But, as happens so often, playing it safe inevitably allows the opposition to seize the initiative, and Governor Romney not only seized the initiative, he seized the stage and, with the help of the inept performance by Jim Lehrer who was clearly out of his depths as moderator, at least of this formula, he controlled the night.
Critics hammered President Obama who looked tired and disinterested, stumbling early, and lacking passion or fire until very late. They pointed out numerous missed opportunities. They noted the utter lack of mention of 47% or any of the themes the campaign has absolutely hammered Governor Romney on in the paid commercials.
A CNN Poll has a three to one advantage for Romney, a CBS poll of just undecided gave the advantage at 46-22 but with 32 percent believing it was a tie.
That is the initial take and it is difficult to argue with that. Even President Obama advisor David Plouffe seemed to acknowledge that in the short term this was Governor Romney’s night, though he indicated that in the coming days, many of the claims that Mitt Romney made may come back to bite him.
We will discuss this shortly, as we believe there is some truth to that. However, that will depend on the skill and expertise of President Obama’s campaign team. When Wednesday night began, Governor Romney’s campaign was dead. When the night ended, his candidacy was very much alive with fresh momentum.
Still, commentator Al Sharpton, of all people, may have had the greatest insight into the performance. First he noted that Mitt Romney was acting like it was 1812 rather than 2012, and that his statements made on Wednesday couldn’t and wouldn’t be placed side-by-side with earlier comments.
Mr. Sharpton cracked, “He gave great testimony, but he could be indicted for perjury.”
For instance, observers have long been wondering how Governor Romney would manage to reconcile his $5 trillion tax cut with his statement that he would not add to the deficit. Governor Romney argued that he could do so by closing tax loopholes, but most importantly he argued that he did not have a $5 trillion tax cut proposed.
“I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about,” the former governor said.
In one of the few moments where President Obama seemed to have a good response, he said, “Well, for 18 months he’s been running on this tax plan. And now, five weeks before the election, he’s saying that his big, bold idea is ‘never mind.’ “
Governor Romney would hammer the President’s economic policy, arguing, “And the proof of that is 23 million people out of work. The proof of that is 1 out of 6 people in poverty. The proof of that is we’ve gone from 32 million on food stamps to 47 million on food stamps. The proof of that is that 50 percent of college graduates this year can’t find work.”
However, it is an inaccurate statement to say that 23 million are out of work. The unemployment figure is 12.5 million, but there are also about 8 million who are working part time who would prefer a full time job and another 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work for a variety of reasons.
The other problem with his claim is that nowhere near 50 percent of college graduates could not find work. One study suggests its perhaps half that, though others suggest the number is far lower than that.
Both sides played fast and loose with the facts, but it was Governor Romney that hit on it. First he said, “Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it – but that – that is not the case, all right?”
Later, he responded, “Mr. President, you’re entitled, as the president, to your own airplane and to your own house, but not to your own facts – all right?”
Mitt Romney, of course, was as guilty of this as his opponent, but President Obama failed to capitalize.
For instance, the LA Times fact checking reports, “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 Times explains.
“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.”
Meanwhile, the tax cut plan will be interesting to see play out. Governor Romney claims he does not have a $5 trillion tax cut, but the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that Governor Romney’s plan would reduce tax revenue by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5 trillion over 10 years.
Governor Romney can counter that his plan is revenue neutral (different from the above claim), by removing tax loopholes and deductions.
“The Tax Policy Center has analyzed the specifics of Romney’s plan thus far released and concluded the numbers aren’t there to make it revenue neutral,” but President Obama, most observers think, failed to really hammer home the point about the lack of specifics or press Governor Romney to explain which tax loopholes.
Governor Romney also revisited the $716 billion cut to Medicare.
According to the Washington Post fact checkers, “This $700 billion figure comes from the difference over 10 years (2013-2022) between anticipated Medicare spending (what is known as ‘the baseline’) and the changes that the law makes to reduce spending.”
The Post notes that there is no actual decrease in spending year to year, and the reduction comes from anticipated levels and that savings comes from providers not beneficiaries.
Writes the Post, “While it is correct that anticipated savings from Medicare were used to help offset some of the anticipated costs of expanding health care for all Americans, it does not affect the Medicare trust fund. In fact, the Obama health-care law also raised Medicare payroll taxes by $318 billion over the new 10-year time frame, further strengthening the program’s financial condition.”
Moreover, President Obama failed to make the case that Paul Ryan’s plan “retains virtually all of the Medicare ‘cuts’ contained in the health-care law, but diverts them instead to his Medicare overhaul.”
Bottom line, there is plenty of material that the Obama camp can make light of in the next week. Mitt Romney won the night, but in the process he seems to have opened some cans of worms that may be more difficult to close than he would like to believe.
Nevertheless, this is a disconcerting night for those of us who have complained throughout Barack Obama’s first term that he was listless, unengaged, and refused to put on the gloves and fight for what he believed in. All of those worst qualities came through on Wednesday night.
