Debate Open Thread

Sunday, October 9, AD 2016

 

 

The second debate between Trump and Clinton starts at 8:00 PM Central Time tonight, and for lovers of political theater it promises to be exceptional.  Any other politician would be dead meat now but Donald Trump is not “any other politician.”  He isn’t a politician at all, as he has demonstrated time and time again in this campaign.  What began, I suspect, as a vanity ride for him, has turned into a political movement that has been consistently underestimated by his foes, including me.  Well, I am done underestimating Donald Trump.  Tonight promises to be an epic disaster for him, but I would not be surprised to see him throw away the political rulebook yet again and snatch a victory from a debacle.  We shall see.  For a political junkie like me, it does not get any better than this.

 

Update:  Trump has just held a news conference featuring Juanita Broaddrick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey and Kathy Shelton.  It looks like he is taking the nuclear option unless this is a pre-debate headfake.

 

Update:  Trump thus far, a half hour into the debate, is bringing his A game in the debate:  Calm, articulate and on the attack.  He has won most of the exchanges with Hillary.

Update:  An hour in Trump is more than holding his own.  Clinton came into this debate over confident and Trump came in knowing that he couldn’t afford another loss.  Frank Luntz’ focus group is showing that 17 think Trump is winning, 4 think Hillary is winning and 9 think it is a tie.

Update:  I called the first debate for Clinton and I think Trump is just as clearly the victor in the second debate.  A bravura performance considering the pressure Trump is under.

Update:  From the Luntz focus group:

Focus Group: Who are you willing to vote for?

BEFORE #DEBATE • Hillary: 8 • Trump: 9

AFTER DEBATE • Hillary: 4 • Trump: 18

Continue reading...

19 Responses to Debate Open Thread

  • For a simple tax paying American, like me, it doesn’t get any worse.

  • I wish there was something profound I could write. There isn’t. I fear Hildebeast will win.

  • All (millions of voters) families with ptsd in the family have left him in the past week as have anti groping families, Mexicans, half the doctors of the NY area because they’re mideastern, the other half of doctors in the NY area because they’re sure he would molest their wives at a fund raiser. Did the Clintons pay Trump to run is the only question left.

  • Paul.

    It’s surreal.
    I am fighting two feelings.
    I’m confident that God will see us through anything, including this chastisement of political Russian roulette. On the other hand I cringe at the thought of the devil taking over the White House.
    The answer to the beast is hardly an answer at all…so I’m back to having place all of my trust in God! Maybe that IS the lesson?

    Year of Mercy comes to a close…
    what next….?

    Year of Judgment?

  • Hillary will do less than nothing for PTSD and the corrupt and incompetent (Hillary and they hate vets, too) flower children ruining the VA will continue to kill vets waiting for appointments. I know a little about PTSD. The warden doesn’t know the son has it. I’ve seen it. He’s coping. We’ll deal with it.
    .
    I am a veteran and my son is still on active service. The warden and most women we know are for Trump. While we military families are about 2% (the rest are at the mall or playing Pokémon Go) of the population, most of us are for Trump.
    .
    And, I feel your pain. President Trump never had a chance amongst the execrable, filthy animals polluting NJ and NY.
    .
    Tonight it will be President Trump against thousands of full-time employees of Hillary 2016 alias the media.
    .
    FYI a stag party, 11 year-old tape does not lessen the corruption or mitigate the incompetence that are Crooked Hillary. A Hillary presidency would be a disaster for America.
    .
    I will prayerfully prepare accordingly.
    .

  • Not debate-related, but I’m going to take advantage of the words “open thread”.

    Have you guys seen the new Jockey ads? They’re fantastic. They exemplify American decency. I’ve seen three so far: a new father, a veteran, and a firefighter. You could maybe call them PC for certain reasons, and you can definitely call them underwear ads, but they are just so wholesome! I’d forgotten that ads can pander to values I hold.

  • Hillary calls Trump’s comments horrific, yet she supports abortion, including partial birth abortion. Way over one million American babies are aborted every year, while we continue to give benefits to illegal aliens and refugees. This is irrelevant to the Catholic Bishops.

  • If Hillary beat Trump in the first debate, Trump is destroying Hillary at the moment in this second debate.

  • Best line of the debate so far on the “email scandal” from Trump to Hillary, when he becomes president, “Cause you would be in jail”. Major applause from the audience.

  • Right Tito. I confess that I am surprised. He is a different person from the first debate.

  • Don,

    I was expecting a bloodbath when the panel turned on Trump on keeping his sexist comments a focus and he brilliantly turned it around on the second time that Cooper reminded him.

    Wow!

  • On the whole, he is doing better. Sometimes he shines. Other times, he gets lost in the weeds.
    @CAM, Indeed. That was an awesome line. I also like him dismantling Hillary comparing herself to Abraham Lincoln. Ridiculous.

  • Kyle, LOL. She should have seen it coming. For defense she keeps going to the “children” a la “It Takes a Village” “or women and children.”

  • I wonder how Trump’s frequent pacing is going to play with the general audience.

  • Hillary’s answer on Supreme Court was awful. A long list of things she disagrees with wanting to use a justice to overturn. I thought a single litmus test was offensive to the process. Every one of her many issues is a litmus test.

  • Breitbart is a Trump echo chamber, but I like their coverage. I watched the baseball game because seeing Hildebeast or her ads on TV causes me to commit multiple sins. 99 percent of Breitbart combox responses say Trump wiped up the floor with Hill-liar-y.

  • Its 5.20 pm. on Monday here.
    Just came back from a friends place after watching the debate – The Donald won it in spades.
    Disclosure: I have been a Trump follower since he dispatched Ted Cruz, and IMO he was the only option, and despite ALL his issues, if I was a US citizen I would have held my nose and votes for him.
    2nd. disclosure: my friend and I toasted him with a beer, with a rum and coke chaser. 🙂
    Agree with CAM about the “Cause you would be in jail” – Classic. 🙂

  • 1.Regarding Hillary and health care: does anyone remember that in 1993 her husband appointed her chairwoman of the Health Care Task Force to create a universal healthcare plan? At the time she was the First Lady and not a government employee and the meetings were held in secret which sparked litigation. I am surprised that Trump has not brought this up.
    2. Trump said tonight that he had used a $100 million of his own money for his presidential campaign. He noted that she had become wealthy during her government service and asked why she didn’t use $30 million of her own wealth for her campaign instead of being beholden to her big campaign contributors.

  • Too bad Trump and his team were not more familiar with Scripture. They could have easily said, how is it you see the mote in my eye but not the beam in your own?

Who Was Presidential?

Tuesday, October 23, AD 2012

I have to give the Republican National Committee credit this year when it comes to being quick off the dime in producing web videos.  The above was put out immediately in the aftermath of the debate contrasting the calm demeanor of Romney from the somewhat frenetic and combative stance of Obama.  This clip was typical of the entire debate:

Continue reading...

4 Responses to Who Was Presidential?

  • I thought Obama bin Laden did as well as expected.

    The night went to the SF Giants 9-0 !

    The suit has no president . . .

  • Once again the liberal darlings who call themselves pro-nuclear bloggers at Atomic Insights and NEI Nuclear Notes refuse to recognize that Romney (in the video above) mentions the word “nuclear”, but not his opponent who has given billions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to now bankrupt renewable energy companies. Oh, by the way, under Barack Hussein Obama, Dominion has just announced the closure of 556 megawatts of clean, safe, inexpensive electrical energy from the Kewanee Nuclear Power Plant. Solar power companies like Solyndra that received Obama funding are now bankrupt and nuclear power plants are shutting down. We cannot afford another four years of this.

    http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2012/10/statement-from-nei-president-and-ceo.html

  • I didn’t watch the debate and it sounds like I didn’t miss much. Oh well, according to this cartoon I just stumbled across (titled “The United Swing States of America”), it doesn’t matter anyway since I live in one of the “everyone else can just sit back and have a beer” states:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2012-10-15/united-swing-states-america

  • Mr. ‘wrong and wreckless’ in the Oval Office accusing someone, who wants to serve there, of the same was – well – wrong and wreckless.

    In line with many actions of his fishy foreign policy and many choices of his political liasons, he failed to speak with sincerity about his history of contemptuous dismissal of American government process and its allies.

    Seems like the faded purpose of the UN is more his ambition than leading one USA.

The Debates Are History!

Monday, October 22, AD 2012

 

 

And what an interesting history, up till this night, the debates have written in this election contest.  In the first debate a lifeless Obama and an energized Romney turned the election on its head with Romney taking the lead from Obama.  The second debate saw an aggressive Obama, full of sound and fury but ultimately signifying little as Romney turned in a very good performance and Obama gained bupkis from his efforts in the polls.  Here are my thoughts on the third and final debate.

 

1.  Libya Missed Opportunity-Libya was the first question out of the box and Romney didn’t attempt to lay a glove on Obama.  Mistake.

2.  I Am Not a Hawk- Romney went out of his way throughout the debate to refute Obama’s argument that he is a hawk.  My guess is that is correct.  If Romney is left to his own devices I believe he would be tightly focused on getting the American economy moving.  Unfortunately American presidents often are not allowed to engage in “of the world forgetting and by the world forgot”, as 9-11 demonstrated.

3.  Lacklustre-Of all the debates I found this one the most dreary.  I think both Obama and Romney were repeating talking points from previous debates and the entire debate had a “been there, done that” feel.

4.  Obama on the Attack-Like most candidates who are behind, Obama was on the attack all night.  It would have been much more effective if he had not also been sneeringly condescending while doing so.

5.  Hollow Military-Romney effectively challenged the reductions in military strength that have been the hallmark of the Obama record on defense.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to The Debates Are History!

  • You know a Presidential debate is truly boring when even I, a political junky’s political junky, find it boring.

    At least you watched it. I tuned in for a minute, saw Barry droning on about a trip to a Holocaust museum, and then flipped back to baseball.

  • I think I know why Romney’s performance at this debate was lacklustre. It must have been something he ate at the Al Smith Dinner.

  • Perhaps Romney couldn’t land a punch over Libya as he is (was) equally gung-ho about the Arab Spring. Its sad that even with Obama’s serial lying over Libya and his arrogant disregard for the life an ambassador, Romney could not derive any advantage.

