Romney’s First Round Knockdown

When the radical left is proclaiming Mitt Romney the undeniable winner of the presidential debate, you know that this wasn’t merely the GOP dreaming or spinning the truth. Romney really did win, and he won big.

From the beginning of the debate, Romney was in control. President Obama tried, over and over again, to sell the public on the fable of how Mitt Romney wanted a $5 trillion tax cut, but not once did the former Governor of Massachusetts allow him to get away with it. He explained that he was not looking to make such a tax cut and that he “won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit.”

For President Obama, it was all about the “rich” paying a little more. He referred to it as “economic patriotism.” For Governor Romney, it was all about lowering taxes, not increasing them, because he understands that the same “rich” people Obama was talking about are the ones creating jobs for middle class Americans.

President Obama kept floating the term “revenue,” a politically acceptable way for Democrats to say tax hikes. However, Mitt Romney explained that true revenue doesn’t come from raising taxes. It comes from creating jobs, where one produces a large tax base. He stated that he would champion small business, while today, he said, “new business start-ups are down to a 30-year low.”

Obama attempted to blame President Bush for his failures in office, as he often does. He stated, “When I walked in the Oval Office, I had more than a trillion dollar deficit greeting me, and we know where it came from.” He mentioned his $4 trillion plan to balance the budget. Romney chimed in, “You’ve been president four years. You said you’d cut the deficit in half. It’s now four years later. We still have trillion dollar deficits.”

President Obama accused Governor Romney of wanting to “roll back” regulations. Romney said he only wished to do away with “excessive regulations,” as with those that were generated by the Dodd-Frank bill. He stated that, in order for the economy to work, “you have to have regulations… Every free economy has good regulation.”

President Obama talked up his Race to the Top education program and said he wants to hire 100,000 more math and science teachers. Governor Romney stated he is in favor of more teachers, but he thinks the states should be in charge of that, not the federal government. He said he wants more school choice and competition.

Health care was a big topic during the debate, and Romney, as with everything else this night, went on the offensive. Romney criticized the President for raiding Medicare of $716 billion. He criticized him for creating an unelected board of bureaucrats “who are going to decide what kind of treatment you ought to have.” He said that under the President’s plan, health premiums would go up potentially $2500 per family. And he said that the plan does harm to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. He told the President that he respectfully uses the term “ObamaCare” to describe the President’s Affordable Care Act, but during the debate, Obama respectfully used the negative term as well – seven times – and the moderator Jim Lehrer also did so.

President Obama touted his energy program, but there too Romney schooled him. Governor Romney stated that the President has hindered energy exploration and that any progress that has happened came without the help of the federal government. Romney as well skewered President Obama for providing $90 billion of taxpayer funds to green energy companies, many of which went out of business. According to Governor Romney this money is “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” Romney stated to Obama that his friend told him “you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”

Much of what Governor Romney said he said directly to President Obama, while the President at times looked down while he was talking. Barack Obama walked out of this debate a defeated man – and he wasn’t the only one who knew it. So did his friends on the left.

On Fox News, CNN, MSNBC and CNBC, one was hard-pressed to find someone – other than an Obama advisor or Al Sharpton – who was willing to push the false premise that Barack Obama did not clearly lose this debate. Ed Schultz, an extreme progressive from MSNBC stated that there were times “when I wasn’t sure whether he wanted it or not.” Even Obama’s heartthrob, Chris Matthews, thought Romney won.

It is only the first in the series of debates between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but there was no denying what had occurred: Governor Romney was victorious. Conventional wisdom would suggest that he will be ready for the next battle. The big question is will it be enough to win the war.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

  • objectivefactsmatter

    "Romney as well skewered President Obama for providing $90 billion of taxpayer funds to green energy companies, many of which went out of business. According to Governor Romney this money is “about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” Romney stated to Obama that his friend told him “you don’t just pick the winners and losers; you pick the losers.”

