Image 01 Image 03

Best Tweets of the Final Debate — Romney as The President, Obama as desperate challenger

Best Tweets of the Final Debate — Romney as The President, Obama as desperate challenger

This was a strange debate. It was as if Romney were the incumbent and Obama was the challenger. I felt that Romney was running out the clock from the start, trying not to make any gaffes, proving he is worldly and reasonable.

Obama was the aggressor, both in words and demeanor. To that extent, Obama scored “points” but not points that ultimately make a difference.

If Obama’s job was to disqualify Romney as a potential President, someone too reckless for the job, Obama completely failed. Which means that for Romney, tonight was Mission Accomplished.

Tonight’s debate will not change the trajectory of the election, and that is good for Romney.

Here’s how I summed it up:

Here are the tweets as the action happened:


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


I thought Mitt was great tonight. Obama looked contentious and someone desperate to make up points lost these past few weeks. Mitt was in a position of power and confidence. Great job Mitt.


    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Mary Sue. | October 23, 2012 at 12:49 am

    I didn’t think the first 1/2 was real good for Mitt, although o didn’t shine, either. Mitt seemed hesitant, nervous, a bit stuttery – like a sputtering engine trying to start. Then, suddenly, Mitt just ignited. He shifted smoothly with grace and ease through all the challenges and topics and all of o’s petulant provocations like a perfectly lubed Rolls Royce.

    It was a beautiful thing to watch then, masterful.

      spottedreptile in reply to JackRussellTerrierist. | October 23, 2012 at 4:33 am

      I’m so in awe of Romney’s brilliant campaign strategy that I wouldn’t be surprised if he was sucker punching Obama right from the start. Creep slowly off the line and wait to see if Barry puts foot through the firewall thinking he’s won already, and gases it up all ways to Sunday and runs out of puff in the final straight.

      If I were a foreign leader watching the debate, I would have assessed Romney as a politician to be respected, even wary of, and one not to be led down a side alley and away from his objective. I would tread carefully with him at all times. I would have assessed Obama as an egotistical buffoon, easily distracted, easily played and one to be run rings round at the negotiating table.

        JackRussellTerrierist in reply to spottedreptile. | October 23, 2012 at 4:40 am

        Yeah, if Putin and Ahmanutjob were watching, which surely they were, they’re probably on the phone to each other, “Yo, Vlad, the jig is up!! Now WTF do we do? We need that second term from the commie so we can take over the world. Man, this Romney dude ain’t gonna play!” Vlad: “Nyet on this new sheriff. I’m wiring $100M to Barry right now so he can pull this off. Get your G-D checkbook out, idiot!!”

I thought Mitt was wonderful. I about lost it when Obama said something to the effect he restored American prestige over the past 4 years — Mitt’s composure after statements like that was Presidential.

Obama came off as mean, snotty, and peevish. Professor – I think your analysis sums up that the trajectory of the election will be unchanged.

i think Romney did well enough to eke out a small victory.

theduchessofkitty | October 22, 2012 at 10:43 pm

Romney’s closing was quite strong.

MaggotAtBroadAndWall | October 22, 2012 at 10:46 pm

I am so sick of Obama and his stooges constantly lying about what Romney had proposed for the auto companies. Here is Romney’s Op-ed to the NYT in which he proposed then exactly what he said tonight. Do these stooges think we can’t read or don’t have internet access?

Sure, Romney “won.” But, meh. So many missed opportunities. I’m disgusted and frustrated and want to see someone nail Obama on so many fronts. And Romney just won’t or can’t. I don’t get it.

    NewtCerto in reply to raven. | October 22, 2012 at 10:58 pm

    Obama will get nailed when he loses on election day. That’s what matters.

    ALman in reply to raven. | October 22, 2012 at 11:03 pm

    I don’t get it either! Has there ever been a man who has had more weaknesses as a person and president? Has there ever been one who has made so many mistakes? Has there ever been one who has squandered so much goodwill?

