Left Abandons Obama, Romney Better Watch Out
October 4, 2012 24 Comments
The fallout from last night’s debate has been priceless. The left is beside themselves over Obama’s performance. James Carville declared Romney came with a chainsaw and roundly attacked Obama. Andrew Sullivan said the debate was a disaster for Obama. Chris Matthews was beside himself wondering what Obama was doing on stage. Politico claims Juan Williams declared the debate a massacre while attacking Obama’s performance. The New York Times called Obama “President Xanax.” Van Jones claims Romney out Obama’d Obama. During the debate last night liberals attacked Obama without mercy on Twitter. The left is in full fledged freak out mode.
Of course the left is also making excuses for Obama. Jim Lehrer is taking the brunt of the criticism. Obama’s senior campaign manager Stephanie Cutter blamed Lehrer’s performance for Obama’s defeat. Yahoo News claims “experts” are ripping Lehrer’s performance. Those experts just happen to be liberals in the media such as Time’s Ezra Klein. In fact, Lehrer let Obama bloviate and interrupted Romney on a number of occasions. But let’s face it, Lehrer isn’t responsible for Obama’s defeat. Obama is. It was obvious from the beginning that Lehrer wasn’t going to control the debate, so instead of taking over the debate Obama continued to debate in a passive manner. Surely the smartest man in the world can figure out a debate moderator’s power at some point in a 90 minute debate.
The absolute best excuse though came from Al Gore who blamed the altitude in Denver for Obama’s poor performance. This man was 500 votes from being President of the United States in 2000. Frightening eh? Obama apparently isn’t capable of adjusting to the high altitude in Denver. In Al Gore’s world, Obama must have been winded standing there talking. Gore must not have gotten the memo that the only people who are actually affected by the altitude in Denver are athletes. People who stand and talk don’t get winded, people who run or skate around get winded quickly in the Denver altitude. It’s a simple concept.
While it’s fun to revel in a victory and it’s even more fun to watch the left panic we can not forget that Romney is still behind in this race. Rasmussen’s swing state poll still shows Romney behind by 7 points. He has a lot of ground to cover if he wants to beat Obama. One debate is likely not going to cut it. But it is a start. Romney badly needed a win last night and he got it. He’s back in the race but the race isn’t anywhere near finishing. The election is still over a month away. We still have a VP debate, which won’t be as easy as Republicans like to think it will be. We still have two Presidential debates.
It would be shocking if Obama didn’t perform better in the next debate. Surely we’ll all think he’s done better because of last night’s performance. Obama fell into the trap that a lot of incumbents fall into. They think the election is in the bag, so they go through the motions. Carter was dreadful in 1980. Reagan lost the first debate in 1984 when he appeared tired. Bush 41 checked his watch at the first debate in 1992. Clinton underperformed against Dole in 1996. In 2004 John Kerry defeated Bush on foreign policy in the first debate.
Obama did what they all did, he under performed, under prepared and looked like wanted to be elsewhere. Did anyone else notice how quickly he and Michelle left the stage after the debate? Mitt Romney’s up there with his wife, children and grandchildren and the President is nowhere to be found. People noticed that even if they aren’t talking about it. Obama wanted to be anywhere but the debate stage last night, we all saw it. But it won’t be that way at the next debate. He’ll be aggressive, he’ll be prepared and he’ll perform much better. Romney had best be prepared, more so than he was last night.
About Steven
Oh How Mitt Lied: And there will Be No Mercy As the Voters Get the Truth
Mitt Romney repeatedly questioned President Obama’s honesty at Wednesday night’s debate — likening the president and vice president at one point to his five sons repeating things that were not true — but he made a number of misleading statements himself on the size of the federal deficits, taxes, Medicare and health care.
Follow along with this interactive replay of the presidential debate, using fact checks and graphics to take a closer look at President Obama and Mitt Romney’s assertions and attacks.
A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.
“I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals,” Mr. Romney said to Mr. Obama, describing his plan to cut tax rates by 20 percent. “I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it’s a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it’s just not the case. Look, I’ve got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it, and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it. But that is not the case, all right?”
But among other misleading statements, Mr. Romney falsely stated that Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. “The president said he’d cut the deficit in half,” Mr. Romney charged. “Unfortunately, he doubled it.”
