Verbal Brawling, Part I

The stakes have never been higher. Not since the Civil War. Maybe not since the Revolutionary War. We are trying to hold on to our constitutional republic form of government. The alternative is tyranny. As Candace Owens has put it,

Democratic Socialism is simply your opportunity to have a small say in what sort of dictator you have.

I don’t want a dictator. It breaks my heart that we are on the verge of possibly losing the most divinely inspired form of civil governance the world has ever seen.

Because the spheres are interrelated, the same people who favor tyranny over freedom also bring about poverty and savagery. These are not things we can compromise on. We need to stand strong. It’s an idea war—and I pray it doesn’t become a physical war, which has already been breaking out in various cities.

When you face the uncivilized, you may have to get a bit muddy. If you find yourself in an alley with predators surrounding you, it might help if you have some experience as a brawler. Four years ago I did not see the value of having such a president—especially when I did not yet have reason to trust that he would act on protecting the Constitution. But now, with a good, solid track record of appointing constitutionalist judges, and prioritizing America in foreign policy, and cutting back on taxes and harmful regulations, and being duly respectful and reverent in ceremonies, I see the value of this president.

And he happens to be a brawler. Which is handy in the dark alley full of predators we find ourselves in.

Rock 'Em Sock 'Em Robots, image from Wikipedia

So, Tuesday night’s debate was a brawl. It was ugly and uncomfortable. And it may not have shifted anyone’s vote. But maybe there are some truths that a closer look can bring out.

I thought I could do a simple post in response, but it was a long and messy debate. So it will take two parts.

I’m using a transcript—above 19,000 words, summarizing a great many words as “crosstalk.” I’m glad I didn’t have to transcribe it myself. But a transcript allows a bit less emotion than an audio or visual replay. I used look at written versions of Obama speeches, because his condescending tone of voice ticked me off so that I couldn’t fairly evaluate his message. Printed words are calmer, and that will help us evaluate what happened Tuesday.

Below-the-Belt Hits

We are told that President Trump is rude and not presidential. Who tells us this? The opposition, and the media. So let’s take a look at that opposition.

During this debate Joe Biden used these words aimed at the President of the United States:

·         You're not going to be able to shut him up.

·         Everybody knows he's a liar.

·         The wrong guy, the wrong night, at the wrong time.

·         And the fact is this man doesn't know what he's talking about.

·         Will you shut up, man?

·         This is so un-Presidential.

·         Keep yapping, man.

·         unless he gets a lot smarter…

·         Oh, give me a break.

·         Will he just shush for a minute?

·         He sits in his golf course. Well, I mean, literally, think about it.

·         He's a fool on this.

·         Because you weren't president and screwing things up.

·         You're the worst president America has ever had.

·         (on the economy) He blew it.

·         Well, it's hard to get any word in with this clown.

·         Try to be honest.

·         He's the racist.

·         This is ridiculous.

·         Absolutely ridiculous.

·         He wouldn't know a suburb unless you took a wrong turn.

·         This is not 1950. All these dog whistles and racism don't work anymore.

·         You have no idea about anything.

·         He's Putin's puppy.

·         He never keeps his word.

·         I can't remember which of all his rantings…

·         He has no idea what he's talking about.

President Trump was not exactly congenial. Talking out of turn was his tactic. It was also his way of getting his words out there, because the moderator wasn't likely to help. Anyway, it was harder to come up with his list of name calling, or similar disrespect, against Joe Biden. Maybe these qualify:

·         (in response to Joe Biden calling him a liar) Joe, you're the liar. You graduated last in your class, not first in your class.

·         And they're going to dominate you, Joe. You know that.

·         When needed, I wear masks…. I don't wear a mask like him. Every time you see him, he's got a mask. He could be speaking 200 feet away from them and he shows up with the biggest mask I've ever seen.

·         (about comparing Trump’s large outdoor rallies to Biden’s small events) Because nobody will show up.

·         He called the military stupid bastards…. He said it on tape. [The audio has been played on various podcasts to verify since the debate.]

Other than “You’re the liar,” which is probably fact-check provable, I don’t see any actual name calling. Even among these responses, most offer actual facts rather than ad hominem attacks. And there isn’t a single instance in the entire debate where one of these comes out of the blue, instead of in response to a Biden lie or name-calling attack.

In short, every punch was in response to a low-blow attack. What is a brawler to do? Stand still and take it so that the predators will compliment him for playing nice?

