[mikemike]

I think Romney did a pretty good job hammering home the record and the president's failures on that front. The president's attempts to cherry pick "30 months of private sector jobs" to downplay the fact that he has been in office for 45 months just made him look misleading when Romney called him out that the jobs created in the past 30 months barely make up for the jobs lost in his first 15. I think he also did a good job hammering Obama on his failure to even attempt to do immigration reform, although he probably won't be scoring many points for his immigration platform, it takes the wind out of the president's sails.

Demeanor wise, I spotted a few times where Romney gave the president a direct order and Obama complied immediately for whatever signal that sends to people watching. But I would say Obama did better at not looking sheepish and ashamed when Romney pointed out his shameful failures to the american people.

[jeffkrol]

Just seemed like a place for this.. for the real "mittens"..........

So what does this reveal about how Romney would rule? It is clear he doesn't only think that corporations are people; he thinks that corporations are the people who deserve to be free above all else -- even if it's the freedom to topple democracies and empower tyrants.

It shouldn't surprise us that Romney sees the world exclusively through the prism of extracting profit, because there is evidence he even sees the most intimate parts of human life in this way. The New York Times has reported that a few years after graduating from Harvard Business School, he returned to give a useful lecture. He told the students "they [as individuals] were like multinational corporations." The Times explains: "He drew a chart called a growth-share matrix with little circles to represent various pursuits: work, family, church. Investing time in work delivered tangible returns like raises and profits. 'Your children don't pay any evidence of achievement for twenty years,' Mr Romney said. But if students failed to invest sufficient time and energy in their spouses and children, their family could become 'dogs' -- consultant-speak for drags on the rest of the company." They later note that the business students were delighted because "Romney had proved the value of family time based not on emotion but on yield."

If you believe that your own children need to be assessed "based not on emotion but on yield," is it any surprise that you would assess backing murderous tyrants in the same way? The half a million peasants killed by Suharto produced no "yield" for the US -- indeed, they may have been "dogs" -- while Suharto did: he handed its companies profit. So it would be illogical, in this value system, to side with the former over the latter. Corporations are structured to do one thing and one thing only: maximize profit. Romney applies this value to all human institutions, from being a parent to being a President. To him, you are a multinational corporation. The US government is a multinational corporation. Corporations are people, my friend.

These same impulses drive Romney's domestic policies. The only time he gets angry about anything at home in 'No Regrets' is when he discusses the tiny waning flicker of power that trade unions still hold in the US -- which he says is far too great. His central complaint is that "some union CEOS" spend their time worrying about "how many of their union's jobs they can protect, how much more they can increase wages, and how they can impose even more favorable work rules" -- a reality that infuriates him. He says in the US today "union CEOs have become the 800 pound gorillas" and "the political power of organized labor has gone beyond the bounds of responsible management."

This is all part of Romney's consistent vision of how freedom works. He wants rich people to be able to band together in organizations called "corporations" to defend their interests -- and if anybody else tries to restrict corporate freedom by banding together to defend their own interests, they must be stopped.

Johann Hari: Why Does Mitt Romney Support Violently Overthrowing Democratically Elected Leaders?

And Mitt Romney is angry. Very angry. The source of his fury is not that a democracy was liquidated. No. It is that the United States government was -- for once -- not initially on the side of throwing out an elected center-left leader in Latin America. He told a press conference with disgust: "When Honduras wanted to toss out their pro-Marxist president, our president stood with him." In his book, he calls Zelaya a "corrupt autocrat... who was lawfully removed from office by the Honduran Supreme Court." He adds: "It is stunning to think that the president of the United States would force Honduras to act contrary to its own laws in order to restore a repressive, anti-American leader to power."

Thanks to WikiLeaks, we know that nobody outside the Honduran far right believed this. The internal memos of the US diplomats on the ground stated that "there is no doubt" that it "constituted an illegal and unconstitutional coup", with, at its heart, "an abduction" and "kidnapping" of the elected President.

[boriscleto]

He tried that in the first debate and learned better. More points are awarded for aggression and evasion.

Did Romney answer a question in either debate? What deductions is he cutting? What will he do about assault weapons or should he do anything? Fast and Furious was not an answer to the question, and the praise of the 2d Amendment came from the President. What will Gov. Romney actually do with the 12 million undocumented immigrants here? Exactly how will he get that first young man a job? Binders full of women in 2002 is not an answer to what he will do about equal pay. ...and on and on.

I said after the first debate that I'd rather see more substance and less on who commanded the room. I was overruled by tens of millions of votes the other way.

What about self-deportation? And how will he get that young man a job? He knows what he's doing. Trust him!

[jeffkrol]

Barack Obama Beat Mitt Romney in the 2nd Presidential Debate, 64-36 - Forbes

Barack Obama Beat Mitt Romney in the 2nd Presidential Debate, 64-36



might as well beat up on Rob-men as well:
Hmm ...


http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/10/16/ryans-despicable-soup-kitch...-for-the-poor/

Says Mr. Antal-

“We’re a faith-based organization; we are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations. It’s strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors.”

