I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The first debate

.
I think they both did well.  Romney succeeded in looking like a possible president.

I then watched PBS coverage and they thought that Romney did a little better.

I watched CNN now I understand that Romney was aggressive and  it was not good for the president, but he will come back.

I watched MSNBC and now I understand Obama was a disaster and looked horrible.
Why didn't he mention the 47%?  Why was he so tentative?  Why didn't he press back?
(Perhaps tomorrow they will realize that Romney was bullying both Obama and the moderator.)

CNN (they say scientific poll) 67-25 said that Romney won.  They now described it as a spanking,
but by winning he actually lost.

I couldn't bring myself to watch Foxnews.

As I said at the top, I realized long before it was over that Romney was winning big.

4 comments:

  1. What do you make of the argument that, simply by standing on the same stage as the president, Romney was certain to get a boost? As a young political observer who has only paid attention to a few presidential campaigns, this makes sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is the conventional wisdom and I agree with it.
      Romney did more than that here.

      Delete
  2. Prior to the debate it was widely stated that debates don’t really mean much. I suspect that the results of the first debate will completely transform the perceived importance of the second presidential debate.

    ReplyDelete