Obama/Romney Debate #3

It seemed as if Romney knew that (A) he himself has no foreign policy experience and (B) separating himself from places where Obama has succeeded would only make Romney look weaker; therefore, it almost seemed as if Romney's strategy tonight was not only to avoid making mistakes but almost to make this debate as un-memorable as possible. Did anyone else sense that--that breaking even (or only losing slightly) was Romney's strategy here?

I thought he lost more than slightly, but then I'm an Obama supporter so hardly unbiased.

It wasn't so much that he won or lost; I just thought it was interesting that Romney's strategy seemed centered around his own belief that he couldn't win the debate.

No, I agree. He was avoiding losing. I think he succeeded. But I'm not sure he shouldn't have gone for a win. There's an idea percolating that if the challenger heads into the final stretch a little down, he wins. I'm not sure I buy that, especially considering the actual states. A Romney win overall will not win the states he actually needs.

I do find it odd that Obama supporters are touting his foreign-policy experience as decisive. You can be absolutely certain none of these people took the same approach last time around, when it was the neophyte Obama versus the experienced McCain.

None of "these people"? Whatever.

It would be rather stupid for Obama and his supporters, of which I am one of "these people", to play to his strengths. I think the 20th time Romney said "I agree with the President" he may have been doing more than "not losing".

So far the early polls seem to agree. ;)

Remember when Republicans dominated foreign policy debates.

The Democratic position has moved so far to the right that for the Republicans to be more hawkish, they'd have to bomb everything.

Not Mr Romney's finest hour -- he looked sweaty and seemed to stammer a lot, but I'm not sure it makes much difference at this point.

I'm not sure Romney lost much ground but he certainly didn't gain any. It's like when a football team goes into a prevent defense: it only makes sense to do it if you have the lead.

My take away from the debate is that if Romney agrees with the President on foreign policy and how it should be conducted, what's the point. Of course anyone who's been paying attention knows that Romney does not agree with the President on much in terms of foreign policy. Tonight, as he did in the first debate he knows he has a platform he can't sell straight up to the American people, so once again, he slipped right into Obama's wake, hitting all the same points. What Romney said was, "I'll do the same things Obama's doing only better." WTF? The thing that stood out to me the most was if Romney was asked the question first, Obama repeated Romney's answer. If Obama was asked the question first, Romney repeated Obama's answer. For someone who knows nothing about foreign policy, or the candidate's stances, it looked like there was no substantive difference between the two. It came down to: "Do I want to vote for the kind looking white man, or do I want to vote for the black man?" Romney is an absolute piece of shit. He's got no backbone. He doesn't try to sell his program to the American people as a whole. He knows if he did he'd lose. If America elects this putz, then it deserves what it gets.

Actually, my impression is that the GOP as a rule just isn't all that interested in foreign policy. Or perhaps that they think their voter base isn't interested past a vague "protect our borders, protect our jobs" feeling.

The GOP doesn't have as much to gain on foreign policy in this election. The nation is tired of war, and Obama hasn't done anything catastrophically wrong. There's some gain possible in pointing out that Obama has been relatively less friendly to Israel than American presidents have been in recent decades. But the really hard issue—Iran—is complicated and uncertain, and Obama can justifiably claim some responsibility for killing Bin Land.

Most importantly, however, other issues distract from the main one—the overall state of the economy.

I don't disagree, Tim, but the disinterest seems long-standing. I remember thinking the same about George W. Bush -- that he just wasn't interested in the world beyond America's borders. And there's an isolationist feel to the party as a whole, what with their English-only platforms, their jingoistic rhetoric and their general ignorance of foreign politics (or geography!)

I'm not saying that domestic issues shouldn't be a priority, but scope of the ignorance Americans can display on world affairs can be pretty staggering.

The scope of their ignorance on domestic affairs doesn't fall too far behind. If Americans knew jack shit about anything Obama would be beating Romney 100 - 0.

My wholly unscientific survey data (i.e., Facebook friends I went to high school with who are on the other side of the fence) is that the Republican isolationist strain has legs, as does anti-immigration sentiment (people "share" cartoons of Mexicans coming over a wall and being greeted by the Democratic welcome wagon and registering to vote). Also, the religious fundamentalists see Obama as very anti-Israel and eschatologically problematic. The so-called "apology tour" and photos of him bowing play into this idea.

Where I come from, those are some of the major foreign policy issues for Republican voters.

Isolationism has a strong historical basis in America; it's not surprising that a party that appeals to that sentiment will gain some support.

