Please forgive me if this isn't well written and slow to get to the point (it gets better I think); I have an injured arm and it hurts to type (and, I see, edit) but I am extremely concerned about a missed opportunity in the debate to counter a false narrative Romney is now putting out there, and that is giving undecided voters a reason to vote for him. I have posted the ideas on this site amongst you well informed and motivated folks, but the response has not been strong so I am worried that OFA might also be missing this.
Romney's new narrative to make him seem like a plausable Chief Executive to the uninformed voter ("because he did it before successfully") is being pushed whenever he works into whatever he was saying comments/"data" that "show" he was a bipartisan, moderate, and very successful Governor of MA. He did that numerous times last night, peppering many of his answers with these kinds of comments as well as painting that picture more directly in some responses. As far as I experienced/recall, NONE of these instances and the (false) picture of Romney as Governor they come together to paint were ever countered by the President last night (examples below). I am sure there are others. Taken all together, it painted a story that some low information undecided people fell for, unfortunately. It must be countered.
We here all know that for most of the campaign Romney ran away from talking about his role in MA. Now he's etch-a-sketching and I think the lack of response to this part of his flip flop is allowing him to successfully redefine himself. It's best to counter lies and false narratives during a debate (so many, I know it's hard) but this one is VERY IMPORTANT to counter and it was not, as far as I noticed.
Please do not dismiss this diary as Obama-bashing or being unsatisfied overall. I thought our President was great last night and I was proud. However, I want him to win so denial of what could have been done better and what may NEED to be done better -and may be rectifiable at least somewhat still on the campaign trail and in the next debate -will not serve him, or us. I do understand that picking up and countering ALL of the lies, or at least choosing correctly the best ones to use one's time on to counter, is daunting and unprecedented given the shear volume of the falsehoods coming from Romney at all times.
Our President is a good man, and motivated to lead us another four years NOT for personal glorification but because he loves our country, I believe, and thinks (correctly) that the alternative would erase the progress he has made. It is horrible to think that he could loose simply because in a debate, where it is by far the best to happen--and as we saw in the first debate--he misses calling out some untruths that then leave undecided voters thinking Romney is a reasonable option.
I saw a few panels and interviews with undecided voters after the debate last night. I've also been on social media and heard the same. After the debate there were undecideds who were convinced to or leaning toward voting for Romney and one MAIN reason they had was that "he did a good job in Massachusetts". Someone said he lead a Democratic state so obviously his claims that he'd be bipartisan and "make Washington work again" may well be true. He made MA really good in education...etc etc. Those voters were probably also pleased that Romney balanced all four budgets in MA as well.
They did not hear that "bipartisan" Romney governed to the right of where he ran. They have not heard that Romney has a history of running and then changing his views after taking office, betraying the voters trust. They did not hear that the only reason the budget in MA was balanced is because it is STATE LAW. They did not hear (and need a reminder) that in MA the Senate and House are so solidly Dem that any Governor MUST work with them or they will not get anything whatsoever done. They did not hear that Romney vetoed over EIGHT HUNDRED bills (when I recently heard the number myself I found it flabbergasting and telling but not a PEEP from Obama last night on this when Romney talked about be bipartisan...and I have not heard anything on the campaign trail either). THREE QUARTERS of those vetoes were overridden by the legislature. It paints quite a different picture of Romney's supposed bipartisanship when these facts are thrown back at him when he claims it. Hearing that Romney created jobs in MA last night was nauseating for this MA resident, especially not hearing from Obama that MA was 47th in the country under Romney for job creation. Hearing Romney claim our low unemployment while in office uncountered worries because at the time he was in office our unemployment rate was average for the country as a whole. And he inherited a highly rated education system...he did not put it there and statistics prove that. He managed not to tank it, that is all.
In the aftermath of the first debate Obama's polls took a devastating plunge that he never, as of yet, completely recovered from. We must go FORWARD, not back, but at the same time learn from why that was. Many, including myself, think it is because undecided and uninformed voters (we have to accept people where they are at and not judge them...we have to work with what is so) saw another "reasonable" choice for President and they could then vote Obama out (likely because of the economy). Many of us agree that Romney appeared "reasonable" only because he completely changed what he stood for and lied, but that was not called out. People assumed that if neither the President (nor the moderator) said something that countered a Romney lie, it must be acceptable as fact to them. Obama has tried to call out those falsehoods after the fact but it has been much less effective, I believe, than if he had not let Romney get away with them. He was in a very difficult position.
I talked to some MA supporters of the President who saw what I saw; last night Romney pushed on almost every response his narrative of successful bipartisan governance of MA. They too were worried about undecided voters falling for it. Maybe we in MA are hypersensitive (in the best way...not over reacting but picking up patterns that, as partisan supporters we otherwise might miss) to when Romney speaks about MA. Maybe undecided voters picked it up too because they don't have preconceived notions, as we do, of Romney being a flip flopping liar-they sadly are unaware of this history.
I live in MA so I am hypersensitive to the tall tales Romney now chooses to tell about MA. I felt entirely betrayed by Romney when my Governor spent much of his term (IIRC almost one full year of the four) out of state dissing and dismissing HIS state and the people he was ELECTED to represent in his lead up to running for President the first time around. Earlier in the race this time, he ran away from what he did in MA and seemed to regard the HONOR of being elected to serve as our Governor as not worth talking about. He disgusted me. He does not deserve to get away with his lies about his governance of my state and he CERTAINLY does not deserve to be President.
Now, What the heck to we do about this? This isn't a vendetta against Romney (lol) I really think he's clearing a path toward votes on the "he was a good Governor he did it before" angle, uncountered with the truth. I was appalled in oh so many ways when I heard from undecided voters that they were leaning or voting for Romney because he was a "successful bipartisan Governor". It is so wrong.