Analysis of Debate between Obama and Romney in Denver, October 3, 2012

By Douglas V. Gibbs

The liberal media, and even Fox News, began their report with the comment, "Before the debate, we are being told that Obama is the coolest person in the room."

My first thought was that the media was trying to set the tone with the viewers quickly, get them feeling that "Obama is so great. See how superior he is? See how intelligent and controlled he is?" However, I got to thinking about it.  Narcissists tend not to sweat these kinds of situations.  People like Obama believes they can't be derailed.  Barry truly believes he's the smartest guy in the room. In Obama's mind, he can do no wrong. And when things do go wrong, it is always someone else's fault.

I am a firm believer that after the debate is over, regardless of who wins, the media will spin it that Obama won overwhelmingly. In reality, to the viewers, usually the first debate goes to the challenger, because the challenger has the incumbent's record to attack.

The word is that this is the most important debate, because it will greatly influence early voting, and it sets the tone for the remainder of the campaign.  In fact, this debate will have a greater impact than the manipulated polls that over-sample Democrats, and under-sample independents.  Remember, Carter was way ahead of Reagan, but the Gipper's "There you go again" comment in their first debate turned things around, or so we are told.

Conservatism wins, so if Romney stays on the issues, and offers conservative solutions, his victory will be won.

The two podiums sat on a red carpeted stage, with blue walls, offering balance in the colors that represent the parties.  The first of three debates, the audience was reported as being evenly divided, and expected to remain silent during the entire debate. They let out a chuckle for Obama near the end, but overall, the crowd behaved.  The debate was planned to last 90 minutes.  They ran short at the end.  Understand, that as I worked through the debate, I skipped a few parts, trying to keep the meatiest parts in this post.  I include my thoughts a number of times, and sometimes quote the candidates directly.  Overall, the analysis is an "as we go along" style.

The issues on the table were the economy, where Romney was expected to be very tough on Obama's record, and taxes.  Both will claim to be the defender of the middle class.

Jim Lehrer was the moderator.

The moderator set the table, indicating the debate would be about domestic issues.  The six segments were to be three on the economy, and one each on health care, the role of government, and governing. As a constitutionalist, the final three caught my attention.

Segment one began with jobs. The question was: "What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating new jobs?"

OBAMA - President Barack Obama went first, and after thanking the university and Romney, he also commented about the fact that the day was also his twentieth wedding anniversary.

Obama began by saying that he began as President during was the worst recession since the Great Depression (an oft made claim, and an attempt to "blame Bush," and link Romney to it because Mitt is a Republican).  He listed the usual claims about the auto industry, and banks, he said under him the economy has come fighting back, and that the auto industry has come roaring back - (it has? GM can't give the Volt away, is begging to get out from under the government's umbrella, and Chrysler has been limping along as well. The only domestic automobile company that has been doing really well is Ford, the only company that refused a government stimulus package).

One point for capitalism.  This is not the worst recession since FDR, but the Democrats want you to think it was so that they can continue their "It's all Bush's fault" mantra.  Is it bad? Yes. And it is getting worse under Obama, so unless he plans to change his policies, his reelection would result in a worsening of the economy, and I think a collapse within a year and a half after his reelection.

Housing prices, according to Obama, are also on the rise.

Where are we going? Obama attacked Romney's lower taxes plan, and then called more spending "investing in America," giving us a list of where he wants to toss more taxpayer money (and into things that he has already put a lot of spending into, and have not shown growth as the Democrats have hoped).

Obama once again revealed he is a tax and spend liberal, a policy that fails time and time again.  The more informed voters were turned off by this rhetoric. The less informed probably did not understand the dangers Obama promoted.

ROMNEY - Mitt Romney, in his opening statement, thanked the moderator, the university, the President, and the presidential committee that sponsored this event. He then gave a congratulations to Obama for his anniversary, and joked how he was getting to spend it with Mitt.

Romney then told a story about a woman without a job that grabbed his arm asking for Mitt to help. Romney explained he could help, but not with Obama's big government "top-down" policies.  Then he said, ". . . cut taxes for the rich, that is not what I am going to do. My plan has five parts. One is to get us energy independent, North America energy independent - that creates about four million jobs; number two, open up more trade, particularly in Latin America, crack down on China if, and when, they cheat; number three, make sure our people have the skills they need to succeed, and the best schools in the world, we're far away from that now; number four, get us to a balanced budget; number five, champion small business, it's small business that creates the jobs in America, and over the last four years, small business people have decided America may not be the place to open a new business - because new business start-ups are down to a 30 year low.  I know what it takes to get small business growing again, to hire people.  I am concerned that the path we have been on has been unsuccessful.  The President has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more, if you will, trickle-down government would work.  That's not the right answer for America.  I'll restore the vitality that gets America working again.  Thank you."

