Judge the debate

Read our live-blog commentary, below.  It was a cool exercise, interacting with each other and with the topic in real time.  Now, recollecting the debate in tranquility, what do you think about the debate as a whole?   Who will be helped, and who will be hurt?  What were the notable moments?  And, for the bottom-line question, who won?

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Tom Hering

    No doubt about it, Romney came across as eager to engage, while the President seemed to be in a funk. This wasn’t the Obama of the day before, nor will it be the Obama of the day after (I would guess). So after a good bounce for Romney, I expect things to return to where they were in the weeks leading up to the debate – to a tight race with Romney trailing. Because I expect the President to come back strong in the second and third debates. We’ll see.

  • Tom Hering

    No doubt about it, Romney came across as eager to engage, while the President seemed to be in a funk. This wasn’t the Obama of the day before, nor will it be the Obama of the day after (I would guess). So after a good bounce for Romney, I expect things to return to where they were in the weeks leading up to the debate – to a tight race with Romney trailing. Because I expect the President to come back strong in the second and third debates. We’ll see.

  • Abby

    Sure a lot different from the Obama/McCain debates.

  • Abby

    Sure a lot different from the Obama/McCain debates.

  • Pete

    What Abby said.

  • Pete

    What Abby said.

  • Kirk

    Jim Lehrer lost.

  • Kirk

    Jim Lehrer lost.

  • Tom Hering

    Lehrer lost? Not as badly as Big Bird. Romney snuffed him underfoot.

  • Tom Hering

    Lehrer lost? Not as badly as Big Bird. Romney snuffed him underfoot.

  • MarkB

    To me this was a real debate contrary to debates we have watched in the past. In this debate the participants were able to engage each other and to effectively rebut each other. Good job Lehrer, I didn’t think you had it in you.

  • MarkB

    To me this was a real debate contrary to debates we have watched in the past. In this debate the participants were able to engage each other and to effectively rebut each other. Good job Lehrer, I didn’t think you had it in you.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I wonder if there is anyone, even the most devoted Obama supporter (Jimmy?), who thinks Obama won this debate, who thinks he did better than terrible? I am struck by the way the left is in an uproar over how poorly Obama did and by how well Romney did:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82000.html

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    I wonder if there is anyone, even the most devoted Obama supporter (Jimmy?), who thinks Obama won this debate, who thinks he did better than terrible? I am struck by the way the left is in an uproar over how poorly Obama did and by how well Romney did:

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1012/82000.html

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    MarkB makes a good point that this was a real debate. The two didn’t just give separate speeches, as so often happens. They interacted with each other. The moderator didn’t get in the way. (He tried to, but both candidates rolled over him and his attempts to control everything.) And both candidates controlled themselves and were civil to each other, letting the other guy talk when it was his turn and sustaining a level of politeness, even as they were criticizing each other. I didn’t have to cringe, as I usually do with political debates, but found this hour and a half to be quite pleasant and stimulating.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    MarkB makes a good point that this was a real debate. The two didn’t just give separate speeches, as so often happens. They interacted with each other. The moderator didn’t get in the way. (He tried to, but both candidates rolled over him and his attempts to control everything.) And both candidates controlled themselves and were civil to each other, letting the other guy talk when it was his turn and sustaining a level of politeness, even as they were criticizing each other. I didn’t have to cringe, as I usually do with political debates, but found this hour and a half to be quite pleasant and stimulating.

  • SKPeterson

    They’re still virtually the same guy. No real choice.

  • SKPeterson

    They’re still virtually the same guy. No real choice.

  • http://necessaryroughness.org Dan at Necessary Roughness

    Romney was being disingenuous on the Medicare point. Ryan’s plan is to cut Medicare also, but just not spend it and thus reduce the deficit. You can’t attack someone for cutting Medicare when you are, also.

    Otherwise, I thought he did pretty well.

  • http://necessaryroughness.org Dan at Necessary Roughness

    Romney was being disingenuous on the Medicare point. Ryan’s plan is to cut Medicare also, but just not spend it and thus reduce the deficit. You can’t attack someone for cutting Medicare when you are, also.

    Otherwise, I thought he did pretty well.

  • Rose

    Obama’s avoidance of press conferences made him weak in responding to questions.
    He needed to practice against the Patrick Henry debate team.
    Without a teleprompter, he seemed unable to think on his feet.
    It makes me wonder if he himself did the work when he was head of the Harvard Law Review.

  • Rose

    Obama’s avoidance of press conferences made him weak in responding to questions.
    He needed to practice against the Patrick Henry debate team.
    Without a teleprompter, he seemed unable to think on his feet.
    It makes me wonder if he himself did the work when he was head of the Harvard Law Review.

  • Lou G.

    Romney actually inspired me last night. He seemed very Presidential and he answered some of the potential curve ball questions dead on. Case in point: When asked what are the differences betweeen your views on the roll of the federal government? Obama basically answers: the roll of the federal government is to hire more teachers. Romney starts by quoting the constitution.

    This morning the local news media was spinning it very differently from the cable news and national print media. My local channels were calling it tie and actually tried to characterize Romney as agitated. I suppose the local media folks think that the majority of local viewers didn’t actually watch the debate, because anyone who did (including Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, James Caravel, etc..)were very outspoken about Romney having the better temperment and debating skills last night.

    As is typical, the media will try to recast the story and rewrite history as mainstream America sees it. Time for conservatives to get fired up and serious about advocating a Romney/Ryan election!! Thanks!

  • Lou G.

