Obama And Romney Bring Their "A" Game
To begin with, I'm going to selfishly conclude that I "won" tonight's debate. So to speak. Reacting to last week's vice-presidential debate, I made a prediction of sorts:
[T]he feeling I was left with was that what we just all saw was the very first "cable television debate." That requires an explanation, since cable TV has actually been around in a big way since the 1980s. Cable news has really only come into its own in the past 15-20 years or so, and it has ushered in a much feistier style of debate between politicians -- complete with interruptions, talking over each other, snide and dismissive laughter, and occasionally even screaming as loud as you can. Tonight, we saw what a national debate looks like in this style for the first time that I can recall.
To put it another way, I've quite simply never seen anything like what we all just witnessed between Paul Ryan and Joe Biden. It was something completely new. Whether it will prove to be a good thing or a bad thing, positive to our national discourse or negative, it was indeed a unique experience, at least for me. Perhaps the final two presidential debates will pick up on the new style, who knows?
I ended this article by doubling down on this prediction:
This was, clearly, one debate which not only lived up to it's boxing metaphor billing, but was actually more intense than even the hyperventilatory media sold it as. That is saying something, indeed. This debate will be looked back at through history as the beginning of a new era in American televised debates -- for better or for worse.
Which is why I think we can all agree that I was the big winner of the night, tonight.
Heh. Not really, but my ego just couldn't resist.
Since I brought the subject up, however, I will jump into the "winners/losers" fray and give my snap reaction to what we all just witnessed tonight. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both brought their "A" game tonight, unlike Obama's first widely-panned performance. Mitt Romney was not appreciably different tonight than the first debate, but Obama certainly had eaten his Wheaties this morning. Or maybe the more up-to-date version is "drank his Red Bull," I really couldn't say. This provided much more lively television, to put it mildly. Actually, "mildly" isn't the right word, since not much of anything about tonight was mild in any way.
Having said all of that, I'm going to give my own personal opinion. I think tonight was a tie, or perhaps a slight win for Obama. If you took a random guy who had been living in a cave and showed him tonight's performance, I think it'd be 50/50 who he would say "won" the debate. I'm trying to be utterly objective here, to put this another way.
However, I will make a further prediction -- the media will say Obama "won" the debate hands down. This is due to the fact that tonight did not take place in a vacuum, and we don't all live in a cave. Compared to the first debate, Obama's performance was so much better that the media will not be able to help themselves declaring Obama the clear victor. This was predicted in an article I read a few weeks back on Huffington Post (too rushed to look up the link right now), which prophesied -- before the first debate -- the media's call: first debate Romney wins, second debate Obama wins, third debate a tie. Now, if Obama had turned in a performance such as his first debate's, this would be a hard case to make. But he didn't, so it won't be a stretch of the imagination at all.
I also predict much hand-wringing, pearl-clutching, and downright swooning from the inside-the-Beltway crowd over how "coarse" politics has gotten, in these made-for-cable debates. I also predict the public will not pay the slightest bit of attention, and that the third debate actually receives the highest viewership of all three of them. People like conflict. They like feistiness. They like politicians to get angry every so often.
I took voluminous notes tonight, but I am too exhausted to go through them in a point-by-point fashion tonight [free plug: I was interviewed on Jamaican radio extremely early this morning, which I will be posting on the site as soon as I get a sound file]. But there'll be plenty of time for that later in the week.
I must admit, I enjoyed tonight's debate. Both candidates really were at the top of their game, and neither gave an inch the entire night (except once, when the moderator smacked down a Romney lie about Obama's Rose Garden statement the next day on Libya). Both had humanizing stories to tell, although I really thought Obama's stories had an edge on Romney's (but this could easily be my own bias, I freely admit). And one snarky comment: Mitt Romney seems to have forgotten the name of the state he used to govern -- I don't think he said the word "Massachusetts" once in the entire evening, instead preferring "my state" or "the state I was governor of." Odd, wasn't it?
The back-and-forth sections where Obama and Romney tried shouting each other down were summed up in a funny comment I heard before I wrote this by a CBS commentator: "You gotta wonder when the Secret Service was going to get involved." The two men did, several times, get in each other's space like two guys squaring off in a barroom's parking lot. How the normal Joe and Jane American see all this will play out in the next few days, and in the polling. Unpresidential? Fighting for what is right? We'll soon see....
But I will end where I began. In a vacuum, tonight's debate would have been a tie. In recent context, it will be seen as a win for Obama -- as a "strong comeback." And a big pat on the back to myself for realizing the importance of the Biden/Ryan debate. History will show that tonight was the second "cable news era" debate in America. Unless both parties strenuously object and force rule changes on the debate committee next time around, this is what we should all get used to seeing for a long time to come -- the future of presidential-level televised debates in America. For better or for worse.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Well, Chris ...
Since your pieces don't usually come out until late in the evening, you're ALWAYS the big winner of the night for me!
Look, I mean that sincerely; I'm not trying to be facetious, here.
:-)
Having said all of that, I'm going to give my own personal opinion. I think tonight was a tie, or perhaps a slight win for Obama.
You've gotta be kidding me!
However, I will make a further prediction -- the media will say Obama "won" the debate hands down. This is due to the fact that tonight did not take place in a vacuum, and we don't all live in a cave.
No kidding!
I took voluminous notes tonight, but I am too exhausted to go through them in a point-by-point fashion tonight [free plug: I was interviewed on Jamaican radio extremely early this morning, which I will be posting on the site as soon as I get a sound file]. But there'll be plenty of time for that later in the week.
Well, when you are well rested, please do go over your voluminous notes, point-by-point, and see if you don't come to a different conclusion as to who won this round, hands down.
Looking forward to that link, by the way. That's one link that I'll thoroughly enjoy clicking on! :)
How the normal Joe and Jane American see all this will play out in the next few days, and in the polling. Unpresidential? Fighting for what is right? We'll soon see...
How about fighting for the truth!? Or, perhaps the truth doesn't much matter to voters anymore, if it ever did.
Unless both parties strenuously object and force rule changes on the debate committee next time around, this is what we should all get used to seeing for a long time to come -- the future of presidential-level televised debates in America. For better or for worse.
Hear! Hear!
And, maybe we'll even get a little better at recognizing a winner when we see one, too. :)
Chris,
How much of Romney's so-called A-game is based on the truth of any given issue?
Only have one thing to say about this debate.
Matt Latimer, who, in his illustrious career, was head speechwriter for Secty. Rumsfeld, was appalled by Candy Crowley's "decision to buttress Obama’s declaration that Romney was being dishonest on Libya."
Imagine: a journalist who would actually call out bullshit. What's going on here?
Elizabeth,
Are you trying to do a Michale impersonation? (I mean, seven comments in a row? :) ).
RE: "And a big pat on the back to myself for realizing the importance of the Biden/Ryan debate."
Oh, yeah. The big time chatterers and scribblers were wrong on 47, they were wrong on that, and they'll likely be wrong about this one, too. Most of them, on both sides, need to go visit America once in a while.
LB,
Did you notice, though, how she has been back-tracking that "calling out" in a desperate attempt to appear unbiased?
What Candy and the rest of the media fail to understand is that the truth is not half-way between right and wrong.
And, in that attempt to deflect Republican push-back, she is flat out wrong to suggest that it took the administration two weeks to admit that there were no protests outside the Libyan mission in Benghazi.
Having said all that, I believe she handled this town hall debate in a very capable fashion.
Kevin,
What can I say, I've been under a bad influence of late ...
Which is to say that you can consider yourself lucky that they weren't 250+ words each!
:-)
Hey, Obama was so good tonight that he MUST have had the benefit of a stealth TelePrompTer.
Let's play a game and guess where it was!
Heheheheheheheheheheheheheheheeeee ...
I think liberals will be happy that O showed up this time, but I don't think the needle's gonna move. Luntz's group of undecideds swung over to Romney: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/16/luntz_focus_group_of_mostly_former_obama_voters_switch_to_romney.html
CNN's Candy Crowley: Romney Was Actually Right On Libya
http://youtu.be/athcyCTnTTs
RE: "Luntz's group of undecideds swung over to Romney..."
Excuse me, sir, if I don't bother to look at the link. You know who Frank Luntz is, what he does for a living, and who he does it for, right?
Liz,
You have been hanging around me too much.. :D
LB,
Excuse me, sir, if I don't bother to look at the link. You know who Frank Luntz is, what he does for a living, and who he does it for, right?
You DO know that Real Clear Politics is the goto link for Weigantians, right???
Oh, except when RCP says something that Weigantians don't like.. Then it's not even worth going to.. :D
Ya'all realize that, this time next month, we're going to have President-Elect Romney, right?
One really has to wonder what the dynamic of Weigantia will look like in 30 days time...
Michale.....
And, in that attempt to deflect Republican push-back, she is flat out wrong to suggest that it took the administration two weeks to admit that there were no protests outside the Libyan mission in Benghazi.
Actually, Liz, CC was dead on ballz accurate.. It DID take 2 weeks (give or take a day) for the administration to admit that there were no protests that initiated the Libya terrorist attack..
Ironically enough, I stated this within 12 hours because THAT's what the evidence showed..
But, take heart.. It only took the Obama Administration 9 days to admit that it WAS a terrorist attack..
Again, something I stated within 12 hours of the attack...
"Foreign Policy Prowess", my left arse cheek!!
Michale.....
In an interesting bit reality...
Ross Perot, whose business acumen is indisputable, has endorsed Romney...
Honey Boo Boo has endorsed Obama...
That says it all as to the substance of the candidates... :D
Michale.....
[EXCLUSIVE] 77% likelihood Romney wins popular vote, according to famous U of Colorado study
http://www.campusreform.org/blog/?ID=4435
The University of Colorado (CU) prediction renowned for perfect accuracy will predict a popular-vote win for Mitt Romney later this month, Campus Reform has learned.
The poll has accurately predicted every presidential election since it was developed in 1980. It is unique in that it employs factors outside of state economic indicators to predict the next president.
Ya see, unlike polls, this is a SCIENTIFIC study that has been PEER-REVIEWED..
I know how much ya'all adhere to SCIENCE and that PEER-REVIEWED science is something that NO ONE here would argue with... :D
Peer-Reviewed science is gospel around here, after all..
So ya'all simply HAVE to concede the validity of this peer-reviewed scientific..
Right??? :D
Michale......
Ya see, unlike polls, this is a SCIENTIFIC study that has been PEER-REVIEWED..
But... Since I know Weigantians just LOVE their polls.. :D
Poll: Romney preferred over Obama to handle the economy
By Charles Dharapak, AP
Mitt Romney is preferred over President Obama on the economy, despite attacks on his record at Bain Capital, according to a new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll.
By more than 2-1, 63%-29%, those surveyed say Romney's background in business, including his tenure at the private equity firm Bain Capital, would cause him to make good decisions, not bad ones, in dealing with the nation's economic problems over the next four years.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-07-23/poll-romney-obama-economy/56439758/1
Can't argue with the polls.... Right???? :D
Michale.....
Excuse me, sir, if I don't bother to look at the link. You know who Frank Luntz is, what he does for a living, and who he does it for, right?
Luntz? He creates propaganda to sell unpopular ideas.
And I believe Chris1962 knows who he is as she works in marketing herself.
It's actually rather fascinating (if you can get past the obvious moral issues). Chris1962, any interesting stories from your side?
That is, any you can tell us liberals? ;)
-David
David,
Well, we have definitely established that Chris1962 is a girl. Of that, there can be no doubt!
:-)
Well, we have definitely established that Chris1962 is a girl. Of that, there can be no doubt!
LOL ... I remember when I made the same initial mistake.
I think it's because here on the Interwebs you often only have what a person writes to go by.
And Chris has a very direct, to the point style that statistically I guessed to be that of a man. Imagine this is at least somewhat due to her experience. Advertising is not the place to waste space and quite likely this serves her very well in her position.
My bad for assuming ...
It's always good when people break your ideas of stereotypes!
-David
Luntz? He creates propaganda to sell unpopular ideas.