 

Deceit, Dissembling, and Outright Lies

Deceit is a tactic of the savage tyrant. And we saw that. In case you missed this detail, before the debate Biden refused to submit to either a drug test or an ear check. The drug test was to see if he was using something like Adderall to help him focus; the accusation is that he’s in the early stages of dementia. I don’t much blame him for the refusal. If the accusations are true, his side will be covering that up; if they aren’t true, they’re very offensive. Looking at recordings of him over the decades, compared to the past few months, I think the accusations are true. I’m actually surprised he held up as well as he did.

But the second detail is the ear check; that’s for microphones. In a debate, you’re supposed to be answering the questions yourself, using your own knowledge and recall. There’s been evidence that he has used a microphone to feed him things to say during recent townhall meetings. People are looking. Some photos from the debate show that he had a wire at times showing out of his jacket, and out of his sleeve. Could they be doctored? Possibly. I didn’t do the frame-by-frame search of video myself to know. But I did go to get a second opinion, which might interest you, here. (Here’s what that same source said about the earlier townhall earpiece.)

Biden wears a wire at first debate
screenshots from here

I want to cover a few of the lies—of Joe Biden, and often carried by moderator Chris Wallace. I tried covering them all; it wasn't doable in blog post form. I even removed multiple segments I had originally written about. There were just too many.

 

Healthcare

Concerning healthcare, Biden claims he has a plan—but this is after he was in the administration that rammed Obamacare down our throats. We’re not satisfied with progress so far, but at least the mandate penalty has been removed. Obama, Bernie Sanders, and many other Democrats have admitted their ultimate goal is a one-payer socialized medicine system. Biden says that's not his plan at all. When President Trump points out that what Biden is saying now isn’t what his party says, Biden says:

JOE BIDEN: The party is me. Right now, I am the Democratic Party.

DONALD TRUMP: And they're going to dominate you, Joe. You know that.

JOE BIDEN: I am the Democratic Party right now.

DONALD TRUMP: Not according to Harris.

JOE BIDEN: The platform of the Democratic Party is what I, in fact, approved of, what I approved of. Now, here's the deal. The deal is that it's going to wipe out pre-existing conditions.

You remember the big lie from the Obama/Biden administration: “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. If you like your healthcare, you can keep it.” Add to that, “It will be lower cost,” except for the vast majority of Americans, for whom costs skyrocketed while quality and choice decreased. So let’s count this whole healthcare question as a Biden lie.

Pandemic Response

Next lie. On the pandemic response. Biden says he’s had a plan since March, and that Trump still has no plan. But his entire offering is having the government pay for everybody’s protective gear. Yet, even with masks everywhere, Biden isn’t willing to have anything open up—before the election.

Yeah. Trump calls him on it.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, he wants to shut down this country and I want to keep it open, and we did a great thing by shutting it down—

JOE BIDEN: You just admitted you'd shut it down.

DONALD TRUMP: Wait a minute, Joe. Let me shut you down for a second, Joe, just for one second. He wants to shut down the country. We just went through it. We had to, because we didn't know anything about the disease. Now we've found that elderly people with heart problems and diabetes and different problems are very, very vulnerable. We learned a lot. Young children aren't, even younger people aren't. We've learned a lot, but he wants to shut it down. More people will be hurt by continuing. If you look at Pennsylvania, if you look at certain states that have been shut down, they have Democrat governors, all. One of the reasons they shut down is because they want to keep it shut down until after the election on November 3rd.

Here's a good summary of the differences:

DONALD TRUMP: People want their places open. They want to get back to their lives.

JOE BIDEN: People want to be safe.

Trump is right; people are capable of using common sense. They don’t need to be held captive in their homes—until Biden or some other tyrant gets even more power over them.

President Donald Trump and Joe Biden
first debate, September 29, 2020
Getty image, found here

 

Economy

On to the economy. Chris Wallace fairly acknowledges that the economy is recovering from the shutdown faster than expected. Biden tries to claim only the extremely wealthy benefit from anything this administration does. And he repeats the false attack from this past week’s news about Trump’s taxes—which shows us a crime has been committed. Either the reporter and/or leaker made it up, and they’re ripe for a defamation lawsuit, or the anonymous leaker broke the law in revealing a citizen’s private tax information. So we know the report comes from a lawbreaker. And I think we’ve seen this story before.

JOE BIDEN: This guy paid a total of $750 in taxes.

Eventually Chris Wallace gives the president a chance to respond to the charge:

DONALD TRUMP: I paid millions of dollars in taxes, millions of dollars of income tax. And let me just tell you, there was a story in one of the papers that paid—

JOE BIDEN: Show us your tax returns.

