Morning-After Analysis Of The Final Presidential Debate
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-10-23/morning-after-analysis-final-presidential-debate
President Barack Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney met in Boca Raton, Fla., last night for their third and final debate. In the 90-minute program moderated by Bob Scheiffer, the president and his challenger sought to highlight their differences related to the U.S. role in the world, including America’s military budget, U.S.-China relations and the ongoing unrest in the Arab world. But both candidates also sought to lead the discussion to the economy and jobs, issues believed to be the central drivers of the upcoming election. Please join us to talk about what we heard from candidates last night and where the campaigns go from here.
Guests
E.J. Dionne Jr.
senior fellow at The Brookings Institution, columnist for The 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."
Mark Landler
White House correspondent for The New York Times.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Today's headline should be:
MITT ROMNEY FINALLY TELLS THE TRUTH
HE AGREES WITH THE PRESIDENT ON EVERYTHING
Makes you wonder; why is this guy running again?
The President showed he saw the big picture, had a strategy behind his actions which resulted in America as part of a team of nations and not isolated and bellicose, He cared about the children in S'derot, Israel running to bomb shelters from missiles fired by Hamas. He stressed that among the team of nations in the Mideast, Israel is our strongest ally, while stressing that his more encompassing strategy resulted in an Iran isolated from the rest of the world, including almost all of the Arab world.
The President stressed the need for nation building at home with education, especially science and math for kids to develop into world leading researchers, and stressed that the Governor's tax plan takes away all the money that could provide resources and teachers who train students to develop skills for productive jobs, thus preventing the kids from having a fair shot to be our future scientists and leaders, which is in contrast to what America has always done in the past. He called Romney on his claim as a leader on education. After all, Romney did have massive firings of teachers throughout Massachusetts. Not exactly a stellar performance for someone claiming to be an education Governor.
Governor Romney showed he was weak on details, talked around the question to take up time, when not sure of an answer said I agree with the President, and when Romney was confronted by the President for his, Romney's, constant flip-flopping, the Governor feigned being hurt and decried the President for picking on him. It also appeared that Romney's hair looked darker on top and less gray on the sides to ostensibly make him appear as a younger and stronger leader than he really is. Instead, Romney looked like a contender caught in a ring where he was the clear weakling and amateur.
What does Romney stand for? He showed once again that he tries to tell a given audience what he thinks that it wants to hear. We still have no idea what he really believes. Is telling people what he thinks they want to hear a habit he got into when he was a Mormon missionary in France? Or is it how he closed deals when he was running Bain Capital? Does he really believe that people will not notice that he is an etch-a-sketch candidate?
Romney would not admit that his positions were different from those he had taken earlier or during the primaries. Was he afraid of how his father's presidential run was over after he said that he had been "brainwashed" about Vietnam?
Republicans have generally taken hard right positions even in general election campaigns for president, on the apparent assumption that the key to winning is turning out their base. In moderating his positions, did Romney risk losing some of his base (in the sense that they will stay home rather than vote for him)?
With Obama, we know that we will get a president who will carry out a competent foreign policy. With Romney, we have to ask which Romney is the real Romney, the one who seemed to agree with Obama on almost everything in this latest debate or the one who seems all too ready to start a war with Iran.
In my own opinion, Obama won and Romney lost the election in this third debate.
Why wasn't the european debt crisis ever discussed? this was a foreign policy debate and both candidates love to talk about the economy so it seems like that would have been a logical topic to discuss, since Europe is certainly having an effect on the US economy.
Left already out loaded for bear with their talking points this AM.
Can you say "scared to death"?! Can you say "whistling past the graveyard"?!
As for the debate:
Romney looked Presidential.
Obama looked petty.
Romney went big, Obama went small. Romney did exactly what had to be done and no more, look presidential and have a comprehensive understanding of the issues. Romney's steady advances in the poles will continue.