Romney is a successful business person with an incredible record. Creating jobs is right up his alley.  His call for energy independence was a call for domestic oil drilling, and other domestic energy plans outside of forcing through government a green technology movement (that has failed miserably).  Romney recognizes the growing potential of trade with Latin America, while countering Obama's claim he would be soft on China. However, this disciplining China when they misbehave attitude is only there because of how much of our debt China has bought. Our deficit is what enables China to be able to influence us by cheating.  Then Mitt went into a litany about small businesses, and the middle class and business owners of America recognized the brilliance of the statement.  Mitt then claimed that Obama's record of big government is a failure.  Then claimed he could restore America. He set the tone as Mitt being the small government guy, and Obama being the big government liberal.

OBAMA - The President's response to Romney's trickle down government statement was not an answer at all, but Barry instead went into a "this is what we need to do" thing - as if he is running as a challenger against a Republican over the last four years.

Then, Obama lied.  He said he agreed with Romney's domestic energy comment, saying he believed domestic oil was not only important, but output is higher than it has been in years.  This coming from the man that placed a moratorium on drilling in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska, and rejected the Keystone Pipeline.

Then he went into his green energy pitch.

"And we have to close our deficit," said the President that has spent more federal deficit dollars than any President in history. Then, he attacked Romney's plan to cut taxes, asking "how do we pay for these things with tax cuts?"

Remember, Democrats don't believe wealth is created, and they believe money belongs to them, so in their eyes, a tax cut is government spending.

ROMNEY - Responding to Obama, said his tax cuts are "tax relief."  Then Romney said that under Obama the rich haven't been in trouble, the middle income folks are hurting under Obama - listing gas, health care costs, etc.  Then went back into the cornerstones mentioned earlier of his plan.  That, Mitt claimed, is how you help the middle class. Bring down their expenses.

Taxation, bring down the rates. But to not lose revenue, lower deductions, credits, exemptions.  He made it sound like he's not really cutting taxes, he's just changing how the taxes are gotten.

I felt uneasy, like Romney was compromising.  Across the board tax cuts historically energize economies. I reality, I would be perfectly fine with eliminating the 16th Amendment. No more IRS, no more income tax, would knock the revenue stream into the federal government back to the 1998 level, and if we cut drastically unconstitutional spending, we would wind up with a surplus.

When it came to Obama's comment about domestic energy being on the rise, Romney pointed out that it was not due to Obama's policies.  "Mr. President, all of the increases in natural gas and oil have happened on private land, not government land."

In other words, "You didn't build that!"

"On government land you have cut the permits and licenses in half."

"I am not looking. . . to reduce the revenue. . . but to ease the burden."

OBAMA - Obama, the man behind, in the case of Obamacare, the greatest tax hike in history, as will be the termination of the Bush tax rates if he's reelected, as well, said he cut taxes on middle class families. Really? On what planet?

He then began listing what the people can buy with their extra money because of his tax cuts.  Uh, Mister Obama, if that's the case, then why aren't they spending these monies?  He's acting like the challenger, as if he has no record of failure over the last three and a half years.

Then Obama attacked Romney's alleged ideas for tax cuts and increasing military spending.

Democrats don't understand that a true tax cut increases activity in the free market, making more people successful, and in the long run increasing revenue.

ROMNEY - I will not tax cut where deficit is affected.  "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high income families."

I really feel when it comes to taxes Romney's playing both sides of the fiddle. Either you are cutting taxes, or you are not. In the end, what we are getting, is he's not going to raise taxes.

Romney then accused Obama that he was planning to raise taxes: "You are going to raise taxes" . . . according to studies.

Then Mitt returned to Small Businesses, lowering their rate, which will create jobs - and that is true.

OBAMA - Barry caught Romney's double-speak, saying, He's been running on this tax plan since the beginning, and now says five weeks before election, "Never mind."

In other words, Obama is accusing Romney of flip-flopping and lying.  The tax plan Obama is claiming Romney has been running on was a plan they created to try to make the GOP look bad. Now, when Romney says Obama has it wrong, he called Mitt a liar.

