Tomorrow night's presidential debate

[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