In second debate, Romney's bullying tactics can't conceal the holes in his "sketchy deal"

The second debate between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, moderated by CNN’s Candy Crowley, was in my opinion a hands down victory for Obama.  CNN and the New York Times called it a “draw” despite the fact registered voters polled called in 46-39 in Obama’s favor. The Seattle Times headline declared that Romney was just as effective in this debate as the last. But it was clear that Crowley lost control of the debate early to a bullying Romney who again said little of substance or clarity, although an apologist on CNN suggested that if Crowley had been allowed to stand, she would have had the advantage of a “level playing field.” 

The debate established the parameters of who would be the targeted audience—those well above the median household income, rather than those below it. A college student asked the first question, concerning how he could be assured he would have a job after graduation. Of course, nobody is “assured” of having a job unless they have well-placed and well-funded connections, like Romney. Romney made some low-calorie comments about getting the economy moving without saying exactly how—neglecting to mention that if this student wanted a job, Romney in his Bain days could likely find a job for him in one of those Chinese companies he invested in. Romney would mention China often in this debate, neglecting to mention that he invested heavily in the China, and that the move to China a few hundred jobs from that technology company in Freeport, Illinois recently was what Bain was really “good” at. Obama’s response was to point to his support of the domestic automobile industry when under threat of bankruptcy, support of education, green energy, and a balanced approach to the budget deficit. 

Romney retorted with the 23 million unemployed comment which is not factual, but a number he likes to bandy about, like Joe McCarthy citing a different number of the Communists in the government every time he was asked (in the film “The Manchurian Candidate,” the number “57” was settled on because that was on the label on a Heinz Ketchup bottle),  and his “five point plan” which few people have any idea what it is. Obama responded by chiding Romney for trying to take credit for the automobile bailout, and pointedly called out what he termed Romney’s “one-point plan, where the wealthy benefit from a separate set of rules than the rest of the country: “You can make a lot of money and pay lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less. You can ship jobs overseas and get tax s for it. You can invest in a company, bankrupt it, lay off the workers, strip away their pensions, and you still make money.” Obama also called out Romney in that if he was such an astute businessman, would he agree to a plan before he even knew what the details were—as Americans were being asked to vote for Romney without knowing the specifics of his economic and tax plans?

This is pretty much the way the rest of the debate went. Romney attacked Obama on issues he had little direct control over, like the Middle East, the behavior of corporations and the intransigence and incompetence of the Tea Party-controlled House of Representatives. Instead of explaining his tax proposals, Romney merely called Obama a “liar.” In her “best” moment, Crowley questioned Romney in a disguised fashion his claim of bipartisanship, asking him if he would reconsider his position if the math of his tax plan did not add-up; Romney didn’t take the bait, insisting that his plan would of course “work.”  Romney’s best moment came when he talked about something he knew intimately well—his own business strategies; the irony of this is that during his term as governor of Massachusetts, the state was just a tick above the bottom in the nation in GDP and job growth. The problem basic problem with Romney’s ideology is that government is not a business, and that its constituency are not workers who can be hired and fired at will by hidden corporate elites, but real people with real needs and problems to be addressed that corporate America is unable or unwilling to do. 

Crowley repeatedly allowed Romney to speak out of turn, return to topics already discussed, and otherwise engage in bullying tactics; but like last week (in my opinion), Romney behaved like the “entitled” elitist he is, who repeatedly made nonsensical statements about how he wanted to help the middle-class by making life even easier for the wealthy class. He never mentioned that many of tax breaks he would end also would affect adversely middle to low-income households—while has tax cuts for capital gains and savings would far more benefit those would with considerable sums in such accounts. 

Romney also failed to answer the question on how he would differentiate himself with George Bush’s wayward administration, which the questioner blamed for the current economic troubles. While the questions was clearly aimed at irresponsible deregulation,  massive tax cuts for the wealthy and an expensive and needless war, Romney merely said he would do more drilling, increase trade in Latin America and be “tough” on China—meaning that the things that Bush did wrong were the things he would still do.  In response to a question on assault weapons in the hands of the public, Romney again reiterated the NRA position of opposing laws banning assault weapons. Instead, he said parents are the problem, or more specifically single parenthood is the problem; parents of children should be married. Romney  brought up the “Fast and Furious” scandal, which I’ve talked about; this was merely a diversion from the question. This was in stark contrast to Obama’s position, which put emphasis on improving schools, retraining workers and giving more people access to higher education as means to turn people away from the kind of behavior that leads to violence like the Aurora, Colorado massacre. 