ROFL! Don't worry, David. Team-O has plenty of communications strategists trying to sell not-so-new-or-improved Obama to the public. They just have a banged-up, yesteryear product on their hands, is all, which makes the sale a little tougher.
It's actually rather fascinating (if you can get past the obvious moral issues).
Nothing immoral about putting a product's features and benefits forth to consumers and letting them decide if they wish to switch brands, D.
LB: You know who Frank Luntz is, what he does for a living, and who he does it for, right?
Yeah, he's the Right's equivalent of an Anita Dunn or a Chuck Todd. I'll assume you have no problem with what those two do for a living, or what they have to say.
Well, we have definitely established that Chris1962 is a girl. Of that, there can be no doubt!
Meow. I'm a woman, Liz, and I think you've established that you're a rather nasty little girl who can't handle having another female on the board. Don't you think it's about time you got over it?
And Chris has a very direct, to the point style that statistically I guessed to be that of a man.
Interesting prejudices we carry around, huh? ;D
Imagine this is at least somewhat due to her experience. Advertising is not the place to waste space and quite likely this serves her very well in her position.
I guess my "macho" (as a client once commented) style is why I get paid more, statistically, than my female (and many a male) colleagues. Yet Obama seems to feel that every woman in my position should be paid the same as I make, just because they have the same body parts. Pretty sexist attitudes that guy holds, wouldn't you say? Personally, I prefer to be paid based on my talents and value, not my gender.
Having said all of that, I'm going to give my own personal opinion. I think tonight was a tie, or perhaps a slight win for Obama.
I agree. O appears to have won on style — basically, because he bothered to put on a performance this time — but Romney scored on the economy, according to CNN's post-debate poll:
...Obama had a 47%-41% edge on which candidate was more likeable. But on some key issues, Romney came out on top, including an 18-point lead on the economy.
...Other questions showed little daylight between the two candidates among debate watchers on some key characteristics. Romney had a 49%-46% edge on which candidate seemed to be the stronger leader and 45%-43% margin on who answered questions more directly, while Obama had a 44%-40% advantage on which man seemed to care more about the audience members who asked questions.
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/16/breaking-cnn-poll-obama-edges-romney-in-debate/?hpt=hp_t1
I've not watched the debate yet(!). The only thing I've seen when I was eating my cereal this morning was the 'Binders Full of Women' thing and this almost made me spit my cereal out: http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/f/o/4/clinton-binder-of-women.jpg
Going to watch (listen) to it now!
Interesting prejudices we carry around, huh? ;D
Yep. Agreed. I hope you understand it was meant as a compliment. Anytime anyone challenges a stereotype, I respect that.
Yeah, he's the Right's equivalent of an Anita Dunn or a Chuck Todd. I'll assume you have no problem with what those two do for a living, or what they have to say.
Isn't Chuck more of a pundit? And a not very good one at that?
Nothing immoral about putting a product's features and benefits forth to consumers and letting them decide if they wish to switch brands, D.
Sure. But Frank Luntz works for owners who are trying to reduce wages & benefits. This is the moral dilemma I am referring to.
http://deadspin.com/5951872/inside-a-secret-nhl-focus-group-how-a-top-gop-strategist-is-helping-hockey-owners-craft-their-lockout-propaganda
-David
p.s.
Did someone say binders full of women ...?
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/10445_4721842370624_1397109749_n.jpg
"Yeah, he's the Right's equivalent of an Anita Dunn or a Chuck Todd. I'll assume you have no problem with what those two do for a living, or what they have to say."
No, ma'am, I don't have a problem with what Mr. Luntz does for a living. And he's very good at it. My point in saying I didn't need to look at a focus group he constructed, after all, was just that.
And he ain't no Chuck Todd. Todd's a partisan. Frank aspires to be the Prince of Darkness.
"binders full of women"
Someone bought the dot com before the exchange was over. Fact. 100K-like FB page in minutes.
I can't remember a gaffe that funny. Its Biden meets Business School.
So much you can do with that, as evidenced by the Clinton above. It's a perfect reverse for the "caption contest" internet meme: here's the caption, give us the photo.
http://bindersfullofwomen.tumblr.com/image/33761529167
Sure. But Frank Luntz works for owners who are trying to reduce wages & benefits. This is the moral dilemma I am referring to.
Yeah, it's called "spin," D. All pols do it. All commentators do it. All advertisers to it. It boils down to presenting your position in a good light, and in a way that will, hopefully, resonate with viewers. And no viewer is obligated to buy into it.
Isn't Chuck more of a pundit? And a not very good one at that?
LOL. I actually like Chuck. He's a polling analyst, and he does a farily decent job of it. Unfortantely for him and every other polling analyst, there's just an overload of bogus polls out there this season. So I pity the person who's trying to get a concise read on how the candidates are actually faring. I'm down to Gallup and Rasmussen. That's it. I'm all done with scouring polls only to find the usual under-sampling of Republicans.
michty: I've not watched the debate yet(!). The only thing I've seen when I was eating my cereal this morning...
Let me guess: Fruit Loops? {{{snicker}}} Sorry, michty, but I couldn't resist.
My point in saying I didn't need to look at a focus group he constructed, after all, was just that.
How about MSNBC's focus group? Would you be more comfortable with that?
MSNBC's Undecided Voter Panel Swayed by Romney
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html
And he ain't no Chuck Todd. Todd's a partisan. Frank aspires to be the Prince of Darkness.
That's your personal opinion, not a fact, LB. Just saying.
Somebody really dropped the ball on the Libya prep for Governor Romney. When I watched sound off, I didn't know what the President said, only the way he said it, ("get the transcript") and with MR attacking the moderator, I knew from the way BHO was sitting that MR had walked into a mine field.
I'll bet going in the Obama camp figured all they were going to have was spiking Sect'y Clinton's volleyball setup earlier in the day ("I take responsibility") over the net for a Trumanesqe "buck stops here" comment by the President. I can't believe they were clever enough to have imagined how badly it would play out for the Governor.
The closing comment wasn't MR stepping into a clearly marked mine field, it was him standing straight upright over the top of the trench. The President hadn't thrown 47 yet; it had to be coming and there was nothing he could do about, so laying out "100%" was just about as foolish as it gets.
Overall, the Governor hurt himself last night, with his base and confusing the middle, more than the President was able to hurt him.
"That's your personal opinion, not a fact, LB. Just saying."
Of course it's my opinion. There are no facts here: this is politics. ;-)
Honey Boo Boo Endorses Obama
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/honey-boo-boo-endorses-obama_654673.html
LOL. Oh, dear.
"How about MSNBC's focus group? Would you be more comfortable with that?"
In all seriousness: no. A focus group made up of voters undecided after Oct 15th is just noise. Sure, Mr. Luntz can put one together that will have a result outside the bounds of statistics and credulity, but overall they're meaningless.
All I'm interested in, in the middle, from this is the effect that both the VP and this have on the women's vote and the Latino vote. The fact that the President didn't bring out insurance vouchers (sure, there was no question, but when has that ever stopped these guys?) suggests VP Biden re-steadied the seniors.
I'm going to be reading both redstate and the fever swamp blogs for a couple days to see if any damage has been done to the base. After all, I'm sure they'd much rather have gotten a Ron Paul endorsement than a Ross Perot. GW Bush is still a saint to the evangelicals, and MR didn't do that well. The President putting MR "to the right socially" of GWB didn't really help, because they don't hear anything the President says.
Now, alas, I have to go, and leave this great discussion (no sarc or snark meant).
Somebody really dropped the ball on the Libya prep for Governor Romney. When I watched sound off, I didn't know what the President said, only the way he said it, ("get the transcript") and with MR attacking the moderator, I knew from the way BHO was sitting that MR had walked into a mine field.
Not quite sure what you're talking about. Not only did Crowley later walk back her incorrect correction, but O's the guy who needs to stay WAY far away from that mine field. First, his day-after statement didn't even directly reference Benghazi; it was a statement about acts of terror, in general. And, secondly, he and his administration then went on to tell the American people, for days and days, that the attack was perpetrated by protesters, despite the White House knowing that protesters weren't even present. O's got an awful lot of explaining to do. This is not something he's gonna be able to spin his way out of.
Of course it's my opinion. There are no facts here: this is politics. ;-)
I thought this was a "reality-based" board.
In all seriousness: no. A focus group made up of voters undecided after Oct 15th is just noise.
Not really, since undecideds will be deciding the election.
The fact that the President didn't bring out insurance vouchers (sure, there was no question, but when has that ever stopped these guys?) suggests VP Biden re-steadied the seniors.
I doubt it, since the Romney/Ryan medicare reform doesn't affect anyone over 55.
Just finishing watching it!
CW,
I think tonight was a tie, or perhaps a slight win for Obama. If you took a random guy who had been living in a cave and showed him tonight's performance, I think it'd be 50/50 who he would say "won" the debate. I'm trying to be utterly objective here, to put this another way.
Couldn't disagree more. It was only 'close' in the sense that Obama didn't win every segment, only most of them. A bunch were tied and the only segment I think Romney won was the guy who voted in 2008 for Obama, which Romney gave a very good well rehearsed response to.
Aside from this look at the facts:
- CBS undecided voters: Obama 37, Romney 30, Tie 33.
- PPP Colorado voters: Obama 48, Romney 44, 58-36 among independents.
- CNN debate viewers: Obama 46, Romney 39. R+8 sample.
The CNN poll is the most shocking. When a +8 R sample thinks Obama won, you know he must have CLEARLY won. Republicans tend to stick together in packs much more than Democrats (look at the reaction to Debate 1 if you don't believe me). Even CNN called their own poll results surprising quoting CNN "Obama's seven-point advantage came among a debate audience that was somewhat more Republican than the country as a whole". I can't find their sample demographics, but Debate 1 was all white, all >50 years of age!
Thoughts on the debate:
- Guy who asked 1st question is a college student. In my head I'm thinking 47% 47% 47%. Sadly Obama didn't go there. And Romney did well to hide his complete disdain for this waste-of-space moocher. It now seems very clear that Obama's strategy is to keep hammering this home and not give Romney the chance to rebut or explain these comments.
- In the oil section Obama only briefly hinted at it but Democrats need to emphasise more how far behind China America is in terms of renewable energy investment. If America really wants to stay #1 (I doubt this, since they keep voting Republican) they can't let China keep this lead.
-“What you are saying is just not true”. Obama must have said the phrase ‘not true’ 20 times. FINALLY. Where was this in the 1st debate??
- I was laughing a lot at 2 points: Romney on his answer about women's equality and Romney defending self-deportation. Amazing answers.
- ‘Can you say that a little bit louder Candy?’ BOOOM. Wow. Easily the moment of the debate. That and the crowd reaction was a punch in the guts to Romney.
- Romney started strongly but got weaker and weaker as the debate went on. He could not handle the confrontation. This is why Libya, expected by most to be a strong point given Republicans deciding to over-the-top politicize this issue, turned out to be one of his weakest segments.
Yeah, it's called "spin," D. All pols do it. All commentators do it. All advertisers to it. It boils down to presenting your position in a good light, and in a way that will, hopefully, resonate with viewers. And no viewer is obligated to buy into it.
I'm not referring to the "spin," I'm referring to the product.
And the product in Republicans' case is working to reduce wages and benefits by breaking unions.
If you have a good product to sell, it's easy. You can tout the value - hey, you're going to get paid more! If you want to reduce wages, you hire Frank Luntz.
-David
When a +8 R sample thinks Obama won, you know he must have CLEARLY won. Republicans tend to stick together in packs much more than Democrats (look at the reaction to Debate 1 if you don't believe me).
Another sign that the Democrat won is when Republicans/Fox call it a 'draw' ;)
In the oil section Obama only briefly hinted at it but Democrats need to emphasise more how far behind China America is in terms of renewable energy investment. If America really wants to stay #1 (I doubt this, since they keep voting Republican) they can't let China keep this lead.
Great point, Michty. Not just China but all of Europe.
The energy section was actually the only one I thought Romney looked better in. And mostly it was because Candy kept asking Obama if he believed government should determine the price of gas and Obama looked like he wasn't answering this directly.
