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.
@Jim Gamble
"There is a simple question that you cannot answer."
Thanks for confirming that.
Again, you can't have it both ways, Jim.
Either the President knew it was a terrorist attack (and said so in the rose garden), then "pretended" it wasn't for the next two weeks (read: lied) for political reasons.
-or-
The President never intended to communicate that it was a terrorist attack and was talking about terror generally so he could try to lay what was a terror attack off on a video for political reasons.
It stinks either way. The cognitive dissonance for you must be painful. Here's a guy that you want to trust and believe in, but he shows himself to be untrustworthy when Americans are under fire and instead, jets off to Vegas! (Can't keep those donors waiting!). Btw, I haven't even gotten into the whole thing about leaving Americans to swing in the breeze in Libya while they beg for support - that's another whole issue.
He gives the order for the SEAL team to kill Bin Laden, spikes the football declaring Al Qaida no more, when they are very much alive and killing our Ambassador and other Americans in Benghazi.
As we've learned from hard experience, it's never the error, it's always the cover-up.
@Jim Gamble
"There is a simple question that you cannot answer."
Thanks, once again, for confirming that.
"The people you support are the worst in this country's history yet that doesn't seem to bother you a bit. "
Can you elaborate on that? It's the only part of your post that contains anything other than an ad hominem attack (and that not by much).
I think I interpret that to mean "your guys are worse than my guys" but I need some specifics on who "the people you support" are and your evidence for same. Thank you.
BTW, the ad hominem doesn't really bother me that much. I've been called much worse. It is just a pleasant reminder that these sorts of attacks come from those who have no relevant, supportable point to make and reflect much more on the attacker than the attacked. So, thanks for that too.
Seems like most people are attacking Obama on two things.
1. Libya
2. Economy
1. The attacks in Libya were planned by people who hate us. They hate us because many years ago we decided to place dictators all over the Middle East and elsewhere that were puppets to the US. Slowly they started abusing their power, their people, and their country to the point where they started revolting against them. At this point most people don't understand this and think that we should befriend these new governments.
News Flash: They're not going to be your friend because they were essentially revolting against the USA itself.
Who cares if the statement in the Rose Garden meant exactly what people want it to mean? People should be talking about why we're getting attacked so often! We need to withdraw our troops and our decades old allegiances to dictators, stop screwing with other countries, and take a page from Neutral countries where they spend far more on butter than on guns.
2. On the Economy? Most economists see slow but steady growth that will inevitably (this isn't our first time doing this, folks) add more and more jobs. Revenue needs to stay constant or increase and spending on things like billion dollar jets for the military and endless wars need to stop.
TL;DR - Vote for the person whose actual, detailed policies you agree with. Don't vote on rhetoric, beliefs, attack ads, lies, or BS like who blinks more in a debate...
Jim Gamble wrote: Egbert, the day you start living up to the standard you set for everyone else is the day you'll stop being a Republican.
Bravo! This Egbert guy is clearly a very angry and disturbed person he feels he has to correct everyone on this panel. Like so many of the FAR RIGHT their anger for their own inadequate failings is projected on everyone else – especially the minorities and immigrants – hence why they are the BIGOTED PARTY!!!
The RIGHT WING is happy to vote against their own best interest so they can misdirect their anger – the rich Plutocrats they vote in office are laughing all the way to the bank!!
When the Republicans wake up from their delusions of hoping to get some crumbs off the table of plutocracy – it will be too late!!!
We are all going to share in that misfortune – “except the rich” Romney jets off to his Swiss bank account !!!!
truevoice wrote:
"Bravo! This Egbert guy is clearly a very angry and disturbed person he feels he has to correct everyone on this panel. Like so many of the FAR RIGHT their anger for their own inadequate failings is projected on everyone else – especially the minorities and immigrants – hence why they are the BIGOTED PARTY!!!"
Thank you too for your analysis. Please compare the most recent posts of Jim Gamble and ecgberht and tell us which one you think sounds angry.
Sorry, "John", I didn't know you post under multiple names. How many names do you use?
Diane, I have always looked forward to the 10-12 time frame in my car to listen to you and your show. However, that will be no more as you lost me as a listener. I was disgusted by your blatant, biased comments favoring Obama on the October 17th program. I thought that journalists/media were supposed to be unbiased and strive for fairness, but obviously you don't see things that way. I am neither a Romney supporter nor an Obama one and now I'll count you in that club as well. Shame on you for being so transparent.
Appears that some comments from Thursday afternoon have been censored off the board.
Free and fair exchange here? I don't think so.
After reading some of the comments on this particular subject, I have come to the conclusion that there is some type of recently-occurring mental problem that limits some people's memory to the most recent four-year period. This explains why they have no memory whatsoever of the years prior to it. And even their memory of the most recent four-year period is confused at times.
I can only suppose that medical science isn't aware of it yet.
Egbert wrote:
Boo hoo hoo, nobody likes us trolls around here!
@ Jim Gamble: you wrote "Sorry, "John", I didn't know you post under multiple names. How many names do you use?"
Actually he doesn't post under multiple names Jimbo - that's the joy of being senile....you get to meet new friends every day!!!!! (just kiddin friend!!!!)