ChrisWeigant.com

Please support ChrisWeigant.com this
holiday season!

Friday Talking Points [231] -- Snappy Women Label Needed

[ Posted Friday, October 19th, 2012 – 16:04 PDT ]

As always, we are here to bring you the burning questions of the day that nobody else is asking. Today's question: What will we call the 2012 women?

Now, no disrespect is meant by asking this question. The article title refers to a "snappy label" and not "snappy women," just to be clear. We are merely humbly pointing out the coming convergence of two political themes in the days leading up to the election. The first of these is the fact that women seem to be emerging as the ultimate swing group of voters this year, since the polls have shown more movement among their demographic than any other. The second is the media's childlike fascination with slapping a catchy label on the demographic they deem most critical in pretty much every presidential election in recent memory. Perhaps this has been going on since the beginning of time, but the earliest one that springs to mind was "Reagan Democrats," which was admittedly pretty broad. In the 1990s, things became more specific, with the "soccer moms." Then we got the "NASCAR dads," so hubby wouldn't feel left out (we suppose... it's hard to tell...). Next up was "security moms," putting the ball back on the women's side of the net.

Last election didn't really have a comfortable "mom/dad" demographic on either side, at least that I can remember (I might have missed the memo, I fully admit). We had "Joe The Plumber" for McCain, but he was really just one guy. Obama was pushed over the top by "first-time voters" which is pretty generic, we have to say. Some broke this down into two groups, the "youth vote" which got away from the whole mom/dad thing and gave the kids a chance in the spotlight, and "single moms" which got us right back into mom territory. Neither subgroup was deemed as important as first-time voters (or "new voters"), but we have to say that 2008 was somewhat of a disappointment, demographic-marketing-wise.

Which is why we aim to correct this lack by throwing the question open to our inventive readers. What do you think the women voters of 2012 will be called by the media? While pretty much all the other demographics are fairly locked up and stable right now, the polls have shown that women are the most persuadable in the final weeks of the 2012 campaign. Barack Obama had an overwhelming advantage among women, riding the success of the "War On Women" theme from earlier in the year. However, when Obama failed to mention women at all in his first debate, Mitt Romney got a huge boost and has (by some reports) pulled even with Obama among women.

So women may be the spotlighted demographic on election night. Single women, in particular, seem to be mentioned most often in these polling reports. So, the question remains: what snappy label can we come up with for this all-important demographic in the 2012 election? Of course, this could change depending on who wins, so more than one answer may in fact be needed. If Romney wins, what will the swing group of women that propels him to victory be called, on election night and far into the future? If Obama regains his standing and pulls ahead because he convinces women to vote for him, what will the media decide to call the women who made it happen?

I must admit I don't have any bright and spontaneous ideas. Spin off the "War On Women" and call them "Women Warriors"? Um, that just brings up an image of Xena to me, so perhaps not. "Planned Parenthood Women" seems a little too specific and also seems too long to qualify as a catchy phrase (a catchy catchphrase?). Sorry, folks, I'm at a loss -- which is why I'm opening the suggestion box to everyone.

It may seem trivial to ask for suggestions for a snappy media moniker, but then again if you post a comment so brilliant that everyone notices, then perhaps the mainstream media will decide to run with it, who knows? Put your thinking caps on, and coin the "key demographic" phrase of the year! Beat the media at their own game!

[Note: We would run this as a full-blown contest, but we've already run our "Call The 2012 Election" contest this week, and we felt that two would just be too much for one week. If you're an uberwonk and are frustrated because everyone else is wrong in their election predictions, we heartily encourage you to take our "Call The 2012 Election" challenge.]

 

Most Impressive Democrat of the Week

As with last week, choosing the winner of the Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week award was pretty easy this week.

Barack Obama's second debate performance on Tuesday night was one whale of a lot more impressive than his first attempt. The president had certainly done his debate prep this time around, and he gave as good as he got. One wonders if, in the near future, we'll be having "ultimate cage match fights" instead of debates to select our presidents, after seeing the direction presidential debating seems to be headed. It's a cable news world these days, and we've now seen two of the first made-for-cable debates (Biden, and Obama this week) in American history. The trend is obvious, for those that can see it, and sparks will doubtlessly fly once again next Monday evening.