  • #1. I can only assume Romney didn’t hit Libya hard because it’s been going round on the news outlets for weeks now. And, going round again in this debate appears as a “He said. She said” argument for the non-political. Or, Candy Crowley scared the heck out of him.

    I actually applauded at one point. I thought Romney did really well hitting Obama for his apology tour.

  • Presidential debates are not debates of course but to have 3 of these 90 minute “Specials” is definitely one too many. I would like them to drop the town hall format and just have two debates on domestic and foreign policy. The town hall sounds good but even leaving aside the biased selection of people, the odds of intelligent questions coming from “Undecided” voters is close to zero. Give the candidates alternating 5 or 10 minute blocks for each of them to speak. The moderator (no prima donna or partisan hack) just is there to sound the bell and spray water on them if it gets too heated.

  • Glad the debates are over. Praying for a Romney win on November 6th. What will Obama say and do if that happens?

  • Pingback: TUESDAY GOD & CAESAR EDITION | Big Pulpit
  • It struck me by the end of the first exchange that Romney had pivoted from being the challenger to acting like the president, while Obama was still in attack-dog mode, replaying the second debate.

    That said, this was, as you say, a pretty lame debate, underscored by the fact that the candidates kept trying to switch to canned domestic policy talking points.

2 Responses to Libya Lies

Candy Crowley Grudgingly Admits That Romney Was Right

Wednesday, October 17, AD 2012

Last night I lambasted Candy Crowley for this:

“3.  Crowley Hearts Obama-Candy Crowley attempted to come to the rescue of the President in misstating that Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on terrorism in his rose garden statement.  That is incorrect.  The operative phrase in Obama’s statement:   Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.  Crowley’s intervention indicated that she was not a moderator but rather an Obama partisan.”

Continue reading...

11 Responses to Candy Crowley Grudgingly Admits That Romney Was Right

  • Did you or anyone you read thus far, raise a question that Mr Romney raised about himself. When he said no Government or employer should tell women whether or not to take contraceptives. Did he duck the core First Amendment question abut the HHS mandate, or, as some suggest, reversed himself on contraception OR was that ever his view, that it should not be included in insurance. That would be very important to his backers.

  • “When he said no Government or employer should tell women whether or not to take contraceptives.”

    Romney was refuting the lie of the Democrats that anyone in this election is seeking to ban contraceptives for women. Having employers pay for “free” contraceptive coverage is not popular, so Democrats make up a strawman that not paying for “free” contraceptive coverage equals attempting to ban contraceptives.

  • A sour tart comes clean.
    It’s frightening how many worship at the alter of Bahl..opps obama.

  • This “debate” certainly confirmed my opinion that there would be collusion between the “moderators” and Obama. Lehrer and Raddatz were certainly favoring Obama and Biden in a less “in your face” way but it wasn’t helping them enough. Hence Candy Crowley.

  • With help like Candy Crowley’s Obama does not need those who are trying to hinder him. Her lifeline to Obama is featured in most debate stories today, as is the fact that she was wrong on substance. In attempting to shield Obama the Mainstream Media often does him little good, as demonstrated by this example.

  • Crowley kept the story alive by her ignorant intervention. It’s not about winning a point in the limited scope of a TV “debate”; it’s really about forcing the media to cover the story. Again. Though Nobama is their Dear Leader the lame-streamers hate looking to PRAVDA like on big stories.

  • Just because Obama is a “hard sell” at this point doesn’t mean that the co-opting of the Media is of no value to Dems or leftists (if there is a distinction now). An economy that would leave a Repub President at 40% or less has Obama at 45-47%. A 5% consistent advantage is a big deal and should be countered. I can only hope that the Repubs and conservatives don’t make the mistake of thinking a single election means the problem is gone.

  • Candy Crowley should be fired…..she showed your liberal bi-ass…..she tried to debate Romney too….Ms. Crowley are a disgrace to fair journalism….find another job! Of course I know CNN won’t do a thing..same old thing. America is truly on the down side thanks to socialist politicians and media….shame…shame on you….

  • I think everyone is focusing on one possible error of someone who may or may not support Obama in order to avoid the many mistakes made by Romney. The governor repeatedly interrupted Crowley and failed to actually answer many of the questions. He skirted around any inquiries that he either didn’t know the answer to or knew that viewers would not like his answers to.

  • Actually K.W. Crowley interrupted Romney 29 times and Obama only nine. She also gave Obama 9% more time to speak. Add this to her attempted Libya save of Obama and all she needed were pom poms and a Hope and Change T-Shirt to complete her role of Obama cheer leader in that debate.

  • What amazes me is Obama has been given more time, more assistance from moderators, and is still being coddled by the press and he still has to lie just to ever break even. Intellect is a funny thing. (especially if it is pseudo). You just can’t fake it. And that is what he has been trying to do for the last four years. Candy Crowley should be reprimanded, if not fired for trying to fix a debate. Don’t even get me started on Martha Radditz. She let bipolar, Biden, (What? What did you think the first two letters stood for?) interrupt Ryan 82 times. How is that being a good moderator. Biden is an idiot as well. Did you hear his most recent speech? He thinks we are at war with Iran.

I Was Watching a Townhall and a Fight Broke Out

Tuesday, October 16, AD 2012

 

 

 

Predictably Obama was very aggressive tonight.  Less predictably perhaps, Romney was just as aggressive.  Here are some thoughts:

1.  Wired Obama-Obama came loaded with talking points and spoke rapidly throughout the debate to get them all out.

2.  Face Time-Classic political theater with Obama and Romney having a few face to face clashes during the debate.

3.  Crowley Hearts Obama-Candy Crowley attempted to come to the rescue of the President in misstating that Obama blamed the Benghazi attack on terrorism in his rose garden statement.  That is incorrect.  The operative phrase in Obama’s statement:   Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.  Crowley’s intervention indicated that she was not a moderator but rather an Obama partisan.

4.  Romney the Good-Romney gave another good debate performance and I expect he will do just as well in the third debate.  If Obama is hoping for Romney to stumble or commit a gaffe, I think he will wait in vain.

5.  Boxing match-Although the back and forth got a bit tiresome to me after a while, I did like the way in which both candidates talked directly at each other.  Romney did make the mistake of asking too many questions of Obama, as if he were going to get any forthright answers.

Continue reading...

12 Responses to I Was Watching a Townhall and a Fight Broke Out

  • I do think Obama was pretty slick in getting in the 47% dig in his closing remarks without Romney being able to respond.

  • I just want to point out that the big question is not really how soon (or not) Obama put the label “act of terror” on Libya– to me the really big point is about his LACK of ACTION. he might have (or not) said the right things. He is a talker after all. But he should have immediately taken some kind of action in our defense; not even beginning investigating for how long!

  • “I just want to point out that the big question is not really how soon (or not) Obama put the label “act of terror” on Libya– to me the really big point is about his LACK of ACTION. he might have (or not) said the right things. He is a talker after all. But he should have immediately taken some kind of action in our defense; not even beginning investigating for how long!”

    Romney gonna have a golden opportunity to fact check exactly what Obama said and rub his nose in it during Monday’s debate because Monday’s debate is entirely on foreign policy and national security.

  • 1. #3. paved the way and helped her favorite consistently. No F & F n’ stuff needed.
    Bet he got a handle on his four year term in the resort where he was trained for days for ‘townhall’ – in all but sincerity.

    3. Unprofessional. Broke rules. Not a moderator. Can just hear the screams if the shoe were on the other foot. The rule book would be on the table with condemnations forever.

    6. Mitt Romney striving for clarity and fairness, but incumbent wasn’t as usual.

    4. Very strong man to be able to withstand the cheating.

    7. Obama’s free pass from the media spoiled him – resents being questioned while he can continually point at and blame what is diverse from him. Playground bully, backroom thug.

    10. Too bad these debates are reported like sports scores. People see behavior and character, which hopefully helps them sort through truth and lies.

  • To me it was all about tone. Obama sounds angry, petulant. Romney exudes calmness, stability — what you want in a crisis. These debates demonstrate why I’ve supported Romney since the primaries. He’s going to win.

  • Watched the debate. Despite some sayind Obama won, i can’t agree. In my high school years I was on our class debate team. In my 20’s i was the leader of our debatng team in Jaycees. The key to winning a debate, is making your point strongly and believably – even if it is wrong – and being able to effectively counter any rebuttal to your argument. Romney was head and shoulders above Obama again tonite, although Obama came out fighting – unlike last time, and gave a much better performance. But he focussed on trying to tell everyone what Romney was “:really” saying – he had no positives for his own vision for America – because his record in four years is dog poo.
    I won’t say that Romney has gained further momentum from this, but has certainly held up his gains from last debate. Next week, I think that he will be able to close the gate on O’Bumbler when the porkies that O’Bumbler came out with will be confirmed by the media at large – not just Sean Hannity 🙂
    I’m beginning to agree with your assessment Don – that Romney will win in a lesson to the Dems. We have been having a debate here on our local Catholic blog about the US elections – and some are saying “so what?”
    Thepoint is, that what happens in the US has a major influence in the rest of the world – in particluar the western Anglo-Saxon- Celtic world, because we hold a common heritage and mindset different to the rest of world cultures, and the US, whether people like it or not, is the leader in this culture.
    I do really hope that Romney kicks O’Bumbler’s arse (ass in ‘mericaspeak) 🙂

  • Pingback: Candy Crowley Grudgingly Admits That Romney Was Right | The American Catholic
  • As long as Obama is defeat, that is all that matters. I am glad Romnry acquitted himself well again. I see many main stream news outlets saying Obama won, but they are liberal and that is to be expected.

  • I was walking Buddy (try to be the person your dog thinks you are) and snoring.

    Couldn’t bring myself to watch the Yanks roll over, either.

    Glenn Beck (on Imus) said, “Romney kindly emasculated Obama.” heh

    Old Chinese adage, “A liar is not believed even when he tells the truth.” Obama and his imbecilic worshipers have divorced themselves from facts and truth.

    Re: energy: Mitt missed his opportunity to ask why gas prices are so high during slow driving season, and for Obama’s advice to Americans choosing between buying gas to get to their jobs or eating.

    Benghazzi. . . 100+ recent violent episodes . . . repeated requests for security upgrades . . . spontaneous protest . . . 200 gomers armed with AK’s and RPG’s . . . for five days it was caused by an obscure YouTube video . . . video producer still in jail . . .

  • “video producer still in jail” . . . thanks for that info.

