I thought Romney was purposefully vague and Obama spent too much time defending his presidency. Neither one really gave voters much reason to vote for them imo.
Printable View
I thought Romney was purposefully vague and Obama spent too much time defending his presidency. Neither one really gave voters much reason to vote for them imo.
I knew there was something on tonight besides Sons of Guns. dangit
Even Bill Maher thinks Romney won this one.
I thought Obama sputtered at times. Romney came dangerously close to appearing a bully a couple of times by talking over Lehrer and interrupting him and Obama. Romney did a good job of detailing the dreary economy, but he provided no specifics on how to fix anything.
I thought the whole affair was pretty much par for the course and unlikely to change too many voters' minds at this point. The onus is on Romney to give voters a reason to vote for him, and I didn't see one tonight.
I'll reply with a fellow Kentuckian's post on Facebook...not sure he has come over here or not from Scout....
The President better hope a Kicked Ass is covered under Obamacare.
The President has a record upon which to be attacked. Romney did that. The President did some back pedaling on his record and had little response for the $700Bil cut to Medicare.
No mention of the 47% comment by Obama. Slam dunk win for Romney.
Even Chris Matthews is losing his mind about how bad Obama did. His staunchest media supporters are going ape over his performance. Even they think he lost and they aren't hiding it.
He looked ineffectual, distant, not engaged. When Chris Matthews thinks Obama will lose if he repeats this performance you know it wasn't good.
Mathews lost his mind years ago. Was quite funny to watch Maddow, Sharpton, Schultz and Mathews tonight. It was more fun that watching the Obama beatdownQuote:
Originally Posted by CitizenBBN
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
I thought Romney hit it out of the park, he had facts and clearly won the debate. You will never see a reason to vote for Romney because you refuse to see one IMO. Romney clearly had answers, Obama had more of the same. If you can't see what Obamacare will/is doing to this country then I can't help you. Obamacare is a nuke droped on our econemy, I see the effect of it everyday.
I think that most people that actually watch the debates have already taken sides. They overlook their candidate's stumbles and exaggerate the missteps of the opponent. The debates usually only make them more convinced that they have made the right choice.
There is a small percentage that will watch the debates undecided, but much of their take-away is based on how the candidates behave and their personalities. The spinmeisters and coaches therefore spend an inordinate amount of time on their candidate's subtext and not enough on facts. We have finite attention, and instead of wondering why a candidate might be dodging a question we're busy picturing ourselves having a beer with them. I feel like I just wasted 90 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
Did you even watch the debate? Romney over and over gave his plan to restore this country and the difference between the Obama plan and his plan. And I really liked his idea of working with both parties. You know when you don't want to see you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
Yes I would say you wasted 90 minutes.
What were the specifics? I watched the whole thing. What I heard was that Romney apparently has plans to fix the economy, overhaul the tax code, repeal Obamacare and replace it with a better alternative, remake Medicare, pass a substitute plan for the legislation designed to prevent another financial crash, and reduce the deficit. How he's going to do all this however is anyone's guess, because he wouldn't or couldn't say. Can you?
Like I said, most of us will only be more convinced that our choice was correct.
Even the democratic pundits concede Romney took this one. You're on an island if you think the president helped his cause with undecideds.
I don't think this one will have much of an impact on the polls. I think Romney took the offensive, which to most people indicates the winner. I think Obama looked more presidential, although I thought he was a little too submissive. Romney looked like he was on meth at times with those wide eyes.
