Objective review of the US 2012 Presidential and Congressional general campaign

[Mirror Image]

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.

You didn't miss anything really. My mind wandered quite a bit. Both of them did a lot of talking, but this debate reminded of Obama's first go-around with McCain, but only just substitute Romney for McCain.

[kishnevi]

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.

I count them as part of the third group (economic libertarians);  but to the degree that any member of the GOP is a realist on foreign policy and/or socially liberal,  they're very atypical of all the Republicans I know, and under the current configuration,  seem to have little influence.  There was a moment, two years ago or so, when it seemed they might win out, but the Tea Party decided otherwise.

And I've not been watching the debate at all.   Spent the time listening to Villa Lobos (Symphony No. 10), and Martha Argerich playing with Gidon Kremer (Bartok, Janacek, Messiaen) and (now playing)  with Mischa Maisky (Beethoven).

[Todd]

they're very atypical of all the Republicans I know

Must be partly geographic, because there are still a few up in the Northwest.

[CriticalI]

Reading through the live update coverage on SMH (damn page keeps updating, making me lose my place)

A couple of notable quotes, especially:
Romney apparently saying "American people don't want Medicare". (I wish there was a better emoticon for mocking laughter.)
Also, "Something this big and important (Obamacare) needs to be bipartisan, whereas Obama pushed his plan through despite Republican opposition, rather than negotiating."

Romney may have appeared on camera to dominate the debate, but reading through the debating points I can't see a clear winner (as usual with these things).

[Karl Henning]

Not sure I'd claim that it is objective, but I did have an interesting view of the debate yesternight.  I could not watch most of it, so I was following the "live tweets" from a few journos.  I got to North Station around 10:20. The Emack and Bolio's in the station lobby have an HD TV, on which normally they play some sporting contest or other;  I was pleasantly surprised to see that they were showing the debate, so I did get to see the final 10 mins.

I think that Jno Capehart (no fan of Romney's, fair disclosure) got it right with his "Romney got the reset he needed, Obama got a wake-up call."  Of course, these are not debates, they are a sort of infomercial performance in a quasi-debate guise.  Must admit that Romney outperformed Obama, who gave too much of an impression of phoning it in.  Admittedly, too, the Mittster had the benefit of (fair or not) low expectations;  still, he did better than outperform low expectations.

Dave's quarrel is well taken;  it was a night of arrant untruths.

[Todd]

A couple of notable quotes, especially:
Romney apparently saying "American people don't want Medicare".

I believe this is called taking a quote out of context.  Here's a bit more context:

So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don't want Medicare -- don't want Obamacare.

Looks like he meant to say Obamacare rather than Medicare, and then corrected himself.  That's how I recall it from the debate.  But that's out of context, too.  Here's the full response from Romney:

First of all, I like the way we did it in Massachusetts. I like the fact that in my state, we had Republicans and Democrats come together and work together. What you did instead was to push through a plan without a single Republican vote. As a matter of fact, when Massachusetts did something quite extraordinary -- elected a Republican senator to stop Obamacare, you pushed it through anyway.

So entirely on a partisan basis, instead of bringing America together and having a discussion on this important topic, you pushed through something that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best answer and drove it through.

What we did in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together; 200 legislators in my legislature, only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished. What were some differences? We didn't raise taxes. You've raised them by $1 trillion under Obamacare. We didn't cut Medicare. Of course, we don't have Medicare, but we didn't cut Medicare by $716 billion.

We didn't put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they're going to receive. We didn't also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put -- put people in a position where they're going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted.

Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.

So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board, and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don't want Medicare -- don't want Obamacare. It's why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had -- had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.

I think something this big, this important has to be done on a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.


It's dishonest to say that Romney said what you attributed to him.  Indeed, one of Romney's repeated arguments was that Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare, and somehow his plans would restore those cuts and make everything all better, etc. 

[Todd]

Of course, these are not debates, they are a sort of infomercial performance in a quasi-debate guise.

And that's why they are predictable, yet still sort of fun. 

I had hoped that Romney, when discussing Dodd Frank and the treatment of big banks, would have just come out and said that they should be broken up if they pose a systemic risk - too big too fail is too big, that sort of thing.  Obama could have done the same.  Neither man has the stones for that, of course, but it would have been a debate changer.  Romney could have also gone more mundane and talked about SOX, and the private shareholder limit and the negative impact that it is having on smaller, private firms trying to raise capital, or the continuing impact it is having on IPOs (though there are other factors here, of course), or something concrete.  It would have answered the question better, but it would have made most people's eyes glaze over, and thus would have been bad television.

[snyprrr]

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.

So, after 8 years of Barry,... uh, what's THAT going to be like? (remember- he will have more 'flexability' next time,... uh,... to do WHAAAT? )

Will the NEXT Presidential Candidate have to say stuff like, "How am I going to fix the economy after 8 years of Barry?" Come on, John, seriously? Barry could have used his Executive Orders to do... uh... SOMETHING, right? What HAS he done?: CONTINUE BUSH POLICY!!

