2012 Debates

[Virus]

Personally, I think Obama's skills as an orator are secondary to the strength of his position. (Mitt showed that you can appear to win a debate by just repeating falsehoods and abandoning your position.)

Remember how opponents of Clinton decried him for being "too slick"?

Apparently now Obama isn't slick enough.

If Obama is such a walkover for Romney what do you think the Russians did to him? Is that how Putin got his "flexibility"?

 

[Olowkow]

You say that like the alignment was unintentional. I am certain it was not.

As I posted earlier, I assumed it was unintentional. I was wrong since you are certain it was not.

So? What's your point? That presidents all use teleprompters now? Sure, of course they do. But that doesn't mean that they're all equally vulnerable to teleprompter-based humor. Clinton, for example, doesn't make a good target for that. He really is a smooth talker even without prepared remarks. And Bush wasn't really susceptible because he didn't sound that good even with a teleprompter.

I guess I just don't care enough to even comment.

Well, yeah. That's rather the whole point.

Concerning the video. My reading was that the point was a malfunction of a teleprompter, but there was none. I guess I just don't have an Obama hater mindset. Sorry. I don't hate Romney either.

To be honest, the pictures posted in another thread, about Romney, were funnier to me, not because they were about Romney, but just more creative. Just my sense of humor I guess.

Did you ever wonder why there aren't any conservative comedians? Except Dennis Miller, and he just isn't funny, to me.

The original video you posted about "clueless" Obama supporters was not funny to me because it relied upon insulting behavior. It's probably unfair though to say this is a trend in conservative humor.

I tried to explain this, but you didn't seem interested. A couple of my favorites, Don Rickles and Steve Allen (to a lesser degree) used to get away with insults as comedy, but they were professionals, and their comedy was more subtle and aimed at an audience. Very different situation. Bergson goes into great detail how this works.

I don't know where the picture is just now, but there was one of a Romney crowd and huge signs which were truncated by cropping and all one could see were the letters "B" and "S". I found that funny whether it was cropped or just an accidental shot, and also it didn't matter if it was at Romney's or Obama's expense.

We are all different where humor is concerned.

 

[Biscuit]

Has anyone here actually given a public speech?

Eta: or been president of the united states of America?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Has anyone here actually given a public speech?

Eta: or been president of the united states of America?

Define "public speech". I've given talks to groups 800+ large.

Not sure of your point though.

 

[Biscuit]

Define "public speech". I've given talks to groups 800+ large.

Not sure of your point though.

Just curious if people in the business of giving public speeches go freestyle or if they prepare their remarks.

Do His critics want the POTUS to wing it, given everything he says has consequences, or should he choose his words?

I have addressed hundreds and even if I am speaking to just a few I prepare my thoughts. It's just common sense. I wonder if the TelePrompTer critics have public speaking experience.

 

[Ziggurat]

Some are easily amused.

And you aren't easily amused? You must not lead a very happy life, then. I'm sorry for you.

Republicans Finally Admit Silliness of Obama TelePrompTer Caricature

The article, which predates the debates, is basically about how the game of lowered expectations (which both parties frequently play before debates) conflicts with that prior characterization. And the author is quite right to point out the incompatibility of these two views. So the question naturally arises, since these two views are incompatible, which characterization is closer to the truth?

Well, the debate is over, and now we know. Republicans were stupid for claiming that Obama would perform well, and should be embarrassed for ever having suggested anything so ridiculous.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Romney during the debate: "So I reject the idea that I don’t believe in great teachers or more teachers"

You're reading is binary. It's certainly possible to think that some states/areas have too many teachers (particularly, not good teachers), and have a general ambition to hire and retain good teachers. Further, you aren't reading for context: your original quote came from a speech in WI after the Walker recall failed. Given his other statements, and his inclusion of police and firefighters, it's clear he's referring to unions. For example:

We have to make sure that our people have the skills to succeed. I want to get our training programs to do that, and I want to make sure our kids in school get the kind of skills they need for the jobs of tomorrow. Our schools are not performing at the level they should. I want to put the kids and the teachers first. I think the teachers' union has to go behind. We've got to put our kids first.

We looked at what drives good education in our state, what we found is the best thing for education is great teachers, hire the very best and brightest to be teachers, pay them properly, make sure that you have school choice, test your kids to see if they are meeting the standards that need to be met, and make sure that you put the parents in charge. And as president I will stand up to the National Teachers Unions.

"Even students from the most disadvantaged homes can achieve, something that's been proven in highly innovative programs around the country. The key to successful schools is providing students with excellent teachers. We must recruit teachers from among our brightest students, pay them well, and provide them with excellent mentors. Accountability and school choice matter." Mitt Romney - No Apology, p. 223

http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm#Education
http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/education/

I'm confused by your second quote. See it says:

"2) then cut individual income tax rates 20 percent below the Bush levels, reducing the Bush top rate of 35 percent to a new top rate of 28 percent;"

Romney during the debate: "But I’m not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high- income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/03/u...ial-debate-in-denver.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

I've hilighted your error in reading comprehension - reducing tax rates is not equivalent to reducing taxes if, as my source made clear, the reduction in rates is made up for by closing deductions.

 

[R.Mackey]

Has anyone here actually given a public speech?

Eta: or been president of the united states of America?

I have (the former, not the latter). Also speaking to large groups is a big part of my job... and I teach weekend classes in my spare time.

More relevantly, though, I've had the misfortune of debating someone who was detached from reality. Now that is a truly bizarre experience. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's hard tack into fantasy land was a big part of Obama's trouble. Of course, Obama has been in politics for a while, so one imagines he's run into some world-class prevarication before.

