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.
Good to see the argument from the usual suspects as devolved into attacks on socialist European countries. It's amazing to see people use "European" like it's a four letter word.
Not spending money on endless wars or trying to woo major corporations has apparently given most of these countries (Finland, Switzerland, Sweden, etc) amazing levels of health care, education, general well-being, life spans, happiness, etc.
Want a foreign policy debate in this country? Ask the people if we should be going to war. Ask the people if they even know why the people in the Middle East hate us in the first place? HINT: It's not because they 'hate freedom', guys...
Not even Fox News is talking about why the Middle East actually hate us and instead rehash some BS story about an intelligence cover up when the reality is simply that the Whitehouse gave the public the info they were given at that time.
Get out of these countries, stop spending money on wars and the military, use those trillions to fund public education, healthcare, and public works projects like fixing our aging infrastructure.
Ferdnam wrote:
"Anything to make the sale is Romney's approach which is a typical businessman's attitude."
This is such an unfair characterization.
I see it this way. Romney has a set of principles by which he lives and by which he would (and has) governed. They are rooted in his faith which has been consistent throughout his life. He also has a set of positions on various issues. As facts change related to those issues, positions may change, but that is because the prinicples must remain consistent. The left labels that "flip-flopping". I label it "principled".
That is very different than someone who seemingly has no prinicples and therefore may take any position that seems politically expedient at the time or who will adhere doggedly to a position regardless of facts.
Romney will not be perfect. But in terms of his principles, again, based in faith and generousity toward his fellow man, he will be consistent.
Did someone seriously suggest that Bill O'Reilly should have been on this morning's panel? Talk about a bloated ego, vacuous sub-intellect and a bagful of hot air. He'd just try to be loud and threatening to try to dominate the conversation. The fact is that Gov. Robme doesn't know how to create jobs and as he's said he believes government doesn't create jobs. Even David Stockman, Reagan's former budget director is derisive of both Robme and his "plans." All Robme knows how to do is acquire companies, squeeze whatever profit he can make from them, send them into bankruptcy and close them down (putting people out of work) and selling the rest to China. THAT is the sum total of his "business experience." With all due respect the national treasury is not a hedge fund.
mmgordon1 wrote:
"In response to ecgberht, we are in this mess because of the prior administration".
And we are deeper in it because of the current Administration.
'When you find yourself in a hole ... stop digging' - Will Rogers.
"Romney has filled his advisor pool with cronies from the Bush crowd and if he's elected, expect more of the same".
I don't think so. I would see a lot more fiscal sanity coming from a Romney Administration than from Bush the younger. He was a spender and so was the Republican Congress he enjoyed in his first term. I have roundly criticized him and them for it on these pages. He took us from 6T to 10T in 8 years (INCLUDING the wars). Obama has taken us from 10T to 16T in less than 4.
"Romney doesn't have stances of his own, he says what he thinks voters like to hear!"
See my later post to Ferdnam. That is a bum rap.
ecgbert saud....
"In the primary debates and in the Presidential debates, he has looked like a CEO addressing an employee - questioning, holding them responsible, etc."
#1 Do you really want to recall the sorry bunch of Republican primary candidate? Michelle "Shariah" Bachmann? Rich "oops" Perry? Donald "birther"Trump? Herman "999" Cain?
#2 A civics lesson for you: We the people are NOT employees....
the president works for US. Period. Romney's business acumen is in leveraged buyouts aimed at making a profit for Bain Capital. His expertise at "rescuing" the 2002 Winter Olympics came with a pricetag for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, i.e. WE THE TAXPAYERS of $1.3 billion. Look it up!
ecgberht wrote:
Romney has a set of principles by which he lives and by which he would (and has) governed. They are rooted in his faith which has been consistent throughout his life. He also has a set of positions on various issues. As facts change related to those issues, positions may change, but that is because the prinicples must remain consistent. The left labels that "flip-flopping". I label it "principled".
... what fact has changed that could account for his shifting position on abortion?
Changing your position to appeal to different groups of voters is not 'principled,' it's 'convenient' - 'opportunistic' - 'disingenuous'
Romney "looked Presidential" ??
