Counter View: Obama won the Debate

Oh I know, all the pundits and "flash polls" say Romney won the debate. However, I watched the "whole thing" and it was clear before, during, and after the debate that Romney's math still doesn't "add up." Forget the style, forget the "spin," forget the debate "points." At the end of the night, Romney's statements (though they may sound "good" in the moment) are not credible--his math doesn't "add up."  Even Paul Ryan dodged the question from Fox News' Chris Wallace when asked Sunday how the Romney math "added up."  The longer this goes on, the more it seems Romney-Ryan are trying to "con" the American people. Five more weeks to election day is a LONG time for their con game to continue. Even the media (who now apparently want a "close election"), will eventually press Romney-Ryan for an answer or begin to expose their fraud. In the meantime, only the gullible will believe the Romney-Ryan plan. Over the next few days, bloggers and other media  pundits will expose Romney's statements of last night for their lack of "substance."

As for President Obama, no damage done. His "likability" is intact, he made his points and appeared calm and "Presidential" (even if a bit "weary" of Romney's political game-playing). Obama played it right last night--he played it to win the election in November and not just one night in October.

That said, I will say that Romney opened the door last night for Joe Biden to be "unchained." I wouldn't be surprised to see "fireworks" when Biden and Ryan meet for the Vice Presidential debate next Thursday, October 11th. Joe Biden (unlike Obama) doesn't have to appear "likable" and the Democratic Party base now wants "blood." Joe's been around Washington a while. He's seen guys like "Paul Ryan" come and go. He knows the stuff Romney-Ryan are trying to sell is BS. Ryan may not even see it coming.

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama

Samuelson (Washington Post) grades Obama "C- or D" (poor) for all of his term excepting the "first six months"--

Robert J. Samuelson: Grading Obama’s economics - The Washington Post: " . . . For the first six months, I’d award him (Obama) an A-; for the rest, a C- or D. . . . The recovery is subpar. After the economy hit bottom in mid-2009, it has grown at a feeble 2.2 percent annual rate. By contrast, growth in the nine other recoveries since 1950 has averaged 4.2 percent for their first three years. During the slump, the economy lost 8.8 million jobs. Only 4 million, less than 50 percent, have returned. The grim job figures explain “why a great many people don’t believe there’s a recovery,” says economist Nariman Behravesh of IHS. Obama can’t escape some responsibility for this dismal performance. His mistake was assuming he could pursue his political agenda without compromising the recovery. Passing the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) weakened the economy. For starters, the complex law discourages job creation by forcing some firms to provide health insurance or pay a fine. If you make hiring harder and costlier, you will get less of it."

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole

Multimillionaire Obama

Don't forget that both presidential candidates are "multimillionaires"--

Millionaire Obama Self-Funds Campaign | Washington Free Beacon: "Obama’s net worth is estimated between $2.8 million and $11.83 million, according to a database maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics."

Which multimillionaire are you for?

Tweet    Follow @johnmpoole