View Full Version : First Debate: Romney Pulling Out The Water Works! haha
Nice hail mary romney; nice water works!
These debates have always been popular:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ca/Swanage_Punch_%26_Judy.JPG/670px-Swanage_Punch_%26_Judy.JPG
In addition to the above, I like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B0CyOAO8y0) selection played during debates. Mute sound of debate, play this tune.
I think Romney clearly won this round. After events such as these, I like to go to the most liberal media site available and see what they're saying and am surprised to see that on MSNBC, Ed Schultz seems to agree with me. Who'd-a-thunk-it!
I don't know if there was clearly a winner or looser. Romney came across stronger than I expected, but still failed to explain the specific details of his tax changes, health care reform, and budget balancing. Obama failed to demonstrate how his policies would change in the next four years to improve the economy from the last four. Both quoted numbers that were probably half-truths and it will be interesting to see the fact checkers accounts of things.
My read is that they gave a slightly better idea of how they differ so that the voters can make a better voting decision.
After events such as these, I like to go to the most liberal media site available and see what they're saying and am surprised to see that on MSNBC, Ed Schultz seems to agree with me. Who'd-a-thunk-it!
I use my father-in-law as a touchstone.
And, speak of the devil, he called me up, almost breathless, 10 mins after the debate.
My father-in-law is a soft-sciences college professor, and an actual genuine communist. As in, he went over to Eastern Europe after his service in the US Army in WWII to help build a bold new communist world with his own hands. (At least he was willing to put some skin in the game...). He's over that communist thing now, he's merely an ultra-lefty Democrat.
He was a gushing Obama supporter, until about a year or so ago, when he began to get real quiet..
Anyways, tonight's conversation was all about how Romney looked much better than Obama, and then he asked a bunch of questions of me to reaffirm his takeaway - that Romney was actually pretty middle-of-the-road, and could probably get things done in Washington, and was the clear choice, even for a lefty, and that Romney would sell out the ultra-right in a heartbeat.
He says he thinks he'll be voting for the first Republican presidential candidate...ever.
So, that's something.
Romney won. No question. He did EXACTLY what he needed to do--and nothing further that could have come across as shrill, out of control, pushy or desperate.
The loser was Jim Lehrer's reputation. I don't care if he's moderated 12 debates or 1200. He did not have control of this and his half-hearted efforts made for boring television.
ApatheticNoMore
10-3-12, 11:10pm
that Romney was actually pretty middle-of-the-road, and could probably get things done in Washington, and was the clear choice, even for a lefty, and that Romney would sell out the ultra-right in a heartbeat.
Who knows what Romney IS, all they know is how he appeared, Mr etch-a-sketch man. From 1 debate they KNOW. Ah well I don't. I bet they perfectly guessed Obama and W too, even though few did and we've never had a blanker canvas on which to project than Romney.
Who knows what Romney IS, all they know is how he appeared, Mr etch-a-sketch man.
Who cares if he's Mr. Etch-a-sketch. Anyone watching the debates now who's really undecided or not firm in their choice is a low-information voter and likely to make their choice based on what "feels" right. Romney looked really good tonight. He'll get a bump but I still don't think it will be enough to turn the election for him. May narrow the gap in the popular vote but popular vote doesn't matter. Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, NC, VA, Iowa, Colorado, WI and NH matter and Obama will win enough of those swing states to win a big with the electoral college. That's what matters.
iris lily
10-3-12, 11:41pm
Romney won. No question. He did EXACTLY what he needed to do--and nothing further that could have come across as shrill, out of control, pushy or desperate...
Thanks for that. While I thought it was obvious, I never assume that the other side will recognize the truth.
And for the record, it's a hellova lot harder to be sitting in the seat, making the decisions, and having to justify them (like the Prez) than being the guy who is taking pot shots at those decisions that haven't worked.
I also thought it was cool that the Prez took ownership of the term "Obamacare." Now I can use it freely, without someone ascribing intent to insult to the term.
As far as commentary, Rudy Guilliani ripped Rachel Madow and her cronies up and down, pretty good theatre.
My Republican friends had a debate watching party where we picked a term out of a hat and whoever had the term that was most often stated, won. The winning term was "Middle-Class." The runner up was "Tax-cut"-- each had 20 something mentions. My own term, "Fair share" was mentioned only one time at the end. I'm sure that you can identify the candidate who owned that talking point.
The loser was Jim Lehrer's reputation. I don't care if he's moderated 12 debates or 1200. He did not have control of this and his half-hearted efforts made for boring television.
He didn't interject himself much into the debate, and I liked that. Of course, he did allow the Prez 4 additional minutes. He IS a PBS guy, after all, what else could we expect?
One of my friends had a drinking game, and I think the phrase was "create jobs" - I'm pretty sure she's stinking drunk right now :)
One of my friends had a drinking game, and I think the phrase was "create jobs" - I'm pretty sure she's stinking drunk right now :) That's the phrase I wanted, but couldn't get, and we originally started out as a drinking game, but that went by the wayside. We played for money. But still,"middle class" had "create jobs" beat by a long shot.
Listening to the fact checks and reviews, I am declaring Romney as the biggest fibber of the debate. Maybe it is easier to win if you don't tell the truth.
