The Third Debate Final Analysis

     When President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney met last week in Boca Raton, Florida for the third and final presidential debate, many pundits put the debate in the win column for the President. They did so based on technical debate scoring and not on how it may effect the presidential race. When the latter is considered, I think Mitt Romney will be seen as the beneficiary of the debate's outcome.
     Mitt Romney exhibited a more agreeable posture, at times supporting a few of the President's policy decisions over the last four years. He engaged in what business people call "the strategy of the dolphin." The phrase comes from a book written about business. It refers to the fact that when a dolphin is attacked, it reciprocates with less ferocity than the initial attack. It shows its attacker that it has the ability to defend itself, without inflicting serious injury or escalating the confrontation. Or more to the point with regards to Mitt Romney's performance in the third debate, he allowed himself to look strong but fair. Conversely, the President looked like a school yard bully. The strategy of the dolphin was an effective strategy for a final debate in a presidential race that is neck-in-neck.
     President Obama entered the debate prepared for Mitt Romney to attack him hard on many issues, but especially on his mishandling of the Benghazi affair. The President developed a strategy for dealing with these attacks, which may have been more effective had they actually occurred. But when Governor Romney brought an unexpected strategy to the debate, Mr. Obama was unable to adjust his game plan. The result was a President who looked like he was fighting a battle on a front that didn't exist. His performance highlighted his inability to adjust to new facts and change course, when it is needed. His presidency has been handcuffed by this inability, highlighted by his response to the Republicans gaining a majority in the House as a result of the 2010 mid-term elections. He refused to accept the political realities in front of him, instead choosing to execute his now out-dated game plan with even more ferocity than before.
     When Governor Romney wins next week's election, as I am confident he will, the outcome will have been brought to fruition by many factors. But probably the most over-looked factor will be his performance in the third debate. It not only showed Mr. Romney to be capable of executing the nation's business with decorum and in a statesman-like manner, but it highlighted the current President's inability to do the same.
    

The Final Presidential Debate-2012

     The final Presidential debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney, was held last night at Lynn University in Boca Rotan, Florida. The moderator for the debate was veteran newsman, Bob Schieffer. The topic of discussion was foreign policy, however much of the time was spent talking about economic issues. I thought Bob Schieffer's performance was closer to Jim Lehrer's in the first debate than it was to Candy Crowley's in the second. It was ironic that yesterday was the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy telling the American people that the Soviets had missiles in Cuba. Ironic because as Mitt Romney pointed out later in the debate, we now have a President who recently told the Russian President that he would have more flexibility after the election with regards to reducing our nuclear arsenal.
     I thought Governor Romney was effective in prosecuting the foreign policy failures of President Obama, in sharp contrast to the sometimes delusional view that the President tried to advance. This delusion was highlighted by the President's refusal to use the term Islamic extremists, illustrating his inability to understand the nature of our enemy. He also advanced the narrative that Al Queda was far weaker and our relationships in the Middle East are far stronger today than when he took office. Mitt Romney refuted the President's assertions by illustrating just how much more dangerous and volatile the Middle East is since Mr. Obama's term began. The two candidates did agree on several topics including the ouster of Hosni Mubarak, sanctions on Iran (although Mitt Romney said they should be more sever) and the future departure of Bashar al-Assad as leader of Syria.
     A highlight of the debate was when Mitt Romney correctly pointed out the weakness shown by the President to our enemies early in his term when he embarked on his apology tour. The President called reports of his apology tour a "Whopper" of a lie. The President also repeated the now thoroughly discredited lie that Governor Romney's tax cuts would cost 5 trillion dollars. Mitt Romney didn't defend himself adequately on that charge, but did effectively refute the President's charge that Mitt Romney wanted to let GM completely dissolve. Mitt Romeny scored further points when he pointed out that the President pulled missile defense from Poland, an ally, and didn't support the Green Revolution in Iran after their "elections" in 2009. Governor Romney also correctly pointed out that our Navy is the smallest it's been since 1917 and our Air Force is the smallest it's been since its founding. The President's reply to these facts was snarky and made him look petty and small. Mitt Romney successfully made the case for a strong U.S. military and an overall optimism which made the President's attempts to do the same look weak in comparison.
     If there was one disappointment for me, it was that Mitt Romney didn't mention the security failures in Libya or the two weeks of administration lies that followed. Maybe his campaign made the political calculation to allow the Governor's surrogates and others in the media to push this issue, and allow Mr. Romney to stay above the fray and look more Presidential. Taking everything in total, Mitt Romney edged out the President in the debate and in doing so kept alive his recent momentum in the race. I'm sure those on the left and in the media will call the debate for President Obama, but as we saw with the last debate, media support for the President doesn't translate into any bounce in the polls.  

