According to a recent CNN poll, 67% thought Romney won and 25% thought Obama won the debate. The consensus is staggering. Even hard liberals like Chris Matthews and Andrew Sullivan have strongly condemned Obama for his poor performance.
Why did he do so badly? Well, Al Gore thinks it’s because of the altitude. Yup. Perhaps it’s also because he didn’t eat his Trix cereal for breakfast.
Whatever the reason was, it seems Obama is back in his game as he attacks Mitt Romney for being a liar about the $5 trillion tax cut. A stark contrast from the “nice-guy” approach he took last night.
Joe Biden blatantly admitted that he wanted to raise taxes by $1 trillion! Wow.
Personal Thoughts: I looked forward to this debate, but I didn’t have high expectations. Political debates from both parties tend to be smearing campaigns, not campaigns that reach out to the public through intellectual and moral arguments. However, this time I think both Romney and Obama were less antagonistic toward each other here. This is a good thing because I’d much rather there first be a debate on the principles and later if necessary, a debate on the person’s record and competence for achieving those principles.
It is my judgement that Romney destroyed Obama in this debate, but feel free to judge the video for yourself. I think we should all keep in mind, however, that winning a debate is not necessarily equivalent to being right on the issues. Winning the battle does not always mean that you are winning the war. Personally though, I think Romney defended the principles of conservatism rather well. Not just because he won in style, as some liberals have downplayed this victory as, but also because his principles just make much more sense than Obama’s principles. You can dispute some of the data as some so-called “fact checkers” will do, but I am with Bryan Preston when he says Obama “was Incoherent Because His Ideas Stink”.
At the same time, I do think it’s fair to say that performance had something to do with this. Obama could have been stronger rhetorically, more confident, and more focused. If he had done those things, it would’ve been a less clear victory on the rhetorical front. However, I think it remains true that his ideas are simply indefensible when you analyze it apart from the rhetoric and the twisted facts. The ideas themselves just necessarily entail the kind of problems that we have now. Unfortunately, some of these ideas have also been advanced by republicans. So if anything, both parties are responsible and I hope that both parties can work together to fix this.
What are your thoughts on this debate?