Debate II

[Lord Jim]

On points, I have to score it a narrow win for Obama.

I thought Romney flubbed a major opportunity on the Benghazi question; Obama didn't answer it, (the question was "why weren't the requests for additional security met?" ) but rather than laser in on that fact he got lost in the weeds over semantics about what exactly Obama said the next day in the Rose Garden. (But the good news for Romney is he'll get another bite of the apple on that one next Monday in the foreign policy debate.)

I'm sure that Obama's base was much more pleased with his performance than two weeks ago, (it would have been hard to have done worse) but I doubt that the testy and combative demeanor that both candidates exhibited did much to impress the remaining persuadable voters...

I thought both candidates scored some points and both missed some opportunities. (I thought Jeff Greenfield had a very valid observation on Morning Joe a little while ago when he said that if Obama's last answer last night, focusing on the 47% video had been his first answer in the first debate we'd have very different situation now; but you don't get a second chance to define your opponent.)

The overnight polling of debate watchers done by both CNN and CBS has Obama winning by a small margin, (there's also some good news in that polling for Romney; by double digits he won on the question of "Who do you think would do a better job with the economy?")

I certainly don't think that the narrow win Obama got last night is going to come close to undoing the enormous electoral damage that he did to himself in the first debate. The RCP electoral map now has Obama up 201 to 191, with the rest too close to call, which is far and away the closest it has been in the entire election cycle.

It's becoming increasingly apparent this election is absolutely going to go down to the wire....Ground game and turnout is going to the decisive factor in a handful of states that are going to decide this election.

[Sue U]

I thought Obama did better this time around, but that's a pretty low bar. I thought his answers could have been focussed a lot better and he could have hit Romney a lot harder.

Romney's answers were little more than stump-speech twaddle, and I was frankly disappointed (but not surprised) by their almost complete lack of substance. In addition, I thought he was extremely rude and generally acted like a douchebag, not only to Obama but particularly to Candy Crowley, who was doing a very good impression of a doormat.

All around, it was a depressing affair.

[dgs49]

Sue apparently watched a different debate than I did.

There is a fundamental flaw in the narratives of these debates: The challenger is supposed to talk about what he will do to change things, and how it will work. The incumbent is supposed to talk about his successes and why it would be bad to change directions.

But Obama has no successes, and is compelled to talk like a challenger - "look what I can do in the future." And everyone lets him get away with it. Compare RR's performance in the debates of 1984: He lowered taxes, whipped inflation, brought about a dramatic increase in economic growth, re-invigorated the Department of Defense. The list went on and on. And what can Barry talk about?

The "accomplishments" he lists are a joke. He got OBL? Gimme a fucking break. This attempt started while he was still in the Illinois legislature and progressed despite his election, not because of it. Obamacare? Bad policy, badly executed - with a coming tsunami of cost that was intentionally delayed until after this election. Immigration reform? Nada. New jobs? Nada. Energy independence? Nada (but lies).

His ridiculous deficit projections of the "Coming Romney Disaster" are nothing but smoke, and they are given EQUAL WEIGHT with the FACTS of his failures coming back from Romney. That he is even able to even hint that he has any concern about deficits without loud laughter and guffawing from the audience is astounding.

The headlines in the Non-Fox media are unanimous in annointing Barry the "winner" of last night's debate. Clearly, each of them had a few good moments and few that were very weak, but there was no "winner" except in the eyes of the perennial Kool-Aid drinkers.

Frankly, it's looking better and better for R&R. The debate on foreign policy will lose out in the ratings battle to Seinfeld re-runs: nobody but policy geeks give a shit, and they have already made up their minds. It would be more entertaining if they just brought Bibi out and allowed both of them to give him a BJ on camera. At least that would be authentic.

[Grim Reaper]

Sue apparently watched a different debate than I did.

You mean she watched the actual debate while you imagined one in your head.

[oldr_n_wsr]

There is a point that dsg49 brings up that I do agree with. Most (all) sitting presidents looked back on their current term and were able to stand on something they did. Obama is acting like he is running for president not being the president who is going for re-election.

[Sue U]

That is the bullshit GOP "narrative" that they're trying to spin. In fact, during the debate Obama specifically noted what he believes to be his successes: Saving the auto industry, averting a financial catastratophe and second Great Depression, enacting new banking and investment regulations, enacting healthcare reform, investing in clean energy, ending the war in Iraq, advancing workers' and women's rights. Oh, and murdering Osama bin Laden.

To say that Obama has no record to run on is a flat-out lie. You may or may not agree with what he has done, but he certainly has done some very significant and substantial things.

