Congratulations to President Obama and Mitt Romney for being respectful, civil, dignified, good-natured, articulate and presidential in tonight’s debate.
I was proud of both of them.
Thanks. We needed that.
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Ethics Alarms 
I’ll bet $50 to anyone that we see a completely different demeanor from Obama at the next debate. Look for the President to ‘get tough’, with more coherent, and angry, memorized set pieces.
Maybe. It will be a mistake. Obama doesn’t need more anger or planned diatribes. He needs more leadership ability, better judgment, competent staff, and a lot of luck.
It will be a mistake, and I can hardly wait. The lights behind the scrim are on, and it’s a mess back there. Stacks of unorganized narcissism, uncontrolled egocentrism about to break the leash, a big messianic complex about to fall over onto everything. I suggest his close aides leave the theater now, for their own protection.
This looks like wishful thinking. You wish the president was a horrible person.
I still very fond of the caption I read, around the time of the RNC, below a picture of Clint Eastwood mid-speech: “This perfectly sums up the current Republican campaign. An old white man arguing with an imaginary Barack Obama.”
A comforting fantasy. I suspect it is about out of juice by now, however.
Are you saying that the Republican party isn’t considerably whiter than the nation or that they aren’t misrepresenting Obama? They aren’t saying he’s a socialist? They aren’t saying he’s a Muslim? They aren’t saying that he wants the country to fail? They aren’t saying he raised the deficit?
You really want to argue that he DIDN’T raise the deficit? You do recall that he promised to halve the deficit, right? No, the Republican Party does not say that he is a Muslim, or a Socialist. Some rabid fanatics unfairly say the former, and exaggerators say the latter. That’s not a Party position. Conservative talk radio says that he wants the country to fail. Those people aren’t even Republicans.
The “old white men” stereotype of the GOP is exactly as fair as characterizing the Democrats as the poor, union workers and minorities with their hands out, and equally as offensive. And the Obama of both parties is a myth, but the Republican one—an unprepared and arrogant ideologue in over his head—is a lot closer to the truth.
You really want to argue that he DIDN’T raise the deficit? You do recall that he promised to halve the deficit, right?
Statement two does not apply to statement one. And yes, Obama has lowered the deficit. This isn’t a matter for debate. 1.4 trillion to 1.3 trillion, and likely around 1.1 trillion next year (though current law would put it around 900 billion.)
No, the Republican Party does not say that he is a Muslim, or a Socialist. Some rabid fanatics unfairly say the former, and exaggerators say the latter. That’s not a Party position.
Um what? Pretty much every famous republican has implied that Obama is a muslim at some point with comments like “I don’t know what his religion is, he claims he’s a christian, and that’s good enough for me”. The stimulous, the ACA, and extensions of each social program have been met with charges of socialism throughout the republican party.
No party’s don’t hold official positions on opposing congressmen, but the lion’s share of the elected officials have made comments to such affect. Yes, we they are rapid fanatics and exaggerators, but they’re also the meat of the republican party.
Conservative talk radio says that he wants the country to fail. Those people aren’t even Republicans.
No true scotsman. They just back republican positions and get referenced from republican legislators.
The “old white men” stereotype of the GOP is exactly as fair as characterizing the Democrats as the poor, union workers and minorities with their hands out, and equally as offensive.
Except most democrats aren’t union workers or minorities, and most republicans are white. I’ll agree about the old part is sterotypical, but the male part is a direct jibe on their policies’ affect on women.
And the Obama of both parties is a myth, but the Republican one—an unprepared and arrogant ideologue in over his head—is a lot closer to the truth.
Accept for the part of him being a far left, socialist, marxist, Muslim. The left’s myth prior to the election that he would be a savior was wrong, but I’m not sure what myth you’re talking about currently.