    Romney actually inspired me last night. He seemed very Presidential and he answered some of the potential curve ball questions dead on. Case in point: When asked what are the differences betweeen your views on the roll of the federal government? Obama basically answers: the roll of the federal government is to hire more teachers. Romney starts by quoting the constitution.

    This morning the local news media was spinning it very differently from the cable news and national print media. My local channels were calling it tie and actually tried to characterize Romney as agitated. I suppose the local media folks think that the majority of local viewers didn’t actually watch the debate, because anyone who did (including Bill Maher, Chris Matthews, James Caravel, etc..)were very outspoken about Romney having the better temperment and debating skills last night.

    As is typical, the media will try to recast the story and rewrite history as mainstream America sees it. Time for conservatives to get fired up and serious about advocating a Romney/Ryan election!! Thanks!

  • Cincinnatus

    Dan at Necessary Roughness@10

    The point of contention was whether either candidate will cut Medicare for current seniors. Ryan’s plan doesn’t; Obamacare does. Romney wins that point.

    But, yeah, SKPeterson is correct: there’s no real choice here. Romney delivered his talking points more winsomely, but that won’t make him a better President.

  • Cincinnatus

    Dan at Necessary Roughness@10

    The point of contention was whether either candidate will cut Medicare for current seniors. Ryan’s plan doesn’t; Obamacare does. Romney wins that point.

    But, yeah, SKPeterson is correct: there’s no real choice here. Romney delivered his talking points more winsomely, but that won’t make him a better President.

  • Lou G.

    I disagree, Cincinnatus. I’m convinced that Romney will be a far better president than Obama. I think the biggest problem Romney has is that the media is fully against him and will be thru his whole term if he is elected. Definitely energized to get behind him now. Hope his campaign managers step up to the plate, because they’ve been horrible.

  • Lou G.

    I disagree, Cincinnatus. I’m convinced that Romney will be a far better president than Obama. I think the biggest problem Romney has is that the media is fully against him and will be thru his whole term if he is elected. Definitely energized to get behind him now. Hope his campaign managers step up to the plate, because they’ve been horrible.

  • Jon

    I appreciated Lehrer giving them both latitude to go at it. I appreciated his questions for the most part (I thought some were leading Obama a bit.)

    I appreciated that Romney was not going to backed down and got his point across and would not let Obama keep setting up a strawman characature of him. I thought that Romney connected better to the common guy. I thought Romney projected a clear sense of what he wants to do that contrasts with the president’s steady course. I also thought Romney came across as compassionate and that

    I got no sense of where Obama wants to take us and what he’ll do except for to “go forward”–which I guess means more of the same stuff in the next four years. Which means $1trillion more in debt each year and more stagnant unemployment, and more social welfare “ladders” and more regulation and intrusiveness into our lives. Obama was glib and academic. But he seemed rather like an un-prepared professor at a lecture who was trying to just “pull it off.” I believe his coaching must have been pretty much just to stick to the talking points and don’t mess up, just get through this and we’ll stay ahead.

  • Jon

    I appreciated Lehrer giving them both latitude to go at it. I appreciated his questions for the most part (I thought some were leading Obama a bit.)

    I appreciated that Romney was not going to backed down and got his point across and would not let Obama keep setting up a strawman characature of him. I thought that Romney connected better to the common guy. I thought Romney projected a clear sense of what he wants to do that contrasts with the president’s steady course. I also thought Romney came across as compassionate and that

    I got no sense of where Obama wants to take us and what he’ll do except for to “go forward”–which I guess means more of the same stuff in the next four years. Which means $1trillion more in debt each year and more stagnant unemployment, and more social welfare “ladders” and more regulation and intrusiveness into our lives. Obama was glib and academic. But he seemed rather like an un-prepared professor at a lecture who was trying to just “pull it off.” I believe his coaching must have been pretty much just to stick to the talking points and don’t mess up, just get through this and we’ll stay ahead.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Whether Romney will make a better president can be debated.
    I just hope America will elect a better Congress this time.

    I missed the debate. Tried watching the rerun, but fell asleep soon after it started. Looks like Obama didn’t have a good night, though.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Whether Romney will make a better president can be debated.
    I just hope America will elect a better Congress this time.

    I missed the debate. Tried watching the rerun, but fell asleep soon after it started. Looks like Obama didn’t have a good night, though.

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I didn’t watch, but from what I’ve heard, and my observations till now, I would classify them thus:

    Romney is a pragmatic technocrat.

    Obama is an idealistic populist.

    When times are tough, the technocrat is your best bet. Idealists are better when there is money in the bank…

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    I didn’t watch, but from what I’ve heard, and my observations till now, I would classify them thus:

    Romney is a pragmatic technocrat.

    Obama is an idealistic populist.

    When times are tough, the technocrat is your best bet. Idealists are better when there is money in the bank…

  • Joe

    I watched with hesitation thinking that Romney could actually lose the election with a weak performance. But, he did really well. Romney was the clear winner.

    Will he be a better president than Obama? I think he will. But this is not really much of an accomplishment as I think Obama has been pretty bad at it. But the fact that Romney knows there is a 10th Amendment and that it is relevant to the healthcare debate is a start; now let’s work that into a larger portion of your platform. (hint: the only correct answer to the question about the role of the federal government in education is: “It has none, next question”).

  • Joe

    I watched with hesitation thinking that Romney could actually lose the election with a weak performance. But, he did really well. Romney was the clear winner.

    Will he be a better president than Obama? I think he will. But this is not really much of an accomplishment as I think Obama has been pretty bad at it. But the fact that Romney knows there is a 10th Amendment and that it is relevant to the healthcare debate is a start; now let’s work that into a larger portion of your platform. (hint: the only correct answer to the question about the role of the federal government in education is: “It has none, next question”).

