Back to Home Page

Angry Obama in final presidential debate

by In the news Monday, October 22. 2012

by NW Spotlight

President Obama repeatedly came across as angry and condescending in tonight’s third and final presidential debate. He seemed to get more and more agitated and rattled as the debate went on, interrupting frequently and ending the last part of the debate angry and glaring; Twitchy is calling it Obama’s “death stare”.

Charles Krauthammer, speaking on Fox News after the debate, said that unequivocally, Romney won the debate – not just tactically, but strategically. Romney held onto his momentum from the past two debates, demonstrated that he’s extremely knowledgeable on world affairs, and demonstrated that he’s a competent man who’s someone you could trust as commander-in-chief.

In his analysis, Krauthammer said that Americans “care about how America is perceived in the world, and how America carries itself in the world. And the high point of that debate for Romney is when he devastatingly leveled the charge of Obama going around the world on an apology tour.” Obama’s answer, Krauthammer said was “about as weak as you can get,” and “Romney’s response was to say, to quote Obama saying that we dictate to other nations, and Romney said ‘We do not dictate to other nations, we liberate them,’ and Obama was utterly speechless.”

Obama’s “death stare”

 

UPDATE: Romney won the debate according to a CBS focus group in Ohio. Romney won by a vote of 6 to 2 over Obama with the focus group of undecided voters. It doesn’t appear that the CBS staff were pleased that Romney won the vote…

 

Posted by at 08:44 | Posted in 2012 Presidential Election, Mitt Romney, President Obama | 27 Comments | Email This Post | Print This Post
Back to Home Page
  • valley person

    My favorite Mitt Romney line, among many, “Syria is Iran’s route to the sea.”

    Hard to see that on a map, considering the 2 countries are not even adjacent and Iran has a very long coastline of its own. But maybe Mitt has a Fox News map of the world.

    • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1107457176 Kage McClued

      I know what you mean: my favorite Obama line, among many,

      “We’ve neglected, for example, developing our
      own economy; our own energy sectors, our own education system, and it’s
      very hard for us to project leadership around the world, when we’re not
      doing what we need to do at home.”

      Of course, since none of those things happened on Obama’s watch, he’s directly responsible for those failures… and he arrived at them without MSNBC’s map of the world..

      • Judahlevi

        It is amazing to me the frustration liberals have with Fox News. They can’t stand the fact that one station leans to the right when every other station leans left. You would think that if the liberals ever had total power, they would not allow any dissent at all. Such is the history of the left.

      • valley person

        Of course, you take what he said out of context. He said this after talking about our 2 wars, neither of which he started, but on both of which we have spent a lot of money on other people’s civic systems.

  • Judahlevi

    Charles Krauthammer is the most sagacious journalist/commentator in the country – and his analysis of the debate is spot on. Obama looked petulant and small, while Romney appeared ready to take his place as our new president.

    It was comical to watch Obama try to act like he was close to Israel’s prime minister. Obama trashing Netanyahu at their initial meetings came back to haunt him in the end. Israelis overwhelmingly prefer Romney to Obama as the next president – and are right to do so.

    • geoffmartin7777

      Krauthammer is a pure Republican hack. You love him because he tells you what you want to hear. People don’t watch Krauthammer and Faux Noise to be informed, they watch to be reassured.

      • Judahlevi

        Krauthammer has an MD (Psychiatry) and has won the Pulitzer Prize. I think I will listen to him over a liberal child on the internet.

        • 3H

          So, does Krugman’s Nobel Prize trump Krauthammer’s Pulitzer? He’s not a MD, but he is a Ph.D.

          • Davis

            Actually, it doesn’t. Krugman’s Nobel was for a coming up with a model for a specific function in economics. In the same way that he ignores another Nobel winner, Friedrich Hayek, I believe it is safe to ignore Krugman’s economic rants espousing Keynes’ theories that have so miserably failed in the real world.

          • guest

            Egad blokes, howl about BHO’s ghosted pullwhizzer prize and igNobel appease porridge plots. Geez Louise!

  • Tim Lyman

    Obama was petulant, like a spoiled child who isn’t getting his way.

    • geoffmartin7777

      You will always see what you want to see. Reality has nothing to do with it.

      • Judahlevi

        A typical liberal. Reminds me of being on the playground of an elementary school.

        • valley person

          You had liberals and conservatives in elementary school? Funny. At my school we just had kids.

        • ardbeg

          Judah-Liberals would make the exact same argument: “Typical conservative, reminds me of being………” I get your point-you fell like your being bullied. Both sides constantly cry foul. Though I think you are over reacting. What I don’t see on OC is people making the case for Romney based on his policies concerning women, foreign policy, social issues and the economy. They just rally for him because 1) he is a republican 2) he is not Obama and 3) he is the conservative candidate (which he isn’t-he is a moderate who will say anything to get elected). The media seems to just hand Romney the ‘economy’ vote but I don’t. I don’t want a vulture capitalist in the white house. I don’t begrudge him his success, good for him for making money, but it was made because he understands the tax code and how to manipulate them to his advantage. His concern has never been for America or American Workers, it’s always been about making profits for himself and for his investors. Not that that is bad, if I was one of his investors, that’s what I’d want him doing. But that experience doesn’t (In my opinion) make him “better” on the economy and qualified for the White House. After the debate and looking over his foreign policy stances I can’t see him as the better candidate. All he did was agree with Obama all night long. I also don’t see him being able to carry the women’s vote. No on equal pay, privatize SS (women rely heavily on SS as they age), no on reproductive freedoms. Defund planned parent hood, support Blunt amendment………I get it, really I do. You guys hate Obama. But what are you smokin to think that Romney is the answer? Oh, that’s right . Your choices were Romney, Backman Santorum and Perry. And yea, and the pizza guy, but it’s late and I can’t even remember his name. Nobody gave Paul any chance but he was a better option and more of a real conservative than Romney. You have said a vote for Gary Johnson was like throwing away my vote. Well get ready for a fastball. At least I know I didn’t sellout like the Romney voters.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    Obama had no choice but to be confrontational. He went into a foreign policy debate not only with an ambassador dead mere weeks before. There was also the totally botched response that left Americans feeling Obama was either reflexively “blame America first” and had simply made a mistake, or had blatantly lied to them with the video nonsense.

