Doesn’t this put his “win” into a different light?
Could Obama have been more forceful in pointing this out? Possibly. But how would things have looked for him had he spent the whole time saying “You’re not telling the truth. You’re being disingenuous. You are lying.”
Even if Obama is right every time, how does that make him look?
He tried to brush past the bullshit and instead of turning it into negativity (which would turn off a lot of voters) he defended his record and lauded his own policies for the future.
Where are the people who complain all the time about politics being in the gutter, asking where are the thoughtful politicians who don’t have to denigrate their opponents? Either they didn’t watch the debate of they just didn’t like what they saw when they got what they wanted.
I wasn’t (even though I used to immerse myself in Creationism debates on talk.origins back in the day) but I think it explains a lot why Romney won this debate.
That’s why I was at pains to point out, based only on what was in the debate.
If you know nuts about what’s going on, Mitts previous positions, if you don’t know enough to call bullshit on at least some of what he says - his was the better presentation.
If you are at least minimally informed, and have been following, then his postion reeks of bullshit.
Like many have been saying - there seems to be a lot of fodder in Mitts performance for attack ads in the coming days that will make Mitt look foolish.
Your assertions really don’t change the fact that Obama has what is generally considered one of the hardest, if not the hardest job in the world. And the guy who wants to do his job is currently unemployed. I don’t know how anyone can spin this beyond the facts that in a 24-hour day. Obama has a shit-ton more on his plate than Romney does - as does any incumbent compared to any challenger. How can that even be debated?
This is pretty funny and might deserve its own thread (Bolding for emphasis):
So in order for Romney to “increase the tax base” enough to do what he claims he will be able to do, he needs to either create more jobs than the entire civilian labor force, o if he does create 12 million jobs (his claim) the average pay has to be $433,000 per year.
I am reminded of Bill Clinton’s speech at the DNC… Something about Mathematics…
This has really got my curiosity bump tingling. I think because I listened to it on the radio, but I don’t know. I mean, there is no objective metric, right? It wasn’t 310 debate points for Mittens and 240 for Barry, so we’re talking about a subjective frame of reference. Seems like we assume the more aggressive and dominant debater is winning? So, we do it like the chimps do it? Or maybe like prize fighters, the guy who lands the most punches?
Well, sorta kinda, Romney did, there was that one long flurry of nasty stats where Mittens essentially blamed Obama for all the dreadful realities we face. This time, his numbers are all right, but his assumption is faulty. But it looks like he’s beating the shit out of Obama, but we all pretty much know the timeline here. He was elected captain of the Titanic just after it hit the iceberg.
So, I’m thinking the visuals may be more important than the information. That if someone didn’t know anything at all about it, but saw the debate with the sound off, he would think Mitt won. Due to “chimp signals” we send and receive without ever really noticing them.
I dunno, 'luci. Partly what you’re saying is true, but…I “watched” the debate on television, but I was doing a bunch of paperwork at the time, so I mostly listened to it, and Obama didn’t come off too well just on the audio.
Add in the visuals when I occasionally glanced at the screen, and he was often literally biting his tongue, grimacing, pale and sweaty to the point where I occasionally wondered if he was ill… Call it “chimp signals” if you like, but what I saw was a man who wasn’t confident of how to handle the situation, as he himself more or less admitted in the last link I posted. (I really hope one of his coaches works with him on lowering his pitch when we feels out of control, 'cause there were some moments there when he sounded positively whiny.)
The Mitt Romney on stage with him was not the Mitt Romney that Barack Obama came prepared to debate. The Mitt Romney on stage was a centrist with ideas not too terribly far away from Obama’s, who kept the details vague enough but delivered with such confidence that…yes, if I didn’t know better from information outside of the debate…I’d vote for Romney. Me. That is how very not Mitt Romney Mitt Romney was. And that was all verbal.
Plus, I think that poster a couple of pages ago was spot on about the “Male what” vs. “Female why” thing. Mitt very definitely played the Alpha Male angle, which comes across very well in this debate format with a weak moderator. Obama tried the Great Explainer route, and it didn’t work so well. I’m hopeful that the town hall format will favor Obama’s style more.
I haven’t debated it. What I’ve said is that a strong president surrounded by competent people would rise to the occasion. Reagan, Clinton and GWB all handled it with aplomb.
If Obama’s job is taking up too much of his time it means he hasn’t surrounded himself with enough good people to whom he could delegate enough to allow him to pay sufficient attention to his reelection campaign. Either that or he’s too much of a micro manager ala Jimmy Carter, which is what you get when you elect people because of who they aren’t (Nixon, GWB) rather than because of their own qualifications for the office. Their insecurities drive them to take on too much and to work too hard because they don’t know what they’re doing, and if they don’t know what they’re doing they damn sure don’t know if anyone else does, either, and at least they have control over what they’re doing. So they don’t delegate and they take on too much that they have little command for anyway, and it becomes a 20-hour-a-day hardest job in the world.
However you cut it, Obama just isn’t an effective president.