Of course, the isolationists can't figure out that Romney and his croneys rely on illegal labor for big profits, and other than a few show trials, have no intention of lowering profits by hiring legal workers (assuming legal citizens have any interest in the sorts of jobs given to illegals, of course).

Yeah, when I want to know the truth of something Facebook is always the first place I go.

Foreign policy for most Republicans (I'll exclude Ron Paul) is 75% all about our military being able to kick ass and the rest is about closing borders and hating on non judeo-christians.

BIG TALK

Paul Ryan weighs in on Battleships and Bayonets. These people are too dumb to understand anything but the most straightforward speech. They just don't do figures of speech, simile is too hard to parse, metaphors just don't make sense.

Are you all certain these are the nimnuls you want running government?

I'm old enough to remember when Jerry Ford lost the '76 election with "Poland is not dominated by the Soviet Union."

So here's what I don't understand:
how is it that Rmoney is still taken seriously as a candidate after repeatedly asserting that "Syria is Iran's path to the sea" ?

For all of you who don't think Romney, Ryan and the Republicans are all about the graft, there's this. Jeez, Republicans are sleazy, slimey people. This is one of the ways in which you get farmed. Your taxes go to pay for stuff no one needs, nor wants, nor has a use for if they got it, and much of it ends up in the hands and the pockets of the corporate fat cats like this guy. Under nRomney, this guy, ideally wouldn't pay any taxes at all, oh he'll pay some just for appearances sake, but you'll pay for that aircraft carrier, or that nuclear submarine, and he'll pocket a ton of cash.

Is it possible for the former head of Mossad to be anti-semitic? It sure seems so. Why do these anti-semites who support Obama hate Israel and love Palestine?

>20 AsYouKnow_Bob: repeatedly asserting that "Syria is Iran's path to the sea"

I don't understand it either.

I didn't see the "3rd debate topic" so I cross posted this from the 2cd debate topic.

The Republican pundits after the 3rd debate said Romney "was successful in steering the talk to domestic issues" as foreign policy is not a strong point for him.

Another article I saw mentioned that "global warming" was not mentioned once in the debate. "Energy independence" was mentioned by Romney with the "drill, drill , drill" mantra. I would love to cut the Irans of the world off at the knees by achieving energy independence for a time but from what I have read that will be possible only with huge energy efficiency improvements.

I am glad both candidates, at least in this debate, agree with getting our troops the hell out of two simultaneous wars.

Obama's repeated emphasis on "teachers" has a point but from my experience I would temper that with an effort to winnow out the sleazier, self serving types I have met in some regular college and community college levels. More state employees, not necessarily teachers, whose interests are 99.9 % self serving and self promoting with a tax paying student way down the list on priorities and more like prey for their economic success.

I am a democrat and plan to vote that way.

Obama always falls back to teachers and investing in education. Sounds good, and it has some merit, but what does it really do to create jobs? I’ve come to the conclusion that it’s a reflection of all he knows. The man has never done much of anything that has contributed to the economy. I’m not convinced he’s ever actually even held a job that created anything beyond catch phrases and hype. His grasp of economics doesn’t appear to extend beyond theory, and it’s a flawed theory at that. Please, show me something, anything, that proves his supposed good intentions will actually lead to anything other than more debt for all of us, more poverty, and empty promises of hope and change....because that’s all I’ve seen so far.

Romney isn't my ideal choice, but compared to Obama, he was much more presidential in every debate, and he actually has a history of success in something other than politics.

I don't think Romney has any ideas on stimulating the economy other than throwing money at the same old ingrained corporate interests that dominate much of the USA's governmental spending. I think the educational slant is a precursor to entrepreneurial stimulation and a technical elevation of skill sets.

I read an article recently discussing "the need for technical skills" like grade A welders etc. The article explained what a lot of people already know - that a lot of companies advertise job openings for people with years in the acquiring multiple skill sets who will work for $12.00 an hour. I don't belong to a union but the multiples involved in differences in pay scales for execs to floor/cubicle workers is approaching feudalistic proportions.

Syria is Iran's path to the sea

Perhaps, the sea with Cypress Cyprus.

25
he was much more presidential in every debate

and of course that's what really matters, right? And because he's been successful at something you think he should be president?

(Obama was pretty successful at being elected president last time round or doesn't that kind of success count in your book?)

jeeez.

Can't you have some kind of intelligence test for voters so that anyone displaying this level of intelligence would simply be barred from voting?

