By Nick Ubels and Sean Evans (The Cascade/Contributor) – Email
Print Edition: October 10, 2012
Previously on AmPol: Nick and Sean discussed the race thus far, with Obama taking a clear lead after Romney tripped on his own mistakes and what the apathetic college-aged demographic means for each of their campaigns. The Presidential campaign was no longer about talking to their own supporters, but rather convincing the 10 to 15 per cent of the independent voters to come to their side. The argument was made that Obama was “obviously the better communicator” and Romney is “obviously struggling,” but how did the October 3 debate play out? Were these judgments affirmed or did one find his shoes more fascinating than his opponent?
Nick: In a bizarre twist, it turns out that Clint Eastwood’s conversation with empty chair Barack Obama was somewhat prophetic. Where was Obama during last Wednesday night’s debate?
Sean: That is a good question, Nickers. Obama looked extremely uncomfortable and unprepared; he clearly does not respect Mitt Romney as much as he did John McCain. The President did not appear presidential, which is so key in these events. Mitt Romney postured himself in a way that showed the American public that he is confident that he is the only man for the job. He looked and sounded like a President. Perhaps the most telling moment came as Obama suggested to the moderator, Jim Lehrer, that he “may want to move on to another topic,” right after Romney made one of his strongest arguments regarding taxes and job creation.
Nick: If the first debate last Wednesday night showed us anything, it’s that Romney isn’t prepared to lie down and die. Coming off 18 months of campaigning and debating with other Republican contenders during the primary, Mitt was in fighting shape, outpacing Obama for aggression and enthusiasm at every turn.
That said, there have been some serious problems with the accuracy of the facts that formed the basis of Romney’s arguments. For example, his claim that Obama had offered 90 billion dollars in tax breaks to solar and wind energy companies was a clear misrepresentation. Only about 21 billion went towards these initiatives, according to the fact-checkers at The Washington Post. The rest was spent on other stimulus items, like public transit, home retrofits and improving the U.S. electric grid. Furthermore, Romney said that half of the green energy firms funded by the stimulus had failed, when the real number is significantly lower.
Do you think the long-term effect of these errors—to put it diplomatically—will outpace the gains he might have made in his debate performance?
Sean: To put it simply, no. The vast majority of the American public will not be interested in the various inaccuracies that came up during the debate. They watched, they were told that Mitt Romney won (he did), and that is the end of the story. Most people will not take the time to read the news the next day. The impact is made in the moment. That is why the debate format is so unique; it is more about the tone of voice, posturing and non-verbal communication.
Nick: In a flustered interview after the debate, senior Obama campaign advisor David Axelrod dismissed this as “theatre of the moment.” Yet it was a lacklustre performance witnessed by nearly 70 million Americans on Wednesday night and the inescapable conclusion put forward by pundits to those who didn’t watch. The greater question is why Obama didn’t call Romney on his misrepresentations during the debate itself?
Sean: Well, that is the question of the week, isn’t it? Really, it falls on Obama and Romney to hold each other accountable during the debate. Instead, President Obama spent more time looking at his feet than he did pressing Romney on his various gaffes throughout September and the plethora of inaccuracies he threw out.
To be fair, Obama had his share of inaccuracies too – although, not nearly as many as Romney. During the debate, Obama proposed “a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.” While that sounds good on paper, the cut is not as big as it sounds. Eight hundred billion of those reductions come from the end of the wars; something that will happen anyway. Additionally, last February Obama’s budget proposal aimed to cut the deficit by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion, $1.6 trillion to be paid for by tax increases. So, in that scenario, for every $0.40 in cuts, Obama would increase taxes by $1.60. Why the discrepancy between February and October?
Obama also repeatedly raised the notion that Mitt Romney plans to lower taxes by $5 trillion on the wealthy. Now, this number is impossible to know. Why? Because there is no concrete plan; the Romney/Ryan ticket proposes tax cuts in combination with the cancellation of tax exemptions, rebates and deductions, but does not give any specific details. Therefore, Obama’s numbers do not take into account the cancellation of any exemptions, so the numbers are questionable. Also, the $5 trillion figure is based on the next 10 years – a fact not mentioned by Obama.
Although I am skeptical about Mitt Romney’s plans (or lack thereof), I do appreciate a principle that he raised that may have gone unnoticed during the debate. Instead of specifically spelling out exact policies that he will implement, he stated that he prefers to share the principles that he will follow: i.e. “I will never implement a tax cut that will raise the deficit.” The reason he gave for this is that it is better for a President to work with both parties to come to a compromise, than to dictate the exact policy to Congress. This style of leadership could go a long way in Washington.
Nick: This makes a lot of sense, but at the same time, Romney’s principles have played hopscotch throughout his campaign. He took a steep shift to the right to win the Republican Party’s more conservative base and then course-corrected himself to a more moderate position once he secured the nomination.
Whatever the polls might say about who “won” the debate, how much does this change the way people are actually going to vote? When CNN’s undecided voters focus group in Denver was asked if they had now made up their mind to vote one way or another, eight said they were now voting for Romney and eight for Obama.
For once in my life, I think I might agree with Paul Ryan, who made it clear after the debate that it’s just one debate. It doesn’t fundamentally change anything about who these candidates are and what they stand for.
Sean: Yep. Could not agree more. Although it will be interesting to see if this small victory for Romney will bring some life into his campaign, and more importantly, if there will be any movement in the polls.
Things are starting to heat up in the quest for the White House with the Vice-Presidential debates set for Thursday, and other major campaign milestones coming into focus. Nick and Sean will do their best to make sense of what’s happening on the campaign trail next week on AmPol: American politics for the everyman. And the everycat.