Obama really has no foreign policy successes, it's all high rhetoric and grand delusions. The Osama bin Laden raid and killing has been overplayed by Obama and the campaign from the start, it's like a guy taking credit for building the house when all he did was put the door knobs on. Obama looks petty and braggadocios.
As a psychotherapist for 30 years I find it striking that Obama predominantly uses "we" when he describes his accomplishments while Romney predominantly uses "I". This has been true in all of the debates. If they were in family therapy instead of debating I'd say this reflects Obama's emphasis on his team working together while Romney reflects blatant individualism. This certainly harkens to their roots: Obama the community organizer and Romney the lone-wolf entreprenuer.
Jim Gamble asked:
"Makes you wonder; why is this guy running again?"
Because the economy is in shambles, Obama has added 6T to the debt, 23 million people are struggling for work, and the Middle East is on fire.
Those seem like pretty good reasons to me.
gwendrews wrote: "As a psychotherapist for 30 years I find it striking that Obama predominantly uses "we" when he describes his accomplishments while Romney predominantly uses "I""
I see malpractice in your analysis Dr.. Obama is notorious for the use of "I" in his speeches. The point is the debates are about Romney selling himself in the first person, where Obama needs to sell himself as a part of a regime.
Damage control after the fact and excuses for inaction is not a strong foreign policy.
- Ask the 4 killed in Benghazi...
- Ask those killed in 9/11
- Ask those killed on the USS Cole
partisan politics wrote:
"Romney went big, Obama went small. Romney did exactly what had to be done and no more, look presidential and have a comprehensive understanding of the issues. Romney's steady advances in the poles will continue."
I do not know who will win the election. But the opinion of this European guest in your country is that Romney sounded extraordinarily vacuous and Obama seemed cool, collected, and in control of the facts... I continue to be disturbed by Romney's dancing around the truth... Well, let's just say that Romney seems to have problems being truthful. Careful segmentation leads to differential and contradictory messages to different statistically significant groupings of "customers."
It might work for Romney and I think that it would be a shame.
Ferdnam wrote: 'partisan politics' "Romney seems to have problems being truthful."
Not sure why this is directed at me, but as the Benghazi "terrorist attack" and the apparent cover up unfold, I find your assertions quite puzzling.
Ferdnam wrote:
"control of the facts"
Well, I guess it depends what you mean by control of the "facts". If that means creating a scenario story-line and getting it into the main stream to hide a foreign policy debacle, then I agree with you, "it would be a shame". If it means that a general statement about terror attacks in a speech suddenly refers to Benghazi, or that what was known by intelligence sources as an Al Qaeda terrorist attack within 24 hours is suddenly a spontaneous mob action for the next two weeks, then I agree with you, "it would be a shame". 'Well, let's just say that Obama seems to have problems being truthful.'
Partisan - Maybe you haven't been watching the news but all the evidence coming out supports Obama's statements. PS Quit watching Faux - they LIE!
ecegberht - Everything you wrote here is complete & utter BS! The intelligence reports support Obama's statements. Please stop watching faux - they LIE!
This was the ” ME TOO” debate Mr. Romney answer to almost everything was me too, so if he can sound like The President, people may think he could be president.
ME TOO ! ME TOO! ME TOO!
As an Obama supporter in Florida, I didn't see the President's remarks last night as "attacking" Romney. I believe that the President is critical of Romney's messages and has an obligation to the American people to clarify the issues and set the record straight. In fact, it's my perception that but for attacks on Obama (with the exception of last night during which he was most agreeable), Mr. Romney has very little to offer. Who's to say that because you've been successful in business you are fit and/or qualified to run the country??? It's all about a person's character for me.
This is a terrible panel. A bunch of inside the beltway hacks - repeating the same cliches as the candidates with no real knowledge of foreign policy. No diversity, no women guests, no one with an international perspective. Very disappointing.
Ugh... E.J. Dionne. Diane needs to have the likes of Bill O'Riley as a panelist to strike an ideological balance.
This is a terrible panel. A bunch of inside the beltway hacks - repeating the same cliches as the candidates with no real knowledge of foreign policy. No diversity, no women guests, no one with an international perspective. Very disappointing.
