Tomorrow night's presidential debate

[Teo Torriatte]

Does it even really matter that much to anyone? For me, there isn't anything that Romney could say in the span of a few hours that could possibly get me to change my mind and vote for him. And I certainly don't think that landing a few "zingers" is going to do him a bit of good, either.

Similarly, I imagine that there are people already set to vote for Romney and that nothing Obama could say will sway them, either. Especially the people who don't even think he should legally be president. (As kooky and fringy as those people are anyway)

Is there really such thing as an undecided voter 30 days out, in this day and age?

[Oniya]

I know that Mr. Oniya was hesitant until quite recently.  See, although he dislikes many of Romney's policies, he's also concerned about the fact that Obama hasn't been able to get anything done.  I'm not sure, but it may have been me pointing out that we've also got a good chunk of Congress getting decided on that settled him in camp.

[elone]

I think that there may be quite a few people on the fence, at least enough to sway the outcome. If either candidate does very poorly it may make a difference. Romney, who I despise, stands to have an opportunity to sway over some of those more than Obama and he really has nothing to lose in the debate since he is behind in the polls. Personally, I think he will come across as a stiff, someone without any clear direction, and a candidate whose ideas change with the wind.

The debates are often more about appearance than substance depending on the moderator's control of the situation. It is up to each of them to show how presidential they may be. We already know about Obama, the question is whether or not Romney can come across as genuine, particularly after his 47% remarks.

[Beguile's Mistress]

Romney's answers to the questions everyone has been asking are going to be telling provided those questions are on the agenda.  Past debates have swung voters and this one just might as well.

[mia h]

This is where Romney's gaffes over the last couple of weeks actually help him. Right now everyone is expecting Mitt to make a total fool of himself; trip over on the way to the podium, forget his own name, set his own hair on fire take your pick. But if he comes out and delivers a decent performance then Mitt will get a bump in the polls for not being as bad as everyone thought he was.

Of course Mitt does get a bump in the polls it's going to be funny watching Fox contorting themselves from "polls that put Obama ahead are wrong because they don't feel right and they aren't scientific" to "Romney gaining in the polls that are now totally accurate, scientific and feel right"

[elone]

Not totally sure of this but didn't Fox's own poll put Obama ahead?

[Oniya]

Don't know if it's owned by FOX, but the Rand poll is a conservative one that puts Obama in the lead.

[mia h]

Not totally sure of this but didn't Fox's own poll put Obama ahead?

Yes, they put Obama up by 10 points in Ohio last week. But then they started coming out with all kinds of bs about how polls aren't scientific so they should be ignored and that the numbers didn't "feel right" and so must wrong and 100 variations all of which were the political equivalent of sticking thier fingers in thier ears and going "lalalalalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala"

[gaggedLouise]

I don't expect it to have much substance, and the after-the-match talk and spin in the media ('real' news media and social media) will probably be more important than the actual debate. But I'll try to catch it, live or afterwards.

[Stattick]

I plan on watching the debates. I'm interested in politics. I want to see how things come out, who does well and who doesn't. I want to be able to talk about any lies either side says, look at their strategies, and analyze the performances. There's virtually no chance that the debate can change my mind though, and that's not why I'm interested in watching. I suppose that some truly horrific scandal involving President Obama came out, that I might change to vote against him, but it would have to particularly egregious, since I honestly believe that putting the Republicans in charge of the country right now will lead to a second great depression, and likely a build up toward WWIII (that might or might not happen, and if it happens might or might not utilize WMDs).

In all likelihood, the lulz from watching Romney waffling more often than a waffle-house waffle-iron will be more than reward for watching the debates.

[gaggedLouise]

"There are those who are standing up for the people and there's those who have taken up position for the big finance - now can somebody please tell me who is standing on my jacket?"

-Carl Bildt, current secretary of state of Sweden and former PM, as a young student during the 1968 occupation of the student union building at the university of Stockholm. Eventually the prime minister came over to see them, entering with the pick-up line "I heard the revolution has started, guys?"  :D

[Serephino]

I don't expect Romney to trip over anything, I expect him to run at the mouth, just like always.  He tends to get into long-winded answers and then stops thinking about what's coming out of his mouth so that's where his foot ends up.

[Valerian]

I hear Romney's been practicing for months for this.

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/advisers-say-romney-will-show-empathy-in-debate

Romney’s advisers have a simple strategy: They want their candidate to balance his finely tuned arguments with personal warmth. Since Romney is a reserved man, his advisers acknowledge that it will be difficult for him to endear himself to the country, especially under the hot studio lights. But they consider it critical. “This is really about introducing him to the country,” a Romney adviser says. “It’s the largest audience he has ever had. Everybody’s watching.”

During prep sessions in Vermont this past month, Romney has worked tirelessly on the stylistic aspect of his presentation, and Romney’s advisers predict that the former Massachusetts governor will come across as both presidential and empathetic. Rather than fire off brusque retorts, as he often did during primary debates, Romney will take care “to speak in paragraphs about the economy,” a second aide says.

I must have missed these 'finely-tuned arguments' of which they speak.   ::)  It also seems odd to talk about 'introducing him to the country' at this late stage.  Shouldn't they have done that already?

[Oniya]

He needs to balance his arguments with personal warmth?  He's gonna need help in the 'personal warmth' department.


Now, where's that surplus flame thrower? 

[MasterMischief]

I can not think of anything that Romney could say that would change my vote.  It is not that I will not vote for him because "I luv teh Obama!", but because Romney flip-flops worse than Kerry.  Even if he said everything I ever wanted to hear from a president, it would all be empty words.  Obama may not have done everything he said he would (largely thanks to a Congress that is pissed we have a black man in the Oval Office), but at least he has tried.

