Debate

Aha!!!!
I knew it!!!!
It was the format’s fault.
Or George W. Bush’s fault.
Or anybody’s fault, save for The One.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-no-winner-in-this-debate-but-there-is-a-loser-jim-lehrer/

Maddow: No Winner In This Debate, But There Is A Loser — Jim Lehrer

by Noah Rothman | 10:43 pm, October 3rd, 2012

Immediately following the close of the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow said that she could not quite declare a winner but she could declare a loser – PBS anchor and debate moderator Jim Lehrer. Maddow said Lehrer helped kill this particular debate format for the foreseeable future.

“In terms of how the overall debate unfolded, I personally do not know who won this debate,” Maddow said. “I do know that we saw this debate format die a very painful death on camera tonight.
Maddow went on to describe Obama as appearing “calm, professorial and basically explanatory,” while she said Romney appeared “hyper” and “amped.”
“That manifested in a way in which the debt format was just dismantled – the format and I think the moderator, with all due respect to Jim Lehrer,” said Maddow.

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

Quote :

Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

1) “[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs”. Romney’s plan for “energy independence” actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that “‘the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand.” Since he promises to undo the Obama administration’s new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

2) “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don’t have a tax cut of a scale that you’re talking about.” A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney’s proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

3) “My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people.” If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax corde that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

4) “My — my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit.” As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney’s plan can’t both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. “He’s promised all these things and he can’t do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he’d have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year,” the Center found.

5) “I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.” The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

6) “I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.” Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration’s policies — those contained directly in his budget — would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

7) “And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate….97 percent of the businesses are not — not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they’re taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half — half of all the people who work in small business.” Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as “small business income” but don’t have a direct impact on job creation. It’s actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

“Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half.” Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn’t begun exploring or developing.

9) “The president’s put it in place as much public debt — almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined.” This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

10) “That’s why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don’t want to kill jobs in this environment.” That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn’t analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

11) “What we do have right now is a setting where I’d like to bring money from overseas back to this country.” Romney’s plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

12) “I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you’re going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you’re going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best.” Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be “35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending” and as a result “states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding.” “To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues,” the CBO found.

13) “I want to take that $716 billion you’ve cut and put it back into Medicare…. But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There’s that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan’s budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

14) “What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare.” Here is how Romney’s Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) “premium support” will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

15) “Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose — and they’ll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them.” The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

16) “And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or — or Senator Wyden, who’s the co-author of the bill with — with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill — Bill Clinton’s chief of staff.” Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach — which does not cap the growth of the “premium support” subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

17) “Well, I would repeal and replace it. We’re not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world.” Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global’s use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn’t responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

18) “But I wouldn’t designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That’s one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank… We need to get rid of that provision because it’s killing regional and small banks. They’re getting hurt.” The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

19) “And, unfortunately, when — when — when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it’s adding to cost.” Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.

20) “[I]t puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don’t like that idea.” The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel’s plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot “include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums…increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria” (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

21) “Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.” The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

22) “I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts…What were some differences? We didn’t raise taxes.” Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn’t increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

23) “It’s why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had — had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside.” The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

24) “Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan.” Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

25) “In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that’s about 50 years’ worth of what oil and gas receives.” The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion “went toward “clean coal,” energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites.”

26) “I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.” As of late last year, only “three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million.”

27) “If the president’s reelected you’ll see dramatic cuts to our military.” Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger.

I didn't watch the thing, opting instead to read the transcript later. Without the visuals, I thought Obama came out on top. There's a reason AGW denialists and creationists prefer public debates. Theatre sells, not facts or logic, and Mitt definitely sold it last night. I'm sure Obama was displaying the same frustration biologists do during such debates; it's hard to nail someone down in an argument if all they offer is ever changing sophistry and platitudes rather than specifics. Ronmey's verbal dance reminded me far too often of denialist tactics...