Obama is said to disdain Romney, but this isn't really true. Obama disdains the nitty-gritty of politics. You can tell he really isn't the most comfortable candidate in a debate setting. But he overcame this reluctance Monday and turned in a wowzer of a performance, complete with smackdown lines, humor, and the all-important humanizing stories.

For such a stellar performance on stage with Mitt Romney this week, there truly is no other candidate for Most Impressive Democrat Of The Week this time around. Obama owned the week, and rightfully so. Let's have another debate like the last one on Monday, Mister President, how does that sound?

[Congratulate President Barack Obama on his White House contact page, to let him know you appreciate his efforts.]

 

Most Disappointing Democrat of the Week

In little-noticed news this week, a court case is being heard that challenges the fundamental federal position on marijuana. The group suing the feds is arguing that marijuana should be considered a "Schedule II" dangerous controlled substance, while the feds maintain it should stay as "Schedule I." The only difference between the two is whether the drug has an accepted medical use or not. Got all that? There are more details, but that's the heart of the matter: whether marijuana has medical uses or not.

The strongest argument for medical use is the fact that over one-third of the United States have approved marijuana's medical use at the state level (most by voter initiative). There is no defensible argument to be made on the federal government's side, in the face of that fact.

But the Justice Department is trying to square the circle. They are arguing that there simply aren't enough properly-run scientific peer-reviewed studies of marijuana's use as a beneficial medicine to prove that marijuana has accepted medical uses. The problem -- the indefensible part -- is that to run one of these proper scientific studies, you need the permission of the federal government before you begin. Marijuana is, after all, illegal, and so any legitimate scientific study has to get permission to administer an illegal substance. However, the process for getting such approval is not only long, difficult, and convoluted, even when a research team attempts to jump over the multiple hurdles set in their path by the feds, approval is almost never forthcoming.

This leaves the Justice Department lawyers to argue the following in court: there are not enough proper scientific studies to determine that marijuana is a valid medicine, and we are not going to allow proper scientific studies to take place, because we are afraid of what they will prove.

Catch-22.

For wasting American tax dollars on such "Alice In Wonderland" legal reasoning, we hereby award the Most Disappointing Democrat Of The Week to the man at the helm, Attorney General Eric Holder. Stop fighting Nancy Reagan's Drug War, and let's all enter the twenty-first century, shall we?

[Contact the boss of Attorney General Eric Holder on the White House contact page, to let the Obama administration know what you think of their actions.]

 

Friday Talking Points

Volume 231 (10/19/12)

I had planned to dissect Obama's debate performance today, and highlight the best parts of it, but then I noticed the speech Obama gave this morning, in which he hit the same points even harder. So we're going to use our talking points section this week to excerpt the speech President Obama gave in Virginia this morning. These are the themes for Obama's home stretch, which he'll be hitting right up to the election.

The transcript of the speech is available on the White House website, or you can watch the video of it to see Obama's presentation. I've edited these by removing all the "(Applause)" and "(Laughter)" notations, as well as a few call-and-response lines where the audience boos, Obama stops and interjects "Don't boo..." and the audience yells back "...VOTE!" While it's a good line if you're there in person, these are a distraction when reading a transcript.

 

1
   Romney's one-point plan

This was a big line during the debate, and we'll be hearing it often from now on.

He wants you to believe that somehow he'll create 12 million jobs, cut taxes by $5 trillion, even though it favors the wealthiest Americans. None of this will add to the deficit.

When folks who don't actually work for Governor Romney start crunching the numbers, it turns out the tax plan doesn't add up, jobs plan doesn't create jobs, deficit plan doesn't reduce the deficit. An economist at the New York Times put it this morning, "There's no jobs plan -- there's just a snow job on the American people." A snow job.

Virginia, you've heard of the New Deal, you've heard of the Square Deal, the Fair Deal. Mitt Romney is trying to give you a Sketchy Deal. A sketchy deal.