"If you are lowering the rates as you describe, Governor, it is not possible to lower the deductions and loopholes that only affect high income individuals, to avoid either raising the deficit, burdening the middle class."

In other words, the only way is to soak the rich, the producers, a large part of the population that creates jobs.  Remember, the money belongs to the federal government, according to the democrats.

"It's math, it's arithmetic."

In other words, "you dummy, numbers don't lie," even though he is not taking into account reactions by the players. Democrats look at the world as static, and then wonder why unintentional consequences hit them.  To every action there is a reaction. Romney, however, has been sounding like he is buying into it just a little, and has been acting on the defense. Mitt needs to go on the offense, and explain it.

Then Barack "You didn't build that" Obama said he shared with Romney the desire for small business growth - when over the last four years he has been attacking businesses with regulations, taxes, and socialistic rhetoric.

The class warfare by Obama's next words was incredible, dragging into the conversation Donald Trump. I won't go into it word for word, for fear of causing your eyes to bleed.

ROMNEY - My priority is jobs. Small businesses, after it is all added up, often pay more than half of what they make.

With all of the expenses, which includes high gas prices, and the like, this is very true. The opportunity to start a business has gotten more difficult in America, and if you become successful, according to Obama, you are now dangerous.

I suppose he wants businesses to limit themselves to $250,000, otherwise, you are rich and the enemy.

OBAMA - "If you believe we can cut taxes by 5 trillion dollars (a claim Romney already said was false), and add two trillion dollars in additional spending, that the military is not asking for (he's been doing to the military what Carter and Clinton did, and it puts us at risk. Peace through strength) - seven trillion dollars, just to give you a sense, over ten years that's more than our entire defense budget, and you think that by closing loopholes and deductions for the well-to-do (a pot-shot at the rich for the sake of making the hard left liberal socialists happy), somehow you will not end up picking up the tab, then Governor Romney's plan may work for you. But, I-I think math, common sense, (there he goes, again, trying to prop himself up as the smartest guy in the room) and our history (history? History shows tax cuts, cuts in spending, and a reduction in regulations grows economies. . . Reagan, Coolidge), shows us that's not a recipe for job growth (and yours has been?).  Look, we've tried this, we've tried both approaches, the approach Governor Romney is talking about is the same sales pitch (hmmm, everyone hates pushy salesmen. . .see what he is doing here with his rhetoric?) that was made in 2001 and 2003 (Oh, you mean under President Bush that presided over less than a 5% unemployment rate, and a thriving economy that came crashing down after liberal policies in the mortgage industry finally crashed it? By the way, those are also the same years the GOP said Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac needed more regulations as Government Sponsored Enterprises, and the Democrats called it scare-mongering, only to blame the Republicans for the problems after the lack of oversight brought the GSEs to their knees. By the way, Fannie and Freddie are extremely unconstitutional. They are not private, they are government sponsored enterprises), and we ended up with the slowest job growth (under your watch, Mr. President) in fifty years (actually, forty, and that was Carter's fault because of following policies similar to Obama's). We ended up moving from surplus (thanks to the Republican Congress of the nineties), to deficits (should the king of deficit spending really be making that accusation?), and it all culminated in the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression (however bad it was, Obama's policies made it worse).  And Bill Clinton tried the approach that I'm talking about (yeah, but the GOP Congress stopped much of that madness. Clinton moderated under pressure by the Republicans), we created 23 million new jobs (this isn't about Clinton, this is about your failed record), we went from deficit to surplus (and under you we went into record debt greater than any President in history), and businesses did very well.  So, in some ways we have some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans (then why is everything getting worse on your watch, Obama?).  And I believe that the economy works. . . "

Notice how Obama was never interrupted for speaking too long? During the debate Romney was interrupted repeatedly.

ROMNEY - Sir, you've been President for four years. . . I am not going to raise taxes on anyone.

You don't raise taxes when the economy is slow, you kill jobs (didn't Obama say the same thing in 2008?)

OBAMA - Then the moderator helped Obama out, when Obama misstepped, "in addition to cuts there has to be revenue" - Obama, in his face, without actually saying the words, "Oh, yeah," and then went down the talking points the moderator led him to.

Jeez.  This guy is an unmitigated disaster.

Then ROMNEY nailed it. Growth means more success which means more people paying taxes - which increases revenue.

