I was trying to keep track of both the debate and the Giants game, while helping my cranky daughter through her homework and then playing a game of Stratego with my son. Unfortunately I missed all the good parts in both.
Fortunately, I got to see the highlights for both on the elliptical machine television at the gym.
I’ve seen all the instapolls giving the win to Obama, but I find myself in an odd position. It seemed like Romney was channeling George McGovern tonight, and I actually related to his foreign policy more than Obama’s. It’s not the first time. Obama was more hawkish than McCain four years ago on the same issue – Pakistani national sovereignty vs. our “security interests.”
Granted, the right wing has always been enamored with Pakistan as President Bush, Jr. sold them F-16s which would only be used against their neighbor – the only democracy in the region. But it does raise a question about Obama, who has clearly revived the old doctrine of gun boat liberalism – kind of an heir to Gen. McNamara’s quasi-liberal justifications for involvement in Vietnam.
As to who came out more “Presidential,” I’m not really qualified to say. I’ll leave that to the seventeen or so people who haven’t yet made up their minds, and God knows what’s going to settle it for them.
Everybody’s talking about the horses and bayonets line, but for me the takeaway line of the night was Obama’s “You want to return to the foreign policy of the 1980s, the social policy of the 1950s, and the economic policy of the 1920s.”
But here’s a clip with the big line.
26 comments
Comments feed for this article
October 23, 2012 at 5:20 am
Plain Jane
Romney’s pivots on foreign policy and “channeling George McGovern” are no more real than any of his other policy shifts. He will tell any lie and claim to support any policy that will get him elected. What he will do after elected is another pivot to hard line “severe conservative” because those are the policies favored by his puppet masters. How anyone could fall for the GOP bait and switch again is beyond me.
October 23, 2012 at 5:52 am
bolithio
I agree with the first half of what you said, but I think Romney is a moderate deep down.
October 23, 2012 at 5:53 am
Mitch
The best line of the evening was from Bob Schieffer, who probably just couldn’t stop himself. It came when Schieffer wanted to shut Romney up so the program could move on to closing statements.
Romney had been babbling about loving teachers, and Schieffer said something like “I’m sure we can all agree that we all love teachers, but we need to move on.” It was a moment of pure honesty, with Schieffer momentarily shedding his role as professional mush and showing us the intelligent and experienced cynic underneath.
October 23, 2012 at 6:43 am
"Henchman Of Justice"
Both are liars and decepticons on BANKRUPTCY and won’t go where thieves get caught. Bankruptcy destroys those owed money or other guarantees by the bankrupting business. To suggest the economy is stronger because of a BANKRUPTCY process where the judge subsidizes the BANKRUPTING BUSINESS at the expense, losses, detriment, etc.. of those other businesses that are owed something IS DEPLORABLE! Sure the wealthy phat cat bankrupting business leaders get stroked fashionably well, as do the attorneys that work the case; and the government, well the government gets to continue collecting taxes too. Problem is, when you save by “court process subsidy” a bankrupting business’ tax base that simultaneously generates tax base losses upon the other taxable businesses elsewhere that will now fail because of non-payments, how again is the economy stronger? It ain’t! Bankruptcy is a “rigged set-up” to allow the powerfully connected and wealthy phat cat wannabees to “screw over” lesser people, period. No retort could ever apply to debunk what has just been written.
When it comes to BANKRUPTCY processes, the business should go under on its own, just as it should prosper on its own. Neither of these two thieves running to be next president offer facts, but regurgitate babble that slightly hangs from the retoric, somehow explained enough to be palpable to those whose minds can’t expand enough into thoughts to “break down the flaws in the arguments”. The two party system has destroyed America, courtesy of the citizens whom vote duopolist as if in automatic mode controlled by a “super-computer” that never stops asking the question, “Would you like to play a game?” (Thermo-nuclear war) – HOJ
October 23, 2012 at 7:00 am
Jim Ferguson
The majority of Romney’s foreign policy advisors are the same as Bush’s. It doesn’t matter what the candidate says to win votes. It is who will be advising him day to day.
As to the undecided voters… if they haven’t made up their minds at this point, they are just idiots and shouldn’t be allowed to vote.
October 23, 2012 at 8:09 am
Eric Kirk
I haven’t heard the whole debate yet, but I was listening to Alan Grayson on the radio this morning. He was profoundly disappointed that all of the foreign policy questions were about war: “Anybody listening to the debate would think that the world is only filled with people who want to kill us. Nothing about trade policy. Nothing about international ecomic development.”
I would add that there was nothing in any of the three debates about the environment, which is now an international issue as well.
You have to blame the huge omissions on Bob Schieffer. Sorry.
It sounds like Grayson may win back his Congressional seat this year. I miss his voice.
October 23, 2012 at 9:17 am
Eric Kirk
Nate Silver on the potential impact, or non-impact, of the debate.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/23/obama-unlikely-to-get-big-debate-bounce-but-a-small-one-could-matter/
October 23, 2012 at 9:20 am
Eric Kirk
Did Romney really say that Syria is Iran’s route to the sea???