I came into the debate hoping Romney made a decent showing, hoping he would not be blow away by the much more charismatic Obama. I figured if Mitt held his own it would be labelled an Obama victory and I was fine with that. Like a title fight, the challenger must win decisively to claim victory. By ALL account, even the blubbering fools like Mathews and moddow and sharpton acknowledge that the clear winner was Romney. But win or lose, Romney showed many things such as he will stand up to the bold face lies that the liberals are spouting. Anybody who thinks this made no difference is fooling themselves. Romney may not win the election but tonight's performance certainly help that 5% of the electorate that he needs to pull make up their mind. That 47% that Romney spoke about, that is the 47 out of 100 people who say the debate didn't matter because the have already set their democrat vote in stone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
To much to go into, but he clearly said the middle income would not be effected, the rich would pay more, health care would be reformed. When Obama took office my wife and I paid a little less than $500 a month premium, now we are over $1300 because of the Obamacare. Doctors are droping like flys, we have gone from 12 general surgeons to 8 and the numbers are going down and down and down. Doctors will retire much earlier, health care will be nothing like it used to be. My wife and I spend somewhere between $18,00 to $25,000 a year in health care. I am watching construction companies that have been in business over 60 years close etheir doors (look for more of that). If you watched the debate Romney outlined his plan, sorry you closed your ears to this part.
I see both of them as evil. As a middle class member, one will sell me out to the poor, one will sell me out to the wealthy.
The train hits me earlier with the former, later with the latter. My kids will be the ones that will truly suffer as a result of the last few elections.
I'm of a Libertarian mind. Stay out of my bedroom, my home, off my land, defend the borders, don't waste my tax dollars. Neither candidate fits my view, in fact both hold opinions directly opposed to some of my views.
I'm more excited by a good nights sleep than what is happening these days. Those are my reactions to politics in general :)
I'm an unapologetic Libertarian, and so are 60% or so of Americans. The problem is neither political party is Libertarian, and the GOP (which is closer) doesn't have the guts to go there.
Romney and the GOP is a lesser of evils. Well really it's between evil and bad or "not good" maybe. I'd rather be having a compromise between the Tea Party and Romney than Obama and anyone else. It moves the ball back away from the tax and spend side as much as possible given the options.
Reagan isn't walking through that door, and neither is John Adams, so we just have to muddle through till the big Libertarian revolution. lol.
Carl, you will not change catfans opinion, he has a closed mind which he accuses all GOP supporters of having, pot, kettle, black, whatever.
Romney was a clear winner the the democrats were in full denial mode and spin afterward. When BIll Mahr sends out a tweet that his man got clobbered you know it isnt good.
And the focus group of Luntz on Fox afterward was mostly Obama voters from 4 years ago and the vast majority said they have changed their minds. That was huge.
One thing none talked about afterward on Fox or very little. obama talked quite a bit about the Cleveland Clinic and how great they are and then stupidly started talking about all the innovations they have done on their OWN, and how they are working to improve the facility and take better care of patients on their OWN. And Romney hammered him on it showing that private business does it better w/o government intervention. Huge mistake by Obama and whoever told him to put that in their should be taken out to the wood shed and whipped. And Obama should get whipped next for being stupid enough to go along with it.
Romney laid out his plan on taxes and how he would do it, could have taken a better shot at Obama for being a organizer that went after banks and helped force them into giving bad loans when Obama talked about banks, laid out his plan on medicare. He was on top of every point.
For me, I loved the fact that Jim L let them go at it, once he realized he wasn't going to control it totally it then became a debate, a good one instead of 2 min sound bites. My wife asked me about it after ward and that is what I told her, glad Greta agreed with me. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cattails
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazyd
Skip not sure what debate Catfan watched but it seems you and I watched the same one.
I'm not saying that Romney didn't win the debate guys. I'm saying that I doubt it will help him much. If he can repeat the performance in the next one it might swing a few votes, but I bet if you asked everyone you know if that debate changed their mind on who they're voting for you could probably count those votes on one hand.
I thought Obama looked tentative and listless. I think the challenger usually has the advantage in these things since they've been debating and stumping in the primaries while the incumbent is busy running the country. Obama looked pretty listless in the first debate against McCain also though IIRC. Romney was sharp and his performance might get some of that big money moving again that had been holding back. I think that will be the GOP's biggest benefit from last night.
