I think pretty much everyone, right and left, agreed that that New Yorker cover summed up the first debate.
The photo below pretty well sums up the second debate, although I doubt there will be an objective reaction from all political spectrums to that conclusion, or even an agreement about what “objective” means.
For some reason, this reminds me of something a pollster said on Morning Edition recently: ”When I tell a Republican a bad poll result for them, they say they are going to shoot me. When I tell a Democrat, they say they are going to shoot themselves.”
Anyone interested in the actual story behind the women-in-binders fable Romney spun can get more detail. And who knew he was for affirmative action, however crudely expressed?
This photograph also nicely sums it up:
C:\Documents and Settings\All Users\Application Data\AOL\C_America Online 9.0\misc\temp\Romney.jpg
that url doesn’t work, NZS.
More precisely: That path is not a url, NZS.
I don’t know what’s funnier… a hard drive path as a link on a comment or AOL!
That’s beautiful stuff right there.
You gotta love a so-called town hall debate in which all the questions are screened ahead of time and as soon as the questioners finish reciting their approved questions their mics get cut off.
If it works, this takes you to the best picture arising from last night’s debate:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=489134887786711&set=a.489134571120076.115205.100000706134004&type=1&theater
I find it interesting that this group thinks that the only women’s names Romney got were from them. Is he not allowed to get any names on his own?
As for who “won” the debate, I thought Obama did very well except for on Libya. He’s got a real problem on this.
I was surprised that two panels of “undecided” voters overwhelmingly preferred Romney after the debate. One of these was the Fox Frank Luntz panel, so I guess you can all claim it was somehow stacked, but the other panel was an MSNBC panel, and I think most said they thought they would be voting form Romney after watching the debate.
In the 2008 election, Frank Luntz was kind of comical in that he would have a panel that would be overwhelming in favor of Obama, but he would claim that the group was evenly split. You could see by the show of hands that wasn’t the case. So his panel was fair, but he was intentionally misinterpreting their data.
If I watched correctly, four of the eight MSNBC panelists said they were “more likely” to vote for Romney after the debate. One said he was absolutely voting for Romney and one said absolutely voting for Obama. Two remained undecided, although one of those had bad things to say about Obama. And so the guy said, “Most people thought it was a draw, Chris.”
Now I’m sorry, you cannot look at the video and conclude that “most” of the panelists “thought it was a draw.” Again, this MSNBC guy did not do anything that Fox’s Frank Luntz did not do four years ago. I just find it very interesting that they will preside over a focus group and let us watch the show of hands and questioning and then tell us that the results are very different from what we are able to see with our own eyes.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/msnbcs-undecided-voter-panel-swayed-romney_654728.html
(I attempted to post the Youtube video but it screwed up NMC’s page, so click on the link above to see the video).
“I find it interesting that this group thinks that the only women’s names Romney got were from them.”
Nope. Not what they said. What they said was, Romney didn’t go to them; they went to him.
What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.
They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.
What Romney said:
And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.
I went to a number of women’s groups and said, “Can you help us find folks,” and they brought us whole binders full of women.
The very image of Romney’s “going to a number of women’s groups,” by itself, was a big clue that this was false.
I’m with Lee on the rules, although I’m not sure what a Town Hall debate with questions from undecided voters accomplishes (other than outperforming Jim Lehrer).
Anderson,
Accepting what this group said on its face, suppose they did bring the binder to the Romney administration. It’s been almost 10 years, and I can see how he might have a different memory of who asked for what.
What is important is that he took the list (and perhaps other names of women as well) and then appointed most women to positions than had been appointed before.
I guess we need to make sure that no good deed goes unpunished.
Debates in this age are almost useless. I watched this one, why I don’t know. I believe the only minimal value is for each candidates supporters to feel some excitement. I think neither of these men are capable of being an effective president, as one has proved it beyond a reasonable doubt, and the other’s experience suggests so by a preponderance of the evidence. At the end of the day, I doubt the quality of my meager existence will be altered, good or bad, no matter which one wins.
CRS…problem is Romney always has a “different memory”. Tomorrow he’ll have another.
Ben…yes that was my favorite photo also.
Debates in this age are almost useless.
True dat. After the Denver debacle, I was saying how Romney was going to win the election and then, as president, go around the world, debating China, Iran, etc… My wife thought it was funny, but then, she loathes Romney as I’ve never seen her loathe a candidate before. She’s wise enough to be apolitical most years, but she cannot stand him.