Final Debate Preview

     When President Obama and Mitt Romney meet at Lynn University in Boca Rotan, Florida tonight for their third and final debate, it will signal the home stretch of the 2012 Presidential campaign. The debate will be moderated by Face the Nation host, Bob Schieffer and the subject of the debate will be limited to foreign policy. It is important for each candidate not only to turn in a solid debate performance, but also to force their opponent to appear the clear loser. As important as a decisive win is for each candidate, each campaign is looking for something different from the debate.
     As for Mitt Romney, who trounced President Obama in the first debate and clearly had a strong performance in the second, his strategy will be to lock up the election with a decisive win in tonight's debate. The Governor has taken the reins of the campaign's momentum, as evidenced by last Friday's Gallup daily tracking poll which showed Mr. Romney with a 6 point lead over the incumbent president. He has also managed to convert states like Pennsylvania and Michigan to toss-up status from solidly in the Obama column.
     President Obama, on the other hand, is engaged in the much more formidable task of shifting the momentum of the campaign back in his favor. His campaign has been seen by many to be rootless and wandering, trying desperately to diminish Mitt Romney with Big Bird ads and the spinning of Governor Romney's binder comment, which he made at the second debate. With crumbling poll numbers not only related directly to the race but his favorability as well, President Obama is behind the proverbial eight ball. I'm sure his campaign is looking to this final debate as a chance to shift the winds of the race in a direction that will fill his flaccid sails and pull him across the finish line ahead of Governor Romney.
     I look for Mitt Romney to be well versed on every aspect of the President's foreign policy, but especially keen on Libya. The death of four Americans, including the ambassador, is not an easy pill for the American public to swallow. It is made even more difficult by the apparent incompetence of this administration to provide adequate security, even after it was requested several times by Ambassador Stevens and his staff. The incompetence was compounded by the clumsy cover-up which saw members of the administration denying the attack was an act of terror and instead blaming it on an obscure You Tube video.
     The proceedings tonight in Florida will consist of a generous helping of political drama and I'm sure both candidates will bring their A game. But in the final analysis, Mitt Romney has the edge going in, he only needs a draw or better. President Obama needs a decisive win to have any hope of a change in the direction of this Presidential campaign.

Obama Debate Performance Highlights Differences

     Two aspects of President Obama's debate performance last night highlighted core differences in ideology between Liberals and Conservatives. It's the ultimate victory of one of these ideologies over the other which will determine if this country will travel a road paved with the principles enshrined in our founding documents, or continue down a road toward European Socialism.
     I noticed during the debate that President Obama used the term government advocacy at least three separate times. As a Conservative, I find repulsive the concept of a government that advocates for one segment of the population over others. The Federal government should advocate for the strict interpretation of the Constitution for the benefit of all citizens, not pick winners and losers and make special laws for their chosen groups of losers. Our founding fathers would be abhorred at a government with the power to specify groups who have been wronged, and confiscate wealth from other groups considered by politicians to be the wrong doers. But this is how the Left attains and holds power, by separating people into groups and pitting them against each other. This leads me to the second aspect of President Obama's debate performance that highlighted the difference between Liberals and Conservatives.
     When answering a question from a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, President Obama called her Lorraina, even after he had witnessed Candy Crowley and Mitt Romney call the woman by her correct name. This may seem like a small thing, but it speaks volumes about how President Obama and other leftists look at people. He just assumed that the Hispanic-looking woman had a Hispanic-sounding name. It is this identity politics that the left engages in on a daily basis that is so corrosive to our body politic. It's what drives them to demonize members of minorities who support Conservatives, because in their world view all members of a certain racial group should vote the same way, i.e. Democrat. The behavior of the President, believing his ideology over his ears physically hearing the correct name, is illustrative of the inherent racism of the Left and the moral bankruptcy of leftist ideals.

