Regression to the mean: Obama did better, Romney did worse.
Obama managed to shift the focus of the Benghazi terrorist attack to Romney's "politicization" of it, and Romney, being a good neocon, failed to mention the little matter of the Obama administration supporting the Libyan rebels in 2011. That's ancient history after all.
You'll have to forgive me. My attention was focused on laughing uproariously over some of Roissy's archives. Goddamn that man can turn a sentence and spin a hamster.
The debate is going to come down to the perception of "who do you think is lying more?" I suspect partisans of both sides think the other guy is, and hence theirs is winning.
They're both quite weak on the issue of taxes and spending.
In spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
What's needed is a combination of tax increases and entitlement cuts. About one third the former and two-thirds the latter. Nobody can get elected telling the American people that though.
Obama: I'd give him an A-. He was strong, but in large part because of the questions from Crowley, which were amazing.
Romney: Maybe a solid B. He was effective at his talking points, but he messed up a few times. He has this tic that he needs to go up to people and ask them personal questions(or in the Republican primaries, ask Rick Perry for a $10,000 dollar bet). If the other guy doesn't take you seriously, which neither Perry nor Obama did, you end up looking like a fool. And Romney had that moment, twice. First on pensions and later on Libya/Benghazi.
Crowley. The questions were, as I noted, amazing. It was DNC talking points through and through.
My favourite one for the night: "Governor, how can you prove to us that you're not like George W. Bush?".
Why not ask Obama how he can "prove" that he isn't Jimmy Carter?
There were many instances where she refused Romney a response, or interrupted him(twice!). Obama, on the other hand, was given the free reign.
This in part meant that Obama had a much better performance. Obama was better for the night, but only marginally so.
But Obama got questions disguised as Democratic talking points, which meant that he played on home turf the entire night. Romney was constantly asked to "prove" that he isn't XYZ.
Still, Romney managed to keep his temper in a very impressive way. He didn't even get irritated but at one point he ignored Crowley's(the moderator) "correction"/interruption and went ahead with his own answer.
Bottom line:
Obama won this hands down, if the environment/questions/moderator had been neutral, he would still have won it, but it would have been much more marginal. Now, it was a clearer win. Not a landslide like Romney got the first time, but significant nonetheless.
Crowley, on the other hand, emerged as a lousy moderator. Of course, the Romney campaign have nothing to gain on harping on that fact, even if it is true. Which the Obama people know and why they're now flooding the spin zone(which I can see from journos on Twitter).
So with Obama's marginally better performance(in raw terms), his far more favourable environment/questions plus the inevitable media narrative of the necessary "comeback" already baked in, Obama won this one hands down.
But don't expect the MSM to throw themselves at the throat of Crowley, like they did against Lehrer.
If Romney loses the election, the Obama folks can thank Crowley.
The usual matchof dueling platitudes, masking the real agendas of the two parties which are set by their respective pay masters.
The questions are posed by undecided voters. If you aren't decided by now - for Obama, for Romney, or against both - you aren't undecided; you're stupid. They should be referred to as the "stupid voter" demographic. That they are key to deciding the final outcome of the election speaks volumes about this nation.
I got the impression they were both lying. Obama seemed better prepared than last time and Romney worse. Neither said anything of substance. I lost interest and surfed the net.
The moderator outright contradicting Romney was stunning. I've never, ever seen something like that in a debate. I looked up the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech and it obliquely referenced terror, but also obliquely referenced denigrating religions, and the fact remains that for quite a while the White House claimed that the attacks were spontaneous. For the moderator to outright contradict what a speaker says is just incredible and glaringly obviously partisan
Moderator Crowley was wrong. Obama did NOT call it terrorism the day after in the Rose Garden. And called it a demonstration several days after that at the UN and on Letterman. But then, CNN/Crowley worship Obama as a God. So they'll throw themselves on grenades for him.
Re Libya, the time frame was too short for a takedown on Obama's policy.
Obama thumped him. It was more than a solid victory.Romney came off weakly under almost all of Obama's attacks, which were incessant. We'll see how this affects the polls. Guess debate 3 is the rubber match.
More tiptoeing around foreign affairs, except for the obligatory gotcha moment on Libya, from both candidate. More invade the world, invite the world, no matter who wins.
"Moderator Crowley was wrong. Obama did NOT call it terrorism the day after in the Rose Garden."
I don't remember what Obama said on that day, but we have a great fact checker here. If Whiskey says something didn't happen, then it really must have.
Obama was extremely aggressive and Romney was even more aggressive than last time. I got the feeling that Obama was told to not, at any cost, let Romney dominate him. Imagine two male deer locking horns and neither lets up. That was this debate.
The early segment on energy, of all things, led to the most fireworks, and the thus the most outtakes for news coverage.
I felt sympathy and a little sadness for Obama toward the end. Throughout Obama did what he had to do and what he was supposed to do, it wasn't his "performance" that made me empathetic. Mitt was such a good prosecutor and there was over an hour of hammering. I thought there was only so much Obama could say given the last four years; it was an unbearable handicap. I then noticed Obama's hands were slightly trembling and his face was showing weariness as if he felt it, too. I think this was during the second to last question and was unlike how he had been throughout. He perked up again during the last question.
Obama's biggest misstep can only be blamed on his prep team: he trotted out an attack on Mitt and China investments oblivious that it was the very same one that led to Newt's demise during the primary. Romney embarrassed Obama with the exact same gotcha that he served up to Newt.
As other have noted above, the questions were pure Democratic talking points. Another thing that I guess I'm not supposed to notice is that so many of the eleven allegedly undecided questioners (mayber half) appeared to be "Scots-Irish." I didn't realize they were such a large proportion of the US population.
Obama, again, only mentioned the WHITE side of his family. Where's his loyalty? Is he ashamed of his heritage? How can such a racial slight go unnoticed? Where is NPR, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio and $PLC? Is he a BINO?
Is the Obama campaign that desperate that they are spamming Steve Sailer's blog?
Romney had to beat both Obama and Crowley tonight. And he did, easily. He took Obama's train wreck of a record for 4 years apart. Obama just spouted the usual Democrat BS. One thing I noticed was the disproportionate number of Jewish questioners. Big surprise there!
I watched it at a sports bar, not in my momma's basement like the other commenters. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Romney/anti-Obama. I was glad to hear that Romney said no to amnesty. At least immigration was mentioned tonight. The election is going to be a landslide Romney win. Not as big as Reagan's because Romney won't win Cali. But almost.
As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
Also, Obama should have been hammered for his "some jobs aren't coming back because they are low skill" comment. I guess this doofus must not be in touch with the left side of the Bell Curve which he is making increasingly lopsided through his immigration non-enforcement policies. For Mexican immigrant kiddies to participate in our economy they are going to need one of those despised low skill jobs since obviously they aren't going to be programming computers.
Yeah, I knew all the lefty trolls would be out in force around the web pushing the "Obama won!" meme. That was obvious long before the debate ever started.
"Just keep it close, Barry, and we'll drag your carcass across the finish line!"
(I posted this accidentally to the "Judge Richard Posner.." post so re-posting)
From the LA Times:
"The Gallup polling organization will gather the questioners from a pool who say they have not picked either Romney or Obama. The voters will submit their questions, and Crowley will then help pick the 15 or so who will have a chance to ask their question, live, before a national television audience expected to number 60 million or more."
...so Crowley, an Obama supporter, was given sole discretion in winnowing 80 submitted questions down to about 15 to be asked. Does anyone actually seriously entertain the idea that this was a fair fight? Why Reince Priebus didn't cry foul to the debate committee days before the debate about this is a mystery to me.
Romney fought with one hand tied behind his back, or more accurately, Obama was fighting with a 3rd arm. Crowley even had a response herself prepared for Romney's highly anticipated attack on the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Romney had literally turned his back towards Crowley to deliver the attack to Obama sitting behind him when Crowley attacked his statement on Benghazi from the front.
Romney trounced BO on the economy and I heard his whistle on immigration.
Romney was in a hostile atmosphere and he fought off a lot of hostile questions and a hostile moderator.
Neocons are just upset that Romney didn't slam him hard enough on Libya, but Romney had better be careful, because if he wins, and his foreign policy continues on to where it appears to be heading, he'll have a couple of Libyas too.
>>>As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find.
"As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians."
We can only hope that Romney said that to temper his immigration stance, but we can't really know. But with Obama, unfettered in a second term, you can be fairly certain that Non-NAMs will have slimmer pickings when it comes to "fall-back jobs", especially government ones. I hope you find something.
Republicans aren't allowed to complain about unfairness or bias. If they do, it's unfailingly portrayed as whining. That's just part of being the grown-up party. Kids are allowed to say, "That's not fair!"; adults aren't.
Romney surely did fine for the first hour or more. But the Libya confrontation was fraught, with Crowley's disturbing interjection and the eruption of applause a staggering challenge for Romney's image, if not his argument. Mitt sounded frazzled afterward. Pitching criminal insinuations around Benghazi and F&F, however plausible the latter is and the former begins to seem, is a very hard needle to thread in any circumstances, and I think team Romney shouldn't have tried to go there except by the most plausibly-deniable means.
Obama and Crowley are quibbling over the slenderest of technicalities, but that smokeblowing "acts of terrorism" comment on Sept 12th might play well on Brian Williams.
Then again, the PBScommentariat completely ignored the terrorism standoff. But boy, did they embrace Kaus' prophesied MSM turnaround narrative for Obama. Brooks, Shields, and all were feeling the tingles; even if Brooks did note a "coldness" in Obama. But then, I suspect that's how he likes all his loverboys.
George Will supposedly called this the best Presidential Debate ever. It looks to me like Biden's set us on a downward trajectory to mud wrestling.
-I thought I heard a dog whistle on immigration too.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find.
Sorry, but that's just bullshit. There's some truth to it when you're talking about small, lean companies who are doing new things and releasing quickly. If you're trying to create the next Twitter, you do need the smartest coders you can find (though you also want ones who can understand each other).
But the "major tech companies" like Microsoft and IBM, which are running code factories and customer service centers and beating the drums the loudest for more H1-Bs, simply want the cheapest barely-qualified drones possible, period, the end. They're no different from factory farms pushing for more Mexican guest workers, except that the profits they stand to gain from hiring foreigners over Americans is proportionally higher, because an American coder costs more than an American fruit picker.
Obama straight up lied on Libya and immigration. It would have been nice if Romney called him on it, but he's an immigrationist too and he seemed to be caught unprepared by the Libya lie.
"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find."
Not really. A lot of the immigrants coming from those places are not geniuses, but they're willing to work for longer hours and for less. View it as the Tech Industry's answer to the Mexican farmers vs American farmers.
Second, ethnocentrism isn't exactly one-sided. You know why the biggest startups are almost all controlled by white men? Over 80% of VCs in the valley are white men.
People fund and recruit people who look like them. This is true of whites as well as true of Chinese and Indians who, indeed, do have a lot of people in HR departments these days in the valley.
Still, I agree with your more broader point about meritocracy, but that is only applicable at the highest end of the spectrum. For the middle spectrum there isn't much difference and boils down to ethnocentric hiring as well as how cheap you're willing to work for. I know guys who have hired Indians to work for half or sometimes less than half the pay they'd have to give to an American. Even if those people would be 10% or even 20% less effective , it is still a net win for them.
Whites dont usually see their own ethnocentrism, especially liberal whites. It helps them, but Asians also recruit their own. Its human nature. The whole "meritocratic" thing is a common myth. It has a grain of truth to it, at the top of the spectrum, but most people are in the middle and the stuff that decides if you get employment there is far more arbitrary, such as ethnocentric hiring, immigration levels, how cheap the other guys are willing to work for etc etc.
It was appalling of Romney to propose "stapling a green card" to engineering degrees of foreign students. I can already see a whole new scam industry sprouting in India. By the way, how come the purported Indian geniuses didn't get any Nobels this year? The Americans who got it were all local born and white. Contrary to what we are told repeatedly about how the Indians and Chinese are getting ahead in STEM.
A week or so back, PBS's 'Frontline' aired its two-hour election program, "The Choice."