Mr. Obama made a number of misleading statements of his own — mainly by filling in the blanks of some of Mr. Romney’s vague plans, usually in the least politically palatable way. He described Mr. Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax “cut” and said the average middle-class family would pay more, contrary to Mr. Romney’s pledges.
Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama are hardly the first presidential candidates to use debates to challenge the honesty of their opponents.
But this year, as the line between acceptable political debate and sophistry has often been crossed, the accuracy of campaign statements has emerged as a campaign issue. Here is an examination of some of the claims and counterclaims.
Doubling the Deficit
Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. That is not true. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.) For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year he was inaugurated. Measured as a share of the economy, as economists prefer, the deficit has declined more significantly — from 10.1 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009 to 7.3 percent for 2012.
The $5 Trillion Tax Cut
Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney repeatedly sparred over whether Mr. Romney has proposed a $5 trillion tax cut.
It is true that Mr. Romney has proposed “revenue neutral” tax reform, meaning that he would not expand the deficit. However, he has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion.
To make up that revenue, Mr. Romney has said he wants to clear out the underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code. But he has not yet specified how he would do so.
This week, in a television interview, Mr. Romney did shed some light — floating the idea of capping each household’s deductions at $17,000.
“As an option, you could say everybody’s going to get up to a $17,000 deduction. And you could use your charitable deduction, your home mortgage deduction, or others, your health care deduction, and you can fill that bucket, if you will, that $17,000 bucket that way,” he said. “Higher-income people might have a lower number.”
The deduction cap has the virtue of avoiding the tough negotiations over which tax expenditures to unwind. Many tax expenditures are highly popular, like the deduction for charitable giving. Moreover, many are important to the stability of the economy. Suddenly ending the home mortgage interest deduction, for instance, would threaten to destabilize the housing market.
But a number of unanswered questions about Mr. Romney’s tax plan remain.
For instance, Mr. Romney did not address how his proposed cap on deductions would affect tax credits. (Generally, deductions lower a family’s level of taxable income and credits erase part of their overall tax bill.)
It is also unclear whether his proposal to cap deductions would raise enough revenue to pay for his income tax rate cuts — at least not without increasing the tax burden on families making less than $200,000 a year, which Mr. Romney has vowed that he will not do.
Government ‘Takeover’ Of Health Care
Mr. Romney said that Mr. Obama’s health care overhaul would allow the federal government to “take over health care,” an assertion rejected by the president.
The 2010 health care law clearly expands the role of the federal government. But it also builds on the foundation of private health insurance, providing subsidies for millions of low- and moderate-income people to buy private insurance.
Under the law, close to 30 million Americans are expected to gain health coverage, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Many of them would receive insurance through the expansion of Medicaid. The federal government will initially pay the entire cost of Medicaid coverage for newly eligible beneficiaries and would never pay less than 90 percent.
In addition, the federal government would subsidize the purchase of private insurance for millions of people with incomes up to four times the poverty level (up to $92,200 for a family of four). Private insurers would thus have many new customers.
Projections by the nonpartisan office of the actuary at the Department of Health and Human Services show that federal, state and local government health spending will account for nearly 50 percent of all health spending in the United States by 2021, up from 46 percent in 2011. The federal share of all health spending is expected to rise to more than 31 percent, from slightly less than 29 percent.
The changes reflect the expansion of Medicaid eligibility and the new subsidies for private insurance, as well as the increase in Medicare enrollment as baby boomers join the program.
When Mr. Romney and other Republicans complain of a federal takeover, they are referring to more than spending and enrollment in government health programs. They say the new health care law will require most Americans to purchase “government-approved insurance” or pay a new tax. The tax issue was at the heart of the Supreme Court’s much-debated 5-to-4 decision in June to uphold the president’s health care overhaul law, the Affordable Care Act.
Green Energy
Mr. Romney said that half the companies backed by the president’s green energy stimulus program have gone out of business. That is a gross overstatement. Of nearly three dozen recipients of loans under the Department of Energy’s loan guarantee program, only three are currently in bankruptcy, although several others are facing financial difficulties. Mr. Romney also said that “many” of the companies that received such loans were supported by campaign contributors. George Kaiser, a major fund-raiser for Mr. Obama’s 2008 campaign, was an investor in Solyndra, the failed solar panel maker, but there are also examples of Republican and Democratic campaign contributors who also invested in firms supported by the loan guarantee program.