  • The amazing thing is how little discussion is being had in these debates and in the election in general about Obamacare. One would think that the signal achievement of Obama’s first term – the one that our esteemed Vice President called a “big f’n deal” would be trumpeted a bit more by President Obama. Curious.

  • Re: Obamacare and its invisibility

    The Left simply goes “underground” when there is public opposition to anything they are doing. They let the bureaucracy and activist judges carry the ball forward. The same thing is going on with the EPA etc. The Repubs have a candidate who doesn’t want to mention Obamacare that much either.

Debate Advice-Round Two

Tuesday, October 16, AD 2012

 

 

 

I posted debate advice for Mitt Romney prior to the first debate which may be read here.  My advice for round two is as follows:

1.  Don’t Get Cocky-You had an exceptionally good first debate.  Enjoy it and forget it.  That was round one of a three round fight, and who is left standing at the end of the third round is how you determine the victor.

2.  Don’t Sit on a Lead-  That is what Obama tried to do in round one and it was a disaster.  Don’t make that elementary mistake.

3.  This is a Townhall Meeting-We have Joe and Jane Citizens asking the questions and that is a challenge.  The media is predictable, ordinary citizens are not.  Listen closely to the questions and answer them. Ignoring questions at a townhall can be ruinous, especially if they are inane.

4.  Aggressive Obama-After his fairly passive performance at the last debate, Obama will probably come out full of fight.  That can work to your advantage at a townhall if Obama comes across as over the top before a live audience.  After the Biden debacle I think he will probably avoid this, but don’t be surprised if he has flashes of temper and be ready to capitalize on them.

5.  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs-You can bet that almost every person in that townhall will have a friend or relative who is either unemployed or underemployed.  Pledge to turn the economy around and put America be back to work.  Be detailed as much as time allows.  People were impressed the first go round at your breadth of knowledge and your ideas.  Play off of those strengths.

Continue reading...

6 Responses to Debate Advice-Round Two

Romney 49 – Obama 45

Monday, October 8, AD 2012

6 Responses to Romney 49 – Obama 45

  • As long as Romney wins – please, dear Lord Jesus, if it be Thy will, then make it so!

  • Advice for Romney/Ryan,

    Be humble!

    Work harder!!

  • Best to ignore Pew and the rest of the leftist pollsters whatever results they show. My personal belief is that they already have ready the next poll showing that Obama is back on top after the second debate. Rasmussen and to a lesser extent Gallup (if you subtract 2-3 points from the Dems) are the only ones to pay attention to.

  • Amen, T. Shaw.

    While the partisans certainly could be expected to have the ‘preferred’ results already drawn up, it would be suicide to post them should the outcome be obviously different. If Mr. Ryan pulls Joe Blow into a gaffe, a misstep or fit of hysteria, which I’m in my office pool at happining at the 7:02 mark, then anything but the truth will be an obvious fabricatrion. Pollsters can’t have too many black marks of that kind and still be taken seriously.

    And, just because I do this, I looked at my post, saw “7:02 mark,” reversed it and then looked up Mark 20:7.

    I swear this was not intentional. There are no coincidences.

  • I guess I am missing something. The Gospel of Mark has only 16 chapters. There is no Mark 20:7. My sense of humor and the ironic is missing this morning. Too much exposure to neutrons, I suppose.

  • I think it was Pew that published the most dubious poll of the season (which had a sample which had a Democratic component exceeding the Republican component by 19 percentage points). Best to stick to Gallup; they have been at this the longest.

Dead Even in Gallup Since the Debate

Monday, October 8, AD 2012

 

Gallup has announced that in their tracker Mitt Romney has pulled dead even with Obama since the debate:

Registered voters’ preferences for president are evenly split in the first three days of Gallup tracking since last Wednesday’s presidential debate. In the three days prior to the debate, Barack Obama had a five-percentage-point edge among registered voters.

An Oct. 4-5 Gallup poll finds roughly two in three Americans reporting that they watched the Oct. 3 debate, similar to what Gallup measured for each of the three 2008 presidential debates. Those who viewed the debate overwhelmingly believe Romney did a better job than Obama, 72% to 20%. Republicans were nearly unanimous in judging Romney the winner. But even Democrats rated Romney as doing a better job than Obama, 49% to 39%.

Continue reading...

16 Responses to The Look

  • Romney’s little victory dance was a telling clue as well.

    http://www.noisyroom.net/blog/romneydance.gif

  • Man, does she like pissed or what? Heh. She’s certainly not use to seeing her husband look so inept in front of a national audience and on live TV. Of course he’s not used to being in front of a camera without his teleprompter.

    It was a beautiful thing to watch!

  • I do not think I will be quite right for the rest of the day. One can actually gin up some sympathy for the man.

  • I agree Art. I suspect that Obama was thinking, “She is going to let me have it once we are by ourselves!”

  • Far too many have said this before. The whole “thing” (since 2008) recalls Hans Christian Andersen, “The Emperor’s New Clothes.”

    “‘I see.’ said the blind man as he picked up his tools and walked away.”

  • While the media is still in the tank for him, I get the impression that his own party is going through the motions at this point, but are keeping their flotation devices close at hand.

  • “She is going to let me have it once we are by ourselves!”

    Actually, she probably didn’t. :0

  • Somewhat trivial, but did Romney and O purposefully coordinate on attire? I notice Romney wearing a red tie (red state) and the O sporting blue (blue state)? Or is that a traditional thing (just never noticed before).

  • Michelle looks like she just wants to kick R’s a** for beating up on her hubby.

  • Also telling, and if someone here already mentioned this I apologize, after the debate Romney was greeted by his wife, his kids, and a throng of his grandchildren. Obama was only greeted by Michelle.
    Look at this pic. Obama is glad this is over. Romney is writing something down. Romney is still working to see where he can improve.

  • “Dems are looking to Biden to save Obama:”

    The comedic possibilities in this are endless! Nemesis is what comes to mind first however. Obama put Biden on the ticket out of arrogance: I am such a genius and so confident that I can have a complete idiot as Veep. Arrogance kept him on the ticket when many Democrats wanted him dumped this year. Now our Beloved National Clown is expected to rescue Obama !

  • Maybe, with her ‘heart’ on her sleeve, she’s watching the candidate’s family smiling and happy in a natural human manner on their way to him.

    The incumbent allowed the debate on their anniversary and used it for gain in his greeting.

    Also, the microsoft internet explorer window is ( and has been since last night) working with one of C. Matthews ‘bring out the knives’ (How Vicious and Unprofessionally Degrading) by showing in first item the same picture of Mitt Romney at the podium with the caption: I was ‘completely wrong’.

  • It’s getting bad for the emperor’s new suit.

    Seems he’s lost Jack Welch, “Unbelievable jobs numbers..these Chicago guys will do anything..can’t debate so change numbers”

  • She looks a real sour puss.
    Didn’t know she was pigeon-toed as well. 🙂

  • I not happy with the choice I’m faced with in this election cycle. I have a choice between a socialist who favors abortion and infanticide, a polytheist who is probably prolife, or a more Catholic or Catholic-like third-party candidate who does not have a realistic chance of winning. Since the Roe v Wade decision, no Republican president has ever made the prolife cause the number one issue in his administration. If a President can campaign on the campaign trail, he can take the time appear at a March for Life.

    I’ve observed the behavior of an individual exhibiting similar personality traits as Obama’s. Based upon my observations, I’m certain that Obama will spend more time preparing for the next debates. If Obama is able to understand what the most important and prevalent values are, he will attempt to explain how his policies protect and/or promote those values. Mitt better make sure is well prepared for the future debates.

Romney Victorious

Wednesday, October 3, AD 2012

 

It was a total rout.  Romney dominated the debate from beginning to end.  Obama was attempting to sit on a lead which is the worst strategy against an able opponent, and Romney demonstrated that he is a very able opponent tonight in spades.  A few thoughts:

1.  Best Performance Since Reagan-I have watched every presidential debate.  Except for the 1980 Carter-Reagan debate I have never seen any debate where one candidate dominated as much as Romney did tonight.

2.  Jobs, Jobs, Jobs-Romney kept the focus fixed throughout the debate on the 23,000,000 unemployed and continually returned to the subject of job creation.

3.  Teleprompter Where Art Thou?-Obama gave a wretched performance.  He rarely looked at Romney, while Romney always looked at him.  Obama either looked at the moderator or had his head bent down, looking at his notes, with a half smirk on his face.  His answers meandered and often had no point.  Obama needs to dump Lurch, (Senator Kerry), and get someone to coach him who can actually prepare him for a debate.  His performance was pathetic, and even his most rabid partisans, as indicated by the video of Chris “Tingle up my leg” Matthews at the beginning of this post indicates, realize it.

4.  Mitt the King Wonk-The amount of detailed knowledge that Romney had at his fingertips was astounding.  I know it astounded Obama, the pretender policy wonk.

5.  Lehrer the Zombie-Before the debate began I thought Jim Lehrer was looking incredibly old.  Romney was able to push him aside effortlessly and talk about what he wanted to talk about.  Lehrer attempted to throw a few lifelines to Obama when Obama was floundering but his efforts were futile.  Lehrer has moderated many presidential debates, but I guarantee the Democrats will make certain this is his last one.

Continue reading...

61 Responses to Romney Victorious

  • If this were a fight, it would have been stopped. The referee would have determined that one fighter (President Obama) didn’t want to be there. Therefore for his own safety, the fight would have to be stopped. One need only look at the meltdown that Chris Matthews just exhibited toward President Obama on MSNBC. In addition, look at the comments of Andrew Sullivan, “disaster,” and Bill Maher saying maybe the President does need a teleprompter. Governor Romney won a lot of votes tonight which means the attack machine is going to be amped up like never before.

  • I am no fan of Romney, but I’ll give the guy credit, he seems very sincere and capable when debating an empty chair.

  • With regards to point #3, even Bill Maher Tweeted that Obama needed a teleprompter. My only worry is that Romney gets overconfident.

  • Romney was very smart not to let Obama and Lehrer work as a team. However debates don’t change votes; at best they keep everyone who is not sold on the other guy from defecting or staying home. Romney would need to do something similar in every debate to get a point or two from the other side.

