Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Todd]

Ah, John I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it Kerry.  What is it with Massachusetts politicians?

[Karl Henning]

Serious nose-holding when voting for Kerry that year.

[Mirror Image]

The debate should be interesting. I'll have some popcorn ready and some sweet iced tea to drink. If anything, it will be entertaining.

[mahler10th]

The debate should be interesting. I'll have some popcorn ready and some sweet iced tea to drink. If anything, it will be entertaining.

Yes John.  Less than an hour to go now, the warmup interviews and features have started, I'm all agog.  Fabulously interesting from a foreign viewpoint.

[Mirror Image]

Yes John.  Less than an hour to go now, the warmup interviews and features have started, I'm all agog.  Fabulously interesting from a foreign viewpoint.

I hope Mitt Romney makes a lot of mistakes . Remember the Obama/McCain debates? Those were hysterical. Popcorn munching entertainment of the first-degree.

I know what you mean about watching something like this from a foreign viewpoint. Watching Canadian Prime Minister debates is fun stuff to watch too.

[mahler10th]

We don't get the Canada debates here.   
But...
We even have Dan Rather, whom I believe is a big name political commentator in the US (?) having some dialogue on British television via satellite.  Boy I love all this stuff!  If anyone wants to gift me a green card, let me know and I'll be on the plane sometime in January...as long as Romney loses.   

[Mirror Image]

We don't get the Canada debates here.   
But...
We even have Dan Rather, whom I believe is a big name political commentator in the US (?) having some dialogue on British television via satellite.  Boy I love all this stuff!  If anyone wants to gift me a green card, let me know and I'll be on the plane sometime in January...as long as Romney loses.   

There's a channel here in the US called CSPAN (there are three or four channels) and it deals with nothing but politics. From bills going through the House to US senator debates to stuff about the British Parliment. I don't watch them that much, but it certainly is interesting to watch Canadian and British debates.

[mahler10th]

There's a channel here in the US called CSPAN (there are three or four channels) and it deals with nothing but politics. From bills going through the House to US senator debates to stuff about the British Parliment. I don't watch them that much, but it certainly is interesting to watch Canadian and British debates.

We have 'BBC Parliament'.  Probably like CSPAN, it is only worth watching when some major scandal has taken place, or meaningful elections. 
Meanwhile, the 'First Ladies' are about to enter the stage in Denver...

[kishnevi]

The Republicans keep putting up the most internationally ignorant fools.  If only they would put a sensible candidate forward with no religious ties and a forward (instead of backward) looking policy for home and foreign affairs.  I would admire them then.  I would even vote for them if I was American.
But they don't.  They post bigoted, ignorant and religiously foolish leaders which is why I cannot abide them.

John, Republican voters belong to at least one of three groups (sometimes two, sometimes all three)
--religiously motivated social conservatives
--hawks on defense and foreign policy (what you called backward looking policy)
--economic libertarians devoted to low taxes and minimal regulation
Members of the third group can be found all over, but usually they belong to at least one of the other two;  and given the demographics of the GOP, it's impossible to get a party wide nomination (meaning the Presidential nomination) by just appealing to the third group.  You have to get people from at least one of the other two groups to vote for you, and usually you need both of them.  A Republican can win the nomination without the economic libertarian vote;  he would need one of the other two groups, however.  So anti-abortion anti-gay zealots who think bombing civilians in third world countries is a good thing to do,both morally and practically, are the crucial group in the Republican party, with the results you've seen for the last decade or more.

[mahler10th]

John, Republican voters belong to at least one of three groups (sometimes two, sometimes all three)
--religiously motivated social conservatives
--hawks on defense and foreign policy (what you called backward looking policy)
--economic libertarians devoted to low taxes and minimal regulation
Members of the third group can be found all over, but usually they belong to at least one of the other two;  and given the demographics of the GOP, it's impossible to get a party wide nomination (meaning the Presidential nomination) by just appealing to the third group.  You have to get people from at least one of the other two groups to vote for you, and usually you need both of them.  A Republican can win the nomination without the economic libertarian vote;  he would need one of the other two groups, however.  So anti-abortion anti-gay zealots who think bombing civilians in third world countries is a good thing to do,both morally and practically, are the crucial group in the Republican party, with the results you've seen for the last decade or more.