DONALD TRUMP: I paid $38 million one year, I paid $27 million one year.

JOE BIDEN: Show us your tax returns.

DONALD TRUMP: You'll see it. As soon as it's finished, you'll see it. You know, if you wanted to, go to the Board of Elections. There's 118-page or so report that says everything I have, every bank I have. I'm totally under-leveraged, because the assets are extremely good, and I built a great company.

CHRIS WALLACE: Sir, I'm asking you a specific question, which is—

He answers the question. Multiple times. He adds that he has additional financial disclosures to corroborate, and they’re already public record.

This is reminiscent of the attack by Harry Reid on Mitt Romney. Eventually, after the election, it became evident that Romney had been truthful and Harry Reid had outright lied. When asked about it, Reid said, “Well, he didn’t win, did he?” That’s what this is. What you’re not seeing is Biden’s financial dealings. Because there’s a lot of dirt there, which we'll get to next.

 

We’ve got that one more category under Deceit, Dissembling, and Outright Lies. But that will be easier to digest in a second post, where we’ll also cover some of the good and better answers.

Debate Aftermath

It was the most-watched political event in the history of television, but I didn’t watch the presidential debate last night. I was traveling. But I probably wouldn’t have watched it anyway. I have only a peripheral interest, since the constitutional republic of the United States of America is not what these two candidates wish to preside over. One wants to rule over the United Socialist States of America—a country and concept I do not agree to be ruled by. One wants to rule over the National Dictatorship of America, which will be great, and yuge, believe it—except I don’t believe it.

Trump and Clinton first debate 2016
Image from here

I learned one thing during this past eight years: don’t listen to the speeches. I read, instead of watch or listen.  With Obama, it has had to do with his tone. I hear condescension, and disdain for me and people who believe as I do, because we are a hindrance to him and his anti-constitutional intentions. And there are the grating verbal tics—the ubiquitous ums and uhs, the use of “folks” that never sounds real, the use of a long a when the indefinite article a comes before a consonant, even though none of us talk that way normally, which means it’s an affectation or a teleprompter-reading problem. So even the little things grate. Listening is not only hard on me, it makes me harder on the speaker than I would be without the additional auditory and visual input.

And last night we had two of the most grating voices America could come up with. Hillary sounds like she is always yelling. She sounds stiff, stilted, and annoyed—as if it is beneath her to condescend to do this talking to the public that a campaign requires. The term harpy seems to have been created for such a voice. If she were saying things that were valuable to our constitutional republic, the voice would be something we would just have to be tolerant and forgiving of. But, in her case, the voice comes with lies, deceptions, and power-mongering. I think we’re justified in hating that voice.

Then comes the carnival barker voice of Donald Trump. Like a used car salesman, he hides the details and just says, “Believe me,” when he has provided nothing beyond is over-bloated personal opinion to go on. It is an unseemly voice, often speaking unseemly and anti-constitutional things. Some people find that voice entertaining on a reality TV show; it was unappealing to me even when that is all it was.

So, I did not watch. But I will be looking at transcripts. And I offer that as a better tool for judging how the debate went, if you care.

So that you can experience the debate without the talking over one another, and without the tonal problems, here is the full transcript.

Here is a partial transcript interspersed with an NPR attempt to fact check (so consider the source). 

I am beyond believing any presidential choice this year can get us out of tyranny, back up to northern hemisphere freedom. I am interested in what I can do to make my community, my state, and then my nation a place of freedom, prosperity, and civilization. 

This debate offers me no option for my vote. But if a future debate includes independent candidate Evan McMullin and, possibly, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson (who is not on my list to possibly get my vote, but who should be in on the debate), I might be willing to tune in. 

Second Debate Play-by-Play

photo found here

My son Political Sphere phoned right after the debate last night, before I’d heard much media response, “because that’s my job,” he said. So I got his take first, as I did following the VP debate. He made a good point I thought I’d use to structure this post today, which I’m pretty sure is different from takes you’ll read elsewhere.

PS said (paraphrased by me, since I don’t record phone conversations), “Obama is to Romney what anti-Mormon preachers are to Mormonism. They claim some wild beliefs, and when you say, ‘No, I don’t believe that,’ they in-your-face say, ‘Yes you do; you believe what I say you do.’”

That is a good way to explain what I saw in the debate (also in the first presidential debate). Obama tells the audience what Romney’s plan is; Romney tells clearly what his plan really is; Obama reiterates what he says Romney’s plan is. Then, afterward, the media claims this was a different Romney than they’d seen before, even though he has been surprisingly consistent to anyone actually paying attention.

