The Denver presidential debate: panel verdict

The first presidential debate saw the candidates competing for command of policy detail. Our expert pundits say who prevailed

Michael Cohen: 'Even a passable performance was going to earn Romney hosannas'

michael cohen

Wednesday's debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama can be summed up by one moment. Early on, the president accused Romney of wanting to put in place a $5tn tax cut that will, he claimed, blow up the deficit and curtail spending.

Romney denied he has a plan of such magnitude; that it would "reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans"; or that it would even widen the deficit. Why, you might ask? Because, according to Romney, he would "lower deductions and exemptions and credits … so we keep getting the revenue we need." In other words, don't worry about all that lost revenue: I'm going to make some other changes to the tax code. It all sounded quite reasonable.

The problem, however, is that it isn't plausible. A 20% across-the-board tax cut will cut taxes for the wealthy and it almost certainly will increase the deficit, especially since Romney also wants to spend trillions more on defense and hasn't indicated any significant spending cuts that he supports.

This is the deception lurking behind Romney's economic plan. In fact, according to the Tax Policy Center, it's mathematically impossible to close enough loopholes to make Romney's tax cut plan deficit neutral. Thus, the obvious rejoinder to Romney's assertions is to ask him point blank: "OK, Governor Romney, what loopholes would you cut? What deductions would you remove from the tax code? Would you get rid of the mortgage interest deduction?"

Barack Obama, for some inexplicable reason, didn't ask those questions.

Romney's lack of policy specifics is his most obvious glass jaw. On the one hand, if unchallenged, it gives Romney the opportunity to sound credible and sensible – everyone sounds more reasonable on the issue of tax cuts when they don't have to delve into details. On the other hand, it allows Obama to test Romney's credibility or fill in the blanks himself – as Obama tried to do by claiming that Romney's plan would likely result in higher middle-class taxes.

Yet, Obama didn't take advantage – seeming, instead, content to play defense and avoid getting in the muck with Romney. While the media hysteria over Obama's lackluster performance is overstated, this strategy was a big political mistake.

Reporters are desperate for the race to tighten and with expectations for Romney as low as can be imagined, even a passable performance was going to earn him hosannas. That Romney gave a rather strong performance and Obama was so passive, created the perfect opportunity for the press to tout the "Romney resurgence" meme and give him the big debate "win" that he needed.

Considering the deep polarization of the electorate – and that debates rarely change the trajectory of a race – last night is likely not going to have a huge impact on the campaign. But this was a significant and unnecessary bump in the road.

Being likable is all well and good, but sometimes, you have to go on the offensive. If your opponent throws you a fastball down the middle of the plate – as Romney did on his tax cutting plans – take a swing.

Michael Cohen is a US columnist for the Observer and Guardian

Cheri Jacobus: 'Barack Obama didn't want to be there'

Cheri Jacobus

The body language told the story.
Governor Romney spoke directly to President Obama, making it clear how his policies had failed these past four years, and gave a robust explanation of his vision and plans to create jobs and grow the economy. Obama couldn't look him in the eye. He looked down at his notes, knowing he was being taken to the woodshed, and rightfully so. There was no teleprompter to save him.

President Obama acted as though someone else had been in the White House these past four years, and offered a scatter-brained professorial presentation of theory, with nothing to brag about from his presidency. Mitt Romney, meanwhile, hit all the right notes on Obamacare, while the president smirked and looked at his feet.

Romney reminded America that Obamacare does, in fact, establish a board that will ultimately decide on treatment options. While Obama tried to convince us all that Obamacare was not a government takeover of healthcare, he was unconvincing – he didn't even seem to believe what he was saying.

And kudos to Governor Romney for calling Obama out on passing the most massive piece of legislation in history without a single vote from the other party – something that no president had ever done. Even in the most partisan and rancorous of times in Washington, there was enough respect for the two-party system and voters to avoid such an arrogant and autocratic move. It is the chief reason voters threw out so many members of Congress from Obama's party in 2010 and put Republicans in charge of the House of Representatives.

It's not an understatement to say Romney wiped the floor with Obama: even moderator Jim Lehrer was tougher than Obama was. Mitt Romney connected with voters. Barack Obama didn't want to be there.

