When President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney took the stage to face off against each other in the first presidential debate last week, many expected Obama to dominate. Debates have a strong history of sharpening the voters images of each candidate, as it is the first time they see the two of them side by side. Instead of knocking a fumbling Mitt Romney to the ground, the reviews held that Obama didn’t come off aggressive enough, took too many notes, and let Mitt Romney enjoy a moment in the sun. But let’s look a little deeper here.
No idea which direction Mitt will go next
It says volumes about a candidate that the country can be impressed that he finally showed some energy. Romney has always been too robotic, not personable enough, and uncomfortably rigid in nearly every staged appearance. In the debate, however, he came out with more energy than we expected, and this surprised a lot of conservatives who had written off his chances of staying level with the professorial Obama. But that is a sad reason to say that he did well: “oh we never expected that from cold hard Mitt Romney.” Apparently his debate prep was geared towards getting him to take the lead, but what did he do with that lead?
When it got down to substance, the real reason we vote for politicians, we finally saw a return to Moderate Mitt, something that this politiblog has been arguing for. He defended his healthcare program, and vowed not to cut funding for popular social and governmental programs. But the problem was that he provided no details as to what measures he would take to get the debt under control. The other problem is the glaring hypocrisy and self-contradictions with everything else he has said along the campaign trail. For instance, closing loopholes in the tax structure is tantamount to raising taxes on the rich. It is the rich who have skilled accountants who can exploit those tax loopholes. It’s just that saying you will close loopholes sounds better than saying you will raise taxes. Plus it’s a loophole in itself, because it lets him attack Obama without saying anything as an alternative.
What the debate proved is clear: Mitt Romney changes his message depending on the audience he is in front of to the point of not being recognizable. When the stage is small groups of rich donors, he talks about the 47%, when his audience is broader, he talks about keeping entitlement programs. Obama has been razor sharp in his platform, and even though he has not achieved everything he set out to, at least we know where he stands, no matter what stage he is standing on.
