Vice Presidential Debate

[LisaA]

A debate is scored if it gives your team a boost in ratings. Right now, both teams are competing for the independent and undecided vote. I personally think that if you are undecided after 4 years of this incompetant administration, you must have either been sleeping or in a coma for that time.

Must be the reason the race is even close. Four more years of high unemployment, higher debt, unravelling foreign policy, crony capitalism, war on the Church, war on the unborn, green energy projects that flow red ink, high gas prices, high food prices, shortages of doctors and other healthcare providers, and waiting for the market to tank when all those taxes blow up on January 1…yeah sounds great to me too

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

I admire Rand Paul as well. I think he will be a strong presidential candidate in the relatively near future.

I do not appreciate the general campaign rhetoric of the party right now, or for the past four years. I am especially appalled by conservative pundits. The rhetoric is all against Obama… often to an utterly hypocritical extent. The things said by the same Republicans under a Republican administration are often utterly contradictory to what they say under a Democratic administration. The tone that comes across to me (my parents live in an overwhelmingly conservative area, and I of course have access to conservative media) is “get Obama out at any cost whatsoever.” The cost tends to be slander, hypocrisy, and an easy blow from pundits and politicians at a man with the weight of the free world on his shoulders. I would much rather hear substantive, consistent policy proposals.

It’s so easy for the non-sitting party to score easy points. Look at the Democrats during the Bush administration, for instance. What is tragic is that the Republicans are employing the same sleezy tactic against Obama.

If Romney/Ryan had spent HALF the time of the debate that they spent laying stupid, easy criticism on the incumbent administration actually saying what they WOULD cut to balance the budget (the only thing I’ve heard so far is PBS, a drop in the 1 trillion dollar bucket), they would have a far more convincing message. Unfortunately, they’re simply riding the wave of anti-Obama rhetoric (which is at least PARTIALLY nonsense), which I don’t think is going to win them anything. The more I hear it (as a more-or-less undecided voter), the more it alienates me, and the more it inclines me to cast my vote in protest for a third party candidate.

I’m sure my story is the same as that of many other independent/undecided voters with similar interest in politics. That’s probably not a huge demographic, but it could be enough to make a difference in the election.

Thank you for the thoughtful reply. A couple of ideas to kick around. As to your comment regarding Conservatives in the media, I think it depends a lot on which Conservative pundits you follow. My choice is to follow the more reasoned and reasonable columnists (Dr Thomas Sowell for example) some of the Salem Radio group, most notably Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager and Hugh Hewitt. While all are critical of Obama’s agenda they discuss the issues with “candor, intelligence and goodwill.” You don’t hear screaming, ad hominem attacks, name calling or a complete disregard of our own foibles. They also have a lot of extremely knowledgeable guests in areas of foreign policy, economics, education and for fun some good pop culture.

I do realize there are some really snarky and hateful pundits on the Right as well as the Left. I don’t listen to them either…

That being said I think the Romney campaign made the mistake that they could simply rely on Obama’s poor record, the sluggish economy, and the decline in America’s international esteem, to get them into office. So they did focus a lot on where Obama went wrong versus they would approach the same problems.

That’s why I think Romney’s debate performance was such a game changer. He started from the positive side, what he and Ryan would do, the five point plan, and only after that was done did he move to criticize Obama’s record in various areas. Instead of playing “small ball” and “whack a mole” as he had been doing, he started talking about overall ideas and framework. I think he needs to stay on offense, keep talking about what he and Ryan plan to do to address various issues.

I think most undecided voters have already rejected Obama and are looking for a viable alternative. Right now I think R&R are doing a much better job at projecting that image rather than all the negatives that won’t work with this group

Lisa

 

[Jeanne_S]

I saw Biden as a typical blowhard politician who is used to blowing smoke up everyone’s behind without actually ever saying anything of substance and trying to hold two contradictory positions as simultaneously true.

Yep!

 

[epan]

Hilarious poll results. Ryan got served his lunch. Caught and exposed in lie after lie. Cool to see an old catholic spank a younger one on national TV. If you don’t agree, just listen to the conservative crybaby response.

When Obama failed in the debate, demos admitted it. Republicans don’t quite have the integrity to admit Ryan’s failure. Sore losers.