I am terrified of more failed Republican policies finishing off what the Bush years started.

[Oniya]

My sister dislikes Romney, but really likes Paul Ryan.  I'll be honest, I think it's his eyes, because I can't see anything appealing about Ryan's policies.  I'm trying to point out to her that we vote in the President we want, rather than hoping for the curse of Tecumsah to kick in.  (Not that it's the right year for that either.)

[MasterMischief]

What did she think of Palin?  If she disliked her with a passion, point out she is voting like all those ignorant guys that just voted for her because they thought she was pretty.  That might bring it home.

[Teo Torriatte]

I agree. While you need to keep in mind the veep, insofar as they are always "a heartbeat away from the presidency", it's the top of the ticket that really matters.

For instance, the thought of Palin being veep was truly terrifying... McCain is OLD, and there was a slight chance something could happen to him. A .000001% chance of Palin becoming president was enough to doom McCain's candidacy.

Romney is much younger, and although I disagree with everything both him and Ryan spout off about, I wouldn't be so terrified of a possible president Ryan that I would change my vote, were I so inclined.

MM has the right of it, though. Even if Romney tells us what we have been desperately wanting to hear a presidential candidate say, everyone would know that he was just saying it for that reason. He's a modern day Zelig.  :P

(*giggles* ninja'D by MM in bringing up Palin)

[MasterMischief]

I admit it.  I think Palin is attractive.  Attractive != good leader

Captain Kirk was an outlier!

[Oniya]

Well, I don't know for certain that she's fixated on Ryan's looks - it's just that it's the only thing I can see about him that's appealing.  It's entirely possible that she's bought into his 'wonderful proposed budget' (despite my best efforts of sending her references to the contrary.)

[gaggedLouise]

He needs to balance his arguments with personal warmth?  He's gonna need help in the 'personal warmth' department.


Now, where's that surplus flame thrower?

Fire all of your guns, Tecumseh
Explode into space
Like a Jew, nature's child
We were born, born to be wild...

Oops - misheard that song and it might not be what R. wants either...

[Oniya]

Erm...

That's an interesting mondegreen.

But actually, the bathroom's on the left.

For those who don't know, the curse of Tecumsah - which may or may not have anything to do with the man himself - states that any President elected in a year ending in '0' will die in office, although not necessarily in his first term and not necessarily by foul play.  It 'held true' from Harrison in 1840 through Kennedy in 1960.  Reagan survived both being injured in an assassination attempt and natural disease during his term in office, and GWB was unhurt in a grenade attack in 2005 (in fact, there were no injuries period - the grenade didn't go off.)

[Stattick]

Erm...

That's an interesting mondegreen.

But actually, the bathroom's on the left.

For those who don't know, the curse of Tecumsah - which may or may not have anything to do with the man himself - states that any President elected in a year ending in '0' will die in office, although not necessarily in his first term and not necessarily by foul play.  It 'held true' from Harrison in 1840 through Kennedy in 1960.  Reagan survived both being injured in an assassination attempt and natural disease during his term in office, and GWB was unhurt in a grenade attack in 2005 (in fact, there were no injuries period - the grenade didn't go off.)

Maybe the curse only effects the mind? Reagan developed Alzheimer's as president. Bush the Lesser on the other hand had already done significant neural damage to his brain from alcohol and cocaine abuse before he got into office (as evidenced by watching early clips of the man when he was reasonably articulate and a decent speaker as compared to how he spoke while in the White House), so I think that inoculated him from the curse.

[Stattick]

I believe this is the link to watch the debate live on YouTube.

9 PM Eastern Time Zone in the US.

http://www.youtube.com/politics?feature=inp-bp-ype-53

[OldSchoolGamer]

I know criticism of the two-party system is frowned upon in these parts...but intellectual honesty compels me to point out that there are more than two candidates running for POTUS.  Why are we not allowed to hear from the others?

[Teo Torriatte]

You can criticize the two party system all you want. In fact, intellectually speaking, such criticism is fairly well deserved.

HOWEVER, as much as some of us may not like it, the reality is that one of two men are going to be the next POTUS. People can work to change that for the future, but it's not going to happen in the next month.

[Stattick]

The US has a two party system. It's designed to be like that in the Constitution. Until we make massive amendments the Constitution, or draft a new Constitution, we're stuck with this two party system. I'll be the first to say that our two party system doesn't work very well, and that we should change it. But until we do, we'll always just have two major political parties (perhaps a third party will emerge for a brief period of time, but we're almost always back down to two dominant parties again by the next presidential election). So, go ahead and throw away your vote if you want. Go ahead and waste your time watching a third party candidate if you wish. But know that in almost all elections, that there isn't a viable third party candidate. This election is no different. On the other hand, if you actually want to see a real change in our form of government, then do what you can to try to raise awareness of the situation and try to get an amendment drafted and passed to change the US Constitution, and let's get ourselves a parliamentary government instead of the broken two party government that we have.

[Will]

Is it just me, or is Romney crushing it?  That grin is still ridiculous, though.

[gaggedLouise]

Is it just me, or is Romney crushing it?  That grin is still ridiculous, though.

If he wanted to look and sound charismatic, or angry - wanted to really change the game, then he's missing the opportunity for sure.

[Revelation]

As a man voting for Obama, Romney definitely came out swinging and fighting and it showed - I feel he has definitely won this debate. Obama was too passive and I felt never truly challenged Romney.

I also think we need a stricter moderator for these debates. The current one might as well not even have been there.

[Will]

As a man voting for Obama, Romney definitely came out swinging and fighting and it showed - I feel he has definitely won this debate. Obama was too passive and I felt never truly challenged Romney.

