View Full Version : Presidential debate round 2
This one had a much different look. Any favorite comments? Is the person who dominates the room the winner or was there a clear leader in points made? The initial media feedback I'm seeing is saying Obama was the clear winner on immigration, women's rights and tax debate. Romney gets points for capitalizing on Obama's performance record.
Jerry Springer maybe be looking for the election looser for upcoming employment?
gimmethesimplelife
10-16-12, 11:23pm
This one had a much different look. Any favorite comments? Is the person who dominates the room the winner or was there a clear leader in points made? The initial media feedback I'm seeing is saying Obama was the clear winner on immigration, women's rights and tax debate. Romney gets points for capitalizing on Obama's performance record.
Jerry Springer maybe be looking for the election looser for upcoming employment?I didn't watch much of it as I will admit I was a little afraid that Obama would not pull it together and get aggressive. So I did some online surveys and got up and walked into the living room a few times and asked my cousin who was watching how it was going and she kept telling me Obama was holding his own and Romney was giving no specifics. Also I did see Romney stumble and stutter a little and that made me feel relieved. Sometimes I don't know which one I should want to win as I wonder as a nation can we afford more of the debt of the Obama years? On the other hand,. I am absolutely TERRIFIED of what may happen to health care under Romney. I live close to Mexico and have no problems whatsoever admitting that American health care does not work and fleeing to Mexico for health care as need be - but what about the millions of other Americans who don't live close to the border, for whom fleeing to Mexico for health care is much more problematic, and for whom American health care does not work? I see no Republican plan to supply vouchers for the cost of fleeing across the border for affordable health care, nor do I see any apology for or admisssion of the fact that American health care doesn't work for many. After that scathing commentary HOWEVER, I think they are right about debt in general. So for me its not as easy as it was back in 2008. At least with Obama we wlll have ObamaCare and fewer will have to flee to Mexico or elsewhere for healthcare, so for this one reason, plus his "evolved" stance on gay marriage, and the fact that gays and lesbians can openly serve in the military, he gets my vote. But not with the hope and change hoopla of 2008, and there is still a cynical part of me that thinks the unemployment numbers have been cooked a bit.....So call me a liberal but not an automatic one I guess. LOL Rob
Romney is an arrogant pig in his presentation. Makes me sad.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 1:24am
Romney is an arrogant pig in his presentation. Makes me sad.I heard he started out OK but somewhere towards the middle kind of lost it and started looking less in control of himself. He is quite cocky when he feels he has the upper hand is my take on him. Rob
My favorite is when Obama asked Candy to "say that louder." The audiance applauded even though they are not supposed to!
Romney was trying to tell Obama that he did not call the attack an "act of terror" originally.
Obama kept his cool and wanted Romney to finish his point and not bicker and finally Candy said "the president did say it"
and Obama said "say that louder"
and she said "the president did call it an act of terror"
hahahahhaah.
i love you Obama.
I loved Obama's final words.
They were each asked to debunk a myth about themselves. Romney just tail spinned in to his old talking points.
Obama went head on that he does not believe government is always the answer and he believes in the free market system. He went on to say that he does believe everyone should have a fair shot and do their fair share and then he FINALLY mentioned that Romney does not care about the 47 percent!
I'm guessing that anyone's individual thoughts on performance are colored somewhat by their political preferences. I personally thought that Romney won the debate by a small margin given the fact that the President stepped up his game in this performance.
According to the CBS Instant Poll, Romney was the clear winner on Economic issues while the President carried the night on Foreign Policy. I'm not sure how much influence the moderator had on that point when she took it upon herself to verify the President's statement that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror the morning after the event. While she walked that back a bit during a CNN post-debate interview, the damage had already been done.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 9:21am
I'm guessing that anyone's individual thoughts on performance are colored somewhat by their political preferences. I personally thought that Romney won the debate by a small margin given the fact that the President stepped up his game in this performance.
According to the CBS Instant Poll, Romney was the clear winner on Economic issues while the President carried the night on Foreign Policy. I'm not sure how much influence the moderator had on that point when she took it upon herself to verify the President's statement that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror the morning after the event. While she walked that back a bit during a CNN post-debate interview, the damage had already been done.I heard that Ms Crowley set up some rules right before the candidates appeared on stage, one of them being no cheering or booing of the candidates other than applause when they first appeared onstage. This seems very civil and professional to me. I did show up for a few minutes during this exchange between Romney and Obama, where it did seem that Ms. Crowley stood up for Obama and the audience applauded. Two things here - that was the death knell of this debate for Romney right there, he should have just cut his losses right there and toned it down for the remainder of the debate for damage control concerns, and two - the audience applauding was in violation of the rules set down by the moderator prior to the candidates walking out on stage - this should have been addressed for reasons of professionalism. Just my take on the evening.....Rob
I did show up for a few minutes during this exchange between Romney and Obama, where it did seem that Ms. Crowley stood up for Obama and the audience applauded. Two things here - that was the death knell of this debate for Romney right there, he should have just cut his losses right there and toned it down for the remainder of the debate for damage control concerns, and two - the audience applauding was in violation of the rules set down by the moderator prior to the candidates walking out on stage - this should have been addressed for reasons of professionalism.
I had a chance to watch the whole thing and basically had Obama strong at the beginning and the end with Romney taking charge in the middle. I don't see any room for doubt that Romney lead the economic portion. The President certainly 'won' on foreign policy. Both as expected. My disappointment in foreign policy was that Libya was the central theme rather than Iran, China, the EU, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. Not to diminish anything that happened there, but if you get right down to it I don't give a rat's petutti what happens in Libya (do you?) and wish we didn't even have a presence there. But its an old song, they have oil, we need oil...