Used Spain as an example, and the moderator tried to interrupt Romney, again.

Then the moderator helped OBAMA again - "Mr. President, you said it's gotta be balanced."

Then Obama went into his "Corporate Welfare" attack on the oil industry.  Class warfare: Do you think the oil company needs extra money when they make money each time you go to the pump?

The attack on corporations and the successful went on and on. Then said they are moving overseas. Of course they are, Obama has made doing business in America a hostile environment!

Then he called for more spending on education (with story about ten year old text books), and attacked the GOP plan on Medicaid -

ROMNEY - Department of Energy says you applied massive breaks to the green energy world. . .

Don't forget you put 90 billion dollars into solar and wind.  . . .You don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers.

Then he tackled medicaid giving the States more control over the programs.

States can care for their poor better than the federal government.

States are the laboratories (exactly), let States do this.

Then they tackled entitlements.

Social Security.

OBAMA - Social Security is structurally sound, but may need to be tweaked (social security is in trouble, and unsustainable as it is, and Obama knows he'll lose that argument, which is why he took control, and changed the subject to something he thinks he can win).  "I wanna talk about medicare."

(Get ready for the untruthful attack on Ryan's budget).

Barry said he is being told entitlements relate a sense of dependency, and then poo-poo'd that, saying that government is necessary as a safety net (not his exact words, but that is what he was saying). Claimed he worked on eliminating poor spending practices by medicare.  The way to help medicare is to lower health care costs (play on Obamacare).

ROMNEY - "Our seniors depend on these programs. . . we are proposing no changes for people currently on programs, Obama is, medicare for current users President is cutting $716 billion from the program."

"Young people, the programs will be there for them" (reformed).

OBAMA - "Romney will turn medicare into a voucher program. . ." as if 'voucher' is a bad word.

MODERATOR - (helping again) And you don't support that.

ROMNEY - Remember, that's for future generations

OBAMA - ". . . if you are before 55 you might want to listen - cuz this, uh, this will affect you.  The idea, which was originally presented by Congressman Ryan, your running mate, uh, is that, eh, we would give a voucher to seniors, and they could go out into the private market place (remember, Democrats hate the private sector) and buy their own health insurance.  The problem is, that, because the voucher would not keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that it would cost the average senior about six thousand a year.  In fairness, what Governor Romney has now said (emphasis on the word "now," as if implying a flip-flop), is he'll maintain traditional medicare along side it.  But, there is still a problem.  Because what happens is those insurance companies (here comes the "evil corporations" statement) are pretty clever at figuring out who are the younger and healthier seniors, they recruit them, leaving the older sicker seniors in medicare. . . over time what'll happen is the traditional medicare system will collapse."

It is unsustainable as it is now - and Barry? How would your death panels in Obamacare be better than your claim? Those sick old people are too expensive, so Obamacare would recommend they die.

". . . I don't think vouchers is the way to go. And this is not mine own, my own opinion, AARP thinks that the savings we obtained from medicare bolstered the system (of course the very liberal minded AARP came to O'Barry's rescue on this), lengthened the medicare trust fund by 8 years, benefits were not affected at all, and ironically, if you repeal Obamacare, and I have become fond of this term Obamacare (of course he is. He's a narcissist and his name being attached to it gives him the personal umph he wants), if you repeal it, what happens is, those seniors right away are going to be paying $600 dollars more in prescription care, they are now going to have to be paying co-pays for basic check-ups (his pitch for socialized medicine, and a loss of choice in health care overall), that can keep them healthier, and the primary beneficiary of that repeal are insurance companies (anti-profit, anti-corporation, class warfare, anti-capitalism statement), that are estimated to gain billions of dollars back (what he is saying is untrue, but the jist of it is it is his way of playing the anti-free market game, profits are bad rhetoric - remember, this election is really all about a Marxist versus a capitalist - and he is reminding us of that right here), when they aren't making seniors any healthier, and I don't think that's the right approach when it comes to making sure that medicare is stronger over the long term."

Remember, Obama loves government doing for everyone.  Medicare should not be pulled out from under people, they have been paying into it, but it is unconstitutional, and care in the later years should be a private choice, something planned for, and something the family works together regarding. However, because we have become a society dependent upon the program, it is a program that must be reformed over generations, slowly moving it towards the private sector, and out of government control.

MODERATOR - Do you support the voucher system, Governor?