    My prime reason for supporting Romney is to get rid of Obama. I’m still not convinced that a couple of years from now we still won’t be going down the same road about the size and cost of the government, etc.

      serfer1962 in reply to ALman. | October 22, 2012 at 11:29 pm

      I have encouraged a search for a conservative contender for 2016. If Mitts works out, no harm. It may encourage him to be more to the right. It may also show the excessive rinos in congress the Tea Party is serious…no prisoners

    spottedreptile in reply to raven. | October 23, 2012 at 4:37 am

    That was never going to be Mitt’s strategy. His goal was not to dish up red meat for you but to present himself as a reasonable and statesmanlike CinC, who would not go ballistic at the sight of the nuclear button and blow everyone up all ways to Sunday. Moderates and women would have been reassured. More votes for Mitt.

    He’s got your vote. He will earn it when he takes office. But now it’s about winning. He’s ahead, and he doesn’t need to take risks.

    stevewhitemd in reply to raven. | October 23, 2012 at 8:14 am

    Oh, no doubt many of us would have liked to see Mr. Romney use the president as a debate piñata, the way he used Newt and Rick.

    But then again, most of us here have already committed to crawling over broken glass to vote against Obama.

    The goal of debate #3 for Romney, I submit, was not to batter Champ to a pulp.

    It was to reassure independents, waverers and uncommitted voters that he, Romney, will be a reasonable, sage steward as President. He’ll be careful. He’ll think. He’ll be a steward rather than a light-bringer.

    In other words, that Romney will be a good man to have as President.

    That’s why he went at this debate the way he did. I think it worked, too.

Axlerod is trying desperately to spin that Romney doesn’t understand a modern navy, and that by failing to raise taxes, Romney will raise the debt by $7 Trillion.

It’s never going to fly.

My take:

Romney started poorly (he looked and sounded as though he was under the weather).

Then, about a half-hour in, he suddenly started landing haymakers: Israel, Apology Tour, etc. Bam, bam, bam!

Romney slowed down toward the end, but Obama was looking and acting like the stuck-up grade-school girl who wants to talk nonstop, and is offended when other people intrude.

Romney’s closing statement

Obama? Same-old, same-old: Boring, predictable, mendacious, and above all, un-presidential. (“Breast Cancer Awareness” rubber bracelets looks silly on a sitting President in a debate. The cameras stopped showing it, I noticed.) Agree with the Professor’s assessment, which I also reached, about halfway through: Romney seemed like the President, Obama the challenger.

We’ll see if it translates to victory in November.

P.S. Some predictions:
1. Insta-polls, Obama wins, 65-35 or similar;
2. Gallup (per Limbaugh prediction) suddenly shows Romney 49 – Obama 47, after Obama “routs” (ha-ha, per Carville) Romney.

    CalMark in reply to CalMark. | October 22, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    Wow. Long-winded. Sorry.

    CalMark in reply to CalMark. | October 23, 2012 at 12:50 am

    CNN allegedly “scientific” and “more R than D” (sez Wolf) flash poll had Obama winning 48-40.

    First, ignore Wolfie. He routinely spins for the regime.

    Second, I predicted a smashing flash-poll victory for Obama to open the “Obama comeback trail” theme, 65-35, see above. I was wrong.

    Romney did better than we thought.

[…] as a country that “dictates”. [We'll provided videos as soon as they are available. Tweets of the debate can be read at the Professor's place. Reaction of others are available at the HotAir open thread: The third […]

Solidad O’Brien (who should have an Obama bumper sticker tattooed to her forehead) just asked her “undecided” audience if they had made a decision as to whom to vote for, and of the 25 individuals, about 18 of them raised their hands that they had made a decision.

Yeah, CNN didn’t start with “Undecided” voters. They started with Obama dark-horse supporters lying to be thought of as “undecided.”

    On the up-side: as though anybody watches CNN anymore.

    I saw on some other news show saying Obama won independents 2:1 as well.

    I guess if you watched the debate and not the news for the past 4 years you could come to that conclusion.

    Since it was MSM, I’m skeptical of how “independent” those independents were. This wasn’t the Soledad show… I’m surprised she didn’t just say it was 9:1,

This was a really boring debate. The only interesting part when Obama demonstrated what a moron he is by comparing Navy warships with horses. Obviously horses haven’t changed much in the last hundred years, but Navy Ships are leaps and bounds more deadly. Even so, we still need to have a lot of them to cover the whole world.

