I forgot to add that another big part of the problem is that the Republicans have been trying a throw it against the wall and see if it sticks act for so long that people aren’t sure what we are supposed to be upset about. We thought that in regards to the attacks on the embassies that we were supposed to be upset about the administration sympathizing with the attackers. Of course, that was patently false, just like every other thing that has been thrown against the wall.
Try telling the fucking truth about stuff and then people might listen again. When your argument is refuted by a quick look at a transcript (you know, evidence about what actually happened?) it really makes is hard to want to listen to the rest of your overwrought hysterics.
I hope you’re right, BLD. While early sentiment (by polls and pundits) does acknowledge that Obama did much better this time, there isn’t much talk of a decisive win on TV this morning (not even on MSNBC). I’ll wait a couple of days for 538’s take on the debate’s effects, though, before I get too worried.
On immigration – I was hoping that Obama would say something like this:
"When I assumed office four years ago, I quickly found that the Reoublicans in Congress (whether majority or not) would vehemently oppose every damned thing I tried to do, even things they had previously supported.
So, I knew that my political capital was limited. I could only successfully tackle One Big Thing in my first four years. The Second Big Thing would have to wait until my second term – again, because of asinine Republican congressional recalcitrance.
Two of the Biggest Things facing us for a long time have been problems in our jerry-rigged health care insurance system, and the mismatch between immigration law and reality.
I made the tough decision to try and tackle the former problem first, mainly because it effects more people more directly (including many immigrants, legal and illegal). But I look forward to tackling immigration reform in the next four years. I laid the groundwork for establishing a rapport with Republicans, by enforcing existing border patrol laws more vigorously than any president. Very soon, it will be time for them to pay me back, by supporting a full Dream Act. And then, it’s on to comprehensive reform."
Also, I think Romney admitted that he’s going to lower taxes on top-income earners. His exact words were that the top 5% pay 60% of the income taxes, and that won’t change under his tax plan. But if everybody else got a tax cut while those top 5% paid the same amount, their share would end up being somewhat more than 60%. So to keep them at 60% he’ll have to cut their taxes too.
Republicans are pushing this issue because they think it gives them advantage. They have no qualms about selling us out at home or abroad because they really only care about winning. That’s all. Winning, so the rich can get richer.
Where’s my cite? Dick Cheney and his outing of Valerie Plame is my cite.
Fuck Dick Cheney and fuck the Republicans and their narrow, self serving plutocrat agenda.
Thanks for reminding me that Republican party of Bush the elder, the party I voted for and supported with no small enthusiasm, is gone, and not coming back.
Energizing respective bases. Obama big score. Wind had been taken out of sails with his last debate performance; this gets his base revved again. This scores big with demographics he needs to come out, women interested in “women’s issues,” Hispanic voters, youth … Romney may maintain his last debate gains among his base but I doubt it. A big reminder of not being able to know what he really thinks. It’s a big loss of Mo for him. And just as his wind from the last debate was already dying down.
Undecideds. 538 states the instapolls are demonstrating only a slight Obama nod there. Surprising to me having heard it myself but I have partisan ears. Still at this point even a slight win with them, even just demonstrating this Obama instead of that last one, the next few days of fact checking and advertising Romney’s untruths, are highly significant.
For an exploration of this idea, read Dean Ing’s Soft Targets. It involves a conspiracy to mock terrorists in the media rather than trumpet them. Not a bad read.
Romney talks about a “scholarship program” for Massachusetts? Students who pass an academic standard are entitled to education at a state university? Sounds marvy and progressive as all git out. Which causes me to wonder, that was his idea? He led the effort, moved it through? Or is he glomming on to the credit? Like he did for the whole “inclusion of women” thing?
And as pleased as I was to hear the Mr Romney is a man of deep faith, I was struck by the line about serving as a missionary, and then as a “pastor”? Mormons have “pastors”? I know for a fact Methodists do, also Lutherans, any number of Protestant denominations do. But Mormons? Is that an effort to make Mormons more “normal”?
I listened to the debate last night with half an ear (can’t tolerate too much politician blather, it’s bad for my health) while reading this thread. Did I hear this right? Did Romney say this as per the LA Times?
Was there some context I missed that would have made this statement less absurd? Is there some reason I shouldn’t have snorted my tea out of my nose?
Whereas the Republicans would prefer a moderator who simply lets Romney do whatever he wants, including lie at will?
You are aware that Candy Crowley is a journalist, who was actually present when Obama made his comment in the rose garden about the attack in Libya:
“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation”
She was THERE. That’s why she knew Romney was lying. She was present, and remembered exactly what Obama said. Good for her that she would not let an obvious lie pass by unmentioned. And the audience was pleased that a moderator would call a candidate on an obvious lie.
Since this was around the time the equal pay stuff was brought up in the debate (and I thought the question was about equal pay?)… honestly, I took it that he wanted to hire more women so he could reduce the payroll expenses of his administration.
Yes, it is. It reminds me of the Republican who shouted out “You lie!” at Obama during a speech. It steals the moment, and most of the talk afterwards will be about that, not the substance of the debate.
The two candidates were debating an issue and the moderator entered the fray to take one of their sides. This would be outrageous even if she was right. But to make matters worse, she was factually incorrect.
He said people with incomes of under $200,000 would no longer pay taxes on any of those things. I’m not sure whether that’s worthy of tea-snorting, except to the extent that most people’s savings are tax-exempt already.
To me, the debate was a tie, and I was pleased to see Obama getting it on with Romney. He was more effective and gave as good as he got. (Where was this Obama the first time?)
I think, however, that what Candy Crowley did, marred the debate for Obama. I think Candy Crowley should resign. To actually lie for a candidate during the debate is absolutely outrageous. To be caught doing it and not even attempt to apologize is just unprofessional.