twenty-seven days.
