The debates on the Debates

I agree. Obama should have expected Romney to show this side of his face. The fact that he was unprepared for it was fairly evident. Obama played his moderate self, expecting his center of the line performance to contrast that of a right wing conservative with a smattering of extremist views. Romney very slickly out-Moderated the Moderate and Obama could do little but nod in agreement as Romney served him up as an ineffectual peer.

Okay, the man is busy running a country on top of needing to get himself re-elected so maybe he doesn't actually know the extent of Romney's etch-a-sketch persona, but what the fuck are his campaign advisors doing? They should know this guy inside and out, be able to predict he would play this role for this performance. Maybe Obama would do better with NFL coaches as his advisors.
--- merged: Oct 4, 2012 at 9:54 AM ---
Romney reveals the inspiration behind his economic plan.

 

I think Romney clearly won but smell a little "rope and dope" in the works from team Obama. Don't see this as the "big get even" the GOP talking heads are squawking about on the Tee Vee this morning. We'll see what come out of the Obama camp this week and during the next two debates. I expect to see Romney's flip-flops and mathematical non-sense to be in every ad and every speech from here until election day.

 

obama just looked like someone who isn't proud of what they've done or accomplished. like he interanally knows his administartion has been a failure, but thus far has been good at masking that fact.

although al gore, the self proclaimed science expert, said obama performed poorly because of the altitude.

 

Your assessment is no less absurd than Al's. Why would Obama be ashamed of an overall failure of his administration when he's had more successes than failures and well knows it?

He was clearly not in top form but not for either of these reasons.

 

I blame it all on the "lame stream media." They're all in the tank for Romney.

Seriously the number of e-mails I'm getting from friends who last weeks were telling me to forget anything I read from any media due to their bias that now are sending links to media pieces reporting Romney's big win is rather comical.

I agree Romney won last night by a fairly large margin. Obama seemed to shift into just smile big all the time and when not flashing a big smile just stare at the podium.

I again assert this doesn't wipe out months of Romney's gaffes, the fact none of his number add up or the simply fact he won't tell you the details of his plan(s) until after you elect him.

 

Guess it has started already.

BBC News - Obama says Romney must tell people the 'truth'

 

If you

Sit in a room and point in the corner and claim you're pointing at championship race horse and it's really a sick tired horse that's never won a race eventually someone's going to notice. Of course with the US based press you never know what to expect. I just assume some will look at the horse and ask "Hey, isn't that a giraffe?" But whatever the majority ask or see it won't be a championship horse if there's no record of any race wins.

 

A bit too late, Obama sees "Moderate Mitt" - the guy who was always potentially there waiting for the right moment to pull off his Paul Ryan mask and expose some compassion for the poor and middle class in an effort to fool some undecided voters.

"Mr Obama told a rally of some 12,000 supporters on Thursday: "When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney.
"But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favour the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that."

Good comeback, Mr President even if it is half a day late.

 

President Obama's empty rhetoric really contrasted with Romney's command of the issues. As I listen to all the excuses being given today by President Obama apologists it is striking that they do not defend his record or talk about his plans for the next four years. Using a metaphor - the emperor has no clothes. It is sad and made worse because so many ignore what they know to be true. There is no legitimate case to be made for President Obama's re-election.

After last night Romney has earned my vote - I might even do some volunteer work for his campaign. Prior I had no intention to vote for Romney, I was going to vote third party.

 

romney's was largely a fact-free exercise. the degree of inaccuracy was amazing, even by the low standards that one typically has to apply to conservatives these days.

but the debates themselves i had trouble sitting through, so exasperatingly stupid were they. the consensus out there in the world about it is that the candidates were jockeying for a slim margin of low-information undecided voters who are apt to value style over substance. they'd be the sort likely to find performance persuasive, regardless of the, you know, facts.

 

Technically these events are not debates. It would be an interesting exercise if two political candidates/party members actually had a debate fully fleshed out with traditional rules, but it won't happen because the common US citizen has no taste for it.

One thing we differ on is that first I look for underlying principles that defines a persons political points of view. If I understand a persons underlying principles I can understand how they will make decisions, how they will lead. You seem to have an aversion or distaste for clearly defined underlying principles. For example the key difference between President Obama and Romney is in the construct of the social contract. It is very easy to see how the two would have differing responses to social issues. Without being judgmental on one being better or worse than the other, there is a clear choice being presented. If what you look for is a encyclopedic regurgitation of what you consider facts - one would never get an understanding of how that transfers to political leadership. Perhaps that is the reason it is rare that the smartest people in the world actually lead.

 

I agree that Romney came across as more aggressive and much better prepared....if not for the fact that he was consistently tripping over his own previously stated policies and positions.

It may have helped with conservatives who had not yet warmed up to the man, but it is hard to see how it helped with the undecided centrists who were still left wondering how one can propose 20% tax cuts across the board to be offset only be closing loopholes for the top one percent....or why 50 state Romneycares are better and more efficient than one very similar Obamacare.

We'll see what the polls say this weekend.

 

yeah, ace...i've referred to you as a metaphysician many times. a deductive relation to the world for complexity management's sake. it's fine as a consumer sorting device, but a disaster as a way to think about policy. and given that what's at stake is policy and not whether you prefer chunky or smooth peanut butter, the question of how policy would be made--what the bases are, what the priorities are--is kinda important. being able to understand factual material and not simply make shit up is a baseline skill, wouldn't you think?

i watched some of the democracy now coverage for a bit because they included third party candidates jill stein and rocky anderson. what was interesting about that was the extent to which having these two other viewpoints exposed the surreal narrowness of what passes for legitimate political debate in the o-so-free united states.

but i'm hardly the only one saying as much:

The US presidential debates' illusion of political choice | Glenn Greenwald | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

This is true. I think I finally understand Romney. I understand how he can appear to waiver on issues. When he finally connected the dots I can see the outline of his conviction.

Because there is a difference between what he wants to do, compared to what he is willing to do, compared to what he can do. Most talking heads on the liberal side can not see the difference. However, he made it clear that regardless of what he wants, what he is willing to do and what he can do - his principle on the question is clear. Do you know what his guiding principle on the tax question is? What is President Obama's?
--- merged: Oct 4, 2012 at 5:21 PM ---

Can you define "disaster" in this context?

If I am out of step with the US tradition that is one thing, if I am not, do you infer that the history of the US fits into your definition of "disaster?

 

I really think if we could just imprison a few hundred K more drug abusers and users we could final win the "war on minorities"... Er I mean drugs. Yeah. That's it the "war on drugs."

 

In the meantime, we can disenfranchise them since they are lazy bottom feeders who have no personal ambition or desire to make a better life for themselves and their families.

 

I don't see much conviction, other than he wants to be elected and will pretty much say whatever that requires. That's mostly what I learned about him last night, given that I have never seen him "perform" before. He gave a good performance. I don't see substance.

Having said that, I think both sides were being somewhat "economical with the truth".

What are Romney's principles? I'm damned if I can see them.

 

Just to clarify, restoring the tax rate of the top one percent to 2000 levels is not a cure all or a direct economic stimulus, but a significant piece of a more balanced approach to addressing the debt than simply slashing programs that benefit the working poor and middle class who might need a temporary safety net.

Without it, is hard to take any talk about debt reduction as very serious or meaningful.