« Romney Up By Four | Main | Second to last tango »

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c046f53ef017d3cc268a1970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Debate: Short Take:

Comments

Donald Pay

Interesting take on the debate. You are wrong on the Libya stuff. Obama is on tape from the Rose Garden and in Las Vegas talking about "terrorists acts."

I don't think Obama "won" anything tonight except the debate. I think he's got a reasonably safe lock on the electoral votes to win already, but he did make it more likely he will pick up more states (Nevada, Colorado, maybe Arizona).

The energy issue is the one I think both candidates lost. Both are totally pandering to niche voters and the dumb idiots who don't know squat but want low prices. Neither really addressed the real issues, though Obama was better since he was more forceful on the energy future.

It's difficult to fault the candidates because there's a real disconnect between reality and what the public's perception is. When you start off having a clueless public that has been fed decades of lies about energy, you start formulating your campaign knowing you can't actually tell the truth, and expect to get elected.

For example, oil. I have oil property in the Bakken Formation in North Dakota, and the real issue is lack of reasonable regulation, not too much. The Republican mantra is totally at odds with facts. The oil industry can just steal your mineral property and force you to give them the oil. Add to that the fact that the surface owner has few if any rights to object. Obama was right about the federal lands leases. Oil companies had tied them up for years, refusing to drill, and speculating that prices would go higher. Also, by keeping federal oil off the market, the oil companies could increase the price of oil they were producing on private lands. The way Obama's land agencies and mineral management agencies have dealt with it is to cancel the leases if they aren't performing for the taxpayer. I would call that "running government like a business."

Coal is another issue that both candidates failed. There's a regional component to it that both candidates are dealing with. Both think "clean coal" will appeal to voters in southern Ohio and Pennsylvania. Coal is hurting because natural gas is competing effectively with coal, not because of too many regulations. If anything the regulations on extracting natural gas through fracking could be increased, which might make coal more competitive.

Ken Blanchard

Obama did use the word terrorism in his Rose Garden remarks, but he did not call the Benghazi assault terrorism. His administration spent most of two weeks studiously avoiding the word and trying to blame the attack on the infamous film. As Jon notes, even Crowley concedes that Romney was right.

lynn

Why is it that only liberal leaning people are picked to moderate these things? There was a concern that Crowley would be biased, and she definitely was. What a whoop-te-do surprise! How about using a liberal and a conservative as a team. And the format was bad, and some of the questions asked were a waste of the limited time available.

Donald Pay

You're spinning faster than a top, KB. The conservative toy box is getting full, Etch-A-Sketches and tops. Romney, good 1%er that he is, has Monopoly in there, too. You guys are pathetic.

Romney proved he was off his rocker, and a proven liar about the Benghazi comments. No amount of righty spinning, KB, can turn Romney's lying into the truth The Armerican people can count on one thing: there is no truth in the conservative movement. They don't live in the world of reality.

Anne

It is never inappropriate for a journalist to correct misstatements of fact. This is, or should be, the essence of their jobs.

lynn

Obama's word "terrorism" did not necessarily refer to the Libyan assault. He and his administration (Rice, Hillary, Carney, and others) went out of their way to blame a movie trailer for several days afterwards, even apologizing for it at taxpayer expense in several mideastern countries. Obama did not want any extremist terror attack at this point in the campaign after he said he had gotten rid of the threat from ak0l-Queda. In reality, the head was cut off but the beast just grew more heads and expanded. Romney was correct in his statement, and Obama fudged the truth, which he is quite adept at (with a little help from the moderator).

lynn

I do know how to spell al-Qaeda, the computer doesn't!

Ken Blanchard

Anne: as Crowley has acknowledged, Romney was right. Moreover, she was not acting as a journalist but as a moderator. Can you comprehend the difference?

Anne


There is a reason why the debate commission chooses journalists as moderators. They presumably are informed on topics, and in her clarification, she said she knew a question on Libya would come up, so she reviewed the information available on the whole incident. A moderator can correct misstated information. Keeping the debate somewhat focused on facts is part of the job. In her clarification, she said that Romney was right that it took two weeks for the administration to fully declare the incident a terrorist act. Romney himself provoked the rebuke when he turned to Crowley and asked for the president's statement to be put on the record.

And yes I know the functions of both moderators and journalists, but I am just another woman out of the binder, as your question implies.

Ken Blanchard

My question implied nothing other than the fact that you obviously do not know the function of a moderator. Referees and umpires aren't supposed to take sides. If it had happened the other way, you would be offended.

Mike Cooper

2013 President Romney with 53% of the vote, 52 Republican Senators, and a gain of 3 House seats for the Republicans.

The comments to this entry are closed.