The presidential debate: A live chat
Wikimedia Commons
Join us this evening for a live chat during and after the presidential debate. Before you start watching, read a Los Angeles Times column we reprinted Sunday in the Horizon section. The authors explain how politicians try to dodge questions so that their audience won’t realize it. Some readers have used that column to discuss the written responses local congressional candidates have submitted to The Roanoke Times. How many dodges will you catch tonight?
October 3, 2012 - 6:30 AM
I accept the point and cannot argue that pols of all stripes, do not answer the questions the way they want.
However, there is also a demand for specificity and detail that cannot be given fully and honestly in most any of the Q&A formats, especially the debates where answers are timed.
It is a bit of a double edged sword when you put a pol on a time clock. You are going to get the canned talking points version because that is easier for them and it meets the time crunch. But the details and point by point of how to do it will never make it in for the same reasons.
Al Gore would go on and on and try to answer in detail and all he got for it was guff and the label of “policy wonk”. We as a nation, have the attention span of a 2 year old. Most reporters and partisans only want a pol talking for what they can market out of the remarks as well. Concern for a question being fully answered has never been a priority. Otherwise there would not be 10-20 reporters yelling over each other asking questions rapid fire before remarks can even be contemplated.
There is blame to go around, but you cannot really expect anyone to answer a question that is going to reflect badly on the outcome they seek. That is the nature of politics. It will not be changed.
“We as a nation, have the attention span of a 2 year old.”
Nonsense. We (the public) are treated as if we do by the media. The debates should be at least a 8 hour throwdown where the candidates answer the questions and go toe-to-toe on issues for the voters to decide – a la, taking the Bar Exam. Can’t hide behind the lies and damned lies and you’ll catch all the fluff and nonsense.
These candidates should be absolutely interrogated and dissected on all issues side by side.
#2 – “These candidates should be absolutely interrogated and dissected on all issues side by side.”
No kidding.
Had the media actually done that before the last presidential election, Obama wouldn’t be where he is now.
I am convinced Barack Obama can spend three hours making armpit noises and the leftist media will declare him victorious. Likewise, Mitt Romney can spend the entire evening showing home videos of his back hair and Fox “News” will declare him the winner.
What I’m saying is, if you can stomach the spectacle, watch it yourself and turn off the commentators.
I predict that the consensus of the liberal media tomorrow morning will be that Romney did reasonably well in the debate but failed to change the dynamic and the race is over, Obama has won.
That commentary is being written for major liberal newspapers and in TV newsrooms around the country as we speak, even right here in the Star City, I’ll wager.
I’ll wager they will be correct.
The TV competition show “American Idol” got something like 30 million viewers. Make note of the viewers after the debate tonight and get back to me on who is speaking “nonsense”, Uptheriver.
#5 – Obama could stand at the podium and do nothing but drool, John, and the leftist media would rave about how great he was during the debate.
Wow, substantive as ever. Do you even realize how bad Romney is, if indeed, drooling will still get better press? Maybe you children should ask why intelligent people in the press do not seem to be persuaded by Romney instead of insulting the people who call it as they see it. Just watch FOX and your delight will be immeasurable and your defeat unimaginable.
#5 And, John R, we already know what you will say tomorrow. You’re sort of predictable that way.
If you feel that Romney should win the debate, watch FOX tonight. I’m sure they will say he did.
In recent days Republicans have been howling that Obama is lowering expectations, like that’s some sort of new and nefarious tactic never seen before. This morning I heard Romney saying that it’s not about who wins or loses. IOW, a little expectation lowering by Romney. Where are those right-wing howls of protest now?
Personal attacks from the lefties here are alive and well, I see.
#10 gdad, your powers of perception are indeed amazing! In spite of how much I have tried to hide it, I’ll admit to being a partisan conservative and support Gov. Romney!
And I thought I had you fooled but you are too smart for me.
#14 It’s not just that you’re partisan, John R, it’s that you’re relentlessly so. IMO, the degree of partisanship that you display is just plain bad for our country.
Agree with 89Hoo.
I don’t know if I would say it is the “degree of partisanship” so much as how that partisanship manifests. There cannot be a more partisan person than I am, but I make every effort to post verifiable facts as opposed to unsubstantiated charges and opinions based on opinions based on talking points. Bias and partisanship are like loyalty, they are not bad in and of themselves, they can be very awful when carried to extremes or careless with the truth.
