Presidential Debate Tonight

[Tames D]

Just watched the debate. I thnk that Romney owned the President tonight. I saw a man with experience in successfully running business and Government debate a man with no experience with either. It was sad to see the President in this condition.
What are your thoughts on the debate?

 

[billc]

I only heard some of the end of the debate coming home from class...but since my opinion wouldn't matter anyway, here are some of obama's supporters on the debate...

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Hollywood/2012/10/03/Bill-Maher-Obama-under-bus

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/03/Sullivan-wipe-out-for-Romney

Andrew Sullivan, the Daily Beast’s designated Obama sycophant (or one of many) has declared the debate for Romney early. So far, he’s stated that the debate is a “wipe-out for Romney.” He’s explained that it is a “rolling calamity for Obama. He’s boring, abstract, and less human-seeming than Romney! I can’t even follow him half the time. Either exhausted, over-briefed … or just flailing. He is throwing this debate away.”

When you’ve lost Andrew Sullivan and Nicholas Kristof, you’ve lost the debate, Mr. President.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/03/Kristof-Obama-looks-constipated

Andrew Sullivan says obama is less human seeming than "the robot," Romney...it must have been a pretty bad performance...and that is from obama's biggest supporters.

Now, of course, Reagan lost the first debate to Carter and still won by a huge margin in the election, so it's not over till it's over...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Did not watch. The only thing I'll be interested in is what Factcheck.org has to say about the lies they told each other later. Since it is mostly lies, who cares who told them better? A liar is a liar.

 

[billc]

Yes, but after the election, only one is called "Mr. President liar,"...

Wow, here is liberal nutter ed shultz...

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...inted-president-i-was-absolutely-stunned-toni

ED SCHULTZ: I was disappointed in the President. He had an opportunity tonight. He created a problem for himself on Social Security tonight. He agrees with Mitt Romney. Every liberal in this country knows that Mitt Romney wants to privatize Social Security down the road, and to do a deal with the devil on that would be the wrong thing to do.
I think the President created a big problem for him tonight, for himself. I don’t think he explained himself very well on the economy. I thought he was off his game. I was absolutely stunned tonight.

Soooo...

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Thought they came out roughly even, with Romney slightly ahead, but I think it will help him out a lot more in the long wrong. No real 'winner' per se, but he finally got his actual ideas out there straight from the source, rather than having people hear them through a game of telephone. May not be much, but as I said, should up his chances a bit, and may actually have a shot at this. And Bill, I'm pretty confident that i'm not the only person on here who feels this way, but whether or not I agree with all your opinions, they do matter if you post in the forum, and I respect them. No reason not to say them (although I'm guessing you expressed your sentiments through the Obama supporters).

 

[WC_lun]

Mr Romney was the more animated debater which I think gave him the debate win. He did start dropping a lot of the right wing retoric that he'd been saying before, in what looks like an attempt to move to the middle. Still no details on how he would do the things he says he'll do. Mr Obama let a few things go that I think could have deflated Mr Romney pretty quickly, especially in the area of medicine and reform. If he had, I think the debate would have gone to him. The next one is the foriegn policy debate, ism't it? I think that one will be a slam dunk for Mr Obama. With all of Mr Romney's retoric against the current administration's policies, he has already commited a few foreign policy mishaps and when he has given any specifics of his own plans, they aren't much different than Mr Obama's. Though Mr Romey has the t

 

[WC_lun]

Mr Romney was the more animated debater which I think gave him the debate win. He did start dropping a lot of the right wing retoric that he'd been saying before, in what looks like an attempt to move to the middle. Still no details on how he would do the things he says he'll do. Mr Obama let a few things go that I think could have deflated Mr Romney pretty quickly, especially in the area of medicine and reform. If he had, I think the debate would have gone to him. The next one is the foriegn policy debate, ism't it? I think that one will be a slam dunk for Mr Obama. With all of Mr Romney's retoric against the current administration's policies, he has already commited a few foreign policy mishaps and when he has given any specifics of his own plans, they aren't much different than Mr Obama's though with a tough guy act attached.