Here is NPR's factcheck review
http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/10/03/162263539/romney-goes-on-offense-pays-for-it-in-first-wave-of-fact-checks
Yes, Lehrer lost control of it, but I thought Romney was pretty obnoxious and would probably have talked over any moderator. I swear he was on speed.
They are just two totally different personality types. I'll take Obama any day.
Obama really wasn't on his game, was he. He didn't use any of the things he could have legitimately used, like the 47%, Romney's taxes, the auto bail-out, and a dozen other issues. He seemed distracted, or really not wanting to be there. I was disappointed. It's not going to change my mind on who to vote for, but he just didn't pull it off.
Romney, on the other hand, even more strikes me as a used car salesman. He talks fast, adding that annoying little laugh, and just lies as smooth as you please. He so earnestly asserts positions that just a week ago stated the opposite. He etch-a-sketched his way around all his various and changing positions and Obama didn't call him on any of them. I too am waiting for the fact checkers as I'm pretty sure most things that came out of his mouth were lies, or "creative distortions" of everything he has run on up to now.
iamdavidspersonaleconomy
10-4-12, 9:10am
This debate was on the economy, the budget/deficit, and domestic issues. I was bothered that the economy and jobs was the ONLY discussion, there are many other domestic issues that are very important. I think basing the election completely on jobs is bad for us. Jobs are not the most important thing in the US. Many of us never even liked our jobs. We as a citizenry have become only focused on getting a job NOW, in order to get money to buy more stuff, or pay more debt used to buy more stuff. I think we would be better off to focus on what we will be doing in 20 years, 50 years from now.
Honestly, the US government does not have complete influence over the global economy, which is "to blame" for our unemployment. The changing structure of the global economy.
-David
I agree that Obama seemed lack-luster, but he was probably REALLY tired. I mean, he's the president. He has a few more things to do and think about than just running for president. I was thinking how hard it would be to do this with a migraine. haha (In my mind, I kept thinking what Bush said once of being president ... "its hard..........its really hard......being president is really hard work".......which SNL had a field day with).
Peggy......I felt the same way about Romney seeming like a slick car salesman.
Hopefully Obama will get some sleep before the next debate. I personally can't imagine anyone ever wanting to be president!
(In my mind, I kept thinking what Bush said once of being president ... "its hard..........its really hard......being president is really hard work".......which SNL had a field day with).
haha .. I remember that.. I remember hearing him say it in the debates and thinking how bad that sounded, and sure enough, SNL really did have fun with it, as you said.
I was surprised at the stuttering that went on as Obama just got too deep into the details. He didn't speak cleanly. If I had hired him to deliver a presentation at one of my clients' I'd have taken him aside afterwards to give him a few pointers. (I have a pretty cool thought bubble right now of me looking way up, giving Obama pointers for next time while he nods and said, "uh huh, uh huh, ok, thanks for the feedback, catherine") ;)
iris lily
10-4-12, 10:53am
Some of my favorite zingers from pundits and bloggers:
Michael Crowley of Time magazine: “Sensing weakness, Sasha and Malia just hounded dad into doubling their allowances.”
Van Jones: "Up until tonight, we were told Romney was Thurston Howell. . . . Tonight, he was presidential."
Anderson Cooper: “Critics of the president often say he can be professorial, I imagine they’ll be saying that tonight.”
Terry Moran: “Obama's passivity in this debate, his lack of oomph and clarity, plays into the Romney narrative: Nice guy; can't lead. Big W for GOP.”
Nicholas Kristof: “Romney is relaxed and empathetic, while Obama comes across as a constipated professor. C'mon, Mr. President!”
David Corn: “Romney looks like he's having a good time. Obama does not.”
Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News: “Possible upside: Some people might feel a little sorry for Obama?”
Exurban Jon: “Expected spin: ‘Obama didn't lose this debate to Romney, he just lead from behind.’”
Matt Cover: “So, looks like Eastwood wasn't so crazy after all. Empty chair.
Jonah: “Romney should FedEx some apples to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave with a note, ‘How do you like these?’”
Iowahawk: “That faint sound? Millions of faded Obama posters coming down.”
The Right Dame: “This isn't breaking news to us, but to the rest of you who seem so confused, this is the result of an inept media. You didn’t know either man.”
Ross Douthat: “Sweet spot for GOP politicians: Center-right not hard right on substance, but w/strong attack lines against liberalism. Romney hit it.”
Patrick Ruffini: “The broader problem for Obama that surfaced tonight: He's acting like a liberal ideologue running against a pragmatic problem-solver.”
Mark Hemingway: “That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney just took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car.”
Josh Trevino: “Chance of unilateral US action in Libya in the coming fourteen days just went up by seventy thousand percent.”
...and finally, there is poor Rachel Maddow: “I don’t know who won this debate.”
decemberlov
10-4-12, 10:56am
Sounds like Mitt was taking notes from Rand Pauls book before taking the stage last night :~)
mtnlaurel
10-4-12, 11:18am
I am so glad that I watched the entire debate with my own eyes.
I was blown away by Romney's performance - that was his arena for certain last night. Romney is such an abysmal politician, he's flat out painful to watch on the campaign trail.
