2nd Debate
- Thread starter SPK145
- Start date
George Will said this was the best Presidential debate he's seen and he's seen them all. I thought both men were going for broke and while it was close the President came out on top. How it will affect the election however is anyones guess.
Tom K
Tom K
For context on my bias, I gave round one to Romney by a mile.
Round two goes to Obama by a smaller but still decent margin.
Obama B+ He challenged Romney on every issue, looked and sounded presidential. Had a couple of very strong moments. A couple not so great moments as well.
Romney C+ He does an excellent job talking about the economy. Not so good elsewhere. His challenges on drilling leases, Obama's pension, and on Obama calling the attack an "act of terror" really all fell flat and hurt him.
When Romney connected single parents to AK-47's my social network feeds blew up.. really a head scratching moment for a lot of people.
Round two goes to Obama by a smaller but still decent margin.
Obama B+ He challenged Romney on every issue, looked and sounded presidential. Had a couple of very strong moments. A couple not so great moments as well.
Romney C+ He does an excellent job talking about the economy. Not so good elsewhere. His challenges on drilling leases, Obama's pension, and on Obama calling the attack an "act of terror" really all fell flat and hurt him.
When Romney connected single parents to AK-47's my social network feeds blew up.. really a head scratching moment for a lot of people.
If lying mattered, Romney would have been destroyed in round one. It is all about perception and Obama won this one.
The drilling issue, Romney was citing a study on the decrease in oil production.. that same study attributed the decrease to the BP spill... and you think Obama is the guy lying?
I thought Obama won this debate but neither hurt themselves in this one. Lots of steam from both sides - feisty for sure. I thought Romney missed an opportunity on Libya by continuing the same dialogue. He should have simply said we failed, we did not provide them adequate protection and left it at that - instead he went back to the same argument. Obama got nasty a few times too. Both had their good moments and their unpresidential moments for sure.
I thought this was a good old fashioned draw. Split right down the middle. Despite being weak candidates overall, both did well tonight.
This was absolutely the best presidential debate I've seen in my (albeit short) lifetime. George Will is right.
This post was edited on 10/17 12:13 AM by shu09
This was absolutely the best presidential debate I've seen in my (albeit short) lifetime. George Will is right.
This post was edited on 10/17 12:13 AM by shu09
C'mon Steve. They all lie or at least stretch the truth. You don't think Romney lied in these debates? In the first debate Romney won despite stretching the truth constantly. How about the one about his health care plan allowing for pre-existing conditions. Interesting since he has no health care plan other than let each state do what it wants. Why OB allowed him to get away wth that in debate #1 was beyond me. It's just a fact of life. All politicians lie.
Tom K
Update on just how bad was Romney's answer on gun control was.
It was so bad that Fox News removed it from their transcript.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/10/16/transcript-second-presidential-debate/
Obama is for coal??? Obama is a great defender of capitalism??? LOL!!!
Obama showed nothing other than style for being feisty. No truthful substance at all, even less than Romney. Presidential? Hardly.
Romney said it best when he said you know what you'll get with Obama, another 4 years of the same. Now Romney still hasn't fleshed out many positions but isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?
Obama showed nothing other than style for being feisty. No truthful substance at all, even less than Romney. Presidential? Hardly.
Romney said it best when he said you know what you'll get with Obama, another 4 years of the same. Now Romney still hasn't fleshed out many positions but isn't that how Obama got elected in the first place?
As they say in Texas, that dog don't hunt. YOUR social network, with YOUR friends and like-minded celebrities, looking for rope to hang Romney with, blew up. Shocker. Logically, you know he didn't connect single parents to assault weapons. Emotionally, you and the left made that connection, void of context.
It seemed, to me, that the moderator let things get off-point too often; Lehrer got run over, but this was all over the map. Obama's aggression, and Candy's clear favoritism definitely rattled Romney, and he misspoke where he was fluid in the first debate.
Agree with posters above about both lying, both refuting, and leaving it to the viewers to untangle. Style over substance. Both of Romney's verbal gaffes, when considered even-handedly, were not nearly as outrageous as the wingnuts would have you believe.
I agree with SPK. Clearly lied about drilling but the most laughable was coal.I'm sure the people who work for CSX got a good kick out of that one. It looked like to me that Romney was trying to land an uppercut on Libya and Crowley help save the President. I thought it was even Steven, slight advantage to Romney, I think he comes off more polished about the economy and jobs. I think the winner last night greatly depends on which issues the American Voter holds dearest to them.
