The big news this morning is last nights debate.
If there’s other news you’d like to talk about, post it in the comments.
Here’s a selection of the reactions from various news orgs.
Most call Romney the winner.
Here’s a taste.
From Politico
“Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.”
From the Washington Post
“Romney came into the 90-minute exchange after several difficult weeks but appeared rejuvenated by the opportunity to take his case directly to Obama and the American people. He was well prepared and aggressive as he hammered the president. The contrast with Obama was striking, as the president appeared less energetic even as he rebutted some of Romney’s toughest attacks.
The debate is likely to give Romney what he needed most, which is a fresh look from voters — at least those who are undecided or open to changing their minds — and will change the conversation about the campaign, which for the past two weeks has been tilted in the president’s favor. Romney now faces the challenge of trying to build on his performance and keep the president on the defensive in the days ahead.”
From National Journal
“Call it the curse of incumbency. Like many of his predecessors, President Obama fell victim Wednesday night to high expectations, a short fuse, and a hungry challenger.
If Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney didn’t win the first of three presidential debates outright, he more than covered the spread. He was personable, funny, and relentlessly on the attack against a heavily favored Obama.
The president looked peeved and flat as he carried a conversation, for the first time in four years, with somebody telling him he’s wrong.”
From CNN
“Two-thirds of people who watched the first presidential debate think that Republican nominee Mitt Romney won the showdown, according to a nationwide poll conducted Wednesday night.
According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.”
Now these I’m including because, well, to be honest, they’re just fun.
From James Carville via the DC
““Let’s be real,” Carville said. “They have run a very good campaign thus far. I don’t think that President Obama did what this campaign wanted him to do. I think he was off his game tonight. But let’s don’t go overboard here. It will be like a big sort of pushback. … My point is this — President Obama came in, he wanted to have a conversation. It takes two people to have a conversation. Mitt Romney came in with a chainsaw. He’s trying to talk to a chainsaw.”
From Michael Moore via the Washington Times
“Moore re-tweeted: “If Romney keeps this up…Obama is going to vote for him!”
“This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”
“Schultz went on to say that Obama failed to explain his position on the economy either. “I thought he was off his game,” Schultz said. “I was absolutely stunned tonight.””
And the last will be Chris Mattews via RealClearPolitics
I watched this one live as it happened. Two words-Comedy Gold.
“”He was like, ‘Oh an hour and half? I think I can get through this thing. And I don’t even look at this guy.’ Whereas Romney — I love the split-screen — staring at Obama, addressing him like prey. He did it just right. ‘I’m coming at an incumbent. I got to beat him. You’ve got to beat the champ and I’m going to beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy, the moderator, whatever he thinks he is because I’m going to ignore him,” Matthews said.
“What was Romney doing?” Matthews asked. “He was winning.””
And that about sums it up.
Wandering Views 
Yep, that about sums it up. My hubby turned on the TV but didn’t stay in the room, saying that Obama simply makes him too angry. I watched nearly all of it (all but about 10 minutes near the end). About 20-30 minutes in I went to my husband and told him how poorly Obama was doing, thinking “I don’t think this would make him angry; I think it would please him.”
It struck me about halfway through that Romney “looked presidential” and Obama didn’t. Only once did Obama perk up and look comfortable, smiling and laughing in a way that seemed genuine, but he soon went back into “Let’s get this over with; I’m sunk” mode.
One expects the Obama “misery index” to be brought up in the next one.
LikeLike
Watching MSNBC’s post debate coverage was truly a guilty pleasure.
LikeLike
I watched it on C-Span because I wanted to hear what the candidates said rather than what some talking head told me they were saying. I was pleased. I am like Cheryl’s husband, Obama makes me so mad I can hardly look at him, but he was completely disengaged from this debate. Let’s hope he stay disengaged and people start seeing the real him.
LikeLike
I can relate to Cheryl’s husband on this. A couple of times I was gonna change the channel because I just don’t like the man. But I stuck with it.