Romney definitely landed some punches. And I think played well to his base while humanizing himself a little.
All of this contact with the Common (Wo)Man HAS had a positive influence on Mitt, even if it is just to speak feeling language better.
Maybe all 1 Percenters should be required to go on an extended Common Man Field Trip in our nation.
At least he spoke in what seemed the most like his 'real voice' vs. the canned voice he often uses. (I think his 'real voice' was also used in the 47% video)
I really wonder what the backstory is behind Obama's strategy of looking down so much or if it was even a strategy at all. But that is the mental image of his performance that stuck with me.
If someone is going to tell me bald face lies, I like to make the person look me right in the eye as they do it.
It confirms to me that Prez Obama does not do backroom politics well. I am a huge believer in getting people in a side conference room, calling them on their crap, having something on them and bending them to your will, while conceding a little bit so the opponent walks away with a little something so they won't stew in resentment. And then putting a win-win spin on it for all.
I don't think Obama is skilled at that. I wanted to scream, "Stop smirking at your piece of paper and fight back or at the very least get him to clarify his false facts."
If Mitt is going to run from the 5 trillion $$ figure, then get Mitt to assign a numerical value to the proposed 20% additional tax cuts --- or assign his proposed correlating spending cuts.
The debate also confirmed to me that GOP philosophy is from Neptune and Dem's are from Saturn.
It's like they were speaking two different languages that didn't even co-exist in the same airspace.
And I don't think the old typical GOP-speak or Dem-speak even starts to address what's a play in the current Global Economy.
Did Obama have more to lose (ie Presidential stature) and couldn't afford the gamble of coming right back for the jugular?
Maybe he didn't want to be pulled down to the scrap and instead let Romney scrap with the moderator which Romney just steamrolled the mod.
(My mouth is watering for the VP debate.. I don't think Joe 'Scrappy-Doo' Biden is going to be looking down at his paper... he may need a little relaxer pill before he hits the stage)
And what is this thing about Likability.
I want to 'Like' my tow truck driver, but if the tow truck driver I don't 'Like' does a better job of getting the car out of the ditch then I'll choose him.
And seriously Mitt, of all the things that you are willing to put the bulls eye on..... PBS, really?
Isn't the PBS budget a drop in the bucket compared to revenue lost from extended Bush tax cuts on the ultra wealthy?
As a SAHM with a preschooler who doesn't want their kid to marinate in advertising all day long, but does allow some select TV -- I use the crap out PBS as an educational tool for my whole family... including myself.
When Mitt said (my paraphrase)...
"I am not going to borrow from China to pay for PBS"
The obvious comeback is....
"I am not going to borrow from China to pay for corporations to hire workers overseas"
Things I DID like from Obama last night....
- The off the cuff, quick wit when he looked at the camera and said "OK 54 and 55 year olds here is where you DO need to pay attention" [my paraphrase] when Mitt was talking about voucher-izing Medicare for future recipients. I love when Repubs keep saying, OK current Elderly Voters, you just put your TV on mute right now, what we are going to talk about for the next few minutes will not affect you right now..... As if the Current Elderly can't have an opinion on how their kids will be affected by proposed Medicare changes.
I am tired of GOP co-opting the Constitution like they did Patriotism for the longest while.
In the end I didn't buy either of their answers to grow the economy.
- To Romney - I personally think there are places where some people can be taxed at previous rates and it will not hurt the economy.
The tax cuts have remained in place... where are all these supposed jobs?
- To Obama -- I don't get the direct correlation between Education Spending and New Technology Spending on immediate job growth. Yes, those things will help long term, but what about the now. What are you going to do differently to get through to an obstructionist legislature?
Nothing about last night's debate will change my vote.
The current incarnation of the GOP scares me to death and I am probably going to vote a straight Dem ticket which I hardly ever do.
I think the only hope for the GOP is that it self-destructs so what I call 'MSNBC-friendly Conservatives' can rebuild the GOP Brand (Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, etc)
...and finally, there is poor Rachel Maddow: “I don’t know who won this debate.”
That's funny.
But my favorite so far came from Al Gore last night on Current TV. "It's the altitude." http://now.msn.com/al-gore-blames-denvers-altitude-for-obamas-debating-skills
'MSNBC-friendly Conservatives'
What an interesting term. At first blush, I'd call them Democrats.
I really wonder what the backstory is behind Obama's strategy of looking down so much or if it was even a strategy at all. But that is the mental image of his performance that stuck with me.
If someone is going to tell me bald face lies, I like to make the person look me right in the eye as they do it.
I got the feeling Obama was looking down in disgust thinking, I can't believe Romney is actually trying to pull off that fabrication.
iamdavidspersonaleconomy
10-4-12, 11:43am
I got the feeling Obama was looking down in disgust thinking, I can't believe Romney is actually trying to pull off that fabrication.
I think Obama was tired and not well prepared. Likely a time management issue with Presidential responsibilities and campaigning.
I got the feeling Obama was looking down in disgust thinking, I can't believe Romney is actually trying to pull off that fabrication.
Nah, I believe it was an orchestrated attempt to keep his facial expressions away from the camera.
