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.
Iran did not come up. The Israeli Palestinian conflict did not come up. Libya in the last two debates
Unfortunately, debates are largely for voters to decide which candidate they like based upon demeanor and performance - not issues and TRUTH (and I am talking on both sides)
What amazes me is Mr. Romney makes a comment like (I'm paraphrasing) If elected, on my first day I will hold China accountable for their practice of purposefully holding down the value of their currency. Great, should be done. However, the media fails to then point out that if done to the extent that it needs to be done, China could then turn around and call in the loans which basically support our economy and then where would we be?
Instead of sitting around here after the debate getting all worked up about whether the President called the Libya situation an act of terrorism on day 1 or day 14, actual issues should be addressed and calling the candidates on the carpet for concrete monetary plans, etc. is what we should be discussing!
Did anyone else hear Governor Romney say essentially that we'll have to limit ourselves to one deduction (education, home mortgage, health insurance etc.) in exchange for a lower tax rate?
But Hey! any capital gains we take in won't be taxed. Don't know about you, but capital gains are the last tax we worry about.
Women in binders is going crazy on line
My wife asked me a great question during the debate. Do you just buy whatever sales person tells you, or do you go by your own instinct? What Romney promises amounts to a car sales person promising you a "brand new car" that goes to 60mph in 5 seconds, and gets 40 miles to the gallon and cost you bascially nothing. If those so called "undecided" voters would buy this bull, democracy is doomed to fail. Obama has laid out his plans on his website, basically investing in education, infrastructure, lower corporate tax rate. Your guests need to do homework!
I had the same reaction to Ms. Killian's comment. Many specifics were given. She is an expert for having written a book, granted, but her attitude is off-putting.
Michele Davis wrote:
"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:"
Michele, I DID watch the debate - every minute. At BEST for the President, it was a draw. But, hey, ANYTHING would have been better than his first performance. I would have expected better than what we saw last night with a 2 against 1 margin for the President and Obama's 3 minute time preference.
What you don't see yet, but you will by the end of Monday night is that he lost any gains he had made right at the end on Benghazi. He and Biden both lied about what transpired on Sept. 11th 2012, as did Susan Rice and Secretary Clinton, in the days and weeks following the attack. As Romney pushes this in the next few days, the President will be shown not to be trustworthy when he speaks to the American people.
It concerns me -- and surprises me -- that people were/are impressed w Romney's debate "performance" when a plethora of fact checkers have proved his claims to be False.
Lost in all the post-debate noise was this important article in today's Washington Post:
"What will replace the globalization model? By David M. Smick"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/what-will-replace-the-globalizati...
Lead paragraph: "Here’s a prediction: The political party that controls the White House after January could, four years later, be out of power for a generation. The economic challenges are that daunting."
Both candidates seem to be in denial on the magnitude of our economic problems and the difficult solutions we need to face. Would be nice to hear from the guests on this.
Thanks
I don't remember who said it, but we should rename the flip-flop to Romneys. We could all wear our Romneys to the beach, to the mall and other places. This man as changed so much that I have no idea what he was for before he was against it and is now for it.
Someone should have asked him, why in the past 4 years, if you cared so much for the unemployed workers in the U. S., haven't you and your 1% friends with all your wealth created job opportunities in this country. More often, when these people have created jobs, they have all.... ALL have been created in some other country and the inferior products that are produced are sold in the U. S. at outrageous prices.
His changing is a serious case of situation ethics. He says what he thinks the situation demands.
I don't think debating is all that helpful for people trying to decide who to vote for. The candidates seem to just rehash the plans they've already put forth many times. Negotiating skills are important. Why not try to hold a mock negotiating session and see how the candidates come across?
-B. Conway
XP wrote:
"My wife asked me a great question during the debate. Do you just buy whatever sales person tells you, or do you go by your own instinct? What Romney promises amounts to a car sales person promising you a "brand new car" that goes to 60mph in 5 seconds, and gets 40 miles to the gallon and cost you bascially nothing. If those so called "undecided" voters would buy this bull, democracy is doomed to fail. Obama has laid out his plans on his website, basically investing in education, infrastructure, lower corporate tax rate. Your guests need to do homework!"
You hear what you want to hear and see what you want to see, XP.
Your assessment sounds a lot like Obama in 2008. Now we have the results.
Everything old is new again. It's 1980 all over again.