I purposely watch MSLSD after the debate. It was very funny. Whoever the Ed guy is was brutally honest about Obama's poor performance. Maddow just stuttered around. The producers didn't have time to program her after the debate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doc
Do you understand "leadership"? The reason we have gridlock in DC is that there is no room to negotiate with Pelosi, Obama and Reid. Obama takes sides. He doesn't lead. Romney did something much more important than lay out some specific plan. He iterated the principles by which he would lead in the negotiations with Congress on taxes, the budget, and the monstrous debt that the democrats have amassed. The principles which were heartfelt and very clearly stated made perfect sense. They showed that he was willing to listen and that his specific position on an issue could be modified, but not his principles. That's what leaders do. Obama has no clue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
I didn't see the debate. Seems like they never really move the needle one way or the other. I'm reminded of how Reagan was judged to have lost his 1st debate in 84 against Mondale, but came back strong in the next one and went on to a 49-state landslide.
But sometimes they do. In 80 Reagan came out in the 1st debate with Carter and came across as a rational, intelligent human being, which was completely different from the way he had been portrayed by Carter. IMHO he basically won the election right then because it gave people reassurance they could turn to him and away from the failed Carter Administration.
So Romney had a good night by all accounts, but if he's going to have a chance he has to keep it up in the next 2 and make sure his ground game is strong in the swing states. IMHO this is going to come down to turnout.
BTW, just want to point out the VP debate (where I expect the smacketh downeth to be liberally applied--pun intended--by Ryan) will be in Danville at my alma mater, good ol' Centre College!
http://www.centre.edu/centredebate2012/
Carl, catfan watched the debate, he just didn't listen or pay attention to the debate.
As Mick said, Romney showed leadership, Obama showed he is all about the government take over of everything from health care, to education, to banks, walstreet, energy. I would have liked for Romney to hammer him on coal, he came close but didn't close the deal.
And the $90 billion for clean energy, Obama said nothing, just stood there and smiled as if to say, you got that one right.
Romney listed how he would pay for things, cut those that had to borrow from China and made no sense. If one listens to Obama when he talks about raising taxes on teh wealthy, he also talks about how much he is going to spend and the increase in taxes won't take care of what he spends.
Obama has had 4 years to do the things he now wants to do the next 4 years, he didn't do any of them the first 4 and he won't the next 4 except make government even bigger and screw the seniors in favor of those that don't pay anything.
Obamas traveling press sec said this morning that Romney just did a good job because he practiced a lot. They have nothing to offer so it was just a good result of practice. SPIN.
but on Foreign affairs, Romney must be just as sharp, and hammer the ME events of the last month. He needs specifics on what has happened, what the administration failed to do, and how he would have done if he had been president. the first thing I would say is after two bombing attempts on our consulate, two attempted assasination attempts on the British Ambassador, with our ambassador asking for more protection and 9/11 coming up, I would have beefed up security, had the marines armed and more sent in, and I would say that I would have been to every daily briefing with my intelligence versus Obama only going to 37% of them, and the day after also skipping that briefing and going to Vegas for a fund raiser and failing to meet with world leaders at the UN duing a time of crisis in the ME over the murder of our ambassador, the slaughter in Syria and the trouble brewing on Israels borders and Iran.
Romney will have plenty of ammo, he needs to come out firing as if he had just purchased the Homeland Securitys next 4 years worth of bullets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cattails
Jazy, you still don't get it. I'm not a Romney hater. In fact, I'm still open to voting for him, but I need to see some specifics. He needs to give voters like me a reason why.
I hear a lot about what the outcomes of his plans will be, but the road to get there is all very hazy and vague. If he has a map, I'd like to see it. Otherwise I'll have to opt for continuing to follow Obama's compass.
CatFan did you vote for Obama in 08? If so, did you demand to see his plans for hope and change? That's all he ever talked about. No specifics at all and the media gave him a pass on it. In the debate he showed, he has nothing to stand on.
Now 4 years later, everyone wants Romney's specific inner thoughts....which is a ridiculous concept to me. Obama had his chance, he blew it, Next.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
I voted for W in 2004, Obama in 2008. McCain and Palin weren't much of an alternative.
CF73.......President Obama got smoked, plain & simple. I don't know what he did to prepare for this debate, but it sure did look like to me that he just did not want to be there.
On the other hand, Govenor Romney acted, talked, sounded, and appeared very Presidential.
