Sight Unseen

I didn’t watch the debate last night and I haven’t read any commentary on it yet today. So, y’all, what did you think?

Metric: at one point during the debate’s time slot Netflix crashed. I interpret that as either tremendous disinterest in the debate or the debate was boring or both.

Metric: after the Netflix crash I went over and looked at InTrade. Although the sentiment over there still reflected an overwhelming likelihood that the president would be re-elected, the president’s odds had already dropped 5 points while the debate was going on. I take it the president did not have a good night.

Update

The New York Times commentators (mostly grudgingly) say that Mitt Romney won the debate. From Timothy Egan:

Mitt Romney clearly was more aggressive, more chipper, better focused on attacks against the president. Forget about the zingers he rehearsed — a few were launched, though they sounded flat. Romney was loaded with the Mormon equivalent of Red Bull, and it showed.

On cosmetics, on delivery and on zip, Romney won. He may move some people who think he’s a cold, unlikeable plutocrat. He was a warmer, more likeable plutocrat. You can change the man — and Thursday night’s Romney was clearly a polished remodel — but you can’t change the policies.

From Harold Meyerson:

Does all this matter, with so few voters out there who have yet to make up their minds? Hard to say, but Romney is sure to get a bounce in the tone of media coverage, and some major GOP donors who were about to spend their remaining dough on senatorial and congressional candidates might decide to throw more money Romney’s way. For his part, Obama will be under intense pressure to step up his game, be more engaged, come out blazing, in the two remaining debates. He needs to, and his Beltway supporters can’t count solely on the Nats to lift their spirits.

Colby King compares the debate to the first Patterson-Johansson boxing match:

After winning the heavyweight, title at age 21, Patterson dusted off three contenders who never should have joined him in the ring. But when he went up against Johansson, Sweden’s top heavyweight, Patterson met, well not quite his match, but, a fighter who wasn’t the least bit scared of him, and who could, most important of all, hit, and hit hard. Johansson whipped Patterson, knocking the champion down seven times in the third round before the referee stopped the fight.

Patterson regained his title in a rematch, and defeated Johansson in a third contest. But the similarity to tonight’s presidential debate is inescapable: Obama got his butt kicked in Denver by a contender who was well prepared, unafraid, and willing to take it to his opponent regardless of the rules of engagement. Romney put Obama on the canvas tonight.

Can the president clear his head, regain his footing, and find some fortitude within himself for the next contest? He had better do so. Otherwise, he has the title “former” in his future.

Daniel Henninger:

This is a president, dismissive and condescending to any opposition, who went into that debate in Denver and essentially got his head handed to him by better-prepared opponent.

What was especially damaging to Mr. Obama is that when it became clear early in the initial discussion of tax policy that Mitt Romney was going to take his argument to a deeper level, the president’s response was essentially to start cutting and pasting stock lines from speeches he’s been giving for years. After awhile, he looked like a guy who was rummaging through a drawer for old audio cassettes. “The oil industry gets $4 billion a year in corporate welfare.” He even rolled out the corporate jets.

The president sounded like someone who had simply run out of ideas. His challenger was elaborating detail on his policies, and the president was the candidate living in the past. His references to what he would do with a second term were minimal. Instead, he had to spend most of the 90 minutes trying to defend his policies from Mr. Romney’s critique.

The incumbency brings enormous advantages but it has its handicaps as well. You must inevitably defend your record.

James Fallows:

If you had the sound turned off, Romney looked calm and affable through more of the debate than Obama did, and the incumbent president more often looked peeved. Romney’s default expression, whether genuine or forced, was a kind of smile; Obama’s, a kind of scowl. I can understand why Obama would feel exasperated by these claims and arguments. Every president is exasperated by what he considers facile claims about what he knows to be impossibly knotty problems. But he let it show.

That’s an important observation. Academic studies of popular reactions to presidential debates (yes, there are such things) suggest that people don’t consider the factual data being presented so much as the social cues. They listen to the debates as though they had the sound off.