Romney Gets Edge in Debate

     In the second Presidential debate, held last night at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York, Mitt Romney turned in a strong performance. President Obama was much more aggressive and engaged than he was in the first debate, but came off looking defensive. Several times during the debate he depended on moderator Candy Crowley for a life-line. For her part, Miss Crowley not only broke the format rules by inserting herself into the questioning, but several times she did not give Governor Romney his allotted response time. She appeared to be doing everything she could to ensure that the President turned in a good performance. The bulk of the questions proposed to the candidates were presented by audience members. There were a total of eleven questions that covered economic, foreign policy, immigration and energy policy.
     Mitt Romney confronted President Obama directly and several times seem to fluster the President. One such incident was Governor Romney's response to the President's accusation that Mitt Romney would have let GM go bankrupt. Mitt Romney correctly pointed out that GM did ultimately file bankruptcy under the President's leadership. The President's rebut showed a complete lack of understanding of how bankruptcy works. I thought this was an important moment because it was probably the first time many people were aware that GM actually went bankrupt after receiving billions of dollars of taxpayer money. Another issue on which Mr. Romney confronted the President head on was the question of drilling on public lands. The President tried, unsuccessfully in my opinion, to advance the narrative that under his administration drilling leases on public lands had been increased. Governor Romney was able to argue fairly effectively, with the aid of some facts, that the increase in oil production was a result of drilling on private lands, which the President tried to stop.
     One of my favorite moments of the debate came when an immigration question was asked by a Hispanic woman named Lorraine, she inadvertently called Mitt Romney President Romney. I thought Mitt Romney could have hammered the President harder on his administration's insistence that the attacks in Benghazi were the result of  an anti-Muslim video, when they knew from the start the attacks were pre-planned. But the Governor did a good job of painting the administration's handling of Libya as anything but competent. Mitt Romney also illustrated that the President's charges against him about his overseas investments were ill-informed when the Governor pointed out that the President's pension plan has some of the same investments.
     The take away from the debate is that the President had to misrepresent the facts about the economy and foreign policy as well as the positions taken by his Republican challenger. Tactics that may be effective in adds, but are not so when they are challenged by a worthy opponent. I don't think last night's performance by the President is going to make people any more likely to support him in the election, but it may have swayed a few undecideds toward the Romney camp. And Miss Crowley's advocacy aside, I don't think the President turned in the kind of performance he needed to turn the momentum back in his direction. This debate, as well as the first one, illustrated to the voters the competent management and leadership of Mitt Romney, and the utter lack of such qualities in Barrack Obama.

Romney Vs. Obama-Round Two

     The second Presidential debate between President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney will be held tonight, starting at 9pm. The location for the debate is Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. CNN's Chief Political Correspondent, Candy Crowley, will moderate the proceedings. The debate will take the form of a town hall meeting and questions will be asked by audience members comprised of undecided voters.
     President Obama is at a disadvantage because of Governor Romney's decisive victory in the first Presidential debate. Many analysts speculate that Republican enthusiasm, as well as the campaign's momentum shift towards Mitt Romney, was a result of his exceptional performance in the first debate. Democrats and others on the left have been proffering public advice for the President to be more aggressive in subsequent debates. I doubt that Barrack Obama will be as aggressive as Joe Biden was in the one and only Vice-Presidential debate, but Mitt Romney should expect the President to be on the attack more than he was in the first debate. Governor Romney, on the other hand, just needs to turn in a steady and competent performance to keep the momentum of the campaign headed in his favor.
     Many on the left want President Obama to use Mitt Romney's 47% comment from last May, secretly recorded at a donor event. They would also like the President to try and tarnish Mitt Romney with his association with Baine Capital, the private equity firm the Republican challenger founded and ran until 1999. I feel that this strategy would be a mistake for the President, since these attacks only have a chance to work in ads and when Obama campaign surrogates engage in them in various media outlets. If they are used in a debate setting, where Mitt Romney can easily respond to them, I think they may backfire on the President and make him look desperate and small. But it may be all the President has to offer as a strategy, since he can't defend his record in the presence of an opponent who has a command of the facts as Governor Romney does.
     I don't look for either candidate to commit any campaign-ending gaffs, but I do believe that if Mitt Romney has another decisive victory, he may very well put the election out of reach for the President. The pressure is going to be on President Obama to turn in an exceptional performance to shift the momentum of the campaign back in his direction. As I stated previously, Mitt Romney just needs to build on the foundation he laid in the first debate. This debate could be a pivotal event in the campaign, shifting the momentum back towards the President or increasing Governor Romney's momentum. One thing is for sure, it will be fun to watch.