Much like me, his facial expressions show his emotions, whether he wants them to or not. I think that his efforts not to appear glum and angry simply made him look glum and dis-interested.
There's no question that Obama came across as rather flat and that Romney was well-prepped and aggressive. As for who "won" the debate, I'm never quite sure how one judges that. It wasn't a football game (although the media certainly treated it as one). Romney lied pretty flagrantly as he did his best to lurch to the middle, basically denying the tax program he's been running on since Day 1. Obama didn't call him on this during the debate, but some of Romney's prevarications may come back to haunt him during the next month.
Watching Obama's lackluster performance, though, I couldn't help but wonder--this is pure speculation, mind--whether he was engaging in some kind of rope-a-dope strategy. You never know with this guy; he plays close to the vest. There are two more debates, and he doubtless knew that anything less than a knockout on his part would be trumpeted by the right-wing noise machine as a Romney victory and would herald a devastating Romney comeback. When this doesn't happen, and if Obama scores better in the two remaining debates (one of which is on foreign policy, by far Romney's weakest area), this could be the last nail in the Romney coffin.
Romney is basically in the position of not being able afford any mistakes at all. One strong debate performance doesn't change the fact that so far, he hasn't been able to go more than a week without a major screw-up of some kind.
ApatheticNoMore
10-4-12, 11:59am
This debate was on the economy, the budget/deficit, and domestic issues. I was bothered that the economy and jobs was the ONLY discussion, there are many other domestic issues that are very important. I think basing the election completely on jobs is bad for us. Jobs are not the most important thing in the US. Many of us never even liked our jobs. We as a citizenry have become only focused on getting a job NOW, in order to get money to buy more stuff, or pay more debt used to buy more stuff. I think we would be better off to focus on what we will be doing in 20 years, 50 years from now.
Honestly, the US government does not have complete influence over the global economy, which is "to blame" for our unemployment. The changing structure of the global economy
Yes of course, point after point I agree, except I do understand why some people need a job now. But mostly you want what I want, what we haven't a prayer of seeing in this election, where is the long term focus, where is the concern for the environment, etc.?
The off the cuff, quick wit when he looked at the camera and said "OK 54 and 55 year olds here is where you DO need to pay attention" [my paraphrase] when Mitt was talking about voucher-izing Medicare for future recipients. I love when Repubs keep saying, OK current Elderly Voters, you just put your TV on mute right now, what we are going to talk about for the next few minutes will not affect you right now..... As if the Current Elderly can't have an opinion on how their kids will be affected by proposed Medicare changes.
Gah older people now seem to have already won some generational life lottery. Whereas how is any one younger that that supposed to have any hope for the future at all? It all seems so hopeless for anyone younger than that. No future, no hope. Privitization of Social Security, they want that because that is where the money is, a guaranteed profit (kind of like the medical insurance companies have now with Obamacare I guess), wtih a vast amount of money. They want to loot that because that is where the money is. If it's voucherized, I think there should be an opt out so I don't have to pay the darn thing at all frankly, because I'd rather do anything that have money withheld from every paycheck to go into corporate welfare. But that's already Constitutional right? Uh oh .... [appears off topic as the subject was voucherizing Medicare, oh well I'll leave it, don't want to interfere with a good rant afterall! It already seems that any hope of retirement for my generation slips further and further away]
I am tired of GOP co-opting the Constitution like they did Patriotism for the longest while.
GOP - Constitution, don't make me laugh. How ridiculous they are, how frankly disgusting and obscene. Both parties believe in some weird version of the Constitution in which due process and so on aren't important at all. And at that point who even cares what part of the Constitution they think is important. If it's the Constitution without most of the Bill of Rights, um let's just start over entirely from scratch umkay. Bring your utopias, they are surely better that this Constitution except anything that might actually matter nonsense they are peddling.
I think Obama was tired and not well prepared. Likely a time management issue with Presidential responsibilities and campaigning.
Maybe he should have taken a cue from Romney, who was basically MIA from his job as governor during his last run for President. I can only hope that Obama feels like he has more important things to do.
I got the feeling Obama was looking down in disgust thinking, I can't believe Romney is actually trying to pull off that fabrication.
Politics aside, I noticed the looking down quite a bit too, which is really out of character for him I think, and the first thought that came to me was, he is acting like someone who has a bad headache, like a migraine, or eye problems. You look down to avoid bright lights or in attempt to keep your eyes slightly closed. To be truthful he didn't look well. He reminded me of the time I suffered from motion sickness after a carnival ride with my daughter. All I could do for about 30 minutes was sit on the ground and keep my eyes down as even the movement of people walking by turned my stomach.
goldensmom
10-4-12, 12:32pm
I think Obama was tired and not well prepared. Likely a time management issue with Presidential responsibilities and campaigning.
….yeah, that was probably it, but Romney ‘won’ the first debate…..look at the polls.
Originally posted by Rogar.
I got the feeling Obama was looking down in disgust thinking, I can't believe Romney is actually trying to pull off that fabrication.I got the same feeling.
The Storyteller
10-4-12, 1:01pm
To use a sports analogy from football (because after all, that is how everyone is treating this, anyway)...
