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.
ecgberht wrote:
"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...
"When you use terms like "R-Money", you lose all credibility. You realize that don't you?"
R-Money is good at horse-trading? Horse theft is more like it. What you find admirable about performing leveraged buyouts, lading companies with debt, looting their assets, selling off the carcass in pieces, and collecting fat fees for throwing innocent people out of work is beyond me. Rather than whistling past a graveyard as you posited yesterday, I hope I see concerned patriots forming a posse to drag the rustler to the Courthouse, and perhaps thence to the hanging tree; although if Americans were half as smart as we think we are, the nearly half inclined to vote for the Romney-Rand (sic) ticket would reject him as the finagling crackpot that he is.
And rather than accept advice on maintaining my credibility from a shrill troll who has squandered his on vociferous vituperation and the reflexive repetition of reactionary cant and falsehoods, I'll stand by my apropos, mocking nomenclature: the Republic's best hope is to laugh this haughty zealot, this job-destroying empty suit back to whatever Cayman island or Swiss canton will have him. R-Money's entire campaign has foisted upon us the sorry spectacle of Pinocchio as a corporation trying in vain to become a real boy.
ecgberht wrote:
"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."
ecch,
It's disingenuous of you to cite the recounts of 2000 as some kind of vindication for the illegitimate, unelected evil prince. The Bush campaign paid for Republican operatives to travel to Florida to disrupt recounts, notably the so-called "Brooks Brothers Riot" at the Miami-Dade County election board; and opposed comprehensive recounts, rendering the Supreme Court's anomalous 5-4 decision the only tally that mattered. I refer you to Chapter 21 of Robert Parry's Secrecy and Privilege (Arlington, VA: The Media Consortium, 2004), particularly p. 318:
"... the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots determined that Gore was the winner, even ignoring the "butterfly ballot" and other irregularities that cost him thousands of votes. "Full Review Favors Gore," The [Nov. 12, 2001] Washington Post said in a box on page 10, showing that under all standards applied to the ballots, Gore came out on top. The New York Times' graphic revealed the same outcome. Counting fully punched cards and limited marks on optical ballots, Gore won by 115 votes. With any dimple or optical mark, Gore won by 107 votes. With one corner of a chad detached or any optical mark, Gore won by 60 votes. Applying the standards set by each county, Gore won by 171 votes. Still, the headlines and leads to the stories highlighted hypothetical, partial recounts that supposedly favored Bush."
The following page reveals that had "over-votes" (where a choice was punched and the same choice was written in) been counted, under the prevailing "clear intent of the voter" standard, Gore's lead would have increased still further.
Republicans have a recent history of stealing elections. We should not allow them to do so again.
debbieborn wrote: " 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!"
The Bible says in 2 Timothy 1:7 that "For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind." Yes, we should be good stewards of the earth because God gave us time on this planet and He gave us our time to make good use of it as opposed to destroying it. I hate to be a downer, but things are going to get worse, but if you are in Christ, He can get you through regardless of the circumstances. I can testify to this personally. But while we're here, we do need to be good stewards and unfortunately, we're not seeing that. Profits over people and the environment...not good. Nonetheless, try Christ. Romans 10:9 says, " that if you confess with your mouth the Lord Jesus and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you will be saved." Acts 16:31 says, “Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household.” Trust Christ today. God bless. :-)
@ mellifluous: "vociferous vituperation and reflexive repetition of reactionary cant and falsehoods"
Please, please, please stop with the gaseous blovitorium already. You rank right down there with the rest of the leftist spell checkers when it comes to facts. I would be more impressed with stating your case and supporting it with facts, not imaginative, though wasted words.
mchaun wrote:
"You seem to be confused.
The quote was eggies, not yours, "
Yes, john, he is confused!
mell, I'm not going to re-litigate Bush v Gore. Your guy lost. Here's why.
