Romney didn’t over-rely on prepackaged attack lines. With statements
like 'regulation is essential,' he came across as the moderate former
governor of Massachusetts, not the man who won the Republican
nomination.
Pronouncements of who won Wednesday night’s debate in Denver dominated the analysis.
Did Mitt Romney effectively land his promised zingers and seem likable enough? Did President Obama defend his record and convey a sense of what a second term would look like?
On those big issues, it’s pretty clear: Romney was more on his game — more incisive, more fluid and good-natured through it all. He was tough in his attacks without being vicious or disrespectful. He didn’t over-rely on prepackaged attack lines. With statements like “regulation is essential,” he came across as the moderate former governor of Massachusetts, not the man who won the Republican nomination.
He even made the best joke of the night: “I like Big Bird,” he said, describing his planned cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; then, looking at moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, he added: “I like you, too.”
Obama was halting by contrast, on his heels most of the evening.
A liberal friend sent me a text message about 40 minutes in. It was two words long: “Romney winning.”
But for me, success or failure for both candidates hinged on the answer to a question that might at first glance seem narrower than those macro questions: Could Romney effectively explain his tax plan to make it sound not like a windfall to the wealthy, but like a credible program to spark the economy without increasing the burden on the middle class?
And on the flip side, could Obama eviscerate that plan with anything close to the precision and intelligence former President Bill Clinton deployed at the Democratic convention?
Why this matters so much: Taxes are at the heart of many middle-class voters’ apprehension toward Romney. Even as they worry about the yawning debt, a limping economy and the growing size of government, even as they think Romney’s a decent man and a competent business executive, they question his priorities. They worry that he’s in thrall to corporate interests and out of touch with struggling families, many of whom fall in that 47% of Americans he infamously derided.
Read more: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_32346.php
Pronouncements of who won Wednesday night’s debate in Denver dominated the analysis.
Did Mitt Romney effectively land his promised zingers and seem likable enough? Did President Obama defend his record and convey a sense of what a second term would look like?
On those big issues, it’s pretty clear: Romney was more on his game — more incisive, more fluid and good-natured through it all. He was tough in his attacks without being vicious or disrespectful. He didn’t over-rely on prepackaged attack lines. With statements like “regulation is essential,” he came across as the moderate former governor of Massachusetts, not the man who won the Republican nomination.
He even made the best joke of the night: “I like Big Bird,” he said, describing his planned cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting; then, looking at moderator Jim Lehrer of PBS, he added: “I like you, too.”
Obama was halting by contrast, on his heels most of the evening.
A liberal friend sent me a text message about 40 minutes in. It was two words long: “Romney winning.”
But for me, success or failure for both candidates hinged on the answer to a question that might at first glance seem narrower than those macro questions: Could Romney effectively explain his tax plan to make it sound not like a windfall to the wealthy, but like a credible program to spark the economy without increasing the burden on the middle class?
And on the flip side, could Obama eviscerate that plan with anything close to the precision and intelligence former President Bill Clinton deployed at the Democratic convention?
Why this matters so much: Taxes are at the heart of many middle-class voters’ apprehension toward Romney. Even as they worry about the yawning debt, a limping economy and the growing size of government, even as they think Romney’s a decent man and a competent business executive, they question his priorities. They worry that he’s in thrall to corporate interests and out of touch with struggling families, many of whom fall in that 47% of Americans he infamously derided.
Read more: http://www.libertynewsonline.com/article_301_32346.php
No comments:
Post a Comment