He should have said "Supply and demand determine the price of gas. So let's focus on both components. One, reducing our demand. Two, what can we do about supply."
Because this is the part Republicans always leave out because they are supply siders.
Obama can easily look more business savvy if he focuses on supply AND demand. His policy does, but he needs to remind people of the business aspect conservatives tend to leave out.
This is a minor nit though. It's good to have the old Obama back :)
-David
David,
Yeh I know the whole price of gas thing in American politics is hilarious from an outsider, especially since:
1. Your prices are actually really low
2. The amount of tax paid on gas is really low and hasn't been changed by Obama - the only control he actually has over gas prices
3. As Obama pointed out, oil prices deflate during a recession.
I can't believe how brainless people are to believe Obama has control over this. It'd be like me saying:
- Why haven't you done more to reduce the price of gas in the UK/Canada, which has doubled under your Presidency?
- Why isn't the UK FTSE 100 stock market back above 6000 pts under your Presidency, since apparently you control all global commodity markets? etc
Off topic, but awesome graph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/files/2012/10/cap-deductions.jpg
Hey Chris:
I think Obama takes the win on this one for a number of reasons. Some are substance, some are style.
To me, Romney came off as a classic entitled jerk. He seems like one of those guys who will do anything to win in the moment - will say anything that sounds good and will try to simply dominate an opponent into submission. You can see he's pleased with himself when he succeeds and he becomes very petulant when he fails. His talking over Crowley and refusal to back down crossed one of those invisible lines -- hard to describe but something you feel.
His collapse with the Benghazi exchange was painful to watch. When Obama, perched calmly on the corner of the desk said "proceed". . . man, that was lovely.
His "binders full of women" story sounded fake when he told it (I immediately thought, if this is true, why haven't I heard of it?) and is getting ripped apart today.
When he talks numbers he often sounds like he's pulling them out of the air on the fly -- his policies-at-that-moment bear no relation to previous statements or objective reality. Yes his numbers add up! They do too!
The discussion about the drilling rights: "use it or lose it" made Romney look like an idiot. It's a good example of the kind of thing Romney does a lot of: he makes assertions with "statistics" that sound impressive but turn out to be either partly (either because the truth is more complicated or nuanced) or completely false.
Obama just got better and better. While we can nitpick specific points here or there -- this could have been stronger, he could have mentioned, etc. -- the larger point is that he not only walked out of the debate as the immediate "winner", he get's up today without having a single exchange that he has to seriously defend. Romney, on the other hand, has several kinds of clean-up to do.
I just SDC'ed a delayed flight to later this afternoon; I'm too old to screw around in airports. ("SDC", by the way, means "same day change," which United lets you do with very loose restrictions. If you happen to be a premier member, you can do it without a change fee, so why not?)
RE: "Honey Boo Boo Endorses Obama ... LOL. Oh, dear." I know. Hard to imagine. White trash generally votes Republican. Celebrity endorsements are always a hoot. This time, Romney gets a porn star who supports him because she's rich and rich people support Republicans. Obama gets Hugo Chavez. Romney gets a black D-list starlet who makes the news because she's cute. Obama gets Honey Boo Boo. Have the big ones - Paris Hilton and Kardashian - come in yet?
RE: "I thought this was a "reality-based" board." It is; the pragmatism here is unusually high. Partisan, sure, but quite reality based. My point is that a dominating aspect of the reality of electoral politics is that reality is secondary. It would be good if that were not the case, but it is.
RE: "Not only did Crowley later walk back her incorrect correction, but O's the guy who needs to stay WAY far away from that mine field."
I agree. That's why I figured that the best they were going to be able to do was "the buck stops here" that Sect'y Clinton set up earlier in the day. The exact language of Rose Garden didn't matter; the words "act of terror" were used, and the impression taken away was that Gov. Romney did not know what was said. That's the sense I termed it a mine field that he stepped in to. He didn't need to do it, and nobody likes a pompous "gotcha" that appears to turn out not to be.
I also agree that the whole incident is very bizarre, if not inexplicable. There were several thousand renamed Recon Marines (special forces) billeted on the Navy ships in the region, and why they weren't put in to secure the compound within hours of the attack. The Ambassador's professional personae would have precluded him traveling with Marines, but they should have been in the compound in low profile, IMO. (I don't remember the new acronym for those Marines, but to see why they need to be called something other than 'Recon' can be seen by looking at the 'Marine Corps Reconnaissance Battalions' Wikipedia page: battalion flags featuring a skull with three bullet holes in it is not real diplomatic.)
The whole "movie" meme is puzzling. That it was organized military-equipment attack was _reported_ within hours. Sen. McCain called it that the next day; others did as well. They knew; everybody knew. I could not, and cannot, understand any diplomatic reasons for the ruse.
I sure hope that whatever the Libyans themselves did to the attackers' base a couple weeks ago was enough to let it go until after the election. The last thing anybody needs right now is a hit -even drones, to say nothing of special forces- in Libya. The President is just going to have to take his lumps on it next week, and, IMO, deservedly so.
One last thing. Serious. HuffPo's 72 point head right now is "BINDER BROUHAHA." I'm afraid it has legs.
When I listened to it, though (go back and read what the Gov. said), my thought was this: what kind of morons do you have on a transition team that bring you the names of _only_ men to staff your administration?
I think I know the answer, and it speaks highly of Mr. Romney's personal and political sensibilities that he corrected that.
But then he says he picked them out of a binder, and loses the focus of a very important rebuttal news cycle. Wacky.
The Moderator will be panned by the right today (for having the audacity to call out a Romney lie in real-time(!) - which the crowd enjoyed). I think she did a good job with one exception: some of the questions they picked were awful. Nothing on education? Nothing on Medicare or anything about healthcare? Instead a bunch of stupid questions like 'Mr Romney would you say you are different from Bush?' I mean what on earth were they expecting Romney/Obama to say to this? Romney 'yeh I'm the same', Obama 'no, don't be so silly you're completely different'. Pointless question. So instead of talking about Romney's plan to destroy healthcare for poorer Americans, they end up talking about how much Romney is or isn't like Bush. Sigh.
LB,
I think I know the answer, and it speaks highly of Mr. Romney's personal and political sensibilities that he corrected that.
But then he says he picked them out of a binder, and loses the focus of a very important rebuttal news cycle. Wacky.
Lol I would've thought you would've realised from the telling of the story that this was completely made up - not to mention the fact that the 'story' referred to words out of Mitt Romney's mouth, thus meaning there is an extremely high chance of the words being bullshit lies... See http://www.rickey.org/mitt-romney-lied-about-binder-full-of-women-report/ for example.
Oh, my. There's a song now, and it's pretty good, actually. Only 300 views, but it'll go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dsqO6el-Aw
what kind of morons do you have on a transition team that bring you the names of _only_ men to staff your administration?
You spelled it wrong, LB. It's m-o-r-m-o-n-s ... :)
I say this both facetiously and with a touch of seriousness as much of the Mormon church is patriarchal.
Another sign that the Democrat won is when Republicans/Fox call it a 'draw' ;)
Another sign is when conservative pundits scream "media bias" ... :)
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/17/conservatives_call_crowley_biased_for_libya_fact_check/
"you would've realised from the telling of the story that this was completely made up"
I was just trying to convey that I genuinely believe that Mr. Romney is a decent man, particularly in the context of some of the attitudinal background of his cultural and economic situations.
Again, it doesn't matter if what he said was apocryphal or true. At this point, I have that fat, sunglass wearing goof's little ditty I linked just above stuck in my head. And that, unfortunately for the Governor, is real.
RE: "You spelled it wrong, LB. "
As much as I hate to admit it (okay, I don't really), that's why I chose that word out of an array of other equally politically incorrect disparages. I knew you guys would get it.
I genuinely believe that Mr. Romney is a decent man
Fair enough. I come from a different angle. I genuinely believe that Mr Romney is like many businessmen I have met who will say or do whatever is necessary to make a buck or obtain power. Almost everything he has done in the political and business world reinforces this opinion I have of him. He will step over whomever he wants whenever he wants to get his own way - this is a product of his upbringing where he feels 'entitled' to get his own way. In this sense Romney doesn't 'flip-flop', he just changes what is saying to try and get his own way. What he is saying is of no significance or consequence to him, it is just something he must do to obtain his overarching goal.
The 'binders full of women' is another example of this: a completely made up a story, delivered in an extremely condescending manner ('you people' should be so lucky to have him as leader), all with the ultimate goal of obtaining power - because to obtain power he must get women voters on board.
David,
Another sign is when conservative pundits scream "media bias"
Always the same narrative: they win = neutral Moderator; they lose = biased Moderator + media bias!
Apparently the audience was also biased: not really undecideds but just 'disgruntled liberals' lol.
Here's an example of the kind of little fires that the campaign is having to deal with on their safe flank. Not just the libertarians and evangelicals grumping about the centerist move, but the white collar constituency starting to become annoyed by the uncontested hammering on the tax plan.
http://www.businessinsider.com/mitt-romneys-numbers-of-course-they-add-up-2012-10
I agree. That's why I figured that the best they were going to be able to do was "the buck stops here" that Sect'y Clinton set up earlier in the day.
I know this is gonna sound conspiratorial, but I wonder if Hillary was consciously forcing O's hand by making her buck-stops-with-me statement. That whole thing was very bizarre, when you think about it. Team-O couldn't possibly have told her to go out there and take the rap, strategically speaking. That's just politically suicidal for O, which means Hillary had to have made the decision on her own.
And look at the timing — the day before a critically important debate for O — and the term she chose to use: the buck stops [here]. It forced O to man up and take the responsibility himself. Hillary was totally up to something there.
The whole "movie" meme is puzzling. That it was organized military-equipment attack was _reported_ within hours. Sen. McCain called it that the next day; others did as well. They knew; everybody knew.
Our intel people knew, too. They were monitoring the events and communicating with the consulate in real-time. There was no question that there had been no protesters and that it had been an organized, heavily armed attack. Yet there's Biden, in his debate, saying that neither he nor Obama had been informed of any of this? Say what???
And what's the topic for the next debate? "The Changing Middle East and the New Face of Terrorism"? LOL. Team-O has an awful lot of mopping up and strategizing to do before then. And that's not to mention all the damage control that will have to go on this week. They're gonna have to do a little better than whining about "politicizing" an al Qaeda terrorist attack on a consulate — American soil; an act of war — which resulted in the death of the ambassador. Everyone's supposed to keep that under their hate two weeks before a presidential election, as Team-O sees it? It's wrong to "politicize" it? ROFL! Got a lame enough strategy going on, there, fellas?
"I know this is gonna sound conspiratorial, but I wonder if Hillary was consciously forcing O's hand by making her buck-stops-with-me statement. That whole thing was very bizarre, when you think about it. Team-O couldn't possibly have told her to go out there and take the rap, strategically speaking. That's just politically suicidal for O, which means Hillary had to have made the decision on her own."
No conspiracy, Chris. Very plausibly, it was a well executed set-up-and-spike volleyball play. They needed the "she works for me/the buck stops here" because it was all they had going in.
MR accidentally gave them another week to soften the field, however they might be able to do that, and "binders" is keeping it all below the fold for now.
I wonder if Hillary was consciously forcing O's hand by making her buck-stops-with-me statement.
I could see this as worked out strategy as well.
Conspiracy though? Nah. Conspiracy is a behind the scenes agreement to do something not-so-legit.
If I were Hillary, it's a great opportunity to step up and say "Let me do this for you ... just remember it when ..."
She is basically in a can't lose situation. With the right focused so much on Obama right now, they won't attack her. Especially when they're trying to improve their standing with Binders Full of Women ;)
-David
I wonder if Hillary was consciously forcing O's hand by making her buck-stops-with-me statement.
I could see this as worked out strategy as well.
Conspiracy though? Nah. Conspiracy is a behind the scenes agreement to do something not-so-legit.
If I were Hillary, it's a great opportunity to step up and say "Let me do this for you ... just remember it when ..."