Dear Merucans,
please do NOT elect Romney as POTUS. It will be bad for the world, and bad for you.
best wishes,

I came to this thread looking for some intelligent discussion about the debate and candidates. I guess I was wrong. It only seems that a few people have the issues rather their party affiliations in mind. I guess I'll have to look someplace else for a good discussion. Somewhere where the issues are discussed rather than personalities.
1. I felt I was watching/reading about who's smarter than a 5th grader.
2. Whether or not you support a candidate there is no reason for name calling.
3. IMHO from what I've seen on Facebook, I'm not sure I want to see 75% of those people voting.
4. Just taking the past two years, if Obama hasn't been able to create more new jobs in that time, what makes you think he can do it in the next 4 years?

Good luck everyone, no matter who's elected we're in for a bumpy ride.

>27 vy0123: Syria is Iran's path to the sea

I wondered about that, too. Maybe Romney was referring to pipeline that will move Iranian natural gas to European markets? Russia, Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Iran--and Europe, America, and Kurds, to say nothing of Chevron and BP--all have interests in whether (and where) the pipeline is built. Telling that Romney would make such a statement, no?

Syria's Pipelineistan war: this is a war of deals, not bullets.
http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2012/08/201285133440424621.html

ETA: Sounds like Romney's grasp of geography is being ridiculed: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/23/mitt-romney-foreign-policy-debate_n_200.... Can he defend his statement without sounding too familiar with concerns of Big Oil?

#25--Romney's successful life was laid out for him. It's not like he started at the bottom and worked his way up--got where he got just on merit.

#26--wealth disparity has hardly been much of an issue. When politicians talk about the need to create more jobs--they're talking about any jobs--so most of the jobs they actually prattle on about tend to be lower paying jobs. Going after the super high earners via income taxes is considered by a good portion of the population as unfair--however people earning middle class livings via union negotiated work is also considered by a fair amount of the population as unfair--the logic that Unions are all corrupt and run by thugs. Why should someone paying dues to someone negotiating contracts for him/her make more money? Go figure. Lots of people value others by how much they make. The more you make the closer to sainthood--the more you have obviously the harder you've worked for it--the smarter you are.

#29--not having watched any of the debates (I go to work at 4am--though I'm thinking I probably wouldn't have watched anyway) I'm not the best person to be commenting on them. I did see an article by Amy Goodman about the debates that I thought was very worthwhile--lamenting the fact the when the League of Women voters ran the show it was a lot more open and democratic than it is today. The fact that the two major parties didn't have control over the entire process is why the League of Women voters are not running it today. They needed that control. That the Greens and Libertarians are to be excluded for all time helps to dumb down the whole shebang. We don't get any alternatives--we get the two major party candidates just trying to score points off each other. Very little of it seems all that real to me.

Calm down, tomcatMurr. You're taking "appeared more presidential" far too literally. That wasn't intended to mean a superficial visual comparison. I was referring to his overall performance during the debate. Romney's content and demeanor were much more appropriate for a commander in chief, and I prefer his plans and vision for the future. Obama's petulant attitude throughout the debate did not convey leadership to me, and I have no faith in his excuses or promises. He hasn't earned it.

And, yes, I do think success in the private sector is an asset for a presidential candidate. Romney's had decades of real world experience with cause, effect, and consequences; it shows he is able to very effectively build broad support; and he's actually brought visions to fruition. I'm hoping he can use that experience to improve our country.

It's true that Romney got a head start financially, but he's proven himself. Plenty of other wealthy heirs have crashed and burned.

Obama once claimed he'd visited all 57 states. I doubt that those who are poking fun at Romney think that was a true reflection of Obama's geographic know-how.

I think the case is similar here. Romney is many things, but, like Obama, the evidence is strong that he's not stupid or ignorant.

I think the case is similar here. Romney is many things, but, like Obama, the evidence is strong that he's not stupid or ignorant

Well, Romney is certainly not stupid. But I think you could make the case that he is ignorant on this subject. Obama once said "57 states" when he meant to say "47." But Romney mentioned that "Syria is Iran's route to the sea" more than once, which suggests that it is not a gaffe, but how he perceives the Middle East. The Washington Post did a bit of fact checking that provides a possible interpretation of what Romney meant, which, if it's true, at the very least implies that Romney's appreciation of Middle Eastern geography (and thus political powers) is somewhat casual.

#32 You say, "Romney's content and demeanor were much more appropriate for a commander in chief, and I prefer his plans and vision for the future."

