Republicans have good reason to be proud of Mitt Romney tonight. Though heavily derided throughout his campaign as a weak, flip-flopping conservative likely to flounder in the storm of a debate against President Obama, the Republican nominee delivered a solid, confident and dashing performance in tonight’s debate reminiscent of the days of Ronald Reagan.

Tonight’s first debate covered domestic fiscal policy, economics and public administration. Sharp contrasts, both in delivery bearing and ideas of the right and proper role of government were clearly defined.

President Obama – once the energetic, youthful and unstoppable Democrat of 2008 – was a different candidate tonight, looking tired, hesitant, easily agitated and on the defensive against both Romney and the moderator, Jim Lehrer. Romney, however, was in a rare form, maintaining a steady smile and not easily moved by his opponent.

Predictably, Obama had to defend the actions of his administration while Romney benefited from the challenger’s advantage of being an outsider looking in. Obama continued in his tendency to use the word “investment” to describe compulsory use of taxpayer dollars while Romney took a strict line and called for cuts in spending and brought the president back to 2007 when candidate Obama promised not to raise taxes in a recession.

Obama’s redirects were at best sluggish, slow and at times his tendency to look down to refer to his podium notes for protracted periods of time gave the impression that he was on the defensive, if not unable to keep up with Romney’s tempo.

Read more from this story HERE.

By Calvin Woodward. President Barack Obama and Republican rival Mitt Romney spun one-sided stories in their first presidential debate, not necessarily bogus, but not the whole truth.

Here’s a look at some of their claims and how they stack up with the facts:

OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.”

THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those “cuts” away and Obama’s $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.

Obama’s February budget offered proposals that would cut deficits over the coming decade by $2 trillion instead of $4 trillion. Of that deficit reduction, tax increases accounted for $1.6 trillion. He promises relatively small spending cuts of $597 billion from big federal benefit programs like Medicare and Medicaid. He also proposed higher spending on infrastructure projects. Read more from this story HERE.

Deficit Math Doesn’t Added Up For Either Candidate

By Thomas Eddlem. The first presidential debate of the 2012 post-primary election season revealed that both Democratic incumbent President Obama and Republican challenger Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, would increase the national budget deficit more than advertised.

Both candidates claim to have put forward tax and spending plans that would bring the federal budget closer to balance. However, according to the independent analysis of the Congressional Budge Office, both candidates’ plans would actually increase the $1 trillion deficits the federal government is expected to run next year.

President Obama criticized Governor Romney’s tax proposal, charging that he would increase deficits through a “$5 trillion tax cut” and a $2 trillion increase in military spending. “It’s math,” Obama charged, echoing the words of former President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. “It’s arithmetic.”

But the math applied by Obama was based on Romney’s proposed cumulative tax cuts and military spending increases over the next 10 years. The 10-year figures are deliberately exaggerated figures since much of the money involved would be in the final few years of the 10-year period, when Romney wouldn’t even be eligible to serve as president even if elected to two terms. Romney countered that “I’m not looking for a $5 trillion tax cut. What I’ve said is I would not put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit.” Romney outlined five goals he’d seek if elected as president, the fourth of which is to “get us to a balanced budget.”

Despite Obama’s deceptive exaggerations, Romney’s proposals would not only fail to get the federal government to a balanced budget, it would increase the federal deficit immensely. Romney has failed to propose spending cuts that would match his substantial tax cut proposal (which includes cutting income tax rates 20 percent across the board) and proposed increases in military spending (some $200 billion in 2016 alone). Read more from this story HERE.