The $716 Billion Cut From Medicare
Mr. Obama first brought up Mr. Romney’s frequent criticism that the president cut $716 billion from Medicare, by saying the cost savings were from reduced payments to insurance companies and other health care providers. But Mr. Romney repeated the claim, suggesting that the $716 billion in Medicare reductions would indeed come from current beneficiaries.
While fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked this claim, it remains a standard attack line for Mr. Romney.
The charge that Mr. Obama took $716 billion from Medicare recipients to pay for “Obamacare” has several problems — not least the fact that Mr. Romney’s running mate, Representative Paul D. Ryan, included the identical savings in his budget plans that House Republicans voted for in the past two years.
Mr. Obama did not cut benefits by $716 billion over 10 years as part of his 2010 health care law; rather, he reduced Medicare reimbursements to health care providers, chiefly insurance companies and drug manufacturers. And the law gave Medicare recipients more generous benefits for prescription drugs and free preventive care like mammograms.
According to nonpartisan analysts, it is Mr. Romney who would both cut benefits and add costs for beneficiaries if he restored the $716 billion in reductions. Restoring higher payments to insurers and other companies would in turn increase Medicare premiums because beneficiaries share in Medicare’s total cost. Marilyn Moon, a vice president at the American Institutes for Research, has calculated that a Medicare recipient’s out-of-pocket expenses would increase $577 a year on average by 2022.
Also, the Obama reductions added eight years to the life of Medicare’s financially troubled trust fund, to 2024, according to Medicare trustees. If the cuts were restored, the insolvency date would revert to 2016.
But the cuts to providers could cause private Medicare plans to raise their premiums, which is expected to reduce enrollment in them. Those changes have not materialized yet.
You’re living in a liberal fantasy land. Where did this nonsense come from, Obama’s Truth Team?
No that totally unreliable and socialist hated paper the NY Times. Try reading it some time-you might learn something. Oh, maybe I should get my info from Rush or Fox News, the Washington Times?
Check out the facts-if you dare Mr. fantasy land right-wing nut job.
I tire of the liberal “fact” checkers who don’t look at all the facts. Any fact check that says Romney has a $5 trillion tax cut is ignoring, willfully, what Romney said last night. Any “fact” check that tries to talk around Obama’s $716 billion cut in Medicare isn’t worth listening to. They’re nothing but propaganda arms of Obama’s Truth Team. They’re another example of media bias.
I credit Obama with more intelligence. This could be a shrewd ploy by him to look weak in the first debate. And then come roaring back….it is the comeback kid that his vote-bank, or the “47%” like.
Romney needs to be careful of these psychological games. Obama is no fool! This may have been a battle that Obama lost in order to win the War!
There is no way Obama threw the debate in order to set Romney up for the next two. He could have put this race away last night, so he’s not going to throw it. He will come out stronger next time, now he knows how strong Romney is at debate.
Yes Steve, the level of conservative debate in your column is truly amazing. Obama threw the debate so he could be the beloved underdog and make a Rockey Balboa comeback. That is almost as dumb and harebrained as your theory that Obama deliberately tanked the economy to create more dependent Democrats who would vote for him. Are all far-right conspiracy nut jobs as dumb as the people who write here?
The person you’re talking about isn’t an American, so show a little bit of kindness.
Shrewd ploy, right. Obama is weak and not interested in doing the job as president and he could care less about the middle class. Romney will outshine him in every debate even the town hall where I expect there will be liberal plants to try to get Romney tripped up and on the defense.
Obama’s got nothing,never did, just a facade
I wouldn’t say it’s all in the bag for Romney at the debates yet. Obama will be better prepared next time and Romney had better not get fat and sassy thinking that he’ll whip Obama.
If that was the real Romney on stage last night, the moderate Romney, I could live with him as president. Unfortunately, he swerved so far to the center from primary campaign Romney, I just don’t know what to expect.
He ran in the primary as the conservative while everyone else was presented by Romney as the conservative heretic.
Mitt Romney was terrific! The guy is a super talented public speaker. He would be a good match for Bill Clinton any day in a debate. Mitt hardly stumbled on a word and was able to clearly and precisely articulate his every belief and position on an amazing roster of issues.
