Print

[Will Sweat]

Yeah, looking back at this debate, I think we will see it was a game-changer.

Obama very much miscalculated his opponent in that I believe he thought Romney was going to be some blood thirsty attack dog on stage and all Obama had to do was look calm and collected to win.

But Romney very pointedly and respectfully attacked.  He also erased the narrative of being the out of touch rich uncle pennybags candidate and came across as caring and educated.

Ultimately he made Obama look uncaring and amateurish.  Wow, I seriously did not see that coming.

Pres. Obama was not on his "A" game - no question.  But, he is a bright, articulate and personable man and will come across much better in future debates - don't get overly gleeful if Gov. Romney is your guy. 

I am happy that we saw two candidates with a very different vision of how they wish America to recover from the malaise that we are in.  Even if you differ with the candidates it is wonderful that we can have choices that offer different roads. 

It seems that one of the arguments is that Gov. Romney offered little specifics.  This, to me, is a hallow argument.  Pres. Obama offered little "specifics" as a candidate in 2008.  Maybe he should have but - in truth - I believe the role of a President is to offer a vision and then work with the House and Senate to work toward that vision.  Meaning, specifics become fluid during the negotiation process but the vision itself remains intact. 

It was this very "vision" of a new, more bold, America that pushed Pres. Obama ahead of the class in 2008 and then into the Whitehouse.  If he wants to win - he needs to get that "vision" back and adjust it to the very real narrative that exist; 8.1% unemployment, record numbers of Americans on assistance and SSDI, record deficits, impending "tax-maggedon" and so on.  It's not something that he is unable to do but time is running out. 

[Flanders]

No sorry, it was a blowout.  I'm still wondering why you think Jim was such a horrible moderator and how in your view he wanted Romney to win.

[eriemermaid]

Look's like others noted the rudeness as well:

Mississippi voters at debate watch party Didnt like Mitt Interrupting President Obama

And many people don't like the rudeness of people putting up videos in every thread!  We just have to live with it!

[Forsythia]

Pres. Obama was not on his "A" game - no question.  But, he is a bright, articulate and personable man and will come across much better in future debates - don't get overly gleeful if Gov. Romney is your guy. 

I am happy that we saw two candidates with a very different vision of how they wish America to recover from the malaise that we are in.  Even if you differ with the candidates it is wonderful that we can have choices that offer different roads. 

It seems that one of the arguments is that Gov. Romney offered little specifics.  This, to me, is a hallow argument.  Pres. Obama offered little "specifics" as a candidate in 2008.  Maybe he should have but - in truth - I believe the role of a President is to offer a vision and then work with the House and Senate to work toward that vision.  Meaning, specifics become fluid during the negotiation process but the vision itself remains intact. 

It was this very "vision" of a new, more bold, America that pushed Pres. Obama ahead of the class in 2008 and then into the Whitehouse.  If he wants to win - he needs to get that "vision" back and adjust it to the very real narrative that exist; 8.1% unemployment, record numbers of Americans on assistance and SSDI, record deficits, impending "tax-maggedon" and so on.  It's not something that he is unable to do but time is running out.

Great post will and I agree with this fully.

[Flanders]

Pres. Obama was not on his "A" game - no question.  But, he is a bright, articulate and personable man and will come across much better in future debates - don't get overly gleeful if Gov. Romney is your guy. 

I am happy that we saw two candidates with a very different vision of how they wish America to recover from the malaise that we are in.  Even if you differ with the candidates it is wonderful that we can have choices that offer different roads. 

It seems that one of the arguments is that Gov. Romney offered little specifics.  This, to me, is a hallow argument.  Pres. Obama offered little "specifics" as a candidate in 2008.  Maybe he should have but - in truth - I believe the role of a President is to offer a vision and then work with the House and Senate to work toward that vision.  Meaning, specifics become fluid during the negotiation process but the vision itself remains intact. 

It was this very "vision" of a new, more bold, America that pushed Pres. Obama ahead of the class in 2008 and then into the Whitehouse.  If he wants to win - he needs to get that "vision" back and adjust it to the very real narrative that exist; 8.1% unemployment, record numbers of Americans on assistance and SSDI, record deficits, impending "tax-maggedon" and so on.  It's not something that he is unable to do but time is running out. 

Well, Romney certainly isn't my guy, but more certainly more so not Obama.

That's the problem Will,  Obama can't get that spark back because it only existed running as an challenger, not an incumbent with a record.

To get that 2008 vision back, he pretty much has to admit to throw away the past 4 years and convince America it's time to go back to the drawing board.

[Forsythia]

Uh Ohhhhh someone decided to fact check Romney!!!!

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-72703685/

Mitt Romney repeated a number of erroneous claims during Wednesday’s debate about President Obama’s healthcare law, including that it relies on a board that will decide "what kind of treatment” patients can get.
 
This is a myth advanced repeatedly by critics of the Affordable Care Act and debunked consistently by independent fact-checkers.
 
The board – known as the Independent Payment Advisory Board – was set up to recommend ways to reduce Medicare spending if it increases too rapidly.
 
The panel of independent experts is empowered to suggest cuts to how much the federal government pays healthcare providers. These cuts would go into effect unless Congress votes to overturn them.
 
But the panel is explicitly prohibited from cutting benefits for people on Medicare.
 
And there is no provision in the law that empowers the advisory board to make any decisions about what treatments doctors may provide for their patients.
 