Hate to break it to you, dear Sailermates, but in this election there is no "choice," as whichever one of those two debater suits wins the election, he's going to lavish yet more borrowed trillions on his cronies and public sector employees and do nothing to stop (let alone to reverse) immigration, thus assuring, if not accelerating, our country's continued decline.
Remember, after us there will be no United States worthwhile for anyone to escape to. That, my dear Sailermates, is the horror. It was quite pleasant while lasted though, wasn't it?
Obama claimed that Intel was founded by immigrants. I don't think this is true. Most likely he was referring to Andy Grove who immigrated to the US from Hungary around 1956. I don't think Grove was a co-founder of Intel. Native-born Americans Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce co-founded Intel Corp.
"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find. "
Gee, I must have suffered an IQ lowering stroke in my sleep because I worked successfully in the industry for 25 years, had 18 patents, and a well above median salary. I'm sure it must have been in a fit of absentmindedness that they forgot to lay me off decades sooner.
I thought Obama narrowly won, but mostly because he got help from the moderator fact checking Romney's error (and yes it was Romney who was in error) and because he got the last the word and used it to throw the 47% gaffe in Romney's face again.
But Romney dominated on the economy and overall came across as more fluid, knowledgeable and intelligent.
Both men were obnoxiously aggressive however I think this hurt Obama more because he was dragged down to the level of a mere challenger to the throne, and because Obama's most attractive traits (cool headed calmness under pressure, maturity and likability) went out the window.
Where Romeny blows it is he's a puppet for the neocons and complains about stupid things that are irrelevant to most Americans, such as Obama not using the word "terror" often enough, when he should just hammer home his strength which is creating jobs.
Very late comment here. Just got home after a very long work day during which I watched a large part of the debate (streamed at ace.mu.nu) while I ate dinner and re-imaged a roomful of computers. I was surprised at how good Romney was, for instance in the question about energy. The questions themselves truly appeared to be largely Democratic talking points, Romney's ability to debate Obama and the linebacker-sized moderator at the same time was impressive. (Comment under the vidstream at Ace: "It was a spirited debate but no one mentioned the elephant in the room."
I thought he was good on the question about how he differed from George W. Bush. On the immigration question, asked sure enough by a woman Hispanic, Romney several times used the wording "people who came here illegally" which probably means he wants to avoid describing a person as illegal. Overall I was surprised how strongly anti-illegal-immigration his answer was; there was a clear contrast there with Obama.
The Libya exchange was strange. The moderator went way over the line trying to help Obama, and while she did succeed on the spot by interrupting Romney, you have to wonder about the obvious question raised (to wit, if Obama said right away that it was a terror attack then why did his people spin the YouTube-video-angering-the-Muslim-masses story for the next two weeks?).
Romney also finished remarkably strongly for a guy who is 65 years old. He's probably benefited rom a tough series of debates in the Republian primary -- in fact, didn't Newt Gingrich ask him a question about personally profiting from investments in China? He was certainly ready for that one, which brings up one more thing. I had a strong feeling after seeing about ten minutes that Obama knew the questions beforehand and had prepped set-piece answers. He was accordingly much better than in the first debate, but still not that great, and oh man is he narcissistic -- so many of his perorations are about me me me.
So, overall I have to give Romney the edge. Not a blowout, not a KO, but a definite edge. It also was in fact probably one of the better presidential debates I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. it also had possibly the worst moderator.
"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far."
People have a romanticised notion of the tech industry. For every Pepsi-fuelled genius cutting code at 3 am, there are ten people in the IT supply chain who basically sit in meetings or attend to emails all day.
Semi-Employed White Guy:One thing I noticed was the disproportionate number of Scots-Irish questioners.
Yeah, it's weird how an ostensibly mathematically-oriented company, like Gallup, could choose random towns throughout the United States, open the towns' phone books to random pages, and then throw darts randomly at names on those pages, but continually hit on zip codes directly across the street from Loch Central Park, Manhattan [or up the road, in Loch Scarsdale].
You know, it's kinda like how that moderator chick in the previous debate just randomly happened to have had a young Barry Soetoro Dunham as a guest at her Scots-Irish wedding.
Really bizarre, extremely low-probability patterns that just keep doggedly arising everywhere you look.
Richard A:Most likely he was referring to Andy Grove who immigrated to the US from Hungary around 1956. I don't think Grove was a co-founder of Intel. Native-born Americans Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce co-founded Intel Corp.
Neither Moore nor Noyce were Scots-Irish, so from the point of view of The Narrative, they were mere Kulaks.
People have a romanticised notion of the tech industry. For every Pepsi-fuelled genius cutting code at 3 am, there are ten people in the IT supply chain who basically sit in meetings or attend to emails all day.
Ha ha! So true. You forgot another one though. The people who spend their days back-stabbing, ass kissing their higher-ups, trashing their co-workers to get ahead and engaging in spineless obeisances to whoever happens to be the Company Godhead. At Microsoft, this of course was Bill Gates. I suppose now they try to make it Ballmer, but he's so transparently failed, incompetent and full of shit (he's the Tech Obama) that nobody takes him seriously.
At small orgs talent can truly pay. But in big companies it's all about empire building and openly sacrificing everyone you can on the altar of your ladder climbing (because this is seen as "aggressive" and "passionate" by management). And if you are Indian or Chinese, hitting management is basically your green light to hollow out the whites in your org and replace them, every one of them, with your ethnic cohorts. This happens 100% of the time.
Sleeping on it, here are a couple more observations:
*I believe L. Linda is largely correct about the behavior.
*Romney skated right up and a bit into Joe Biden territory by losing his cool and getting "hot" at times. Biden lost the last debate amongst women to "nice boy" Ryan because of this. Whiskey was right when he said men mistakenly believe "hot" is attractive to women. It isn't.
It was evident when Romney wasn't content to tell us what Obama did wrong, but wanted to humiliate him by asking Obama questions. Romney in the first debate was nothing like this, but I have seen this side before. At the convention when they chose to defeat Ron Paul ungraciously rather than graciously. Also, during the primary, Rick Santorum got under everyone's skin bringing out the worst in Mitt and Ron Paul. There was one moment when Mitt snapped, midsentence, and angrily pointed out that Santorum was just standing there shaking his head while Mitt was talking.
The effect was that he tattooed the past four years onto Obama and made him look like a loser, and, yet, one felt kind of sad for Obama. I'm not surprised at the polls that show a slight edge to Obama, but Romney winning on issues. Joe Biden was in another universe, so I don't want to make more of it than it was. Biden was a complete turn-off, Mitt broke even.
Romney trounced BO on the economy and I heard his whistle on immigration."
I heard that whistle too, and it was clearly directed at mexicans (or rather at the National Chamber of Commerce). Romney promised to create a "path to citizenship" for the children of illegals. If they are on such a path, then they are here. If they are here, then their parents are here too. And in any event, once they become citizens, their parents can stay here via family reunification. He also repeated that bit about stapling a green-card on the diplomas of foreign students. Romney's stated line on immigration, as well as his implied, actual line, is - as far as I can tell - absolutely no different than that G.W. Bush or John McCain.
And of course, Obama did nothing except effuse at our supposed history as a "nation of immigrants", even to the point of lying about the ethnicity of the founders of Intel, apparently.
Why is it that immigration policy is only ever discussed in terms of what's good for foreigners, not what's good for Americans?
Cail Corishev said... Republicans aren't allowed to complain about unfairness or bias. If they do, it's unfailingly portrayed as whining. That's just part of being the grown-up party. Kids are allowed to say, "That's not fair!"; adults aren't.
When kids do it, it's whining. When adults do it, it's treason.
I was captain of my college debate team. We would go to some campus. Debate the other school's team and that was it. We won or we lost.
If you think of these debates that way you might think Biden won the vice presidential one or that Obama won the second presidential one. But that's hardly the issue.
The Republicans have had to fight off the media from the beginning. They haven't been able to have their candidates seen or their issues discussed. But Romney got to finally mention that he was a missonary - driving a stake in his Democrat promoted image of a mony grubbing Daddy Warbucks. And Ryan got to appear to be safe, sane, and trustworthy candidate especially next to 'wild man' Biden.
The pundits criticize Romney for not driving home the points about the oil leases and Obama's claims about Libya. That may be a good thing. Those issues were left hanging in the air. That would be fatal in a college debate but here it may prove to be an advantage.
The oil leases cutback issue, which Obama denied, may peak the interest of the public. They are like the issues that the professor leaves for the students to examine on their own. If and when the public looks into this bit of arcanery, they will find that Obama has consistently tried to stamp out conventional domestic energy production. Hear it in debate and you're sceptical. Look it up yourself and youre convinced.
The same is even more true about the Libyan attacks. Romney didn't try to hammer home his advantage in the debate. He said, "I just want to get that on the record".
This is called losing the point but winning the election. It's now on the record and on the agenda for all the media. The Democrats could have only won on this point if they had kept it buried.
That debate was a true dissappointment, kind of like when the Duke frat boys ordered a Becky from the escort service to paw all over, harass and demean, and saw that they got Sheniqua instead. Yuk-yuk.
Anyway; that was one of the most boring 2 hour periods I've ever spent watching TV. My observations; Barry did about 7% better than the first time, not because he said anything different, more because he did a so-so job of at least feigning energy this time. Mitt did about 20% worse, not because he said or did anything different, but because, well, he's Mittens, and the more you watch him the less you like him.
I heard Mitt give practically ZERO new information this time. That's a helluva accomplishment when you consider he was talking for an hour; "we'll cut taxes, increase the military budget, cut government aid, and close loopholes, but you're too dumb to know which aid, and which loopholes so don't worry about it."
"We're cutting taxes, and we will gaurantee that the billionaires will open factories in Joplin, Mo instead of Beijing with the money."
"I governed a state and made lots of money so elect me president, and besides, the other guy sucks, and I'm not taking any more oil from Aye-Rabs"
If you Missed the both debates, that pretty much encapsulates 2 hours of Mitt.
Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. I don't know if this Barry would have beaten Juan Pablo McCain, but he will beat Mittler next month.
Obama was pointed, but I don't think he was rude. Crowley, the moderator, was rude to Romney, repeatedly. She was the most partisan moderator I think in modern history. Breitbart, I think, had a good rundown.
The thing is, I don't have that much sympathy for dismissing the effects of the moderator. For example, saying Obama only got the better of Romney at a point only because of the assist by the moderator.
Romney had choices here. He made the choice to be there and with Candy Crowley. It takes a spine to stand up to the inertia of tradition, but it can and should be done, especially when one already knows it presents a major handicap!
Getting angry and pointing to it after the fact can help undo some of the damage, but damage was still done.
"Remember, after us there will be no United States worthwhile for anyone to escape to. That, my dear Sailermates, is the horror. It was quite pleasant while lasted though, wasn't it?"
Actually it's become increasing unpleasant for the last half century or so.
I think the real horror is that we did it to ourselves.
In spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
But he's not even calling for that, Obama wants to *continue* the Bush tax cuts for those under $250K and only end them for people over $250K. So those over $250K would return to Clinton era tax rates (already fairly low) and everyone else stays the same.
Basically, the stated Obama plan is to do a little about the deficit but not enough to really cut it, and the Romney plan is to actually make it worse by cutting taxes for the rich and increasing defense spending. The saving grace is that neither is actually going to execute their plan.
I think 0bama knows he's an empty suit. It's part of why daddy Romney pwned him in the first debate, it's why he said "when I was president," etc. He knows he's an empty suit, and he isn't particularly thrilled at the prospect of another 4 years treading water while the billion he's going to make on the lecture circuit awaits. He's ready to pack it in and enjoy the fruits of his labors.
Several times it looked as though they were going to get physical. The body language and look of utter disgust and hate in Obama's eyes and Romney's refusal to back down but instead stand ready was priceless. Obama may have initially still felt "fabulous" http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-obama-preview-20121016,0,6370776.story but soon enough Romney's truths knocked that feeling out of the "first gay president". Obama evidently does only like older white men to be on their knees in front of him, not in his face calling him out on his lies. His beard, scary-wifey, clapping for him and Candy Crapini, rag-hag, couldn't come close to saving Obama from the Economy and Bengazi truths either. I like Ron Paul, but Romney will do as long as Obama is out.