  • helen

    SKP @ 9
    Thanks for the video. Someone’s documented my “gut instinct”. :(
    I especially appreciated the list of top contributors. ;(((

    Head we lose, tails we lose.

    Maybe I really will vote for IKE! ;0

  • helen

    SKP @ 9
    Thanks for the video. Someone’s documented my “gut instinct”. :(
    I especially appreciated the list of top contributors. ;(((

    Head we lose, tails we lose.

    Maybe I really will vote for IKE! ;0

  • Jon Bonine

    I found it highly ironic that the President, as the head of the same Democrat party that urged Congress to pass the health care legislation, so that they could know what it contained, was complaining about Romney not having enough specifics about his plans.

    Did the President ever offer any plans looking forward to the next four years? He seemed unprepared for Romney’s persistence and focused answers, having to react and defend rather than offer anything for the future. He was caught on his heels and against the ropes for most of the time.

    At the very end, in the closing arguments, President Obama mentioned that there are times when he felt, because of principles, (which principles is he upholding? That would have been a tremendous part of the debate) that it was necessary for him to tell the Republicans “no”. Ironic again, to tell the party of no, no.

  • Jon Bonine

    I found it highly ironic that the President, as the head of the same Democrat party that urged Congress to pass the health care legislation, so that they could know what it contained, was complaining about Romney not having enough specifics about his plans.

    Did the President ever offer any plans looking forward to the next four years? He seemed unprepared for Romney’s persistence and focused answers, having to react and defend rather than offer anything for the future. He was caught on his heels and against the ropes for most of the time.

    At the very end, in the closing arguments, President Obama mentioned that there are times when he felt, because of principles, (which principles is he upholding? That would have been a tremendous part of the debate) that it was necessary for him to tell the Republicans “no”. Ironic again, to tell the party of no, no.

  • DonS

    It was a good debating format because of direct conversation between the candidates, and, more importantly, because the questions were generally topical, rather than specific. Follow-up questions were derived from what the candidates said, rather than from the questioner’s political perspective — much better for the Republican candidate, since mainstream media moderators tend to ask questions from the left, rather than the right.

    Obama seemed like he believed the press reports (or maybe he read Dr. Veith’s post from last week ;-) ) that he has already won the election. He was playing prevent defense, which never goes well. Now, he’ll have to realize that he is in a close race, the outcome is very much in doubt, and I expect he will bring a much better game to the next debate.

    Romney benefited because, quite frankly, his experience and temperament make him eminently qualified for the position of president, and that showed last night. He knows what he is talking about, and he was able to speak directly to the American people, without media filters. The bottom line for me, content-wise, was when Obama said that the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”. Ugh. That explains a lot. Romney’s answer was to refer to the wall behind them and to say that its purpose is to preserve and defend the principles set forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, portions of which were displayed on that wall. He also mentioned the 10th Amendment (yeah!).

    The most important outcome of this debate is that it will shut up those who have been claiming that the race is over. Romney definitely shored up and further energized his Republican base — he raised $2.5 million in overnight on-line donations. He probably brought some straying Republicans home as well. Some of those in the undecided middle who were paying attention probably saw what they wanted to see in Romney as well.

  • DonS

    It was a good debating format because of direct conversation between the candidates, and, more importantly, because the questions were generally topical, rather than specific. Follow-up questions were derived from what the candidates said, rather than from the questioner’s political perspective — much better for the Republican candidate, since mainstream media moderators tend to ask questions from the left, rather than the right.

    Obama seemed like he believed the press reports (or maybe he read Dr. Veith’s post from last week ;-) ) that he has already won the election. He was playing prevent defense, which never goes well. Now, he’ll have to realize that he is in a close race, the outcome is very much in doubt, and I expect he will bring a much better game to the next debate.

    Romney benefited because, quite frankly, his experience and temperament make him eminently qualified for the position of president, and that showed last night. He knows what he is talking about, and he was able to speak directly to the American people, without media filters. The bottom line for me, content-wise, was when Obama said that the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”. Ugh. That explains a lot. Romney’s answer was to refer to the wall behind them and to say that its purpose is to preserve and defend the principles set forth in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, portions of which were displayed on that wall. He also mentioned the 10th Amendment (yeah!).

    The most important outcome of this debate is that it will shut up those who have been claiming that the race is over. Romney definitely shored up and further energized his Republican base — he raised $2.5 million in overnight on-line donations. He probably brought some straying Republicans home as well. Some of those in the undecided middle who were paying attention probably saw what they wanted to see in Romney as well.

  • DonS
  • DonS
  • helen

    “He raised $2.5 million in overnight donations.
    Some more corporations decided to hedge their bets.

  • helen

    “He raised $2.5 million in overnight donations.
    Some more corporations decided to hedge their bets.

  • DonS

    Yeah, Helen, I don’t think corporations donate during the night.

  • DonS

    Yeah, Helen, I don’t think corporations donate during the night.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Perhaps the best indicator I’ve seen of who won the was some of my Democrat Facebook friends saying they were going to vote for Romney now.

  • http://facebook.com/mesamike Mike Westfall

    Perhaps the best indicator I’ve seen of who won the was some of my Democrat Facebook friends saying they were going to vote for Romney now.

  • Julian

    To Dr. Veith’s point, at least somebody thinks Obama won:

    http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/10/debate_was_a_win_for_obama_monmouth_university_students_say.html#incart_river_default

    Though this may say more about NJ students than it does about the debate.

