Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?

posted at 10:01 am on October 17, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Call this a buzz-kill moment for the Left, especially as it comes on MSNBC, where most of them will flock to bask in the glow of a candidate who bothered to show up for a debate.  Time’s Mark Halperin notes what I pointed out on NRA News and the Hugh Hewitt Show last night — that the agenda debate took place entirely in terms of Mitt Romney.  Barack Obama never mentioned anything about a second-term agenda, and its MIA status is a big, big problem for an incumbent arguing for a second term:

At least in the first polls taken after the debate, voters weren’t fooled.  Obama won a narrow edge on overall performance of two points across these polls, National Journal reports, but Romney won large margins on the issues:

Despite Obama’s slight edge overall, Romney was seen as better able to handle most issues.

The trend was most notable in the CNN poll: he had an 18-point edge among registered voters on the economy (58 percent to Obama’s  40 percent ); a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent); a 7-point edge on taxes (51 percent to 44 percent); and, largest of all, a 23-point edge on the deficit (59 percent to 36 percent).

Obama’s only lead in the CNN poll was a slim one on foreign policy: 2 percent more of the registered voters who watched the debate said he would handle the issue better (49 percent to 47 percent for Romney).

In the CBS poll, 65 percent of respondents also said Romney would handle the economy better after the debate (though that decreased from 71 percent before the debate). Only 34 percent said Obama would handle the economy better, but that was a jump of 7 percentage points.

As I wrote earlier, Obama and his team still believe they can win the election by simply being the anti-Romney — without putting an agenda on the table for voters to see and support.  That strategy was doomed to failure in the first debate anyway, but the stark contrast two weeks ago between a very presidential Romney and a disengaged and apathetic Obama magnified that effect and impact.  Obama seemed to pretend last night like that never happened, which as Halperin notes could be a fatal flaw in their final three weeks.

Most voters aren’t going to go into voting booths to choose the best debater.  They’re going to choose the candidate that they trust more on the issues.  Obama lost the first debate by virtual default, and he’s going to lose the election the same way unless he can launch a second-term agenda in less than three weeks.


Related Posts:

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

Second term … same as the first.

aunursa on October 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?

If 0bama released it, it would be known to all that the game is over. 0bama still has money to collect.

0bama second term agenda

1).-move to hawaii
2).-make lots of money
3).-blame Bush Romney
4).-play more golf

cozmo on October 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM

Bad news: Romney walked into a pre-set trap by Obama and Crowley. How the Hell could any debate moderator remember one word in a Rose Garden Statement of 30+ days ago. It was a fix.

Good news: Obama was flat much of the night, couldn’t defend his record, horrible answer on gasoline prices, and the 47 percent attack wasn’t nearly the grenade the MSM wanted.

Anybody also notice that Obama failed to even acknowledge Romney, or the Town Hall participants, or Hofstra University at the beginning? Instead, this petulant narcissist just started with the attacks on Romney.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM

It’s been said by others (smarter than moi) that Obama campaigns like a man who’s not been in power the previous 4 years.

That was very evident last night. Obama’s whole strategy seemed to be ‘discredit Romney.’

locomotivebreath1901 on October 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

He’s had four years to lay out an agenda. Hell, he’s had four years to do anything worthwhile, and he can’t even do the little things like come up with a budget.

Does anyone really think he’s going to come up with an agenda (or do anything else) in the next three weeks?

PetecminMd on October 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Why does he need a second term agenda, the first one has us in a huge recovery according to Mrs. Obama? Why change direction?

Cindy Munford on October 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Vote for me, I’m not Bush Romney.

rhombus on October 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Barry’s 2nd term agenda is to forward the epically failed 1st term.

Slainte on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Obama would have “flexibility” in his second term….

Flexibility to unleash the EPA to kill the coal industry.

Flexibility to unleash the EPA to kill fracking.

Flexibility to gut the military.

Flexibility to expand ObamaCare and kill the health insurance industry.

Flexibility to gut MediCare.

Flexibility to raise taxes on business.