""If the tea party is still voting for this immigrant loving, non tax cutting, birth control loving protectionist they only care about winning"
-- Bill Maher tweet about Romney"
Better than a anti-white discriminating, wealth confiscating, late term abortionist. Bill Maher is never funny." - Don't know why he put protectionism in there, tea party voters favor that fairly heavily.
When Crowley tried to make her opponent eat crow over the Libya atrocity, the applause came from the First Lady & entourage. Energizing the base, indeed.
Intrade still has Obama at 65.5 and Romney at 34.5, so maybe they know something we don't.
If you think of these debates that way you might think Biden won the vice presidential one or that Obama won the second presidential one. But that's hardly the issue.
The Republicans have had to fight off the media from the beginning. They haven't been able to have their candidates seen or their issues discussed. But Romney got to finally mention that he was a missonary - driving a stake in his Democrat promoted image of a mony grubbing Daddy Warbucks. And Ryan got to appear to be safe, sane, and trustworthy candidate especially next to 'wild man' Biden.
Yeah, I see an awful lot of incorrect framing, as you point out. Mitt has won every single debate handily, because before this a lot of people kinda thought he was a rich creep. He came out and floored them all because of their low expectations. Hence the 12 point swing among women overnight.
Seems like a lot of swing voters were tired of 0bama, but had decided they didn't like or trust Mitt before they'd had a chance to really listen to him.
Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
I saw this same thing in grad school in engineering. Chinese professor, all Chinese grad students. Korean professor, all Korean grad students. Indian professor, all Indian grad students...
I saw this same thing in grad school in engineering. Chinese professor, all Chinese grad students. Korean professor, all Korean grad students. Indian professor, all Indian grad students..
White professor, a Vibrant Rainbow of grad students.
"At small orgs talent can truly pay. But in big companies it's all about empire building and openly sacrificing everyone you can on the altar of your ladder climbing (because this is seen as "aggressive" and "passionate" by management)."
If you think of the colossal amount of energy wasted on internal politicking, you might wonder why more companies don't eliminate it by promoting people at random within certain constraints (e.g., senior accountant opening gets filled at random from the pool of accountants who've been in their current position a minimum of 4 years). It may sound crazy, but this could work provided you fire unqualified workers well before they are eligible for promotions.
The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions.
Romney really got into Obama's face a couple times: over the oil issue and the outsourcing to China issue. He was aggressive and disrespectful and even looked like he was ready for a fist fight!
That may have gone down well with beer guzzling bubbas in bars across America, especially in the South, but probably not with the majority of Americans. I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him. Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House, a less itchier finger on the trigger...
"The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions."
Also the place where whites are least insulated from blacks.
Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. I don't know if this Barry would have beaten Juan Pablo McCain, but he will beat Mittler next month.
"Mittler"? Nice, and just what I'd expect from you.
But you're dreaming. This is Romney's election to lose. He can pretty much coast to victory unless something really embarrassing comes out.
Hey, give him a break, man! He's from Maui for Pete's sake! He's put in his time workin for the man and now it's time to chill out and relax and play lots of golf.
"The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions."
95% of the least-educated, worst-off demographic group is going to vote for Obama.
That is a strong poll for Romney, considering that the margin of error on it was only 2%. But there's a risk Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote since Obama's still holding onto a lead in some key swing states.
That may have gone down well with beer guzzling bubbas in bars across America, especially in the South, but probably not with the majority of Americans. I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him. Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House, a less itchier finger on the trigger...
That is some classic paid-trolling there, Spanky! Targeted right at the heart of coastal SWPLs.
"beer guzzling bubbas" --- ooooh, associating Romney with white proles!
"especially in the South" -- always an acceptable whipping boy. Hater.
"but probably not with the majority of Americans" -- status whoring! we betta dan you!
"I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him." -- Oh you think that, do you? And he was a "bully," was he? A bully to the most arrogant, imperial little Princeling to ever befoul the White House? Nuh huh.
"Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House" -- Bwwwaaahhh ha ha! Yes, Obama is the King of Kool(s), we know that much. Seriously, if what you want in a President is level-headedness, you probably can't find ten guys in all of America better than Romney. Epic troll fail. Tell Axelrod to change the script, this one isn't working.
"a less itchier finger on the trigger' -- Oh, such giggles I gots! So President Drone Kill Lists doesn't have an "itchy finger"? While he sits there killing people and stroking his man-love?
So tell us, Anonymous, what do you get paid for being an ephebe Obama troll? More than you'd make in the real world, I expect that much at least.
You're a pathetic joke. Try to sell that cheap beer somewhere else. This crowd ain't buying.
I think it is telling that Romney is losing Massachusetts, the state of which he was the Governor, by a huge landslide.
On the other hand Obama is winning by huge landslides the states of Hawaii, where he was born and raised, and Illinois where he settled...
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)
"Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy."
No, four years ago he looked like a somewhat younger, humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. You were projecting the firebrand stuff. Don't feel bad, so were millions of other voters. Recovery is possible.
More to the point, white professor, more or less meritocratic selection of grad students, vs much more ethnocentric selection for most other professors.
Mr Anon:
Is there likely to be any difference in practice between Romney and Obama on immigration? I have not seen any evidence that there will be.
The election is decided by electoral votes, which means that it matters a great deal where Romney's support is to determine whether he wins or not.
Today's 538 shows an electoral vote map, based on polling data that is combined together in some way he explains on his website. One interesting bit from this is that, in his simulations, the electoral college going to the loser of the popular vote shows up as having about a 7% chance of happening.
"Anonymous said... I think it is telling that Romney is losing Massachusetts, the state of which he was the Governor, by a huge landslide.
On the other hand Obama is winning "by huge landslides the states of Hawaii, where he was born and raised, and Illinois where he settled...
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)"
You must be an Obot in lala land. I know people in New England. There is no Obama surge in New England. Quite the contrary. I must admit it's a mystery to me why anybody would want Obama. Though I can understand why blacks would. And browns. He's a thin brown man. Other than that--what? No brains--what's he written or said besides those memoires written by Bill Ayres. What's his presidential record? What's his "racial healing" record. What's his record on helping businesses--the backbone of the economy. Full of encouragement--"you didn't build that."
No. It just doesn't make sense. I do live in the land of delusional Obots--a certain county outside DC. It can only be because a lot of people depend on a certain administration being in office. It can't be because Obamam means anything positive personally to them. It just can't. But maybe they put something in the water...
The fact that the supposedly evangelical South is so overwhelmingly for the Mormon Romney shows that their religious fundamentalism is superficial.
Not really, no. It just shows that Democrats don't really understand religious people in general and evangelicals in particular. Did you really think they would prefer someone who marinated in Reverend Wright's God-damn-America church over a Mormon? Well, maybe you did.
"You were projecting the firebrand stuff. Don't feel bad, so were millions of other voters"
That the USA actually elected an Affirmative Action President still astonishes me.
Sure -- I can understand it, as the inevitable result of decades of socialization and conditioning (allowed for by the racial naivete of most American-Whites and propped up by Hollywood), but it all the same feels like we crossed into a parallel universe in 2008.
Romney winning popular and losing electoral is my favorite outcome. Let's have a circus.
As for the debate, it was a wash. But my sense is that Obama didn't help himself with undecideds, so no matter how many liberal homos writing for Atlantic get excited, it doesn't help him.
I'm a female, and I was surprised to hear so many female commentators discussing their unease and displeasure at the aggressiveness of the debate. It didn't bother me at all. Romney and Obama could've piled a bunch of desks and chairs on the stage, crouched behind them, pulled out handguns and shot at one another for two hours, and I still would've been fine. In fact, it would have made much more interesting viewing.
Why is it that immigration policy is only ever discussed in terms of what's good for foreigners, not what's good for Americans?
Mr. Anon, while watching that part of the debate, I was thinking exactly the same thing.
"Is there likely to be any difference in practice between Romney and Obama on immigration? I have not seen any evidence that there will be."
Romney may think it would be economically advantageous to bring in immigrants to do certain kinds of work, and I'm sure he believes the standard trope that every American child is taught in school about "a nation of immigrants." He'll never be anti-immigration and get gung-ho about building walls and throwing people out. But his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society.
Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country. He doesn't particularly care whether we need them -- in fact, the ones we don't need are better in his book. They'll all vote for him, so they're all good in his eyes. And the less productive and less likely to assimilate they are, the better.
There's the difference in a nutshell. Hope it helps.
To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America.
But his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society. Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country.
Just for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates.
And it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up.
But his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society. Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country.
Just for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates.
And it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up.
Seems to me, you're projecting your assumptions about what the two men believe and want onto them to explain their actions. I rather suspect that what Romney and Obama believe in their hearts is impossible for me to find out. I mean, their wives and close friends probably have some ideas about that, but just watching the professionally produced and spun image of the two men probably tells us very little.
I've watched exactly the same process on left-wing blogs, where Obama's war on terror excesses (basically Bush with less torture and more murder) gets endless excuses based on some imagined mental state and set of facts for Obama, whereas even the most sensible and sane policy proposal of Romney gets mapped onto a plan to screw over women, blacks, gays, and the poor as part of this evil rich guy's Koch-enabled diabolical plot.
Now, maybe that's all true. Maybe Romney can't wait to get power so he can really stick it to the poor, and can wreck government in pursuit of a small-government ideology. Perhaps Obama sits around thinking up new ways to stick it to whitey in his spare time, and greatly hopes he can put blacks on top and whites on bottom in his next four years. But what seems a lot more consistent with what we can observe, in both mens' experience so far actually governing, looks more like neither man is especially ideological, but both are willing to espouse whatever ideology they think will get them elected. Romney was a liberal Republican as a governor, who became a conservative Republican for the primaries, and is now trying to play moderate Republican for the general election. Obama ran as much more liberal and antiwar than he's governed as.
My best guess is that neither man really has many strong beliefs they won't betray. If tomorrow, it turns out that being in favor of gun control will benefit Romney, or opposing it will benefit Obama, do you have the slightest doubt that both men will change positions overnight?
To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America.
How did Nate Silvers's projections pan out in the 2010 elections? (He asked rhetorically)
All the models assuming a close race are still assuming that Democrats will turn out in historically high numbers, even those there is absolutely no reason to think that's going to happen and plenty of reasons to think it won't.
All the models assuming a close race are still assuming that independents will break big for Romney, but that it won't matter because forty-something percent of the electorate are Democrats.
"Just for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates."
Gosh, really? I've never heard that before!
The point, if it wasn't obvious enough, is that even when you have two candidates who are pro-immigrant and mouth all the PC platitudes, there can still be a difference between one who wants to bring them in to work and one who wants to bring them in to effect demographic change.
I'm not at all happy about Romney's enthusiasm for immigration and cheap labor. It's the #1 reason I wouldn't have picked him from the Republican field. But here we are. I have to choose between a guy who might let an immigrant take my job, and a guy who might let an immigrant take my life.
Gotta love these liberal trolls telling us what we should care about. I especially enjoyed the squeal of anger that Christians are voting for a Mormon, coming from a person who views Christians as sub-human.
Gotta love these liberal trolls telling us what we should care about.
Yeah, who cares that Romney's immigration policies are the same as Obama's? It's only some armchair speculations as to their motives that matters! Duh!
One thing I am looking forward to, when the election ends, is an end to the idiots calling anyone who contradicts a Fox or Redstate talking point a shill for Obama. Another is an end to the fools on left-leaning sites calling anyone who contradicts a Democratic talking point a shill for Romney. There's a certain ironic symmetry to being called a shill for both guys in the same election year, but it wears after awhile.
These two guys are professional conmen, but without the strong personal morality implied by that profession. They would sell you, me, or their grandparents down the river for a monentary political advantage, and it would never occur to them to feel bad about it. They will demonstrably change their alleged deepest beliefs when the polls say they should, as with Romney and abortion, or Obama with gay marriage. This is the kind of people we get as leaders, and it shows.
