Romney's Debatable Performance

Governor Mitt Romney exceeded expectations in his debate performance at the University of Denver while President Barack Obama seemed to be trying to protect his lead. 

Romney needed to have a strong performance and he did.  According to a CBS News "snap poll", 46% of the 500 of uncommitted voters asked said that Romney won the debate, 22% said the president won, and 32% said it was a draw. 

It was clear that Romney and his debate team planned to exploit the debate format, moderated by PBS's Jim Lehrer, with an aggressive performance.  The challenger often has the advantage because the incumbent has to defend his record.  But Romney got help from his opponent and the moderator because he was not challenged on his statements.

President Obama was not confrontational.  He failed to raise Romney's embarrassing comments at a fundraiser that 47% are not personally responsible and depend on the federal government.  The president failed to get Romney to explain what loopholes he would eliminate in his tax reform plan to pay for his 20% across the board tax cut, which would cost $5 trillion.  That gave Romney the chance to say over and over his program would not cost $5 trillion.

Romney used, in Obama campaign manager David Plouffe's words, "theatrical aggression."  Romney sounded confident as he gave the appearance of offering specifics without doing so.  He criticized the president for "cutting" $716 billion from Medicare, the exact same amount Representative Paul Ryan, his running mate, and Republicans have voted to cut from the program.  Romney did admit his would turn Medicare into a voucher program, but glossed over its impact.

Romney said he would repeal Obamacare, the president's signature health care legislation, but failed to clearly explain in detail how he would replace it.  However, at one point he said his Massachusetts health care plan initiatives can apply nationally.  That would seem to mean that his individual mandate, which is unpopular, would also apply.  The president did not seize that opening.

For his part, President Obama did not mention his record of 30 consecutive months job growth, which has added more than 5 million private sector jobs to the U.S. economy.  He also did not take credit for saving the U.S. auto industry, which saved a million U.S. jobs.

The president was consistent, persistent, but he played it safe.  He was not forceful and he was not passionate.  He did not make a clear case for his reelection. 

The Romney campaign had leaked that their candidate would use zingers in the debate, but there were none.  Instead, he attacked the incumbent's record and surprisingly even used human anecdotes.  And in his strong summation he claimed he would turn the economy around and create 12 million new jobs in his first term.  Never mind that economic forecasters predict that the U.S. economy is currently on track to add 12 million jobs. 

Romney's performance was welcome relief to Republicans after several weeks of poor performances and embarrassing gaffs.  He was convincing, and his debate appearance revved up his own base.

But did Romney convert any new voters?  Will Americans support a candidate whose numbers do not add up?

Bold Leadership

As Republican presidential candidates intensely jockey for position the White House is having internal debates over what approach President Barack Obama should take on the struggling U.S. economy. With fifteen months to go until the 2012 presidential election, President Obama must begin to turn things around if he is to be reelected to a second term.

The Iowa straw poll and the Republican debate last Thursday, while showing deep divisions within that party, manifested great unity among the candidates in a common purpose to defeat President Obama. Contenders bashed the president's failure to right the economy and lead the nation toward recovery. They attacked the burgeoning annual deficits the Obama administration has incurred and they slammed the lack of progress on the nation's painfully high unemployment rate, which is still more than 9%.

Of course, Republican candidates blamed President Obama for Standard and Poor's downgrade of the U.S. credit rating. Never mind that S&P did not single out the president in its report, "The prolonged controversy over raising the statutory debt ceiling and the related fiscal policy debate indicate that further near-term progress containing the growth in public spending, especially on entitlements, or on reaching an agreement on raising revenues is less likely than we previously assumed and will remain a contentious and fitful process."

President Obama did inherit from President George W. Bush the worst recession since the Great Depression. And recent revisions in economic data show that the U.S. economy was declining at a faster rate than previously thought. The unemployment rate was at 7.1% when President Bush stepped down but it was in a nosedive. The former president handed off huge annual deficits, in large part due to the Bush tax cuts, two wars and the Medicare Prescription Drug and Modernization Act, all unfunded. Further, the financial markets had collapsed and the U.S. housing market, heavily over leveraged due to weak oversight, was in shambles.

From the moment President Barack Obama took office Republicans in Congress have fiercely fought the president on every one of his initiatives. They pushed back hard on a stimulus plan that helped avoid another depression, emergency measures that saved the U.S. auto industry, as well as financial and health care reform. In each case the resulting legislation was demagogued and ultimately watered down. Of course, the very Republicans who criticized the stimulus bill most harshly, including Governor Rick Perry of Texas and Representative
Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, used the funds to their political advantage.

Since the 2010 mid term elections the conservative Tea Party faction that is passionately committed to spending cuts and no new taxes has kept the Republican Congressional leadership in line. Most Republicans legislators have signed Grover Norquist's pledge not to raise taxes. So powerful is that pledge that every GOP candidate in Thursday's debate said they would not approve a compromise consisting of $10 in cuts for $1 dollar in new taxes.

Compromise is a dirty word for Republicans. Cutting government spending and lowering taxes, they say, is the best way to grow the economy. Yet the Bush tax cuts resulted in little job growth during his presidency, and recent government spending cuts, especially at the state level, has resulted in a half million layoffs nationwide.

Many economists believe a balanced approach, that is some increased revenues as well as spending cuts, is the best path to recovery in the short term. Polls show a majority of Americans favor ending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy. Yet Republicans successfully linked increasing the debt ceiling to more spending cuts. No spending cuts would have meant not raising the debt ceiling. That is like a family going to the bank and saying they are not going to pay all their loans until they are able to cut their household expenses.

This brinksmanship in Congress, the lack of a sustained recovery in the U.S. and the near collapse of the world economy are together creating chaos on the financial markets. That leaves the road ahead uncertain and millions of unemployed Americans with little hope.

The Republicans have President Obama cornered between a rock and a hard place. While some in the White House recommend a middle course, which may appeal to independent voters, it seems most unlikely that such an approach will be enough to assure him reelection. This is especially true when contrasted to GOP political attacks, such as "a failed economic policy”, "the first president in history to be downgraded", and “record deficit spending.”

While the president remains personally popular among Americans, his job approval ratings are declining. This is the time for bold action on the part of the president. He must go on the offensive with a strong jobs plan, and show he is willing to take the lead in restoring hope for all Americans. That would be change one can believe in.