Romney's "5 Point Plan" is empty rhetoric with no substance. I have read many economists, even Republican leaning economists, who have criticized Romney's budget plan for lacking specifics, raising the deficit, and keeping his only promise to cut taxes for the rich. I think it is short-sided to believe that in three short years the economy would be where it was prior to the crash. It takes time and this president has had a Republican House and enough Republican Senators in the Senate to prevent any attempt by the president to enact any economic policy that would help this country. Romney is a CEO, not a president of the whole United States.
I am completed offended by Romney suggesting that single moms have something to do gun violence. The nerve!
Did anyone listen to the followup! Obama pays the women in the white house less than men! It goes both ways. Let's get some common sense ! It isn't perfect on their side. In the end of either side who is going to PAY for society?? People or the government? Don't we want to help them work to take care of themselves!!!
I CANNOT believe the ridiculous statements that Romney was threatening from the people on this show!!! That is a passion for doing what is right for this country and getting what he has to say heard. Obama did the exact same! Obama had FAR LESS manners and completely disregarded the moderator and the people who had questions to ask!
Would you rather have American's leave b/c they cannot find work???? Oh but lets give the jobs to illegal aliens??? Really???
ABSOLUTELY! Obama never referred to that specific event as an "act of terror" !! He was speaking generally. And the fact does not change that Obama did go to Las Vegas for a rally that SAME DAY!
http://www.dailykos.com/blog/Kaili%20Joy%20Gray/
Re "binder" comment, another problem is that apparently Romney was wrong in saying that he asked for suggestions for women to appoint. An organized effort brought suggestions to him, and he ended up having a middling record on appointing women to important positions. Source is Kaili Joy Gray on Kos, so not from someone who is objective, but seems well documented.
Unfortunately, Diane Rehm shows her Obama bias today. So she should just admit it.
When she says that Obama can't be specific with his plan because he doesn't know yet what kind of Congress he will face, that applies to Romney, too. Why does Obama get a pass, but Romney does not?
When Diane Rehm takes after Romney because he apparently didn't know women to appoint to his Mass. cabinet, she fails to mention that years ago when Romney was in business, mightly few women were involved in the upper ranks of business - so why would he have known such women for later when he was gov. of Mass.?
C'mon, Diane Rehm - consider impartiality in this discussion...or it would be better to let us know that you favor Obama. At least, that would be more honest.
You show me a single president (or even politician) who has managed to keep every promise they made, and I will show you an alien, a ghost, and a unicorn in the same room.
http://beyond-the-political-spectrum.blogspot.com/
Why the "binders of women matters"
Governor Romney was not being truthful about the source of those binders. He didn't ask for them. The binders were being created prior to the election by a bipartisan group of women known as MassGAP. They intended to present the binders to the elected governor regardless of who they were. And, gov. Romney won. In fact, as pointed out by David S. Bernstein, at The Phoenix:
a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)
WWWyatt3 wrote:
"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."
From the sideline (I am a resident and therefore do not vote), I must say that Romney does display a sense of entitlement that is profoundly discomforting to this observer (this would be me).
And I do find similarities between Romney and Cheney. Cheney lied to the American people to get his way. And Romney is lying now... 8 years of lies brought about a near apocalyptic economic catastrophe. And, if I were to vote, I would not for someone who tries to convince me or anyone else by lying repeatedly...
Americans must be getting pretty nauseous over leaders who say one thing, then do another (Obama, foreign policy) and politicians who are extremist during a primary and then moderate during the general election (Romney). I don't think it makes a difference who wins this election.
Self-deportation sounds like a totally reasonable term.
That means people will leave without the government seizing them and paying the freight.
Yes, there would be miserry for these people. But after all, they are illegals to start with. So why should they be guaranteed jobs, benefits, etc.
Why should the American taxpayer pay for their welfare!
Why shouldn't that money go to help new legal immigrants who are here and need jobs, benefits, etc. Why shouldn't the doors be opened wide for the 4 million people patiently waiting on line to come to America. These are the new blood for our small businesses and our economy.
When you think about it, self-deportation is a more charitable outcome than having the government seizing folks and forcibly removing them - and of course it's a whole lot cheaper for the American taxpayer.
Romney is a bully. Obama is a gentleman
Re: Obama not clearly stating right away that the Lybian attack was done by a group of terrorists:
Perhaps the Obama administration was fuzzy on this because if we said it was terrorists, then the terrorists would know that we were looking for them. As long as the administration was fuzzy about it, the perpetrators/murderers might think we aren't looking for them and this would make it easier to catch them.