And it's really just a one-point plan, not a five-point plan. One point -- folks at the very top play by a different set of rules than all of you.

 

2
   He refuses to say

Romney has inexplicably been trying to have things both ways on equal pay for women. Obama has pounced on this, as well he should. Note, at the end, a brilliant tactic Obama unveiled in the debate -- "It's not a women's issue, it's a family issue, it's an economic issue." That is an excellent talking point, right there.

He may not have noticed, we're in the 21st century. And in the 21st century, a woman deserves equal pay for equal work. This should be a no-brainer. But no matter how many times Governor Romney is asked whether or not he supports a law upholding that idea, he refuses to say. Why should this be hard? Are you for equal pay for equal work? Are you for making sure that laws enforce that basic principle?

He can't tell you. I can. I support that law. In fact, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was the first law that I signed into office. And this isn't just a women's issue. No man should want his wife, or his daughters paid less than a man for doing the same job. This is a family issue. This is an economic issue. It's one that we've got to fight for.

 

3
   The only person who should decide is you

Continuing this line, Obama says something I've been waiting for Democrats to say for a long time: Republicans are now the ones trying to put politicians between a woman and her doctor. Hit this hard, since you get to use a Republican talking point against them. It's petard-hoisting time, folks.

When Governor Romney said he'd have supported an extreme measure in Massachusetts that could have outlawed some forms of contraception, when he joined the far right of his party to support a bill that would have allowed any employer to deny contraceptive care to their employees... What he didn't get is that making sure your insurance policy covers contraceptive care is an economic issue also.

I don't think your boss should decide what's best for your health and safety. I don't think your insurance company gets to decide what care you should get. And I sure don't think any politician should decide. The only person who should decide about your health care is you.

And, by the way, that's why we fought so hard to pass health care reform, a.k.a. Obamacare. That's why we pushed for it.

 

4
   Defending Obamacare

This has also been a long time coming. Don't apologize for Obamacare, stand up for it! Tell us why it's a good thing. Tell us the good that it's already done. Tell us the good things that will go away if Mitt Romney is elected.

This law has secured new access to preventive care like mammograms and other cancer screenings for more than 20 million women, with no co-pay, no deductible, no out-of-pocket cost, because I do not believe a working mother should have to put off a mammogram just because money is tight.

This law means that most health plans are now beginning to cover the cost of contraceptive care because I don't think a college student in Charlottesville or Blacksburg or Fairfax should have to choose between textbooks or the preventive care that she needs.

And, by the way for all the young people out here, Obamacare has already allowed nearly 7 million young adults under the age of 26 to sign up to stay on their parent's plans.

For all those who are young at heart but not young in years, it's already saved millions of seniors on Medicare hundreds of dollars on their prescription medicine.

Insurance companies can no longer put lifetime limits on your care or discriminate against children with pre-existing conditions. And soon, they'll no longer be able to charge women more for the same care just because they're women. That's what change looks like.

 

5
   Binders full of women

If we're fighting for women, don't forget the Supreme Court. Obama has reason to brag, here. And since we're on the subject, might as well toss in the "binders full of women," just for a laugh.

I know he's called him severely -- he's called himself "severely conservative," but there's nothing conservative about a government that prevents a woman from making her own health care decisions.

He talks about freedom, but freedom is the ability to choose the care you need when you need it. Freedom is the ability to change jobs or start your own business without the fear of losing your health insurance. Freedom is the knowledge that you'll no longer be charged more than men for the same health care, or denied affordable coverage just because you beat cancer.

When the next president and Congress could tip the balance of the highest court in the land in a way that turns back the clock for women and families for decades to come, you don't want someone who needs to ask for binders of women. You don't want that guy. You want a president who has already appointed two unbelievable women to the Supreme Court of the United States.

 

6
   Defending the record

This was a refrain of one of the strongest portions of the earlier debate. Barack Obama is finally standing up and saying "this is what I've done." It's a pretty impressive list, and I've never heard the case made stronger than the president made it today.

