Debatable
Posted by aogWednesday, 03 October 2012 at 09:08 TrackBack Ping URL

We all know that President Obama will be declared the decisive winner of tonight’s Presidential debates and what is actually said during the debates is irrelevant. Obama will be able to simply make things up and never get called on them (perhaps a few fast reaction squads will have to editbe dispatched to edit Wikipedia but what is history compared to The One?).

What I find a bit interesting is the movement in the polling data in conjunction with this. The polling that has shown Obama leading has been using very tilted turn out models (much more favorable to the Democratic Party than even 2008) so try and stop the campaign before Obama gets hurt but the trend line in the last week or so has been an ebb. I think that it’s simply preparation for the debate and we’ll see a surge in Obama’s numbers immediately after so as to confirm the Obama “win”.

To make this even more impressive the various Obama campaign workers are trying to pre-spin expectations. That’s a bit odd for someone who is such a superior orator with an amazing intellect. Yet the usual suspects are spin spin spinning. One might wonder how this could be coordinated, though — it’s not like there are special mailing lists for doing that.

Comments — Formatting by Textile
Bret Wednesday, 03 October 2012 at 14:41

Oh, is there a debate tonight?

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 03 October 2012 at 22:04

Apparently - my Evil Brother just called me and asked if I watched it. No, there’s nothing there of interest to me. Those debates are badly structured with biased moderators so that nothing new happens for people who have been paying attention.

P.S. I’m not the only one thinking about how the polls might be skewed to drive the Narrative.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 03 October 2012 at 22:20

Woops, I got that totally wrong — Romney must have utterly crushed Obama if even Old Media is counting him the winner. I am totally gobsmacked.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 03 October 2012 at 22:34

I was watching PBS tonight. To my surprise, their post-debate commentary was pretty fair. They agreed that Romney came out on top.

What none of them mentioned, but you might have, is that anyone reading the MSM would have been totally unprepared for that outcome.

Hey Skipper Wednesday, 03 October 2012 at 22:37

I forgot to mention that I thought Obama did a credible job without a prompter.

But probably not credible enough.

Also, for all the slanging that our political system takes, I think it produced two worthy alternatives.

Harry Eagar Sunday, 07 October 2012 at 15:37

Heh.

Harry Eagar Monday, 08 October 2012 at 17:24

I didn’t see the debate, but I listened to part of it while driving home. The part where Romney sold out the TP, Originalists, deficit hawks and antisocialists by saying he’d keep the most expensive parts of Obamacare.

I presumed that the next morning the 100% Muricans would be foaming at the mouth but, like Guy, I can be very, very wrong.

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 08 October 2012 at 22:22

I wasn’t very happy about that, but Romney has also promised to sign a repeal of POR-care if it reaches his desk. My view is that it doesn’t really matter because POR-care is so economically disastrous, the GOP is likely to increase its seats in both Houses of Congress, and the VP is Paul Ryan. That it’s not been a big deal is primarily because Obama is so toxic.

P.S. Are gratuitous insults like that part of “being open to discussion”? Would you think my writing better if I indulged in such dismissive abuse?

Annoying Old Guy Monday, 08 October 2012 at 22:54

If you want the definitive post on the first debate, look here.

Jeff Guinn Tuesday, 09 October 2012 at 21:10

More links per inch than I have ever seen. Must have taken hours.

Bret Tuesday, 09 October 2012 at 22:21

That was an impressive number of links!

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 01:08

Ah, I see. Romney won the debate by lying, just like the Democrats are saying. But that’s OK with his fanboys.

Good to know.

Bret Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 08:43

Q: How do you tell when a politician is lying?

A: His lips are moving.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 08:56

Mr. Eagar;

I don’t see the lie. It would be quite possible to repeal POR-care and provide a replacement that does as Romney stated. Romney actually won the debate by being an adult who knew what he was talking about, creating a stark contrast with his debate opponent.

I also think that “lie” is used far too frequently to mean “I disagree with his policy”. I think Romney’s policy statement in the debate is bad policy but I really don’t see it as a lie.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 09:47

Hey, turns out Obama was a wedding guest at the VP debate moderator’s wedding. That’s our non-biased Old Media in action.

Harry Eagar Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 11:02

Even the Romney camp admitted he lied about pre-existing conditions.

Nobody knows what Romney is talking about because he never holds a position more than one day in a row.

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 12:30

Do you have a cite for that? Your ability to … creatively interpret what other people write means you’ll have to provide an original source.

But suppose you’re correct — Romney is trying desperately to fudge the issue because he knows the correct policy is politically toxic. Therefore …? Is the rule that if a GOP candidate lies during a debate, everyone should vote for the Democratic Party candidate?