Neither candidate has specifics, Obama sure didn't in 08, and in fairness to them it's probably a waste to get too specific b/c once it gets hammered out with Congress it'll look different. That's just how the system works and how it was designed to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
IMO it's about direction and ideology. When a problem comes up will the President myopically think it calls for direct government action or will he say "is there some way we can spur private businesses or individuals to address this problem"? That's the key right there on domestic policy. Do we find ways to incentivize health care companies to move in the direction we want or do we just take them over with masses of bureaucrats?
Obama's plans are all 100% government. He has nothing but contempt for entrepreneurs and "the rich", which is his euphemism for anyone "successful" whether rich or not b/c a lot of those who will be impacted by his fat cat taxes are not rich. Not one of his policies in 4 years tried to work with basic market incentives or lower barriers to entry to make things better for consumers by increasing competition.
Just the opposite, the few business policies he's implemented only raised barriers to entry and protected the big companies, making it all the harder for small guys to compete and in the end only hurting consumers. He (and yes Bush II as well, but two wrongs don't absolve him of his blame) has helped protect the companies he campaigned against by not letting them fail and go through an existing legal process we have for bankruptcy.
At every turn he's been against letting the free market work or even leveling the playing field. It's a kind of corporatist policy where big government and big business get together and run the show.
Do I think Romney will sweep in and fix all that in 4 years? Of course not, but I do think as a person with vast experience in a) the free market, and b) going in and splitting off the big businesses into successful smaller businesses and growing smaller businesses, he'll see the benefit of opening markets and letting competition reign versus the collusion of Washington between politicians and lobbyists.
The only way to fix this is to get less control in Washington b/c as he centralizes power and decision making he's only helping big business. They have the money to hire the lobbyists and lawyers. Mom and pop can't compete with that. Romney at least has worked with the mid-level companies and has experience.
Obama has ZERO experience with business, ever. He's never even been a regular employee of a regular company. he went from school to a government job (community organizer) to workign for a politician to running for office. He has no perspective, no ability to think outside just passing another law.
so no neither will have detailed plans, frankly they'd be fairly pointless, but they do offer fundamentally different directions for the nation and approaches to problem solving. Romney's is consistent with free markets and encouraging businesses and individuals to to the right things, and Obama's is consistent with decrees from Washington that will only entrench big business and lower opportunity for people. Small businesses create the jobs in this country and I believe Romney knows that and believes it and Obama doesn't know it and doesn't understand how it works for them.
My recommendation is to vote on direction, b/c in the end that's about all the President can really control. He sets a tone, has the power of the bully pulpit, and that will tell you more about what will happen with them than their particular plans.
If it means Obama's anti-business for wanting huge corporations like Koch Industries to pay their fair corporate share instead of mom and pop S corp rates, then I must be anti-business also.
And how has Obama done with GE and his buddy the president of GE? Have they paid their fair share? And how did he reward the top guy at GE? And did GE shove jobs overseas right after Obama rewarded his buddy?
You have been given specifics over and over on why to vote out Obama and you just will not accept any of them. You keep saying you are open to Romney but imo you really are not as you will not listen to one thing Citizen, Doc, cattails, badrose, Issell or myself have said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
I've listened to all of it. . . well, almost all of it. Most of it I've already seen before in one form or another. I am still open to Romney, and this time I think the GOP has selected a viable Veep in case the head man strokes out or something. To me though, he still has too many question marks and too many things he appears to want to be kept secret.
CatFan if the Veep issue is of an concern to you at all, and the sitting President is not getting any younger (he is a smoker too ;) ) then can you honestly imagine this nation with Biden at the controls? I can see him sitting at a state dinner dining with an Arab nation leader and chowing down on some good southern barbecue chicken. He turns to the guest and asks him how he likes the pulled pork.
Just the opposite. Obama is the friend of those big companies, not out to get them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
First, those companies want government centralized in DC more than anyone. It gives the big ones a huge competitive advantage. They use DC as a massive barrier to entry against competition. Obama is playing right into their hands.