Four years ago, I told you we'd end the war in Iraq, and we did. I said we'd end the war in Afghanistan -- we are. I said we'd refocus on the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and we have. Al Qaeda is on the path to defeat. Osama bin Laden is dead.

Four years ago, I promised to cut taxes for middle-class families, and I have. I promised to cut taxes for small business owners -- we have, 18 times.

We got every dime back from the banks that we used to rescue those banks. We passed laws to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good.

We repealed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell," to make sure that nobody who wants to serve our country gets kicked out because of who they love.

When Governor Romney said we'd let -- he'd let Detroit go bankrupt, we said, we're not going to take your advice. We reinvented a dying auto industry that's come roaring back to the top of the world.

Four years after the worst economic crisis of our lifetime, we're moving. After losing 800,000 jobs a month when I took office, businesses have now added over 5 million new jobs. Unemployment has fallen from 10 percent to 7.8 percent. Home values are back on the rise. The stock market has nearly doubled -- 401(k)s are starting to recover. Manufacturing is coming home. Assembly lines are humming again. We've got to keep moving forward. We've got to keep moving forward.

 

7
   Romnesia

Of course, I saved the best for last. Romnesia? Isn't that a country in the former Yugoslavia? No?

The choice between going backward and moving forward has never been so clear. But now that we're 18 days out from the election, Mr. "Severely Conservative" wants you to think he was severely kidding about everything he said over the last year. He told folks he was "the ideal candidate" for the Tea Party. Now suddenly he's saying, "what, who, me?" He's forgetting what his own positions are, and he's betting that you will, too.

I mean, he's changing up so much and backtracking and sidestepping we've got to name this condition that he's going through. I think it's called "Romnesia." That's what it's called. I think that's what he's going through.

Now, I'm not a medical doctor, but I do want to go over some of the symptoms with you -- because I want to make sure nobody else catches it. If you say you're for equal pay for equal work, but you keep refusing to say whether or not you'd sign a bill that protects equal pay for equal work -- you might have Romnesia.

If you say women should have access to contraceptive care, but you support legislation that would let your employer deny you contraceptive care -- you might have a case of Romnesia.

If you say you'll protect a woman's right to choose, but you stand up at a primary debate and said that you'd be delighted to sign a law outlying -- outlawing that right to choose in all cases -– man, you've definitely got Romnesia.

Now, this extends to other issues. If you say earlier in the year, I'm going to give a tax cut to the top 1 percent and then in a debate you say, I don't know anything about giving tax cuts to rich folks -- you need to get a thermometer, take your temperature, because you've probably got Romnesia.

If you say that you're a champion of the coal industry when, while you were governor you stood in front of a coal plant and said, this plant will kill you -- that's some Romnesia.

So I think you're being able -- you're beginning to be able to identify these symptoms. And if you come down with a case of Romnesia, and you can't seem to remember the policies that are still on your website -- or the promises you've made over the six years you've been running for president, here's the good news: Obamacare covers pre-existing conditions. We can fix you up. We've got a cure. We can make you well, Virginia. This is a curable disease.

-- Chris Weigant

 

All-time award winners leaderboard, by rank
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

Cross-posted at: Democratic Underground
Cross-posted at: The Huffington Post

 

46 Comments on “Friday Talking Points [231] -- Snappy Women Label Needed”

  1. [1] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    When i heard someone say "romnesia," honestly i thought they were talking about the chicago mayor - "rahm-nesia"

    ~joshua

  2. [2] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think they need to drop the "Romnesia" routine and start laying out a vision for a second term — unless, of course, they're doing "Romnesia" to shore up the base.

  3. [3] 
    Michale wrote:

    I think they need to drop the "Romnesia" routine and start laying out a vision for a second term — unless, of course, they're doing "Romnesia" to shore up the base.

    That's all Obama has done in the last couple months is cater to the base... Especially after his abysmal performance in the first debate..

    Bases don't win elections.. Independents and NPAs decide elections...

    Obama seems to have forgotten this..

    Michale....

