I would think it should be easy to debate a person like that. Demonstrate their contradictions and hypocrisy and ask, rhetorically, what their "position du jour" is and how the electorate can expect any consistency from him.
Seriously, from what's been said here for the last year or so, Romney should have plenty of weak spots for a skilled debator to exploit.
No excuses for Obama if he didn't do his homework and lost the debate.
I wager that the President was counseled NOT to be snarky, NOT to try to crack wise, NOT to do any name-calling. Not only are such tactics arguably un-presidential (an argument with which I do not necessarily agree; Truman's character was such that he could do all three with ease and to good effect), they aren't
Obama. Also, they are risky things to do in a debate.
There were certain things that Romney said that actually snookered me, and they may have snookered the President as well. One remark by Romney was, I submit, designed to mislead the voters:
MR. OBAMA: If they had a pre-existing condition, they might not be able to get coverage at all. ... [There's] no indication [in Governor Romney's proposals] that that somehow is going to help somebody who's got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance.
...
MR. ROMNEY: Well, actually it's -- it's -- it's a lengthy description. But, number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.
Whoa! Romney was doing another about-face? He was deciding to agree with the President? This seemed to be exactly the impression that Romney was trying to get across, and it was a blatantly false impression. The President said that people with pre-existing conditions wouldn't be able to buy insurance, and Romney disagreed.
But in fact, the President pegged it pretty much right. He would have been within his rights to refer to Romney as misleading, if not lying outright, but he actually was more diplomatic:
MR. OBAMA: But let's go back to what Governor Romney indicated, that under his plan, he would be able to cover people with pre-existing conditions. Well, actually Governor, that isn't what your plan does. What your plan does is to duplicate what's already the law, which says if you are out of health insurance for three months, then you can end up getting continuous coverage and an insurance company can't deny you if you've -- if it's been under 90 days. But that's already the law and that doesn't help the millions of people out there with pre-existing conditions.
The President had to leave open the door the possibility that Romney was NOT lying, that his position du jour was actually in harmony with the President's. Given the opportunity to clear the matter up, Romney said:
And with regards to health care, you had remarkable details with regards to my pre-existing condition plan. You obviously studied up on -- on my plan. In fact, I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan. And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation state by state. And I said that at that time.
In other words, Romney seemed to be deliberately trying to create the impression that the President had it wrong, and that "in fact" Romney's plan dealt with the problem that the President identified.
It didn't.
I wasn't the only one who got snookered. Romney's camp was pressed after the debate to clarify his current position, and the official answer from the Romney camp is that Romney is NOT on the side of people with pre-exisiting conditions. The President pegged it EXACTLY right.
The President was too gracious not to call Romney a lying son of a bitch.