 

[DavidJames]

Here's a link to more stuff that Romney got wrong in the debate.

Mitt Romney tried to imply that President Barack Obama had given $90 billion in tax breaks to solar and wind companies. After first noting (more accurately) that $90 billion went to the "green energy world," Romney followed up with "don't forget... you put $90 billion -- like 50 years worth of breaks -- into solar and wind....Worse, Romney alleged that the administration picked only "losers."

With the exception of Solyndra, the track record for renewable energy investments is strong. In fact, the failure rate is lower than Congress anticipated when they created these programs

I wonder if Romney's plan was just to run his mouth making **** up knowing it will make him look good and knowing the corrections won't make the headlines like his winning the debate.

 

[RandFan]

Here's a link to more stuff that Romney got wrong in the debate.
I wonder if Romney's plan was just to run his mouth making **** up knowing it will make him look good and knowing the corrections won't make the headlines like his winning the debate.

I've asked and asked and no one can tell me a single principle Romney holds. I think there is a policy or two that he hasn't shifted positions on but I can't name them. Bueller?

 

[SkepticalDrew]

You're reading is binary. It's certainly possible to think that some states/areas have too many teachers (particularly, not good teachers), and have a general ambition to hire and retain good teachers. Further, you aren't reading for context: your original quote came from a speech in WI after the Walker recall failed. Given his other statements, and his inclusion of police and firefighters, it's clear he's referring to unions. For example:






http://www.ontheissues.org/Mitt_Romney.htm#Education
http://mittromneycentral.com/on-the-issues/education/



I've hilighted your error in reading comprehension - reducing tax rates is not equivalent to reducing taxes if, as my source made clear, the reduction in rates is made up for by closing deductions.

Sorry but I didn't see it in your source - what deductions and loopholes will Romney close?

Perhaps with your non-binary vision and superior reading comprehension you can tell me.

 

[Robrob]

As is Obama, thanks.

So when your talking point has a fatal encounter with reality, that's the best response you can make?

 

[12AX7]

And you aren't easily amused? You must not lead a very happy life, then. I'm sorry for you.

No, I'm not easily amused. I have a very happy life, thanks.

The 'Obama teleprompter/TOTUS' meme is worn out. Give it a rest.

 

[IchabodPlain]

Sorry but I didn't see it in your source - what deductions and loopholes will Romney close?

Perhaps with your non-binary vision and superior reading comprehension you can tell me.

It didn't, but then, that wasn't your claim. You're welcome.

 

[Solitaire]

No, Mitt, you don't get a mulligan.

What is that?

 

[BenBurch]

I have (the former, not the latter). Also speaking to large groups is a big part of my job... and I teach weekend classes in my spare time.

More relevantly, though, I've had the misfortune of debating someone who was detached from reality. Now that is a truly bizarre experience. I wouldn't be surprised if Romney's hard tack into fantasy land was a big part of Obama's trouble. Of course, Obama has been in politics for a while, so one imagines he's run into some world-class prevarication before.

I don't think he was prepared for a 180 on Romney's part; Who could be?

 

[not_so_new]

Just curious if people in the business of giving public speeches go freestyle or if they prepare their remarks.

Do His critics want the POTUS to wing it, given everything he says has consequences, or should he choose his words?

I have addressed hundreds and even if I am speaking to just a few I prepare my thoughts. It's just common sense. I wonder if the TelePrompTer critics have public speaking experience.

I have spoken in front of groups from 5 to 300+.... with groups of 5 I do typically wing it because I try and get everyone to participate more. But above 15 or 20 people in the audience I always have a fully prepared and rehearsed speech with notes (preferable with a screen to help me work from).

 

[DavidJames]

I don't think he was prepared for a 180 on Romney's part; Who could be?

True enough but wouldn't it have been great to see Obama do a spit take (okay maybe the reserved presidential equivalent) each time Romney blurted out one of his whoppers.

Time out (Obama makes the 'T' sign with his hands). WTF (he says the letters). Where the hell did that come from? I was fully prepared to refute the policies and numbers you've been yammering about the past couple of months.

But damn (said like Agent J in MIB), I know you change positions faster then Ryan can run a marathon, but even I didn't think you'd show up and just pull crap out of your butt.

 

[SezMe]

I don't think he was prepared for a 180 on Romney's part; Who could be?

He should have been. The principle feature of Romney's campaign so far has been the flip-flopping. So Obama knew that Mitt was all over the map. He should have pick a few biggies - taxes, ACA, deficit, etc. - and studied the various position Mitt has taken. Then, no matter what Mitt said, Obama could have nailed him taking the opposite position. That would have kept Mitt on the defensive the whole night.

I don't know who failed to set this up. Axlerod? Jarrett? Geithner? Whoever it was should be flogged for missing the obvious. And, of course, Obama himself has to shoulder much of the blame.

 

[Virus]

Here's my favorite post-debate write-up so far:

Anatomy of a Disastrous Debate Performance.

The common denominator here is the old story of the vast gulf between the reality and mythology of Barack Obama. Although Obama had sometimes shown some of the smarmy cool and set-speech fluidity of a John Edwards, otherwise there was never much evidence that Obama had ever excelled in debate or repartee — perhaps explaining why he wisely had consented to the fewest press conference and one-on-one Q-and-A press sessions of any recent president. His reliance on the teleprompter[5] has no recent presidential parallel, but was always wise even for the briefest of appearances. And yet even here, the chameleon-like set-speeches quickly become monotonous[6] and the faux cadences jarring rather than clever.

In other words; the clothes have no emperor.