We also know that he has run a good campaign, but he has not really engaged, mostly because he doesn’t have to. Will the gloves come off? Will the President fight for his record? I don’t know.
The comparison point I have used from the start for this election is 2004. In the first debate, John Kerry absolutely cleaned up on President Bush. The result was that John Kerry revived his campaign. The pundits remember that George Bush would recover, but they should also remember that, for a time on election night, we thought John Kerry was going to win the presidency.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
Romney 1 … Empty Chair 0
It’s your line Rusty, but you had all night to prepare and the best you could do was reprise the lamest moment from the Republican convention?
I couldn’t believe it when Obama asked Lehrer, Obama: “Jim, You may want to move on to another topic” when Romney was tearing him up. The Empty Chair looked so pathetic asking that. It was like Obama was asking Jim for help, get me off this subject.
“It’s your line Rusty, but you had all night to prepare and the best you could do was reprise the lamest moment from the Republican convention?”
Oh, is someone feeling a little testy because his candidate got his arse handed to him last night?
Look at any electoral college map. There is no road to victory for Romney/Ryan. Have fun — create your own. [url]http://www.270towin.com/[/url]
[i]. . . really hammer home the point about the lack of specifics [/i]
What debate did you watch last night? Calling Romney out on his lack of specific plans was precisely what Obama was doing all night. Apparently you and most of the greater commentariat felt the event needed more ‘sizzle’, or righteous indignation, or anything other than a surprisingly reasoned debate over domestic economic policy.
It seemed more like a combined campaign ad to me. “You said this.” “No, I didn’t.” Repeat for 1.5 hours.
No sparkle at all. Where’s Newt Gingrich when you really need him?
.
I thought the debate was good. I’m tired of the personal attacks in politics. THis was a clean debate. I hope it stays that way.
[i]”Look at any electoral college map. There is no road to victory for Romney/Ryan.”[/i]
This is probably true. And yet …
A small shift in the national popular vote could completely change all of that. This morning’s New York Times (on the 538 blog ([url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/[/url]), the best place to go to know the status of the race) puts Obama ahead of Romney by just 4.1%, 51.5% to 47.4%. In other words, if Romney moves up 2.1% and Obama falls by 2.0%, they are tied in the popular vote.
Of course, as Al Gore knows, it’s not about the popular vote. It’s about the electoral college. And there things seem tougher for Romney. However, if the national popular vote moves decidedly in his favor in the wake of the debates, his electoral college position, which right now looks weak, will strengthen substantially as well.
One thing that Obama’s fans, who look at the polls with optimism, may not be considering properly is that while only a small percentage of likely voters say they are still undecided, there are a lot of marginal Obama supporters (the type who voted for a Republican in one or more previous presidential elections) who might change their minds or who might just not show up, if they start getting a bad feeling about Obama, seeing how badly he did last night.
What might also add to this momentum for Romney is the coming VP debate. Yes, no one really votes one way or the other based on the VP. But Biden could possibly be the worst debater on a major ticket since General Stockwell. Biden makes Dan Quayle seem like a clear thinker. He could barely hold his own against that pinhead, Sarah Palin. … The unknown is how well Paul Ryan will fare.
But if Ryan whips Biden — not an unlikely outcome — then a Romney +2 and and Obama -2 fallout could well happen. At that point, Don Shor may be less sanguine when he looks at the electoral college map.
Biden doesn’t have a chance against Ryan. My only fear is that sometimes Ryan gets too technical and talks over the average person’s head. If Ryan reigns it in a little then it’s going to be a slaughter. I might have to cover my eyes to not view the carnage.
Actually, Rich, from the time the Republican field was set months ago I saw no way their ultimate candidate could break out from the states that McCain carried in 2008. Every candidate was taking positions more conservative than McCain. The Republicans have the Bible Belt and Utah. That is their base. As they get more conservative, they are less likely — not more likely — to carry the Electoral College. They need some Rust Belt and/or mid-Atlantic states to win, and I don’t see that happening.
[i]The long-anticipated first debate featured a desperate Governor Mitt Romney [/i]
Ha!
The [i][b]desperation[/b][/i] is how all you lefties are trying to spin this as something less than it was. Obama took a big beating here. It will pull over moderates to the Romney camp. It will energize his base meaning more campaign dollars will flow.
Obama reminded me of a quarterback that can only punt and hand-off, missing his front line and consequently getting sacked over and over again. He is gifted and I would not expect his performance in the next two debates to be as dismal. However, it is apparent that without his media protection, the emperor is looking quite naked and his chair empty. Did you note how much he rambled and went over his time? In the art of debates, that was a clear sign of a person internally panicked.
It will be interesting how the left-biased media will cover this in the coming days. There are already some signs of restlessness over the realization that their love of Obama has sullied their profession. They are doing some internal soul-searching. Seeing how Romney was and is much different than the image they have worked hard to paint, it amplifies the claims of liberal media bias. I have already heard from my apolitical friends that watched the debate that they were blown away by Romney and could not believe this was the same guy they have been hearing about over the last several months.
