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.
One thing that nobody is focusing on is Romney's comments about war. He criticizes the President for pulling out troops from Iran and promising to pull them out of Afghanistan. He says he wouldn't do that. That means he wants more years of war! I don't think the American people want more war.
Also, that would continue adding huge amounts to the deficit. Funding wars is expensive. How is he going to pay for it?
Re Romney and binders:
I read some pieces this morning on the web that said it was actually a women's coalition that had prepared 'binders' of women's resumes to put forward to anyone who was elected as MA Gov as a means of getting more women in govt. If this is the case, quite a different situation than what Romney suggested - i.e. that it was his personal initiative to seek out women for positions. Another example of Mitt Romney misleading about the facts of his record.
Thanks.
mikepowerline2 wrote: "Am I missing something or are you not being your usual unbiased self?"
I did read something about power lines and cognitive dysfunction.
Two points:
1. The "Romney is not giving specifics" talking point from the Democrats is now being repeated by the sheeple. THINK FOR YOURSELVES, PEOPLE. He has given as many specifics as his integrity will allow knowing that the President cannot, alone, solve the economic crisis we're in. Listen to what he's saying and you'll hear specifics. Get on his website and read for yourself.
2. Candy Crowley did a great job, for the most part - I agree. But, inserting herself into the Libya question was dishonest. And President Obama allowing her to create a less-than-accurate impression, is equally dishonest and dispicable.
Gov. Romney was making the point that the President did not call the murders "a terrorist attack." Think about it. If he had, from that moment, the national conversation would have been about a terrorist attack on the anniversary of Sept. 11 - which is what happened. That is terrible for politics, so the President sidestepped it for 2 weeks. It was all calculated. He would rather have to answer questions about why it took him 2 weeks to really admit that's what it was than to spend those same two weeks getting pummeled for letting it happen in the first place. He referenced terrorism in the Rose Garden, but never called this a terrorist attack. He said the US cannot tolerate terrorist attacks. Candy Crowley knows this. Gov. Romney knows it. And Obama knows it. But, when Candy decided to become a debate participant, she did not fully explain and the President did not correct her. He is a dishonest politician who has no respect for any of us.
mikepowerline2 wrote:
"... 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?"
To understand the issue of the debt and deficit, one needs to do some careful "cameral accounting" analysis and budgetary deconstruction.
Most of the debt is due to the 8 Bush years and the resulting "service of the debt" cost. It has nothing to do with Obama policies... The Obama administration could not reduce the budgetary and debt burdens because of Congress blocking any effort for actually reimbursing the debt (if you can't raise revenue, one way or the other, you can't pay down the debt).
Repeated post... sorry!
Regarding the attack on the U.S. Embassy in Libya, I happened to catch some of the testimony on CNN and a request was made for additional security BEFORE the attack happened. A State Department staffer ... I didn't get her name exactly ... think it was a Charlotte or Charlene Lamb ... said that she received a request for additional security and TURNED IT DOWN because the "standard" security for that embassy was supposedly already in place. Obviously that standard was wrong. Why hasn't this been brought out? This staffer should immediately be put on leave or fired. I also remember an Army colonel saying that when he left, he knew that additional security was needed, and he might have been the one that requested it when he returned to Washington. Does anyone remember this? Hillary Clinton is obviously covering for this Lamb person.
@mikepowerline2
Thanks for that comment. You and a few others on this board sound like the voice of many independents in this election cycle.
I'm not calling the President a socialist or a communist, so don't misunderstand the analogy, but what I see on the political landscape during the election season is reminiscent of the Politburo and Pravda in the 70s and 80s; a government, backed by media to mold a false message to the people. The attempt of Michael Hirsch to turn the Obama's Benghazi gaffe last night to the President's favor (calling it the "worst moment of the night for Romney") is a CLASSIC example.
Steve Gewirtz wrote:
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.
* * *
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.
----------------
The media needs to do a better job at explaining what these tax plans mean. It sounds great to say you are going to cut tax rates and pay for it by eliminating deductions. Taxes are the income for our country. Without more income there is no way to pay our debt.
As Mr. Gerwitz pointed out, the key point is who is going to be affected by this reduce taxes and eliminate deductions plan. There is no way to know unless he names the deductions. It seems like the ones he is likely to cut may have poor and middle class people paying more by eliminating some of the deductions that are specifically targeted to help working families.
