Debate 2: Obama Edges Out Romney Slightly, But Not On Economy
For those who watched, it was a lively debate. Interestingly, I listened to the first 45 minutes on the radio, and it was the reverse of the previous. The first debate, which I listened to mostly on the radio, Obama sounded very good. But, it was seeing him on TV that killed him. This time, he sounded angry and petulant on the radio, but seeing him on TV the “tone” appeared as more fired up and engaged, if I’m going to be honest in assessing the performance of the Worst President Ever. The Washington Examiner breaks it down
With a huge and factually inaccurate assist from moderator Candy Crowley, President Obama won the moment of the night when he successfully challenged Mitt Romney’s claim that Obama did not call the Benghazi attack an “act of terror” the day after the event (you can read Obama’s Rose Garden transcript here). Post debate polls from both CBS and CNN gave Obama a narrow win overall on the night, 37 percent to 30 percent and 46 percent to 39 percent respectively.
But digging a bit deeper, both polls show that although Romney may have lost the Libya battle, he is winning the economic war. Both polls showed that, by overwhelming margins, voters believe Romney has the better plan to fix the economy. In CNN’s poll, Romney led 58 percent to 40 percent on the economy against Obama. CBS had Romney winning on the economy by an even larger, 31-point margin – 65 percent to 34 percent margin.
The story was no different on MSNBC’s post debate focus group, where three out of four swing voters named Romney the winner on economic issues…..
And Obama won the part regarding Libya thanks to a huge assist from Candy Crowley, as noted. While many are trying to spin, such as the Soros funded Talking Points Memo, that Obama did initially call the attack in Libya a terrorist attack, that would be charitable at best. Here’s what he said in the Rose Garden on September 12th
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.
Yet, as Patrick Brennan writes
One could take that as a reference to acts which include the tragedy in Benghazi, obviously, but there was clearly no effort made to label it an act of terrorism. One reason why this might be: According to U.S. law, acts of terrorism are premeditated. The Obama administration’s line for days following Obama’s Rose Garden statement suggested that the attack wasn’t premeditated.
Over the next 14 days, including Obama’s appearance at the United Nations and on The View, he and most of his talking heads were still discussing this as a “spontaneous demonstration” gone bad. Had he labeled it with no doubt, would he have flown off to Las Vegas for a campaign event? We can pretty much infer from David Axelrod’s failure to answer Chris Wallace’s question about whether Obama met with his National Security Team on the 11th or 12th that Obama didn’t think it was a big deal or a terrorist attack.
But, what else did Obama say in that Rose Garden speech?
Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.
So, he linked the attacks, which we could charitably allow Obama to be positioning as a terrorist attack, to the Mohammed video.
Overall, though, the economy is still the most important concern amongst Americans, which includes energy, gas, and real prices. Romney handily won those portions.
- Romney blew Obama away with the first question, which was about employment upon graduation.
- Obama never did answer, or even attempt to answer, the question about Secretary Chu and gas prices. He went with stale talking points, which Mitt took him to task over.
- On taxation, it was a minor win for Mitt
- Female wages was a draw.
- Romney like Bush was a big win for Mitt
- I missed the “not optimistic” exchange
- On illegal immigration, a win for Mitt, who exposed Obama as lazy and unengaged.
- Benghazi mentioned
- I did not hear the rest of the questions, which were on assault weapons, outsourcing, and misconception of candidates.
And there were the questions Crowley threw out, which Instapundit gives some coverage.
One interesting part was when Romney decided to explain to Obama that Obama’s own pension includes investments in China and Caymen Island trusts. Obama said he didn’t look at his pension much (shocker). This comes from the part about immigration
CROWLEY: Governor Romney, you can make it short. See all these people? They’ve been waiting for you. (inaudible) make it short
ROMNEY: Just going to make a point. Any investments I have over the last eight years have been managed by a blind trust. And I understand they do include investments outside the United States, including in – in Chinese companies.
Mr. President, have you looked at your pension? Have you looked at your pension?
OBAMA: I’ve got to say…
ROMNEY: Mr. President, have you looked at your pension?
OBAMA: You know, I – I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours so it doesn’t take as long.
ROMNEY: Well, let me give you some advice.
OBAMA: I don’t check it that often.
ROMNEY: Let me give you some advice. Look at your pension. You also have investments in Chinese companies. You also have investments outside the United States. You also have investments through a Cayman’s trust.
So, Mitt knows more about Obama’s pension than Obama does. Who do think will do better at running the country? A guy who doesn’t look at his pension or a guy who knows the details of another guys pension?