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/23/1148741/-Mitt-Romney-fails-his-own-geography-lesson
October 23, 2012 at 10:11 am
Anonymous
Yes. Romney will say anything to win, like some of our (ahem) locals.
October 23, 2012 at 10:17 am
Erasmus
I think most Americans would consider the foreign policy of the 1980s to be a huge success. (Remember the Soviet Union?) —– Luckily, Romney isn’t quick on his feet: he could have said: Better the economic policies of the 1920s than those of the 30s (because we all know which decade was more prosperous), and: a return to the civility of the 1950s wouldn’t be so bad, would it Mr. President?
October 23, 2012 at 10:21 am
Eric Kirk
Erasmus – the point was that the policies of the 1980s no longer applies, because the cold war is over. He was referencing Romney’s prior statement that currently the biggest threat to the US is Russia.
Re the 1950s, he was talking about segregation, abortion, gay rights, etc. – all of which were very conservative in the 1950s. I don’t recall that the civil rights discussion was civil at any point in time.
Re 1920s, the point is that it was the laisse faire excesses of the 1920s, which generated the depression of the 1930s.
Anonymous – I’m not sure that the dovish approach is a winning position. Undecided voters want a candidate to “walk tall” and all that, and apparently the CBS viewers polled thought Romney looked nervous and lacking in confidence. I heard it on the radio, so I can’t say, and I don’t know how people who haven’t made up their minds at this late game think, so I can’t judge the effectiveness of anything at this point.
October 23, 2012 at 10:24 am
Eric Kirk
Troubles with early voting.
In North Carolina:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/23/1148862/-We-Are-Losing-Voters-in-Charlotte-NC
In Ohio:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/23/1148821/-Sigh-Ohio-county-sends-voters-wrong-election-date-directions-to-polls
October 23, 2012 at 11:16 am
Erasmus
What you say is all true — I’m not sure what Obama was trying to prove, though, and I’d like to know which decades (if any) he would prefer to the ones he listed. It seems to me that “good” decades contain the seeds of trouble of “bad” ones, and that nothing but shaky debating points are being made here.
October 23, 2012 at 11:25 am
Eric Kirk
Well, again, I think it was context specific. Not “bad” decades. Just portraying Romney as out of date and naive on foreign policy, socially conservative, and and too free market oriented on economic policy.
October 23, 2012 at 11:53 am
Erasmus
Sure — but a skilled debater could have turned the table on Obama (“Which part of Ronald Reagan’s foreign policy did you not like, Mr. President?”). Romney is gettings lots of plaudits from the conservative press, but I found him quite unimpressive and Obama earned some more respect from me. (By the way, anyone out there who’s seen “2016: Obama’s America”? An atrocious, slick film that purports to prove that Obama is intent on destroying this country as a kind of Manchurian candidate — and lots of people are buying the poison. It’s grossing at Michael Moore levels.)
October 23, 2012 at 12:10 pm
Eric Kirk
Well, Obama could have turned the first one around. “I liked much of Reagan’s foreign policy, and I liked even more of George Washington’s foreign policy. I don’t believe that either of them apply today.”
Haven’t seen the film. It was at the Broadway Cinema briefly, but I missed the opportunity.
October 23, 2012 at 2:27 pm
Erasmus
He would have given Romney a mile-wide opportunity. —- “2016″ is worth seeing only because it’s being swallowed by so many people. Many Netflix reviewers have awarded it 5 stars; one of them claims to be a college professor.
October 23, 2012 at 4:51 pm
Not A Native
Eric I watched it and don’t agree with Grayson. In fact, much of the talk referred to the domestic economy using international policy as a lead-in. Romney was called on his ‘first day in office promise’ to label China a currency manipulator. Obama repeatedly cited education rather than military spending as a means to promote national security.
I agree with you about the meanings of Obama’s 80′, 50s’, 20′s, quip. But as you can see on this blog, it needs a lot of ‘splaining for many people to get it. Obama’s keen intellect and knowledge of history makes him a good elected official but also limits his appeal to those who don’t share those qualities.
Eric, you called this election early. Any second thoughts now???
October 23, 2012 at 7:09 pm
"Henchman Of Justice"
Hmmm, Romney stated CHINA as the U.S.’s biggest threat due to currency manipulation too, did he not? – HOJ
October 23, 2012 at 11:00 pm
ED Denson
I came away thinking Romney did a better job too, altho Obama got in some great lines, none better than the “horses and bayonets” one. But Romney explained things a bit better even when he was agreeing with Obama, which was almost always. I’m told the strategy was for Romney to sell himself to the young, single, women who make up many of the undecideds. Cobert interviewed one.
So my debates wins are these: #1 Obama, #2 Obama, #3 Romney. Odd.
October 24, 2012 at 6:49 am
moviedad
Obama should have hammered home Romney’s companies closing factories and moving them to China, he barely mentioned it. Especially when you have a couple of hundred workers camped out in front of one of those factories in Florida.
It still looks to me like he’s taking a dive.
October 24, 2012 at 8:07 am
old fart
At times Romney had a much better stage prescence as he told his pretty little lies but when he turned to the camera for his closing arguments I saw Beelzebub looking out through his heartless venture crapitalist eyes. Scary.