One reason we get such a lousy bunch of leaders is because most politically involved people get caught up in team spirit and partisanship, and convince themelves that the sociopath running at the head of their party is really their friend, or has a good heart, or shares their values. They don't--probably, they don't have any values that go higher than their own desire for power and success. Perhaps they do in their personal lives--I doubt we will ever find out, short of Clintonesque bimbo eruptions. But in politics, in what they do with power in office (the only thing that matters at all for who should be president), they will demonstrably change their deepest beliefs when it pays to do so. Both Obama and Romney have demonstrated this repeatedly.
For what it's worth, I'm planning to vote for Gary Johnson. I suspect Obama will win given the intrade odds and electoral vote counts, but Romney looks a lot more likely to win now than before the debates. (Note that the allegedly liberal-conspiracy-tampered polls showed a big Romney gain after he cleaned Obama's clock in the first debate, and continue showing that gain.) And I doubt that there will be much difference between an Obama and Romney administration in practice.
I'm not a conservative, and this isn't a rationalization: 0bama's racial interest is in more non-White immigration; Romney's racial interest is in less.
So, if both men suddenly realized with crystal clarity where their interests lie, 0bama would be pro-open-borders, and Romney would be anti-.
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)
And Romney should point out that when 0bama gets an overwhelmingly red state to vote for him, he can talk. Too bad you aren't on the 0's prep team...
The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions.
Wouldn't it have been great if at some point in history the US could have figured out a way to just get rid of the South once and for all?
The internet is global and encompasses people of a vast range of politcal leanings. So, if there is a story being suppressed in mainstream US news, why not link to it. Obama and the Democrats have little ability to tell the BBC ot Telegraph or El Pais or papers in Australia or India what to say. So how about a link, preferably to a source that isn't actively involved in US partisan battles?
"To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America."
If Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.
And it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up."
Correction: the financial crisis which Bush, McCain, and Obama all sought to "clean up" by throwing money at failing banks and the scum-bags who ran them. And the crisis is still not "cleaned up".
These two guys are professional conmen, but without the strong personal morality implied by that profession........"
@NOTA: Well said, sir.
And if I might add to what you said, they are not merely con-men - they are con-men who were created by, and preside over, vast bunko operations known as the Democratic and Republican parties.
Say you're advertising for babysitters. One of the applicants is a 20-year-old male with neck tattoos. One looks like it says "I [heart] jailbait," and he gives your 14-year-old daughter a big smile as she walks through the room.
Do you need to read his mind to decide not to hire him?
If Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.
Sure you do. Romney could come to his senses and realize where his true interest lies. Obama's interests lie elsewhere, so any awakening on his part would be more of a problem, not less.
Where Is Call For Jihad Against Chris Matthews Sharia Slander?
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke out vigorously against any "slander" of the man Mr Obama invariably refers to as "The Prophet" Mohammed.
We have been lectured by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that any speech offensive to Muslims will not be tolerated and that First Amendment notions must give way to the sensitivities and political correctness of multiculturalism.
Where are the cries from the White House against the "Islamophobia" of Chris Matthews?
Where is Congressman Keith Ellison? Congressman Ellison refused to swear his oath of office on a Bible and did so on a Koran. Is Mr Ellison outraged by the offensive manner in which liberals refer to the law of his Koran?
In nationally broadcast remarks Democratic commentator Matthews disparaged the Romney/Ryan position (and that of the Roman Catholic Church/Evangelical Christians) as "sharia.
This was intended as an insult.
The Left is denigrating Islam and Islamic law- are they not?
The Left argues that being Pro Life is absurd and "intolerant" and in that context refersto those who oppose abortion and Planned Parenthood as engaging in "Sharia"
This is not a rare instance. Michael Brown reports
"In comments made before the presidential debate this past Tuesday, Chris Matthews claimed that Gov. Romney’s position on abortion was “almost like Sharia,” stating, “You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.” In doing so, Matthews repeated the common leftwing libel that conservative moral principles with a basis in religious beliefs are equivalent to radical Islam. In May, Rev. Billy Graham took out full page ads in North Carolina newspapers stating in part, “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment.” Gay activist Wayne Besen responded by asking, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia?”
So anyone who fails to heartily endorse the radical homosexuals is a Taliban?
".. if you argue that a baby in the womb, upon conception, is entitled to personhood status, you are espousing a position “almost like Sharia,” which Matthews sums up by exclaiming, “This is extremism!” Indeed, for Matthews, in the early stages of pregnancy, we are certainly not dealing with a baby in the womb, let alone “a fetus,” but “rather an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.” So, the high regard for life and the protection of the innocent that fuels the Republican platform on abortion is nothing more than Sharia-like extremism.."
Please note Chris Matthews and the homosexuals use "sharia" as indicia of something palpably awful.
""If Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.""
Sure you do. Romney could come to his senses and realize where his true interest lies."
First, you are assuming that he would consider his true interests to be the same as yours and mine. Maybe he doesn't see himself as just another white man with white progeny he cares about. Maybe he sees himself and those like him as being far above us, almost as a separate species altogether. Maybe he sees himself as a lord who needs serfs to serve his descendents.
Secondly - sure, Romney might come to his senses. G.W. Bush might have come to his senses. He didn't. John McCain might have come his senses. He didn't. Romney "might" do a lot of things. He "might" start smoking unfiltered camels and drinking Stoli straight out of the bottle. He "might" dump his wife and take up with Lady Gaga. But he probably won't.
Just as he probably won't start acting the way that you or I would wish him too. When a politician has a long history of acting in ways that are opposed to your interests, it is perhaps foolishly naive to assume, now that he is going to be even more powerful, that he will all of a sudden have a change of heart and start being on your side.
In spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
You might want to ease up on moderation in open threads. Just a suggestion.
ReplyDeleteRegression to the mean: Obama did better, Romney did worse.
ReplyDeleteObama managed to shift the focus of the Benghazi terrorist attack to Romney's "politicization" of it, and Romney, being a good neocon, failed to mention the little matter of the Obama administration supporting the Libyan rebels in 2011. That's ancient history after all.
You'll have to forgive me. My attention was focused on laughing uproariously over some of Roissy's archives. Goddamn that man can turn a sentence and spin a hamster.
Obama's doing a lot better this time.
ReplyDeleteThe debate is going to come down to the perception of "who do you think is lying more?" I suspect partisans of both sides think the other guy is, and hence theirs is winning.
They're both quite weak on the issue of taxes and spending.
ReplyDeleteIn spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
What's needed is a combination of tax increases and entitlement cuts. About one third the former and two-thirds the latter. Nobody can get elected telling the American people that though.
Obama: I'd give him an A-. He was strong, but in large part because of the questions from Crowley, which were amazing.
ReplyDeleteRomney: Maybe a solid B. He was effective at his talking points, but he messed up a few times. He has this tic that he needs to go up to people and ask them personal questions(or in the Republican primaries, ask Rick Perry for a $10,000 dollar bet). If the other guy doesn't take you seriously, which neither Perry nor Obama did, you end up looking like a fool. And Romney had that moment, twice. First on pensions and later on Libya/Benghazi.
Crowley. The questions were, as I noted, amazing. It was DNC talking points through and through.
My favourite one for the night: "Governor, how can you prove to us that you're not like George W. Bush?".
Why not ask Obama how he can "prove" that he isn't Jimmy Carter?
There were many instances where she refused Romney a response, or interrupted him(twice!). Obama, on the other hand, was given the free reign.
This in part meant that Obama had a much better performance. Obama was better for the night, but only marginally so.
But Obama got questions disguised as Democratic talking points, which meant that he played on home turf the entire night. Romney was constantly asked to "prove" that he isn't XYZ.
Still, Romney managed to keep his temper in a very impressive way. He didn't even get irritated but at one point he ignored Crowley's(the moderator) "correction"/interruption and went ahead with his own answer.
Bottom line:
Obama won this hands down, if the environment/questions/moderator had been neutral, he would still have won it, but it would have been much more marginal. Now, it was a clearer win. Not a landslide like Romney got the first time, but significant nonetheless.
Crowley, on the other hand, emerged as a lousy moderator.
Of course, the Romney campaign have nothing to gain on harping on that fact, even if it is true. Which the Obama people know and why they're now flooding the spin zone(which I can see from journos on Twitter).
So with Obama's marginally better performance(in raw terms), his far more favourable environment/questions plus the inevitable media narrative of the necessary "comeback" already baked in, Obama won this one hands down.
But don't expect the MSM to throw themselves at the throat of Crowley, like they did against Lehrer.
If Romney loses the election, the Obama folks can thank Crowley.
The usual matchof dueling platitudes, masking the real agendas of the two parties which are set by their respective pay masters.
ReplyDeleteThe questions are posed by undecided voters. If you aren't decided by now - for Obama, for Romney, or against both - you aren't undecided; you're stupid. They should be referred to as the "stupid voter" demographic. That they are key to deciding the final outcome of the election speaks volumes about this nation.
I got the impression they were both lying. Obama seemed better prepared than last time and Romney worse. Neither said anything of substance. I lost interest and surfed the net.
ReplyDeleteThe moderator outright contradicting Romney was stunning. I've never, ever seen something like that in a debate. I looked up the transcript of Obama's Rose Garden speech and it obliquely referenced terror, but also obliquely referenced denigrating religions, and the fact remains that for quite a while the White House claimed that the attacks were spontaneous. For the moderator to outright contradict what a speaker says is just incredible and glaringly obviously partisan
ReplyDeleteObama did well.
ReplyDeleteThe Repubs are trying to spin this as a tie, but Obama took this one.
The wanker won!
ReplyDeleteModerator Crowley was wrong. Obama did NOT call it terrorism the day after in the Rose Garden. And called it a demonstration several days after that at the UN and on Letterman. But then, CNN/Crowley worship Obama as a God. So they'll throw themselves on grenades for him.
ReplyDeleteRe Libya, the time frame was too short for a takedown on Obama's policy.
Obama thumped him. It was more than a solid victory.Romney came off weakly under almost all of Obama's attacks, which were incessant. We'll see how this affects the polls. Guess debate 3 is the rubber match.
ReplyDeleteMore tiptoeing around foreign affairs, except for the obligatory gotcha moment on Libya, from both candidate. More invade the world, invite the world, no matter who wins.
ReplyDeleteCan't decide which was worse/more frustrating:
ReplyDelete-both candidates falling over themselves about letting everyone into our "nation of immigrants"
-or the fact that one of the questions mentioned the absurdly false gender pay gap of 28 cents (it's actually 4 cents if comparing apples to apples)
"Moderator Crowley was wrong. Obama did NOT call it terrorism the day after in the Rose Garden."
ReplyDeleteI don't remember what Obama said on that day, but we have a great fact checker here. If Whiskey says something didn't happen, then it really must have.
Obama was extremely aggressive and Romney was even more aggressive than last time. I got the feeling that Obama was told to not, at any cost, let Romney dominate him. Imagine two male deer locking horns and neither lets up. That was this debate.
ReplyDeleteThe early segment on energy, of all things, led to the most fireworks, and the thus the most outtakes for news coverage.
I felt sympathy and a little sadness for Obama toward the end. Throughout Obama did what he had to do and what he was supposed to do, it wasn't his "performance" that made me empathetic.
Mitt was such a good prosecutor and there was over an hour of hammering. I thought there was only so much Obama could say given the last four years; it was an unbearable handicap.
I then noticed Obama's hands were slightly trembling and his face was showing weariness as if he felt it, too. I think this was during the second to last question and was unlike how he had been throughout.
He perked up again during the last question.
Obama's biggest misstep can only be blamed on his prep team: he trotted out an attack on Mitt and China investments oblivious that it was the very same one that led to Newt's demise during the primary.
Romney embarrassed Obama with the exact same gotcha that he served up to Newt.
As other have noted above, the questions were pure Democratic talking points. Another thing that I guess I'm not supposed to notice is that so many of the eleven allegedly undecided questioners (mayber half) appeared to be "Scots-Irish." I didn't realize they were such a large proportion of the US population.