Flexibility to do what ever his Marxist heart tells him to do.

redguy on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Obama: “I’m not Mitt, so vote for me. Mitt is s liar and evil”.

That’s just basically the President’s campaign.

Oil Can on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Obama is running as if Romney is the incumbent and the media is treating Romney as if he’s the incumbent.

gwelf on October 17, 2012 at 10:08 AM

Oh, yes. But being the hack he is, Halperin still gave Obama the higher “debate grade”.

BTW, why isn’t Obama’s “Wait Candy! Can you say that louder?” getting more space. Very Presidential. Very adult. Churchill-esque.

Marcus on October 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Barack Obama never mentioned anything about a second-term agenda, and its MIA status is a big, big problem for an incumbent arguing for a second term….

Because nobody in their right mind would vote for him.

2016 – Obama’s America

tru2tx on October 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?

Hidden away with his college grades and transcripts – both for the same reason.

Flora Duh on October 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM

Halperin…the only realist on morning joe this am apparently

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

I seem to remember all of Romney’s GOP opponents were lumped together as “Not-Romney.” I suspect (and sincerely hope!) that Obama has as much success with such a tactic as Romney’s primary opponents had.

Mohonri on October 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

Little opportunity remains for Obama to change minds on the economy/taxes/debt issues. Next debate is foreign affairs. Viewing numbers will be down since most Americans care little and don’t figure they personally know much about it.

Carnac on October 17, 2012 at 10:10 AM

If Barry were to tell you honestly what he wants to do in the second term, he would lose for sure. Hence mum is the word.

bayview on October 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM

All show and no go.

tomas on October 17, 2012 at 10:12 AM

OT: Bad Candy: “sit down, Governor Romney”

faraway on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Left-wingers weren’t going to change their vote just because Romney won the debate. They’re staying put. However, the “undecideds” know at this point that if Obama comes up with anything new, its desperation. Why didn’t he ever once mention these great ideas before late October?

perroviejo on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I still don’t get how libtards think King Barry won anything last night. He came across as an angry douchebag and the only point he scored is when his mommy had to step in and put a truth stamp on his lie.

Kataklysmic on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Second term … same as the first.

aunursa on October 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM

Little bit louder and a little bit worse…

Gatsu on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Launch a second term agenda in the next two weeks? Yeah, that’s rich.

Romney is pulling away. Libya sucks up the oxygen this week and into next. Final debate HAS to deal with Libya, oil, Israel, China, Muslim issues… etc.

How does that work for Obama? It doesn’t.

Aloha Barry. Choom Gang Reunion 2013!

Sugar Land on October 17, 2012 at 10:16 AM

What was the non-sense about $1.89 gal due to a poor 2009 economy? If that was a fact, shouldnt it be free today? That was a LOL moment.

hillsoftx on October 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Halperin and Heilemann are writing “Game Change Two” and they know there’s no way in hell HBO is buying it and filming with a Romney win. Get serious. They’re hacks.

Marcus on October 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

OT: Bad Candy: “sit down, Governor Romney”

faraway on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

That really irked me. Have not seen any mentions of it, except yours.

Brat on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Anybody also notice that Obama failed to even acknowledge Romney, or the Town Hall participants, or Hofstra University at the beginning? Instead, this petulant narcissist just started with the attacks on Romney.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:06 AM

I noticed that, too. Romney related much better to those asking the questions, and he came off as much more friendly. Obama, on the other hand, looked petty and hateful, launching personal attack after personal attack.

changer1701 on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

The voters are sick and tired of the Obama campaign of nothing but class warfare rhetoric followed by an unknown* agenda.

* Oh,we know Mr. Obama—more spending and higher taxes on the middle class—rinse and repeat.

Rovin on October 17, 2012 at 10:19 AM

Wishful thinking, Ed.

The only upside from last night is Schieffer is now in a box for the foriegn policy debate.

CBS needs to be hammered about STFU when the two are going at it.

Romney had Barry last night, but he couldn’t close because everything was geared to make Mitt sound like the incumbent.