Anderson: My wife is also very apolitical. She doesn’t even vote for PTO officials, really. She almsost never watches television news and even more rarely reads the papers, but, somehow she manages to live a very productive and engaged life. (Ignorance of politics is truly blissful to her) yet she watched a few minutes of the debate and declared Romney “…not worth voting for.” “That has to be one of the most dishonest looking and talking peoople I beleive I’ve ever seen or heard. Other than maybe that Rush Limbaugh when he was on tv. And that HBO guy (Maher)”
The so-called debates have become grandstanding. Plus I cannot stand missed opportunities to nail the opponent on lies. It’s like watching someone boxing stop because the other guy needs a breather. For example, Romney could have laid out evidence of lower taxes results in higher revenue (a fact dating back decades) but failed to do so. And, when did asking a debate opponent a question and thereby yielding the floor so that your time allotment is consumed become a debate strategy??? The VPs did it, Romney did it and Obama came close to it last night but caught himself.
“For example, Romney could have laid out evidence of lower taxes results in higher revenue (a fact dating back decades) but failed to do so.”
Uh … yeah, sure, missed opp there.
What country were you in during the Clinton administration, HD?
Hootie: Perhaps this can inform you …
http://www.thenation.com/article/170644/mitt-romneys-bailout-bonanza
You really think Romney will be a President of We the People?
Ben,
I’m not sure from the story, but I think these were secured bondholders. The only time a secured bondholder takes less than 100 cents on the dollar is when the security is worth less than that. The article seems to be criticizing Singer for not giving money away.
The story also seems to suggest that Singer is some type of “vulture” for buying foreign debt and then collecting on it. Hero is a better word. For example, Argentina cheated numerous bondholders out of 70 percent of their money in 2005 but some refused to be extorted, including Singer. He recently caused to be seized an Argentine warship in Ghana and the courts of Ghana said they will not release it until the deadbeats pay $20 million. Good for Singer!
Suppose Debtor A cheats Bondholder B, to the point that Bondholder B in desperation sells his bonds for 10 cents on the dollar to Bondholder C. Does Bondholder C now have the duty to just forgive the 90 cents on the dollar that Bondholder B lost? Or is he entitled to that profit for taking the risk in buying the bonds? Certainly we don’t want the money to go to the Debtor!
Anderson, surely by now you know that revenue increased. It’s the inconvenient truth to big government spenders. JFK knew it. Reagan knew it. Clinton knew it. George W. knew it.Yet, every election cycle increased taxes becomes a populist harangue.
Ben, I’m avoiding engaging in the type of discussion you suggest. I have no need to defend Romney. I do believe he will be (if elected) superior to Obama. However, if I were to attempt to argue that position or recount Obama’s failings, I doubt it would serve any useful purpose on this blog. Too many times have such discussions become vitriolic.
Great one NMC.
Hootie,
There is no question that tax cuts increase revenue, but the issue is how much. Cut taxes by five trillion, for example, and you might get a $1- to 1.5-trillion increase in revenue. Simplifying the code and eliminating loopholes really does increase revenue, as people worry less about avoiding taxes and just earn and pay.
In 1980 we taxed investment and unearned income at 70 percent and earned income at a top rate of 55 percent. It was way too high and there were tons of loopholes. Lowering rates and eliminating loopholes actually brought in more revenue. Now unearned income is substantially below earned income, and I think there is room to flatten out or equalize the rates a little bit.
It’s been awhile since I looked at the flat rate/increased revenue dynamic but recall that a flat rate of 14% exempting anyone making less than $25K would yield more revenue than the current structure.
CRS and Hootie:
I didn’t post the 12:28 pm link as a tutorial in secured lending and corporate finance.
I posted it a revealing illustration of Mitt Romney’s rapacious greed, his lust for more money more money more money, his malevolent opposition … a steely coldness … to organized labor specifically and the needs of American workers generally. And more. But mainly, I posted it as evidence that the man is in love with money … in love with money. That’s a disease. I never trusted anyone who loves money.
I also don’t trust a man in love with my money or Romney’s money.
Ben,
I really don’t think Romney was directly involved in the Delphi transaction. His “wrong” in the eyes of “The Nation” seems to be having invested with Singer.
There was nothing “greedy” about having invested in the Delphi debt. One of the reasons GM sold off Delphi in the first place was to allow the new corporation to close plants and move production off-shore. This was BEFORE Singer bought up any debt. All Singer did was to continue GM’s policy.
If there was any greed, it was on the part of the unions, which over the years extorted such high pay and benefit packages that eventually no company could profitably pay them. There was certainly no greed on Romney’s part.
I don’t trust greedy governments or the statists who become millionaires running them.
Best commentary on the debate came from comedian Frank Caliendo who said: “You know, if you turn down the volume, you can imagine the two singing a duet in a night club.”
The public discourse has been dumbed down so much that we will probably continue to have the town forum format. I wish we could see a debate with each person given 10 minutes to speak, followed by 3-4 minutes of rebuttal. To expect a Lincoln Douglas debate will never occur again. The sound bites, lack of attention span prevent that.
Binders are kind of out of date aren’t they?