Just my opinion: Romney won big time in this debate even though Crowley moderated Romney while constantly throwing Obuma Leftist talking point lifelines.
Sometimes I think Krauthammer is brilliant and then this idiocy comes out of his mouth. All I saw from Obama in that so called debate was a thuggish Chicago style politician interrupting Romney about his plan and then he never offers a plan himself. Pure hypocrisy and lies out of Obama and anyone that thought he won this is under the Messiahs spell, Dr. K. included.
Erm ... Charles? "We love this stuff"? Really? I agree that Romney held is ground, and I think Showbama held his ground ... but when you've got a moderator (a) not playing by the agreed-upon-in-advance rules and then (b) fact-checking only one of the candidates it's hardly something worth loving. I'd agree that there were plenty of openings that Romney missed to jump on, and, if anything, that was the greatest disappointment of the night AFTER having a moderator who doesn't know what her job is.
Romney missed a chance to go for the throat on Benghazi.
And Crowley bailed Obama out in a completely objective way (/sarc off). Crowley was worse than Lehrer and it ticks me off that her fatness was directly involved in defending Obama during the debate.
Would somebody please explain to me how these left-wing moderators got chosen? How is it that Bret from FNC or someone either from the right or someone objective wasn't selected?
Yes he did miss an opportunity on the Benghazi, but I promise he will not miss it on the next debate. But Obama is either going to drone the animals that did this, or they are going to arrest them since they already know who did it, and is going to be done before the next debate to give him cover.
Romney probably didn't attack Obama as much on Libya because he only had a minute or two in which to do it in. But the whole next debate is on foreign policy, and I'm sure Romney is going to hammer Obama over Libya. Count on it. But Romney did get the central point across that how Obama handled the whole Libya situation was unpresidential and possibly even criminally negligent. In any case, Romney will have ample time to expand on his accusations in the next debate on foreign policy. And, does Obama really want to talke about Libya for the next week or so, especially now that the mainstream media is on this story? I think we've reached a tipping point here and that Romney is going to win the election.
Krauthammer is wrong. I'm not sure which debate he was watching but it sure couldn't have been the same one I was watching.
Obumma didn't win, not by a long shot.
If you're a communist, yea maybe Obama won, but seriously Charles? Ben Shapiro at Breitbart seems to be the only one who gets it...
I don't know what debate Krauthammer was watching! Maybe he accidentally had a old tape of a McCain Obama debate going. Or maybe krauthammer just was so desperate to keep his mantle of reasoned commentator that he bent over backwards to hand it to the liar in chief. Either way who are we going to believe... The media or our lying eyes.... We all saw Obama fail!
Just like he said on the Ryan/Biden debate. How can the liar win on points when all his points are lies? Again, CK thinks that most voters, especially the 23 Million unemployed, don't know or see or experience the truth of what this traitor has done. Thankfully, the view from 'inside the beltway' is very restricted and the people beyond it know better.
So Obama can spew a fount of lies, distortions, and delusional fairytales, and still win on points?
I think Charles is confusing style over substance. Just because Obama was bellicose and boisterous doesn't mean he was truthful.
I was taught in debating you win when you argue the facts in the most convincing way. Obama's arguments were lies and fantasy.
I hate to say it, but Kraut got it right. Especially when he said "you don't ask a question that you don't know the answer to". I ran my own trial once, and found that to be the most useful tip that my lawyer gave me. That, and how to object.
Krauthammer mimicked many of the responses given on the live debate thread.
Edit: Just wanted to add that it was civil, not criminal.
Yeah Once Obama says something stupid move on and save it for TV ads. Hillary did that in 2008; pressing Obama to renounce Rev. Wright when she should have left him on record as not renouncing Rev. Wright.
I had thought it was basically a tie considering Crowley torpedoed Romney cutting him off and giving the time to Obama (4 minutes). Obama did -not- get his game changer. However, on the most important issue of Obamas 4 years of failure... he did not give satisfactory answers. He just promised to do better 'this time.' But will people agree with this last point.
Totally disagree with Charles on Obama. The media has an entirely different take than the rest of us. Thank God they only get one vote.
I thought Romney did just as good in this debate as he did in the first. Common sense doesn't get ratings. When the average intelligence viewer comes to the simple conclusion that Romney is a businessman that has a plan to get our economy out of a slump, and Obama is an affirmative action Marxist who got elected due to country wide guilt, we hear these commentators take a different view, just to keep their jobs.
Obama gave the same crap over again, the rich pay more but its not redistribution, my grandmother fake story, back when Bill Clinton was president.....FAIL!
What points? The rich need to pay more (bull); there is more oil drilling on public lands (bull); Romney's taxcut plan is going to cost 5 trillion (bull); Obama has created 5 million jobs (bull); etc; etc. Krauthammer, shut your hole!
Love the hammer but I disagree...Romney won this on points, because Obama lied so many times, and had Crowley in his corner.
Charles you are wrong...... There was no points... They are called lies.... so Barack Hussein Obama lost yet again period... The left can spin it which ever way they will but sorry Barack Hussein Obama did not win anything in the real world.....
I'm tired of Obama saying that he just thinks that everyone deserves their fair shot.
Doesn't the fact that we are all Americans mean we have a fair shot?
What a crock! Obama list on lack of substance and outright lies!
I expect another 3 points in the polls for Romney following this debate.
Will I get a prize when I'm right?
Charles is grading on a curve. I have seen this happen throughout the entire Obama Administration's miserable tenure: things are so insidiously bad that people have lost track of the scale of the horror.