I think Obama is just trying to run out the clock and was playing prevent defense. When you are ahead and the clock is running out on the opposition, you play cautiously. Look to hold your opponent to a few yards each play, avoid costly mistakes, protect mostly against the big plays, keep them from going out of bounds so the clock keeps ticking.
But to paraphrase Joe Theisman, prevent defense never really works. The only thing it prevents is you from winning. You are much more likely to win the game by being aggressive and playing the way you did to get ahead in the first place.
I thought Obama was incredibly cautious last night. I saw several openings he could have driven a rhetorical truck through, but either he didn't see them, or was afraid to go there. Style over substance, I thought Romney was the clear winner. On substance, in my very unbiased opinion, Obama did. But that doesn't matter. Only perception does, because in politics, perception is reality, and the perception is Romney won.
I walked away wondering two things...
1. What moron thought it would be a good idea for Kerry to be Obama's training partner? I thought several times, with his long drawn out boring soliloquies, he was actually channeling the former Democratic candidate. How else does the Great Orator put people to sleep?
2. Is Obama just plain tired of being president, and deep down would love nothing more than to lose this election? Because last night, it sure looked like Romney was the only one who really wanted it.
Originally posted by Storyteller.
Is Obama just plain tired of being presidentOr is he just plain old tired?
ApatheticNoMore
10-4-12, 1:53pm
This debate was on the economy, the budget/deficit, and domestic issues. I was bothered that the economy and jobs was the ONLY discussion, there are many other domestic issues that are very important.
You might find this interesting (the 3rd party stuff is not the interesting stuff, more interesting is how moderation has been pacified, how unpredictable questions have been eliminted, how League of Women's voters thrown out of moderating etc.):
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/ahead_of_first_obama_romney_debate
And that is why, why a corrupt political system is corrupt, etc..
And that is why, why a corrupt political system is corrupt, etc..
It was quite clear to me from my participation in the primary process this year that the entire system needs nuked from orbit.
You might find this interesting (the 3rd party stuff is not the interesting stuff, more interesting is how moderation has been pacified, how unpredictable questions have been eliminted, how League of Women's voters thrown out of moderating etc.):
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/ahead_of_first_obama_romney_debate
And that is why, why a corrupt political system is corrupt, etc..
I believe it was when Deval Patrick was running for governor, they had debates and somehow the Green party candidate got invited. It was quite interesting to watch the Democrat and Republican build these nice point/counterpoint structures of their opposing views and then she'd rip holes through all of it. Over and over. I can see why they would want to avoid it.
Did it change anyone's idea here on who they are voting for now? Not mine.
The Storyteller
10-4-12, 5:28pm
Did it change anyone's idea here on who they are voting for now? Not mine.
On this forum? I think not. People here aren't likely undecided voters. Right or wrong, left or right, we have fully formed opinions.
Love Bill Maher's take on The Undecided, a couple of minutes into this vid...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lv0ryYJY-UM
God bless 'em, they have every right in the world to vote how they see fit, but they don't deserve the pedestal we place them on.
It was quite clear to me from my participation in the primary process this year that the entire system needs nuked from orbit.
Word.
I listened to the radio for the first ten minutes, and was pretty bored. I don't consider these shows actual debates, nor do they statistically make much difference in the overall election. Then DH & I headed to the hot tub.
Storyteller.......thanks for posting that. It was pretty good!
iamdavidspersonaleconomy
10-4-12, 10:12pm
You might find this interesting (the 3rd party stuff is not the interesting stuff, more interesting is how moderation has been pacified, how unpredictable questions have been eliminted, how League of Women's voters thrown out of moderating etc.):
http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/3/ahead_of_first_obama_romney_debate
And that is why, why a corrupt political system is corrupt, etc..
I liked that very much. :)
Al Gore was speculating that maybe Obama's slowness may have been from altitude problems in Denver. I know some of you might be thinking this is a joke, but I'm wondering.......is it possible? He said that Romney had been there for awhile, whereas Obama had just gotten there a couple hours before. I'm not trying to make excuses for Obama.......just wondering if this could have been a factor.
Al Gore was speculating that maybe Obama's slowness may have been from altitude problems in Denver. I know some of you might be thinking this is a joke, but I'm wondering.......is it possible? He said that Romney had been there for awhile, whereas Obama had just gotten there a couple hours before. I'm not trying to make excuses for Obama.......just wondering if this could have been a factor.
I live in Denver, and it is possible. People who come here from lower elevations sometimes have headaches and are tired for a couple or few days after arriving. It isn't everyone and most people seem to acclimate within a few days. Obama has been coming a lot since Colorado seems to be an important swing state, so I would guess he's probably gotten used to the elevation.
I was wondering if he wasn't following the advice of his coaches. Stay reserved, don't do anything controversial, and just ride your lead. But Romney surprised everyone and it backfired.
The more I think about it, the more I think Lerher did a poor job as moderator. He should have expected the possibility of a strong personality trying to dominate the debate and done a better job of controlling the dialog to keep it balanced and on track.
iris lily
10-5-12, 10:00am
...The more I think about it, the more I think Lerher did a poor job as moderator. He should have expected the possibility of a strong personality trying to dominate the debate and done a better job of controlling the dialog to keep it balanced and on track.
