US Presidential Election Debate #1

[Lapey]

IMO Obama is gonna have to show up with the A-Game on the next debate or the election will be lost for him, and well rehearsed on what he is talking about. Out of character for the President to say the least. Repeating himself constantly, seemed lost, confused, his posture was also very telling.

On the other hand I thought Romney did very well, his last remarks reverberated the goal of the free-world. Ironic it appeared to be role reversal to me.

Course spin and damage control went immediately into effect for Obama, yet predicable. And only the die-hard Obama fans witnessed a bright moment last night.

Sorry only one individual sounded and acted like a President and it was Romney. The debate was moderated horrible, either individual paid little to attention to the lacking structure.

I don’t think President Obama has an “A” game. He’s like a kid who makes it through school on social promotion, never tested, never really taught. President Obama has never been put to the test; he has never been challenged by anyone, let alone the media.

His practice was spending time on the “View” where everyone but Hasselback fawned over his presence. Then she was lambasted for daring to ask a tough question, which he never answered.

 

[BroomWagon]

Post a link please

The Blaze is on these stories, 67% of a poll at CNN of registered voters thought Romney won, so there is a 2/3rds vote.

theblaze.com/stories/landslide-67-percent-of-registered-voters-say-romney-won-debate-cnn-poll-reveals/

And in fact, the Blaze TV, we have dish network, channel 212, covered the debate, one of the commentators calling it a Rout!

There is no reason to have biased 2nd rate tv anymore such as with most of the alphabet networks.

theblaze.com/stories/

Maher: “Can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter”

HuffPo: “Romney wins the night”

–

More quotes.

 

[Trader]

Of course, Cat has to express the debate results in ice sports language!

How about, Mr President, if you are going to play the game so poorly, be sure to wear your helmet?

 

[markomalley]

Out of curiosity I checked the FOX website poll on who won the debate. The results were 61% Obama, 39% Romney. Can’t find it now. This is the second time, at least, that they have closed a poll with disagrees with their “fair and balanced” ideology.

Interesting the 2/3’s of FOX viewers thought Obama won.

This is very believable. Anonymous website polls are played with all the tune, just to mess with people.

 

[BroomWagon]

Though the BBC probably has a slant on some things,

Through the decades, the BBC has at times been known as being somewhat unbiased (except when it comes to Israel some say).

The Beeb has on its front page Romney wins debate.

And this story: bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-19825263

 

[bellasbane]

I thought Romney was too aggressive and Obama looked tired.

Romney totally ran rough-shod over Jim Lehrer - I’ve never seen a presidential candidate over-rule the moderator the way he did. I’m sure it looked like strength to some people, but it just looked rude to me.

Obama refused to go on the attack. He could so easily have hit Romney with a 47% reference, but he didn’t. It was clearly deliberate and maybe a mistake, since Romney didn’t use the rope given him to quite hang himself. He was prepared & disciplined enough to run away from the most controversial aspects of his economic policies.

Romney’s tactic was to make a lot of promises - in fact he promised everything but the kitchen sink: no tax increases, no cuts to education, increased spending on the military, no changes to medicare, no cuts to medicaid. He even said his plan didn’t include a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which was news to me. His math really does not add up.

At one point, he slipped in the factor of “growth” to defend his math - that is exactly what George Bush did when he proposed tax cuts and it didn’t happen. All it did was to increase the deficit and the income disparity between the rich and the middle class. So if Romney is relying on growth, that means we are doomed to repeat the Bush years if he’s elected.

I wish Obama had asked Romney if he would take Charitable Deductions off the table of things he would eliminate in order to pay for his tax plan. The Mormon Church has a pretty strict policy of a 10% tithe on all its members and wouldn’t be affected by closing that loop-hole, but I think it would be devastating to the Catholic Church and private charities who rely heavily on charitable giving from both individuals and corporations.

 

[Slaney]

As an outsider looking in at 2am I think Romney came off better, he seemed more cool and calculated, sharper than Mr Obama.

Mr Obama looked very tired, and not as sharp as he was 4 years ago…

I didn’t watch it all, about 50 minutes of it then

 

[He_Man]

I thought Romney was too aggressive and Obama looked tired.

Romney totally ran rough-shod over Jim Lehrer - I’ve never seen a presidential candidate over-rule the moderator the way he did. I’m sure it looked like strength to some people, but it just looked rude to me.

Obama refused to go on the attack. He could so easily have hit Romney with a 47% reference, but he didn’t. It was clearly deliberate and maybe a mistake, since Romney didn’t use the rope given him to quite hang himself. He was prepared & disciplined enough to run away from the most controversial aspects of his economic policies.