 

[oldcelt]

Hilarious poll results. Ryan got served his lunch. Caught and exposed in lie after lie. Cool to see an old catholic spank a younger one on national TV. If you don’t agree, just listen to the conservative crybaby response.

When Obama failed in the debate, demos admitted it. Republicans don’t quite have the integrity to admit Ryan’s failure. Sore losers.

Many here are the same people who said that Ryan would mop the floor with Biden.

Ooops,

John

 

[epan]

Many here are the same people who said that Ryan would mop the floor with Biden.

Ooops,

John

Apparently, they were wrong. Many predicted that Obama would easily trounce romney. They were wrong.

There was a huge problem for Ryan, known as facts, or reality. He kept being called on that and falling on his face repeatedly.

 

[ishii]

Many here are the same people who said that Ryan would mop the floor with Biden.

Ooops,

John

I believe the polls give Ryan the edge as the winner. I think both got in some good points on substance, but Biden’s strange antics “stole the show” in a way that the Dems probably didn’t want him to. On the other hand, the Romney/Obama debate was a Romney smackdown and the polls showed that. So you and the previous poster are wrong on your take. I was not one of those who thought Ryan would mop up. My take: if Biden had kept his cool, I think he might have had the slight edge on substance, but his goofy grins and constant interrupting got in the way.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Apparently, they were wrong. Many predicted that Obama would easily trounce romney. They were wrong.

There was a huge problem for Ryan, known as facts, or reality. He kept being called on that and falling on his face repeatedly.

Facts? You mean like: “we were told that the attack in Bengazi was the result of the movie” ?? Oh, that was Biden’s “mularky”

Ishii

 

[oldcelt]

Ready for round 2 of 3?

John

 

[ishii]

Apparently, they were wrong. Many predicted that Obama would easily trounce romney. They were wrong.

There was a huge problem for Ryan, known as facts, or reality. He kept being called on that and falling on his face repeatedly.

epan, did you notice that the USCCB put out a statement calling Biden’s statement on the HHS mandate in the debate false. Biden also issued falsehoods about the Libya attack and also Obama’s tax plan. So apparently, Biden had trouble with his facts. No wonder you only want to focus on Ryan.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Ready for round 2 of 3?

John

I don’t see Obama scoring a knockout or even a decisive victory. He will come out stronger and try to make some points, but I don’t think he can turnaround Romney’s momentum. Not sure if their October surprise will get LIbya off the news. Not good for Obama and his supporters is it, Oldcelt.

Ishii

 

[oldcelt]

All that is conjecture…the outcome remains to be seen.

John

 

[IbnFiktur]

That’s why I think Romney’s debate performance was such a game changer. He started from the positive side, what he and Ryan would do, the five point plan, and only after that was done did he move to criticize Obama’s record in various areas. Instead of playing “small ball” and “whack a mole” as he had been doing, he started talking about overall ideas and framework. I think he needs to stay on offense, keep talking about what he and Ryan plan to do to address various issues.

I would have to watch the beginning of the Presidential debate again in order to give a good response to this. I do remember my gut reaction being extreme sympathy for Obama’s situation, though, throughout the debate.

Let me again clarify: I am not an Obamaphile. I do have a great deal of respect for the man as my commander in chief, and I’ve been very happy with how he’s handled foreign policy. Perhaps it’s the Marine in me that gets a little upset when someone gets in cheap potshots at the POTUS. With all this in mind, this was my reaction to the Presidential debate:

I saw an energized Romney slamming a tired Obama. I think most in the GOP saw that as a sign of Obama’s weakness and inability to stand on his record. I saw Obama as a guy whose real job was interrupted by politic-ing.

I do recall something about a “five point plan,” I remember nothing about specifics. Instead of specifics, Romney repeatedly reminded America that people are unemployed. He acknowledged that the President inherited a terrible situation, and that things had gotten somewhat better, but he kept saying that he hadn’t done enough.

The SINGLE valid point that I remember sympathizing with Romney on was this: Why was the President spending all his political capital on Obamacare in the midst of a depressed economy? Other than that, I felt that most of his attacks were easy potshots, and because he spent so much time of this I remember nothing substantive about an economic plan. All I heard is “cut taxes, spend more money, close unnamed loopholes [fact check: not the biggest ones that could actually make a dent in the budget].”