I do think the Reps have a legit gripe about how Candy Crowley injected herself into the debate. I was surprised that she didn't do a better job of controling the situation and was so obviously intimidated by the President. I'm hoping Bob Schieffer will be our last, best chance to have a moderator with a spine.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 9:26am
I loved Obama's final words.
They were each asked to debunk a myth about themselves. Romney just tail spinned in to his old talking points.
Obama went head on that he does not believe government is always the answer and he believes in the free market system. He went on to say that he does believe everyone should have a fair shot and do their fair share and then he FINALLY mentioned that Romney does not care about the 47 percent!I'm glad Obama FIANALLY brought up the 47% issue - this is a very potent arguement in his favor for myself and most of the people I know here in Phoenix. Most ot the people I know are struggling and to some degree have some fear of the future, and I myself am questioning the wisdom of remaning in the US long term for reasons I have already stated - Romney's slip on the 47% comment comment SPEAKS VOLUMES to myself and most people I know, and I am a bit disappointed Obama took this long to bring it up. Rob
No doubt Obama had some pressure to re-gain ground and that might have pushed him to push the envelope on facts. My take on Fact Checker is that it was a tie for who had the most half truths or mis- information. Our local morning news said that Obama redeemed some of the ground he lost from the first debate, but they thought the tone of the debate was so aggressive that no one really won or lost. They classified Romney as being disrespectful at times. I though Romney tried to invade the President's personal space as an intimidation tactic.
After reading some of the recaps of the issues, I think presentation style aside it was pretty much even. There really wasn't a lot of new issues discussed. It seemed like what ever the topic of the question, the discussion gravitated back rehashing to the economy and taxes. My platform of interest is the environment and the Obama approach on energy seemed more balanced. One of the most animated discussion was on gas production increases or decreases on public land and fact checker says that Obama's statements on increases of gas production on public lands was probably more accurate than Romney's claim that it had decreased. It become so heated I was wondering if the Secret Service might have to jump in as the bouncer.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 9:35am
I had a chance to watch the whole thing and basically had Obama strong at the beginning and the end with Romney taking charge in the middle. I don't see any room for doubt that Romney lead the economic portion. The President certainly 'won' on foreign policy. Both as expected. My disappointment in foreign policy was that Libya was the central theme rather than Iran, China, the EU, North Korea, Pakistan, etc. Not to diminish anything that happened there, but if you get right down to it I don't give a rat's petutti what happens in Libya (do you?) and wish we didn't even have a presence there. But its an old song, they have oil, we need oil...
I do think the Reps have a legit gripe about how Candy Crowley injected herself into the debate. I was surprised that she didn't do a better job of controling the situation and was so obviously intimidated by the President. I'm hoping Bob Schieffer will be our last, best chance to have a moderator with a spine.I didn't see the whole thing....but I did pop out into the lilving room where my cousin was watching towards the end and it sure seemed to me that Romney at that point was stuttering slightly and seeming weak and unsure of himself, and I have heard that Obama did not have any such low points during the debate.....Rob
I've decided that to be president, you have to need to have the last word.....
I know Obama ignored Ms. Crowley a couple times, but with Romney...........there he goes again. Doesn't he EVER shut up when asked to???
He's a robot.
Both of them put spins on things and sometimes never answered the question asked. I wish some of those people in the audience who asked questions could have rebutted, yelling "You never answered my damned question!"
Its so obnoxious to start yapping about the usual crap, instead of answering a direct question..............but I guess that's what politics is all about.
My DD had a good suggestion..............the candidates should have to drink a shot of liquor after each question. Soon we would find out what they REALLY think. haha
DD also had another great suggestion about them continuing to talk when the moderator has asked them to stop.............shock collars.
I think I've reached my saturation point. I'm so sick of it all.....including the senate and governor races. Its a reality (or UNreality) that I just can't deal with.
I'm guessing that anyone's individual thoughts on performance are colored somewhat by their political preferences. I personally thought that Romney won the debate by a small margin given the fact that the President stepped up his game in this performance.
According to the CBS Instant Poll, Romney was the clear winner on Economic issues while the President carried the night on Foreign Policy. I'm not sure how much influence the moderator had on that point when she took it upon herself to verify the President's statement that he called the Benghazi attack an act of terror the morning after the event. While she walked that back a bit during a CNN post-debate interview, the damage had already been done.
Yeah, facts are a bitch, aren't they? I don't think she would have said anything except Romney was trying to bitch-slap Obama with it. Kind of in-your-face about it, really, so he was instantly fact checked.
I thought it was a good debate. Once again, Romney trotted out his '5 point plan' to save the country.
1) Get everyone a job
2) Bring back manufacturing to the 1950's level
3) repeal Obamacare, and replace it with everything everyone needs
4) a dancing horse in every barn
5) an elevator in every garage
Oh, and he'll do this in 4 years!
With all he promised to do on 'day one', he could pretty much retire on day two. Or he could just be an auto-pen for Grover Norquist.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-budget-conservatives-vice-president-health-care.php
“We are not auditioning for fearless leader,” Grover Norquist told conservatives at the CPAC convention in February. “We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. … We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.”
Norquist went on: “Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States"
I thought President Obama was good, but there were a few things I wish he had called Romney on. The whole tax thing, especially. Romney kept saying he wasn't going to lower taxes for the wealthy, but in the same breath said he would lower/eliminate capitol gains and estate taxes. He kept talking in that fast, used car salesman voice, trying to imply that eliminating or reducing those taxes would only benefit the middle class. What a joke! Either he knows he is full of it, or he is totally clueless as to the situations of the middle class. But I'm betting he is just trying to sell a load of 'dancing horse excrement'.
