Quickie Recap: All you need to know about last night’s presidential debate

Posted by: ST on October 17, 2012 at 9:31 am


My quick thoughts:

1: Debate moderator Candy Crowley went from moderator/questioner to actively plumping Barack Obama’s pillow and actually being a participant, especially towards at the end when she stepped up to the plate to pinch hit for Obama by seemingly bailing him out on the Libya issue. Key word: Seemingly. Debate moderators who exceed their responsibilities as Crowley did are completely unacceptable, and no future GOP candidate/nominee for President should accept any debate scenario in which she is proposed as the moderator. Crowley even admitted on CNN after the debate was over that Mitt Romney was correct on the issue of Barack Obama not calling Benghazi an act of terrorism for two weeks.

2: That being said, Mitt bungled the Benghazi question which in reality should have been an easy one for him considering the events of the last month. Fortunately, the next and final debate (on Monday) will be on foreign policy, and he should be able to rebound on this question. He simply MUST get this right the next time around. This issue is too important to let the President and his administration slide out of with misdirection, lies, and moderator assistance.

He also needs to point out that it’s not “political” to ask questions about what happened and who knew what and when – and that the families of those who were murdered deserve answers the administration is not willing to give.

3: Barack Obama had over 4 minutes of speaking time more than Mitt Romney.

4: The majority of the questions – selected by Crowley in advance – were slanted against Romney, one of them being asked by someone who may have been a regional Code Pink coordinator.

5: Post-debate polling gave Obama the “edge” on winning the debate, but gave Romney the clear advantage on the economy and the deficit (CNN, CBS). The focus group undecideds on MSNBC and Fox gave the win to Romney, with one on the Fox group saying Obama had gotten away with BSing the American people for four years, and was “trying to do it” at the debate last night. The undecideds on Fox, btw, were mostly Obama voters from 2008.

6: The left, as usual, are spending more time making fun of an innocent Romney gaffe on the question regarding “equal pay” than they are actually talking about debate substance. Shocking.

7: Obama basically needed to prove to his base that he would not be asleep at the wheel the second time around, and he accomplished that – lying most of the way through the debate. As predicted, the MSM and liberal pundits are essentially calling Obama “the Comeback Kid” today. Romney punched and counterpunched often, but will need to do a better job at the foreign policy debate at making the Benghazi issue understandable to low information voters.

8: The whole phony town-hall debate concept should be scrapped. ASAP. It’s a farce, and an insult to actual town-hall discussions that are not scripted, and are not moderated by one-sided journalists.

Your thoughts?

RSS feed for comments on this post.


16 Responses to “Quickie Recap: All you need to know about last night’s presidential debate”


  1. Carlos says:

    Judging from what I’m seeing and reading this AM, I guess Rush or Sean or whoever it was that said the reviews were already written yesterday afternoon were right – there was no paying attention to the actual debate, the LSM needed Zero to win at any cost.

    That cost, BTW, decades ago would have been the “journalists'” integrity, but since we’re talking today’s “journalists,” there is no concern on their part they’ll lose integrity – they have none to begin with!

    And Crowley? She should stick with what she obviously does best – eating.

  2. John Casteel says:

    Even if you want to give the debate “win” to Obama on points, it will prove to be a Pyrrhic victory. The Crowley complicity in the Libya question will keep it alive and well through the next debate and the truth will prevail. Watch the polls keep edging Romney’s way.

  3. Tom TB says:

    I voted for Romney 4 years ago in our State primary, so I tried to see this debate from a detached view…Obama seemed to appear at times that the last 3 and 3 quarter years hadn’t happened; that he wasn’t President, and all our Nation’s ills are still someone else’s fault!

  4. Great White Rat says:

    1. Agreed. No more Crowley, ever. But here’s a delicious irony: the one thing about the debate that is sticking with everyone this morning is the way Crowley tried to help Obama but CNN had to walk it back almost immediately. And that will ultimately help Romney. It’s backfiring beautifully.

    2. Abolsutely agreed, and said so in the other thread last night.

    3. The left always tries to dominate any discussion by shouting down the opposition. If you interrupt constantly, you monopolize the time and keep the other side from getting their message across. So you can count on Obama always getting more time.

    4. No surprise, and Romney doubtless expected that. BTW, there’s no some uncertainty about the one questioner being a Code Pink coordinator.

    5. This is how the GOP will have to counter every lib who starts braying about Obama ‘winning’ the debate. Point out those results of polling on the economy and deficit issues, and emphasize that those are what’s important.

    6. The libs are following Alinsky’s rules (shocking, I know), especially #4 and #13. Again, they have no accomplishments to speak of over the past four years, so there’s not much else they can do.

    7. Agreed, again.

    8. DEFINITELY agree. It’s a format made for silly questions carefully guided by a slanted moderator. I’d rather see an additional all-topics debate.

  5. Extirpates says:

    Missing from last night’s debate were truth checkers and music for all the tap dancing performed by he who is not to be named.

    Candy showed she is a heavyweight among her contemporaries.

