Er, no, Obama didn’t win the debate last night

posted at 8:41 pm on October 17, 2012 by J.E. Dyer

We’ve reached a watershed here, where we either live in our own heads affirming reality, regardless of spurious inputs from demagoguery or sentiment, or we give up on reality and let demagoguery and sentiment take over at the decision table.  Did the president pull off a performance last night, in terms of sounding passionate and full of conviction?  To some extent, yes.  Does that mean he won the debate, or even achieved a draw with Romney?  No.

The mainstream media immediately launched a volley of positive soundbites about the president’s performance, but frankly, they were going to do that anyway.  As long as Obama didn’t collapse on the stage, they were going to say he had his mojo back.

The problem is that in order to sound passionate and full of conviction, Obama had to belt out a remarkable string of untruths.  Besides repeating the same tired lies about Romney’s policies that his campaign has been flogging for the last two months, the president simply lied – there’s nothing else to call it – about the trend of drilling permits under his administration (Romney is right; permits have been slashed).

Obama insisted to Romney that he had called the Benghazi attack terrorism on day one, when in fact, he had not.  He lied about the Arizona immigration-enforcement law, repeating a lie the Democrats have persisted in since the law was being debated in the Arizona statehouse.  The law is carefully and explicitly written to prohibit ethnic profiling stops by law-enforcement officers.  Immigration-status checks can only be done in connection with a stop on another, unrelated basis, such as a traffic stop.

Obama did try to assume the moral high ground on Libya with a riff on Americans’ safety and his responsibility, but it was a cringe-worthy performance from the man who waited until after the Benghazi attack to bring diplomatic-mission security up to a normal standard, and who professes, 36 days after the attack, to still be waiting to find out what happened.  If he really doesn’t know, he’s the only one who doesn’t.  His position that we’re still waiting to assess the attack isn’t judicious; it’s absurd.  Mentally substitute George W. Bush for Obama in this scenario, and try to imagine the MSM giving Bush the benefit of the doubt for 36 days and counting.

I had my concerns about Romney’s performance last night, if only a couple.  Probably the biggest was that he tended to put his most powerful material at the end of each statement, and got cut off just as he was articulating it.  The response to the woman who asked about keeping jobs in the US was a case in point: Romney made a rather convoluted case about China as a currency manipulator, and only after dealing with that arcane topic mentioned that if we want to keep America job-friendly, we have to stop regulating ourselves into an economic coma.  He got cut off saying it; that should have been his opening point.  The American people can do something about that.  And whether or not the point about regulation resonated with that particular questioner, it would resonate far and wide among other Americans.

Romney is typically succinct and direct on the economy, and he should apply that style to everything he says in a debate.  He would have made the point about Obama’s own passive investment in China much better by simply stating it outright, rather than repeating the same question to the president – “Have you looked at your pension lately?” – until it began sounding like a second-grader’s taunt.  Just make the assertion, already.  “Mr. President, your pension is invested in China.”  That simple – and, without the weird build-up, slyly devastating.

But rhetorical glitches aside, Romney had substance last night.  He whaled it out of the park on energy and immigration, and came off as genial and presidential.  Interestingly, the Frank Luntz panel saw the same thing.  The MSM’s assessment this morning that the president staged a comeback in this debate is information about the MSM, not about the candidates or the debate.  It’s like they’re narrating some invisible drama that no one else can see.

I don’t think Romney dominated last night’s debate as he did the first one.  But neither did I see the debate as a draw.  Only if it counts as successful communication to use demagoguery to create itch-scratching images for your own base did Obama’s performance equal Romney’s.  Obama’s statements would have had little appeal outside his own base.  And indeed, so many of them were simply false that, to my mind, it requires assuming that your fellow Americans are fools, to think that his communications were probably more effective with them than they were with you.

The constituency for the real Obama is a minority in America, no bigger than the minority that votes for Democrats in every election cycle, and perhaps not that big.  Much of Obama’s 2008 support has peeled away, precisely because there’s no consistency between his actions, his rhetoric, and blunt reality.  Romney came off last night as he did in the first debate:  as someone with experience who does operate on the basis of reality.  For my part, I think the world in which Obama’s oratorical flourishes carried the day exists only inside the heads of MSM pundits.  Reality is giving the rest of us a big-time check.

J.E. Dyer’s articles have appeared at The Green Room, Commentary’s “contentions,Patheos, The Weekly Standard online, and her own blog, The Optimistic Conservative.

