Don’t expect a gamechanger in tonight’s debate

posted at 12:01 pm on October 16, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Once again, the two presidential candidates will square off tonight in a debate, their second of three and the third in the overall series.  Mitt Romney thumped Barack Obama in the first, by universal acclamation, while the irrelevant VP debate had a more mixed (and partisan) result.  However, Pew reported last night that independents liked Paul Ryan better than Joe Biden, by double digits:

Six-in-ten voters say they watched at least a little of last Thursday night’s vice-presidential debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan at Centre College in Danville, KY. Among debate watchers, as many say Biden did the better job (47%) as say Ryan (46%)….

Republican voters overwhelmingly say Ryan did the better job in the debate (88%); a comparable percentage of Democrats (89%) say Biden did the better job. Among independents, 50% say Ryan did better, 39% say Biden.

That puts pressure on Obama to deliver a big win tonight to change the momentum of this race.  Michael Tomasky at the Daily Beast says that Obama has to accomplish eight tasks in order to win tonight.  Most of these relate to mere semantics (“That’s where the mot juste comes in handy”) or personal attacks (“Find a way to reintroduce the plutocrat meme”), but one in particular is revealing:

Have a second-term agenda, and make sure it has some surprises of its own. Some of this agenda can be aimed at constituencies (immigration reform, say). But he should throw in something no one expects to hear, something that will throw Romney off guard. Maybe something about more aggressive natural-gas permitting in a second term. Probably needs to be a little bigger than that. But three things on that order would do the trick.

We are three weeks away from Election Day, and even Obama’s supporters (as Tomasky is) don’t have a clear idea of why Obama wants a second term, or what he wants to accomplish.  So far, the Obama campaign seems to be taking its messaging from Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, who famously told Paul Ryan that “we don’t have a plan – all we know is that we don’t like yours.”  Keep that in mind while reading Tomasky, and see how that fits with every point in his strategy except the one above.

The Wall Street Journal’s William McGurn wonders whether a game-changer is even possible.  Obama’s terrible performance two weeks ago was an emperor-has-no-clothes moment from which there is no real return, McGurn believes:

In Denver he didn’t just lose a debate—he lost the carefully cultivated illusion of a larger-than-life figure who was Lincoln and FDR and Moses all wrapped in one. …

Mr. Obama was the man who declared that he would change the thinking of the Muslim world by the mere fact of his election, restore science to its rightful place, and win what he called the “necessary war” in Afghanistan.

And then came this month’s debate in Denver.

That night, the American people watched “the smartest guy in the room” struggle to put together a simple declarative sentence, and then ask the moderator to move onto another topic after Mitt Romney had given a strong statement about jobs and growth and tax revenues.

Some 67 million Americans were watching on TV. What they saw was the scene from the Wizard of Oz, when Dorothy’s dog pulls back the curtain to reveal there is no wizard at all, just a man from the Midwest who pumped himself up into something far beyond his mortal self—and got the whole of Oz to believe it.

That’s why the first debate was always going to be the biggest in this race, and not just because of the illusion Obama created about himself.  That was not the only fantasy destroyed on that stage.  Team Obama had carefully constructed a cartoon version of Mitt Romney as Snidely Whiplash-meets-Scrooge McDuck, an evil vampire capitalist who was more concerned with counting his gold coins than with other human beings.  The debate showed Mitt Romney as not only a thoughtful and successful man, but one with much more presidential bearing than the incumbent.

Those are not illusions that shatter quietly and fade quickly.  That scale of disillusionment carries long-term consequences for those who built the illusions in the first place.

I make that point in my column for The Week today, and also note that the format and placement of this debate prevents either candidate from having a breakthrough moment, absent help from their opponent:

 First, the debate format doesn’t lend itself to big battles between the candidates. While there will be room for digs against opponents, the town-hall format will force both Obama and Romney to focus their attention on the attendees asking the questions, likely voters provided by Gallup for the evening. That means being solicitous of their opinions and questions, even when they don’t match up with the debate strategies of the campaigns. Each question will prompt a two-minute face-off between the two candidates in which they can go after each other’s answers, but the back-and-forth between those interludes and the audience-participation rounds won’t allow for much momentum for either side. …

Furthermore, neither candidate does particularly well in town-hall-style forums. Most people will recall Romney’s stiffness earlier in the primaries while conducting town-hall forums; the Los Angeles Times notes that more than one of Romney’s missteps came during these interactions, including the statement that he likes to “fire people” as a way to show his enthusiasm for reducing government.

