Let me reiterate: I think Romney won last night’s debate handily. I’m just not sure it will have that much of an impact besides a temporary bounce in the polls. And that’s because, in my opinion, the Romney campaign has not been tough enough to this point — while the Obama campaign continues to define for the American public who “Romney” is.
To that end, three things: first, John McCain, on Soledad O’Brien, says he’s surprised at how well Romney did, but reminds us all that we should never underestimate the President. After all, the Marxist poser bullshitted his way past Mavericky Statist McCain, so obviously he must be some sort of force of nature. Otherwise, who can resist a bitter, rather dull old GOP stalwart more concerned with being liked by the New York Times than he is with sticking to principles at the times when such an adherence to conservative principles truly matter?
Second, Governor Martin O’Malley, Maryland’s union-coddling, heavy-taxing “progressive,” also on O’Brien’s show, said “that although Romney had an elevated level of performance, his plan remains unspecific” — a talking point that the President used over and over last night, and that dutiful flacks like O’Malley repeat, despite the specifics that Romney engaged in, both on how he’d roll back portions of Dodd Frank, how he’d refuse to cut taxes on the 3% of small businesses that create 25% of the countries jobs, and other similar instances wherein he clearly offered specific reforms to the president’s policies, as well as noted specifically the kinds of regulations he’d cut in other economic sectors.
Asserted O’Malley, without a care in the world for the accuracy of his characterization — it’s as if the Democrats believe you can create reality by merely repeating the lie often enough (cough, cough, Goebbels):
I don’t believe you’ll see a fundamental change in the dynamics of this race. And I believe the big question that still needs to be answered is Governor Romney’s so-called plan that he won’t let anyone see about how it is that he can cut taxes and revenues by $4 trillion or $5 trillion and somehow tell us to just trust him, because behind Door No. 3, there’s a secret plan and he can’t tell us about it until the election is over. I think that was a blank that he was not able to fill in last night. There were high expectations that he would be specific about that and instead he skated around it
Here, let me help a brother out, Martin: As Romney said repeatedly (though not, I don’t think forcefully enough or clearly enough last evening), cutting tax, particularly on small businesses and by significantly lowering the corporate tax rates, will lead to reinvestment in American jobs and industries. Removing the burden of having to send any seed or expansion money to the government allows businesses to keep more, re-invest it, higher new workers, expand the business, and thus grow the economy. And a growing economy, as Reagan and the Laffer Curve have both shown us — SCIENCE! — increases revenue. Hell, revenue to the government increased under Bush. The problem there was spending. The government spends more than it takes it, and it refuses to rein itself in, preferring to take more of our money to fund its “investments.” And we have no say in those investments, and no way to opt out of the debacle of, say, Solyndra.
The Democrats can cite Clinton all they want, but the truth is, Clinton had a conservative Congress to work with; and near the end of the Bush years, the Democrats were in charge of budgets, and it was they who left Obama the situation he inherited (and he voted for the budgets and programs that created the situation he now decries, doubling the irony). More, Obama had both Houses of Congress and could pass anything he wanted in those first two years in office. He chose to repay his cronies and push through a health care plan that as a practical effect turns citizens into subjects — and at the end of the slippery slope is single payer government health care that will have attached to it all sort of conditions, from nutritional demands to (you think I’m joking?) “voluntary” exercise regimens, where we’re all told to stand in public squares each morning in our Ralph Lauren workout pajamas doing some American variation on tai-chi.
And finally, Rand Paul:
About 90-95% of Americans have decided. There’s about 5% left. So nothing really changes traumatically. But you’re trying to shift the four, five, six, seven percent of the vote that might shift at this point. I think most everybody else is pretty much set on where they’re going to go. So you are shooting for a small amount of people. Some in the middle. But interestingly, people are always talking about the middle. [There are] people on both extremes. Remember when Ralph Nader took votes. You know, libertarians take votes. So really, they need to be worried also about people on the other side of the spectrum, as well.”
This is what I was trying to get across last evening, inelegantly, in my debate review.
I’ve now seen a few Gary Johnson commercials. And it has me wondering: will libertarians and Paulites be at least happy enough with the pro-business and growth stance Romney appears to be taking to throw him their vote and try to remove from office the single greatest threat to the Constitution, the Declaration, and the very foundational assumptions about natural rights, private property, and individual autonomy that provide free people under our particular social compact the protections necessary to keep the tyranny of expansive government at bay?
I honestly want to be more sanguine. And I was very pleased with Romney’s demeanor last evening; he didn’t fear the President as McCain clearly did (and still does), and he refused to let the President mischaracterize his record or his policy plans.
The problem is, he did that once during a debate. After allowing the President and his campaign and the activist media in bed with the Democrats create an entirely different picture of Romney, one that he now has to beat back.
And time is running out.
Will Angela Boozhoo wake up in 30 days? Will Ann Althouse…?