  6. WMP says:

    I generally agree with your points. However, on the Benghazi issue – Gov Romney did try to bring up how days after the Rose Garden, Ambassador Rice went on national television and continued the charade about a spontaneous attack – that is one of the areas where I believe the moderator blatantly shut him down. Should he have been more aggressive – not sure how to respond because he may have come off as a big bully – that being said, I thought some of the questions asked were good – I thought some were silly. For example – what are you going to do to guarantee pay equality? (Do you believe that was the Code Pink question or the one about guns?) I was put off when the dialogoue was going on about their pension plans and President Obama sounded like a child (Romney wasn’t much better), but the point is your fund is bigger than mine….sounds like a playground. Same thing with the income attack. I think the people who believe Mr.Romney’s income is a factor have already decided. I believe that undecideds (if there really are any) have put that issue behind them. I thought Candy Crowley was manageable – but I don’t think there is any doubt she was a bit partisan, but the final blow was the Libya question. She should be ashamed what she did. I didn’t hear what happened on CNN after the debate – but shame on her.

    Bottom line – Obama added nothing – all he did was accuse Romney of being untruthful (liar actually) and didn’t offer anything new – the same old crap. While Romney also repeated his points – he at least talks about his plan.

    Lastly – on the snap polls – isn’t it odd that both CBS and CNN had the results relatively close and NBC was a blow out for Obama. I think it was after the last debate too. Who are these people?

  7. EBL says:

    Benghazi is a political dog turd for Barack Obama. He and Candy Crowley can try to mold it into a unicorn, but it remains a turd.

  8. Drew the Infidel says:

    Many people miss Romney’s points since they appear as stealth insults and go unnoticed. The reference to Big Bird was the low-end comparison of cuts he would make and medical care the high end of that strategy. His reference to pensions was to blunt the China investment drivel of Obhammud’s by pointing out his pension fund had investments there as well, little did he know. He derided Obhammud’s arguments as childish in the first debate when he comapred it to stories his sons told him in the hope they would be believed. Look for more.
    What is puzzling is Obhammud’s basing his campaign on a pack of lies a 10 year-old could discern for what they are.

  9. TexasMom2012 says:

    The only new item Obama brought up for an agenda was the lapsed assault weapons ban. Huge mistake because it immediately brings up the Fast and Furious Fiasco. Otherwise everything he said was a tired worn out talking point or outright lie, like the rose garden terror lie. I can’t see that he won on style unless style means interrupting your opponent constantly to prevent them from making a point. Because he certainly didn’t score any positive points on what his agenda will be. Romney managed to both present and defend his positions and platform at the same time he was able to destroy Obama’s record. Really astonishing what a great job he managed even when tag teamed by Crowley and her constant interruptions. I keep finding more and more respect for Romney. I smell landslide in a mere 20 days, probably even an early night, unless I feel like staying up to gloat and savor sweet victory…

  10. Tex says:

    I nearly died laughing this morning when I woke up, got on Yahoo, and saw the glaring headlines “Obama takes charge and wins debate”. I’m not surprised since Yahoo is part of the Liberal MSM. But “takes charge”? More like, “was given charge” since Candy Crowley had the huge task of trying to salvage Obama’s reputation after his pathetic display of disconnect and incompetence in the first debate by making sure she skewed questions in Obama’s favor and against Romney in this debate, as well as cutting off Romney’s attempts to successfully argue his points. By on the surface it looks like she was somewhat successful in shoring up Obama’s reputation.

    Everyone’s already made up their mind anyway except for a large portion of Independents and I’m not sure last night’s manipulative and obvious stacking of odds against Romney, in favor of Obama, by Crowley will do much to convince them that they should vote for Obama. Independents historically have tended to vote for Republican candidates anyway.

  11. Sefton says:

    8: The whole phony town-hall debate concept should be scrapped. ASAP. It’s a farce, and an insult to actual town-hall discussions that are not scripted, and are not moderated by one-sided journalists.

    Agree. But even to cede the continuation of these formats, there should be less emphasis on the moderator and more on the question asked. Once the debater has answered, the next insertion by the moderator should be to ask the questioner if his or her question was answered to their satisfaction.

    Obama more so, since he has no record to defend, but both tended to lean on the default summary platitudes to avoid or blur specific answers. When you include a moderator that is obviously biased to one side, it only detracts from the whole purpose.

    Personally, I feel the need to include self-serving media members as moderators in all debate formats only highlights the elitist, “talk down to the uneducated serfs” image both the MSM and their pundits already pride themselves in.
    Just guessing, but I’d bet that most Americans watching these debates would rather have a “moderator” whose only responsibility is to adhere to the rules of timed responses – even to the point of cutting off microphones if need be. A lot of bloviation could be eliminated.

  12. Carlos says:

    I’d also like to see penalties imposed for non-answers, say, losing a minute of mic time on the next question for a non-answer.

    Of course, that will hurt both candidates, but maybe they’d start paying attention and assuming the questioner has more than a third-grade education, and that the viewing audience has a higher I.Q. than their average shoe size.

  13. Chuck says:

    I do not see the value of a Town Hall with a debate format. As much as I am interested in politics, I was turned off by the whole thing.

    The telling feature was that the MSM was scoring it like a debate. The general population is not scoring the same way, they were looking for answers.

    Nixon “won” the debate as well, but you see what happened there.

  14. Drew the Infidel says:

    It occurs to the imagination if IBM is able to produce a computer capable of defeating a world-class chess player it surely has the capacity to engineer one which would be proficient at controlling a debate of this lowbrow caliber. Besides, the energy consumed to run it would leave a carbon footprint (if there were such a thing) far less ominous than Crowley’s massive dietary intake.

  15. omapian says:

    Debate debacle. The moderator who chose the questions was so familiar with the obscure Rose Garden speech the POTUS used as his answer that she could not contain her ‘Gotcha ’moment when Romney was clearly surprised by the answer.
    She obviously knew the POTUS answer in advance and that strongly suggests coordination between the moderator and POTUS prep team.