Watching the second Obama/Romney debate …

[aadler]

 
… and slamming back Bloody Marys. Because that makes it so much easier.

• Obama isn’t as bad as in the first debate. That doesn’t mean he’s good.
• Romney isn’t as much better than Obama as he was in the first debate. That doesn’t mean he’s bad.
• Obama is (as everyone on Planet Earth knew he needed to be) more engaged and aggressive in the second debate than in the first. None of that changes the fact that he’s sitting on three and a half years of failed policies, and insisting that we give him another four years to do more of the same.
• Romney is talking about what he wants to do. What he wants to do is theoretical; the proof is in the doing. Nonetheless, Romney has a track record of setting goals and meeting them, whereas Obama has a track record of talking big and accomplishing precisely dick.
• Benghazi just came up. And, predictable as the rising of the sun, Obama tried to criticize Romney for ‘playing politics’ by criticizing the administration’s actions and responses. NEWS FLASH, OBAMA: YOUR CHOICES AND ACTIONS WERE POLITICAL EVENTS. The results were political results. The failures thus become political issues. If you don’t want to deal with the political fallout from your political actions, don’t go into politics.
• Candy Crowley (the moderator) appears to be interrupting Romney about five times as often as she interrupts Obama. Once that’s been set aside, however, her conduct does not reach the level that would demand that she be tarred and feathered and launched by air cannon to Iran (where modern American liberalism can be properly appreciated). She wasn’t entirely, precisely fair and objective, but she wasn’t grotesquely, undeniably UNfair. Miracle of miracles.
• I’m not an uncommitted voter. People who are committed on either side are unlikely to have their minds changed by the debate (they may be disappointed by their candidate’s performance, but that’s a different matter). The partisans are already decided, which means the ‘independents’ are the ones who will swing the election one way or the other: not because they’re anywhere near a majority — there are fewer independents than self-designated conservatives OR liberals — but because their vote, added to either side, is enough to tilt the balance. What will uncommitted voters conclude from this debate? I can’t really guess. I’m not objective, and I know it. Every time Obama opens his mouth, I start shouting at the screen. (And frequently cursing. His blathering, and his politics, really do offend me that much.) But I absolutely can’t tell how this debate will affect anyone who hasn’t yet made up his/her mind.
• Once again, Obama got four more minutes of speaking time than Romney did. And, once again, it didn’t actually make him look that much better.
• In the final analysis, two candidates are standing in front of the cameras. Both are saying, Vote for me, and things will get better. The difference is, one of them hasn’t actually done anything on the national stage yet (which means his claims are theoretical, which is another way of saying ‘hopeful’); the other has spent 3½ years implementing policies about which the best that can be said is, Well, they haven’t destroyed the country YET.

I don’t feel that ‘my side’ (conservatives) lost any ground. I don’t doubt in the least that people who oppose me in every particular will feel exactly the same about their side.

The actual result will become clear three weeks from now, on Election Day.

Comments

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Nice post, and a good summary of the night.

People who are committed on either side are unlikely to have their minds changed by the debate (they may be disappointed by their candidate’s performance, but that’s a different matter). The partisans are already decided, which means the ‘independents’ are the ones who will swing the election one way or the other.

(Obligatory "I am an actual independent" post to follow -- I beg forgiveness in advance.)

Actually, both the wife and I have been "independent" voters for almost as long as we've known each other, but because of the rules of our state we need to register with one party or the other in order to put a thumbprint on our local races. And while the executive party of NYC is always up for grabs, the national races are unfortunately beyond our grasp -- New York State is hopelessly off the market for presidential elections. If I was in a certain mood, I might go off on a tear about how our national situation is so dire that we need to suspend the electoral college in favor of the pop-vote, but I just had a nice glass of wine. :)

The prevailing view in my household is that Romney won this debate as he did the last, simply because he understands the basic laws of economic gravity and can express them somewhat clearly. President Obama can't do that, because he spent his life arguing against the disparity of wealth rather than bothering to understand how it is created. I'm no Ayn Rand fan, but it's pretty clear to me that our economy over my lifetime has been completely deformed by the lie that 2 + 2 can eventually equal 10, if enough Paul Krugmans write enough Op-Eds in enough New York Times'. In my view, politicians of both parties have advanced this math error in order to curry the favor of an ever more shifting and protean "middle class" which everyone -- mistakenly -- seems to think they belong to.

If I had the chance to ask a question in CNN's town hall lotto, it would have been to President Obama, and I would have asked him this: "You've said in the past that you would like to 'spread the wealth'. My question is, how can you redistribute wealth without first creating it?" It would have been a wasted effort (I can practically hear the droning, class-warfare platitudes about "corporate jets"), but it's very basic to people who don't subscribe to magical economic thinking, or who think only in terms of today and not tomorrow, next week, next year or next decade.