President Obama has a record now, and it's not one of hope and change. He knows it. And it showed.

While many journalists were tweeting their boredom after it became apparent this was a blowout for Romney, there was one person who was even more eager than them for the debate to end. President Obama couldn't wait for the night to be over.

I am looking forward to the debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan.

Cheri Jacobus is a Republican consultant and strategist

Nancy Goldstein: 'Obama can't show up for 40 million viewers vibing like Eeyore'

Nancy Goldstein

Dear Obama Debate Prep Team,

Sorry, dudes: you must feel like hell after last night. If the standard for comparison is "Who best accomplished what he came to do?", then this was clearly Romney's round.

Sure, it was a lopsided fight. Romney has been looking and sounding like Vlad the Impaler for so long that all he had to do to exceed expectations was show up acting like someone who doesn't sleep in a crypt; strike a pose from the Ronald Reagan Compassionate Conservative playbook; spit out a few numbers; and seem puzzled by all of those, er, rumors about his plans to cut taxes for the rich and roll the rest of us back to serfdom.

Some of Obama's gaffes can easily be fixed. Remind him to stand up straight and look directly into the camera. Get him more sleep, or cop some Adderall: the guy can't show up in front of 40 million viewers vibing like Eeyore.

Revive Obama's ability to explain complex topics lucidly and, most importantly, fix his tone. It's all that dogs, students, and the average listener take away from most encounters – especially when confronted with a debate so teeth-grindingly filled with minutiae at the same time that it was so head-bangingly short on specifics.

Romney sounded friendly and reasonable on the surface, where it counts most. Obama, by contrast, sounded petulant and tense, which is where he goes when he's feeling defensive, under-appreciated, or like the Smartest Guy in the Room, which is often – and never more so than when discussing the economy.

I'm sure that the presidency is hell on a stick. But at a time of stagnant wages, rising costs, and high unemployment, Obama should expect to have to keep defending his policies. End of story.

Now man up and get back into the game.

Nancy Goldstein is a progressive writer and communications strategist

Michael Wissot: 'Voters are seeing a deficit in confidence from President Obama'

Michael Wissot

Mitt Romney's debate performance last night was nothing short of masterful. His readiness proved that a contentious primary is the best way to prime a nominee for the grandest stage.

Romney has learned through each debate experience that every attack requires a direct response. Otherwise, perception quickly becomes reality.

Barack Obama unleashed his offensive ammunition early – accusing Romney of pushing a $5tn tax cut, a $250,000 tax break for the wealthy, and a $2,000 tax hike for middle-class families. Some politicians make a mistake here by defending their plan. Romney, instead, made clear commitments against such accusations, essentially squashing the president's momentum.

Romney needed to define himself on his own terms, and he did just that. He expressed shared goals with the president, but clearly differentiated his vision. He defended his principles with substance and conviction while maintaining a respectful tone.

The opening topics – jobs, taxes and the federal deficit – all played to Romney's strengths. It allowed him to personalize the frustration and disappointment that Americans are feeling over the economy. It shifted the litmus test to the president's record. And it exposed President Obama's lack of focus and preparation for this match-up.

Romney's unflappable gamesmanship will not go unnoticed, particularly among swing voters. He seized the high ground on bipartisanship, contrasting his success with Democrats in Massachusetts to the president's struggles with congressional Republicans.

President Obama assumed a "not to lose strategy", but it reaffirmed his inherent weakness and disdain for debates, particularly as an incumbent. He almost appeared shocked that Romney would challenge him.

Voters expected a much stronger performance from the president, whose arguments were circuitous and aimless. He resisted eye contact, looking down whenever Romney spoke to him. His delivery was choppy. And he appeared genuinely agitated whenever Romney refuted and redefined the president's claims.

For the first time, voters are seeing a deficit in confidence from President Obama.

Sometimes, the simplest of language, even pronouns, can be quite telling. When debating John McCain in 2008, President Obama excessively used "we" (instead of "I") as a rallying cry to join his crusade. Four years later, he used "we" to explain his record and decisions, almost removing any direct accountability. It revealed a lack of ownership over his presidency.