ReplyDeleteObama, again, only mentioned the WHITE side of his family. Where's his loyalty? Is he ashamed of his heritage? How can such a racial slight go unnoticed? Where is NPR, Mother Jones, Pacifica Radio and $PLC? Is he a BINO?
ReplyDeleteIs the Obama campaign that desperate that they are spamming Steve Sailer's blog?
ReplyDeleteRomney had to beat both Obama and Crowley tonight. And he did, easily. He took Obama's train wreck of a record for 4 years apart. Obama just spouted the usual Democrat BS. One thing I noticed was the disproportionate number of Jewish questioners. Big surprise there!
I watched it at a sports bar, not in my momma's basement like the other commenters. The crowd was overwhelmingly pro-Romney/anti-Obama. I was glad to hear that Romney said no to amnesty. At least immigration was mentioned tonight. The election is going to be a landslide Romney win. Not as big as Reagan's because Romney won't win Cali. But almost.
Hmmm, this means WWIII will start in the ME.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, if Obama wins, WWIII will start in Asia.
As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
ReplyDeleteAlso, Obama should have been hammered for his "some jobs aren't coming back because they are low skill" comment. I guess this doofus must not be in touch with the left side of the Bell Curve which he is making increasingly lopsided through his immigration non-enforcement policies. For Mexican immigrant kiddies to participate in our economy they are going to need one of those despised low skill jobs since obviously they aren't going to be programming computers.
Obama did well.
ReplyDeleteYeah, I knew all the lefty trolls would be out in force around the web pushing the "Obama won!" meme. That was obvious long before the debate ever started.
"Just keep it close, Barry, and we'll drag your carcass across the finish line!"
(I posted this accidentally to the
ReplyDelete"Judge Richard Posner.." post so re-posting)
From the LA Times:
"The Gallup polling organization will gather the questioners from a pool who say they have not picked either Romney or Obama. The voters will submit their questions, and Crowley will then help pick the 15 or so who will have a chance to ask their question, live, before a national television audience expected to number 60 million or more."
...so Crowley, an Obama supporter, was given sole discretion in winnowing 80 submitted questions down to about 15 to be asked. Does anyone actually seriously entertain the idea that this was a fair fight? Why Reince Priebus didn't cry foul to the debate committee days before the debate about this is a mystery to me.
Romney fought with one hand tied behind his back, or more accurately, Obama was fighting with a 3rd arm. Crowley even had a response herself prepared for Romney's highly anticipated attack on the administration's handling of the terrorist attack in Benghazi. Romney had literally turned his back towards Crowley to deliver the attack to Obama sitting behind him when Crowley attacked his statement on Benghazi from the front.
Very disappointed here.
The moderator outright contradicting Romney was stunning. I've never, ever seen something like that in a debate.
ReplyDeleteObama's in trouble in the poll's. So the neutral and impartial news reporter from PBS had to do SOMETHING to bail him out.
Is the Obama campaign that desperate that they are spamming Steve Sailer's blog?
ReplyDeleteThey've been doing it for at least the last month.
"If the tea party is still voting for this immigrant loving, non tax cutting, birth control loving protectionist they only care about winning"
ReplyDelete-- Bill Maher tweet about Romney
Romney trounced BO on the economy and I heard his whistle on immigration.
ReplyDeleteRomney was in a hostile atmosphere and he fought off a lot of hostile questions and a hostile moderator.
Neocons are just upset that Romney didn't slam him hard enough on Libya, but Romney had better be careful, because if he wins, and his foreign policy continues on to where it appears to be heading, he'll have a couple of Libyas too.
Saw the "debate" and clearly Romney won against two opponents: Crowley and Obama, both POS.
ReplyDeleteWhy, I ask, do Republicans accept rigged carnivals such as what went down tonight?
Dan Kurt
I heard bits and pieces and thought Obama sucking up to females with the gender pay gap was disgusting. (I'm female)
ReplyDeleteFrom what I heard, Romney
>>>As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
ReplyDeleteThe tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find.
CNN scientific poll of viewers:
ReplyDelete25% More likely to vote for ol' Barack Hussein
25% More likely to vote for That White Man
Call it a draw.
"Why, I ask, do Republicans accept rigged carnivals such as what went down tonight?"
ReplyDeleteBecause they have a mortal fear of the "r" word.
They know any real opposition to Obama will be reinterpreted by the left as a racist attack on the first black POTUS.
"As a highly skilled person of a certain age who can't find work I found Romney's comment about letting in more skilled immigrants to be disheartening. Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians."
ReplyDeleteWe can only hope that Romney said that to temper his immigration stance, but we can't really know. But with Obama, unfettered in a second term, you can be fairly certain that Non-NAMs will have slimmer pickings when it comes to "fall-back jobs", especially government ones. I hope you find something.
Anybody know which lefty hack is "moderating" the next presidential debate?
ReplyDeleteRepublicans aren't allowed to complain about unfairness or bias. If they do, it's unfailingly portrayed as whining. That's just part of being the grown-up party. Kids are allowed to say, "That's not fair!"; adults aren't.
ReplyDeleteWhat is Obama's tax plan again? The lefty hack posing as moderator never asked him that.
ReplyDelete"If the tea party is still voting for this immigrant loving, non tax cutting, birth control loving protectionist they only care about winning"
ReplyDelete-- Bill Maher tweet about Romney"
Better than a anti-white discriminating, wealth confiscating, late term abortionist. Bill Maher is never funny.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteBill Maher is never funny."
I don't know about that. I would laugh if he were hit by a train.
Romney surely did fine for the first hour or more. But the Libya confrontation was fraught, with Crowley's disturbing interjection and the eruption of applause a staggering challenge for Romney's image, if not his argument. Mitt sounded frazzled afterward. Pitching criminal insinuations around Benghazi and F&F, however plausible the latter is and the former begins to seem, is a very hard needle to thread in any circumstances, and I think team Romney shouldn't have tried to go there except by the most plausibly-deniable means.
ReplyDeleteObama and Crowley are quibbling over the slenderest of technicalities, but that smokeblowing "acts of terrorism" comment on Sept 12th might play well on Brian Williams.
Then again, the PBScommentariat completely ignored the terrorism standoff. But boy, did they embrace Kaus' prophesied MSM turnaround narrative for Obama. Brooks, Shields, and all were feeling the tingles; even if Brooks did note a "coldness" in Obama. But then, I suspect that's how he likes all his loverboys.
George Will supposedly called this the best Presidential Debate ever. It looks to me like Biden's set us on a downward trajectory to mud wrestling.
-I thought I heard a dog whistle on immigration too.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find.
ReplyDeleteSorry, but that's just bullshit. There's some truth to it when you're talking about small, lean companies who are doing new things and releasing quickly. If you're trying to create the next Twitter, you do need the smartest coders you can find (though you also want ones who can understand each other).
But the "major tech companies" like Microsoft and IBM, which are running code factories and customer service centers and beating the drums the loudest for more H1-Bs, simply want the cheapest barely-qualified drones possible, period, the end. They're no different from factory farms pushing for more Mexican guest workers, except that the profits they stand to gain from hiring foreigners over Americans is proportionally higher, because an American coder costs more than an American fruit picker.
The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far.
ReplyDeleteYou're an imbecile.
That's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find.
Ha, ha. And the reason ag-business is constantly agitating for more low-IQ immigration is because they just can't find good lettuce pickers!
Obama straight up lied on Libya and immigration. It would have been nice if Romney called him on it, but he's an immigrationist too and he seemed to be caught unprepared by the Libya lie.
ReplyDelete"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThat's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find."
Not really. A lot of the immigrants coming from those places are not geniuses, but they're willing to work for longer hours and for less. View it as the Tech Industry's answer to the Mexican farmers vs American farmers.
Second, ethnocentrism isn't exactly one-sided. You know why the biggest startups are almost all controlled by white men? Over 80% of VCs in the valley are white men.
People fund and recruit people who look like them. This is true of whites as well as true of Chinese and Indians who, indeed, do have a lot of people in HR departments these days in the valley.
Still, I agree with your more broader point about meritocracy, but that is only applicable at the highest end of the spectrum. For the middle spectrum there isn't much difference and boils down to ethnocentric hiring as well as how cheap you're willing to work for. I know guys who have hired Indians to work for half or sometimes less than half the pay they'd have to give to an American. Even if those people would be 10% or even 20% less effective , it is still a net win for them.
Whites dont usually see their own ethnocentrism, especially liberal whites. It helps them, but Asians also recruit their own. Its human nature. The whole "meritocratic" thing is a common myth. It has a grain of truth to it, at the top of the spectrum, but most people are in the middle and the stuff that decides if you get employment there is far more arbitrary, such as ethnocentric hiring, immigration levels, how cheap the other guys are willing to work for etc etc.
It was appalling of Romney to propose "stapling a green card" to engineering degrees of foreign students. I can already see a whole new scam industry sprouting in India. By the way, how come the purported Indian geniuses didn't get any Nobels this year? The Americans who got it were all local born and white. Contrary to what we are told repeatedly about how the Indians and Chinese are getting ahead in STEM.
ReplyDeleteSaw the "debate" and clearly Romney won against two opponents: Crowley and Obama, both POS.
ReplyDeleteWhy, I ask, do Republicans accept rigged carnivals such as what went down tonight?
Dan Kurt
Obama was being touted as the clear projected winner in Nov before these debates started.
Merit.
A week or so back, PBS's 'Frontline' aired its two-hour election program, "The Choice."
ReplyDeleteHate to break it to you, dear Sailermates, but in this election there is no "choice," as whichever one of those two debater suits wins the election, he's going to lavish yet more borrowed trillions on his cronies and public sector employees and do nothing to stop (let alone to reverse) immigration, thus assuring, if not accelerating, our country's continued decline.
Remember, after us there will be no United States worthwhile for anyone to escape to. That, my dear Sailermates, is the horror. It was quite pleasant while lasted though, wasn't it?
Obama claimed that Intel was founded by immigrants. I don't think this is true. Most likely he was referring to Andy Grove who immigrated to the US from Hungary around 1956. I don't think Grove was a co-founder of Intel. Native-born Americans Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce co-founded Intel Corp.
ReplyDelete"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far. If you can't find a job, it means you're not good enough. Sorry.
ReplyDeleteThat's why all the major tech companies are for allowing high-IQ immigration--they're simply looking for the smartest people they can find. "
Gee, I must have suffered an IQ lowering stroke in my sleep because I worked successfully in the industry for 25 years, had 18 patents, and a well above median salary. I'm sure it must have been in a fit of absentmindedness that they forgot to lay me off decades sooner.
Cheap shot on your part by the way.
"Obama claimed that Intel was founded by immigrants."
ReplyDeleteRobert Noyce of Intel is famously from Grinnell, Iowa, where his father was the Congregationalist chaplain of Grinnell College.
Neal Stephenson likes to point out that an awful lot of the founding fathers of Silicon Valley grew up in college towns.
After all, is an act of terror really the same thing as terrorism?
ReplyDeleteObama, like Biden before him, was playing to the Democratic base. Romney, like Ryan before him, was playing to the undecided voters.
ReplyDeleteThat right there should tell you what the state of the race is. The Dems are in trouble.
@10/16/12 9:15 PM
ReplyDeleteSimple question:
The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far.
What kind of work do you do? If tech, how many companies have you worked for, and (generally) where?
Another simple question: Are you really so stupid that you cannot figure out how to post as something other than "Anonymous"?
I thought Obama narrowly won, but mostly because he got help from the moderator fact checking Romney's error (and yes it was Romney who was in error) and because he got the last the word and used it to throw the 47% gaffe in Romney's face again.
ReplyDeleteBut Romney dominated on the economy and overall came across as more fluid, knowledgeable and intelligent.
Both men were obnoxiously aggressive however I think this hurt Obama more because he was dragged down to the level of a mere challenger to the throne, and because Obama's most attractive traits (cool headed calmness under pressure, maturity and likability) went out the window.
Where Romeny blows it is he's a puppet for the neocons and complains about stupid things that are irrelevant to most Americans, such as Obama not using the word "terror" often enough, when he should just hammer home his strength which is creating jobs.
