Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Presidential Debate 10/03/12
Topic Started: Oct 3 2012, 01:37 PM (5,829 Views)
Duke parent 2004
Member Avatar

Judging politicians by how well they do in these debates has itself become a joke.. Had debates been the modus operandi in the early years of the Republic, at least three of our first four presidents would likely have fared badly:. John Adams for being stout and unprepossessing, Jefferson for talking with a stutter, and Madison for being only 5' 4" tall.. The great George Washington himself was known for being taciturn.

Now that so many homes are equipped with immense high-definition television screens, handlers must not only induce fluency in their charges but also stay alert to the slightest signs of erupting acne.. There are reasons enough for preferring Romney to Obama.. But one of them shouldn’t be how much better he does in the artificial setting of a debate.. After all, how many policies or presidential decisions are made in such an environment?. The danger, of course, is obvious:. If Obama "rebounds" in a rematch, how does one answer his partisans, or the "undecided," who have been brought up to impute undue significance to the self-serving delusions and preoccupations of Hollywood and image-mongers everywhere?

There, I’ve done my duty—which, I’m happy to say, diminishes by not a scintilla the delight I took in the drubbing Romney gave Obama earlier this week.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Ah, DP - one can count on you to bring the hgih flying back down to earth. You are right, of course. Lincoln as well would have suffered as his hih pitched voice would have seen incongruous coming from a man so tall - not to speak of his gangly shuffle.

Obama came across in the little that I saw as slightly bored with the whole affair - why should he have to answer for his actions - that they should be answer enough. The press has done Obama no favors serving as his lapdog. By not pressing him to explain, justify his actions - they have allowed him to believe that he is above reproach - that he is so smart, so cool, so articulate, so.....(fill in the blank) that only dummies cannot see where his brilliance is leading us. While I fear that we may be in for another four years of Obama, I do think that the next four (should they happen) will not be the press cakewalk that the first four were. The dogs have scented blood.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
agatha

foxglove
Oct 6 2012, 06:23 AM
Who knows? Obama could have been listless because he found out that the opposition had another damaging video. Often there are things behind the scenes and perhaps Obama was checkmated before he even started the debate.
The big question after the debate was why didn't Obama use Romney's 47% remark. A no-brainer in my mind. "Mr. President, what did you mean when you said [fill in the blank] or [fill in the blank] or [fill in the blank] ? Shall I continue?"

Obama knew any mention of 47% would come back to bite him in the butt.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Duke parent 2004
Oct 6 2012, 08:31 AM
Judging politicians by how well they do in these debates has itself become a joke.. Had debates been the modus operandi in the early years of the Republic, at least three of our first four presidents would likely have fared badly:. John Adams for being stout and unprepossessing, Jefferson for talking with a stutter, and Madison for being only 5' 4" tall.. The great George Washington himself was known for being taciturn.

Now that so many homes are equipped with immense high-definition television screens, handlers must not only induce fluency in their charges but also stay alert to the slightest signs of erupting acne.. There are reasons enough for preferring Romney to Obama.. But one of them shouldn’t be how much better he does in the artificial setting of a debate.. After all, how many policies or presidential decisions are made in such an environment?. The danger, of course, is obvious:. If Obama "rebounds" in a rematch, how does one answer his partisans, or the "undecided," who have been brought up to impute undue significance to the self-serving delusions and preoccupations of Hollywood and image-mongers everywhere?

There, I’ve done my duty—which, I’m happy to say, diminishes by not a scintilla the delight I took in the drubbing Romney gave Obama earlier this week.
After all, how many policies or presidential decisions are made in such an environment?


I'd hope it illustrates at least a little of what we could expect from a leader trying to convince the 'other side' why his policies should be given consideration.

About the only significant evidence I recall of Barry in such a situation was those sessions he had with Congressional leaders to raise the debt limit. We know how those turned out.

The best I see from our leader's efforts to move us forward is a status that helps prevent neighbors from getting ahead, so others will thus not be left behind and we're all burdened with more debt.

Evidently Barry's plan to move forward presented the wrong policies and/or he was unable to convince others he had good policies ...both issues we got a glimpse of in the debates.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Obama is basically a Narcissist. He does not approach others with the desire to communicate both ways. He dictates, he mandates, he wants his way, and believes others should follow his lead. It is at the bottom of how he operates. He thinks he is smarter than others. He is an actor on a stage who believes his role as a chosen one. He has little humbleness. Anyone who disagrees with him he thinks is a fool. He tuned out in that debate forum. He just shut down rather than face opposition which wasn't going to concede his holiness.