One reason to think that the administration was promoting the fuzziness is the fact that the administration knew that the secret house had also been attacked. Knowing this the administration had to know it was more than just protesters who were involved.
To Diane: PLEASE try to be more journalistic and not such an Obama supporter!!!! Your guest are almost always topical and well informed but your bias makes your show difficult to listen to when you can't seem to find a way to be more objective. If I want a particular viewpoint there are many other outlets where I can find opinionated content.
dstn29 wrote:
"What amazes me is Mr. Romney makes a comment like (I'm paraphrasing) If elected, on my first day I will hold China accountable for their practice of purposefully holding down the value of their currency. Great, should be done. However, the media fails to then point out that if done to the extent that it needs to be done, China could then turn around and call in the loans which basically support our economy and then where would we be?"
Not only this, but since a lot of what we buy nowadays is manufactured in China, the cost of imported goods would go way up in US$... And since we exported our manufacturing know how and capabilities, it would take a while for the US to get back to speed... The result would be inflation and scarcity...
This is what happened in Russia after the collapse of the USSR. Everything was manufactured in its satellite countries.
Suddenly, there was nothing to be had in Russia... I was there to witness it...
ecgberht wrote: "If you call that "fact checking" then I sure hope not! She was wrong and admitted as much today!"
"A sharp debate exchange between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama over Libya ignited a firestorm on political blogs Tuesday night, after moderator Candy Crowley stepped into the fray to seemingly "correct" Romney on a key point.
U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans were murdered in Benghazi, Libya, on the anniversary of 9/11. Romney challenged Obama's assertion that he had labeled it an act of terrorism, rather than blaming a controversial anti-Muslim video, the day after the attacks.
Said Romney: “I think it’s interesting that the president just said … the day after the attack he went to the Rose Garden and said this was an attack of terror… I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.”
Crowley, a veteran CNN political correspondent and host of Sunday's "State of the Union" news show, then appeared to correct Romney.
“He did in fact sir.”
Obama: “Can you say that a little louder, Candy?”
Crowley: “He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out, you’re correct about that.”
Speaking after the debate, Crowley said on CNN that Romney was correct “in the main” that the administration was slow to acknowledge the deadly assault was a coordinated terrorist attack.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/crowley-libya-terror-romney/2012/10/16/...
I don't understand why your guests on today's show, and Candy Crowley last night, ignored the information presented in yesterday's NYT by David Kirkpatrick which states that the attack on the U.S. ambassador really was in response to the video, and that it was not directly tied to Al Quaeda but rather was carried out by a Libyan group, Ansar al-Shariah. I head Kirkpatrick on "Here and Now" yesterday and his report sounds compelling. If true, then Obama's "fuzziness" about what happened was justified, since the information that it was an Al Quaeda attack was incorrect, and it was in fact a response to the video. I don't understand the complete disregard for this credible report.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-over...
Perhaps Romney feels entitled because he is out of touch with reality. He said the median income was $250,000 - i.e. that 50% of the population was making more than this. In reality, the median income is closer to $45,000.
More evidence that he is out of touch is his justification for getting rid of federal grants and scholarships. He said students should just borrow from their own parents for college! That is so absurd. It's scary to think he doesn't know that most parents couldn't save enough money for college no matter how hard they worked! It sounds a bit like Marie Antoinette's response when she was told the people had no bread: "then let them eat cake."
Hello Diane,
I like you and your show. One thing I usually like is that even though I think you are to the left concerning your views, you usually keep things pretty unbiased.
However, as I have tuned in to hear commentary on the Presidential debates it seems as if I am hearing everyone on your show making excuses when Obama hadn't performed well, yet very eager to pounce on Romney for the things perceived to be his weaknesses. Also, I don't think I have heard any outright praise for Romney.
Am I missing something or are you not being your usual unbiased self?
Also, I hate to buy into any of the extreme right or left conspiracy theories that always seem to rise concerning all Presidents and candidates but it does seem that in many ways Obama is ignoring our debt, spending obscene amounts of money, still and alienating many of our traditional allies, yet I don't hear any of these issues being addressed? Not to mention how many of his mentors seemed to be very questionable and not the type that seem to support the American dream.
Are these allegations really so out there they shouldn't be mentioned or?