I could go to alternet.org, or dailykos.com or democraticunderground.com every morning and bring some outrageous, skewed left and totally whackadoodle scuttlebutt into the daily thread if that was how I wanted to spend my time and throw away my credibility. But I choose not to do that. It serves no purpose unless you are preaching to the choir and if you are, they already heard it. It is part and parcel of why the level of respect is what it is here and in the nation.
You can say what you want, this election is all about Social Security and Medicare. If you want to see those programs disappear, vote Republican.
#15 – “It’s not just that you’re partisan, John R, it’s that you’re relentlessly so. IMO, the degree of partisanship that you display is just plain bad for our country.”
Do you feel the same way about Sandi being as partisan as she’s admitted? Or does it only apply to Conservatives, gdad?
I hate fact that being successful is now a bad thing. Why do people float on driftwood from Cuba to come to America. The Land of Opportunity. If you work hard & make a good living then good for you. The Gov’t owes us nothing but good roads and some structure. If I decide to eat McDonald’s everyday & gain 100 lbs that is my fault. Gov’t should not limit McDonald’s because people eat there food. Why did our people leave England to come to Jamestown? Taxes baby. Boston Tea party was over tax on tea. I work 2 jobs to pay the bills because that was the way I was raised to pay my own way. The problem with 90% of America taking short cuts and being lazy. Work for a living like I do.
The media is extrmely Pro Obama. America wake up and think for yourself. Fire all people in office and vote for the new person. You can not trust lawyers or anyone in Washington DC. How lies do you want to hear. They only care about themselves or they would limit how many years they can be elected. Term limits would get rid of a lot of wasteful spending.
To #18 (Art Hill): There’s another way you might phrase your statement: This election is all about Social Security and Medicare. If you want to see those programs eventually consume all federal spending, vote Democrat.
http://www.factcheck.org/2011/02/democrats-deny-social-securitys-red-ink/
In 2011, it was necessary to transfer $152 billion from the government’s general fund to meet Social Security shortfalls, and it was necessary to transfer $288 billion from the government’s general fund to meet Medicare shortfalls. This was an additional $440 billion the government had to borrow last year, in order to keep these programs running. Remember that both were supposedly designed to be self-sufficient, but somehow didn’t turn out that way.
Both programs are projected to run even larger deficits in future years. Can you tell me how the Democrats plan to fix this?
http://www.ssa.gov/oact/trsum/index.html
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/296901/medicare-s-dirty-little-secret-douglas-holtz-eakin
#20, “Boston Tea party was over [a] tax on tea” Yes, a lowered tax on tea. The British actually lowered the duty on tea being imported to the colonies by the East India Company in an effort to undercut the black market on tea, led chiefly by Sam Adams, which is why Adams helped organize the Sons of Liberty to attack the recently arrived ships in Boston Harbor. Adams was a smuggler, a criminal, and he was mad that Parliament had found a way to undercut his illegal activities.
“Tea Partiers” seem to have not learned that simple fact in school, and have named their movement after a terrorist organization.
I don’t think anyone can argue that we do not need to do anything. But it is not on the table to change the programs as what little we know of Romney/Ryan seems want to do.
“Over the next 10 years, outlays will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 10 percent, on average. That gap will grow larger in the 2020s, and by 2030, Social Security outlays will be about 6 percent of gross domestic product and will exceed dedicated tax revenues by about 20 percent. As a result, under current law, resources available to the Social Security program will become insufficient to pay full benefits in about 20 years, CBO projects.”
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43649
We should have been making the needed changes AT LEAST 20 years ago, knowing as we all did that the baby-boomers were coming. I fault Congress more than anyone but certainly the last two Presidents, Clinton and Bush have to share a large chunk of blame as well. They could not even have a nightmare like the Congress Obama has had and America needs to boot, and still the best they could come up with was pitiful.
Any efforts to “fix” SS/Medicare have to take into account how many low wage workers and the disabled have come to depend on these benefits for survival. We have GOT to work on not just jobs, but good paying, good benefits jobs so that we can have more people choose to be responsible for their own retirement if we are going to ask them to take less from these programs and THAT is just not a quick fix.
http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43288
Since the biased Holtz-Eakin is cited, I will go with Robert Reich:
“…the Affordable Care Act uses its Medicare savings to help children and lower-income Americans afford health care, and to help seniors pay for prescription drugs by filling the so-called “donut hole” in Medicare Part D coverage.