Apparently Charles has fallen prey, as well.
Romney hit Obama hard, over and over, on points that touch people right where they live. Each point Romney made was almost as strong as a debate winner in an ordinary contest (where the empty chair isn't being propped up so drastically).
Obama had nothing but class warfare, and some crap from his attack ads that no one really will remember next week. Romney wanted to close a coal plant? Really? Where? Did he close it? Does anyone even know? Millions of people know Obama is killing coal. It's not even a contest. Obama loses on energy, any way you want to measure it.
Further, Obama had at least two major moments where he lost track of what he was trying to do, and started tossing in fluff to hide his lost train of thought. Romney never did that at all. Obama also relied on phony math several times, which will be proven by Sununu and company over the next week.
As to the "missed opportunity," I think folks on the right have to let that go. Obama got covering fire from the moderator, who apparently struggles to map sentences logically. With another debate to go, it won't make any difference.
He absolutely did not call the Bengazi raid, "an act of terror" in that Rose Garden event. He mentioned terror in a general way, like one would use the word "event." Not directly, like one must when using the word "murder."
Charles may have grabbed the one thing the press will run with this week, but think about it: how do they "run with it," exactly? If they spin it as a missed opportunity, that only works if everyone knows Obama screwed up Bengazi. If they spin it as Romney's foreign policy weakness, they have to explain how Obama handled the situation better (a total fool's errand).
Yes, Obama did better than last time. The trouble is, Romney was still just as good as last time. So Romney didn't crush Obama, but he definitely won on points, on mannerism (notice how high and tight Obama's voice kept getting?), and on having a better record to point to.
Great analysis. I've learned to turn off the TV immediately following the debates to avoid listening to the punditry and their efforts to spin. While I like, Krauthammer, there are times I think he gets it wrong. Guess it's living inside the beltway too long, and he does think like an academician. The only difference in this debate from the first was that Obama was animated, so they rev'd him up with something. Reminded me a kindergartner who can't sit still in his chair. Always with the me, me, me. He interrupted Romney a number of times which required Romney to that have to intercede for himself between the prevarications of Obama, aided in the debate by Crowley.
Obama lied throughout the debate, and those in the media class, including Krauthammer, who are willing to give Obama a pass on lying big time over and over to the American people, who enabling Obama to continue as he is. Politicians, and pundits for that matter, have no idea that in this technological age of instant communication people can easily see for themselves what the truth is when they actually pay attention.
Note Obama's incessant eye blinking, that usually means a stimulant of some kind. He blatantly lied on several items, and it was the same old tired talking points. I don't need the pundits to tell me then, that Obama "won." He didn't, we're not that stupid. When people are paying attention, they realize having someone who "cares" (which is a lie in and of itself) is far less desirable than having someone competent, genuine and smart. Unfortunately, society has degraded so much that the Madison Ave. PR creation sells like American Idol.
Still, you're right, no one should "worry" about a missed opportunity on Romney's part. He did well and in the final analysis, his correctness on the facts and presidential behavior contrasts well with the kindergarten man-child.
Romney's getting criticized here tonight for not hitting harder on Libya - but, I fear not - he's just keeping his powder dry for the real foreign policy debate next week.
He knows what he's doing. He also knows there's more coming out each day and there'll be more to hit the LIAR with then. Even if the LIAR launches an attack on the supposed perpetrators, that won't save him from a lambasting by Romney. His initial actions there were unauthorized and ill-advised - the proof of that pudding is 4 dead Americans. That won't change.
Good point, he probably knew he wouldn't be able to get all his points in so why waste the ammunition? Better to have for next week where he won't have another silly sycophant radical feminist running interference for Obama. Between Martha moderating the Biden/Ryan debate and Candy's behavior in this one, it shows how radical feminists have earned the being a witch label. They're so out of touch with genuine, decent American women.
Now Charles, what did Obama say other than exupts from his typical empty speeches. I have heard it all from Obama and NOTHING is new! Ok, so according to Charles it was a TKO...That's Krauthammer's Opinion. I disagree!
It's terrible that the moderator lied and backed up Obama lying claim about his Rose Garden speech, saying that he called it an act of terror.
Charles makes a valid point about the misleading by the UN ambassador... it would have been good to have pointed that out. I also think the fact that Obama was talking about beefing up security in the aftermath of the 9/11/12 attack, there was a missed opportunity by Romney with what Obama was saying... had Romney been aware of the more than 200 security incidents prior to this attack in Benghazi, including an IED at an American consulate and the requests for more security that were denied, he should have said security should have been beefed up long before 9/11/12!
I'm not as concerned about Romney and what happened in this debate because Monday's debate is foreign policy and we can be sure he will have his facts straight. Not only this but the fact Obama's speech the day after is the talk of the debate will carry the Libya debacle until Monday.
Frank Luntz's focus group is going overwhelmingly for Romney. Krauthammer was also drooling over Biden last week. I don't get him sometimes.
These pundits make me laugh.
Obama "perfomance wise" was better compared to the last debate, but that should mean he won. He LOST.
I don't get how, Obama spewing the same talking points from the last debate but with a higher voice, and He wins on point? Bull.
Also Romney missed a huge opprotunity, but there is a reason why. He was doing that, and then Crowly lifts up sheet of paper saying "Here it is he did say it" When Obama didn't say the attack was Acts of Terrorism. How was Romney supposed to capitalize on that?
MONDAY Is foreign policy debate.
Lets not forget, Obama said Some Jobs Won't Come Back. McCain said that in 08 remember? Obama hammered him?