Pages

Showing posts with label First. Show all posts
Showing posts with label First. Show all posts

Wednesday, 12 December 2012

Why It's Actually President Obama Who Will Benefit Most From the First Debate

President Obama gave such a clear walk over to the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney in the First Presidential debate that it now seems almost a deliberate well thought out plan. I mean just the very thought of not using the infamous 47 % remark against Romney shows a well thought out strategy on the part of the President. Can you even imagine the number of aides and campaign strategist's that had written the 47% remark as the first point in their presentations to President Obama before the debate. What is even more interesting is that even after Mitt Romney lied on various core issues, the President seemed in no mood to take his opponent to the cleaners on those points. Also Romney's camp must have written at least a dozen escape plans for him to defend his role in Bain Capital and yet not a word on that issue from the President. And most Democrats immediately went into a defensive mode, without even feeling puzzled even once?

But before we analyze the Obama camp's mysterious response to the debate, let us first set some facts in order. It's about Romney's blatant lies or misinformation. The last I checked the complete transcripts of the debate, I could easily count five misrepresentations on his part. And as I point out later in the article, Mitt Romney will soon realize that these five big lies he tried to sell to the American people will come out to haunt his campaign very soon.

First, on the issue of the magnitude of his Tax cuts, Romney denied his tax cuts could range 5 Trillion Dollars. Independent economist have well established that the price tag of his Tax cuts would exceed 360 billion Dollar in the first year itself, ballooning way beyond the 5 trillion dollar mark in a decade itself.

The second is related to his assertion that his tax cuts will be financed by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions in the existing tax system. Great! The only problem is he hasn't named even one that he can close! Independent tax experts have firmly established that Romney's plan will only result in a 'net tax cut for the highest income group' and a 'net tax increase' for lower and middle income households. On top of it Romney plans to have targeted tax cuts like the estate tax cuts, which will only make life easier for the richest, including his own sons' tax burden.

Third is the number he very emphatically produced during the debate, of 23 million American "who have stopped looking for work". Well, official figures show 12.5 million unemployed, 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work and does that add to 23 million? Not in normal arithmetic, unless it's convenient for Governor Romney to include the 8 million part time workers as unemployed! That is indeed imaginative.

Fourth is his charge that in Obamacare, the unelected board will decide what kind of treatment a patient can have or not. True, Obamacare does have a system of Independent Payment Advisory Board, but it is for constraining Medicare on excess spending. The private insurance market remains out of its purview. And also this specific body is explicitly banned from rationing or limiting healthcare facilities to seniors.

The Fifth was on his health care plan having 'pre-existing conditions' covered. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you are done for. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage. And Romney's own Campaign manager concedes that, but only and conveniently once the debate is over.

So coming back to the reason, this post was intended in the first place, why did Obama just let him get away with all that. We have all seen Barack Obama as the fired up debater during his campaign days in 2007-2008. The fiery debater, armed with facts, backed by eloquence, silencing even his greatest opponents. Where was he? Lets pause here for a moment and remember the fact, 'that' fiery debater is now the also the President of The United States of America. So, do I suggest that becoming the President Nulls one's debating skills or your wit or affability or command over facts!!! Nopes, but just some nuances do come into play and a hell lot of a sense of statesmanship and responsibility.

To understand this one has to look at it as a well thought out strategy or the limitations Barack Obama - the debater- has, as a President or as a finely balanced mix of both. First and foremost is the limitation or better put, responsibility to not look angry as the President of United States of America. He knew before hand, that even if Romney misrepresents facts, he just cannot be explicitly seen as the guy pointing out in the first debate itself that his opponent is completely wrong. It would portray him as THE President using his authority to denounce a fumbling guy, even if it were on facts. He knew that sooner or later any lies spoken, will be picked up by media and the people (as it has happened), and eventually his silence would be understood and appreciated.

There also seems to be a basic understanding in Obama's campaign, that attacking or increasing the heat in the hugely anticipated first debate has to be avoided at all cost. The strategy seems to be, 'let Romney misrepresent, make him seem- oh he is not that bad taking on Obama- for a day or two and then allow the real facts to roll. The Obama campaign knew it would be a double whammy for the Romney camp, for as people realize the truth, they will have a feeling that this guy is so desperate, he lied to us so blatantly and to top it, tried to pass it off as a victory!

In the end this debate could end up haunting Mitt Romney, a scenario very different to the initial sense of jubilation that the Republicans are showing. And if he continues like this, - which seems unlikely- he can be assured of massive political damage. As for the Obama camp, I would say it was a subtle inter mix of knowing that the truth is on their side, character and some great political acumen. They knew Romney has tried to trick America in the past, will come fast and furious again with the wrong facts again and ultimately pay for it.

As the days settle and the Debate is deconstructed everywhere, American's will realize one of their candidates lied to them blatantly just to look good in a debate, their President letting them knowing what Mitt Romney really is by not interrupting him, and finally the realization that the initial debate outcome perception was a bit skewed. Barack Obama as a candidate and as the President has always taken the initiative to talk things through, but this time he knew his inaction was needed. He knew the old adage of not interrupting when your opponent is making mistakes. This debate was lost by us. Because we needed to. Because we had to. Because we wanted to. Democrats have to realize and understand why the battle was lost, so that the war could be won.