They are literally banking on convincing undecideds Romney is somehow responsible for Obama’s F’ups.

budfox on October 17, 2012 at 10:20 AM

Second term agendas are as racist as any mention of Chicago or golf.

Happy Nomad on October 17, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Obama looks like he needs a vacation …. he is working so hard …
he really should take some time off …. like the rest of his life and
get out of the way and let his betters get the ship of state back upright ….

conservative tarheel on October 17, 2012 at 10:22 AM

Bottom line: do you think you will be better off in four years with President Obama or President Romney? My money is on Romney. Seriously. I can’t imGine my situation being anything but the same or worse with President Obama at the helm.

Mr_Magoo on October 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM

Second-term agenda (aka Five Year Plan) – Renewal by Carrousel.

Steve Eggleston on October 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM

OT: Bad Candy: “sit down, Governor Romney”

faraway on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

That really irked me. Have not seen any mentions of it, except yours.

Brat on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

and where are those politically correct wastes of skin that were berating us for mocking her looks the other day. f ‘em all!

GhoulAid on October 17, 2012 at 10:24 AM

Bottom line: do you think you will be better off in four years with President Obama or President Romney? My money is on Romney. Seriously. I can’t imGine my situation being anything but the same or worse with President Obama at the helm.

Mr_Magoo on October 17, 2012 at 10:23 AM

With one exception. The economy will come back on its own in spite of a President Obama. The sheer force of a free market economy could very well overcome anything that Obama can do to stop it.

Mr_Magoo on October 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

If Barry were to tell you honestly what he wants to do in the second term, he would lose for sure. Hence mum is the word.

bayview on October 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I’ll put it this way:

If Obama explained his means and ends frankly to the American people, he would be repudiated with disgust.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

More than a wee bit late for any 2nd Term Agenda being offered by Obama as more than 20 states are already voting. I don’t believe that 3 weeks out there are really people with no clue who they are voting for. Obama’s second term (if he gets one–I shudder) is just more of the same of his first just adding more EOs and directives to the agencies making end runs around Congress. He’s already made it more than clear that he doesn’t introduce his own legislation. He doesn’t get involved in any legislation working through Congress, he doesn’t negotiate, etc.

CoffeeLover on October 17, 2012 at 10:26 AM

I noticed that, too. Romney related much better to those asking the questions, and he came off as much more friendly. Obama, on the other hand, looked petty and hateful, launching personal attack after personal attack.

changer1701 on October 17, 2012 at 10:18 AM

Bigger than that. If Romney had forgotten the initial “acknowledgements” at the beginning of the debate, it would be a story this morning from coast to coast.

Someone needs to get this info to Hannity, Drudge, Rush etc.

Bad form, rude, and petulant.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

Just an aside, but whoever is on the commission for the GOP that agreed to these debates/moderators should be shot.

As I write this I know that the next time around the GOP will *again* accept moderators and formus that everyone knows will be aligned to help the Democrat, who will step all over the Republican, help argue against them, give more time and softball questions to the Democrat, etc.

It’s a simple dream, but I hope someday the GOP will grow a spine and learn to simply say ‘no’ rather than willingly continue walking into glaringly obvious traps with neon signs blinking and pointing in large impossible-to-miss letters that spell “TRAP: STEP RIGHT THIS WAY SO THAT WE MAY COMMENCE GANGF@#$ING YOU. AND THANKS FOR BEING SO STUPID – AGAIN”.

Midas on October 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?

That is crux of the matter. obama is all big-mouth questioning Mitt on his plans, but not one MSM until now has asked what is his plan for the next 4 years, besides taxing the rich.

ConservativePartyNow on October 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

If Barry were to tell you honestly what he wants to do in the second term, he would lose for sure. Hence mum is the word.

bayview on October 17, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Exactly.

Don’t Dem voters ever wonder why their leaders never say exactly what their plans are, but instead attempt to smear their opponent? And that their leaders parrot vague conservative “free market” talking points when speaking to the nation, and yet do the exact opposite when elected (ObamaCare, Ca$h4Clunkerz, “Green” energy scams, etc.)?