  • Watched the debate at my mate’s place on Fox, with a check on CNN afterwards, plus Hannity. Romney waa certainly a clear winner. Obama’s body language was not good – looked like a loser. But things will be very different next debate. i don’t think Romney has any illusions about winning the first debate – a good mouthful does not a meal make. Obama’s team will have him attack much more, and Romney will be aware of it – the gloves will be off.
    I think it was telling that, in his closing address, Romney referred to the Constitution, with an emphasis on “Our Creator”. Excellent. I hope he keeps up the attack, and the principles.

  • The closings:

    Seems like the debate reminded the current President that he likes Americans tonight; for giving up perks to stay in business and finding meaning in building cars ‘n stuff, because he promised to keep on supporting them the way he has been, and if they vote for him … he promises. Maybe during October, November, and December, he’ll do some good for a change as a courtesy to Americans, if he can rise above the msnbc plan.

    Gov. Romney wants to do the work of President of the United States because he both loves this country and its foundation and is capable to do so. For how much more can Americans ask? We are so lucky to have this man for a candidate. Things are a such a huge mess.

  • Keep in mind there are 8 days before the next debate which is the Vice Presidential debate. The onus is on the President now who is a known commodity. Though Mitt Romney is well known to us political junkies, he was not to a good many Americans. The Governor can simply say the characticature of me seen on the negative attack ads are false and what you saw in the debate and in my term as Governor of a very liberal state (the Commonwealth of Massachussets) is the real Mitt Romney.

    The President and the media going on the attack against Governor Romney risk being seen in a even more negative light than they are already seen by a good many Americans. A very good night for Mitt Romney, a real game changer as seen by a CNN poll that shows he won 2-1, and focus groups of independent voters that state they are definitely leaning toward Romney. Remember before the debate, polls indicated that voters expected President Obama to win the debate 2-1.

  • David.
    I can’t believe that the result from the first debate is a game changer. Sure, Romney has shown himself to be “human” – not the ogre portrayed by the Dem attack ads. But if he can perform in the next two debates as he has done here, then the game MAY change.

  • Jim Lehrer did what any good moderator should do. He got out of the way and let the candidates have at it. The last thing I want to see in a debate is the moderator demanding “control”. In fact they should not even be there at all. The candidates should question each other directly, with only a timekeeper to keep some semblance of order, but as long as there is a moderator and/or panel, picked from the national press corps, Jim Lehrer is about as good as it is going to get.

  • Happy to hear that Mitt did well.

    I was watching the Bronx Bombers put away the AL East championship against their arch-rival BoSox, 14 – 2.

    I wouldn’t have watched the debate if they paid me. Obama nauseates me.

    Don’t get cocky.

    Seems even Matthews can’t put lipstick on that incumbent. Put Chris on suicide watch.

  • Chris,

    I agree about Lehrer. “In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.”

  • Don the Kiwi, hope all is well down under. Actually, I am not being a big Romney cheerleader, as I didn’t vote for Governor Romney in the primary (I voted for Senator Santorum.) However, when any candidate, sports team actor, actress, business leader etc rises to the top on emotion, hoopla etc. they are bound to have a big crash. It is the law of physics.

    The Middle East expert Dr. Fouad Ajami noted in a revelatory Wall Street Journal article in October of 2008 that he had seen the Obama effect before in the Middle East; where leaders were treated as conquering heroes only to come crashing down to earth. The Greek columns from President Obama’s 2008 Denver convention speech are cracking as we speak. He wouldn’t be the first charsimatic leader to see his fortunes come tumbling down Mt. Olympus.

  • I didn’t get to watch the debate last night, but this is about as unanimous a verdict I’ve ever seen regarding a presidential debate since I started following politics.

    I disagree slightly with Rozin. First of all, John Kerry was helped by good debate performances, closing the gap between he and Bush after the first set of debates (though one could argue that correlation does not equal causation). Second, many Republicans and conservatives before last night had become convinced that Romney was all but finished, and now there has been a marked revitalization of spirits. Don’t discount the impact on voter enthusiasm, especially among the GOP.

  • what I enjoyed was the gentle and forthright way that Romney corrected the mendacity, pointing it out quietly (not shouting– as that one guy did during a State of the Union speech)
    I would have liked a direct discussion of the Three Branches. The arrogance of this pres is to in effect put the Supreme Court on trial in a real battle for Supremacy.
    Pres. Obama disrespects of the Supreme Court- dissing them at his S of the U speech, and on a regular daily basis with DOMA etc —

  • PZ I think we are in violent agreement. Debates don’t convince the other side’s voters to switch, they can only work on people who already are leaning against the other candidate. If a majority has decided or “all but decided” to vote for Obama (or Romney) then the debates wouldn’t matter at all. Fortunately, I don’t think Obama has anywhere close to 50% committed to him (FWIW Rasmussen put the number at 42%).

  • Recommendations for Romney and GOP:

    Be humble.

    “If you would be loved, be lovable.” Ben Franklin

    Work harder.

  • wow- blame atmospheric pressure! Blame Mr. Lehrer. Is there any way Sarah Palin can be blamed?
    Credit Romney, credit all the thorough Republican debates last year. Credit the power of all the prayers going up all over this country!

  • Phillip I guess the answer to Chris M. question “where was O?” is
    He disappeared into thin air!

  • One must be careful with decreased air pressure when one is an airhead.

  • Where was “O?” He was looking for his chair…

  • Anzlyne, yes as to your credits. Last night, I couldn’t turn on the TV thinking about preserving my mental ‘health’ from media, as I already have the season’s ‘flu’. I went to mittromney.com debate page and watched the tweets. Don’t have tweets or facebook things here, but it was as close as possible for me. I had time to allow consider ation of how deeply we, as a people, need some reason and sanity to antidote the daily government and media poison dosed out for these years – not as an excuse to be ‘cocky’, but as an acceptable reality in the world to breathe, if even for an evening.

    Mostly, it was a powerful experience to consider that Our Lord in Heaven has somehow had a hand in bringing hope to so many with this event by lifting hearts. I fell asleep trying to say thanks for so much.

  • Before the debate began I thought Jim Lehrer was looking incredibly old.

    He is 78. His sidekick Robert MacNeill retired 19 years ago.

  • Anzlyne says:

    “I would have liked a direct discussion of the Three Branches. The arrogance of this pres is to in effect put the Supreme Court on trial in a real battle for Supremacy.
    Pres. Obama disrespects of the Supreme Court-”

    I, too, enjoyed the gentleness of the debates. I appreciated the way Romney did not let Lehrer cut him off, William Buckley style.

    from President Obama, one of his 923 executive orders:
    “EXECUTIVE ORDER 11921 provides that when a state of emergency is declared by the President, Congress cannot review the action for six months.”
    Who will reinstate representative government if Congress is defunct? Who will represent the people? Obama has overruled all of our unalienable rights and our sovereignty and wishes to give us over to be taxed by the United Nations. Anything Obama might have said last night would have given away the fact that he does not ascribe to our founding principles. The anger on his face when Romney did speak of our Constitution and Declaration of Independence, but I did not hear Obama growl. Maybe next time.

  • I’ve got to pat myself on the back for a moment. I’m usually terrible at calling this kind of thing, but a couple of weeks ago I said that Romney needs to embrace Romneycare as proof that he can work with the opposition, and then hammer at the President for his partisanship. The President wouldn’t be prepared for it. It seems to have worked. Although, from the look of it, the President wasn’t prepared for much of anything.

  • Romney came out swinging and Obama looked as if he was uncomfortable up there.

  • I was astounded by that Phillip. It has been interesting to see the degree of scorn that Obama’s poor performance has earned from the port side of our politics.

  • DID OBAMA REALLY LOSE—OR WAS HIS PERFORMANCE PART OF AN OVERALL DEBATE STRATEGY THAT HE WILL DEPLOY IN THE FUTURE?
    It is so easy to conclude that Obama lost in the last debate or for Obama’s antagonists to claim that he can’t debate. Sen. McCain cautions against such assumptions, saying Obama should not be under-estimated by his opponent. Let us recall that Obama did quite well in many debates as he sought the Presidency in 2007-2008. Now, here is my take on Obama’s debate encounter with Romney on September 3, 2012:
    As it unfolded, I, like almost everyone else, was puzzled, frustrated, even angry about Obama’s performance. Upon further reflection long after the event, I have come to the following conclusions:
    1. At that debate, Obama was feeling his opponent out, trying to draw him out knowing there are future debates. That partly explains Obama’s smiles and smirks as the debate went on. So, he let Romney exhaust himself on his main arguments, talking points and spins, some would say on his many prevarications, about-faces and falsehoods. He made these statements before a huge national. He can’t retract or correct them in future without losing credibility—and, by pundits’ count, Romney made about 28 mendacious statements that night. He has already tried to correct one—that his own health care law in Mass. has a provision for pre-existing condition.
    2. Therefore, since the debate, Obama has gone on the offensives debunking or making fun of Romney’s false and misleading assertions. Expect him to do so even more aggressively in the second debate! He would be hammering Romney on his false logic, bad math and deliberate lies, though he may not outrightly call them “lies.”
    3. At the debate, Obama revealed little of himself. So Romney has little to work on. At the debate, Romney was out to prove himself and reverse a bad trend. Obama simply watched—at the end he said ominously that he “enjoyed it.” Obama did not even get into Romney’s disastrous 47% comments. Thus, he denied Romney the opportunity to pedal back before a national audience.
    4. Having set Romney up, Obama would be ready for the kill in the next encounter! He knows and can anticipate Romney’s well-rehearsed answers. Obama will do his home work on all of those. Romney can’t on Obama’s; he doesn’t know.
    5. The final debate on foreign policy is uniquely Obama’s territory. Romney know little that is meaningful here except what former Bush aids would feed him. But Bush is toxic for this election season. Here, Romney would receive his final body blow!
    6. Finally, the new job report bodes well for Obama. It takes the wind out of Romney’s sail. It undercuts severely his main selling point. Obama wins!

  • “It is so easy to conclude that Obama lost in the last debate”

    Because it is a self-evident fact.

    “At that debate, Obama was feeling his opponent out,”

    If so, what Obama discovered is that he is up against an opponent who can out-think and out-talk him.

    “Therefore, since the debate, Obama has gone on the offensives”
    Completely ineffectually, judging from the polls and early voting which show Romney surging, especially in the key states of Florida, Ohio and Virginia.

    “At the debate, Obama revealed little of himself.”

