Romney won the presidential debate – according to left-wing MSNBC hosts

From the left-wing Politico, no less.

Excerpt: (links removed)

Left-leaning commentators hit President Barack Obama hard on TV and the Internet after the first presidential debate in Denver on Wednesday night, saying GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney handily defeated his more experienced opponent.

MSNBC hosts were “stunned” by Obama’s performance, suggesting the president was rusty for not having debated in four years.

“I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I think he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight,” Ed Schultz said.

“Where was Obama tonight?” Chris Matthews asked.

Matthews said Romney addressed Obama “like the prey. He did it just right. I’m coming at an incumbent. I’ve got to beat him. You gotta beat the champ, and I’m gonna beat him tonight. And I don’t care what this guy moderator, whatever he thinks he is, because I’m going to ignore him. What was Romney doing? He was winning.”

“It does remind you that the last debate Mitt Romney had was seven months ago and the last debate that Barack Obama had was four years ago,” said Maddow.

The Daily Beast’s Andrew Sullivan called Obama “tired,” “bored” and wrote that he might have even lost the election.

“He choked. He lost. He may even have lost the election tonight,” Sullivan wrote, later adding, “Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.”

Sullivan, an Obama supporter, was even more vicious on Twitter, calling Obama’s performance “terrible” and “political malpractice.”

“This is a rolling calamity for Obama. He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney!” he wrote. “He’s throwing the debate away.”

Another Obama supporter, liberal comedian Bill Maher, went on a similar Twitter rant, firing off such comments as, “Obama made a lot of great points tonight. Unfortunately, most of them were for Romney.”

A post-debate CNN poll found that:

According to a CNN/ORC International survey conducted right after the debate, 67% of debate watchers questioned said that the Republican nominee won the faceoff, with one in four saying that President Barack Obama was victorious.

“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was first asked in 1984,” says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland.

While nearly half of debate watchers said the showdown didn’t make them more likely to vote for either candidate, 35% said the debate made them more likely to vote for Romney while only 18% said the faceoff made them more likely to vote to re-elect the president.

More than six in ten said that president did worse than expected, with one in five saying that Obama performed better than expected. Compare that to the 82% who said that Romney performed better than expected. Only one in ten felt that the former Massachusetts governor performed worse than expected.

[…]The sample of debate-watchers in the poll was 37% Democratic and 33% Republican.

[…]Debate watchers thought Romney was more aggressive. Fifty-three percent said Romney spent more time attacking his opponent. Only three in ten thought Obama spent more time taking it to Romney. By a 58%-37% margin, debate watchers thought Romney appeared to be the stronger leader.

The problem with Obama is that he had four years to run the economy, and he ran it into the ground. You can’t defend failure like that by shifting blame and pointing fingers. He failed because his ideas are wrong. We need new ideas – a different approach. But that doesn’t explain why Obama performed so poorly. Obama performed poorly because he has been totally isolated from any disagreement or critical evaluation for the last 4 years. In his mind, it’s not just the private sector that’s fine. The unemployment rate is fine, the national debt is fine, the budget deficit is fine, the terrorist attack in Libya is fine, socialized health care is fine, poor education outcomes is fine, taxpayer-funded abortion is fine, Iran having nuclear weapons is fine, and gay marriage is fine. He just has complete and utter contempt for anyone who disagrees with him – he has been indoctrinated to think that anyone who disagrees with him is not just wrong, but evil. And maybe even that all disagreement with him is motivated by racism. He came across as a whiny, petulant child, because of his ideological rigidity and lack of humility.

The mask came off Wednesday night, and it was all Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers underneath. The media and the teleprompter could not protect him from his real self.

9 thoughts on “Romney won the presidential debate – according to left-wing MSNBC hosts”

  1. The debate was something last night. I was surprised at how Obama responded. It was almost unbelievable. But we already know he’s the kind of guy that gets easily flustered when people challenge him publicly. We’ve seen interviewers get stern warnings from the President before. He thinks he’s above reproach and certainly above being questioned. Before last night I was not a big supporter of Romney, except that he was not Obama. After last night, I feel more energized. Someone handing Obama’s record to him in a public forum has been needed for far too long. Obama couldn’t answer. Finally, something other than the horrible wishy-washy tactics of McCain in 2008.


    1. I totally agree. I was hoping, praying, that Romney would take Obama head on – criticize him, and not let him construct all those straw men. I feel a great relief when Romney cut down this straw men with his verbal weed-wacker. As I watched, I kept thinking during the debate, “I sure hope everyone else thinks Romney is doing as great as I think, and that they also see how badly Obama is doing.” Heck, while watching, I think I had warm fuzzies, and felt a tingle …


      1. I had low expectations that Romney would be his usual luke-warm, flip-floppy past self. When I was watching this debate, I thought that I was watching William Lane Craig. He was fully engaged. He wanted to win. He wanted to defeat Obama. He wasn’t trying to be liked. He wasn’t trying to be Obama’s friend. It was a beautiful thing to behold. This is a new Mitt Romney from what I’ve ever seen. The selection of Paul Ryan foreshadowed this.


        1. Exactly. That was my fear. No more McCains! If you’re going to go down, go down swinging. The energy difference between Romney and Obama was really noticeable. I loved it! I can’t wait to watch Biden and Ryan. That could be a bloodbath.


          1. I am hoping that Ryan ends the debate with a finishing move… maybe pulling out Biden’s spinal column flinging it at the liberal moderator. That would be cool.


  2. so I’ve watched the debate now and I don’t think I would say Mitt won – while Obama did a horrible job to put it nicely, Mitt completely campaigned on the Democratic platform – he says you can’t have a successful economy without a lot of regulation, his health care plan will cover pre-existing conditions, he will not lower taxes on the rich – he completely flopped on every single one of his party’s platform initiatives and everything he’s campaigned on to date! How is espousing the democratic party’s view while campaigning on the republican ticket a win? Had Obama done this, Faux news would have exploded with shots of flopping on positions…maybe that’s why nobody even mentioned Mitt’s initiatives and talking points – they’re afraid if they put them in print and they change again tomorrow it won’t help


    1. Well, I guess this makes you more liberal than Rachel Maddow and Chris Matthews and Bill Maher and Ed Schultz then. You voted for Obama because you wanted to double the debt from 8 trillion to 16 trillion. You got your wish. Now you want another 8 trillion more debt.


    2. I don’t agree with that at all Jerry,

      On deregulation: Romney was making the point that just because he was opposed to having too much regulation, that this doesn’t mean he wants to have no regulation at all. No republican or libertarian wants “no regulation”. Maybe an anarchist does, but that’s exactly how the left wants to caricature conservatives as and Romney did not take the bait. Of course you need SOME regulation, and to say that doesn’t negate the stance that over-regulation hurts the economy.

      On taxes: Romney reiterated he wants to extend the Bush tax cuts, whereas Obama wants to let them expire and raise taxes on the rich. Romney did not say he wants to raise taxes on the rich. You do have a point that his previous plan he threw out for discussion was to cut taxes by 15% across the board. But, how is going back on that by cutting taxes only on the middle class the same philosophy as the democrats? Do the democrats not want to RAISE taxes on the rich rather than keep them the same?

      On health care: while I don’t think forcing insurance companies to cover patients with pre-existing conditions is a good thing, that one issue alone I do not think is a central issue that republicans have totally campaigned against. Being ok with that one thing I do not think contradicts his platform, which has been first to repeal Obamacare and then replace it with something better (like HR 3400).

      Just my 2 cents…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s