A CNN snap poll found Obama won 46% to 39%. This in contrast to the previous debate where Romney won 67% to 25%.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/10/17/CNN-snap-poll-shows-Obama-a-debate-winner/UPI-62221350449011/?spt=hs&or=tn
Averaging the 2 debates together, Obama's score is 36% and Romney's is 53%.
Very late comment here. Just got home after a very long work day during which I watched a large part of the debate (streamed at ace.mu.nu) while I ate dinner and re-imaged a roomful of computers. I was surprised at how good Romney was, for instance in the question about energy. The questions themselves truly appeared to be largely Democratic talking points, Romney's ability to debate Obama and the linebacker-sized moderator at the same time was impressive. (Comment under the vidstream at Ace: "It was a spirited debate but no one mentioned the elephant in the room."
ReplyDeleteI thought he was good on the question about how he differed from George W. Bush. On the immigration question, asked sure enough by a woman Hispanic, Romney several times used the wording "people who came here illegally" which probably means he wants to avoid describing a person as illegal. Overall I was surprised how strongly anti-illegal-immigration his answer was; there was a clear contrast there with Obama.
The Libya exchange was strange. The moderator went way over the line trying to help Obama, and while she did succeed on the spot by interrupting Romney, you have to wonder about the obvious question raised (to wit, if Obama said right away that it was a terror attack then why did his people spin the YouTube-video-angering-the-Muslim-masses story for the next two weeks?).
Romney also finished remarkably strongly for a guy who is 65 years old. He's probably benefited rom a tough series of debates in the Republian primary -- in fact, didn't Newt Gingrich ask him a question about personally profiting from investments in China? He was certainly ready for that one, which brings up one more thing. I had a strong feeling after seeing about ten minutes that Obama knew the questions beforehand and had prepped set-piece answers. He was accordingly much better than in the first debate, but still not that great, and oh man is he narcissistic -- so many of his perorations are about me me me.
So, overall I have to give Romney the edge. Not a blowout, not a KO, but a definite edge. It also was in fact probably one of the better presidential debates I've ever seen, and I've seen a lot. it also had possibly the worst moderator.
"The tech industry is the most meritocratic by far."
ReplyDeletePeople have a romanticised notion of the tech industry. For every Pepsi-fuelled genius cutting code at 3 am, there are ten people in the IT supply chain who basically sit in meetings or attend to emails all day.
Semi-Employed White Guy: One thing I noticed was the disproportionate number of Scots-Irish questioners.
ReplyDeleteYeah, it's weird how an ostensibly mathematically-oriented company, like Gallup, could choose random towns throughout the United States, open the towns' phone books to random pages, and then throw darts randomly at names on those pages, but continually hit on zip codes directly across the street from Loch Central Park, Manhattan [or up the road, in Loch Scarsdale].
Can't possibly have had anything to do with Scots-Irish-man David MacAxelrod sicking Eric Holder's Justice Department on them.
You know, it's kinda like how that moderator chick in the previous debate just randomly happened to have had a young Barry Soetoro Dunham as a guest at her Scots-Irish wedding.
Really bizarre, extremely low-probability patterns that just keep doggedly arising everywhere you look.
Richard A: Most likely he was referring to Andy Grove who immigrated to the US from Hungary around 1956. I don't think Grove was a co-founder of Intel. Native-born Americans Gordon Moore and Robert Noyce co-founded Intel Corp.
Neither Moore nor Noyce were Scots-Irish, so from the point of view of The Narrative, they were mere Kulaks.
People have a romanticised notion of the tech industry. For every Pepsi-fuelled genius cutting code at 3 am, there are ten people in the IT supply chain who basically sit in meetings or attend to emails all day.
ReplyDeleteHa ha! So true. You forgot another one though. The people who spend their days back-stabbing, ass kissing their higher-ups, trashing their co-workers to get ahead and engaging in spineless obeisances to whoever happens to be the Company Godhead. At Microsoft, this of course was Bill Gates. I suppose now they try to make it Ballmer, but he's so transparently failed, incompetent and full of shit (he's the Tech Obama) that nobody takes him seriously.
At small orgs talent can truly pay. But in big companies it's all about empire building and openly sacrificing everyone you can on the altar of your ladder climbing (because this is seen as "aggressive" and "passionate" by management). And if you are Indian or Chinese, hitting management is basically your green light to hollow out the whites in your org and replace them, every one of them, with your ethnic cohorts. This happens 100% of the time.
Sleeping on it, here are a couple more observations:
ReplyDelete*I believe L. Linda is largely correct about the behavior.
*Romney skated right up and a bit into Joe Biden territory by losing his cool and getting "hot" at times. Biden lost the last debate amongst women to "nice boy" Ryan because of this. Whiskey was right when he said men mistakenly believe "hot" is attractive to women. It isn't.
It was evident when Romney wasn't content to tell us what Obama did wrong, but wanted to humiliate him by asking Obama questions.
Romney in the first debate was nothing like this, but I have seen this side before. At the convention when they chose to defeat Ron Paul ungraciously rather than graciously. Also, during the primary, Rick Santorum got under everyone's skin bringing out the worst in Mitt and Ron Paul. There was one moment when Mitt snapped, midsentence, and angrily pointed out that Santorum was just standing there shaking his head while Mitt was talking.
The effect was that he tattooed the past four years onto Obama and made him look like a loser, and, yet, one felt kind of sad for Obama.
I'm not surprised at the polls that show a slight edge to Obama, but Romney winning on issues.
Joe Biden was in another universe, so I don't want to make more of it than it was. Biden was a complete turn-off, Mitt broke even.
"Anonymous Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteRomney trounced BO on the economy and I heard his whistle on immigration."
I heard that whistle too, and it was clearly directed at mexicans (or rather at the National Chamber of Commerce). Romney promised to create a "path to citizenship" for the children of illegals. If they are on such a path, then they are here. If they are here, then their parents are here too. And in any event, once they become citizens, their parents can stay here via family reunification. He also repeated that bit about stapling a green-card on the diplomas of foreign students. Romney's stated line on immigration, as well as his implied, actual line, is - as far as I can tell - absolutely no different than that G.W. Bush or John McCain.
And of course, Obama did nothing except effuse at our supposed history as a "nation of immigrants", even to the point of lying about the ethnicity of the founders of Intel, apparently.
Why is it that immigration policy is only ever discussed in terms of what's good for foreigners, not what's good for Americans?
Cail Corishev said...
ReplyDeleteRepublicans aren't allowed to complain about unfairness or bias. If they do, it's unfailingly portrayed as whining. That's just part of being the grown-up party. Kids are allowed to say, "That's not fair!"; adults aren't.
When kids do it, it's whining.
When adults do it, it's treason.
I was captain of my college debate team. We would go to some campus. Debate the other school's team and that was it. We won or we lost.
ReplyDeleteIf you think of these debates that way you might think Biden won the vice presidential one or that Obama won the second presidential one. But that's hardly the issue.
The Republicans have had to fight off the media from the beginning. They haven't been able to have their candidates seen or their issues discussed. But Romney got to finally mention that he was a missonary - driving a stake in his Democrat promoted image of a mony grubbing Daddy Warbucks. And Ryan got to appear to be safe, sane, and trustworthy candidate especially next to 'wild man' Biden.
The pundits criticize Romney for not driving home the points about the oil leases and Obama's claims about Libya. That may be a good thing. Those issues were left hanging in the air. That would be fatal in a college debate but here it may prove to be an advantage.
The oil leases cutback issue, which Obama denied, may peak the interest of the public. They are like the issues that the professor leaves for the students to examine on their own. If and when the public looks into this bit of arcanery, they will find that Obama has consistently tried to stamp out conventional domestic energy production. Hear it in debate and you're sceptical. Look it up yourself and youre convinced.
The same is even more true about the Libyan attacks. Romney didn't try to hammer home his advantage in the debate. He said, "I just want to get that on the record".
This is called losing the point but winning the election. It's now on the record and on the agenda for all the media. The Democrats could have only won on this point if they had kept it buried.
Albertosaurus
That debate was a true dissappointment, kind of like when the Duke frat boys ordered a Becky from the escort service to paw all over, harass and demean, and saw that they got Sheniqua instead. Yuk-yuk.
ReplyDeleteAnyway; that was one of the most boring 2 hour periods I've ever spent watching TV. My observations; Barry did about 7% better than the first time, not because he said anything different, more because he did a so-so job of at least feigning energy this time. Mitt did about 20% worse, not because he said or did anything different, but because, well, he's Mittens, and the more you watch him the less you like him.
I heard Mitt give practically ZERO new information this time. That's a helluva accomplishment when you consider he was talking for an hour; "we'll cut taxes, increase the military budget, cut government aid, and close loopholes, but you're too dumb to know which aid, and which loopholes so don't worry about it."
"We're cutting taxes, and we will gaurantee that the billionaires will open factories in Joplin, Mo instead of Beijing with the money."
"I governed a state and made lots of money so elect me president, and besides, the other guy sucks, and I'm not taking any more oil from Aye-Rabs"
If you Missed the both debates, that pretty much encapsulates 2 hours of Mitt.
Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. I don't know if this Barry would have beaten Juan Pablo McCain, but he will beat Mittler next month.
One more thing.
ReplyDeleteObama was pointed, but I don't think he was rude. Crowley, the moderator, was rude to Romney, repeatedly. She was the most partisan moderator I think in modern history. Breitbart, I think, had a good rundown.
The thing is, I don't have that much sympathy for dismissing the effects of the moderator. For example, saying Obama only got the better of Romney at a point only because of the assist by the moderator.
Romney had choices here. He made the choice to be there and with Candy Crowley. It takes a spine to stand up to the inertia of tradition, but it can and should be done, especially when one already knows it presents a major handicap!
Getting angry and pointing to it after the fact can help undo some of the damage, but damage was still done.
"Remember, after us there will be no United States worthwhile for anyone to escape to. That, my dear Sailermates, is the horror. It was quite pleasant while lasted though, wasn't it?"
ReplyDeleteActually it's become increasing unpleasant for the last half century or so.
I think the real horror is that we did it to ourselves.
In spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
ReplyDeleteBut he's not even calling for that, Obama wants to *continue* the Bush tax cuts for those under $250K and only end them for people over $250K. So those over $250K would return to Clinton era tax rates (already fairly low) and everyone else stays the same.
Basically, the stated Obama plan is to do a little about the deficit but not enough to really cut it, and the Romney plan is to actually make it worse by cutting taxes for the rich and increasing defense spending. The saving grace is that neither is actually going to execute their plan.
I think 0bama knows he's an empty suit. It's part of why daddy Romney pwned him in the first debate, it's why he said "when I was president," etc. He knows he's an empty suit, and he isn't particularly thrilled at the prospect of another 4 years treading water while the billion he's going to make on the lecture circuit awaits. He's ready to pack it in and enjoy the fruits of his labors.
ReplyDeleteOh, and on the Scots-Irish question:
ReplyDeleteJeremy Epstein, First Questioner in Debate, Says He's No Longer Undecided
Latest Gallup poll. Romney 51, Obama 45.
ReplyDeleteRomney is going to win this thing at a canter.
Several times it looked as though they were going to get physical. The body language and look of utter disgust and hate in Obama's eyes and Romney's refusal to back down but instead stand ready was priceless. Obama may have initially still felt "fabulous"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-presidential-debate-obama-preview-20121016,0,6370776.story
but soon enough Romney's truths knocked that feeling out of the "first gay president". Obama evidently does only like older white men to be on their knees in front of him, not in his face calling him out on his lies. His beard, scary-wifey, clapping for him and Candy Crapini, rag-hag, couldn't come close to saving Obama from the Economy and Bengazi truths either. I like Ron Paul, but Romney will do as long as Obama is out.