ROMNEY - "What I support is no change for current retirees and new retirees to medicare (countering Obama's accusation).  And the President supports taking $716 billion out of that program."

MODERATOR - What about. . .

ROMNEY - "That's number one.  Number two is for people coming along that are young - what I'll do to make sure that we can keep medicare in place for them, is to allow them to either choose the current medicare program, or a private plan.  Their choice. (Isn't liberty about choice?) They get to ch - They can have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them, so that they don't have to pay additional money, they don't have to pay an additional $6,000, that's not going to happen (once again countering an Obama lie). . . if the government can be as efficient as the private sector, and offer premiums that is as low as the private sector, people will be happy to get traditional medicare.  Or, they will be able to get a private plan. I know my own view is I'd rather have a private plan (that was Ted Kennedy's view, too, at the end of his life - of course he wanted private insurance, but he expected everyone else to suffer under a government system).  I just assume not have the government tell me what kind of plan I can get, I'd rather be able to have an insurance company if I don't like them I can get rid of them, and find a different insurance company (round about way of saying that under Obamacare there is no choice).  But people make their own choice. The other thing we have to do to save medicare, we have to have the benefits high, for those that are low income, but for higher income people we are going to have to lower some of the benefits.  We have to make sure this program is there for the long term. . . "

"The idea also came from Bill Clinton's chief of staff. Let's see if we can get competition. . . " (counter to Obama's claim Obamacare came from Romney)

OBAMA - "Every study (every one of them? Really? When someone says "every", or "never," I tend to think they are pulling a rabbit out of their, uh, hat), has shown that medicare has lower administrative costs than private insurance. Which is why seniors are generally pretty happy with it.  And, private insurance has to make a profit (there he goes with his anti-capitalism stuff, again - then he corrects himself) Nothing wrong with that, that's what they do. (I wonder how many on his staff, at that moment, went "Whew!").  And so you've got higher administrative costs, plus profit, on top of that (this is his "government can do things better than the free market" socialist pitch, which is a lie) and if you are going to save any money through what Governor Romney is proposing, what has to happen is that the money has to come from somewhere (says the guy with the biggest deficit in history). . . .when you move to a voucher system, you are putting seniors at the mercy of those insurance companies (government good, capitalism bad), and over time traditional if traditional medicare has decayed or fallen apart, then they're stuck (so his logic is if you give them a choice and medicare falls apart they are stuck, but if you give them no choice and force them into medicare only and medicare fails they aren't?). . . "

He then sings the praises of AARP. "We need to cut the cost of health care overall."

ROMNEY - "Private sector typically provides a better product at a lower cost."

Then the FEDERAL REGULATIONS monster was let out of the bag. The moderator asked about the level of federal regulations, and. . .

ROMNEY - regulation is essential, but at the same time regulation can be excessive, and in some places it is now.  Under Obama regulations have become excessive - then talks about Dodd-Frank, and the damage it has been causing the economy.

Most of these regulations are not even supposed to be proposed by the federal government. Many of them fall under the State's authorities.

OBAMA - "great example. . . enormous economic crisis reckless behavior across the board . . . loans given that shouldn't have been. . . banks making money hand over fist churning out products the bankers themselves didn't even understand (government ordered the banks to make those loans through Community Reinvestment Act, but Obama maintained his "Banks and Wall Street" evil claim). . . all the help we provided was paid back. . . repeal of Dodd-Frank. . . problem was not too much regulation and oversight."

ROMNEY - "Dodd-Frank was not thought through properly. . . doesn't define what a qualified mortgage is . . .  banks are reluctant to make loans . . . hurting the housing market."

Dodd-Frank is bad law. It is full of holes, and it picks winners and losers.

MODERATOR - Let's move to health care.

At this point we were two thirds of the way to the 90 minute mark

ROMNEY - told stories of people that can't afford insurance, so he agrees costs are too high.

"Obamacare," he said, "is adding to the cost. It's expensive," he said, "plus it cuts $716 billion from medicare to pay for it."  He said he doesn't like a board telling people what kind of care they can get.  "How can President fight for Obamacare instead of fighting for jobs? It has killed jobs. Craft a plan at the State level, that fits the State."

As a governor, Romney throughout this debate seemed to often defend State sovereignty.

OBAMA - Gave his pitch about the evil insurance companies.  Said Obamacare works alongside jobs. "If you have insurance, it doesn't mean a government takeover." He said this before, but in the long run that is a lie. The goal is single-payer government controlled socialized medicine. Everyone knows that. Obama is fooling nobody.