I am interested in the fact checkers. I spotted a couple of inaccuracie and am curious to see what I missed.

 

[arnisador]

Romney reversed himself on many of his positions--very disingenuous--but he beat expectations where the pres. only met them.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

The next one is the foriegn policy debate, ism't it? I think that one will be a slam dunk for Mr Obama.

Agreed, Many Americans follow Obama's foreign view, and sill remember the excitement over finally getting Bin Laden...should be (almost) impossible for him to lose that one.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I do not understand anyone who analyzes their statements to determine who to vote for without actually considering whether they are true or not. "Oh, Romney came out on top, he was very self-confident." "Obama was clearly in need of a teleprompter." Who cares? Self confidence? Teleprompter? What matters is the veracity of their statements. And they lied their asses off.

http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/

Summary
We found exaggerations and false claims flying thick and fast during the first debate between President Obama and his Republican challenger, Mitt Romney.

Gee. Two liars lie on television, and people are talking about how they looked doing it, not what they said.

This is why we have morons in office. Because we have morons pulling voting levers for them.

I'm going to go throw up now.

 

[seasoned]

Doesn't leave many options for the next 4 years, if that's the case. Come hell or high water, someone is going to get the job. Liar or not...

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Doesn't leave many options for the next 4 years, if that's the case. Come hell or high water, someone is going to get the job. Liar or not...

True. But arguing over who did a better job of lying? Really? Why not argue over who had a snazzier tie, if we're reduced to that?

I mean, Candidate A says he is going to "create 10 million jobs!" And Candidate B says he is going to "cut taxes by 90 percent for all working families!" And neither one is true, but people are arguing about which one is better as if it was actually going to happen. It's not going to happen, folks. You're arguing over vapor, smoke, nada, nothing, zippo. No 10 million jobs, no 90% tax cut. So arguing about it? Stupid and futile, not to mention it makes the person who buys into that crap a total tool.

Then I hear "Oh, it's just politics, of course they're lying. They'll say anything to get elected." AS IF THAT MAKES IT OK!

Then some wag says "How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips are moving!" Yeah, hilarious. And you're voting for them WHY?

When one of these two dumbasses gets elected, and fails to keep their promises, their opponents will scream about that like their puppies were just run over in the street. And the people who supported that guy will say well, it's all because of the obstructionist Congress, or it's not his fault he inherited a mess from his predecessor, or blah this or blah that.

In other words, we like liars, as long as they are our liars, for our 'side'. If they win, we'll make any excuse to cover for their lies. If they other guy wins, we'll moan and groan about how he broke all his promises.

Guess what guys. This isn't a game. Wake up.

 

[Sukerkin]

I am puzzled that people place so much stock in these 'debates' (which are really nothing of the sort). Surely you should see what policy choices are on offer by the respective candidates, weigh up which offends your conscience the least and then cast your vote accordingly. A slick talker is a salesman; what you need to find out about is the real information on the 'appliance' being offered.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I am puzzled that people place so much stock in these 'debates' (which are really nothing of the sort). Surely you should see what policy choices are on offer by the respective candidates, weigh up which offends your conscience the least and then cast your vote accordingly. A slick talker is a salesman; what you need to find out about is the real information on the 'appliance' being offered.

Precisely. I do not get the way people continue to argue over which promise they like better, when if they have two brain cells to rub together, they should know it's all just lies. So what is the point of arguing over things you won't get anyway?

 

[WC_lun]

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
-Mark Twain


Anyone voting should follow the link given by Bill or go somewhere similiar and do the research. Don't depend upon biased sources such as Brieghtbart's site or Crooks and Liars to get accurate info or tell you the whole story on these issues. Voting is an important responsibility. Form your opinions after you know the facts.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

"There are lies, damn lies, and then there are statistics."
-Mark Twain

Anyone voting should follow the link given by Bill or go somewhere similiar and do the research. Don't depend upon biased sources such as Brieghtbart's site or Crooks and Liars to get accurate info or tell you the whole story on these issues. Voting is an important responsibility. Form your opinions after you know the facts.