On the other hand, Obama exposed the hypocrisy of Romney’s positions while offering “details” that Romney has only fooled people into thinking he has provided. Obama pointed out that it was foolish to put the country’s energy future in the hands of the “drill, baby drill” philosophy that Romney insisted on several times in the debate; this country simply does not have sufficient oil reserves to achieve energy independence on that source alone. Unspoken in Romney’s intonation of drilling everywhere was environmental issues, which Obama didn’t mention specifically but did imply in regards to other issues that needed to be taken into consideration, especially in regard to the proposed Canadian oil pipeline. To Romney’s claims that he would be “hard” on China, Obama pointed out that Romney’s investments in Chinese companies and companies that outsource jobs to China indicates he is hardly the man to get to do so. Obama pointed out that his administration has brought twice as many unfair trade practice cases against China as the Bush administration.

Obama also wasted Romney on social issues. Romney accused Obama of not offering a comprehensive plan on immigration reform (without, of course, taking into account Republican opposition to such in Congress); but Obama took advantage of Romney’s whiff on a question posed by a Latina—when Romney once more suggested making it easier to give visas to those who would take high-skill, high-wage jobs, while demonizing farm workers and low-skill, low-wage laborers. Obama pointed out that in the absence of cooperation from Congress, he used his executive authority to promulgate a version of the “Dream Act” which Romney opposes. He also noted that while Romney praised Arizona’s immigration law, he pointed out that his own Justice Department fought the law’s de facto  racial profiling aspects. When a feminist questioned them on the equal pay issue, Romney went on a tangent about his respect for women without addressing the specific issue; his “anecdote” was that he couldn’t find enough female applicants for his staff who were “qualified” in a political fashion. Of course, the question itself ignored the fact that relative income was less a factor than other variables, such as who is in what jobs at what number and at what market pay level; Obama neatly side-stepped the thrust of the question by noting his own Justice Department’s not only made it easier than the previous administration to file discrimination suits based on gender—bit does not tolerate discrimination for any person regardless of race or gender. 

One questioner accused Obama of denying enhanced security in Benghazi, where the U.S. ambassador to Libya and several others were killed in an apparent terrorist attack.  This accusation comes from the propaganda of the right-wing media; Obama pointed out that while Romney tried to gain political capital from the deaths, he sought answers to what happened and why, who did this and hunt them down.  Crowley interjected that Hillary Clinton was taking “full responsibility” for the Benghazi attack, in an insinuating tone suggested that Obama did not take responsibility himself and that Clinton was taking a bullet for Obama. While such scenarios were true in the Reagan and Bush administration—where underlings took the fall for illegal activity undertaken in the name of the president—Obama refused to lower himself to the level of the suggestion, stating that he took full responsibility for what happened—which was done under the cover of a “riot” spawned by that right-wing “biographical” film about Muhammad. 

Romney ended the debate by declaring that he supports “100 percent” of the people, most of whom he had essentially ignored up to then. At that point the issue never came-up directly that the effect of Romney’s tax proposals and budget cuts would weigh most heavily on the lower half of the income scale; Obama did earlier point out that Romney’s “pension” was a lot bigger than his own—or most other Americans, regardless of the taxes Romney paid, or didn’t pay.  Obama finished strong, reiterating in not so many words that the government was for and by the people, not just for corporations and the wealthy as it has gradually become beginning with the Reagan administration. Everyone deserves a fair shake and play by the same rules; whether by design or not, Obama brought up Romney’s infamous “47 percent” comment at the end, not allowing Romney to provide the disingenuous excuse that he “misspoke.” Helping the working people on the bottom half advances the entire country, since they are the bedrock in which the country is founded on. Making certain that they get a fair shake in the country’s bounty, rather than just focus on the wealthy as Romney has done so “eloquently” in the past, is why he is asking for your vote and another four years. 

I couldn’t agree with Obama more after this debate.