The Romney campaign is predicated on the Obama Administration’s record of the last four years. The Obama campaign is predicated on Barack Obama being a better alternative than Mitt Romney. Based on the commentary on this debate Mitt Romney accomplished what he needed to by it while the president did not.

Andrew Sullivan (in his live-blog of the debate):

Look: you know how much I love the guy, and you know how much of a high information viewer I am, and I can see the logic of some of Obama’s meandering, weak, professorial arguments. But this was a disaster for the president for the key people he needs to reach, and his effete, wonkish lectures may have jolted a lot of independents into giving Romney a second look.

Obama looked tired, even bored; he kept looking down; he had no crisp statements of passion or argument; he wasn’t there. He was entirely defensive, which may have been the strategy. But it was the wrong strategy. At the wrong moment.

Kevin Drum:

Noodling a little more about this, I think my disagreement with the media consensus is more over Romney’s performance than Obama’s. I agree that Obama didn’t bring his A game. But I didn’t think Romney was all that good either. Yes, he attacked, but he did it in a curiously hyperactive way, constantly insisting on getting in one more rebuttal and then using it to go over every single point that Obama had just made. I thought that was both confusing and exhausting. Romney also made frequent references to things that Beltway junkies understand but ordinary viewers probably didn’t.

Like most of those defending the president’s performance in the debate he’s looking at the information rather than the presentation and, as I noted above, that may not be how most people evaluate these debates.

Josh Marshall seems to be hoping that media fact-checking will provide a band-aid for the debate. He asks “Are they coming to have a discussion or coming to make a point?” Neither. They’re coming to leave an impression.

72 comments… add one
  • Icepick Link

    Didn’t watch it, although I may tonight. (The Missus is interested, kinda.)

    I did read a lot of post-debate commentary. Pretty much everyone thought Obama lost. The most worshipful of his followers were damned near suicidal. Chris Matthews? The tingle is gone. Andrew Sullivan? Best we not speak of him!

    And I thought OTB’s reaction was funny. Within about an hour of the end of the debate they had relegated those stories down to sub-headers. Nothing to see here, folks, move along! They were featuring a Todd Akin story instead. Yeah, that was clearly the big political story of the night! John Persona was beside himself at the prevarications of Romney. He was actually rhapsodizing about the honesty of Bill Clinton, and not in an ironic or satirical way.

  • Icepick Link

    I did see a few “highlights” afterwards. In the clips I saw Obama just looked tired, like a man who was done. That’s subjective, but he also looked very thin. He was wearing a shirt that fit properly at the collar, which I hadn’t seen him in recently. It just accentuated how thin his neck is. And the skin on his face looked a little loose. I kept thinking of Callista Flockhart. Romney, from what I saw, looked like Romney.

  • PD Shaw Link

    A reaction: I wasted too much time thinking about good questions to ask at the debate, when the moderator’s modus was “. . . And how do you react to what he just said?”

    Also, Romney lost the youth vote; my kids turned on him when he threatened Big Bird.

    I didn’t have strong feelings about who was “the winner.” Romney often appeared to be pressing, talking a bit too fast, too eager to talk over the moderator. Obama’s slower speech was a bit more calming, but was peppered with too many “uhs” and projected less certainty.

  • Icepick Link

    The dumbest commentary has been about Obama’s stance. At one point he was caught with one foot down and the other foot up with the toe pointed at the ground. In other words, over 90 minutes of standing in place Obama once struck a pose that was stereotypically feminine. I wouldn’t be surprised if Romney struck a similar pose at some point. (I know I have done so when standing for long periods of time. Anything to shift the muscles!) Standing in place for that long is difficult. They should let them take turns at a lectern while walking back to someplace to sit afterwards. The motions would undoubtedly help for physical comfort.

    After thinking about the reactions overnight I imagine Romney probably ‘won’ but that this isn’t the important thing. More importantly he did what he needed to do, which was look like he wasn’t too small for the office. The reactions of the media and partisans are almost certainly overblown, as they have been so after every one of these things I ever watched. (I used to watch these things as a matter of course. That started breaking down in 2008, certainly, and maybe in 2004.)