  • Julian

    To Dr. Veith’s point, at least somebody thinks Obama won:

    http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2012/10/debate_was_a_win_for_obama_monmouth_university_students_say.html#incart_river_default

    Though this may say more about NJ students than it does about the debate.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@21):

    The bottom line for me, content-wise, was when Obama said that the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”. Ugh.

    Um, what? Maybe it’s me, but I kind of thought “providing for the common defense” figured somewhat prominently in one of those important documents. Even fairly extreme libertarians usually allow for the government acting to keep its citizens safe in some capacity or other. What’s your beef, exactly, with that phrase, Don?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS (@21):

    The bottom line for me, content-wise, was when Obama said that the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”. Ugh.

    Um, what? Maybe it’s me, but I kind of thought “providing for the common defense” figured somewhat prominently in one of those important documents. Even fairly extreme libertarians usually allow for the government acting to keep its citizens safe in some capacity or other. What’s your beef, exactly, with that phrase, Don?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Lou G. said (@14):

    I think the biggest problem Romney has is that the media is fully against him and will be thru his whole term if he is elected.

    Top headlines from the media that is “fully against” Romney, as of this writing:

    CNN: Score one for Romney
    NYTimes: Debate Praise for Romney as Obama Is Faulted as Flat
    WaPo (lede): President Obama lacked his usual aggressiveness while Mitt Romney shone in a way he hasn’t on the trail.
    Fox News (lede): Mitt Romney’s debate performance last night by most accounts — including liberal pundits and supporters — kept President Obama off balance and re-energized Campaign 2012.
    CBS News: Romney’s big night: The first presidential debate was Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s best moment of the campaign so far
    ABC News: Obama Supporters Concede Debate Defeat

    I guess it helps one maintain this eternal-media-victim status if one doesn’t actually pay attention to the media one is complaining about?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    Lou G. said (@14):

    I think the biggest problem Romney has is that the media is fully against him and will be thru his whole term if he is elected.

    Top headlines from the media that is “fully against” Romney, as of this writing:

    CNN: Score one for Romney
    NYTimes: Debate Praise for Romney as Obama Is Faulted as Flat
    WaPo (lede): President Obama lacked his usual aggressiveness while Mitt Romney shone in a way he hasn’t on the trail.
    Fox News (lede): Mitt Romney’s debate performance last night by most accounts — including liberal pundits and supporters — kept President Obama off balance and re-energized Campaign 2012.
    CBS News: Romney’s big night: The first presidential debate was Republican candidate Mitt Romney’s best moment of the campaign so far
    ABC News: Obama Supporters Concede Debate Defeat

    I guess it helps one maintain this eternal-media-victim status if one doesn’t actually pay attention to the media one is complaining about?

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Polls show that the public–in particular, undecided voters–thought Romney won: http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/post-debate-polls-of-voters-declare-romney-the-winner-20121003

    It remains to be seen how much this will translate into more votes for Romney–you can support someone, even though you thought he lost a debate–but those polls show a rise in “likeability” and “more likely to vote for him” also.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Polls show that the public–in particular, undecided voters–thought Romney won: http://nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/post-debate-polls-of-voters-declare-romney-the-winner-20121003

    It remains to be seen how much this will translate into more votes for Romney–you can support someone, even though you thought he lost a debate–but those polls show a rise in “likeability” and “more likely to vote for him” also.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 27: If you finished reading the rest of that paragraph you quoted, you would probably know why I am not impressed with a politician who thinks the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”.

    It should be indisputable that the primary purpose of the federal government is to uphold the principles of the Constitution — no other answer will do. And chief among these principles is the Bill of Rights — the federal government should be primarily about fulfilling its obligations under the Constitution and guaranteeing the God-given rights and liberties of each citizen and state codified in the Bill of Rights.

    Providing for the common defense is certainly a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, as Romney acknowledged when he talked about the military. But “keeping people safe” is much broader, in Obama’s mind, and the minds of others who believe in a robust and growing federal government, than providing a military defense. It’s the Patriot Act (one of your favorites). It’s an intrusive police force. It’s a host of social welfare programs for the ostensible purpose of providing a “safety net”. It’s Obamacare. It’s a guaranteed right to abortions. In short, “keeping people safe” is an excuse for all sorts of government meddling, regulation, and other liberty-robbing and debt-increasing activities.

    No thanks. This world is dangerous, but those who care about their liberty will take their chances with a government that is a little more circumspect about its role and limitations.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 27: If you finished reading the rest of that paragraph you quoted, you would probably know why I am not impressed with a politician who thinks the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”.

    It should be indisputable that the primary purpose of the federal government is to uphold the principles of the Constitution — no other answer will do. And chief among these principles is the Bill of Rights — the federal government should be primarily about fulfilling its obligations under the Constitution and guaranteeing the God-given rights and liberties of each citizen and state codified in the Bill of Rights.

    Providing for the common defense is certainly a Constitutional responsibility of the federal government, as Romney acknowledged when he talked about the military. But “keeping people safe” is much broader, in Obama’s mind, and the minds of others who believe in a robust and growing federal government, than providing a military defense. It’s the Patriot Act (one of your favorites). It’s an intrusive police force. It’s a host of social welfare programs for the ostensible purpose of providing a “safety net”. It’s Obamacare. It’s a guaranteed right to abortions. In short, “keeping people safe” is an excuse for all sorts of government meddling, regulation, and other liberty-robbing and debt-increasing activities.

    No thanks. This world is dangerous, but those who care about their liberty will take their chances with a government that is a little more circumspect about its role and limitations.

  • Jon

    A lot of people are voting absentee also. Like me, for example. I will receive my ballot next week and will vote it then.
    It makes a difference, then how the candidates do in these debates this month in how absentees vote.