In the picture which you have created of my life, am I only friends with liberals, follow liberal websites and watch MSNBC?
It was a weak moment for anyone paying attention that is being honest.
Obama's answer was not good... one of his worst of the night.
Romney bailed Obama out by looking even worse.
The two things that came out of this debate were:
1) Obama stopped the negative momentum from the first debate
2) Romney continued to show he can go toe-to-toe and continues to come across as a credible choice
Not sure it proved more than that or will move the needle on polls much before the final debate. Neither candidate did a great job of answering the specific questions, but rather repositioned to state their canned commercials.
Romney did a good job restating a number of unkept promises and economic shortfalls of Obama's term, personally, I think he is missing a key message about the lack of leadership Obama has demonstrated in leading Congress. One thing this country is galvanized on is the partisanship, gridlock and juvenile behavior. If I was Romney, in addition to the economy, I'd be all over that and explain how I would get Congress working again....Obama would be defenseless.
1) Obama stopped the negative momentum from the first debate
2) Romney continued to show he can go toe-to-toe and continues to come across as a credible choice
Not sure it proved more than that or will move the needle on polls much before the final debate. Neither candidate did a great job of answering the specific questions, but rather repositioned to state their canned commercials.
Romney did a good job restating a number of unkept promises and economic shortfalls of Obama's term, personally, I think he is missing a key message about the lack of leadership Obama has demonstrated in leading Congress. One thing this country is galvanized on is the partisanship, gridlock and juvenile behavior. If I was Romney, in addition to the economy, I'd be all over that and explain how I would get Congress working again....Obama would be defenseless.
I agree 85 on the leadership issue in spades.
The forum also showed how a moderator should not act. She should have never opined or gave an incorrect answer about the Libya situation (which she retracted in an interview right after). That was not her role at all. She was terrible and interupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times. As I have said before, Romney has to beat the Dem candidate and the press if he wants to win this election.
The other thing after a few days of thinking about this is I really don't like the aggressive nature of that debate. To say that was the best debate ever is completely ridiculous IMO. It was too aggressive and the moderator did a horribly job overall. Both candidates had some very unpresidential moments IMO and that does not bode well for the country overall and the debate of real important issues. It may be where society is going but I don't like it.
The forum also showed how a moderator should not act. She should have never opined or gave an incorrect answer about the Libya situation (which she retracted in an interview right after). That was not her role at all. She was terrible and interupted Romney 28 times and Obama 9 times. As I have said before, Romney has to beat the Dem candidate and the press if he wants to win this election.
The other thing after a few days of thinking about this is I really don't like the aggressive nature of that debate. To say that was the best debate ever is completely ridiculous IMO. It was too aggressive and the moderator did a horribly job overall. Both candidates had some very unpresidential moments IMO and that does not bode well for the country overall and the debate of real important issues. It may be where society is going but I don't like it.
Moderators absolutely should correct politicians. They might actually mean something if they did.
Candy was factually correct, and did not retract her comment.
Maybe she interrupted Romney more because he was over the line more?
It was a very aggressive debate, and if you don't like aggression... you should hate Romney. The agreed upon rules said candidates may not ask each other questions. How many times did Romney break that?
The moderator retracted nothing. Obama did say it was a act of terror the day after the attack. And actually Romney's demeanor at that point of the debate was very poor as he turned to the President in a confrontational manner on a poiint where he (Romney) had inaccurate information.
The debate aside I still think Romney will win the election.
Tom K
The debate aside I still think Romney will win the election.
Tom K
That is 100% correct. See link.
In paragraph four, he indirectly alluded to the video.
Later, in paragraph ten, he talked about acts of terror but NEVER called this an act of terror.
And then what did he say for the next two weeks, including in that embarrassing UN speech?
Obama Libya Speech Transcript
No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.
Come on....
Are you serious?
It was semantics and Romney could have hammered Obama... instead he got stuck on the words "act of terror" which Candy knew very well because of a prior dispute on the subject prior to the debate.
Romney made the mistake by getting caught up in the words and not the context.
It was never referred directly as an act of terror until two weeks later. He said the word terror but did not call this an act of terror. Common yourself.
But you are correct, Romney should have hammered the administration on covering this up and waiting two weeks to be honest. Everyone knew right from the get go on this and Romney keeps giving the press something to talk about that is not the point.