"I never said there was a conspiracy."
"You allege massive fraud involving thousands of scientists for financial gain."
"But I never said it was a conspiracy... *trollface* "

I loved Romney talking about how immoral it is to force our children to bear the weight of the deficit at the same time he plans to ruin their future by burning every available fossil fuel on our way to some mythical "energy independence". Children dealing with a deficit? Morally wrong. Children dealing with more of the economic and physical consequences of global warming? Fuck 'em; I've got my boat. And let's not forget that fucking over our children is the endgame of a growth based economy anyway, deficit or no.

I did think Lehrer could have been better. He could have pressed both sides for better answers, more specifics. Better questions.

Found this article this morning. Reading transcripts does seem to make a bit of difference:

The First Presidential Debate: A Choice or an Echo?

Quote :

Mitt Romney wants the audience to believe that he and Barack Obama disagree profoundly on fundamental philosophy, but disagree only very marginally about policy.

Over and over again, Mitt Romney would attack the President on general principles, then the President would say, in so many words, “well, the implications of that view are” and start listing policy implications, and Romney would retort: no, I don’t believe any of that, in fact that stuff you say I oppose is stuff I agree with, and that stuff you say I support is stuff I absolutely will not do.

. . .

The President was plainly frustrated by this approach, and his frustration showed. If, as they say, you watched it without sound – or, even better, if you didn’t speak English, so you could hear the sound but couldn’t understand the words – I have to believe Romney won by a mile.

But if you didn’t watch the debate, and read the transcript, what you’d see is the following. When Romney attacked, Obama generally had a policy response – some more persuasive than others, but the response was generally policy-related. When Obama attacked, Romney would generally deny that he took the position that was being attacked.

Romney’s palpable zest for the debate made him look like a guy ready to take charge, and the President’s demeanor suggested some willingness to let him do so. But his refusal to stand his ground on anything – and the marked contrast with the President in that regard – made him sound like a snake-oil salesman.

I guess it’s clear how the combination played for me. How it played for a low-information voter, I don’t know.

happy jack wrote:

Yesterday was Barry’s 20th wedding anniversary. Based upon the opinions I’ve been hearing about the debate, I hope he at least got him some so the night wasn’t a total loss.

Did you watch the debate?

happy jack wrote:

Aha!!!!
I knew it!!!!
It was the format’s fault.
Or George W. Bush’s fault.
Or anybody’s fault, save for The One.



http://www.mediaite.com/tv/maddow-no-winner-in-this-debate-but-there-is-a-loser-jim-lehrer/

Maddow: No Winner In This Debate, But There Is A Loser — Jim Lehrer

by Noah Rothman | 10:43 pm, October 3rd, 2012

Immediately following the close of the first presidential debate between Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, MSNBC anchor Rachel Maddow said that she could not quite declare a winner but she could declare a loser – PBS anchor and debate moderator Jim Lehrer. Maddow said Lehrer helped kill this particular debate format for the foreseeable future.

“In terms of how the overall debate unfolded, I personally do not know who won this debate,” Maddow said. “I do know that we saw this debate format die a very painful death on camera tonight.
Maddow went on to describe Obama as appearing “calm, professorial and basically explanatory,” while she said Romney appeared “hyper” and “amped.”
“That manifested in a way in which the debt format was just dismantled – the format and I think the moderator, with all due respect to Jim Lehrer,” said Maddow.

.... or maybe it was the altitude's fault.



http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/gores-blames-altitude-obamas-debate-woes_653613.html

Gore Blames Altitude for Obama's Debate Woes

11:20 AM, Oct 4, 2012 • By DANIEL HALPER

Former Vice Presidentent Al Gore, reacting to the debate:

"Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today — just a few hours before the debate started," Gore said on his network, Current. "Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust, I don't know..."
"The president had an off night," a pundit on the liberal network said.

