Mitt Romney Didn't Rationally Win the First Debate At All
By Big Bird
It's important to realize too much of the Mainstream Media is spinning the same pact of lies the Romney camp spun regarding the debate at the University of Denver (and who apparently won). From an intellectual and rational position Romney lost.
First off the debate was too much on technical matters most Americans don't much understand that well; and therefore were left groping to look for whatever impressions they could muster. This includes many people who work the media: they know less about economics than they like to pretend. They too are vulnerable to look for whatever prejudices suits their purposes.
This was somewhat of a scholarly debate between two college graduates. Whereas many viewers were hoping for a knock-down, emotionally exciting drag-out fight. Frankly the details were boring to most. How many Americans recognize anything behind the mention of the Bowles-Simpson Commission? Too few. Sure they have heard of it but they remember. It slips on past like much as quibbling between 97% versus 3% of small business enterprises taxed at different levels. This show was about as exciting as watching to two economic professors argue the merits of tax theory.
Most people came to this debate to have their prejudices confirmed. Many venues of media, including alternative media, have played both candidate as sinner and saint—to be either hated or loved. What we got instead was a somewhat collegial discussion on issues the majority has too little interest in understanding because every topic of complexity can be skewed with bias and it is hard to keep things in perspective. Where was the blood? Where was the slander and outrageous remarks that American people love to hate?
Plus there wasn't even one commercial break during the entire hour and half. We are not used to concentrating this long. We were quite frankly bored.
Obama's trainers should be fired (slapped) for even thinking that any kind of technical debate would actually go over. This is part of their naiveté to think the American public has such capacity to understand that which Presidential candidates should and need to understand on matters. Obama said he was looking forward to a "serious" debate. Watch out what you wish for. On an emotional level people were looking for something closer to a gladiatorial arena or Hunger Games entertainment.
And yet the mere "supposed" MSM fact that so many are being hoodwinked into thinking Romney actually won this debate shows that it is true the American education system is, and has been, a complete failure. The easy spin capacity by the mainstream media and various pundits is all about "impression management" and Romney has proved himself quite the actor.
Take the very first question by moderator Jim Lehr on creating jobs and Romney starts out addressing this issue with this sentence: "... this is obviously a very tender topic... a mother from Dayton Ohio asked about her husband's unemployment 'Can you help me?'... (we need to get on another path away from Obama's path of the last for years)... "
Mitt Romney comes off sounding like some compassion person who has lived and worked in the Peace Corps. But Romney's business background as real decision practice insinuates the opposite of what he projects as a political debater. Watch "Amy Goodman's Fireside Chat With Workers Set to Lose their Jobs After Decades at Bain-Owned Plant". Watch the secretly released video " Romney Admits Slave Labor at Investment Fundraiser" (on Internet). This is not just a flip-flop. This is about political advisers attempting to create an alternative reality.
Further in his same first answer as he segues into his five-point plan of growing the economy, such as guaranteeing Americans have the skills to work a modern economy, do you really think this guy is going to throw a lot of money for education? (Instead he is talking about given more responsibility to states (but not saying about giving more money to states)? Or how can he possibly balance the budget if he intends to increase military spending? His answers are smooth but at odds with his overall stances, party, etc.
Plus in his first answer to the first question about jobs, as he talks about supporting small business he goes on a smear campaign that strongly suggests it has only been in the last four years that businesses have not been hiring (in respect to his usage of the current "path" we are on—more or less claiming the entire economy has taken a downturn simply by what has transpired in the last mere four years). He then said this Obama path is about "more" spending, "more" taxation, and "more" regulation. But get this from his word choice of "trickle down government" is not what we need to be doing. All this and more packed into his very first answer!
But apparently he doesn't even understand the concept of trickle-down, which does "not" mean more spending, more taxation and more regulation. Trickle down (that every politician ought know especially if a business graduate) is the conceited notion that if big time investors and businesses get tax breaks then people in lower levels of the socioeconomic scale will realize some trickle down benefit. Yes they have—it just happens to be "where" investors have been investing—places like overseas where labor costs are a fraction of what Americans want as salary and wage.
But it was delivered all so smooth. Talk can be elusive and reassuring. Romney was sounding like a pillar for any community. None of this mattered because the mainstream punditry was about to paint whatever pictures they wanted to. Obviously Mitt is their corporatist answer since he smeared the "path-we-on-on" problem as because of the last four years as if there were no economic problems before Obama took office? Pretty snazzy even for American TV.
Americans, including America's elites, had opportunity to learn more about economic theory but most did nothing. Several books have come out explaining the economy that go beyond a hodge-podge of media assumptions. In fact America's "path" was foretold by Naomi Klein in her The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. Granted there are a lot of books competing for attention, but if this culture had any real intelligentsia many people would have read and understood this book (in all its ramification) especially many politicians and their staffs. But we didn't—including the airbags working the mainstream. Then there was Joseph Stiglitz' Freefall:America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy (a book one can listen to on audio and doesn't require as much effort!). There were others like Republican guru Kevin Phillips' Bad Money: Reckless Finance, Failed Politics, and the Global Crisis of American Capitalism (2008) before the last four year that Romney describes the problem? Plus other titles deserve commentary.
So how can we expect the naďve masses to understand what the presumed intelligentsia of this corrupt nation does not? Democracy is being proven a farce—save perhaps at least Amy Goodman's attempt to "expand the debate" by adding two other candidates to this same debate in her "exclusive" Breaking the Sound Barrier inclusion with Green Party Candidate Jill Stein and Justice Party candidate Rocky Anderson participated (definitely worthy of the three hours).
Then into the second question on the deficit chameleon Romney portrays himself as our leading candidate fighting for middle class America. He is sounding like the real populist Democrat arguing about how people in this country are hurting! He should know? Can you believe it—in the very first two questions Mitt Romney has turned the truth about himself on its head and a naďve American population is sucking it up.
Also only technical people think about such things but it is important to understand the "angles" the cameras were focused on both candidates. There seems to have been bias created here worthy of consideration.
More importantly, Mitt said in this early discussion: "... but I'm 'not' going to increase the taxes on High income Americans, high income Americans are doing just fine (regardless of who is President)... but it is middle income people who are suffering (all this in his so-called defense of the middle class)? Is there any contradiction of logic here? The wealthy are doing fine so he is not going to increase their taxes but we should be very concerned about the middle class? Are Americans so stupid they can be lied to with such audacity? And this was just the beginning of a boring debate.
Re-listen and re-think a little a little if you really care.
There is a fox in the chicken coop.