The much anticipated second presidential debate - with much talk about how the President will be more aggressive - did not disappoint in that regard. It was a pretty intense debate. Here's what I thought of each of the candidates:
President Obama: He clearly came out ready to fight. He was more aggressive and showed that he wants the job, but he didn't give many specifics about how he plans to manage the country for the next four years. He took the jabs his followers wanted: Planned Parenthood, Big Bird, 47%, Mitt's wealth, etc. But it takes far more than attacking your opponent to run a country - you have to actually be able to DO it - and I still don't think he made a case for that. Case in point: one participant's question (paraphrasing), "I voted for you in 2008 but I'm disappointed. Why should I vote for you again?" was met with an attack on Mitt Romney. Obama cannot state clearly what he wants to do other than give people a "fair shake, a fair shot," which I am sick of hearing, by the way.
Governor Romney: I thought his performance was similarly steady to the last debate. What we continue to see is the real Mitt. After his previous debate performance, people exclaimed, "Wow! Mitt did the best I've seen!" but in reality they just hadn't seen all of Mitt before. He is always clear, concise, knowledgeable about his OWN plan and can make a good case for it. I was disappointed he asked Obama direct questions, which opens a door I don't think he should open. I also wished he would have SLAMMED the President on Libya after he deliberately lied about calling it a terrorist attack the day following the tragedy. I felt like it was a missed opportunity. In all, Romney was able to highlight the President's failed promises and shift the focus to Obama's record, not his rhetoric.
Candy Crowley: Yes, the moderator gets her own review because she became a clear-sided participant in this debate. First, the questions, which were obviously very left-leaning. I'm wondering why the question about George W. Bush was brought up. I feel bad for GWB because he hasn't been in office for four years and yet the poor guy is dragged into this presidential debate as if he is a big player. It completely panders to the Left and their argument that somehow Obama's failings are tainted by what Bush did. And I'm sorry, FOUR years. OBAMA has had FOUR years. The question on equal pay for women was an obvious answer to the Left's claim of a Republican "War on Women", and as a woman myself I'm a little ticked the Left doesn't think I care and can understand the economy, taxes, jobs and energy. Give women a little credit. And the AK47 question....what was that?!?! And lastly, Candy gets a big "X" because she swooped in to save the President on the Libya question, almost "fact-checking" for him, and she was wrong. Everyone can go back and see the President did NOT call the Benghazi attack an act of "terror" for over two weeks. She was citing something he said on a more high-level and gave Obama a pass. And I was mad.
Who won?
I think each side will claim they won. I don't think anyone will be on quite the "high" that came as a result of Romney's clear domination last debate. Romney's performance was great as before, but because the President did a better job than last time, the results seem pretty even. But each candidate catered to their base, which will please their followers. What's yet to be seen is if the President's outright lies will come back to haunt him, because he was wrong on his licenses and permits for drilling and completely lied about Libya.
What did you think??
What did you think??
Reese-Well stated. I am excited to share this with my husband because I think you are spot on. The thing that got me the most.. was when Obama said. "I am all for self-reliance." Mr. Obama, that is a bunch of 'malarkey!!' Free health care, free birth control, free, free, free. That is so far beyond self reliance. I thought they both had highs and for sure had lows. I am still steaming about the Libya topic... What Mitt meant, we all understood and he could have been a little more clear on his statement. But, then the President and the "moderator" jumped all over it siding together. PRESIDENT OBAMA DID said "terror" but he was not referencing that to being a terrorist attack. we are still in the dark.
ReplyDeleteAll in all... President Obama is consistent, I will give him that. But, why does being consistent matter if he has not solved some big problems that he said he would or made progress in our dying economy? It means nothing. We will continue to get, just as he says, the same from him that we got before. But, I KNOW that is not going to be enough.
My daughter is in the military. She is a officer in the U.S. Navey. She and her husband have two children. Last February, my grand daughter was diagnosed with a terrible autoimmune disease that almost took her life. She was hospitalized for over a month and continues to need hospital visits at least once a month. If my daughter had not been in the military, the cost of medical care for my grand daughter would have bankrupted the family. I would like to know why wanting health care coverage so average families aren't bankrupted by medical is not being self-reliant. Maybe "Kris and Cath" have never had a sick child who needed literally hundreds of thousands of dollars of health care services. I hope they haven't. Why do you equate having health care with being self-reliant. That is my problem with conservatives. No compassion. No working together. Just looking down on people who need a leg up. If Mitt Romney showed compassion by having health care for all in his state (as he mentioned last last in the debate) why can't everyone in the country have similar coverage. How is that NOT being self-reliant??
ReplyDeleteP.S. I am now following your blog. Hope you don't mind an occassional comment from a "Moderate Mormon." Thanks.
ReplyDeleteThese were my thoughts exactly. Couldn't have said it better myself. It is so frustrating though how both sides think they have won.
ReplyDelete