The only advantage of this plan is that it might simplify the tax code. As for citizens at best, lower rates and eliminate deductions may be a wash and most people will end up paying about the same amount - at best.
Callers are saying that neither candidate has a well-defined plan for normalizing the economy. What about President Obama's jobs bill that involved repair of the country's insfrastructure ... roads, bridges, the electrical supply grid, etc., plus hiring more firefighters, police officers, etc.? This bill was either not taken up by Congress or defeated by the Republican majority, I don't remember. I don't think he mentioned that in theh debate and probably should have. That is a more specific plan than Romney's general "promises".
Ferdnam wrote:"To understand the issue of the debt and deficit, one needs to do some careful "cameral accounting" analysis and budgetary deconstruction.
Most of the debt is due to the 8 Bush years and the resulting "service of the debt" cost. It has nothing to do with Obama policies... "
Maybe some "analysis" without the your prism is in order!
"So is the president an aberration in post-war American history? Is he something radically different than what we have seen in the past ten presidents? Nope. He really isn’t. President Obama inherited a government moving in the wrong direction and he put his foot on the gas pedal. But he didn’t change course. His record on spending, debt, and deficits is quite bad, but he is not a radical departure from the American presidential ethos.
In fact, he is, sadly, fairly typical. Like previous presidents, he has enacted new federal policies at great expense to the taxpayers. Like previous presidents, he has found it very hard to cut spending. Like previous presidents, he has not made substantial progress on controlling the current and future costs of our middle-class entitlements. Like his immediate predecessor, he has dramatically increased the size of the federal debt."
http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2012/09/03/yep-obamas-a-big-spender...
Obama's manners as a President were APPALLING last night. If Romney had not taken a stand for his right to speak he would have come across as weak! The moderator did not control the debate and let the president speak way beyond his fair time.
I am disappointed that Diana's panel has not addressed this issue that was very obvious!!
IleanaDU wrote:
"Taxes are the income for our country. Without more income there is no way to pay our debt".
False. That is the "zero sum game" argument that the left makes. President Obama, being completely ignorant in the field of economics makes the same mistake. It leaves out GROWTH. If we had to depend only on tax income and do not produce growth, we will NEVER get out of debt. That is true because you could take the ENTIRE INCOME of the top 1% and it would fund the government for only a few days. Taxes alone will never touch the debt - it will only go higher. We need GROWTH and reduced SPENDING, as well as "entitlement" reform to bring our nation's finances under control. Pro-growth policies are what Mitt Romney is offering, while the President's record shows he is anti-business and pro-tax. That is no way to create growth and the last four years proves it.
As a loyal follower of the Diane Rehm Show for many years, I have appreciated her objective and gracious demeanor with guests representing a wide range of topics. However after listening to her biased analysis of the second Obama Romney Debate, she has lost a listener!
So how long to you honestly think GOVERNMENT can sustain us?
Women, African Americans, Hispanics, Native American Indians and other minorities.....with unique talents are just not readily available to serve in the Gov Romney cabinet and apparently on his corporate board.
Sounds like the language used to excuset he obvious, exclusion of minorities and others that the big business tables making the big deals made by folks at his level.
Sounds like Gov Romney has a lack of exposure and interest, otherwise he wouldn't need to have women in binders in his office verses having woment serving in the board room.
REMINDER: SOCIAL ISSUES ARE ECONOMIC ISSUES! You can not separate social from economics.
Gov. Romney keeps talking about "failure of leadership." what about his failure. Romney could have showed leadership and bipartisanship by calling out the Republican leadership in Congress at any time about their
obstruction of the President's programs, particularly the jobs programs. He could have demonstrated leadership by exhorting mcConnell and bohner to work with the President, not against him, for the benefit of the American people, even most recently on a veteran's jobs bill. Romney didn't do it and missed an obvious opportunity to demonstrate real leadership and bipartisanship. He didn't do it. This demonstrates pretty clearly he's neither a leader, capable of real leadership nor bipartisan
The attack on our consulate was about the movie: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/16/world/africa/election-year-stakes-over...
Just like the VP debate; the real losers are the millions of Americans that tuned in to watch a debate only to get a liberal moderated attack of the republican candidate. Raddatz was only a warm up for the complete, no shame, shill job Crowley exercised for Obama. So much so if one is to slow the debate down and watch it over you will find that Crowley interrupted Romney 28 times. During those 28 times Crowley openly defended Obama and attacked Romney's position on 6 occasions. Crowley refused to allow Romney to come back on 2 subjects when she promised she would. Perhaps because Romney had spoken on too long you say?! Hogwash. Obama spoke for over 44 minutes and Romney for 40 minutes and change. So in an 'unbiased' and 'fair' debate Crowley allowed her candidate to speak 10% longer than Romney. Why the RNC agrees to these one sided debates is beyond common sense. But DESPITE the 2 on 1 odds Romney STILL came out looking more presidential then the president.