My expectation is that this debate will bring the race to neck and neck. On top of that, we have Benghazi-gate and Obama telling defense contractors to break the law requiring them to announce employee layoffs from a lack of a federal budget saying the government would pay their legal costs.
The momentum is all Romney right now. The Democrats and media have expended all of their ammo trying to craft a false image of the opponent that will destroy their march toward an American transformed to European socialism. Unless Romney blows it with another gaffe; I expect the swing states to swing toward him and make him our 45th President.
For those of you that said Obama has this in the bag… I had said “wait for the debates”. The reason I was confident in this was simple. It was that the media had used emotives to paint a false negative picture of Romney, and the problems with Obama’s ideas and his record had been ignored and glossed over. So, in effect there was media image-making pressure holding Romney down, and propping Obama up. Debates remove that artificial image-making mechanism and require the candidate to paint his own image. In this, Romney has nowhere to go but up, and Obama nowhere to go but down.
Ryan and Biden will be very entertaining for similar reasons.
Here is what Don and others do not get… the appeal of a President that proves them the most hope for job opportunities. Romney both increased his profile as the jobs President, while simultaneously painting Obama (deservedly so) as the anti-jobs President. It was a brilliant and honest and factual move.
I also thought it was interesting how Obama in his desperation had to double-down on his strategy to divide and conquer. With his responses of healthcare and taxation, he was appealing to people that those insurance companies, banks and corporations are evil and would screw them without the greater central-control of big government. A good friend of mine that works for VSP emailed me this morning to tell me that the buzz around the office is anger over how Obama seemed to so easily demonize insurance providers and infer that they were uncaring and immoral if not controlled by government.
Again, Jeff: I’d put Obama at 300 EC votes on Nov. 6. Possibly more.
As to the substance of the debates, Romney and Ryan both have a lot of trouble with fact-checkers. Because they make things up.
David wrote:
> The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center says that
> Governor Romney’s plan would reduce tax revenue
> by nearly $500 billion in 2015, or about $5
> trillion over 10 years.
Why not call it a “$10 Trillion Tax Cut” and go out 20 years?
Going out more than a couple years is waste of time and just a big lie.
Both sides are doing it and we need to stop it since no one has any idea what will happen in 10 years.
The graph at the bottom of the web site below is an example of how why it is a joke to predict out even a few years:
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-unemployment-rate-2012-6
Don wrote:
> I’d put Obama at 300 EC votes on Nov.
> 6. Possibly more.
I agree with Don that Obama will probably win due mainly to the change in demographics (many of the lifelong Democrat “Regan Republicans” are dead and most young people and people of color think of Republicans the same way they think of the KKK).
> As to the substance of the debates, Romney
> and Ryan both have a lot of trouble with
> fact-checkers. Because they make things up.
Don is correct that Romney and Ryan are big fat liars, but not any more than Obama and Biden. The old joke “how to you know a politician is lying” “you can see his lips moving” is less of a joke today since it is true more often than not.
About 99% will still be the same under Romney than it has been under Obama, the only difference will be a small amount of discretionary spending will change with Gays, Green Energy and Community Organizers’ getting less and Faith Based Groups, Oil Companies and the Military getting a little more…
SouthofDavis, I think you are left of objectivity.
The joke is that none of these claims of Romney tax plans costing us factor the benefits of greater economic growth.
I think Obama’s “trickle-down goverment” claim is absolutely on target. You appear to agree with this as a strategy. Maybe you work for the government and this doesn’t sound too wrong for you. But from my perspective, it is absolutely wrong.
Even Bill Maher says the empty chair got his arse kicked. I must say, this has to be the first time I’ve agreed with anything Maher has ever said.
washingtonexaminer.com/bill-maher-thinks…pter/article/2509808
Swing State Headlines…
[url]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04/2012-presidential-debate-swing-states_n_1939753.html?utm_hp_ref=elections-2012[/url]
Wait for the polls over the next few days.
Don, your point about Demographic (code for the Hispanic vote) misses the point that these folks want good-paying jobs more than anything.
[i]”Every candidate was taking positions more conservative than McCain.”[/i]
My take is that doesn’t necessarily matter all that much. Ronald Reagan’s positions, relative to the center of the country in 1980 and probably again in 1984, were much further to the right than either McCain in ’08 or Romney in ’12. Also, keep in mind that this very same Republican Party, with positions you may find anathema, has succeeded in winning the House of Representatives, most of the governorships, nearly half the US Senate and two of the last three electoral college contests.
I think what matters to the marginal voter for the challenger is a combination of likability and a perception of competence. For much of the last few months, Romney has not done well on the likability side of things. Failing that, most did not get to the point of judging his competence.
Of course, those two factors don’t matter all that much if the incumbent president is both well-liked and is perceived as having done a good job. When those two are in place for an incumbent, we never vote in the challenger. But while Obama is well-liked, it is an open question (for many voters who are not strongly partisan) whether he has done a good job or has not.