He knows perfectly well that only wealthy estates pay estate taxes, that it doesn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and that folks like him make their living from capitol gains, not those who wait on tables, or dig ditches, or manage offices.
I have to give it to him though, he has found the ultimate tax avoidance scheme. Become President then write tax code to benefit yourself.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 9:45am
No doubt Obama had some pressure to re-gain ground and that might have pushed him to push the envelope on facts. My take on Fact Checker is that it was a tie for who had the most half truths or mis- information. Our local morning news said that Obama redeemed some of the ground he lost from the first debate, but they thought the tone of the debate was so aggressive that no one really won or lost. They classified Romney as being disrespectful at times. I though Romney tried to invade the President's personal space as an intimidation tactic.
After reading some of the recaps of the issues, I think presentation style aside it was pretty much even. There really wasn't a lot of new issues discussed. It seemed like what ever the topic of the question, the discussion gravitated back rehashing to the economy and taxes. My platform of interest is the environment and the Obama approach on energy seemed more balanced. One of the most animated discussion was on gas production increases or decreases on public land and fact checker says that Obama's statements on increases of gas production on public lands was probably more accurate than Romney's claim that it had decreased. It become so heated I was wondering if the Secret Service might have to jump in as the bouncer.I can rememeber years ago during the Reagan years when he was debating someone - I'm thinking it was Walter Mondale but I'm not sure - and I remember thinking it was like watching two little children fighting over who was going to play in the sandbox. But this was totally different, and I like your Secret Service agent as a bouncer comment - the hostile tone and aggressiveness of this debate serve to show me how much society has changed since the 80's, and not in a good way here.....Rob PS And on this one I think BOTH sides could tone it down some.....
Just curious guys, have you read the WHOLE transcript (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video)of what Romney was saying when the 47% came up, or just the sound bite version? It makes a little more sense if you bother to read it in context. Btw, the link is from Mother Jones so no one could accuse me of tossing out a conservative source, you just need to ignore their commentary at the beginning if you want to have an open mind.
Oh, and another thing.......no one has ever said anything about the environment.....except for a little that Obama said about developing other types of energy.
I find this very disconcerting that the environmental issue has gone so far down on the list, that no one ever brings it up.
I expect Romney to rape the land, but am disappointed that Obama doesn't mention it any more. Its understandable though, in a politics sense, since he is desperate to not lose any people "on the fence", who are more interested in cheap gas and feeling that global warming is a myth.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 9:51am
Yeah, facts are a bitch, aren't they? I don't think she would have said anything except Romney was trying to bitch-slap Obama with it. Kind of in-your-face about it, really, so he was instantly fact checked.
I thought it was a good debate. Once again, Romney trotted out his '5 point plan' to save the country.
1) Get everyone a job
2) Bring back manufacturing to the 1950's level
3) repeal Obamacare, and replace it with everything everyone needs
4) a dancing horse in every barn
5) an elevator in every garage
Oh, and he'll do this in 4 years!
With all he promised to do on 'day one', he could pretty much retire on day two. Or he could just be an auto-pen for Grover Norquist.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/08/mitt-romney-paul-ryan-budget-conservatives-vice-president-health-care.php
“We are not auditioning for fearless leader,” Grover Norquist told conservatives at the CPAC convention in February. “We don’t need a president to tell us in what direction to go. We know what direction to go. We want the Ryan budget. … We just need a president to sign this stuff. We don’t need someone to think it up or design it. The leadership now for the modern conservative movement for the next 20 years will be coming out of the House and the Senate.”
Norquist went on: “Pick a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen to become president of the United States"
I thought President Obama was good, but there were a few things I wish he had called Romney on. The whole tax thing, especially. Romney kept saying he wasn't going to lower taxes for the wealthy, but in the same breath said he would lower/eliminate capitol gains and estate taxes. He kept talking in that fast, used car salesman voice, trying to imply that eliminating or reducing those taxes would only benefit the middle class. What a joke! Either he knows he is full of it, or he is totally clueless as to the situations of the middle class. But I'm betting he is just trying to sell a load of 'dancing horse excrement'.
He knows perfectly well that only wealthy estates pay estate taxes, that it doesn't affect the vast majority of Americans, and that folks like him make their living from capitol gains, not those who wait on tables, or dig ditches, or manage offices.
I have to give it to him though, he has found the ultimate tax avoidance scheme. Become President then write tax code to benefit yourself.LOL LOL LOL Peggy.....I have often said - this dates back to four years ago with Romney's failed attempt to get the Republican nomination back in 2008 - that Romney should be selling used cars out on a used car lot somewhere in Natick ( a first ring suburb right outside of Boston). Rob
I don't think she would have said anything except Romney was trying to bitch-slap Obama with it. Kind of in-your-face about it, really, so he was instantly fact checked.
I think the whole point is that it wasn't Ms. Crowley's job to be a fact checker one way or the other. In fact, that is exactly what she should not have done. As a moderator it can be difficult to not interject your own views, but at that level of the game people have a right to make up their own minds without knowing, or caring, what the moderator thinks.
gimmethesimplelife
10-17-12, 10:01am
I think the whole point is that it wasn't Ms. Crowley's job to be a fact checker one way or the other. In fact, that is exactly what she should not have done. As a moderator it can be difficult to not interject your own views, but at that level of the game people have a right to make up their own minds without knowing, or caring, what the moderator thinks.I have a very hard time being impartial here as I have so much fear of what may happen to health care in the US with a Romney victory, but, that being said, I do think the Republicans have a legit gripe about Ms. Crowley, as it indeed does not seem to be her job to fact check but rather to keep the debate sort of civil and the candidates within their alloted time frames. Rob
I think the whole point is that it wasn't Ms. Crowley's job to be a fact checker one way or the other. In fact, that is exactly what she should not have done. As a moderator it can be difficult to not interject your own views, but at that level of the game people have a right to make up their own minds without knowing, or caring, what the moderator thinks.