Obama should just grow a pair of grapefruits and champion The People’s Budget put forth by the (growing) communist wing of his party not long ago. Go all out.

visions on October 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Romney should start using The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” as his theme song.

Tater Salad on October 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

Funny the lsm said he needed to lay out a vision before the debate….halperin is the only one one on msdnc to actually say he didn’t everyone else just happy dear leader bashed mitt (in their eyes)

cmsinaz on October 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

OT: Bad Candy: “sit down, Governor Romney”

faraway on October 17, 2012 at 10:14 AM

I missed that. Where did it happen in the debate?

Oil Can on October 17, 2012 at 10:33 AM

Obama told Crowley to “check the transcript” to verify he said the words “act of terror” in his speech in the Rose Garden. How did he know she had the transcript at her lectern? Coordination?

He even asks her to repeat it and Michelle claps at this point to try to drive home the “proof” because Romney was trying to speak over them.

nitzsche on October 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM

At least with serial abusers, they’ll claim “I’m sorry, I’ll never do it again”–which leads the victim to continue the relationship…

socalcon on October 17, 2012 at 10:34 AM

Just an aside, but whoever is on the commission for the GOP that agreed to these debates/moderators should be shot.

Midas on October 17, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Bad moderators seems to have worked well for the GOP, given what the Denver debate did for the Romney campaign.

What I would like to see is somebody other than news critters act as the moderators.

Happy Nomad on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Commie tax and spend spread “others” wealth around first term.

Commie tax and spend spread “others” wealth around second term.

He is what he is, no need to even put up one add.

Just do it commie Obama some where else.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM

Candy got to make her point, unfortunately for her she will never be invited back. I hope she will enjoy the Romney presidency and being relegated to second tier status.

Tater Salad on October 17, 2012 at 10:35 AM

We will help Obowma so he will not stress out about his four years of failures, we WILL VOTE HIM OUT.

dthorny on October 17, 2012 at 10:37 AM

Bigger than that. If Romney had forgotten the initial “acknowledgements” at the beginning of the debate, it would be a story this morning from coast to coast.

Someone needs to get this info to Hannity, Drudge, Rush etc.

Bad form, rude, and petulant.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:28 AM

I thought so too. It’s funny, but this seems to be playing out exactly like the vp debate. Biden was rude, smug, petulant, and overly-aggressive, too…he was also deemed the “winner”, but among undecideds not so much. I think we’ll see the same thing play out here.

What it did do is make me dislike Obama even more than I already did. The cheap shots were expected, but still disappointing…Romney’s a good guy, I believe, and his success shouldn’t be held against him. I wouldn’t want to win that way, but this Chicago crew has no shame.

changer1701 on October 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Halperin: So where was the second-term agenda?

The premise of this question is wrong.

Obama and his camp had been saying “The SAME, only FORWARD”, ‘too late to turn back’ or some such rot.

To his supporters, there is no need to spell out a 2nd term agenda.

And there are no ‘undecided’. Give me a break.

Sir Napsalot on October 17, 2012 at 10:38 AM

Obama told Crowley to “check the transcript” to verify he said the words “act of terror” in his speech in the Rose Garden.

Yet, he blamed the video first, specifically.

Before the phrase “acts of terror” ever leaves his lips — in fact, 6 paragraphs before — HE BLAMES THE VIDEO.

SINCE OUR FOUNDING, THE UNITED STATES HAS BEEN A NATION THAT RESPECTS ALL FAITHS. WE REJECT ALL EFFORTS TO DENIGRATE THE RELIGIOUS BELIEFS OF OTHERS. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.” (Paragraph 4 of 13)

[snip]

“No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” (Paragraph 10 of 13)

The first two lines of paragraph 4 would be irrelevant if he was going to designate the attack “terrorism.”

Also, under Federal law, acts of terrorism, BY DEFINITION, are premeditated. Thus, they cannot be “spontaneous uprisings”…ever.