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

At Last Night’s Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

[b]If these are indeed “myths” (which I will not concede, given the sources, i.e., Think Progress and you),

One down...26 to go
Romney Admits Pushing Misinformation In Debate

Quote :

During Wednesday night’s president debate, Mitt Romney claimed that “half” of the green firms Obama invested “have gone out of business” and noted that “a number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns.”

Fact checkers — including this blog — quickly pounced on the claim, explaining that only a tiny percentage of firms that received grants or loans from the Recovery Act have actually filed for bankruptcy. And now, the Romney campaign itself is walking back the GOP presidential candidate’s claim. From Michael Grunwald, author of The New New Deal: The Hidden History of Change in the Obama Era:

Quote :

Michael Grunwald @MikeGrunwald

ICYMI: Romney camp told me (after my tweet-rants) Mitt didn't mean to say half the #stimulus-funded green firms failed. Probably <1% so far.

Here's my take. I did see the entire debate. There is no doubt that Romney won it. I'm sure that Barack came out looking better to those who read transcripts. But that doesn't represent the majority of the country.

It's true that Romney lied through his teeth throughout the debate, but the fact of the matter is that Barack didn't effectively call him out on it. IMHO, part of the reason for that is that Romney just overwhelmed Barack with talking points. There were simply too many lies to deal with in the time alloted. I really don't think it would have mattered anyway, because Barack was clearly off his game.

That said, I've seen Romney in a lot of debates, and he really was "amped up." In fact, I think he was on some kind of amphetamine. Don't believe me? Check out those pupils! Keep in mind that he's under bright lights. There's no law against it, as long as the drug was prescribed by a doctor.

Obama ad hammers Romney for lying about his tax plan during debate

Quote :

Given the instant reaction to last night's debate—both from pundits and the public, in polls—I don't know if anyone would have predicted that the first ad featuring a clip from the debate would come from the Obama campaign:

Quote :

SCRIPT:

“I’m Barack Obama, and I approve this message.”

Mitt Romney: “I’m not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. That’s not my plan.”

Andrea Mitchell: “The Nonpartisan Tax Policy Center concluded that Mitt Romney’s tax plan would cost $4.8 trillion over 10 years.”

VO:
“Why won’t Romney level with us about his tax plan, which gives the wealthy huge new tax breaks? Because according to experts, he’d have to RAISE taxes on the middle class – or increase the deficit to pay for it. If we can’t trust him here… [image of debate stage] How could we ever trust him here [image of Oval Office]?”

So the first ad featuring a clip from last night's debate ... is from the guy who lost the debate? Isn't he supposed to pretend like this debate never happened? And didn't Mitt Romney have the night of his life? Isn't he supposed to ride it Rafalca-style to victory as President Obama slinks off after a 90 minute debate Completely Changed Everything?

Or maybe—just maybe—last night was just a debate. Maybe Obama wasn't great on stage, but Mitt Romney's lies will have longer legs. Maybe this election won't be decided by one night alone. Maybe there's more to it than that.

2 down...25 to go

I saw the whole thing.
If your standard on winning a debate is to get in as many blatant lies into 90 minutes as possible and look good doing it, then Mittens was clearly the winner. Truth was clearly the loser. One thing for sure is that Mittens is a fabulous Snake Oil Salesman.
I was shocked that Obama was not assertive in calling him on the bullshit.
Obama could have brought up and blasted Mittens on the 47% fiasco, Social Security, women's rights, Romney's never ending flip flops, etc., but never did.
Whoever advised him on not doing this should be fired.

edge540 wrote:

I saw the whole thing.
If your standard on winning a debate is to get in as many blatant lies into 90 minutes as possible and look good doing it, then Mittens was clearly the winner. Truth was clearly the loser. One thing for sure is that Mittens is a fabulous Snake Oil Salesman.

I had hiigh hopes for that format but Jim Leherer was atrocious as the moderator. The minute he surrendered to Rombot's insisting he gets the last word I knew it was going to be a disaster.

Quote :

I was shocked that Obama was not assertive in calling him on the bullshit.

