Monday, October 22, 2012
Honestly Tonights Debate Was Pretty Interesting. Not As Nippy As The Second Presidential Debate.
It Seem's If Obama Was Too Focused On His Opponent And Not On US Topics. Romney On The Other Hand Seemed More In Control And Although I Wish He Could Explain His Plans A Lil More. As We All Really Wish They All Would But You Can Always Get What You Want. All In All Time Will Tell And We Will All Be In Suspense Until We Come To A Decision.
Until Next Time God Bless!
Where Would The Game Take Place?
Who Would Win If Romney Was Hiding?
Who Would Win If Romney Was Hiding?
I'm Guessing The Game Would Take Place At The Illuminati Headquarters Or Costco.
If Romney Was Hiding ? Well Because He Can't Keep His Mouth Shut, He May Be At A Lil Dis-advantage Haha I Believe By The End Of The Game He Might Get The Hang Of It Though ; )
If Obama Was Hiding ? Obama Would Find A Good Spot Quick And Silent.......But As Soon As Romneys Yelling OLLY OLLY OXEN FREE Obama's Gonna Come Crawling Out And Just Like The "Smart" Guy He Is.
Haha Just A Lil Something I Thought Up If You Have Any Comments Or Want To Answer Yourself Feel Free To!!
Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Romney And Obama
Okay, so we’ve all had a good chuckle over Mitt Romney’s latest “inartful” comment.
The Republican challenger’s statement at the debate Tuesday night that he had “whole binders full of women” brought to him when he was making his appointments as governor of Massachusetts probably did not deserve all the attention that it got.
Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr — social media exploded over the issue.
Jon Stewart, that master of hilarious late-night political assassination, could not resist putting in his two cents:
“Hey, Binder of Women, Book of Broads, Notebook of Nipples, whatever,” he said in his program Wednesday night.
Fact-checkers jumped all over the former Massachusetts governor. It seemed that the binders in question were the initiative of the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus, not the Romney administration. The Washington Post saddled Romney with “Two Pinocchios” for his comment.
But like Romney’s threat to Big Bird in the first debate, there was a whole lot more smoke than fire in his choice of words.
The Barack Obama camp, though, quickly sought to fan the flames sparked in the debate at Hofstra University, in Long Island, New York. In a campaign stop in Iowa, the president made clear that "We don't have to collect a bunch of bindersto find qualified, talented, driven young women.” Obama was hoping to capitalize on his opponent’s clumsy rhetoric to regain some of the ground he has recently lost with women voters.As of mid-September, the president enjoyed an 18-point advantage over Romney with likely female voters; after the first debate, that lead dwindled to a statistical tie. While the silliness over the “binders” made for great political theater, it was not really the most upsetting thing that Romney had to say on Tuesday night, judging by the (admittedly liberal) group with whom I was watching the debate.
Both men and women gasped audibly when Romney said, “We're going to have to have employers in the new economy, in the economy I'm going to bring to play, that are going to be so anxious to get good workers they're going to be anxious to hire women.”
“So anxious that they would hire even women?” said one incensed debate watcher.
Others objected to Romney’s attempt to soothe women by saying they could have flexible hours to get home and make dinner for their kids, finding it patronizing and patriarchal (full debate transcript here).
This is, however, a reality, and CNN’s tracking showed that women undecided voters watching the debate reacted positively to that remark.
But there are issues at stake beyond who cooks dinner.
During the debate, Obama tried his best to paint Romney as a foe of contraception and abortion, referring repeatedly to Romney’s plans to defund Planned Parenthood.
Romney resisted taking the bait, but his campaign promptly released a new ad that insisted that the governor “did not oppose contraception at all” and would allow abortion “in cases of rape, incest, or to save the life of the mother.”
The Obama camp fired back with a new ad reminding voters that Romney has said he would ban all abortions.
This is the crux of the “war on women” that Democrats allege is being waged by the Republican Party.
The escalating campaign spat over abortion came just as Gallup released a new poll of women in swing states finding a plurality of female registered voters (39 percent) said abortion is the most important issue for them, followed by jobs, health care, the economy, and equal rights. However, the poll does not specify whether respondents believed the right to choose should be upheld or scrapped.
One Hofstra University professor recalled a time before the 1973 Supreme Court ruling on Roe v. Wade that made abortion legal throughout the United States.
“No one wants to go back to the old days,” said the professor.
“I went to college in Texas in the early '70s, before Roe v. Wade. Abortion was legal only in New York State at that time. Every Friday there was a Braniff Air flight that went to New York City, and it was always full of young women. We called it ‘the abortion run.’”
Romney has gone back and forth on abortion several times in his career, from professing to be pro-choice to effectively pro-life to becoming less categorical recently.
He is on record as saying he would like to see the Supreme Court reverse Roe v. Wade, and, if he were to become president, he would most likely be in a position to make that happen.
Several Supreme Court justices are nearing retirement age; Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for one, is 79 years old. The next president will probably have the chance to appoint at least one judge.
