According to the gang on "Morning Joe" the president failed to outline his plans for the future, so he may have won the debate, but he didn't move the undecided. That's interesting, I saw a couple of focus groups last night, and I came away wondering how they got to the studio. For example, Chris Matthews asked a female panelist, what she thought about Mitt Romney avoiding the question about pay equality for women. She said something, like “he may have not heard the question, or maybe he didn't pay that much attention to it" but I was surprised it didn't bother her all that much. I can understand gasoline prices being important, but it seems to me our country doesn't want to line up the dots on the subject. They just want to equate gasoline prices with whoever is in office.
The pundits thought Mitt Romney won on managing the economy, but the president won on everything else. I can't see how Romney won on economic issues when his tax plan numbers don't add up, his energy policy is " drill baby drill" and his plan of keeping Pell Grants is in total contradiction to the Paul Ryan budget that passed a couple of times. We have a 30- year economic downfall that neither candidate is addressing. Our wages have been stagnant for a long time, and we have not graduated enough high school or college students to meet our future needs. The president touched on it, as John McCain did in 2008, by saying that the outsourced jobs are not coming back, so we need new good paying manufacturing jobs, but they can only be filled with an educated work force.
At one point in the debate, I slumped in my recliner in disbelief as; both candidates were vying to be the "coal" president. Yes, I know they are pandering for the voters of Pennsylvania, Ohio and West Virginia. I don't blame Mitt Romney for standing in front of that coal plant and saying, “this plant kills." I'm not impressed when the president says he is seeking a phantom “clean coal" technology. I can't believe the candidates were arguing semantics about drilling on federal lands. Mitt was right, drilling on federal lands dropped 14% in 2011, but it went up by 15% in 2010, so the president is still ahead by one percentage point. The drilled oil goes on the world market, so why is that important? It's amazing how we've had three debates, and the words “climate change" has not been mentioned.
I'm still trying to figure out why it's demeaning(the binder comment) to women because Romney said he picked many women to work in his administration by going to women's groups and saying, " can you help us find folks, and they brought him back some binders full of women." That happened but not the way the governor described it, it was women’s groups who started the movement. He still ahead, he didn't reject the effort, but he had to be led to it.I can see why some women may be upset when Romney said he supported flexible working hours so women could get home in time to fix dinner.
Mitt Romney blew a huge chance to rightly critique the president and his administration on the botched communication efforts concerning the Benghazi attacks. Mitt Romney chose to personalize and politicize the issue. That left the door wide open for the president to scold Mitt Romney for the cheap shots. Mitt tried to stay on script and criticize the president for not calling it an act of terror until 14 days later. Mitt Romney was wrong and was rightly corrected by Candy Crowley in front of millions who were watching. I can only speak for myself, but I don't get a sense that Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have a good feel for foreign policy. Foreign policy is about knowing the leaders of foreign countries,and the customs,culture of the people in those countries.It’s about deciphering intelligence but most of all it's about” knowing when to act or react.”
I'll think anyone can dispute that President Obama and Governor Romney do not like or respect each other. Last night, Mitt Romney came out like a CEO in command of a board meeting but was quickly taken aback when President Obama met his challenge head on. The president was obviously agitated, but it didn't seem to distract him.
I think the president knocked down Romney after the Libya comment, but he got up, although staggering before the 10-second count. In answering a question on how he has been mischaracterized; Romney again left himself wide open by saying that he was for the 100% because up until the final two minutes of the debate, the president had not mentioned the 47%. The president came roaring from his corner and delivered the knockout blow by saying, “you can believe Mitt Romney when he said that 47% of the people thought of themselves as victims" and then went onto name old veterans, students, seniors and returning veterans as part of that 47%. I didn't see the pleasantries at the end of the debate between the candidates and their spouses, and I heard that Mitt left shortly after the debate but the president stayed around for the victory glad- handing.
I don't think much changed after last night, but it will be interesting to see the aftermath of the debate; if there's any. The president has to do what he did last night because it's the only way to counter falsehoods. The president has the record and all Mitt has to do is convince enough Americans that Obama, though well intended, did not do enough, and he can. Ohio is the key but 83 of their 88 counties depend on the auto industry; that's the reason the president is doing so well in that state.
24 comments:
I don't know why President Obama doesn't ever point out the Republican obstructionism on the jobs bills, and other things he has tried to do. That needs to be brought front and center.
That's a good point on the jobs obstructionism but last night he did point out GOP obstructionism on immigration.
yes, but he has to put it in easier-to-understand ways for those people that don't understand it or keep up with what has been going on.
He needs to be more specific and the who, how, and why...Mitch Mcconnell statement.
BTW, I had a heck of a time trying to sign up for a Google Account. I had to jump though hoops trying to find a user name that no one had and then they kept saying my password wasn't good enough.
I now have a little notebook with my new info in it because I just know I'd forget it. LOL
The moderator had her hands full last evening. It was rather difficult to understand the gives and takes with all three talking at the same time.