He might rebound in the next town forum format, but he has been exposed before 60 million. While I agree with DP2004 these debates are staged, nevertheless his performance is in the can. It was weak, something which cracks his foundation before his loyal MSM. They flounder for some excuse.

They saw it, we saw it, and more important the undecided saw it.

It's all about voter turnout. We can see the Obama-mania is not there this time. In 2008 it was magical. I remember people thinking Obama was something special, a new man for the future. There was no talking to them about his lack of leadership. People wanted to hear what his was selling and they were going to buy.

31 days until the Presidential Election
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

agatha
Oct 6 2012, 08:53 AM
foxglove
Oct 6 2012, 06:23 AM
Who knows? Obama could have been listless because he found out that the opposition had another damaging video. Often there are things behind the scenes and perhaps Obama was checkmated before he even started the debate.
The big question after the debate was why didn't Obama use Romney's 47% remark. A no-brainer in my mind. "Mr. President, what did you mean when you said [fill in the blank] or [fill in the blank] or [fill in the blank] ? Shall I continue?"

Obama knew any mention of 47% would come back to bite him in the butt.
I absolutely agree!

And I think the release of the Obama-pandering-to-Blacks video the very day before...was a shot across the bow. :bunn:
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Baldo
Oct 6 2012, 09:15 AM
Obama is basically a Narcissist. He does not approach others with the desire to communicate both ways. He dictates, he mandates, he wants his way, and believes others should follow his lead. It is at the bottom of how he operates. He thinks he is smarter than others. He is an actor on a stage who believes his role as a chosen one. He has little humbleness. Anyone who disagrees with him he thinks is a fool. He tuned out in that debate forum. He just shut down rather than face opposition which wasn't going to concede his holiness.

He might rebound in the next town forum format, but he has been exposed before 60 million. While I agree with DP2004 these debates are staged, nevertheless his performance is in the can. It was weak, something which cracks his foundation before his loyal MSM. They flounder for some excuse.

They saw it, we saw it, and more important the undecided saw it.

It's all about voter turnout. We can see the Obama-mania is not there this time. In 2008 it was magical. I remember people thinking Obama was something special, a new man for the future. There was no talking to them about his lack of leadership. People wanted to hear what his was selling and they were going to buy.

31 days until the Presidential Election
I am uneasy with that Townhall format of the next debate. It will be stage-managed Chicago style to give Obama a chance to shine. I don't trust it...particularly now.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

Peggy Noonan had a particularly good column (the first in a long time) today in the WSJ. Romney needs to be very much aware that Chicago style politics will be on dsiplay in the next presidential debate and that Romney needs to be ready - though she intimates that Portman will be up to the task to prepare Romney for the event. It will be interesting to see if Marth Raddatz - who I think is a little more even handed - will be able to control the debate format as it has been proposed and agreed upon by the combatants.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

The great George Washington himself was known for being taciturn. Most likely due to his bad teeth that affected his speech.

One reason I only listen and not watch debates is for me to eliminate the Nixon effect. I try to listen to substance, not view gestures. Obama was not convincing anyone with his verbiage and it came across quite child like. Most of Rodney's comments were more impressive.

Jmo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

The look on Obama's face during the debate said "I have to suffer fools occasionally". This is the same attitude that prevailed at joint meetings with members of congress when he foolishly reminded the Republicans that his side had won the election. This is all just too beneath him.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Joan Foster
Oct 6 2012, 09:22 AM
Baldo
Oct 6 2012, 09:15 AM
Obama is basically a Narcissist. He does not approach others with the desire to communicate both ways. He dictates, he mandates, he wants his way, and believes others should follow his lead. It is at the bottom of how he operates. He thinks he is smarter than others. He is an actor on a stage who believes his role as a chosen one. He has little humbleness. Anyone who disagrees with him he thinks is a fool. He tuned out in that debate forum. He just shut down rather than face opposition which wasn't going to concede his holiness.

He might rebound in the next town forum format, but he has been exposed before 60 million. While I agree with DP2004 these debates are staged, nevertheless his performance is in the can. It was weak, something which cracks his foundation before his loyal MSM. They flounder for some excuse.

They saw it, we saw it, and more important the undecided saw it.

It's all about voter turnout. We can see the Obama-mania is not there this time. In 2008 it was magical. I remember people thinking Obama was something special, a new man for the future. There was no talking to them about his lack of leadership. People wanted to hear what his was selling and they were going to buy.

31 days until the Presidential Election
I am uneasy with that Townhall format of the next debate. It will be stage-managed Chicago style to give Obama a chance to shine. I don't trust it...particularly now.