Because Obama’s perceived job performance is in question, and maybe because (post-debate) Romney will be seen as likable and competent, it seems to me that Obama’s electoral college lock is still capable of being picked. I am not saying that is what I expect to happen. I think Obama, like other incumbents with bad first debate performances, will bounce back in the next two debates. But it’s not the case that this thing is over. The fat lady hasn’t even warmed up. She is still gurgling diet soda.
Jeff:[i] “Don, your point about Demographic (code for the Hispanic vote) misses the point that these folks want good-paying jobs more than anything.”[/i]
I didn’t actually mention demographics. But Obama has a complete lock on the Hispanic vote.
Jeff wrote:
> SouthofDavis, Maybe you work for the government
As someone who is self employed I’m about as far from “working for the government” as you can get…
> none of these claims of Romney tax plans costing
> us factor the benefits of greater economic growth.
But none of the plans (that don’t cost the government revenue) factor in “realistic” economic growth. I would love to see more growth, but the fact is that the growth is going where people make ~$5K a year not here in America where they make ~$50K a year (and the US government keeps making it harder and harder to do business with insane regulations). If you back out the trillions that America borrowed and pumped in to the economy over the past four years we have not had any real growth at all…
Romney and Obama are both lying since anyone that tells the American people how bad things are has no chance of getting elected…
I’m actually impressed by how even-handed those headlines are at the HuffPost link. Now here’s a funny starting point for the tracking polls: [url]http://pollingreport.com/obama_job1.htm[/url]. The last time Obama showed a 54% approval rating on the Gallup tracking poll was in [b][i]2009[/i][/b]. Wonder if Drudge will cover that…
Rusty,
Sorry but Romney won nothing but more dislike and distrust of him by many voters like me. He showed his true colors of what a “nice guy” he ISN’T by all of his disrespectful treatment of Jim Lehrer, the commentator, throughout the debate. He was rude, condescending, and totally evaded the important questions by changing the subject, particularly on how he wants to gut Social Security and instead use a voucher system. He sure ran like the wind on that subject and rambled on and on about nothing instead of clarifying how his wacky numbers of claiming to reduce everyone’s taxes yet increasing spending by stupid ideas like giving billions more to the military which is not even asking for more money!
And of ALL people to be claiming that he would create jobs when he bought and disassembled two major companies which cost the LOSS of hundreds and hundreds of jobs so he could make millions, Romney is the biggest B—S— artist on the face of the earth! He became a multi-millionaire because of the hundreds and hundreds of people HE put out of work. Look at the damage that Romney caused the economy and so many peoples lives HE damaged while HE got richer. He probably stashed a lot of that dough in the Cayman Islands to keep it off the books so he could evade paying the income taxes. Talk about dishonest and slimy. That would be Romney.
Romney comes across like a used car salesman who is very bad at his job and yet full of lots of criticism of a situation that HIS party caused via George W. Bush in 8 years. George W. Bush destroyed our country in 8 years, and it will take more than 8 years to remedy the many, many, many stupid things George W. did while in office.
Rusty – He is all yours!
[i]Where’s Newt Gingrich when you really need him?[/i]
Jim Frame, I agree with you. Newt can always be counted on to add the spark. One thing I noticed was how little noise the crowd made. I thought there were more funny moments than they both were given credit for.
From the debate…
Best Romney funny, effective quotes:
1. “Mr. President, you’re entitled to your own house and your own airplane, but not your own facts.”
2. “I’m sorry, Jim, I’m gonna stop the subsidy to PBS… I like PBS. I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too”
3. “Look, I got five boys. I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true, but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I will believe it.” (the one got a big smile from Obama…)
4. “I’ve been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe I need to get a new accountant, but the idea you get a break for shipping jobs overseas, is simply not the case.”
Best Obama funny, effective quotes:
1….. We’re sorry, but that page cannot be found
I thought the nevermind response was not bad by Obama.
But, Romney is going to regret the Big Bird comment. And it’s a dumb comment anyway, the federal government gives literal pennies to PBS in the face of trillions in needed cuts.
“Steven N. Kaplan, a finance professor at the University of Chicago who studies private equity, used another approach: counting 100% of the jobs gained and lost at Bain companies, but only until Mr. Romney left the firm in 1999. By that measure, Mr. Kaplan concluded that Mr. Romney had created “tens of thousands” of jobs.”
“CNN poll: 67% say Romney won debate
“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was 1st asked in 1984′”
Davis rocks:
“George W. Bush in 8 years. George W. Bush destroyed our country in 8 years, and it will take more than 8 years to remedy the many, many, many stupid things George W. did while in office.”
That argument is getting real old. But just for laughs, tell us how long Bush is still going to be responsible for everything wrong with the economy? You’ve already said it will take more than 8 years. So 10 years, 20 years, 100 years? When will you Democrats stop blaming Bush for your failures?
D.R.
“particularly on how he wants to gut Social Security and instead use a voucher system”
Not fully true:
He’s actually trying to save the system and giving seniors a choice of staying on the current system or using vouchers.
“The revised plan gives seniors a choice between the current system and the voucher program, and it would not affect people who are over 55.”
