Did you see the same debate I did last night? If so, there can be no debate Mitt Romney bested Barack Obama during their first face-to-face square-off. Yeah, square-off is a good term. Both of them looked so un-cool it was disturbing how much greyness they projected.
But getting back to their actual words, body languages and demeanors, in my assessment, without the aid of listening to or reading any of the so-called expert opinions from spinmeisters or pundits, Romney carried the night. He didn’t score an outright knockout or even a technical one, but he definitely won the first round of the debates on points. Here’s why:
For starters, Romney’s flag pin was twice the size of Obama’s. He was more animated, moving fluidly at his lectern. His helmet-hair was softer-looking, not so plastic as in prior televised events. At the start and finish of the debate, they stood shoulder to shoulder. By not being dwarfed by Obama, as John McCain was four years ago, Romney appeared the equal of the president.
Obama seemed to employ a rope-a-dope strategy with few discernible counter-punches. For example, despite repeated assertions by the former Massachusetts governor that the president cut the Medicare budget by $716 billion, Obama barely deflected the charge. It left the impression Romney was right. Here are more examples: who’s right about the tax benefits of moving a plant overseas? Obama said it was a tax dodge, Romney said in his experience as a businessman it doesn’t exist. Why didn’t Obama counter with a specific instance or tax code rule? If he’s going to make the charge, have the back-up to support it. If Romney, despite his denials, is advocating a $5 trillion tax cut, as the president says he is, why didn’t he cite specific speeches or pages on Romney’s Web site where he proposed it? Instead of referring to actions taken in 2001 and 2003, why didn’t Obama specifically link Romney by name to George W. Bush’s failed policies? When Romney accused Obama of not working with Republicans, why didn’t he counter with specific instances where Republicans failed to work with him? Often, the split TV screen showed Obama wincing or smiling, as if ready to pounce in response to one of Romney’s allegations. But his retorts were as toothless as an old lion's. He simply let Romney get away with portraying his presidency on Republican terms.
Overall, Romney came energized with statistics both to bolster his arguments and bombard Obama’s positions. Sure, some fact-checkers today will deflate Romney’s bluster. But it won’t matter, as fewer Americans will see the corrections, much as retractions to page one stories are buried deep inside newspapers. The time to poke holes in Romney’s barrage was during the debate, and Obama did not do so strongly enough. Americans want a president who will not let anyone—not al-Qaeda, Cesar Chavez or the candidate of the opposing party—push pie in their face. Obama, this morning, is wiping meringue from his.
It didn’t seem to bother Obama. He lacked passion. You can disagree with Romney all you want, but his energy and passion came through clearly. A lot of that had to do with their speaking styles. Obama was professorial, with waaaaay too many “ANDs” linking his thoughts. Nothing new to anyone who’s listened to him before. Romney channeled his bond salesman being, talking rapidly, with conviction. You gotta buy this option or your future is bleak, Romney was saying.
It was a disheartening performance by Obama, especially in light of the resounding rebuttal Bill Clinton provided at the Democratic National Convention. If Obama wants to win, he must alter his approach. He must reveal a passion for a vision of America that he, not Romney, can provide.
