So where's the Presidential Debate Thread?

[Asher]

Also:

[The Mad Monk]

Romney-Obama: Not 'rudeness,' but an obvious strategy
By Sean Kirst, The Post-Standard The Post-Standard
on October 16, 2012 at 10:53 PM, updated October 16, 2012 at 11:38 PM

So the commentators talking to us after tonight's presidential debate are saying that popular reaction to the tense personal interactions between President Barack Obama and challenger Mitt Romney - especially when the candidates dueled about energy policy - is splitting according to party lines: Democrats feel Romney was rude and disrespectful. Republicans feel Romney was strong and formidable.

The public discussion is about Romney's persobality. But isn't the strategic truth much simpler? Someone - I can't remember who - once had a great line about Jimmy Carter. The guy essentially said that Carter might have gone down as a great president if he looked more like John Connally, the strapping Texas governor - but that Carter was done in nationally by his small frame and, well, meeker appearance.

Romney's behavior in the two debates is no accident. He seemed all but defeated in the polls, and being a nice guy would have kept him there, especially against a president that many Americans will always see as nicer. Romney is attempting to establish interpersonal weakness, and he's clearly trying to project strength by proving he can intimidate and talk over the president of the United States, a strategy that can matter more than words - and he's hoping he can project that kind of dominance to the nation. Love it or hate it, he did it powerfully in the first debate, overwhelming not just Obama but moderator Jim Lehrer, and the approach changed the whole tenor of the race.

Bottom line: Romney is betting that if it looks as if he's pushing the president around, it will mean more than anything either of them says.

Romney wasn't quite as effective at it tonight, but you can bet that his advisers are hoping the footage of each close exchange will send a stronger unspoken message to undecided voters than the moments when Obama scored big rhetorical points - such as when the president wrapped Romney's quotes about 47 percent of the nation being handout-loving "victims" into final remarks.

Let's face it. If you dislike Romney, you hate the tactic, which has never been used to such extremes in a debate. But politics is a harsh game, and Romney is turning the president's strengths - his charm and natural courtesy and restraint - against him. Many Americans want to know their president can get tough when it comes to an angry rhetorical tangle. Obama had better learn to deal with it, because Romney's in-your-face tactics have put the challenger right back into the race.

- Sean

http://www.syracuse.com/kirst/index.ssf/2012/10/post_340.html

[Asher]

So, in other words, Romney was rude and disrespectful but Republicans think that's good because it helped him "win'.

[rah]

So, in other words, Biden was rude and disrespectful but Democrats think that's good because it helped him "win'.

[self biased]

Its Oerdin - why would you think he's going to grasp it even now?

own goal.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So, in other words, Biden was rude and disrespectful but Democrats think that's good because it helped him "win'.

Did they really? Most non-hyper partisan Dems thought Biden won, but really didn't like what an ass he was.

[rah]

I guess we have more hyper Dems in Chicago.
I had to listen to a lot of crap the next day.

[Asher]

So, in other words, Biden was rude and disrespectful but Democrats think that's good because it helped him "win'.

Exactly.

Loudest man wins.

[Ben Kenobi]

Sorta like here then...

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Yes. I couldn't help but think the Biden approach was similar to the debating style at 'poly with arrogant mugging and self proclamations of victory.

[Guynemer]

He's really no more of a gaffe machine than Obama. Almost whenever Obama gets off his teleprompter he says something stupid (this last debate being a rare exception). "You didn't build that", "Guns and religion", "Private sector doing just fine". The difference is the press tends to give him a pass, but roast Romney for minor slip-ups.

Come on, HC. You're better than that old chestnut.

[Asher]

Suave Mitt courting the womenfolk.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/romneys-binders-full-of-women-gaffe-and-why-women-should-be-furious/article4618083/

Romney's 'binders full of women’ gaffe, and why women should be furious

What fun the Internet is having with this four-word phrase: Binders Full of Women.

If anything gets remembered from last night’s presidential debate it will be Mitt Romney’s answer to a question about helping women achieve pay equity with men that he botched on so many levels.

