Obama takes a Right Hook to the Chin From Romney, Then a Left Jab From Liberals

By all accounts Romney won last night's debate going away. And it wasn't even close. It's rare for there to be a clear winner in these kinds of debates because every little aspect will be spun so hard by both sides(and the 'journalists' usually spin for the Democrats). Winning usually has more to do with presentation than actual debate. But in this case, Romney smoked Obama both on presentation and substance.

From the Daily Caller:

Mitt Romney emerged as the decisive winner of the first presidential debate with President Barack Obama on Wednesday night, a reality even the president’s surrogates were unable to spin.
No defining moments emerged from the debate, which lasted 90 minutes. The zingers from both sides were underwhelming. During the evening, the two candidates mainly wonked out and discussed their differences on everything from Medicare to taxes to deficit reduction.
But style, more than substance, led to Romney’s clear advantage. The former Massachusetts governor was aggressive, and he made his arguments without any sign of hesitation. He repeatedly asserted himself and even interrupted moderator Jim Lehrer occasionally to ensure that he could respond to the president’s remarks.
Obama, by contrast, seemed tentative. Where Romney launched straight to his answers, the president often stuttered and rambled, as though struggling to figure out what point he ought to make. Romney regularly directed his comments against the president, but Obama repeatedly turned to the American people to ask, “Does anybody out there think …?”
The president failed to land punches on health care, and he did not even mention Romney’s “47 percent” comments about the number of Americans who do not pay income tax, which were used to damning effect in a recent campaign ad.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/04/obama-surrogates-cant-quite-spin-a-win-after-denver-presidential-debate/#ixzz28LP7IcvI

To understand how soundly Obama was beaten look no further than the liberal pundits:

You might want to pop some popcorn, then sit in your favorite Lazy Boy and watch in glorious HD as the leftosphere melts down like a stick of butter at a midsummer Grant Park picnic.
National Journal: "Liberals livid with Obama's debate performance":

How bad was it for Obama Wednesday night? Even some of his biggest fans were livid that he let Mitt Romney walk away with a win, and they were not suffering in silence.
Within an hour of the debate ending, liberals and longtime Democratic operatives and pundits took to the airwaves and Twitter to lament the lost opportunity that was the first presidential debate.

Politico: "Obama hit with left hook on TV, online":

"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.
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.

Newsbusters: "Dem Debate Meltdown: Stumbling Obama Surrogate Speaks Of 'President Romney":

How resounding was Mitt Romney's rout of Barack Obama tonight?  In the post-debate spin room, a hopelessly muddled Martin O'Malley, Dem guv from Maryland and supposedly an Obama surrogate, wound up referring to "President Romney"! Freudian slip, anyone?

For good measure, pressed by MSNBC's Larry O'Donnell-clearly dismayed by Obama's dismal performance-to suggest what he'd recommend the prez do differently next time, a demoralized O'Malley could only mutter "uh, I don't know."

Andrew Sullivan:

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama's meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.
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.
The person with authority on that stage was Romney - offered it by one of the lamest moderators ever, and seized with relish. This was Romney the salesman. And my gut tells me he sold a few voters on a change tonight. It's beyond depressing. But it's true.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/10/liberal_heads_exploding_all_over_the_net.html#ixzz28LQNcD7U

And honestly this is the real victory. We now get many news cycles about how good Romney was in the debates and how bad Obama was. This kind of press affects swing voters and Independents, among which Romney was doing very well anyway.

In the polls Romney was behind on the personal likability areas even though Obama approval was low. I took this to mean that people were unhappy with Obama, but were not sold on Romney and that the Democrats were being at least somewhat successful at painting Romney as a rich, out of touch, Gordon Gekko type who doesn't care about the common man. But now I believe that impression has been shattered, Romney's image will get a big boost.

I was surprised at Obama's poor performance. I agree with one commentator who said that Obama prepared a bon fire for straw men but he was surprised when his opponent didn't let him get away with misrepresentations. He seriously needed a teleprompter.

Enjoy this one people, it's not very often that the liberal media admits to a victory for the Republicans.

Liberal Thinking Exhibit A

Please go watch this video.

And there you have it! Liberal thinking in a nutshell. When listening to Liberals it's hard to get through all the "help help I'm being oppressed" rhetoric and figure out where they are coming from. But here it is cut down to it's basic level for all to see. It's 60's institutionalized thought where every issue is one of "rights", which is also the basis of the victimhood mentality. Because they couch issues in that way, there are no "two sides to the argument", there's only the evil and the good.

Ryan's larger point is that the people have given power to the government, not the other way around. When the Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, they were rebelling against a way of life where you only existed as far as the King permitted. So instead of the Government permitting us to exist and dictating what we can or cannot do, what we can and cannot have, our freedoms come from an "inalienable" right to persue personal happiness and bear the fruits of our labors(both good and bad). We 'allow' the government to enforce rules for the common good and provide basic services. The level of these provisions is always up for debate, but Paul Ryan was making the distiction between the two ways of thinking.

As I said before, the origination of this type of thinking is from the 60's from the civil rights movement. And continues today because Liberals, especially the ones who become activists or who think of themselves as intellectuals, refuse to see the USA as anything but oppressors and spreaders of evil.

George Will talks about this in a recent article(a good read btw, but on a different subject)

Before Franklin Roosevelt, “liberal” described policies emphasizing liberty and individual rights. He, however, pioneered the politics of collective rights — of group entitlements. And his liberalism systematically developed policies not just to buy the allegiance of existing groups but to create groups that henceforth would be dependent on government.
......
Government no longer existed to protect natural rights but to confer special rights on favored cohorts. As Irving Kristol said, the New Deal preached not equal rights for all but equal privileges for all — for all, that is, who banded together to become wards of the government.

In the 1960s, public-employee unions were expanded to feast from quantitative liberalism (favors measured in quantities of money). And qualitative liberalism was born as environmentalists, feminists and others got government to regulate behavior in the service of social “diversity,” “meaningful” work, etc

So you see Toure can call Paul Ryan a racist for saying "Rights come from God", because the "Rights" of black people came from the Government after the Civil Rights Movement. The rights of women also came from the Government through the feminist movement, the rights of the poor come from being recognized by the Government and being granted subsidies.

Politically, speaking about things in terms of rights is a very powerful tool for the left. It allows them to break down people in to groups and to identify with their cause in the vein of "You are being oppressed, I will fight your oppressors". It also allows them to define their opponents as the 'bad guy'. Watch for Republicans being called "too extreme" for America or<insert state here>.

Countering this kind of thinking is extremely difficult because, remember, they don't see these issues as disagreements that can be argued over. To Liberals it's a battle of good versus evil. When you encounter someone like this it's important to actually realize what you are arguing about. The Liberal is not trying to score debate points against you to convince you he's right, he's more interested in framing you as an evil oppressor of women, blacks, minorities, etc etc.

Take abortion for instance. The conservative says that having an abortion is taking a human life. Liberals say that banning abortion takes away the 'right' of women to do whatever they want with their bodies. Those are two different statements, two different arguments to be held, the debate points for one argument have no bearing on the other. Conservatives have been winning the debate on the sanctity of life, through technology advancements allowing mothers to see their baby earlier and humanizing it in their minds. The number of people who identify as "pro-life" is at an all time high. However if the argument is couched in the Liberal way of thinking, as Conservatives taking away a 'right', then we lose the argument because we are not even debating the same topic. See: Sandra Fluke and Todd Akin.