This post was promoted from GreenRoom to HotAir.com.
To see the comments on the original post, look here.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Rasmussen Ohio: Obama 49-48. 37-37-25 DRI split.

Obama leads in Ohio with a dead-even partisan split. Obama is going to win Ohio.

gumbyandpokey on October 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM

That’s not a link.

bgibbs1000 on October 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Yup. obama’s back. . . .
Lanceman on October 17, 2012 at 9:49 PM

Comeback Kid?

Nah. Dead Man Walking.

BigAlSouth on October 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM

This is why I’m here, to correct the incorrect, unrealistic pie-in-the-sky hopes.

gumbyandpokey on October 18, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Nope, you are here because you are an immature troll. I said it before, you are no expert, and your predictions are pure conjecture as has been proven time and time again with your ridiculous and puerile statements. “Walker, Atomic Bomb, Biden, GDP I Told You So…”

ShadowsPawn on October 18, 2012 at 10:48 AM

As usual, the trolls are a day late and a dollar short. Quit apologizing, Apologists!

Bmore on October 18, 2012 at 10:49 AM

“Rasmussen Ohio: Obama 49-48. 37-37-25 DRI split.

Obama leads in Ohio with a dead-even partisan split. Obama is going to win Ohio.

gumbyandpokey on October 18, 2012 at 10:31 AM

That’s not a link.

bgibbs1000 on October 18, 2012 at 10:43 AM”

It’s behind a paywall. Choose not to believe it if you prefer.

gumbyandpokey on October 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

The mainstream media had pretty much decided last week that Obama was the winner of this debate – they couldn’t wait to see how it played out.

rockncoal on October 18, 2012 at 11:12 AM

It’s behind a paywall. Choose not to believe it if you prefer.

gumbyandpokey on October 18, 2012 at 10:53 AM

So how ole Scott Walker doing?

SWalker on October 18, 2012 at 11:45 AM

I think JR gives a good assessment, especially about Romney’s answers. Indeed I found that as he started answering the question, he went on with stories or history or whatever before he got to the answer. Romney’s answers were good, we just had to wait for them sometimes. He also missed a lot of opportunities to dump Owe in the water – perhaps in the long run that makes him more Presidential, more likable by those that have to admit they made a mistake in 2008.

katablog.com on October 18, 2012 at 11:52 AM

If the question was something like:

“RESOLVED: that Obama should be elected to a second term.”

As a former high school debate judge, and using high school debating standards, Obama lost the debate.

He would have been severely penalized for constantly interrupting and shouting over his opponent. If I had been judging, he would have been disqualified within the first 10 minutes.

Also, Obama failed to address the question at hand. He did not present one single argument for a second term.

landlines on October 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Suggested political drinking game for AA members: tune into NPR and hoist a cold one every time they mention poll results these days.

drunyan8315 on October 18, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Charles Krauthhammer. I’m a great admirer. Laura Ingram also. Bill O’Reilly? Sometimes. I’d like to know exactly which debate text book they’re using.

Lies–outright, easily proveable lies, do NOT score points in a debate. Personal attacks are an automatic “lose” for a debater. Illogic, like a bad economy = high gas prices, are not points. The judge participating in the debate would have the whole thing tossed. Making declarative statements without back-up = lost points.

Obama tanked. He had a better expression and didn’t stare at his shoes, but his debating skills were awful. Romney lost points for addressing his opponent instead of the audience or the questioner. But Obama lost points for practically everything that came out of his mouth.

BTW, I’ve never thought Obama was charming. That bit of eye candy isn’t witty. His sense of humor reminds me of a mocking 13 year old. Another thing. What IS that thing growing next to his nose? He’s the President. Surely he could have it removed.

Portia46 on October 18, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Oooops. Meant to say “bad economy = low gas prices”.

Portia46 on October 18, 2012 at 12:50 PM

landlines on October 18, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Yup. Exactly. (I forgot about the interupting because the rest of his “performance” was so very aggregious)

Portia46 on October 18, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Candy Crawler as debate #2 moderator makes the NFL replacement refs look almost competent and impartial!!!

On second thought, make that Candy Crawler as #2, period!!!

Sweet_Thang on October 18, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Bishop would be proud of you mister electrician.

I certainly am. Some of the handles are recognizable enough that they should know better.

J.E. Dyer on October 17, 2012 at 10:29 PM
And yet it is still Oklahoma.

cozmo on October 17, 2012 at 10:39 PM

You play nice or we’ll just leave the third string in next time instead of letting the cheerleaders finsh the game!

Tenwheeler on October 18, 2012 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3