Did we watch the same debate? Romney took Obama's position on every issue. He completely ignore his warmongering during the campaign. He also has no vision for the future, except make his wealthy buds that much wealthier at our expense. Romney is BushCo part Deux and will lead us into the same rat hole BushCo led us into. Oh, and BTW, flop-sweat looks soooooo Presidential.

Maybe "presidential" means able to dodge any direct question asked?

Or maybe it's in the same sense that the woman at the Republican National Convention meant when she lauded Ann Romney as looking more like a First Lady should.

If you want me to admit this is a matter of choosing one's poison, I don't have a problem with that. Neither party has governed the country as I would prefer. Still, when forced to choose between a successful capitalist and a failing socialist, I'll go with the capitalist every time.

Which may be exactly the reason we are in such deep doo doo now as we are.

37> There's the rub then. There's just no way any dispassionate person could ever call Obama a socialist..

Yes, but over on Fox, they do all the time...oh...point taken.

40> He's a Socialist and a Muslim, get it right!

"The Romney-Ryan ticket represents a constricted and backward-looking vision of America: the privatization of the public good. In contrast, the sort of public investment championed by Obama — and exemplified by both the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and the Affordable Care Act — takes to heart the old civil-rights motto “Lifting as we climb.” That effort cannot, by itself, reverse the rise of inequality that has been under way for at least three decades. But we’ve already seen the future that Romney represents, and it doesn’t work.
The re-election of Barack Obama is a matter of great urgency. Not only are we in broad agreement with his policy directions; we also see in him what is absent in Mitt Romney — a first-rate political temperament and a deep sense of fairness and integrity."

The New Yorker magazine.

>37 TrippB:

Your reference to "socialist" intrigues me.

Sure, the definition of a word is always a work-in-progress. It is anchored in history.

So the question: is there anyone outside of your chosen political camp who would employ this word, that way, about Obama? Does this make sense, outside of your circle?

Or do you get to decide what words mean, like Humpty Dumpty?

We all speak in dialects. But some dialects reach larger linguistic samples than others. And this matters, if you're trying to persuade anyone or at least be understood. When you describe Obama as a "socialist," what context are you thinking of? What kind of collectivism, etc.?

How is your usage more than an in-group, ahistorical schoolground taunt, different from, say, "yer mom's a whore" blah blah?

There are quite a few socialists and non-socialists alike who would agree that Obama, whether they like him or not, is not a socialist.

Words still mean something beyond the political expedience of the moment.

Socialism - " is an economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,1 and a political philosophy advocating such a system. " thank you, google, and wikipedia, which we know are less than perfect at definitions. But this is a good starting place.

There is very little "social ownership of the means of production" in the USA. Might be a few cooperative farms, dairies, etc. How does President Obama have anything to do with this?

Krolik poses some important questions. And I agree whole heartedly with Words still mean something beyond the political expedience of the moment.

Anything I am forced to do by government that doesn't help me directly, or helps someone else directly or indirectly is socialism. There, does that help clear things up?

You are dealing with a radical individualist mindset. Of course Social Security, Medicaid and food stamps are used at an alarming rate by people who call Obama a socialist. So if you are looking for a rational, intelligent discussion of Obama and socialism you're just plain out of luck. They don't have a clue what it is. They've been told it's bad and to be afraid of it. That's all they need to know. Of course what this country really needs is more of it.

-

Well, I guess we all should just throw in the towel; roll up our rugs; and go home. Words do not mean anything any more. I am pretty sure a very small minority of people voting in this year's Presidential election have any clue how the Electoral College works; or what Balance of Powers means; or Whether or not it is the paramount duty of the POTUS to protect American citizens from danger.

>43 krolik:
Let me be clear: I did not say Obama is a socialist. I said he’s a failing socialist. Not a particularly significant difference, but I prefer the distinction. I also understand the resistance by some to say he’s a real socialist, as I’m sure there are plenty of socialists out there who are disappointed with his lack of progress in “fundamentally changing” the U.S. It hasn’t been for his lack of trying. He’s attempted to nationalize the auto industry, banking, medicine, insurance, all student loans, and “clean” energy industries. He's had some success, but I'm afraid he's nowhere near his final goal. He must have really grand plans for his second term.

As he said during his campaign, he wants to “spread the wealth around.” Or before he was elected, when he said at Loyola University, “"...how do we structure government systems that pool resources and hence facilitate some redistribution because I actually believe in redistribution." If you’d like to read more from someone who’s spent more time on the issue, check out this article from a source I respect far more than The New Yorker magazine: http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/01/22/is-president-obama-tr...