The president's advisers face a dilemma: if they don't allow him to take ownership, they are stripping him of any confidence in himself or his presidency. Without that familiar confidence, President Obama may see his lead quickly dissipate.

Michael Wissot is a senior strategist for Luntz Global

Jim Geraghty: 'This was Romney's most comfortable, natural performance of his candidacy'

Jim Geraghty

Between his past performances in GOP primary debates and his considerable amount of time spent in debate prep, smart observers expected Mitt Romney to be at least pretty good Wednesday night. Instead, he hit it out of the park: his most comfortable, most exceptionally detailed, natural performance of his candidacy.

Clearly, the early word that Romney would offer "zingers" was a misdirection, as he avoided most cutesy or canned lines. Instead, he focused on coming across as "the man with the plan".

He began by saying he had a five-point jobs agenda. Lists of proposals are usually problematic for debaters, as they start describing the first few, get into the weeds, and run out of time for the last few. Romney managed to summarize his quintet of proposals in 115 words, less than a minute. It was a remarkably crisp, clear, direct opening argument, one that reached audiences before any started clicking away to other channels.

Almost no one expected President Obama would be so listless, meandering, and off his game. I was left seriously wondering if Obama had gotten enough sleep the night before; perhaps the no-applause rule deprived him of the audience reaction that helps fuel his energy and confidence in stump speeches.

Periodically President Obama talked about things he wanted to do – as if he wasn't the incumbent and hadn't had the opportunity to enact his proposals. Early on, he offered an anecdote of a teacher he met in Las Vegas with 42 kids in each class, not enough desks, and outdated textbooks. Many viewers probably wondered why Obama was telling us how bad things are right now, and why he hadn't done something about that school's problems.

Shortly after Romney had laid out how tax increases would cost jobs, arguing "there's nothing better for getting us to a balanced budget than having more people working, earning more money, paying more taxes," Obama had his worst moment – turning to moderator Jim Lehrer and effectively surrendering:

"Jim, you may want to move on to another topic."

America, you may want to move on to another president.

Jim Geraghty is a contributing editor to the National Review

Heather Hurlburt: 'So what would Romney borrow money from China to pay for?'

Heather Hurlburt

When Governor Romney turned to Jim Lehrer last night and pledged, "I will eliminate programs by this test, if they don't pass it: is the program so critical that it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it," he seemed to be inviting another one of the moderator's philosophical questions.

It hung in the air unasked, instead. In an interdependent global economy, what is worth borrowing money from a competitor and potential adversary for?

Perhaps the answer is: anything I, my party, my political philosophy, wants, because money is fungible. Because the US economy is too big to fail. Because borrowing and the debt are part of how giant entities do business, and not as catastrophic as our national dialogue in recent months would suggest.

Or perhaps the answer is: anything that will ultimately make our economy and society stronger to compete against and cooperate with China in growing the global economy and maintaining security. That test would offer some interesting moments.

Borrowing money to invest in cheap, clean, high-tech energy sources, technology and infrastructure – which will, in turn, generate jobs and world-beating exports. Seems like a no-brainer.

Borrowing money to invest in five-figure tax cuts for that 0.01% of wealthiest "job-creators"? Sure, if you believe in trickle-down economics. Certainly not, if you don't.

Borrowing money to promote social cohesion? Well, do you believe we need social cohesion to be an effective, competitive society? Thinking about China, perhaps one of the world's cultures that places the highest value on social cohesion – and whose leaders are terrified at the prospect of social unrest – is instructive. And what promotes social cohesion? Keeping our promises to veterans by fully funding the veterans administration? Providing healthcare and dignity to seniors, the poor and vulnerable, for the sake of our shared humanity and also our collective public health?

Borrowing money from China to increase the exponential edge our military, the world's largest, strongest military, has on the competition? Do you believe our military might is the foundation of all our power? Does it make us more economically competitive? Or do you believe, like the current and past chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff, that it works the other way around?

What's more, is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for tanks that can't be used against China, and which the Pentagon doesn't want, anyway? Nuclear weapons that top security thinkers believe are obsolete?

Just asking.

Heather Hurlburt is executive director of the National Security Network