Thank you Jeffrey.   
The debate is starting now!   

[mahler10th]

Oh No...first 10 minutes, looks like Romney is on the warpath and Obama is ... 

[DavidW]

Oh No...first 10 minutes, looks like Romney is on the warpath and Obama is ... 

I'm dvring it and starting it late, but this is my impression as well.  Romney is cool, logical on point and Obama is using emotionally charged rhetoric and evading questions.

[CriticalI]

I'm dvring it and starting it late, but this is my impression as well.  Romney is cool, logical on point and Obama is using emotionally charged rhetoric and evading questions.

This is what I would have expected. (1) From Romney's recent position, if he doesn't fall over or piss himself, that counts as a victory. (2) Romney's recent problems seemed to make people forget that, actually, things have been pretty dire in the US of late. OF COURSE Obama is on the defensive.

[mahler10th]

Romney won.      

Oh well...wait until the Foreign policy debate... 

[Karl Henning]

We don't get the Canada debates here.   

No, man, Canada is no longer part of the US. They seceded in 1860, I think ....

[Mirror Image]

I was pretty bored out of my mind, but I still think Obama won. I don't think Romney's comment about 47% of America who were bums is sitting well with most people and he tried to repair the damage by saying he wants to get people off of food stamps. Somebody mentioned Obama was on the defensive the entire time, well Obama will always be on the defensive in a debate. Look at his debates with John McCain. It's the same scenario: I'm older and wiser than you are and you don't have enough experience to run this country.

[Todd]

John, Republican voters belong to at least one of three groups (sometimes two, sometimes all three)
--religiously motivated social conservatives
--hawks on defense and foreign policy (what you called backward looking policy)
--economic libertarians devoted to low taxes and minimal regulation

The party is more complex than that.  What about cold blooded foreign policy realist/pragmatic economic conservative/social liberal (veering toward libertarian) types?  There are some.

As to the debate, I missed the first thirty minutes, but I found the rest basically predictable, with no one liners that linger.  Maybe the big thing, if a big thing it is, is that Romney did offer some details here and there - true or false, you be the judge - whereas I can't really recall what specifically Obama said he is going to do to make people's lives better.  Must have been in the part I missed.

[Mirror Image]

This is what I would have expected. (1) From Romney's recent position, if he doesn't fall over or piss himself, that counts as a victory. (2) Romney's recent problems seemed to make people forget that, actually, things have been pretty dire in the US of late. OF COURSE Obama is on the defensive.

The whole argument from Obama though is simple: look what this country has inherited after 8 f****** years of George W. Bush. Do you honestly believe that this country can miraculously repair 8 years of complete incompetence and horrible political decisions that plagued Bush's presidency? No, four years just isn't going to do it.

This first debate reminded me of the his first debate with McCain. A young upstart vs. the old, wise guy. This whole "I've got more wisdom in my fingernail than you have in your entire body" seemed to permeate much of this debate and Romney just seemed like he was lecturing instead of talking to the American people.

[Brian]

I can't really recall what specifically Obama said he is going to do to make people's lives better.  Must have been in the part I missed.

You're very generous.

[mahler10th]

The whole argument from Obama though is simple: look what this country has inherited after 8 f****** years of George W. Bush. Do you honestly believe that this country can miraculously repair 8 years of complete incompetence and horrible political decisions that plagued Bush's presidency? No, four years just isn't going to do it.

This first debate reminded me of the his first debate with McCain. The whole "I've got more wisdom in my fingernail than you have in your entire body" seemed to permeate much of this debate.

Hear Hear.