DEBATE

Romney denied the seven trillion argument. One of them is lying.  You know, five trillion in lost tax revenue. Need I explain? Right at the start of the debate.  A total factual opposition.  Obama let it slide.   And of course, the  issue that Obamacare was premature ill timed during this recession. That one is an Achilles' heel. But the five trillion, that should have been vetted then and there!  Mr. Romney says Mr. Obama doubled the deficit. That is not true. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.) For the just-finished fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year he was inaugurated. Measured as a share of the economy, as economists prefer, the deficit has declined more significantly — from 10.1 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009 to 7.3 percent for 2012. Obama simply hasn’t pressed any points where Romney said things that were demonstrably false. A bit on his tax cut plan, but not much. And there is no explanation. Obama should have called him a liar, Romney called him a liar, compared obama to one of his boys.  Remember that part?  I'm sure he wasn't calling Obama a boy, but it was a rude comparison. Definitely calling us liars. And Obama didn't seem to notice.  He was very sleepy.  I've always worried that Obama is intermittent, unreliable, occasionally tongue tied. I never bought him as any silver tongued wordsmith. Neither of these men meet my expectations. I just vote party. Union.  Against the party of voter suppression, and all their past misdeeds, civil rights, Medicare, national health, social security, and the horrible southern constituency.   But how does it play over the next week? Romney’s been holding back all the details on his plans, basically refusing to talk about him. He’s put a lot on the table here, made a lot of claims which simply don’t add up.  Obama didn't  press the falsehoods or math that doesn’t make sense.  NO HE DIDN'T, AND IT  WAS HORRIBLE TO WATCH.  Does the press do it tomorrow? How well do these claims wear? That’s how we’ll know how each did. Along those lines, here's a highlight from Wonkblog's live fact-check of the debate:  PRE EXISTING CONDITIONS LIE.  Romney said his web site has a “lengthy description” of his health-care plan. In fact, it’s only 369 words. He also said it covers preexisting conditions. It doesn’t. Romney wouldn’t cover preexisting conditions for Americans who fall uninsured for periods of time, which happened to 89 million Americans between 2004 and 2007.  Jackie Calmes also catches Romney bending the truth: AND MEDICARE LIE. ROMNEY WILL GUT IT.  Or not.  Another factual opposition that should have  been settled then and there.  Ambinder's take on why Obama underperformed: Why didn't Obama do better? Here's some speculation: He is not as good at these formats like Romney is. He was too cautious ... even about appearing too flip and arrogant, which might have itself come off as arrogant; he didn't clip his answers; he didn't remember to say what he intended to say; he spent the day dealing with Turkey and Syria; he let his disdain for Romney show. I think all of those contributed to some degree. But fundamentally, when it comes to domestic policy, Obama just doesn't have a very good affirmative argument to make.  Yes he does. Should ask how Romney's vision is any different from bush.   That's a consequence of being a crisis president of a country where, as some are now saying, the old dismal is the new normal.