For two years and two debates I have been waiting for a "vision" of what either candidate will do. IE, by vision I mean: balance the budget at a rate of 25%/year with a balanced budget by 2016. Change the tax law so as to punish those corporations who have moved manufacturing jobs out of the country in the last 6 years. Reward those companies who return manufacturing to the US. Reduce unemployment, by changing the definition of who is unemployed, to 3% over the next four years. Reduce the producer's wholesale index rate of inflation by 6% through removing energy, food, labor and taxes from the equation.
What about those visions? Will your guy give us a vision? I doubt it from (my) guy. Visions demand results. Our country has not seen "results" for years.
I hear you born but I'm not that optimistic...I know it's a very small sample but the undecided focus and dial groups I have seen so far aren't that interested in the sausage making. They want to hear drill here and there and we will have lower gas prices and more jobs....They don't care if we have enough refineries,impact on the environment, or the consequences of loosening regulations...Simplicity sells..IMO
The reason I'm saying the specifics don't matter;the conservatives in Missouri might send Todd Akin to Washington..The voters keep sending and encouraging the obstructionist.
I get your point,try to persuade the undecided to give Obama the majority in the senate and more Democrats in the house..
dale, I think President Obama is telling what his vision is. It's to keep going like it is because it is starting to work. If he could get his jobs bill passed, it would move a lot faster.
His vision for reducing the deficit is still to go back to a time, and tax rate, where it was working for everyone.
The number 1 priority is to get people back to work. I understand it.
Dale
Agree on the moderator but overall, I thought she did a pretty good job.
There is a difference between a vision (which anyone can have) and reality. I want a bipartisan pragmatic solution but that will take to buy in from both parties. Don't get me wrong, the vision is important but this has been a 30- year problem and now the chickens have come home to roost.
There are consequences for punishing companies who outsource. I don't see anything wrong with tax incentives for companies who build here. Either way, we will have to accept higher prices, if we agree to those proposals. Romney talks about going after China for currency manipulation, as if one of our biggest lenders will not retaliate.
I think balancing the budget by the year 2016 is a pipe dream but I don't see anything wrong with working on bringing down the cost curve. That will take raising taxes, cutting spending, investing in infrastructure and education and reforming the entitlements and defense spending. We also need to cut our health cost inflation which is higher than our standard rate of inflation.
I don't think we need to play a game of semantics or change our metrics because a lot of that is in the mind of the economist and we know that they don't all think alike.
To back up born2Bme's claim about Obama's policies starting to kick in;today I read where housing construction surged to 15%. Housing was the last economic economic data that needed to improve. I also saw "Now, Gallup is seeing an even bigger drop. The polling group’s seasonally adjusted October mid-month unemployment rate is 7.7%, compared to the 7.8% reading from the government in September.
The Gallup survey asks 30,000 adults, or half the level of the Labor Department’s, and then adds the government’s seasonal adjustment model from last October. The Gallup measure is at the lowest level since January 2010"..... This coincides with the rise in consumer confidence.
http://blogs.marketwatch.com/election/2012/10/17/gallup-now-shows-lower-unemployment-rate-than-government/
Granted, the economic forecasts are pretty volatile these days.
The chickens have come home to roost, unfortunately, we are sitting under them.
The China currency, oh boy. I hope our Chinese bond holders didn't hear that cheap shot.
Balancing the budget by 2016 was an example of what "a vision" could look like. When the poop hits the fan in the next two to four years, a balanced budget will become a reality overnight. We just will not like the result.
Semantics? Changing the definition of inflation is why food and energy are no longer part of the equation.
Dale
The reality could hit a home by as early as January of 2013, if we don't make a deal to raise the debt ceiling and have a credible plan in place to reform our entitlements and defense costs. The sequester and the fiscal cliff is real.... We could see our credit rating drop again; not because of our indebtedness but an unwillingness to get our political house in order.
A balanced budget is not that important per say, as long as we have a plan in place to get a downward trend of the debt....
We can't work on the deficit, jobs and growth at the same time.
While I'm at it, I don't know why the president hasn't reminded the people that think the stimulus did not work or call it reckless spending ;the GOP proposed a $700 billion stimulus that was rejected because it was mostly tax cuts. Tax cuts are the worse kind of stimulus.
I disagree, food prices can be influenced by global warming, speculators, other variables.
Energy prices can be influenced by people working at home, trouble in the Middle East, speculators, blowouts-spills, and hurricanes.
It really worries me that Romney wouldn't say what the deductions are that he will not touch, and NO ONE has mentioned the standard deduction. What if he is going to do away with that and just allow itimized deductions up to a certain amount? Or, he might hit the standard exemptions.
He did say that he might use a cap (or bucket) for deductions. One deduction that everyone has is the standard deductions.
I'm not all worried about Mitt Romney's tax plan because it's mathematically impossible and the president emphasized that last night... The House Ways and Means Committee has the overall jurisdiction for income tax changes... We just need a senate majority to stop anything that the house approves of.