[aadler]

As I already noted, it was a better evening for Obama than his last outing. All told, however, the advantage remains with Romney. His first performance was a game-changer; Obama’s second-debate response, while an improvement for him, was hardly sufficient to countermand that first victory. Furthermore, Romney talked about issues and what he planned to do, while Obama — whose record as president is something he needs to avoid and misrepresent if he has any hope for re-election — could only attack and speak in counter-factual claims or vague generalities.

Romney looks like a promising candidate. Obama looks like what he is: a failed incumbent.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Obama looks like what he is: a failed incumbent.

Yeah, it is difficult to make an argument from his position and fight off the back foot. I told my wife all summer that the race was going to tighten up in the final two months, after the "normal" people (non political-junkies) had a good look at the options and the chance to take a big step back and ask, "What have the last four years really been like?" Higher food prices. Higher energy prices. Lower wages and profits. Tight household budgets. Mass unemployment and underemployment. Sluggish economic growth. Short sales on mortgages. Rising crime rates. Austerity budgets and service cutbacks. Political junkies deal in memes and identity politics and vague generalities, but it's bad out here in the real world of death and taxes. I know it's been a rocky run for me.

Some of the talking points the president's campaign has lined up have struck me as a little insane, actually. For instance, the "access to contraceptions" line of argument hits all the warm fuzzy spots for hard left-wingers ("Those Republican prudes want to ban condoms!"), but scratch it with the tiniest fingernail and you'll see it's all about creating a government subsidy for products that are widely and cheaply available. So basically, the re-election campaign is now focused on winning over people who are already so glibly partisan that they equate "free" birth control with "access" to it, and demonize anyone who notes otherwise. Orwell's greatest literary villains would be jealous of these wordsmiths.

I wasn't the biggest Romney fan, but I'm starting to think I've got a handle on the man, and what a Romney presidency might look like. I agree there is some promise there. I'm actually starting to wonder if there is a quiet landslide brewing. If Romney takes Pennsylvania... it could start to look very 1980-ish.

[aadler]

> I’m actually starting to wonder if there is a quiet landslide brewing.

God willing. But don’t just pray for that; vote for it.

[lostboy-lj.livejournal.com]

Oh, we'll be voting bright and early. Unfortunately, my state isn't remotely in play for this election, but that's never stopped us before.

(P.S. Nice icon, but shouldn't the tagline read, "NOPE")

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

I think there's a difference between "independent" and "undecided". I consider myself an independent (a pox on both their houses!), but I definitely have my priorities that lean in one direction or another and that usually mean I'm not undecided, just not wildly happy with what I consider the lesser of two evils.

[aadler]

I thought of that afterward (massive Bloody Mary inoculation, remember), but the major point remains. As it happens, my wife and I are both registered independents: like you, not because we’re undecided, but because we want to make it clear to both parties that their policies don’t merit our allegiance.

Nonetheless, there is no doubt where our votes will go. Four years ago, we held our noses and voted for McCain: not because we liked him (we very much didn’t), but because what we could see of Candidate Obama was SO appalling. Four years later, Obama’s performance record is even worse than we anticipated. Candidate Romney is quite a bit more promising; I could wish him to be steadier on a number of issues, but nothing in his past record or current behavior leads me to believe he could be remotely as disastrous as the incumbent. For us, then, this is not ‘the lesser of two evils’, but ‘not perfect, but good enough’.

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

For several elections - any time there was a legitimate seeming indpendent candidate who made sense to me, I voted for him, hoping to send the two major parties a message. One that has apparently not been received....
On the other hand, the very fact that someone wants that job is probably all the proof we need that he/she is too unstable to be allowed to do it. ;)

[aadler]

I have a little problem with that contention. I’ll agree that anyone who runs for the presidency is unlike most people — outside the general baseline of what we would consider strictly normal — but to say that their candidacy automatically disqualifies them is to say that all elections are pointless. I’m not willing to go that far. We need good leaders … even if we also need to make it clear to them that ‘leader’ doesn’t mean ‘micromanager’ or ‘overseer’.

[slaymesoftly.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah. I was just (mostly) kidding. Somebody's got to do it. I just think it's such a god-awful job much of the time that I'm not sure why someone in his/her right mind would want it. :)

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

One of the biggest problems that Mitt Romney has is his ability to take any position that's convenient at the time and continuing to refuse to give any specifics on his tax policies.

I still don't understand how you can reduce the deficit by cutting taxes and increasing spending on the military, perhaps you can explain it.

The video below shows Mitt Romney arguing with himself, without any commentary whatsoever by the videomaker. That is why I think he's untrustworthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZfXvFAeHVo

[aadler]

I don’t believe Romney is as untrustworthy as you do … but, even if I did, I would still vote for him in order to oust the STUPENDOUS IGNORAMUS currently sitting in the White House. Obama is now contending with James Buchanan for Worst U.S. President In History. By this point, a President Romney who was bad-but-still-slightly-better-than-Jimmy-Carter would be a vast and joyful improvement over what we now have; and, as I said, my expectations of Romney are nowhere near that low.