Especially considering that the moderator gave credence to a mostly false statement in front of 60M+ people, but then gave us her mea-culpa on a little watched cable news show.
Exactly. But as you said Alan, the damage had already been done. That's a shame.
iris lily
10-17-12, 10:23am
Exactly. But as you said Alan, the damage had already been done. That's a shame.
That's a shame? That's a scheme.
catherine
10-17-12, 10:26am
Oh, and another thing.......no one has ever said anything about the environment.....except for a little that Obama said about developing other types of energy.
I find this very disconcerting that the environmental issue has gone so far down on the list, that no one ever brings it up.
I expect Romney to rape the land, but am disappointed that Obama doesn't mention it any more. Its understandable though, in a politics sense, since he is desperate to not lose any people "on the fence", who are more interested in cheap gas and feeling that global warming is a myth.
I thought they clarified their position at least on their fossil fuel agendas. Romney is DEFINITELY in the Environment-Be-Damned camp. Coal, Keystone pipeline, offshore, federal lands, private lands, anything as long as people don't have to think about the limits of fossil fuels.
Just curious guys, have you read the WHOLE transcript (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/full-transcript-mitt-romney-secret-video)of what Romney was saying when the 47% came up, or just the sound bite version? It makes a little more sense if you bother to read it in context. Btw, the link is from Mother Jones so no one could accuse me of tossing out a conservative source, you just need to ignore their commentary at the beginning if you want to have an open mind.
I have not read the whole transcript, but do think it is being made more of a political wedge than reality. It was obviously a poor choice of sentences and Romney was no doubt trying to impress his croneys. I may be naive, but I cannot imagine someone seeking the presidency without due concern for the future of the county and it's citizens. No doubt, there are power and ego motives as well, but tend to think Romney is probably a decent person deep down inside.
That said, the Romney campaign has it's own transgressions to account for.
I am surprised Obama has not pressed Romney even more on the specifics of his tax loopholes that will be closed. It is one of the basic keys to having the math add up for his tax cuts and having his plan for the economy work. I think he has something up his sleeve that he won't talk about because it isn't popular. One of the questioners even asked that question very directly and he danced around never even coming close to answering.
I thought they clarified their position at least on their fossil fuel agendas. Romney is DEFINITELY in the Environment-Be-Damned camp. Coal, Keystone pipeline, offshore, federal lands, private lands, anything as long as people don't have to think about the limits of fossil fuels.
Oh, and another thing.......no one has ever said anything about the environment.....except for a little that Obama said about developing other types of energy.
I find this very disconcerting that the environmental issue has gone so far down on the list, that no one ever brings it up.
I expect Romney to rape the land, but am disappointed that Obama doesn't mention it any more. Its understandable though, in a politics sense, since he is desperate to not lose any people "on the fence", who are more interested in cheap gas and feeling that global warming is a myth.
The candidates didn't say anything about the environment because no one in the town hall format asked anything about the environment. People care about the economy right now. The question about how to get back to CHEAP gas should speak volumes to anyone who watched. I'm sure it did to both candidates. The question shows that not only are people not thinking about getting away from fossil fuel, they want more of it for less money. Cheap gas will ONLY come from the government continuing to subsidize the whole supply chain. You could very easily make the argument that low gas prices are an entitlement. Politicians are elected to give constituents what they want and right now the American public wants cheap gas more than they want clean air. I personally think that is ludicrous and obscene in addition to myopic, but you can't blame either politician for trying to give people what they want. It's what they do.
I think the whole point is that it wasn't Ms. Crowley's job to be a fact checker one way or the other. In fact, that is exactly what she should not have done. As a moderator it can be difficult to not interject your own views, but at that level of the game people have a right to make up their own minds without knowing, or caring, what the moderator thinks.
True enough. And I think it was this aspect that she walked back, as Alan said, not the fact of it.
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 11:46am
Oh, and another thing.......no one has ever said anything about the environment.....except for a little that Obama said about developing other types of energy.
I find this very disconcerting that the environmental issue has gone so far down on the list, that no one ever brings it up.
I expect Romney to rape the land, but am disappointed that Obama doesn't mention it any more. Its understandable though, in a politics sense, since he is desperate to not lose any people "on the fence", who are more interested in cheap gas and feeling that global warming is a myth.
climate change has not been mentioned once in the entire Obama campaign. Romeny has not mentioned either. You don't like climate change, ok how about ocean acidification. Not mentioned either. Newspapers do whole articles on these subjects. The would be leaders of the plutocracy say nothing.
I thought they clarified their position at least on their fossil fuel agendas. Romney is DEFINITELY in the Environment-Be-Damned camp. Coal, Keystone pipeline, offshore, federal lands, private lands, anything as long as people don't have to think about the limits of fossil fuels.
They both are. You have to understand this: Keystone pipeline is proceeding RIGHT NOW. Obama has not (yet) signed off on it on a federal level, yes. But it's proceeding none the less on a state level. It is being built RIGHT NOW. Didn't they both speak all about energy, nothing about the environment? We're screwed. I understand lesser of two evils voting, I don't have a problem with that per se, really and truly I don't, my problem with it is the delusion and cheerleading that goes along with it, anyone who thinks Obama winning means the environment is safe is falling into dangerous self-delusion. I hate the political system we have, it makes people deluded.
The candidates didn't say anything about the environment because no one in the town hall format asked anything about the environment.
Oh glorious coincidence an issue they have been silent about the whole time on the entire campaign coincidentally noone asks about. Anyone ask about NDAA? Hahahahaha. Let me guess, that answer to that is also coincidentally no. Wow what coincidences.