Look at GM. You think Mom and Pop corner store could have gotten a Congressional bailout? Think the 100s of small auto parts makers in the US could have gotten one? No, GM is big enough to get that audience, and they WANT the regulations b/c all it does is keep anyone else from starting a car company. the startup costs are so massive, and so much government can be brought against them they don't do it.
Obama was fine with the GM bailout b/c the unions wanted it. Big unions, big business, big government. They all need each other.
Obama has embraced the very misguided plan to bail out Wall Street as well. He's supported the increasing politicalization of Fannie Mae, which caused the mortgage disaster in the first place.
There's a HUGE difference between "anti-business" and "anti-big business". I'm anti-big business. I see most of these companies as so in bed with government as to be almost indistinguishable. The last thing businesses want is free markets and open competition. We want laws preventing anyone from taking our profits. Big government guys like Obama are the best friends big businesses have got.
No, Obama is anti-business as in against free markets and open competition. He believes they are fundamentally flawed in some way and consistently proposes solutions that are solely government based.
How do you think those big companies got those tax breaks? They have armies of lobbyists in DC, they write the checks to BOTH parties to insure favorable tax laws. I"m fine if Obama wants to address some of those things, but unfortunately he really hasn't addressed them.
You know one that kills small businesses and helps big companies? Having to depreciate capital investments. There is an exempt amount then you have to depreciate over years, which means you have just paid $50,000 for a new piece of equipment but you can only deduct $15,000 of it the first year, so the $35,000 remaining you have to pay tax on even though you don't have the $35,000, it's in the equipment.
Big companies absorb that stuff. They have lines of credit, big enough profits, enough ongoing depreciation that it all balances out in the end. Small businesses get butchered with that stuff.
Has Obama proposed fixing that stuff? No he just wants to raise the rates. All it will do is impact people he supposedly doesn't want to hurt. The big companies will still skate, as will the big individuals.
it's great rhetoric, but in the end those who earn $250,000 or more will get beat to death, and those folks are NOT rich by any means, and the millionaires will find ways around most of it. Like capital gains tax, the real rich will be able to engage in tax avoidance strategies b/c of their ability to forgo gains or taking out cash but those who have mortgages to pay will get hit.
It's just the truth. that's how it's worked with every proposal he's made, and NOTHING he's proposed is new. He just wants to move the rates around. This has happened several times and it's only ever hurt the upward mobility of the middle class and never really impacted the rich.
There's nothing empirical to support anything Obama is doing regarding tax or economic policy in general. Nothing. Keynesian economics has long been debunked so his massive spending didn't save us from depression, it only lenghtened the recession. There have been many studies on the Great Depression showing the same thing. His tax policies won't do anything to help the middle class or anything to show our runaway deficit spending.
The spending is the worst of it. We have GOT to stop. We're taking out new credit cards to pay the interest on the current cards. We're in deep financial trouble and no tax policy, no jobs policy, nothing is going to fix it short of sobering up, doing everything we can to open up the economy and let capitalism restore us economically and stop the spending that is crushing us. We have to grow the business tax base, which has nothing to do with taxing it more but letting it grow, and stop the "throw money at it" solution to everything used by Washington.
Obama is very much anti-business, and very much pro-big business. The rhetoric is nice, but when you look at his policies he's done just the opposite. Bailed out GM, Wall Street investment firms, done everything to protect big businesses and nothing to encourage small business or make them better able to compete. He's only helped Koch, not hurt them.
My first reaction was to change the channel. Obamney and Rombama got nothing but oppression and tyranny to offer America.
How can I not agree with thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73
If you have the need to use the boogeymen , David and Charles Koch, as a basis for any argument, it tells me you rely too much on lefty sites who demonize them. If you think the tax laws are wrong, that's one thing, but to play the "Koch Brothers are demons" card is, IMO, a little silly. The Koch brothers are guilty of being conservatives. I find it outrageous that the man in the WH finds it necessary to attack them. Why is it that you felt the need to call them out? Are you aware of their many philanthropic endeavors? Why do you think that Koch Industries, specifically, doesn't pay its "fair share"? Koch Industries should be held up as a sterling example of good American capitalism, and not used as an Alinsky tactic of targeting political enemies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Catfan73