She can't lose. With the right focused so much on Obama right now, they won't attack her. Especially when they're trying to improve their standing with Binders Full of Women ;)
I have to say out of the 3 of them: Obama, Hillary, and Bill ... all of who I regard highly, Hillary may be the sharpest
-David
Whups. Sorry for double post!
No conspiracy, Chris. Very plausibly, it was a well executed set-up-and-spike volleyball play. They needed the "she works for me/the buck stops here" because it was all they had going in.
Except that O looks like he was shamed into it. What the heck kind of strategy is that? Why didn't they just have O make a statement on, like, Monday morning, or something? Or even have Carney say that the president feels that the buck stops with him and that he takes full responsibility, and at least have it on the record? Why didn't they do that a week ago, for that matter?
You're suggesting that, instead, they had Hillary make the famous presidential statement, "The buck stops here," so that O could then say, "No, no, the buck stops with me" — like he had any other choice but to man up, at that point?
If that was Team-O's strategy, it's one of the wackiest and worst I've ever seen.
If I were Hillary, it's a great opportunity to step up and say "Let me do this for you ... just remember it when ..."
She can't lose.
Or perhaps Hillary got the funny feeling that Team-O was gonna throw her under the bus, and she shrewdly set O up for the fall, instead? Sounds a little more like what Hillary would do. She's much sharper than Obama (or any of his strategists, who are God-awful, in my book). And you can bet Bill was discussing it with Hillary, too, ever protective of her 2016 prospects. A black mark on her record wouldn't serve her well, but doing the noble thing of taking the "buck stops" responsiblity looks pretty good on the record, doesn't it? Very (ahem) presidential of her.
and "binders" is keeping it all below the fold for now.
What's with this "binders" thing that the Left is going crazy about? I don't understand what the big frenzy is all about.
But then he says he picked them out of a binder, and loses the focus of a very important rebuttal news cycle. Wacky.
What is so wacky about picking resumes out of binders that were given to him by a women's group? (MassGP? MassGAP? Something like that.) They're lobbyists, who were seeking to get more women into government. And they submitted binders, literally. So what am I missing here?
CB,
Yeah, he's the Right's equivalent of an Anita Dunn or a Chuck Todd. I'll assume you have no problem with what those two do for a living, or what they have to say.
Well said.. It's obvious that Weigantians of the Left persuasion don't have a problem with the propagandists of the Left... :D
It's only the propagandists of the Right that they are critical of... :D
Our intel people knew, too. They were monitoring the events and communicating with the consulate in real-time. There was no question that there had been no protesters and that it had been an organized, heavily armed attack. Yet there's Biden, in his debate, saying that neither he nor Obama had been informed of any of this? Say what???
Ahem... Weigantia's resident intelligence/military expert was calling Benghazi accurately within 12 hours. And that's just with unofficial backtracking channels...
Gods know our government SHOULD have better lines of communications than *I* was relying on...
It's one of those things where our government SHOULD have known the facts... If they did know and lied about it, shame on them...
If they DIDN'T know, then double dumb-ass shame on them...
"Yea!!! Well.... DOUBLE-DUMB ASS on you!!!"
-Admiral Kirk, STAR TREK IV, The Voyage Home
:D
Michale.....
CB,
Honey Boo Boo Endorses Obama
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/honey-boo-boo-endorses-obama_654673.html
LOL. Oh, dear.
Yea... Obama gets Honey Boo Boo's endorsement...
Romney get's Ross Perot's endorsement...
Which simply shows ta go ya....
Obama is nothing but fluff....
Michale.....
Ahem... Weigantia's resident intelligence/military expert was calling Benghazi accurately within 12 hours. And that's just with unofficial backtracking channels...
Oh, you sure called that one, Michale. It's chilling to think that right up through O's U.N. address, he was STILL pushing that protester/video hooey. He referenced it about six times.
Oh, you sure called that one, Michale. It's chilling to think that right up through O's U.N. address, he was STILL pushing that protester/video hooey. He referenced it about six times.
Yea.... It's disheartening that a retired and disgusted ground-pounder grunt could make the correct call and the entire Administration couldn't make the correct call or, WORSE, WOULDN'T make the correct call...
And ya'all wonder why so many Independents & NPAs have lost faith in Obama....
Michale.....
And you can bet Bill was discussing it with Hillary, too, ever protective of her 2016 prospects. A black mark on her record wouldn't serve her well, but doing the noble thing of taking the "buck stops" responsiblity looks pretty good on the record, doesn't it? Very (ahem) presidential of her.
Well said ... I'd be surprised if she didn't make a run in 2016. I can't think of anyone who would be a stronger candidate.
-David
Ahem... Weigantia's resident intelligence/military expert was calling Benghazi accurately within 12 hours. And that's just with unofficial backtracking channels.
I'm sorry but this is the biggest non-scandal since the last silly Republican non-scandal.
I happened to flip on the TV during the CBS evening news and was embarrassed listening to Bob Schieffer try to explain it. It sounded like this:
"Republicans are up in arms because the President didn't describe it as a 'terrorist act' but only an 'act of terror' which is completely different and a totally separate thing."
Yunno what I think makes bad foreign policy? Two unpaid wars.
By comparison, this is completely ridiculous.
-David
Well said ... I'd be surprised if she didn't make a run in 2016. I can't think of anyone who would be a stronger candidate.
Neither can I. She's the strongest Dem the party has, and she's gonna be a real force to reckon with in 2016. I'll betcha those 2008 Hillary voters would love to get behind her again, along with some 2008 Obama voters who wish they had pulled the lever for her instead.
So how come I can't get anyone to tell me what this "binder" thing is all about? May I assume it's a case of Big Bird about to lay another egg? Is the Left trying to make something "stick," which only the Left cares about?
So how come I can't get anyone to tell me what this "binder" thing is all about?
Yunno, there's this thing called Google ;)
Ok, ok. Kidding. I thought you knew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX6fBP4kDac
I don't think it's anything other than funny. When I heard Romney say it the first time, I said "Did he just say 'binders full of women'?"
Because that's pretty funny ... And it turned into a bit of an Internet meme.
-David
This was probably my favorite ...
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/10445_4721842370624_1397109749_n.jpg
When I heard Romney say it the first time, I said "Did he just say 'binders full of women'?"
Because that's pretty funny
Thank you, David, but I guess I'm just missing the hilarity of it all. I've been thinking it had something to do with the word "binders," but is it that he dropped the word "resumes"? Is that what this is all about? He said "binders full of women" instead of "binders full of women's resumes"? If so, I'm sorry, but I think the Left has another Big Bird bomb on its hands.
I'm almost afraid to ask, but is Team-O planning on doing a commercial about this? LOL. Okay, NOW I'm laughing.
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/10445_4721842370624_1397109749_n.jpg
LOL! Oh, that Bill.
Chris1962,
Thank you, David, but I guess I'm just missing the hilarity of it all.
That's not surprising.
Seriously, though, Romney missed the entire point of the question which was about "equal pay for equal work" and the gender pay gap. He amusingly and completely confused this important matter with some whole other issue. Which, come to think of it, is also not surprising.
That's not surprising.
Gosh, another nasty little swipe. What were the chances.
Romney missed the entire point of the question which was about "equal pay for equal work" and the gender pay gap.
I think it was more the case of having no intention of discussing this absurd topic.
Leaning Blue [8] -
To paraphrase a line Latimer might have written: "You go into an election with the journalists you have, not the journalists you want to have."
Heh. Couldn't resist.
LizM [13] -
Heh. That was funny!
:-)
Michale [19] -
Two can play at that game. Warren Buffett has endorsed Obama. Lindsay Lohan has endorsed Romney.
Heh.
Chris1962 [25] -
Here's to gender-non-specific names!
:-)
I wouldn't lump Chuck Todd in with the Luntzes of the world. If you're looking for a Dem to compare him to, might I suggest Drew Westen? Or maybe James Carville?
michty6 [29] -
HAH hah hah! Now THAT was funny. Tom Toles has an excellent "binder" cartoon up at the Washington Post right now (sorry, don't have a link).
David [30] -
Chuck Todd used to be just a "numbers guy" at NBC in the 08 election, and he did a fairly good job at it. Then he got promoted to "Washington Bureau Chief" and he hasn't done as good a job at that. I wish he'd go back to just doing numbers, or maybe take over David Gregory's spot on MTP (ANYone would be better than Gregory!)
Chris1962 [35] -
OK, that last snarky bit was funny, I have to admit, but I'm going to have to hand out demerits to you (YOU of all people -- a Madison Avenue type!) for misspelling a trademark. It's actually "Froot Loops."
:-)
michty6 [43] -
Well, I've certainly been out of step with the zeitgeist before, and I'm sure I will be again. Case in point, the first debate, which (after watching on PBS's non-split-screen, in my defense), I also considered a tie.
I think Obama did go back and touch second on the "China's ahead on alternative energy" thing later on. But I haven't read the whole transcript yet...
Paula [49] -
I agree it is very odd to see Romney so feisty with the moderators. This is the second time he's done it, and I just don't think it does him any good with the public watching.
LeaningBlue [50] -
See my previous comment on Lindsay Lohan's endorsement. Heh.
I agree that Romney blew it on the Libya thing. He thought he had a gotcha, and he didn't. Priceless. Maybe his prep team's been watching too much Fox or something. How hard is it to read a short statement to double-check, if you're planning on a gotcha? Bad prep.
I must admit I've been wondering if there will be an "October Surprise" retaliatory attack in Libya, but you're probably right, Obama will likely wait until after the election.
David [63, 64, 65] -
It's a double-post conspiracy! Ahhh! Everyone run!!!
Heh.
Chris1962 [68, 69] -
(1) Romney lied about it. He had nothing to do with the binder being given to his team AT ALL. So why lie about it? Why not just brag about his cabinet and his record hiring women? More bad prep.
(2) It sounded funny. (Seriously, "binders full of women"??) If R had said "binders full of resumes from women" it wouldn't be as big a deal. In his defense, he actually did stumble a bit verbally delivering the line. But that won't matter when SNL does a sketch on it.
:-)
Michale [70] -
Hold on there, pardner. I bet if you search this site for "Luntz" that EVERY time I bring him up, I fully praise his talents (while bemoaning the fact that such a talented guy works for the other team). I respect wordsmiths on both sides, just on their raw talent, and Luntz knows what the heck he's doing (his best line ever: "death tax").
David [77] -
Yep. It's funny. It conjures up funny images. OK, I have to go look this up, excuse me for a moment...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/toles?hpid=z3
If that's a generic link, see his cartoon for today, 10/18. This should be enough even for Chris1962 to see the humor, one would hope.
Chris1962, one final note. Humor never seems funny when it's directed at you or yours. Romney misspoke, you're right. Listen to the clip, and you'll see -- Romney stumbles verbally, and probably DID mean to say "resumes" in there somewhere. Such is the nature of gaffes.
Here's a way for you to understand it -- Barack Obama simply did NOT mean what the Right caricatured him as for his "you didn't build that" comment. Listen to the whole clip, not just the soundbite, and it's obvious -- just as Romney's binder verbal stumble probably wasn't as elegant as he could make it. But, boy howdy, didn't the Right have some fun with "you didn't build that," eh? They made it the whole theme of their convention. So pot, meet kettle. It's politics, and it does get a bit silly at times, but it's only funny from one direction, usually.
WHEW! I made it to the end of the comments!!!
Everybody go call the election, now, on today's column...
:-)
-CW
David,
By comparison, this is completely ridiculous.
That's because it's being spun to LOOK ridiculous..
Although there are many MANY things wrong with what Obama et al did, the one I think is most applicable here is this.
You were lied to by your President..
Worse, you were lied to to suit a POLITICAL agenda..
Now, under Bush, ya'all got pissy and hysterical when Bush lied to suit a NATIONAL SECURITY agenda.
Ya'all SAVAGED Bush because you thought he lied..
But Obama and his minions blatantly lied to your face, over and over and over and over again. To this day, Obama et al STILL maintain that that stupid video had something to do with Libya... He CONTINUES to lie...
And ya'all DEFEND him for doing it...
If that doesn't prove that the '-D' after the name is all important, NOTHING will...
