So Romney Won the Debate?

      This seems to be what the conventional wisdom says right now. However, let me admit that I'm at a disadvantage. I didn't see the debate-I was working until 9. Then I was coming home on a bus while the debate was going.

      Judging by the talking heads it seems that Romney pulled off a coup. And some are being fairly apocalyptic about the President's performance. Someone even claimed that it's the worst debate performance in years-did this guy not watch Bush in 2004? If Romney won, then I guess schizophrenia and acute cognitive dissonance is a very successful debate performance.

     So everyone seems to think Romney won. The Financial Times, for example writes-in an article entitled "Romney Dominates Presidential Debate"

     "An energetic and aggressive Mitt Romney challenged Barack Obama for “not getting the job done in government”, dominating the president for large parts of their first televised debate of the campaign which covered the economy, taxes and healthcare."

    "Mr Romney, displaying the desperation of a candidate who went into Wednesday evening behind in the polls, was aggressive in his attacks on Mr Obama for following a policy of what he called “trickle-down government”.

     http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4465ecaa-0daa-11e2-bfcb-00144feabdc0.html#axzz28IlGKiIt

      I don't know how someone who engages in the levels of logical dissonance that Romney did tonight somehow won this debate much less dominated it. But then, I didn't see it. And I need to. Sometimes things translate differently on tv.

     But I've watched some of Romney soundbites and I can only scratch my head. And the FT does admit that some of the things that Romney said may get him into trouble later on:

     'Mr Romney may have opened up problems for himself on policy issues like tax and aged care, taking positions that Obama campaign officials said would play badly with voters in pivotal swing states.'

    'Mr Romney said he would “absolutely” not ask for more revenue, saying budgets were “never” balanced by raising taxes, and insisted that his pledge to cut tax rates by 20 per cent across the board would not lift the deficit.'

     How about when he actually said that he will do for the country something along his model in Massachusetts and that he'll repeal ObamaCare? You see what I mean by dissonance? What seems to be the consensus is that Romney won on style points. He was aggressive, and pushed around the moderator, Jim Lehrer. The President was too deferential and didn't fight back enough, let Romney get away with too much.

     I can't say for now as I didn't watch it. I will say this. On substance Romney gave a truly amazing performance. What is more rich than he saying that you aren't entitled to your own facts? The level of dissonance he showed tonight must be a record. I can't see how he gets away with both saying ObamaCare is a model for the nation and vowing to eliminate ObamaCare.

     Then there's Romney's big First Day in the White House. He promised to sit down with Democrats and Republicans-the implication is that the President didn't. This first day of his gets bigger and bigger. He has also vowed on his first day to in no particular order, end ObamaCare, end Planned Parenthood, and declare China a currency manipulator.

     It has all the plausibility of a kindergartner's project of "What I'll Do When I Growup."

    So Romney gets a pass for all his of his own facts because the President was allegedly looking down?