"You keep your own insurance" even though the goal of Obamacare is to drive your own insurance out of business "you keep your own doctor .  .  . but insurance companies can't jerk you around"

You won't keep your own doctor. Doctors are running for the hills in the face of Obamacare.

Obama's big government rhetoric was clear as he delivered statements against anything not government controlled.

Then Barack explained that government controls against the insurance industry is good, and keeping your kids on insurance until 26 (does he not want the next generation to get out there and be independent?), and then went after Romneycare, calling it an identical model (one of the reasons Obama wanted Romney to be his opponent).

ROMNEY - "In Massachussetts Democrats and Republicans worked together, you pushed Obamacare through without a single Republican vote . . . "

We didn't raise taxes, you raise them with Obamacare. . .

People will lose their insurance when Obamacare goes into effect.

OBAMA - response claims Obamacare a Republican idea. Governor Romney's insurance could be a model for the nation. We used the same advisors, and they say it's the same plan.

This is a way to reduce the cost of care in the system overall. . . not leaving people to fend for themselves (once again a government is everything, personal responsibility isn't, statement). . . then Obama hit the "too many tests" by doctors problem - the answer to that is tort reform at the State level, not a government takeover.  The doctors do those tests to cover themselves because of the government regulations, and the fear of being sued. They want to show they checked every possible avenue.

"Let's pay doctors by performance, not by how many procedures they performed."

This statement revealed how ignorant Obama truly is. Those procedures are sent out. The doctor doesn't get paid for those procedures.  Once again, they are trying to cover their rears from lawsuits, not make more money because they ordered a bunch of procedures.

Then he claimed cost is going up slower than anytime in history, thanks to Obamacare.

Really?

Then he attacked the States taking care of these programs. Remember, Democrats hate State Sovereignty. To Obama, it is all about the centralized federal government.

ROMNEY - The businessman took full control - "Government is not effective in bringing down costs. . . free enterprise is more effective . . . this is a private market. . . creativity and innovation exists with the American People . . . right answer is not federal government take over of health care and start mandating to the providers across America, telling a patient and a doctor what kind of treatment they can have. . . private market and individual responsibility always work best."

OBAMA - Board cannot tell what treatments can be delivered (sure they can, by disapproving the ones they don't like), your plan duplicates what is already the law (you know, protecting that evil private sector). That doesn't help people with pre-existing conditions (then he went back to Romneycare).

Then Obama said: "He says, but we don't know the details. . . we better make choices."

ROMNEY - Romney responded with basic rhetoric, then he hit the ball out of the ballpark:

"And, what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation (hitting Obama on his comment that Romneycare was model for Obamacare) State by State (I am not a fan of Romneycare, but stay with Mitt on this one), and I said that at that time.  The federal government taking over health care for the entire nation, and whisking aside the Tenth Amendment, which gives the States the rights for these kinds of things, is not the course for America, to have a stronger, more vibrant, economy."

Fireworks, he hit that one outtttaaaaaaa-heeeerrrrrreeeee!

MODERATOR - "That is a terrific segue into our next segment, the role of government." Do you believe there is a fundamental difference on how you view the mission of the federal government?

OBAMA - "The first role of government is to keep people safe, and as Commander in Chief (he's close. The first role of the federal government is to protect and preserve the union - see the Preamble in the U.S. Constitution for that one), that is something, uh, I have, uh, worked on and thought about every single day I've been in the Oval Office (in the Oval Office? Isn't he usually on the golf course, or on late night television shows? As for his Commander in Chief record, do you like how he had a hand in ushering in the Muslim Brotherhood, which as resulted in the Middle East igniting on fire?) I also believe the federal government has the capacity to open up opportunity (by dictating equity in results? through redistribution of wealth? Opportunity is something that happens when government gets the hell out of the way).

Then he called on Abraham Lincoln. . .

As if he is a Lincoln . . .

Okay, fine, Lincoln was a republican, and the champion of the emancipation of the slaves. . . but he was also a big government guy.

"That doesn't restrict people's freedom, that enhances it. . . we said to States, we'll give you more money if you perform (and you won't get the money if you don't - isn't that extortion?)"

More teachers, more spending. ..

ROMNEY - "Key to great schools is great teachers, but States should make that decision on their own."