CW,
Two can play at that game. Warren Buffett has endorsed Obama. Lindsay Lohan has endorsed Romney.
Warren Buffett?? The guy that owes the US Government billions in back taxes???
Lindsay Lohan?? If she wasn't sober when she did, it doesn't count. :D
Here's to gender-non-specific names!
Or we could be like France and do away with "mom" and "dad" and designate "parent 1" and "parent 2"..
But why stop there?? Let's add "parent 3", "parent 4" and "parent 5".... :^)
Hold on there, pardner. I bet if you search this site for "Luntz" that EVERY time I bring him up, I fully praise his talents (while bemoaning the fact that such a talented guy works for the other team). I respect wordsmiths on both sides, just on their raw talent, and Luntz knows what the heck he's doing (his best line ever: "death tax").
Yer the Grand Poobah... Whenever I take Weigantians to task for this or that, it doesn't apply to you..
"But it's his ship now, his command; he's in charge, he's the boss, the head man, the top dog, the big cheese, the head honcho, number one..."
-Robert Stack, AIRPLANE
:D
Chris1962, one final note. Humor never seems funny when it's directed at you or yours. Romney misspoke, you're right. Listen to the clip, and you'll see -- Romney stumbles verbally, and probably DID mean to say "resumes" in there somewhere. Such is the nature of gaffes.
Exactly.. Remember how the Left laughed hysterically at Bush for this:
portland.indymedia.org/media/images/2004/10/300774.jpg
I thought, 'how immature and ridiculous to find humor in an obvious common mistake'...
But the Left hated (and still hates) Bush so, to them, it's hilarious....
Here's a way for you to understand it -- Barack Obama simply did NOT mean what the Right caricatured him as for his "you didn't build that" comment. Listen to the whole clip, not just the soundbite, and it's obvious
There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support that Obama didn't mean it exactly as he said it..
I believe that Obama said EXACTLY how he feels. His only blunder was to put it in a way that exposed this truth of his character, rather than spinning it so it didn't sound as bad as it is.
We heard the REAL Obama then...
But, it's interesting that you mention it...
Let's postulate an alternate dimension where Obama said exactly what he said and there was NO DOUBT in anyone's mind that it's exactly what he believes and is exactly what me meant to say.
How would you feel about that Obama???
Michale
Now, under Bush, ya'all got pissy and hysterical when Bush lied to suit a NATIONAL SECURITY agenda.
That should have 'lied' in quotes, because it has been well established that Bush did not, in fact, lie...
So that SHOULD read:
Now, under Bush, ya'all got pissy and hysterical when Bush "lied" to suit a NATIONAL SECURITY agenda.
My bust....
And ya'all DEFEND him for doing it...
What it all boils down to is that ya'all defend Obama for doing the EXACT same things (only worse, MUCH worse) that ya'all savaged and attacked Bush over..
And what is REALLY frustrating is that NO ONE here sees ANYTHING wrong with that....
Michale..
Michale,
It's so hard to follow your train of thought these days. You've gone from a single rant which used to be at least narrowed to a single point to 3-4 rants per response, often replying to yourself so many times within the rant that it's near impossible to follow.
Look, this is very simple. It's a matter of scale.
The right has to work overtime to find even the smallest little thing to try to turn into a controversy w/ the Obama administration. They have to use all of the power of their propaganda networks to try and tilt the news to something that even if there were a semblance of truth in it, I don't think anyone even knows what it means.
Don't you think this might be a sign that Obama is doing a pretty good job?
You turn the microscope on ultra high and yet this is all you can find?
Let me contrast with a foreign policy mistake that is actually a huge foreign policy mistake. Two unpaid wars. Now the continued relevance of this is that I believe Romney would pursue a similar path.
Why? Because this is how Republicans distract you from all the deregulation and upward redistribution of wealth they want to do here at home. It's also the way that they stay in power despite unpopular policies.
People might notice that the entire country is being outsourced unless we give them another enemy ... this is a pattern conservatives have followed successfully in the past.
Don't focus on what's going on ... Look, there's an enemy! Look there's a socialist! Look, there's a Muslim! Look, there's the government trying to tax you! Look, there's a lazy person who's taking your money! Look there's an illegal immigrant trying to sneak across the border! Look, there's a Democrat trying to illegally vote!
Look at anything but what we're doing ... You can keep buying it, Michale. But the pattern gets old after a while.
-David
I guess I'm just missing the hilarity of it all.
p.s. I checked again ... and it's still funny.
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/17/tumblr_mc0mk3zeoo1rj8amio1_400.jpg
Maybe in part because of Willard's problem relating to normal people. I mean, he's trying to say he cares about women. But it comes off like he's saying, "I care so much about women I even tried to hire a few. But I didn't know any qualified women, so they brought me the binders and I picked out a few."
I could see him thinking about people in general like this. "We need a Chief of Staff ... quick, bring me the binders!" People are just resources to be plugged into his Enterprise.
But mostly, it's just a funny image.
-David
Good post in [87] David. Been reading George Orwell recently? :)
The binders thing is pretty simple:
(1) Anyone with half a brain knew from the moment he told the story that it was completely made up.
(2) 'Binders full of women' is a funny line.
(3) The whole story was completely condescending and missed the point. You seriously believe there are not enough qualified women out there that Romney has to go to Women's Rights groups and ask for resumes?? That there are no other ways to find qualified women than women's rights groups?? It'd be like saying 'there were no black people in my cabinet so I went to some black right groups and they gave me some binders full of blacks'. It's so condescending to imply that women are so unqualified they have to be sought out merely to 'balance' your team.
(4) Aside from all of this, it had absolutely nothing to do with the question on equal pay for women. So Romney has SO LITTLE to offer in this area that his best answer is a completely made up story that had nothing to do with this. That says everything that needs to be said.
All in all it was car crash TV of the highest variety and it was hilarious.
In other news, the Green Party leader Jill Stein was arrested outside the debate grounds. I'm glad to see that you Americans have your democracy in order. You need to keep these pesky parties out of the way so the real guys can do the work at the top. In fact what you should do is just arrest all party leaders that are not affiliated to the party in power. Then you will really be competing with China.
Romney's real response to equal pay:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-mmSUp-LKSgE/UH93YANyeRI/AAAAAAAAIWw/gmY3bXBzmKs/s1600/a%2Bdebate%2B10-16-12%2BMatt%2BBors%2Btoon.png
CW: Chris1962, one final note. Humor never seems funny when it's directed at you or yours. Romney misspoke, you're right. Listen to the clip, and you'll see -- Romney stumbles verbally, and probably DID mean to say "resumes" in there somewhere. Such is the nature of gaffes.
So the Left responds with mockery that goes viral??? Do you guys really think that makes Romney look bad, or does the Left come across as petty as hell? And who is the mockery supposed to resonate with? This is the Left talking to the Left (again) and sounding like school kids to the rest of the country.
Here's a way for you to understand it -- Barack Obama simply did NOT mean what the Right caricatured him as for his "you didn't build that" comment.
Oh, please, that was a massive strategic error, putting O's political philosophy on display, i.e., government is somehow responsible for individuals' success. That may play well for a hard-Leftie like Warren, in a blue-blue state like Massachusetts, but not for a president who's residing over a country that feels the federal government is intrusive and wants less of it in their lives. It was a major strategic error on O's part, to think he could take Warren's messaging national. And Team-O didn't frantically conduct weeks of damage control on that for nothing. But do you see Team-R frantically trying to explain that Romney dropped the word "resumes"? Or are they sitting back, watching you guys drop another Big Bird bomb on yourselves?
Romney has a editorial in the Onion News today to clarify his stance on Women's Rights: 'Would A Man Who Doesn't Support Women Let His Wife Pick Out Any Oven She Wants For Her Birthday?'. Interesting read.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/would-a-man-who-doesnt-support-women-let-his-wife,29966/
Here's to gender-non-specific names!
You said it! I find it so funny that no one ever thinks "Christine" or "Christina" when they hear the name "Chris."
I wouldn't lump Chuck Todd in with the Luntzes of the world. If you're looking for a Dem to compare him to, might I suggest Drew Westen? Or maybe James Carville?
The average American wouldn't know Drew Westen from a hole in the wall. He's not exactly a household name. Carville's a good comparison, although he's not really in the game anymore (unfortunately for the Dem party). If I were Obama, I would've been on my knees begging Carville to head up Team-O, long, long ago. And I would also never let Axelrod in front of a camera. Obama is loyal to a fault. His people definitely knew how to package and sell an unknown in 2008. O couldn't have asked for a better team. But they're lost when it comes to an incumbent — one with a bad record, no less. They've never had a strategy in place. They've just been winging it, day by day. And Obama may well lose this election because of it.
mockery that goes viral?
It's just funny. I suppose you can try and paint it as mockery from the "Left" but even my conservative friends found it funny.
Especially, the Bill Clinton one.
Lighten up!
-David
p.s. I checked again ... and it's still funny.
Except it's the women's group that uses binders. So the joke doesn't even work. And the Left doesn't even seem to get that. LOL. But, hey, keep at it, folks. You're looking great out there.
Maybe in part because of Willard's problem relating to normal people.
I think the Left is buying into its own spin again.
I mean, he's trying to say he cares about women. But it comes off like he's saying, "I care so much about women I even tried to hire a few.
It comes off that way to whom, D? Liberals, who hate his guts? I didn't get that impression from him at all, and I'm a woman. But maybe it's because I'm a business woman, and I know the process of putting out a call to headhunters and receiving a stack of resumes/portfolios, in whatever form they're sent.
I think the message women received was that Romney's staff presented him with all-male options, and Romney made a concerted effort to get women in there. That's not a bad message, D. This is a bad message:
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2012/images/10/17/tumblr_mc0mk3zeoo1rj8amio1_400.jpg
No, Hillary, women's groups still use binders. Only clueless Lefties evidently don't know that.
I think the message women received was that Romney's staff presented him with all-male options, and Romney made a concerted effort to get women in there.
Except that Romney's staff didn't exactly make "a concerted effort" to hire women.
http://blog.thephoenix.com/blogs/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx
-David
Re: "It's just funny." [95]
I hate to be serious, but binders is a little more than just funny. It's spreading as an established meme, and it's not going to go away.
Good news is: it'll be totally out of the news cycle by tomorrow (replaced by a couple more days of the 'falsehood' side of the story). Bad news: it's becoming iconic for male (and, in particular, the Governor's) trivialization and patronization of women. It's spontaneously appearing where ever the context permits. For example, on Amazon, in reviews of mundane office supplies:
http://www.amazon.com/Avery-Durable-Binder-EZ-Turn-17032/product-reviews/B001B0CTMU/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_summary?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1&c=upworthy
In campaigns in the internet age, these things allow candidates to effectively hit points by reference with more impact than otherwise possible. Until the election, President will merely have to say the word, and the mockery and derision is triggered. It fires up the bases.
These things aren't game changers. Binders isn't 47. But the reinforced _impression_ of the difference in gender attitudes doesn't help the Governor.
p.s. What about this one?
http://static.selfdeprecate.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/romney-women-binder-meme.jpg
Anyone notice the little sideband method used to put a little more context on the Consulate screw-up? After the debate, the President sought out the person who asked the question (Mr. Ladka) and provided some elaboration to him "privately.":
"According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a ter[r]orist attack.” ...The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka."
Not saying it answers the questions - it doesn't. Just pointing out the technique; getting something out that would be risky to say straight out.
OK, that last snarky bit was funny, I have to admit, but I'm going to have to hand out demerits to you (YOU of all people -- a Madison Avenue type!) for misspelling a trademark. It's actually "Froot Loops."
Hahahaha! Okay, would you like to know how funny it is that you actually do know the correct spelling? How many years have you been staring at that box on the breakfast table, m'man? ;D Busted!
RE: Most Interesting Man [99]. Yup. He's a platform; you can always go to him and get a Facebook ready image with a couple minutes of photoshop.
I'm waiting for the Hitler parody; the dinner scene when he's handed the binder is, well, too obvious. Scripts are being written as we speak, I'm sure.