    The biggest thing for any non-incumbent is to get up there and look like they could file the role. (An incumbent has already established that one way or another.) And I haven’t heard anything that makes me think that Romney didn’t pass that test easily. We’ll see.

  • Icepick Link

    Romney used Rob Portman for his sparring partner in debate prep. (That is, Portman was a stand-in for Obama.) Obama used John Kerry as Romney’s stand-in. That might be the difference right there!

  • I kept thinking of Callista Flockhart.

    That may be what comes of having Michelle as your diet planner.

  • Icepick Link

    Yes, [Romney] attacked, but he did it in a curiously hyperactive way, constantly insisting on getting in one more rebuttal and then using it to go over every single point that Obama had just made.

    I have seen that mentioned in many places. That strikes me of who Romney is: very energetic, very intelligent, very detail oriented, very competitive. He doesn’t want to miss or give up on a single point, and he seems like a guy who never has enough time in the day.

    That may be what comes of having Michelle as your diet planner.

    Funny! But he’s out and away from her enough that he can cheat all he wants. (I mean on a diet.) Besides, Michelle doesn’t look anywhere near that thin. He’s not eating enough. Uneasy is the head ….

  • I have seen that mentioned in many places.

    This hearkens back to an argument I’ve had with Michael Reynolds from time to time. The presidency is a big job and every president carves out a piece of it to mold it into the job he wants to do. IMO President Obama is at heart a consultant, i.e. staff. Romney on the other hand and for good or ill is a manager. Whether you think that being engaged, forceful, and enthusiastic is good or bad depends on what you’re looking for in a president.

  • Icepick Link

    Romney on the other hand and for good or ill is a manager.

    Manager or executive? (Executives, in my view, have the power to say “Yes”, while managers only have the power to say “No”.)

  • PD Shaw Link

    I sort of agree with Drum, but would characterize Romney as pressing, speaking so quickly that he was in danger of not being understood. Romney mollified this by stating these are the n principles I intend to guide my administration, and then hitting the bullet points succinctly. It was an order out of chaos approach that worked well.

    Ultimately though, its hard to gauge how Romney did with voters because I don’t think we have a good feeling of what voter’s expectations or views on Romney have been.

  • Steve Link

    Worked until midnight so i didnt see it. Between cases this morning have read a bit. Comes across much different. Awful lot of playing loose with the facts.

    Steve

  • Drew Link

    “The presidency is a big job and every president carves out a piece of it to mold it into the job he wants to do.”

    This is a very insightful comment. Executives can have a tendency to do what they want, their comfort zone if you will, rather than is what is demanded of them. In our business we are constantly on the lookout for this tendency. It’s a death knell. A real executive observes their organizations capabilities, and their competitive environment and acts accordingly. They don’t do what is comfortable. This is the infamous “if you are a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

    “IMO President Obama is at heart a consultant, i.e. staff.”

    I would concur, and at the risk of inciting dispute, even worse, he’s an academic. He’s no executive, and no leader. He’s the dweeb that a real executive gives a homework assignment to, and asks for a report in a week.

    “Romney on the other hand and for good or ill is a manager. Whether you think that being engaged, forceful, and enthusiastic is good or bad depends on what you’re looking for in a president.”

    Well, it’s an executive and leadership position. I would argue that it is good. Policy formulation and execution is vastly different than wonkishness. Romney has the capacity to delve into wonkish analysis. He also, because of his experience, has the capacity to lead and execute. He knows what an effective executive is. The two are not mutually exclusive. Obama seems to get exasperated that people just don’t do what he wants because of his self perceived magnificence. That’s a staff guy, who thinks everyone around him is an idiot, and has no clue how to be an executive. He’s been coddled by the press, and perhaps those he has surrounded himself with, to his detriment. This is not good.

  • TastyBits Link

    I started watching the debate, and I thought I would be switching to the History channel. I did not, and I could not. I took a break, but I had to rewind the Tivo. It was astounding.

    Mitt Romney demonstrated he is a leader, and he demonstrated President Obama is not. This was a game changer. The Clinton Democrats will abandon President Obama. The race is now between Bill Clinton and Mitt Romney.