Ugh. You “got” me in my own favorite confusion. My mistake, and let me get out of your trap and explain what is true, and what I meant and should have said: he has added unconscionably to the debt, where it is already at dangerous levels, he has continued to run up absurd deficits, using the 2008 record deficit as an excuse to justify them, and he has shown no interest in getting the deficit down to anything approaching responsible, by such rather mundane measures as insisting that there be a budget. You know, and I know, that what may be an acceptable budget deficit with one level of debt is no longer acceptable or responsible with a higher level. “I reduced the deficit” may be true but is deceitful when interest payments on the debt become a weight on the government’s ability to stay solvent, when its credit rating is going down, when the previous record for a yearly deficit is being irresponsibly used as the new yardstick, and when the political system appears dysfunctional. I have been in sufficient debt in the past that borrowing a lousy 100 dollars for a new suit was irresponsible, because of the extent of other debts, the scarcity of my resources resources, and the extent of my obligations. Then again, when I had relatively little debt, my purchase of a home was reasonable and responsible. Obama refuses to acknowledge this and plays number games; his deception on this topic is cynical and dangerous.
I’d say that lowering the deficit during a recession is absolutely taking the debt and deficit seriously.
He’s been cutting government jobs pretty much continuously, the first president to do that in how long? Despite this, Obama is still portrayed as a big government socialist. Obama could have grown the government like the last few presidents and had an extremely good jobs number with the same complaints. Instead, he has been cutting. Doing exactly what he should do in a (lower c) conservative manor.
Drastic spending cuts are liable to cause a double dip recession (like we’ve seen in europe), and congress refuses to increase taxes. Obama’s been doing as much as he can to reduce the deficit without creating more problems.
Do you have a better idea?
The President has changed his accent and style black/white in his speeches depending on where he is – uptown or downtown, like one would change a tie. He is transparent in this respect. Is this horrible? Not for some, possibly the infamous 47%?
I do the same when speaking with different audiences. It is a bright orator who can adjust their tone/diction/vocabulary/etc. as required to get their point across. I see nothing wrong with that. I am understood by children, folks who have English as a second language, teenagers, the poor, college graduates – I wouldn’t use the same method of communicating for those differing groups. And for the record – I’m not from your so called “infamous 47%”.
I think it’s a form of deception, condescending, and phony. I don’t trust any politician that does this.
It’s condescending to tweak your tone and vocab to match what your audience understands? Instead, you should speak in a way that’s more difficult for your audience? That seems backwards to me. A leader is willing to change superficial qualities. Someone who refuses to engage with their audience cannot be a leader.
Political campaigns tactics are inherently deceitful and phony – it is a multi-billion dollar industry. I especially don’t trust politicians who don’t do their homework and know their audience/constituents. You’ll never convince me they are not “acting” when on the stage or the campaign trail. “Trust” is not a word I use in connection with politicians. They should be questioned, not trusted.
I felt the same way. I wish they both could be president and work out their differences through negotiation to send our country forward. Since that is not possible, I hope whoever wins will LEAD Congress in such a bi-partisan way that progress is made. I did as you suggested and turned the debate off right afterwards and made my own decisions about how it went. I went to sleep feeling much more hopeful about the future. As a side note – I have absolutely no idea who Joe Fowler is talking about. Joe shouldn’t hold his breath waiting for that to happen.
Perhaps Google ‘scrim’? The metaphor isn’t that complicated. So are we on for the $50?
I don’t think it’s the meaning of the words that T. Bird is having difficulty with, more likely it’s attempting to connect them to reality.
Hero worship inevitably leads to disillusion. The liberal response to the debate sure looks like that. So, ready to go the $50?
These statements don’t back your prior insanity: that Obama has a hidden megalomaniacal side, that this is about to come out, that it will hurt everyone around him, and that the people around him should leave him.
To further the metaphor, scrim doesn’t hide things very well. Those who look hard enough can pretty much see whats back there. When the lights go on, it becomes obvious to even the least discerning. Even you.
So, no on the bet, eh? Oh ye of little faith in the dear leader.
You still haven’t backed your comment. You ignored my comment that the meaning of the words was clear, so that you could speak on the topic without saying anything substantive.
As for the bet comments, your logic doesn’t work. Why would believing that Obama will not be meek in the next debate show a lack of faith in Obama?