"Role of government is to promote and protect the principles of our founding documents. .  ."

"Strong military, religious tolerance and freedom, pursue happiness as we choose, look for discovery and innovation, but we also believe the right for people to pursue their dreams, and not government thinking it can do a better job than people pursuing their dreams. . ."

"Food Stamps, education, the path we are taking is not working."

MODERATOR - "Does the government have a responsibility to improve the quality of public education?"

ROMNEY - "State and local level, but federal government can play an important role."

Okay, Mister Romney, our schools have been in a downward spiral since the creation of the Department of Education. The Federal Government has no constitutional role in education. It is a local issue. The best role the federal government can play on local issues is to not engage in them.

OBAMA - "This is where budgets matter because budgets create choices."

Says the guy whose party has not proposed a budget in years.

Obama then went into a "needs federal support" rant.

Then he talked about his student loan takeover by the federal government. I think the October surprise might be "student loan forgiveness".

ROMNEY - "You are entitled to your own airplane, but not your own facts."  Finally, he called out Obama's continuous lies. Romney then challenged Obama's claims regarding what Romney would do as President.

Romney explained that the right course is not for the government to pick winners and losers, taking over the health care system - the right answer is "how do we make the private sector become more efficient, and more effective, how do we get schools to be more competitive - let's grade them, I propose we grade our schools - so parents know which schools are succeeding and failing - so they can take their child to a school that is more effective. . . Massachusetts schools are ranked number one in the nation."

Massachusetts schools are doing well because the State took a great interest in them. The federal government, once again, has no constitutional authority regarding schools. It is up to the States.

MODERATOR - Many of the legislative functions of the federal government right now are in a state of paralysis, as a result of partisan gridlock.  If elected, what would you do about that?

Now, before I go to their answers, I want you to remember that heavy debate was the norm with the Founding Fathers. They wanted debate, difficult sessions, and problem solving. They did not want the Congress to be a rubber stamp for the President. So, the current gridlock in Congress is fine. Dictatorships never meet partisan gridlock. That's why Obama complains about Congress not doing as he desires. Republics debate hard, and it is purposely tough to get things done - so that things are not done willy-nilly.

That said. . .

ROMNEY - "Jim, I had the great experience, and it seemed like at the time, of being elected in a State where my legislator was 87% Democrat.  And that meant. . . I had to get along, and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done. We drove our schools to be number one in the nation.  We cut taxes nineteen times."

Remember 2008? The "across the aisle" stuff sank McCain, and if Romney is not careful, it will destroy his chances, too!

MODERATOR - "What would you do as President?"

ROMNEY - "As President I will sit down on day one, actually, the day after I get elected, I will sit down with leaders. . . as we did in my State, we met every Monday, for a couple hours, talked about the issues and the challenges. . . we have to work in a collaborative basis. Not because we are going to compromise our principles, but because there is common ground. And the challenges America faces right now - look, the reason I am in this race is that there are people that are really hurting. . . and this deficit could crush the future generations. What's happening in the Middle East, there are developments around the world that are of real concern. And if Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need to have leadership, leadership in Washington that will actually bring people together, and get the job done, and could not care less if it is a Republican or a Democrat, I've done it before, I'll do it again."

Fine, except the Democrats of today have gone so far to the Left that there is no compromising. There is no common ground. You can't reach across the aisle with these people. They need to simply be defeated.

OBAMA - "First of all I think Governor Romney's gonna have a busy first day if he's also going to repeal Obamacare which will not be very popular among Democrats (my last point gets made!)
. . . my philosophy has been that I will take ideas from anybody (is that why Obamacare was devised behind closed doors, and no Republican was invited?), Democrat or Republican, as long as they are advancing the cause of (I half expected for him to say "me" next) makin' Middle Class families stronger, and giving ladders of opportunity to the Middle Class.  That's how we cut taxes for Middle Class families, and small businesses.  That's how we cut a trillion dollars in spending that wasn't advancing that cause (cut a trillion dollars? Or reallocated it?) That's how we signed three trade deals into law that is helping us to double our exports and send more American products around the world (edges on protectionism, which can be dangerous), that's how we repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell, that's how we ended the war in Iraq, as I promised, and that's how we are going to wind down the war in Afghanistan.  That's how we went after al-Qaeda, and bin Laden. So, we've seen progress, even under a Republican controlled House of Representatives (was that his list of accomplishments? eeeeek!). But, ultimately, part of being principled, part of being a leader (is he insinuating that Romney is not a leader?), is A, being able to describe exactly what it is you intend to do, not just saying 'I'll sit down,' but you have to have a plan.  Number two, what's important is occasionally you've got to say 'no' (the monarchist in him just leaped up) to folks both in your party, and in the other party. . . and have we had fights. . . with the Republicans when they fought back against us reining in the excesses of Wall Street? Absolutely, because it was a fight that needed to be had.  When we were fighting over whether or not we were going to have Americans with more security over their health insurance, and they said no, yes, that was a fight we needed to have. Part of leadership and governing is both saying what it is you're for, but also being able to say no to some things, and I've gotta tell ya, Governor Romney, when it comes to his own party during the course of this campaign, has not displayed that willingness to say no to some of the more extreme parts of his party."

