Will the Media Start Doing it’s Job? Six More Quick Thoughts on Last Night’s Debate Victory

Last night’s debate is the gift that just keeps on giving — including giving me the gift of sleeplessness.  I couldn’t stop thinking about Mitt’s achievement and it’s consequences.  Here are six more thoughts:

1.  Mitt accomplished the near-impossible by delivering the debate thumping the entire conservative base has been longing to see since 2008 while still appealing to independents.  He did it by confronting President Obama with his own failure while presenting conservative ideas simply and clearly.

2.  Obama was so “uncool” — smirking, unsure, angry — that I wonder how the pop culture world will react.  After all, if pop culture hates anything more than conservatives, it’s losers.

3.  There is now a good chance that some in the media will suddenly start doing their jobs.  It’s one thing to sacrifice your integrity for a winner who will grant continued access and favors in a second term; it’s another thing entirely to spend an entire campaign season in the tank for a potential loser.  After all, these guys want to have careers long after the Obama administration ends.

4.  Could one debate appearance have blown away hundreds of millions of dollars in negative ads?  Obama has spent a fortune defining Mitt in a way that was completely opposite of the person that fifty million Americans just saw with their own eyes — and opposite of the person that even more Americans will hear about it water cooler conversations across the country this morning.

5. There’s no substitute for knowledge.  Mitt knows the economy.

6. BUT BUT BUT . . . President Obama is a masterful politician, his campaign is led by masterful politicians, so watch for a furious counterattack, including a much, much improved Barack Obama in debate number 2.  The media will be eager (desperate, even) to proclaim a comeback, so Mitt will have to come on to the stage in a suit of (metaphorical) armor.

The battle is now joined.

  • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

    It is a lot easier to ‘win’ a debate when you don’t have to tell the truth… when you and your base aren’t interested in telling/knowing the truth it makes it a lot easier to appear knowledgeable – which is why Mitt appeared to ‘win’ the debate last night:


    It’s no wonder the political theatre has become such a joke…

  • http://talkorigins.org jatheist
  • http://PlanetRomney Annette S


    The “Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services” acknowledge the cuts.

    Quote from Lanhee Chen, Ph D Policy Director…..

    “The largest Source of Cuts is a $415 Reduction in Provider Payments – “This means that Medicare will reduce the amount that it pays to doctors and hospitals for the services they provide to seniors. In the real world, the result will be fewer providers accepting Medicare payments, and worse care for today’s seniors.”

    A $156 billion Reduction in Funding For Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage allows seniors to use government funding to acquire a private insurance plan, rather than have government pay for care directly.

    Medicare Advantage and Provider Payments are the two largest cuts.

    Obama did not deny the $716 billion cut in the debate. He may have disguised it by calling it cost control. Romney and Obama do not agree on how it affects Medicare. Obama tries to represent this as cost control by limiting insurance company subsidies. This is misleading. The problem is these so-called subsidies are in fact payments for health insurance that today’s seniors rely on. In other words, they are what Americans refer to as Medicare. “The $716B that Obamacare cuts from Medicare gets spent on expanding Medicaid and subsidizing exchanges. It is gone. Not a dollar of it is left to spend at any point in the future on Medicare. Seniors have paid into FICA most of their adult life to receive these funds.

    The Obama Administration determined that the chronically ill and those who are at the end of their lives are accounting for nearly 80% of the health care bill. This has prompted Obama to set up the Independent Payment Advisory Board. Some critics call it death panels.

    There is no need to take from one segment of our society to give to another. Obama wasted 90 billion on green companies that went bankrupt and could have gone towards healthcare. Romney can cut back needless government agencies and spending so that we can afford adequate medicare and not slight seniors or the chronically ill.

    • http://talkorigins.org jatheist

      It doesn’t appear that you followed the links I provided.

      Here is a quote from factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech:

      “Most of the $716 billion reduction — about $415 billion — comes from a reduction in the future growth of payments to hospitals through Medicare Part A. And Medicare Part A’s trust fund, as we’ve explained before, is in trouble financially. Without the spending reductions, the program is projected to be insolvent — paying out more than is taken in from payroll taxes — in 2016. With the reductions, that insolvency date is projected to be put off until 2024.
      Furthermore, as we explained in detail in our story “Medicare’s ‘Piggy Bank,’ “ Medicare doesn’t have $716 billion sitting around that could be “raided.” The president can’t take money out of the trust fund — which had $244.2 billion at the end of 2011. Medicare holds its trust fund bonds and can cash them in as it needs to cover whatever isn’t paid by current payroll taxes. The health care law even increases the amount of tax revenue that will flow into the trust fund by imposing a 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on certain high-income individuals.”

      Sure it includes a %0.9 percent ‘tax’ on “high-income individuals” – but that is hardly unreasonable.
      These details are important – just not to Romney…

      I also notice that you didn’t mention any of the other BLATANT lies Romney spewed last night…

      • Terry

        Anyone can put up a “fact check” site and “prove” whatever they want to prove. I usually ignore them, no matter who they originate from. The only “proof” I need of Mitt’s obvious win, is the totally asinine excuses the left is coming up with for President Oblunder (and I think he has earned that title after putting on such a pathetic performance). Consider the following excuses I’ve come across on the internet:
        1. The altitude caused the president to do so poorly (this from Al Gore).
        2. Mitt told so many lies that Oblunder couldn’t keep track of them all, thus causing him to have a brain freeze.
        3. Mitt had some notes hidden in his handkerchief.
        4. It was a different Mitt that showed up at the debate, making claims that Oblunder hadn’t heard before, and thus was not prepared to reply to them.
        5. Mitt was too rough on the president, causing him to become flustered and unable to think clearly.
        6. Oblunder was “forced” into the debate by his own campaign (Oblunder admitted before the debate that he did not want to do it).
        7. (and the only reasonable excuse): he was simply outclassed and out of his league.

  • bill bannon

    Obama is evil therefore Romney is good. We like white hats and black hats. But what if they’re both wearing black hats. Romney said he would raise medicaid each year by inflation plus 1%. Neither Obama nor the moderator stopped him to tell the audience that projected (2013) medical inflation is 7.5% nearly three times normal inflation. Therefore Romney is actually cutting medicaid for seniors and disabled children and low income birth deliveries (37% of all births)…while he wants to raise the military budget. So he actually told all present that he is cutting medicaid but….who knew. Oral debates are inappropriate on complex economic issues because such lying is constant. To me it was a fib contest. You need detailed position papers from each person but only 1% of the country would read them completely. Any winning that happened was on the surface level of debate tricks. Truth was not happening.

    • Uaintdown

      you are assuming Romney was not referring to medical inflation. a more veiled attempt at objectivity and impartiality would have been appreciated. you are wearing a checkered hat.

      • bill bannon

        Well you’d have a point if 60 million people in the audience could have been presumed to fill in the nuanced detail that is rrely discussed.

        • bill bannon

          rarely discussed.