    @Drew

    You should go over to OTB and take a victory lap.

    @jan

    There is still a lot of time left, and there may be a few more twists and turns. The polls are going to swing to Romney, but you still not trust them. The polls are not capturing the mood of the country.

  • Icepick Link

    Algore had the bestest debate analysis ever!

    There might even be some truth to it….

  • The president needs an altitude adjustment? Kentucky should be better for him. Except for all those damned Jacksonians.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Drew

    I do not know if you saw the debate or not, but Mitt Romney looked like what I envision Jack Welsh would. He was forceful but polite, and I cannot imagine anybody calling him an a$$hole. I do not mean any disrespect to you, but you are no Mitt Romney.

  • Well, it’s an executive and leadership position.

    There’s a difference between the two political parties in what they want in a president. Clinton, in typical Clintonian fashion, summarized this as “Republicans want to fall in line. Democrats want to fall in love”.

    For many Democrats the ideal president is FDR or JFK—inspirational and, essentially, Wilsonian. The ideal Republican president is actually Eisenhower (his was the model that Reagan followed, after all). That’s an executive management model.

    I can only chuckle when President Obama compares himself with Eisenhower (or Lincoln!). For Eisenhower the presidency was the capstone of more than forty years of achievement. He’d been a manager for that long. He’d managed the Allies, the largest organization in human history. That was not only a managerial achievement but a political and even an athletic accomplishment. I remember when Ike was president. There’s no comparison. Except golf, of course.

  • Drew Link

    “You should go over to OTB and take a victory lap.”

    Nah. That’s just a zoo, these days. I actually have a much more sober view than the “hooray for our side” at OTB. The country has real problems.

    As a leveraged finance guy I cringe at what I observe on the national balance sheet…..and the looming and latent liabilities. Can we have a CFO, please????? As an investor and manager, I cringe at what I observe as the posture of government vs businesses and job creators. I genuinely feel for those out of work, and with bleak prospects under the current administration. We have a frequent commenter right here with this problem.

    I cringe at what I beleive will ultimately blow up into rampant inflation, destroying savings, and the low interest rates for “safe” asset classes that are destroying the purchasing power of fixed income or near fixed income mature people. This is a travesty of the first order. And only designed to get an irresponsible government out of the hole they dug.

    These are real problems. And we have a President who in no way, shape or form is capable of dealing with them. Not on his best day. I take no joy in that, but the steely eyed analyst in me knows a day of reckoning is in the offing and this guy isn’t up to the task. And real live people are going to suffer. This isn’t Bears vs Packers, this is real world.

    I don’t agree with all that Mitt Romney says or proposes. I think he has a prodigious task in front of him. But I do believe with all sincerity that the current guy is, in an executive sense, a buffoon, who rode a populist wave into office and then looked around and said, as the Robert Redford character “now what?” with Romney I think we have a fighting chance.

  • Icepick Link

    I remember when Ike was president. There’s no comparison. Except golf, of course.

    Is that even true? I seem to recall reading that Eisenhower golfed a LOT more than Obama. But I also seem to recall reading (and please correct me if I’m wrong) that Eisenhower used golf as a tool of politics. It is a chance to get a small number of people together to build ties that can be used later and even seek solutions and compromise. Obama seems to use it purely as escape and usually golfs with the same small circle of people.

  • Drew Link

    “I do not mean any disrespect to you, but you are no Mitt Romney.”

    No disrespect taken, and a point I’ve made myself. If you are in my business, you wanted to be at Bain. They were, and are, the best. We are damned good, but we don’t have an 83% IRR. That’s other worldly.

    But I’m not running against Mitt, doofus is….

  • Drew Link

    And PS, Tasty

    I know you were probably not referring to investment performance, but commenting style. As I’ve said so many times before, I like to mix it up. The “sense of humor” quotient here is tiny. Life is short, lighten up and trade some barbs and have some fun.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Drew

    But I’m not running against Mitt, doofus is….