You mean he shouldn't have handed his candidate an extra four minutes of talk time? yes, I agree.
But I liked the way the Prez and Romney went back and forth with one another without the (often) idiotic insertions of a moderator personality.
I was wondering if he wasn't following the advice of his coaches.
I'm sure he was following the best advice available, namely to play a defensive game and avoid offense at all costs. His campaign so far has been limited to destroying his opponent's character and promoting class division, which doesn't translate well in a one-on-one exchange. He also doesn't seem to have a plan for his next term other than a continuation of the first, which hasn't inspired the majority of Americans.
It's hard to look in control if you're boxed into a corner without working ammunition.
It is funny, Alan, that I think much of what you said applies to both candidates. Obama's plan is to continue encouraging educational training, work some tax reform to help the middle class, cut health care costs somehow, and grow domestic energy. Which is really nothing new and hasn't been all that great. Romney is going down the same path with different means, but is only able to provide general plans with specifics that seem vague or questionable in practicality. Both candidates have dabbled in class division and character defamation.
Rogar...........going back and forth to a higher altitude doesn't get you used to it. it just confuses your red blood cell-making machinery. :) To get used to it, you have to stay put while your rbcs reproduce.....which could take a bit of time. Maybe they should consider this in the future, as to where they have the debates.
Also, I wish they wouldn't make so much of Obama looking down so much. I think he was thinking and listening, rather than looking at Romney.
I just wish the media would shut up. I think they decide too much and affect the outcome too much. Sure, if you want to have a panel of people from both sides, discussing how the debate went....that's seems okay. But to constantly hear "So and So is the winner!!" I don't think is right or fair.
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 12:12pm
So those secret debate contracts ... well we don't know what is says because it's secret (yea this is some kind of absurdist logical joke from which to make no end of hay), but beyond the infinite that that opens up, what we do have, what is known, as it has been released, is a 2004 copy of the debate contract. What I believe is that rot has rapidly overtaken the system and so the 2012 contract is probably much worse (why dont' we have 2008? hasn't someone filed FOI on this?), but that is my take on the system.
The 2004 contract is not quite as conspiratorial as all that, it's much boring, it doesn't limit topics per se. But it perhaps does limit some of what people complain about: 1) No direct questions (candidates can not ask each other direct questions in 2004) 2) the candidates shall not address each other with proposed pledges.
Plus it's very strict on time limits and allocating time (pages devoted to this), so to say their was deliberate favoritism to give Obama 4 minutes more, well then it was favoritism somehow snuck into very narrow rules, in fact it may have been the RESULT of trying to follow all the rules (emergent unexpected result). The degree of favoritism some think exists just because the moderator wants it are very difficult to squeeze into the contract, so he or Obama worked on a brillant strategy to pull it of or ... it probably was none of this.
Well, Obama doesn't need to 'promote' class division when Romney does it so eloquently himself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slFZ8K2aBoY
He can't unring a bell. We know exactly what he thinks of half of Americans. Yeah, this is who we need as President! (just kidding)
ApatheticNoMore
10-5-12, 1:24pm
Obama's plan is to continue encouraging educational training, work some tax reform to help the middle class, cut health care costs somehow, and grow domestic energy.
I don't think he has a plan to cut healthcare costs (thus the "somehow" I guess), and as for growing domestic energy, I find this SO incredibly depressing. This means mountain top removal for coal, and fracking for natural gas and the resulting poisoning of the local water supplies and so on. This means more risky deep sea drilling, and thus more disasters like the BP disaster (shrimp still coming out mutated 3 generations in). I mean that ecosystem was destroyed by the oil, by the dispersants, it's not the same.
Some have written on this, but resource economies, economies whose main product is extracted resources, don't actually tend to have broadbased prosperity. So by default the powers that be have decided that this will be the fate of the U.S., that the last remaining resources will be extracted regardless of environmental consequences, with the spoils mostly going to a few, and the water supplies will be poisoned in the meantime, which may turn out to be a far more valuable resource in the end (iow it's being stupid and short term), heck people will even get sick from these activities, but without debate, by default, this is what we have chosen.
Which is really nothing new and hasn't been all that great.
Yea no kidding, poisoning the environment for short term gain isn't really "that great".
Romney is going down the same path with different means, but is only able to provide general plans with specifics that seem vague or questionable in practicality.
Definitely agree with this.
... and as for growing domestic energy, I find this SO incredibly depressing. This means mountain top removal for coal, and fracking for natural gas and the resulting poisoning of the local water supplies and so on. This means more risky deep sea drilling, and thus more disasters like the BP disaster (shrimp still coming out mutated 3 generations in). I mean that ecosystem was destroyed by the oil, by the dispersants, it's not the same.
Yes, the choices between the two on environmental issues are sort of a downer. But it is the most important issue in my voting thought process and there is hands down a better of the two. In the debate, I actually heard Romney use the term, "Clean Coal".
In the debate, I actually heard Romney use the term, "Clean Coal".