But Obama doesn’t do particularly well in this format either. In 2010, when asked about ObamaCare and taxation in a friendly crowd, Obama gave a rambling, disjointed answer that lasted for 17 minutes. Most of Obama’s gaffes, too, come from off-the-cuff moments. The nature of a town-hall format makes it difficult to prepare for all events with memorized answers, and those kind of answers sound too rehearsed for a supposedly extemporaneous forum. …

Even apart from the difficulties of this town-hall format, the specifics of this debate are likely to be lost by the first of November in favor of the first and last impressions of debates — and the final debate next week takes place on foreign policy, a topic on which the Obama administration finds itself under siege. In other words, this debate will matter, but it will probably matter least of the three.

It’s worth noting, as I do in my column, the different approaches the candidates took to preparation for this debate. Obama holed himself up in a resort hotel for intense practice, probably with more seriousness than he did before the Denver collapse.  Romney, on the other hand, began doing townhall forums while campaigning in Ohio.  That may make a difference in tonight’s debate, as Romney has field-tested his responses, while Obama has only tested his in the theoretical construct of debate simulations.

I’d expect some good moments from both candidates, but don’t expect a clear winner as we saw in the last debate.  Obama will be more prepared, and Romney will be ready for that.  The final debate will have more impact as the last word undecided voters have — assuming any are left undecided by that time.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Watching your messiah go down in flames hurts, doesn’t it, Skippy?
kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 2:50 PM

Yep, guess he’ll end up volunteering in soup kitchens like Paul Ryan. Oh wait…

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Naw. He won’t give anything to charities. He’s a Liberal.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Rush just pointed it out, the ‘Obama comeback’ stories are already written by the Journo-Lists.

rayra on October 16, 2012 at 3:03 PM

If I talked to trolls, I might note that one of them is clocking in a little early today, at 2:38, when his shift starts at 3:00. Axeltoad et al. must be paying time-and-a-half for overtime.

But I don’t, so I will revive the protocol we used to use at Gittle Freen Lootballs, back when it was sane, and simply say:

GAZE

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Naw. He won’t give anything to charities. He’s a Liberal.
kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:02 PM

What universe are you living in? Liberals are the ones giving to and working for charities, as opposed to just stopping by for photo ops.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and his wife Michelle gave $10,772 of the $1.2 million they earned from 2000 through 2004 to charities, or less than 1 percent, according to tax returns for those years released today by his campaign.

The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income.

In 2011, Romney gave over 19% of his taxable income to charity.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:13 PM

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/81529.html

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney was far more generous to charities than President Barack Obama or Vice President Joe Biden last year, both in dollar terms and as a percentage of income, tax return data Romney’s campaign released Friday indicate.

Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.

Biden and his wife, Jill, gave 1.5 percent of their income away in 2011, with charitable donations totaling $5,540 out of $379,035.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:14 PM

I think Obama will make a couple of quotable mistakes tonight, because, at least subconsciously, he no longer wants to be President.

kagai on October 16, 2012 at 3:14 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

— Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

– Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

– Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.

– Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

– In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.

– People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:16 PM

Romney better have a good response for the “let Detroit go bankrupt” attacks that will be sure to come. That’s one attack line the Dems haven’t used yet in the first 2 debates.

tkyang99 on October 16, 2012 at 3:21 PM

So generous.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So, it’s not generous if he gives to his church?

I do not think that you know what that word means.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM

in my second term

what happened to the 4 years of your first term?

you promise imagration reform but did nothing

you promised…

you let let an executive order over the process of congress get in your way

audiotom on October 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Whatever the result, the Romney trend in poll results of the last weeks mean that we can expect a Big Event from the Obama campaign.

MTF

I know one thing, terrorists all across the world are on edge today/tonight, lol. If the debate goes poorly for Obama, the missiles will be flying soon after to take get the debate performance out of the news.

xblade on October 16, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

So irrelevant.

hoosierma on October 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Yep, I read that article. This paragraph just about killed me:

To expect people making tens of millions of dollars per year, such as the Romneys, to merely give the same percentage of their income to charity as people making less than one million dollars, such as the Obamas, is the equivalent of a flat tax. [And your point is? -- M]

But our tax code is progressive for a reason: the more you make, the more of your income is disposable. And so, richer people should give a higher proportion of their income to charity just as they should pay a higher proportion of their income in taxes.