"... the actual results of the statewide review of 175,010 disputed ballots determined that Gore was the winner, even ignoring the "butterfly ballot" and other irregularities that cost him thousands of votes. "Full Review Favors Gore," The [Nov. 12, 2001]
First, what do you expect the NYT or Washington Post to say?! I consider the source of the information just like you do and my red flags go up. But anyway this is coulda, woulda, shoulda. Here's your problem.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
So if SCOTUS had NOT intervened, Gore STILL loses based on his suit. This is akin to a missed call at first base that turns the game. You can determine that it was missed days later but it's not going to change the outcome - even assuming those recounts are accurate which I don't believe they are. The last counts I saw that were done with reasonable guidelines had Bush ahead by 400+ votes.
But a liberal Democrat will never be convinced that their guy lost (though considering that he has shown himself to be certifiably nuts since then, it was a blessing) either in 2000 or 2004. We are a nation of laws. Conservatives are willing to accept that and live with the consequences. Liberals are not. They want their way. No matter how things need to be twisted to get them to it. Your post proves that.
"Republicans have a recent history of stealing elections. "
And there is NO substantiation for this claim.
ecgberht wrote:
"Yes, john, he is confused!"
Yes, ecgberht, he is confused!
BBBBBBBBBWWWWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
ecgberht wrote:
"So if SCOTUS had NOT intervened, Gore STILL loses based on his suit. ... The last counts I saw that were done with reasonable guidelines had Bush ahead by 400+ votes."
Horsefeathers. You're assuming that Gore wins his suit, assuming that his desire to get a more limited count has greater merit than suspending the recount deadline and recounting *all* questionable votes. And far from being "...akin to a missed call at first base that turns the game," you're assuming an impartial umpire, rather than a thoroughly corrupt process overseen and certified by a Secretary of State who was Bush's Florida campaign chair in a state that was governed by his brother. You want to freeze the count wherever it most benefits your crooked, despotic usurper.
"We are a nation of laws. Conservatives are willing to accept that and live with the consequences. Liberals are not." Conservatives are willing to accept laws and live with the consequences only when they can fix them the way they want, and that's the demonstrable truth. Your version of events is so slanted and twisted that it takes place in an alternate universe, which is apparently where you find the majority of your 'facts'. FWIW, I'm neither liberal nor a Democrat, just an American outraged by fascism, authoritarianism and the endless tide of lies. I didn't vote for Gore, an uninspiring candidate who ran a dismal campaign against a criminal mediocrity. The election of 2000 never should have been close enough to steal.
Much like the debate, I was disappointed with the objectivity and lack of substance in this particular show. Both E.J. Dionne and Ramesh Ponnuru framed their statements from an obviously partisan vantage point. Diane, please stay vigilant in reminding your panelists that listeners aren't looking for cable news style talking points, but thoughtful and nuanced analysis that is otherwise hard to find in today's media landscape.
jjansen wrote:
"Diane, please stay vigilant in reminding your panelists that listeners aren't looking for cable news style talking points, but thoughtful and nuanced analysis that is otherwise hard to find in today's media landscape."
------------------------
Don't worry. Diane is indeed vigilant that the liberal talking points will always dominate the Friday News Roundup. Seriously, what else would you expect when the ratio of liberals to moderates (forget conservatives) is stacked 4 to 1.
E.J. Dionne said that Romney "believes" he is ahead and so modified his debate style. Does Dionne not "believe" the polls anymore now that they favor Romney in the election?
Dear Richard, it's fine that you enjoy listening but I'm afraid you don't have a clue what you're talking about. It would be better if you and your country's Nobel committee would stay out of American politics.
mell,
You're going to believe what you want to believe. When you start with the assumption that Bush is a "crooked, despotic usurper" I already know where you are going to end up.
And NO, I do not want to "freeze the count wherever it most benefits [Bush]".
"In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted".
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html
In other words, had Bush not sued and allowed the Gore recount to continue, which was the other possible scenario, Gore STILL would have lost - and by a wider margin. Once that happened, the election would have been over.
So in either realistic scenario, Gore would have lost. What you want is a do-over. That just doesn't happen and CAN'T happen in elections to public office. Once a decision is reached, under law, you live with it - just like that close play at first base. Shall we go back and relitigate Franken v Coleman? No. It's over whether one likes the outcome or not.
