Analysis Of The Obama-Romney Debate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-17/analysis-obama-romney-debate
President Obama went up against Gov. Mitt Romney last night in a town-hall-style debate. After a lackluster performance during the first debate two weeks ago, the president had something to prove. By nearly all accounts, he came across much tougher and more engaged. He challenged his rival for the White House on differences of policy and plans for the nation's future. The two men sparred over energy and economic policy, tax cuts and immigration. And they squared off over the best path to improve U.S. competitiveness and create jobs. Diane and her guests talk about what Americans learned from the candidates and whether it will make a difference in November.
Guests
Michael Hirsh
chief correspondent at National Journal magazine and author of "At War with Ourselves: Why America Is Squandering its Chance to Build a Better World."
Linda Killian
journalist, senior scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center and author of "The Swing Vote: The Untapped Power of Independents."
Ron Elving
Washington editor for NPR.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Topic: Romney: George Herman Walker Bush Redo
Read my lips, no new taxes: except for those earning less than $250,000
Read my lips, no new health care, especially for the 44,000 (Wilper, et al 2009) who die each year for lack of health insurance
Read my lips, no new Medicare, especially for those who can't afford the brand new voucher plan.
Read my lips, no new Social Security, especially when I direct the funds to Wall Street brokers.
Read my lips, no restraint on Wall Street brokers, except for the local bookies who are kept more honest by their "employers."
Read my lips, no new college loans, unless you bank roll your savings with Wall Street brokers.
Read my lips, no more abortions, especially after we impose "through legislation" narrow religious doctrine on all American women.
Read my lips, no new future, especially on Main Street and in the middle and lower economic groups, where you'll work harder and get less for your efforts
Read my lips, No Shared Responsibility to Right Our Ship of State, Our Country, especially for those with Cayman Island P.O. boxes and exporters of U.S. jobs.
Tuned in late and heard some bad noise on gun control, tuned out. Post debate, no blood on the floor Romney won by default.
(non-US-citizen, from Canada)
What is most needed in the US's presidential elections is answers to:
"which presidential candidate is most likely to* equitably- and responsibly- spread cuts to US govt spending if their economic plans don't work- and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough??"
______________
Roderick V. Louis
Vancouver, BC, Canada
* 'work towards' equitably- and responsibly- spreading cuts...
... recognizing the inherent oppositional relationship that exists between the US government's 3 branches, IE: House of Representatives, Senate & President (+ his/her cabinet) and that US Presidents don't rule by decree...
I was really impressed with Candy Crowley as moderator, "fact checking" Mitt Romney on the spot. Will we see more of this in the next debate?
Romney said that he would pay for his 20% cut in tax rates by reducing deductions and "exemptions." Let me describe what this means by using figures in effect for the 2011 tax year.
The exemptions are the $3700 you were allowed to deduct from your income on your personal income tax for yourself and for each dependent. So a family of 4 would have gotten a total of $14,800 in exemptions. And it would have gotten a standard deduction of $11,600. This means that the family would have paid no income tax on the first $26,400, and it means that a family earning less than $26,400 would have paid no federal income tax.
A family of 4 earning just $26,400 is definitely a family in or close to poverty. Yet Romney says that he will reduce the exemptions, and therefore that family will pay some federal income tax. Remember too that that family will pay that income tax in addition to federal payroll taxes. Thus, Romney will pay for his tax cut for millionaires in part by adding to taxes for the poor, those he includes among "the 47%."
Yes, Romney's numbers do not add up, and his 20% cut in rates along with his increase in military spending would add hugely to the deficit. But in addition, he would raise taxes on some of the poorest Americans.
Romney's tax plan is a cruel hoax.