    That’s why I am also really hoping the DNC will let Smokin’ Joe go completely off his chain next week. That will be a real hoot to watch! It should also be a real smackdown as well.

    Which also bodes well for RNC in terms of absentee ballots filled next week or so as well.

  • Jon

    A lot of people are voting absentee also. Like me, for example. I will receive my ballot next week and will vote it then.
    It makes a difference, then how the candidates do in these debates this month in how absentees vote.

    That’s why I am also really hoping the DNC will let Smokin’ Joe go completely off his chain next week. That will be a real hoot to watch! It should also be a real smackdown as well.

    Which also bodes well for RNC in terms of absentee ballots filled next week or so as well.

  • dust

    DonS….but at least “keeping people safe” is a notch or two above “making the trains run on time” :)

    cheers!

  • dust

    DonS….but at least “keeping people safe” is a notch or two above “making the trains run on time” :)

    cheers!

  • DonS

    dust @ 32: Yes, especially when it’s a $100 billion boondoggle that Jerry Brown insists on building. “19th Century technology in a 21st Century world!” — Forward!

  • DonS

    dust @ 32: Yes, especially when it’s a $100 billion boondoggle that Jerry Brown insists on building. “19th Century technology in a 21st Century world!” — Forward!

  • Lou G.

    Julian, Thanks for that link. Perfect example of what I was referring to about the local media. Yes, the students are the ones that are quoted, but it’s being made news by the local paper. You’re going to find that across the country in liberal strongholds where the newspaper editors and news program anchors are still deluded into thinking that Obama won that debate.

  • Lou G.

    Julian, Thanks for that link. Perfect example of what I was referring to about the local media. Yes, the students are the ones that are quoted, but it’s being made news by the local paper. You’re going to find that across the country in liberal strongholds where the newspaper editors and news program anchors are still deluded into thinking that Obama won that debate.

  • Lou G.

    tODD # 28: Nice job taking my quote out of context and propping up your liberal views.

    The context of the statement was in comment #14 where I was stating why Romney as president would have a harder time than Obama has had – ie, having to fight the media bias, if he gets elected.

    You see, if you had actually read my previous comment in #12, you would have known that your argument in #28 was simply a redundant restatement of what was already said. Not sure why the uncharitable contentiousness on your part?

  • Lou G.

    tODD # 28: Nice job taking my quote out of context and propping up your liberal views.

    The context of the statement was in comment #14 where I was stating why Romney as president would have a harder time than Obama has had – ie, having to fight the media bias, if he gets elected.

    You see, if you had actually read my previous comment in #12, you would have known that your argument in #28 was simply a redundant restatement of what was already said. Not sure why the uncharitable contentiousness on your part?

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@30):

    If you finished reading the rest of that paragraph you quoted, you would probably know why I am not impressed with a politician who thinks the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”.

    No, I’ve read it and it really does seem that you’re misconstruing what Obama meant — whether purposefully or not. Here it is, straight from the transcript:

    The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function. And as commander-in-chief, that is something that I’ve worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.

    But I also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed.

    See that word “but” in the second paragraph there? That sets up an idea that is, to some degree, in opposition with the foregoing paragraph. Sure, he says, the first job is to keep people safe. However, he goes on to say, the government can do more than that.

    Now obviously, you disagree with Obama on the latter point. But I really can’t believe that you take issue with his saying that the government should keep people safe. You seem to have a really hard time putting a good — heck, even a reasonable — construction on his words here.

    It should be indisputable that the primary purpose of the federal government is to uphold the principles of the Constitution — no other answer will do.

    Well now you’re just playing “He didn’t parrot the perfect response in my head”, which is somewhat of an annoying game. Honestly, if the people are being killed left and right because the government isn’t keeping them safe (from some outside invader?), then adherence to the Constitution largely becomes pointless, doesn’t it? “We the people” does, in fact, presume that there are still people living somewhere in the country. Do I really have to spell this out?

    In short, “keeping people safe” is an excuse for all sorts of government meddling, regulation, and other liberty-robbing and debt-increasing activities.

    Indeed. I only wish that you and other right-wingers could see this as it applies to both parties. But, as past discussions of the Patriot Act have shown, you can’t or won’t.

    meddling, regulation, liberty-robbing, and debt-increasing: good when My Guys do it, but beyond the pale when Your Guys do.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com/ tODD

    DonS said (@30):

    If you finished reading the rest of that paragraph you quoted, you would probably know why I am not impressed with a politician who thinks the primary purpose of the federal government is to “keep people safe”.

    No, I’ve read it and it really does seem that you’re misconstruing what Obama meant — whether purposefully or not. Here it is, straight from the transcript:

    The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function. And as commander-in-chief, that is something that I’ve worked on and thought about every single day that I’ve been in the Oval Office.

    But I also believe that government has the capacity, the federal government has the capacity to help open up opportunity and create ladders of opportunity and to create frameworks where the American people can succeed.

    See that word “but” in the second paragraph there? That sets up an idea that is, to some degree, in opposition with the foregoing paragraph. Sure, he says, the first job is to keep people safe. However, he goes on to say, the government can do more than that.

    Now obviously, you disagree with Obama on the latter point. But I really can’t believe that you take issue with his saying that the government should keep people safe. You seem to have a really hard time putting a good — heck, even a reasonable — construction on his words here.

    It should be indisputable that the primary purpose of the federal government is to uphold the principles of the Constitution — no other answer will do.