HarryEagar Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 14:52

It was in all the papers. Sheesh. (I will save the ‘correct policy is politically toxic’ remark; shame on the 47% for thinking their opinion means something. Democracy, love it or leave it.)

But let’s talk about adulthood. As we all know, the Republican Abe Lincoln wrote a moving letter to a mother whose five sons had died in the war. When a 21st century grieving mother asked Romney to stop using her dead son as political hay, she was told to go piss up a rope.

MOUNT VERNON, Ohio — At a town hall here Wednesday, Mitt Romney re-told a story he first revealed earlier this week about meeting one of the Navy SEALs who would later be killed in the attacks on the Benghazi consulate.

Romney has used the account in recent days on the stump to demonstrate the courage of Americans, in particular the troops: Upon hearing that the consulate was under attack, Glenn Doherty, 42, headed toward the action to try to defend it.

It’s a compelling story, offering a surprisingly personal link between the candidate and the tragedy in Libya — but it’s one the SEAL’s mother wants him to stop telling.

Wednesday morning, NBC’s Boston affiliate reported that Doherty’s mother thought Romney was taking advantage of her son’s death.

“I don’t trust Romney,” Barbara Doherty told WHDH 7. “He shouldn’t make my son’s death part of his political agenda. It’s wrong to use these brave young men, who wanted freedom for all, to degrade Obama.”

The story posted on WHDH’s website indicated that they had sought a response from the campaign, but didn’t get one.

Asked whether Romney would continue to tell the story, a campaign aide told BuzzFeed he would not, now that he knew the mother’s wishes.

Kevin Madden added, “Governor Romney was inspired by the memory of meeting Glen Doherty and shared his story and that memory. We respect the wishes of Mrs. Doherty though.”

Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 18:14

It was in all the papers yet you can’t find an actual reference. Right … just like all that Tea Party racism.

When a 21st century grieving mother asked Romney to stop using her dead son as political hay, she was told to go piss up a rope.

Do you even read what you cite?

Asked whether Romney would continue to tell the story, a campaign aide told BuzzFeed he would not, now that he knew the mother’s wishes.

Kevin Madden added, “Governor Romney was inspired by the memory of meeting Glen Doherty and shared his story and that memory. We respect the wishes of Mrs. Doherty though.”

That’s creative interpretation even for you.

Bret Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 19:51

No doubt Romney’s campaign should’ve asked before using the story (I suppose just like Obama should’ve asked before using Big Bird). But not everybody is unhappy:

Jane Horton began crying on the other end of the phone when she learned that Mitt Romney had been using the story of her husband, Chris Horton, who was killed in Afghanistan, as a part of his stump speech. … Not that he’s telling my story, but that he’s telling my husband’s story, it means the world to me…”
Annoying Old Guy Wednesday, 10 October 2012 at 20:40

Bret;

I doubt it — it’s one thing to grab someone else’s story and use it but in this case Romney was relating something from his life, something he had personally experienced. I do agree that if there’s objection he should stop but I don’t see having to get permission for every personal story from everyone else involved.

The Big Bird case is clearly different because of the copyright issue.

Is it not telling of Eagar’s point of view that Romney’s gracious response is interpreted by Eagar as telling the mother to “piss up a rope”? That is underscored by the Obama campaign “we’ll get back to you” response on the Big Bird issue (and the Andrea Mitchell clip) being unremarkable. That’s the Two Americas for you — only one that has to obey the law and civility.

P.S. How long till Eagar is telling us about how Romney wants to ban tampons?

Harry Eagar Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 11:04

But they did tell her to piss after a rope.

I love how the Republicans are having to truth-squad Romney.

Hey Skipper Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 11:34
But they did tell her to piss after a rope.

AOG, I have a complaint. Apparently, some of your readers are getting pixels on their screens that you are keeping from mine. I want it fixed STAT.

Bret Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 12:26

I guess I don’t know what “piss after a rope” means. I would’ve said that Harry’s cite specifically said the Romney campaign didn’t tell her to piss after a rope, but maybe this is a definitional argument.

Annoying Old Guy Thursday, 11 October 2012 at 13:26

Skipper;

You need the EagarView plugin. Then you could see what Eagar is writing about. I lost mine during an upgrade and that’s why I am no longer open to discussion (by which is meant “uncritically accepting my claims without evidence”).

Bret;

There’s a common definition but with Eagar who but him knows what he means? It’s that professional writer thing, to not communicate by using words and terms in completely uncommon ways.

All;

I hope this demonstrates why I have come to always insist on actual cites / quotes from Eagar. But this latest seems truly bizarre, even for Eagar.

Annoying Old Guy Tuesday, 16 October 2012 at 11:05

The Obama campaign just can’t stop — now it’s telling coal miners in Ohio to “piss up a rope”.

Post a comment