@shakazulu
The funniest part was this:
"Shame on Ramesh for her GOP view in a country that relys on unbias reporting..."
Now THAT is funny!
Ferdnam wrote:
@ partisan politics
Unfortunately, you know little about Switzerland... And the little you mention is not quite accurate..."
----------------------------
Well, we do know the supposedly neutral Switzerland was a repository for stolen gold and art work by the Nazis and Switzerland's refusal to return this property to their rightful owners after the war. How much more does one need to know about the lack of character of the Swiss?
Richard Dennis wrote:
"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..."
------------------------------------------
Yes, it is telling that Diane Rehm has on as a token centrist, Ramesh, because he sounds like an old women. Good to know that you didn't have any problem with E.J. Dionne's "objectivity."
a mannequin with too much foundation makeup on which to hang a suit. Hoping the electorate is not voting on looks.
Ecch,
I'll admit that I didn't follow closely all the developments of Coleman v. Franken, but I believe the case was litigated thoroughly for months, unlike Bush v. Gore or the stolen election of 2004, both of which the Democrats surrendered prematurely. So once again, you're indulging your penchant for trying to equate two things that are not the same, comparing apples and rotten eggs.
While you chose to cite the early unofficial recounts in Florida had Bush the Younger ahead, more comprehensive recounts subsequently reversed those results. Those recounts were concluded about six weeks after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and major news organizations all ceded to political pressure in burying the unsettling news that the loser of the 2000 election had been selected by the Supreme Court (in a bizarre, unjustifiable decision that attempted to evade the principle of judicial precedent) to assume the office of 43rd President of the United States. Besides, here's what you didn't quote from the article you linked to: " ...Mr. Gore would have captured the White House had voters' true intentions been determined.
"What this shows is that if you count the voter's intent, Gore wins," (former Gore campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway) told the Associated Press. "If you look for excuses not to count votes, Bush does better." "
I haven't detected any reluctance on the part of the right wing to question the legitimacy of the current President (or Roe v. Wade, for that matter), often on spurious grounds, which is just one fact that shows your statement that, "We are a nation of laws. Conservatives are willing to accept that and live with the consequences. Liberals are not," to be demonstrably, laughably false. Sure, in a just world, any appointments that the evil prince made and any rules that he promulgated while in office would be rescinded, but I realize that's not realistic.
(continued) However much of a nut you might consider Al Gore to be, at least he never started a war under false pretenses (not even bothering to include it in the nation's budget and paying for it with borrowed money) or redefined torture in order to ignore the Geneva Conventions. At this point, I'm not agitating for a "do-over" as much as I am for recognition of historical fact.
You wrote, "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." Indeed I am, I have shown conclusively that your statement is a lie, and in a very limited way, I've attempted to provide some of the proof that this is so. None of your responses contradicts the fact that the results in Florida were certified by a Secretary of State who was Bush's campaign chair in a state governed by his brother. This state of affairs doesn't even begin to pass the sniff test -- a more principled public servant than Katherine Harris may have sought to recuse herself from the dispute, but that's not how the Bushes or Karl Rove "win" elections.
(concluding) Nothing you've written effectively disproves either the facts that Bush's team assumed power by underhanded means, that had the ballots in question been counted properly, Al Gore prevailed in both popular and Electoral College votes in 2000, and that a thoroughly corrupt process blocked him from taking office.
To once again denote the obvious, you're a rabid partisan who apparently has no regard for objective facts or sense of fair play. You deride anyone you perceive as liberal while attempting to bait those of us who disagree with your counterfactual worldview. You have the right to be wrong, of course, but you are not the ultimate arbiter of truth, your pronouncements are frequently nonsense, you are reliably mistaken or worse, deliberately ignorant and obnoxiously dismissive. No one is obliged to treat you with any more respect than you offer to others or to regard your malarkey as anything more than meaningless, inane provocation. Again, if I deign to respond to you at all in the future, it will be at my leisure. Previously, I attempted to take you seriously in the spirit of an open, honest and equitable exchange of ideas, but you obviously don't merit such care or consideration.