In 2008, when Obama was pressed for specifics on his plans for “Hope and Change”, he clarified by offering a new campaign slogan, “Change We Need” thereby meeting the media’s demand for specifics. The change Obama was promising was the kind of change we needed, see?
So it’s not like this demand for specifics is something the media is only demanding from Romney.
The change Obama was promising was the kind of change we needed, see?
Oh, just totally fluff over the fact that he also said “The time is NOW.”
I think the “time is NOW” part is what got Althouse to drop her drawers for him.
In other news, the caring government cancels a man’s health insurance in the middle of his cancer treatments. Why? Because his wife got job.
Let this be a warning to us all. This is what can happen when you’re insufficiently dependent on the government.
When was “Change we can believe in”..? Becasue that one was a hoot.
You could believe in it, because there would never be any actual proof it existed.
(I’m using a wireless keyboard and havin to go back and re-add dropped ltters. Like the G in “having” or the first E in “letters.”)
Whoa Jack. Don’t forget that not only did he specify that the change he promised was the change we needed, he went further. Much further: We are the change we’ve been waiting for. You can’t deny the specificity of that!
What about “We are the ones we have been waiting for?”
Because that one brought so many things into focus for me.
Yea, Steph got there first.
And, “Where ever you go, there you are.” No wait. That was “Buckaroo Banzai”.
Romney had a good night but Don’t be cocky!
The good news is people are just starting to vote now. Ballots are coming in the mail to absentee voters and to those states who vote by mail. This will just keep increasing. So temporary bounce or not, it is coming at the critical time Romney needs it.
But is this election over? Hardly. Obama and his supporters will be like cornered sewer rats.
And even if Romney wins, we have to make sure Romney stays on the straight and narrow (which as we remember with GWB is not that easy).
I have zero hangover from last night. Maybe it is a Denver altitude thing (even though I was not in Denver).
Jeff, the difference is that last night the country got to hear both Romney and Obama unfiltered by the media. Now Romney has broken the media mold and can go on the offensive. And the Emperor’s New Clothes are finally exposed.
Romney is far from a conservative candidate but at this point all I want is the bus to slow down or swerve to the right a bit so we have a chance to jump off.
He promised to keep the government dole big. Less risky than free enterprise is free money. After all, it ain’t likely to run out before we die, right?
Fuck our kids. They’ll figure something out. It ain’t like they ain’t getting any schooling.
Obama’s debate problem? Fox News is racist. No, really.
Agreed – it was a good showing but not necessarily a so-called game changer, particularly considering the fickle nature of our electorate. But there was a certain delight in seeing the carefully manufactured myth of the One’s magnificent intelligence and eloquence evaporate in real time. It’s perhaps the first moment where everyone sees him for who he is. More importantly, it was the first opportunity for many who didn’t watch the RNC to see Romney define himself rather than being relegated to the Legacy Media portrayals or the bombardment of horrific excrement offered up by the opposing campaign.
Romney set the splitting wedge in the log last night. He’ll have 2 more opportunities to drive it home while the opposition and lapdog Media scramble frantically to roll the log away.
To do that, even though he’s not as conservative as I’d (we’d?) like, he should take every opportunity to draw the distinction between Collectivism and Individualism, between Centrally-Planned Decisions and Locally-Planned Decisions, that “Revenue” means TAXES and that we’re not going to Tax our way into prosperity.
Plus, it would be cool if Romney were just a tiny bit more, you know….Outlaw!
“It’s perhaps the first moment where everyone sees him for who he is.”
In light of Obama’s claim that Mitt Romney last night wasn’t the “real” Mitt Romney, that “for who he is” would make a half-decent comeback for Romney, like say —
Romney: “I hear President Obama saying that wasn’t really me on the debate stage last night. For damn sure, that was Obama you saw there. That was as real as he gets!”
[…] This is how it’s done: Here, let me help a brother out, Martin: As Romney said repeatedly (though not, I don’t think forcefully enough or clearly enough last evening), cutting tax, particularly on small businesses and by significantly lowering the corporate tax rates, will lead to reinvestment in American jobs and industries. Removing the burden of having to send any seed or expansion money to the government allows businesses to keep more, re-invest it, higher new workers, expand the business, and thus grow the economy. And a growing economy, as Reagan and the Laffer Curve have both shown us — SCIENCE! — increases revenue. Hell, revenue to the government increased under Bush. The problem there was spending. The government spends more than it takes it, and it refuses to rein itself in, preferring to take more of our money to fund its “investments.” And we have no say in those investments, and no way to opt out of the debacle of, say, Solyndra. […]
OCBill says October 4, 2012 at 11:07 am
And, “Where ever you go, there you are.” No wait. That was “Buckaroo Banzai”.
That phrase always works for me on many levels.
[…] us also heed Jeff Goldstein: I honestly want to be more sanguine. And I was very pleased with Romney’s demeanor last evening; […]