Last night, after the debate, a friend from my hometown of Cincinnati called me, outraged at how Candy Crowley threw the debate to Barack Obama.

This morning, he e-mailed me

Thought Obama was tough last night, but after sleeping on it realized he said nothing of substance.

He only attacked Romney.

People, he contended in another e-mail, will vote economy.   And even the CBS poll had Romney winning on the economy by a 2-to-1 margin.

It’s not just my friend.  Jennifer Rubin spoke with a “Republican insider” about “a campaign focus group of undecided voters in” in the Buckeye State:. . .

. . .the “ballot question” (i.e., who are you going to vote for) moved in Romney’s direction. He also said that Romney rated very highly on personal attributes, on “depth of answer” and the “are you better off?” take-down of Obama’s record.

Still, Ace is “worried about Ohio“.  And so too should the Romney campaign. It’s too soon to get cocky.  Kid.

“Barack Obama’s aides and advisers“, wrote Ben Smith and Jonathan Martin last August in Politico,

are preparing to center the president’s reelection campaign on a ferocious personal assault on Mitt Romney’s character and business background, a strategy grounded in the early-stage expectation that the former Massachusetts governor is the likely GOP nominee.

. . . .

“Unless things change and Obama can run on accomplishments, he will have to kill Romney,” said a prominent Democratic strategist aligned with the White House.

Their goal was to make the Republican an unacceptable alternative to an incumbent with a weak record.  Yet, as Ace reported early this morning, even the CNN poll showing Obama “winning” the debate with just 47% of those surveyed found voters preferring Romney on the economy by a 54-40 margin, up by 3 points on health care, 7 on taxes, 23 on the deficit and 3 on leadership.  He lagged on foreign policy by two points.

Wonder if that last number would have been any different had Candy Crowley not weighed in on behalf of the incumbent.

If you’re leading the incumbent on a bevy of issues, you’re not an unacceptable alternative.

A couple days ago, Bruce forwarded a tweet where a friend of mine from my DC days praised Bruce thinking he and I were the same person. On Monday, at our LA dinner, one reader who joined us thought I was doing all the GayPatriot tweeting.  These are not the first times we’ve been confused.

Earlier today, Bruce alerted me to the change in his “handle” on this blog, he’s now “Bruce – @GayPatriot”.  He hopes this will remind people of his twitter ID.  So, until I join Twitter, if you see a GayPatriot tweet, it’s Bruce.  And when you read posts here, they are more likely to be mine, but a few will be Bruce’s (and a handful Nick’s).  Make sure to check the byline.

Although Bruce and I often agree on matters political, we have different ways of expressing ourselves.  Neither of us should be held responsible for what the other says.  :-)

So, should she lose her job for violating a contract she signed? “The moderator will not… “, blogs Ann Althouse quoting the contract, “intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invite candidate comments during the 2 minute response period.”

Hugh Hewitt, however, thinks her intervention helps Romney:

Romney should send Crowley roses for messing up the Libya exchange as it propels Libya to the front page tomorrow and into the public’s consciousness as not even an uninterrupted exchange would have. The media is not supposed to create the narrative, but it did, much to Romney’s benefit.

Go easy on Crowley. She made a mistake, but it wasn’t intentional and it has the unintended consequence of focusing the post-debate exactly where it should be and far, far removed from any nonsense.

This story, Crowley’s admission later that Romney was right on Libya, that Obama didn’t call Benghazi an “Act of Terror” in his 09/12/12 speech, will dominate the post-debate discussion. It will remind us of the administration’s inept response to the attacks and the month-long delay in anyone in the administration taking responsibility, without anyone suffering any consequences.

Moreover, it raises doubts about credibility of legacy media.   (more…)

This falls in to the “WTF?” category.

“This administration simply can’t be taken seriously when it talks about debt and deficit reduction when it chooses to spend money researching ‘gaydar’,” said Christopher R. Barron, Co-Founder and Chief Strategist for GOProud – a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting freemarkets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights. GOProud is also the only national gay organization to endorse Mitt Romney.

The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 supporting the “gaydar” study conducted by the University of Washington and Cornell University. “At a time when families – gay and straight – are being asked to tighten their belts and make tough decisions about spending because of the disastrous Obama economy it is an absolute insult to hear that federal tax dollars were spent ‘researching’ whether or not you can guess someone’s sexual orientation just by looking at them,” continued Barron.

This study was uncovered as part of the Wastebook 2012, which was released this morning by U.S. Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK). The Wastebook lists 100 wasteful spending projects totaling more than $18 billion.