Seen in this light, I sympathized with Obama and Biden’s respective fatigue and frustration, even if I don’t intend to vote for them. They’ve spend the past four years working in an economic mess and in the midst of an increasingly difficult and divided political system.

Once again: not voting for them, don’t support many of their policies.

I think most undecided voters have already rejected Obama and are looking for a viable alternative. Right now I think R&R are doing a much better job at projecting that image rather than all the negatives that won’t work with this group

Lisa

I agree that there is more substance now than there was a month ago, but I still don’t see it. Debate performances are all about every single thing that “this administration” has done wrong, all the way down to beating the horse of an intelligence failure (VP debate). Show me an administration without an intelligence failure. The government, military, and intelligence community are imperfect systems.

 

[ishii]

All that is conjecture…the outcome remains to be seen.

John

Conjecture based on Romney’s performance in the last debate (and Obama’s) as well as where Romney is in the polls compared to a week ago. So not pure conjecture.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

spend the past four years working in an economic mess and in the midst of an increasingly difficult and divided political system.

Well, perhaps a reason for much of that division is Obama’s ramming Obamacare down the country’s throat with no Republican votes whatsoever. I think his words to McCain were “the elections over, John.” No desire to work with Republicans at all.

I agree that there is more substance now than there was a month ago, but I still don’t see it. Debate performances are all about every single thing that “this administration” has done wrong, all the way down to beating the horse of an intelligence failure (VP debate). Show me an administration without an intelligence failure. The government, military, and intelligence community are imperfect systems.

Its not about an intelligence failure. Its about “what did Obama know and when did he know it” which is what the Democrats and the media would be demanding to know if somehow this happened to a Republican president. The question is, did Obama hear reports that this was an Al Kaida terrorist attack but insist on blaming the attack on the Islam video for political reasons, only to have it blow up in their faces when the facts came out? I would like to know.

Ishii

 

[IbnFiktur]

Well, perhaps a reason for much of that division is Obama’s ramming Obamacare down the country’s throat with no Republican votes whatsoever. I think his words to McCain were “the elections over, John.” No desire to work with Republicans at all.

This goes both ways. The Republicans united themselves in obstinate opposition to Obama IMMEDIATELY upon his inauguration. No desire to work with the President at all. I remember the post-election rhetoric quite clearly.

Its not about an intelligence failure. Its about “what did Obama know and when did he know it” which is what the Democrats and the media would be demanding to know if somehow this happened to a Republican president. The question is, did Obama hear reports that this was an Al Kaida terrorist attack but insist on blaming the attack on the Islam video for political reasons, only to have it blow up in their faces when the facts came out? I would like to know.

Ishii

Ok, so let me rephrase my request: Show me an administration that didn’t tell the American public something about foreign policy that was not the entire truth. I’m not saying the administration was lying. I’m ALSO not saying that they should get a free pass or that mistakes shouldn’t be justly criticized. I AM saying that it’s easy for Mr. Ryan to sit in his comfortable seat in congress and criticize the guy who is simultaneously dealing with an economic crisis at home, an uncertain future for the Middle East abroad, a stagnant war in Afghanistan… oh yeah, and a re-election campaign.

Who knows what the administration did and didn’t know about the attack.

 

[ishii]

This goes both ways. The Republicans united themselves in obstinate opposition to Obama IMMEDIATELY upon his inauguration. No desire to work with the President at all. I remember the post-election rhetoric quite clearly.

Uh, the Republicans didn’t have any power after Obama’s inauguration. The Democrats controlled the House and had a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Work with the president?! Its the other way around. Nice try, though.

Ok, so let me rephrase my request: Show me an administration that didn’t tell the American public something about foreign policy that was not the entire truth. I’m not saying the administration was lying. I’m ALSO not saying that they should get a free pass or that mistakes shouldn’t be justly criticized. I AM saying that it’s easy for Mr. Ryan to sit in his comfortable seat in congress and criticize the guy who is simultaneously dealing with an economic crisis at home, an uncertain future for the Middle East abroad, a stagnant war in Afghanistan… oh yeah, and a re-election campaign.

