patching...
Welcome back, Patch Blogger!

Round One: Obama vs. Romney

An analysis of Wednesday night's presidential debate.

 

If Wednesday night’s presidential debate was a boxing match, Mitt Romney may be said to have won the first round on points. He did that by seeming aggressive and animated, and he brought the fight to President Obama. However, as Gail Collins said in the New York Times Thursday morning, "Romney had that funny look on his face whenever President Obama was talking. Somewhere between a person who is trying to overlook an unpleasant smell and a guy who is trying to restrain himself from pointing out that his car is much nicer than your car." Her comment reminds me of the cover of the New Yorker magazine last week. It had a drawing of Romney riding on a horse behind a chauffer who had the reins.

The fight is by no means over. Many a fighter has won the first round against Joe Lewis or Muhammad Ali and ended on his back at the end of the match.

The one Romney zinger for the evening was, “You may be entitled to your own opinion, your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts.” For him to say that required considerable chutzpah. Throughout the debate, Romney denied he supported the hard right’s platform of tax cuts. To quote the New York Times editorial page, “Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. ... Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax that would increase the deficit."

"That simply isn’t true," the editorial staff at the Times wrote Thursday. "Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of the year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy."

Somehow, with this tax structure, Romney insists that he won’t reduce the  defense budget, will provide more money for education, and will overturn Obamacare but keep the best parts. Also, he will be kind to the needy and unemployed. If you believe any of that, you believe in the Good Fairy Theory. Keep sleeping but don’t bother looking under your pillow in the morning.

It is not hard to understand Romney’s strategy, especially when you know his history: He flip-flops whenever it suits his purpose. In the primaries, he abandoned all the liberal principles he subscribed to as governor of Massachusetts, a liberal state. He moved to become as close as possible with the Tea Party. Now, in Wednesday’s debate, he once more claimed, in effect, to be a liberal. The fox has once more changed to a pussycat.

Obama’s performance at the debate was disappointing to many of his admirers. His practice of looking down while Romney was speaking in order to make notes made him look like he was pretending to be asleep. But when he spoke, he illustrated the difference between being a would-be president and a real one. His remarks showed his careful concern for his responsibilities. He limited himself to facts, not sharp responses to Romney’s charges. He refused to be drawn into the false debate of big government vs. not-big government. For him, the problem was not size, but what the government needed to do in all areas to benefit the country and, especially, the middle class. Romney’s response to this was the abstract "smaller is better" idea--not a series of specific proposals.

The best moments for Obama were when he passionately defended Obamacare, Medicare and Medicaid. It is this Obama who we can expect to see in future rounds. In the long run, it is this Obama who will ensure that Romney’s last flip-flop will leave him flat on his back at the end of the fight.

About this column: Arthur Joel Katz (he generally is called “Joel”) was born in the dim past (1928). He graduated from Columbia Law School, practiced for three years and then entered the entertainment business, first in an agency and then for six years with Herb Brodkin’s Plautus Productions as Executive Vice President, where he produced more than 80 shows for network television. He then surrendered to Hollywood, working as a producer or executive for about 25 years for such companies as Universal Pictures, MGM, NBC, Playboy and Westinghouse. He spent the better part of three years in the former USSR producing a mini-series for NBC. He moved to the Saucon Valley about 20 years ago, where he has entertained himself writing columns for various local newspapers and writing “Making Harriet,” a novel about Hollywood. Related Topics: Debate Analysis, Obama, Presidential Debate, Presidential Election 2012, Romney, and first debate

Allan Bach

6:59 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

Isn't it odd that an opinion piece uses extensive quotes from one newspaper?

Reply

Honey Badger

9:00 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

Not odd. That's what liberals do. The media bias is sickening in this race and past presidential races. People need to do their own research and stay informed! You can't trust the papers or people who read them as fact.

Reply

Lower Saucon Guy

9:49 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

Honey Badger is correct in the statement that you can't believe all that you read in the papers, right or left. If you don't know by now that both sides put the spin on what they want you to believe, you're pretty naive. You and Allen are both right wingers, so your opinion is as jaded as a liberal opinion would be. At 63 years of age, I find it very disappointing that our country is so divided anymore. As long as this division continues to the degree it does, nothing will get accomplished, right or left. The people will speak on Nov. 6th. Right or wrong, time will tell.

Reply
Comment_arrow

Allan Bach

7:31 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

You comment about divisions yet you label me a "right-winger". I'd much rather prefer to be called an American - one who believes in his country enough to give a part of me in its defense. My point was not to bring attention to Joel's political slant but rather to make note of this opinion piece being more that of the Times rather than the writer's. Joel Katz is smart enough to not have to use others' quotes to pen his opinion.

Comment_arrow

Lower Saucon Guy

10:26 am on Saturday, October 6, 2012

@ Allen, my apologies about the right wing comment. We're both Americans looking out for what we think is best for our future.