Ricky,
I know. I watched it live, flipped over as soon as it was over just to see MSNBC’s reaction. I’m glad I did. It made sitting thru Obama’s horrible debate performance worth it. Mathews spitting mad, Schultz looked like someone had kicked his dog, and Maddow tried to put a good spin on it, but failed miserably. That was must see TV.
🙂
LikeLike
I watched half of it.
Michael Moore had a good point. I hadn’t thought of it, but choosing John Kerry as a debate coach is like choosing me to play James Bond.
😆
LikeLike
I watched on CNN – don’t know how you guys can sit through Matthews even for comedy, I find him grating, obnoxious and just ick to listen to.
The Governor did extremely well — he tacked to the center on an array of issues. He sounded like a moderate. Will be interesting to see how long that holds as its the first time Gov Romney sounded like the guy who governed Mass rather than a “severe conservative.”
LikeLike
I heard that the Dem talking heads are upset that O didn’t attack R on some of the issues he’s using in his ad campaigns. My thought was that it would be dangerous for him to do so because it would give R a chance to refute/explain them. Better to just let the ads run and hope the American public isn’t smart enough to see through them.
LikeLike
The WSJ in an editorial today sums up Romney’s performance well as follows:
Election Day is only a month away, but for our money the Presidential campaign really began in earnest Wednesday night in Denver at the first Presidential debate. Mitt Romney met the challenge of appearing Presidential, showed a superior command of fact and argument than the incumbent, and made a confident, optimistic case for change. These columns have often criticized the former Massachusetts Governor, but this was easily his finest performance as a candidate, and the best debate effort by a Republican nominee since Ronald Reagan in 1980.
LikeLike
After watching the debate on CSPAN, my impression was that Romney won the debate. I switched over to Fox to see what they thought, and of course they thought Romney won, too.
So I thought, let’s switch over to MSNBC and see what they’re saying over there. When the first comments I heard were complaints about how Romney treated Lehrer and how the format was unfair because “Romney’s last debate was only seven months ago, while Obama hasnt’ done this for four years”, I knew Romney had won even more decisively than I thought.
Also, Fox reran a couple humorous tweets:
From Bill Maher – “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”
From Dana Perino – “maybe debate commission should add that little league rule – when the other team is that far ahead, you just call it a day”
LikeLike
I can’t deny that seeing Romney take Obama to the woodshed was gratifying. I don’t like Obama either. His arrogant imcompetency makes my blood boil. His record speaks for itself. I didn’t need him pointing out how Romney’s plan wouldn’t work in response to Romney telling him his plan hasn’t worked…
However, I didn’t really see any substance in this debate. Some talking points, some ideas sketched out, perhaps, but no real substance. Rhetoric, simplistic explanations, and sophistry…
I just couldn’t watch it all. Had to go do something else.
LikeLike
Now one thing I could get behind, and that was Romney’s rule for cutting spending. Quote:
“What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don’t pass it: Is the program so critical it’s worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I’ll get rid of it. ”
We can only hope…
LikeLike
Scott, my husband suggested maybe Obama could have a designated hitter.
LikeLike
This was the first time that Obama debated an intelligent Republican opponent. He appeared to be out of his league. Chris Mathews is grating and obnoxious. That is why watching him when he is unhappy is so much fun.
LikeLike
The most interesting thing about the debate to me was the clip I just saw of Chris Matthews’ analysis.
“Obama needs to watch MSNBC.”
😆
MIM, that comment was also my favorite, “If it’s not important enough to bowwow it from China, can it..”
Including PBS. Amen.
LikeLike
Chas, Misten was so excited to see you speaking in tongues, and she says bowwow back!
(Sorry, couldn’t resist.)
🙂
LikeLike
Cheryl:
😦
LikeLike
Chas! I didn’t know you could speak dog! And speaking in tongues… Are you going pentecostal on us? 😀
LikeLike
I didn’t watch last night’s debate or any of the commentary afterward, but I’ve enjoyed reading the comments here about it.