“Again, if I deign to respond to you at all in the future, it will be at my leisure. Previously, I attempted to take you seriously in the spirit of an open, honest and equitable exchange of ideas, but you obviously don't merit such care or consideration.”
Well, you obviously took a lot of time to respond here so you must care at least a widdle bit! Mostly, I think you just don’t like the outcomes of the discussions.
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen – H. S Truman
OK, let’s start here:
“I'll admit that I didn't follow closely all the developments of Coleman v. Franken, but I believe the case was litigated thoroughly for months, unlike Bush v. Gore”
That is the point. The 2000 Presidential election COULDN’T have been and, in any realistic scenario, Gore would NOT have been elected President. Unlike a Senatorial contest, we cannot, as a country, abide a Presidential election that drags on with suits and recounts for nearly 3/4 of a year as Franken v Coleman did, much less MORE THAN A YEAR as you admit! It has to be decided, for better or worse, in sufficient time for a transition to a new administration to take place and in time for inauguration on January 20th. There were two possible paths here and that is what I cannot seem to get you to understand. Either Bush sues to stop the recounts as he did and SCOTUS decides in his favor (more on that in a minute) – which is what actually happened, or Gore pursues his lawsuit, a recount ensues within the parameters of his suit (in Volusia, Palm Beach, Broward and Miami-Dade counties) and he LOSES. Wiki (which has numerous good, in-depth articles, full of the legal references that support what happened, that you should read) puts it this way, “Independent recounts after the Court's decision showed that Bush would have won the election had the recount Gore requested been allowed to continue”. That is the point. Not what recounts showed many months or years later.
Part deux:
The information on the NORC Media Consortium recounts of the 175K ballots I had not seen before so my contention that with every recount “Bush got more votes”, which was initially true, was not a “lie”, though I cannot help but notice your haste to label it as such. And yes, I did not include a quote from a Gore campaign spokesman on the nebulous subject of “the intent of the voter” any more than you would include one from Karl Rove. Quelle surprise.
The Bush v Gore decision was not unanimous but there were two questions before the court. The first question was of a state-wide recount. It fell 7-2 based on unconstitutionality. The second decision determined whether the Gore suit for the recount in specific counties could have proceeded. It fell 5-4. However, even if the decision had been in favor of Gore, those recounts would have come up short and he would have lost. Once again, recounts more than a year later, DON’T MATTER. You can feel hurt and “cheated” if you want, but don’t blame Bush or SCOTUS. Blame the fact that life isn’t perfect and neither are elections. Ask Norm Coleman. Everybody thought what they did was right within the law.
“ or the stolen election of 2004, both of which the Democrats surrendered prematurely.”
Actually Kerry did the right thing, manned up and conceded the loss, which is more than you seem willing to do. “stolen election of 2004”? You present no evidence. There is a lot of accusation, but considering the post-election scrutiny that 2000 received, again, at least to my knowledge, no evidence that anyone did anything wrong or illegal or fraudulent has ever been brought to light, and I have to believe if the Democratic Party had it, they would put it out there. If ya got it, bring it.
Part trois, and finale:
Your second post is mostly “strawman” arguments, “bad behavior justifies other bad behavior” and attacks on Republicans, so why would I respond to any of that? Not exactly what I would call ‘serious in the spirit of an open, honest and equitable exchange of ideas’.
As for your third post, there is nothing that indicates that anything “underhanded” was done, but if it makes you feel better, believe what you wish. You accuse me of being a “rabid partisan”, but anyone with an ‘R’ after their name, seems for you to be underhanded and corrupt. If anyone offers information that is not up-to-the-minute current or 100% accurate “it’s a lie”, yet you can say that the “2004 election was stolen” and no one better dare challenge that. If you want to argue for what amounts to instant replay to make these calls, fine, but it’s not going to happen, and in fact, CAN’T happen in Presidential elections.
I’ve never treated you or any other poster who treats me with respect with anything but respect and that includes some on the very hard left. As I said, you just don’t like the outcomes of the discussions. If you think “liberal” is a dirty word, then don’t be one. Your last paragraph offers a lot of accusation about my posts, but not a single example or any substantiation for your claims. You’re not mchaun are you?! (that was a joke!) Your final post is also blatantly contrary to Code of Conduct of DRShow message board, but as you will only be responding “at your leisure” anyway, I won’t mark it as offensive.
ecgberht - Are you kidding me?