People care about the economy right now. The question about how to get back to CHEAP gas should speak volumes to anyone who watched. I'm sure it did to both candidates. The question shows that not only are people not thinking about getting away from fossil fuel, they want more of it for less money. Cheap gas will ONLY come from the government continuing to subsidize the whole supply chain. You could very easily make the argument that low gas prices are an entitlement. Politicians are elected to give constituents what they want and right now the American public wants cheap gas more than they want clean air. I personally think that is ludicrous and obscene in addition to myopic, but you can't blame either politician for trying to give people what they want. It's what they do.
And how much do the polticians themselves contribute to what people want? If politicians refuse to even mention environmental issues (this is the ENTIRE campaign trail), does this not itself make it seem they are unimportant? Isn't there a bit of chicken and egg going on. Not to mention propaganda. Not to mention the type of campaign money they have raised now. Not that they could possibly have been bought out by polluting industries or anything and that's why they don't mention it .... Gas is near $4.80 a gallon now in California. I don't mind. The degree to which a livable planet is more important than this to me has no bounds.
What both of them are doing and will do on the environment is criminal and obscene. Hell on earth all we have to look forward to regardless of who wins.
True enough. And I think it was this aspect that she walked back, as Alan said, not the fact of it.
She did both.
http://youtu.be/E_8KwR4N3Gw
catherine
10-17-12, 12:34pm
What both of them are doing and will do on the environment is criminal and obscene. Hell on earth all we have to look forward to regardless of who wins.
I agree.. what kills me is that Romney was not apologizing for pushing anti-environment agendas--he was really glorifying it! WE will raise coal and natural gas production!! WE will drill anywhere and everywhere! WE will leave no stone unturned in enabling the addiction to energy consumption!
It's true that the people just don't seem to care, but it's a shame that our leaders can't provide the vision..
OHHH ONE MORE THING, i love how Obama DEFENDED BUSH!
Romney was asked what makes him different than Bush (and presumably better). He gave reasons.
When it was Obama's turn, Obama said, "Bush is nothing like Romney. Bush wouldn't cut planned parenthood. Bush wouldn't do such and such with immigration. And there was another thing." That was cool!
Obama twisting that around and making it like Bush is good compared to Romney!
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 1:36pm
OHHH ONE MORE THING, i love how Obama DEFENDED BUSH!
He's only been borrowing from his policies for 4 years ....
Romney was asked what makes him different than Bush (and presumably better). He gave reasons.
The question is fair to Romney, he seems awefully fond of neocons. But why don't they ask the same question of Obama? What makes him different than Bush? (especially on foreign policy and civil liberties).
When it was Obama's turn, Obama said, "Bush is nothing like Romney. Bush wouldn't cut planned parenthood. Bush wouldn't do such and such with immigration. And there was another thing." That was cool! Obama twisting that around and making it like Bush is good compared to Romney
Nah defending W is really NOT cool. It's bad enough we're "looking forward not back", now we've moved on to full on hagiography. Elder Bush I could kind of see defending, but W, no. But hey W won't cut planned parenthood he ONLY implemented TORTURE as a government policy!!!! Not to mention the wars. Glad we have our priorities straight!! And we can all defend W at the end of the day while singing kumbaya. We're all W fans now.
I find it sad that the president and Governor Rommey have to tell half truths and lies to get votes. It is not their falt it is ours. The average American does not take the time or is not educated enough to research what is said. Even in the Internet age with all the information a click away. The hit attacks on TV work for the same reason.
climate change has not been mentioned once in the entire Obama campaign. Romeny has not mentioned either.
If politicians refuse to even mention environmental issues (this is the ENTIRE campaign trail), does this not itself make it seem they are unimportant? Isn't there a bit of chicken and egg going on.
It's true that the people just don't seem to care, but it's a shame that our leaders can't provide the vision..
It's true that we would be better off having leaders with a clear vision, but I don't think our current situation is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Every aspect of our lives in the US is already subsidized by our government. If you don't think so take a look around your house and start to really think about it. We are ALL entitlement babies, not just 47% of us. We have a lifestyle that has never been seen before because we are willing to borrow from our kids to fund it (financially, environmentally, etc.). People start to whine when those entitlements are reduced which was the reason for the cheap gas question and all the others like it. The politicians don't have a choice if they want to stay in office, they have to keep the gravy train going. There are only two ways I can think of that will bring environmental issues to the top of the list. One is for leaders with vision to come from outside the political arena. The other is to have the environment become so screwed up that it threatens the livelihood, if not the very lives, of the voters. Not a very happy picture, but people don't tend to do a very good job of thinking globally.
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 2:37pm
I see the culture awash in propaganda, so much that who can even say anymore what anyone really wants. Here's an example: opinion polls have shown that people in large degree favor GMO labeling, that's polls that have been taken for awhile, not recent polls. It is afterall just labeling not a ban (though a ban might well be better), it's just a case of: people should be informed of what they are getting, have labels to let them know, leave the consumer free to choose. It's really not hugely controversial from almost any *ideological* perspective. But it is controversial for some money interests. And so currently a million dollars a day is being poured into fighting the CA GMO labeling iniative (almost all Monsanto money). The t.v. stations are nothing but anti-labeling all day long. The claims they make are nonsense. Still that a million dollars a day are poured into utter nonsense thanks to Monsanto, it's enough to drive one to despair. Are people really going to vote against their own ability to even have information? And this is the perfect example of the actual propaganda barrage that is our "culture".
...People start to whine when those entitlements are reduced which was the reason for the cheap gas question and all the others like it. The politicians don't have a choice if they want to stay in office, they have to keep the gravy train going. There are only two ways I can think of that will bring environmental issues to the top of the list. One is for leaders with vision to come from outside the political arena. The other is to have the environment become so screwed up that it threatens the livelihood, if not the very lives, of the voters.