The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence
Except that our intel people were communicating with the consulate in real-time. We knew that there were no protesters there, and we knew that it was a heavily armed attack (on a consulate that had been attacked twice before). So O's explanation doesn't wash. That's the problem.
One last thing on binders. The exact phrase "Binders Full of Women" returns around 310 million.
By the way, _Newsweek_ print is shutting down. They have theDailyBeast up and solid now. Nobody's going to wait a week for news or commentary anymore, and it's too expensive to buy to line the parakeet cage.
Laud it or mourn it. It's just the way it is.
Back later.
@ [103].
And that's why he didn't say it himself "publicly." But he got it out there. And supporters who are looking for something - anything - to hang on to get something.
If you're in advertising, where does your deep commitment to truth and facts come from? ;-)
I liked this line from the Amazon reviews: As a wife and mother, I LOVE this binder. It keeps me in my place, allows me to get dinner ready on time, AND only costs 72% of the more masculine version.
or
This binder is only 72% as good as a binder full of men. It should only cost 72% as much! Doesn't this binder know it's place? It totally shouldn't get guaranteed contraceptive care and a right to privacy. What the heck is this little binder thinking?
or
When I bought this binder, I was hoping it would come with some good old fashioned women who were begging to leave work early at 5pm to come cook me dinner. But startlingly, these women refused, then had the gall to demand equal pay and free contraception. I tried to return the binder, but Amazon refused. Now, as a white male, I finally understand what reverse discrimination is. I am hoping to escape this nightmareish hellscape called 21st century America by voting for Mitt Romney this November. He will restore America's binders full of women who respond to my beck and call and are satisfied with lower pay for the same work. I hear some of them can even self -abort
And that's why he didn't say it himself "publicly." But he got it out there.
Uh, the only thing that "got out there" was the bogus assertion that the attack was owed to a video clip and that protesters had perpetrated the attack. And that message "got out there" via Rice, who'd been sent out to do the Sunday talk show circuit days AFTER O's Rose Garden comments. So if O was stating that it was a terrorist attack, why was his administration telling the American people that it was a protest over a video clip? That question answers itself, of course: O did not specifically cite Benghazi as a terrorist attack; he was speaking about "acts of terror" in general. And now he's playing a backpedaling parsing game, because the administration has been busted, in testimony given by the State Dept. to congress.
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0s0g6YYD1rj8amio1_1280.png
I feel so safe and secure in this binder! I know that my husband can reach me immediately when he needs breakfast, lunch, dinner, and/or snacks 24/7, the yard mowed, shopping done, cleaning done, the garage organized, the basement finished, etc. He put in dividers with little envelopes on them that hold index cards so that I am completely organized when I'm not at my full-time job. I can't imagine ever being in a binder other than this one. Thanks Avery!
Ok. I'll admit it. I can't stop reading these ...
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc0nu0uX0W1rj8amio1_500.jpg
Haha same.
My friend Willard recommended this product yesterday after hearing about my dilemma; namely, the sausage fest that my new office was comprised of. The first thing that surprised me was that it was eligible for FREE SUPER SAVER SHIPPING. After all, we're talking hundreds to thousands of pounds in freight here, right? At $8.69 a unit, I really didn't understand how the profit margin could possibly offset the shipping costs. But Willard assured me that the math adds up somehow, and neither he nor I had time to go into it. Anyway, I received my Avery Durable View Binder, and, while it certainly delivered on it's promise of plus-volume, I can't say I was particularly impressed with the substance therein. Some were single mothers expecting entitlements, others taking issue with my requisite transvaginal ultrasounds. I spent half the afternoon arguing with the women over such absurdities as equal pay and access to contraception through their healthcare plans (my business is listed as a "faith-based non-profit" so I can get 501(3)(c) tax exempt status, so, uh, no!), and by the time 5 o' clock rolls around, no dinner. Nothing. The oven wasn't even preheating. Ugh!
So, while the Avery Durable View Binder may seem like a price-point value, beware that quality does not always equate to quantity.
Like most powerful men, I've wondered: Where to find qualified women? Or qualified minorities, for that matter? Voila, now I have a binder full of qualified women (and minorities). This is a really nice binder and ideal for giving the illusion of progress, even though admitting the need for a binder may puzzle the savvy. I actually just ordered a new binder, which I will title: The 47% Solution. The binder, I know, will give me plenty of room to include plenty of qualified riffraff, should the need ever arise to know who some might be.
And now for something completely different: 1%er logic - http://www.rall.com/rallblog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/CharlesMunger.jpg
And now for something completely different: 1%er logic
But ... you don't understand ... it's about freedom!
(I've had this said to me numerous times. It's usually at the point when all the other BS has been said and there's simply not much left.)
This is however getting away from binders full of women. Ok, maybe that's getting old.
How about menacing Josh Romney?
http://www.buzzfeed.com/copyranter/the-best-of-menacing-josh-romney
Haha you mean: http://s1148.photobucket.com/albums/o571/904dem/?action=view¤t=soom_zps1bdcb6b3.gif
Secretary of explaining stuff at it again http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=SqI8ctmBTMg
Except that Romney's staff didn't exactly make "a concerted effort" to hire women.
You might wanna mention that to the MassGAP representative, who was on O'Reilly tonight, recounting how elated MassGAP was that Romney had heard their call and sent his team members over to speak with them. And the rest is history. The MassGAP gals' binders landed on his desk, and Romney saw to it that women were hired into his adminstration.
But DO keep this new Big Bird bomb going, folks. Nobody knows how to damage one's own image better than the Left.
But DO keep this new Big Bird bomb going, folks.
No one puts baby in a binder ...
http://searchengineland.com/figz/wp-content/seloads/2012/10/best_of_the_binders_full_of_women_mitt_romney_meme-165218.jpg
The MassGAP gals' binders landed on his desk, and Romney saw to it that women were hired into his adminstration.
Since you only seem to want to talk politics ...
1. Why not ask Mitt about his position on women in the LDS church? Are there any women in positions of power?
2. What is Mitt's position on the Lilly Ledbetter bill?
3. What is Mitt's position on having healthcare cover contraceptives?
4. What's his position on Planned Parenthood?
5. How come Romney didn't know any qualified women and had to be brought binders?
I mean c'mon. I was fine w/ just joking about it until you tried to tell me Romney cares about women's issues. That seems like a stretch. I mean no more than his other lies about caring about the middle class. Or the poor. Or college kids. But a stretch.
Romney cares about 1 thing. Giving tax cuts to well off individuals. The market can take care of everything else. The tax cut he is asking for you is merely a way to buy your support for the tax cut for the wealthy. If he could get away with a tax cut to just the 1%, he would.
I'm sure Romney thinks women are just fine but please ... he's not exactly a champion of fair pay or women's rights.
http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney-money-bain-photo.jpg
-David
1. Why not ask Mitt about his position on women in the LDS church?
I couldn't give two hoots about the LDS church. If women don't want to belong, they don't have to.
2. What is Mitt's position on the Lilly Ledbetter bill?
I would assume he's dead set against it, since it's absurd as hell.
3. What is Mitt's position on having healthcare cover contraceptives?
He's against business owners being forced to go against their conscience, just like the Catholic Church is.
4. What's his position on Planned Parenthood?
Is it important enough to borrow money from China to pay for it? No, since its services are also provided by doctors offices and clinics and medicaid. So I'd start getting ready to hold a whole lot of black-tie fundraisers, if I were Planned Parenthood.
5. How come Romney didn't know any qualified women and had to be brought binders?
Who said he didn't know any qualified women? And who says only the qualified women he personally knew should be considered for the job slots? And what makes you think women in private-sector positions even want to leave their fields and go into government jobs?
I mean c'mon. I was fine w/ just joking about it until you tried to tell me Romney cares about women's issues.
Making women dependent upon government does not translate into "caring about women," in my book. Quite the opposite.
Re: [120]: I have to say, seriously, that is an excellent, genuinely libertarian-side conservative response throughout.
It's refreshing to read something that does not ooze with the partisan snark that attends most things written these days from the Right.
I find it fascinating that ya'all want to talk about women as if Obama is doing right by them.
Women in the White House are paid less than men for the same work.
This is documented fact..
Of course, you'll ignore this fact because it violated the number one rule of the Left.
Obama is always right...
David,
Romney cares about 1 thing. Giving tax cuts to well off individuals.
Assumes facts not in evidence..
Even if you can point to a single Romney statement that indicates such, it means as much as Obama saying that there are no red or blue states, just a UNITED States..
In other words, politicians can say what they WILL do until they're blue in the face...
Doesn't mean diddly squat as to what they REALLY end up doing.
One only has to look at Obama's campaign vs Obama's presidency to know that this is true..
I'm sure Romney thinks women are just fine but please ... he's not exactly a champion of fair pay or women's rights.
It's well documented that Obama doesn't care about fair pay for women either. Other than just paying it lip service...
Another example of a politician SAYING one thing but DOING another...
CB,
I have to echo LB's praise of your statements..
Making women dependent upon government does not translate into "caring about women," in my book. Quite the opposite.
Especially THAT one...
THAT is so dead on ballz accurate (I.T.) it's scary...
Michale.....
http://hypervocal.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/romney-money-bain-photo.jpg
That simply shows Romney is good at what he does..
Business...
It's the kind of man this country NEEDS in the White House...
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale.....
It's so hard to follow your train of thought these days. You've gone from a single rant which used to be at least narrowed to a single point to 3-4 rants per response, often replying to yourself so many times within the rant that it's near impossible to follow.
Like I said, David.. They are only "rants" when they espouse facts that no one has a response for. :D
I can always tell when I have Weigantians on the ropes..
They have nothing to say.. :D
The right has to work overtime to find even the smallest little thing to try to turn into a controversy w/ the Obama administration.
Yer kidding, right!?? You throw a dart at the Obama Administration, you can't HELP but hit some bonehead move, some totally moronic action, some totally un-American statement...
No work necessary whatsoever, overtime or otherwise...
Let me contrast with a foreign policy mistake that is actually a huge foreign policy mistake. Two unpaid wars. Now the continued relevance of this is that I believe Romney would pursue a similar path.
As opposed to leading from behind and turning the ENTIRE Middle East over to radical fundamental Islamists??
Or, we could talk about Obama's assassination of American citizens abroad.. (which I really don't have a problem with, but I would have expected that YA'ALL would...
Or, we could talk about Obama's utter contempt for Israel, about how Obama refuses to give a red line on Iran, but has NO PROBLEM putting a red line in front of Israel...
You can multiply Bush's Foreign Policy mistakes tenfold and they wouldn't even be on the same planet as Obama's boneheaded Foreign Policy decisions...
Obama has screwed up the Middle East six ways from Sunday... Maybe making a vast Islamic diaspora that stretches from Gibraltar to the Black Sea was Obama's goal..
Or maybe it was simply incompetence...
But there can be no mistake that Obama has totally frak'ed up the Middle East.. Instead of ONE Iran, we're going to have a half dozen Irans....
Michale.....
Making women dependent upon government does not translate into "caring about women," in my book.
Well, hello there Ayn Rand ... you've moved back to the right.
When is Mitt going to? After he's elected?
Equal pay for equal work has nothing to do w/ making women depend on government.
He's against business owners being forced to go against their conscience, just like the Catholic Church is.
You mean he's for legislating religious beliefs? Everyone should be forced to abide by Catholic rules?
What happened to your libertarian side? Where'd it go?
Who said he didn't know any qualified women?
I believe Mitt did when he asked for the binders full of women.
-David
p.s. But you're back on your game, Chris. You've got all the standard conservative marketing phrases nailed.
You played the 'big government' bogeyman. The religious card. And the Libertarian card all at once.
And heck, you may even believe some of this. But the people who are funding Mitt Romney only believe in one thing. Tax cuts and deregulation for them. They don't give a rats ass about freedom unless they can use it to benefit them. They don't give a rats ass about religion unless it can be used to benefit them.
Equal pay for equal work has nothing to do w/ making women depend on government.
There's no such thing as "equal work." No two workers turn out the same product.