>46 QuentinTom:
Why did you delete your post tomcatMurr? I thought it was this thread's most entertaining (and telling) spew of....well, I'm not sure what you'd like to call it, but it did make me laugh.

48>

When you say he's "nowhere near his final goal" the inference here is that SOOO many presidents have reached their goals at the end of one term and Obama is the exception. Fascinating. I don't think W 'had" a goal in his first term (unless you include invading Iraq).

But seriously--what presidents can you name who literally achieved what they wanted all within one term? Besides Polk, I cannot think of any. If this is the standard to which we now hold our presidents I don't think we'll ever see a two-term president ever again.

#48--Honestly I think all these comments the past 4 years about Obama being a 'socialist' are exaggerated. Wish that he were but generally he's not very much more so than Ronald Reagan or either of the Bush's. AFAIC he's not left enough for me. That's why I'll be voting for the Greens.

>48 TrippB: - I had enough "red baiting" in the 1950s and 1960s to last me my entire life. I do not throw those concepts and labels around without careful thought of what I might be doing in way of collateral damage. I had relatives who were hounded out of their jobs because someone said they were socialists, which they were not. Think about that for a minute before you toss words around carelessly.

Some redistribution of wealth has always been around in the western democracies. And it is not socialism, or communism or fascism.

51> Republican Rep. Allen West knows there are up to 80 Democrats in Congress who are Communists.

#53--which only shows that West is not competent to hold the seat he has. Really for him and some others it's all only about keeping the fires stoked even if the chimney is blocked and the room is filling up with smoke. Anyone who takes those stupidities seriously is in need of professional help. Instead of trying to understand how their govt. works too many people take the easier route of venting their unhappiness and outrage whenever a demagogue like West makes an appearance to point the finger at the most convenient scapegoat. The American electorate is really a mixed bag.

As the American electorate is in fact a "mixed bag" do you think we need to regress to an earlier definition of who shall vote? Property owners only? Men only? White people only? How shall we solve this problem? How about we make a concerted effort to make a larger proportion of the eligible voters actually go vote? How about we make it a law: you must vote. I think Australia does that. Any one know if that helps make things a little less crazy?

Republican Rep. Allen West knows there are up to 80 Democrats in Congress who are Communists.

Even our conspiracy theories are sedate. That's 15%! The real-live Italian Communists hit more than twice that percent.

#55--I'd like to point out that there's nothing necessarily wrong with being both an American and a communist. West could just as easily said there are 80 blacks (even though he's black himself), 80 women, 80 muslim, 80 oriental, 80 gay or LGBT members of the democratic party--he's just basically demonizing people to garner votes. As far as who shall vote--it's not meant to polarize--personally I think anyone 16 years or older. Denying people that right is elitist IMO and one of the problems with our country is it's run by elitists.

I have seen reports that say we no longer teach civics in public school. That would be a place to start, re-institute civics instruction. Especially, what the President can and cannot do, and what Congress must do. We could start with stuff like How a Bill Becomes a Law. I don't think everyone knows that the President isn't a dictator and that Congress has a lot to do with whether our country functions smoothly or not.

That's odd, my son is covering that stuff in Middle School right now. Are you suggesting a national curriculum?

No. My son never got civics in Texas, so when I saw a headline saying we no longer teach civics in school I just assumed it was everywhere. Watching this election, it seems pretty apparent to me that people think Obama could have done a lot more to help the economy than he did, yet no one mentions Congresses role in keeping the economy on the skids for as long as possible.

We could start with stuff like How a Bill Becomes a Law.

Ah, Schoolhouse Rock! The single best indoctrination/brainwashing program ever devised. To this day I can't recite the Preamble to the Constitution without singing it.

When I was a Senior in high school we had a 1/2 year class in World History and 1/2 year class in "Contemporary Problems" (which was Civics). The assumption was that everyone must know what it takes to be a responsible citizen, and how to know how to vote. That was a very long time ago, but we were taught how to discuss matters where more than one point of view might have a piece of the truth, and that civil discussions are necessary if one is to learn.

I wish there was a national curriculum on just such matters. Basic matters. Like the three arms of government which can be found at every level.

Over the years I've watched hours upon hours of House and Senate debates and including committee meetings on c-span. People for the most part don't understand what goes into getting a bill legislated--having watched all those hours is one thing--not knowing what's going on behind the scenes is another because it's practically anything imaginable. It's frustrating talking to people about politics who only wake up every 4 years to vote along a party line--oftentimes according to what their friends or family think who as often as not are just as ignorant about the process of legislating but who have been building up bile listening to a bunch of jackasses like a Rush Limbaugh who have made a great living out of stirring them up. It's not right to exclude people no matter how ignorant they are about the things they think but the more of this the harder it is to believe that the process works.

