Thursday, October 4, 2012
Posted in
Politics
|
I don't usually comment on current events in this blog, but I feel the need to publish my analysis of the first debate between Obama and Romney, which occurred on October 3, 2012.
The general consensus is that Romney won the debate, and in certain respects I agree. There are some obvious reasons for that: Obama was rusty, not having debated in four years. Obama is a man given to complicated ruminations, not to quick one-liners and sound bites. On the other hand, Romney was well practiced, having debated 22 times over the last year. Also, Romney, as the challenger, was perhaps hungrier for a win, and therefore was highly motivated. Indeed, he struck me as something of a pit bull in the debate.
But there was more going on than that. Romney is a liar. He has been lying about the issues for the entire campaign (as I detail in another article). It is very hard to debate a person who makes up his own facts and refuses to acknowledge the truth. For example, Obama repeatedly said that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion. Romney denied it, but according to a bipartisan fact-checking organization (the Tax Policy Center), it's true. (The actual figure is $4.8 trillion, so Obama was rounding it up.)
Here are some other lies that Romney told: He said that 23 million people are out of work (the actual number is about half of that). He said that an unelected panel will determine the kinds of treatments that people will receive under Medicare (the purpose of the panel is to keep costs down, and it won't dictate types of treatments). Romney said his own health plan covers pre-existing conditions (his plan only covers pre-existing conditions for people changing jobs, but that is already part of the law).
Romney has not revealed the details about his economic or health plans. How could Obama be expected to effectively refute Romney's plans when Romney won't be specific about them? For example, Romney won't tell us how he will pay for the $4.8 trillion in tax cuts without eliminating almost every tax deduction that the middle class now enjoys.
Another factor in the debate was that Romney is a moving target. What I mean is that Romney keeps changing his positions, so it's hard to pin him down. In fact, he changed a couple of his positions in the week before the debate. For example, Romney has been saying for the entire campaign that he will give everyone a 20% tax cut, including the rich. But during the debate he said that he would not lower taxes on the rich. So which is it? The explanation, it seems, is Romney will eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich, but there aren't enough tax loopholes to offset a 20% tax cut.
In deciding who won the debate, we need to look closer at the purpose of presidential debates. Is the purpose to look good and impress the public with one's aggressive demeanor, or is the purpose to discuss the issues and illuminate the differences between the candidates? Unfortunately, there are many voters who are more interested in being impressed than in the positions of the candidates. I call this the "American Idol" approach to electing a president: the candidate who gives the best performance wins, even if he has the wrong ideas. And since Romney gave the best performance (superficially, at least), there is no doubt that he gained votes during the first debate.
However, there was less substance to what Romney said than what Obama said. Romney lied, as he always does; and he denied the truth, as he always does; and he refused to be specific, as he always does. Romney is a slippery eel, and Obama can't be blamed if he couldn't pin Romney down. Romney may have been quick with his answers, but his answers had little substance and often contained distortions of the facts.
Obama needs some slack in another area as well: Obama couldn't act too aggressively because it might be perceived as un-Presidential. He couldn't, for example, call Romney a liar. Even if it's true that Romney is a liar, it would have been perceived as partisan for Obama to say that. So Obama's hands were tied.
For all these reasons, I think the debate was at least a tie, and Obama may have been the winner.
The general consensus is that Romney won the debate, and in certain respects I agree. There are some obvious reasons for that: Obama was rusty, not having debated in four years. Obama is a man given to complicated ruminations, not to quick one-liners and sound bites. On the other hand, Romney was well practiced, having debated 22 times over the last year. Also, Romney, as the challenger, was perhaps hungrier for a win, and therefore was highly motivated. Indeed, he struck me as something of a pit bull in the debate.
But there was more going on than that. Romney is a liar. He has been lying about the issues for the entire campaign (as I detail in another article). It is very hard to debate a person who makes up his own facts and refuses to acknowledge the truth. For example, Obama repeatedly said that Romney wants to cut taxes by $5 trillion. Romney denied it, but according to a bipartisan fact-checking organization (the Tax Policy Center), it's true. (The actual figure is $4.8 trillion, so Obama was rounding it up.)
Here are some other lies that Romney told: He said that 23 million people are out of work (the actual number is about half of that). He said that an unelected panel will determine the kinds of treatments that people will receive under Medicare (the purpose of the panel is to keep costs down, and it won't dictate types of treatments). Romney said his own health plan covers pre-existing conditions (his plan only covers pre-existing conditions for people changing jobs, but that is already part of the law).
Romney has not revealed the details about his economic or health plans. How could Obama be expected to effectively refute Romney's plans when Romney won't be specific about them? For example, Romney won't tell us how he will pay for the $4.8 trillion in tax cuts without eliminating almost every tax deduction that the middle class now enjoys.
Another factor in the debate was that Romney is a moving target. What I mean is that Romney keeps changing his positions, so it's hard to pin him down. In fact, he changed a couple of his positions in the week before the debate. For example, Romney has been saying for the entire campaign that he will give everyone a 20% tax cut, including the rich. But during the debate he said that he would not lower taxes on the rich. So which is it? The explanation, it seems, is Romney will eliminate some tax loopholes for the rich, but there aren't enough tax loopholes to offset a 20% tax cut.
In deciding who won the debate, we need to look closer at the purpose of presidential debates. Is the purpose to look good and impress the public with one's aggressive demeanor, or is the purpose to discuss the issues and illuminate the differences between the candidates? Unfortunately, there are many voters who are more interested in being impressed than in the positions of the candidates. I call this the "American Idol" approach to electing a president: the candidate who gives the best performance wins, even if he has the wrong ideas. And since Romney gave the best performance (superficially, at least), there is no doubt that he gained votes during the first debate.
However, there was less substance to what Romney said than what Obama said. Romney lied, as he always does; and he denied the truth, as he always does; and he refused to be specific, as he always does. Romney is a slippery eel, and Obama can't be blamed if he couldn't pin Romney down. Romney may have been quick with his answers, but his answers had little substance and often contained distortions of the facts.
Obama needs some slack in another area as well: Obama couldn't act too aggressively because it might be perceived as un-Presidential. He couldn't, for example, call Romney a liar. Even if it's true that Romney is a liar, it would have been perceived as partisan for Obama to say that. So Obama's hands were tied.
For all these reasons, I think the debate was at least a tie, and Obama may have been the winner.
0 comments:
Post a Comment