[Big RR]

Well sue, I guess you have to also consider what of those things he has really done (or had a substantial hand in). New bamnking and investment regulation? On paper perhaps, but what has actually changed and how have his regulato s enforced these new regs? Ending the war in Iraq? On whose timetable--pretty much W's (and we're still pretty embroiled there)? With apologies to Jim it's kind of like saying Reagan ended the cold war (or the rooster made the sun rise). I'll give him some points on the first two points, clean energy, and healthcare reform, although I really don't think he did a good job with any of those (but then it can't be argued he did nothing with them), and I think any advances on women's and worker's rights are actually just preventing them from being eroded further (which I see as something quite different). To Obama I would also add that he extended the executive power to summarily execute/murder American citizens by decree, which should please a certain segment of the voters, though I don't find it a reason ti support him.

So yes, I agree that one cannot say he has done nothing, but I think it quite truthfuly to say he has done very little, especially when faced with the promises in his first campaign. He has further rolled back civil rights and the rule of law in the name of security, left the persons imprisoned at Gitmo without charge, let alone any trial for four more years, and been relatively ineffective at working with congress throughout his tenure. Hardly a record to run on--which is why IMHO, he avoids it.

[dgs49]

While we're on the topic of bullshit narratives...

"Saving the auto industry..." You aren't serious about that are you? Barry prevented the application of the legal bankruptcy process in order to "save" the UAW contracts that had played a large part in driving GM into bankruptcy in the first place. And now the trajectory of the company is clear - they will be in bankruptcy again within the next 18 months.

"...averting a financial catastratophe and second Great Depression..." Based on what, exactly? He said so? To the extent that catastrophe was avoided (according to the Mental Giants in Congress), it was done during the last year of the Bush administration. Barry's spending did nothing but induce agencies of all levels of government to stupidly hire more people (teachers, police, firefighters) that they later had to lay off, and spend money on infrastructure projects. The net improvement to the economy was non-existent. Four years into his presidency, fewer people are employed now than when he took office.

"...enacting new banking and investment regulations..." So what? The root cause of the collapse was the housing bubble, and that was mainly stoked by the Federal Government - in a true bi-partisan fashion. The new banking regulations, like all the previous ones cause administrative burden and resolve very little. In fact, now that his administration has declared the concept of Too Big To Fail, the major banks are acting with more arrogance than ever before.

"...enacting healthcare reform..." Yes, an unpopular law on which the jury is still out. And if it is implemented fully next year (which I doubt will happen when Romney is elected), healthcare premiums are going to skyrocket (uninsured, no lifetime max, adult-kids, etc), and it will become even more unpopular.

"...investing in clean energy..." This is a political slogan that masks government idiocy at its worst. As it was with ethanol, "clean energy" will come when it becomes economically viable. Barry and the Progressives have made "clean energy investments" little more than a way of rewarding political donors with "free" government money to waste. The list of "green" energy companies that took big federal subsidies then went out of business is getting longer every day.

"...ending the war in Iraq..." on the same timetable as Bush43 planned to do it. Nice.

"...advancing workers' and women's rights..." You misspelled "wimmin." Again, nothing but a political catch-phrase intended to motivate the pinko's.

"...murdering Osama bin Laden." Good choice of words. Obviously you have forgotten the cowardly way he gave the "go ahead" for this project - basically telling the military commander that if it didn't go well, it would be his responsibility.

But I agree with you, these are what Barry "believes" were his accomplishments. Delusional bastard.

[Grim Reaper]

But I agree with you, these are what Barry "believes" were his accomplishments. Delusional bastard.

Meanwhile you want to vote for the guy who will increase spending and decrease income and somehow think it will magically balance the budget.

"...murdering Osama bin Laden." Good choice of words. Obviously you have forgotten the cowardly way he gave the "go ahead" for this project - basically telling the military commander that if it didn't go well, it would be his responsibility.

And this is a particularly cute bit of nonsense. As if anyone would have left President Obama alone if things had gone wrong. He would have gotten the blame, just like President Carter did, and he knew it.

[Joe Guy]

I try to picture how the candidates act in real life.

Romney came across in both debates very disrespectful to the president and the moderators. He seems to believe that he has privileges that go outside all of the rules that are set.

To me it showed a man who is trying to sell himself and to buy the presidential office at whatever the cost. A person with promises to fix everything for everyone is not being honest.

Obama seems to have a good sense of what needs to be done and the realization that things can't happen as fast as he would like them to happen. I'd rather see Obama given the chance to serve a second term than to see Romney come in and spend his time figuring out what he can and can't do for four years.

Also it seems that many, if not most Romney supporters would not have picked him as their first choice for president. They are gambling with their vote because they either always vote the party line and/or just plain hate Obama.