    Little that we didn’t already know. He is inarticulate without a teleprompter. His policy knowledge is lacking. He tends to allow his unfiltered statements to meander badly and often pointlessly.

    “Obama would be ready for the kill in the next encounter!”

    The next debate will be the Veep debate and I expect Biden to be badly humiliated in that, adding to the Romney momentum. I doubt if Obama will manage better than a draw in the last two debates, and there is always the possibility that Obama will come across as over the top and desperate if he attempts to overcompensate for his passive and unagressive stance in the first debate.

    “Finally, the new job report bodes well for Obama”

    It really doesn’t. The vast majority of voters understand that the economy is wretched and these last minute “save Obama’s” job numbers are being met with cynicism and derision.

  • “The vast majority of voters understand that the economy is wretched and these last minute “save Obama’s” job numbers are being met with cynicism and derision.”

    Yes. Just one example:

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/jack-welch-refuses-to-back-down-on-unemployment-numbers-in-fiery-exchange-with-chris-matthews/

  • Brilliant satire, Dr. Sam, though I don’t think you’re quite ready for the New Yorker:
    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/10/obamas-old-friends-react-to-the-debate.html?mobify=0

    To sum up: Obama lost the debate because he’s too awesome.

  • I wouldn’t write off Dr. Sam completely. I saw the entire debate and Obama could have embarassed Romney to no end on two points that I was aware of…but Obama didn’t. Romney said he would create 12 million jobs but Wall Streeters like Romney know that Moody’s Analytics and other financial advisory companies are saying the economy will produce 12 million jobs no matter who wins.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/economy/247081-experts-say-economy-should-grow-despite-who-wins-white-house-in-november

    Secondly Romney stated he would increase Medicaid and do so by inflation plus 1%. That’s actually a big cut because unlike low ordinary inflation (2.4% for 2013), medical related inflation is projected to be 7.5% for 2013.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/31/us-usa-healthcare-costs-idUSBRE84U05620120531

    So Romney will really be giving Medicaid half what it needs ( if it had no misuse which it does like most programs ). When I saw both moments ( the 12 million jobs and ” I’ll increase medicaid” ), I said to myself…this guy could sell lemon ice in the Antartic. But Obama knew Romney was conning the average listener ( not the above average listener who already know who they’ll vote for…if they are in a state where it will make any difference electorially.)
    Obama could have murdered Romney on either the 12 million or the medicaid increase and he did not. My impression was that Obama had something intimate bothering him….or Dr. Sam can’t be ruled out.

  • “or Dr. Sam can’t be ruled out.”

    Oh yes he can be. Obama is no Machiavellian genius, but rather a fairly typical liberal politician who had immense good luck when he ran for the White House in 2008. Now he has four years of failure behind him, and is confronted with the first competent opponent he has confronted in his political career.

  • Perhaps both Bill and Sam agree with the college students reported elsewhere who think Obama should be allowed a teleprompter for the next two debates.

    Of course it is entirely possible that Romney, having demolished Obama in the first debate, will feel it would be running up the score if he made him look bad in the last 2 debates.

  • Rozin,
    I’m against Obama way more than I’m against Romney but the debate showed that economics oral debates are a contradiction in terms. They should be done on paper as exchanges of researched responses…but the fast moving pragmatic US voter population would not read the debate on paper or on internet because the position texts would be hyper detailed and endless and boring to most voters.

  • Secondly Romney stated he would increase Medicaid and do so by inflation plus 1%. That’s actually a big cut because unlike low ordinary inflation (2.4% for 2013), medical related inflation is projected to be 7.5% for 2013.

    1. You have a news report of an analysis done by one agency. I would not take the number at face value.

    2. Much of Medicaid is devoted not to medical care but to the financing of nursing homes. Nursing homes house people, feed people, and give personal care, not services given to technology-driven cost inflation. There are rehabilitation services on site and attending physicians, but these are not financed by Medicaid.

  • Bill,

    If you are saying that debates tell us very little about a candidate’s qualifications for executive office (as opposed to legislative office) I agree wholeheartedly. Also any plan is subject to the vagaries of Congress unless like Obama you plan to rule by fiat. However an incumbent has a quite different situation than a challenger. You would expect an incumbent to know exactly what he/she has done and why they did it and be able to explain in great detail how things happened. The debate proved what was apparent to anyone paying attention the last four years: President Obama is a goof-off who doesn’t work at the job but spends his time in recreational activities, and reading from a teleprompter at various places. Given his lack of experience and general arrogance it is not clear that him paying attention would have greatly improved the product I admit. The parties and the people have to wake up and stop nominating and electing people without sufficient executive experience and proven ability.

  • overheard in department lounge: “rope – a – dope” “busy with high level secret stuff in middle east”

  • Art Deco,
    Medicaid covers 40% of the child deliveries ( prenatal and postpartum too) in the U.S inter alia. 40% of all births in the country. Go here:

    http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-CHIP-Program-Information/By-Population/By-Population.html

  • Art Deco,
    ps….google ” nursing home inflation”. You’ll see articles to the effect that it too fast outpaces normal inflation.

  • Bill,

    I’m not sure what your point is unless you mean to say that taxpayers have to subsidize any cost no matter what. This was known in the old days as a cost-plus contract and for good reasons no one engages in it anymore (I hope). This is the usual Leftist argument used by Obama and every other Dem.” How dare you cut anything from teachers contracts!! How dare you cut the size and budget of anything we are already doing. How dare you not increase every budget by 7% every year no matter what.” This is how Dems end up saying Repubs want to kill seniors women and children. Why don’t you call up some people in Greece, Spain, Italy and similar places and let us know how they are doing on all their cost-plus benefits and services.

  • Ahem

    “So Romney will really be giving Medicaid half what it needs . . . ”

    When I read that, here’s what jumped upon my alleged intellect “Who gives my family and me any of what we need?”

    But, that’s just me. I’m one of the execrable 53%.

    And, 48 (or so) years after they declared War on Poverty, 49,000,000 Americans live in poverty. That’s a poor return for the $16,000,000,000,000.17 invested.

    The progressives created a leviathan: ignorant, uneducated, illiterate, dependent, people filled with envy, hate, gluttony, lust, sloth, wrath all of whom voting Democrat. The demagogues promise more entitlements and are re-elected ad infinitum. Career GOP pols don’t cut entitlements for fear of being demagogued. Both gangs of scoundrels are united in perpetually expanding the entitlement/nanny state. The middle class is caught in the vise between the free everything entitlement hordes and Wall Street plutocrats. The elites are effective in using media, universities/public schools and think tanks to divert middle class angst to those living off the state. While the endangered middle class is fixated on poor people, elites are bribing politicians and the Fed to give them laws, Op Twists, QE’s, and stimuli that add billions to their net worths. Precious little gets to the middle class and the economy is a wreck.

  • Rozin,
    I many years ago refused to strike with the Newark teachers’ union…fortunately I’m 6’3″ and 235lbs. with little fat. They’d drive by and yell….but no takers. But previous to that I worked one year in welfare and saw the problems of the both the real poor and the phonies on welfare. I was also in the military and I like the military but not big budgets…but I like the small smart war concept…kill lists and drones, snipers and assassins make for lower costs and fewer civilians hurt. Rearranging muslim groups at $4 trillion (Iraq/ Afghan/Pakistan/…Brown University) is more wasteful than welfare. I’ll leave you with one thought…we give the mentally ill on welfare enough money in New York to live in the most
    dangerous neighborhoods. I live tin such places now sporadically for real estate
    reasons. God is not pleased with our niggardliness toward the mentally ill. ” The
    day of the Lord cometh like a burning oven”….Malachi 4:1.

  • “God is not pleased with our niggardliness toward the mentally ill. ‘The
    day of the Lord cometh like a burning oven.’ Malachi 4:1.”

    I agree.

  • Paul,
    People wonder when does God punish nations? When their sins like abortion and the neglect of the mentally ill are filled up. In Genesis 15 God notes this principle to Abraham and predicts 400 years for the sins of the Amorites to be filled up:

    13
    * Then the LORD said to Abram: Know for certain that your descendants will reside as aliens in a land not their own, where they shall be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years.f
    14
    But I will bring judgment on the nation they must serve, and after this they will go out with great wealth.g
    15
    You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace; you will be buried at a ripe old age.
    16
    In the fourth generation* your descendants will return here, for the wickedness of the Amorites is not yet complete.
    ……………………………………………………………………..

    Christ tells His generation of Jewish leaders that they are at the tale end of a filling up period which is why Jerusalem will be destroyed and was:

    Matt.23:31-32.
    31
    “Thus you bear witness against yourselves that you are the children of those who murdered the prophets;
    32
    now fill up what your ancestors measured out!”
    ………………………………………

    The fire comes when the sins are filled up. Only God knows if that is two years or two hundred years. But once the filling up is complete, God acts fast. If you have a sinful relative, pray daily for them because they are moving toward the “filled up” point but your prayers can affect all that.

  • T Shaw,
    If anyone in your family dies very slowly in old age from certain illnesses that require medical machines. Here’s what happens. They are in ICU first in a hospital.
    Then they are transferred to a skilled nursing home which is covted for 100 days by medicare. Then if they are the final spouse, they go through their savings at the nursing home’s rate which is anywhere from $50K a year to 80K a year. After they or you are broke, medicaid covers you or they in that home till death. Unless you have Ryan’s several million or Romney’s many millions, you could be there one day on medicaid. Young people should really note this. If you have parents who hope to leave you several hundred thousand or more or less, it may happen but a lingering, slow death by a final spouse could destroy that inheritance so retirement planning should not include that money. Slow acting lung cancer, late stage Parkinsons etc. could despoil the family saving even with medicaid’s help.

  • Bill,

    Yes, Money can be saved everywhere. However, you were saying that Romney was bad in not constantly raising Medicaid according to what the inflation rate is and he should be attacked for that. I asked how was that different from a cost-plus contract? The answer I guess is that you are 1 inch taller and 40 pounds heavier. If you are not going to seriously answer that question you are not serious.

    I did not say that the Left was wrong to advocate for welfare; they are wrong to advocate for more govt spending Regardless of whether it helps or hurts the beneficiaries or bankrupts the country. Are churches and other charitable groups to offload their charitable work to the Dept of Human Services? Why don’t they simply become divisions of DHHS? Obama is right there to make it happen.

