This article, posted on October 4th in the New York Times, was by far the most accurate analysis of the debate that I have seen. Most of the articles I came across focused on Romney’s dominance of the debate and how his numbers in the polls are skyrocketing; however, this was the first article that clearly exposed how far Romney shifted from his original platform in the debate, and how Obama was far too timid throughout the entire debate by not calling Romney out on his false facts and “dancing around the issues”. The first point the article raises is the discrepancy in tax plans between Romney’s platform with Paul Ryan and how he responded during the debate. Up until this point, Romney has been committed to a hard-right platform of tax cuts. During hte debate, Romney claimed that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or creating a tax cut that would increase the deficit; however, that is completely false. Romney’s been quoted as wanting to restore Bush-like tax cuts (which expire at the end of this year), which would give heavy benefits to the wealthy. He won the republican nomination by promising to end estate and gift taxes, while giving ample benefits tot he upper class. In doing this, the deficit would climb 1 trillion dollars, especially once you add in his plan to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20%. Oddly enough, throughout the debate he was quoted saying “I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit”. This article also calls him out on being extremely vague, which doesn’t help him when economists are calling him out on those false statements that were made that night. The article continues on to discuss health care as well in detail, and that was right on point (in my opinion) as well.
I think I really enjoyed this article because it was specific in talking about the main issues that were covered, complete with quotes from the candidates and facts from their previous platforms, with more focus on Romney due to the large discrepancy that occurred. Overall, a phenomenal recap after watching the debate, and I’m thrilled that somebody saw through what was being said and views that as a major strategic mistake on Romney’s part.