If anyone is interested, I want to point out an upcoming debate from the Free and Equal Elections Foundation that I heard about at the Constitution Party’s website.
http://www.constitutionparty.com/
“CHICAGO, IL – Free & Equal Elections Foundation announced their hosting of the 2012 Presidential Debate today. The debate will be held at 8:00pm CST at University Club of Chicago in Chicago on Tuesday, October 23rd.
Libertarian Party candidate Gary Johnson, Constitution Party candidate Virgil Goode Green Party candidate Jill Stein and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson have confirmed their participation. Incumbent and Democratic Party candidate Barack Obama and Republican Party candidate Mitt Romney have been invited to participate in this important debate.”
This is being called a truly open forum for all the candidates running for president who have ballot access in enough states to be viably electable.
The debate will be broadcast online at http://www.freeandequal.org/
LikeLike
Romney won this by more than a few touchdowns. Especially when the president fumbled his closing arguments and Romney looked right at the camera and said, “What kind of America do you want?” That sums it all up there. Do you want fiscal responsibility or Spain, as MR intimated?
LikeLike
Agreed. R looked presidential, O didn’t…
Favorite quote (Dennis Miller, I think): ” Obama better hope a kicked a** is covered by Obamacare”
LikeLike
Hahahahaha,
You’re gonna laugh too.
The reason Obama did poorly at the debate was climate related according to Al Gore. Yeah, Obama was totally unprepared for high altitude thought. He would have done better if he went to Denver sooner. I kid you not.
LikeLike
Last night’s debate was a pleasant surprise.
Expectations being so low on Romney also helped with the “wow” (and “bowwow”) factor afterward, I think. Some media outlets appeared almost to be calling the race over with already based on recent polls showing Obama with a small but stubborn and persistent lead.
But Romney seemed to hit just the right notes (and CB, I know you know that by necessity they all tack left-right-center — to some degree — as need be in campaigns; campaign politics is as much a nimble dance as it is a boxing match).
He was aggressive but respectful, never mean-spirited. Obama throughout appeared just, well, annoyed and offended by the entire exercise.
I was interested to see that the two were about the same height, yet — as has been noted — Obama literally seemed to shrink as it went on. He seemed older to me than Romney (and, of course, Romney is, what, about 10-15 years older than Obama? You’d never have known it).
At any rate, it certainly breathed new life back into the campaign for some of us. (And MiM, I thought there were some specifics laid out, although in that format it’s frankly hard to present a virtual white paper in 2-minute segments, no? 😉 ). Obama struck me as simply being out of any fresh ideas.
Romney needs to flesh out his plans more, he’ll face some more questions on the “voucher” health idea and on his proposed tax plan.
But overall he impressed me as someone who had a (much more appealing) vision — and at least half a notion of how to get us all there.
LikeLike
Al Gore.
Dude.
Like the other man says. Coffee.
That’s just too weird and funny both. 😉
Thanks for the chuckle, AJ.
LikeLike
This is Peter L. I can get this blog at school now! Hurray!
My favorite line was when Romney said: “I raised five sons so I am used to people trying to tell me something long enough until I believe it.” I think he was referring to one of the many untruths the Democrats trumpet about the Romney economic plan.
LikeLike
Al Gore blames Obama’s poor debate performance on high altitude:
“Obama arrived in Denver at 2 PM today — ”Just a few hours before the debate started,” Gore said Wednesday on his Current TV network.
“Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet and you only have a few hours to adjust — I don’t know,” Gore said.
LikeLike
AJ, you beat me to it. You can take mine out – yours looks prettier anyways.
LikeLike
Okay, playing the contrarian, I get altitude sickness flying from San Francisco to Denver, which means unless I drink gallons of water and have a stiff caffeinated drink, I’m usually worthless the first night.