[Lord Jim]

They are gambling with their vote because they either always vote the party line and/or just plain hate Obama.

Joe, I find that a little insulting....

Romney wasn't my first choice for the nomination, (in a perfect world he wouldn't have been my 10th) but you seem to be saying that anyone voting for him over Obama is doing so mindlessly, without any regard for the issues....

I have laid out in great detail my reasons for exactly why I feel I could not possibly vote to re-elect Obama, and they don't involve either any sort of "hatred" or any other sort of unthinking process...

You may not agree with my reasons, or find them persuasive, but they exist, and I've stated them.

I've said before, I can imagine a hypothetical under which I would have voted for Obama's re-election...

That would have involved him actually doing what he promised to do when he ran the last time; governing in a genuine bipartisan or "post partisan way"...(But of course that isn't what he did; within days of taking Office he turned his agenda over to the partisan democratic hacks in the Congress who steamrolled the GOP, and then didn't re-discover the virtues of "bipartisanship" until after the Dems had their asses handed to them in the midterms.)

Whenever one votes for a challenger I suppose you could call it a "gamble" since you really have no way of knowing for sure what that person will do, or how their policies will turn out. However, in my opinion, Obama's performance has been so poor, (I certainly do not "hate" the man; I think he's basically a well meaning fellow who's lack of experience and understanding on a broad range of fronts; from how to get the economy going, to his awful energy polices, to his disengaged management style) that it's worth taking the "gamble".

I may not know what four years of Romney will look like, but I have a pretty good idea of what four more years of Obama would look like, (based on the last four years) and in my opinion, it ain't a pretty sight....

[Joe Guy]

They are gambling with their vote because they either always vote the party line and/or just plain hate Obama.

Joe, I find that a little insulting....

I wasn't really directing that statement at you in particular, but you are voting for Romney because you don't like Obama, and that is a bit of a gamble.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

[RayThom]

Obama was ahead months and weeks before Debate I. After tonight's "theatre of the absurd" those number will be the same, if not better. Look for FL and VA in Obama's win column on November 7th.


May the best incumbent win!

[Big RR]

They are gambling with their vote because they either always vote the party line and/or just plain hate Obama.

Joe, I find that a little insulting....

I wasn't really directing that statement at you in particular, but you are voting for Romney because you don't like Obama, and that is a bit of a gamble.

Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Intersting, since it appears that this is exactly the election strategy of both major parties--Romney says vote for me because I'm not Obama, Obama says vote for me because I'm not Romney. TV ads, especially, are provide no other information. But I don't see it as a gamble--we will get exactly the adminstration we deserve. And that's a shame.

[dgs49]

Please name any candidate in the past 50 years who was anywhere near as unqualified as Barry. No executive experience. Minimal legislative experience at the Federal level. He had literally never RUN anything in his life (but his mouth). And his performance has been Exhibit A of how 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is no place for OJT.

And you want to talk about Romney's qualifications?

[Scooter]

Hmmmm:

Mitt Romney likes to argue that his business experience has prepared him for the challenges of the presidency, particularly in stoking economic recovery. In his speech accepting the Republican presidential nomination, Romney declared that President Obama “took office without the basic qualification that most Americans have and one that was essential to his task. He had almost no experience working in a business.”

But historically, has the economy been healthier in times when the president has had a business background?

As any good executive would, let’s look at the numbers.

Since Herbert Hoover’s 1928 election, the American people have voted out of office after a single term only three elected presidents: Hoover, Jimmy Carter and George H.W. Bush — all of whom were successful businessmen before they were president. And the only successful business-trained president who was reelected, George W. Bush, oversaw an economic collapse at the end of his second term.

As measured in constant 2005 dollars starting on Jan. 1 of the year after they took office — the economy’s performance in the first year of a presidency is better assigned to the preceding administration — the four presidents with successful business careers had the four worst records in terms of gross domestic product performance.

The only president since Hoover with business experience under whom the economy did well was the one who was unsuccessful in business: Harry Truman, whose haberdashery shop went bankrupt after two years.

The startling bottom line is that the nation’s GDP has grown more than 45 times faster under presidents with little or no business experience than it has under presidents with successful business careers. And on average, when there has been a successful businessman in the Oval Office (so, Truman is excluded), GDP growth has been negligible.

On average, under presidents with successful business experience, GDP has increased 0.12 percent. And under presidents with little or no business experience, GDP has grown 5.46 percent.

The story is much the same when we look at share prices in this time frame.

None of the five presidents under whom the stock market has had its best performances — Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Ronald Reagan, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower — had significant business experience. Topping the list are the two most recent career-politician presidents, Clinton and Obama, both of whom pursued economic policies that Romney and his running mate, Paul Ryan, insist are anti-business and economically disastrous.