Oh, Joe Fowler- the mistake is yours indeed. I got your metaphor. But the person you describe is certainly not the President. You can keep your $50. You are calling someone else egocentric, but you are quite sure of your psychic ability to know a person based on a simple blog comment. My, how quickly you jump to conclusions based on little to nothing. I’m not “liberal”. And I don’t worship “heroes” . Few politicians fit my definition of the word. And if I were a “betting” kind of person, it certainly wouldn’t
be with you!
Oh, tbird…can you imagine a world where blog comments are about a group, and not you personally? My, I bet you can.
If you weren’t including Tbird in the class of people there, then the statement was a non sequitur.
I take back my last statement. I made it work. I understand tbird’s response, as that was mine too, but I can see a path that makes sense where the implication on tbird is not necessary.
Your oft-employed device of attempting to goad others into reframing a clear statement to somehow satisfy you is tiresome in the extreme.
This comment isn’t related to anything I wrote. I pointed out that you still haven’t responded to specific criticism and that another one of your statements didn’t make sense. I’m not trying to goad you into anything. I also haven’t claimed your statements aren’t clear. They are clear. Just not supported.
See my comment on “Unethical Quote of the Day.” Obama blew it. Period. And as I said in my other comment, now that he has a record of action instead of promises for a Utopian America, he can’t and couldn’t defend himself. Ethics hero? Wishful thinking.
If Obama’s actions could be attacked successfully, their wouldn’t be attacks saying we don’t know who Obama is yet, and that he’ll act completely differently if granted a second term. Fail.
It certainly changed some of the ways I view Romney. I still don’t think he’d be a good president, though- possibly even worse than Obama. Obama has relatively poor executive leadership and has to rely on partisan games to get things through congress; I don’t expect that to change if he’s re-elected. If anything, the latter may get worse. However… I don’t believe anything Romney says, or has ever said. He wants to be President for the sake of being President, like a dog chasing a car. What does he do when he gets there? He didn’t say that last night- just more generalizations and half-truths (Obama was no better, but at least has a consistent record to predict from). I suspect that Romney would be beholden to the highest bidder and to the good ol’ boys in the financial sector. The only bright spot I see with Romney is that he might stand up to the social conservatives, if the polls blow the right way.
I thought it was an excellent debate, and I’m proud of both of them. I did expect Romney to do well in this debate, even “win”, because I feel Domestic might be his strong suit. Though, I also thought that since Romney had a good answer for each individual thing, that when you packaged them up into a “global view”, they are likely to create conflicting priorities and be unworkable.
It seemed to me that Obama was biting his tongue and if he could say it, he would have said “Yeah, good luck with that. I know how the real world works now, and what you say sounds nice but isn’t practical.”
When the debates turn toward Foreign Policy, I think we’ll see Romney say things that Americans might not want to hear. Certainly, I think if Romney puts his best foot forward on a Foreign Policy debate, it will provide him with the largest gains, since I think that is his weakness.
PS – For the record, Obama currently has my vote, but I am open to changing my mind.
Tim: agree with much of your comment but do you really think Foreign Policy is Obama’s strong suit? If anything, I’d think that it’s the last thing he’d want to debate considering the current state of the Mid-East, Benghazi cover-up, snubbing Netanyahu, etc.
I don’t think I said anything about it being Obama’s strong suit. Just that it was a clear weakness for Romney, ergo, if Foreign Policy is important to a particular voter, Obama is the default. Given this perception of Romney, if he comes to that debate and shows the public a positive image, it’s where I believe he’d gain the most swing voters…but I don’t think that will happen.
Tim: I apologize, I did misinterpret your comment a bit. That said, I’m not sure why you think it’s a clear weakness for Romney a that, by default, voters will side with Obama on foreign policy, Had the attacks in Libya (and other, related, unrest) occurred years ago I think you might be correct – but it’s fresh in the minds of the people who pay attention to such things. The only success Obama can point to is the death of OBL, and now that will have to be downplayed lest it be seen as further “spiking the football”. In any event, it should be an interesting debate.
