The First Presidential Debate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-04/first-presidential-debate
The first presidential debate was held last night in Denver. Diane and her guests discuss what they said, who came out ahead, and where the candidates go from here.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow, The Brookings Institution, columnist, Washington Post and author of "Our Divided Political Heart: The Battle for the American Idea in an Age of Discontent."
Ramesh Ponnuru
senior editor for the "National Review."
Susan Page
Washington bureau chief for USA Today.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Last night was the very first time I have ever been disappointed in President Obama--and all for a very simple reason. I always assume that the challenges of decisions and handling of things are far more difficult than I could ever comprehend. I am proud of his record and I am still proud to support him. What I am troubled by is simple: his lack of eye contact. Leaders are supposed to look like they are listening first, attempting to understand, and then respond. However, President Obama seemed to be eternally looking down and writing on his papers like an amateur last night. President Obama is NOT an amateur. It came across, to me, as disengagement or a sign of lack of respect. None of the qualities are qualities I have ever associated with Mr. Obama. I hope that his next debate corrects this performance flaw.
I am not judging, but I don't want him to lose his lead for lack of a tool he has already mastered.
I see we have the usual ratio of libs to cons on the show today, 3 or 4 : 1.
I must say that I always enjoy Dionne for his complete lack of contact with reality. I do not understand why he does not have a show on MSNBC.
Even Susan Page, a reliable lib, had to admit that Obama got his head handed to him.
Not Dionne, though. One can, however, appreciate a guy that unapologetically knows where his economic well-being comes from - the left.
After November, when Obama loses, Dionne will still be claiming victory.
If Journalist = liberal propagandist, then Dionne is definitely a practitioner.
Obama hasn't had to go head to head with anyone these last four years, thanks to the sycophantic, democrat media. Most of whom, in Obama's own words voted for him. Now that he has, his glaring short-comings are evident.
Unfortunately for the democrat media, everyone was able to see it last night.
Obama never was fit to be president, and it would be a disaster in every way to grant him another 4 years.
It's amazing the number of excuses coming from your panel regarding Obama's performance last night. Does it occur to anyone that maybe his lack of experience and horrible economic record speaks for itself? When there is no teleprompter to read from, he cannot function.
Beyond The-Spectrum wrote:
"...and how many times have you had "experts" underestimate a job? Or how many times have you underestimated a potential job yourself? "
If I "misunderestimated" this badly I would be out of a job. We elect a President who is supposed to be competent, the "best and the brightest" and who is supposed to surround himself with competent people; economists and economic historians. When you're the leader of the free world, "the old college try" don't count for squat. Everyone makes mistakes around the edges, but mistakes of the magnitude this Administration has made both on the economy, and now foreign policy form the definition of incompetence.
While I am disappointed that the president was not as smooth or slick as Gov. Romney, and also in his questionable 4 trillion dollar claim, I am not clear that this was a substantive debate. The questions were substantive, but reviewing the fact-checking in this morning's papers and other media, it appears that most of the "substance" put forth by Gov. Romney had little actual factual basis.
The $90 billion is not a one-year subsidy, it's a set of tax credits and incentives that will roll out over the next 10 years or so. It's also not "fifty times" the $4 billion yearly subsidy to oil companies.
Romney cleverly stated that he isn't giving anyone a tax break that lowers revenue, but he is giving 4.8 trillion in tax breaks to upper-income earners, and has not answered how he would pay for it...most estimates based on what he HAS said have shown that his plan wouldn't pay for that drop in revenue.
The 716 million dollar cut from medicare is not a cut from medicare but a reduction in medicare costs. The Ryan plan cuts a similar amount from medicare itself.
It's easy to be strong and slick if you just make up facts and keep repeating them. Romney has apparently learned that from his sons (and Karl Rove).
The President can't believe anyone has the gall to disagree with him! That's why he seemed ah, disgruntled last night. He simply can not support his philosophy, and expects us to just accept & agree.
"Mike Sergeant wrote:
I am hoping that someone can reconcile these two statements.
A) Gov. Romney saying that Government cannot create jobs. Se here:
http://www.mittromney.com/forms/private-sector-what-creates-jobs-not-gov...
B) If elected, he will create 12 million new jobs. See here
http://www.mittromney.com/jobsplan
I cannot reconcile these two statements from his own website without some serious mental gymnastics."
Let me try! The subtle and weak economic signals point to a significant improvement in 2013 and 2014.. This does not show significantly in employment levels yet because of the lag between underlying economic dynamics and practical observable results... There is no danger in promising what he knows (if he recalls his economics courses at Harvard B-School) will happen... And this will happen because the current administration got us out of the ditch...
partisan politics wrote:
"I watched the Alfred Hitchcock hour and waited for the reaction, at this point that's all that matters."
We had the same idea. I didn't watch the infomercial either. It wasn't the Alfred Hitchcock hour. Sadly that was not available.
Question:
What about tax benefits exxon mobil (obama: "big oil") gets? Who was right on that issue? Is it 2.8 billion?
Does Obama offer 90 billion in Tax benefits for green energy?
Please answer!
Roger, I didn't see that, but you are right - that's quite disturbing.
Perhaps NOT mentioning "47%" was a strategy. I've lost count of the number of times I've
heard that number since the conclusion of last night's debate. The President should thank
the media for keeping that Romneyism alive in the minds of voters.
SUBJ: DONALD TRUMP IS A SMALL BUSINESS ACCORDING TO ROMNEY'S DEFINITION
Dear Ms. Rehm,
The punch President Obama (paraphrasing) delivered:
"According to Governor Romney's definition, 'Donald Trump is a small business' " I believe was a strong left punch.