Three of the four presidents under whom the stock market has had its worst showings — Hoover, Carter and George W. Bush — had successful business experience. Carter, the only Democratic president in this period who prospered in business, had run a very profitable peanut enterprise. But his economic record as president was so bad that Reagan defeated him in 1980 in large part by pointing to the very high “misery index” created by high unemployment and inflation under Carter.

Stock values have averaged a robust 14.2 percent annual gain under presidents without business experience, and they have fallen by an average of 3 percent annually under those with that “essential” qualification.

The most startling figures emerge when we combine party and business experience. Historically, a Democrat without business experience has been extraordinarily better for the economy and the stock market than a Republican who had a career in business. In the past 84 years, GDP has grown 7 percent per year under Democrats without business experience (FDR, JFK, LBJ, Clinton and Obama) and fallen by 0.2 percent per year under Republicans with business experience (Hoover and the two Bushes). The Dow has risen an average of 16.8 percent per year under Democrats without business experience and has fallen by 3.7 percent per year under Republicans with business experience.

It is often said that a president has little control over the economy, but that is only partially true. A president and governmental policies act with the economy as farmers do with crops. Crops and economies grow on their own, but how well they grow is greatly affected by the actions of those providing water, fertilizer, weed removal and so forth.

There is a saying: “If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic.” Perhaps it should be amended to: “If you want to live like a successful Republican businessperson, vote for a Democrat without business experience.”

Romney might need to find a better way to sell his experience.

[Grim Reaper]

Please name any candidate in the past 50 years who was anywhere near as unqualified as Barry. No executive experience. Minimal legislative experience at the Federal level. He had literally never RUN anything in his life (but his mouth). And his performance has been Exhibit A of how 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is no place for OJT.

Right. Except you know, the past four years of being the President. I guess that doesn't actually count to you as experience in running the government.

And you want to talk about Romney's qualifications?

Yeah, the guy who ran a business into the ground and only "succeeded" by threatening the US government and other banks into ignoring his debts. That's the kind of leadership we need. Cowardly bullying people into submission.

[dgs49]

G.R., you are such a fuckin clueless idiot.

Four years of abject failure is not exactly the best thing to put on a resume. Not saying he is reponsible for everything bad, but when a "manager" presides over failure, he is considered a failure. How many sports managers and coaches have their contracts renewed when their teams finish in last place for the four years of their initial contract? This is essentialy what we have now.

Are you the least bit aware that Bain Capital is (not "was") one of the most successful venture capital firms in history? "...ran a business into the ground..."

Unfucking-believable.

[Grim Reaper]

G.R., you are such a fuckin clueless idiot.

And you're a hateful human being without any compassion for your fellow man, so I guess if I'm making you angry then I'm doing something right.

And abject failure? I'd rate "abject" as a complete collapse of civilization. So the problem here is your insane rhetoric that you're trying to pass off as fact.

As for Bain Capital, if you had ever bothered to read anything beyond what was spoonfed you, you would realize that it only succeeded because people wanted it to succeed more than they wanted it to fail. And Mr. Romney used this to bully those people into forgiving his debts. If Bain Capital had been forced to pay off all that it owed, we'd never hear from Mr. Romney because he'd be a forgotten moment in history.

Also? Read what I wrote. I said he threatened to run it into the ground. I guess what I really wrote couldn't be attacked so you had to take my quote out of context. Maybe if you reduced your hatred and bile to a more reasonable level you'd be able to consider what people actually wrote and respond to that instead of making up garbage.

Finally, the person you are supporting has stated that he will increase spending and decrease revenue. Explain how that will magically balance the budget. I'm waiting. Or you'll just spew more vileness my way, whatever floats your boat.

[Guinevere]

Again I ask --- what about Mittens' economic record in Massachusetts makes *anyone* think he can successfully lead the entire country? Perhaps three is a charm, but I bet I get nothing more than crickets again . . .

1. Romney left behind a $1B deficit -- which his Democratic successor cleaned up.
2. Romney promised "jobs creation second to none" but during Romney’s four years in office, the state added a net 31,000 jobs, a growth rate of less than 1 percent compared to 5 percent nationally during the same period.
3. Romney claims he brought business to Massachusetts. An example of how that worked: The state required Bristol-Myers Squibb to hire 350 workers to receive certain tax breaks if it moved to MA. Total incentives paid was more than $100 million, which means MA ultimately paid about $250,000 for each of the 400 jobs that exist at the plant today.
4. Romney increased fees for all sorts of government documents (deed recording stamps, executions, filing fees, etc) by about $375 million annually.
5. Property taxes in MA increased 24% during Romney's term.