I also think we need a stricter moderator for these debates. The current one might as well not even have been there.

Yeah, he was kind of a joke.  But Obama never really looked comfortable or found his voice.

[pyrostinger]

I'll tell you something that everybody can agree on: both guys were full of words.

[Revelation]

Obama spoke like he was on weed and was talking to the moderator. Romney spoke like he was on meth, and spoke more to and against the president.

[Teo Torriatte]

I've been watching MSNBC's coverage, and even they are admitting that Romney won the debate.

I am actually afraid to go over to Fox and see how they must be gloating.

Obama has two more debates and needs to do a whole lot better, or this could be a much closer race than we might have thought it would be.

[Callie Del Noire]

What I came out of this with was this.. Romney STILL won't put out anything concrete. It's all.. 'we'll work this out..' or 'I'll work this through with congress...'.

Watch as he waffles and dances and never concretely makes a statement.

[Teo Torriatte]

I agree. But Obama needs to not let him get away with it. He needs to be more aggressive, instead of trying too hard to remain presidential and likeable... and dare I say, professorial. He needs to treat these next two debates as if his job depends on them. Because, well, it does.

[gaggedLouise]

What I came out of this with was this.. Romney STILL won't put out anything concrete. It's all.. 'we'll work this out..' or 'I'll work this through with congress...'.

Watch as he waffles and dances and never concretely makes a statement.

Agree with you, and with Luna, but I think the debate format may have been a tad too restrictive, or making it too easy to play the evasive talk game. If debate time is too chopped up in small bits  it's hard to really force the other one to come clear about something without yourself having to appear very rough and, um, confrontational. And Obama probably didn't want to let Romney play the cool underdog. Then again, the moderator gave Romney some advantage.

[Teo Torriatte]

There was a moderator?

[Will]

There's really no excuse to be made for it - Obama was unprepared, anxious, and got trampled underfoot by a more aggressive Romney.  It wouldn't have mattered who the moderator was, or how long the candidates had to speak.  It's disappointing.  When did Obama suddenly fail at public speaking?  I thought that was his thing.

[Mr Self Destruct]

http://www.reagancoalition.com/articles/2012/20121003008-cnn-post-debate.html

Romney clearly won out over Obama, and really, is anyone surprised?  It's clear that the President can't even back up his own policies when pressed to, and without his teleprompter, he's nothing but an empty suit...or chair, in this case.

Mitt Romney is going to be our next President, and we can all finally get down to the work of fixing this economy and the damage that Obama has done.

[Stattick]

And Romney still won't to any details about any of his vague plans. He's all, "Vote for me, I have a plan to make jobs through... um... trust me. Vote for me, I have a plan to reduce the national debt through... um... trust me."

You can't pin him down on any damn thing. Well, can't pin him down on any of his plans at least. He told plenty of lies, and I hope they crucify him on the news for it.

[Teo Torriatte]

And Romney still won't to any details about any of his vague plans. He's all, "Vote for me, I have a plan to make jobs through... um... trust me. Vote for me, I have a plan to reduce the national debt through... um... trust me."

You can't pin him down on any damn thing. Well, can't pin him down on any of his plans at least. He told plenty of lies, and I hope they crucify him on the news for it.

They will. Well, the channels that don't start with F and end with X, anyway.

But... the problem is that Obama didn't take him to task when everyone was watching, in the debate. Far fewer people keep up with things outside of big events like the debates, so many people will not hear just how much of a snake Romney was being in the debate.

[Mr Self Destruct]

The clear leftist bias in this thread nevertheless astounds me. 

[Stattick]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/top-romney-adviser-states-will-have-to-cover-people-with-pre-existing-conditions-under-president-rom.php?ref=fpa

After the first presidential debate at the University of Denver in Colorado on Wednesday night, one of Mitt Romney’s top advisers acknowledged that, as a result Romney’s plan to repeal Obamacare, people with pre-existing medical conditions would likely be unable to purchase insurance.

The admission directly contradicts the GOP candidate’s claim during the debate that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan” — a contention Romney has repeated on the trail and that his campaign has repeatedly walked back.

So, less than 4 hours after the debate, Romney's campaign is already waffling on stuff he said on the debate! Ha! Hahahahahahahahaaahhahahaaa!!!!!!!! What a buffoon! What a clown!

See, in hindsight, Obama's debate strategy is genius. Just sit back, be calm, cool, and collected. Be presidential. Let the manic little man run his mouth off, tell his lies, and run all over the moderator. It won't make any difference. Romney can't stop being Romney, and he'll just start waffling faster than a Wafflehouse waffle-iron a few hours after the debate is over, and then everyone can see how much of a clown Romney is.

[Mr Self Destruct]

Are you choosing to ignore the results of the CNN poll that I posted the link to?  The one that clearly shows Romney trouncing the President in every single aspect of the debate?  I wonder how the liberal media will spin this into their favor, and how many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there will try to deny Romney the clear victory he had tonight.

[Stattick]

Are you choosing to ignore the results of the CNN poll that I posted the link to?  The one that clearly shows Romney trouncing the President in every single aspect of the debate?  I wonder how the liberal media will spin this into their favor, and how many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there will try to deny Romney the clear victory he had tonight.

You're kidding, right? A magnificent debate performance might give a candidate a bounce of 1 point in the polls, and those bounces usually don't last. If Romney managed to turn things around now, at what, 32 days from the election, it would be unprecedented, and something that would rewrite the book on how to run a campaign. But hey, keep sipping that GOP kool-aid. I hear they make that stuff from Glenn Beck's tears, the sweat of the disenfranchised, and that they flavor it with bootstraps.