LikeLike
Okay, that explains it. I mentioned to my husband during the debate that at the risk of sounding racist, I thought Obama’s color seemed off. Now I understand the source, since y’all explained the altitude thing, and it makes sense. I rather felt sorry for Obama because his demeanor appeared to me as boyish and not only that, but a boy who had done something bad. He did not seem chipper and healthy and robust. My husband just commented about how much the Presidency ages all who are in that office. That was what he attributed it to. I think this will be hard to get over because some people won’t take the time to watch the other debates.
LikeLike
Mitt was comfortable last night and it showed in how well he did on the stage. He knows that the conservatives are going to vote for him because they hate Obama so much and he was comfortable in going back to his roots. Mitt is a moderate again and this could be a winning tactic if the fact checkers don’t bury him before he gets to the finish line.
LikeLike
If you did not know who the president was and was watching that debate. You would get the impression that Mr. Romney was the president and Mr. Obama was the challenger. Since most of the time was spent on talking about Mr. Romney views and plains for the Nation. A fact that Mr. Obama keep calling on Mr. Romney to give more details on his views but avoided talking a his views and plains for the Nation, in detail.
LikeLike
the last comment was from me.
LikeLike
Photoguy, I’m a conservative, but I’m not voting for Romney, (and I’m not sitting out the election, either). The Constitution Party embodies the principles I believe our country needs to get back to, so that is how I (and others I know) vote.
I don’t get the sense that conservatives who will vote for Romney are doing so “because they hate Obama so much”. I’m sure there are probably some for whom that is their primary or only motivation to vote as they do. However, it seems to me that most people simply narrow their voting choices down to the two people running from the major parties, then pick which one seems better than the other, or which one is, in their opinion, “the lesser of two evils”.
The people I know who are voting for Romney may not necessarily like his policies (I’m amazed at the number of people I’ve heard in this election cycle say that they don’t like either candidate [of the two major parties]). However, many conservatives are Christians, and as such, we do not hate people. Maybe conservatives who are not Christian hate Obama, but I think you’re painting with a broad brush when you say “He [Romney] knows that the conservatives are going to vote for him because they hate Obama so much.” There are a lot of reasons people vote as they do, and hatred of other candidates is not necessarily the motivation behind folks’ decisions at the ballot box.
LikeLike
About that first debate…
LikeLike
Bob,
Thank you for that. I was wondering what the Dem party response was, now we know.
🙂
LikeLike
I keep hearing the MSM crying about “why didn’t Obama mention the 47% comment?”
If Obama does that in the next debate, I have a great response for Romney.
“Well Mr. President, as you know, sometimes things are said to those loyal supporters during fundraisers that wouldn’t normally be said. You know, like when you blamed Whitey for everything when speaking to black pastors. My comment was the same thing.”
That would shut him up quick.
LikeLike
Allen, I heard a clip of a Bill Clinton speech in which he said, “Those 47% would LOVE to be paying taxes because it would mean they have a job.” I think THAT would be a good response to O if he brings up the 47%. Sounded like Clinton was campaigning for R!
LikeLike
p.s. Damn Yankees
LikeLike
6 Arrows,
I understand your viewpoint, but until we have a true multiparty system, voting for the third party is a way to ensure the win for the person you agree with least. As the Constitution Party has no legitimate chance of winning, that is like voting for Obama. I feel that we can’t afford to do that to our country even though I understand the principle behind your vote.
My two cents, your mileage may vary 😀
LikeLike
Testing
LikeLike
Does this work?
If asked the 47% question, Romney would have said,
“Mr President, I may have been overstating my case. I was only referring to the people like the lady in Cleveland who was given the ObamaPhne and 250 free minutes.
LikeLike
I was referring to this:
LikeLike
6 arrows,
I’m in agreement w/inbutnotof.
Your plan is a vote for Obama.
A better alternative would be to vote for Romney, then stay in touch with your representative and senator to keep his feet to the fire.