1. Chicago and New York mobs/mafias were traditionally made up of Italian immigrants who identified themselves as Catholics, but whatever. What religion were the legislators in Congress when we decided to commit genocide time and time again?
2. You think a national religion should be established? And what if I practice a different religion than what is decided? Ridiculous to even mention.
3. Religion is what bigots and the ignorant cling to as reasons they're allowed to legislate African-Americans from voting, women from voting, a woman's place in the workplace or at home, or even a woman's own reproductive organs. The [Christian] church and its followers have always had to be dragged kicking and screaming by liberals to accept other human beings' rights.
Don't think that religion has a monopoly on morals. The Bible is TOTALLY cool with telling you to kill entire villages just because someone tries to tell you about another God. It also lists women as property, rape victims having to marry their attacker, etc. Check out Deuteronomy, man. And don't bring up the "That's the old testament" nonsense as it's written that Jesus said he did not come to replace the old laws (old testament) meaning you can't pick and choose.
I'd take a legislator in Washington D.C. that's an atheist over a bible thumper ANY day.
Eric Zehnder wrote:
"ecgberht - Are you kidding me?...
...you think a national religion should be established?...."
Eric - Are you kidding me?!
So now we know the real story about Libya and that the POTUS continues to lie and hide the fact that IN REAL TIME the State Department watched our young men cry for help and DID NOTHING to come to their aid. What's even more despicable is that shill networks for Obama continue to bury this horrid and sad story. In addition; SOSOTUS Clinton asked for increased security but was rebuked by Obama. http://www.examiner.com/article/clinton-asked-for-more-security-benghazi...
Obama has no place in any leadership role in this country. If this information would have been at Romney's fingertips during this debate it would have been the end of Obama's campaign. Do you think that NPR and other stations will have the guts to run the truth behind this story? Not on your life; the open bias for the left eclipses and chance to actually report the real news story. One can't even imagine the pain these families are feeling knowing that the White House watched their loved ones die and didn't lift a finger to help. When help was truly available; for hours. Despicable. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/father-slain-seal-who-made-decision-...
Phil; in a country that is full of liberal sided journalist it is refreshing that once and a while a commentator or moderator is indeed middle of the road. Notice, in each of the 4 debates we witnessed this year; each moderator has previously and openly voiced pro liberal views. It is beyond comprehension that the RNC would continue to agree to events like this years Pres and VP debates where the cards are stacked in the favor of the liberal from the time the clock starts. Yet, the conservative candidates continue to hold their own. Tune into CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, NPR, CBS, ABC, NBC, PBS, etc et naseum and you find the 'tingle up my leg' crowd. Only Fox and a few other lesser programs (National Review) actually attempt to give the opposing view. Which explains why Fox has numbers 1-5 for the top Cable News shows. Americans are very perceptive.
And, could one even imagine if Fast and Furious as well as a billion to Hamas were bought up. We already now know that the White House stood by, watched, and did NOTHING while our boys in Libya were crying for help. Numerous combat ready options at their finger tips and we did nothing to help them. Obama has no place in politics in this country. IF Romney knew what we now know about Benghazi the night of the debate, and actually used it, the country would have seen the REAL BHO.
167 pages of building violence and terrorist activity. Request from Stevens AND Clinton for more security. Denied. Now the horrid truth; the State Department and WH watched the Benghazi attack in real time. Watched as our boys screamed for their lives. And did nothing. We had air and ground support that were combat ready. And did nothing. The families now have answers because up until now nothing made sense. The film? A shill. For weeks Rice and Co. gave this lame excuse. Pathetic and tragic. And the MSM continue to bury it and give excuse after excuse when there is none. NPR should be doing their next political story on this cover-up; if it were a republican POTUS they surely would. Too busy trying to jam 'Romnesia' into the front page when there are 67 pages of 'Obamanesia' under it.