Perhaps he was referring to this sort of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
gimmethesimplelife
10-5-12, 5:54pm
Amazing....I have had so much going on lately that I did not even know the debate was on the night it was and heard of it all secondhand. Usually I am on top of all such things.....I did hear that Romney emerged with a better performance, but the latest polls I have been able to find online today show Obama still a little bit ahead.....Rob
Perhaps he was referring to this sort of thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_coal_technology
Yes I suppose, in retrospect, that is what he meant. My basic understanding is that carbon sequester, like many of the other clean energy technologies, needs some external support to be economically competitive. Especially with the lower costs of natural gas. But I have to take back some of my preconceived notions of his statement.
Yes I suppose, in retrospect, that is what he meant. My basic understanding is that carbon sequester, like many of the other clean energy technologies, needs some external support to be economically competitive. Especially with the lower costs of natural gas.
The balance might shift, if we forced people to properly account for their externalities.
iris lily
10-6-12, 12:17am
...I just wish the media would shut up. .. But to constantly hear "So and So is the winner!!" I don't think is right or fair.
Oh for heaven's sake, Romney won the debate soundly. Results of these things aren't always so clear so let mainstream media note that decisvie victory. I can assure you that the MSM was back to promoting their man Obama within 24 hours of the debate's end.
People might have a different definition of "winning". I thought Romney was more verbal and pushy, but that doesn't mean I think he "won".
Did Romney "win" due to some fudging of facts? From a recent NPR article:
"Independent fact checkers (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2012/oct/03/fact-checking-denver-presidential-debate/) have not been particularly kind to Mitt Romney since Wednesday's first presidential debate in Denver. But one of the candidate's claims turned out to be so far off the mark that he had to be corrected by his own aides — a fact not unnoticed by the Obama campaign.
Romney's claim was this, part of what turned out to be a highly detailed discussion (http://www.npr.org/2012/10/03/162258551/transcript-first-obama-romney-presidential-debate) of health care: "No. 1, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.
This isn't the first time a Romney statement has had to be walked back by his staff when it comes to health care. In recent weeks he's misstated or switched positions onabortion (http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/09/03/160502626/romney-and-abortion-another-shift-in-the-works) and on Medicaid (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2012/09/25/161719767/romney-medicaid-remarks-raise-eyebrows). But at 67 million viewers (http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/04/obama-romney-debate-viewership-nielsen/1614059/), this was by far the largest audience that's heard something different from what the candidate's position actually is."
http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2012/10/06/162404662/romney-health-care-debate-claim-gets-corrected-by-his-own-staff
Romney took some pretty wild shots from the hip during the debate.
Back to my feeling that alot of the media talks about who "won".............I fear there are alot of voters out there who feel one debater did better than another, just because he spoke faster, spoke louder, etc., etc. I'd like a person to "win" because of substance. Actually, I wish we could get away from "win" and "lose"...........and use different adjectives/adverbs. This country seems to feel that a person/country either wins or loses and there's no in-between.
This country seems to feel that a person/country either wins or loses and there's no in-between.
That's the problem with elections - there's a winner, and a loser. It hardly seems fair, it is so judgmental, and think what it does for the poor candidates' self-esteem. They should all be winners.
iris lily
10-6-12, 12:42pm
Back to my feeling that alot of the media talks about who "won".............I fear there are alot of voters out there who feel one debater did better than another, just because he spoke faster, spoke louder, etc., etc. I'd like a person to "win" because of substance. Actually, I wish we could get away from "win" and "lose"...........and use different adjectives/adverbs. This country seems to feel that a person/country either wins or loses and there's no in-between.
Usually, with most debates, the results are more "even" with both sides declaring a "win." Even MSNBC couldn't declare Obama the winner this time, Rachel Maddow just "didn't know" ha ha which should tell you a lot. This time most reasonable people consider it a win for Romney not a victory for both sides. This one time. I doubt that the next time will be so lopsided. And in the long run, debate performance has only a bit of influence on voters.
But if you are unable to hand Romney even this small bone, ok.
Back to my feeling that alot of the media talks about who "won".............I fear there are alot of voters out there who feel one debater did better than another, just because he spoke faster, spoke louder, etc., etc. I'd like a person to "win" because of substance. Actually, I wish we could get away from "win" and "lose"...........and use different adjectives/adverbs. This country seems to feel that a person/country either wins or loses and there's no in-between.
Many people seem to prefer this - if you start getting into the complexities of things, where practically everything has good aspects and bad aspects to them and you have start weighing these between themselves and other things, and start getting into everything you need to know to understand all this, many eyes start glazing over and they lose interest. Which is the last thing media wants to do, so they don't go there much.
ToomuchStuff
10-6-12, 1:09pm
That's the problem with elections - there's a winner, and a loser. It hardly seems fair, it is so judgmental, and think what it does for the poor candidates' self-esteem. They should all be winners.
Got quite the chuckle from that, thanks! I am wondering if CathyA wants to go back to the old system, of the losing candidate becoming the vise president?
Thanks creaker..........that was a good response, as opposed to Bae's.
Yes Bae, I know there is a winner and a loser at the election. Duh. But I find using the words "win" or "lose" in one debate just strange. If "winning" means coming up with information that is a bit iffy, or continuing to talk when the moderator says to stop, or going over your 4 points many times, or running all your thoughts together, then I guess that person "won" over the other.
