What's clear from post debate coverage is that Romney did not present an airtight indictment of the president's record but rather his arguments (read: lies) just weren't countered with the appropriate vigor and clarity, at least not every time. I tend to agree. Putting aside the purely stylistic complaints, Obama clearly left a lot of points on the board. He had some solid openings for rebuttals that he just didn't take. There has been speculation that he wanted to appear presidential or that he wanted to avoid appearing angry, but even given that, I feel there were some very effective responses that he could have given that would have turned the debate in his favor. Here's a few things I wish he would have said.
Join me after the orange rorschach test...
On Mitt shifting positions (early in the debate):
Jon Huntsman said it best when he called Gov. Romney a well lubricated weather-vane. Romney says on thing during the primaries, and another when he's interviewed on Univision. He says one thing in front of his rich donors, characterizing half the country as victims, and another thing tonight when he knows that the cameras are on.
Obama needed to bring to everybody's attention that Mitt is fundamentally dishonest and that anything that you heard from him during the debate that you like needs to be taken with a huge grain of salt. Maybe this would have been a little much, but it would have been awesome if Obama had mimed shaking an etch-a-sketch every time Mitt started running away from his previous held positions.
---
On social security:
Twelve years ago, there was a debate in which the democratic candidate said that we should set aside some of $200 billion annual surplus and use it to fund social security, the republican candidate's, similar to my opponent, only economic idea was to cut taxes. The republican won, and enacted his tax cuts with 51 votes in the senate, and the help of Mitt Romney's running mate in the House. Predictably, the surplus disappeared, and now 12 years later, you have "serious people" telling you hard working folks that you need to work longer before you retire because social security is in trouble. And by the way, Mitt Romney is still unwilling to let any part of the Bush tax cuts expire. Mitt's plan will leads to further and further cuts to the social safety net.
Now that's how you draw a distinction! None of this "we basically have the same position" business. Show people the real consequences of voting republican. Plus, it would ties Mitt's campaign directly to the failed Bush policies.
---
On taxes:
Mitt Romney would have you believe that we can lower taxes and raise revenues. This is simply not true. If it were, who would be against lower taxes. Nobody likes paying taxes, I don't, you don't, and Mitt certainly doesn't, which is why his money in the Cayman Islands. But what has history shown, from the Reagan, to George H.W. Bush, to George W. Bush, is that tax cuts contribute to the deficit, and being fiscally responsible requires occasionally raising taxes on those can afford it, which in turn produces the economic conditions which benefit everyone
I think most people don't fundamentally believe that cutting taxes raises revenue. One pundit (I forget who) described it as "eat cake, lose weight". And having people think about Mitt's personal tax gymnastics while listen to him explain that rates need to be lower should have been a no-brainer.
---
On Mitt's plan to work with congress to come up with the deduction to offset his $5 trillion tax plan
Do you trust John Boehner and Mitch McConnell to come up with a balance approach to limiting deductions that won't be skewed in favor the rich at the expense of the middle class. I've negotiated with them, and my experience they are firm believers in trickle down economics.
Romney uses his "I'll negotiate with congress" not only to dodge details but to appear reasonable. I'd remind the American people just exactly who is in the 9% approval rating congress, and have them ask themselves if that's the body they want fleshing out the details of Romney's tax plan.
---
On his investment in green jobs.
It is simply not true that 50% of the energy companies we invested in failed. I'm willing to bet Gov. Romney $10,000 on that. A small percentage of the loans have not worked out but that's the nature of investment, as Gov. Romney well knows. Some of the companies Bain invested in failed, though they made sure they got paid. But on a larger note, I do not apologize for investing in clean technology. I believe in the science, and the science says the world is getting warmer. We've witness increased droughts this summer, which have had an economic impact on the price of food. As the father of two young girls I feel it is the responsibility of this generation to find way to combat climate change. Gov. Romney's energy plans ignores global warming entirely and relies solely on fossil fuels.
Obama didn't fight back on his green jobs investments at all. Yes, there's been some bad press with Solyndra but you might as well own it, and point out the good. And I have to believe that independents care about global warming, that's an issue that Romney's ceded entirely.
---
On Dodd Frank (after Romney described a provision in Dodd/Frank as a kiss to the big banks):
Mitt Romney would have you believe that he'll repeal Dodd Frank over the objections of the the largest banks. Come on, does anybody believe that? I have seen first hand the lobbying money that has gone into fighting Dodd/Frank and I can tell you that the big banks don't describe it as a kiss. Are there provisions in Dodd/Frank that could be strengthened or loopholes that should be close. Absolutely, and I am open to ways to improve the law. I have some ideas of my own that I would like to see incorporated into the start that we've made. Romney would have you believe that he can repeal the law, and pass through congress a new law that contains all of the good stuff in Dodd/Frank, and improves the weak sections. Keep in mind that Dodd/Frank was passed two years after an economic meltdown in an environment where congress had every incentive to enact meaningful safeguards on Wall Street. Romney would like you to believe that that with the financial crises dwindling further in the rear view mirror, if Dodd/Frank were repealed, in the face of immense lobbying pressure Congress would come up with a better bill. No, what Gov. Romney really wants, is to repeal Dodd/Frank and all the protections it, and replace it if at all, with something ineffective.
I think Obama allowed Romney to appear reasonable on regulations. Romney got away with making it seem like he wasn't in Wall Street's pocket. This response would not only have reminded people that he is, but also remind people of the lobbying influence seeks to lessen the effectiveness of legislation and give an example of Obama resisting it (to some degree).
---
On Mitt's record of bi-partisanship in Massachusetts.
During the primary, Gov Romney, said he governed as a severe conservative, now he says he'll govern from the center.
This points out again Mitt's shift from primary Mitt, and it would force Mitt to clarify that he would not govern from the center.
---
On being compared to the lying Romney sons:
Your sons repeatedly told you things that weren't true? Whoever could they have learned that from?
You can't let someone comparing you to their kids slide, you just can't.
---
What answers do you wish Obama had given?
10:09 AM PT: Brief update: It's been pointed out in the comments the "day late-ness, and dollar(s) short-ness" of the diary. Fair point. There has been plenty of more timely and I'm sure more cogent post debate analyses. However, I wanted to add my two cents and I thought that's what this place was for. I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on exploring a topic. I run on more of a magazine newscycle apparently. I did point out in both the title and the opening paragraph exactly what the content of this diary would be so for those sick of reading debate diaries it seems like there was a very simple solution. Lastly, it should go without saying, but apparently doesn't, that moving forward is more important than looking back. Agreed 100% Donating, phone banking, knocking on doors, convincing the people in your vicinity the importance of this election is much more important than going over last week's debate. And if you have an either/or choice to make get out of here and go get to work.