the bottom line

This is not really how I wanted to spend my day, but I just watched the first Presidential Debate again so I could assess what really happened. For one thing, a candidate and incumbent inherently must act differently. The challenger has nothing to lose and can say anything. The office holder, in this case the President of the United States, is obligated to speak and  act in the MOST responsible way. The POTUS can't just "cut loose" and get scrappy. He must choose every word very carefully, because again, he already IS the President. This explains why Obama seemed feisty, energized and "scrappy" himself four years ago against Hillary. Having been the First Lady, Mrs. Clinton spoke in a measured, cautious way while then-candidate Obama gave a no-holes barred performance. Performance is the best word for these debates. Ronald Reagan, an actor, gave a great performance when he delivered his so-called zingers with zest and zeal. I have a different recollection of his actual presidency, tho, than Repubs who only remember Saint Reagan. I remember a doddering, often out of touch, ceremonial President who focused on photo-ops and gave us supply-side "Reaganomics" that did not trickle down to anyone. Sorry, I'm determined to keep this post as civil as the gentlemen we saw in the debate (they were civil, and that was welcome.)

Watching again today, I can see the proclaimed Romney win is over-rated. Fact checkers will show that contrary to Mitt's "zinger" (you're entitled to your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts) it was really Mitt making up facts. For instance, when he brings up the old saw about cutting waste and abuse, the truth is no President has cut more waste than Obama--over a trillion dollars. Romney could only cite a few programs, including funding to PBS, to get specific about how he would balance the budget with cuts alone. Those few minor programs won't make a dent in the massive debt generated by wars costing billions per day. During his closing remarks, Romney made sure to appeal to the hawks saying he wouldn't "devastate the military." But, c'mon Mitt, tackling the bloated defense budget, which really is a source of waste and abuse, is the only way to truly impact the federal budget and deficit.

Yes, President Obama could have been more concise, given pithy, punchy answers and smarter quips, perhaps, to enhance the theatrics, but he was honest and fact-checking will prove that. I just documented all of Mitt's promises, and none of them bear any resemblance to what he told his wealthy friends when he wrote off 47% of Americans who he basically accused of "mooching" off the system. So, for the next debate I hope we can figure out who is the real Romney; the Centrist who sounded smooth, compassionate and reasonable last night, or the radical right-winger who promised the tea party a slashed lean and mean federal government, or the corporate raider who hides money in the Cayman Islands and owes his soul to the super pac zillionaires. As for the President, let's hope he can call out the lie about the $716 billion cuts to medicaid, and make Mitt answer for past attacks on planned parenthood, women's reproductive rights and support for corporate welfare that he so slyly slipped past on stage. Let's see the next debate before we make any hasty decisions.