I also believe as Scorpion suggested that he just got overwhelmed by the carpet bombing of so many lies,some of them brand new.

It's only the 1st debate. Luckily Americans have a very short attention span and this loss was not a game changer by any means. Challengers have often won the 1st debate and end up the loser anyway. We still have 3 more chances to set the record straight. 2 POTUS debates and 1 VP debate.

happy jack wrote:

What you all seem to be missing is that both candidates were operating under identical conditions.

Just like in public debates about evolution or global warming. Debates such as these, which are measured on performance rather than facts, tend to favor the cranks...

Heretic wrote:

happy jack wrote:

What you all seem to be missing is that both candidates were operating under identical conditions.

Just like in public debates about evolution or global warming. Debates such as these, which are measured on performance rather than facts, tend to favor the cranks...

Yep,which is why when that idiot Palin debated Joe Biden in 08 the media claimed it was a toss-up and that Palin held her own. The reality was that she had scripted answers,ignored the moderator's questions,replied with her usual word salad,"you betchas",and cute little winks.

Via Neil deGrasse Tyson:

Quote :

Cutting PBS support (0.012% of budget) to help balance the Federal budget is like deleting text files to make room on your 500Gig hard drive.

Did Mittens use a cheat sheet?

There's nothing inherently wrong with taking some kind of an "enhancer" for a debate. That sure as hell wouldn't make him a "junkie." So don't dismiss the idea so easily.

It's not an "excuse" for Obama's performance.. and I really don't think that's what I said... Let's see, shall we?

Scorpion wrote:

There is no doubt that Romney won it. I'm sure that Barack came out looking better to those who read transcripts. But that doesn't represent the majority of the country.

It's true that Romney lied through his teeth throughout the debate, but the fact of the matter is that Barack didn't effectively call him out on it. IMHO, part of the reason for that is that Romney just overwhelmed Barack with talking points. There were simply too many lies to deal with in the time alloted. I really don't think it would have mattered anyway, because Barack was clearly off his game.

In any case, I have seen Romney debate many times before, and his behavior in this debate makes me suspect that there was some kind of "enhancement" involved. Why don't you fire up your DVR and take a look? If you can think of another explanation for the dilated pupils, I'd really like to hear it.

Do I think that it's "cheating" if he was on some type of medication that would make him more alert for the debate? Of course not.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

There's nothing inherently wrong with taking some kind of an "enhancer" for a debate. That sure as hell wouldn't make him a "junkie." So don't dismiss the idea so easily.

It's not an "excuse" for Obama's performance.. and I really don't think that's what I said... Let's see, shall we?

Scorpion wrote:

There is no doubt that Romney won it. I'm sure that Barack came out looking better to those who read transcripts. But that doesn't represent the majority of the country.

It's true that Romney lied through his teeth throughout the debate, but the fact of the matter is that Barack didn't effectively call him out on it. IMHO, part of the reason for that is that Romney just overwhelmed Barack with talking points. There were simply too many lies to deal with in the time alloted. I really don't think it would have mattered anyway, because Barack was clearly off his game.

In any case, I have seen Romney debate many times before, and his behavior in this debate makes me suspect that there was some kind of "enhancement" involved. Why don't you fire up your DVR and take a look? If you can think of another explanation for the dilated pupils, I'd really like to hear it.

Do I think that it's "cheating" if he was on some type of medication that would make him more alert for the debate? Of course not.

Goodness!
The ability to diagnose someone's physiological symptoms while watching them on TV!
What's next for you?
Perhaps neurosurgery via Skype?

No diagnosis, "I'm just sayin..." I really do think that you should take the time to watch the debate, in any case.

happy jack wrote:

Based upon what I saw of Barry's performance, if I were to step into the role of video diagnostician, I might opine, “Pot had helped, and booze; ....".

".... maybe a little blow when you could afford it.”
Doubtful, in this instance.

Clever. And damned funny, Jack!

And I do agree with you on "Hankygate."