Yeah, right........maybe President of Mexico.....he could run and win down there since his Bain co. sent so many jobs there.......family tradition too, since his great grandpa hightailed it there with his five sister-wives.
Romney gave away the farm last night.....repudiating just about every foreign policy stance he has invented and reinvented during his ten years of
Presidential campaigning. Maybe he should have paired up with Lyndon LaRouche....old Lyndon has rolled out a campaign for what seems like centuries......AND his foreign policy is at least "creative".
The new CopyCat Willard!
There you go again - I seem to remember in the US Constitution there is to be a separation of church and state. Of course, back when I attended high school we had to study our government in a class called "civics" - which we all hated at the time, and I am grateful for having taken every day of my life now.
"Faith-based" legislation is not in line with our own Constitution.
FAITH HAS NO PLACE IN LEGISLATION - FAITH IS THE LAST THING WE NEED TO PAY ATTENTION TO IN A CANDIDATE.
Legislating the beliefs of one or another religion forces those beliefs on everyone.
Faith belongs in the home, not the legislature.
One big reason to NOT vote for R-money and cohorts is BECAUSE their "faith" gets in the way of everyone else's reality.
Fine, fine, fine.
Herman Cain, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachman (Turner Overdrive), Tim Pawlenty, Rick Perry........heck, even Donald Trump have GOT to be kicking themselves in the rump right now. They are all asking themselves, "THIS guy beat us in the primaries? Romney has the policy chops of Moe Howard!!"
there was a difference in how each candidate talked about the countries where our foreign policy is so important. Romney consistently talked in terms of controlling them through diminishing foreign aid, in imposing trade restrictions, and, if necessary, supplying arms or using some military action. Repeatedly romney spoke of these countries only in terms of the United States' interest and safety. Obama's "toolbox" of actions wasn't so very different from romney's, but he spoke of these countries in a way that conveyed an understanding that they are "people" like we are and not Monopoly properties to be controlled. He demonstrated understanding that diplomacy is nuanced and works between countries for each country's benefit. I fear that Romney's "diplomacy" would be heavy handed, with the countries we are working with feeling manipulated and put down.
It seems nothing short of a Depression will convince a large segment of America that policies that "feed the rich" and increase income disparity are not healthy to a thriving economy.
This debate needs to end so that Americans can unite to move the country forward.
If Obama wins, the economy and unemplyment will likely slowly improve, but not enough to prevent a total GOP lunatic from being elected in '16. Such was the severity of the economic collapse that was left at Obama's feet from his first day in office.
Bring on Romney!
Bring on another Great Depression.
It's what's best for the country long term.
In Mr. Romney's closing remarks he stated he would be "open" and honest if elected. This seems disingenuous as he has not been open as a candidate; for example not providing his tax returns. Have people forgotten this?
Military spending: defense or offense?
Seems the majority of "military spending" goes toward offense, not defense.
Spending trillions of dollars on war in Iraq was entirely offense spending, not defense. After all, did Iraq attack us? No!
The US of A has become the world's police force - entirely at our expense. We foot the entire cost of keeping the shipping lanes open to get oil around the world. Oil going to China passes through the shipping lanes the US of A taxpayers pay our own military to keep safely open for shipping - China and many other countries get free passage because we pay for the policing to keep them safe. All the while our own corporations ship very little through these passages.
From listening to this 'foreign policy' debate it sounds like the only world issue we need to have policy about is in the middle east.
I can see many other foreign issues we need to address.
I feel nervous to ask this question, as I believe it is a double edged sword. I am worried to have a president overseeing our national security whose faith belives that the end of the world is eminent. I have many Mormon friends and colleagues that I greatly admire and believe are extremely intelligent. However, my understanding is that a fundamental belief is that they should all be good stewards of our planet, but our planet is here for us. As well, the end of the world is explicitly defined, and is centered around the Middle East and the last living Jews on Earth finally excepting Christ. This scares me. Please someone, relieve my fears!
ecgberht wrote:
"Ferdnam wrote:
"Anything to make the sale is Romney's approach which is a typical businessman's attitude."