The Romney-Ryan plan uses the savings to finance even bigger tax cuts for the very wealthy.”
http://robertreich.org/post/29384825788
We cannot sacrifice the people on or needing SS/Medicare to give more tax breaks to the wealthy. The absurd abyss between workers and CEOs is already making this problem worse and adding fuel to that fire is just plain wrong!
… “we may have a democracy or we may have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.” – Justice Louis Brandeis
http://robertreich.org/page/10
The Democrats do not plan to fix this problem by making it worse or by betraying promises made. Raising the wage cap is a given. Making some aspects of Medicare a “means tested” benefit will probably play a role and using the ACA and any other efforts we can devise to lower health care costs will doubtless be involved.
Or maybe they have E. William… Saying one thing and doing another is a TP value IMO.
To #24 (Sandi): I’m still waiting to hear Obama’s proposals for entitlement reform. You say that Democrats “do not plan to fix this problem by making it worse or by betraying promises made“, but based on statements by prominent Democrats, their plan appears to be not to fix it AT ALL.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/harry-reid-says-no-to-social-security-reform/2011/03/04/ABtw9dk_blog.html:
“Two decades from now, I’m willing to take a look at it. But I’m not willing to take a look at it right now.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-biden-falls-flat/2012/08/15/1ae4cb1a-e70a-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html:
“Hey, by the way, let’s talk about Social Security. Number one, I guarantee you, flat guarantee you, there will be no changes in Social Security. I flat guarantee you.”
If Harry Reid and Joe Biden don’t speak for the Democratic party, who does? And if somebody else does, why don’t they speak up? We seem to be going in circles on this… Where’s the Democrat’s plan?
#15 gdad et al, I make no apology for being a hard core conservative.
I joined the Young Republicans while in college after reading Goldwater’s “Conscious of a Conservative” and when becoming eligible to vote at age 21, I cast my first vote for Goldwater. I have voted for the GOP candidate in every presidential election ever since. Nothing that has occurred since 1964 has changed my political view.
Milton Friedman’s book “Free to Choose” further cemented my conservative views. My life experience has proved to me my ideological choice is correct.
And I resent your saying my political views are bad for the country, I have a Constitutional right to my views.
I know how I am voting and the debate will not change that. Too much is said about the other person and not enough about what each one will hope to get done. Politics in America have become very dirty and less concern is being shown for the country and more concern for the parties. Neither side has much to write home about. I for one will not watch the debate.
Brian, Romney has promised to put that 716 Billion back into Medicare at least three times tonight alone. I do not think we have a “winner” in this nation, at this time, on the Medicare issue. I think Obama is right that tackling health care costs is a big part of the Medicare costs too. But on that one, I have to concede I am waiting to see the Dems coalesce on a plan for reform as well.
No gotch’ya. No melodramatics. No empty slogans or promises.
In a polite & civil manner, with complete mastery of all subjects, Romney ate Obama’a anniversary dinner.
Beginning tonight Obama plays catch-up, and he can’t get there in the next (foreign affairs) debate.
I honestly think the election turned tonight.
Obama in the debate looked like he lacked energy and didn’t want to be there. Romney showed a command of the subjects. Obama didn’t bring his A game. Romney showed he was the equal of the president. Obama looked like he was playing a prevent defense trying not to make a mistake, this hurts him.
In summary, Obama appeared to be sitting on a lead in this debate and consequently he lost ground! Look for a 2 point bump in the polls for Romney.
I am declaring the winner. The winner of tonight’s debate was Alfred E. Newman.
Obama, his cabinet, his policies have been so alien to my individualist philosophies that I would vote for ol Alfred from Mad Magazine rather than the Bamster. I think he is an interesting guy. He is probably a pretty fun guy to be around. That doesn’t make him a good president. Now Mitt Romney is not a whole lot better in any way. My 1st and 2nd candidates were out long ago, so any degree better at all is better.
I do have a question. With W having been gone 4 years come January, is the big O going to start blaming himself for some of the mess he creates. I liked W about as much as I like Romney. I liked slick willie. As long as you fed him an intern or two, he stayed out of trouble.