From Mormon.org Facebook page

If you really want to know what Mormons believe, go ask a Mormon. Online, Mormon.org is a wealth of information. There’s an amazing amount of detail as well in the LDS.org Newsroom, particularly under Topics and Background. Mormons send out more than 50,000 missionaries worldwide to tell anyone who will listen what Mormons believe. Sunday meetings are always open to visitors. Why would you go to someone who is not only not Mormon, but someone who has a stake in denigrating Mormonism to give you an accurate account of Mormon beliefs?

Likewise, there’s an official Romney campaign site out there. He’s had his full 57-point plan out there since early in the primary season. He has summarized that into the more succinct but less detailed 5-point plan since well before the debate season. His speech transcripts and videos are all over the internet. Now there are the debates, recorded and transcribed.

Yet Obama, who has a stake in denigrating Romney, wants you to believe Romney’s plan is what he tells you it is and uses his debate time to that end. I guess if you have a really bad record you need to deflect attention from, this approach might make sense.

Here are a few examples.

The first audience question is about what can be done for college graduates facing the prospect of no jobs. Romney answers first, with two points: we need to work on getting costs down for college [which I and others are predicting will be the next economic bubble to pop], and we need to get the economy working so there are jobs.

Obama then answers, out of touch with the questioner’s fears, “And what I want to do, is build on the five million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone.” And then, with not much of a segue, attacks Romney’s position on the auto industry bailout four years ago: “Romney said we should let Detroit go bankrupt.”

Romney of course clarified that:

And one thing that the president said, which I want to make sure that we understand, he said that I said we should take Detroit bankrupt. And that's right. My plan was to have the company go through bankruptcy like 7-Eleven did and Macy's and Continental Airlines and come out stronger.

And I know he keeps saying, you want to take Detroit bankrupt. Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did.

And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened.

Obama came back with: “What Governor Romney said just isn't true. He wanted to take them into bankruptcy without providing them any way to stay open. And we would have lost a million jobs.” Who do you want to believe: someone who has a long record of bringing troubled businesses and organizations through a process of recovery, or someone with an abysmal record over the last four years and not much else in his life to show economic knowledge?

Then Obama goes on with the attempt to caricature Romney:

Governor Romney doesn't have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules. That's been his philosophy in the private sector, that's been his philosophy as governor, that's been his philosophy as a presidential candidate.

Except that we keep hearing Romney enumerate his five-point plan, and plutocracy has never been part of it. With the moderator’s aid, Obama didn’t have to suffer a full Romney rebuttal at this point. Romney, over the chaos of being talked over, was able to say, “That Detroit answer, and the rest of the answer—way off the mark.”

The next question is energy related:

QUESTION: Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it's not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?

Obama answers first, not actually answering the question, except by implication saying it is government’s duty to control energy. He claims credit for increased oil production, coal production and coal employment, and natural gas, and insists that investing in “green” energy is the answer to energy and employment. All of this is provably false.

Then he tells us what Romney’s plan for energy is: “Now, Governor Romney will say he's got an all-of-the-above plan, but basically his plan is to let the oil companies write the energy policies.”

This may have worked in stump speeches, where the president gets cheers for offering up sneers and derision toward his opponent. But this is in person with the real Romney there. And he knows the facts:

·         Oil production is up, but none of it on public lands.

o   Oil production on public lands down by 14%

o   Natural gas production on public lands down 9%

o   Permits for drilling cut in half

·         Increases have come from private lands, much from the Bakken Range in North Dakota.

o   The administration has brought lawsuits against drillers there based on reports of the deaths of a few birds.

·         The EPA has made building a coal plant virtually impossible, because of regulations.

·         The administration blocked the building of the pipeline from Canada.

·         The Romney plan is: “I'll get America and North America energy independent. I'll do it by more drilling, more permits and licenses.”

The moderator tries to direct the rebuttal toward answering the question about the cost of a gallon of gasoline. Obama doesn’t actually answer that; he just doubles down on lying (and we must know the fact checkers will follow up, so this is only going to sway someone not paying attention—probably someone not watching).

After this comes one of the most spark-producing moments of the debate. Romney takes on the lies, spells out the facts, again. And Obama essentially says, “Nuh uh.” I’m including the entire chunk of this exchange, because, even without seeing Obama clench his fist, turn his back, and walk away, Romney is in such control of the argument:

ROMNEY: And production on private -- on government land --

OBAMA: Production is up.

ROMNEY: -- is down.

OBAMA: No, it isn't.