This is such an unfair characterization.
I see it this way. Romney has a set of principles by which he lives and by which he would (and has) governed. They are rooted in his faith which has been consistent throughout his life. He also has a set of positions on various issues. As facts change related to those issues, positions may change, but that is because the prinicples must remain consistent. The left labels that "flip-flopping". I label it "principled".
That is very different than someone who seemingly has no prinicples and therefore may take any position that seems politically expedient at the time or who will adhere doggedly to a position regardless of facts..."
You have a right to your opinion. I respect it. You see it such. Fine! We just have to agree to disagree... I see him as "someone who ... has no prinicples and therefore ... take(s) any position that seems politically expedient at the time..."
Jokr8790 wrote:
"
... The fact is that Gov. Robme doesn't know how to create jobs and as he's said he believes government doesn't create jobs. Even David Stockman, Reagan's former budget director is derisive of both Robme and his "plans." All Robme knows how to do is acquire companies, squeeze whatever profit he can make from them, send them into bankruptcy and close them down (putting people out of work) and selling the rest to China. THAT is the sum total of his "business experience." With all due respect the national treasury is not a hedge fund."
Excellent! I could not agree more...
debbieborn, I'd say you're right to be apprehensive. Consider that last night's debate took place on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's announcement to the nation that the USSR had based missiles in Cuba that were capable of reaching the United States, and ask yourself whether you think a President Romney similarly situated would have had the judgment, sensitivity and courage to confront the Soviet Union and still avert an all-out nuclear war.
In response to an earlier comment, I'm not at all confident that Democrats have dug up all the relevant "dirt" on R-Money; but even if they have, he has been far less than forthcoming to the American people who he is asking to trust him with the awesome power and responsibility of the presidency. I personally never said religion doesn't matter and I don't know who has. The accusations that Obama is a closet Muslim have been roundly debunked, while the assertions that R-Money harbors an apocalyptic worldview and considers himself a sort of messianic figure have not. And I recognize that banana Republicans respond to preening and strutting by would-be dictators in much the way that sheep respond favorably to sheepdogs' herding behaviors.
Romney should be disqualified from having any votes counted in states where his family members have an ownership stake in voting machines: http://www.salon.com/2012/10/23/romney_linked_voting_machine_company_to_... If another election here in Ohio fails to match exit polls, Americans should reject the results.
@ partisanpolitics
I really did not know what you meant by shillmister...
I apologize for my poor English...
It is only my fourth language, you know... Sorry!
I was hoping Diane would elaborate on how Romney is a misogynist because of his affiliation with the Mormon Church. I thoroughly enjoy the program except when the topic is politics and Diane loses all sense of fairness.
Wow! Truth seems to touch a nerve like ice water on a sore tooth!
Joyce in Arizona: it goes to LEADERSHIP skills. Those skill transfer. No one said "we the people" were employees. As for the debates, you left out Santorum and Pawlenty, both seasoned guys.
"His expertise at "rescuing" the 2002 Winter Olympics came with a pricetag for the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, i.e. WE THE TAXPAYERS of $1.3 billion."
To save the U.S. from embarassment in front of the whole world? Seems like small potatos compared to 800B doesn't it? That is, even if it were true. I would not recommend depending on a DNC web video for my information, Joyce. In fact, the FG would have spent about 342M anyway and FactCheck does not dispute a 400M estimate total FG expenditure coming from Romney. Oh ... and in 2002, much of that was for security, post-9/11. Remember that? Look it up!
mam2
"what fact has changed that could account for his shifting position on abortion?"
The fact that he recognized, based on his principles that the beings being terminated were alive. I have always been fascinated by the cognitive dissonance present in the President's support for unfettered abortion rights along side his statement that "science should trump ideology". When science clearly shows us that late-term and "partial birth" abortions end the life of a being that is capable of living outside the womb, is that science trumping ideology?
Mountainwomon wrote:
"There you go again - I seem to remember in the US Constitution there is to be a separation of church and state".