“But just for laughs, tell us how long Bush is still going to be responsible for everything wrong with the economy”
I’m not sure I buy how much responsibility any president has for the economy, but given the fact that the world’s financial markets came dangerously close to collapsing, it would seem not unreasonable that we would expect the effects to go deeper and last longer than most other recessions. So how long should preexisting conditions be used to explain the current state of the economy? Probably longer than now but not indefinitely.
The President has little to do with the economy in a direct way. Economies are cyclical as they are generally expanding (But his actions and inactions have indirect impacts.) For example, the threat of higher taxes and greater regulations have caused business and wealthy to not invest in expansion until they know enough about the actual impact on returns. That is the uncertainty factor that Obama and national Dems have been responsible for.
In addition, the President and the government can help or hinder economic expansion with policy action and legislation. CRA was an example of market manipulation for purposes of social engineering. The bleeding hearts wanted more minorities to own homes because that was where most middle class people’s wealth appreciation was occurring. So, CRA pushed banks to lend to more minorities, who – by no fault of the banks – were much riskier borrowers (less income consistency, lower credit scores, etc.). This in-turn gave rise to the entire menu of creative mortgage products we see today to mitigate the extra risk using collateral appreciation… because without this valuation of collateral appreciation, those minority borrowers would not pass the standard credit policy requirements.
Before CRA, a mortgage lender would have never hedged credit risk on collateral appreciation. Once that cat was out of the bag it exploded and the sub-prime mortgage industry was created. So was the secondary real estate mortgage industry that Freddie and Fanny grew to behemoth size. Lastly, along comes mortgage-back securities. Add it all up, and this was the house of cards that created the Great Recession.
And it was all brought to us by Jimmy Carter who pushed for CRA and passed it.
So, yes a President can have a big indirect impact on the economy.
Interesting that so many Americans have bought the Obama lie that somehow the Great Recession was Bush’s fault when he had little to do with it. In fact, it was Bush demanding the government reign in Freddie and Fanny and Democrats rejecting it. And to top off this disingenuous Democrat and media template that Bush was the cause of the Great Recession… these same liars turn around and complain that anyone has the audacity to blame the Teflon messiah of hope and change for having any role in the state of the economy. Priceless.
Even though the Empty Chair spoke for 4 minutes longer Obama said 500 less words than Romney. I wonder if they counted all his em’s and aw’s? He basically just talked slowly and seemed bored and bored everyone else.
I heard a comment that the 92 billion subsidies given for solar and wind energy works out to $775 per kwh.
Being that most people only pay @ 15 cents per kwh I have to say that Obama really knows how to invest OUR money wisely.
Like Romney said to the Empty Chair, “you get to pick the winners and losers, you just pick losers”.
I think Obama lost this duel because John Kerry was his Romney stand-in practice opponent. John Kerry? To prepare for Mitt Romney? Other than being tall and having salt and pepper hair what exactly were they thinking?
However, things move quick in campaigns. Any moderates out there willing to state here that their opinion changed or solidified? Rusty, Jeff Boone? Sounds like you both finally decided on Romney.
So, where is this evidence of socialism, anyway? National parks are falling apart, state parks are falling apart, roads are falling apart, nobody has health care, the government has no money, our schools are in horrible shape, I can’t think of one nationalized industry, and the only threat to free speech is apathy and stupidity (see part about education).
Anyway, I’m all ears on the socialism issue. Seems like a construct from the media to me, I don’t buy it.
Al Gore was on Current TV saying that Obama lost because of Denver’s altitude. LMAO
I watched the debate and felt that Romney displayed his inability to adhere to the pre-arranged rules by simply ignoring the moderator. If Jim Lehrer had said, “Shut-up Mitt, it’s not your turn. You’ve had the last word three times in a row already,” the Republicans would have been aghast and everyone else would have been calling for Jim Lehrer for president.
In my view, President Obama handled it about right. Romney didn’t convince anyone to move away from Obama. What I expect, as a result of my experience in other kinds of campaigns, is that both sides plan to ramp up their campaigns toward November. This is only the beginning of the final push. It will be interesting to see what this means for the respective candidates and parties.
If Romney persists in the style he showed last night, he will alienate all but his most read-meat admirers. Obama had the facts and nearly everything Romney said was a distortion or breaks down under fact-checking. But that is not really a problem for Romney because people aren’t convinced by the content of debates. He is selling the traditional “strong-father-do-as-I-say-image” that appeals to conservatives. Not sure that’s the predominant paradigm these days, but I guess we’ll find out.
davehart, you’re views of the debate are obviously in the minority:
“CNN poll: 67% say Romney won debate”
“No presidential candidate has topped 60% in that question since it was 1st asked in 1984′”
[i]”Al Gore was on Current TV saying that Obama lost because of Denver’s altitude.”[/i]
I saw that clip and I am 90% certain that Gore was trying to be funny. However, the other two people in the room agreeing with that notion and not cracking a smile makes me 10% less sure.