    TrooperJohnSmith in reply to imfine. | October 22, 2012 at 11:11 pm

    Horses and bayonets? At least Obama didn’t say anything about a corpse-man. Oh, speaking of Navy Corpsmen, they take care of Marines who, quite coincidentally, still use bayonets! (I doubt the Army still does, because someone’s beret might fall off during a bayonet thrust.)

    Sanddog in reply to imfine. | October 22, 2012 at 11:23 pm

    Obama doesn’t understand the concept of force projection relative to the size of Earth’s oceans. When it comes to the military, he’s a grade A moron.

    Does Obama really believe that planes can really land on ships and that ships can really operate underwater? And what did he call them? Aircraft carriers and submarines? Does Obama think that we are really that stupid?

TrooperJohnSmith | October 22, 2012 at 11:07 pm

Best Tweet from Ann Coulter: Let’s destroy Iran by giving them ObamaCare.

Everyone was trying to urge Obama into a rope-a-dope strategy, last debate. I think Romney used that technique quite effectively, tonight.

On more than one occasion, it seemed to me that Obama was close to rhetorically losing it in responding to something that Mr. Romney had said and, subsequently, Obama was reduced to directing some very hard glares in Romney’s direction.

I kept waiting for Romney to say something along the lines of “What’s up with that stink eye, Barack?”

Jack The Ripper | October 22, 2012 at 11:13 pm

Romney had to avoid any major mis-step or gaffe. He clearly succeeded.

Obama had to seize momentum of the campaign back from Romney. It is hard to say that Obama clearly succeeded.

Jack The Ripper | October 22, 2012 at 11:14 pm

Lunadad O’Brien.

theduchessofkitty | October 22, 2012 at 11:16 pm

The thing about foreign policy debates like this is that the challenger will always be at a disadvantage, precisely because he hasn’t been very exposed to foreign policy briefings and other things of that nature.

When it comes to Governors, they only had to deal with inter-state matters. Very few have had to deal with international matters. Texas is a good example in which a Governor has had to deal with Mexico in some of those matters, because the state and the country share a border. Massachusetts has no border with a foreign country… that is, if you don’t count Logan airport…

So, in that case, Romney would have a disadvantage. The One obviously crammed like a desperate final-exam taker.

Obama was shrill, bombastic, his typical over compensating rude and condescending self. My internal voice stress analyzer was off the charts when he spoke.

Romney threw a couple good lines but was more modulated and restrained. He only needed to remain reasonable and steady in appearance to counteract the crude One.

    theduchessofkitty in reply to DuraMater. | October 22, 2012 at 11:21 pm

    Can that be called Romney’s “poker face”? Highly competent businessmen can play the psychology of the moment quite well. I think that was what he was doing.

      Exactly my thought, too, kitty.
      Geese, I do not comprehend how cnn and cbs could come up with poll results showing Obama won debae ~2:1…..well being cnn and cbs, I guess I really can. But how vexing to know there are people like that allowed into a poll booth in Nov.

      Romney learned how to put on and keep a poker face by having years of experience negotiating with jackasses like … err … um … Obama.

Jack The Ripper | October 22, 2012 at 11:25 pm

I thought I heard Obama assert that our relationship with Israel is better now than before he became president.


So is this on Drudge:

REPORT: Scores of known radical Islamists made hundreds of visits to White House…

    Incredible. How is this different than if Communist front groups had met with Truman or Kennedy?

    But it’s not incredible, really. It’s exactly what I’d expect. The true scandal and tragedy is that our two candidates can’t even mention stuff like this either in or out of debates. They’re terrified to touch it. Media might call them Islamophobes. Maybe Rep. Peter King can say something. That’s about the sum of our Republican courage on this issue.

      Jack The Ripper in reply to raven. | October 23, 2012 at 12:45 am


      The first sentence of your post raises one of the most interesting comparisons I have ever encountered, and kudos to you for bringing it up.