And then there’s this:

He gave virtually nothing to any program that focuses directly on feeding the hungry, housing the homeless or educating the disadvantaged.

This is the problem liberals have: They don’t know what “charity” is. They don’t recognize it when they see it. that’s why they think giving to charity and paying taxes are the same. Look at this guy! He evidently wants the IRS or another arm of government as some type of “charity police” to make sure richer people give as much as he thinks they “should.”

Christian churches feed the hungry all the time, and have since the days of the Apostle Paul. Religious organizations run homeless shelters (ever heard of the Salvation Army?). Churches, especially Catholic churches, are famous for running high-quality schools, and take in as many poor students as they can.

Of course, other religions do these same things, too. In my neighborhood, the Hare Krishnas serve a free dinner every Sunday to anyone who comes through their doors.

For a liberal, charity only counts if it’s given to a “program” that he personally approves of.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:38 PM

My church, in co-operation with other area churches, feeds 2,000 per month

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:41 PM

“When religious giving isn’t counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.”
Here

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Further debunking of this paragraph:

To expect people making tens of millions of dollars per year, such as the Romneys, to merely give the same percentage of their income to charity as people making less than one million dollars, such as the Obamas, is the equivalent of a flat tax.

Even setting aside the false equivalence of tax = charity, that paragraph is wrong on the facts, per my links above.

In the 10 reddest states… the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, … donated just 1.9 percent.

And

Romney and his wife, Ann, gave 29.4 percent of their income to charity in 2011, donating $4,020,772 out of the $13,696,951 they took in.

Obama and first lady Michelle Obama gave 21.8 percent of their income to charitable organizations last year, donating $172,130 out of the $789,674 they made.

So the wealthy Romneys and the wealthy Obamas are already doing what the article writer says they “should” be (and, by implication, aren’t) doing.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted.

As I noted above, there is no justification for only counting secular gifts. Both religious and secular organizations feed the poor, help the homeless, provide education. Religious organizations do more, in fact.

That article is flat-out wrong, because it proceeds from the false premise that religious organizations are not charitable.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:45 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM

So, the 78% of Americans who are Christians, charity does not count?

Try again, Skippy.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

He who despises his neighbor sins, but happy is he who is gracious to the poor. (NAS, Proverbs 14:21)

“Feed the hungry! Help those in trouble! Then your light will shine out from the darkness, and the darkness around you shall be as bright as day. And the Lord will guide you continually, and satisfy you with all good things, and keep you healthy too; and you will be like a well-watered garden, like an ever-flowing spring. (TLB, Isaiah 58:10-11)

And the crowds asked [John the Baptist], “What then should we do?” In reply he said to them, “Whoever has two coats must share with anyone who has none; and whoever has food must do likewise.” (NRSV, Luke 3:10-11)

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Do you think I sould tell the kid that Thomas Jefferson opened the Capitol Bldg up for Sunday Morning Church Service, and they were held in there until 1848?

It might freak his delicate little mind out.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Do you think I should tell the kid that Thomas Jefferson opened the Capitol Bldg up for Sunday Morning Church Service, and they were held in there until 1848?

It might freak his delicate little mind out.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:54 PM

Go for it! I’ll even help you clean up the mess. :-)

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 4:02 PM

He’s run away. But, here’s a blog I wrote about it, anyway.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 4:08 PM

When religious giving isn’t counted, the geography of giving is very different. Some states in the Northeast jump into the top 10 when secular gifts alone are counted. New York would vault from No. 18 to No. 2, and Pennsylvania would climb from No. 40 to No. 4.”
Here

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM

“When you don’t count what I don’t want to count, then the facts support me”

Talk about inanity. You can’t have your own facts, study after study shows that conservatives are much, much, much, much, much more charitable than liberals. You can’t simply say “hey, I don’t want to count “x” as charity” and then claim victory.

So stupid on so many damn levels.

Monkeytoe on October 16, 2012 at 4:22 PM

Here’s the problem for Zero:

The “independents” and “undecideds” just needed to see if Romney looked and sounded the part of a President who had some ideas to turn things around. They already know Obama doesn’t.

