The Ladies of TAC Comment on the Debate

Hello TAC Readers,

The ladies of TAC decided to weigh in briefly with our thoughts about the first presidential debate, so if you’re interested in the practical thoughts of some Catholic female American patriots who are otherwise busy running their lively households, read on. And please add your thoughts as well.

Thank You,

The Ladies of TAC

From Elaine:

listened to the debate while doing other stuff — didn’t watch it — so I had to concentrate solely on what was said.

No doubt about it  — Romney did great. He stayed on point, never seemed flustered, unlike Obama at times. Obama seemed to be stumbling even through his closing statement, which is supposed to be the “clincher” that sums up his entire message.

Romney kept coming back to the trillions of dollars of national debt and how unfair it is to burden future generations with that. Obama never really came up with a satisfactory rebuttal to that issue — the best he could do was lamely declare that he inherited a big chunk of that debt from Bush.

Obama didn’t even land a glove on him when it came to Romneycare and its similarity to Obamacare (which was one of Romney’s biggest vulnerabilities). Romney pointed out that his Massachusetts plan was a truly bipartisan effort while Obama rammed his through without a single GOP vote.

Also, loved Romney’s subtle but clear (to those who care about the issue) acknowledgment of the importance of religious freedom.

Hard to pick a best line of the night, but I’ll go with Romney’s yardstick for determining the worth of federal programs: Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for?

Trivia note: After the 1960 JFK-Nixon debate, people who watched the debate on TV said Kennedy won while those who listened on radio said Nixon won. Doesn’t look like there’s any split decision this time.

From Rebecca:

I tuned into the debate last night expecting a night of mini-speeches. I thought it was going to be five minute segments of “let me tell you what I think” and then “the other guy gets to tell you what he thinks” and then we move on. It wasn’t! The new format of “we each state our position and then duke it out” was a pleasant surprise. It worked well for Romney, not so much for Mr. Obama.

For the first time since he declared for the Presidency in 2007, someone actually questioned the President on what he was saying. For a man used to the easy softball questions usually lobbed at him by the esteemed journalists on The View, last night was a very rude awakening. While Romney came across as a candidate securely in command of both the facts and his own position, Mr. Obama looked like a little boy getting scolded by his dad.

He furrowed his brown, pursed his lips, and feebly fought back. I kept waiting for him to whine at Jim Lehrer “No fair…” It was not a masterful persona. He didn’t look like the leader of anything, and may explain why our enemies aren’t afraid to attack our embassies or walk all over us in trade deals. No one is afraid of the “No Fair” kid. He’s annoying and weak from having been coddled all of his political life.

From Stacy:

I’m not a undecided voter. Long ago I had already decided that if a ham sandwich ran against President Obama, I’d vote for him. What I’ve hoped for is that someone would run against him and demand that he answer for the decisions he’s made over the last four years.

Romney did that. He was articulate, clear, detailed, passionate, and grand. He was trustworthy. Beyond the words that either man spoke, the thing that was most deeply revealing was the eye contact.

Mitt Romney looked directly at Barack Obama, spoke directly to him, smiling confidently but not arrogantly. When Obama spoke to him, Romney continued to make eye contact, and to listen. He was engaged. The ability to look directly at your opponent is a sign of courage.

On the contrary, Obama spent way too much time looking down and avoiding eye contact, even when Romney was staring right at him. His facial expressions were full of smirks, defensiveness, irritation, and confusion. The way he kept shooting pleading eyes at the moderator to beg for his turn to speak was childlike. This is the behavior of a weak opponent. Whether people realize it or admit it, it’s certain no one missed this quality in the debate.

At the end of his closing comments when Obama said, “I promise to fight every single day for you,” I got the distinct feeling that I was listening to a speech given by someone running for senior class president, not President of the United States. It’s time for a grown-up in the White House.

From Foxfier:

I kind of killed our TV reception while winterizing the house… all we have are three strange self-help channels, the Spanish religious channel, a Korean shopping network and a couple of flavors of PBS, so I’ll have to pass. [She may chime in later...]

10 Responses to The Ladies of TAC Comment on the Debate

  • “Long ago I had already decided that if a ham sandwich ran against President Obama, I’d vote for him.”

    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!!

    :)

  • My husband says that he was very impressed with Romney taking notes during the time Obama was talking. Outstanding, even if he wasn’t using them– it gave him something to do, and that always looks better than standing there with your arms on the podium, trying to figure out what expression to have.

  • From my facebook page, Mitt took it cleanly. The Romney supporters were hyped about the debate, and the Obama supporters were…. linking Huffington Post and insisting Obama was already re-elected.

  • Also, lots of “he gave no details!” pronouncements.

  • Simply put, that was the REAL Romney and that was the REAL Obama. Not the myth, the hoax created by his communist handlers and the lying media. If somehow Obama still pulls this out, then the American people have completely lost their minds.

  • I am just happy that Romney won the debate. I saw the liberal blogger, Rod Adams, at Atomic Insights was so upset that neither candidate spoke about the need to pursue nuclear energy. While I myself work in the nuclear industry and “believe” in nuclear power, there are other significantly more important issues, including freedom of religion which Obama opposes. I was also amused that that liberal blogger called Romney the Establishment candidate. Apparently he doesn’t acknowledge that the establishment – Academia, News Media, Hollywood Entertainment, Washington DC – are one and all liberal, not to mention CEOs like GE’s Jeff Immelt being on Obama’s team. But twisting facts is always the hallmark of liberalism. Fortunately, from what I understand, Romney allowed neither the liberal moderator nor his opponent to do so.

  • “Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for?”

    That was the winning line of the night!

  • “Is it worth borrowing money from China to pay for?”

  • The winning line:
    “You can have you r own plane, and you can have your own house, Mr. President, but you can’t have your own facts.”

    A local Kiwi blogger said that, “The Obamassiah was so bad, he turned wine into water.” :-)

  • Thank you ladies. You truly have the future of our nation in mind. This election is a call to arms for what could be the final battle in our nation between good and evil. between Christianity and Socialism/Islam. If Obama is reelected Islam and Socialism will win. In the 85 years I have been here, this is the first time our nation has been in danger of abject failure. Only an American traitor could vote for Obama. I am a little concerned about a population that has been conditioned for socialism ever since a Communist John Dewey began the drive about three years after I started School in 1933 to remove God from our public schools, and after he lost the election in 1936 Norman Thomas said socialists would take over our nation without firing a shot. The election of Obama made him a prophet.

Follow TAC by Clicking on the Buttons Below
Bookmark and Share
Subscribe by eMail

Enter your email:

Recent Comments
Archives
Our Visitors. . .
Our Subscribers. . .