    Romney had a totally opposite strategy – the momentum is clearly with him. Go into the debate, look presidential. Do not be confrontational and allow the moderator to throw down with your opponent, disallow another Crowley moment.

    This was risky, as it allow Obama to go unchallenged, and he did get off a great line with the bayonets reference with the Navy.

    Look – You only have a clear winner in a debate when one guy loses.
    Nixon v Kennedy, Kennedy was the clear winner, but only because Nixon refused makeup and looked horrible. Carter v. Ford, Carter won, but only because Ford went off on the bizarre proclamation that Poland was not a Soviet satellite. Clinton v. Bush? In this you could argue Clinton was masterful in the Town Hall format, but Bush looking at his watch sealed the loss. Obama v. Romney, we had a clear winner in the first debate, but only because Obama was stunningly not present.

    Will the momentum change post debate? No. Will that momentum be enough to allow Romney a win? Quite possibly.

    I started out this campaign over a year ago saying I would be stunned and amazed if Obama didn’t win. Several months back I said I then viewed the race as 50/50. I still view it as 50/50.

    • valley person

      I used to box. When you are outmatched, you duck, clinch, and stall for time hoping to avoid a knockout and maybe get lucky. This is what Romney did last night.

      Did it work for him? Time will tell. But he clearly felt he was way overmatched on the subject and chose to not engage. When your “totally botched” Benghazi subject was raised, Romney hid under the table. You really want this guy to be president after that act? What happened to tough guy Republicans? This guy is a wuss.

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Yep, and if the parties were reversed you would be calling Romney out for being the loose cannon tough guy and crediting Obama for being more mature, presidential and in control. No matter what Napoleon is always right, we got it Dean.

        • valley person

          Maybe so. 4 years ago McCain was the macho guy with a lot more foreign policy and military chops than Obama, and I certainly didn’t want him running the show for the reason that he was clearly trigger happy.

          If I thought for a New York minute that Romney had truly emerged from his latest phone booth costume change into a dove who wanted to pull back on our military adventures faster and more completely than Obama, I might even vote for him. But the guy was just selling yet another line of BS. He can’t want to spend another 2 trillion on defense AND be a dove.

          • guest

            VP, minion-ist of Neville Chamberlain, pe’erhaps!

      • Judahlevi

        Being a former active duty Marine, I can tell you that the “bayonet” comment by Obama is only effective for those who don’t have military experience. The Marines still use the bayonet to this day.

        Romney won the debate by being an adult and presidential. Obama lost it by being condescending (we have ships that planes land on) and childlike.

        Romney will win the election in November.

        • valley person

          We may still have and use bayonets and horses, but how many of them we have is not an indication of how capable our military is. And neither is representative of the modern military.

  • Bob Clark

    I want Romney over Obama just because I think we can get past the so called “fiscal cliff” coming this January easier if Romney takes the presidency. Obama has been such a divisive president, stubbornly insisting on for instance a hike on the taxes on the well-to-do (which is largely just symbolic because it won’t bring in all that much more revenue relative to the deficit and actually the well-to-do usually find a way to get out of such tax hikes). I don’t agree with Romney’s call for tax cuts but I suspect Romney being the waffling president he is won’t follow through with the tax cuts.

    I thought Obama did very well in last nights debate, as he should being the commander in chief for the past four years and privy to info Romney doesn’t have access to. I think Romney could have done a better job at pointing out the awkward moment in which Obama intimated off camera to the Russian president effectively that he would help dictator Putin after the U.S. election is over. But even here, Obama’s hands are tied because we need the Russians in order to have a presence in Afghanistan.

    So, life will go on even if Obama retains the presidency but so will the divisive nature of U.S federal governance.

  • geoffmartin7777

    I love how you fright-wingers love to fool yourselves.

  • geoffmartin7777

    “Obama won the debate, and everyone but Romney and the Republicans know that.”
    http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/10/23/reality-vs-reality.html

    • Davis

      “Win[ning] on points” is relevant only in an academic sense. These debates were not mere academic exercises. They were political battles in which the goal is the utter defeat of the opponent. Such utter defeat occurred only in the first debate with Romney claiming the stage in the absence of Obama. Insofar as both men had goals to accomplish, determining who won or lost must be compared to the degree to which each accomplished those goals. Obama and Biden obviously and miserably failed to accomplish their goals in every debate. Romney and Ryan clearly accomplished their goals and thus won their debates hands down.

  • mayagaia

    Who has a bipartisan record?

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)