To some degree you do. That you say you don't is akin to "the emperor's clothes are the finest garments." And it is not to be offensive in any way, just a commentary on PR, propaganda, who Obama really is, how he's been "handled" and so on.
I think recent history has shown that debates don't change much. The 2008 and 2004 debates also happened in October, and as I noted in other posts the momentum from mid-September seems predictive of election results.
So are we worshiping a false god, then? I'd like to know before I sacrifice any more small animals. People in my neighborhood are starting to complain about the burning smell.
I think W was handled, too. You guys ragged on him for talking stupid, etc. Yet I see him in old reruns of campaign ads and debates against Ann Richards in Texas and he was not the same guy.
I find that once I insult a fellow poster, they tend to stop listening to anything I have to say, and I'm stuck arguing with myself. It's pretty counter-productive. You can argue with yourself that it wasn't an insult, but you aren't going to convince the person insulted. Just something to think about Denny. YMMV. Anyway, it seems to me every debate is about two things, perceptions and facts. This thread focuses heavily on perception (how the candidates come across.) I'd encourage people to look at FactCheck.org to see how much of the truth got stretched: http://factcheck.org/2012/10/dubious-denver-debate-declarations/
There's a dichotomy to Obama's performance that I can't answer to, and maybe some of the more Obama-supporting here can help: I'm not going to use the "emperor has no clothes" analogy, but I think anyone would say that the strengths of Obama (even since 2004) have been that he's a great public speaker, that's able to get his message out (whether or not you think there's substance to it) and that he's smart as a whip. Some criticize that he's teleprompter-dependent or whatever, but I don't think anyone thinks he's dumb or can't hold a conversation. On the other hand, last night I saw in him someone who was not polished (the "ums" and "ahs" and pauses mid-stream), who wasn't able to give a narrative that made sense (whether you want to call it a talking point or not) and who didn't seem to have as good a grasp as his opponent on the issues brought up in the debate (maybe with different questions in the next two he'll be stronger)--and even when he tried to bring up anecdotes or stats he seemed to fumble them (the Cleveland Clinic story comes to mind immediately). So the question that came to my mind (that I can't answer) is: does he really have a worse grasp on the issues brought up last night (health care, economy) after 4 years of governing through them than his opponent, does he get flustered when confronted (like Denny's article about being "handled" for so long that he doesn't expect or like hard questions), or a combination of both? I disagree with some of his policies, but (somewhat egotistically, maybe) I think that I could've hit back against Romney harder last night with facts and policy rebuttals and probably have a better overall showing than the President did.
I think you are missing a big part of what happened during this debate. Romney has been villinized by democrats (rightly or wrongly) as a stuck up business man who cares little for the less fortunate citizens and is only concerned with money and increasing the quality of life for those with money. On top of that he is a bumbling fool who is out of touch with middle America. After this debate, I think Ronmey did a lot to shake that image. I think people are going to remember a bumbling Obama and composed and well spoken Romney more than the big bird comment. But now the pressure shifts, as the independents that Romeny now has their attention, will be expecting more of the same in this next debate. Obama now goes into the debate as even or maybe an underdog. Should be interesting. Obama could have ended it last night by polishing off the image that was created for Romney, instead there are probably a lot of confused independents . . . like myself.
The election isn't usually won or lost in the debates. Romney did a good job last night and most likely will do just as good of a job in the next few debates. Nothing I saw of Romney nor of Obama changes my stance on them, save that Romney has a quicker whit then he I gave him credit for after watching the republican debates. There really needs to be a fact checker after each debate, those two were throwing out so many contradictory numbers it was insane and 90% of people who watched those debates aren't going to check to see if either of them was screwing facts or telling a version of the truth (because we all know a politician will never say the cold hard truth, no wiggle room in that).
Where's the insult? I made a commentary on how the campaigns are run and how the politicians are handled. I think the PR thing is spreading a very distorted picture of who Romney is. It's a combination of Obama's spending on attack ads, the outside groups spending, the media spinning, etc. Similarly, there's a distorted picture of who Obama is. And I don't think it's any sort of insult to you. What I am seeing all over the place is guys like Chris Matthews and Michael Moore scratching their heads and wondering what happened to the Obama that gives great speeches. The emperor showed up for the debate and people saw his clothes for what they really are. Again, no insult. Just you're in good company (Matthews, Moore, et al).
I'm curious... What specifics (other than the tax deduction limit) made you feel better about Romney winning?
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...gging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html Andrew Sullivan live blogging. Basically saying "where's the emperor in his new clothes that I've come to expect?"
0.012% of a $3.8 trillion budget (for 2013) is $456 MILLION. Does it really seem reasonable that we need to be spending $456 MILLION per year on a public tv station? People are so quick to point out a small percentage, but those millions and billions of dollars start to add up.
Well, I think one way to look at it would be this way. What are similar programs that they spend that much $$ on, AND do they have the positive influence/educational impact on children that PBS does? Also, what is the total budget for PBS, and what % of the $$ from the Government is their total PBS budget? I think the Government should audit EVERYTHING not just pick and chose easy targets (you know, PBS is socialism, etc). PBS (or planned parenthood, or others) are easy targets for people because they seem simple and they're known quantities. Instead of saying "I WON'T cut the Military Budget!" I'd much rather the candidate say "we'll go through the military budget, and cut what isn't necessary and what our military leaders don't want/use/need". There is probably a lot of bloated spending in the military, but if you dare talk about cutting it you're unpatriotic, etc.
From the military perspective, it's not that way at all. From the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs to me to the sailors in my unit, the vast majority of military members understand that to get the budget reined in, it requires military spending to be cut as well. The "unpatriotic" part (if you want to say it) is when people toss out a number willy-nilly ("Super-Committee can't decide, so get rid of XTrillion from somewhere!!11!") without looking at requirements, missions, or strategic plans.
Sorry, but that just isn't a reasonable way to determine whether a certain spend is necessary. You don't make a decision whether or not to spend on a particular project based on how much a completely different, unrelated project costs. Also, it doesn't matter what percentage of the total PBS budget comes from the government. We either are spending $450 MILLION or we're not. It is a strawman to argue that only PBS or planned parenthood are being picked on. It was an example, not an entire plan.