Well, you must have been asleep in that civics class because, as I'm sure you know, that specific term originates in the 20th century, with Justice Black, I believe. In fact, the First Amendment protects the religion of its citizens from the government, not the other way around. And before you jump to Jefferson's "wall of separation", I suggest you read the exchange between the Danbury Baptists and the President. Jefferson's commitment was to protect the church from the state (in this case CT), not the other way around.
Anyway ...
"Legislating the beliefs of one or another religion forces those beliefs on everyone.
Faith belongs in the home, not the legislature."
No one said any different. The First Amendment proscribes an establishment of a national religion as well it should. A national religion has never been established, though it is true that religious PRINCIPLES, including the Judeo/Christian tradition has informed our legislature to the benefit of its citizens. I said that Romney's principles are rooted in his faith. It's what informs his principles, not governs them. Your alternative would be to have a bunch of unprincipled thugs running the government - like the Chicago mob, for example? (OK, that was a cheap shot.) There is nothing wrong with having people with principles, formed from their faith running the government. In fact, it's a good thing - at least the Founders thought so. They believed that the unalianable rights of men come from nature and nature's God. That is different than putting one's religious beliefs into law or establishing a national religion.
I know it's perverse, but this is getting kinda fun!
Ferdnam wrote: "@ partisanpolitics
I really did not know what you meant by shillmister...
I apologize for my poor English...
It is only my fourth language, you know... Sorry!"
No need to apologize it was supposed to be a play on words, it was the piling on that produced my response. As far as I know "shillmeister" is not a word recognized by any dictionary.
You Europeans put us to shame over here with your multilingual capabilities.
mellifluous wrote:
"debbieborn, I'd say you're right to be apprehensive."
This scare tactic was already used with Reagan and an attempt has been made on applying same to Romney already this cycle. Once the people hear the sensibilities of the candidates, however, the fear tactic doesn't work any more.
"Consider that last night's debate took place on the 50th anniversary of President Kennedy's announcement to the nation that the USSR had based missiles in Cuba that were capable of reaching the United States, and ask yourself whether you think a President Romney similarly situated would have had the judgment, sensitivity and courage to confront the Soviet Union and still avert an all-out nuclear war".
Suggest you educate yourself on CMC, mell. It was less a case of chest thumping than good old fashioned horse trading - something Romney is good at.
"In response to an earlier comment, I'm not at all confident that Democrats have dug up all the relevant "dirt" on R-Money"
When you use terms like "R-Money", you lose all credibility. You realize that don't you?
"Romney should be disqualified from having any votes counted in states where his family members have an ownership stake in voting machines ...If another election here in Ohio fails to match exit polls, Americans should reject the results".
So 'We wuz robbed' becomes 'we will be robbed'! I'm sure you're still rejecting the results of 2000, mell, even though counts, re-counts, and re-re-counts in FL show that George W. Bush got more votes.
@ Mountainwomon: You wrote " I seem to remember in the US Constitution there is to be a separation of church and state"
You then stated " back when I attended high school we had to study our government in a class called "civics".
Well... you should have studied harder in that "civics" class because then you would realize that no where in the constitution is the "separation of church and state" addressed or worded as such. It IS addressed in the 1st amendment, however.
In our nation, sadly, secularism has become the new national religion...and those who live it's "principles" (I use that term loosely) have no more "right" to force secularism on those of faith than do those of faith "legislating" religion upon you.
"Jim Gamble wrote:
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?
October 22, 2012 - 11:08 pm"
"Kennedy is also shown at a campaign rally telling supporters about Romney, "Now he's for family leave, now it looks like he's for a minimum wage, now he's for education reform, and if we give him two more weeks he may even vote for me."
http://thehill.com/video/campaign/247517-tribute-video-to-sen-kennedy-fe...
He did it in all three Debates, it's a tribute to the character of the President that he didn't rub Romney's face in Romney's own slithering opportunism and willingness to say absolutely anything to accomplish his sinister goals.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
mchaun wrote:
"Kennedy is also shown at a campaign rally telling supporters about Romney, "Now he's for family leave, now it looks like he's for a minimum wage, now he's for education reform, and if we give him two more weeks he may even vote for me."