I sometimes think of Maslow's theory or hierarchy of needs as it might relate to the environment. People in general really don't want to focus on environmental issues until their other basic physiological needs, like employment, food, and shelter, are secured. Or if the environment interferes with these basic needs. Unfortunately, in our rather spoiled culture, cheap gas seems to be one of those basic needs. Not that I agree, but politicians at least try to give the people what they want in exchange for votes.
So maybe in that way the economy and the environment are more closely related than we tend to think.
I guess its a catch-22. If a candidate really is verbal about caring about the environment, they risk not being elected by all the self-absorbed, over-consuming, short-sighted masses.....of which there is probably a majority.
I'm getting really bummed out.
And catherine, I agree.......Romney seemed like he was bragging about some of the destructive things he wants to do. He spoke with that sort of arrogance when he said he'd get rid of funding for PBS, etc.
He might be a great businessman, but there's so much more to leading a nation.
Anyone else have feeling that we're on our way down? :(
ApatheticNoMore
10-17-12, 3:25pm
sometimes think of Maslow's theory or hierarchy of needs as it might relate to the environment. People in general really don't want to focus on environmental issues until their other basic physiological needs, like employment, food, and shelter, are secured.
curiously very little was done that might actually improve the job situation, we saw a bail out of the financial sector, not an attempt to actually stimulate employment, all the easier then to sell people on "you NEED the keystone pipeline to go through your state because ... because .. jobs! You need to allow fracking in your community because ... because jobs! If the jobs are temporarily (and sometimes low wage as well), and the destruction of the land and oceans permanent, oh well huh? Like suicide (why come to think of it just exactly like collective suicide) it is: a permanant solution to a temporary problem!
I'm getting really bummed out.
Anyone else have feeling that we're on our way down?
Oh yea, I'm definitely depressed about this election. It's not healthy, and I should find a nice distraction maybe but :) Just anticipating all the bad things to come (campaigning a whole campaign and not even campaigning on the environment - WTF).
Yossarian
10-17-12, 3:30pm
The other is to have the environment become so screwed up that it threatens the livelihood, if not the very lives, of the voters.
But on that basis things are actually getting better. Air and water are cleaner than before. Rivers aren't burning. ACW isn't working out as a great bogeyman. We try to manage habitat and species conflicts. You could look at farming practices, but unless you are moving cows with a forklift there isn't a lot of shock value.
It's hard to see where the low hanging fruit is.
Anyone else have feeling that we're on our way down? :(
Had that feeling in the back of my mind for quite a while now.
It's hard to see where the low hanging fruit is.
Environmentally speaking its in commercial/industrial building efficiency. Not very glam, but its the place to make the biggest change in the shortest time for the smallest investment with the least resistance.
The Storyteller
10-17-12, 4:33pm
I thought Obama won handily. Pretty much every subject. He won on substance and on style. Romney didn't do badly, he wasn't awful or anything. He just wasn't good enough. It was clear to me who the smarter man on the stage was.
Obama did miss on some opportunities, the environment chief among them. Every time Romney took the position that we just need more oil, with wind and solar and fuel alternatives as afterthoughts, he was wide open for a left hook to the chin. It was like we didn't just go through through the two hottest summers on record. I thought both were weak on the gun thing, and there was at least one question that Romney didn't answer at all, and Obama almost didn't until the very end of his answer. I was yelling at him through the TV "Just answer the freakin' question!!"
The gun debate is over pretty much forever, unless a Republican president takes it up.
On the Candy Crowley thing, I will have to watch it again, but my take at the time was Romney looked surprised by Obama's Rose Garden assertion and I thought he was looking almost pleadingly at Crowley to step in and correct somebody. So, she did. Just not the right guy.
I had just heard the day of the debates that Crowley was upset because she was told to just keep things in line, without asking her own, or rephrasing any of the questions, and she said something like "I hadn't planned on just being a piece of furniture"....or something like that. I wonder if her offering the Rose garden info was her rebellion?
The Storyteller
10-17-12, 5:18pm
I had just heard the day of the debates that Crowley was upset because she was told to just keep things in line, without asking her own, or rephrasing any of the questions, and she said something like "I hadn't planned on just being a piece of furniture"....or something like that. I wonder if her offering the Rose garden info was her rebellion?
Funny thing about good reporters... they deal in facts, not spin. She probably just couldn't help herself.
Lots of people are acting as though she was spouting opinion, as though there is some question whether or not Obama said what he said.
The Storyteller
10-17-12, 5:35pm
I see the culture awash in propaganda, so much that who can even say anymore what anyone really wants. Here's an example: opinion polls have shown that people in large degree favor GMO labeling, that's polls that have been taken for awhile, not recent polls.
An article by one of my favorite authors...
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/10/14/magazine/why-californias-proposition-37-should-matter-to-anyone-who-cares-about-food.xml
On propaganda, I wish the media would all abandon the Spin Room after these debates. It serves no useful purpose. You know what these guys are going to say. It's annoying even when the guy or gal is on your side. Just report on the debate.
It has been so long since I have watched the news on a regular basis I had forgotten how lame this game is played.
Funny thing about good reporters... they deal in facts, not spin. She probably just couldn't help herself.
Emphasis mine. You're right on both counts. Too bad about last night...
Environmentally speaking its in commercial/industrial building efficiency. Not very glam, but its the place to make the biggest change in the shortest time for the smallest investment with the least resistance.
I'm not sure about the least resistance. Few large companies are doing this voluntarily -- kudos to the one who are. Mandatory changes would be "a war on business" and tax incentives would be "big government." Any thoughts on how to light a fire under this without creating more political gridlock?
