quartermainefan

I don't believe that woman was undecided at all. I am decided, but for the chance to go to the debate and ask a question I would lie my face off. She was squarely in Obama's camp just by virtue of the question because I would have asked the same question only added sharper language.

You saw things that didn't actually happen. Romney had a semblance of substance with regard to Obama's record: the deficits are up and unemployment is high. But he has zero substance about his so-called 5 point plan. I have a 1 point plan for this afternoon, to make a billion dollars. Trust me, I have a plan and if I say I will make a billion no newspaper reporter or economic think tank can say otherwise. What is my plan? I'll tell you after you lend me the 1 million seed money. That is Romney's position. He has a 5 point plan but no matter how many people say his plan doesn't add up he refuses to elaborate on any of it. He is a pack of lies in an expensive wardrobe. Do you know which tax write offs he will eliminate to finance his 20% tax rate deductions? It's great if you do because no one else does, and the NY Times would love to hear from you so you can help explain it to everybody. He came off as a blustery flim flam man trying to bully the moderator and talk over Obama. Obama ate his wheaties and for once decided to show some backbone.

The consensus tomorrow will be Obama won. A couple of times it looked like they were going to come to blows, but Romney looked ridiculous insisting to Candy he gets the last word, talking over Obama, and at one point just saying he refuses to answer the question because he had another topic he wanted to talk about.

I think this debate the upshot will be that after the first 40 times Romney said " five point plan" without actually giving a single specific point, that he is going to be deemed an empty suit tonight. Obama totally dodged the gas price question, but Romney followed that right up by ignoring the Bush question completely.

Lionel Barrymore was so perfect in It's A Wonderful Life.

If Obama doesn't win tonight I think he is through.

I am sick of religion in politics, and that moderator last week should have been ashamed of herself at the end. "How religious are you and how does your religion impact how you do your job?" I wish one of them said "none of your business , go [!@#$%^&*] yourself". There is no religion requirement to hold office and she should be ashamed for helping to keep the one there wrongly is. I'd like to see an athiest run for President. I think I would vote for him no matter what his positions were just to give the religious people agita.

Upon sleeping on it, the draw thing I think is false. Biden won because of the exchange on Afghanistan, the exchange where Ryan was forced to admit he took money and the Jack Kennedy moment. It is easy to see why the press are saying Ryan won on style, because the country loves bland people and think that means presidential. Maybe it does, but I would rather have a fast talking guy who loves to argue as an exercise because that means his brain is active and able to adjust and respond in the moment. And that is where Obama has always been lacking. He will not repeat Biden's performance because he physically can't. The easiest thing is go back and look at the clips where they were talking over each other, and then try to figure out if there is a way to physically interrupt someone in their lying if your interruption is filed with "umm, uhhh, ummmm <pause> uhhh". By the time he spits out any point, the moment will have passed.

I am very partisan and have almost nothing good to say about republicans and their anti-intellectualism, religious zealotry, their fear of female sexuality (as seen in all orthodox religions) and their disgraceful 80 year quest to destroy social security, their race and gay baiting ways, and the way they have adopted this sickening world view that it is every man for himself and we all just coincidentally live on the same land mass. I don't care for hicks, and I don't like fundies, and I have no use those who want to tell everyone what porn they can watch and who they can have sex with. That said, I still have to call it like I see it even if I see something that doesn't flatter a non-republican.

Great debate. I don;t know if I would say Biden killed, because Ryan wasn't killed. Ryan still has that phony, robotic speaking style which I can't believe he actually talks like that in his own home, but he did come across as someone who at least as some knowledge of the issues, even if it is knowledge enough to lie or not look there like a blank fool. He almost walked into a quagmire when he attempted to compare himself to John Kennedy. We know how that worked out the last time this happened at a debate and Biden was on high alert ready to pounce but Ryan wisely dropped the tactic. Biden was as I thought he would be: combative, giving no inch, and willing to call a liar a liar. I think though Ryan has a bit of armor in his smiling demeanor that remains perpetually serene, and Biden was not really able to make Ryan crack. I think both guys did a good job but both had stumbles. Biden has no answer for why Obama's promises didn't bear fruit, and Ryan still has no specifics and no answers for his pie in the sky claims of budget balancing magic. I wish they could have another debate because this undercard is better and more entertaining than the title bout.

<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MagCoUYvIXE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe> Bond's recent 50th birthday had me listening to some of his best themes, and this just stands out as maybe the best movie theme song ever.

