Obama Comes Out Swinging in New York Debate

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright Oct. 18, 2012
All Rights Reserved.                                         

        Proving that he’s no punching bag, President Barack Obama took off the gloves Oct. 16 at a Hofstra University debate with GOP nominee former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.   Unlike his flogging Oct. 3 at the University of Denver debate,  Barack took it to his 65-year-old Republican opponent that has a Supply-Side answer for almost everything.  Ripping Obama for producing too few jobs, Romney promised to add 12 million private sector jobs in his first term.  He plans more across the board tax cuts for millionaires and billionaire that already pay record low taxes.  Billionaire Omaha, Nebraska Warren Buffet has begged the government to raise his taxes.  Romney, who refused to release more than one year of tax returns, paid around 14% federal taxes in 2011.  Obama stuck it to Mitt during the debate questioning whether the GOP nominee, who parks much of his $250 million fortune in the Cayman Islands and Swiss Banks, needs to pay less taxes.

 Romney  showed his penchant for smoke blowing, ripping Obama on the sluggish economy but failing to recognize any data that shows economic recovery.  When the National Association of Realtors confirmed Sept. 19 that existing home sales rose 7.8% from July to August and 9.3% from 2011 to 2012, Mitt completely ignored the report.  Mitt ignores all reports that show the economy making  steady economic recovery under Obama’s economic policies.  When the nation’s unemployment rate dropped to 7.8% Oct. 5, Mitt turned a blind eye.  Obama pointed out that the nation has added 5.5 million jobs since March 2010, replacing over half of the 9 million jobs lost under the administration of former President George W. Bush.  Mitt talked about how he differs from Bush, suggesting that he was more focused on small businesses.  Yet under Bush’s Supply-Side policies, the nation banking industry went broke.

Crowley talked about fact-checking during the debate but didn’t question Mitt’s very optimistic forecasts about how his tax cuts would create 12 million jobs.  Romney claims expertise on the economy but subscribes to the same discredited Supply-Side theory that brought record deficits  after former President Bill Clinton balanced the U.S. budget, actually creating surpluses.  Unlike the first debate, Barack pointed out Mitt’s track record as a turnaround expert for Bain Capital, sending U.S. jobs overseas to increase profitability.  Obama pointed out that Mitt would likely following the same job-slashing model to deal with federal budget deficits.  Since Romney’s signed onto GOP party boss Grover Norquist’s  “No Tax Pledge,” he can’t raise revenues except by slashing government spending.  Obama pointed out in the debate that Mitt planned to eviscerate the social safety net, something that must be done to give his rich friends more tax cuts.

 Mitt had his way in the Oct. 3 debate blaming Obama for the nation’s sluggish economy.  Obama pointed out that when he took office Jan. 20, 2009, the U.S. economy was losing 800,000 jobs a month.  While Mitt tried to distance himself from Bush, Obama let voters know that his economic theory followed the same faulty logic:  Cut taxes to the rich and the economy would boom.  Mitt blamed Obama for the “weak” foreign policy that ironically has the backing of U.S. allies.  Unable to explain what he’d do differently, Romney suggested that he’d get tough on China, Russia and the Mideast.  Mitt said when he takes office, he’ll call China a “currency manipulator” as if that somehow would change China’s economic policies.  Even former VP prospect U.S. Sen. Rick Rubio (R-Fl.) said he disagreed with Romney’s approach toward China.  Talking tough on Iran, Syria and the Middle East, Romney gave the impression that he’d renew Bush’s policy of “preemptive war.”

By the time the debate ended, voters overwhelmingly gave Obama the victory [48% to 33%].  No one really understood why Obama sat idly by while Mitt clobbered him in the first debate Oct. 3.  He couldn’t climb out of his presidential role too soon before Romney had won the debate.  This time around, Obama put Mitt on the defensive, challenging all of his assertions about how he intends to fix the U.S. economy.  Voters got what they wanted watching the president bite-and-scratch like his old political self.  Voters saw both heavyweights trade punches with neither one of them going down.  When the dust settled, polls showed that Obama was back on top, saving himself the indignity of losing again to his Republican challenger.  As voters found out, it didn’t really matter whose facts were right.  What mattered is that Obama cared enough to trade punches, leaving voters satisfied that they got their money’s worth. 

Neither Obama nor Romney delivered a knockout punch Wednesday night.  For Mitt, he needed to follow up with a decisive victory to keep his momentum.  Barack stopped Romney from seizing the race less than three weeks before Election Day.  Voters saw firsthand that the president wants a second term.  He proved he could get down on Romney’s level and trade punches, despite appearing less than presidential.  While some think the two debates showed Romney could hold his own with Barack, in reality Mitt lost steam when finally confronted on many of his untested assertions, especially about how much better the economy would be doing under his direction.  Voters heard Barack raise real doubts about Romney’s plans to fix the economy and add 12 million new jobs. At the end of the day, undecided voters may conclude “it’s not the devil you know . . . ,” leaving more doubt about changing horses in 

 John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news.  He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com.and author of Dodging the Bullet and Operation Charisma.

©1999-2012 Discobolos Consulting Services, Inc.
(310) 204-8300
All Rights Reserved.