    Actually this is the worst part of how Obama handled his promotion of "green energy." He essentially picked which ones would get the money. Where does he get this expertise? He doesn't have any. Tax incentives should have been used with whatever budget allocation was deemed appropriate. Just handing indiscriminate "seed money" to people from the government is actually harmful to the businesses as well as to the government.

    It's why I laugh every time he uses the word, "investment' because he has no clue what that word means in any context.

  • The Infidel

    obama's inability to handle a fluid debate should show people why he had the inability to handle a fluid mid east uprising. If its not written for him on a telepromter by someone else he is useless.

    The left is up in arms because they where unable to "creatively" edit it down to soundbites to show obama in a good light and Romney in a bad light. Even tingles felt the tingle down his leg, turn into a more of a trickle. His post debate tirade looked more like the tingle was the first stages of rabies, they have medication for that I believe, that is unless it has to go through obama's death panels.

  • Big Irish

    Mitt Romney looked like a president – talked like a president – Barak Hussein Obama without the mighty teleprompter looked like a decieving, mixed up bumbling fool that shouldnt be allowed near the White House…back to Chicago Barry (or whoever you are) and hang with your no-nothing street thugs – you fit right in there.

    • deprogrammer

      So let's break this one down shall we:
      "Mitt Romney looked like a president…" Gee I wonder what that meant, eh?
      "…Hussein…" Ah, the old gag of using Obama's middle name because it happned to be the last name of Saddam Hussein and, by FPM logic, sound "foreign". It's a dog whistle trick.
      "Barry": Well I guess his middle name is Hussein after all. To a good FPMer anything darker than Richard Hamilton just ain't no 'merican eh? Must be tricky foreigner, eh?
      "…street thug…" Yeah, what a surprise an FPMer in good standing can't tell Obama from an actual "thug". It's another dog whistle.

      • reader

        Somebody deprogramm the deprogrammer's rant, please.

      • Ghostwriter

        It looks like deprogrammer needs some deprogramming himself.

  • davarino

    This is exactly what I and a lot of other people have been waiting for Romney to do. The king has been shown he has no clothes. Now I'm on board and will contribute to the campaign. Good job Mitt.

  • Jossi

    Some months ago the Lame Stream Media said the ideal candidate would be Romney, so that Obama can eat him up during the debates. Yesterday night President Zero passed through the grinding fact and charm machine of Candidate Romney. Another fact, finally came out clearly: President Zero is an empty and cheap bottle. For me (time difference) it was 03.00 AM when the debate started and I went to bed early morning with a sweet dream…..

  • Ricky Michael

    Hahaha, not too good without a teleprompter telling him what to say.

    Vote for the American.

  • Schlomotion

    " the same “rich” people Obama was talking about are the ones creating jobs for middle class Americans."

    There's no proof of that. There is no proof that rich people are creating jobs for middle class Americans. A lot of middle class Americans are self employed and the rich merely leech off of them in some way, or exploit some overlap in the public and private sector to derive personal benefit from commonly held infrastructure and then exact some kind of levy on everyone else.

    Probably, a middle class American had a Clear Channel billboard go up in front of his living room window offering to sell him vodka, with the help of Bain Capital, backed by inherited money kept in a Cayman Islands account and no taxes paid. The tax paying middle class guy then had to walk around the billboard and drive his car through a Bechtel managed traffic debacle into the nearest cartel controlled gas station to buy $4.05 gas. He probably created his own job and just wants to get there on time without losing both his time and his money to Mitt Romney's class of kleptocrats, and without wearing down his health to pay for Romney's Heritage Foundation-made mandatory health insurance.

    • zalukas

      Comrade, ever worked for poor person?

      In Soviet Union government made spaceships and..yes hot dogs.

      Would you eat a government made hot dog?

    • Spider

      "the same “rich” people Obama was talking about are the ones creating jobs for middle class Americans" –

      "There's no proof of that"

      Schlomo- There is plenty of proof of that. A high percentage of people that meet Obamas "rich" criteria are business owners. Here is one example: A cardiologist makes somewhere around 250 – 500k per year. He not only contarcts his services out to hospitals but probably has his own practice. This means: He fills a rental space, hires Receptionists, Records Clerks, Nurses, Lab Tecs, and maybe even other Doctors. i.e it is a business. Obama would love to tax him out of business because he is so called "rich" – what part of this don't you get ?