And it only gets worse from there.

Seems the "privileged few" attitude is rubbing off on little "Dick" head Grayson

---

Last edited by jeffkrol; 10-17-2012 at 06:48 AM.

[Nesster]

This was my favorite line in the debate, it really sums things up:

That's why we've got to make sure that we've got the best science and research in the world. And when we talk about deficits, if we're adding to our deficit for tax cuts for folks who don't need them, and we're cutting investments in research and science that will create the next Apple, create the next new innovation that will sell products around the world, we will lose that race.

Obama speaking

[jeffkrol]

Romney should have pointed out that chrysler belongs to the Italians and Ford didnt take a gov bailout.

And yes, the goverment still uses binders for cv's.

Just hammering it home..............

Had Romney’s advice “been followed by either the Bush administration or the Obama administration, we would have today no auto industry,” Rattner said in February.

A former Bush aide agreed. “It wasn’t just that there wasn’t credit available; a lot of private equity had cash, they just weren’t giving it away,” said Tony Fratto, who worked in the administration when the initial bailout loans were extended in late 2008. “It was a very uncertain situation.”

Mike Jackson, chief executive officer of AutoNation Inc. (AN), the largest U.S. auto-dealer group, said the idea that private financing was available was a “fantasy.”

Romney?s Auto Industry Advice Wasn?t Taken: Reality Check - Businessweek

[normhead]

Did Obama give a straight up answer to a single question?

What kind of question is that? What kind of politician gives straight answers to anything... bottom line when dealing with the public..."The truth? You can't handle the truth." The American public seems to want snake oil salesmen for politicians. And then when they get them, they make statements like the above. Is Romney ever going to discuss the 47% with the American public. No it had to be ferreted out of private meeting. The best you can say in this case is, I'm not sure Obama is hiding anything.. but he does try and put his policies in a good light. I suspect Obama is probably way more capable than he lets on. Romney on the other hand is just hiding, hoping his real self doesn't show through to the public, while using catch phrases that show the ruling class that he understands the language, and what it is he's supposed to do if elected. He certainly doesn't want the 47% to know how he feels about them.

[mikemike]

This was my favorite line in the debate, it really sums things up:


Obama speaking

So that is the Obama plan, tax cuts for the rich will create the next company that starts in a garage, succeeds for a few years, fails for a decade, then becomes wildly successful by outsourcing everything to China. He better hope that Romney doesn't steal that plank.

I think Romney's best answer came to the question

Michael Jones QUESTION: Mr. President, I voted for you in 2008. What have you done or accomplished to earn my vote in 2012? I'm not that optimistic as I was in 2012. Most things I need for everyday living are very expensive.

Obama's answer... I killed OBL, made sure planned parenthood retained funding, and passed Obamacare which should save you money.

Romney's answer that stuff doesn't affect your pocketbook, doesn't give you any job security or create jobs, and in fact health insurance is more expensive while median wages are down. He also made what I think is his best selling point, Obama sincerely wants to help you but is completely incompetent and doesn't know what needs to be done as evidenced by the last four years so if you re-elect him, expect four more years of exactly the same failures.
Page 6: The Second 2012 Presidential Debate - Full Transcript Oct. 16 - ABC News

[GeneV]

So that is the Obama plan, tax cuts for the rich will create the next company that starts in a garage, succeeds for a few years, fails for a decade, then becomes wildly successful by outsourcing everything to China. He better hope that Romney doesn't steal that plank.

Mike, you a pretty young to need reading glasses if you got that from Jussi's post.

[cardinal43]

Did Obama give a straight up answer to a single question?

He sure as heck gave one in the closing statement. Mitt said 100% and Obama nailed him for the 47% comment.

[JohnInIndy]

Romney should have pointed out that chrysler belongs to the Italians and Ford didnt take a gov bailout.

And yes, the goverment still uses binders for cv's.

Although Ford did not need money from the $80 billion bailout program, Ford did receive $5.9 billion in government loans in 2009 to retool its manufacturing plants to produce more fuel-efficient cars, and the company lobbied for and benefited from the cash-for-clunkers program — contrary to the ad’s testimonial that Ford is “standing on their own.”

Romney should have also pointed out that although GM did "repay" the money unless GM gets to $57/share the taxpayer is still on the hook for a bunch of $$$$$$

Obama was still talking about the Libya terrorist act being an act of protest because of that trailer 14 days after we knew it was terrorism. Within 48 hours the Libyan president said it was a terrorist attack

Libya’s president says the deadly assault on a U.S. consulate was a “pre-planned act of terrorism” timed for the 9/11 anniversary — not spontaneous savagery sparked by an anti-Islam movie.
“They chose this date, 11th of September, to carry a certain message,” President Mohammed Magarief said Wednesday.
The trailer for the California-made film “Innocence of the Muslims” had been on YouTube for several months before the terrorists struck, killing U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and three other Americans.
The film had “nothing to do with this attack,” Magarief told NBC’s Anne Curry.