ROMNEY: Production on government land of oil is down 14 percent.

OBAMA: Governor --

ROMNEY: And production on gas --

(CROSSTALK)

OBAMA: It's just not true.

ROMNEY: It's absolutely true. Look, there's no question but the people recognize that we have not produced more (inaudible) on federal lands and in federal waters. And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up.

I was just at a coal facility, where some 1,200 people lost their jobs. The right course for America is to have a true all-of-the-above policy. I don't think anyone really believes that you're a person who's going to be pushing for oil and gas and coal. You'll get your chance in a moment. I'm still speaking.

OBAMA: Well --

ROMNEY: And the answer is I don't believe people think that's the case --

OBAMA: -- (inaudible).

ROMNEY: That wasn't the question.

OBAMA: OK.

ROMNEY: That was a statement. I don't think the American people believe that. I will fight for oil, coal and natural gas. And the proof, the proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4.00 a gallon. The price of electricity is up.

If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down. I will fight to create more energy in this country, to get America energy secure. And part of that is bringing in a pipeline of oil from Canada, taking advantage of the oil and coal we have here, drilling offshore in Alaska, drilling offshore in Virginia where the people want it. Those things will get us the energy we need.

Obama then insists that low prices were a symptom of an economy on the verge of collapse. That would only be true if they were suddenly and singularly low, only at that point during Bush’s eight years. Since that’s not true, there’s some other cost. Some based on worldwide oil prices, but a significant amount from the inability of the dollar to buy as much as it used to—because of printing money to deal with debt.

Back to Obama’s effort to define Romney. On the next question, related to taxes, he says,

Now, Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, "Yes, I think that's fair." Not only that, he said, "I think that's what grows the economy."

Romney responds with the classic backward-step-pivot-forward move, and it’s one of the most devastating, unanswerable blows of the night:

You heard what I said about my tax plan. The top 5 percent will continue to pay 60 percent, as they do today. I'm not looking to cut taxes for wealthy people. I am looking to cut taxes for middle-income people.

And why do I want to bring rates down, and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people.

And for me, this is about jobs. I want to get America's economy going again. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.

For me, I look at what's happened in the last four years and say this has been a disappointment. We can do better than this. We don't have to settle for, how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now.

There are 3.5 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office.

We don't have to live like this. We can get this economy going again. My five-point plan does it. Energy independence for North America in five years. Opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America. Cracking down on China when they cheat. Getting us to a balanced budget. Fixing our training programs for our workers. And finally, championing small business.

I want to make small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go. And they're going now because of the policies of this administration.

We’re already long on this post, having included so much of the transcript. We haven’t covered women’s issues, or Libya (worth a post by itself); those will have to come up another day. And I want to mention how amused I am that the president thinks the answer to the gun question is hiring more teachers. But I want to end with the final question.

QUESTION: Hi, Governor. I think this is a tough question. To each of you. What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?

This is indeed an opportunity for Romney, who has been so distorted by the Obama campaign. He is able to portray himself as caring, understanding the plight of the regular Americans. I like this part of the answer:

I understand that I can get this country on track again. We don't have to settle for what we're going through. We don't have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don't have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don't have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don't have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don't have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job.

If I become president, I'll get America working again.

Obama doesn’t answer the question of what about him has been a misperception. He couldn’t very well say, “I guess the biggest misperception is that I’m a great orator.” So he took a last swipe at Romney, adding to the very problem the questioner has pointed out and asked them to rectify.

I believe Governor Romney is a good man. Loves his family, cares about his faith. But I also believe that when he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considered themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about.

The liberal side had insisted the president use the “47%” thing this debate, knowing it was the strongest attack they had. But Romney had already pointed out that he wants to help all 100% of Americans, and has the capacity to act on that promise. The issue is a non-issue for anyone who actually listened to the secret recording. Romney was talking to donors at a campaign event. They wanted to know how their money was being spent. He said that the campaign’s message of lower taxes wasn’t resonating with the 47% who pay no taxes, so they weren’t going to keep pressing that message on them. Hardly scandalous or shocking.

This is at a point in the debate where there will be no rebuttal allowed. It’s like a playground taunter going “neener neener neener” before running off to safety.

So, once again, the debate has done what we needed it to: reveal who each candidate really is, so we have a clear choice.