Just as a matter of curiosity, why does a Britisher have such passionate opinions — or, for that matter, particularly care — about American politics? I have some general interest regarding the overall political currents in the UK, but it’s hardly in-depth or a matter of deep concern for me.

[mymatedave.livejournal.com]

The reason I'm interested in US politics is because you lot are still the most powerful nation on the planet and as such you have a huge influence overseas, unfortunately UK leaders seem to need to court the US president. So if the US goes to war against Iran for example, which I understand many republican politicians are in favour of, the US may ask Britain to help be part of a "coalition of the willing" as seen in in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Another reason why I'm interested in US politics is that there's far more spectacle, and coming from a UK and European perspective, the Republicans are incredibly right-wing and would make many Daily Mail readers think they're too extreme. Obama over here would be seen as a centrist Tory.

Not untrustworthy? Did you even watch the video? And I still don't understand how cutting taxes and increasing spending on the militaty will reduce the deficit. I'd really, really appreciate you explaining this to me. I know you don't like Obama, several of my liberal friends in the US are incredibly pissed off with him as well, but I would a conservative to explain this to me without referring to Obama's misdeeds. Thanks.

[aadler]

> … I still don’t understand how cutting taxes and increasing spending on the military will reduce the deficit. I’d really, really appreciate you explaining this to me.

A deficit comes when more money is spent than is coming in. When an individual or family does this, it’s called sinking into debt or living on credit. Such an individual, unless hopelessly in denial, understands that 1) this can’t continue, and 2) any solution will have to involve reducing expenditures, increasing income, or doing both.

When it’s a government, there are two other courses available: blame the other party and kick the problem down the road, or print more (increasingly worthless) money to ‘cover’ the debt. (When an individual does the last one, it’s called writing hot checks. Governments, however, can compel you to accept their devalued fiat tender.)

So four ways a governments can address a mounting deficit … and, IMHO, most governments use all four. If there is a genuine attempt to reduce a deficit, however, the first two approaches are the only valid way to go. Increasing revenues is usually attempted by raising taxes; reducing expenditures almost always involves cutting funds to the military (because relatively fewer voters will passionately object.

Neither of those courses of action will work. Cutting the military doesn’t do the trick because, perpetual whipping-boy though they are, military expenditures (even in the U.S., which spent decades acting as global policeman, thereby allowing other nations to cut their militaries) simply aren’t a big enough percentage of the total budget to make the difference needed. Raising taxes runs into something called the Laffer Curve: past a certain point, higher tax rates produce lower revenues, as the people with money either have it all stripped away by punitive taxation (and thus lose the means to produce more revenue that can be taxed) or find ways to shield their money, hide it, or place it beyond the reach of an increasingly rapacious government.

I’ll agree, there is no way to reduce a deficit by cutting taxes and raising expenditures. It can be done, however, by cutting taxes to a point where the operation of the Laffer Curve produces more revenue than the higher rate (short rationale: an economy with thousands of millionaires, taxed at 15%, will derive enormously more tax revenues than one with a few dozen millionaires taxed at 65%), and by raising some expenditures — on the things deemed more important — while selectively cutting an entire range of other expenditures across the board.

Government wastes a lot of money. A LOT of money. What can you expect when money falls into the hands of people who have control of it without having done anything to earn it, and who see the best use of that money as being to subsidize pet projects (which may or may not have actual economic or social value), pay off contributors/supporters, and provide lots of juicy favors to selected groups in the electorate in order to secure their votes? It’s a racket that a wealthy, powerful nation can endure for a long time … but, as with any parasite, there’s always the danger that such a system can grow to the point where it drains and kills the host. Dispense with the waste and outright (albeit clumsily camouflaged) bribes, and costs can be cut in a way that makes sense.

It worked when Warren G. Harding did it. (There were scandals in his administration that gave him a bad name, but he produced a booming recovery from a short, harsh depression.) It worked when John F. Kennedy did it. It worked when Ronald Reagan did it. And to a lesser extent — because they were lesser men, applying a lesser version of the approach — it worked when Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did it. It works every time it’s tried … and American liberals hate that, and deny that it works, and call it ‘the Decade of Greed’ or some such silliness, because American liberals hate the notion that any group of people can do something for themselves without any self-appointed overseers directing and controlling it.

[aadler]

Other responses (much shorter) to other points you raised:

1. You may think of Republicans as extremely right-wing; my wife and I are registered independents because we consider Republicans to be too squishy in general, not conservative enough. If Obama would be considered a centrist in the UK, to me that means he could have saved everyone a lot of trouble by trying to become Prime Minister, there, than President, here. (His father was a British citizen, right?)

2. If the U.S. goes to war with Iran, it won’t be because Republican politicians are in favor of it, but because Iran has become so dangerous that war is the only answer. (Eight years ago, I expected military action against Iran to be unavoidable, and one of my biggest complaints against George Bush is that he allowed his focus on Iraq and Afghanistan to make him neglect firmer action against Iran and North Korea.) War should definitely be avoided when it’s genuinely unnecessary; when it isn’t … well, you can ask Neville Chamberlain all about that.