Cliff Notes on First Debate: Romney Wins on Nov. 6

Comments

6 responses to “Cliff Notes on First Debate: Romney Wins on Nov. 6”

1. 

   October 4, 2012

   dano_in_ny

   Wow, although I was disappointed, I was heartened by the whipsaw fact pattern Romney has set himself up with. He won’t even be able to have a conversation with either the right or the left on the first day of an administration if it is about not lowering taxes on the rich or if it is about overturning Obamacare. Shocking lies about taxes and the budget but politically it played great. And Obama got no reward for analytical honesty. A moment has passed in Romney’s favor but it would be election on a house of lies like Bush.

   Reply
2. 

   October 4, 2012

   Kirk Petersen

   Could we please have a moratorium on accusing politicians of “lying” when they make promises they can’t keep? For example, Obama wasn’t “lying” in 2008 when he pledged to reduce the deficit — he just didn’t get it done, and now it’s time to hold him accountable for that.

   Instead, while Obama had filibuster-proof majorities in both houses, he squandered all his political capital on creating and ramming through a health care bill that was opposed, then and now, by a majority of Americans — a bill so extreme that he and the Democrats couldn’t even attract a single Republican vote.

   Reply
3. 

   October 4, 2012

   David H

   I’m not sure that isn’t collapsing a distinction that’s more real than you think. Regardless, as a matter of record, Obama never had a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Note that in the 111th Congress, the number of Senate Democrats never hit 60: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_United_States_Congress#Senate

   Reply
4. 

   October 4, 2012

   Kirk Petersen

   They had 60 for a time when you count the two independents, both of whom organized with the Democrats. See http://blog.kirkpetersen.net/2009/12/a-disgraceful-vote-for-reform-in-the-middle-of-the-night.html — a 60-40 vote, with McConnell talking dramatically about how a single Democrat could stop what was not yet known as Obamacare.

   Reply
5. 

   October 8, 2012

   dano_in_ny

   You’ve got the Republican mythology down to a “T”. Reducing the deficit as a priority in the face of a depression would be a great strategy for a failure as a government like Hoover’s. No one even knows why we would do it, except that it was a great proxy stick to hit Dems and Obama over the head with. And Obama was too weak then and now to dismiss it as nonsense until some actual recovery happens. The post-WWII deficit, with jobs. education, and housing support, turned into a remarkable recovery and made it into an American century. But old home week for the Repubs this year looks more like a half-century earlier: greasy-haired top-hatted corporatists (like Mitt) putting people in poorhouses as social darwinism. Even though research shows that people work in this society and still don’t make enough, and being poor comes predominantly comes from… being poor, and is partially solved by welfare programs that help people live and seek access to better jobs, education and capital. If cutting taxes worked for Bush (or ever) we would be in prosperity now. You would need to cite what showed that healthcare is unpopular with Americans. I’m not crying, just mad that if the Romney camp believed in their facts they’d be running on them, not from them. Mitt is not half the leader nor the politician as Obama is, and I hope that illusion gets corrected shortly as well!

   Reply
6. 

   October 8, 2012

   dano_in_ny

   Hey, I’m sorry for the polemic. What Mitt did is brilliant politically because what he was doing didn’t work. Not from the policy nor from the popularity aspect. He changed field policywise in his words, but hasn’t supported that he changed policy on the trail, which means he hasn’t changed policy, just misrepresented it intentionally in the debate, creating confusion about a moving target. And risky if he can be forced to pay for his flipfloppish etchasketchiness and he should. But his dynamism captured the popularity aspect of the debate. So Obama will now have to go wonkish in the next debate, essentially forcing the debate between Mitt’s policy and Mitt’s words in the first debate.

   Reply