But you are correct, Romney should have hammered the administration on covering this up and waiting two weeks to be honest. Everyone knew right from the get go on this and Romney keeps giving the press something to talk about that is not the point.
There was a CIA memo which said the attack was a spontaneous response to the protests in Egypt.
What amazes me is that when it came to the war in Iraq. None of them gave a crap about the "facts" before supporting a war that would last over a decade, kill thousands of American citizens and destroy us economically... and still don't care about the facts about what got us into the war... yet... we need to know every detail of what happened in Libya immediately before we could possibly even have a full understanding of what happened.
Politics during a campaign can be pretty disgusting.
The point is we keep talking about the two week period and its stupid. The fact is they did not protect these folks and that should be what everyone is talking about. It's disgusting what happened and we had knowledge of problems before and did not take care of it. Yea it happens but it shouldn't when they are asking for more security. That is what folks should be talking about.
More security would not have fixed what happened. More people would be dead today.
We could not have stopped what happened.
Intelligence that has come out has said we intercepted phone calls from an al qeada group in Africa to a militia group in Libya on September 11th just hours before the attack telling them to take a queue from the protests in Egypt and go through with the attack which sounds like was planned previously but not necessarily on Sep. 11.
We are still investigating what happened, and are likely still trying to find who planned this and when and where the orders were coming from.
The public does not need the details before our intelligence community has decided exactly what they know and how they are going to respond.
Do we need to go back in time to the... as you put it... unconstitutional bill?
No one voted to go to war.
They all voted to go to war after we exhausted diplomatic efforts and had no other option. Voting no on that bill would have severely limited our ability to work through diplomatic efforts and would have been irresponsible.
Lets not revise history.
You can't say more security would not have changed the situation. That is ludicrous. Neither you nor I know the details. But the fact is they asked for more help and were not given the help and Libya was in a lot of turmoil. Hopefully they can learn from this and get our folks out of harms way.
Let's not read things that aren't there (Libya) or not read things that were there (Iraq war bill). A yes vote on this bill authorized the president to go to war if he (and only he) felt he had done enough diplomatically. It gave the president too much latitude but now you can't go back and claim to be against the war.
I think the records showed that they had previously asked for 3-5 more people. They actually by chance had 2 additional agents on site at the time. I don't think it is really far fetched to suggest an additional three agents would not have been able to stop rocket propelled grenades and anti-aircraft machine guns.
What more details do you need to know?
Not voted or voted no?
I would have voted no on the way the law was written. I was for the Iraq war, I believed all the intelligence from both parties. This law was just a way for the panty waists to vote for the war but be able to say they were against it instead of standing on principle.
I would not have voted but would have been very vocal of my opposition.
Give me a reason to go to war, and I would vote yes.
The whole process was crap, and I could easily argue that it was the way it is because we would not have ever approved a war based on the facts available.
Let the inspectors finish their job. If they gave up and said that they can't do what they need to do, I would have voted to go to war.
There is a reason that the bill was written the way it was, and I don't buy the one you have presented.
I thought Crowley did a fantastic job moderating. She knew when to keep her mouth shut and when to move the debate along. She was absoultely right to correct Romney's egregious error.
As for the prior debates, I thought both moderators did poor jobs (Lehrer and Raddatz).
I find it comical how many intelligence experts we have on this board. I wonder how many have actually worked in intelligence community. The President did not say there was a terrorist attack on the United States. Romney was correct in his line of questioning. Crowley destroyed any credibility she had when 1. she agreed with the President and 2. she said it took the President 14 days to assert it was a youtube video(She was clearly fumbling for words and made here even more incompetent). Also that was the fastest fact check in the history of facts I've ever seen on live TV.
1. The State Department immediately knew it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration. Do you really believe the State Department did not notify the White House immediately, when this was watched in real time feeds at the State Department? When I was in the Navy in DC, the military base I worked on, specifically my building, had a direct phone line to the White House. This administration ignored all intelligence reports, and did nothing to be pro-active in security measures. They are throwing the Intelligence community under the bus, the same intelligence community who laughed at the President when he said Al Qaeda is decimated and on the run(Now that statement has been eliminated by the Obama campaign). That statement was news to everybody in the Intel community. This President did not have the guts to come out and tell the truth, apologize, admit they made a mistake, and offer a solution and corrective measures on how they will prevent these mistakes in the future. Now they have another week to come up with another lie and spin. We were told it was a demonstration due to a youtube video. Susan Rice on live TV, the incompetent Jay Carney how many times he lied and flip flopped. Carney is the most incompetent Press Secretary I have ever seen. Eric Nordstrom is one of the finest public servants this country has and I commend him for his honesty and integrity. Remember this was an Ambassador that was sodomized and beaten to death and dragged through the streets. The American public deserves the truth not disgraceful lies and blatant coverup!