You mean he's for legislating religious beliefs?
No, he's for the first amendment. Freedom of religion.
What happened to your libertarian side? Where'd it go?
I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know what you're talking about.
I believe Mitt did when he asked for the binders full of women.
He asked for womens' resumes. You'll have to talk to that MassGAP women's group about their use of binders.
You've got all the standard conservative marketing phrases nailed.
And you've got all the standard liberal marketing phrases nailed. Your point?
Not interested in your fear-and-loathing-of-successful-people rant, D. Nothing puts me to sleep faster.
I find it fascinating that ya'all want to talk about women as if Obama is doing right by them.
Women in the White House are paid less than men for the same work.
This is documented fact..
O also runs a pretty hostile workplace, according to Anita Dunn: "This place would be in court for a hostile workplace because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women."
Oh, and let's not forget Christina Romer: "I felt like a piece of meat..."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038386/Obamas-White-House-hostile-environment-women-treated-like-meat.html
Nice pic of the next First Couple: http://twitter.yfrog.com/z/odygjtswj
He asked for womens' resumes.
You mean he didn't know any qualified women?
I'm not a libertarian, so I don't know what you're talking about.
What do you believe in then?
I have the same problem with Mitt Romney. I don't know what he believes or doesn't believe. It seems to depend on his audience.
Sometimes he's libertarian. Sometimes he's religious. Sometimes he's mainstream.
Your point?
Touchy, touchy on the marketing thing. Is this a sore spot?
You wouldn't by any chance be working for a certain political party in this election, would you?
Nevermind ... I suppose if you were you couldn't tell us.
My point is simply that I have no idea what Mitt Romney believes or will do. He talks religion to the religious. And Ayn Rand to the libertarians. Two philosophies which couldn't be more opposite. Then he's a centrist in the broad public debate. I have no idea what he really believes.
He's little more than marketing.
I take that back. He has given us one specific. We know he believes in a 20% tax cut.
Why can he give us this specific and not any others?
-David
David,
He talks religion to the religious. And Ayn Rand to the libertarians. Two philosophies which couldn't be more opposite.
Actually if his overall philosophy is the Ayn Rand 'do whatever it takes to obtain power/money' then these actions do make sense. This is what I believe he stands for.
The tax cut is just a further extension of this and his Ayn Rand business philosophy - screw everyone else as long as it gets me more money.
I have the same problem with Mitt Romney. I don't know what he believes or doesn't believe. It seems to depend on his audience.
Same could be said of Obama. And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.
I take that back. He has given us one specific. We know he believes in a 20% tax cut.
He knows he believes in his tax reform plan. And if anyone can make it happen, I suspect it's him. He's a successful businessman and has experience with working, bipartisanly, with a heavy-duty Dem congress. I'm confident he'll bring his talents and experiences to the table and get tax reform accomplished — especially if he ends up with a Republican congress.
Chris1962,
And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.
You can't be serious!
Or, have you resigned yourself to the idea that Romney will not be elected and therefore none of us need be concerned about his positions?
Chris, if I take all of your responses in [120] and [126], then does it follow that you believe women have a right to choose to have an abortion, so long as it is not supported by the government?
And, second, do you believe that a legislature's majority, relying on a majority's adopted definition of a fetus (of some arbitrary term, including the time of conception) as a Constitutionally protected human being, has a right to prohibit abortion?
Note I'm not interested in your personal position.
RE: As opposed to leading from behind and turning the ENTIRE Middle East over to radical fundamental Islamists??
This is hyperbole. Morrocco is stable. Algeria is stable (and, suprisingly to me, BTW, was the only nation on the Med that did not have active protests this last time). Tunisia is staunchly pro-American. Egypt is in the defining throes of a nation who has had a repressive de-facto secular regime deposed while a repressive military remains largely intact.
The facts of Libya are to be determined, but I personally believe that it will move more towards the situation of Tunisia than of Algeria.
Syria, whether we like it or not, is ground zero for the meddling state interests of Russia, China, Europe, and the US, as well as a tripod of Baathist dictator, Sunni economic interests and Islamic fundamentalist interests.
Given the removal of the repressive secular regime in Libya, I see NA overall as more in the throes of seismic aftershocks than continuing tectonic movements.
Same could be said of Obama.
No, I know what Obama believes. You do too, even though you may not like it.
He believes in ending our wars. Romney, I don't know. From his rhetoric, it seems like he could be interested in starting another. I know that's why Michale likes him anyways.
Obama believes in keeping Social Security/Medicare commitments. Romney says he will keep the commitment only to people who are in the system. What about those of us who aren't in the system and have paid in for 25 years?
He believes in well-paying, solid benefit jobs in America. I've seen no signs Romney does. Romney seems to believe that companies are going to move overseas and the only way to stop this is by lowering wages and benefits here in America.
Obama believes in supply and demand side economics. Romney seems to believe in only supply side economics.
Obama believes in equal opportunity. Romney seems to believe that you can have all the opportunity you want if you pay for it. For example, you'll have exactly the education you can pay for. No more.
And I don't know why you're concerned about Romney's positions, since there's no way you would ever vote for him anyhow.
You might be surprised. I'm a fan of Milton Friedman, for example. At least Friedman the economist. Not Friedman the Tea Party religion.
The problem I have w/ Romney (and most current conservatives) is that they cherry pick their economic arguments to largely justify the same old handouts to wealthy donors.
If there was a conservative who ran solely on a solid economic agenda, rather than the simple "lower taxes = always good" or "private sector = always better" principles, I'd be all ears.
I mean Friedman actually made some pretty good arguments about when government makes sense. And other economists have expanded on his ideas. But today's conservatives like economics when it supports the supply side and ignore it when it doesn't.
Obama is much better at looking at all economic ideas, or all anything for that matter. He takes ideas from many sources, even ones like the Heritage Foundation.
-David
Sorry about the strict NA focus in reply; I misread "Middle East" to be just "North Africa" in your comment.
Then does it follow that you believe women have a right to choose to have an abortion, so long as it is not supported by the government?
This is a great question, LB. I know Obama believes this. I'm pretty sure Romney doesn't. Though again, from all the equivocating, it's hard to tell.
What's your position on this issue Chris1962?
-David
LB,
Come on man - didn't you get the Fox News memo? The Middle East was a peace loving region full of American allies before that Kenyan Muslim usurper came to power in 2008 and 'led from behind' (don't know what this means, but it sounds like it must be true) democratically installing his Muslim allies (from behind) wherever he could.
Chris, if I take all of your responses in [120] and [126], then does it follow that you believe women have a right to choose to have an abortion, so long as it is not supported by the government?
Constitutionally and legally, yeah, they have a right. It's the law of the land. I don't personally support it, though. I'm a Roman Catholic and proud of it. I'm completely against abortion. I'd like to see the unborn be given the same constitutional rights and protections as any other American human being.
And, note, you're gonna get my personal opinion whether you're interested in it or not.
And, no, the federal government has no constitutional authority to force We, the People, to support abortion or contraception through the use of our federal dollars. That's totally counter to our first-amendment protection.
No, I know what Obama believes. You do too, even though you may not like it.
I think O holds many beliefs that are not the record.
He believes in ending our wars. Romney, I don't know. From his rhetoric, it seems like he could be interested in starting another. I know that's why Michale likes him anyways.
If war is necessary, it's necessary. I think pulling out of Iraq was wrong. It's now crawling with al Qaeda. And I believe O makes withdrawal decisions for political reasons and gain. And a commander should not make decisions based on what serves him best.
What about those of us who aren't in the system and have paid in for 25 years?
Medicare/SS are unsustainable, D. Something has to be done. The Romney/Ryan plan will offer a choice. The've been talking about it for months. Go to Romney's site and read about it.
The problem I have w/ Romney (and most current conservatives) is that they cherry pick their economic arguments to largely justify the same old handouts to wealthy donors.
Those are your personal perceptions and opinions, D. Like I said, I don't hold the Left's fear and loathing of businesses and/or successful people. If you don't like the way your representatives are interacting with businesses and the evil rich, vote them out and replace them with people who share your values.
Obama's latest term: Romnesia
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BBEXB1Wf9c
You can't be serious!
Yeah, I can be, and I am.
Or, have you resigned yourself to the idea that Romney will not be elected
To the contraray. I believe he will be elected.
and therefore none of us need be concerned about his positions?
Concern yourself all you like. It's not gonna change his positions any.
If war is necessary, it's necessary.
If war is necessary, maybe we should pay for it.
If we aren't willing to pay for it, then it's likely not necessary.
The Romney/Ryan plan will offer a choice.
A choice between two plans. Both of which will cost more than they do now.
Like I said, I don't hold the Left's fear and loathing of businesses and/or successful people.
Just one question, Chris. If Rom's plan is deficit neutral, this means it won't raise or lower any revenue.
Why do it at all then?
There is only one answer and that answer is that Romney is looking to redistribute who pays and how much.
Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?
You can keep calling me names all you want but it doesn't change the fact that Romney's plan is a shit sandwich for the average American.
You pay more, the wealthy pay less.
Romney is a good salesman though, I'll give him that. You are too!
-David
RE And, note, you're gonna get my personal opinion whether you're interested in it or not.
My level of interest (and, really it would be better called curiosity) in your personal belief wasn't where I was going with my question.
Many people on both sides of such a complex issue are prone to ignore the principles and substitute their personal belief. Saying what I said was simply to make that clear.
But if I parse your answer closely, I can take from it that same position that the Romney campaign is currently presenting: so long as it is the law of the land, it's okay (the federal support aspect notwithstanding).
You imply you would support Constitutional resolution. The campaign's positions on that seems to imply that could only come by amendment, because of the position that judges should not be in charge via interpretation.
The second leg of the campaign's position is the legislative prohibition. You haven't yet answered that part of my question...
Okay, back to the blood sport.
Day after the first debate someone wrote on this blog (okay, it was me):
"Moreover, while it's generally not a good idea to attribute to strategy that which can be explained by a "fail," I'm not completely sure it wasn't Rope-A-Dope." (http://www.chrisweigant.com/2012/10/03/snap-debate-reactions/#comment-27692
)
Now comes this, speculating that maybe there was method to the stark difference in Obama performances; something known as Rope-A-Dope.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/Revenge-of-the-Nerd-by-Anthony-Barnes-121018-893.html
I know there are some here who don't believe that Team-O (which is pronounced teem-zero) is anywhere near smart enough or gritty enough to have decided to pull something like that off. The same Team-O that media carpet bombed Governor Romney into a caricature of himself before the election even really got rolling. The same Team-O that used that caricature, and encouraged their allies in the media to use it as well, to turn things like 47 and the binders into persistent icons and penetrate far deeper than they would otherwise have.
Just sayin...
Ehhh. I used two hyperlinks. I think that's the delay.
[Ed. Note: Yep. Two links means manual approval for your comment. It's now been approved. Just a note for everyone to remember... -CW]
But if I parse your answer closely, I can take from it that same position that the Romney campaign is currently presenting: so long as it is the law of the land, it's okay (the federal support aspect notwithstanding).
Nobody has much choice but to support the laws of the land. They are what they are. And the federal government doesn't have the authority to tell women what they can or can't do with their bodies — unfortunately for the unborn, who's sharing that body. I think the law grossly neglects to factor in that there are two humans involved in the pregnancy, and the defenseless one's fate is being left in the hands of the mother. I don't think a woman should get to decide whether another human lives or dies any more than anyone else has that right. Having the power to kill another human doesn't seem like it should be constitutional, to me.
You imply you would support Constitutional resolution.
I would totally support it.
The campaign's positions on that seems to imply that could only come by amendment, because of the position that judges should not be in charge via interpretation.
I agree. Federal law trumps state law. And if we have a situation where states interpret it, states will be changing the interpretation/law, back and forth, depending on which party is in power, and the judges they can get onto the benches. It has to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, IMO, with no wiggle room regarding whether an unborn should have constitutional protections. And that requires a constitutional amendment.
"If Rom's plan is deficit neutral, this means it won't raise or lower any revenue."