@bethpuch
In another post you wrote:
'bethpuch wrote:
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?"
Beth, it's not "people or government" because "people ARE government". Government doesn't spend a PENNY that doesn't come from the people. When people talk about "government spending" it's a misnomer. That money comes out of the pockets of its citizens. What you are really asking is, do we want to use government policies to allow people to be independent and able to support themselves or do we want to use government force to simply redistribute from those who have more to those who have less. That is the difference between conservative policies and liberal progressive policies. If we are a country of free and independent people, it seems like a simple choice to me.
I feel that Romney's religious beliefs are being completely understated. The LDS religion does not feel that women belong in the workplace and this is obviously already been reflected. "Bring the binders". Can we really afford to have an international leader with these strong personal beliefs?
davisstraub wrote:
"The attack on our consulate was about the movie"
That is akin to Donald Trump still insisting that President Obama wasn't born in America.
Diane Rehm and Linda Killian were "impressed" with Candy Crowley as moderator? Of course President Obama did not refer to the Benghazi murder of four Americans as a terrorist attack in the rose garden. Speaking in general terms, he used the phrase "acts of terror" but never called the Benghazi attack an act of terrorism. Obama looked to CNN's Candy as if she were Stephanie Cutter and expected her to champion his version. Obviously, if the Obama Administration's characterization of the attack was terrorism on September 12, they wouldn't send out UN Ambassador Rice to say it was anything but terrorism on September 17.
@ecgberht: I heard her CNN statement myself today. I almost felt like we had a third person debating last night... A difference of over 3 minutes in talk time is also noteworthy.
No game changers in the debate last night, just a rehash and restating of positions. Some shape-shifting and re-posturing in both camps.
If fact checking would have been equally apportioned by the moderator, then Obama should have been reigned in several times on some of his statements.
Won't go into detail on which ones as that would be "beating a dead horse" and wasted effort on this lot.
@JiaAcree: you stated " The LDS religion does not feel that women belong in the workplace and this is obviously already been reflected"
Can you site a published policy or official church statement that supports your statement? Last night Mitt Romney stated that many of the social ills that we are facing at this time (and that we are trying to fix via government intervention) can be solved by children beng raised and taught by parents in the home. As I recall, he also took into consideration and praised those who are single parents who face this added challenge. This was stated under the topic of gun control and again when discussing equal pay for women. How do you construe that as "The LDS religion does not feel that women belong in the workplace"? I was a little disappointed that neither candidate truly came up with a viable actable solution, however;
You make a broad based accusation against "the LDS religion" here that is totally unfounded.
A previous comment was:
"So is the president an aberration in post-war American history? Is he something radically different than what we have seen in the past ten presidents? Nope. He really isn’t. President Obama inherited a government moving in the wrong direction and he put his foot on the gas pedal. But he didn’t change course. His record on spending, debt, and deficits is quite bad, but he is not a radical departure from the American presidential ethos.
In fact, he is, sadly, fairly typical. Like previous presidents, he has enacted new federal policies at great expense to the taxpayers. Like previous presidents, he has found it very hard to cut spending. Like previous presidents, he has not made substantial progress on controlling the current and future costs of our middle-class entitlements. Like his immediate predecessor, he has dramatically increased the size of the federal debt."
My comment is:
And of course some of the previous ten presidents were Republican. If Romney is elected, the odds are that the previous comment will be applied to him as well.
When Romney talk about how he went about looking for women to work on his staff, I thought, "So he is favour of and practices Affirmative Action."
The winner of the debate would be the one who made the most believable statements.
The problem is that "believable" and "truthful" are not always synonymous.
"I believe Governor Romney is a good man." President Obama
This is in contrast to Obama's paid minions who call Romney names. If Obama truly believes Romney is a "good man' how can Mitt be a "liar?"
Last night President Obama mentioned that he would end the war and use these funds to fix or infrastructure and to help find college educations. Is this feasible? I graduate in a few months, but as the oldest of 9 children I know my siblings will need assistance paying for their education.