[Mr Self Destruct]

Because the indoctrinated Obama worshipers like yourself refuse to admit this country is being destroyed. You accept the trampling of our Constitution like its not the crime that it is. But hey, keep up the name calling and finger pointing. November will prove me right.

[Teo Torriatte]

Let's try to keep this out of the personal realm?

I make no secret that I don't like Romney, but I like everyone here, no matter who they are going to vote for. (Unless Romney is on here, then no I don't like you, lol)

[Cyrano Johnson]

Romney can't stop being Romney, and he'll just start waffling faster than a Wafflehouse waffle-iron a few hours after the debate is over

The real take-away from the debate for me. I think Romney actually did successfully wrong-foot Obama, but he had to do lots and lots of dissembling to manage it. In consequence it's a Pyrrhic victory that leaves him wide open for a month of being hammered by the same kind of "flip-flopper" narrative that did Kerry in in 2004. No matter how much style you bring to the endeavour, when you find yourself running away from your own tax plan a month before the election, the "Would the real Mitt Romney please stand up?" ads practically write themselves. Especially when you consider that during that month, Romney's going to have to go in front of hardcore Tea Party audiences and convince them that he still believes many of the things he claimed tonight not to believe.

[Stattick]

Because the indoctrinated Obama worshipers like yourself refuse to admit this country is being destroyed. You accept the trampling of our Constitution like its not the crime that it is. But hey, keep up the name calling and finger pointing. November will prove me right.

I like Obama. But I don't worship him. I don't think he's the reincarnation of Buddha or anything like that. I also have some rather profound disagreements with some of his policies. But the policies that I disagree with him on are all things that I think the GOP would make worse at the moment (police state powers, indefinite detention of prisoners without trial, Patriot Act, etc). With the exception of the aforementioned issues, I'm pretty much in agreeance with most of Obama's policies, at least those I have any basis to judge. (I'll admit that what he does with The Fed Bank, The Prime Rate, banking regulations, and a lot of the economic stuff is just way above my head, so I don't consider myself to really have an informed opinion on most of that, other than knowing that trickle down economics don't work.) At the same time, I think that on the issues that I do agree with our president, that the Republicans would make things far worse. So, I presently don't see any major issues that the majority of the GOP are correct on. Maybe a few things like some police procedures and some gun laws (for instance, I strongly agree with the recent Supreme Court decision that struck down the Washington DC law that made it illegal for citizens to own or have a firearm in the city).

So, I while I agree with you that there are Constitutional issues that the president is in the wrong on, the only ones I'm aware of are privacy rights and freedom from unwarranted search and seizure (don't even get me going on the Patriot Act). What other Constitutional issues do you contend that the president is in the wrong on?

[ManyMindsManyVoices]

They will. Well, the channels that don't start with F and end with X, anyway.

But... the problem is that Obama didn't take him to task when everyone was watching, in the debate. Far fewer people keep up with things outside of big events like the debates, so many people will not hear just how much of a snake Romney was being in the debate.

"FX's political commentary tends to look a lot like Vin Diesel, Shia Lebouf, and explosions..."

[Stattick]

The clear leftist bias in this thread nevertheless astounds me.

Once upon a time there was a radical president who tried to remake American society through government action. In his first term he created a vast network of government grants to state and local governments for social programs that cost billions. He set up an imposing agency to regulate air and water emissions, and another to regulate workers' health and safety. Had Congress not stood in his way he would have gone much further. He tried to establish a guaranteed minimum income for all working families and, to top it off, proposed a national health plan that would have provided government insurance for low-income families, required employers to cover all their workers and set standards for private insurance. Thankfully for the country, his second term was cut short and his collectivist dreams were never realized.

His name was Richard Nixon.

MARK LILLA

[Callie Del Noire]

Are you choosing to ignore the results of the CNN poll that I posted the link to?  The one that clearly shows Romney trouncing the President in every single aspect of the debate?  I wonder how the liberal media will spin this into their favor, and how many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there will try to deny Romney the clear victory he had tonight.

One, your article has no link to the original poll. I saw NO data on how it was obtained. I saw no math for how they came to a +\- 4% margin of error.  And how the HELL do you think that it could be REMOTELY accurate and.balanced when half the country was asleep by the time they started gathering the data?

I would like you to point out a single point that Governor Romney committed to that was more than 'we will work it out.'  I distrust a person who does NOT share his plans with the general public. Particularly a man who is a political chameleon and has no loyalty to anyone beyond 'what gets me elected.'

[mia h]

At one point Obama missed two huge opportunities to go after Romney, and it's kinda disappointing the Mitt was let off the hook so easily.

1)
Obama wants to stop tax-breaks for companies that offshore jobs.
Romney wanted a better accountant.

So Romney is in favour of offshoring jobs if he can get a tax break from it. Doesn't sound like he's looking out for working and middle class Americans.

2)
Obama wants to stop the $4 billion a year hand out to big oil companies.
Romney thinks it's only $2.8 billion, he also thinks the $90 spent on green energy was a waste and could have paid for 50 years of big oil subsidies.

So Romney thinks a $2.8 billion a year hand out to big oil is fine.
He doesn't doesn't believe that investing in green energy is a good idea.
And he thinks that $2.8 billion a year for 50 years is $90 billion. Well where I come from that would $140 billion, so you've got a guy who wants to manage the economy who either can't do basic multiplication or thinks that $50 billion is a small accounting error that's not worth worrying about.

[Valerian]

Are you choosing to ignore the results of the CNN poll that I posted the link to?  The one that clearly shows Romney trouncing the President in every single aspect of the debate?  I wonder how the liberal media will spin this into their favor, and how many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there will try to deny Romney the clear victory he had tonight.