 

 

Debate Dancing

actual New Yorker Magazine cover

In this debate season, it might be helpful to do a little to define the “sport.” We sometimes refer to these debates as if they were the competitive sport used to train speakers, usually high school or college students. But besides “a formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition,” a debate can be “a discussion involving opposing points,” or, as a verb, “to engage in a formal discussion or argument.” These presidential debates aren’t really much like the college sport of debate, and yet we talk about winners, as if there were formal rules and scoring. Since there aren’t, what we’re looking at is how persuasive and effective either debater was at communicating his viewpoint. In the case of presidential debates, it also includes revealing personality, and predictors about how such a person would conduct himself in the role of president. People ask, “Did he appear presidential?”

Debates are risky. You have to be good at remembering a great many details without notes. You have to be good at assessing the question and determining underlying agenda and possibly spin that could fall out from an answer. And you have to be good at expressing your viewpoint in a persuasive and positive way. And you need to appear relaxed and confident while accomplishing all this.

More people fear public speaking than death. I don’t know if the question has also been asked about debating, but it seems to me, fear of this type of debate ought to be astronomically higher than fear of simply giving a speech. Given the difficulty of the event, while a success can be a positive, failure, which seems much more likely, can hurt a lot more. President Obama will be thinking about that, and fearing possible failure in a second and third debate. He is to be pitied.

How do you meet such a challenge? It helps to be Mitt Romney: super smart, with a grasp of concepts combined with detailed memory of numbers and figures; confident and comfortable in leadership roles through long years of experience; a really nice guy with a positive approach to just about everything. He may not be the most elegant speaker we’ve seen run for office, but he’s plenty good with words, and has mostly been writing his own speeches for years. Add to that, he’s experienced and formidable in presenting his point of view.

His debate performance last Wednesday came as a surprise to many, but it shouldn’t have. He’s been this person all along. Obama’s excuse that it was a faux Romney at the debate, instead of the one on the campaign trail, is exactly opposite of true. Obama’s team, including help from fawning media, portrayed Romney as out of touch with hard working Americans, gaffe prone, stiff, dim, and uncool. And then they believed themselves, rather than, as a winning basketball coach would do, watching films of the opposing team. How ridiculous is it to claim that Romney was comfortable, articulate, relaxed, powerful, in touch with working people and their plight, and with a full grasp of the facts—because he somehow faked it? Maybe with crib notes on a handkerchief? Really?

Let’s take a look at some of the better moments, a pattern that seems to work: defend strongly but briefly, and then go on the offensive with your position. I learned of the backward-step-pivot-forward move during last winter’s primary debates, and I think that’s what we’re looking at again. Sometimes there are some other steps going on, that I don’t have terms for, but they’re working too.

Romney took his opening statement second. He dispelled the myth that he has no sense of humor when he quipped that, on the President’s anniversary, “I'm sure this was the most romantic place you could imagine here—here with me.” Then, while the President missed the opportunity, Romney quickly laid out the five points of his plan, belying Obama’s claim that Romney has no plan:

·         One, get us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about four million jobs.

·         Number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America; crack down on China if and when they cheat.

·         Number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed and the best schools in the world. We're far away from that now.

·         Number four, get us to a balanced budget.

·         Number five, champion small business.

Moderator Jim Lehrer then gave the President a chance to respond. He changed the order and twisted specifics toward the left, but his list was almost copycat:

·         First, we've got to improve our education system….

·         When it comes to our tax code, Governor Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high. So I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.

·         On energy, Governor Romney and I, we both agree that we've got to boost American energy production. And oil and natural gas production are higher than they've been in years. But I also believe that we've got to look at the energy source of the future, like wind and solar and biofuels, and make those investments.

·         Now, in order for us to do it, we do have to close our deficit.

The closest he comes to “championing small business” is to “make those investments” in solar and biofuels. But then he makes an attack that gives Romney a beautiful opportunity to set the record straight. And he does it repeatedly:

Governor Romney's central economic plan calls for a $5 trillion tax cut, on top of the extension of the Bush tax cuts, so that's another $2 trillion, and $2 trillion in additional military spending that the military hasn't asked for. That's $8 trillion.

The problem is, not only is that not Romney’s “central economic plan,” it bears no resemblance to his plan at all. It’s a fabrication of Romney’s plan invented by leftist think tanks and spouted repeatedly by the Obama campaign. So now there’s an opportunity for Romney to clear up this misconception before 60 million interested viewers.

First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about. My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high- income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy. They'll do fine whether you're president or I am.

This is the brief, strong defense, the backward-step. Then comes the pivot to turn the topic in the direction of his choice:

The people who are having the hard time right now are middle- income Americans. Under the president's policies, middle-income Americans have been buried. They're — they're just being crushed. Middle-income Americans have seen their income come down by $4,300. This is a — this is a tax in and of itself. I'll call it the economy tax. It's been crushing. The same time, gasoline prices have doubled under the president, electric rates are up, food prices are up, health care costs have gone up by $2,500 a family.