    The President is irrelevant. Clinton and Romney are running against Mitt. The 4th quarter just started, and Romney is up by 2 touchdowns and a field goal. Romney turnovers will allow Clinton to close the gap.

    If Bill Clinton does not come out forcefully for the President, Clinton has determined the President is sh*t, and he is trying to keep any from getting onto Hillary.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Drew

    Mitt Romney did not come across as an investor. He looked like a guy who can turn around a company or a battle. He came across as a leader not a manager – big difference. Managerial experience is necessary, but a leader assigns managers to manage. A leader instills confidence in others about themselves and about the managers.

    He looked like a guy who wants to win the battle not glory. He looked more like a field officer than a staff officer.

  • Icepick Link

    Wow. The DNC has put out a video that basically makes Obama look like an ineffectual vegan pussy. He just stands there while mean old Mitt picks on poor little Lehrer. Don’t they have focus groups to test these things? How is Obama supposed to stand up for us if he can’t even get in a word edgewise during a debate? How is he supposed to stand up to Putin?

    What a horrible ad!

  • Drew Link

    “He came across as a leader not a manager – big difference. Managerial experience is necessary, but a leader assigns managers to manage. A leader instills confidence in others about themselves and about the managers.”

    I’m not sure what your personal experiences are, and I think we may be dancing on the head of a pin. But I do understand the thrust of your point, and do not disagree.

    We need a leader, manager, whatever, not an analyst, or college professor.

  • What a horrible ad!

    I guess it’s in the eye of the beholder. The president did seem passive but I thought that Romney was persistent rather than aggressive. Maybe their target audience sees what I see as passivity as dignified and presidential.

    To be honest I think they’re trying to make bricks without straw.

  • Icepick Link

    To be honest I think they’re trying to make bricks without straw.

    LOL!

  • Drew Link

    “The 4th quarter just started, and Romney is up by 2 touchdowns and a field goal. Romney turnovers will allow Clinton to close the gap.”

    I find this fascinating. I know someone in the Romney campaign. For obvious reasons I cannot say who. But they are supremely confident. Internal polling.

  • Internal polling

    IMO the increasing use of internal polling has been responsible for a significant amount of miscalculation and mischief over the last couple of cycles. I think that the reason that Gore-Lieberman fought the Florida thing so tenaciously is that internal polling told them that they had won.

  • Icepick Link

    To be fair to Gore-Lieberman, it was really damned close!

    (I must mention that for that election my vote still didn’t count – because I had moved to Maryland that summer! ARGH! And I had diligently changed my registration to my new state as well. I could have been the deciding vote! ARGH! Instead I was just another useless vote in Maryland….)

  • Andy Link

    Didn’t watch the debate. Read some of the commentary. Not really interested frankly.

  • it was really damned close

    Not just close. Indeterminate. When the margin of victory is less than the margin of error, the actual result is indeterminate. That was also true in the Franken victory in Minnesota, just to name another prominent race.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Drew

    A leader is more than just a competent manager. A leader gets the right people into the right place, and he then instills confidence. A good coach is not necessarily a great player, and many were not even good. A good coach makes the players and assistant coaches feel confident about their individual abilities, and he makes the players and the assistant coaches feel confident about their combined ability. This instills confidence in the coach’s ability.

    This is what Romney did last night, and most analysts missed it.

  • I’m not sure what your personal experiences are, and I think we may be dancing on the head of a pin.

    Pretty much…..

  • If the Left is banking on “fact checking” man they are f*cking desperate.

    Wall of Text, MEGO, Words…lots and lots of f*cking words.

    To paraphrase James Carville, “its the perception, stupid.”

  • PD Shaw Link

    I despair that most people don’t know what is a “fact” and how it could be checked.

    As an initial matter, any “fact-checker” who paraphrases what a candidate said instead of quoting him verbatim should be fired on the spot. His license to check facts should be revoked permanently and he should be re-assigned to check on reported sightings of Big Foot and dog whistles.

  • PD Shaw Link

    In addition to Dave’s comment about Democrats desiring inspirational orators and Republicans wanting chief executives, I think Democrats like to express ideas in terms of plans and Republicans like to speak in values.