Barry the Drone Killer!


You know, Gore blamed the thin air. Maddow blamed Lehrer. The format. O'Donnell said, "We don't pick winners..."

Yea yea...

Chris Matthews will change his name from 'The Tingler' to 'The Tinkler'!!


I'm sorry, I could go on all day. I mean, really, guys, you can stop defending Barry: HE SUCKED. Don't MAKE me start saying nice things about the mormom.


All (liberal) news reporters are flaming alcoholics. Let's see who calls out Thursday.


Seriously, I blame YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU for making the mormon look human. I BLAME YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOU!!

UNCLEAN
UNCLEAN
UNCLEAN
UNCLEAN


Here, this might help:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lt6lYiKcik8

[Todd]

I heard Romney say something very close to that, vis a vis Dodd-Frank.

He was moving in that direction, but he never made the final leap; I was hoping he would do it.  There was some internet and print speculation that he was contemplating it.  Imagine if a finance guy said that in a presidential debate.  It would be deflating for the other side.  But he couldn't do it.  Bummer.  (Saying it and then doing it are wildly different, of course.)  And what if he could bring himself to publicly discuss being a one term president with specific goals, as apparently was discussed in his campaign in summer?  A Young Hickory for the 21st Century, or something.  It's hard to see how that would work, though, especially when cutting popular programs.

[Todd]

These are the quotes I was thinking of, especially the second one.

Yes, I remember him saying that, but that's not the same thing as saying outright that he that he would pursue breaking the banks up.  There are several alternative policy courses he could pursue - more stringent capital requirements than even Basel III, stringent derivative trading rules, etc.  I liked what he was doing, I just wish he, or Obama for that matter, would have gone all the way and said that something akin to Glass Steagall is needed again.  Granted, that's been a wish of mine since Clinton repealed it, but maybe one day.

[Todd]

An October surprise in the making?

[Sammy]

Although I'll likely vote for Gary Johnson, I was looking forward to last night's debate and found it very enjoyable. 

Romney crushed Obama.  He looked like he was thrilled to be on stage and kept peppering Obama with comments that Obama didn't seem to have any idea how to combat.  Also, Obama seemed to be timid and disengaged.  You can't win a debate when you act as if you want to be somewhere else.  Romney gave Obama a wealth of dubious comments, and Obama did nothing with them.

It's a given that Obama needs to change his approach to the two remaining debates or find himself out of a job.  Just going through the motions won't be good enough. 

Anyways, my general view of Romney went up last night; he looked like a leader while Obama just sat on the sidelines.  AND, is it possible that someone slipped Obama a sedative before the debate?

[Todd]

AND, is it possible that someone slipped Obama a sedative before the debate?

Nah, it was the altitude.

[Sammy]

Nah, it was the altitude.

Yes, I've heard that one and the general theme is often used by sports teams as to why they played so poorly in Denver.  But Obama wasn't in a physical battle, and I know from personal experience (living in Albuquerque which is just as high as Denver) that it's mostly a lot of bull.

Once again, Al Gore shows why he's a stiff putz and all-around jerk.

Oh, one thing I didn't mention in my previous post.  Seems to me that both the moderator and Obama handed command of the debate to Romney.  I do seriously doubt that Obama will be so timid in the remaining two debates.  Also, the subjects will be better suited for Obama, the economy being his weakest category.

[CriticalI]

It's dishonest to say that Romney said what you attributed to him.

No intentional dishonesty - reread my post and you'll see I just repeated what I read on a live tweet coverage.

Anyways, my general view of Romney went up last night; he looked like a leader while Obama just sat on the sidelines.  AND, is it possible that someone slipped Obama a sedative before the debate?

I had that thought a few years ago while watching an Australian debate (Keating/Howard, for those in the know) - Keating, always a cocky rabble-rouser, looked subdued and uncertain from the start, while his opponent literally danced about on his toes like the champeen who'd already won his fight. The fix may well have been in that night....

[Mirror Image]

Yes, I'm pretty much in agreement with everyone else: Obama lost that debate no doubt about it. I understand Obama wants to come across as the 'cool one' but my goodness get some balls! Stand up for yourself! Romney made Obama look ridiculous and everybody I've spoke with either online or in real life said the same thing. Like Sammy said, if Obama doesn't change his strategy and do well in the next two debates, Romney could very well be the next president.

[Todd]

There's the flop I was waiting for.

Today's job numbers are good, or at least good-ish, so score one for Barry?

[Karl Henning]

There's the flop I was waiting for.

Aye. What are you going to believe — comments I made when I didn't realize tape was rolling, or what I say now on TV, 33 days before the election?

Today's job numbers are good, or at least good-ish, so score one for Barry?

The post-debate smackdown, though, looks apt to overshadow the good news. Hard not to allow that Romney won this weekly cycle.

[Karl Henning]

Bingo.

[Brian]

If only all political endorsements were like this.

http://www.youtube.com/v/p34r8gsQjJs