My nominee for the 2012 word to be eliminated from the English language due to overuse is "lie".
Let's all agree that MSNBC lies, Fox News lies, NPR lies every other news outlet other than the one that we happen to favor lies and move on. It simply doesn't move the conversation forward.
@ partisanpolitics and ecgberht...
My main point had to deal with the micro-marketing approach to persuasion and influence... I am reminded of a seminal articles by Hayes and Abernathy in the Harvard Business Review of the early 80s entitled "Managing our way to economic decline." The problem is that the marketing school of thought yields strategies of imitation rather than innovation... In other words, let us say what each set of customer wants to hear rather than develop a comprehensive and innovative policy (economic policy, foreign policy, trade policy, etc...). Romney has perfectly internalized the marketing school of thought of the late 70s. And he behaves accordingly. The message is customized to each set of customers... And since there are multiple sets, there are multiple messages. This is actually taught in B-schools
OMG. Get me a map!
Mistakes can be learning experiences, as I’ve always told my students. And trying to be a know-it-all isn’t often smart. Case in point,(among the other absurd claims Romney made in the last debate) his fact-spew litany ringing the air like a Wikipedia blow-through -- his claim that “Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world….It's their route to the sea."
The fact that President Obama did not call Romney on this (but watch Pres O’s face when Rom says it): shows the president’s grace, even in the face of such capricious arrogance, his steadiness, his unwillingness to embarrass his wily opponent to that extent:
Well, Mr. Romney, you should have spent more time in the Wiki chapter on Iran because: Iran actually has a long southern seacoast along the Persian Gulf. In the north, it borders the Caspian Sea.
Syria has a coast on the eastern edge of the Mediterranean Sea (with that pesky Iraq in between).http://www.atlapedia.com/online/maps/physical/Saudi_etc.htm
Why isn't the removal of nuclear weapons from Israel ever on the table? I'm sure Iran would abandon its weapons program if Israel were stripped of its nukes.
If there'd been half the brouhaha shown toward Iran directed at Israel when it first flaunted its newly acquired nuclear capacity, there'd be no middle east nuclear issue at all.
The beauty pageant is finally over.
And the winner is???
Angry Pancho wrote:
"Why isn't the removal of nuclear weapons from Israel ever on the table? "
Superb question! Thank you!
While speaking of fiscal discipline Romney seems to be is ready to go to war with Iran on behalf of Israel. They both sound like foreign agents of Israel – wonder why are they even running for the president of US.
Heard nothing about making US a stronger economy. Why did the jobs go to China, India and overseas in the first place? Let’s ask Bain Capital.
Obama Care is a gift to Health Insurance industry and Mitt Romney will help the banking industry who want to make money from the health debt the patients accumulate.
Wish the ballot had a third choice – NONE OF THE ABOVE.
No one has mentioned the fact the Mitt Romney doesn't know all the President Obama knows. Those facts are only given to the President AFTER he is sworn in. Isn't Mr. Romney then campaigning on what he believes but not actually on all the hard facts and the diplomacy that is currently underway?
In the last two debates, Romney has parroted the President's positions when Romney has said just the opposite in the past. I find this particularly duplicitous. I hope that the American people are paying attention to his shifting stands/sands and his lack of grasp of how diplomacy works in the modern world. Romney kept moving off the foreign policy topics to attack the economy. I regret that President Obama did not get the opportunity to reply that unemployment is down, consumer confidence is up, new housing starts and home sales are up, and new foreclosure filings are down. The Republican legislators have blocked many of the things that President Obama would have done to lead us out of this economic mess earlier.
I live in Sweden so I am please to be listening to issues about the United States via the Internet... but I must say Ramesh rom the National Review seemingly is having a difficult time showing that she is objective... She is a support of the GOP, for a reporter that is a tell tale sign for a reporter.
Shame on Ramesh for her GOP view in a country that relys on unbias reporting...