    Fallows’ pre-debate analysis pointed out that the focus on values gives Republicans an advantage in debates, which are not a good format for plan evaluation.

  • I despair that most people don’t know what is a “fact” and how it could be checked.

    How many times have I had people simply deny the facts and characterize that as a refutation!

  • PD Shaw Link

    Ambrose Bierce (“The Devil’s Dictionary”):

    “ORATORY, n. A conspiracy between speech and action to cheat the understanding. A tyranny tempered by stenography.”

    I think fact-checking is a conspiracy to enforce an understanding under the guise of mathematics.

  • Speaking as a woman, I don’t have any problems with Romney himself, it’s all the other damned Republicans who’d rather try sticking their fingers in my panties than deal with serious issues.

  • One exception — his foreign policy.

  • jan Link

    Tastybits,

    Like you, I watched the entire debate. I tossed a salad, poured a big glass of white wine and settled in for what I hoped would be a clear and composed Mitt Romney taking on the Obama machine. He did not disappoint.

    Unlike Obama, he didn’t seem to be pushing his frontal cortex for answers. They were simply ingrained in him. His business experience, sensitivity to what is needed to inspire a greater economic performance in the country was reassuring. He neither gloated over his greater knowledge, nor did he leer or jeer at Obama. He stated the obvious about the economy, and gave more details, as to a framework remedy, in a 1,2 3 kind of outline.

    Others, still say he needed to say more. However, I think there is no amount of detail that will satisfy these folks, except if some stated option he sites can be distorted and used against him. People don’t seem to be looking for real answers, just ‘taken out of context’ zingers that can be used in ads to sway voters over to their guy.

    I liked how Romney responded to Obama’s claim to the US producing more gas and oil (domestic energy) last year — countering with the facts that such an increase was on private not federal lands — the latter whose production was diminished. Romney also corrected Obama on a deduction error, gave expanded comments on Obama’s ACA, differentiating it from the scope of the MA program designed for his state. Romney produced a litany of numbers describing the state of Obama’s economy, from food stamps, welfare, eroding incomes, unemployment. I liked his term of ‘trickle down government’ in describing Obama’s fundamental approaches to helping people out. I also liked how Romney brought up the moral element involved in leaving so much debt to the generations that take our place on this planet. He wove it nicely into the Constitution and the importance of state’s rights over too large of a central government overreaching into people’s lives.

    Yeah, I thought Romney dotted all the i’s and crossed the t’s that needed to be done in his first Obama encounter. As for Obama, he was unprepared, tired-looking, and simply under-performed in an unlikable way. Now, on the stump, Obama is insinuating that the Romney who showed up last night was not the real Romney by saying…”The guy who played Romney last night….” The inane rhetoric never ends.

  • Icepick Link

    Speaking as a woman, I don’t have any problems with Romney himself, it’s all the other damned Republicans who’d rather try sticking their fingers in my panties than deal with serious issues.

    Janis, I just read that to my wife and she said, “Thank you! Yes, that!” I’ve been hearing that from her for some time now.

  • You’re married to a good girl.

  • I bought my cowgirl boots today, for dealing with oil companies in Tyler, Texas.

  • They have pointy toes, for kicking cockroaches in corners.

  • jan Link

    Oh yeah, Romney was particularly effective in describing the importance of working with the opposition party. He said, when he was governor of MA, with an 85% dem legislature to negotiate with, he would meet every Monday for a couple hours of discussion time.

    Now, how many times has Obama consulted with his republican counterparts over the past almost 4 years? He’s even been aloof and isolated from his own dem cohorts. I also know Obama has not met with his Job’s Council all year long. And, then there was the matter of skipping intel meetings. How can you expect to be knowledgeable, updated and on-target with issues at hand, or the workings of a country if you keep your job at a distance from you?

    Basically, in comparing and contrasting the two men last night, it was almost more striking to see the ‘naked’ Obama, sans his teleprompter, surrounded by news media who run interference for him, than to see how competent of a solo presentation came out of Romney.