      I have been fascinated for about 10 years or so, after I finally got around to watching Oliver Stone’s Nixon, about how history and America’s politics and policies would have been different had Nixon won in 1960. [Might Nixon have “managed” Vietnam “better?” even if it meant a “hard” “realist” tradeoff – such as we do or not do X with respect to country/region Y, and you (China/Russia) do or not do XX with respect to country/region YY? Might Civil Rights have unfolded, but in a way that was more palatable to those who resisted Civil Right, and hence less bloody?]

      How are Islamic radicals visiting the White House so many times during the Obama Administration different than Communist fronts visiting the White House during the Kennedy Administration?

      Fascinating Question.

      Direct Answer: None. No difference.

      Peel Back the Layer of the Onion Answer: Maybe, just maybe, Bobby Kennedy’s “war” on mob/mafia/organized crime connections to organized labor was a way of distancing the Kennedy administration from charges of socialist/communist tolerance, while mitigating backlash from Democrat/liberal constituents and labor unions/organized labor, and maybe scoring some points with a discrete slice of conservative voters who were very attuned to the issue of unionization.

      Verdict: Your analogy holds and is very apt.

      Deeper Notion: Maybe Jack and Bobby did a brilliant job of attacking the mafia aspects of organized labor (and its pensions) while posing as being anti-mob, not anti-labor, and being a benefactor of both honest labor pensioners and business persons. And, by way of contrast, what is/was the “genius” of so many radical visitors to the Obama White House of the Muslim variety?

      celestechristi in reply to raven. | October 23, 2012 at 3:52 am

      You hit the nail on the head. This has been coming down the pike for decades. Obama is the fruit (no pun) of the communist cause. See “Dreams From My Real Father” (available live stream at NetFlix). You’ll be shocked at how right on the money you are.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to theduchessofkitty. | October 23, 2012 at 1:07 am

    …….which means he won the debate, because when you get right down to it, that’s the real test of this particular debate.

    Mitt Romney really shone tonight. Strong, earnest, informed, assertive without anger – soaring with the eagles.

Romney body slammed Obama. Romney was smooth on facts, Obama was trying to weasel out of things.

“We don’t dictate to nations, we liberate them from dictators”

On the auto thing, it was again like child Obama throwing an attack line his coach wrote for him, but he doesn’t understand more than the line itself. Romney spoke like an auto CEO.

I can’t see why some say this was a draw … Obama was petty and whiny, glaring and rambling. Romney struck me as more fluid and comprehensive on details of foreign policy, speaking of vision and strategy. He didn’t need to make himself different on everything, he was better.

No one would doubt Romney is ready, he is not a war monger, he will actually support Israel, not turn the Middle East over to a caliphate of Muslim Brotherhood radicals.

This advances the momentum … a big win.

What was the point of “horses and bayonets?” Is POTUS advocating a smaller Navy? Is he saying that DOD wants a smaller Navy? That’s not what Panetta is saying. The President’s fans seem to think that was a successful zinger, but it really reveals the President’s ignorance of how his Navy works ( or his lack of commitment to making it work).

[…] UPDATE II: William Jacobson’s best Tweets of the debate. […]

We have two weeks left; fix bayonets!!!

Mitt WON…The Boy King LOST…Buuu-Byeeeeeee, Bammy!!

It wasn’t a fun debate. I was considering going to a private thing in Palm Beach that Allen West was at or else a Broward Republican event and watch the debate in party style, but I couldn’t decide, so chose neither.

I watched the pre-debate goings on at Lynn U. via CSpan. At a point, they were taking call-in questions. Some of the callers exhibited such incredible ignorance and stupidity it was dismaying. One caller “wanted to ask the President” if after his second term he could issue an executive order to allow him to serve a third term in order to really make sure that this country were really changed. Crap like that.

So I ended up watching the debate in the state of mind of “how is this going to appear to an ignoramus”. References to things such as Putin and “flexibility” and other more subtle points would be completely missed, and BO’s numerous repetitive distortions of What Romney Previously Said were annoying.