""If the tea party is still voting for this immigrant loving, non tax cutting, birth control loving protectionist they only care about winning"
ReplyDelete-- Bill Maher tweet about Romney"
Better than a anti-white discriminating, wealth confiscating, late term abortionist. Bill Maher is never funny." - Don't know why he put protectionism in there, tea party voters favor that fairly heavily.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/nation-tunes-in-to-see-which-sociopath-more-likabl,29946/?fb_action_ids=4707214316353&fb_action_types=og.likes&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%7B%224707214316353%22%3A294057617364825%7D&action_type_map=%7B%224707214316353%22%3A%22og.likes%22%7D&action_ref_map=[]
ReplyDeleteWhen Crowley tried to make her opponent eat crow over the Libya atrocity, the applause came from the First Lady & entourage. Energizing the base, indeed.
ReplyDeleteJimmy Kimmel asks people on the street who won last night's presidential debate -- several hours before it even took place.
ReplyDelete"I think 0bama knows he's an empty suit...He's ready to pack it in and enjoy the fruits of his labors."
ReplyDeleteThe fruits of his what??
Loch Scarsdale, lol.
ReplyDeleteIntrade still has Obama at 65.5 and Romney at 34.5, so maybe they know something we don't.
ReplyDeleteIf you think of these debates that way you might think Biden won the vice presidential one or that Obama won the second presidential one. But that's hardly the issue.
The Republicans have had to fight off the media from the beginning. They haven't been able to have their candidates seen or their issues discussed. But Romney got to finally mention that he was a missonary - driving a stake in his Democrat promoted image of a mony grubbing Daddy Warbucks. And Ryan got to appear to be safe, sane, and trustworthy candidate especially next to 'wild man' Biden.
Yeah, I see an awful lot of incorrect framing, as you point out. Mitt has won every single debate handily, because before this a lot of people kinda thought he was a rich creep. He came out and floored them all because of their low expectations. Hence the 12 point swing among women overnight.
Seems like a lot of swing voters were tired of 0bama, but had decided they didn't like or trust Mitt before they'd had a chance to really listen to him.
Tech HR departments now blatantly discriminate in favor of Chinese and Indians because HR departments are themselves made up of Chinese and Indians.
ReplyDeleteI saw this same thing in grad school in engineering. Chinese professor, all Chinese grad students. Korean professor, all Korean grad students. Indian professor, all Indian grad students...
I saw this same thing in grad school in engineering. Chinese professor, all Chinese grad students. Korean professor, all Korean grad students. Indian professor, all Indian grad students..
ReplyDeleteWhite professor, a Vibrant Rainbow of grad students.
"At small orgs talent can truly pay. But in big companies it's all about empire building and openly sacrificing everyone you can on the altar of your ladder climbing (because this is seen as "aggressive" and "passionate" by management)."
ReplyDeleteIf you think of the colossal amount of energy wasted on internal politicking, you might wonder why more companies don't eliminate it by promoting people at random within certain constraints (e.g., senior accountant opening gets filled at random from the pool of accountants who've been in their current position a minimum of 4 years). It may sound crazy, but this could work provided you fire unqualified workers well before they are eligible for promotions.
Latest Gallup poll. Romney 51, Obama 45.
ReplyDeleteRomney is going to win this thing at a canter.
Not if you break it down by region:
South: Obama 39, Romney 61
West: Obama 53, Romney 47
Midwest: Obama 52, Romney 48
East: Obama 52, Romney 48
The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions.
Romney really got into Obama's face a couple times: over the oil issue and the outsourcing to China issue. He was aggressive and disrespectful and even looked like he was ready for a fist fight!
ReplyDeleteThat may have gone down well with beer guzzling bubbas in bars across America, especially in the South, but probably not with the majority of Americans. I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him. Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House, a less itchier finger on the trigger...
Why would you break it down by region? Regions mean nothing. It's all about electoral votes, which are strictly a state-by-state thing.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that the supposedly evangelical South is so overwhelmingly for the Mormon Romney shows that their religious fundamentalism is superficial.
ReplyDelete"The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions."
ReplyDeleteAlso the place where whites are least insulated from blacks.
Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. I don't know if this Barry would have beaten Juan Pablo McCain, but he will beat Mittler next month.
ReplyDelete"Mittler"? Nice, and just what I'd expect from you.
But you're dreaming. This is Romney's election to lose. He can pretty much coast to victory unless something really embarrassing comes out.
Not if you break it down by region
ReplyDeleteWhy would we do that? Are they holding an imaginary election where it's the Regional College?
The fruits of his what??
ReplyDeletePork loin?
Hey, give him a break, man! He's from Maui for Pete's sake! He's put in his time workin for the man and now it's time to chill out and relax and play lots of golf.
"The South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions."
ReplyDelete95% of the least-educated, worst-off demographic group is going to vote for Obama.
"Latest Gallup poll. Romney 51, Obama 45.
ReplyDeleteRomney is going to win this thing at a canter."
That is a strong poll for Romney, considering that the margin of error on it was only 2%. But there's a risk Romney could win the popular vote and lose the electoral vote since Obama's still holding onto a lead in some key swing states.
"The fact that the supposedly evangelical South is so overwhelmingly for the Mormon Romney shows that their religious fundamentalism is superficial."
ReplyDeleteHow provocative. They must be thankful that you are so concerned about their orthodoxy and the state of their immortal souls.
That may have gone down well with beer guzzling bubbas in bars across America, especially in the South, but probably not with the majority of Americans. I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him. Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House, a less itchier finger on the trigger...
ReplyDeleteThat is some classic paid-trolling there, Spanky! Targeted right at the heart of coastal SWPLs.
"beer guzzling bubbas" --- ooooh, associating Romney with white proles!
"especially in the South" -- always an acceptable whipping boy. Hater.
"but probably not with the majority of Americans" -- status whoring! we betta dan you!
"I think him acting like a bully may backfire on him." -- Oh you think that, do you? And he was a "bully," was he? A bully to the most arrogant, imperial little Princeling to ever befoul the White House? Nuh huh.
"Many Americans will probably prefer a cooler head in the White House" -- Bwwwaaahhh ha ha! Yes, Obama is the King of Kool(s), we know that much. Seriously, if what you want in a President is level-headedness, you probably can't find ten guys in all of America better than Romney. Epic troll fail. Tell Axelrod to change the script, this one isn't working.
"a less itchier finger on the trigger' -- Oh, such giggles I gots! So President Drone Kill Lists doesn't have an "itchy finger"? While he sits there killing people and stroking his man-love?
So tell us, Anonymous, what do you get paid for being an ephebe Obama troll? More than you'd make in the real world, I expect that much at least.
You're a pathetic joke. Try to sell that cheap beer somewhere else. This crowd ain't buying.
If Romney is only losing the east by 4, he must be winning Pa or NJ.
ReplyDeleteI think it is telling that Romney is losing Massachusetts, the state of which he was the Governor, by a huge landslide.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand Obama is winning by huge landslides the states of Hawaii, where he was born and raised, and Illinois where he settled...
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)
"Barry has really aged. He seemed like a young firebrand, speaking four years ago, now he seems like a humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy."
ReplyDeleteNo, four years ago he looked like a somewhat younger, humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. You were projecting the firebrand stuff. Don't feel bad, so were millions of other voters. Recovery is possible.
peterike:
ReplyDeleteMore to the point, white professor, more or less meritocratic selection of grad students, vs much more ethnocentric selection for most other professors.
Mr Anon:
Is there likely to be any difference in practice between Romney and Obama on immigration? I have not seen any evidence that there will be.
The election is decided by electoral votes, which means that it matters a great deal where Romney's support is to determine whether he wins or not.
ReplyDeleteToday's 538 shows an electoral vote map, based on polling data that is combined together in some way he explains on his website. One interesting bit from this is that, in his simulations, the electoral college going to the loser of the popular vote shows up as having about a 7% chance of happening.
" Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think it is telling that Romney is losing Massachusetts, the state of which he was the Governor, by a huge landslide."
I'm not sure, what does this tell us about Massachusetts?
On the other hand Obama is winning by huge landslides the states of Hawaii, where he was born and raised, and Illinois where he settled..."
...Hawaii, where he was first exposed to racism.
"No, four years ago he looked like a somewhat younger, humorless, pedantic, middle-aged guy. You were projecting the firebrand stuff."
ReplyDeleteNot sure that's true I think his personality has changed quite a bit.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteI think it is telling that Romney is losing Massachusetts, the state of which he was the Governor, by a huge landslide.
On the other hand Obama is winning "by huge landslides the states of Hawaii, where he was born and raised, and Illinois where he settled...
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)"
You must be an Obot in lala land. I know people in New England. There is no Obama surge in New England. Quite the contrary.
I must admit it's a mystery to me why anybody would want Obama. Though I can understand why blacks would. And browns. He's a thin brown man. Other than that--what? No brains--what's he written or said besides those memoires written by Bill Ayres. What's his presidential record? What's his "racial healing" record. What's his record on helping businesses--the backbone of the economy. Full of encouragement--"you didn't build that."
No. It just doesn't make sense. I do live in the land of delusional Obots--a certain county outside DC. It can only be because a lot of people depend on a certain administration being in office. It can't be because Obamam means anything positive personally to them. It just can't. But maybe they put something in the water...
The fact that the supposedly evangelical South is so overwhelmingly for the Mormon Romney shows that their religious fundamentalism is superficial.
ReplyDeleteNot really, no. It just shows that Democrats don't really understand religious people in general and evangelicals in particular. Did you really think they would prefer someone who marinated in Reverend Wright's God-damn-America church over a Mormon? Well, maybe you did.
Thank God for the electoral college system.
"You were projecting the firebrand stuff. Don't feel bad, so were millions of other voters"
ReplyDeleteThat the USA actually elected an Affirmative Action President still astonishes me.
Sure -- I can understand it, as the inevitable result of decades of socialization and conditioning (allowed for by the racial naivete of most American-Whites and propped up by Hollywood), but it all the same feels like we crossed into a parallel universe in 2008.
Romney winning popular and losing electoral is my favorite outcome. Let's have a circus.
ReplyDeleteAs for the debate, it was a wash. But my sense is that Obama didn't help himself with undecideds, so no matter how many liberal homos writing for Atlantic get excited, it doesn't help him.
I'm a female, and I was surprised to hear so many female commentators discussing their unease and displeasure at the aggressiveness of the debate. It didn't bother me at all. Romney and Obama could've piled a bunch of desks and chairs on the stage, crouched behind them, pulled out handguns and shot at one another for two hours, and I still would've been fine. In fact, it would have made much more interesting viewing.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it that immigration policy is only ever discussed in terms of what's good for foreigners, not what's good for Americans?
Mr. Anon, while watching that part of the debate, I was thinking exactly the same thing.
"Is there likely to be any difference in practice between Romney and Obama on immigration? I have not seen any evidence that there will be."
ReplyDeleteRomney may think it would be economically advantageous to bring in immigrants to do certain kinds of work, and I'm sure he believes the standard trope that every American child is taught in school about "a nation of immigrants." He'll never be anti-immigration and get gung-ho about building walls and throwing people out. But his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society.
Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country. He doesn't particularly care whether we need them -- in fact, the ones we don't need are better in his book. They'll all vote for him, so they're all good in his eyes. And the less productive and less likely to assimilate they are, the better.
There's the difference in a nutshell. Hope it helps.
To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America.
ReplyDeleteBut his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society. Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country.
ReplyDeleteJust for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates.
And it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up.
But his liking for immigration is based on the idea that the right ones can be productive members of society. Obama, on the other hand, is enthusiastic about bringing in as many immigrants as possible for the purposes of race replacement and tearing down the country.
ReplyDeleteJust for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates.
And it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up.
"NOTA said...
ReplyDeleteMr Anon:
Is there likely to be any difference in practice between Romney and Obama on immigration? I have not seen any evidence that there will be."
I have not either.
Cail:
ReplyDeleteSeems to me, you're projecting your assumptions about what the two men believe and want onto them to explain their actions. I rather suspect that what Romney and Obama believe in their hearts is impossible for me to find out. I mean, their wives and close friends probably have some ideas about that, but just watching the professionally produced and spun image of the two men probably tells us very little.
I've watched exactly the same process on left-wing blogs, where Obama's war on terror excesses (basically Bush with less torture and more murder) gets endless excuses based on some imagined mental state and set of facts for Obama, whereas even the most sensible and sane policy proposal of Romney gets mapped onto a plan to screw over women, blacks, gays, and the poor as part of this evil rich guy's Koch-enabled diabolical plot.
