October 16th Presidential Debate - Part 1

A Win for Obama?  Or just a draw?


On the surface, one might say that Obama "won" because he:
   -used numbered points (as Romney had done in the 1st debate),
   -was more "engaged" than in the 1st, and
   -made many positive statements of what he's done and what he plans to do,
and Romney was rather vague.

On the other hand, Obama was rather cool and mechanistic, and his points (though positive) were not detailed, and gave no substance to what would be different or better than his 1st term.  Romney, though also not being very detailed, was nevertheless very passionate about his plans and about his different approach.

Both men interrupted the other, kept talking over the other, talked beyond the clearly agreed upon and clearly posted time limits, and ignored and talked over the moderator.  Both seemed to be so focused on getting their own point across that they ignored the rules they had both agreed to, as well as just being rude.

Once again, the thing that stood out the most to me, about both candidates, was their failure to answer the question they were asked !  And their failure to give enough details to their "glittering generalities!"  Much of the answer time (50%-75%) was spent re-describing the problem and telling anecdotes to illustrate it.  We know the problems pretty well - we want to hear their solutions !

So maybe nobody won, certainly not us.

Now for some specifics that might resonate with some of you, one way or another.

Romney made a statement I had not noticed before.  He'll not decrease the taxes on the wealthy, and he'll not increase them on the middle class.  It sounded like an opening for him to increase taxes on the wealthy, something Republicans have generally disavowed in the past, and something that may be necessary to fix the deficit problem.

Obama said that Romney's plan doesn't add up, and gave some numbers to help show the math.  It sounded good, though he didn't provide the numbers for the other half of the equation - they don't exist yet.  So who do we trust to make things happen? 

Do we trust the math of Obama (who has actually been President for almost 4 years, but, instead of balancing the budget, has increased the national debt by $5 trillion, and projects continued budget deficits of over $1 trillion each year)? 

Or do we trust Romney who has not been President and whose math is still fuzzy, but who has been governor of Massachusetts and balanced that budget every year there, and has taken the 2002 Winter Olympics from red ink to surplus, and (though there is dispute about how the individual companies fared) he has made great profits for Bain Capital.  He has a good track record for making money work out.

Romney's answers on women's pay did not satisfy me at all.  Yes, he hires women, but at what pay rate?

Obama criticized Romney for having Washington people decide health care issues for women.  I assume he's referring to elected representatives voting to not have government pay for contraceptives or not force insurance companies to pay for them.  Yet ObamaCare has unelected panels deciding what major medical care that government insurance will not pay for.  Seems like stones thrown by the resident of a glass house.

On immigration, Romney criticized Obama for not doing anything on immigration as he had promised.  Obama said he had conferred on this issue, yet I don't recall hearing about it in the news.  It seems that sometime in his 1st 2 years, with both House and Senate controlled by the Democrats, he could have gotten something done on it, or at least something that made the news.  But then, he did have a financial crisis, and was busy working on a health care plan that most of the country did not want.

Regarding the Benghazi attack, Obama said, "I am ultimately responsible..." and he supported that by saying he's working to bring the perpetrators to justice.  It seems to me that his main job is to protect Americans, including our consulates and embassies, and he should have been aware of the danger there and made sure there was adequate protection, at least as much as at our French consulate.  And I simply do not understand why the administration kept saying for 14 days that the event was a demonstration about the video on YouTube, when news video made it obvious from day one that it was a coordinated attack by trained and well-armed terrorists.  Obama's words of respect and care for his personal friends that were lost there  sound hollow considering the blatant withdrawal of security around these people.

I applaud Obama for supporting community colleges and training in the skilled trades.  That seems to be a real help for people and the economy.  I have personally seen such programs move many persons into a new income level and help mature them from kids into productive and confident professionals.

Well, this is getting lengthy. I think I'll finish this topic in the next post. 

There were a lot of "factual" statements that ought to be verified.  I'll try to check on those or at least give some links to others who have.

Regarding how the candidates' statements match their own published plans, I have an outline for some posts on that.

I'm also currently working on several posts comparing both Parties' platforms, and I'll include some comments on how the candidates' statements in this debate match their own Party's platform.

Please let me know what other issues you would like addressed.  If you see things differently, let us hear about it.  Different viewpoints usually provide a fuller picture (like the blind men and the elephant).