Romney looked tense to me and except in a few places (economy noted), he seemed wooden. Missed opportunities. Obama came off like a smart-ass and rambled again making it impossible for Romney to respond in the time allotted (when he was allowed).

I started to feel sleepy…

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to janitor. | October 23, 2012 at 1:28 am

    ‘Rats nearly always trend toward the vacuous and pugnacious when trying to persuade the only groups stupid enough to be impressed by “style”. They use the vernacular and incomprehensible “zingers” rooted in fantasy and spin because they know that’s the sum total of what such an audience needs to be impressed. obastard’s “style” is an appeal to the intellectual retards that our commie-infiltrated public education system has moved heaven and earth for forty years to produce. I, unlike o, Mitt and Scheiffer, DO NOT love teachers and I think 90% of them should be fired and sent to a damned gulag to make shoe leather and peel potatoes for the rest of their worthless lives. They want, like and believe in communism, fascism and revionist history? Let ’em go live it.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:32 am

Just because someone is a slicker salesman does not mean they sell a better product.Obama usually wins the “American Idol” type contests because he’s simply less stiff and more fluid than Romney, but on substance, most of these debates have helped Romney.

My honest opinion was that Romney won this debate going away and Obama made some killer gaffes that will cost him key states (like comparing Navy ships to bayonets)

Had Romney come into this debate thumping his chest on foreign policy, I think it would have turned “undecided voters” off.

Truth be told outside of political junkies I doubt anyone even watched this debate.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | October 23, 2012 at 1:41 am

    In each debate, o has shown fear of Romney. o is a real big talking BS’er when he has the floor in front of a bunch of people who have vastly less power than he does, as do all bullies. But when he has to confront someone of his own status who operates on a somewhat equal political footing and has the skill set and knowledge base to tie his ass up in knots, it scares the pee-pee out of him.

    o blusters and preens when he’s on the ‘pop’ TV shows and yukking it up with the “in crowd” celebrities because he’s golden….er… But when he actually has to have his sh!t together, he folds like a cheap suit tailored by his Uncle Omar the tentmaker.

    The Bible says that we must beat our warships into bayonets or something like that.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:45 am

Seriously, I don’t think Obama cares if he loses the Presidency, I never thought President was at the top of his list. And he has been, if nothing else, always climbing up his list; it’s all he cares about. In his eyes, being UN Secretary General will be equivalent to President of the World. I think Obama will see him reemerge as Secretary General of the UN.

    Jack The Ripper in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | October 23, 2012 at 1:39 am

    Dear Raquel Pinkbullet,

    You and I are on the same page.

    Something about the last four to six weeks makes me wonder whether, despite all of the pressures, President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama, would not actually WELCOME moving on with their lives.

    Everyone thinks that being a celebrity entertainer, celebrity athlete, or high-powered businessperson or politician is heavenly.

    When you look past the name and the title/fame, being in the spotlight (both personally and professionally) must be wearying. Does the CEO of this company, that company, or some other company ever really get a week of peace, let alone an hour or two of not having things weighing on them?

    Probably not.

    It seems, in life, that there are two types of jobs. Those that are like X and those that are not like X.

    Ha, ha. Just joking.

    The two types of jobs are: those that follow you home and those that can be left at work.

    So, for example, consider the Emergency Room doctor. Yes, some things follow him or her home, but, their life is pretty much 1 (On) or 0 (Off), compared to so many others in the medical profession.

    And, ditto many “laborers.” Lets say you work at a factory with “Taylorite management.” Your time at work may suck, but, unless you are so worn out, your time away from work involves much fewer impositions than if you are your own boss of a business that “you did not build.”

    Being the President of the United States of America must be very demanding for both you and your family. So many public moments. So few private moments. Having the world’s media constantly ready to scrutinize every utterance. Donors. Supporters. Legislators. Interest groups. Political allies. Political opponents. Daily briefings on this, that or the other thing.

    Barack Obama is now a member of a club that is more exclusive than just about any other club, except for persons who have walked on or orbited the Earth’s Moon.

