Mitt Romney, disguised as Little Sir Echo, flew into the presidential debate on the wings of a
dove. Mitt Romney etched a sketch as only wanting peace as he tried to avoid being branded Mr. Bluster and Blundering Interventionist War Monger ("bellicose" was the Democrat's operative code word pre debate). Obama was ready for him and pinned him on his frequent
metamorphoses and initial wrong headed judgment calls that he changed later to agree with
the President. We are asked to trust Romney? We should wonder which Romney will show up if he makes it to the White House? Will he bring his neo-con advisers with him, the same ones that talked us into invading Iraq? With no firm commitment to any policy, unless it benefits him at the moment, how can we be sure he would not flip back to the neo con position later?
The President presented the voters with the choice between more military spending or more domestic spending and investment and he presented himself as a dependable, steady hand on the wheel that has been consistent since day one.
It will take a few days for us to see how the polls play out and whether it will make any difference. Common wisdom is that voters do not care about foreign policy this year (it is indeed the economy) and that challengers have an advantage because they can make wilder accusations since they are not bound by being knowledgeable about state secrets or responsible for official policy. However, Obama did succeed in tying foreign policy to domestic economic issues of prime interest to voters and in that regard he may have pulled off a coup.
If Obama can stress these points,(cannot trust him; need nation building at home ) in ads and every opportunity he can in the next two weeks, it might make a difference. The time clock is running and the two minute drill is needed,
Pres. Obama dominated the debate by using every opportunity to anticipate well publicized GOP criticisms and to make pre emptive strikes, bringing up the topic first , making his case, and forcing Romney to respond. Romney was left either agreeing or splitting some hairs, and sometimes just repeating the talking points for which he had prepared in advance.
Obama's strategy was most evident in his personalized riff on Israel , showing empathy and reaffirming the US would defend Israel if Iran attacked.. Obama's unkindest dig at Romney occurred when he recalled his trip to Israel as a candidate almost as if it were a pilgrimage while he contrasted his visit with Romney who had treated his recent trip like a campaign fund raiser. For those not following the preceding campaign back and forth on Israel, they may have wondered why the attention. It had much to do with the Florida east coast vote and Jewish support elsewhere.
If Obama accomplished anything with his strong performance, it was to make GOP attack lines ring hollow that he was leading by behind. He made a strong case for his accomplishments, made it clear he knew where he was going and what he intended to do. By being an echo, Romney looked like he was the one leading from behind Obama..
Some lines of the debates were more about Ohio and women than they were about foreign policy. The issue of interest to the Midwest is indeed saving the auto industry. The question raised is whether or not Romney had asked for government underwriting of bankruptcy, If he had, it was a startling fact never before disclosed to the public or even mentioned by Romney before this debate or in his infamous op ed in the New York Times headlined with “let them go bankrupt” .
The President presented the voters with the choice between more military spending or more domestic spending and investment and he presented himself as a dependable, steady hand on the wheel that has been consistent since day one.
It will take a few days for us to see how the polls play out and whether it will make any difference. Common wisdom is that voters do not care about foreign policy this year (it is indeed the economy) and that challengers have an advantage because they can make wilder accusations since they are not bound by being knowledgeable about state secrets or responsible for official policy. However, Obama did succeed in tying foreign policy to domestic economic issues of prime interest to voters and in that regard he may have pulled off a coup.
If Obama can stress these points,(cannot trust him; need nation building at home ) in ads and every opportunity he can in the next two weeks, it might make a difference. The time clock is running and the two minute drill is needed,
Pres. Obama dominated the debate by using every opportunity to anticipate well publicized GOP criticisms and to make pre emptive strikes, bringing up the topic first , making his case, and forcing Romney to respond. Romney was left either agreeing or splitting some hairs, and sometimes just repeating the talking points for which he had prepared in advance.
Obama's strategy was most evident in his personalized riff on Israel , showing empathy and reaffirming the US would defend Israel if Iran attacked.. Obama's unkindest dig at Romney occurred when he recalled his trip to Israel as a candidate almost as if it were a pilgrimage while he contrasted his visit with Romney who had treated his recent trip like a campaign fund raiser. For those not following the preceding campaign back and forth on Israel, they may have wondered why the attention. It had much to do with the Florida east coast vote and Jewish support elsewhere.
If Obama accomplished anything with his strong performance, it was to make GOP attack lines ring hollow that he was leading by behind. He made a strong case for his accomplishments, made it clear he knew where he was going and what he intended to do. By being an echo, Romney looked like he was the one leading from behind Obama..
Some lines of the debates were more about Ohio and women than they were about foreign policy. The issue of interest to the Midwest is indeed saving the auto industry. The question raised is whether or not Romney had asked for government underwriting of bankruptcy, If he had, it was a startling fact never before disclosed to the public or even mentioned by Romney before this debate or in his infamous op ed in the New York Times headlined with “let them go bankrupt” .
What fact checkers
and investment bankers said at the time was that the capital markets were
frozen and there was no private sector money to keep the doors open while the
auto industry reorganized.
The ripple effect would have been huge as the suppliers and even more dealers went
under, unbailed out and too dead to be revived.
The government had to provide the capital because no private capital was
available so Obama stepped in with the bailout. Romney as an investment guy
should have known that, or if he did, he was making a political point and a
dishonest one. Those auto workers know that and so do the suppliers. Why is
this critical? Ohio, heavily dependent on auto manufacturing, is probably the most important state that will determine
the outcome of the election. Without it, neither candidate can win.
So far as women were concerned, the CNN instant tracking focus group of undecided showed the approval register rose every time the President mentioned that the US needs to invest more into education (instead of $2 trillion for the military Romney proposed which the Pentagon never asked for). That is the tradeoff. More money for the military or for education and domestic programs that build our nation ? As Obama put it so clearly : we should not be nation building abroad; we should be nation building at home. That may be the best line of the night for a war weary electorate nervous about their economic future.
CNN instant polls of debate viewers, weighted toward Republicans, still awarded the President the win by about 8 points.
Footnote:
Here is Romney’s reference to a
bailout check in the New York Times op ed and note there was no reference to a
federal guarantee of a bailout, just refinancing and establishing a new auto
maker after the doors were closed. Of
course, there was no private capital available to be guaranteed by government and that is the
fatal flaw of his position. He wrote: “The federal
government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure
car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.
In a managed
bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable
automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=0
.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment