President Obama Shines in the Second Debate

October 17, 2012

By Saeed Qureshi

There was a widespread skepticism as to how president Obama would perform in the second presidential debate that took place on October 16.  This skepticism or pessimism was an offshoot or spillover from the relatively poor or lackluster display of president Obama in the first debate that came off on October 3. 

President Obama rebounded in October 16 debate with amazing vitality.He maintained his dominance with exceptional poise and confidence throughout the debate. His rebuttal and repudiation of opponent’s frivolous argumentation were forceful and convincing. There was an incessant flow of articulation and oration that made the debate not only lively but intellectually meaningful.

From energy to immigration, education to Medicare, taxation to job creation, foreign affairs to energy, president Obama demonstrated that not only was he well-informed and truthful but that his policies have been on the right track during the past four years of his presidency. He effectively debunked Romney for his double standards on taxation, abortion and coal issue.

He remained focused on the questions and did not retaliate when pressed impetuously by Mr. Romney on certain issues. He was sober and logical in presenting his views and perceptions without any traces of bragging, conceit or arrogance.

The demeanor of Romney was as aggressive and raucous as in the first debate, yet this time he was disarmed by a rival who was phenomenally assertive as compared to his lackluster and docile performance in the first debate.

Romney tried to nail Obama by coming into direct confrontational posture with him with judgmental incrimination; the later dismissed him by asking him to continue his answers to the questions. For instance Romney’s accusation that he took two weeks to declare attack on American diplomatic mission in Ben Ghazi as terror act, Mr. Obama hammered him for not only being ill-informed but also politicizing that issue.

However Romney was caught into his own snare because he was factually wrong as even the moderator tried to remind him that the president declared that incident as a terrorist attack the next day in Rose Garden.

The first debate went in favor of Mitt Romney while the October 16 was a thumping victory by the incumbent president who is running for the second four years’ term. 

In the second debate, against a pre-determined list of 16 questions, only 11 could be asked due to paucity of time. President Obama answered five while Mitt Romney answered six question posed by the randomly selected 15 undecided voters.  Now both the candidates are poised for the third and the last debate scheduled for October 22, 2012 at the World Performing Arts Center, Lynn University, Boca Raton, Florida. It would be focused on the crucial topic of the American foreign policy.

This subject is much wider than domestic issues. It would certainly demand of the debaters to be fully conversant and abreast of the American external affairs that determine her relations with the outside world and that in fact propel America’s image as a dominant world power.

One can, in anticipation, conjecture that Mitt Romney would try to outbid president Obama on China, on the Middle East, Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran. For Romney Israel is a holy cow and his partisan inclination towards Israel vis- a- vis Palestinians is as clear as daylight. His argument would be the same about China that he proffered in the second debate.

But rationally it would be an utter folly for any American regime to knock-out China in bilateral trade or political relationship. Any president, whosoever will have to tread a very cautious path while taking steps that could push China and trigger her hostile response.

On the Middle East, the United States cannot put all her eggs in the Israel basket. It is during Obama’s presidency that Iran has been subjected to toughest sanctions debilitating her economy to a great extent. Incidentally, it is during the Obama’s presidency the Arab spring swept across the Islamic authoritarian regimes. Obama has been irreconcilably very hard on Syrian regime.

Obama has already recalled American troops from Iraq and would be doing the same in case of Afghanistan. As such he has proven himself to be a pacifist. He plans to divert the saved money on social projects and for the welfare of the people within America. If elected, Romney, in line with the Republican mindset of bellicosity might start a war against Iran which America can hardly afford after two devastating wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

It is apparent and self-evident that president Obama speaks for the middle class and downtrodden sections of the American society. Mitt Romney glaringly stands for safeguarding the interests of the affluent classes and special interest groups. In matter of taxation, Romney may exempt the rich classes and even millionaires, billionaires and robber barons from the high taxes that he wants to levy on lower classes. That might be a stumbling block in his way to get popular vote in a big way.

The immigrants mostly Latinos are hopeful of getting a legitimate stay in America because of Obama’s initiated immigration reforms. He can expect favorable votes from women, veterans and the African Americans. All these sections form the majority. It is hoped that he would replay his exuberant performance and still be vibrant and on the offensive in order to outflank and keep his opponent at bay.