Ryan Less Decisive Than Romney

     The one and only vice-presidential debate was held last night in Danville, Kentucky. It was moderated by ABC News' Martha Raddax, who showed more bias than Jim Lehrer when he moderated the first presidential debate last week. Ms. Raddax, at times seemed as though she was teaming up with Vice-President Joe Biden against  the Republican vice-presidential candidate Paul Ryan. The debate covered topics on domestic and foreign policy and was broken into 9 segments. Each candidate had two minutes to answer each question and then time was allotted for a brief discussion between the candidates.
     At times the discussion was chaotic and the Vice-President was allowed to interrupt Paul Ryan almost at will. I scored a win for Congressman Ryan, albeit not as decisive as the one Mitt Romney had against Barrack Obama in last week's presidential debate. The opening question was in reference to the ongoing foreign policy debacle in Benghazi, Libya. The Vice-President towed the administration's line and threw the intelligence community under the bus. Representative Ryan did an adequate job framing the issue as an administration failure. In addition to interrupting Paul Ryan many times, Joe Biden often made faces as Paul Ryan was speaking, which made the Vice-President look childish and rude. Joe Biden also appeared angry and aggressive, while Paul Ryan was calm but assertive.
     There were some moments of levity as evidenced by Paul Ryan's response to Joe Biden clumsily trying to make political hay out of Mitt Romney's off the cuff remark about the 47% of Americans who do not pay Federal income tax. Paul Ryan said that he was sure the Vice-President understood that words don't always come out of your mouth the way you want them to. This, of course, is a reference to the almost daily gaffs committed by Joe Biden. The Vice-President also repeated the now thoroughly discredited assertion that Romney/Ryan want to cut taxes on the wealthy by 5 Trillion dollars, an accusation the President had made three times in last week's debate to no avail due to Mitt Romney's masterful handling of the issue. Congressman Ryan did not address this issue as directly as Mitt Romney did in his debate, which was disappointing to me. I thought Paul Ryan's closing statement was very strong and in sharp contrast to Joe Biden's weak-kneed defense of one of the worst administrations in modern history.
     In the final analysis, Ryan won but I don't think either side will lose or gain much as a result of the debate last night. The win was not decisive enough that the left can't spin it into a tie or even a win for Joe Biden. I think in the grand scheme of the campaign, especially after the next two presidential debates, this debate probably won't have much effect on the outcome of the election.

A Clear Win For Romney In the First Debate

     Last night the first Presidential debate of the 2012 election campaign was held in Denver, Colorado. The debate was moderated by Jim Lehrer, of PBS's Jim Lehrer's Newshour. It was more free-flowing than debates in the past, and the questions were more topics of discussion rather than being specific and pointed. I thought Mr. Lehrer did an admirable job and showed no bias, letting each man exceed his time limits several times. President Obama and Governor Romney were both well prepared and there were no major stumbles or gaffs. That being said, I thought Mitt Romney was the clear winner.
     Going into the debate I thought it was the President's job to convince people that his policies were the correct ones for the country , and subsequently he deserved re-election. Mr. Romney's job, on the other hand, was to show that the Obama policies were the wrong ones and that the country should make a change by electing him as the next President. I felt that taken in total, Mitt Romney was more successful than the President at fulfilling his mission.
     The debate topics covered taxes, health care, the deficit and the role of the federal government.  I thought in each category, Mitt Romney made a strong case for the conservative policies he champions and, by contrast,  President Obama did not effectively defend his record on any of the categories. Mitt Romney, I thought, succeeded in accurately characterizing the economic malaise in which we currently find ourselves, and tying it to the Obama policies of the last four years. I thought Governor Romney's weakest area was on health care, but even there he scored points by firmly stating his intent to repeal Obamacare. Recent polling shows that well over 60% of the American people support repeal, and I think it is a winning issue for Mr. Romney.
     President Obama's strategy seemed to be his typical modus operandi, misstate Mitt Romney's position and then argue against the misstated position. The most glaring example of this strategy was his insistence that Governor Romney wanted 5 trillion dollars in tax cuts. Even after Mr. Romney corrected the President several times, the President continued to misrepresent Mitt Romney's position. But I think Mitt Romney was effective in fending off these obvious attempts by the President to switch the focus to anything other than his failed policies.
     I thought it was interesting that during the closing statements, President Obama slipped and said that each person should get their fair share and quickly corrected himself and said everyone should do his fair share. A slip, that I think, represents his redistributive inclinations. I don't know how much impact this debate will ultimately have on the election outcome next month. But one thing is clear, I believe it helped Mitt Romney more than it did the President. I can't imagine the President's performance switched any Romney people or convinced the fence-sitters to vote for him. I do think that it is more possible that the opposite is true for Mitt Romney.