Thoughts on Obama-Romney Debate I

President Barack Obama and presidential challenger
Mitt Romney had the first of three scheduled debates
last week, discussing the issues of the economy, taxes
and health care. The debate looked in some ways like
one of the many boxing matches that George Foreman,
a legendary ex-champion known for his incredible
punching power which made it possible to end most
of his bouts quickly, had back in the day. The former
governor of Massachusetts gave a Foremanesque
performance in rocking the incumbent president
by verbally knocking him all about the place. It was,
in the minds of many seasoned political debate
observers, the strongest debate performance given
by Gov. Romney in this campaign season to date.
Your astonished but grateful Peasant caught the
debate on the radio and was both surprised and
delighted in the way that Romney took the fight to
Obama, staying on offense and never letting up on
him. A man known for giving tepid performances in
debates throughout his political career (Romney
blew a debate with the late U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy
when he challenged Kennedy for the senate seat from
the Bay State which the latter held for many years; it
was a debate which many thought Romney should
have won with ease, as Kennedy's communication
skills by then had noticeably faded. That poor
showing was pivotal in Romney losing the election to
the scion of Camelot), the GOP challenger performed
as a man on fire. It was a treat to see for those of us
who want so badly to send Obama packing!

Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist and CNN
contributor, said that Romney "rose to the moment"
and seemed to have been made sharp by the 22
primary debates he had been in on the way to the
Republican nomination. James Carville, Democrat
strategist and a CNN contributor himself, stated
"It looked like Romney wanted to be there and
President Obama didn't want to be there," adding
"The president didn't bring his 'A' game." That's
stating it politely. Obama at times during the veritable
massacre sounded peeved, annoyed, and frustrated,
even criticizing moderator Jim Lehrer for allegedly
not giving Obama enough time to get his points across
at one juncture. The prez that the young, hip contingent
among his flock of supporters hold to be the epitome
of "cool", of being the "coolest" president that our
country has ever had, nearly had a meltdown when
Mitt Romney brought the heat. The president need
not have worried as to his allotted time to speak;
moderator Lehrer failed to keep the pair within
time limits for responses, with Obama getting the
best of the deal --- he ended up speaking for four
minutes longer than Romney all totalled.

Romney's best moments came in stating that the
nation's high unemployment rate and lagging economic
recovery proved that the president's policies have
failed. At another point, Romney noted how $90
billion spent om programs to develop alternative
energy sources could have been devoted to hiring
teachers, which would have been helpful in reducing
unemployment. Obama, for his part, argued that his
policies were helping to bring the country back from
the financial and economic crisis he inherited (his
fallback position: when poor economic figures are
brought up, just blame "Dubya"!). Obama also
trotted out his stale class warfare phraseology,
claiming that Romney was interested only in cutting
the taxes of the rich and that this would not help
the country to economically recover. Romney
deftly countered with stating that his tax plan would
not add to the deficit, and he socked Obama for
his proposal to allow tax rates on income over
$250,000 for families and over $200,000 for
individuals to rise back up to the higher rates of
the 1990s.

Obama's best salvo was when he said that Romney
lacked the important leadership quality to be able to
say "no" when necessary; this is rich, coming from
a president who never uttered that word when asked
for political and economic goodies by his major cash
donors, items which the rest of us would never have
gotten and which few, if any of us would have dared
ask for. You may recall Solyndra, for one example.
Romney hammered Obama on the health care reform
bill, saying "I just don't know how the president could
have come into office, facing 23 million people out of
work, rising unemployment, an economic crisis at the
... kitchen table, and spend his energy and passion
for two years fighting for Obamacare instead of fighting
for jobs for the American people," and when you
consider that most of the American people have been
strongly opposed to the plan from the start, it shows
Obama in a very negative light; a leader focused only
on what he wants rather than what the people want,
ignoring their repeated objections to his attempts to
pass and implement a program which they want no
part of. In many places in this world, such a leader
is called a "dictator" (these additional remarks from
your favorite Peasant).

There are two more debates scheduled for the candidates
for the presidency. The vice presidential candidates are
set to have at each other tonight at 8:00 PM EST. Obama
was supposed to be the strong half of the Democrats' ticket.
But after Obama's exceedingly poor performance in his first
debate, the Dems now are in the unenviable position of
having to rely on Vice President (and Gaffe Master General)
Joe Biden to make up for the president's tough night in his
own debate with Romney's running mate U.S. Rep. Paul
Ryan. And the prez will have to, in any event, improve on
his debating acumen and bone up on the social and defense
issues, which will be the subjects on tap for the remaining
two debates he'll have with Gov. Romney. The Dems'
ticket is in a deep hole which it may not be able to dig its
way out of. And this will bode ill for them, but will bode
well for those of us who want to have real hope and
change, as we hope to elect a team which will change
our method of governance back to one grounded in our
constitution. Your optimistic Peasant is certain that we
shall be successful!


MEM