Joan Walsh: The president stays professorial, while Romney gets feisty – and dishonest

[DonViejo]

Those old Obama debate blues
Harking back to early 2008, the president stays professorial, while Romney gets feisty – and dishonest

BY JOAN WALSH

A subdued, deferential, over-prepared President Obama ceded the first debate to Mitt Romney on style and substance. Democrats had to look at historical evidence that debates don’t change election outcomes for comfort Wednesday tonight.

Romney shook his Etch-a-Sketch and lied his way through the entire debate with no challenge from moderator Jim Lehrer. He simply denied he has proposed a $5 trillion tax cut. He insisted he wouldn’t cut the education budget or Pell Grants, when he will. He claimed the Affordable Care Act raised taxes by a trillion dollars. He essentially revived the idea of death panels by saying Obamacare established “a board that will tell people what kind of treatment they’re going to get.” Yet the president didn’t call him on any of it.

In fact, Obama let Romney off the hook on a range of toxic topics, from Social Security to the tax deductions he’d eliminate to make his tax-cut plan “revenue neutral.” Some omissions seem like political malpractice. The president had many opportunities to ask Romney exactly what loopholes he’d close and which deductions he’d eliminate – child tax credit? Mortgage interest deduction? Charitable deductions? – and help Romney commit political suicide. But he never did; he went straight to the wonky idea that there are not enough loopholes to close or deductions to balance his tax cuts for the rich. He had the chance to ask Romney for his deduction-elimination plans directly, even if only rhetorically, even if Lehrer didn’t follow up. But Obama never did.

He didn’t challenge him on most of his lies. Romney claimed the Affordable Care Act raised taxes by a trillion dollars, and Obama didn’t object; in the camera shot at that moment, he didn’t even shake his head. He didn’t mention Bain Capital, the Ryan budget or Romney’s shameful 47 percent comments. When Romney chided Obama for not fighting for the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission recommendations, Obama didn’t mention that Romney’s running mate, who was on the commission, wouldn’t back them either.


Continue reading:
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/04/those_old_obama_debate_blues/


-----------------

[COLGATE4]

1. Depressing beyond all words. nt

[siugal]

2. Debate and agreement with Walsh

Before I state my comments I will say this, I am still going to vote for President Obama and my viewpoint about him has not changed.
With that said, I am enormously disappointed in his failure to attack Romney on his outright lies and the 47 percent comment. I really do not know why he allowed Romney to totally hijack the debates with false assertions. There were a few minor incidents where the president seemed as if he was going to go in for the political kill and stopped short,. Not really sure why or what the strategy was behind this, I am also upset about the moderator, Mitt owned him, and Mitt seemed to own the president. However, I have noticed from following the presidents career he always has bad debates the first time, I do not know why either, but he does improve. Finally, this is my consolation. John Kerry OWNED George Bush in 2004, I thought the debates won it for Kerry and of course I was wrong, Bush still won. I am really now charged up for debate 2 to see if Obama will rebound,. maybe that was the strategy for people to tune in again to see if he is going to be that bad again.

[LiberalFighter]

4. The president cannot outright attack anyone.

They have to weigh their options and consider the consequences if they proceed to far. He is dealing with millions of people during a debate not just Romney.

[LiberalFighter]

3. Actually Obama did call Romney out about the death panel.