Disclaimer: The advice above is coming from a guy who threw his ’92 vote to Perot because Bush lied about ‘No new taxes’. Look how well that turned out.
LikeLike
InButNotOf, I’m curious about how you feel we could get to “a true multiparty system”. 3rd parties need a certain number of votes to get ballot access. If people don’t vote for any candidates besides those in the Republican and Democrat parties, the 3rd party candidates won’t be able to be on the ballot. What do you propose we do to encourage a multiparty system?
LikeLike
6 arrows: I respect your comment, but I have to differ with you when you said that Christians don’t hate people. Christians can chose to love or hate in the same way that non-Christians can chose to love and hate. Many of the comments about Obama go way beyond disliking or disagreeing with the president and certainly we would consider them to be hateful if they were directed us. Political discussion has a way of making Christians sound just like the people of this world (Romans 12:2). We decide to live in our new nature or be enslaved in our old nature every time we strike the “Post Comment” key.
LikeLike
I know several people who voted for Perot and regretted it.
LikeLike
If you want government paid for abortions.
If you want all business, including religious organizations, to pay for contraceptives.
If you want your life to be subject to death panels.
If you want the military to be reduced drastically.
If you want the EPA to restrict all domestic oil production.
If you want the coal industry to be totally destroyed.
If you want the price of all energy go increase.
If you want the prices of automobiles to increase drastically.
If you want to continue with no foreign policy whatsoever.
If you want the country ruled by Presidential executive orders rather than Congress.
If you want a Justice Dept that doesn’t enforce laws it doesn’t like.
If you want to increase the federal debt by several more trillion dollars.
If you want the dollar to be downgraded further.
………………
Then vote for someone beside Romney for president.
Elections have consequences.
LikeLike
As far as I can tell, the only votes that matter are the ones in the swing states. If you don’t live in a swing state, you’re free to register your protest against Romney as the Republican candidate without consequences by voting 3rd party.
LikeLike
As I hear some of us regretting votes for Perot in ’92, I’m sure there are some who regret having voted for Nader in 2000. Without Nader we might have gotten Gore instead of Bush. Even in 1980 it was thought that John Anderson’s candidacy could affect the outcome, since he was hitting as high as 20% in the polls, though in the end he took only 6% and Reagan came out with over 50% anyway.
6 Arrows, it’s a good question how we could ever get to a true multi-party system. The only suggestion I’ve ever heard is to field good candidates from those parties in local and state elections where they would have a better chance of winning, and work our way up. I suppose that would probably take at least 3 election cycles.
That’s a very interesting insight, Ree, about swing states. I’ll have to think about voting Constitution Party this time if Michigan is safe for Obama.
LikeLike
InButNotOf, Scott R, Chas, and anyone else here who feels a 3rd party vote is a vote for the major candidate least like your candidate:
Please read the following links about third-party voting. I don’t have time to explain my position fully, but these links may help you understand why some of us see 3rd party voting in a different light than you do. I won’t say I agree with everything in these links, and I don’t have time to debate the merits of their statements, but I still think they are worth a read.
satyagraha.wordpress.com/2008/01/07/why-vote-third-party/
http://www.freedomkeys.com/whatfor.htm#quotes
LikeLike
Kim,
With all due respect, in terms of this discussion on 3rd parties, I think your comment about people voting for Perot and regretting it is shortsighted. Many people who vote 3rd party have principled reasons for doing so and have no regrets afterwards (and for good reason). Please see my previous comment this evening that includes two links regarding 3rd party voting.
I voted for Chuck Baldwin (the CP candidate) in 2008 and I have not regretted that for one moment. He stood for the principles that I hold dear, with unwavering scriptural and constitutional standards.
No matter who wins, God is still in control of His world. We don’t lose our salvation if “the wrong guy” gets into office. (Not that you said or implied that.) The important things in the eternal scheme of things do not change.
I choose to vote based on principle rather than pragmatism and leave the results to God. He is worthy of our complete trust, and there is no regret in fully relying on Him to work His will in our country and in our hearts.