*shrug*  I didn't look at the poll, but I watched most of the debate.  Romney seemed, well, wired, as someone else pointed out, bordering on manic.  If you aren't aware that he was either spinning the truth or flat out lying about his position most of the time, then yes, he made a good showing.  There's general agreement that Obama missed some good chances to make Romney look bad... which wouldn't have been too difficult in places, as mentioned above.

As I recall, though, Obama tends to do considerably better when debating people the second and third times.  I don't think Romney feels he's got the election sewn up now, but I'm sure he's happy with his performance.  I just don't think it will have a great deal of lasting effect, since debate showings rarely do.


This is entirely apolitical, but one result of getting one's news online, as I normally do, is that I never heard Romney speak for any length of time until last night.  And I don't know what it is, but his voice is absolutely painful to me.  Not in the merely annoying way; there are always voices that you don't like listening to for various reasons.  This went beyond that, to the point where something about his tone made me want to flee the room.  I can hear higher ranges than average -- dog whistles are audible to me, for instance, and can make me wince in similar fashion -- but I've never had that happen before with anyone's voice.  It's still kind of weirding me out.

[Beguile's Mistress]

A debate tactic that is often used when a series of meetings takes place is to underplay your strengths a bit, allowing your opponent to appear to have the advantage but studying him at the same time because his weakness will show.  Of course, your weak points will show too but by holding your strong points in check the opponent has little to counter in preparation for the next debate.  It's also a good tactic to use in negotiations between heads of state and gives a good player a clear advantage.  I think Obama is a good player.who understands a lot more about how things work internally than Romney does.  I also think Obama is better able to work within a system than Romney who is a man accustomed to running things, bossing subordinates and going for the grand gesture of good will that is basically meaningless.  He always gave me the creepy feeling of wanting to be the benevolent despot.

To achieve success at debating you need a solid grounding in what you are defending and a clear understanding of the points of attack you wish to use.  Romney doesn't have that because everyone who is advising him has a different agenda and they are all confusing him.

The interesting though pointless debate will be Biden/Ryan between a sitting vice-president who has buffoon potential and a wannabe president running for Veep and only seeing this election as a stepping stone to the Oval Office.

[Callie Del Noire]

I'll start with this: I don't trust Joe Biden. Never had.

That being said. I don't think he is an incompetent, a bit prone to foot in mouth but a lot sharper than the media represents him to be.

I think the VP debate has the potential to be very very interesting.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I personally found it rather comical how Romney danced circles around Obama in this first debate.  Now whether it was Obama being unprepared, luring Romney into a false sense of security, or, my personal favorite, Obama appearing like a deer in the headlights when he realized there was no teleprompter to feed him his lines, there can really be no doubt who won the first round.  I'm assuming the next debate will be foreign policy and, though Obama has gained great acclaim for killing Bin Laden, Egypt, Libya, and Iran are also his responsibility.  As for VP Biden, he had a real moment of truth the other day when he spoke of how the middle class had ben buried the last 4 years.  Very true, Mr. Biden, but hopefully not 4 more.

[Callie Del Noire]

I personally found it rather comical how Romney danced circles around Obama in this first debate.  Now whether it was Obama being unprepared, luring Romney into a false sense of security, or, my personal favorite, Obama appearing like a deer in the headlights when he realized there was no teleprompter to feed him his lines, there can really be no doubt who won the first round.  I'm assuming the next debate will be foreign policy and, though Obama has gained great acclaim for killing Bin Laden, Egypt, Libya, and Iran are also his responsibility.  As for VP Biden, he had a real moment of truth the other day when he spoke of how the middle class had ben buried the last 4 years.  Very true, Mr. Biden, but hopefully not 4 more.

And how.. might I ask, can a mann control Iran, Egypt and Libya from the Oval Office. He did 'fair' with Iran. There wasn't much he could do for Egypt aside from support the election of a government who at least initially stood against the US by doctrine.. but who has made MASSIVE stands against both Syria and Iran since coming to power.

What can he do for Iran? Nothing short of carpet bombing the country will satisfy some elements in the GoP..and thanks to 10+ years of manpower reduction we don't have the forces to do it. (I know the navy can't meet the 2 1/2 war criteria that is their mission goal)

As for burial of the Middle Class.. that is not entirely the president's fault. I do fault him for not making the obstructionism of the GOP more clearly known but that could have backfired on him easily.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

Republican obstructionism is an excuse I've seen on these boards numerous times and I'm still unclear on the point.  President Reagan had a democratic congress and accomplished quite a bit, President Clinton worked with a Republican congress fairly well.  It seems other presidents can work with opposition parties but now, only now, a party in control of only one half of congress is responsible for Obama's impotence.  How is it that one party can hold control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years, and we're talking about a real majority, not some 50/50 tie breaker advantage President Bush was stuck with, and all liberals got was Obamacare.  Where is the Democratic budget? House republicans have passed budgets only to see them die on the Senate floor without even a vote.  Who's obstructing?  What other major economic proposals...no wait, stimulus, the be all end all, the answer to all our economic problems with its shovel ready jobs, that weren't so shovel ready afterall.  Honestly, my biggest complaint with this is how can Obama claim anyone is obstructing when he never even tries to work with the other side and yes, that is his job.  Its not up to the other party to roll over and give the President anything he wants.  That has never been the case and the filibuster has always existed.  Looks like the Great Uniter failed again.

As for the Middle East, perhaps Obama shouldn't help push out leaders at least loosely allied with us without having an actual plan for the vacuum they knew would be created.  Both men were dictators, there is no denying, but at least then we knew where we stood.  Now the doors to both countries have been thrown wide open for the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia(sp?) law.  I'm not completely clear what stand Egypt is taking against Iran when from what I've heard they are looking to form an alliance.  Why is it we get involved in Egypt and Libya, but when genuine uprisings in Iran and Syria occur, when their people ask for our support, they are allowed to die in the streets?  I know President Bush caught hell for interfering in Iraq yet Obama has no responsibility?