  4. [4] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Bases don't win elections.. Independents and NPAs decide elections...

    Yeah, but putting aside that Indies/NPA's can't carry him over the finish line without his base, if O loses, he's also got a legacy to think about. It would be bad enough to be unseated, but if his own base drops by a noteworthy percentage, that doesn't look too good in the history books. The Black vote, for example, doesn't even look shored up. In a recent poll (I think it was Gallup), he's got an 88% job approval among Blacks. In 2008, he carried them by something like 96%. Now, that's not to say that Romeny would capture that 8%, but they may well sit home (their ministers are fuming over O's support of gay marriage), which is just as bad for Obama. The women's vote has been closing up, too, and he's also losing a chunk of the Catholics. And who knows how many Latinos/Hispanics will actually turn out? And what about the "yutes," who also played a big role in 2008? They're historically notorious for not showing up; plus, the Obama Fever isn't sweeping them, like back in '08, when they were all groovin' to the tunes of will.i.am and walking around with tee shirts and buttons, and bumper stickers stuck to their foreheads.

    And Lord only knows what O's internal polling is showing. I get a real funny feeling, looking at these whacky public polls, that he's not faring quite as well in his own internal polling.

    But we shall see, soon enough, I guess. ;D

  5. [5] 
    Osborne Ink wrote:

    Milk of Romnesia. It's what you drink when you're full of shit.

  6. [6] 
    Michale wrote:

    That'll be PRESIDENT-ELECT Romnesia in a couple weeks.. :D

    And Lord only knows what O's internal polling is showing. I get a real funny feeling, looking at these whacky public polls, that he's not faring quite as well in his own internal polling.

    I wonder how Obama's retirement home in Hawaii is coming along... :D

    Michale.....

  7. [7] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://freebeacon.com/obama-campaign-borrows-15m-from-bank-of-america/

    Isn't Bank Of America one of the bad guys???

    So much for integrity, eh? :D

    It's almost as funny as the Oowezer groups putting THEIR money into BofA... :D

    Michale.....

  8. [8] 
    michty6 wrote:

    CW,
    What do you think the women voters of 2012 will be called by the media?

    Let's see:
    - 'Binder Moms'
    - 'Professional Moms/women'
    - 'Moms who want their kids to have access to healthcare and grow up in a fairer society'

    The last one isn't quite so catchy though...

    Michale,
    Independents and NPAs decide elections...
    Obama seems to have forgotten this

    Yes I'm sure Independents and NPAs are very happy to hear what a lying sack of shit the Republican candidate is or the Republican candidate is a sleazy salesman who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected with no integrity at all. Obama should definitely stop pointing this out lol.

  9. [9] 
    Michale wrote:

    Yes I'm sure Independents and NPAs are very happy to hear what a lying sack of shit the Republican candidate is or the Republican candidate is a sleazy salesman who will say or do whatever it takes to get elected with no integrity at all. Obama should definitely stop pointing this out lol.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/10/20/obama-admin-recalibrating-benghazi-narrative-again-before-fp-debate/

    Yea...

    And Obama is the shining beacon of truth and virtue, right?? :^/

    Michale....

  10. [10] 
    Michale wrote:

    Michty,

    Yer just pissy because even you can no longer deny the inevitable...

    In about two weeks, we'll have President-Elect Romney...

    Happy Days will be here again... :D

    Michale

  11. [11] 
    Michale wrote:

    Still no explanation as to why lifelong Democrat Lee Iacocca endorsed Romney???

    Michale....

  12. [12] 
    Michale wrote:

    CIA chiefs face arrest over horrific evidence of bloody 'video-game' sorties by drone pilots

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2220828/US-drone-attacks-CIA-chiefs-face-arrest-horrific-evidence-bloody-video-game-sorties.html

    No red lines???

    "Fascinating..."
    -Spock, STAR TREK

    Michale

  13. [13] 
    Michale wrote:

    I know I harp alot on the red lines issue, but ya'all gotta admit, it's REALLY out of character for ya'all to be silent regarding such activities...