A mostly unrelated anecdote: Aeons ago, I was a summer staffer in the office of Oregon Senator Bob Packwood (long before he resigned in disgrace). Al Gore was then a junior Senator from Tennessee. I think Gore was in his first year in the Senate when I spent the summer in DC working for Packwood’s office. I had very few interactions with Packwood, and very few with other Senators, though I did join group lunches a number of times with Mark Hatfield (also from Oregon). Anyhow, I recall playing basketball once with a bunch of other peons, when Sen. Gore joined our game. He wasn’t Bill Bradley-good, but Gore was a fairly good athlete and had some basketball skills. (I personally had none.) What I remember from that one game is that Gore had a very dry wit. Watching him on TV in later years, especially as VP, I don’t recall him being very funny. But in person, my recollection is that he had a very good sense of humor. …. And so maybe, even likely, he was joking about the altitude in Denver having affected Obama (the way road teams are, in fact, hurt trying to play a game in Denver against the Nuggets).
“Don’t poke the bear.” My hunch is Romney poked it. We’ll see.
Hey Rusty,
If the voucher program is such a great idea, why did all the seniors walk out on Ryan’s speech at the AARP sponsored event last week? And on blaming George W. for putting the county in the toilet, it is common knowledge that Bush is considered the worst president in the history of the U.S.. You can try to be his apologist as much as you like but the guy was, and still is, a “Loser” with a capital “L”. How can anyone forget the video scene of his reading of “My little goat” at a children’s school when told by aides that the World Trade Center had been attacked and Bush sat there not knowing what to do? Wow…what a leader!
Then, dragging us into middle east wars that we could not afford with his lies (i.e. remember the weapons of mass destruction fiasco. Then doing NOTHING while the economic crisis occurred and actually walking out of emergency meetings to try to save the banking system from collapsing.
You can live in denial as long as you wish. The rest of the real world is still plenty disgusted with George W. and Cheney. Both should be in jail instead of getting richer from making money over the middle east wars that they got us into which have broken the back of our country financially.
These middle east wars also have maimed countless veterans mentally and physically who will never recover from the pain they have endured over serving in these endless middle east wars. Bush and Cheney used lies to get our county involved in these wars to benefit oil companies and companies like Halliburton. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton for years, which, of course, is the private military contracting company which thrived financially due to these middle east wars. Meanwhile, the cost of these wars screwed our country’s economy.
Jeff
“I have already heard from my apolitical friends that watched the debate that they were blown away by Romney and could not believe this was the same guy they have been hearing about over the last several months. “
I believe that their perception was accurate. They could not believe this was the same guy, because in fact, it was not. Romneys debate performance was very good. The problem is, that was all it was, a performance. I will only address the topic about which I actually have some knowledge, health care. For months Romney has denigrated “Obamacare” and stated repeatedly that he would repeal it out right. Now before a national audience, needing to look as though he cares about the unrich ( made up word deliberate Rich) he claims that he is being criticized unfairly. He claims that his plan will leave the most popular portions intact, namely the “Pre existing conditions” provision ( of course, only counts if you are already far enough up the ladder to already have insurance) and the dependent young adult provision. Well, which is it Governor Romney ? Do you support the plan that you originally promoted in your state?, Is virtually the same plan an abomination that needs immediate repeal as you have claimed many times?, Or is it really full of good things that you would preserve after all now that you and your campaign handlers are realizing that you won’t get elected by appealing only to the hard right.
So Jeff, I completely agree with your apolitical friends. I also do not believe that this is the same man. I don’t believe that this is the same Romney who in an unguarded, unscripted moment, divided out 47% of Americans as self identified victims , unwilling to take care of themselves and begging for a handout. The problem is, I believe that this spontaneous, unscripted Romney is the real Romney. No matter how much he back peddles now, this is the Romney that could be elected. A man that believes that 47%, virtually half of the country can be written off as your proverbial “moochers”. And then does not even have the integrity to stand up and own what is truly his belief, but is now claiming it was a “mistake”. No, this is most certainly not the man who delivered the performance on debate night. Unfortunately, it is the man we might elect president.
Davis Rocks, I suggest you see someone about your dripping hate for Bush. Get over it and man up. He’s been gone and quiet for four years and here you are still fuming and spitting out the same old tired talking points of the left. Really, it’s not good for your health.
“I suggest you see someone about your dripping hate for Bush. Get over it and man up.”
Boy there’s a pot and a kettle waiting for that response.
Rusty wrote:
> I heard a comment that the 92 billion subsidies given
> for solar and wind energy works out to $775 per kwh.
The “green energy” people were big Obama supporters and are getting a great ROI on their “investment” (just like the people that supported GW Bush did).
This is not an Obama vs. Romney topic it is a Capitalism vs. Crony Capitalism topic. It is sad to say that while my Dad told me to me to get an education and work hard I’m going to tell my kids to get an education, work hard and give money to politicians (since they decided who gets to do well)…
medwoman: Republicans have supported doing soemthing about the problem with preexisting conditions from day 1. If you have really listened to Romney about his committement to repeal Obamacare you would understand that he has always said we would replace it with something else that allowed states to develop their own healthcare reform.