Overall, if President Obama cannot get anything done domestically and has no influence internationally, then why again is he deserving of another four years?

[Oniya]

Can you explain why several of the Republican sponsors of the Veterans' Jobs Bill voted against it?

[Callie Del Noire]

Look at the GOP today.. do you think if Governor Romney got elected and the status quo changed in the house and senate that he'd deal fairly with the democrats? Or try to paint them as the bad guys?  Or accuse them of 'undermining' him?

I very much doubt it.

You mention Reagan and Clinton.. I respect them because they both ENCOURAGED a discourse with their political rivals. And let me tell you.. talking to 'Tip' O'Neil, couldn't have been fun at all. But never once did O'Neil declare.. publicly and on camera, that his goal for the next 2 years was to be so obstructive to ensure that Reagan would be unelectable.

The difference then from now? The parties didn't simply see the others as 'evil men' that they were determined to defeat and confound. That change started in '95 when Newt Gingrich and those who followed him did a tide change in how the GOP views washington.

It was okay to hang out with the folks in K-street who are lobbyists.. but wrong to talk to your opposites across the aisle. Rules of order were changed, the chairmanship of committees were changed, it was 'Washington only during the work hours' outlook. The polite rules of interaction and compromise went out the window.

Can you explain why several of the Republican sponsors of the Veterans' Jobs Bill voted against it?

Because the party leadership TOLD them to.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

First of all, Newt Gingrich lead the Republican congress which helped make Clinton whatever success he was.  President Clinton was intelligent enough to cross the aisle and work on measures where they could find common ground.  President Obama has zero interest in common ground so is it honestly the Republicans who have to give in on everything?  I believe the number is something around 30 bills the House has passed that the Senate refuses to even debate because of Reid, and by extension, Obama.  Again I ask where is the budget the Democrats are obligated to produce every year? President Obama offered a budget up once and couldnt get even a single Democratic vote.  I'm definitely no expert, but my understanding is that the House and the Senate typically each come up with a proposal and then work together on a compromise.  Where are the Democratic proposals?

I dont know enough about that specific bill to answer intelligently, but I would guess there were amendments added to it by democrats which made the bill unsupportable in the end.  I highly doubt the party most closely associated with veterans and the military would vote against them without good reason.  However, even if we were to go with the premise that it was because the party deemed it necessary for any arbitrary reason, would anyone imply that Democrats dont do exactly the same? How else did Obamacare get pushed through with the majority of the country against it?

[Callie Del Noire]

The GOP from Gingrich on.. has changed the rules of order in congress, eliminated seniority as the criteria for committe chairmanship and made it a point to be isolated from the democrats. And in the last 2 years they have PUNISHED anyone willing to work with the democrats and then look at the games folks like Tom DeLay did.

We, Republicans, didn't watch our officials.. and now the moderates are sneerinlgy called 'RINOs' and looked down upon because we have no control over them.

[Stattick]

Republican obstructionism is an excuse I've seen on these boards numerous times and I'm still unclear on the point.  President Reagan had a democratic congress and accomplished quite a bit, President Clinton worked with a Republican congress fairly well.  It seems other presidents can work with opposition parties but now, only now, a party in control of only one half of congress is responsible for Obama's impotence.  How is it that one party can hold control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for two years, and we're talking about a real majority, not some 50/50 tie breaker advantage President Bush was stuck with, and all liberals got was Obamacare.  Where is the Democratic budget? House republicans have passed budgets only to see them die on the Senate floor without even a vote.  Who's obstructing? 

In Which Republicans Forget Their Record-Breaking Use Of The Filibuster

[mia h]

First of all, Newt Gingrich lead the Republican congress which helped make Clinton whatever success he was.  President Clinton was intelligent enough to cross the aisle and work on measures where they could find common ground.  President Obama has zero interest in common ground .....

Clinton used a process of triangulation to get bills and it sucked. He'd ask the Democrats what they wanted, then ask the Republicans what they wanted and split the difference, which on the surface sounds reasonable until you factor in Gingrich.
The Democrats came in with what they actually wanted to see in the bill, the Republicans under Newt's direction would take  up the most extreme right wing postion and then Clinton would split the difference and generally the Dems got screwed.

Obama had to face a Republican party that was more right wing than it was under Newt and instead of meeting half way between left of centre and extreme right, Obama has stood on principle and didn't cave in to every Republician demand. And if you want to talk about zero interest in common ground, a member from which party said the following "The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." ? I'd have thought that during a recession the single most important thing would be to rebuild the economy, get people back into work etc. but appearently not.

[Stattick]

First of all, Newt Gingrich lead the Republican congress which helped make Clinton whatever success he was.  President Clinton was intelligent enough to cross the aisle and work on measures where they could find common ground.  President Obama has zero interest in common ground so is it honestly the Republicans who have to give in on everything?  I believe the number is something around 30 bills the House has passed that the Senate refuses to even debate because of Reid, and by extension, Obama.  Again I ask where is the budget the Democrats are obligated to produce every year? President Obama offered a budget up once and couldnt get even a single Democratic vote.  I'm definitely no expert, but my understanding is that the House and the Senate typically each come up with a proposal and then work together on a compromise.  Where are the Democratic proposals?

You're buying into Fox News' propaganda. Obama has reached across the isle time and again. For instance, when he was working on Obama care, he worked with Congressional Republicans, listened to them, understood their concerns, and amended the bill to what they claimed they wanted. Then when they backed away from the bill once it was put to to vote, saying that they wanted nothing to do with it, after they'd already negotiated compromise, and had said that they'd vote for it. Then they did that again. And again. And again. Eventually, they were demanding such ridiculous compromises, that Obama stopped trying to get their votes. He then had to overcome their filibuster, and then pass the bill without the Republicans.