According to CNN's fact checking:
(CNN) -- President Barack Obama invoked Donald Trump's name during Wednesday's presidential debate, claiming that GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney would consider the mogul's empire a small business.
"Under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses," President Obama said. "Donald Trump is a small business. Now, I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything -- but that's how you define small businesses if you're getting business income."
CNN's Conclusion: While Romney's plan does not define who is or is not a small business, some of Donald Trump's companies would qualify as a small business because they have fewer than 500 employees.
Skip Bogard
Raleigh, NC
Roger Stanley wrote:
"The substance of the debate aside, what was truly telling was the Romney family's reaction to the President and First Lady after the debate. Mrs. Romney turned her back to the Obamas when they approached, it was exceedingly rude."
-----------------------
Come on. Your imagination is working over time. Ann Romney didn't diss the President or the First Lady. First off, Obama is not a King. When people leave the oval office they do not back out and bow simultaneously. Well, they may be required to do so for this President.
The statement that the President could have been more aggressive is a statement that could be applied to his entire first term.
commentators currently falling all over themselves defending BO -
Romney won on all counts and they know it; that is why they are defensive.
I. Holding candidate accountable: BO: 4 years of nominal job growth, miniscule reduction in umemployment numbers, and the most divisive social engineering legislation since LBJ - Obamacare! compared to Massachusetts' actual progress -Romney worked across the aisle and got things done -
What's hard to understand? 2 weeks ago the commentators were honest to say BO had to change the topic b/c if he had to run on his record, no candidate has ever won reelection with such a poor record of job creation, unemployment rate, GDP --
I feel I watched and listened to (!) a different debate than many headline writers. I found myself ready for Obama to say, Well, Governor, if that's what you think, you should vote for me!
How does Romney think (after being present in the US for the last four years) he can come in repeal and rebuild the health care initiative that all others before Obama failed to build. Especially since he now seems to want the essentially the same plan.
As for more aggression, please. Let's allow some unaggressive discussion. Good grief.
If Diane goes off the air, where will you make your comments? I am sure that PBS will go the route of others and have to have advertising, which they will succeed in getting. Why make comments like this? Is this helpful, useful? civil?? Not really.
The Democrats must applaude the Republican debate prep team. They dazzled us with Sarah Palin's transformation four years ago, and repeated the achievement with Mr. Romney last night. Democrats should steal the play book.
You forgot the following:
1. Offers an unemployment rate above 8% forever.
2. Offers a no growth federalist big brother government forever.
3. Offers small business a kick in the teeth everyday forever.
4. Offers a politically divided partisan country forever.
5. Offers a bankruptcy country forever.
6. Offers free money to his political supporters (like solylendra) forever.
I think Diane should moderate the presidential debates. No one knows better than she how to control guest speakers, and I have no doubt she could do the same with presidential debates.
Diane, I saw Gov. Romney as a true leader. I truly believe Pres. Obama really does not know what to do about the economy and that is what showed in his lack of assertiveness and charisma last night.
The President was trying to hard to be "Presidential" and not attack Mitt.
I noticed the CNN reaction line dropped every time he atttacked.
Mitt is just the leader of the party of the "teen age boy mentallity" who are still fascinated with the engima of the vagina and will lie to get whatever they want. "I will not cut taxes 5 trillion"....no probably 6 trillion ! See what I mean.
I feel that Mr. Obama was just trying not to make any missteps so came off as uninvolved. I also think Mr. Lehrer did not do a good job by losing control of the debate. Mr. Romney may have not been too aggressive in your speaker's view, but I think he was rude by his frequent interruptions of Mr. Obama and Mr. Lehrer. To me, this indicates his basic lack of respect for Mr. Obama, Mr. Lehrer, as well as the basic debate format.
I am surprised that no one picked up on Romney's comment that he wished he had an accountant that knew about a tax break for sending jobs overseas. To me, this suggests that he has either done so and wishes he could have received a tax break for it or that he would have done so if he knew there would be a tax break for it. I thought it was quite out of touch and insensitive.
"I know my President is a lot smarter and a lot sharper then he was last night." Caller
Perfect.
I think your caller who speculated that President Obama, in his mind, was thinking something like, "It's easy to make all these promises, but just try to get them accomplished" was right on target. I have to admit that I'm feeling a little perverse this morning, almost wishing Romney would win just so he could have the experience of being in the hotseat and having to actually try to deliver and find out what that's like. I hate this feeling, and I know, in the more civilized part of my brain, that this would probably be disastrous, but it just irritates me how easily pie-in-the-sky promises can be put out there with no substantive details. Also, I found Romney annoyingly rude when he kept talking over Jim Lehrer, who seemed frustrated by it, but handled it well. I felt that Obama was much more polite and that maybe he's simply a nicer person.
JanB wrote:
"I also think Mr. Lehrer did not do a good job by losing control of the debate."
------------------------------
Right. Lehrer gave the President four more minutes to speak than he gave Romney.
Did anyone catch the Romney gaff at the end, in which he says he's quoting the Constitution. He specifies "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." That is from the Declaration of Independence.
It would be nice if our politicians knew the difference.
Is it possible that the deference historically shown by blacks to white males caused Obama's passive behavior?
Both candidates talked about reviewing and ending some entitlement programs. No federal politician has offered to change the entitlement they receive at the end of their term in office, health insurance for life, monthly check, in some cases secret service surveillance. Imagine the amount of money we could save if cuts to these entitlements were made. They could also offer to cut their salaries by 10% the way union workers for Conoco had to this year.