  • Andy Link

    Saw this on Facebook, I lol’d.

  • jan Link

    Here’s something I think is relevant to the election I also posted on OTB: President’s case for reelection rests on five claims — all phony.

    Then you have this one, taken from a conservative blog, bringing up cogent points relating to Obama’s ego, which some think borders on narcissism: Obama’s hubris cost him the debate.

  • One has to wonder if Obama cares about winning this election. He took the hardest job in the US, during one of it’s toughest times in years.

    Maybe he’s just worn out and retreating.

  • jan Link

    Janis

    As to your comment about ‘being worn out,’ I think most presidents rapidly age after they assume such a stressful as POTUS. The gray hair seems to pop out like spring rye grass.

  • Icepick Link

    You’re married to a good girl.

    Yep!

    They have pointy toes, for kicking cockroaches in corners.

    That’s called getting the full bug. Van Halen did a song about that. Well, actually the song was just called The Full Bug, and the title referenced some Puerto Rican bug stompers that Roth owned. Pointy-toed just like your cowboy boots, for getting the full bug. But it was really about the same thing most VH songs are about. (I love that band!)

    Maybe he’s just worn out and retreating.

    Janis, I really think that Obama thought his rhetorical brilliance would carry the day all by itself. Getting the Nobel Peace Prize for essentially just being there probably didn’t help. I’ve never seen any indication of hard work from him. He just wants to BE President, he doesn’t want to work at the job.

    I suspect that Romney DOES want to do the work necessary. Like Clinton I think he relishes the work. jan brought up good points above about Romney working regularly with the opposition in Mass. while Obama doesn’t even want to keep in tough with his own party’s leaders. That’s an indication of being willing to do the fucking work for the one man, and not so much for the other.

    Now the interesting thing to ask is “What does Romney want to do?” Beats hell out of me. His plans, sparse as they are, are written on an Etch-a-Sketch. That compares with President Blank Screen Upon Which We Project Our Desires. Whatever. I’m still voting Attila. I think we’ll probably watch the debate tonight though. Romney might be able to win my wife’s vote.

  • Icepick Link

    “keep in touch” not “keep in tough”.

  • steve Link

    @jan- I think that IBD piece may be even dumber than their famous Hawking/NHS observation. Very sad.

    Steve

  • I think Obama did his work.

    Remember, I live in a community in the deep South that’s nearly 30% black. He lifted their pride, taught them the value of education and a good appearance and good speech.

    My teachers had that in the ’60’s. Where else could they go?

  • Icepick Link

    Janis, I live in a community that is about 85% black, about 12% Hispanic and the rest mostly white. I’m not seeing a whole lot of improvement in attitudes.

  • Well, you do live in Florida. Which I barely consider part of the states.

  • Icepick Link

    TL; DR version: Romney won, but this isn’t the end of Western socialism as we know it.

    Long version: So we watched most of the debate tonight. We got cut off in the middle of Obama’s closing statement and didn’t see Romney’s at all.

    It was pretty much what I expected. Romney won but it wasn’t the total disaster for Obama that the partisans of both stripes are making it out to be. Romney had more command of detail (“47 programs reporting to eight different agencies”) and was far more energetic. But Obama didn’t look any worse than Bush in 2004. Obama got some traction calling out Romney on lack of specifics in his plans but Romney defused that somewhat towards the end.

    Claims of Romney’s dishonesty have been somewhat overrated. (I’ll note that none of the people bitching about Romney’s prevarications ever have any problems with bald-faced lies by Obama and his minions. Anyone calling out Cutter for accusing Romney of committing felonies? Anyone calling out Ried for being the biggest lying sack of shit in the US Senate (which is always a distinction)? Just to pick two of many….) It was the usual kind of political prevarications standard in campaigns.

    Obama had trouble with specifics except when discussing healthcare. That was the best topic for him. He was more up on the details of Romney’s plans there than he was on his own plans anywhere else.

    Overall Obama just seemed like he wanted to be anywhere else. His demeanor was fairly poor overall.

