Why Romney won the debate
I’m looking forward to reading letters submitted to the Aiken Standard from the usual suspects providing their thoughtful liberal insight as to why the Denver debate went as it did. Will Romney be castigated because he was testy, he lied, he didn’t provide enough details or he monopolized the debate while ignoring the moderator? Will someone suggest President Obama was ill or had important national issues on his mind? Al Gore thought the problem was Denver’s high altitude.
The truth is the President does well speaking one-way to an adoring audience of supporters and reporters who think coolness and historic-ness trump fact-stretching and divisiveness. I suggest the lopsided debate was primarily because one debater was extremely experienced and successful in the subject matter and understood cause and effect relationships among business success factors, regulations and economic forces. Meanwhile, the other debater was extremely experienced in hoping for change, campaign rhetoric, community organizing, tele-prompting and looking sincere. Those are pretty good characteristics for a contestant on “Jeopardy” with a topic of pop-culture in America – not so good in a debate on macroeconomics and fiscal responsibility.
Romney has a great business and leadership resume and appears to have high personal integrity. He’ll get my vote on Nov. 6 to become our nation’s next president to get us out of the economic doldrums we are in. This may provide Obama some much-needed resume experience in the private sector.
Notice about comments:
Aiken Standard is pleased to offer readers the enhanced ability to comment on stories. Some of the comments may be reprinted elsewhere in the site or in the newspaper. We ask that you refrain from profanity, hate speech, personal comments and remarks that are off point.