And The Winner Is….

by Bud Biddle

Interesting, low key, Presidential Debate….~

Obama essentially told America that he’s been doing just fine, made a couple mistakes but needs more time due to what he encountered when he took Office. That his policies are working in an ‘ongoing’ manner and he kept at Romney for specifics about his plans…all which Romney clearly provided, time after time, seemingly to no avail but it ate up time like Obama is famous for doing. Obama was clearly uncomfortable at times and had obviously been coached to deflect, deny and to offer nothing new; to stay on script, out of any trouble. Obama kept to his mentors’ advice and in addition he kept bringing up the ‘rich’ in several clever ways all which may have fallen flat on many voters this time. Obama lacked the verve of old and seemed tired/looked tired and was even a bit dismissive of Romney in a few instances by using subtle body language.

Romney was crisp, direct and fully dedicated to his belief in the private business sector while he answered all the accusations, negative innuendos and critiques that Obama gently directed at him. Romney drove home serious points with a full grasp of all the facts presented. His analysis, presentation and clearly defined depth of knowledge never faltered. He looked strong, Presidential and functioned dramatically better than I felt he would. Romney was absent his usual stiffness, demonstrated a clear contrast to Obama and was minus his sometimes apologetic tone being totally devoid of any resemblance to how he sometimes seems to be while he’s out campaigning.

Romney looked/sounded very Presidential tonight. Obama, in a somewhat unusual twist of fortune, did not..?

That’s my take on Debate #1….what’s yours..?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to And The Winner Is….

  1. J. Soden says:

    This is the FIRST TIME anyone has had a one-on-one, issue oriented session with the Prez on prime time TV where he had to deal in facts instead of fantasies.

    The Moron Stream Media failed to vet him during his ’08 campaign and are partially responsible for the last abysmal 3+ years of financial disaster.

    Romney wasn’t my first choice, but he did a fine job last night.

    Can’t wait for the VP debate . . . . . Any bets on how many gaffes Biden will make?

  2. Toby says:

    I think Romney did republicans and conservatives proud,he clearly schooled Obama. Obama looked like a kid standing in front of a class to discuss homework he has not done. Obama looked like a petulant child.
    Whoever told Obama to attack a successful business man about business, keep up the good work, lol.
    Romney had answers for every question and was not going to be pushed around by some Left leaning moderator. I about came out of my chair cheering when Romney said he would cut off funding to PBS, and other waste of money programs. This was a clear WIN for Romney.
    Look how the MSM has reacted, it was knee jerk but they hammered Obama on his performance. I am sure by today the MSM will get its talking points in order and they will all be making excuses for Obama.

  3. Libby says:

    First I have to say … I didn’t watch. It really has been years and years and years since I could bring myself to listen to any politician for any length of time. So my sister watches and then tells me how it went.

    But it sounds like the overall effect was just … not what we’ve been used to at all. Romney pulled himself together splendidly which, considering the filthy couple of weeks he’s lived through, reflect very positively on the man’s character. And Obama did not sparkle; he was not his passionately charismatic self at all.

    Obama hit on not a single one of the unfortunate incidents characterizing Romney’s campaign: no hammering, no nailing, no zinging at all. And it wasn’t even like he was being charitable, or presidential, or whatever; he just couldn’t be bothered. He could have been helping the girls with their homework but, no, he was out on the road doing stuff that, maybe, he’d just as soon not do anymore.

    But we’re gonna be real mean … and re-elect the man anyway.

  4. Tina says:

    Bud great analysis!

    I was two fist thumbs-upping Romney all night long. He was what I always suspected, sharp, clever and unafraid even when he had to say something a bit uncomfortable…the man doesn’t run from the tough confront.

    Jack we have a good bunch of contributors here at Post Scripts don’t we? All of the comments about the debate are well articulated and right on the money!

  5. Tina says:

    Libby I’m pleasantly surprised by your assessment and congratulate you and your sister for your honesty.

    I’m dumbfounded by the last remark…do you care about the country at all? Romney didn’t just win on style or because Obama didn’t zing…Obama attempted to be substantive and Romney creamed him with fundamental truth, facts, and the reality of his failed policies.

  6. Princess says:

    The debate was pathetically moderated. Jim Lehrer was worthless. If they hadn’t been so polite it would have been disastrous because since when do people interrupt and ignore the moderator?

    I was ver pleased with what Romney had to say. Unfortunately I think our biggest problem right now is the worthless congress we have that get paid big bucks, great benefits and pensions for life just to sit on their thumbs.

  7. Libby says:

    Eeeww … yuk … I just pulled this off Salon:

    Romney in the debate: I like PBS; I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too, Romney said to debate moderator Jim Lehrer, the host of PBS’s “NewsHour.” But I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.

    Well how about we raise taxes to pay for it! Does he actually propose a culture with $1000 a head symphony galas at the high end, and American Idol at the low end, and NOTHING in between?

    That ain’t a country I want to live in.

  8. Tina says:

    How about we don’t! PBS supporters can pony more up if they want to keep PBS alive! We who watch other programming or read books or attend plays and symphonies in the flesh pay for it.

    Here’s some info I dug up on PBS:

    Government support of PBS is a paltry 14% of its budget. 60% of its funding comes from private donations and grants. As a non-profit it already has a big subsidy (as democrats frame it) because it pays no federal taxes. Sesame Street makes around $50 million a year marketing its products. But according to one site the people who support this programming are educated and among the wealthy:

    http://www.weirdrepublic.com/episode72.htm

    PBS viewers, on the whole, are older and whiter than the national average; 57 percent earn more than $40,000 a year. More than half of its adult viewers have college educations. So why does a network that caters mostly to people who are better educated and richer than the average American need to rip off the average wage slave?

