If I asked you, a week ago, what was Mitt Romney’s worst enemy, I think you’d have to say Mitt Romney.

But did Mitt take the gun away from himself?

After a strong debate performance against President Barack Obama two nights ago, Romney looked strong, answering questions about his policies with confidence—although, without specifics. Romney’s performance was “head and shoulders above his other debates,” according to CNN political specialist and former presidential advisor to Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton; David Gergen.

However, Romney’s impulsive speech has been his weakness throughout this campaign, starting in the Republican primaries with the gem “Corporations are people” to asking why airplane windows are not able to be opened. If Romney’s debate proves anything, there could be an actual race to the White House because he seemed to figure out his careless speech. Obama’s cautious approach probably indicated that he thought Romney would mess up and say something that would come back and bite him, and that thought certainly has been supported by Romney’s gaffe two weeks ago.

Romney’s comments at a charity dinner about a “47 percent [of people] who are with [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims,” were seized by all the major news networks and blasted by most every political spokesperson on television. Romney’s remarks were actually somewhat factual—46 percent of Americans do not pay income tax—however his premise was extremely off base.

The 46 percent that do not pay income tax are separated into two major groups: The first 23 percent are the families that are receiving income but the income is not large enough for them to have to pay and income tax, and the second half is compromised mostly of senior citizens and veterans. This does not even mean that these households are exempt from taxes altogether—households still have to pay local taxes and other governmental taxes.

So does Mitt Romney believe that all non-income taxpayers are victims, mooching of the government with no work effort? Consider the social security receiver tax bracket: These people are senior citizens who have worked tirelessly in jobs and have payed this money so they can receive it in the future when they are retired. These people receive no income, and yet Mitt Romney calls them moochers? Does he actually believe a 75 year old man that has worked as a teacher all his life and has finally saved up enough money to retire is calling himself a victim just so he can receive government benefits? This hypothetical man has payed his dues to himself and society so that he can retire and enjoy his older years. Apparently, Romney views him and others like him as a victim that is begging for government help to make life easier, and retirement harder to achieve.

His comments were also taken, understandably, that Romney does not even care about this ’47 percent’. Although I’m sure he does care somewhat about these people, his words do not exactly lead one to believe otherwise. Romney’s impulsive speech—”I’m not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there”—has been detrimental to his campaign to say the least; every day, it seems that the Democratic party is attacking comments or whole speeches by Romney because of their utter ridiculousness.

All I am saying here is that Mitt is too quick with his speech, and in this day and age—with the increase in influence of social networking—everybody will be able to hear and criticize any mistakes. Romney’s debate performance will probably lift his campaign and bring it in the right direction—a direction it has not been going in since he won the Republican primary—maybe closing the gap in the polls.

As much as Romney was confident and direct with his speech, lashing out at the president when necessary and avoiding the specific questions by pivoting to vague senses of patriotism and how he will help the middle class, it was Obama’s cautious—and at sometimes slurred—approach that led to his loss. Obama was very passive, missing chances to attack Romney on his gaffes, namely the 47 % comment, and usually on the defense.

Obama needed to attack Romney in a Gingrich style of debate; he needed to be sarcastically and condescendingly aggressive towards Romney’s vague policies, flip-flop record, and his comments at the charity dinner. Obama could have put Romney’s campaign on the floor; instead, he was cautious—most likely thinking that Romney would mess up and that then he would have a reason to attack—and gave Romney the momentum in the campaign.

So did Mitt turn his speech into a weapon, against his opponent?

Or did Obama just put a silencer on it?