The court is now evenly split between conservatives and liberals, with Justice Anthony Kennedy often supplying the “swing vote.” The choice of a new judge will certainly have a profound affect on the course of American jurisprudence for the foreseeable future.
When pressed Thursday night by CNN host Erin Burnett, Romney campaign adviser Barbara Comstock spoke around the question of whether the Republican nominee would make an appointment to help repeal the landmark abortion ruling.
This issue did not seem to be prime on the minds of young female voters at Hofstra University.
For one thing, students are much less politically engaged these days, according to James Foote, an actor who specializes in playing Theodore Roosevelt. Wandering around Hofstra University on the day of the debate in full Rooseveltian garb, the actor reminisced about his trip to the same university four years ago.
“There was so much enthusiasm at that time,” he said. “They were all supporting Obama. Now they seem more worried about the economy.”
This was certainly true of Ariel Adrian, a senior majoring in education who is planning on voting for Romney.
“Of course I am concerned about women’s issues,” she said. “But we have other things to think about right now.”
Romney's Advantage Tonight
Real town halls are usually unscripted and unpredictable and often raucous events. Town-hall debates are orderly, with the questions from the audience screened -- selected to represent questions the moderator would ask if they were doing the questioning. Moderators are likely to reframe some questions and ask their own follow-ups in the language of Sunday morning talk shows. The candidates’ answers are subject to short time limits. The venue is disconcertingly quiet, as the audience is instructed to be unresponsive, with none of the cheers, boos, laughs and groans that are the soundtrack of real town halls.
The only similarities between a real town hall and a town-hall debate: The candidates aren’t physically constrained behind lecterns and they must appear to be responsive to the audience member asking the question. They are free to wander the stage, to approach the questioner or one’s opponent, which can be an advantage for candidates who are relaxed and instinctive public performers (see Bill Clinton) and a disadvantage for those who aren’t (see Al Gore).
The lively and informal atmosphere of real town halls gives candidates more latitude in how they express themselves and the range of emotions they display. Obvious and sometimes not so obvious gaffes are easier to commit in that atmosphere -- and are more costly in our over-chronicled political age. But they are easier to repair on the spot with a little self-deprecating humor.
Gaffes in presidential town-hall debates, even an unthinking glance at your watch, can be fatal with just a few weeks left in the campaign. They’re much harder to repair immediately with humor because you won’t have the comforting reassurance of laughter (comforting to the candidate and to television viewers) from a studio audience that has been told repeatedly to remain silent. Self-awareness and circumspection are much more important in town-hall debates than in real town halls.
Prior to the Denver debate on Oct. 3, I didn’t think the format of tonight’s debate gave either candidate an obvious advantage. Neither man is an instinctive or skilled spontaneous public performer, but neither one is terrible at it either. The president can excel in delivering written and rehearsed speeches, but that talent isn’t particularly useful in a debate. I haven’t noticed a great difference between the candidates’ effectiveness in responding to questions from voters. I think they are both a little better than adequate.
But I think Gov. Romney does have an advantage tonight irrespective of the format, because he doesn’t need to improve on his last performance. A town-hall format necessitates a more animated performance than a debate behind lecterns, and the bar the president set for himself in his curiously lethargic first debate is a very easy one to clear. The press will award Obama the most improved player award no matter how Romney performs.
The president will certainly challenge Romney more than he did the last time out. But somewhat underappreciated in the reviews of their Denver face-off was just how exceptionally Romney performed -- even without benefit of comparison to Obama’s lackluster showing. He managed to prosecute his case against the president not just vigorously but graciously, a difficult thing to do in the stressful and urgent circumstances of a debate, which, had it gone poorly for him, would have probably decided the race for Obama.
Romney’s answers and demeanor were exquisitely pitched to the sensitivities of genuine independents and that small, but hardy, band of undecided voters. Ask Joe Biden, whose vigorous assault in last week’s vice presidential debate evoked Jack Nicholson in “The Shining,” how hard it is to attack an opponent without appearing obnoxious to people for whom politics isn’t a passion. If the president mimics his running mate’s style, he will lose tonight’s debate, and probably the election.
Romney needs to avoid both a major gaffe and walking into a cheap shot like Lloyd Bentsen’s “you’re no Jack Kennedy” humiliation of Dan Quayle. I’m sure the incumbent’s team has scripted several forceful rejoinders to familiar Romney attack lines, and I expect Obama to deliver them with faux good humor to avoid appearing like a bully. Romney could reduce his exposure by using different language and attacks than he used in the last debate and on the stump. But if he gets hit hard, he must respond quickly, without appearing rattled -- and do it with a smile.
Romney doesn’t need to elevate his game. He just needs to be as assertive, gracious and unflappable as he was the last time -- not an easy task but one we now know he’s capable of achieving. No matter how improved the president is tonight, he’s unlikely to reverse Romney’s momentum. I believe the last debate changed the race fundamentally. It’s now trending in Romney’s favor. If he can find that sweet spot again, he’ll further reduce the likability gap with his opponent, and I think he’ll be the favorite to be our next president.