    Well now you’re just playing “He didn’t parrot the perfect response in my head”, which is somewhat of an annoying game. Honestly, if the people are being killed left and right because the government isn’t keeping them safe (from some outside invader?), then adherence to the Constitution largely becomes pointless, doesn’t it? “We the people” does, in fact, presume that there are still people living somewhere in the country. Do I really have to spell this out?

    In short, “keeping people safe” is an excuse for all sorts of government meddling, regulation, and other liberty-robbing and debt-increasing activities.

    Indeed. I only wish that you and other right-wingers could see this as it applies to both parties. But, as past discussions of the Patriot Act have shown, you can’t or won’t.

    meddling, regulation, liberty-robbing, and debt-increasing: good when My Guys do it, but beyond the pale when Your Guys do.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 36:

    If you have to parse the president’s words that much in an effort to justify his priorities, you’ve lost the battle.

    When the president takes his oath of office, what does he say? “I pledge to keep Americans safe”, or “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

    Hint — it’s not what Obama said.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 36:

    If you have to parse the president’s words that much in an effort to justify his priorities, you’ve lost the battle.

    When the president takes his oath of office, what does he say? “I pledge to keep Americans safe”, or “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States

    Hint — it’s not what Obama said.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@37) said:

    If you have to parse the president’s words that much in an effort to justify his priorities, you’ve lost the battle.

    Oh, puh-leeze! Who’s “parsing”? I simply read his words and noticed that he actually said “but” in between the parts you’re attempting to connect as if the word weren’t there!

    Do you even have any interest in determining what Obama meant, or is this just all a “battle” for you in which even acknowledging conventions of grammar is tantamount to losing?

    When the president takes his oath of office, what does he say?

    I can’t believe you’re still trying this tack. Saying that “The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe” is wholly consonant with the Constitution. You know, providing for the common defense, protecting them against invasion, all that?

    It’s like you’re not even trying to be reasonable at this point.

  • http://www.toddstadler.com tODD

    DonS (@37) said:

    If you have to parse the president’s words that much in an effort to justify his priorities, you’ve lost the battle.

    Oh, puh-leeze! Who’s “parsing”? I simply read his words and noticed that he actually said “but” in between the parts you’re attempting to connect as if the word weren’t there!

    Do you even have any interest in determining what Obama meant, or is this just all a “battle” for you in which even acknowledging conventions of grammar is tantamount to losing?

    When the president takes his oath of office, what does he say?

    I can’t believe you’re still trying this tack. Saying that “The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe” is wholly consonant with the Constitution. You know, providing for the common defense, protecting them against invasion, all that?

    It’s like you’re not even trying to be reasonable at this point.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 38:

    And let’s see, role of government and it is — you are first on this, Mr. President. The question is this. Do you believe — both of you — but you have the first two minutes on this, Mr. President — do you believe there’s a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?

    This is the question that was asked. Obama answered by saying “The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function.”

    This is hogwash! It goes to a fundamental philosophy of government. Sadly, many liberals, including Obama, don’t have that high of a regard for the Constitution anymore, believing it was written by dead white guys who held slaves, and is sorely in need of updating. They want a government based on “positive rights”, provided and guaranteed by the government, rather than the “negative rights” afforded by the Bill of Rights, meaning guarantees to the citizens and states that the federal government will not encroach on or infringe certain rights we have been granted in the Bill of Rights. If the federal government fulfills its role in preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, its first and most important role, in fact, then safety will follow, as one of its duties is to provide for the national defense and to promote social order. Romney got it, and answered the question correctly. It was a telling moment, especially considering that Obama has already taken the oath of office and has been the president for four years.

    Given Obama’s disrespect and disregard for our constitutional rights, including the rights of free exercise and free speech, in evidence for these past four years, there is no need to be “reasonable” on this point by parsing his words and trying to put the best construction on them. He never even mentioned the Constitution (!), though he managed to talk about “ladders of opportunity” and “top down schools” in that same answer.

  • DonS

    tODD @ 38:

    And let’s see, role of government and it is — you are first on this, Mr. President. The question is this. Do you believe — both of you — but you have the first two minutes on this, Mr. President — do you believe there’s a fundamental difference between the two of you as to how you view the mission of the federal government?

    This is the question that was asked. Obama answered by saying “The first role of the federal government is to keep the American people safe. That’s its most basic function.”

    This is hogwash! It goes to a fundamental philosophy of government. Sadly, many liberals, including Obama, don’t have that high of a regard for the Constitution anymore, believing it was written by dead white guys who held slaves, and is sorely in need of updating. They want a government based on “positive rights”, provided and guaranteed by the government, rather than the “negative rights” afforded by the Bill of Rights, meaning guarantees to the citizens and states that the federal government will not encroach on or infringe certain rights we have been granted in the Bill of Rights. If the federal government fulfills its role in preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution, its first and most important role, in fact, then safety will follow, as one of its duties is to provide for the national defense and to promote social order. Romney got it, and answered the question correctly. It was a telling moment, especially considering that Obama has already taken the oath of office and has been the president for four years.

    Given Obama’s disrespect and disregard for our constitutional rights, including the rights of free exercise and free speech, in evidence for these past four years, there is no need to be “reasonable” on this point by parsing his words and trying to put the best construction on them. He never even mentioned the Constitution (!), though he managed to talk about “ladders of opportunity” and “top down schools” in that same answer.

  • Jim_777

    Obama made a complete ass of himself. He was exposed as the unprepared, lazy, arrogant, coddled poseur that many of us have always known he is. I have never seen a President give a more inept and pathetic performance. I don’t know if Romney will win the election, but I was gratified to see our clownish President completely unmasked as a hapless buffoon before 60+ million people. What a joke this guy is. He’s a living testament to the dangers of affirmative action and promoting people based exclusively on the color of their skin.

