First let me outline Mitt's method:
He jumped on Obama for not adopting the recommendations of Simpson-Bowles.
He was asked if he (Mitt) supported Simpson-Bowles.
His answer: “I have my own plan.”
In other words the answer is "No" so he was both for and against Simpson-Bowles. Granted he kept that mysterious plan a secret too.
I am left to wonder when they will they actually notice what Mitt said.
Basically he wishes to remove and keep Obamacare but unload it (pass the same bill over) onto the states thereby forfitting protections depending on state's decisions yet costing even more in a smaller pool. This was not explained
He wishes to lower taxes on the wealthy with zero impact on the middleclass but wait I think he also said he would lower deductions on the wealthy as he lowers taxes for the wealthy??? Oh and that was not explained.
His only answer to Obama centered around his sons repeating but then he moves on to what he would not do when doing what he would do countering himself fully.
The debate seemed more like a Mitt versus Mitt with a great presentation. Ideally the media will regain some focus and start scratching their heads on exactly what did Mitt actually say while cross debating himself on every issue.
Mitt did get the last words in on everything, vacant though they were. As Obama noted Mitt's big plans are "Nevermind". When the words come into focus I think most will find what was displayed was a mass of Mitt morphing without substance.
The missing vision in just judging by Presentation is you miss the words in the debate. It is summed up in this summation from Huffington:
"Still, one issue continued to plague Romney: details. While he said he would end Obama programs, he was vague on how he would do so without eliminating a host of components he pledged to keep.
"At some point, you have to ask, is he keeping all these plans to replace [programs] secret because they're too good?" Obama said. "Families are going benefit too much from them?""
That pretty much sums it up.
As noted by me, he was also for and against Simpson-Bowle
But also for and against Dodd-Frank
and on and on...