That last part was a call for Romney to moderate. He was calling conservatism extreme, as if his Alinsky Marxist philosophies aren't.

---- Closing Statements:

OBAMA: Well, Jim, I want to thank you, and I want to thank Governor Romney, because I think was a terrific debate, and I very much appreciate it. And I want to thank the University of Denver.

You know, four years ago, we were going through a major crisis. And yet my faith and confidence in the American future is undiminished. And the reason is because of its people, because of the woman I met in North Carolina who decided at 55 to go back to school because she wanted to inspire her daughter and now has a job from that new training that she's gotten; because a company in Minnesota who was willing to give up salaries and perks for their executives to make sure that they didn't lay off workers during a recession.

The auto workers that you meet in Toledo or Detroit take such pride in building the best cars in the world, not just because of a paycheck, but because it gives them that sense of pride, that they're helping to build America. And so the question now is how do we build on those strengths. And everything that I've tried to do, and everything that I'm now proposing for the next four years in terms of improving our education system or developing American energy or making sure that we're closing loopholes for companies that are shipping jobs overseas and focusing on small businesses and companies that are creating jobs here in the United States, or closing our deficit in a responsible, balanced way that allows us to invest in our future.

All those things are designed to make sure that the American people, their genius, their grit, their determination, is -- is channeled and -- and they have an opportunity to succeed. And everybody's getting a fair shot. And everybody's getting a fair share -- everybody's doing a fair share, and everybody's playing by the same rules.

You know, four years ago, I said that I'm not a perfect man and I wouldn't be a perfect president. And that's probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I've kept. But I also promised that I'd fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class. I've kept that promise and if you'll vote for me, then I promise I'll fight just as hard in a second term.

LEHRER: Governor Romney, your two-minute closing.

ROMNEY: Thank you, Jim, and Mr. President. And thank you for tuning in this evening.

This is a -- this is an important election and I'm concerned about America. I'm concerned about the direction America has been taking over the last four years.

I -- I know this is bigger than an election about the two of us as individuals. It's bigger than our respective parties. It's an election about the course of America. What kind of America do you want to have for yourself and for your children.

And there really are two very different paths that we began speaking about this evening, and over the course of this month we're going to have two more presidential debates and a vice presidential debate. We're talk about those two paths.

But they lead in very different directions. And it's not just looking to our words that you have to take in evidence of where they go. You can look at the record.

There's no question in my mind that if the president were to be reelected you'll continue to see a middle-class squeeze with incomes going down and prices going up.

I'll get incomes up again.

You'll see chronic unemployment. We've had 43 straight months with unemployment above 8 percent.

If I'm president I will create -- help create 12 million new jobs in this country with rising incomes.

If the president's reelected, Obamacare will be fully installed. In my view that's going to mean a whole different way of life for people who counted on the insurance plan they had in the past. Many will lose it. You're going to see health premiums go up by some $2,500 per family.

If I'm elected we won't have Obama. We'll put in place the kind of principles that I put in place in my own state and allow each state to craft their own programs to get people insured and we'll focus on getting the cost of health care down.

If the president were to be reelected you're going to see a $716 billion cut to Medicare. You'll have 4 million people who will lose Medicare Advantage. You'll have hospital and providers that'll no longer accept Medicare patients.

I'll restore that $716 billion to Medicare.

And finally, military. The president's reelected you'll see dramatic cuts to our military. The secretary of defense has said these would be even devastating.

I will not cut our commitment to our military. I will keep America strong and get America's middle class working again.

Thank you, Jim.

-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary

Transcript, ABC News