What makes the Romney tax plan so funny is just that; it's the internal contradictions between the rhetorical requirements of moderate candidate Romney and the delivery manifest of oligarchy shill Romney.
Ignore for the moment CBO scoring or economic growth assumptions. Just consider the rhetoric: Higher income cohorts will pay no more in taxes. Middle income cohorts will pay less. Yet it costs no more. What's that word President Clinton used? "Arithmetic"?
David,
There is only one answer and that answer is that Romney is looking to redistribute who pays and how much.
Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?
Redistributing, by it's very definition, cannot be 'neutral' to both side - it involves one party to the redistribution receiving more and one party receiving less. Under Rmoney's plan, money is MAGICALLY re-distributed so that one party receives more (tax cuts) and the other isn't affected at all. MAGIC. Of course, like his binders full of women, it is complete bullshit and everyone with half a brain knows who the benefactors of his plan would be (the clue is that he himself has been telling us for 6 years!). If you actually believe him, you clearly suffer from Romnesia.
"And that requires a constitutional amendment."
And I would be happy with that route as well. Super-majorities required over multiple federalist routes to the amendment. And the judges and the state legislatures are out of the decision.
Anything else leaves the issue in the current legal, moral, scientific, and political quagmire.
I have to go. I encourage people to watch Nate Silver on The Daily Show. For those who can't stomach Stewart, Silver links only the interview on fivethirtyeight dot com.
For those who can stomach him, the full episode (18th) has a great "focus group" satire piece as well, where they have a focus group commenting on the debate (serious), another focus group commenting on the first focus group (body language expert commenting on the body language of the body language expert, fashion expert commenting on the wardrobe of the fashion expert, etc), and then the focus group that counted: one Ohio undecided voter in the basement watching the debate alone.
Editing fail: Full Daily Show episodes are on comedycentral dot com, thence under Episodes on the menu bar.
If war is necessary, maybe we should pay for it.
If anything's "paid for" in this country, with that $16T debt of ours, it's the wars. Maintaining a military/defending the country is one of the very few things that We, the People, gave our federal public servants authority to spend federal dollars on; not the endless Kumbaya programs and entitlements.
Just one question, Chris. If Rom's plan is deficit neutral, this means it won't raise or lower any revenue.
Employed people also raise the revenue, and getting them off the welfare rolls lowers the deficit. Returning powers to the states lowers the deficit, as well. And then there's cutting federal agencies and getting the entitlements under control, which is a whole other story. The first thing that needs to go is CrapCare.
There is only one answer and that answer is that Romney is looking to redistribute who pays and how much.
Now who do you think is going to get the redistribution under Romney?
I don't even understand the way your mind works, D. You — and the Left, in general — seem to be under the impression that our federal public servants are the bosses and that We, the People (which, BTW, includes those evil business owners and wealthy folks), work for our servants. You Lefties have things so backwards that I don't even know how or where to begin addressing your comments. For starters, the federal government doesn't have any money; it belongs to We, the People. Yet you speak as though our federal public servants need to take more and more of it away from us and distribute it however they wish. It doesn't work that way. If our servants are reckless with the allocations of our dollars, or spend them in a way that doesn't meet our approval, we fire them. And "we" includes those business owners and folks who have the utter audacity to become wealthy. They have a say in how much money they're willing to give our servants, and how they want it to be spent, and how they want their servants to service them and their businesses.
LB,
I like John Oliver who did the focus group piece, he has his own pod-cast called 'The Buggle' if you're interested. He does it with this other English guy so most of the discussion of US politics is basically laughing at Republicans (this is pretty much what most discussions of US politics are outside of America!)
This is pretty much what most discussions of US politics are outside of America!
We have these discussions here in America as well.
Unfortunately, the Rush Limbaugh rage and government conspiracy stuff seems to play much better here.
Just yell "Freedom!" and find yourself an enemy (like the government or liberals or illegal immigrants) and you've got yourselves a party :). It's so formulaic though that after a while it gets old.
-David
I came back briefly to check if my immoderate comment (it must be so, right, if it needs moderation?) had been cleared (or rejected; that's in the purview of moderators. Or clarified and fact checked in real time would be okay, too.)
Anyway: RE: Romnesia. I don't like such made up words. First, they're generally the stuff of the AM radio/goober wing of the electorate. Second, they sometimes get turned into something the other side actually likes or can use, like Obamacare. How annoying is that, when your snark actually gets adopted by your target? Then you have to run out and invent another (and Chris, Crap-care isn't going to cut it)
Finally, here's yet another example of how the Rove model of lie is fraying now, because the truth doesn't come in the shadows with a comfortable time lag. It's under attack by the internet. From an Obama stump (bolding mine):
"If you come down with a case of Romnesia and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website, or the promises you have made over the six years you've been running for president, here is the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions" ...
Fodder for fun if you keep 'em up, fodder for fun if you take 'em down.
Do you have any idea how hard it is to shape shift these days when the public's sheep-length recall frames are augmented by websites and iPhone search capabilities? Thankfully, a goodly proportion of the Republican base still lives outside the range of 4G and affordable fixed broadband.
Okay, that's enough sarcasm and snark. It's just that I had a good and fun lunch.
(and Chris, Crap-care isn't going to cut it)
Works for me.
LB,
Do you have any idea how hard it is to shape shift these days when the public's sheep-length recall frames are augmented by websites and iPhone search capabilities??
I don't really watch stump speeches, but the few minutes of the Romnesia speech is certainly the best I've seen Obama give probably in the whole of 2012. The timing and emphasis was excellent and the crowd lapped it up.
I'm sure we haven't heard the end of this term and this is the beginning of a new shift to highlight flip-flopping Mitt on a national stage - I am surprised it has taken so long after Mitt reversed every single policy he has had in the 1st debate...
I don't really watch stump speeches, but the few minutes of the Romnesia speech is certainly the best I've seen Obama give probably in the whole of 2012.
Coincidentally, I just did, too, (it can be accessed using the "Bob Cesca" link on the right sidebar of this site). And you're right: that was as good as Reagan or Clinton ever were. And, my sarcasm above notwithstanding, "Romnesia" is pretty good too, at least as good as Obamacare was. It may have better than a three week half-life, and that's all it needs.
It's about time to start bring men to the crowd behind the podiums (podia?), though.
[Crap-care] Works for me.
Think of your evangelicals. I could tell you an anecdote where that very four-letter word induced a woman to apologize to me for her 12-year old using it in my presence.
How about "Confisca-care"? No, too many syllables, and a word too many in the base wouldn't understand.
Maybe "Scary-care"? No, not with Halloween coming up.
Gee, I don't know...
LB, I would guess the screaming women behind the podium was very deliberate (also very effective!) given the current trending topic between the candidates...
There were lots of good lines outside the Romnesia too. I particularly liked: Mr Severely Conservative wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year
LB, I have some ideas:
- Artist-formerly-known-as-Romneycare-Care
- America-finally-joins-the-21st-century-Care
- You-should-be-able-to-see-a-Doctor-regardless-of-income-Care
- I-forgot-that-I-once-supported-this-I-must-have-Romnesia-Care
- A-Conservative-solution-to-healthcare-except-when-passed-by-that-Muslim-Usurper-then-it's-socialism!-Care
By the way, mitchy6, I am a big fan of Nigel Farage. While I'd have to take a slightly closer look, if the current US Republican party could be magically replaced by the UKIP, I think I'd be a member.
Think of your evangelicals. I could tell you an anecdote where that very four-letter word induced a woman to apologize to me for her 12-year old using it in my presence.
I don't really see myself caring about that, LB.
I would guess the screaming women behind the podium was very deliberate
It's been going on since the VP debate. The big damage in the first debate was to women's constituencies. That has been largely fixed, and it's time the image framers put back the other half of us.
I don't really see myself caring about that.
Fair enough. If it works for you, that works for me.
LB,
UKIP have some ok policies, like all Libertarian parties, and in the UK they (like every single party) support the Welfare system and NHS. Their tax plan isn't the worst I've ever heard. But they are pretty much seen as a one issue party though - leaving the EU being that issue (hence the parties name!)...
There is no party as insane as the Republicans in the UK. As I've mentioned before, the BNP might be close.
Fair enough. If it works for you, that works for me.
I like you, LB. You're my kinda people.
http://thepoliticalcarnival.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/romnesia-via-at-GruveOn.jpg
http://i.huffpost.com/gen/824282/thumbs/o-ROMNESIA-MITTMENTO-MOVIE-POSTER-570.jpg?6
UKIP have some ok policies, like all Libertarian parties, and in the UK they (like every single party) support the Welfare system and NHS.
That is my impression. While I reversed the direction of the arc over my life, I've tried to adhere to the Churchill statement to the effect that someone not a liberal at 20 has no heart, and someone not a conservative at 40 (remembering 60 is the new 40) has no brain.
The closest the USA has ever come to a melding of that is the Republican sense of American intelligence of T. Roosevelt with the sense of American social contract of R. LaFollette.
To the point, I see a lot of that in what I know of UKIP.
EDIT: In the above post, substitute the phrase "American exceptionalism" for the phrase "American intelligence" That was my intent, but was writing too fast.
Have to get ready for dinner. Good evening.
David,
Equal pay for equal work has nothing to do w/ making women depend on government.
True..
Then why doesn't Obama's White House pay women equal pay for equal work???
I noticed how no one wants to touch THAT fact, eh? :D
LB,
Chris, if I take all of your responses in [120] and [126], then does it follow that you believe women have a right to choose to have an abortion, so long as it is not supported by the government?
Well, you didn't ask me, but let me put in my two cents worth..
If a religious organization has employees and such contraception is against the organizations' beliefs to offer such, then I don't think the government should be able to FORCE said organizations to provide it..
If women want such benefits, then they should find employment outside of religious organizations..
I have nothing against contraceptives, philosophically... I DO, however, have a beef with having to pay for it for others..
I'll get to the rest later..
LAST RESORT is on....
One of the best new shows in the line-up!! :D
Michale.....
Sometimes HuffPo goes overboard, into the swamps where Fox often finds itself.
Headlines pointing out starlets in see-through tops without bras is bad enough - so bad that I had to fact-check by looking to determine just how bad.
But this one is reprehensible: "How Romney Is Like Putin," and too outrageous to read. Governor Romney is assuredly not like Putin, any more than President Obama is like Stalin or Marx or whomever those headlines proferred for comparison.
Such crap does not have a place in civil dialogue, let alone on an ostensible news site.
LB,
here, here...
Well said...
Michale.....
Gimmicks in O's $4T deficit reduction plan: http://on.wsj.com/TkdB4n
If women want such benefits, then they should find employment outside of religious organizations..
Exactly, Michale. It's like employees demanding that a Jewish organization put pork on the cafeteria menu. Meanwhile, Ol' Joe managed to rile the Bishops up with his statements during the veep debate:
Catholic Bishops Call Biden A Liar On ObamaCare
http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/101512-629392-catholic-bishops-say-biden-lied-about-obamacare.htm
The same Team-O that media carpet bombed Governor Romney into a caricature of himself before the election even really got rolling.
The problem with depending upon a strategy like that is, it dissolves once Romney goes before the American people in a debate situation. He doesn't come off like a wicked ogre. He's straight out of central casting, as far as looking/sounding presidential. And he has a nice demeanor and articulates his positions very well. And, at the end of the debate, he just doesn't live up to the monster that the Left has created, in the eyes of the average voter. So all those ad dollars go right down the drain.
Exactly, Michale. It's like employees demanding that a Jewish organization put pork on the cafeteria menu.
That is the most perfect example of the illogic and irrationality of the Left as I have ever come across..
To paraphrase Spock, the Democrats believe that the needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many...
"Fascinating"....
Michale.....
He's straight out of central casting, as far as looking/sounding presidential.
Yep...
http://sjfm.us/temp/bluebloods1.jpg
I know who is going to play Romney in the movie.. :D
Michale
LOL. You'd make a good casting director, Michale.
LOL. You'd make a good casting director, Michale.
The resemblance is uncanny...
Have Romney and Borgi ever been in the same room together??
I don't think so! :D
Michale.....