Romney also said that his healthcare plan would cover those with preexisting conditions, embracing one of the most popular elements of Obama’s healthcare effort. He did not mention, however, that his plan would cover only those whose insurance had not already lapsed, in accordance with existing law.
 
Romney’s plan would not guarantee insurance access to those who had lost insurance.
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/03/fact-check-the-tax-fight/

Obama, in referring to Romney’s plan as a $5 trillion tax cut, is basing that on the estimate of reducing tax rates by 20 percent while also extending the Bush tax cuts, two planks of the plan. Romney has argued that he can eliminate loopholes and deductions to make up that revenue but has not specified which ones.
 
Romney has countered that “six other studies” have found that the plan can be revenue neutral, but he’s wrong about that. Those studies actually do not provide much evidence that Romney’s proposal — as sketchy as it is — would be revenue neutral without making unrealistic assumptions.

[Flanders]

And many people don't like the rudeness of people putting up videos in every thread!  We just have to live with it!

oh god he's still at it?? I'm surprised he could find any relevant videos on the debate, at least ones that didn't include Chris Matthews' head exploding!!

[Forsythia]

To get that 2008 vision back, he pretty much has to admit to throw away the past 4 years and convince America it's time to go back to the drawing board.

And why is that?  The stock market is back up.  New and existing home sales are up.  The auto industry is in full recovery mode.  We have health care for people with pre-existing condtions, and a progressive social policy.  There have been a few bumps in the road but considering the republican party insults their base at every turn, AND have no detailed plan on what they would do with the economy I would say that Obama and the Democrats are a shoe in.  Not to mention the extremeist rights views on what a woman should and should not be able to do with her body. 

[Flanders]

And why is that?  The stock market is back up.  New and existing home sales are up.  The auto industry is in full recovery mode.  We have health care for people with pre-existing condtions, and a progressive social policy.  There have been a few bumps in the road but considering the republican party insults their base at every turn, AND have no detailed plan on what they would do with the economy I would say that Obama and the Democrats are a shoe in.  Not to mention the extremeist rights views on what a woman should and should not be able to do with her body. 

You keep repeating this, but for the average American who is making less than they did or is unemployed, your glowing review is a slap in the face.

I'm still interested in your moderator argument...

[Frenchfry]

And many people don't like the rudeness of people putting up videos in every thread!  We just have to live with it!

I doubt you're ignorant about the meaning of the rude....you're just siding with your Republican ilk....but you're a bit of an anomaly yourself....a rightie that drives a Prius....I can almost envision the looks other righties give you behind your back.

[Frenchfry]

You keep repeating this, but for the average American who is making less than they did or is unemployed, your glowing review is a slap in the face.

I'm still interested in your moderator argument...

But you're ignoring that the Republicans have been playing the obstructionist game...they're the REAL reason the USA hasn't recovered fully.

But I have a feeling the Republicans are going to be kicked to the curb this time around.

Yes the moderator was weak...probably took a payoff from the right.

[ducksoup]

Last night Romney did well for himself.

He stuck to his very well rehearsed and planned speechlets.  What I found as his best tactic was playing like he is the little guy on the street trying desperately to make ends meet and lecturing the President as if he is unaware of the toils of the working stiff.  He used it numerous times and I thought it was effective.  It went to his greatest weakness and while probably not making it a plus, it might probably reduced it some.

I am unsure why he used that $716 billion Medicare claim again when all news outfits have said for months it is a lie.
Death panels again?
Romney saying what he has campaigned on for 18 months isn’t his plan since last night anyway.

It seemed Romney said basically many times, “I don’t know what I will do, wait until after I do and you will know.”

Obama was stale.  He tried to give more specifics of what he would do, I assume to offset that Romney had only vagueness.  It didn’t work.  It was substance, but he came off as uncaring.

I was personally happy that Obama mentioned the problem with the oft beaten “small business” stuff.  From my experience the R’s use this as a tool to help the millionaire “small business and not the mom and pop stores “small business” we all think of. 

If there is one thing that can help the small business we all think of as mom and pop stores etc is to change the definition of small business to be them and not the millionaires.  When most of us want to be helping “small business” we mean the corner store, the auto repair shop, the local bookstore or hot dog cart.  Rather than hedge fund millionaires and Donald Trump.

As far as the moderation; it was fine.  It wasn’t like there was a shouting match.  The president went over his times and Romney butted in demanding rebuttal.  Both were fine.

What Romney needs to watch out for is being led off message.  His speechlets worked, but if Obama had taken Romney out of his well prepared responses I think he would have had big problems.  I didn’t expect quite so much pandering to the extreme right as he did.  I really did think he would etch a sketch and try to be moderate to appeal to the center.

Sorry Flanders, it was no “blowout” lol.   Romney did well, but he was far from a “blowout.”

[Flanders]

Okay that's 2 arguments from liberals that the debate was fixed... lol.

Yet no details from Forsythia or FF.. The moderator let them each have at it!!!  He even game more time to Obama!!  But I know, you're both used to the media explaining what the president REALLY meant to say and wanted some of that here.

[SidecarFlip]

If Obama gets elected again (I certainly hope not), part of his 90 billion allotment for green energy will go toward lining the lake shore from Zug Island to Toledo with windmills for you voters to look at.

[lilly]

You keep repeating this, but for the average American who is making less than they did or is unemployed,

Stocks are up and the average worker is making less.

Congratulations, you've just proven that the trickle down theory doesn't work.