Last Debate: 10/22/2012

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
On reflection:

  1. A tie, basically. Romney was more aggressive than I expected, and effectively dulled Obama’s attacks. I didn’t think that would be a smart move, but I think ROmney did better than expected on that.

  2. Obama made a mistake, I think, in letting Romney keep bringing it back to domestic policy. Of course Romney would do this - I am surprised Obama was less resistant. Obama should have kept the topic on foreign policy.

  3. Obama wanted to attack Romney, and he did, but I don’t think it helped him much. Romney parried pretty well.

  4. I think Obama was far better in the second debate.

  5. Romney was unspectacular, but ok. He is not fluid enough, though, and continues to waste time and get distracted by trying to talk over the moderator about responses.

  6. Romney did very well on the China question.[/quote]

Yup Romney was strong on China

Like my old coach John Robinson said, “You’re never quite as good or as bad as you look.”

Tonight they were both neutral, neither blundered and neither conquered. Stalemate.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A wash. I’ll argue that Romney came off looking more Presidential. Obama dipped into condescension if you asked me. Obama to Romney, “I’m glad you recognize Al Qaeda as a threat.” Huh? Something like “We have these things called submarines and battleships…” That’s our President?[/quote]

It’ll do good for firing up the base which is very important for any democratic candidate.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:
A wash. I’ll argue that Romney came off looking more Presidential. Obama dipped into condescension if you asked me. Obama to Romney, “I’m glad you recognize Al Qaeda as a threat.” Huh? Something like “We have these things called submarines and battleships…” That’s our President?[/quote]

It’ll do good for firing up the base which is very important for any democratic candidate. [/quote]

He’s losing independents though.

[quote]Sloth wrote:

A wash. I’ll argue that Romney came off looking more Presidential. Obama dipped into condescension if you asked me. Obama to Romney, “I’m glad you recognize Al Qaeda as a threat.” Huh? Something like “We have these things called submarines and battleships…” That’s our President?[/quote]

And, might I just add that submarines and aircraft carriers are part of the navy. You want to enhance special forces? Sure, no problem - you have to enhance power projection via aircraft carriers to do that.

Also, if you were from Mars and just popped in, you might not be aware that Obama was the incumbent. He argued like a challenger. That is very interesting.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also, if you were from Mars and just popped in, you might not be aware that Obama was the incumbent. He argued like a challenger. That is very interesting.[/quote]

What makes you say that?

Seems like both guys were aiming for Virginia voters with all that Navy talk.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Also, if you were from Mars and just popped in, you might not be aware that Obama was the incumbent. He argued like a challenger. That is very interesting.[/quote]

What makes you say that?[/quote]

The fact he acted like a jackass during the Detroit argument for one. Attacking romney over and over and over without just standing on his record.

[quote]MaximusB wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I remain absolutely aghast that Obama continues to try and blame Bush.[/quote]

He will ride that horse until it croaks.[/quote]

Pretty sure it is dead with Repub and independents.

[quote]Fletch1986 wrote:

What makes you say that?[/quote]

The (inordinate) amount of time attacking Romney on foreign policy. Incumbents always have an advantage on foreign policy, unless the challenger has been a diplomat, etc. As such, the attacks usually come from the challenger. It was the opposite tonight.

I ‘checked the record…’

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

So, what am I missing? Romney appears to have remembered his own editorial correctly, to me at least.

No discussion on Mexico, cartels and border security.

No discussion on energy security and Canadian relations (softwood lumber and BC, Albert and oil, Saskatchewan and potassium nitrate and how Quebec powers the whole eastern seaboard.) No discussion on how Canada is the US’s greatest ally : NORAD, 60% of all trade, NAFTA, US Canadian relations in Afghanistan and artic water security.

No discussion on climate change

No real discussion on North Korea’s nukes

No discussion on the economic emergence of Africa

No discussion on Spratley islands conflict between Japan and China (their oil and natural gas fight)

No discussion on the economic collapse of the EU and the threat that poses to the US

[quote]Sloth wrote:
I ‘checked the record…’

The American auto industry is vital to our national interest as an employer and as a hub for manufacturing. A managed bankruptcy may be the only path to the fundamental restructuring the industry needs. It would permit the companies to shed excess labor, pension and real estate costs. The federal government should provide guarantees for post-bankruptcy financing and assure car buyers that their warranties are not at risk.

In a managed bankruptcy, the federal government would propel newly competitive and viable automakers, rather than seal their fate with a bailout check.

So, what am I missing? Romney appears to have remembered his own editorial correctly, to me at least.[/quote]

We spoke about this at lunch at work at lenght. Basically Romney said to do what the government and Lee Iococa (sp?) did with Chrysler back in the day.

The reason obama attacks him on it is to perk the ears of the unions, because Romney’s plan, according to the pundits, would have killed the unions. Who knows but yeah, obama knows he is full of shit on the subject, but brings it up to fire up the union.

Talking heads on TV make a good point - let’s see how Obama’s sarcastic response re: “bayonets” plays in the swing-state of Virginia, which of course, contains Norfolk.

This was a wash. There actually wasn’t much disagreement on Policy between the two.

Look, guys…the Next President will be hired based in the Economy (which is why so much of this “Foreign Policy” debate was spent in the Economy).

Mufasa

CNN.com is pushing the “obama schooled him” narrative.

I mean, I thought Romney was going to get drilled, but held his own and acted like someone winning.

CNN poll says 48&-40%, Obama wins. Not surprising. I don’t think that means much to polling.

Also, re: CNN: I like CNN, but they hurt their credibility by having Van Jones on the panel. Seriously. Terrible.

Also, Fareed Zakaria might be the most overrated opinion-journalist in America. Setting records for being bland, and banal.

[quote]Mufasa wrote:
This was a wash. There actually wasn’t much disagreement on Policy between the two.

Look, guys…the Next President will be hired based in the Economy (which is why so much of this “Foreign Policy” debate was spent in the Economy).

Mufasa[/quote]

Pretty sure romney saying “I’m not going to do much of anything different in terms of military other than keep our contractors working” is a huge win for him now that he just destroyed the media and obama narrative that he was some evil war monger.

Which gives more people the opportunity to break for him on the economy and not worry about people getting killed by those “icky foreign people”.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
CNN poll says 48&-40%, Obama wins. Not surprising. I don’t think that means much to polling.
[/quote]

Ouch… That is a huge spread…

Not the blood bath of the first debate by any means. I’m kinda taken back by how big that spread is.