This has been the process that the Senate Republicans have forced the nation and president into for the last 4 years. Complete stonewalling. Threatening to shut down the government. It's unprecedented. The present GOP has a "winner take all" mentality. They act like they're playing an end game. It's not the president or the Democrats that have tried to shut down the government. It's not the president or the Democrats that refuse to compromise, to negotiate, to cross the isle to make alliances on the other side to pass a bill. It's the GOP that's shutting everything down.

[Stattick]

This is entirely apolitical, but one result of getting one's news online, as I normally do, is that I never heard Romney speak for any length of time until last night.  And I don't know what it is, but his voice is absolutely painful to me.  Not in the merely annoying way; there are always voices that you don't like listening to for various reasons.  This went beyond that, to the point where something about his tone made me want to flee the room.  I can hear higher ranges than average -- dog whistles are audible to me, for instance, and can make me wince in similar fashion -- but I've never had that happen before with anyone's voice.  It's still kind of weirding me out.

The Romneybot 2000 has the most advanced voice synthesizer on the planet... however, the known problem with the high pitched whine has yet to be solved. Dogs, horses, and some other animals can sense the wrongness, the artificiality of the Romneybot. Romneybot is programmed to overcome this weakness though... run Valerian, run! Romneybot's coming for you now that you've pierced his human guise. He might strap you to the roof of his car and drive down the interstate for twelve hours with you up there, hoping that the wind will destroy that exceptional hearing. You don't want to spend the rest of your life asking, "What? What? Purple monkey dishwasher?"

[Valerian]

I was over at Cognitive Dissidence earlier, and one of the comments in particular, on the article "Mitt's Family Values" brought something home to me that I didn't really think of while watching the debate (probably because I was too busy cringing at the voice of the Romneybot 2000  :P).

Romney had mentioned getting some 'zingers' ready for the debate, and one of them was this: "Look, I got five boys. I'm used to people saying something that's not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I'll believe it."

I realize he was trying to make Obama sound like a liar, and childish to boot, but it seems like that particular shot missed its intended target and hit his kids instead.  Basically, he held up his own children as examples of terrible liars.  To quote the comment I read, "What he was saying was 'My sons are crap, cunning little liars, and not just once in a while, but it's their default state. AND I'M TOO SMART TO BE SUCKED IN.'"

Kids grow up doing what they see their parents do at home.  I suddenly feel very sorry for Romney's children.

[Stattick]

Romney Admits Pushing Misinformation In Debate

So, the waffler is getting called out on his lies last night. And now he's admitted that it wasn't half of the green companies that the federal government under Obama invested in that went under. Instead of being the half that Romney claimed in the debate, it's actually... less than 1%.

[Avis habilis]

What he admits to today isn't important, for his purposes. He got away with saying it last night, & "half" is what the watchers are going to remember.

[Will]

What he admits to today isn't important, for his purposes. He got away with saying it last night, & "half" is what the watchers are going to remember.

Bingo.

[Stattick]

Trust - Obama for America TV Ad


I think Obama's strategy is revealed. You'll get some American's watching the debates. Others will just sorta watch a blurb about it on the news or read a short article about it in the morning paper. Mostly, the people that are really paying attention to the debates are the people that have already decided how they're going to vote. But with targeted TV ads, you can reach millions of undecided voters who would otherwise ignore the debates, or only listed to Faux News. Or maybe Obama really did flub last night, and commercials like this are just the response. Either way, this isn't "game over" for Obama.

[Avis habilis]

I think Obama's strategy is revealed.

Let it skate during the event, then drop it into a rapid-response attack ad the next day? Man, I wouldn't want to try to cut it that close.

[Sabre]

For those interested, the CNN poll in question: i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/03/top12.pdf

Some funny things to learn:

- the debate made 18% more likely to vote Obama than before, while 35% were more likely to vote Romney now.  47% said the debate had no affect on their vote.

- Opinions on Obama or Romney's favorability barely changed if at all.  Both were and remained equally likeable.

- Apparently the vast majority of those polled were:
1) White
2) Over 50
3) From the South

[Cyrano Johnson]

The real take-away from the debate for me. I think Romney actually did successfully wrong-foot Obama, but he had to do lots and lots of dissembling to manage it. In consequence it's a Pyrrhic victory that leaves him wide open for a month of being hammered by the same kind of "flip-flopper" narrative that did Kerry in in 2004. No matter how much style you bring to the endeavour, when you find yourself running away from your own tax plan a month before the election, the "Would the real Mitt Romney please stand up?" ads practically write themselves. Especially when you consider that during that month, Romney's going to have to go in front of hardcore Tea Party audiences and convince them that he still believes many of the things he claimed tonight not to believe.

Looks like the President is indeed taking up the obvious "two Romneys" line and running with it.

"Now, last night, we had our first debate. And when I got on stage, I met a very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney -- because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. But the fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that.

    "The real Mitt Romney said we don't need any more teachers in our classrooms. But the fellow on stage last night said he loves teachers -- can't get enough of 'em.

    "The Mitt Romney we all know invested in companies that were called "pioneers" of outsourcing jobs to other countries. But the guy on stage last night, he said he's never heard of tax breaks for companies that ship jobs overseas. He said if that's true, he must need a new accountant. Now we know for sure it wasn't the real Mitt Romney -- because he seems to be doing just fine with the accountant he has.

    "You see, the man on stage last night – he doesn't want to be held accountable for what the real Mitt Romney's been saying for the last year. And that's because he knows full well that we don't want what he's been selling for the last year. Governor Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be President, you owe the American people the truth.