I won’t say anymore on the subject. Good night, all.
LikeLike
“As far as I can tell, the only votes that matter are the ones in the swing states.”
Basically. Outside of OH, VA, FL, CO, IA and *maybe* NH (but probably not) your vote isn’t likely to change the electoral winner even *if* it ends up being the one that flips a state from red to blue (or vice versa).
Suppose you live in Indiana or North Carolina. If the election is close enough for your vote to change the outcome in those states then Obama has most likely already won by virtue of his performance elsewhere. Or suppose you live in Wisconsin or Pennsylvania. If the election is close enough for your vote to switch the outcome of those states then Romney has most likely already won by virtue of *his* performance elsewhere.
LikeLike
Kim, my apologies if I sounded harsh in my comment at 8:12 pm. I don’t mean this statement, “I choose to vote based on principle rather than pragmatism…”, to sound like I’m saying you (or anyone else) is unprincipled in your voting practices. If my words sounded accusatory, I am very sorry. It was not my intention. I had many thoughts swirling in my head, and in my efforts to be brief so I could get back to my family, the words did not come out as I would have liked.
Have a good night.
LikeLike
Oh, I loved Ralph Nadar in 2000. 🙂 If it weren’t for him, Gore very well could have won, of course. Absolutely loved Nadar.
Elections do have consequences. And it’s ALWAYS the “lesser of two evils,” if that’s how you want to phrase it (I choose to see it as voting for the best plausible candidate who has anywhere near a chance of winning).
I’ve yet to find a politician with whom I agree with 100%.
A third party won’t thrive until there’s enough of a void created by the 2 majority parties. I don’t particularly see that happening very soon.
Successful political parties are, of necessity, rather broad-based coalitions. Sometimes they are uneasy coalitions, but that’s just the way it works. And actually, I think it serves at times to balance out a party when it needs balancing out.
“Pure” parties, whether the Greens or the Constitutionalists (there have been a succession of such parties through the years, including Peace & Freedom and the American Independent Party, and there will be more to follow), tend to stay small and out of office, out of power.
Their best course is to use what leverage they may have within one of the larger parties to move them one way or the other.
Sorry, but that’s just the reality of civil government. I’m one who doesn’t mind it and I actually think it has value.
LikeLike
I do worry about this election turning out to be whisker close and one requiring recounts and raising even more suspicions or accusations of fraud.
Seems like the country’s sitting almost on a political powder keg right now; a too-narrow win or loss in either direction would not be pretty and could even be a little scary. 😦
Hopefully whoever does win will do so by enough of a margin (5%?) that there will be some level of (begrudging) acceptance.
The other side won’t be happy, but can you imagine us having to go through a 2000 recount situation today? Sadly, a lot has changed in just 12 years. The partisanship is so heightened that it would be much, much worse.
LikeLike
Those swing states will be the ones that will matter. It also could get bad of one candidate wins the electoral college but not the popular vote.
LikeLike
Read some of the quotes you linked to, 6 Arrows, and I think they also point to the value of third-party movements in affecting the larger mainstream parties. Nothing wrong with that, I suspect some of those (not all) who have supported Ron Paul and figured that out already.
Not being a Ron Paul fan myself — or particular persuaded by what I see as a “back to the 1700s” movement — I generally feel (more or less) at home within the more conservative of the main parties. I don’t always like ’em. I actually still feel closer to some left-of-center folks when it comes to issues like immigration, I suppose.
But in the end, it is basically “all about winning.”
Crass, pragmatic, perhaps. But we are a fallen people living in a fallen nation with a fallen form of government (but so much better than the alternatives). We are still on “this side” of heaven.
Worth a read for Christians, no matter what your political persuasion :
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2012/10/04/dual-citizens-getting-oriented-during-election-season/
” … we care about politics because we care about God’s glory and God’s good gift.”
LikeLike