The topics are foreign and domestic policy. The last was only domestic. I'm not seeing any advantage for Barry with the topics. IMO, Barry's best hope is a break-even score with the viewers ...which would mean our leader does well half the time at best.



Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

My sense was that he was condescending on purpose.

It was a stance that conveyed "I have this election in the bag. I know things you don't know that are going to make it turn out in my favor. I showed up tonight because this is one of those things I have to do to keep this job and look like I care,,, but the truth is I really don't give a damn., about this country, these people, or this debate. I'm here because it's the way I get to the next step. I need to be elected to complete my job. But I don't have to like this, and I don't have to answer for anything, because absolutely nothing rides on tonight. I know things you don't know. And my people will see to it that I win."

That was my feeling. The next morning I had a very old coffee taste in my mouth about it. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I don't think it will be Romney's shoe.

I will not be comfortable until the day AFTER the election and all of the ballot boxes are safely locked. And Romney won.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Joan Foster

Now it's John Kerry's fault.


http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/06/Obama-Blames-Kerry

The Obama campaign has been reeling since losing the first Presidential debate of this election cycle in front of 67 million viewers.  They've tried--and thus far failed--to craft a narrative to explain away the debacle in Denver.  Previously, we reported to you that Obama Senior Advisor David Plouffe, who ran the President's successful 2008 campaign, (falsely) accused Mitt Romney of lying.  In a rare comedic moment from the typically robotic former Vice President Al Gore, he suggested on Current TV that the Mile High City's altitude was the reason Obama was low on energy and enthusiasm.  Neither of those caught on with the mainstream pro-Obama media. 
Now the Obama Administration is floating their latest excuse: that the campaign, particularly Romney stand-in John Kerry did not channel Mitt's aggression enough.
From CBS's "This Morning":
Norah O'Donnell: "Some Democrats say [Obama's] campaign needs a wake-up call.  Bill Plante is here with that part of the story.  Bill, you've been talking to your sources; what are they saying?
Correspondent Bill Plante: "Well Norah, they're simply upset and really outraged.  They blame the President's team, first of all, for not preparing him to meet the challenge of an aggressive Mitt Romney.  They say that nobody in the room challenged him, including the guy that he was debating with, John Kerry, because, as they say, he wants to be Secretary of State so he's not going to get in the President's face. And Presidents are used to deference; they're not used to people challenging them like that.  So they think that the debate prep was terrible, but they also fault the President himself for not understanding that Romney was going to be more aggressive."
The 2012 Obama campaign continues to prove to be a stark contrast from their 2008 effort.  In 2008, then Senator Obama used youthful ebullience, soaring rhetoric, and a precise campaign infrastructure to capture the hearts and minds of the American people.  In 2012, the President seems increasingly lethargic and quick to make excuses for missteps on the campaign trail.
What once was "Hope and Change," now is "Mope and Blame," and this time it's John Kerry under the President's bus.
Edited by Joan Foster, Oct 6 2012, 06:04 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

dsl
Oct 6 2012, 11:42 AM
My sense was that he was condescending on purpose.

It was a stance that conveyed "I have this election in the bag. I know things you don't know that are going to make it turn out in my favor. I showed up tonight because this is one of those things I have to do to keep this job and look like I care,,, but the truth is I really don't give a damn., about this country, these people, or this debate. I'm here because it's the way I get to the next step. I need to be elected to complete my job. But I don't have to like this, and I don't have to answer for anything, because absolutely nothing rides on tonight. I know things you don't know. And my people will see to it that I win."

That was my feeling. The next morning I had a very old coffee taste in my mouth about it. I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop, and I don't think it will be Romney's shoe.

I will not be comfortable until the day AFTER the election and all of the ballot boxes are safely locked. And Romney won.
My opinion, but if obama just showed up then why did he not have a better grasp of his own policies and where he wants the country to go. He did not because he does not know what he is doing. He cant talk about failure so he acted the way he did. The debate started the night with obama looking at Romney and as the debate continues obama looked less and less at obama. It became so bad that by the end of the debate obama was not looking at Romney at all, Obama was mad, or in plain english, pissed. Obama just does not know where we are domestically.

And when it comoes to foreign policy, how can he defend anything. The world right now is a bog failure and all they wanted was to look toward a leader. They looked our way and saw no leader. The result....chaos.

What we are seeing are like reruns of GET SMART.
Edited by chatham, Oct 6 2012, 06:36 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
chatham
Member Avatar

You know, obama keeps saying the rich are out of touch wiit reality. He needs to look at himself more because he doesn't even know what room he is in.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply