Gingrich: Obama’s falsehoods will further erode his standing
The former Speaker of the House, who sparred with W. Mitt Romney during throughout the GOP’s primary weighed in with Human Events about his impressions of the Oct. 16 debate between Romney and President Barack Obama.
“I think Obama won on style, Romney won on substance and Candy Crowley lost on both,” said former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, whose campaign was buoyed by his own strong performances in similar debates.
The president had two strong suits in the debate against Romney, he said.
“Obama was ready for him, plus Obama has this enthusiastic willingness to lie,” he said.
It was at the two debates during the Florida primary that Romney was able to finally master Gingrich onstage and pull over from the former speaker.
“This was comparable to his two debates in Florida, which were the two best debates of the primary season for him,” he said.
But, Romney did make missteps, he said. “He got into a pattern of asking Obama questions, which is a very dangerous debate style, because it puts your opponent in control of what he wants to answer.”
Gingrich said he was surprised Crowley so actively injected herself into the discussions and manipulated the topics address.
“It was a big mistake,” he said. “I did not expect it. I suspect she really regrets having done—and she was plain wrong—she was not only wrong in the way she intervened, she was factually wrong, and she has not had to admit it.”
Obama and Crowley had a simpatico that gave the appearance of collusion, said the former college history professor, who earned his PhD in Modern European history from new Orleans-based Tulane University.
“At the one point, when they got to the Benghazi argument, Obama says: ‘Read the transcript,’ and she looks like she really is reading the transcript—and then, Obama says: ‘Say it louder,’ if you look at that little segment, it’s kinda like Obama is the play—and she is not responding well enough for his taste.”
Another advantage for Obama was the questions Crowley selected to use, he said.
“Several of the questions were clearly on the left,” he said.
“This was the debate that I always warned against,” the former speaker said. “What you have is basically two-on-one, you have a left-wing moderator picking left-wing questions—because remember: even if she had people asking right-wing questions, why would she pick them?”
Still there was one questioner that Gingrich said came close to pressing the president.
“There was the one person who said: I voted for you last time, I am really disappointed, why would I do it again?” he said. “That fella got as close to it, that guy was so emotional in the way he said it.”
“Nothing changed in regards to the map, but Obama had a marginally better night than Romney,” he said.
“It is pretty obvious, if Romney carries Ohio, Virginia and Florida, it is clearly over,” he said.
After the first debate, Romney saw his biggest jump in New Hampshire, combined with his positive momentum in Nevada and Iowa, he presents Obama a very serious challenge when he looks at the map, he said. “But, the geography doesn’t really change over the years.”
The biggest problem for Obama is that as people look at the debate today and tomorrow, the Obama’s falsehoods will become more apparent and they will erode the goodwill people might feel for him, he said.
“The more they look at it, the clearer it will be that Obama was not being honest, and from that point it also sets the stage for a much more critical look at the third debate,” he said.