    But when it came down to it both mostly stuck to their talking points. Romney’s delivery was tight (in the good way), and Obama’s was poor. But it was still mostly political pablum.

    Many if not most back-benchers from the House of Commons in London would have cleaned either of their clocks. Romney left himself open to a couple of zingers (he all but admitted that he had off-shored jobs) but Obama was not alert to the opportunity. I remember Obama left himself wide-open on one point but I forget what it was. It’s late and I’m tired and this is the 58th (or so) comment and no one is going to read it anyway. So sue my grinning white skull if you want more.

    Obama’s comments towards the end started falling apart. I’m not sure how repealing Don’t Ask Don’t Tell is supposed to help me with my middle class ladder of economic opportunity. But what the Hell.

    The big thing for Romney was that he had to look like he could fill the role of President. That he did. Everything else is secondary and will likely be forgotten. I will say that before my wife got tired she seemed to think that Romney might be talking himself into getting her vote. That would be something for Romney. But mostly it was an exercise in wonkishness from both sides. Most people aren’t going to know enough to wade through all of that.

    Sorry for the general incoherence, but like I said, I’m tired and no one is going to read this comment anyway!

  • jan Link

    Icepick

    I just did….

  • Andy Link

    Well, you do live in Florida. Which I barely consider part of the states.

    Hehe. If it weren’t for the weather, I’d think I was living in a suburb of New York, Boston or maybe Philly.

  • Damn Yankees!

  • Ice, I read every single comment on this site. From my point of view it wouldn’t make any sense to keep the site up if I didn’t. I have books in my library to read not just to own. Similarly, I maintain this site for the discussions. That’s something I mention in my very earliest posts.

  • Andy Link

    Damn Yankees!

    I think that’s why most southerners reject Florida as a non-southern, southern state!

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    I read it when you posted.

    @Andy

    I do not consider Texas part of the South, but Missouri is an honorary member.

    @Dave Schuler

    I appreciate your efforts.

  • These boots are really comfy.

  • Icepick Link

    Ice, I read every single comment on this site.

    Confirming what I’ve always suspected. You really are Phil Hartman.

    Concerning Florida and such. Parts of Florida are very Southern. Parts of Florida are very NYC. Parts of Florida are completely late 20th Century suburban. Parts are clearly Third World. Here in my neighborhood the distinction is readily apparent. My household is late 20th Century suburban. The guy next door (whom I’ve discovered some interesting and mildly disturbing things about lately) is completely NYC, even if he’s never been there. His GF/wife is 21 Century Southern (white trash variety). Across the street we’ve got the Third World.

    We used to have heavy input from Michigan (for some damned reason) and West Virginia (probably because of WVians passing through Central Florida during WWII and deciding the weather was better here than there). They have mostly died out as best I can tell. Most of the old native Floridians (meaning those with roots here, not first generation types such as myself) moved to North Carolina or died ages ago.

    Texas is kind of Southern, kind of Western, but is more properly thought of as Texas. That’s best for all concerned.

    Louisiana is strictly Third World. The Napoleonic Code, really? Acknowledged philandering crooks as the best possible political options, really? New Orleans?

    The cities of the NE are American flavored international cosmopolitan places (if they’re successful) or the shitholes of America (if they’re like Newark).

  • Icepick Link

    These boots are really comfy.

    Unless absolutely necessary never skimp on shoes, mattresses or booze. That’s about the only useful stuff I ever learned from my mother.

  • Nothin’ wrong with New Orleans. Have you ever been to the Audobon Zoo?

  • Missouri state law is based on the Code Napoleon, too.

  • You know, Ice, I bought these boots for $139.99 at Rushing’s in Ferriday. He repairs boots and shoes. The place smells wonderful.

    Mr. Rushing and two compadres were sitting together gossiping. His tall, handsome young black-haired son was manning the shop.

  • Maybe grandson.

  • TastyBits Link

    @Icepick

    New Orleans is not part of the South, and it is barely part of the US. It used to be more European, but it began to change in the 70’s with the oil industry boom.

Leave a Comment