    The Right is wrong to advocate for more military spending whether or not it improves our national security. However your so-called smart wars are doing very badly now. Despite all those drones and cyberwhacks, the Taliban is ready to march back into Afghanistan and the Middle East is going jihad. The old fashioned war in Iraq has produced the most stable Arab govt in the region (not that we weren’t lucky about that).

    Why are mentally ill patients in dangerous city neighborhoods? Well, medications have allowed many such patients to leave institutions and live somewhat normal lives. But their earning prospects are not good. They of course could move out of NYC or other such places to smaller cities. But if the economy was improving and you had less corrupt city govt those neighborhoods would be helped too. The Argentinian or Venezuelan model we are seemingly embarking on will make even normal neighborhoods as bad.

  • Old way: Work and earn, save and retire. God-willing, you are whole and can.
    The saving part in this way of life is the betrayal for whatever the % of people.
    ( losing track of %’s ) El banco grande will maybe allow 1% if they can have a sum for a year or more type thing – or else … . They no longer vie with little CD earnings rates ads.
    Vague Anxiety is the order of the new way.

    All I know is that it took only three days from the debate night lift to figure out that we each had better remember to maintain reverence for and communication with our Lord in a constant way for the rest of our lives.
    I think He reminded us with some hope Wednesday night and is watching.
    He called His people the remnant of His inheiritance. Oh, to be a thread and not unravelled.
    Truth, Beauty and Good are gifts for which we have to be thankful and protective.

    Today, for a minor example of signs of His hand in things, I went to a little service for Blessing of Animals commemorating St. Francis. It was at a St. Anthony of Padua Church in the parking lot and a cold autumn weather front was coming in on the wind. We had a circle of cats and dogs, so peaceful, the animals were quiet and seemed almost attentive during prayers. Easter lilies planted for next year were blooming at the Chapel door! (Both Saints are often pictured with lilies.) A magnolia tree had a few spring blossoms. Sadly, some of the dogs were rescued from puppy mills even from other states, but it seemed like a statement about caring for Creation any way we can.
    And, before we began, I was quick enough to pick up the cat carrier when a dog thought it was a hydrant.

  • I noticed the sarcastic comment about Ryan’s several millions and Romney’s many millions, but no reference to Nancy Pelosi’s many millions, or John Kerry’s many millions, or the many millions possessed by many other rich liberal leftist politicians and activists who want to tax your money and mine to provide for what they refuse to provide out of their own riches.

    If Ryan and Romney earned their riches honestly, then they are entitled to their riches. From what I have gathered, Romney has made significant charitable contributions, but none of that will ever dissuade criticism against him.

    BTW, there was a time when families cared for those family members who couldn’t care for themselves. But in this neo-pagan, post modern age, we don’t have families with grandparents and married parents and cousins and uncles and aunts. We have abortion, divorce, homosexual filth, contraception, fornication, adultery and every other family destroying disease. Then we advocate that government should do what our sins have prevented us from doing, and we wail when the Republicans say no. It isn’t government’s responsibility to take care of the mentally retarded, or the sick, or the lame, or the hungry, or the poor. That’s our responsibility as members of the Body of Christ. But we have destroyed our means of discharging our responsibilities. So don’t expect that Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney have to pick up our slack.

  • ND Victorious did not need to score that last TD: 41-3. Mitt didn’t do it to the zero.

    BB: Naked we entered the World. Naked we will depart the World. If God gives us good things; He allows us bad, as well. I know my Redeemer lives.

    All of us will be poor when Obama gets four more years.

    Anyhow, money is about the last thing I think about when involved in end of life issues.

    I have been through “it” three (father, mother, uncle) times in the last eight years. And now, a close (a saintly man who does not merit his horrid suffering) friend is in it. One of the three was a nursing home situation wherein I was PoA: I paid the bills; and I was the executor of the estate.

    Here is how it works when the government controls your health: Death Panels. They seem to be medical SOP for the aged and infirm in the UK.

    Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html#ixzz1yLo1yfRc

  • Rozin,
    Cost plus the apposite inflation is a perfect requirement for the truly needy. The waste comes from fraud and from other aspects.
    The mentally ill often do not take their meds and end up in the news for pushing others off the subway platform in front of a train…or stabbing random pedestrians. Deinstitutionalization was society trying to cut down on costs while calling it community based. Lol. I visited the insane in the bad parts of NYC for a year. I went upstairs in a tenement on east 4th street that was heroin row at the time and
    taxis would not stop on that block. I knocked on their apartment door after passing a line of 8 young men outside another door waiting to buy drugs. As the mentally ill couple opened the door to me, the smell of feces from their apartment almost knocked me over. Your portrait of their deinstitutionalization and my portrait of them are miles apart. Many of them live in transient hotels with a hot plate and a bed and no relatives loving them or taking them in. I arranged for one woman to visit her two children who were in foster care with other parents. When she was put in a room with them, she scared her own little children because she would not look at them or talk to them. I pray for her every week decades later as inclusive in my prayers for my family…her and Gladys M., a black schizophrenic who lived in a flop house hotel with a hot plate and bed in a 12 by 7 room…with thugs nearby. One hotel in that area on Jane St. was just for ex cons and was so dangerous social workers were
    not allowed upstairs. “Somewhat normal lives”… I never saw the ones you’re describing. You’re imagining paranoid schizophrenics taking their medications without being in an institution. That was the NY con job that closed sanitariums and sent delusionals back into the community to take medication on their own…and save
    money for the tax payer. The welfare check though was only big enough for them to live in bad neighborhoods. In Norway perhaps or Malta, you can be poor and insane and live proximate to decent people. In New York City, if you are poor and insane, you are living with ex cons.

  • Paul,
    It is Ryan and Romney only that want to cut the medicaid that you or your family member might need one day in the last years of your life. I have no truck with Pelosi or any dem of that ilk. I mention R and R because they want to reduce that area which they will never need.

  • Bill,

    It is not government’s job to care for the sick, feed the hungry, give drink to the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc. That is our job as members of the Body of Christ. Government’s job is to defend against aggression, both internal and xternal, and to foster an environment of free enterprise, personal responsibility and accountability, stable families and religious freedom that empowers the various Christian denominations in their charitable good works. The Great Society program of Lyndon B. Johnson is an exercise in the extent to which man’s hubris will extend itself. Ideally there should be no Federal social welfare programs of any sort, and any such programs should under the principle of subsidiarity be developed and implemented at the local or state level. The Federal government needs to get out of the business of wealth redistribution under the false claim of charity for the helpless. All the federal taxes going to Medicare and Medicaid ought to be turned over to the states and each state should determine how to meet its needs. If a state can’t do that, then the people therein need to vote the politicians out or accept suffering the consequences of their decisions. No more bread and circuses.

  • Paul,
    The Medicaid budget was recently over $400 billion a year. The Vatican has 1 billion in savings investments. The Vatican could not provide one complete day of medicaid bills if it gave all its money to medicaid.
    Catholic parishes gave $60 million to Haiti relief. That amount would only support
    1000 elderly countrywide in a skilled nursing home for one year only without paying the medical. Modern needs and modern medical costs make charity a small player in this area.
    Catholic nursing homes get most of their income from medicaid…60%. Catholic hospital neonatal units get 40% of their income from medicaid. Cardinal Dolan must have told all Bishops to go silent on Medicaid cuts by Romney because Obama’s threat to freedom of religion trumps all other issues and that is correct. But parishes cannot take care of the medical needs of even a handful of their parishioners through donations. Parishes on average gave $3600 each for Haiti relief. That’s one trip to the ER by one needy person on one day.
    Charity can no longer handle the bills of modern medicine for the poor.

    As to government fighting aggression, we were recently paying Boeing $643 each for a $12 part…25 years after the $640 toilet seat incident from an interesting c span interview on DOD waste whose general audit is now pushed back to 2017 from 1997:

    http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/300675-6

  • Bill wrote, “Secondly Romney stated he would increase Medicaid and do so by inflation plus 1%. That’s actually a big cut because unlike low ordinary inflation (2.4% for 2013), medical related inflation is projected to be 7.5% for 2013.”

    I suggest you factor in the equation the horrid (June 2009 to present) GDP growth rate: 2%, the weakest post-war recovery.

    Two points of information: One, the higher education (bubble) inflation rate is similarly far greater than the Ministry of Truth overall inflation rate; and Two, in the run-up to the great recession, the home price (bubble) inflation rate was about six-times the overall inflation rates and the rates of increase in median household incomes, disposable incomes and GDP until the bubble burst in 2007-2008.

    Here’s your Columbus Day assignment. Take out a piece of paper and a pen and write 50 times the word, “unsustainable.”

  • Deinstitutionalization was society trying to cut down on costs while calling it community based. Lol. I visited the insane in the bad parts of NYC for a year. I went upstairs in a tenement on east 4th street that was heroin row at the time and

    IIRC, the Urban Institute estimated in 1990 that there were about 600,000 homeless. Given the increase in general population in the intervening years, one might extrapolate and arrive at a figure of ~720,000 today. Not all of these are schizophrenics. It used to be said that about half of the homeless were ‘mentally ill’, though that was in an era when all sorts of fictional and manufactured data were bandied about in the press.

    The thing is, ca. 1955, the population in state asylums was around about 850,000. Given the intervening increase in the general population, that would translate into about 1,500,000 people today. The last time I checked, the population of state asylums was about 87,000. We do not have 1.4 million lunatics wandering around as vagrants in this country. We might have 360,000 wandering about who would benefit from institutional confinement. It will largely be against their will and it will not be cheap.

  • Quite a few people who would have been institutionalized in previous generations now live in group homes. About 9500 people live in group homes in Illinois. In my opinion the quality of the supervision at group homes leaves much to be desired, but I could say the same regarding the traditional asylums.

October 28, 1980: Carter-Reagan Debate

Wednesday, October 3, AD 2012

Tonight we are having the first of three Presidential debates between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama.  They have both been engaged in debate preparation, and I would imagine that in both camps close study has been made of the best presidential debate performance ever by a candidate:  that of Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter on October 28, 1980 in their one and only debate.  Reagan was everything in the debate that a candidate should be:  relaxed, in command of the facts, humorous and a master of devastating one liners:  “There you go again!”  Reagan at the end asked the essential question that almost all American voters do ask themselves when judging a president:  “Am I better off than I was four years ago?”  American presidential elections usually come down to the state of the economy, and Reagan understood this, and used the poor state of the economy in 1980 with devastating impact against Carter.  I was a Reagan supporter and watched the debate with keen interest.  After the debate I had no doubt that Reagan was going to win, and probably overwhelmingly.  Here is a video of the complete debate:

Continue reading...