Middle-income families are being crushed. And so the question is how to get them going again, and I've described it. It's energy and trade, the right kind of training programs, balancing our budget and helping small business. Those are the — the cornerstones of my plan.

He has even managed to sneak in Biden’s phrase about the middle-class being “buried,” skillfully done without rancor or even apparent irony. He follows this with another list, including more detail contrasting his plan with Obama’s record:

·         First, education. I agree, education is key, particularly the future of our economy. But our training programs right now, we got 47 of them housed in the federal government, reporting to eight different agencies. Overhead is overwhelming. We got to get those dollars back to the states and go to the workers so they can create their own pathways to getting the training they need for jobs that will really help them.

·         The second area: taxation. We agree; we ought to bring the tax rates down, and I do, both for corporations and for individuals. But in order for us not to lose revenue, have the government run out of money, I also lower deductions and credits and exemptions so that we keep taking in the same money when you also account for growth.

·         The third area: energy. Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half. If I'm president, I'll double them. And also get the—the oil from offshore and Alaska. And I'll bring that pipeline in from Canada.

It’s almost as if he could end this exchange with, “Thank you, Mr. President, for allowing me to clear up so many wrong assertions about me.” He championed states’ rights as a better way to improve education. He clarified the misconception that lower taxes result in lower revenue—in about as brief a lesson as can be done. And he took away the President’s claims about energy simply by pointing out the facts. Wow!

This was a stinging beginning.

In the very next exchange, Obama repeats the “$5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military” claim. Mr. Lehrer begins to interrupt, possibly to give Romney a chance to respond, or possibly to point out that this was already answered. I don’t know. But the President stops the interruption and claims he’s about to make an important point. And then he repeats the same claim—again.

Romney answers this repeated charge with one of the best segments of the debate.

Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate…. If the tax plan he described were a tax plan I was asked to support, I'd say absolutely not. I'm not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I've said is I won't put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit. That's part one. So there's no economist can say Mitt Romney's tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.

Number two, I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I—I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular thing to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case. Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it—(scattered laughter)—but that—that is not the case, all right? I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.

And number three, I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on—on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.

But let's get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring down the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need.

And you think, well, then why lower the rates? And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate. Fifty-four percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate but at the individual tax rate. And if we lower that rate, they will be able to hire more people.

For me, this is about jobs.

Just for the record, the Obama campaign, when pressed, had to admit in the days following the debate that Romney was correct; his plan never included anything like a $5 Trillion tax cut (plus all the additions the President kept adding on). Romney has the opportunity—again—to defend himself briefly, and then go on offense by laying out his actual plan: backward-step-pivot-forward.

But there’s more! I highlighted a section there. Without having to say anything offensive or negative (no, “You dirty, rotten liar!”) he is able to show that Obama’s insistence on repeating the lie, even after it’s been answered, is juvenile. Everyone can see it. There’s a grown-up on the stage and a whiny little boy-man. It’s a devastating blow. It’s delivered without anger or negatives. It’s unanswerable.

How does the President answer it? By scuffing his foot and saying, “Nuh uh; I’m right.”: “Well, for 18 months he's been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he's saying that his big, bold idea is ‘never mind.’"

There’s so much to enjoy in this debate. But we’ve probably done enough for now. There’s just this one little exchange, between Romney and the moderator, that I find amusing:

Mr. Lehrer: Excuse me. Just so everybody understands—we're way over our first 15 minutes.

Mr. Romney: It's fun, isn't it?

Mr. Lehrer: It's OK. It's great. 

Mitt Romney does this for fun. I’d find that impossible to believe, except that we have similar “fun” at our dinner table and family gatherings—but without the high stakes and millions of viewers.  

One thing is certain: we saw the real Romney in that first debate. And I think we also saw at least a glimpse of the real Obama.

Great Game

You know that experience you have the day after a big game, one everyone you know was watching, and your team won? Big! Everyone relives it, relishes it, the next day and beyond. That’s how I spent the day after the first Presidential Debate.

If you’ve been reading here a while, you’re already aware that I think Mitt Romney is an especially skilled debater, as well as a perfect fit to lead us through the problems we’re facing today, economic and otherwise. And you probably also know that I scratch my head in puzzlement at the very description of Obama as a good orator, or wise and principle-based in anything he does as President.