Obama said he wanted to do for others what he did for GM. So why hasn't he rushed in to 'save' American Airlines from bankruptcy? And how well did that tax-payer funded investment in Solyndra go? Romney didn't want GM to go out of business as the President continues to intentionally misrepresent; he wanted it to go through bankruptcy, which is a non-taxpayer-funded free-market process that allows a company to right-size itself and stabililze it's financial condition. If demand exists or returns, as it did for GM, the jobs will be there. Romney is right -- Obama did take GM through bankruptcy, just having the government control it and using tax dollars rather than letting it play out in the market as it is for American and countless other companies who have gone through it. I'm tired of Obama's continued intentional misrepresentation of this. It shows his lack of integrity.
Governor Romney said 23 million are struggling for work. He didn't use the word unemployment which keeps going down. Instead he used a generic category to keep throwing the number 23 million without defining what the number represented. It didn't represent number unemployed 12.1 million (7.8%) and it didn't represent any other BLS metric. Doublespeak, Mr. Ryan?
The Governor said people lost, on average, over $4,000 (I forget the exact number.) What does that mean? Does it mean that if you take all the lost income in dollars and divide it by the number of people (or households), you get an average of over $4,000. That's a novel definition of , “I feel your pain.” Is the Governor saying that the people who remained working through the Great Recession have been harmed by the loss of income of their neighbors who actually lost jobs? Is the Governor trying to upset those who didn't lose jobs to feel as if that they did lose jobs, and therefore, should direct this “pain” to vote for the Governor?
Yes, people, on average, are getting heavier, but is it meaningful for a customer to go into a clothing store to say, “Give me your average size because it would better fit me.” Sorry Governor, but it would have been more meaningful to say that the average lost income of the millions who lost jobs, is on average, X dollars, which would be more than the $4,000 figure. Perhaps, you didn't do that because of a math error. Or perhaps, was it because you, of all people, wanted to expand the Victim Class, which would increase the number of people who perceive they were genuinely pained by this economy, and therefore, be conned to vote for you.
The Governor sidesteps Transparency and Truth, while pushing Gimmickry and Sophistry.
President Obama won the night. However, I`m disappointed at his stance on the middle class`s loss of revenue. When the "Great Bush Recession" crashed our economy,we were told everyone must do their fair share(shared sacrifice). Employees across the country gave up raises,paid higher health care and retirement contributions,many worked free days...WITHOUT COMPLAINT.. Millions were on 'Unemployment Insurance Benefits',lowering wage averages. But what happened when the Wall Street Fat Cats came back with record profits....RECORD BONUSES....No shared sacrifice there either.What did T-Party/Republicans do? Block the WINDFALL PROFIT TAX,which could pay the debt or build a bridge.
In Ohio T-Party/Republicans tried to crush union jobs with S/B 5...Who do you think sets the standard for good wages for ALL Americans ?
STAND AND DELIVER
partisan politics - why post a comment and render a judgement on the debate if you didn't watch the entire thing?
No Romney did not win by default. He was bested and his shill game exposed on extremely important points:
- his 100% empathy for Americans versus his 47% remark behind closed doors to well heeled donors.
- equal pay for women: what decade is the man living in? (the "binders of women" remark, his comment on letting his Mass state women employees go home to "cook", the comment on "if women are in the work force" and "if we have more employers they will hire more women") Someone needs to clue him in. We have been in the workforce for some time now not getting equal pay for equal work. His answer was weak and had nothing to do with equal pay for women.
-women's right to contraception - what a muddled response!
- his budget plan/tax cut for the 1% and supposed deductions to pay for a plan that does not add up (please - 'it adds up because he ran a business and says so' - sounds like the Wall Street types that lied and led us into our financial disaster')
- his pointed suggestion that the president lied about his comments in the Rosegarden on Bengazzi.
- his waffling on the coal industry, automatic weapons, Medicare
All were very successfully countered by the president. Romney looked small and hypocritical. Before commenting, watch the entire debate on Youtube. But then that wouldn't help take the blinders off - Partisan is right!
Michele Davis wrote: "partisan politics - why post a comment and render a judgement on the debate if you didn't watch the entire thing?"
At this point only game changing performances are relevant. We got one in the first debate. As long as Romney can hold his own from this point forward he will win.