Here’s the full transcript:

http://www.forextv.com/forex-news-story/full-transcript-of-obama-s-rose-garden-speech-after-sept-11-benghazi-attack

Further…

Is this how you synonymously refer to terrorism:

“But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.

Paragraph 4 of 13 from his Rose Garden statement….6 paragraphs before the word terror is mentioned.

Are “senseless acts of violence” just another way of describing terrorism?

He makes it sound like what happened in Benghazi was nothing more than a drive-by shooting.

Resist We Much on October 17, 2012 at 10:40 AM

Candy Crowley: Partisan Liar and Member of the Democrat Propaganda Machine.

jaime on October 17, 2012 at 10:41 AM

I’m delighted that Obama neglected to offer any second term agenda; feeds easily into “man on the street” commercials — and now it is too late for Obama to rectify.

Obama also did not score effectively on the 47%.

matthew8787 on October 17, 2012 at 10:42 AM

I know some of you have already mentioned this, but Candy responded too quickly with the Rose Garden speech “facts”. Either 1) she has an incredible memory and knows Obama’s speeches word for word, 2) She anticipated that Romney would attack Obama for blaming a terror attack on Benghazi, and was ready with the exact speech that Obama first used the word “terror” or …

I dunno, it just seems fishy. Romney was trying to say somthing like, well, you and the UN Ambassador have been talking about the video for a month, but Candy cut him off again.

cep on October 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM

What was the non-sense about $1.89 gal due to a poor 2009 economy? If that was a fact, shouldnt it be free today? That was a LOL moment.
hillsoftx on October 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Why is this not being talked about more? Even my 11 yo picked up on this!

shades of red on October 17, 2012 at 10:43 AM

Obama told Crowley to “check the transcript” to verify he said the words “act of terror” in his speech in the Rose Garden.

This as well. Obama and Crowley are too fast on the transcript bit. I don’t believe that even Obama has his speeches memorized.

I think Obama set a trap, Crowley was ready to pounce when Romney stepped in it, and then when Romney was getting out of the trap and the back and forth was getting good, she cut him off.

cep on October 17, 2012 at 10:45 AM

Wondering why Romney does not hit Obama on this subject.
Tie it in with Obama’s 2008 promises that he did not keep.

Obama is always whining about Romney’s agenda, but what is Obama’s?

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Sounds like a 1st grade song:

Second verse
Same as the first
A little bit louder
And a little bit worse

Good times, good times.

oprockwell on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Let’s face it. The liberals aren’t interested in the details of a second term. They simply want Obama, like do all the trolls here. Substance doesn’t matter. Just Obama and the fact he’s a Democrat. Substance isn’t part of the playbook. As one of Obama’s TV campaign ads says, ‘stay the course’. To what end, I don’t think liberals care.

It’s just a matter of being Democrat, voting the ‘right way’. As was once said, “Damn the torpedoes. Full speed ahead!”

Liam on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

Ever wonder who was doing the clapping in the audience at the debate? It was Michelle Obama(against the rules):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Obama is always whining about Romney’s agenda, but what is Obama’s?

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

This. I wish Romney would say something like, “Mr. President, we spent the last 2 debates talking about what I am going to do. What is your plan? Well you don’t have one, it is more of the same, more misery.”

cep on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Well, according to Obama logic, the economy was totally on the brink of collapse at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term, right?

I mean, after all . . .

1.) When Clinton came into office, the price of gas was 1.07 per gallon, on average ($1.71 in today’s money).

2.) The price of gas was $1.20 per gallon ($1.73 in today’s money).

So therefore according to the Law of Obama Gas Prices and the Economy, we can conclude that Bill Clinton’s economy was an abject failure during his first term, and that he did little or nothing to improve it. Right? Right?

That’s right, check those official government links, and pass this along.

JoseQuinones on October 17, 2012 at 10:50 AM

What was the non-sense about $1.89 gal due to a poor 2009 economy?

hillsoftx on October 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

It is simple Economics 101. Supply/demand curves for those that remember.