    The Federal Communications Commission now requires all broadcasting stations to convert to a digital format. The folks who oversee public broadcasting have estimated that the PBS conversion will cost nearly $1.7 billion. So far Congress has provided $48.7 million, which is only one thirty-fifth of the total cost. Is the programming PBS provides really worth the wrenching bill of $1.7 thousand million dollars (1.7 billion)?

    If true, the following is also very interesting to the discussion:

    As a matter of history, PBS had only two reasons to justify its subsidized existence: childrens educational programming and cultural documentaries that appealed to audiences so small that the big networks ignored them. In the course of time all of this has changed. Today a wide array of specialty cable stations caters to niche audiences that are now being enlarged by cross-over viewers from the aging PBS. Parents who were raised on Sesame Street and Mister Rogers Neighborhood can now choose from a much bigger neighborhood of kid-friendly programming on Disney and Nickelodeon.

    Cable stations cater to the unique proclivities of preschoolers by spending millions of dollars on programming that gives form to Harvard professor Howard Gardners theory of multiple intelligences. This programming stimulates many dimensions of pre-school development. The creaky puppet-show variations on PBS seem merely entertaining by comparison. Barney the purple dinosaur is intellectual junk food compared to Nickelodeons Dora the Explorer. Dora teaches special skills, interpersonal communication and bilingual language development as well as basic tutorials about letters and numbers. As ratings figures demonstrate, smart parents of preschoolers prefer the more cerebral programming on the cable channels. PBS is now frantically seeking viewers for its museum of childrens programming.

    PBS is in constant financial straits because its executives bungled every opportunity to capitalize on its hottest commercial properties. The money made from Sesame Street merchandising spin-offs alone should have filled the PBS coffers to bursting, but all that stuff is owned by an outside producer called Sesame Workshop (formerly Childrens Television Workshop), which keeps most of the profits for itself. Manufacturers, such as Fisher Price, share little of their profits with PBS. After 34 years of working closely together, Sesame Workshop pockets most of the wealth generated by characters that PBS popularized. So dismayed is Sesame Workshop at the flagging prospects of PBS that it has begun distributing Sesame Street to PBS snappy rival Noggin.

    Maybe PBS has failed to keep up with the times and in adopting a non-profit status failed to attract the kind of creative talent that would adequately inspire interest to sell its high-brow fair? Could be.

    Funding for PBS should be unnecessary if the content is popular. If it isn’t why isn’t it? And why should sluggo down at the yard have to subsidize what an educated, wealthy person watches at the same time he pays for cable or dish to watch his favorite in sports?

  9. RHT447 says:

    Well done Mr. Romney, well done.
    Who’da thunk? The Slacker in Chief finally got vetted.
    He flunked.

  10. Libby says:

    Yes, Tina. We’ve already got you in the American Idol category.

  11. Joseph says:

    Well Miss Tina and Miss Princess and Miss Peggy, here’s the truth the libs just won’t admit but it is the truth…

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/thomaspascoe/100020522/obama-did-not-underperform-we-saw-the-real-man/

  12. Peggy says:

    Great find Joseph.

    I completly agree with Mr.Pascoe. We saw the real Obama last night, because his minions weren’t able to control the situation.

    I strongly believe the gloves are coming off of Obama’s handlers and the LSM, and thrown down on the mat. We are about to have a very ugly five weeks.

    Hope and praying Romney will stay on message and not take their baiting.

  13. Tina says:

    Libby: “Yes, Tina. We’ve already got you in the American Idol category.”

    Your powers of observation need some tweeking…I’ve never seen a single show. I have seen a few advertisements does that count?

    I noticed you didn’t address the fact that most of the viewers are upper class and could well afford to pay for the service just like the guys that buy the football season on Direct TV so they won’t miss a single game!

    Common Libs…this is something the government does not need to support.

    I’ll bet if they wanted to they could restructure, preserve artistic control, and make a deal like the kids over at HBO have done and get this thing financed properly! It might even become a vehicle for support of the opera and theater…those things have been struggling and could use a commercial boost.

  14. Tina says:

    Joseph I thoroughly enjoyed reading Mr. Pascoe! Thank you for sharing. This is certainly my experience:

    This isn’t anywhere close to being a prospectus for governing the world’s most important country through a period of crisis it’s a manifesto for election to a student union.

  15. Harriet says:

    O.K. may get some flack for this, but prior to the debate Obama said two or three times he is not a good debator did not expect to do all that well against Romney.

    I think Obama purposely did not do well, he was not in his usual form whatsoever, he looked like it was his first time. The reason for “flubbing this up” is to come out swinging on the next two debates making him look like “the much improved, most brilliant”. Even if Romney presents himself in the same manner it will appear that Obama “cleaned the floor with him.”

    I guess we will have to wait for their second to find out.

  16. Post Scripts says:

    Harriet, that’s not a bad idea at all. I posed the question, is this a rope a dope tactic? It’s possible. Or it’s just as possible that Obama is proving what a rank amateur he is, once again.

  17. Harriet says:

    I did not see your question “Is this a rope a dope tactic”
    nothing would surprise me. After all, it depends on the
    definition of “is”.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.