And someone who watched a snippet of a debate can determine if it was a game changer? Whether Romney "held his own" is problematic.
Best to not render yet another "definitive" judgement on that one.
MrRoderickvLouis wrote:(non-US-citizen, from Canada) "What is most needed in the US's presidential elections is answers to: "which presidential candidate is most likely to* equitably- and responsibly- spread cuts to US govt spending if their economic plans don't work- and/or the govt deficit keeps growing/doesn't shrink fast enough??"
We quibble ferociously about pennies down here because there is mass ignorance on debt and deficit, about half of the American electorate could not even explain the difference between the two let alone tell you who Paul Ryan is.
Too bad there is not more discussion here on Canadian style austerity measures, they have apparently worked out very well.
Michele Davis wrote: "And someone who watched a snippet of a debate can determine if it was a game changer? Whether Romney "held his own" is problematic."
I watch the post debate reactions closely, it's the reactions of people outside myself that matter now. My mind has been made up since November 5 2008.
partisan politics wrote: "My mind has been made up since November 5 2008."
We pretty much gathered that from your posts.
Two main points
1. Governor Romney has shifted - from presenting himself as an “extreme conservative” to an “extreme centrist”. You have to ask yourself – is Romney now a “wolf in sheep’s clothing” – or was he during the last year a “sheep in wolf’s clothing”. We just don’t know – he changes desperately based on the day.
2. The real issue with the 47% goes much deeper. It’s really about how we see wealth – and morality. It is a belief that wealth itself somehow is a sign of morality – and, conversely that poverty itself demonstrates low moral values. Proof itself.
a. And – that one of the “moral” things the wealthy do is avoid paying taxes in any way they can.
b. Somehow, much of our society – wealthy and non-wealth alike, buy into this core belief.
Simply put...
Obama was more aggressive, and he needed to be because Romney is a flat-out liar. Just as Obama said, Romney spent the last year and a half pandering to the far right, and now he's becoming more centrist--which I've ALSO noticed throughout the campaign. Ed Fehrnstom was right with the Etch-A-Sketch analogy. What he said and did, and how he tore down everyone else with his negative ads and attacks during the primary will NOT be forgotten. WILL THE REAL MITT ROMNEY PLEASE STAND UP...and we haven't seen him. He's a "trojan horse"! He CANNOT be trusted! How can he say "I have a plan, but I will discuss it with Congress" and expect the American people to trust him? Why not let people know what you REALLY intend to do. Give some specifics. He has failed to do that, so with that said, I'm not buying anything that he peddles!
partisan politics wrote: "My mind has been made up since November 5 2008."
This explains a lot... I was desperately trying to understand the underlying foundation to your opinions, Partisan Politics... Now, I know...
I no longer need to attempt deconstructing your logic. There is coherence in your stance... You are against Obama, no matter what.
The next question might be: why?
But I tried to ask this question before. It was one of my first posts here... Never got an answer...
I am not going to try again. I am afraid of what I might find.
Jim Gamble wrote:
"I was really impressed with Candy Crowley as moderator, "fact checking" Mitt Romney on the spot. Will we see more of this in the next debate?"
If you call that "fact checking" then I sure hope not! She was wrong and admitted as much today!
Confusion on Benghazi. As a retired US diplomat with over 36 years of service in Africa, Latin America and Europe, I am shocked over the confusion created by Mr. Romney's basic ignorance about diplomacy and the role of Ambassadors. American chiefs of mission are not expected to be passive observers waiting for instructions from Washington. They are in charge of, and responsible for, all official US activities in their Embassies. They have access to all political, intelligence and sundry reports emanating from their Embassies. Our Ambassador in Libya would have been aware of the risks involved in visiting Benghazi two weeks ago. Unfortunately, he misjudged the potential dangers, and we lost four brave, intelligent and resourceful members of the misssion.
In his desire to appear wise in everything, Governor Romney has pursued an ankle-biting strategy which may suit his purposes, but just muddies the waters. I resent the fact that he has carrried his political campaign into the Foreign Policy arena, an area in which he has little or no expertise.
ecgberht:
Oh?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/16/candy-crowley-fact-checks-mitt-...