His plans make no sense. He is going to cut taxes but make it up by closing loopholes. First, there are not enough loopholes to make up the loss of the taxes being cut. Second, the people who would be adversely affected the most would be the lower and middle class. Next he wants to raise the Pentagon budgets to levels even the Pentagon isn't asking for, all so he can be on a war footing against the Soviet Union--only the Soviet Union doesn't exist. Just look at what happened to the budget deficits under Reagan and under W. That's what will happen under Romney. Bush Sr once called the supply side theory "voodoo economics" because it just doesn't add up and has failed every time. Even his own talking points betray him. They need to lower taxes on the wealthy because they are the so-called job creators. Romney's own tax returns (and Warren Buffet) show that the tax rates are at the lowest point they have been in decades. Ok, so where are the jobs? All that has happened under the Bush tax cuts is the wealthy saw their net worth grow, and they pocketed the money. In Romney's case his pocket is in the Cayman Islands. The whole job creator angle is all smoke and mirrors. Taxes are low, therefore job creators should be creating jobs. Since they are not, the only conclusion is tax rates do not impact job creators. The only worthwhile way to figure out the right tax rate is how it compares to the rest of the western world mitigated by what social services you want no matter what. You want a competitive rate, but you also want a rate that allows you to care for people. That means you want Sesame Street teaching kids the alphabet for starters.

The freakish fundies will stay home if he keeps it up, but the psycho birther racists will vote for him no matter what. I think that covers about 90% of all republicans, leaving the 10% who think their party is still about low taxes loving him.

I agree with all that but that is their job, to con the public. It's Obama's job to con the public too to get elected. The news is not as liberal as republicans like to claim, but nor is there this giant conspiracy against Obama. Yes, the media will adopt any republican talking point and couch it in BS interviews where someone like Candy Crowley says "some people claim" and then recite whatever Karl Rove wants them to say. Before the debate the media was burying Romney daily because that was where the story was. The collapse of Romney was more interesting than the election itself. As soon as Obama messed up the media had a new interesting aspect. If tomorrow another video emerges of Mitt talking in secret, bet your bottom dollar that will be the new thing the media will run with. No one told Obama to stand there with his head down and nod his head and pretend to write notes while Mitt gave a 90 minute presentation on all that was wrong with Obama's presidency. That was Obama's strategy, and whoever came up with it needs their head examined. I don't know why you think that didn't actually happen and what really is going on is Obama gave perhaps a slightly mediocre performance and the Media is brainwashing everybody. I can't wait for Biden, I bet he is going to come out locked and loaded ready to do soundbite ready attacks.

Unfortunately he did kick ass. That moment when Obama was discuss tax write offs if you outsource jobs out of the country and Mitt looked at him and said "I don't know what you're talking about" was damning. Obama needed to educate Mitt and make him look like an ignorant fool or come off looking like someone mistakenly thinking there was a tax law that didn't actually exist. He chose the latter and looked like an idiot.

You know from reading my posts I am not a republican. Did you see that even SNL did a number on Obama's debate performance? The same SNL that zeroed in on Sarah Palin? It is not proof of conservative bias to see that Obama turned in one of the worst debates maybe ever. You probably need to go back to Ford denying the Warsaw Pact and Carter discuss policy with Amy, only Obama didn't even have a single quote that could run again and again. He just spent 90 minutes looking feeble and incompetent. It does not serve liberals well to deny a disaster any more than it serves conservatives well. But anyway, there are more debates but Obama really messed up. Had he won that debate Mitt was at risk of seeing donors start to divert money down ticket as he fell further in the polls. Obama with his incompetent debate performance revived Romney's campaign.

The whole hate thing didn't really start to move to the front til 1992 and Pat Buchanan's holy war speech. After that the 90s were in full swing, and Tom Delay and Newt Gingrich began the "politics of personal destruction" era where they tried to impeach a president because he was a Democrat. By the 2000s they moved on to using the Republican Atty General to go after attorneys who did not target democrat politicians, and then came swift boating and now we have birthers. Hate is all the republican party stands for anymore, which is kind of sad. Bush Sr would be called a RINO today.

Could you list two names of people who are not right wing republicans that are suspicious?

My opinion has always been Romney can't win. He is the worst combination of a used car salesman and game show host, and the american people have had six years to like him and just don't. He has his week now in the sun, that will fade. I disagree with Carl completely. There was not a media conspiracy to anoint Romney the winner. They couldn't crown him unless Obama lost, and Obama lost. Obama and his coma delivery is all his own doing.