The writer can be contacted at the following website. http://www.supportingobama.com/


View the original article here

Thursday, 6 December 2012

The First Presidential Debate of 2012

This debate was at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado with Jim Lehrer who's the host with the News hour on PBS. This 90 minute debate was to focus on domestic policy. The following debate is on October 16 th at Hofstra University in Hempstead New York. This 90 minute Town meeting format is on foreign and domestic policy. The moderator shall be Candy Crowley CNN Chief Political Correspondent. The last presidential debate is also a 90 min debate on foreign policy at Lynn University in Boca Raton Florida. The moderator will probably be Bob Schieffer host of Face the Nation. These candidates nevertheless have two debates to go through and also the massive question how will they carry out as a great deal is riding on them. In among these presidential debates the Vice president Joe Biden and Congressmen Paul Ryan hold a 90 minute debate on October 11th at Centre College in Danville Kentucky. The moderator for the moment is Martha Raddatz the News Chief of Foreign Policy at ABC News.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney geared up for these debates for a long time, and it is showing. He was ready exactly where as President Obama wasn't. Mitt Romney came to the debate focused on the economic climate and economic concerns. He also put forth his restricted government philosophy. He also demonstrated his pro-growth and tax reforms to move the economy forward. President Obama favors growing the size of government, raising taxes and leading from behind on our foreign policy. The debates showed the differences in the two candidates before the eyes and ears of the 70 million Americans watching the debates. This is the first time both candidates stood side by side talking to each other about their different philosophies.

Numerous conservative commentators felt that President Obama wasn't accustom to becoming challenged. During President Obama's 2008 run for the presidency he was in no way vented from the mainstream news media and never challenged with difficult questions. When he speaks with his TelePrompTers' he does incredibly properly. Take the TelePrompTer away and his aptitude to speak or answer queries are totally distinctive. This really is where he tends to make his gaffes which the mainstream news media down play. About 70 million Americans watched the debate and saw Mitt Romney energized and capable to speak the complications the nation is facing. They also saw Mitt Romney inside a diverse light than what the democratic advertisements attempt to portray him. They saw a President that they had not observed before. We've two more Presidential debates and a single Vice Presidential debate to see. The question is what effect these debates will have on the electorate?

I have numerous articles on my blog with the same theme as this article. I have had a large response with many positive comments regarding my blog and style. I hope you will visit my blog. The address is http://showcasepolitics.com/


View the original article here

Thursday, 29 November 2012

How and Why Mitt Romney Became Winner in First Presidential Debates 2012

On Wednesday, on the first contest of the 2012 Presidential Election, Romney won, Obama lost.

After the debate, 67% were with Romney, 25% with Obama. How and why the winner won the debate? There may be plentiful reasons, not only one. Let's seek some of vital reasons:

1. He handled the format: For better or worse, moderator Jim Lehrer mostly let the applicants sort out the controversy themselves, basically broaching wide subjects and enabling the applicants fight it out on their own conditions - with almost-endless rebuttals. This structure privileged Mitt Romney. His strategy went into the controversy with an attack attitude (as most applicants who are behind do), and by enabling all those rebuttals, Lehrer provided Mitt a chance to perform. He did. Obama was not as focused on fighting, which works less well when there is so much back-and-forth.

2. Obama appeared frazzled: He did not have an Al-Gore-sighs time, but Obama was clearly not having local plumber on stage. His head was down when Romney was discussing, his reactions were stopping at times, he often nodded her head (as if displaying approval) or smirked when Mitt Romney was discussing, and he even admitted some factors to Mitt Romney on issues like lack reduction and not being a "perfect" president. None of these were by themselves huge minutes (as Gore's sigh was), but the totality recommended an applicant who was not really comfortable. And he was not.

3. The state policies of preemption: Mitt realized going into the controversy that he was going to be assaulted for increasing taxation on the middle-class (according to an oft-cited study) and favoring the rich, so what he did was preemptively guarantee that he would not increase taxation on the middle-class, duplicating that over and over and indicating that it's Obama who would increase taxation on the middle-class. He also made a point to highlight the poor (think: "I'm not worried about the very poor"). By setting the conditions of the tax cut controversy, Mitt Romney balanced out the profits that Obama might have been able to make on a class issue that forms suggest Obama is successful.

4. Obama did not get his big discussion factors in: If you would have informed us before the controversy that Obama would discuss the auto bailout and Osama bin Packed only once and would not discuss Bain Capital or Romney's "47 percent" feedback at all, we would have informed you were insane. Yet that is exactly what occurred. Obama seemed susceptible with not interesting too much with his rival, but the controversy was all about interesting with one another, and Obama did not even sign-up the biggest strikes on Mitt Romney.

5. The Hopes were low: There happens to be reason the strategies spend so a while decreasing aims for the debate; objectives matter. And forms revealed that, going into the controversy, the American public, by a large edge, expected Obama to win. With the bar relatively low for Romney, it was that much easier to clear. It is not to say Romney did not have a excellent controversy. He did. But applicants will always be evaluated on a bend, and Romney defeats the bend.

6. Mitt Romney prevented a stumble: Romney's strategy has been colored by the periodic gaffe which shows the applicant to be out of touch or simply uncomfortable. There were a couple questionable minutes on that depend (Big Fowl, anyone?), but the GOP nominee's performance was mostly gaffe-free. Without a "47 percent" or "I'm not worried about the very poor" time, Mitt allowed for the post-debate research to focus on other things, which is what he needs.

Romney's growing Latino problem: Two new forms launched Wed revealed Obama taking at least 70 % of the Latino elect - strengthening an unpleasant pattern line for Conservatives.


View the original article here