Either you don’t know what we’re talking about or you don’t know what you’re talking about. Maybe both… But let’s clear up at least the first part:
Here is the comment that DoctorJ said which prompted my comment about Obama having a day job:
So no, Reagan and GWB did not handle their first debate with aplomb. None of the incumbents did aside from Clinton, who was fortunate enough to not only be an incredibly gifted debater, but to be pitted against Bob Dole, who was… not.
So… no. Most didn’t “handle it with aplomb.” In fact, none of them did other than Clinton.
You completely misunderstand the argument. Jobs are the effect of a strong economy. They are not the cause of it.
Understand what Romney is saying: If you create high marginal rates, but also include many loopholes, you are creating incentives to engage in certain economic activities because of the tax code, rather than because it makes the best sense for the economy. By lowering rates and eliminating loopholes, you attack the problem from both sides: you reduce the incentive to engage in tax avoidance, and you reduce the ability to engage in tax avoidance.
Ultimately, what makes an economy strong is a close and accurate flow of information between needs of consumers and the production capabilities of producers. Governments get in the middle and distort the flow of information through through tax cuts, subsidies, and targeted taxes.
If money would naturally flow into the U.S. economy because it’s the most efficient place for it to go, but it doesn’t because the government has added an additional incentive to keep it offshore, then the government has weakened the economy. AND it has reduced its tax revenue by giving large corporations an easy shelter from U.S. corporate tax.
Obama’s idea of reclaiming the revenue from such dodges by increasing tax rates just gives added incentive to engage in the same behavior. In the meantime, small businesses that can’t afford to part their working capital overseas have a competitive disadvantage. Cronyism and corporatism becomes an ever-larger part of the economy as the small guys are crowded out. This is the unintended consequence of liberal policies that aim to achieve the exact opposite result.
The same is true with other Obama plans. Who do you think got all that green economy money? It was the firms who orbit closest around the government. Big Obama donors, companies large enough to hire lobbyists, etc. Rich guys getting taxpayer money not based on how well they can compete in the market, but based on how many palms they can grease and ears they can bend in Washington. The banks had Tim Geithner wrapped around their little fingers, and profited hugely from a problem they helped create.
I wish Democrats would come to realize that at least on this issue, Republicans are correct. The way to get rid of crony capitalism and break the revolving door between Washington and Wall street is to take away the government’s power to muck about with the tax code to play favors for its friends.
Does Romney’s plan sound more palatable if you invert the phrase? Instead of saying he’s going to lower rates and then pay for that by closing loopholes, how about we say he’s going to start sticking it to big business by removing the loopholes they use to avoid paying their fair share of taxes, and then take the money he extracts from them and use it to lower the statutory tax rate, which is borne mostly by small businesses? This will help level the playing field between big and small businesses, which will also then increase income mobility by giving small businesses a fighting chance to knock off the big guys.
Well, if you want to get that specific, I said nothing about “first” debates. I was talking about the ability of incumbent presidents to debate effectively despite having the “hardest” job in the world, which all of the presidents I listed did, chronology of debates notwithstanding.
But your comment brings up an interesting point. Is it your belief that in the follow up debates Obama’s job demands will somehow ease and he will therefore have more time to be better prepared?
Why wouldn’t we? You do see that this is a thread about the first debate too, correct? You’re shocked that’s what we’re talking specifics in a thread and in response to a post about something specific?
The issue is that this is a thread about the first debate and **DoctorJ **proffered a factoid pertaining to past first debates.
Well, I would have assumed that since your argument for Obama’s poor performance is centered on the demands of his job that those same demands would still exist no matter which debate it was. After all, you’re the one who interjected “first debate” into the discussion between the two of us in an effort to discount (surprise, surprise) the effective debating abilities of the two incumbent Republicans I listed. I was speaking in a more general sense regarding the burden of the office upon any president and in any debate.
Having said that I will admit that to having not seen DoctorJ’s post. I merely clicked on the “most recent” arrow when the thread appeared on the front page and worked my way up from the bottom whereupon your post caught my attention. I don’t know that it makes any difference though because once again the difficulties of the office remain regardless of where in the sequence of debates any particular debate falls.
(1) He hasn’t specified how he is going to do the first part. He has just said, “Here’s my plan to cut taxes, which gives huge windfalls to rich people. Oh, but don’t worry, because by some unspecified (and, mathematically impossible way given the constraints) I will close loopholes and eliminate deductions so that it is revenue neutral and the rich pay just as much as they do now.” You may be inclined to believe in unspecified, mathematically-impossible promises but I’m not so much. I am more inclined to believe in the parts of the promise he has very specifically spelled out and that is the part that gives the huge windfalls to the rich.
(2) Your whole analysis is predicated on the ideology of market fundamentalism, i.e., you assume that the market will always do the right thing or at least that government attempts to correct any market deficiencies will always just screw it up more than if government just left it alone. If you premises assume you conclusion, then it is not surprising that your conclusion follows so directly.
I started watching that but couldn’t get through it once I realized where she was going. With such a small sample size and different conditions at the time of each debate, the whole thing seemed pointless. I wanted to say, Rachel, the debate is over, Obama lost, get over it and start talking about the lies of Romney during the debate.