Votesmart.org
Sourcewatch.org
Factcheck.org

I like the ones above. There may be others. Informing oneself on the issues and the candidates is not fun and not easy. The alternative is we keep getting the government we deserve; good and hard.

 

[Steve]

I thought Romney did very well in the debates, although I think that the criticisms for Obama are a little unfounded. Both candidates did, in my opinion, very well. It was a huge improvement over the reality show, circus-like atmosphere of the GOP primary debates. Personally, I'm interested in the debates not as actual debates, but rather as concurrent stump speeches. Who will perform in a way that will sway independent voters in swing states? That's the reason the debates exist. There are those who are voting for Obama and it won't matter what he says. And those who are voting for Romney. I legitimately, honestly haven't decided.

Romney was aided by very low expectations going in. But he really scored well in two areas that I noticed. First, when he mentioned 90 billion dollars in green energy subsidies (which I saw him do twice), Obama reacted both times, but didn't respond. Second, Romney was most compelling when he embraced his time as a Massachusetts Governor. When he spoke about getting things done with an 80+% democratic controlled STate congress, building health care, creating jobs and improving education, I think that will resonate with independent voters.

One thing that Romney said I don't agree with was his point about turning over control of public programs back to the States. I don't disagree with the idea that States should have more latitude in some areas, but it's intellectually dishonest to suggest that turning a program over to a State RIGHT NOW is other than killing the program. Most States in the Union right now are strapped with economies reflective of the Federal economy. Burdening States with the onus to support abandoned Federal programs will effectively kill those programs. Now, I understand that this is the entire point in some cases. It's also cowardly to do it this way. It's like dropping your 12 year old dog off at the pound. You can pretend you gave him a chance at a new life, but you really just put the onus of killing him on someone else because you were too cowardly to do it yourself.

Obama scored points, too, although I think the liberal media will bury it (that's tongue in cheek, btw). He pointed out several times the inconsistencies in the promises Romney is making, particularly where taxes and the deficit come into play. He said at one point something along the lines of, "Why isn't Gov. Romney sharing the details of his plans that would make them work? Is it because they're too good? Because they'll benefit the middle income families too much?"

Bottom line. I think that with undecided voters, Romney made some headway yesterday and would give him the nod. This isn't to say that Obama did poorly. But Romney did far better than the low expectations most had of him going into the debate.

 

[billc]

The next problem is fact checking the fact checkers...on Factcheck.org...

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2104053/posts

FactCheck.org is Sponsored by Decidedly LEFTIST Organization: ANNENBERG Public Policy Foundation

Posted on Sunday, October 12, 2008 6:02:19 PM by BIOCHEMKY
The “Truthfulness” website called FactCheck.org is itself decidedly BIASED toward the LEFT as the discussion that follows points out.
The ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania is the organization behind the FactCheck.org website that is being consulted OFTEN by voters and media personalities alike to help them form opinions on the “truthfulness” of the claims being made by the McCain and Obama political ads as well as statements made on the Campaign Trail and in Presidential and Vice Presidential debates.
Kathleen Hall Jamieson, Ph.D. is the Director of the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania which is the organization BEHIND the FactCheck.org “truthfulness” website.
Dr. Jamieson's newest book entitled “Echo Chamber: Rush Limbaugh and the Conservative Media Establishment” is a MAJOR HIT PIECE against the Conservative voices in the media on television, radio, and in print. View the book’s Table of Contents: http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/echochamber/
In Dr. Jamieson’s biography on the APPC website, she states that during the 2004 general election she regularly appeared on “NOW With Bill Moyers” and “The NewsHour,” and throughout the 2008 campaign is appearing regularly on “Bill Moyers Journal.” http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/Bio.aspx?myUsername=kjamieson
In a 2003 interview with BuzzFlash.com, Bill Moyers said, "The corporate right and the political right declared class warfare on working people a quarter of a century ago and they've won."
Moyers went on to say that the American public has failed to react this fact because it is, "distracted by the media circus and news which has been neutered or politicized for partisan purposes." In support of this statement Moyers referred to "the paradox of Rush Limbaugh [who is] ensconced in a Palm Beach mansion massaging the resentments across the country of white-knuckled wage earners, who are barely making ends meet in no small part because of the corporate and ideological forces for whom Rush has been a hero...”
What’s the bottom line? FactCheck.org is a LEFT-BIASED organization that has sold itself as “Politically NEUTRAL” to America’s voters and media personnel.