World-wide demand goes down in a world-wide economic down-turn. In hand, oil demand goes down and so goes the price.

When the economy rebounds, demand goes up, and so goes the price.

Fortunately, Obama is an economics idiot and can’t explain this plainly. Apparently economics wasn’t on the syllabus in ‘Rules for Radicals’ classes.

Carnac on October 17, 2012 at 10:51 AM

He’s had four years to lay out an agenda. Hell, he’s had four years to do anything worthwhile, and he can’t even do the little things like come up with a budget.

Does anyone really think he’s going to come up with an agenda (or do anything else) in the next three weeks?

PetecminMd on October 17, 2012 at 10:07 AM

Governor Romney has to point out that little Bammie for two years had an absolutely historic veto-proof majority in Congress which has happened maybe once a generation, and always to democratics. In that two years he could have done ANYTHING without any ‘interference’ from Republicans. For anything on his platform today, his supporters should be asking, -”why didn’t you already do this?”

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 10:52 AM

Well, according to Obama logic, the economy was totally on the brink of collapse at the end of Bill Clinton’s first term, right?

I mean, after all . . .

1.) When Clinton came into office, the price of gas was 1.07 per gallon, on average ($1.71 in today’s money).

2.) The price of gas was $1.20 per gallon today’s money.

So therefore according to the Law of Obama Gas Prices and the Economy, we can conclude that Bill Clinton’s economy was an abject failure during his first term, and that he did little or nothing to improve it. Right? Right?

That’s right, check those official government links, and pass this along.

JoseQuinones on October 17, 2012 at 10:53 AM

Wondering why Romney does not hit Obama on this subject.
Tie it in with Obama’s 2008 promises that he did not keep.

Obama is always whining about Romney’s agenda, but what is Obama’s?

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:46 AM

I kept wishing for Romney to just say something like, ‘Look, throughout this campaign the President has been launching personal attacks-he’s attacked my character, and he’s attacked my success. That’s what his whole campaign has been all about. It’s incredibly disappointing for a President that promised to bring people together when he came into office, but it’s also revealing- it tells all of us that he has no record to run on, and no vision moving forward. He can’t tell you what his agenda is for the next four years, because he’s promising more of the same. And America simply cannot afford that.’

changer1701 on October 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

Funniest moment -little Bammie blaming then beaten Republican primary candidate and private citizen Governor Romney for blocking immigration reform in Congress in 2009.

Who knew the Governor was that powerful?

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 10:54 AM

He had no plan in his first term and has no plan if he would be re-elected. Country needs new direction and new leadership. One term and out for Obama.

Amazingoly on October 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Ever wonder who was doing the clapping in the audience at the debate? It was Michelle Obama(against the rules):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM

Actually she clapped to hide the noise of an enormous lobster fart.

slickwillie2001 on October 17, 2012 at 10:56 AM

Ever wonder who was doing the clapping in the audience at the debate? It was Michelle Obama(against the rules):
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/10/17/michelle_obama_broke_agreed_upon_rules_clapped_at_debate.html

albill on October 17, 2012 at 10:48 AM

I think that happened when Obama was using his preacher voice and she thought she was at church. I am surprised she didn’t give an “Amen!”

cep on October 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

KDVR Denver: “The President doesn’t have an agenda for the next four years” http://youtu.be/H7nRkSljAHQ

Flora Duh on October 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

No need to plan for that which will not occur.

Bmore on October 17, 2012 at 10:59 AM

In the future, when we look back on this election, we will realize that Romney sealed the election last night.

Thanks to Candy Crowley, he got inoculated for the foreign policy debate, because at least 15 minutes next Monday will be spent reviewing last night’s claims vs. the actual timeline.