So I am not surprised that Romney debated the socks of the President the other night; I’m surprised that everyone else saw what I saw. I’m not used to that. The camaraderie has been great fun. I collected some favorite comments.

·         “That was the most brutal, one-sided presidential debate I have ever watched.”—Bryan Preston of PJMedia (wall post with link to his article)

·         “Memo to young GOPers: Savor the moment. You will likely never experience so comprehensive a debate win again.”—Hugh Hewitt

·         “Obama said it himself, Romney's ‘gonna have a busy first day [as President.]’”—comment on Texas State Senator Dan Patrick’s Facebook wall

·         "That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car."—tweet attributed to @clasicaliberal, quoted on a friend’s Facebook wall

Image found on Leah Christie's Facebook wall
origin uncertain

·         “MSNBC is bringing in grief counselors.”—Leah Christie, of Not On This Watch and MittRomneyRadio

·         “Press saying Obama didn't bring his 'A game.' I argue that he did."—tweet attributed to @GregGutfeld, posted on Leah Christie’s Facebook wall

·         “In addition to his intelligence briefings, Obama apparently missed his debate briefings.”—Ann Coulter

·         “If Romney keeps this up Obama’s gonna vote for him.”—Dennis Miller

·         “Obama better hope a Kicked A** is covered under Obamacare.”—Dennis Miller

·         “Obama is being owned, refinanced and owned again!”—Dennis Miller

·         “Obama’s performance was so bad, I’m starting to think it must be some kind of strategy.”—S. E. Cupp

·         “Maybe debate commission should add that little league rule—when the other team is that far ahead, you just call it a day.”—Dana Perino

·         “It was delicious.”—Glenn Beck, on his radio show next day

I need to add just a few from very unlikely sources. This is the opposing team bemoaning their misfortune, not just at a single loss, but the loss of hope for the rest of the season:

·         “I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.”—Bill Maher

·         “Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.”—Bill Maher

·         “This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach.”—Michael Moore

I thought that last one was just a joke, but I heard it verified on radio this morning; Obama actually did have John Kerry as a debate coach—apparently because he wanted to come across as a man of the people instead of an arrogant, rich pedant? So, again, that verifies my assertion that, no matter the question at hand, Obama is likely to use the wrong judgment criteria and make the wrong decision—far more than you’d except from sheer dumb luck.

One online friend has taken to referring to him as GHEP, meaning, “the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people, with a nod to Clint Eastwood and the empty chair speech. I saw a couple of amusing visuals. One was a cartoon with Romney at the podium debating against an empty chair. Another was a photo of an empty chair, with the caption that Romney had taken care of things.

Let me add that I, and I believe others who strongly push to replace Obama in the White House, still have respect for the office of President. Disrespect is what this person has for the office, as well as the nation he represents and the people who are entitled to liberty. Honor within the office is something that must be earned.

What I have been hoping for is clarity—that the American people would be able to see who Obama really is and what his intentions are for our country, and who Romney really is and what his intentions are for our country. I think we got clarity, and the glare of it was a bit shocking to the Obama team (media included).

Twitter photo from dgjackson

There’s a photo that was tweeted after the event, in the green room where the Romney family gathered. With Mitt Romney looking on, along with a granddaughter, Romney’s son Josh is making peanut butter and honey sandwiches, using a plastic fork, for the family. No caterer. No servants. Nothing gourmet. Just practical family people doing family things together. The Obama-campaign-designed image of Romney as too rich and out of touch is so very wrong. I have been seeing this Romney for a long time, because I have known so many people like him (but at different levels of overall talent), so I find Romney caring about people out of work totally believable. The opposition was foolish enough to believe the image of Romney they had invented. Obama excused his pathetic performance by claiming the Romney at the debate was a fake, and went ahead campaigning against the invented version.

We need to thank moderator Jim Lehrer who mostly stayed out of the way and let that happen. (Granted, there were times he tried prompting the President to stop wandering and make a point—check about 20 minutes in—and he tried unsuccessfully to interrupt Romney numerous times but still managed to give the President several minutes more time.) We’re used to the odds against us. At least the questions were not useless repetitions of the anti-Romney campaign. I especially like the question about the proper role of government.

The debate was informative in many ways, and I’ve taken some time to go over the transcript and mark it up. I think I’m getting better at identifying that backward-step-pivot-forward move Romney is so skilled at (I wrote about it here and here). The technique enhances our view of the contrast between the two and their basic beliefs. The debate content, I think, will remain pertinent throughout the remainder of the campaign, and beyond. So I want to spend some time on that in the next post.