Dodging the actual question, the Republican candidate offered the example of his own administration while Massachusetts governor – how he was supposedly aghast that there were so few women and went out and asked for a list of female candidates from women’s group. “Can you help us find folks,” he quoted himself in last night’s debate, in an appeal to women’s groups. In response, he received that now infamous “binder full of women.”

Not exactly, David Berstein, a writer with the Boston Phoenix, pointed out, stressing that he had been careful to confirm the true version of events.

Berstein reported that a bipartisan women’s group called MassGAP put together a list of strong female candidates for government positions, and presented it to Romney after he became governor. He didn’t go looking for one; there was no “recruiting effort” on his part, as he claimed in the debate. And while Romney did flip through the “binder” and hire a number of women for his administration, The Phoenix story points out that they were given departments and agencies that weren’t priorities for him – and the percentage of women holding senior positions in his government declined overall while he was in office.

But as an Atlantic story also pointed out this morning, that’s really not what makes his comment so off-putting. It’s the notion that Romney needed “a binder” in the first place to find qualified women in his state to hire - that he didn’t know any coming into office and apparently, hadn’t consulted with any during his campaign, and needed to be reminded of their existence after his election. The suggestion then is that hiring women was a checklist requirement to be covered off for political purposes – rather than because these qualified candidates had merit on their own.

As New Yorker blogger Amy Davidson put it: “One got the sense of Mitt Romney coming from a place where women were generally in the other room, waiting to be invited in only when the moment – or the visibility of the job – called for it.” The Boston Globe quickly noted that there were no female partners at Bain Capital when Romney was chief executive officer.

But the “binder” reference wasn’t the only jarring comment in Mitt Romney’s answer: He went on to mention, for good measure, that he allowed a female staffer to work flexible hours - she needed to get home to see her kids and “make dinner.”

Aside from failing to address the substantive issue of pay equity, he also offered this assurance: In a strong economy, he said, employers “are going to be so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women.”

What’s the inference there? In other words, don’t worry little ladies, with Romney in the White House, companies will be so desperate for workers, they’ll have to resort to hiring women. Of course, they just might not pay you the same as the man they hired first.

The 23 per cent of American families – that is, those lead by single mothers – also received their due from Mr. Romney. In response to a specific question about getting "AK-47s out of the hands of criminals," he drifted into the topic of parents – or more specifically the importance of having two parents in the home. “But gosh,” he said, “to tell our kids that before they have babies, they ought to think about getting married to someone, that's a great idea.” Golly gee, it’s good to know criminals would give up their assault weapons, if only those single parents would try a little harder to get (or keep) that ring on their finger.

Maybe “binder full of women” will makes waves across the web and then fade away. CBS is already dubbing it the “Big Bird” of the second debate, referring to Mitt Romney’s vow to cut funding to PBS.

The trouble for Romney is that what happens on Wall Street matters a lot more in this election than Sesame Street, and being reduced to a list of names stuffed in a binder who employers (and, perhaps, certain politicians) will hire only when their options are limited and their hand is forced, might make female voters, well, grouchy. And thanks to the web, they can express that sentiment over and over again.

[MRT144]

He's really no more of a gaffe machine than Obama. Almost whenever Obama gets off his teleprompter he says something stupid (this last debate being a rare exception). "You didn't build that", "Guns and religion", "Private sector doing just fine". The difference is the press tends to give him a pass, but roast Romney for minor slip-ups.

Binders full of women is hilarious.

[MRT144]

He's really no more of a gaffe machine than Obama. Almost whenever Obama gets off his teleprompter he says something stupid (this last debate being a rare exception). "You didn't build that", "Guns and religion", "Private sector doing just fine". The difference is the press tends to give him a pass, but roast Romney for minor slip-ups.

And I think the thing that bugs you more than anything else is that young creative people are more prone to lampoon the silly statements of people they politically oppose, in this case Republicans. Maybe Republicans could court the youth better if they don't want to be the butt of jokes.

[DaShi]

The moderator later admitted she had been wrong on the facts.

No, she did not. It was quite obvious that Romney asked the wrong question. "Romney was 'right in the main' but 'picked the wrong word,' she said on CNN." Her response was 100% accurate. The problem Romney had is that he didn't articulate what he was trying to say. Although, it didn't matter. It was a petty and meaningless thing to interrupt the moderator about anyway.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz29b842uSu