Modern memory would be something like the last 20 years I guess. I am watching debates since Carter/Reagan but that was over thirty years ago. Many voters today never saw Lloyd Bentson and Dan Quayle or Admiral Stockdale's VP debate in 1992 which was so bad that it might be the worst debate of all time. I would say Obama's is the worst since then.

This is such a shifting sands way of looking at it. It doesn't matter if it matters or not. The subject was the debate and Obama sucking during it is a totally valid topic on its own merits. It's like now we are discussing ratings taking cold comfort in the fact our soap sucks and no one watches but it has decent demos. It still sucks demos notwithstanding. Obama sucked, why do we need to find wiggle room for him trying to figure out that since no vote is for sale, he can suck all he wants? Even if there is not a single person on earth yet to form an opinion on how they will vote, he still sucked. The worst debate performance in modern memory.

Being a good orator may not be the best skill in a debate. Joe Biden never gives all that exciting a speech but he is quick and clever and can come up with a seemingly impromptu wisecrack now and then. Quick thinking is important, more important than the ability to dynamically recite a well written speech. There aren't many good speakers in politics these days. Mitt Romney's convention speech about church and sports teams was cringe inducing from the saccharine content alone. Paul Ryan sounds like an automaton. Hillary speaks with a very shrill style that it is just a turn off. None of these people can touch Bill Clinton who can give speeches, news conferences, debates, anything really with equal ease. I think the teleprompter is a fake complaint. I highly doubt Reagan gave his speeches without a telemprompter. The difference is Reagan was a great speaker who never uttered an "umm" and "uhh" in any speech, and he had the personal touch. MSNBC was saying this morning Obama was never spoken to like that, he is not used to people disagreeing with him and didn't know what to do. That's hogwash. Every president in every debate prior was in the same toady bubble Obama is in and they all managed to remember they were entering the real world. We shall see if it won't happen again.

Walter Mondale won the first debate against Reagan, but it did him no good. I don't think this debate will change things much but if Obama has a repeat performance it could start to impact things. The Biden-Ryan debate I think Biden will win handily because when you listen to Biden talk you can at least appreciate the wheels turning in his head. Ryan has a very robotic stage presence and Biden I think will win that one handily. Obama though is another story because he is what he is and what he isn't is someone you go to for a rapier wit and quickness of foot. Also, is idiotic insisting on staying away from snark hurts him. With all the people working for him they mean to say no one was able to come up with a 47 perecent attack or even just a joke?

He got clobbered but I don't think he was off his game. I have said it before and I will say it again: I think Obama is a terrible speaker. He injects into ever sentence copious amounts of "umm, uhh, umm <pause> umm" and he just cannot speak authoritatively. His every sentence carries the same amount of emphasis or lack thereof, and he just becomes dull after a while. Romney spoke with enthusiasm as he spoke, a sense of urgency and gave the appearance of actually trying to get his point across. Obama sounded like someone who was droning on and whether right or wrong it is not his job to convince you nor does he feel terribly interested in trying to do so. Obama's game is to give a speech in front of an audience plain and simple.

This is a long term problem for the republican party. I was reading an analysis in the NY Daily News a week ago and they brought up a good point. In 1980 in order to secure the nomination Ronald Reagan had to beat George Bush (a former CIA chief, Ambassador and future President) and two future Senate Majority Leaders in Bob Dole and Howard Baker. Their politics aside these were three heavyweights Reagan had to take down. Contrast that to who Mitt Romney had to beat: A lunatic in Michele Bachmann, a religious Zealot ran out from office in Rick Santorum, a Pizza making book seller in Herman Cain, a disgraced former Speaker, and a fringe Libertarian who is the darling of white supremacists. None of them and Govenor OOPS were qualified to win national office and yet these were the darlings of the conservative movement and republican party. This is how a terrible candidate like Romney became the nominee because the conservatives have lurched the party so far right that in order to win Iowa you have to basically deny evolution exists, be against abortion even if the mother might die, and demand war with every country on earth while taking your machine gun to the movies. So the qualified republicans stay home and here is what you have left: Sarah Palin. Just think about that republicans, 30 years ago Reagan picked as his VP a guy who was ambassador to the UN, head of the CIA and a major player who knew everyone in international politics. John McCain picked Sarah Palin. If that isn't the time to say "what more need be said?" than what is?