I've looked for sourcewatch and if it is the same one I am looking at, it too is left leaning. Of course there could be another one I haven't found yet.

The president of sourcewatch.org appears to be Richard Kimball, a democrat who ran against John McCain...doesn't help the credibility but there are a lot of people working here so it might be okay...

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I am puzzled that people place so much stock in these 'debates' (which are really nothing of the sort). Surely you should see what policy choices are on offer by the respective candidates, weigh up which offends your conscience the least and then cast your vote accordingly. A slick talker is a salesman; what you need to find out about is the real information on the 'appliance' being offered.

You SHOULD do that, unfortunately, many people use the debates as their only source of 'valid' information on the candidates policies. So for those people the debates will decide who they vote for, and that normally has a huge overall impact on the election.
EDIT: Not saying hat all the undecided voters who watched the debates are doing this, and not paying attention to anything else. Just saying that a decent amount of them, maybe 50-70%(?) are relying just on the debates.

 

[billc]

I think the foreign policy debate is the most dangerous for obama.

Mexico
--obama's justice department allowed over 2500 assault rifles to be transferred to drug cartels resulting in the death of over 300 mexican citizens, men, women and children, and "operation Castaway," another guns for cartels program transferred guns to Countries in Central and South AMerica as well, with more murders and mayhem stemming from these sales. Also, there was another gun running program in Texas.

Canada
--Denial of the Keystone pipeline from Canada killed jobs here, increases our dependence on oil from radical muslim countries, and is forcing our friend and ally Canada to ship that oil to China, one of our main competitors and lenders.

Russia
--The scene where Obama tells Russian President Medvedev "Tell putin I need more space because I'll have more room after the election," was a chilling thing to see an American president do. Russia is acting aggressively and obama isn't doing anything but coddle them, surrendering to their demands on nuclear disarmament and the missle shield, which makes our new friends, the former soviet satellite nations, like Poland, extremely nervous about our committment to them.

Middle East
--Our embassies are under attack, our Ambasodor and several others murdered and it may very well turn out that on the anniversary of 9/11, in a radialized Muslim country that just changed governments in a violent revolution, pleas for more security from the Ambasodor on the ground were ignored, and during the attack obama hesitated to send in support.
--by attacking oil, coal and natural gas, obama makes us more dependent on the oil from radical islamic countries. No matter how much some may wish it, solar and wind will not solve any of our energy problems for another 50-100 years, if then.

Iran
--obama has made it clear to the world that a nuclear armed Iran is not that big of a problem, regardless of what he actually says. Rational people see this as a major problem.

Israel
--He keeps insulting our best allies in the middle east, and ignores their fears about Iran.

Our Military
--In a dangerous world, obama embraces drastic cuts to our military. Even with the wars in Iraq and Afganistan being prematurely ended by obama, cutting our military, 20,000 marines, 80,000 army personel, and cuts to the airforce and navy hurt our ability to project strength around the world.

Bin laden
--yeah, obama gave the order, but the only thing that allowed him to "give the order," was all the Bush policies and decisions that allowed us to actually find out where bin laden was, and to be in a position to get at him.

Afganistan
--This is the war obama supported...we just reached 2000 combat deaths of American service personel, the surge is deemed a failure and "green on blue" attacks are now the preferred method of attack by the Taliban and al queda. The commander on the ground asked for 80,000 troops to make the surge work. Obama asked him how few troops could he get the job done with, the commander said 40,000, so obama gave him 35,000 and and announced the date we were pulling out.

So, no, foreign policy is going to be as rough if not rougher for obama in the next debate.