Now, maybe that's all true. Maybe Romney can't wait to get power so he can really stick it to the poor, and can wreck government in pursuit of a small-government ideology. Perhaps Obama sits around thinking up new ways to stick it to whitey in his spare time, and greatly hopes he can put blacks on top and whites on bottom in his next four years. But what seems a lot more consistent with what we can observe, in both mens' experience so far actually governing, looks more like neither man is especially ideological, but both are willing to espouse whatever ideology they think will get them elected. Romney was a liberal Republican as a governor, who became a conservative Republican for the primaries, and is now trying to play moderate Republican for the general election. Obama ran as much more liberal and antiwar than he's governed as.
My best guess is that neither man really has many strong beliefs they won't betray. If tomorrow, it turns out that being in favor of gun control will benefit Romney, or opposing it will benefit Obama, do you have the slightest doubt that both men will change positions overnight?
To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America.
ReplyDeleteGotta love these conservative rationalizations.
I see that NOTA is still shilling for Obama.
ReplyDeleteHow did Nate Silvers's projections pan out in the 2010 elections? (He asked rhetorically)
All the models assuming a close race are still assuming that Democrats will turn out in historically high numbers, even those there is absolutely no reason to think that's going to happen and plenty of reasons to think it won't.
All the models assuming a close race are still assuming that independents will break big for Romney, but that it won't matter because forty-something percent of the electorate are Democrats.
New Gallup poll has Romney ahead by 7 with likely voters, with a 2% margin of error. Romney also just moved ahead on RCP's electoral count (without tossups; with tossups, Obama is still ahead): http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/2012_elections_electoral_college_map.html.
ReplyDelete"Just for your information, it was the Republican icon Reagan who passed the amnesty law that legalized all the illegal immigrants and opened the floodgates."
ReplyDeleteGosh, really? I've never heard that before!
The point, if it wasn't obvious enough, is that even when you have two candidates who are pro-immigrant and mouth all the PC platitudes, there can still be a difference between one who wants to bring them in to work and one who wants to bring them in to effect demographic change.
I'm not at all happy about Romney's enthusiasm for immigration and cheap labor. It's the #1 reason I wouldn't have picked him from the Republican field. But here we are. I have to choose between a guy who might let an immigrant take my job, and a guy who might let an immigrant take my life.
Yes, that's overly dramatic. It's also true.
Gotta love these conservative rationalizations.
ReplyDeleteGotta love these liberal trolls telling us what we should care about. I especially enjoyed the squeal of anger that Christians are voting for a Mormon, coming from a person who views Christians as sub-human.
Gotta love these liberal trolls telling us what we should care about.
ReplyDeleteYeah, who cares that Romney's immigration policies are the same as Obama's? It's only some armchair speculations as to their motives that matters! Duh!
One thing I am looking forward to, when the election ends, is an end to the idiots calling anyone who contradicts a Fox or Redstate talking point a shill for Obama. Another is an end to the fools on left-leaning sites calling anyone who contradicts a Democratic talking point a shill for Romney. There's a certain ironic symmetry to being called a shill for both guys in the same election year, but it wears after awhile.
ReplyDeleteThese two guys are professional conmen, but without the strong personal morality implied by that profession. They would sell you, me, or their grandparents down the river for a monentary political advantage, and it would never occur to them to feel bad about it. They will demonstrably change their alleged deepest beliefs when the polls say they should, as with Romney and abortion, or Obama with gay marriage. This is the kind of people we get as leaders, and it shows.
One reason we get such a lousy bunch of leaders is because most politically involved people get caught up in team spirit and partisanship, and convince themelves that the sociopath running at the head of their party is really their friend, or has a good heart, or shares their values. They don't--probably, they don't have any values that go higher than their own desire for power and success. Perhaps they do in their personal lives--I doubt we will ever find out, short of Clintonesque bimbo eruptions. But in politics, in what they do with power in office (the only thing that matters at all for who should be president), they will demonstrably change their deepest beliefs when it pays to do so. Both Obama and Romney have demonstrated this repeatedly.
For what it's worth, I'm planning to vote for Gary Johnson. I suspect Obama will win given the intrade odds and electoral vote counts, but Romney looks a lot more likely to win now than before the debates. (Note that the allegedly liberal-conspiracy-tampered polls showed a big Romney gain after he cleaned Obama's clock in the first debate, and continue showing that gain.) And I doubt that there will be much difference between an Obama and Romney administration in practice.
Gotta love these conservative rationalizations.
ReplyDeleteI'm not a conservative, and this isn't a rationalization: 0bama's racial interest is in more non-White immigration; Romney's racial interest is in less.
So, if both men suddenly realized with crystal clarity where their interests lie, 0bama would be pro-open-borders, and Romney would be anti-.
I think in the next debate if Romney brings up his stint as Governor of Massachusetts again, Obama should point out that the citizens of that state prefer him over Romney by a huge margin. ;)
ReplyDeleteAnd Romney should point out that when 0bama gets an overwhelmingly red state to vote for him, he can talk. Too bad you aren't on the 0's prep team...
ReplyDeleteThe South, the most backward region in America, is the most solidly Republican. Obama leads comfortably in the other 3, better educated and better off, regions.
Wouldn't it have been great if at some point in history the US could have figured out a way to just get rid of the South once and for all?
Yeah, who cares that Romney's immigration policies are the same as Obama's?
ReplyDeleteNot you, but you want other people to care. I think that's pretty funny, in a pathetic sort of way.
Here’s what I’ll say. When four Americans get killed, it’s not optimal.
ReplyDeleteThat's Obama's latest gaffe. Lucky for him the media have his back, so most people will never hear about it.
Anon:
ReplyDeleteThe internet is global and encompasses people of a vast range of politcal leanings. So, if there is a story being suppressed in mainstream US news, why not link to it. Obama and the Democrats have little ability to tell the BBC ot Telegraph or El Pais or papers in Australia or India what to say. So how about a link, preferably to a source that isn't actively involved in US partisan battles?
"To put it another way: Romney likes immigration because he thinks it's good for America. Obama likes immigration because he knows it's bad for America."
ReplyDeleteIf Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.
"Anonymous said...
ReplyDeleteAnd it was Bush and Rove who dreamed up the strategy of turning hispanics into Republicans by giving them cheap home loans and making them home owners, which ended up creating the financial crisis that Obama had to clean up."
Correction: the financial crisis which Bush, McCain, and Obama all sought to "clean up" by throwing money at failing banks and the scum-bags who ran them. And the crisis is still not "cleaned up".
"NOTA said...
ReplyDeleteThese two guys are professional conmen, but without the strong personal morality implied by that profession........"
@NOTA: Well said, sir.
And if I might add to what you said, they are not merely con-men - they are con-men who were created by, and preside over, vast bunko operations known as the Democratic and Republican parties.
" there can still be a difference between one who wants to bring them in to work and one who wants to bring them in to effect demographic change."
ReplyDeleteWhere did you learn to read minds?
"Where did you learn to read minds?"
ReplyDeleteSay you're advertising for babysitters. One of the applicants is a 20-year-old male with neck tattoos. One looks like it says "I [heart] jailbait," and he gives your 14-year-old daughter a big smile as she walks through the room.
Do you need to read his mind to decide not to hire him?
"Do you need to read his mind to decide not to hire him?"
ReplyDeleteNah, just hire the other applicant; the kindly looking 55 year old, Christian man with the grey hair...the one who coaches football for Penn State.
If Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.
ReplyDeleteSure you do. Romney could come to his senses and realize where his true interest lies. Obama's interests lie elsewhere, so any awakening on his part would be more of a problem, not less.
ReplyDeleteWhere Is Call For Jihad Against Chris Matthews Sharia Slander?
Our President, Barack Hussein Obama, spoke out vigorously against any "slander" of the man Mr Obama invariably refers to as "The Prophet" Mohammed.
We have been lectured by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton that any speech offensive to Muslims will not be tolerated and that First Amendment notions must give way to the sensitivities and political correctness of multiculturalism.
Where are the cries from the White House against the "Islamophobia" of Chris Matthews?
Where is Congressman Keith Ellison? Congressman Ellison refused to swear his oath of office on a Bible and did so on a Koran. Is Mr Ellison outraged by the offensive manner in which liberals refer to the law of his Koran?
In nationally broadcast remarks Democratic commentator Matthews disparaged the Romney/Ryan position (and that of the Roman Catholic Church/Evangelical Christians) as "sharia.
This was intended as an insult.
The Left is denigrating Islam and Islamic law- are they not?
The Left argues that being Pro Life is absurd and "intolerant" and in that context refersto those who oppose abortion and Planned Parenthood as engaging in "Sharia"
This is not a rare instance. Michael Brown reports
"In comments made before the presidential debate this past Tuesday, Chris Matthews claimed that Gov. Romney’s position on abortion was “almost like Sharia,” stating, “You’re saying to the country, we’re going to operate under a religious theory, under a religious belief.” In doing so, Matthews repeated the common leftwing libel that conservative moral principles with a basis in religious beliefs are equivalent to radical Islam.
In May, Rev. Billy Graham took out full page ads in North Carolina newspapers stating in part, “The Bible is clear — God’s definition of marriage is between a man and a woman. I want to urge my fellow North Carolinians to vote FOR the marriage amendment.”
Gay activist Wayne Besen responded by asking, “Do we now make our civil laws based upon Christian Sharia?”
So anyone who fails to heartily endorse the radical homosexuals is a Taliban?
".. if you argue that a baby in the womb, upon conception, is entitled to personhood status, you are espousing a position “almost like Sharia,” which Matthews sums up by exclaiming, “This is extremism!” Indeed, for Matthews, in the early stages of pregnancy, we are certainly not dealing with a baby in the womb, let alone “a fetus,” but “rather an egg that had just been fertilized, right after sex, if you will.”
So, the high regard for life and the protection of the innocent that fuels the Republican platform on abortion is nothing more than Sharia-like extremism.."
Please note Chris Matthews and the homosexuals use "sharia" as indicia of something palpably awful.
Where are the cries of outrage from Obama?
http://elvisnixon.com/2012/10/19/where-is-call-for-jihad-against-chris-matthews-sharia-slander.aspx
"Svigor said...
ReplyDelete""If Romney thinks that, then he's stupid. I have no more interest in voting for someone who acts from stupidity than someone who acts from malice.""
Sure you do. Romney could come to his senses and realize where his true interest lies."
First, you are assuming that he would consider his true interests to be the same as yours and mine. Maybe he doesn't see himself as just another white man with white progeny he cares about. Maybe he sees himself and those like him as being far above us, almost as a separate species altogether. Maybe he sees himself as a lord who needs serfs to serve his descendents.
Secondly - sure, Romney might come to his senses. G.W. Bush might have come to his senses. He didn't. John McCain might have come his senses. He didn't. Romney "might" do a lot of things. He "might" start smoking unfiltered camels and drinking Stoli straight out of the bottle. He "might" dump his wife and take up with Lady Gaga. But he probably won't.
Just as he probably won't start acting the way that you or I would wish him too. When a politician has a long history of acting in ways that are opposed to your interests, it is perhaps foolishly naive to assume, now that he is going to be even more powerful, that he will all of a sudden have a change of heart and start being on your side.
"Truth said...
ReplyDelete""Do you need to read his mind to decide not to hire him?"""
Nah, just hire the other applicant; the kindly looking 55 year old, Christian man with the grey hair...the one who coaches football for Penn State."
Actually, the hypothetical fourteen year old daughter would have been perfectly safe with Jerry Sandusky.
the kindly looking 55 year old, Christian man with the grey hair...the one who coaches football for Penn State.
ReplyDeleteAt least your daughter would be safe around him.
In spite of what Obama wants everyone to think, letting the Bush tax cuts expire and adding additional taxes on people making over $250,000 per year would barely put a dent in the yearly budget deficits.
ReplyDeleteGeez, poker online--you're worked up about the $15 trillion debt? That's so 2012
ReplyDelete