6 Responses to October 28, 1980: Carter-Reagan Debate

  • I will not watch the debate tonight. I shall spare myself the emotional turmoil and anxiety. But I do pray that Mitt Romney does well, exposing Obama for who and what he is.

  • Amen, Paul.

    Luke 12:11-12: “When you are brought before synagogues, rulers and authorities, do not worry about how you will defend yourselves or what you will say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that time what you should say.”

    Come Holy Spirit, fill the hearts of your faithful and kindle in them the fire of your love.

    V. Send forth your Spirit, and they shall be created.
    R. And You shall renew the face of the earth.

    Let us pray.

    O, God, who by the light of the Holy Spirit, did instruct the hearts of the faithful, grant that by the same Holy Spirit we may be truly wise and ever enjoy His consolations. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.

  • May our Lord be with Mitt Romney and his family through this trial.
    Campaigning and debating are so far removed from the actual work of the office which is what he can and would do respectfully for every citizen. Mitt Romney is a gentleman.

    The DNC and its mouthpieces have sunk so far below any hint of good, respectful behavior and civilized, intelligent discourse. They’ve trained their voting blocks to relinquish thought, react in vehemence, and keep shorter and shorter attention spans in this world of information superhighways. May the Lord open their hearts and minds to see and hear the death, destruction, and rampant sin they unleash with violent intent.

    Animals have far more innate sense.

    Also, I will be looking forward to 11:00 pm today.

  • Thank you Donald McClarey. May you live long and prosper under God, through Him and with Him and in Him.

  • Did you e-mail a copy to the Romney camp?
    It seems much of what he talks about are the same problems today.
    “Those who fail to know the errors of history are doomed to repeat them” (or words to that effect)

  • Your prayers we’re answered…Mitt did a great job. teleprompter barry looked nude before the American people. Please keep your prayers going.

A Thrill Up Their Legs

Tuesday, October 2, AD 2012

 

 

The first Presidential Debate will be tomorrow.  Peter Roff at US News and World Report gives us a sample of what we can expect from the unpaid Obama Press Agents most of the Mainstream Media in the coverage the day after the debate:

From  the moment he crossed the stage to the podium at Wednesday  night’s debate in Denver,  President Barack Obama took a commanding lead  in his first face-to-face  encounter with his opponent in the upcoming  election, a lead he never  relinquished.

So  confident was the president that he seemed to be floating a foot  or so off the  ground, Barack Obama was bright, engaging, and  well-versed in every possible  nuance of every question asked by the  moderator, PBS’s Jim Lehrer. His  opponent, in contrast, was nattily  attired in an expensive outfit appropriate  to his status as part of the  1 percent of the nation’s wealthiest individuals  but, on substance,  was sorely lacking in his understanding of the issues facing  America.

“President  Obama’s performance was so good, my whole body was  tingling,” said Matt  Christopher, the noted commentator for the SMBND  cable news network. “In fact  at one point I thought I might be having a  stroke, but that would have been  okay because the last thing I would  have heard was Obama’s ringing defense of  his superior presidency.”

Continue reading...

6 Responses to A Thrill Up Their Legs

  • If people are so willing to adore and hold in adulation a little Antichrist like Obama, then how ready indeed are they to be beguiled and deceived when the Great Beast from the Sea in Revelation chapter 13 comes to deceive the whole world?

  • Paul. It’s people like you that will have a great impact on the lukewarm, and the blind. Yes a great number will adore the beast however our concern is today, and your faith will help in the conversion of those whom God places before you.
    The end of the story is triumphant!
    The battle scenes are before us indeed.
    Rev. 20:09 “They invaded the breadth of the camp and surrounded the camp of the holy ones and the beloved city. But fire came down from heaven and consumed them.”

  • By the way….the cartoons are good. thanks.

  • Heads used to be above shoulders, too.

    Agree with Chris Matthews ‘objective assessment’:
    Obama speaks about his feeling for America – not politics …

    (and want to add that contempt defines his feeling for America.)

    The president wanted the political job to better rabble rouse this country while he unravelled The Constitution he swore to uphold.

    He has used the job he doesn’t do to steal for cronies, cheat truth, intimidate victims, harm children, corrupt good, waste life, and skew objectivity. And more in the debasing of love and hate.

    He and they party on because he and they still have feeling for America and the world.

    When the media used its head properly placed, it contributed. Too bad about the blindness, deafness, and dementia.

    Now it’s … The thrill of defeat, the agony of victory.

  • “the SMBND cable news network”

    To quote the inimitable George Takei: “Oh, myyyyyyy.”

    But if the ball gag fits….

  • All from Benjamin Franklin:

    Admiration is the daughter of ignorance.

    By failing to prepare, you are preparing to fail.

    He that won’t be counseled can’t be helped.

A Debate Proposal

Monday, November 7, AD 2011

Unfortunately I missed the Lincoln-Douglas style debate the other night between Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich.  It sounded like a fun* evening, and it’s refreshing to have something different than the painful two hour affairs involving all eight candidates offering one minute soundbites.  Sadly, we’re scheduled to have 3,457** more of these standard debates.  Joy.

Recently Rick Perry suggested that this debate overload might not be the best way to pick a candidate, and he even hinted at skipping a few.  Had any of the other candidates said this he’d have been hailed a hero and carried off stage like Lincoln after the Jonesboro debate.  But since Rick Perry has had, umm, less than stellar debate performances, it came off as a bit self-serving.  Except he’s completely right.

If we must endure several more months of this debate hell, can’t we at least start thinning out the herd and allowing the candidates to go on for more than sixty seconds before some prissy debate moderator cuts them off?

One thing that we can do is start inviting only those candidates who actually have a shot at winning the nomination.  Easy enough, except now we get into a debate about who should be allowed at the debate.  This is the point where we have to pretend that Michelle Bachmann still might be the Republican nominee, so we can’t possibly shut out any candidate from the debate lest one of them gets hauled off in handcuffs protesting outside the debate hall due to his exclusion.***  In fact I can just imagine Rick Santorum breaking onto the stage bellowing “EXCUUUUUUUUSE ME” while yelling at Rick Perry that he was out of time.  Sure it would be barrels of fun to watch Ron Paul’s fanbase immolate because the good doctor and only true constitutionalist (TM) was barred from the debate halls.  But, in the interests of fairness, we probably can’t exclude any of these people.  Except for Jon Hunstman.  Seriously, I doubt Jon Hunstman views himself as a viable contender.  No one noticed that he wasn’t at the last debate, including Jon Huntsman.

So what can we do to make these debates at least a bit more tolerable?  Two changes might benefit both the candidates and the voters.  First, we should have fewer candidates on stage.  We can do this without eliminating candidates.  If we’re really going to have two debates a week, just have different candidates at the debate.  You can randomly assign candidates so that at the first debate you can have, say, Perry, Gingrich, Paul and Huntsman.  Then, at the next debate, it will be Santorum, Bachmann, Cain and Romney.  Then switch it up next week so that there are different pairings.

Second, discuss fewer topics and lengthen the time allotment.  We don’t necessarily need Lincoln-Douglas essays, but let candidates spend three or four minutes expanding upon their answers.  With four candidates you can still cover a lot of ground in ninety minutes or two hours, especially if we limit the moderators’ involvement in these affairs.  Sure it won’t be as much fun as allowing a transgendered mutant space alien to ask a question about illegal immigration while forcing the candidates to answer in Esperanto, but it has the advantage of actually lending insight into the candidates’ thought processes.

Or we can just continue with the same exact format and grow dumber with each passing minute.  The choice is yours.

*: Well, if you’re a political geek.
**: Number might be slightly exaggerated.  Just slightly.
***: This actually happened in Atlanta in 1996 to Alan Keyes.  I know because I was there supporting him and saw him get placed in the police cruiser.  That was about as close as I have ever gotten to getting involved in an OWS-style protest.  No justice for Keyes, no peace!

Continue reading...

11 Responses to A Debate Proposal

  • While we may not need Lincoln-Douglas essays, we definitlely need a format where candidates question each other directly with NO moderators or questioners, only a timekeeper. As far as limiting the field, should that choice be left to pollsters and polling results? I suppose no one has to televise a debate if they don’t think it would attract a large enough TV audience, but if an alternate format could be arranged in that case, viewing over the internet, announced candidates should still be free to parrticipate. If they have little or no public support sooner or later their funds will dry up and out they’ll go.

  • My ideal debate format: each candidate is given 15 minutes for opening statements. Each candidate is then given 10 minutes to respond to what their adversary said. Then each candidate has 5 minutes to close. Limit each debate to only two candidates. More than that and we merely have a joint appearance and not a debate. No questions from moderators or the audience, although written questions may be submitted in advance with candidates free to respond or ignore.

  • Mono a mano double elimination debate playoffs. What we’ve got now is too close to the BCS model of picking a champion. We need playoffs!

  • Chris-2-4: Yes! That’s the spirit.

  • I like the round-robin idea. But I want the opposite of more uninterrupted time. Half the time they don’t even address the question. “The real question is…” No that’s not the real question! That’s your way of avoiding the real question! The other half of the time, they go off into talking points. No candidate has ever said anything important past the 30-second mark.

    Here’s an idea for a moderator-less debate: Two candidates with a chess clock connected to the mics. Each gets 15-20 minutes so they have to allocate it wisely. We can have two or three pairs of debaters a night.

    It would also be nice to have an independent non-partisan group evaluate economic plans. Like a CBO for candidates. It’s amazing what candidates can get away with saying about their economic plans.You’d never know just by listening to them that Cain’s plan adds a new sales tax, would encourage a black market, increases taxes for most Americans, and initially didn’t even have any exception for the poor or that Perry’s plan would balloon the deficit and disadvantage single middle-class people or that Newt’s plan is even worse for the deficit or that Romney has no plan to reform personal income tax. I wish Huntsman’s tax reform tax were flatter and simpler but it’s the only sane plan that has been proposed.