    For some reason, I have had a sense for the last month or two that maybe, just maybe, the Obama Family has not, from time to time, wondered whether moving on with the rest of their lives might not be such and awful outcome. The hunger and ambition seem to be lacking. Let down your allies and supporters? Well, if you were never that overly invested in them and the whole “establisment,” why not move on to quieter, and maybe greener, pastures.

    Lord knows that they will not be hurting for retirement funds, pensions, support, protection, and, the ability to pick and choose what to pursue and what to avoid, in retirement.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Raquel Pinkbullet. | October 23, 2012 at 1:48 am

    o cannot become UN secretary general because he is a citizen of a country that is one of the five members of the UN Security Council.

    Now, if he were to announce he’s really not a U.S. citizen, that could get interesting. 🙂

I saw a man who knows he’s winning, and a man who knows he’s losing.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:58 am

First debate: Big Bird
Second debate: Binders
Third debate: Bayonettes.

    I’d add “ships that go underwater” to the list.

    I’d generally give a pass to someone unfamiliar with US Military history but since he’s the CIC…. perhaps he needs to be educated about the Turtle, the first submarine used in combat (during the Revolutionary war) and the CSS Hunley, which sucessfully sank the USS Housatonic in 1864.

    It’s tough to be a condescending b@stard when you don’t even know what you’re talking about.

Raquel Pinkbullet | October 23, 2012 at 12:59 am

Photo of a modern American Soldier with a bayonet. Weird, I thought Obama said we didn’t use these?

Actual quote: OBAMA: “First of all, Israel is a true friend. It is our greatest ally in the region. And if Israel is attacked, America will stand with Israel. I’ve made that clear throughout my presidency. And…”

Wished quote: ROMNEY: “We will stand by Israel before they are attacked”.

[…] polls gave Obama the victory.  Conservatives wishing for a knockout punch* (and Chris Matthews) were disappointed that Romney wasn’t more aggressive. But, then he wasn’t trying to […]

“I think Obama will see him reemerge as Secretary General of the UN.” Perfect place for him. He gets to pander to the Islamic World, with no power. Strictly a “Cocktail Party and Speech position”.

Obama made himself out to be the reason we have gridlock in DC. He demonstrated clearly he is contrary for the sake of being contrary.
The death stare he gave Romney will be perceived as some teenager waiting for lame “pouncing points” to explain poor record/performance.
Romney was the adult in the room…Obama the sullen and defensive teenager. Obama aint going to win.

Dr Charles

I continue to worry.

After each of three debates there are sixty or seventy posts containing accurate observations about Obama and his administration’s total and complete failure in every area—fiscal policy, economy, defense, foreign policy, immigration, education, law enforcement—the list is endless, plus boundless corruption and cronyism, to which can be added, laziness, indifference, and just plain ignorance.

The question remains: do voters among the 43 million who receive food stamps care; or millions of government workers–federal and state–with cushy jobs and fat pensions; or welfare recipients; or union members, government and otherwise; or recipients of free cell phones; or AARP seniors; or any of dozens of other racial, ethnic, life-style, business, vocational, or gender-specific special interest groups carefully constructed and nurtured by the Obama machine care? Will these voters risk their “entitlements” for the sake of the lofty, distant intangibles we note? Will the few in these groups, who may be convinced, plus those who know better to begin with, plus the vote of some who may not have voted otherwise, be enough to offset the votes of this crowd plus untold numbers of votes obtained through questionable means, vote suppression, and outright voter fraud?

Romney must continue to go for the jugular; to pursue a humiliating, crushing, thorough victory.

I still worry.

    JackRussellTerrierist in reply to Owego. | October 23, 2012 at 3:22 pm

    I still worry, too.

    The one thing we have going is that most entitlements are subsistence level aware amounts, so the parasites may not be all that enthralled with o anyway. I’m reminded of the buffoon in that black neighborhood where the fireworks or whatever were going off when o won. She said o was going to pay her rent and fill her gas tank. She’s probably living in her car by now, parked under a bridge on empty.

[…] the third presidential, which I thought Republican challenger Mitt Romney won by being……presidential. While some conservative pundits complained that Romney’s approach seemed too mild and […]