Thanks James. While I agree that you can easily identify things people will be unhappy about with regard to Obama’s actions, in the arena of Foreign Policy, that just sets the stage, raises/lowers the bar. It’s the default position…it’s the track we are on. If someone is interested in a new tact for Foreign Policy, they have to turn to Mitt and listen to what he says he will do different than the President. 3 things stick in my recent memory, and I can’t even tell you the context or if it’s accurate: 1) Mitt the Twit in England 2) Russia is our greatest enemy and 3) Bomb Iran.
If that’s all I can think of on the topic of Romney’s Foreign Policy, then Romney’s fallen short in properly communicating his strategy. I think the the foreign policy debate will afford him the opportunity to “correct course” and sway voters, like me, who only remember the generalities.
I’d throw in that Rmoney is vulnerable on Israel. Vulnerable because, while Israel has great support, Romney has supported Netanyahu over the President of the United States. There’s room to score points with invalid attacks on Obama, but they open large riposte possibilities.
That’s an interesting take, and I hadn’t thought of it.
I think orator’s should change their way of speaking to different groups, especially children. But the voters are not children. And Obama is the President. He seems to vilify the right when speaking to the left in his rallies and it seems to be somewhat based on class/race. I don’t know, but I feel that when the Ambassador in Libya asked for help and more security from the White House, if these poor guys had not been so blonde and blue eyed, more help would have been forthcoming. I hope I am wrong, because I believe in equal and fair treatment for all people regardless of race. The problem is, I don’t think Obama does.
He seems to vilify the right when speaking to the left in his rallies and it seems to be somewhat based on class/race.
How is that a change in the way he speaks? Also, do you have any support that his comments about the right are not accurate? How about that vilification is based on class/race?
Why don’t you think Obama believes in equal and fair treatment for all people regardless of race? This sounds to me like Christians claiming they’re being persecuted when people treat them equally instead of specially.
We are self-employed people and the fact is our health insurance has absolutely doubled from 4 years ago. And I do not for a minute think it will go down a penny with Obama care. Yes, I feel very special. And if you’re a millionaire in this country right now, I hope you’re wearing a shroud so that no one knows. The style and the content of Obama’s speeches vilify the “people with money” constantly and Obama says he wants to fix this. If I hear one more time that everyone deserves a fair shot, I’m going to scream. This is America, hello, isn’t that why we’re all here in the first place??
We are self-employed people and the fact is our health insurance has absolutely doubled from 4 years ago. And I do not for a minute think it will go down a penny with Obama care.
Do you have a reason for this belief?
And if you’re a millionaire in this country right now, I hope you’re wearing a shroud so that no one knows. The style and the content of Obama’s speeches vilify the “people with money” constantly and Obama says he wants to fix this.
Where’s this vilification of people with money? I don’t see it. I see someone making a case that the wealthy and able should pay more so the poor and unable can live a decent life. The rare vilification has been reserved, not for people with money, but for people who acted as villians. Those that lied about derivatives and the like.
If I hear one more time that everyone deserves a fair shot, I’m going to scream. This is America, hello, isn’t that why we’re all here in the first place??
You’re going to scream because Obama actually supports the American dream? I don’t get it.
They have good reason to believe that their health insurance is not going to go down in cost with Obamacare. Eliminating lifetime maximum payouts, eliminating preexisting condition clauses, and allowing people to keep dependents on their insurance longer does not decrease costs, it increases it. When my university went to get a new policy after the first provisions of Obamacare went in, the policy went up 76%. I think that was only from the lifetime maximum payout provision (I don’t think the other provisions have taken effect fully). To keep the policy at about the same price, my deductible went from $1200/year to $7000. Calling it the “Affordable Health Care Act” is outrageously dishonest. It may increase coverage and cover additional people, but it definitely isn’t making healthcare more affordable for most Americans. To add insult to injury, we get to pay higher taxes for the penalties on the “Cadillac” health care plans that teachers such as the ones in Chicago get. I have less coverage at a higher costs and then I have to pay more in taxes to pay the penalties the teachers get for having their “$100/year deductible, no copay, $2 prescription” policies. It is no wonder the auto executives are joking that they are marrying schoolteachers for the healthcare benefits.