My 7th grade daughter is currently learning civics, but as an after-school club called Youth in Government which is aimed at those honor roll kids who can afford a fairly pricey two night trip to the state capitol. That's a lot of selection before they get to learn what every citizen should know.

Is there any one reading this thread who has a youngster finishing up high school? Do they have any Civics like classes? They can vote at 18, right? Seems like the class would be much more important and relevant when they are approached what used to be called "the age of reason".

My son is in a charter Gr 12 program at local community college, working on an associate's degree to satisfy HS graduation requirements. To graduate, all kids in the program are required to take a class in political science. Looked pretty good to me!

~22

Is it possible for a goy to totally misunderstand Israeli politics? Apparently.

~45

As well as political theory.........

>50 jasonseidner:: Sorry for the delay. You’ve highlighted my point, in a way. With other presidents, we’ve known their goals, or at least their direction. I really don’t know what Obama has in store for us in a second term, and that’s a serious concern.

69>
You're so full of fluff. With "other" presidents we've "known" their goals? Really? How about W? Carter? Bush Sr? Taylor? Harding? Coolidge? McKinley? Grant? I could go on and on.

The truth is, they ALL have goals, plans, priorities. Some get thrown off course, are forced to react to more urgent things, focus on things they never anticipated. Some (like LBJ, Ford, Truman) are President before they even have a chance to say what their goals are. You group them together as if there are 43 guys on one side who have defined goals and direction and then you've got Obama alone on the other side. Was national health care a goal? How about getting bin Laden? Is "lowering taxes for the middle class while asking the top 1% to pay a little more" a direction he's trying to go or are these just words? Enlighten me here a little bit.

70> Really? People keep complaining that he didn't honor all his promises from his first term. Don't you think some of those might be on his plate for a second term?

I guess he was a little slow in publishing his book on his plans for the second term. But I have heard it is out now. You can read what his goals are, but then again you might have to go to a campaign event to get a copy.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt was infamous for creating goals no one knew he had even thought about while he was in office. Like winning World War II.

And some other goals, too, the ones he was labelled as a "traitor to his class" for having. Civilian Conservation Corps ring any bells?

~71

Well, I heard one of his former advisers and henchmen speak last night, and he said that they weren't.

I believe that the phrase was "politically impossible," which, as we all know, is shorthand for "those slogans served their purpose, now let's forget I ever said such a thing."

~72

Yes, what a great hero! He stole other people's money (rather than using his own considerable wealth) to pay still other people to dig ditches and then fill them in. Sort of like a cross between Robin Hood and George III.

#74 How dare you make fun of scientific endeavors like the great Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository in Nevada!!! It is an engineering miracle! ;-)

>70 jasonseidner:: True (not the fluff part--I'm referring to the rest of your post). We haven't always known candidates' goals. However, Obama has set off on goals he didn't talk much about during his first campaign. How many of us asked for healthcare reform as his most significant endeavor? Most of the public made it clear that wasn't a priority. Bin Laden was a given for any president in office when our intelligence operatives found him, and there are several reports that Obama denied authorization to get him on previous opportunities. He also absolutely has not pursued "lowering taxes for the middle class while asking the top 1% to pay a little more." His policies will ensure we all pay more, while that portion of the top 1% he favors still get their cut of federal support and special concessions.

I do fear his second term, when he's no longer accountable to voters. I don't trust him at all, and I'm very willing to take Romney's goals over Obama's failures and "accomplishments."

76>

You defend it with style but that's all; basically, you hold Obama to a standard (the concept of knowing what his goals are) that for some reason you don't hold to the other 43 presidents. You admit that we don't always know candidates' goals but then you expect them from him. Interesting.

I would prefer that you admit that you just don't like him--that in itself would actually have more credibility than shooting him down for not adhering to your expectations that come out of nowhere. To say that he "denied authorization to get him (bin Laden) on previous occasions" is like telling this year's Superbowl winner that the victory has less merit because they could have done it LAST year rather than waiting until this year.

It makes sense that you say that you "fear" his second term: fear sounds like the basis of most of your analysis.

I would be very interested in knowing what Romney's goals and plans are. Is there some definitive list? Something that doesn't change depending on the audience?

~77

"You defend it with style but that's all; basically, you hold Obama to a standard (the concept of knowing what his goals are) that for some reason you don't hold to the other 43 presidents. You admit that we don't always know candidates' goals but then you expect them from him. Interesting."