That's the reason I said that Mitt Romney's plan contradicts the budget director,Paul Ryan's budget he proposed. I believe we will keep the standard deduction and exemption amount with an slight increase regardless but you're right that hasn't been made clear.
Anyway, as I understand Romney's proposal from last night is that you will get a choice(bucket) of deductions you want to keep up to $25,000. I can see that being a gold mine for the bean counters. You would keep plugging in the deductions to get the maximum refund or pay the least.
yes, but do you realize a family of 6 with mother and father filing jointly is $33,800 for just standard deduction and exemptions?
That's only basic deductions and do not count any of the other deductions that a family that large usually gets to deduct.
Dropping the tax rate for those not making anything in the first place is not going to make that big of a difference, but 20% sounds huge to people.
I'm betting he might also want to change the wording so people cannot get back more than they put in and I would agree with him on this one.
born, I'm really surprised that you fell for the Mitt Romney snake oil or as the president said" a sketchy deal." ...:-).. Yesterday, another group just pointed out that limiting $25,000 of deductions for taxpayers will only bring in $730 billion of revenue of a $4.8 billion tax cut plan. It just won’t work out.The numbers aren't there.
Mitt Romney's would repeal the Estate Tax (death tax in GOP speak) the Alternative Minimum tax and Obamacare (tax deductibility inside that) and tax revenues it would bring in. Remember, he said he would be revenue neutral meaning his plan would not increase the deficit.
As we know, a tax plan would have to bring in the same amount of revenue to meet the current bills.
I like the Obama plan of leaving everything the same for those making $250,000 and go back to the Clinton era tax rates on those people making more than $250,000. Again, everyone will get a tax break but for those making more than $250,000 they will only pay the higher rates on the money that's above the $250,000 cut off mark.
Mitt Romney will not tax dividends, interest, and capital gains but that's not helping the middle class;that's more for the wealthy.
dale
I may have misinterpreted your last post. Because you're a conservative republican (real one) I was assuming you wanted a balanced budget amendment. That's a different ballgame as you know, but I'm not against the concept of the balance budget. I do agree that we shouldn't be spending more than we're taking in.
I also don't care what variables are used in formulating the rate of inflation or unemployment figures as long as the Federal Reserve is not bound by those numbers.
I just heard a lot of Republican congressmen are talking about accepting $800 in new revenues as part of President Obama initial grand bargain deal. Now, prominent Democrats are balking... It's good news because that's the first step in getting our political house in order.
I'm not buying into it, hook, line, and sinker, but just thinking. I know he cannot give details, and it's probably just a smoke screem to his base, but just saying....what if?
Lets just pray he doesn't win, or the Rubublicans do not gain super majority. I hope people are smarter than that after these last 4 years.
That's why I enjoy your posts..Your "what if" gets me thinking.
Amen to that.
Did any of you notice that when Romney talked about hiring the women he found in the "binder of women", he never mentioned if they got equal pay or not?
Romney has been running away from answering the question on whether he supports Lily Ledbetter for a long time....Today, in typical Romney fashion he said he would not have voted for it but he won't repeal it....Hoe many laws does Romney think he can repeal?
He has a CEO mentality, so he thinks he can go in and just do things to his liking. I think he may be in for a rude awakening if he gets elected.
I heard on one of the msnbc shows, that when he was governer, he made one of the elevators his own personal elevater and wouldn't let anyone else use it. Now, this was in a public building, not his private residence.
That story is true but it gets even worse...He a control freak and all that talk about him being able to work across party lines is a lie.
"On a personal level, Romney mostly only dealt with the leadership of the state legislature, and rarely developed any political or social relationships with most of the members.[213] Indeed, he failed to memorize the names and faces of all of them, and sometimes greeted them incorrectly as a result.[213] Legislators complained that he did not extend customary courtesies towards them, such as seat locations at public events, legislative liaison practices, and access to an elevator within the capitol building.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governorship_of_Mitt_Romney
It's evident to me that he just doesn't think that he should dirty himself by associating himself with the "moochers (anyone less than himself)" of this Country.
He is not going to respresent the average American and we will become the laughing stock across the world again.
Can you even imagine Ann as first lady? She kind of reminds me of Nancy Reagan. People think Michelle spent a lot of money. They ain't seen nothing yet.
At least Jon Stewart has him pegged.
"JON STEWART used a graphic in the style of a movie poster, “The Second Debate: NOW INCLUDING THE PRESIDENT.” Stewart says Romney’s first clue that he was walking into a trap on Libya should have been when POTUS said, “Please proceed, governor”: “When you feel you’re about to spring what you, Governor Romney, think is the CHECKMATE moment of the debate, and your debate opponent says to you [making a ‘come in’ gesture], ‘Please! Hold on!’ … [W]hen your opponent does that, you might want to take a breath and wonder if – a la Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner – that door your opponent is pointing to is merely pain on a rock.” Stewart then showed a clip of Road Runner getting brained.”
From Poitico
Post a Comment