The fact is that it has come to one of two ways. We cut govt handouts and learn to all live on earnings, or we all work for the government indirectly, and in the course give said govt even more control than it has now.
Used to be, welfare of any sort was a shameful thing, now the looters brag of their Obama Phone. Obama Stash. As Chris Rock stated, they sing welfare songs….On the first day of welfare……….
Night All….What Me ??Worry????
Stand by for a parade of liberals telling you how debates don’t matter.
To #29 (Sandi): That $716 billion (over a decade) works out to only $72 billion per year. It’s less than 25% of the current Medicare shortfall (and only 6% of our current annual deficit). Given that the shortfall will grow over time, it’ll cover an even smaller fraction in the future. It’s hardly a complete solution, though a welcome step if it sticks.
Be warned, though, that there’s a strong possibility that Congress will undo the $716 billion in reimbursement rate reductions. Cutting payments to providers is certainly an effective way to reduce spending, but it increases the risk that more and more providers will turn Medicare patients away entirely. [Note that there are already doctors out there who refuse to take on new Medicare patients. Cutting reimbursement rates will worsen this trend.] It also means that hospitals will increasingly overcharge their regularly-insured patients to make up increased losses from treating Medicare patients, driving up insurance premiums.
I appreciate your honesty on “waiting for a plan to coalesce”. I’m pretty frustrated with both candidates and parties right now. Neither of them seems even aware of the problems our giant deficits/debt will cause, much less have realistic plans for dealing with them. For the first time ever, I’ve found myself wanting Bill Clinton back: http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/09/24/14071974-as-clinton-sounds-interest-rate-alarm-does-congress-think-its-for-real?lite. He gets it. Obama and Romney do not.
E William: The tea party you note was actually NOT caused by a tax on tea either up or down. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 along with a few other events leading up to that time brought an official end to westward expansion (actually, north and west). Most wealthy colonist and colonial high profile people were deeply involved in land speculation as they needed some source of revenue to support themselves and service their growing debt. When the crown drew the line the colonial powers they drummed up a cause for the commoners to get behind. While the tea party did take place it was engineered to take the colonies one step closer to revolution and to align the masses with the objectives of the elite. Good thing too, I’d say else we would be hailing the Queen and having bubble and squeak in the morning. BTW, when will BO propose the mansion tax like they have in England? Dam then rich folks!
Debates matter to partisans. Romney was like a wind up toy, wound too tight. His factoids and studies were literally bursting out of him. It was neither calm not mature behavior. He also seems to be unaware that Obama did not cause the job loss and recession and Obama did not bother to correct him. Obama let several zinger worthy moments go by as if he truly did not care. Romney was literally making up his policy as he went along which should frighten anyone.
I do not think this changes the election for people paying attention, but that is certainly not the entire electorate.
Yes, I am sure Romney will kill on “Foreign Policy”!
“The one area where Romney could have really challenged Obama on foreign policy was on the president’s bad decision to double-down on Afghanistan. But Romney can’t, because the Republican Party wanted to triple down. So we’re having no debate about how to extricate ourselves from our biggest foreign policy mess and a cartoon debate — “I’m tough; he’s not” — about everything else. In that sense, foreign policy is a lot like domestic policy. The morning after the election, we will face a huge “cliff”: how to deal with Afghanistan, Iran and Syria, without guidance from the candidates or a mandate from voters. Voters will have to go with their gut about which guy has the best gut feel for navigating this world. Obama has demonstrated that he has something there. Romney has not.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/30/opinion/sunday/friedman-the-world-were-actually-living-in.html?ref=opinion
What we witnessed in the debate was a clear contrast between two different people. Not the two that were on the debate stage…but between two different Barack Obamas: the one we’ve seen over the years – slickly-produced, polished, carried, coddled and protected by an adoring media…and tonight’s stripped-down version who for the first time in his public life, had to face tough, valid questions and criticism about his policies and his record in front of a worldwide audience.
Obama is not used to facing this kind of scrutiny – and it was evident in his performance tonight. This is not 2008. Mitt Romney is not John McCain (thank God)…and Obama got his butt handed to him tonight.
With the debate over, we will shut down comments on this thread. Please visit our next day thread to continue the discussion.