Nancy Benson

10:08 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

Lower Saucon Guy. I agree it is sad our nation is so divided. But I'm quite disappointed by our local Patch choosing to link to such a biased article.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Josh Popichak

10:21 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

Hi Nancy. This is clearly an opinion piece. So it's up to the writer to choose his source material as he sees fit. If you disagree with his choices, that's a criticism you should take up the author. It is not an editor's responsibility, nor would it be appropriate for me to require him--or any opinion writer--to balance each source he cites with one that represents an opposing viewpoint. To do so would be heavy-handed and, dare I say, censorious. I can assure you that if this were a piece written by someone else in which the only source cited were the National Review, I would not have edited it differently.

Comment_arrow

Lower Saucon Guy

11:18 am on Friday, October 5, 2012

I think Josh cleared that up nicely. It's an opinion piece written by Joel. Anyone who reads his articles knows that Joel sides more with a Liberal point of view. This is his right as an American, just like it's everyone's right to choose the path they wish to follow. The big mistake people make today, in my opinion, is it's either all right or all left. The word Liberal today has become this evil anti American description for those who choose to take a broader view of the whole picture. Not all Liberals support freeloaders, the Lesbian and Gay community etc. No more than not all Republicans are against the middle class. We should stop the stupid me against you consciousness and take a bigger view of where our country is going. The last time I saw this country somewhat unified, was on Sept 12, 2001, the day after the World trade Center attack. Of course it didn't take more than two weeks for the scammers to figure out how they would cash in on the relief fund frauds. Well, that's a whole other subject. Try to fight nice kids, LOL !!!

Nancy Benson

1:36 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Hi Josh. So I would suggest links to several opinion articles if there is not a single one that is more objective. The only link contained within the Patch e-mail that I received (via iPhone) was this one HuffingtonPost article which referenced, as noted, the NY Times often, and I think we would all agree leans left. I would have liked to have seen a link to an article that was more objective. By linking to a biased article it suggests that is the position the Patch is taking. Regardless of my personal politics, that's the point I'm trying to make. That said, I appreciate the forum provided in which we may express our opinions.

Reply
Comment_arrow
Patch_comments_icon

Josh Popichak

2:23 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Hi Nancy. I still think there's a fundamental difference you are failing to take into consideration. This is a column. It is not an article. It's not meant to be, nor should it be interpreted as objective content in the way news articles are, and there isn't the need to reference several different sources representing opposing viewpoints as a news writer would. The author of this piece could have done that if he had wanted to, but he has explained his reasoning in this thread. I'm sorry if the fact that this is a column wasn't more obvious but this piece was presented via the platform that Patch uses, and I always do my best to differentiate opinion from news. And for the record, we have published conservative opinion pieces in the past and will continue to do so in the future. When that happens, those viewpoints will be those of the writers--not those of Patch, just as this viewpoint is not the opinion of Patch. Thanks for reading and I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

Arthur Joel Katz

1:40 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Just to be clear, I used a quote from Gail Collins who is a syndicated journalist and certainly does not necessarily represent the views of the NY Times. I used the extended quote from the NY Times because it represented my views of what I saw on the debates, I was in a hurry and the Times said it better than I imagine I could. The implicit point of the negative comments above is that these the two quotes somehow influenced my opinion. That is nonsense. I staid up late to see the entire debate, I was up at five to start writing, and the opinions expressed are my own and entirely my responsibility..

Reply
Comment_arrow

charles hampton

2:47 pm on Friday, October 5, 2012

Thank you, Mr. Katz, for voicing your opinion, and thank you, Mr. Popichak, for publishing the views of all!

Steve

9:40 pm on Sunday, October 7, 2012

So arthur....it seems that you feel that the way to solve a problem caused by too much debt is to create more debt ? According to Obama's own budget, he calls for our debt to be $19 trillion in debt by 2016. Assuming a normalized interest rate of 6%, our interest expense PER year would be close to $1 trillion or almost 40% of our revenues ? . I assume you realize that we can't tax enough from the rich to make a dent in our deficit....but it sure sounds good for campaigning ....doesn't it ? Are you in favor of a welfare state as it appears Obama wants ? He doesn't want people to help themselves....he seems to want the government to help them....irrespective of whether they want to work or not ? I guess you feel a welfare state makes a stronger government...and nation ..?

Reply

Barbara Scherer

8:42 am on Saturday, October 13, 2012

Can someone please tell me what the actual income range is for the "middle" class?
Why do politicians say people under $250,000 will pay no more taxes when in fact, those who receive stock dividends will no longer get the 15% tax break? There are alot of people making under $250,000 that will pay higher taxes on those amounts, and I would not consider them RICH! If there are no investors in stock, where do you think our country would be? Companies use those dollars in part, to employ people and also to expand their companies! Think about it...........................

Reply

Leave a comment