Fast handbasket to hell
or slow handbasket to same destination?
Our dumbed down electorate will probably go for the handsome white 1%er.
Ughly charade.
Wonder what they say to each other at the end when they are handshaking and grabbing each other’s arms… like they are pals. Ugh.
October 24, 2012 at 8:32 am
Eric Kirk
Eric, you called this election early. Any second thoughts now???
No. The tracking polls this morning are trending for Obama, and he remains ahead in all of the Ohio polls. Unless something happens to change the trajectory within the next two weeks, I think Obama will win with about 290 electoral college votes and a 2 point popular vote margin of win.
There were three instant polls which came out after the debate. CNN had one of registered voters which gave the debate to Obama 48 to 40 percent. The polls was actually skewed towards Republicans, who watched the debate in greater proportion than Democrats. The PPP poll of likely voters gave the win to obama by 14 percent difference. But the big one was the CBS poll which only covered voters who had been identified prior to the debate as uncommitted. They gave Obama the win by a 30 point margin. They are the people who are going to decide the race.
Does winning the debate guarantee an undecided’s vote? Certainly not. But you would much rather be in Obama’s position after the debate than Romney’s.
One of the factors cited in the CBS poll was that Obama looked confident, and Romney was sweating and looked unsure of himself. That would have absolutely no impact on my voting decision, but apparently a slew of undecided voters are viscerally impacted that way even as they’re trying hard to make a decision about what shoes to wear for the day. And they will remember the last debate. The first debate is already as much ancient history as the last four years of headlines and politics.
But the real reason I think Obama is going to win is his ground game in the swing states, particularly with early voting. He is being outspent 2 to 1 in Ohio, but he’s got three times as many paid staff – I don’t get Romney’s strategy there. It may be why Obama has kept a lead in all of the swing states even when he fell behind in the national polls.
Can Romney win it? Yes, I think he can, especially since there’s a whole tide of right wing SuperPAC money on its way in for the last couple of weeks. But I agree with Nate Silver’s odds, based on all of the indicators, including the economic news. He currently gives Obama a 70 percent chance of win. If the national poll avergas move in Obama’s favor by 1 percent as a result of the debate, he will up the odds to 80 percent.
October 24, 2012 at 9:36 am
Eric Kirk
There is definitely a post-debate bounce for Obama already revealing itself, although I don’t trust Gallup this year as far as I can throw a stick. PPP also moved two points in Obama’s direction. Only Ras remains unchanged from yesterday.
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/gallup-obama-gains-on-romney?ref=fpb
Update: Confirmed. All of the tracking polls have movement in Obama’s favor, except the Republican leaning House of Ras.
http://polltracker.talkingpointsmemo.com/contests/us-president-12
October 24, 2012 at 11:38 am
Eric Kirk
Kos noticed it too, and has even more data than TPM. Of course, it’s only a day’s data and could be statistical noise, but if Obama got even a small bounce out of the third debate, is there anything short of Obama getting caught in bed with a 14 year old which could turn it around for Romney?
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/24/1149494/-Hints-of-a-post-third-debate-Obama-bump
And some Ohio numbers are in.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/10/new_ohio_numbers.php?ref=fpblg
October 25, 2012 at 9:00 pm
spyrock
i think that rominy is way more liberal than obama. he is from the 60′s generation and went to harvard and probably got dosed by leary or ramdas while he was there. while i was protecting haight street during my two years in the army 65-67, romney did his two year missionary stint for the momorns in paris and monaco after he used up his 2-s student deferment.. so he obviously was against the war and evaded the draft. most people like him in michigan just went to canada, but he could afford to go to france, so why not. later, he says he was a preacher for 10 years. i don’t think the mormons have ever been involved in any wars except dressing up like indians and attacking wagon trains passing through utah. one of my relatives was the first non=morman born in salt lake city. so i have a soft spot in my heart for mormans. and i really think romney is a peacenik with a good heart. it didn’t surprize me that he agreed with obama on almost everything on foreign policy because he really doesn’t know anything about it, except which countries have the best banks to hide you money. geography wasn’t his best subject. he didn’t know that iran has 1500 miles of coastline and doesn’t border syria. he didn’t mention the name of any country in latin america, because if he said venezueala or any other country down there, the right wing would have another heart attack because they see them all as allies of castro. and then he used the peace word over ten times. that’s the most times a candidate has used that five letter word since mcgovern. the republicans must have crapped their pants. but faced with 4 more years of obama, they claim that was strategy to get the undecided. rominy could say anything right now and they would still vote for him. they have no choice. my only fear is that if he is elected and shows his true colors, ted nugent will make a trophey out of him. then we would be stuck with paul ryan who idolizes ayn rand, a self proclaimed atheist who didn’t care about anyone but herself. he would abolish social security, medicare, unions, and unemployment and every other so called entitlment you can think of. just when i’m about to retire. but that is assuming that ted nugent is smart enough to think rominy not a conservative.
i guess social security and all the rest is safe for now and the next four years no matter who wins.