By your logic, it’s reasonable to say that the Green Bay Packers were a bad team last year by talking solely about their defense. Yes, there are things in the law that, standing alone, would lead to increased health care costs, Just like the Packers sieve of a defense led to losses. The Packers were still 15-1 though, despite the bad defense. Why? Because they had a killer offense. Just like Obamacare. The mandatory coverage provision on it’s own contributes to lower premiums in 3 different ways (less insurance relative overhead per insuree, less provider overhead per patient, and less money lost to expensive emergency room care of uninsured).
So long as you’re arguing that the Packers were a bad team last year, I think it’s safe to see that you aren’t reasonable.
Perhaps you’re a recent immigrant, but personally, I’m here in the first place because I was born here. And if you’re tempted to say that I’m free to go some place else – like Canada or much of Europe where studies in recent years have shown social mobility to be much more attainable – I would remind you that even physical relocation is an opportunity that’s not equally available to everybody.
My point is not that these other places are better alternatives to America – they aren’t – it’s that there isn’t anything magical about the physical borders of the United States that make life here universally and perennially fair for all.
There’s something dangerous about saying “we’re special, therefore nothing needs to be done to help our citizens or reform our structures.” The very fact that we’re special is attributable to great men of the past and progressive policies that established and preserved real economic opportunity. It’s not just because “this is America,” and if you believe that it is, you risk blinding yourself to very real problems that have yet to be solved.
The insurance companies are charging more I’ve come to understand, because they’re gearing up for the people who can’t pay so they’re making the money while they can on the people who can pay. We work hard, We’re middle class. I’m all for helping out the disabled and the poor, if they truly need it. But, I don’t think we have a system in place that can keep the un-entitled from ransacking benefits from the really entitled portion of the populations that needs it. We hear that every day in the news. So back to The American Dream? Does that include the highest percentage of food stamps, and welfare that is being given out under this administration? Really, is that the American Dream? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. Now I have to get back to work.
The insurance companies are charging more I’ve come to understand, because they’re gearing up for the people who can’t pay so they’re making the money while they can on the people who can pay.
Rate increases have not accelerated. They’ve also been capped in certain situations now. Insurance companies are raising rates now for the same reason they were before: escalating costs and market protection that allows them to have escalating profits. They only difference now is the reasons being given.
We work hard, We’re middle class. I’m all for helping out the disabled and the poor, if they truly need it.
Really? What do you mean by “truly” need it?
But, I don’t think we have a system in place that can keep the un-entitled from ransacking benefits from the really entitled portion of the populations that needs it.
So… we shouldn’t support the poor then? it’d be better to let them be hurt so the occasional cheater can’t cheat?
We hear that every day in the news.
We hear alot of things everyday on the news. That doesn’t mean they’re true or relevant.
back to The American Dream? Does that include the highest percentage of food stamps, and welfare that is being given out under this administration? Really, is that the American Dream? I’m sorry, but I don’t get it. Now I have to get back to work.
The highest percentage of food stamps and welfare is due to the economy. it absolutely is part of the American Dream to keep these people from starving and allow them to get back to working. Edward nailed it above. These programs aren’t the American Dream, but they’re necessary to support the American Dream.
I’m puzzled. How does a sincere and entirely positive post generate so much incivility and invective? Something is amiss.
It’s called the political season.
Did you notice that each somewhat ugly comment subthread seems to start with someone attacking Obama in ways unrelated to the post and/or chimerical? I say this because after Obama’s questionable performance, I’d think it would be the Obama-ite’s that would feel the need to randomly attack Romney.
I also wouldn’t say that this thread hasn’t been civil.
What do you think of the President making that comment about Donald Trump having a size complex or something? It was kinda funny but struck me as inappropriate. Is Trump not a private citizen? Or is it okay because he has injected himself so much into the debate? He’s probably thrilled to have been mentioned but I wondered if that raised any ethics questions with you. Obama could have mentioned him as his example of a small business owner (lol) without having a dig at his personal flaws..He’s not a policy maker after all.
This is flat learning curve territory for Obama…no ten presidents have criticized public citizens by name as frequently as he has in four years. It’s a misuse of power, absolutely. Even when the target is a jerk like Trump.