Mission accomplished.

goflyers on October 16, 2012 at 4:25 PM

You know what? Obama can say whatever he wants. He can promise the moon (didn’t he do that 4 years ago?), but he never intends to deliver. If voters fall for a late game strategy that calls for him to say something unexpected and promise something new to throw Romney off his game, then they deserve the misery he will continue to bring this country. Obama will not keep one promise that would benefit this nation, its economy or its people. Period. Sadly, the believers will be dragging the rest of us with them, the morons.

totherightofthem on October 16, 2012 at 4:31 PM

What universe are you living in? Liberals are the ones giving to and working for charities, as opposed to just stopping by for photo ops.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

That is not supported by the evidence. You really do live in a bubble. And “working for” is not the same as volunteering. You can’t count someone who draws a salary – that is not charity.

You obviously seem to be arguing that various religious charities do not count. Fine, but in that case, I get to discount charities of the left that I don’t agree with – anything for planned parenthood or other charities supporting abortion. Anything helping illegal immigrants. Anything like ACORN or other leftist agitators. Etc. thus, for instance, Obama’s “community organizing” was not charitable work (which it wasn’t anyhow, b/c he was paid to do it).

If you are defining “charity” as “those things I agree with,” then obviously you can define it in such a way as to change the actual facts to make it seem like liberals are “more charitable.”

Monkeytoe on October 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:42 PM

So, the 78% of Americans who are Christians, charity does not count?

Try again, Skippy.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Isn’t Constanteen just precious. You have a crush on her too. I can tell. Well she is a real sweetie.

Bmore on October 16, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Or should that be sweatie? No matter, she is precious.

Bmore on October 16, 2012 at 4:43 PM

If you are defining “charity” as “those things I agree with,” then obviously you can define it in such a way as to change the actual facts to make it seem like liberals are “more charitable.”
Monkeytoe on October 16, 2012 at 4:33 PM

Since the standard was “charity” (ie non-profit organization) I concede that point. However, religious organizations spend on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the betterment of society, such as baptizing dead people or attempting to limit the civil rights of gays.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM

What universe are you living in? Liberals are the ones giving to and working for charities, as opposed to just stopping by for photo ops.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

You live in an alternate one.

Schadenfreude on October 16, 2012 at 5:06 PM

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Your intolerance is showing again, little Lib.

kingsjester on October 16, 2012 at 5:07 PM

What universe are you living in? Liberals are the ones giving to and working for charities, as opposed to just stopping by for photo ops.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

Amazing satire!

tom daschle concerned on October 16, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Wish this guy could be there (allowed to ask this) as he did in this YouTube vid.

http://t.co/iCxsKofe

pambi on October 16, 2012 at 5:30 PM

However, religious organizations spend on all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the betterment of society, such as baptizing dead people or attempting to limit the civil rights of gays.

So we’re back to the criterion that “charity = things Constantine agrees with.”

Let’s take your examples one at a time:

Baptizing dead people: Besides the fact that I could bust your chops for being an anti-Mormon bigot, since it’s only LDS who do that so far as I know — how expensive is it, really? The expense of a baptism of a live person is minimal — a pretty little christening gown, or a good suit, or (if your church does full-immersion) a swimsuit, shorts and T-shirt, plus punch and cookies afterward. A dead person doesn’t need any of that, so there’s no real expense involved. I’m not a Mormon, but I imagine it’s mostly clerical, with the officiant probably reading names in succession and pronouncing a formula of baptism on them. So maybe a few hours a week of an elder’s time. Hardly a budget line item.

As for “limit[ing] the civil rights of gays”, there again we’re back to “charity = things Constantine agrees with.”

There are principled arguments to be made against same-sex marriage. Gay people have even made them. To say that allowing same-sex marriage is unequivocally to “the betterment of society” ignores the opinions of about half the country, both religious and not. And here again, how much of a typical church’s (or synagogue’s, or mosque’s, or temple’s) budget is spent on that issue, compared to programs to feed the homeless, or running a school, or sending missionaries to destitute countries to build wells and provide medical care while preaching the Gospel?

Most churches are not in the business of politically advocating against (or indeed for) same-sex marriage. If you walked into a church right now and told them that you were gay, do you think they would really throw Bibles at you and call down hell-fire and damnation on your head? Not a chance. The worst that would happen would be a clergyperson asking you how they can help you.