Romney’s tactic was to make a lot of promises - in fact he promised everything but the kitchen sink: no tax increases, no cuts to education, increased spending on the military, no changes to medicare, no cuts to medicaid. He even said his plan didn’t include a 5 trillion dollar tax cut, which was news to me. His math really does not add up.

At one point, he slipped in the factor of “growth” to defend his math - that is exactly what George Bush did when he proposed tax cuts and it didn’t happen. All it did was to increase the deficit and the income disparity between the rich and the middle class. So if Romney is relying on growth, that means we are doomed to repeat the Bush years if he’s elected.

I wish Obama had asked Romney if he would take Charitable Deductions off the table of things he would eliminate in order to pay for his tax plan. The Mormon Church has a pretty strict policy of a 10% tithe on all its members and wouldn’t be affected by closing that loop-hole, but I think it would be devastating to the Catholic Church and private charities who rely heavily on charitable giving from both individuals and corporations.

You observations are your own, so I don’t have anything to add per se (though predictably, Romney was perceived as too aggressive, whereas had he laid back, the left would be calling him “weak and unaggressive”), but the only people I hear saying Romney “ran over” Lerher are the left, and yet, The President spoke for four more minutes than Romney.

If anyone was overrunning Lerher, by definition it was Obama, according to Obama’s own beloved simply math.

I thought the mod did fine. No one wants to hear him. Pipe down and let them go at it. Like the refs in football. Lerher did like he always does.

 

[Jeanne_S]

Priorities, my friend. Cartoons are often more enlightening than regular programming. I still watch “Top Cat” whenever I can.

Top Cat…a blast from the past!

 

[He_Man]

As an outsider looking in at 2am I think Romney came off better, he seemed more cool and calculated, sharper than Mr Obama.

Mr Obama looked very tired, and not as sharp as he was 4 years ago…

I didn’t watch it all, about 50 minutes of it then

The first thing I noticed was Obama’s dark circles under his eyes. He looked tired, like he hadn’t slept. They need to fix that with makeup next time. It ages him.

He also had poor foot posture, according to debate experts. I could care less about where the mans toes are, but he kept cocking his foot back and resting on the tip of his foot. Apparently that is a no-no, whereas Mitt stood tall and upright the whole time.

To me, things like that are silly.

 

[jwinch2]

I realize it sounds like back-to-the-future, John-Kerry talk, but I mean, according to what I heard from a pundit, that in the future, people who have preexisting conditions will not be covered by Romney’s healthcare plan, while those who currently have preexisting conditions will be covered. I’m just wondering if this is mentioned at all in Romney’s plan.

OK, I think I see what you mean now. I am unaware of any change over time in the coverage of preexisting conditions. Regardless, Romney seems to actually believe in the 10 Amendment and letting the states sort it out to some extent, so I doubt there is a blanket plan which would be the same everywhere you went.

 

[_L]

This is a big loss for Obama, this was the debate he needed to perform strong in, with a strong performance he had a chance to ice the election. And the topics pertaining to this debate were safe ones, ones it should be easier for him to defend. The foreign policy debate is going to drastically tip in Romney’s favor ever since the Benghazi attack, and the subsequent attempt at a cover up. Romney is going to have a field day pointing out the inexcusable error or perhaps blatant lie of Obama claiming the Benghazi attack was because of the Muhammed video, and not a pre-planned terrorist attack by Al Qaeda which we now know the White House knew was the case within 24 hours of the attack. Romney is going to have to hit Obama on this, and why the embassy’s request for security was not granted when those at the embassy saw a need for increased security. These are indefensible positions for Obama.

 

[kimmielittle]

IMO Obama is gonna have to show up with the A-Game .

Mr Obama’s A-game was in 2008 when he made promises that appealed to some.

Now, he has to run on his record.

 

[pepipop]

The first thing I noticed was Obama’s dark circles under his eyes. He looked tired, like he hadn’t slept. They need to fix that with makeup next time. It ages him.

He also had poor foot posture, according to debate experts. I could care less about where the mans toes are, but he kept cocking his foot back and resting on the tip of his foot. Apparently that is a no-no, whereas Mitt stood tall and upright the whole time.

To me, things like that are silly.

I noted all that too. I’d say Romney due to his articulateness (for once), fluidity of speech and instant recollection of facts and figures that he was ‘chemically’ helped, possibly with an amphetamine or whatever, as is used by some college kids to get through their exams with flying colours due to cognative enhancement. Obama has 16 years on him, but looked much older and slower, his feet were like concrete blocks when he walked across at the end to shake hands with Romney.

