I have to part ways from the professional cheerleaders in the “conservative” movement regarding the debate. I thought Obama did OK and didn’t appear too frustrated or annoyed, has often has. Far from being some effective show of aggressiveness, I think Romney’s talking at Obama is not effective; it’s not like he’s going to convince *him*. He’d be better off looking into camera and talking to American people. It shows the kind of cool, professional confidence we want in a president, and it also embraces a basic principle of rhetorcial ethics, i.e., the avoidance of ad hominems or the perception of the same, and the key focus always being on the good of the audience.
The China borrowing quotewas good, as was his appeal to his own bipartisan experience in Mass. And he was at his best when addressing the disastrous money giveaway that is Obama’s green jobs program. But I also thought that Romney had plenty of opportunities to hammer a point home, and instead went into wonkish territory. He rarely brought his diversions into heavy policy talk back to general principles by using short and memorable sentences. Obama did the same thing, but that’s always been his schtick, and his biggest problem, a huge gap of his record and his promises, was not emphasized enough.
Romney should have hammered the “You had four years” point more than
he did and blamed the President more for the horrendously bad economy as a direct consequence of Obama’s policies. He also did terrible on the question of regulation, but his point on bank regulation was not too bad. He should have used it to contrast systemic failures and the unique role of banking in a free market from more paternalistic regulations, such as banning sodas and messing with school lunch programs. It would have been nice if Romney appealed to Richard Epstein’s distinction of rules that seek to control the content of the traffic (i.e., Solyndra) from mere rules of the road (Dodd Frank).
Romney did OK and many say he won, but I don’t think it was nearly as decisive as needed, and I don’t think Obama did as bad as he could have. And I say this, of course, as someone who wants to see Obama lose and who plans to vote for Romney, in spite of his manifold flaws.
Subscribe To This Feed
I think it was a pretty convincing win, although I agree it wasn’t the complete slaughter that the media is reporting. It coverage keeps up in this vein though it will have the same effect. I think that one of the biggest reasons Romney appeared so good is that the last presidential debates have featured McCain, Bush, and Dole. By contrast he does look like Cicero. Another reason Romney looked good is because Obama has been built up as modern history’s greatest orator, so outperforming Obama makes him look even better.
That said, I think Romney won more on aesthetics than points. If we just looked at a transcript of the debate, it would certainly be much tougher to call a clear winner. It would also be a very boring and unenlightening read by the way. Obama’s less fluid speech, tired tone, and bored/annoyed facial expressions looked bad in comparison. He even had a few good quips that fell flat simply because of presentation.
In general I would agree with you that a presidential candidate should directly address the people more so than his opponent, but in this case I think I disagree. Obama is not used to people addressing him in a confrontational manner. He usually is at the receiving end of only light and indirect criticism, which enables him do his usual schtick of respectfully acknowledging the opposing argument, rephrasing it to suit his purposes, and then answering the rephrased argument. With Romney both directly addressing him in a confrontational manner and controlling the pace of the debate, Obama was clearly frustrated by his inability to do his trick, and when he did try it, it appeared as if he was conceding the points. Even more damagingly, his concessions to Romney (i.e. admitting that he doesn’t want to dismantle social security) sabotaged the negative image of Romney that Democrats have been carefully crafting in attack ads.
The debate reminded me that Obama isn’t as much of a lightweight as he is sometimes portrayed in the conservative media. Although not the genius he is portrayed as in the liberal media, he is indeed a pretty smart person. But, the messianic treatment he has received has ill-prepared him for vigorous debate. Ironically, he was lifted up to the presidency by this adulation and special treatment, but it left him ill-prepared for a serious challenge like this. We will certainly see the true measure of Obama in how he responds at the next debate. I am almost hoping that he rebounds and shows a strong response, because that will mean that there was always more to him than an empty suit propelled to the presidency by warm-fuzzies.
to be fair it’s not just conservative movement types saying Romney won. it was pretty much unanimous, and liberals were upset with Obama’s performance. Romney’s seen a tick up in the polls already (although it’s still very close obviously — but Rasmussen has him slightly ahead for the first time in forever)
i was a little surprised myself because i listened to the debate on the radio and thought Obama scored some good points. watching some of it later, i think the demeanor of both definitely helped Romney — Obama didn’t look particularly invested in anything, and he kept looking down/looking sort of sheepish whenever Romney was talking