For crying out loud… Anderson Cooper can just act as a gaydar proxy for the Obama Administration. He does so well being their bitch on every other issue.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Council Submissions

• Joshuapundit-What The Reaction To The VP Debate Proves About The Left
• The Noisy Room – Cyber Smoke Screen
• The Independent Sentinel – False Benghazi Narrative Exposed, Bizarre Finger Pointing, a Leaderless White House
• The Razor – You Can’t End Racism by Being Racist
• The Political Commentator – What type of airline would Obama Air be?
• Simply Jews – Gideon Levy and the ugly act of not-rape
• GrEaT sAtAn”S gIrLfRiEnD – Will Girl Power Save Pakistan?
• The Colossus of Rhodey – Hillary Clinton has more balls than Boss Obama
• The Right Planet – Fed Up with ‘Middle Class’
• VA Right! - Voters Find ‘Mitt the Monster’ a Complete Fabrication by the Left
• Gay Patriot – No, Mrs. Clinton didn’t fall on her sword over Benghazi
• The Glittering Eye -Why Unemployment Stays High, Simply Explained
• Rhymes With Right – Is Joe Biden Calling Catholic Bishops Liars?
• The Mellow Jihadi – Major Andrew Olmsted: Blogger, American Hero
• Bookworm Room – Found it on Facebook — Planned Parenthood’s attack on Paul Ryan (more…)

I swear the Romney/Ryan campaign is paying attention to what the conservative bloggers are talking about.  I remember watching John McCain in 2008 and screaming at the TV something like — “Hey you idiot… why didn’t you bring up [this topic] — it is all the blogs are talking about!”

Now during each debate this year, I scream something like – “Mitt must be reading my Twitter timeline!  He knew that [non-covered MSM fact or story].”

Last night I had a number of moments, but one was most important.  Many of us in the conservative blogosphere have been contrasting the Obama “Recoversession” to the actual Reagan Recovery.  It is a tale of stagnant growth and meager employment versus robust quarterly growth and the fastest job growth in post-WWII America.

Romney laid it out last night and I cheered at my TV.  Glenn Reynolds has a great graphic this morning at Instapundit that further illustrates the stark (and I mean damned-ass stark) contrast between Obama and Reagan on economic recovery.  If these are the “three decades of problems in our economy” that Obama whines he inherited — please bring more!

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

A liberal friend on Facebook posted, “Watching replay of the debate on CNN. Romney is too vague.”

Perhaps, he was.  But, was Obama any more specific?

So, my question:  did the president address the specifics of his second-term agenda?  If he did, could you please cite the transcript for details.

UPDATE:   Although “the public found” Obama writes numbersmuncher, “to win the debate slightly, they thought Romney was better when it came to the economy, leadership, taxes, and debt.”  Via Ace who reports that only 38% found that “Obama offer[ed]a clear vision for solving the country’s problems” as against 61% who did not.

RELATED: Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?   ”Time’s Mark Halperin”, blogs Ed Morrissey

. . . notes what I pointed out on NRA News and the Hugh Hewitt Showlast night — that the agenda debate took place entirely in terms of Mitt Romney.  Barack Obama never mentioned anything about a second-term agenda, and its MIA status is a big, big problem for an incumbent arguing for a second term. . .

Like Ace, Morrissey notes that as per this National Journal report, “Despite Obama’s slight edge overall, Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues.”

UPDATE:  2008 Obama supporter Megan McArdle asks, “What Exactly Would Barack Obama Do With a Second Term?“

When I want to feel good about how a Republican did in a debate, I consult Hugh Hewitt. When I want an honest evaluation, I check Ann Althouse, Michael Barone and Charles Krauthammer.  I like Ann because she’s non-ideological and, in addition, to considering the policy issues the candidates address, she also offers her impressions of how they appear.

And the latter may matter more in how undecided voters react.  If my recollection is correct (UP-UPDATE:  see UP-UPDATE below), the snap polls after all three debates in 2000 showed Al Gore the winner, but shortly after those debates, the polls started moving in W’s direction.

Comparing the debate to one of those Civil War battles “in which both armies battered each other but neither came out a clear victor and the war went on“, Michael Barone concluded that “on balance Romney came off as more presidential.”  Reader Kurt e-mailed me a passage from Ann Althouse’s debate post where she seemed to offer a similar evaluation:

8:23: Romney is able to stay relaxed while dominating. Crowley and Obama both seem cranked up and stressed.

8:25: A question about taxes. Romney is clear and focused. Obama’s over there on the chair, hunkered down, crouching, oddly. Hey, Jaltcoh is live-blogging. Check it out.

8:31: “Governor Romney, I’m sure you have an answer,” Crowley almost snarks. Her bias shows. She prompts Obama, suggesting the substance of the answer. Now, this doesn’t really help Obama. It makes Romney look more dominant, and we get the impression that Obama needs a boost. It’s actually patronizing. (more…)