There are only a few questions Romney needs to ask:

1) Why didn’t you answer the question about the security at the Embassy?
2) Why do you continue to avoid taking responsibility for misleading the public for two weeks after Benghazi?
3) If Secy. Clinton has taken responsibility for both of the above, why does she still have her job?
4) How will you change our foreign policy strategy, and security tactics, to ensure this never happens again in the coming 4 years?

and after the half way point of the debate, if Obama isn’t discussing a “new agenda” for the next 4 years, here is the killer question:

“We’re all curious to understand what you’ve learned these last 4 years, and, like any strong leader, how you will apply those lessons to the next 4 years. What is your plan to reform your agenda from the policies we’ve experienced to a new plan that restrengthens our economy, and our leadership role in the world. I know your answer can’t be just a sound bite, so you can have the rest of the time in the debate. I reserve time for my closing statement.”

For a closing statement, I would add a punchline to Romney’s well-spoken list of “Why settle fors…” from last night:

“In the end, why settle?”

The Wild Duck on October 17, 2012 at 11:03 AM

OWS and MSM types who fawned over them are the perfect example and intent of the political left. They don’t know what they want, but they have no limits. Everything at a whim is, realistically, how it stands with them.

That’s why Obama’s vagueness works so well among them; they like the future open-ended. At any time, some new manufactured ‘injustice’ can become a political football.

Liam on October 17, 2012 at 11:04 AM

The fathead doesn’t think people really care about an agenda, he thinks they’ll vote for him regardless. Either that or a)he doesn’t care about being in office another 4 years, b)he doesn’t care about the state of the union and thinks things are fine just the way they are (believes his own bs talking points), or c)he can’t tell us about his real agenda because it’s so radical he would lose.

scalleywag on October 17, 2012 at 11:05 AM

With one exception. The economy will come back on its own in spite of a President Obama. The sheer force of a free market economy could very well overcome anything that Obama can do to stop it.

Mr_Magoo on October 17, 2012 at 10:25 AM

Not if Taxmageddon occurs it won’t. If things look bad now, just wait for the next 4 years. These will look like the good old days. I wish Romney would make this point instead of saying next 4 will be like the last 4.

Buy Danish on October 17, 2012 at 11:08 AM

Obama’s second term meme is that he is going to keep doing the great job he has been doing the first term to get us out of the “Bush recession”.

Romney need to point out 6 million new job seekers entered the job market in the period Obama’s economy created 4 million.

We are going backwards !!

KenInIL on October 17, 2012 at 11:10 AM

Romney points out that the next 4 years of Obama will continue like the last 4 years.

Obama does not dispute this.

In absence of dispute or pointing out to any real second term agenda, all we are left with is continuing the last 4 years of policies.

Which are a failure.

Thanks for clearing that up for the President, Gov. Romney!

ajacksonian on October 17, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I had a caller from OFA call me a week or so ago.
I indicated that I was “undecided” so I could get to hear the sales pitch from this young man.
As he talked, he mentioned that Romney was bad for America yada yada and said his plan for America was weak.
I responded that “except for the teacher, firemen and policemen, I haven’t heard anything from Obama either.
He responded that Obama had cut his payroll taxes and that was great.
I said that those payroll taxes were no longer going to Social Security and Medicare which need them.
That really left him speechless.

J_Crater on October 17, 2012 at 11:13 AM

a 3-point edge on health care (49 percent to 46 percent)

Last night really was lost-opportunity night for Romney.

How about the taxes to fund Obamacare? Medical devices? Hey, Mitt, don’t your people read the WSJ and see that even Evan Bayh is out there opposing the medical-device tax? Leave it to Obama to complain that Bayh is a traitor who’s now a lobbyist shill. I still bet a lot of independents would be scratching their heads, thinking, “Hey, Bayh’s was one of those reasonable Dems.”

BuckeyeSam on October 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Exactly.

Don’t Dem voters ever wonder why their leaders never say exactly what their plans are, but instead attempt to smear their opponent? And that their leaders parrot vague conservative “free market” talking points when speaking to the nation, and yet do the exact opposite when elected (ObamaCare, Ca$h4Clunkerz, “Green” energy scams, etc.)?