      • Stephen_Brady

        My favorite coffee shop has an annual taxable income of over $300k. By Obama's definition, this "entity" is "rich". It employs over half a dozen college students. Obama's plans would put these people out of job, and the shop out of business.

        • Jim_C

          Stephen, that's the crux of why I think Romney won the debate. That was a point that Romney made very well.

          If I were a "campaign guru" I would tell my candidate "the small business owner is your audience."

          Obama, to his credit, makes a great point about the VERY wealthy, who should indeed pay a higher rate as they always historically have, through periods of great growth, and whose wealth is not necessarily, as Schlomo points out, an economic engine.

          But in the war for the small business owner I think Romney did a better job.

          • Chris Nichols

            "Obama, to his credit, makes a great point about the VERY wealthy, who should indeed pay a higher rate as they always historically have, through periods of great growth, and whose wealth is not necessarily, as Schlomo points out, an economic engine. "

            Again, I ask, why are you, or the Federal government entitled to someone else's money, no matter how much they have? What were those great periods of economic growth when the upper income tax brackets were between 70 to 90 percent, the Great Depression? The Carter Years?

          • Jim_C

            Eisenhower, Kennedy. And in those days, many of the wealthy people actually made things. And many of the ones who still make things today–the Steve Jobs and Bill Gates–they're democrats who agree with me. As do many on Wall Street.

            Society requires government, and government costs money.

            Even Hayek thought there should be a social safety net.

            Or we could do it your way, Chris, and just keep borrowing the money we need to pay for stuff.

          • Chris Nichols

            Let's count the strawmen, I never advocated for more borrowing,
            I said government should stop spending. There are clearly
            defined functions of government spelled out and what we should
            spend money on, Article Section 8. Their primary (government's)
            function, is to preserver order and protect property, not
            provide a "safety net" for people – which is more of a lifestyle
            for those perpetually on the dole – which is the problem. There
            is no correlation between what government takes in and what they
            spend, you could tax everyone at 100% and still not pay down the
            debt. And rich people still invest and purchase goods and
            services which drive economic growth. Tell me Jim, what does
            government make?

          • Jim_C

            For the record, I am not for "government control" of any aspect of production. I am well aware of the problems our first-world counterparts encounter when gov't plays too intrusive a role. But our gov't does have a role to play that is not strictly confined to defense and property protection–that role is constitutional in "promot[ing] the general welfare and secur[ing] the blessings of liberty."

            You guys say "dole," but you are really talking about children and elderly. If you have a better way of providing a safety net where these people aren't starving sick in the streets, I've yet to hear it. We've gone a long way toward reducing the amount of able-bodied people on welfare but I agree, and am with you, if we can go farther toward that.

            You ask what government makes; I ask what many wealthy people make? I mean, actually make? We've seen what happens when an economy unmoors from reality–tangible things of value–and simply becomes a speculative game of imaginary numbers.

            You want to talk about a simplified tax system, transitioning toward a safety net built in the private sector, revamping the education system? I'm all ears. I do not dismiss conservative ideas out of hand the way conservatives dismiss liberal ideas they've benefitted from.

            But this is a civil society, and civil society requires certain insurances and safety nets. As I stated, it isn't just "liberals" who historically have seen the "safety net" as the hallmark of civil society–even Hayek said so. If you are committed to an educated and healthy populace and your policies reflect that, as I said, I'm all ears.

    • deprogrammer

      Careful now don't bring any fact into this. The little boys and girls of FPM love cool-aid more than life itself. Pretty handy actually as they'll get caught up in the grinder themselves. Do you really think these people are all millionaires?
      The good FPMer would much rather live in a fantasy world a little longer than actually attempt to actually understand what is going on around them.

    • UCSPanther

      Sounds like someone is all butthurt that Romney mopped the floor with Obama.

