Obama vs Romney Debate

[henry quirk]

"You've made it very clear that you don't want to help anybody..."

Not true. I help folks 'I' deem in need...'you' don't get to make that determination for me...certainly, some jackass in government doesn't get to make that determination for me

#

"That's what you're saying you've gotten / will get from both of these guys..."

Indeed. What other fuckin' reason is there to vote for any of 'em if not for the potential benefit that candidate might bring if, or when, elected? If you have another reason for voting: I'd like to hear it.

#

"I can't believe you vote at all"

Irrelevant whether I do or don't. After a fashion: I'm payin' (like you) the salary of the Number One Public Servant. I think this entitles me (and you) to question a potential (or current) employee.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Oh no, Romney lied about the binders, he didn't ask for them.

What actually happened was that in 2002 — prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration — a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected.

Well so what, he still appointed women.

First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.

But he did appoint them.

Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006.

Um, maybe the the women couldn't hack it because he used the MassGAP list instead of his own.

Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

link

[BigV]

I could only watch the debates on the radio and some of the voices seemed familiar. It seems like the audience members at the debate and the people featured in this video were drawn from the same pool.

I don't know... maybe it's just me.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by infinite monkey

Funny tweets during the debate (oh, and I called it! Knew the binder comment was going to get picked up and batted about!)
--snip

Yep! You sure did!

[infinite monkey]

See my current usertitle.

[henry quirk]

...what crap.

Again: mediocre of intellect and thought (the both of 'em).

You folks can follow either as you like.

I won't.

[Flint]

I think Obama did very well on repeating over and over how Romney's policies are 'all over the place' (regardless of whether they are or not, he says it so many times you're convinced there must be something to it); also the phrase 'as commander in cheif' sounds much more authoritative--as compared to a guy who, by definition, isn't already the president; also Obama had a finely crafted program of implying Romney's lack of knowledge (Russia as the greatest threat without the context of how different threats are defined; the 'apology tour' as something which was a 'whopper' when fact-checking is not applicable to an obviously subjective matter of opinion); and of course, Obama had really great zingers! I think these are all things that will stick with people despite their lack of substantive merit. I wish Obama had made a better case for his principles, for us thinkers. I have red flags that go up when a speaker relies too heavily on emotion.


By contrast, I think Romney had the problem that I often run into as an IT guy: facts are boring. Sound, traditional ideas aren't sexy. Listening to an executive-level businessman speak about the broad view of matters, wherein large chunks of ideas are zipped in small keyword packages, for brevity's sake, tends to, when not examined thoroughly, appear to contain deceptively less information than if fully expounded. I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Flint

By contrast, I think Romney had the problem that I often run into as an IT guy: facts are boring. Sound, traditional ideas aren't sexy. Listening to an executive-level businessman speak about the broad view of matters, wherein large chunks of ideas are zipped in small keyword packages, for brevity's sake, tends to, when not examined thoroughly, appear to contain deceptively less information than if fully expounded. I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.

That's what Obama did in the first debate and got creamed. He learned.

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's what Obama did in the first debate and got creamed. He learned.

Excellent point.

[Big Sarge]

I think President Obama really scored some points with this debate. It will all come down to those battleground states and electoral votes.

[Ibby]

Originally Posted by Flint

I got it, I understood what he was saying, but as a technical person who deals with logic all day long, I tend to latch on to concepts like: the guy who is telling me that he knows how to do something can demonstrate that he has previously been successful at doing this thing. That counts more than rhetoric, to me. That counts more than the other guy having great zingers. To me.

The thing is, to me, the guy with proof that he can do this thing is Obama, and Rmoney is the one with the zingers and the problem record.

[Flint]

Originally Posted by Ibby

The thing is, to me, the guy with proof that he can do this thing is Obama, and Romney is the one with the zingers and the problem record.

I understand we all look at things with a certain viewpoint, and it's hard to disentangle our observations from our preferences, but I do observe that as a Governor (not the President, but still a bigger job than anyone we'll ever know has done), Romney worked across the aisle with Democratic leaders to do a bunch of things that everyone always says they are going to do, but he actually got them done (they happened under his leadership), i.e. a balanced budget, top-performing education system, and healthcare reform.

You don't have to like him, but these are good things. He knows how to do these things.



On the zingers, come on dude. Google "romney obama zingers" ...
Obama has been unanimously crowned the king of zingers. Don't take that away from him--he worked hard for that title!

[Sheldonrs]

Originally Posted by Flint

I understand we all look at things with a certain viewpoint, and it's hard to disentangle our observations from our preferences, but I do observe that as a Governor (not the President, but still a bigger job than anyone we'll ever know has done), Romney worked across the aisle with Democratic leaders to do a bunch of things that everyone always says they are going to do, but he actually got them done (they happened under his leadership), i.e. a balanced budget, top-performing education system, and healthcare reform.

You don't have to like him, but these are good things. He knows how to do these things.



On the zingers, come on dude. Google "romney obama zingers" ...
Obama has been unanimously crowned the king of zingers. Don't take that away from him--he worked hard for that title!

I was living in MA when he was Governor. He wasn't even in the state for over 400 days during his 4-year term. The things that got done were done mostly without much if any input from Romney. He put his NAME to the popular things, but that's about it.
That's the main reason he had all his records sealed when he left.

[xoxoxoBruce]

While he was governor, Massachusetts;
1. Ranked 47th in job growth.
2. Suffered the second-largest labor force decline in the nation.
3. Lost 14 percent of its manufacturing jobs.
4. Experienced “below average” economic growth and was “often near the bottom”.
5. Piled on more debt than any other state.

[Stormieweather]

He says he did all these great things as governor, but really, a lot of them occurred or were put in motion before he was elected. As Bruce stated above, the actual change in MA during Romney's leadership was dismal.

He can take credit for Romneycare, upon which Obamacare is based. Of course, he says he would repeal Obamacare as soon as elected and do something else.