The contrast here is that Romney, like many people, understands the benefits of states rights and the great laboratory for developing creative solutions to problems. One-size never fits all. So, a top-down approach like Obamacare ends up being a complex mess that Ms. Notsee Peloski said we had to pass first so we could actually read the bill and see what was in it.
It is a crack up. You prefer to believe the left-media crafted image of Romney instead of believing what you saw and heard directly from the debate. It appears that you might not trust your ability to assess people directly. Most people I talk to are the exact oposite. They can better assess the ideas, direction, vision and image of a candidate from a debate where there are no teleprompters and media dolts working to spin a derived image.
And the rolling polling shows? [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/election.aspx[/url]
Don, it is too soon for a change to show up in the rolling polls. If you don’t believe me, take the word of Nate Silver, who writes the 538 blog for the New York Times.
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-W_FmW1gOOsc/UG8fQPS8z-I/AAAAAAAAAqo/vwIjGQhG6OI/s1600/too+soon.JPG[/img]
In a week or so we will know if Romney got a significant bump from the first debate. Romney is now losing by between 4% and 5% in most of the national popular vote polls. I think a “signficant” change would be for Romney to go up 2% and Obama to go down 2%. I don’t expect that to happen. But if it does, then the popular vote will be 1% or less, and then Romney would have some chance to alter the electoral college map.
JEFF: [i]”Republicans have supported doing soemthing about the problem with pre-existing conditions from day 1.”[/i]
What is it they planned to do? Where can you show me in writing where they say or said this?
The GOP controlled both houses for a while when GW Bush was president. I don’t recall them doing anything about pre-existing conditions then.
As far as I can tell, Romney has no plan at all. In the debate he said he has a plan which would disallow insurance companies to discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions; other times he has stated his plan would allow such discrimination in cases where someone is coming into a new job. [quote]What Mr. Romney actually proposes is that Americans with pre-existing conditions ([url]http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/05/opinion/krugman-romneys-sick-joke.html?_r=0[/url]) who already have health coverage be allowed to keep that coverage even if they lose their job — as long as they keep paying the premiums. As it happens, this is already the law of the land. But it’s not what anyone in real life means by having a health plan that covers pre-existing conditions, because it applies only to those who manage to land a job with health insurance in the first place (and are able to maintain their payments despite losing that job). [/quote]
Jeff
[quote]It is a crack up. You prefer to believe the left-media crafted image of Romney instead of believing what you saw and heard directly from the debate. It appears that you might not trust your ability to assess people directly. Most people I talk to are the exact oposite. They can better assess the ideas, direction, vision and image of a candidate from a debate where there are no teleprompters and media dolts working to spin a derived image.[/quote]
Again, you are telling me what I “prefer to believe”.
Please note that I did not compare anything from “the left-media crafted image” with his debate performance.
What I compared was his own tape recorded performance in a private setting where he was unaware he was being taped and chose to disparage 47% of Americans. I trust my ability to judge people based on what they say and do spontaneously as far more reliable than what they say and do after having been extensively coached in how exactly to perform for an audience. Please also note that I was addressing issues of Romney’s performance over time as put forward in his own words, not words attributed to him by either side, both of which present their preferred spin.
Your comment seems to me like just another example of you responding not to what I am saying, but rather to some stereotype that you hold in your head of how a liberal must think. I think you would be better served by doing what you have said is a goal of yours, trying to learn and understand more about how a liberal really thinks.
Hey Rusty,
I guess then you need to “man up” and get use to understanding that clean up of George W. and Cheney train wrecks that they imposed on the county over 8 years will take a lot longer than 8 years to remedy. It took a few seconds for Bin Laden’s folks to blow up the World Trade Center (i.e. which happened on Bush’s watch) but it has taken over 10 years to start rebuilding these buildings.
That reminds me, which President was the one who finally GOT Bin Laden? It was NOT George W.. It was President Obama! So Obama got to inherit our Country’s economy in a mess and finishing the job that Bush could not get done of finding Bin Laden. Lot’s of “clean-up” to do from the Bush-Cheney era for Obama so it takes time to rebuild the mass destruction caused by an incompetent like George W. Bush and his sidekick Cheney. You sure don’t see those two on the Republican campaign trail now do you?
That reminds me a saying I heard recently:
Bin Laden is dead, and General Motors is alive, thanks to Obama.
What about Romney’s famous position of “Let General Motors go under.” Wow! What a disaster that would have been since thousands of jobs were saved and American car companies are making a come back. How many jobs would Romney have killed with his “brilliant” idea of destroying the American car industry? And then Romney does another of his famous flip-flop’s and tries to convince the public that he will bring jobs? Cripes….
Rich: On the topic of GOP support for solving the problem with pre-existing conditions…
The GOP plans I have seen are focused on health insurance portability as a solution. In other words, if a person leaves an employer and their group policy, that person should be able to transfer to an individual policy… even with a break in COBRA coverage explained by unemployment.
Where the GOP has an issue is coverage for people with pre-existing conditions that have lacked health insurance for a long while. The reason for this is simple… if we forced insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions that previously lacked insurance, more people would just wait until they had any serious health issue to purchase insurance.
The general solution is to get more people working and reduce the cost of health insurance and health care with greater competition and tort reform. With more people working, health insurance and health care more affordable, and portability… you solve most of the problems with pre-existing conditions. It does not solve the problem for people that still chose to go without insurance. But that is a problem that cannot be solved unless nanny government takes over the healthcare insurance industry and ensures even stupid people get the same coverage.
[i]”In 41 States, COBRA Premiums Cost More than Three-Fourths of Unemployment Benefits; in Nine of Those States, They Cost More than 100 Percent.'[/i]
Yep, pretty typical Republican solution. I.e., it won’t work in the real world. You would leave millions of American without health insurance.
[quote]The reason for this is simple… if we forced insurance companies to take on people with pre-existing conditions that previously lacked insurance, more people would just wait until they had any serious health issue to purchase insurance. [/quote] In effect, this is a huge problem in the current U.S. system which the Republicans don’t solve. In our system, both de jure and de facto, we have universal health insurance as a last resort. That is, when someone is uninsured and very sick, he can walk into any ER and that hospital will treat him, and then, usually, that expense is borne systemically, where all of the rest of us who (directly or indirectly) pay for health insurance pick up the tab for this person who is “uninsured” or if you prefer “uninsurable” under the discriminatory system.
ObamaCare solves this problem by ending discrimination of this sort and getting much closer to regularized universal coverage. With that, the person gets much less expensive treatment long before he walks into that ER and pushes the bill onto the rest of us.
If health care were treated in our marketplace like, say, shopping for a new Mercedes Benz, then it would not be such a problem that we have folks who are priced out of the market. But, given our Judeo-Christian ethic and to some extent the laws which govern hospitals, no one who is extremely sick is “priced out” of an ER. Everyone gets that coverage. And it does no good for Republicans or libertarians, for that matter, to pretend the health market is like any other, and thus they come up with some market-oriented solution. Those solutions all fail under the weight of our de facto universality.
Now, if Republicans were willing to change the laws, and also change American ethics, to the point where hospitals could choose to deny coverage to very sick people who cannot afford to pay, then these market ideas might work. But since they don’t really work, what you are offering ends up costing much more than ObamaCare. It trades off cheaper “pay me now” treatment for the most expensive “pay me later” ER coverage.
Jeff
If you have really listened to Romney about his committement to repeal Obamacare you would understand that he has always said we would replace it with something else that allowed states to develop their own healthcare reform[quote][/quote]
Since this is an issue of immense importance to me, I have listened very carefully to what he has said. So I agree, he has “said” that we would replace it “with something else that allowed states to develop their own healthcare reform”. I would say that states to date have not been prohibited from developing their own healthcare reform, after all Massachusetts did so, however, the problem is that most states have not availed themselves of a similar strategy despite the apparent need. I listened very carefully to Romney as he explained in person, how everyone had coverage since every one can access an ER when they become acutely ill. Unfortunately, he happily glosses over the fact that this is the least effective and most costly way of obtaining care as well as the fact that all the ER is obliged to do is make sure that you are temporarily medically stable before they, forcibly if need be, discharge you to the street. Now that may be Romny’s idea of adequate care for the 47% of his “moochers” however, I doubt that most of us would consider it acceptable care.
Finally, with regard to pre existing condition, I find it inadequate that this would apply only to those already having insurance. So let’s suppose a 27 year, previously on their parents plan for a life threatening if not managed adequately, condition has not yet found a job that comes with insurance benefits. Out of luck !
No one has to ensure this individual in a candidate Romney’s country until of course they are near death, at which point they will be stabilized in an ER probably multiple times, for which we will all pay huge amounts of money for rescue care when we could have paid much less for prevention and maintenance care. If this makes sense to you from a business, economic, or moral point of view, please explain as I clearly do not see it.
This is not the kind of oblivious, heartless policy making that I see as part of the America I envision. I believe in taking care of ourselves. I also believe that those of us who have had great success should be mindful of the needs of others who have not been so fortunate. For me, this is just a part of “personal responsibility”.
Mitt Romney, despite his millions, clearly does not see things this way……unless of course you are a Mormon or a potential Mormon as you pointed out as his main site of charitable giving.
From the Romney campaign today; policy director Lanhee Chen:
“His policy has been consistent and clear,” Chen said. “First, insurance companies will be prohibited from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions who have maintained continuous coverage. This protects individuals and families who might lose their job, or who simply want to own their own insurance instead of receiving it from an employer.”
“Second, states will have the flexibility and resources to design programs specific to the needs of those who cannot afford coverage on their own. States face very different challenges and circumstances, and will do a better job providing for their citizens than the federal government can.”
[quote]States face very different challenges and circumstances, and will do a better job providing for their citizens than the federal government can.”
[/quote]
This position completely ignores the fact that the majority of other first world countries which all face very different challenges and circumstances virtually all mange to do a better job for providing medical care for their citizens than the United States does currently.