 

[Slaney]

The first thing I noticed was Obama’s dark circles under his eyes. He looked tired, like he hadn’t slept. They need to fix that with makeup next time. It ages him.

He also had poor foot posture, according to debate experts. I could care less about where the mans toes are, but he kept cocking his foot back and resting on the tip of his foot. Apparently that is a no-no, whereas Mitt stood tall and upright the whole time.

To me, things like that are silly.

Yes as the saying goes, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it, and 4 years in the hot-seat might have dampened his enthusiasm.

I don’t know what promises he made and broke, (or carried out ) but it’s easy to promise the moon & the stars before an election, delivering is the part that matters…

 

[He_Man]

This is a big loss for Obama, this was the debate he needed to perform strong in, with a strong performance he had a chance to ice the election. And the topics pertaining to this debate were safe ones, ones it should be easier for him to defend. The foreign policy debate is going to drastically tip in Romney’s favor ever since the Benghazi attack, and the subsequent attempt at a cover up. Romney is going to have a field day pointing out the inexcusable error or perhaps blatant lie of Obama claiming the Benghazi attack was because of the Muhammed video, and not a pre-planned terrorist attack by Al Qaeda which we now know the White House knew was the case within 24 hours of the attack. Romney is going to have to hit Obama on this, and why the embassy’s request for security was not granted when those at the embassy saw a need for increased security. These are indefensible positions for Obama.

I agree. A month ago, the foreign policy debate would have been an easier sell for Obama, especially with Romney being a governor. Now, it is time to unload on the President about this whole mess and the White House’s lies afterwards in a way that the press has refused to do.

You can’;t be too aggressive in a debate typically, but when people are dead and there is evidence of a coverup, you can go for blood and come off as “passionate.”

 

[kimmielittle]

This is a big loss for Obama, this was the debate he needed to perform strong in, with a strong performance he had a chance to ice the election. And the topics pertaining to this debate were safe ones, ones it should be easier for him to defend. The foreign policy debate is going to drastically tip in Romney’s favor ever since the Benghazi attack, and the subsequent attempt at a cover up. Romney is going to have a field day pointing out the inexcusable error or perhaps blatant lie of Obama claiming the Benghazi attack was because of the Muhammed video, and not a pre-planned terrorist attack by Al Qaeda which we now know the White House knew was the case within 24 hours of the attack. Romney is going to have to hit Obama on this, and why the embassy’s request for security was not granted when those at the embassy saw a need for increased security. These are indefensible positions for Obama.

 

[rlg94086]

Romney won decisively when 54% didn’t think Romney won in this poll. I’ll be thrilled if 54% do not vote for Romney.

It’s called arithmetic rLg and anyway I thought maybe you and Ishii were awaiting me. So thought I’d make an appearance. You guys have a fun night.

Okay. So, you could also say Romney won decisively when 78% didn’t think Obama won in that poll. I will be equally thrilled if 78% do not vote for Obama.

It’s called arithmetic.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I noted all that too. I’d say Romney due to his articulateness (for once), fluidity of speech and instant recollection of facts and figures that he was ‘chemically’ helped, possibly with an amphetamine or whatever, as is used by some college kids to get through their exams with flying colours due to cognative enhancement. Obama has 16 years on him, but looked much older and slower, his feet were like concrete blocks when he walked across at the end to shake hands with Romney.

This is a new one. Instead of blaming the moderator let’s accuse Romney of taking drugs!

When will Chris Matthews or Rachel Maddow try this theory out?

 

[bellasbane]

You observations are your own, so I don’t have anything to add per se (though predictably, Romney was perceived as too aggressive, whereas had he laid back, the left would be calling him “weak and unaggressive”), but the only people I hear saying Romney “ran over” Lerher are the left, and yet, The President spoke for four more minutes than Romney.

If anyone was overrunning Lerher, by definition it was Obama, according to Obama’s own beloved simply math.

I thought the mod did fine. No one wants to hear him. Pipe down and let them go at it. Like the refs in football. Lerher did like he always does.

You’re right, these are my own observations. I’ve watched many debates and never before have I felt like the moderator was loosing control like I did with this one and it wasn’t Obama who gave me that impression.

Obama spoke more in the first few rounds, but Romney more often insisted on having the last word when he wasn’t entitled to the extra turn. That sort of bully behavior is not a trait I admire in politicians. He deserved a good scolding from Jim Lehrer, who unfortunately fell into the trap of being too polite to tell him off.

Nothing Romney said last night would convince me to vote for him, because all he did was propose the same old Republican policies I’ve rejected in the past: Voodoo trickle-down economics, drastic cuts to entitlements, and huge increases in defense spending.

Tell me one thing that was new.