    Can you imagine how "silent" ya'all would be if these reports were coming in during a Republican administration?? Ya'all would be apoplectic..

    I'm guessing there is never any response to these kinds of comments because everyone is in complete agreement...

    Michale.....

  14. [14] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I wonder how Obama's retirement home in Hawaii is coming along...

    LOL! I heard about that. That's another reason I get the feeling that his internal polling is telling a slightly different tale.

  15. [15] 
    Michale wrote:

    We got every dime back from the banks that we used to rescue those banks. We passed laws to end taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailouts for good.

    Ya'all realize that THIS is one of the biggest lies told by ANY President in recent history, right???

    http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/10/16/president-obamas-big-lie-exposed

    The fact that the Obama Administration would so blatantly lie and expect NO ONE to challenge is a testament to the power (real and imagined) of the Obama Kool-Aid....

    Michale....

  16. [16] 
    akadjian wrote:

    I think they need to drop the "Romnesia" routine and start laying out a vision for a second term — unless, of course, they're doing "Romnesia" to shore up the base.

    I think it helps people remember that there really are 2 Mitt Romneys in this election- Moderate Mitt & Conservative Mitt.

    Who do you think he's lying to?

    -David

  17. [17] 
    Michale wrote:

    http://times247.com/articles/obama-receives-endorsements-from-three-dictators

    Obama is the Candidate of Choice for Chavez, Putin and Castro....

    Which makes Romney the Candidate of Choice for the American people...

    It's funny...

    The Left screamed to high heaven when they thought that Netanyahu was taking sides in the US Election...

    But when three of the most infamous dictators of our time publicly endorse OBAMA.....???

    The Left is strangely silent...

    Things that make ya go...... hmmmmmmmmmmmm. :D

    Michale.....

  18. [18] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Michale,

    Did you know that there was a site called 'rightwingwatch.org'? Unfortunately I don't need to frequent it to see what crazy cooked up stuff is going on in right wing conspiracy world as I can rely on your posts on here instead!

    Seriously, you need to take a step back and look at what you're posting.

    I know you think Obama is an evil Muslim Kenyan devil usurper baby-killer (etc) but I am actually starting to get worried about your sanity, especially if Obama wins a 2nd term...

  19. [19] 
    akadjian wrote:

    CW-

    I spent a little time pondering what to call the women of 2012 but couldn't think of anything as good as 'soccer moms'. Probably because the tilt in gender seems so broad and not applied to any one niche.

    What I find interesting about this is the statistics.

    As the population increases, the ratio of men to women is typically less due to the earlier death rate of men than women. Something like 97 men to 100 women.

    What makes this interesting is that if women always voted as a single bloc, they would always win :)

    This has always made me wonder why there isn't a Women Party. The odds would always be in their favor.

    -David

    p.s. Michale ... If Obama is truly a socialist, why is the stock market back to where it was before the crash?

  20. [20] 
    akadjian wrote:

    And in other news ... the other 4 candidates are going to debate tonight

    http://freeandequal.org/updates/larry-king-to-moderate-third-party-presidential-debate/

    It would be much more interesting if they had at least one of these debates where they let all of the Presidential candidates onstage at the same time.

    -David

  21. [21] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Advance copy of Romney's inauguration speech has been leaked: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayO1wtXbh_Q

  22. [22] 
    michty6 wrote:

    If Obama is truly a socialist, why is the stock market back to where it was before the crash?

    Or the only socialist in the history of socialism who passed a mandate forcing people to buy a product from Corporations...

  23. [23] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This cartoon sums up American politics. Guns and abortions = must be debated. Poverty, poor people and human rights = nah.

    http://www.rall.com/rallblog/2012/10/22/drinking-games-for-recovering-alcoholics

  24. [24] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Poverty, poor people and human rights = nah.

    That's kind of why I'd like to see the 3rd party candidates on TV ...

    So far in our "debates" we've had almost no mention of any of the following ...