Yes, why would one expect a President or anyone else to know his goals when he is applying for a job. Ridiculous!!

And wouldn't one also expect goals to change due to changing circumstances? Candidates always promise the Moon but getting that through Congress is a different matter.

And he certainly did talk about health care during his 2008 campaign.

I am reading Team of Rivals in which Doris Kearns Goodwin tells the story of how Abe Lincoln became President, and how he included his rivals, for election to President, in his cabinet. It is interesting to me that the politicians of that day gained power based on the relationships they built with people, and only somewhat based on their thoughts on the Big Issues of the Day. The important criteria appeared to be whether or not the candidate had good character and intelligence.

And the Big Issues changed. Boy howdie, they changed big time.

>80 jjwilson61: And he certainly did talk about health care during his 2008 campaign.

Health care has always been a big issue for me. I'm not exactly happy with the plan that has been put in place, but I'm profoundly happy that the subject is at least being addressed, rather than swept under the "insurance-companies-know-best" carpet.

Health care has always been a big issue for me.

Me too. Especially the aspect where anyone who doesn't have health insurance through their workplace and has a pre-existing condition is pretty much screwed.

82/83

And seriously--we're on a very short list of "first world" countries w/o guaranteed health care for all.

~80

"And wouldn't one also expect goals to change due to changing circumstances? Candidates always promise the Moon but getting that through Congress is a different matter."

So your point is that they're all lying scum and anyone who believes any of their promises is a moronic fool?

Yes, you're probably right.

No, changing a goal in light of changing circumstances is a smart thing to do. It demonstrates the ability to think, use judgment, consider new information, and adjust. Success is made up of these characteristics.

Black and white thinking, all or nothing, no flexibility, etc. gets one no where. It is not the best of human ability to deal with reality.

And what do you call pretending to have one set of goals until you're elected, then setting off in pursuit of an agenda you haven't really shared with most of the people who voted for you?

er, Republican?

Oh, my, goodness. I think if analyzing the issues in a national election were all that easy, then probably I could answer a question such as you pose in #87. But you know, I am clear that the great issues which confront this huge, powerful nation are not so easily distilled. How you can find "imagined set of goals" in one campaign and not the other boggles the mind. Both campaigns have attempted to communicate their realities in ways which the population will understand and support. No reputable media reporter will say one campaign pretends, while the other tells only the truth. You are living in a fantasy if that is what you think is going on.

And as for "sharing an agenda" with "most of the people who voted for you" - do you think "most of the people" pay any attention at all after the election? Four months from now ask your friends, relatives, and neighbors what the President's agenda is...... You'll get nervous laughter and they will not know, regardless of who wins the election.

>89 maggie1944:
In some ways, I wish I could disagree with you (I very often do), and yet it's hard to deny that most people seem to base their vote on how a candidate makes them feel, or how they look, or some single issue that they hold above all the other factors. What they get for that vote is too often something with more negative consequences than they ever considered (and maybe never consider). That's what has gotten us into this mess.

Good one on the "reputable media reporter" reference, though. Are there any left?

So, your basis for choosing who to vote for is on how concrete and clear their policies and goals have been stated? I agree with you that consistency is important. How can we vote for someone who changes his views depending on his audience? There'd be no way to hold him to account. Are you voting for a third party, then?

"No, changing a goal in light of changing circumstances is a smart thing to do. It demonstrates the ability to think, use judgment, consider new information, and adjust. Success is made up of these characteristics."

Yes, I know. I deal with con men every day. They say things like "Give me a million dollars today and I'll give you back three million dollars at the end of the year." The end of the year comes and they don't give you back anything, on the basis of the changing circumstances that they took the million dollars and spent it on their life style. "Success" in a sense. But, strangely, the lender usually doesn't view it in that way.

Only difference between that story and this one is that there is no cause of action for breach of promise by a politician and no judgments are awarded for the harm resulting from the fraud in that context.

~89

"And as for "sharing an agenda" with "most of the people who voted for you" - do you think "most of the people" pay any attention at all after the election? Four months from now ask your friends, relatives, and neighbors what the President's agenda is...... You'll get nervous laughter and they will not know, regardless of who wins the election."

So the excuse has now changed a little bit. Three posts previous the story was that circumstances have changed so it was only intelligent to change one's agenda. Now the story is that it doesn't matter whether the agenda is or is not a lie to start with, since no one really pays any attention.