A sincere and honest belief that marriage is for one man and one woman is not detrimental to society at large. According to Wikipedia, as of this year it appears that about half (between 47% – 54%) of the population favors it, and half does not. Yet we all manage to get along most of the time In Real Life. Troll fights don’t have anything to do with reality!

Again, don’t go confusing your personal wishes with either society’s good or society’s beliefs.

Mary in LA on October 16, 2012 at 5:44 PM

I expect pretty much a draw, which the media will call an Obama win, of course. But as Ed suggests, Obama needs more than a draw, and a draw works to Romney’s favor.

Crowley is the wild card. Whhen Romney begins scoring points, I expect Crowley to step in and try to throw the debate.

The debate I want to see is the third one, especially when it comes to foreign policy.

petefrt on October 16, 2012 at 5:46 PM

What universe are you living in? Liberals are the ones giving to and working for charities, as opposed to just stopping by for photo ops.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:08 PM

The Milky Way. What universe do you live in?

Nicky Kristof, NY Times, circa 2008:

Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

-snip-

The upshot is that Democrats, who speak passionately about the hungry and homeless, personally fork over less money to charity than Republicans — the ones who try to cut health insurance for children.

Rest of story…

F-

Del Dolemonte on October 16, 2012 at 5:48 PM

So generous.

Constantine on October 16, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Quoting “The Nation”? That explains a lot.

-2

Del Dolemonte on October 16, 2012 at 5:49 PM

Levin is underscoring that the NATION isn’t hanging onto who wins or loses a debate, or two.
There’s a rising tide against the obvious destruction underway.
We know what’s going on, and won’t believe the lying liars anymore.
AMEN !!

pambi on October 16, 2012 at 6:20 PM

I cannot tolerate watching or reading any lefty sites or stations.
Can anyone share what they’re saying about tonight ??
Are they suggesting this is a ‘must WIN’ for their Dear Leader ??

pambi on October 16, 2012 at 6:25 PM

In Denver he didn’t just lose a debate—he lost the carefully cultivated illusion of a larger-than-life figure who was Lincoln and FDR and Moses all wrapped in one. …

And now he is closer to Moe, Larry and Curly all wrapped in one.

VorDaj on October 16, 2012 at 8:04 PM

Harry Reid here.

There are no opponents to Obama in tonight’s town hall debate except maybe one or two vastly outnumbered racists. Obama can not lose the debate! Never! No, fellow Democrats I am not scared of losing and neither should you be! Search for the truth. I tell you things and I always ask you to verify what I say. I told you yesterday that there are no dissatisfied people in America. You can go and visit any state at all. No dissatisfied person there. No one at all. There are only supporters of Barack Obama except for a few crazy constitution clingers. Everything is okay.

By Obama, I think Obama will win in this debate and the next one and go on to an easy 57 state landslide. Any talk of his defeat is merely an insane prattle. The fact is that as soon as Mitt Romney reaches the stage, Obama will besiege him and slaughter him. Wherever Romney tries to run to on the stage he will find himself encircled by Obama’s great intellect and command of the facts. Mitt Romney will be burnt. Mitt Romney will be buried. Obama will tackle him. Obama will hit him with shoes! Obama’s opponents will soon be committing suicide by the thousands as they realize that Obama can not lose.

RasThavas on October 16, 2012 at 8:14 PM

I assume rhe DEMs are saving something for Round 2

My only advice is for Romney to be Romney and make his appeals to the public, not Obama who is not listening. Obama could care less about Romney’s plans except where they fit in his study notes

They have been trying to pry details on Romney’s economic plan, and Romney has refused to be suckered. Romney has set boundaries for the solution but not the details, because he wants all Americans to be in on the solution, not just one party

In other words, it is important for Romney to communicate he wants the bickering to stop, and give and take to start. Americans are suffering and the only way to help them is to stop the fighting and work out a bi partisan solution

As for 47 percent, it isn’t worth going into since they seem to be saving it for some kind of salvo. If 47 percent of Americans are happy with the current situation, Romney knows everyone could do better if we work together. They couldn’t do worse

Meanwhile, obama has to skid away from Libya, and one assumes the moderator might try to help him

entagor on October 16, 2012 at 8:53 PM

Mitt wins by Obama’s desperation.

profitsbeard on October 17, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3