    1. Super PACs
    2. Outsourcing
    3. Climate change (or global warming)
    4. Underwater mortgages
    5. The growing wealth gap

    *sigh*

    -David

  25. [25] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Place your bets on what 'Moderate' Mitt will say tonight. I will go with this guy:

    (1) Go easy on Benghazi; (2) Say Something nice About the Palestinians; (3) Extend a hand to Mohamed Morsi; (4) Concede that the war in Iraq was a mistake; (5) Don’t rush into Syria; (6) Open the door to a deal with Iran; (7) Apply some Bain rigor to defense; and (8) Cool it on China.

    I plan on playing a new game I invented called 'flip-flop-Mitt drinking Bingo' with these 8 items tonight! Other items I expect:

    (9) Flat out denial that he said leaving Iraq was 'tragic'; (10) To advocate a policy of setting a timeline to withdraw from Afghanistan whilst also criticizing the President for setting a timeline to withdraw from Afghanistan; (11) Politi-facts lie of the year 2010: 'the President went on an apology tour'; (12) Complete denial that his foreign policy advisers are the same ones that advised Bush; (13) Something about 'leading from behind' without explaining what this means, because it sounds like good rhetoric...

    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2012_10/wheres_moderate_mitt_on_foreig040647.php

  26. [26] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So far in our "debates" we've had almost no mention of any of the following ...

    Not to mention the fiscal cliff. Have we all forgotten about that?

  27. [27] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    RE: That's kind of why I'd like to see the 3rd party candidates on TV ...

    Tomorrow night, from Chicago, the Green, Libertarian, and two others. Moderator is Larry King. And in what has to be one of the more ironic indictments of the mainstream: it's only being covered by Al Jazeera.

    I don't have a link, but I'm sure you can track it down.

  28. [28] 
    LewDan wrote:

    "
    Not to mention the fiscal cliff. Have we all forgotten about that?"

    Chris1962,

    What would be the point of debating the "fiscal cliff" in a presidential debate? The problem was created by Congress, the Republican Congress, and only Congress has authority over finance and spending. The President has little say in it and whatever happens will be decided by Congress not the President. Its important to Congressional races not the Presidency.

  29. [29] 
    akadjian wrote:

    Not to mention the fiscal cliff. Have we all forgotten about that?

    It is a little weird that this hasn't been mentioned.

    Place your bets on what 'Moderate' Mitt will say tonight.

    Here's what I think Romney's position is at this point. He's relying on a heavy carpet-bombing negative ad strategy in the swing states to turn momentum his way and there's some evidence that this is working.

    With this in mind, I think Romney will play it safe and rely on the impact of his ads.

    I do think he will have one surprise attack line in his pocket (not the Libya ambassador stuff as this has fallen flat). Maybe Afghanistan. But other than that, I'm guessing he basically presents the same foreign policy as Obama.

    -David

  30. [30] 
    michty6 wrote:

    Obama will attack Romney based on the fact that most of his advisers are the same as Bush had (true); Romney will deny this (lie) and distance himself from Bush policies as much as possible (even though his policies are exactly the same: increase military spending by trillions (unpaid for) and invade a country beginning with IRA).

    Romney will make a 'bold' (lol) statement: The War On Iraq Was A Mistake. This will probably grab most of the post-debate media attention (because the media are stupid) and Romney's use of this line will basically see him being called the 'winner' of the debate by managing to distance himself from Bush during the debate (even though all his advisers are former Bush advisers)...

  31. [31] 
    michty6 wrote:

    This is a good graph on who is lying more: http://www.eclectablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/PolitifactRulings.png

    Although obviously this doesn't measure the magnitude or frequency of the lies, it's a good start...

  32. [32] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    The President has little say in it and whatever happens will be decided by Congress not the President.

    Really, LewDan? Did he have little to say during the debt-ceiling negotiations? Because, as I recall, O was very involved in that. He, in fact, was responsible for screwing the deal up:

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bob-woodward-book-debt-deal-collapse-led-pure/story?id=17104635#.UIX0l4Ui0zq

  33. [33] 
    akadjian wrote:

    He, in fact, was responsible for screwing the deal up

    So Boehner decides to cancel the deal and the fault is Obama's?