  • Jim_777

    Obama made a complete ass of himself. He was exposed as the unprepared, lazy, arrogant, coddled poseur that many of us have always known he is. I have never seen a President give a more inept and pathetic performance. I don’t know if Romney will win the election, but I was gratified to see our clownish President completely unmasked as a hapless buffoon before 60+ million people. What a joke this guy is. He’s a living testament to the dangers of affirmative action and promoting people based exclusively on the color of their skin.

  • Michael B.

    Obama’s performance in this debate was disappointing. We’ll see what happens next time.

  • Michael B.

    Obama’s performance in this debate was disappointing. We’ll see what happens next time.

  • Patte B

    Actually it was exactly what I hoped for…we have a cear choice here and the choice is a bigger government meddling in our lives or a smaller government with less regulation securing and protecting our borders.

  • Patte B

    Actually it was exactly what I hoped for…we have a cear choice here and the choice is a bigger government meddling in our lives or a smaller government with less regulation securing and protecting our borders.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I watched the whole thing. I thought Romney was a little better. Obama was fairly good. I didn’t think either was much stronger or weaker. Obama looking down/away a little more was pretty minor. Mostly a toss up with Romney a little better. I didn’t like his relgious appeal at the end, and of course I don’t like the neo con crap, but the rest of what he said was appealing. The real weakness for Obama was the failed green energy ventures he couldn’t contest, and that people know he won’t end the wars either. The health care act is not a negative for Obama because about as many people are for it as against it, so bringing it up doesn’t change that split. Also, Romney clearly states that he is less against the plan and its provisions than he is against it because it steps on states rights. But, then so does Roe v. Wade in much the same way. The states all have their own medical boards and insurance commissions and their own statues regarding such practices. But that doesn’t mean much to voters who don’t know or understand that. So, it is a tiny plus for those few voters who may think that Romney would keep the health care act as it is.

  • http://www.biblegateway.com/versions/Contemporary-English-Version-CEV-Bible/ sg

    I watched the whole thing. I thought Romney was a little better. Obama was fairly good. I didn’t think either was much stronger or weaker. Obama looking down/away a little more was pretty minor. Mostly a toss up with Romney a little better. I didn’t like his relgious appeal at the end, and of course I don’t like the neo con crap, but the rest of what he said was appealing. The real weakness for Obama was the failed green energy ventures he couldn’t contest, and that people know he won’t end the wars either. The health care act is not a negative for Obama because about as many people are for it as against it, so bringing it up doesn’t change that split. Also, Romney clearly states that he is less against the plan and its provisions than he is against it because it steps on states rights. But, then so does Roe v. Wade in much the same way. The states all have their own medical boards and insurance commissions and their own statues regarding such practices. But that doesn’t mean much to voters who don’t know or understand that. So, it is a tiny plus for those few voters who may think that Romney would keep the health care act as it is.

  • Patte B

    Don’t forget that he is also a perfect example of what doing roof hits and TA does to ones brain in lieuof actually attending classes in college…if POTUSwas only as well versed on foreign affairs and the economy as he is on smoking weed.

  • Patte B

    Don’t forget that he is also a perfect example of what doing roof hits and TA does to ones brain in lieuof actually attending classes in college…if POTUSwas only as well versed on foreign affairs and the economy as he is on smoking weed.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Sorry for the late response, but here is my analysis of the debate.

    From a stylistic standpoint, Romney won. He was more aggressive and more crisp in his delivery. The President failed to adequately refute Romney’s rapid fire assertions. If I was a debate judge, I would give this one to Romney. I think the President will do better next time.

    However, I think the more important question in the long run is who was more truthful. From that standpoint, the President won hands down.

    Consider these assertions made by Romney, just to name a few:

    1. Obama’s health care plan “puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.”

    Reality: The law specifically prohibits the Independent Payment Advisory Board from dictating to doctors what treatments they can prescribe to their patients. The law contains a “Patients Bill of Rights” that expands the rights of patients and protects them from unscrupulous practices by the insurance industry.

    2. Romney claimed that “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S. backed loans “have gone out of business.”.

    Reality: There were 26 green energy companies that received loan guarantees, of which 3 companies filed for bankruptcy. This represents only 6 percent of the total amount of the loan guarantees.

    3. Romney claimed that “all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land…Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.”

    Reality: The number of drilling permits on federal lands has decreased somewhere between 20 and 37 percent compared to the years before Obama became president. See this article for a more complete analysis
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

    4. Romney stated that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan”.

    Reality: After the debate, his own campaign clarified the statement when it stated that what he meant was that those who already had insurance would continue to receive their coverage as long as they continued paying their premiums. (This is happens to be the current state of the law. Under Obama Care, individuals that have pre-existing conditions and are not covered by insurance, will be able to obtain insurance. By repealing Obama Care, those individuals that have a pre-existing condition and no insurance, will continue be left out in the cold.)

    5. Romney stated: “Look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the revenues going to the government. My No. 1 principle is, there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit.“

    Reality: Romney promised that he would not only continue the Bush Tax Cuts, but reduce the rates even more by 20% for everybody, at all income levels. At the same time, he insisted that this tax reduction would be “revenue neutral”, by reducing deductions (even though he won’t state what deductions he would reduce.) At the same time, he insisted that this would not raise taxes on the middle class. Independent analysts have stated this this is not mathematically possible.

    6. When asked how he would reduce the national debt, Romney’s response was that he would first repeal Obama Care, and then end public financing of public TV and Radio.