Is it a domino thing, where companies who implement efficiency moves see an improvement in their bottom line, and so it becomes an attractive option, and moves down the line that way?
Anyone else have feeling that we're on our way down? :(
I'd say it's a pretty sure thing. But that doesn't keep me from doing the right things: Contributing to the problem as little as I can, building strong communities, loving my family, having a joyful life. Just because we're all screwed doesn't mean my life has to stink. And oh, yes, I struggle against the public stupidity around this too, but I don't do it because I think it'll save the world. I do it because that's who I am. I'm not really the lay-down-in-the-mud-and-die type, really.
Doesn't sound fun :D
I feel the same way pug............but I do worry about my children's futures. I get so much joy out of nature and living like we do here on our property.
But it IS hard to remain hopeful at times..............
Was talking with a co-worker today about the uselessness of the format, e.g., "Tell us what you would do about violence in the Middle East in two minutes, now, Go!"
History says that the Lincoln-Douglas debates would sometimes go on for 4 hours, and that's with the crowd standing out in the open air to listen to them. I realize we're not going back to that timing, but can't we find a middle ground with the candidates providing meaningful information on their policies and let them take longer than 2 minutes?
Another suggestion on the huffington post today, was let them refer to notes during the debates; otherwise, we're going to vote for the best memorizer, and in that case, Ken Jennings the Jeopardy champ can be president. I'm okay with a nominee having access to information to refresh their memory just as they would in the course of any job.
iris lily
10-17-12, 10:35pm
Was talking with a co-worker today about the uselessness of the format, e.g., "Tell us what you would do about violence in the Middle East in two minutes, now, Go!"
History says that the Lincoln-Douglas debates would sometimes go on for 4 hours, and that's with the crowd standing out in the open air to listen to them. I realize we're not going back to that timing, but can't we find a middle ground with the candidates providing meaningful information on their policies and let them take longer than 2 minutes?
Another suggestion on the huffington post today, was let them refer to notes during the debates; otherwise, we're going to vote for the best memorizer, and in that case, Ken Jennings the Jeopardy champ can be president. I'm okay with a nominee having access to information to refresh their memory just as they would in the course of any job.
One of my sincere regrets of the last few years was that I didn't bestir myself to go across the river to Alton, IL to see the Lincoln/Douglas debate reenacted. Those two mean debated in Alton around 150 years ago and on the anniversary they replicated those debates across Illinois. If you think that politics are nasty now, go to the Lincoln Museum and you'll see what people said and wrote about him. Just as bad.
puglogic
10-17-12, 10:38pm
One of the best/worst parts about watching good documentaries (like Burns' The Civil War series) was seeing that nothing's really changed in a hundred years. The smearing, backbiting, cheating.....all the same.
My 85 year old retired attorney Dad has voted R in 12 prior presidential elections, and a write-in for one election. This morning my sis told me that last night after the debate he said "Romney is as phony as a $3 bill. I'm voting for Obama."
If I'd have been in the room, I'd be writing this from a hospital bed due to the head injury I'd have sustained from passing out...
I'm not sure about the least resistance. Few large companies are doing this voluntarily -- kudos to the one who are. Mandatory changes would be "a war on business" and tax incentives would be "big government." Any thoughts on how to light a fire under this without creating more political gridlock?
Is it a domino thing, where companies who implement efficiency moves see an improvement in their bottom line, and so it becomes an attractive option, and moves down the line that way?
I think you're right about making anything mandatory. "Value engineering" is pretty popular right now. It's basically trying to figure out how to operate systems as efficiently as possible. It also usually takes into account available rebates from utility companies, government tax credits, occasionally grants of different kinds, etc. Electricity and natural gas are both heavily subsidized in the US. Since they are cheap the payoff for implementing energy saving plans can be several years down the road so its those incentives that help make it more palatable for building owners. Its easier for local jurisdictions to write their building codes to require sensible measures than it is to do anything on a federal level. If there were just simple requirements for new and renovated buildings it could save a bundle. Things like better windows, extra insulation, efficient lighting and mechanicals are easy to write into code and there usually isn't a big backlash because anyone constructing a building has to buy all those things anyway and can usually find some kind of program that will help them reduce the cost of the upgrade. The real payoff comes when you design buildings to take advantage of passive solar which uses the sun to heat and light the building as much as possible eliminating the need for some of the mechanical solutions. That is much harder to incentivise, but produces amazing results when properly designed.
To keep the discussion on track neither candidate has mentioned anything like that and neither has come forward with any kind of clear national energy policy. The notion that one will be more considerate than the other regarding environmental issues is false, they are both proposing to do the same things. Setting the policy tone aside, most of this kind of work is done at the Congressional level anyway. In a somewhat counter-intuitive way the environment can actually fare better with a Republican congress for the simple reason that energy saving tax credits for corporations have a better chance of remaining in force under their leadership.
I think you're right about making anything mandatory. "Value engineering" is pretty popular right now. It's basically trying to figure out how to operate systems as efficiently as possible. It also usually takes into account available rebates from utility companies, government tax credits, occasionally grants of different kinds, etc. Electricity and natural gas are both heavily subsidized in the US. Since they are cheap the payoff for implementing energy saving plans can be several years down the road so its those incentives that help make it more palatable for building owners.
...........tax credits for corporations have a better chance of remaining in force under their leadership.
Obamacare for corporations!
Obamacare for corporations!
LOL
If there were just simple requirements for new and renovated buildings it could save a bundle. Things like better windows, extra insulation, efficient lighting and mechanicals are easy to write into code and there usually isn't a big backlash because anyone constructing a building has to buy all those things anyway and can usually find some kind of program that will help them reduce the cost of the upgrade.