I don't feel that either of them won.
Yes, let's make fun of CathyA who isn't as articulate as some of you 'scholars.'
ToomuchStuff
10-6-12, 1:42pm
Yes, let's make fun of CathyA who isn't as articulate as some of you 'scholars.'
You come up with a good response and I will laugh at that too!
So, do you want to go back to the 2nd most voted for candidate, becoming vice president? In some ways, I think it would force the parties to work together more. In other ways, I think it would just improve their ability to lie to us.
You come up with a good response and I will laugh at that too!
So, do you want to go back to the 2nd most voted for candidate, becoming vice president? In some ways, I think it would force the parties to work together more. In other ways, I think it would just improve their ability to lie to us.
That would never happen - it would expose how closely aligned the two parties actually are and who are the folks really being left out.
I thought the vote on the NDAA framed this very well - the parties who can't appear to agree on anything passed a very onerous (onerous in the sense there was much in the bill each party should have disagreed with) bill with little debate or fight, and was signed into law the same way. It made all the other fighting look like merely a show they are putting on the masses.
ApatheticNoMore
10-7-12, 2:21pm
There's winners and losers all right, WHOEVER wins, most people will lose! I really do belive that of this Presidential election.
I've come to think we'd probably be better off with a parlimentary system (and I guess that's less winner and loser). Maybe that really is democracy 2.0 or the alpha version, we've still got the beta, it came first, but it's buggy. But ... you can't just wave a wand and impose a parlimentary system on a country that has never had one. It's not even where you start with electorial reform. You start, trying to get the money out of politics I guess .... what else ...
I thought the vote on the NDAA framed this very well - the parties who can't appear to agree on anything passed a very onerous (onerous in the sense there was much in the bill each party should have disagreed with) bill with little debate or fight, and was signed into law the same way. It made all the other fighting look like merely a show they are putting on the masses.
Yea, they work plenty well together when the topic is screwing us over. When you hear there is a bipartisan consensus on something: time to panic! Hardly a single job bill, a half dozen bills attacking civil liberties. It's not that I believe their job bills would be effective (too much money in the political process now for that not to be scewed), but they're not even *trying* to adress things people care about and are instead passing legistlation both parties should be opposed to.
It will probably get worse before it gets better. Do what you can, fight whatever battles you deem worth fighting (money out of poltiics is a good one, little bits and pieces of the environment are always worth saving - and remember to vote for this with your dollars as well), but a whole bunch of stuff is just going to run it's course at this point probably. Hope there's something left to rebuild when it's all crashed and burned.
That's the problem with elections - there's a winner, and a loser. It hardly seems fair, it is so judgmental, and think what it does for the poor candidates' self-esteem. They should all be winners.
LOL!!!
The Storyteller
10-9-12, 9:41am
That's the problem with elections - there's a winner, and a loser. It hardly seems fair, it is so judgmental, and think what it does for the poor candidates' self-esteem. They should all be winners.
Maybe we could give Obama the presidency and Romney a participation or Best Smile trophy to help with that.
The Storyteller
10-9-12, 9:46am
Thanks creaker..........that was a good response, as opposed to Bae's.
Yes Bae, I know there is a winner and a loser at the election. Duh. But I find using the words "win" or "lose" in one debate just strange.
Actually, you make a good point. In a debate competition, Romney would have gotten points for style, but would likely have lost on substance when compared to Obama's.
This reminds me of fights I have seen in my boxing days. One guy could beat the crap out of another, but because he got a piddly nosebleed and there was lots of blood, the uninitiated might think he lost.
But it doesn't matter. Everyone thinks Romney won, so he did. Voting is 100% opinion anyway.
Actually, you make a good point. In a debate competition, Romney would have gotten points for style, but would likely have lost on substance when compared to Obama's.
I see it just the opposite way. Shock and awe, I know. In truth Storyteller, this campaign season I'm alot happier when we're talking about chickens.
The Storyteller
10-9-12, 11:53am
In truth Storyteller, this campaign season I'm alot happier when we're talking about chickens.
Okay, I'll shut up.
I think they should have debates (although they aren't really debates anymore), and the media shuts up and then we vote, without the media saying anything about who they thought "won".
I find polls sort of curious, since in my 62 years, nobody asked me (or anybody I know) what I thought about anything......so you wonder who/where/how they get this info.
Of course there will be a winner and a loser in the election.............I just wish the media wouldn't put alot of ideas in peoples' heads............people who are easily swayed by what everybody else is thinking/saying/doing.
And as far as "winning"...........it bugs me how the U.S. has to put everything in those terms. Like when we were trying to get out of Iraq and certain people had to constantly say "we won in Iraq!" (even if we really didn't.....nor did it seem like we even knew what it would mean to "win" there.)
And I don't see what's wrong with saying "It just didn't turn out how we had hoped." .........but this makes alot of people feel insecure and weak, so we're never supposed to say we "lost".
As far as the debates........I don't think talking about who won which one, or talking about it incessantly is good. Just have the danged debates and then go vote......without all this crap in-between.
I think there are alot of people out there who are easily talked into things, by what the media says.......and they want to go with a "winner"......regardless of his beliefs/record/facts, etc.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.