The manner in which Gov Romney has expressed himself during both debates is a "tell". Going beyond acceptable aggressive debate strategy, Romney consistently and forcefully ignores requests from the moderators to "move on". He talks at people, not with them. Romney promotes himself as being someone who can bring people together and listen to ideas. I don't think so. Romney is a skilled interrupter, without any desire to play by the rules. Well, maybe his rules?
Statman2 wrote:
"Governor Romney said 23 million are struggling for work. He didn't use the word unemployment which keeps going down. "
False. The unemployment RATE ticked below 8% for the first time in 40+ months because more people left the workforce (read: gave up looking), which I'm sure you well know, not because enough jobs were created to bring it down. When you count those people in addition to those unemployed and still looking for work, the rate is somewhere between 11 and 14% - far worse than when Obama took office.
The President's economy relies on the definition of the unemployment rate, not on the number of people actually unemployed under him.
Additionally, the President claimed that he called the Benghazi attack a "terror attack" in the rose garden speech on September 12. That, of course, is false. He used the word "terror" once in his speech, near the end, in a general reference and continued to refer to the attack as a spontaneous demonstration in reaction to a video for two weeks.
So you see, statman, "The President sidesteps Transparency and Truth, while pushing Gimmickry and Sophistry".
Gov. Romney promised 12 million new jobs. If he has a way to create these jobs why didn't he share it with Congress? Seems to me he had a patriotic obligation to do so.
I read that independent voters will be voting for Bush again
Thank you for mentioning the physicality and disrespect in that debate. I too gasped. I did not like the alpha stuff at the beginning, from either candidate, but Mr. Romney really went well over the top. Talk about "unhinged"! After all the talk about the President's disengaged body language in the first debate and the VP's smiling in that debate, I am astounded that the stunning rudeness and threatening behavior of Mr. Romney toward the sitting President of the US has not rec'd more attention. To me, it was just disqualifying. I am appalled.
I don't understand the analysis from Diane's guest (Linda) that there is a lack of specifics - focus on manufacturing growth, cutting spending and letting tax breaks on incomes over $250K expire, focus on renewable energy, etc., etc., etc., - the media ALWAYS wants more, even when the answers are right there. Maybe Linda didn't hear specifics, but I did. I'd venture to say she'll never hear what she needs to hear.
1) Obama's Jokes: Personally I find it offensive when Obama makes light of the important issues. I find it hard to believe why no one discusses the fact that Obama makes "jokes" from serious topics. He says Romney invests in overseas business & when Romney pointed out that Obama does the exact same thing of the investments in Obama's pension Obama made a JOKE response! I guess that is what Obama really thinks of that topic when it is put to him. The American people are good with our government JOKING about these topics?
2) Moderator: I was very disappointed with the moderator. I truly felt that Obama ignored the moderator and walked all over her. As a woman I felt she could have done a much better job of leading the debate. I felt it was more one sided with the amount of time given to Obama's. I was extremely frustrated watching this. Romney had nothing else to do but to stand up for himself and I wish he had done even more of it.
Has anyone taken note of what Cuba is doing?? Reversing the SOCIALIST society?? We are having a slow vine of socialism creeping into the American Democracy. Soon it will choke out all rewarding of exceptionalism, outstanding effort and FREEDOM OF CHOICE!!
I am voting for Obama even though many of us have been deeply disappointed by the lack of accountability for WMD lies and absence of prosecutions of the Wall Street fraudsters.
But is it ok to be proud that during all three debates the individuals all sound intelligent and articulate. Really seems like these debates are far more elevated than some in the recent past.
The man is rude, condescending and has that air of entitlement that he wants to tag on 47% of the country. He'd be a complete NIGHTMARE as president....we had one of those the 8 years preceeding this administration.
Personally I think Andy Borowitz "The Borowitz Report" called it right. Mitt Romney set a new record in faking empathy for those less wealthy than himself.