Actually, I like this one better than the first one, but you don't seem to ask why most voters pay no attention to announced agendas. It is because, of course, that there is no expectation that the announcement of the agenda isn't a lie. That is what candidates are known for doing. They lie to get votes. Right? Presumably they do think that some dumb goofs are paying attention, or they wouldn't bother to lie to start with, but it is well known that their word is meaningless.

#93

The primary agenda is to get elected.

The secondary agenda is to get re-elected, or, if that's not possible, to help others in your group to get elected/re-elected.

92> Yes, I know. I deal with con men every day.

So anyone who over-promises what they can deliver is a con man? You'd make a real tough boss to work for.

Lawecon, my problem with answering your cascade of objections is that you seem incapable of thinking about complex situations without throwing blame around rather generally. If I tell you I am trying to read 25 pages in Team of Rivals every day and on Sunday, because my Nieces come over to help me with chores, and I'm unable to make that goal - you'd accuse me of telling you lies, and not keeping my promises, and being incompetent. Or perhaps more to the point, if I list 5 or 6 books I intend to reading during October and I abandon my promise because a couple of better books distracted me, then I am a liar and a cheat.

Sigh

Very boring problem

Has anyone thought that part of the problem is not the agenda or promises that are being made but maybe it's the people that we are electing to pass the laws? Does it seem fair that the congress would pass a law that we have to abide by but they don't? Should they be able to pass laws that give them special privileges that we can't change? (I mean, what dumbie lawmaker is going to vote himself out of a full lifetime pension?) Maybe we need to be looking more closely at the representatives that are running as well.

Jimmy Carter said something about a government as good as the people, or we tend to get the kind of representation we deserve.

I think he was very right.

Romney is a perfect example. In order to get the Republican nomination, he had to veer to the right. In order to win the general election, he had to veer to the center, but not too close to Obama, because the best thing he has going for him is that he is not Obama.

The slip he made about supporting ObamaCare's provisions for pre-existing conditions and children staying on their parents' insurance plans until 26 were probably what he really thought. But those are positions that make him less electable. Hence the quick backtracking.

We can blame them, and that might make us feel better, but hey, it ain't like its going to change until We the People change for the better.

And I've always thought that one place to start is the percentage of eligible voters who actually vote. But on the other hand, if they are the sort who never really follow any thing, do I want them to vote?

~95

Thank you. The slackers would agree with you.

~96

"Lawecon, my problem with answering your cascade of objections is that you seem incapable of thinking about complex situations without throwing blame around rather generally."

And you seem to be incapable of constructing an argument that isn't based on an ad hominem or a bumpersticker slogan.

Lawecon, judging from my previous experiences with you, I doubt that I will gain any thing from trying to answer your objection; however, I will. Pointing out that you "throw blame around rather generally" is not a personal attack. It is a comment on the methods reflected in your posts.

~102

And saying that your posts usually rely on bumper sticker slogans that one may have been taught in grammar school but which are factually false is not a personal attack. It is an accurate characterization of your posts.

Unlikely. Bumper sticker slogans are not taught in "grammar school". There are no grammar schools. That is an anachronism.

Ignoring your pedantic comment about "grammar schools," lets see if I can come up with several of the bumper stickers usually taught in this non-existent institution:

"You vote counts !!" (What it "counts" for is exactly nothing. 99.99% of the time the decision will be made the same way whether or not you vote, and what you are usually voting for is a candidate who, once elected, will do exactly what he wants regardless of what you want.)

"We have a representative form of government." aka "The People rule." (Our form of government is "representative" only of those currently in office. Not representative of anyone else.)

"We have a free enterprise economic system." (We have a fascist economic system where the government regulates and controls the use of, but nominally does not own, the means of production. Much of such regulation, particularly of the professions, is "self-regulation" through "professional bodies" but try practicing medicine without the consent of your county medical board and see who is is that comes to take you into custody and let you rot in jail.)

Maggie, there were grammar schools back in lawecon's day. They taught the chanting of bumper stickers, in unison. The brilliant thing about it was that bumpers had not yet been invented.

(-;

Makes me think of a bit on the Sunday {USA} talking heads political show recently where they explained what would happen if Obama and Romney got the same exact amount of electoral votes.

The House of Representatives would then elect the President

The Senate would elect the Vice President.

I was never aware of that! More reasons to get rid of the electoral college.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/10/the-electoral-college-wild-card-in-...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepoliticalsystem/a/electiontie.htm

~106

Yes, quite right, we use to ride our family brontosauruses to grammar school. Otherwise they were much like the public schools of today.