  • RR – I tend not to be fussy about individual tax plans. The candidates’ positions are mostly the result of the staffers they hire. If one campaign guy got a better offer from Candidate A, or was finishing up a book when Candidate B was hiring so he ended up working for Candidate C who got into the race late, then most everyone would be pitching different plans. And no one’s going to say that Candidate D has a good plan, so each one’s got to propose something different. And, ultimately, any one of the candidates as president would sign any one of the plans if it made it through Congress.

    I’d like to see one candidate at a time being interviewed. Ninety minutes, no “gotchas”. Half hour on economic/fiscal policy, half hour on foreign/military, half hour on social. I’ve got my problems with Charlie Rose, but he’d be as good as anyone.

  • Just do away with debates altogether. Have a series of 30 min. interviews with each candidate.

  • The quality of interviews depends largely on the quality of the interviewer. Charlie Rose is good because he interrupts droning speeches. I like gotchas, not because of the substance of the questions and answers, but because it can throw candidates off and show us how well they can handle unexpected situations. Palin handles gotchas well even though she really should know the answers to questions like “what do you read?” Cain and Perry are horrible. The other candidates are quite good. Santorum stumbled when asked about DADT but that’s because he holds an indefensible position on the issue.

  • I guess the “gotchas” that I’m sick of are the ones they have on the Sunday morning talk shows. I remember Tim Russert used to have some interesting questions, but he always seemed more interesting in the swing than in running the bases. So many interviewers today are looking for the news-breaker moment. I can’t think of a person I’d trust to conduct the kind of interviews I’m thinking of. Maybe someone like Bill Kristol?

  • c-spanvideo.org
    click *browse*
    look under featured programs
    Herman Cain-Newt Gingrich Lincoln-Douglas Style Debate

    the first 10-15 minutes are introductions

    the last questions are hilarious

  • Thanks Sharon. I watched it. Cain is so out of his league. I think it’s Newt’s time to shine. He’s really gotta be more positive though. He seems so mad all the time.

Post Debate Thoughts

Wednesday, September 7, AD 2011

I made a semi-serious New Year’s Resolution not to discuss or even read about the presidential campaign until Labor Day.  I didn’t quite live up to that resolution, but I have managed to steer clear of the discussion far more than I would have thought possible.  So tonight was the first of the presidential debates that I have seen.  Below are my thoughts on how each of the candidates fared.

One general comment: the debate moderators were horrendous.  It seemed that about half of the questions were addressed to Rick Perry, and just about less than half to Mitt Romney.  In fact the first ten minutes were essentially just a sparring match between the two.  The most embarrassing part of the evening was when they trotted out a newscaster from Telemundo just to ask a question about immigration.  Just awful.

Continue reading...

26 Responses to Post Debate Thoughts

  • The debate was good compared to the CNN “deep dish or thin trust” debate. Substantive questions focusing on the candidates of consequence.

    Newt and Santorum need to smile. Romney merely held his ground. Perry did not help himself but he didn’t falter badly either. Huntsman finally distinguished himself but he needs to hire some marketing consultants and polish his presentation. Bachmann needed to demolish Perry but she didn’t. Her time is up. Why is Cain up there? Ron Paul had a couple moments but he also had a couple completely incoherent moments.

    All in all, no big movements in the standings except for the end of Bachmann. That leaves Perry as frontrunner with Romney close behind and Huntsman as the long-shot.

  • Huntsman? Please. The guy is at 2% in the polls, and that support is all coming from Democrats and the media. He didn’t help himself tonight with his smug, eyebrow cocking ingratiating of himself to people who’d never dream of voting for him over Obama.

    And just another one of my periodic reminders that I will NEVER, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, EVER vote for Mitt Romney. If he somehow manages to win the nomination, I will not support him in the General Election. And before any of the “anybody but Obama” crowd asks the question, no, I would not support Romney even if I knew for a certainty that my vote would be the difference in his defeating Obama.

  • This is a Perry-Romney race currently, which Romney is doomed to lose. Gingrich now is running a campaign for a cabinet position which he probably will get. Bachmann is probably hoping currently for Veep but that is not going to happen. Huntsman has a great future as being a “reasonable Republican” and can be counted on to be trotted out by the Lamestream Press in future forums where they need a Republican to agree with Democrats and give a show fake balance. Santorum’s campaign won’t survive Iowa. Like Bachmann he is hoping for Veep, but the best he and Bachmann will get is a cabinet position. Cain is a shoe-in to be Secretary of Commerce in the next Republican administration. Ron Paul: a mixture of ignorance and ideology with a crazed cult of followers. The only question for Paul is whether he goes third party next year and I suspect he will. If he does he will take more votes from Obama than the Republican nominee and end up with about three percent.

    If Palin gets in it becomes a Palin-Perry race and that is what has the Perry campaign concerned. Other than major gaffes and Palin entering, Perry is the prohibitive front runner.

  • I didn’t watch it last night, I can’t stand Brian Williams.

    “Huntsman has a great future as being a “reasonable Republican” and can be counted on to be trotted out by the Lamestream Press in future forums where they need a Republican to agree with Democrats and give a show fake balance.”

    They do this quite often. They also like to trot out liberal Catholics to bash the church.

  • I watched the Brewers lose to the Cardinals, 2-0. Nyjer Morgan got thrown out in the 9th for jawing at the pitcher and Albert Pujols ran across the field, almost sparking a donnybrook. It was apparently more exciting and impactful than the dull political debate I missed especially if you’re a cheesehead.

  • Uh oh, those Cards are only 8.5 back now. The Brewers better beware.

  • Paul, two words: 1964 Phillies.

  • Lowest point in the debate was when the crowd cheered when Williams said Perry had overseen 240-250 executions as governor. Sad.

  • Why aren’t more people getting behind Santorum? I haven’t followed everything around the debates and presidential campaigns but what I’ve seen I’ve been impressed with. Is it that he is too conservative on the social issues? Not strong enough in economic/foreign affairs issues? Combination? What is he missing?

  • I am not sorry that I didn’t my waste time.

    Anybody but Obama.

  • Huntsman has a shot at Secretary of State or if Obama wins, he’ll be the 2016 frontrunner. The veep will be Marco Rubio.

  • Lowest point in the debate was when the crowd cheered when Williams said Perry had overseen 240-250 executions as governor.

    A state as populous as Texas has likely seen about 15,000 homicides during the 10 years he has held the position.

  • Why are so many people pro-Santorum? Didn’t he betray the pro-life and conservative position a few years back when he spported Arlen Spector over a pro-life candidate?

  • Art:

    We won’t get into a discussion of how all those executions didn’t stop all those homicides. Your argument is self-defeating. Countries and states with no capital punishment have lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment.

    The most grizzly thing was not that all these executions took place but that this audience cheered that he oversaw all of these executions.

  • We won’t get into a discussion of how all those executions didn’t stop all those homicides. Your argument is self-defeating. Countries and states with no capital punishment have lower homicide rates than those with capital punishment.

    Of course, it could be in part because other states have fewer homicides that they are more in the mood to coddle murderers.

    Though I agree that it’s unseemly to cheer executions, however necessary they may seem.

  • When they stick the needle into Major Hasan there will be a big collective fist pump in our house.

  • Joe/Darwin:

    Will you both be in your pews during the Mass for the forgiveness of sins this Sunday shaking your heads and saying “bullshit”? I don’t believe Christ wants us to be selective in our forgiveness.

  • “Whoever sheds human blood, by man shall their blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made mankind.
    Genesis 9:5-7

  • Eva,

    Of course not. The Church has never held that justice and forgiveness are mutually exclusive, and I most certainly do not. Even John Paul II, an anti-capital punishment pope if there ever was one, stated clearly that the use of the death penalty was necessary and just in other times and places than our own. That doesn’t mean that forgiveness was, to use your word, “bullshit” in past societies.

    I’m not here to make a full-throated defense of capital punishment as it’s currently used in the US, because I don’t think it’s necessarily used justly or effectively. However, I do think that anti-capital punishment advocates in the US generally spend most of their time either mawkishly sympathizing with murderers over their victims or else making very poor arguments.

    The claim that capital punishment “doesn’t work” because countries that don’t have capital punishment have lower homicide rates is a poor argument. For instance: capital punishment was virtually non existent in the US (due to supreme court intervention) from 1966 to 1980. That same period marked an increase in murder and other violent crimes, which then began to fall as executions increased. (It fell the fastest in the ’90s, the period when executions were at their highest.)

    A whole lot of other things changed during those periods. I would tend to think that capital punishment was not instrumental in driving down the murder rate — because it’s used so infrequently compared to the number of murders. But it would certainly seem to run against the notion that outlawing capital punishment reduces murder.

  • We won’t get into a discussion of how all those executions didn’t stop all those homicides.

    My point, eva, was that the State of Texas does not appear to be executing people with abandon.

  • I would like to see an entirely different debating format. We lend up learning as much if not more about the moderators and questioners than about any of the candidates. The candidates should question each other rather than having the press decide what issues should be addressed and which ignored. Values are evident in the questions raised, not just in the answers.

  • I didn’t get to watch because I had to go to a catechism meeting…
    but I prayed for Rick Santorum.
    He said he supported A Specter as part of an effort to make sure we had good Supreme Court appointments Santorum later apologized I also really like Gingrich– I hope one of those two will at least be VP

  • What’s so terrible about applauding Gov Perry for saying Texas executed 234 murderers? I live on the outskirts of Peoria, Il where one shooting or murder, on the average, occurs once a month. I would applaud our dimwit Govenor Quinn, if he would lift the moratorium on the death penalty. And maybe some of those folks who were applauding lost a friend or a loved one to a murderer.

  • eva,

    Judge not . .

    A noted theologian penned the following, “Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.”

    The noted theologian that wrote the above is now Pope Benedict XVI

  • Pius XII speaks for me on the death penalty:

    “Even in the case of the death penalty the State does not dispose of the individual’s right to life. Rather public authority limits itself to depriving the offender of the good of life in expiation for his guilt, after he, through his crime, deprived himself of his own right to life.”

    There is a world of difference between forgiving someone for sins and trangressions and arguing that therefore they should not pay the earthly penalty for their crimes. That some Catholics are apparently incapable of understanding this is all part of the moral chaos of the modern world.

    The late Cardinal Dulles gives a good overview of the history of the teachings of the Church in reference to the death penalty:

    http://www.firstthings.com/article/2008/08/catholicism-amp-capital-punishment-21

  • Weird I had a completely different takeaway from the debate. Maybe because I have not seen any of the candidates speak prior to last night.