    Reality: Obama Care extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, and is actually paid for according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The total cost of PBS for 2013 is $446 million, which represents 0.012% of the federal budget. (TV is 68% and radio is 22.3% of the overall budget) The total cost of federal funding for all of public television is $297,787,500 which is less than the cost of one F-22 Rapter fighter jet which is $350 million. Whether you are in favor of cutting PBS funding or not, this is hardly a serious prescription for reducing the national debt, when you want to increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Neither Romney or the Republican party have any credibility with respect to this issue.

    I could go on, but I think I will end my comments with this question:

    In analyzing the debate performance of the candidates, who committed the more grievous error? The President for his failure to adequately refute the false and misleading assertions made by Governor Romney, or Governor Romney for making of the false assertions in the first place?

    Romney was a good salesman, I’m just not buying what he is selling.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Sorry for the late response, but here is my analysis of the debate.

    From a stylistic standpoint, Romney won. He was more aggressive and more crisp in his delivery. The President failed to adequately refute Romney’s rapid fire assertions. If I was a debate judge, I would give this one to Romney. I think the President will do better next time.

    However, I think the more important question in the long run is who was more truthful. From that standpoint, the President won hands down.

    Consider these assertions made by Romney, just to name a few:

    1. Obama’s health care plan “puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.”

    Reality: The law specifically prohibits the Independent Payment Advisory Board from dictating to doctors what treatments they can prescribe to their patients. The law contains a “Patients Bill of Rights” that expands the rights of patients and protects them from unscrupulous practices by the insurance industry.

    2. Romney claimed that “about half” of the clean-energy companies that received U.S. backed loans “have gone out of business.”.

    Reality: There were 26 green energy companies that received loan guarantees, of which 3 companies filed for bankruptcy. This represents only 6 percent of the total amount of the loan guarantees.

    3. Romney claimed that “all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land…Your Administration has cut the numbers of permit and licenses in half.”

    Reality: The number of drilling permits on federal lands has decreased somewhere between 20 and 37 percent compared to the years before Obama became president. See this article for a more complete analysis
    http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/04/politics/fact-check-oil-gas/index.html

    4. Romney stated that “pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan”.

    Reality: After the debate, his own campaign clarified the statement when it stated that what he meant was that those who already had insurance would continue to receive their coverage as long as they continued paying their premiums. (This is happens to be the current state of the law. Under Obama Care, individuals that have pre-existing conditions and are not covered by insurance, will be able to obtain insurance. By repealing Obama Care, those individuals that have a pre-existing condition and no insurance, will continue be left out in the cold.)

    5. Romney stated: “Look, I’m not looking to cut massive taxes and to reduce the revenues going to the government. My No. 1 principle is, there’ll be no tax cut that adds to the deficit.“

    Reality: Romney promised that he would not only continue the Bush Tax Cuts, but reduce the rates even more by 20% for everybody, at all income levels. At the same time, he insisted that this tax reduction would be “revenue neutral”, by reducing deductions (even though he won’t state what deductions he would reduce.) At the same time, he insisted that this would not raise taxes on the middle class. Independent analysts have stated this this is not mathematically possible.

    6. When asked how he would reduce the national debt, Romney’s response was that he would first repeal Obama Care, and then end public financing of public TV and Radio.

    Reality: Obama Care extends the life of Medicare by 8 years, and is actually paid for according to the Congressional Budget Office.

    The total cost of PBS for 2013 is $446 million, which represents 0.012% of the federal budget. (TV is 68% and radio is 22.3% of the overall budget) The total cost of federal funding for all of public television is $297,787,500 which is less than the cost of one F-22 Rapter fighter jet which is $350 million. Whether you are in favor of cutting PBS funding or not, this is hardly a serious prescription for reducing the national debt, when you want to increase military spending by 2 trillion dollars over the next 10 years. Neither Romney or the Republican party have any credibility with respect to this issue.

    I could go on, but I think I will end my comments with this question:

    In analyzing the debate performance of the candidates, who committed the more grievous error? The President for his failure to adequately refute the false and misleading assertions made by Governor Romney, or Governor Romney for making of the false assertions in the first place?

    Romney was a good salesman, I’m just not buying what he is selling.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Jimmy, so you are saying Romney won! Romney won! You are saying that Romney is better than Obama! I appreciate your finding some straws to grasp, but it sounds like you are wavering! Frankly, I’m disappointed that even you are weakening in your allegiance to the Democratic party. Your political loyalty has always been one of the verities of life for me, and now I am deeply shaken.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Gene Veith

    Jimmy, so you are saying Romney won! Romney won! You are saying that Romney is better than Obama! I appreciate your finding some straws to grasp, but it sounds like you are wavering! Frankly, I’m disappointed that even you are weakening in your allegiance to the Democratic party. Your political loyalty has always been one of the verities of life for me, and now I am deeply shaken.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Shake no more my dear brother. My party loyalty remains intact. On Friday I gave another donation to the campaign, and that was AFTER the debate. Forward!

  • Jimmy Veith

    Shake no more my dear brother. My party loyalty remains intact. On Friday I gave another donation to the campaign, and that was AFTER the debate. Forward!

  • Jimmy Veith

    And next time your television viewing is interrupted by another Obama campaign commercial, you can think to yourself “my little brother in Oklahoma helped pay for that!”. :)

  • Jimmy Veith

    And next time your television viewing is interrupted by another Obama campaign commercial, you can think to yourself “my little brother in Oklahoma helped pay for that!”. :)

  • dust
  • dust
  • Jimmy Veith

    Thanks dust. I enjoyed that.

  • Jimmy Veith

    Thanks dust. I enjoyed that.

  • kerner
  • kerner

CLOSE | X

HIDE | X