Romney Vague in First Debate

Did Mitt Romney really win the presidential debate? Big Bird sure doesn’t think so, and I don’t think everyone else thinks so either. Romney may have talked a lot more than Obama, but he was overly vague and did not stick to the facts.

Romney was almost too aggressive. Although both candidates interrupted the moderator and went long, Mitt Romney did this at least six times. Also, he said the president was not entitled to his own facts. This is almost funny since Obama’s statements were more truthful than his own. For example, Romney said Obama doubled the country’s deficit. The truth is the deficit has actually decreased by over a trillion dollars since he became president. Not only was his offense proven not consistent with the truth. His defense was also does not show the full story. Romney said six studies showed his tax plan would not raise taxes. The “proof” was written with a strong conservative bias and was extremely vague. It seems like nobody, not even in his own party really knows what his plan is. Maybe if Romney had been more specific the public could hold on to something more tangible than Mitt’s always changing word.

Barack Obama did not really get heard during the debate. Every time he got any momentum he got cut off. He did interrupt the moderator like Romney, but still seemed to not have enough time. Obama succeeded at points however, by using specific details and facts. This is opposite of Romney who kept it vague and a glittering generality. If anything the incumbent president should hold on to specifics but be a little more aggressive.

Romney may have “won” the debate, even though nobody can technically win, but Obama stayed with specifics and facts. The American public needs to take more into consideration when watching the debates. Mitt Romney said that the president is not entitled to his own facts himself. If so, why vote for someone who thinks that they are entitled to their own facts?