But the Obama administration has been caught blatantly misleading us about what was behind the attacks on our embassy in Bengazi. It wasn’t a video as they kept saying for two weeks. It was an Al Kaida terrorist attack. Now they seem to be covering it up. What did they know and when did they know it? President Nixon was kicked out of office for a cover up of a burglary of the Democrat party headquarters at the Watergate hotel. Did anyone die? No. Four died in Bengazi. We need an investigation.

Who knows what the administration did and didn’t know about the attack.

Exactly. Who knows? I would like to find out.

 

[IbnFiktur]

Uh, the Republicans didn’t have any power after Obama’s inauguration. The Democrats controlled the House and had a filibuster-proof 60 seat majority in the Senate. Work with the president?! Its the other way around. Nice try, though.

So a democratically elected Democrat congress passes a bill signed by the democratically elected Democrat president. Meanwhile the GOP has aligned itself totally against it and begins thinking about how to best knock the guy out of office four years in advance. The rhetoric of the nation and the GOP congressmen was decidedly set against the President from the DAY he was elected.

I’m not sure exactly what your issue is. The issue wasn’t “rammed down the country’s throat.” It was passed lawfully by democratically elected President and Congress who made no secret about their intentions during the election. That’s how Democracy works. And the partisan tone of the GOP was there well before it was passed. It was there from the day Obama was elected.

But the Obama administration has been caught blatantly misleading us about what was behind the attacks on our embassy in Bengazi. It wasn’t a video as they kept saying for two weeks. It was an Al Kaida terrorist attack. Now they seem to be covering it up. What did they know and when did they know it? President Nixon was kicked out of office for a cover up of a burglary of the Democrat party headquarters at the Watergate hotel. Did anyone die? No. Four died in Bengazi. We need an investigation.

…

Exactly. Who knows? I would like to find out.

There is an investigation.

I hate sounding like I’m supporting the administration here… I’m not. I’m just sick of the rhetoric against it consisting of the same, tired, empty talking points.

 

[ishii]

So a democratically elected Democrat congress passes a bill signed by the democratically elected Democrat president. Meanwhile the GOP has aligned itself totally against it and begins thinking about how to best knock the guy out of office four years in advance. The rhetoric of the nation and the GOP congressmen was decidedly set against the President from the DAY he was elected.

Given that Obama was elected based on his rhetoric of “bringing the country together” and “there is not red America or blue America” pardon me if his ramming down the throat of America Obamacare bothers me.

I’m not sure exactly what your issue is. The issue wasn’t “rammed down the country’s throat.” It was passed lawfully by democratically elected President and Congress who made no secret about their intentions during the election. That’s how Democracy works. And the partisan tone of the GOP was there well before it was passed. It was there from the day Obama was elected.

My issue is that Obama ran on "bringing the country together in an era of post partisanship, but ended up being the most partisan president ever. Obama and congress “made no secret about their intentions” ?? Oh, did they tell us about the HHS mandate? How many of those who voted for Obamacare actually read the bill? I remember Pelosi saying, “we’ll find out what’s in the bill after it passes” or some such. You have no leg to stand on, Ibnfiktur. How democracy works is what you’ll see if/when the GOP regainst the presidency and the senate and they repeal Obamacare and by extension, the HHS mandate, which any Catholic should be alarmed about. Apparently you aren’t though.

There is an investigation.

I hate sounding like I'm supporting the administration here... I'm not. I'm just sick of the rhetoric against it consisting of the same, tired, empty talking points.

Yes, you do sound like you support the administration. Do you support them and their attack on the Catholic church?

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Romney: Biden contradicted sworn Libya testimony

Last month’s deadly attack in Libya has become the focus of the presidential campaign today.

Mitt Romney is accusing Vice President Joe Biden of “doubling down on denial” in last night’s debate when he said “we weren’t told” about requests for more security at the U.S. consulate in Benghazi. At a campaign event in Richmond, Va., Romney says Biden’s statement is at odds with State Department testimony and Americans “have a right to know what’s going on.”

The White House says overseas security matters are handled by the State Department. Spokesman Jay Carney says Biden was speaking just for the White House, for himself and the president.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the precise details of the Benghazi attack are still unclear. But she says the Obama administration is committed to uncovering the truth.