    Btw- Obama looking good in tonight's debate. Romney has tried to present almost the exact same Obama policy as his own (with some more fear- be afraid!) but it doesn't seem to be working.

    It may not matter because of all the SuperPAC funding behind Mr. Wall Street, but Obama looks good in this round.

    -David

  34. [34] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Who wants to break to news to O that the Marines still use bayonets?

  35. [35] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    What was the number one Google search phrase between 9:00 and 10:45?

    What Twitter search was locked down by the Obama campaign before the debate concluded?

    Politics in the age of the internet is different. More wierd, more superficial, more devoid of content. What could be more reflective of American society?

  36. [36] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    So Boehner decides to cancel the deal and the fault is Obama's?

    Did you read the article? O isn't exactly a good (0r experienced) negotiator. He pushed too hard, bungled the deal and had no Plan-B to fall back on.

    Romney has tried to present almost the exact same Obama policy as his own

    I think Romney made a strategic decision not to give O and the Left any fodder in terms of trying to portray him as a "Bush war monger." And all he had to do was convince the public that he was up to the C.I.C. job. According to CNN's post-debate poll, he achieved that. 63% thought O is suited as C.I.C., but 60% thought the same about Romney.

  37. [37] 
    LeaningBlue wrote:

    Here is my idea of what North African foreign policy should be. And, while the US response was semi-fictional (although the characters were very real), Teddy Roosevelt is still my political hero.

    I pine for the days of the rifles and bayonets.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgCL0WO9-A

  38. [38] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I pine for the days of the rifles and bayonets.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0JgCL0WO9-A

    OMG, I've gotta go watch that movie again!!!

  39. [39] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Love that Chris Christie:

    ...Christie riled up the Richmond crowd saying that Obama is arrogant for believing he can’t change Washington politics.

    “If he believes that, then what the hell is he doing asking for another four years?” Christie said. “We’re happy to give you a bus ticket to the outside, Mr. President.”

    http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/22/christie-what-the-hell-is-obama-doing-asking-for-another-4-years/

    LOL! My kinda pol.

  40. [40] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Love that Chris Christie:

    i think i just vomited a little.

  41. [41] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    Ah, c'mon, you know you love him and wish he were on your side. 'D

  42. [42] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Ah, c'mon, you know you love him and wish he were on your side. 'D

    i wish president obama were on my side. christie i can do without.

  43. [43] 
    Michale wrote:

    As much as I like Chris Christie, I think the person who made the BEST statement in this regard is Obama himself.

    "If I can't fix this economy, I don't deserve a second term."
    -President Barack Obama

    I think we should take Obama at his word...

    Michale......

  44. [44] 
    Michale wrote:

    i wish president obama were on my side. christie i can do without.

    I think I know what the answer is to this, but....

    It's obvious that Obama is not the "education-oriented" President you wanted..

    True so far???

    If Romney was everything you wanted in an "education-oriented" President, would you vote Romney?? :D

    Michale....

  45. [45] 
    akadjian wrote:

    He pushed too hard, bungled the deal and had no Plan-B to fall back on.

    I think his mistake was not taking his case to the people in order to put more pressure on Republicans.

    Cantor was never going to let the deal go through. He's the one running the do nothing Congress. And he cares more about ideology than he does the country.

    In this situation, the only deal possible was 100% conservative. In other words, not really a deal.

    -David

  46. [46] 
    Chris1962 wrote:

    I think his mistake was not taking his case to the people in order to put more pressure on Republicans.

    O tends to repeat his mistakes. He made the same blunder with CrapCare.

    Either that, or he made the strategic decision not to take his CrapCase case to the public, knowing (from the polls) that the majority of Americans were not behind it.

    Cantor was never going to let the deal go through. He's the one running the do nothing Congress. And he cares more about ideology than he does the country.

    Same can be said of O, bro. But the bottom line is, O bungled that deal, as Woodward reported in his new book. And I suspect that's because O doesn't possess the leadership chops it takes to cut a big, messy deal with unfriendlies.

Comments for this article are closed.