It is really hard to believe, therefore, that this is the same guy who mistakenly called 47% of Americans bums in a speech before his wealthy cronies. Mitt explained, of course, that he did not really mean that 47% of Americans were bums but rather, he misspoke during that speech and he was unfortunately inarticulate in expressing what he truly meant to say. But I rather think Mitt’s speech was exactly on point with that crowd. He expressed precisely what that wealthy group of privileged Americans think of the less fortunate. Mitt was speaking their language.
What voters should realize from the debate is that Mitt Romney is a master public speaker. That he can say precisely what he wants to say with few stumbles or unintentional errors. The real Mitt Romney is the guy who will say whatever he thinks he needs to say to a particular audience to solicit funds or to get elected. He can articulate fraudulent personal feelings with passion. He can knowingly repeat lies with earnestness. He has learned that, “Once you can fake sincerity the rest is easy.” Unless someone has a hidden video recorder of course.
P.S. Why didn’t Obama mention the 47%? Because he did not want to give Romney a chance to apologize for it or to explain it away. Its out there and the Democrats want it to be a loud and clear message of who Mitt Romney really is and what he thinks of them.
I don’t care why Obama didn’t ask about the 47% comment. You’ll notice I didn’t talk about it in either of my posts. It’s a non-issue, just like the silly video Hannity and Carlson came up with earlier this week. As for Romney, he had a good performance. He saved his campaign from certain defeat. That doesn’t mean he’ll win.
A non-issue??? You are a moron my nut-wing friend.
It’s a non-issue because Obama never brought it up. The 47% line is already long in the tooth for the 24/7 media cycle. It’s like ‘you didn’t build that.’ These things don’t have a long shelf life. By the time Obama and Romney debate in two weeks, if it’s brought up then no one will even care anymore. The media cycle on 47% will have long since past. It’s a non-issue.
“I tire of the liberal “fact” checkers who don’t look at all the facts. Any fact check that says Romney has a $5 trillion tax cut is ignoring, willfully, what Romney said last night. Any “fact” check that tries to talk around Obama’s $716 billion cut in Medicare isn’t worth listening to. They’re nothing but propaganda arms of Obama’s Truth Team. They’re another example of media bias.”
Really Steve? That’s right don’t even listen to it-because you know the truth! Why? Because Mitt said it last night. What a joke you are. Well Steve, get your right-wing nut jobs to check the facts and see what they can come up with.
The whole idea for media “fact” checkers comes from Media Matters. They’re playing a game wherein they set themselves up as the ultimate authority then they tear into Republicans by ignoring facts and ignoring what was actually said. When you have Andrea Mitchell going on about Romney’s $5 trillion tax cut while ignoring that he said he wants cuts offset by decreases in deductions, she’s flat out ignoring what Romney said. In your world that’s a “fact” check. In mine it’s media bias and a lie.
It was the NY Times asshole!
I don’t mind you commenting and expressing your opinions. However, I kindly request you refrain from using offensive language on my blog.
Why Steve, you truly are an asshole. Why did Mitt apologize the next day if it was “long in the tooth? Because he didn’t get a chance to apologize in front of a huge national audience as he had hoped to do if Obama had brought up the issue. Got it??? You see there really are lot of people out there on both the right and left who are whole lot smarter then you are. AND more importantly- get this Steve- their thinking isn’t dumbed down by the blinders of extreme ideology. CAN YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I JUST SAID??? Say it slowly to yourself over and over again: “Thinking is dumbed down-limited-impaired-by the blinders of extreme ideology.”
Have a good life Steve.
My, what a troll Mr47% is. Friend, you could at least play nicely and not use such language on Steven’s blog. If you can’t disagree without doing so, you should go elsewhere to spew your garbage.
I agree with your assessment, Steven. Romney did a great job and the excuses we are hearing from the Obama supporters are somewhat amusing. Having said that, Romney needs to double down on his campaigning and on his preparation for the next two debates. Having set the bar fairly high with his first debate performance, the liberal moderators will surely come loaded for bear. He helped himself, but it is far from over.
I would be curious to know why you think the debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan isn’t going to be as much fun as most of us do.
You’re absolutely right about the next two debates. The message has been sent to the liberal moderator of the next debate, cut Romney off or face the wrath of people who you want to love you later.
Joe Biden says a lot of crazy things on the stump. But he’s not a complete moron. He’ll be well prepared for the debate, he won’t say anything completely insane. Paul Ryan has never been on this stage before. He didn’t debate during the GOP Primaries, so he isn’t a seasoned debater. Biden has been here before, that cannot be discounted.