Just as the left sees everything about Romney through the prism of Bain, the right sees everything about Kennedy through the prism of Chappaquiddick. Mary Jo Kopechne remains unavailable for comment. But we don't choose to rub the late Senator's face in his own slithering opportunism and willingness to say absolutely anything to save his skin from his sinister acts.
"ecgberht wrote:
mchaun wrote:
"Kennedy is also shown at a campaign rally telling supporters about Romney, "Now he's for family leave, now it looks like he's for a minimum wage, now he's for education reform, and if we give him two more weeks he may even vote for me."
Just as the left sees everything about Romney through the prism of Bain, the right sees everything about Kennedy through the prism of Chappaquiddick. Mary Jo Kopechne remains unavailable for comment. But we don't choose to rub the late Senator's face in his own slithering opportunism and willingness to say absolutely anything to save his skin from his sinister acts."
You just did, you slimy piece of Cr_p.
And of course, the eggie Straw Man again!!!
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
One Friday Hour 1, after the Inspector General issued his Report on Fast and Furious, perhaps Sep 21, 2012, Diane opened that Days Blog with a photo of eggie's dear Friend Issa putting his coat on preparation to quietly slinking off into his dirty little hidey hole to pretend that he had not abetted the Kabal in falsely smearing the President and his Administration.
Since then, eggie has been Oh, so very quiet about F&F.
Then last Friday, the subject of Benghazi came up during both Hours, and got the usual broad brush once-over of the conventional Kabal version of the Events. That is, until Diane began to ask a series of very penetrating questions which flushed out a gusher of back channel comments from the Panel that presented a much clearer picture of what really happened.
Combined with the BBC near- real time coverage of the Protest and Attack, another contrived crisis is falling apart.
I've compiled quite a nice collection of eggie's lies about F&F and am currently gathering his views of Benghazi.
Like to pile on a few more before I make you eat dirt again, you pathetic Rat??
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com
Some nuances that both the commenters and the panel totally missed. Mitt Romney actually came out for a kind of neocon soft power approach last night. While Obama said we should be doing "nation building at home" six, count 'em, six times, Romney talked about using economic aid as an instrument of policy in Egypt and Pakistan both. Goodness, why didn't we think of this before ? All the liberal bleeding hearts like Frank Tracy Griswold after 9/11, saying that poverty was the key driver of terrorism... didn't President Obama get the memo ? Apparently not, since this administration defunded the US Institute of Peace, and its all about putting laid-off soldiers to work on road construction projects (not a very efficient use of the labor of our high tech armed forces, I might add). All in all, a shabby performance on both sides - neither of these candidates have the slightest bit of respect for Americans who serve this country abroad, or might aspire to something more than building socialism in one country. Paying prices or bearing burdens - neither liberals nor conservatives have talked like that for a very long time, and the burden gets placed on fewer and fewer shoulders, with greater risks and fewer rewards. Just ask the Stevens family.
"debbieborn wrote:
I feel nervous to ask this question, as I believe it is a double edged sword. I am worried to have a president overseeing our national security whose faith belives that the end of the world is eminent. I have many Mormon friends and colleagues that I greatly admire and believe are extremely intelligent. However, my understanding is that a fundamental belief is that they should all be good stewards of our planet, but our planet is here for us. As well, the end of the world is explicitly defined, and is centered around the Middle East and the last living Jews on Earth finally excepting Christ. This scares me. Please someone, relieve my fears!
October 23, 2012 - 12:48 pm"
Wish I could, Deb, but can't.
In his fight against the Soviet Union, Reagan incorporated The Rapture, the then current apocalyptic dreams of destruction of the World, into his policies.
Most Americans (cynically) assumed Ronnie was just trying to make the Russkys think he was crazy, perhaps crazy enough to start a Nuclear War.
I (cynically) am not convinced that the dying, demented, follower of the Diviners of G_d's Plan didn't believe it.
Monte Haun mchaun@hotmail.com