Our local parks & rec district is undergoing a $7 million renovation to increase its building efficiency, and the savings will be phenomenal....after the seven-year payoff.
Oh for a national energy policy...sigh.
Conservation is the most obvious way to save energy. President Carter got it, we've all known it for a long, long time.
Oh for a national energy policy...sigh.
Yeah...sigh.
catherine
10-18-12, 1:00pm
Conservation is the most obvious way to save energy. President Carter got it, we've all known it for a long, long time.
Yeah, and look what happened to Carter--unpopular one-term president... maybe his energy policies weren't the only reason he was unpopular, but I read in an Anna Quindlin column once that he approached the presidency as if he were doing the Stations of the Cross.. I don't think Americans cotton well to that kind of attitude!
Jimmy Carter's push for conservation is the one legacy from his term that I really wish would have survived. If he could have somehow got that to catch on the world might be a different place right now. Too bad.
Jimmy Carter's push for conservation is the one legacy from his term that I really wish would have survived. If he could have somehow got that to catch on the world might be a different place right now. Too bad.
I agree. On top on that, the Reagan years not only stopped much of Carter's efforts but set back energy policy many years. There were huge lay offs at the National Renewable Energy Lab near where I live and his removal of the solar panels on the White House is not only legendary, but symbolic. Unfortunately I see Romney trying to portray himself as a modern Reagan.
I think that Mitt Romney has a grasp on the idea that renewable energy production can also produce jobs that will be around for the long haul. I've heard him state several times that renewables should be "a part" of our overall energy plan and I agree with that, but my hunch is his most critical analysis will be in looking at how many jobs will be created. Who knows, in a round of current day symbolism he may even put panels back on the White House. At that point I'll be more curious to see what happens to the garden...
At that point I'll be more curious to see what happens to the garden...
I myself worry about the fate of the White House brewery.
I myself worry about the fate of the White House brewery.
Word, bae.
I think that Mitt Romney has a grasp on the idea that renewable energy production can also produce jobs that will be around for the long haul. I've heard him state several times that renewables should be "a part" of our overall energy plan and I agree with that, but my hunch is his most critical analysis will be in looking at how many jobs will be created. Who knows, in a round of current day symbolism he may even put panels back on the White House.
Maybe, but I don't see that happening. Much of the start up or scaling up phases of renewables depend on tax credits or other subsidies so that they can be competitive with fossil fuels. Romney has already promised to abolish the wind energy tax credits, which will cost thousands of jobs. I see him getting a bigger job bang for the buck in the drilling and mining arenas. I think for now he is more focused on short term results.
And...I don't see the Mormon persuasion supporting a White House brewery.:(
I am in (a little bit) the renewable energy business so try to keep an ear to the ground. The general trend is to believe Congress will block any attempt to remove the remaining tax credits for wind, solar, biomass, etc. The feeling is essentially that nothing will change because Congress is going to remain gridlocked, but more so if the President is reelected. The simple truth is that our treatment of renewables, nuclear, conservation technology, enhanced design and more is a joke. Neither candidate is looking very far into the future and even if one of them were it would be extremely difficult to influence the Congress to the point of action.
That's where countries like Germany have the advantage. They don't stop and start their national projects on renewable energy based on who is in office. They have all agreed they need to do this, hence, they've years of experience ahead of the U.S. in this area.
Of course Germany has ended its now famous solar program. There is a lot of internal debate regarding whether they went too far or not (really, whether they spent too much money on it). It does present an excellent case study for someone in the US who would attempt to define a national energy policy, but there are no easy answers.
The general trend is to believe Congress will block any attempt to remove the remaining tax credits for wind, solar, biomass, etc. The feeling is essentially that nothing will change because Congress is going to remain gridlocked, but more so if the President is reelected. The simple truth is that our treatment of renewables, nuclear, conservation technology, enhanced design and more is a joke. Neither candidate is looking very far into the future and even if one of them were it would be extremely difficult to influence the Congress to the point of action.
I suppose Congress could be as much a bain for Romney as it has for Obama. On top of blocking his desire to abolish the green energy tax credits, they could also block his desire to repeal Romneycare...er...ah, I mean Obamacare.
I am reading the Oct., 2012 issue of The Scientist. They are giving Obama a B+ on environment issues. The main points they cite are finalization of the EPA Cross-state Air Pollution Rule, EPA's Mercury and Air Toxics Standards on power plant emissions, tighter vehicle gas mileage standards, and a proceed with caution on fossil fuel extraction including off-shore drilling, the XL pipeline, and drilling in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge. I would add my own on use of stimulus dollars to focus on green and renewables.
Obama is not going to save the world with his environmental policies, but I think there is a clear and significant difference between the two.
ApatheticNoMore
10-19-12, 1:40pm
On top of blocking his desire to abolish the green energy tax credits, they could also block his desire to repeal Romneycare...er...ah, I mean Obamacare.
If Obamacare is net profitable to the insurance industry it will never be repealed unless there is a plan that is even more profitable for them.
I think it could be repealed, but we know Obamacare is set up to be a huge windfall for the insurance companies. Notice how none of them have come out against it?
I think it could be repealed, but we know Obamacare is set up to be a huge windfall for the insurance companies. Notice how none of them have come out against it?
I think it was a combination of bribes and threats. I can remember when Ms. Sebelius warned that there would be "zero tolerance" for anyone who spread "misinformation".
The Storyteller
10-22-12, 12:51pm
Obama is not going to save the world with his environmental policies, but I think there is a clear and significant difference between the two.
Very well said. Romney's energy plan is all about oil, no different from McCain's "Drill Baby Drill", with the anemic "but I like green energy, too" comment thrown in to say he cares without really proposing anything.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.