 |
| ||||||||
Thursday, October 04, 2012 12:27 AM Romney's debate performance 'a home run' Wilson Democratic, GOP leaders offer views on Obama-Romney debate By Corey Friedman | Times Online Editor President Barack Obama and Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney sparred over health care and the economy and offered competing visions for America’s future Wednesday night. Wilson County’s Democratic and Republican leaders said both candidates made strong appeals to undecided voters even as they dug their heels in on divisive issues like tax policy and universal health care. "It is a home run for the Republican Party,” Wilson County GOP Chairman Gary Proffitt said. "I don’t know if it was really a debate or not. Mitt Romney was in control from the opening statement.” Wilson County Democratic Party Chairman Asa Gregory disagreed. Obama controlled the clock, he noted, speaking for 42 minutes and 50 seconds. Romney spoke for 38 minutes and 32 seconds during the debate. "I think the clock just tells the story,” Gregory said. "Just by the way President Obama was speaking, he was able to make a case every single time where, as far as I’m concerned, Governor Romney was rambling.” Proffitt said body language showed a relaxed Romney and a nervous Obama. "Mitt Romney looked and smiled at the president at every opportunity he had,” Proffitt said. "President Obama looked ashamed — he looked down — and he needs to be ashamed.” Gregory, however, said Obama seemed more confident and comfortable behind the podium than his Republican rival. "To me, it seems like the pundits, the spinners watched a different debate than I did,” he said. "I feel like Romney had a nervous, jittery attitude. President Obama had the collected responses.” Proffitt said Romney had high expectations entering the Denver debate. "Good, bad or indifferent, I think it’s going to set the stage for this campaign,” he said of Romney’s performance before the event began. "This is the year that goes down in history, and tonight is going to set the stage for many undecided voters.” Both candidates practiced fastidiously for the first of three presidential debates, Romney trading political jabs with Republican Sen. Rob Portman of Ohio. "The president and governor both are going into this with some butterflies in their stomachs,” Proffitt said. Before the debate, Gregory said the president had to explain and underscore his first-term accomplishments, which are sometimes overshadowed by the unemployment rate and struggling economy. "I’m not going to pretend that President Obama has this thing in the bag,” Gregory said. "Polls are a snapshot of the moment. Pressure is on both gentlemen, but I believe that Romney has a lot of ground to make up with the American public.” Gregory said Romney’s much-maligned comment about 47 percent of Americans paying no income taxes and being dependent on government put him at a disadvantage. "I have to say that Romney has the work to do,” he said. "He has said some things that have alienated half the nation. He has a lot of work to do to convince a lot of voters.” Former PBS anchor Jim Lehrer moderated the debate, held at the University of Denver. The Wednesday event was held on the 20th anniversary of Obama’s marriage to first lady Michelle Obama. "There are a lot of points I want to make tonight, but the most important one is 20 years ago, I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me,” the president said during his opening statement. In a rare conciliatory moment, Romney congratulated the Obamas and joked that spending their anniversary with him made for a romantic evening. corey@wilsontimes.com | 265-7821 |
| Add Comment: | |  | | (All comments must be approved) |
| View Comments: | | | | (53 comments) |
@@@ok give me the scoop said...
I am surprised that you are concerned about Obama's borrowing money...but you have shown no outrage in the reality that every day the government engages in redistribution of gay citizen's tax dollars to support the entitlement wealth of millions of Americans. Just one example: I am divorced after a marriage that lasted 10 years. My ex died 15 years later...so I'm entitled, like every other legally married widow/widower to collect surviving spouse Social Security benefits on my ex's earnings (starting at age 60). Before I collect my own social security at age 66, I will have received $100,000 of taxpayer Social Security benefits - simply because I could legally marry. My brother died of a stroke. He left his partner of 24 years. They both paid the same taxes. My brother's partner does not get a penny of surviving spouse benefits. He could use that money, as he has severe health issues but must continue to work. This economic issue impacts an entire class of people. A candidate that wants us to believe she or he is an economic expert - and yet supports the continued economic injustice toward an entire class of taxpayers - will never get my vote. The pledge to the flag says, "and justice...for all." ALL. Romney Republicans want to put this discrimination into our nation's constitution. This is big government meddling of an unbelievable degree. I am outraged at the blatant disregard for a living class of persons by a political party that advocates for the rights of the unborn fetus. Gender-specific discrimination is wrong. It is an economic issue. It is a moral issue...a survey of parents learning that their fetus was intersexed (having chromosomes and/or reproductive organs characteristic of males and females) reveals that they are routinely encouraged by doctors to abort the fetus. Why? Because our society continues to discriminate on the basis of gender, including the gender of loving partners who want to marry legally. To say this is secondary to the economy suggests that Romney, if elected, cannot lead on one singular front: economic justice for all.
Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM
@ romneys tax increase said...I am surprised that you are concerned about Obama's borrowing money...but you have shown no outrage in the reality that every day the government engages in redistribution of gay citizen's tax dollars to support the entitlement wealth of millions of Americans. Just one example: I am divorced after a marriage that lasted 10 years. My ex died 15 years later...so I'm entitled, like every other legally married widow/widower to collect surviving spouse Social Security benefits on my ex's earnings (starting at age 60). Before I collect my own social security at age 66, I will have received $100,000 of taxpayer Social Security benefits - simply because I could legally marry. My brother died of a stroke. He left his partner of 24 years. They both paid the same taxes. My brother's partner does not get a penny of surviving spouse benefits. He could use that money, as he has severe health issues but must continue to work. This economic issue impacts an entire class of people. A candidate that wants us to believe she or he is an economic expert - and yet supports the continued economic injustice toward an entire class of taxpayers - will never get my vote. The pledge to the flag says, "and justice...for all." ALL. Romney Republicans want to put this discrimination into our nation's constitution. This is big government meddling of an unbelievable degree. I am outraged at the blatant disregard for a living class of persons by a political party that advocates for the rights of the unborn fetus. Gender-specific discrimination is wrong. It is an economic issue. It is a moral issue...a survey of parents learning that their fetus was intersexed (having chromosomes and/or reproductive organs characteristic of males and females) reveals that they are routinely encouraged by doctors to abort the fetus. Why? Because our society continues to discriminate on the basis of gender, including the gender of loving partners who want to marry legally. To say this is secondary to the economy suggests that Romney, if elected, cannot lead on one singular front: economic justice for all.
Thursday, October 11, 2012 at 11:01 PM
the mortgage deduction proposal would be limited and eventually eleminated for people whose incomes are over 250 k. same way for charitable giving. the democrats are the ones screaming about giving tax cuts to the wealthy. this tax loophole is skewered towards reducing wealthy people tax deductions. it is the Obama administration who if they have their way and let the bush tax cuts for everyone expire and the per child deduction, that will stick the middle class with a 4k plus tax increase.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:50 AM
You say you are voting for Obama based on two things: gay rights are better due to Obama and health care for women and you didn't list any statistics but I did look it up on my own and I can see your point. Also don't bring Romney into this because you should be voting for Obama because of Obama and what he has done and will do. But you didn't include anything about the economy? I'm sorry but that has to be the biggest factor in this election. Obama borrowed money that the US did not have to give a healthcare benefit for women and everyone for that matter. That in turn leaves more people in financial trouble, without jobs, without a future, without a college education, without money to sustain even basic necessities, reliance on the government, reliance on China for money, more jobs lost to China, etc etc etc. And I believe everyone should be treated fairly whether gay or not but but I don't see that as any major reason to vote for Obama unless you want to be gay, poor and living off the government. I still have not found a substantial reason for voting for Obama. And its hard to convince me with socialistic ideas seeing how are a capitalistic society.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:03 AM
You said, "As far as gay issues, I don't think that will hold much water with the economy and the shape it's in..." Please explain to me how granting equality to gay Americans will hurt the economy. Romney can lead on one but not both? Is he really that weak? With the American public increasingly backing equality for gay citizens, why can't Romney achieve jobs and equality? What's so tricky? We've had same-sex marriage in parts of the western hemisphere for a quarter of a century and the world is still turning, last I checked. I don't get your defense of needing more jobs as something that prevents granting equality to gay and lesbian taxpaying citizens. If Romney can't do both, he's not any better than Obama (and frankly, granting equality is a whole lot easier than finding jobs for all!)
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 2:38 AM
Why would I vote for Obama again? Because I believe in safe medical care for women. Because I believe in treating gay people equally (Against the wishes of Republicans and per the positive recommendations of those in charge of the military, Obama got Don't Ask, Don't Tell repealed). Because Romney says "I'm more liberal than Ted Kennedy, a bold-face lie just to get elected. Because Republicans detest teacher benefits. Because Romney is the leader of legislators who make such comments as..."legitimate rape," "if slavery were so bad, why didn't Jesus, Paul, or the prophets condemn it"...."gay people can marry, as long as they marry a heterosexual" and so on. Duh.
Wednesday, October 10, 2012 at 10:55 PM
