Final Debate: Quick Thoughts

A tie, which is a win for Romney.  He needed to look presidential and credible.  He did.  The president was fine, but the fact that he came out attacking suggests that the president thinks he is behind.  Romney largely tried to play it safe.  I just saw John King on CNN say the President won on points.  I disagree.  I think it was a push.  Most people do not get into the policy weeds.  The voters approach such things looking for impressions, not policy briefs.  And Romney seemed very credible. 

Sometimes the President (and Romney) tried to get it back to domestic issues. This was a mistake by the president as all previous debates suggest the Romney/Ryan team is stronger on the economy. 

Both candidates looked silly at times trying to make it look like they had starker disagreements on foreign policy matters than they really do.  One most everything outside of Israel I doubt there is that much difference between the two, but they have to create the impression of difference.

Two off-beat things.  When Obama talked about the "border regions" between Afghanistan and Pakistan for one second I thought he said "board of regents."  Is he going after Harvey Jewett?  Also, I am pretty sure in his closing statement Romney quoted Frank Capra's Meet John Doe. He said (I think I have this right), "This nation is the hope of the world."  In John Doe, Gary Cooper says, "Wake up John Does, you are the hope of the world."  You could also say it is Lincoln: "last best hope." 

Update: Oh, Romney's answer on drones was pure crap.  I wonder if will also continue the policy of labling all those killed in drone attacks "combatants" whether they are guilty or innocent, adults or children. 

Update 2: Giants are kicking Cardinal butt.  Bears over Lions 13-0 in the 3rd. 

Update 3: Krauthammer: Clear win tactically and strategically for Romney.  I would agree only to the extent that a tie is a win for Romney.  Otherwise I think Krauthammer exaggerates. 

Update 4: I am with Althouse.  Romney neutralized foreign policy as an issue, making it a domestic policy election which is Romney's strength.  As I say, that is the extent to which it is a Romney win.

Update 5: CBS: Obama 53, Romney 23.  I gotta tell you, I don't see it like that at all. 

Update 6: FWIW: The Luntz focus group thinks Romney won the economic parts and Obama the foreign policy parts.  Also, the woman screaming about "four dead in Benghazi" (strike up the CSNY) was clearly "undecided."  Ya, right.

Update 7: CNN: Obama 48, Romney 40. 

Update 8: Sarah Palin time. That means time to switch to CNN.

Update 9: I can't believe Romney never mentioned Obama's habit of skipping his daily intelligence briefing.

Update 10: CNN Internals: Strong leader: Obama 51, Romney 46.  Who is more likeable: Obama 48, Romney 47.  Who attacked more: 68% Obama, 21% Romney. 

Comments

[chas holman]

I already voted for the President (it felt great)..

Look folks, no matter who you plan on voting.. hedge your bets and VOTE BEFORE DEADLINE>>

No rush, no hurry, just organized entry..

VOTE~!

[Sarah]

I already voted for Romney. Felt cathartic!

[Donald Pay]

Well, there you go again on the daily intelligence briefing. ABC News found this to be a really lame criticism, as Obama gets the briefing on secure electronic platforms, and has meetings interspersed throughout the day. We ARE in the computer age, after all, and these sorts criticisms are in the same category as Romney's worries about not having enough buggy whips for the military. Move on JS, your dog don't hunt.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/09/is-president-obama-skipping-intelligence-briefings/

[Jon S.]

Donald, ABC News report says more by silence than by its actual words. They do not dispute that the president relies more on the written document than on actual conversations with his intelligence staff. Jay Carney has said the same. They think that because the president reads the briefing book he doesn't need to meet with intelligence staff. Let's do a thought experiment. Think back to your school days. Did you ever read something thinking you understood it, but then in class realized that you totally misinterpreted the reading? Did you ever come to a deeper understanding of a work through discussion with others? Have you ever been in a situation where simply talking an issue out helps you to better comprehend it? The NSC spokesperson said that Obama doesn't need to meet with intelligence officials because he is (I believe this is the exact quote; I can't find it now) "one of the most sophisticated analysts of intelligence in the world." I mean, does anyone actually believe that a guy with zero intelligence background is sooooo sophisticated that he doesn't need to talk to professionals in the field?

[The Dude]

The media has overhyped Obama's sleepy first debate and now everytime he and Biden are debating they come off as over the top trying to make up for the first.

[Bill Fleming]

If it's a foreign policy debate and Romney cedes all of Obama's policy points, whereas before he contested them, how is that a "tie?" Where I come from, Jon, they call that a "win"? For the President.

[Donald Pay]

Really, Jon, do you want to continue flogging this dead dog?

I realize that you ivory tower types value face-to-face oral communication--the bullshit sessions where you think you are coming to some profound understanding about life. That's not the way the real world works anymore--it's an artifact of academic life.

The point is it is not the way President Obama feels is the best way to obtain this critical intelligence information, at least initially. He can read it, then ask written or oral questions of people on points he seeks to clarify.

If you think about it rationally, you use this same method in teaching. If college courses are run like they used to be, profs assign readings prior to lecture or discussion sections. You expect, or at least hope, students have become somewhat familiar with the material before you take a whack at bringing out the most important points, and clarifying issues that are more difficult or where questions arise.

When dealing with sensitive intelligence matters it is probably better to communicate in written form. Then you have down in written or electronic form a statement that can be referred to. Oral communication is well known to be less precise, subject to misinterpretation that isn't caught immediately, etc.

[duggersd]

Bill, it really does not matter who won or lost the debate. Romney looked presidential; Obama looked like a guy desperately trying to hold on. Obama tried to talk about the friendship between the US and Israel, but the impression he has left is he really does not care. He could not even find time to meet Prime Minister Netanyahu. And when Prime Minister Netanyahu was allowed into the White House a couple of years ago, he was snubbed. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/7521220/Obama-snubbed-Netanyahu-for-dinner-with-Michelle-and-the-girls-Israelis-claim.html Whether you like Israel or not, you have to admit that Obama does not treat Israel very well. If that was the only real difference, it is a significant difference.
Donald, perhaps if Obama had been meeting with his daily briefings, he might have known that a certain embassy might need a little more security.

[Bill Fleming]

Israel? Seriously? Give us a break, guys. If not for the US there would be no Israel. The way I see it, Netanyahu doesn't treat the US or our President very well, Jon.

[duggersd]

OK, so Bill does not see Israel as an ally. So, it is OK, to leave the prime minister cooling his heels at the White House. Obama gives the PM 13 demands to fix a rift. Obama does not allow photos of the meeting. Earlier, Vice-President Biden shows up late by 1 1/2 hours. Yes, THAT is diplomacy. And then Biden says we are great allies. What a laugh. I cannot understand how anybody of the Jewish faith could possibly vote for these guys. BTW, by Chris Matthews' standards, Bill, you are an anti semite.

[Donald Pay]

I like the fact that Obama has the guts to smack down anyone. I mean, really, the treatment he gave Bibi was mild. Consider that Obama had to signal Mubarak that it was time for this US ally to leave power. You have to remember that the US relationship is to nations, not leaders, and to our own values and shared values and interests. Bibi is not Israel. He is supported by 35 percent of the Israeli electorate. Many people in Israeli were happy to see Bibi get a smack down.

[larry kurtz]

Exactly, Bill: Israel can be disassembled much more quickly than assembly. Harry Truman was truly a shitty President.