DENVER - In the second of three Presidential debates, an exchange on Libya came to an interesting end with moderator Candy Crowley of CNN correcting Mitt Romney.
Romney accused the President of dishonesty by saying he called the September 11 attack on the U.S. embassy in Benghazi an "act of terror" on the day after the attack.
The President contended that he did and Crowley sided with him when correcting Romney.
So who's right?
Both sides have a valid point to make.
In his speech reacting to the attack, the President did speak about in the context of "acts of terror." However, he did not explicitly call the attack itself an "act of terror."
Here's an excerpt of the relevant section from the transcript of the speech:
"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.

She should have not said anything. It wasn't her job in any way shape or form.

But four days later, Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., went on five networks' Sunday shows and cast the attack as hardly a coordinated strike by terrorists.
"We are obviously investigating this very closely. The FBI has a lead in this investigation," Rice said Sept. 16 on "Fox News Sunday." "The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack. That what happened initially was that it was a spontaneous reaction to what had just transpired in Cairo as a consequence of the video. People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons, which unfortunately are quite common in post-revolutionary Libya and that then spun out of control.
"But we don't see at this point signs this was a coordinated plan, premeditated attack. Obviously, we will wait for the results of the investigation and we don't want to jump to conclusions before then. But I do think it's important for the American people to know our best current assessment."

• June 6: Unknown assailants blow a hole in the consulate’s north gate described by a witness as “big enough for 40 men to go through.” Four days later, the British ambassador’s car is ambushed by militants with a rocket-propelled grenade.
• July: Anti-Islam video “Innocence of Muslims” posted on You Tube.
• Aug. 14: SST team leaves Libya. Team leader Lt. Col. Andy Wood has testified that Stevens wanted them to stay on.
• In the weeks before Sept. 11, Libyan security guards are reportedly warned by family members of an impending attack. On Sept. 8, the Libyan militia tasked with protecting the consulate warns U.S. diplomats that the security situation is “frightening.”
• Sept. 10: Al Qaeda leader Ayman al Zawahiri calls on Libyans to avenge the death of his Libyan deputy, Abu Yahya al Libi, killed in a June drone strike in Pakistan.
• Sept. 11: Protesters converge on the U.S. embassy in Cairo, scale its walls and replace the U.S. flag with the Islamist banner. The protests eventually spread to 20 countries around the world. That night, Republican candidate Mitt Romney criticizes an embassy statement denouncing the video before the events unfolding in Libya are known to the world. Late that night, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says in a statement that “some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet.”

[GeneV]

Here is my question for Gov. Romney: Are you really saying that we are in an economic pickle because there are too many deductions? If the plan is deficit neutral, then what is the point? It won't help the deficit, and you seem to be denying it will put more money in the pockets of the job-creators. Please explain why this helps anything major that may be wrong?

[GeneV]

She should have not said anything. It wasn't her job in any way shape or form.

Did you actually watch the debate or are you just repeating a right wing blog? Romney was not getting off that false point about the Rose Garden speech or moving on, and he was looking at her plaintively as though he wanted her to say the President was lying. She even gave him an out, and he didn't take it.

[mikemike]

Here is my question for Gov. Romney: Are you really saying that we are in an economic pickle because there are too many deductions? If the plan is deficit neutral, then what is the point? It won't help the deficit, and you seem to be denying it will put more money in the pockets of the job-creators. Please explain why this helps anything major that may be wrong?

It helps to make the tax code simpler because it makes it easier for people to file their taxes successfully on their own. It allows people with math and science skills to do math, science, and computer occupations instead of tax prep. It helps poor people who can more accurately set their withholding instead of taking out a refund advance loan every spring at a 20% APR.

[Nesster]

So that is the Obama plan, tax cuts for the rich will create the next company that starts in a garage, succeeds for a few years, fails for a decade, then becomes wildly successful by outsourcing everything to China. He better hope that Romney doesn't steal that plank.

a pair of cheap sunglasses...

Obama was actually saying the opposite. Reinstate a reasonably progressive income tax... the issue with the Bush cuts (and the Romney ones) is that these are revenue negative. Due to sacred cows on both sides of the spectrum, what's left are the things government does better than private industry, precisely because the economic/health returns are not immediate nor guaranteed, to cut in order to satisfy the deficit phobes.

Now, of course Obama as a politician says things that don't fully realize themselves in, well, reality But I've learned to see the benefits in the margins, in the possible. I can be persuaded some around welfare and military spending, but the kinds of 'infrastructure', both physical and mental, that Obama consistently points to as the right things to do, I am fully in agreement with. Funding basic research, funding of technology programs -military, space etc- the funding of roads and bridge maintenance, these things are important to the success of our entrepreneurs, even if these things allow them to outsource manufacturing