      How's that hope and change working for you now?

  • Spider

    Brookback Barry is just a stuffed shirt moron without his tele-prompter isn't he?

  • Joe

    Someone needs to tell Obama that he needs to work on not looking like a deer caught in the headlights! He looked wild-eyed, panicky and gave the impression that he would love to bolt from the stage. Poor O. last night the Emperor had no clothes!

  • tagalog

    I find it very grating when I hear any politico talking about cutting taxes and asking "how are we going to pay for those tax cuts?"

    First of all you don't "pay for' tax cuts. You just get less money. It's like when your boss refuses to give you a raise even though you've increased your spending habits. You just have to cut back on the spending.

    So we "pay for" tax cuts by decreasing spending. Since we've cut a lot of the frivolous spending, there isn't much frivolity we can cut out. So now it will -at last- be time to deal with the entitlement programs. But it WILL be easy to cut that $1 billion or so we give to Egypt. That'll be a start.

  • Jim_C

    I saw about 30-40 min. and fell asleep, but I thought Romney was at his very best. Not only did he bring a little more detail, he actually seemed natural.

    I don't think the Prez was terrible, but he quickly fell into that sort of academic mode and didn't bring the A game like Romney did.

    From what I saw, it was at least fairly substantive.

    • tagalog

      It looked like about a 55-45 split in favor of Romney. Romney did well. Obama did what you said. This is not over. I understand the right-wing enthusiasm for Romney after this moment, but the race is not yet fully run.

  • Brester

    Clint Eastwood was right, and President Obama picked a bad night to show up as an empty chair.

  • Mike in VA

    Knockdown? Last night was a total BEATDOWN.

    Just like his presidency, nearly everything about Obama's performance was horrible, right down to his body language. On the other hand, Mitt Romney exceeded expectations – all his preparation clearly paid off.

    I don't know that Obama can rebound in the remaining debates – last night's debate on domestic policy presented his best opportunity and he got thoroughly dominated, instead. After last month's debacle in Libya, he doesn't have a prayer of besting Romney in the foreign policy debate.

    And how great was Romney's "trickle-down government" line?

  • been around the block

    it was a beatdown all right, and deserves many long, loud cheers, but it ain’t over yet.
    obama’s handlers have a whole lot of sneaky tricky moves yet to make, for one thing.
    the main thing is whether voters saw and understood what happened in this debate.
    it looks and sounds good for romney, but, you can’t tell about our dumb cluck voters.

  • Marvin Fox

    In the first Presidential debate, Romney walked the walk he has been talking. Obama sank the walk he has been talking. Romney had a goal that is for our American America. Obama has no goal; he is upside down and underwater on every economic and social front he has used to give him success as a president. What American goal could an international socialist have for our Republic?
    Obama showed his true self in the debate, and in public the next day. In the debate, he had no plan he had used, and he had no plan to use, and his face looked the part. The following day, teleprompter in front, cheerleaders behind, he was his old self. Obama came alive again, he offered no plan, his cheerleaders wanted no plan, their cheers to that emptiness were profound. The most perfect political actor of the 21st century was once again on home territory. The world, and our Republic, just must get better than than that! Thanks to our Lord Jesus Christ, it will!
    Marvin Fox

  • Eugene

    There was an interrsting moment on debate when Obama said, Also I am for less tax for a small business, let an owner by himself a car or a TV set, Poor thing even does not get that the point was about possibilities for new investments. Does he really believe that first thing a small business owner would do with money is to raise his consumption?

  • Freida Drucker

    Great article! Did any of you hear on Thursday, 10/4, that Obama was weakened by Denver's 5000 foot altitude? They say Romney had an edge because he took the opportunity to rehearse his speech/debate in the 5000 foot altitude while Obama only arrived 2 hours prior to the debate. I question the altitude that Air Force One flies …….isn't that above 5000 feet? Very poor excuse. Better explanation would be that Romney was prepared, knowledgable and ready to lead. BTW, Obama had no teleprompter but Romney doesn't need one.