    "So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. And we can't afford to go down that road again. We can't afford another round of budget-busting tax cuts for the wealthy. We can't afford to gut our investments in education or clean energy or research and technology. We can't afford to rollback regulations on Wall Street banks or big oil companies or insurance companies. We cannot afford to double down on the same top-down economic policies that got us into this mess. That's not a plan to create jobs. That's not a plan to grow the economy. That's not a change -- that is a relapse."

Some of the media also noticed that Romney's strategy amounted to simply lying about his policies: like so, and like so and like so.

[Remiel]

I've always been a fan of factcheck.org.  Surprise, surprise; both candidates made their share of dubious claims and incorrect assumptions.

Personally, I didn't think there was a clear winner last night.  I thought Romney did well on some subjects, and Obama did well on others.  Romney definitely was the more aggressive debater of the two, but then, he had to be.  The last time I checked, polls had him six or seven points behind the President, so he has to be more aggressive in highlighting Obama's failures and downplaying his successes.  Conversely, as the incumbent, Obama has to take more of a defensive stance, trying to simultaneously convince America that the last four years haven't been all that bad, while simultaneously convincing us that Romney's ideas aren't any better than his own.

I think my favorite moment of the debate was, when discussing health care, Obama touted his Affordable Care Act as a larger-scale version of Romney's own successful state-funded health care coverage in Massachusetts.  Romney was suddenly thrust into the awkward position of either having to retreat from his attacks on "Obamacare", or being forced to attack his own program. 

In Jim Lehrer's defense, he did try (albeit half-heartedly) to keep both men on task when they tried to stray away from the topic.  I did also like how the questions were tailored to trying to accentuate the differences between the Democratic and Republican platforms.

Unfortunately, I made the mistake of recording CNN's coverage of the debate, and for some asinine reason, they had, during the entire time, a graphic of how a group of Undecided Colorado voters reacted to the debate.  There was one line for Women and another for Men; the lines would trend toward either a plus sign or a negative sign as, presumably, the undecideds dialed in how they felt about what was being said at any given moment.   What I found amusing was that, any time education was mentioned by either candidate, the Women's line would shoot toward the maximum positive while the men's line would crawl begrudgingly upward.  National defense had the opposite effect, boosting the men's scores while having no effect on the women's.  And when Romney talked about his kids being liars?  Both lines shot into negative territory.

Apparently undecided voters were not impressed.

[MasterMischief]

I believe the number is something around 30 bills the House has passed that the Senate refuses to even debate because of Reid, and by extension, Obama.

Are those from the 33 times the House Republicans have tried to essentially repeal Obamacare?  'cause if they were actually trying to create jobs, they might get sympathy.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Are you choosing to ignore the results of the CNN poll that I posted the link to?  The one that clearly shows Romney trouncing the President in every single aspect of the debate?  I wonder how the liberal media will spin this into their favor, and how many of the Kool-Aid drinkers out there will try to deny Romney the clear victory he had tonight.

Romney flat-out lied.  Not little fibs.  Outright untruths.  And he's "against any tax cut that increases the deficit?"  Hello?  McFly?  When revenues are already falling short of expenses by around 30%, any decrease in revenue increases the deficit.  So right there Romney contradicts himself.  He's been behind tax cuts skewed to the wealthy for far too long to walk it all back now at the 11th hour.  He owns it. 

You can cry "leftist bias" all you want, but math is math.  There is no way, none, that you can enact $5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased defense spending, refuse to do anything to rein in Big Health jacking America for 5 to 10% more per year, preserve Social Security and Medicare in anything resembling their current form--and eliminate or even significantly reduce the deficit.  It's flat-out fantasy, right up there with the notion we're going to run America on rectified rock-farts from North Dakota for the next century.

I'll freely concede Romney won on style and presentation.  But substance?  Not even close.  His numbers don't check out.  So as far as I'm concerned, he cheated and he lost.

[Stattick]

Romney flat-out lied.  Not little fibs.  Outright untruths.  And he's "against any tax cut that increases the deficit?"  Hello?  McFly?  When revenues are already falling short of expenses by around 30%, any decrease in revenue increases the deficit.  So right there Romney contradicts himself.  He's been behind tax cuts skewed to the wealthy for far too long to walk it all back now at the 11th hour.  He owns it. 

You can cry "leftist bias" all you want, but math is math.  There is no way, none, that you can enact $5 trillion in tax cuts, $2 trillion in increased defense spending, refuse to do anything to rein in Big Health jacking America for 5 to 10% more per year, preserve Social Security and Medicare in anything resembling their current form--and eliminate or even significantly reduce the deficit.  It's flat-out fantasy, right up there with the notion we're going to run America on rectified rock-farts from North Dakota for the next century.

I'll freely concede Romney won on style and presentation.  But substance?  Not even close.  His numbers don't check out.  So as far as I'm concerned, he cheated and he lost.

Quoted for truth.

[Avis habilis]

Courtesy of Mother Jones, a relative untruthfulness comparison: http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2012/10/obama-romney-debate-whoppers#13494444183131&action=collapse_widget&id=6575125

[Valerian]

Also, Romney apparently needed some help to keep his lies straight.

Close up of Romney Sleight of Hand Cheating during the debate

It looks as though he tosses a few pages of notes onto his podium just before the debate starts.  This may or may not be against the rules -- some are saying it is, but what they're referencing is apparently an agreement from the 2004 debates, negotiated between Bush, Jr. and Kerry, and there doesn't seem to be a similar agreement today -- but this does go a long way towards explaining why Romney appeared more glib and relaxed.  I'm pretty sure Obama wasn't working from notes.