1. The State Department immediately knew it was a terrorist attack and not a demonstration. Do you really believe the State Department did not notify the White House immediately, when this was watched in real time feeds at the State Department? When I was in the Navy in DC, the military base I worked on, specifically my building, had a direct phone line to the White House. This administration ignored all intelligence reports, and did nothing to be pro-active in security measures. They are throwing the Intelligence community under the bus, the same intelligence community who laughed at the President when he said Al Qaeda is decimated and on the run(Now that statement has been eliminated by the Obama campaign). That statement was news to everybody in the Intel community. This President did not have the guts to come out and tell the truth, apologize, admit they made a mistake, and offer a solution and corrective measures on how they will prevent these mistakes in the future. Now they have another week to come up with another lie and spin. We were told it was a demonstration due to a youtube video. Susan Rice on live TV, the incompetent Jay Carney how many times he lied and flip flopped. Carney is the most incompetent Press Secretary I have ever seen. Eric Nordstrom is one of the finest public servants this country has and I commend him for his honesty and integrity. Remember this was an Ambassador that was sodomized and beaten to death and dragged through the streets. The American public deserves the truth not disgraceful lies and blatant coverup!
All I talked about was reported in the news. I don't think it takes working in intelligence to be able to talk about what was in the news. If I posted anything incorrect in regards to the phone call from AL-qeada in Africa, the number of agents in Benghazi at the time, the weapons used by he dozens of attackers or the investigation afterwards... feel free to correct me. That is what this board is for.
Romney got hung up on the words. He shouldn't have challenged Obama on semantics... that was his mistake... and again, this is something he could have hammered Obama on if he had just said exactly what you just posted, but he didn't. He challenged Obama on using the phrase "act of terror" which Obama did use in reference to the attack.
ROMNEY: I -- I think interesting the president just said something which -- which is that on the day after the attack he went into the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror.
OBAMA: That's what I said.
ROMNEY: You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack, it was an act of terror.
It was not a spontaneous demonstration, is that what you're saying?
OBAMA: Please proceed governor.
ROMNEY: I want to make sure we get that for the record because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.
OBAMA: Get the transcript.
I'm not even going to argue because it is useless. The evidence will come out and clearly show this administration is incompetent, and that this was a terrorist attack, there was no demonstration, no youtube video that was responsible for this tragic event as the President, Susan Rice and Jay Carney have claimed. The President lied bottom line, he could have manned up and taken responsibility, told the truth and apologized, but no, the American public is getting lie after lie, excuses and spin. I'm glad this stays in the forefront because Romney now will get to slam President Obama in the next debate.
We have acknowledged that this was a terrorist attack.
The day after the attack, the CIA chief in Libya said that this that militants launched an attack "using the pretext of demonstrations against U.S. facilities in Egypt against the film to cover their intent."
Again, this is just what was reported. Our response in talking about the video seemed to be trying to stop the spread of US hatred and protests especially in regards to the video.
Honestly. If we look at the facts... A protest broke out in Egypt over the video 2 days after it aired on Egyptian television.
Hours later, there was an attack in Libya. The anti-US "protests" spread to Isreal and Gaza, Lebanon, Sudan, Tunisia,Yemen, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
We needed to make sure that all of the other protests did not turn into Libya. I think we did a good job of that.
DC your perspective is welcome here.
And Obama said the word terror in his comments but it was right after he spoke of 9/11 and was referring to terror attacks not Libya. It's clear if you read the transcript.
But the reality is that this is a cover up and Romney continues to give the press and the Dems the ammo to keep talking about something else. The American people do deserve to know what occured but its doubtful that will happen because an election is on the line.
And Obama said the word terror in his comments but it was right after he spoke of 9/11 and was referring to terror attacks not Libya. It's clear if you read the transcript.
But the reality is that this is a cover up and Romney continues to give the press and the Dems the ammo to keep talking about something else. The American people do deserve to know what occured but its doubtful that will happen because an election is on the line.