Obama should just grow a pair of grapefruits and champion The People’s Budget put forth by the (growing) communist wing of his party not long ago. Go all out.

visions on October 17, 2012 at 10:30 AM

Apparently they don’t and I don’t get it either. These types of Dems are what I consider “heritage” Democrats because their parents or grandparents identified with the party. They likely also have a large dose of self-interest for the party which hinders them seeing the larger picture.

They are still mired in the Dem mentality of FDR, JFK and even Bill Clinton and don’t realize or care that the current iteration of the Democrat party has left them headlong in the dust for the commies. It’s still not safe for Obama and his ilk to completely out themselves because when they do, these heritage Dems might finally be shocked into reality and bolt the party altogether.

PatriotGal2257 on October 17, 2012 at 11:19 AM

Romney should start using The Who’s “Won’t Get Fooled Again” as his theme song.

Tater Salad on October 17, 2012 at 10:32 AM

You mean that song that says, “Meet the new boss, same as the old boss”? Great idea.

Goldenavatar on October 17, 2012 at 11:27 AM

What was the non-sense about $1.89 gal due to a poor 2009 economy? If that was a fact, shouldnt it be free today? That was a LOL moment.

hillsoftx on October 17, 2012 at 10:17 AM

I wrote this elsewhere. Evidently, by Obama’s logic, before the 2008 crisis, gas was at $3.80 a gallon. The economy tanked and so did gas prices. Now that our economy is sailing along, gas is high again.

Got it.

BuckeyeSam on October 17, 2012 at 11:32 AM

“Forward” is not a plan.

COgirl on October 17, 2012 at 11:43 AM

As I wrote earlier, Obama and his team still believe they can win the election by simply being the anti-Romney

So did a whole slew of Republican wannabes.

ss396 on October 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

Second verse, same as the first!

I’m Emperor Obama, I am, Emperor Obama I am I am…

The Rogue Tomato on October 17, 2012 at 11:45 AM

The second term agenda?

‘More golf, more vacations, more steak dinners on our dime, more govt intrusion, more EPA regulations, slower growth, less jobs, higher taxes, less prosperity, more downgrades in America’s Bond rating, more food stamps, more pain and misery….

A great recipe for Romney’s election.

dthorny on October 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Two things I picked up on, not Libya related:

1) Obama’s attempt to link lower gas prices to the current recession – which, oddly enough, happened in 2009. Even my 23-year-old daughter, who is not politically savvy, picked up on that.

2) When Obama was asked to expand on the equal-pay-for-women question, he blathered on about contraceptives for women. How does that equate to equal pay? (And oh, by the way, even my daughter knew Barry paid his female staffers less than his male ones. When even a non-savvy potential voter can see the hypocrisy, you know something’s wrong.)

Romney had his chances but was either (a) too timid to go there (especially with Fast and Furious) or (b) shouted down by Candy Crowley. Most of Obama’s answers were lies – even my wife, who doesn’t vote (but I’m going to try and convince her this year) could recognize it. She sounded like me yelling at the TV last night.

falcon on October 17, 2012 at 11:46 AM

Romney’s town hall debate ad

Flora Duh on October 17, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Wow, that was fast.

falcon on October 17, 2012 at 11:51 AM

Naww, I think Romney did very well…..against both opponents.

jake49 on October 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I didn’t think O’s performance was that great. Better than the first, but I thought he looked down a lot in he responses and didn’t seem to be quick on his feet. And no plans for the future.

COgirl on October 17, 2012 at 11:53 AM

Second term … same as the first.

aunursa on October 17, 2012 at 10:03 AM

…I’m humming that to the Monkees tune~~~second verse=same as the first!

KOOLAID2 on October 17, 2012 at 11:59 AM

Everyone seems focused on Mitt’s handling of the debate, which I think is the wrong perspective. What about Obama?

The frame was to give him a boost, the moderator obviously and fully in the tank for him. She was out to make the debate a two-against-one situation, and the team failed miserably. The most Candy and Barack got was a tie for all their combined efforts.

Anything less than a big win, as they likely intended, is a failure.

Liam on October 17, 2012 at 12:00 PM

Comment pages: 1 2