jump to last post 1-28 of 28 discussions (128 posts)

Which debater showed presidential "temperament?"

  1. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    This is from FORBES. I am posting the whole article for your consideration:

    In tonight’s debate we saw a transformed Barack Obama, and it made a very big difference. In the first debate Governor Mitt Romney was relaxed and confident and in command; Obama was practically absent. Tonight, Obama was on his game, assuredly aggressive against Romney yet uplifting at the same time, and I thought he had Romney on the defensive for most of the debate.

    I wrote before the first debate that the most important thing to look for would be presidential temperament. I said that temperament is hard to define, but it “is the strength of character that allows a president to stay on top of all the events and complexities and life-and-death challenges of the world’s most difficult job, and to remain open-minded and flexible and yet determined.” In the first debate, I saw more of that in Romney. Tonight I saw more in Obama.

    In the opening minutes Obama seemed to put Romney on the defensive with his discussion of the Detroit auto bailout and his line right after that that “Governor Romney doesn’t have a five-point plan. He has a one-point plan.” Romney stayed in command of his facts and his message throughout, but he kept grimacing and looking pained, and that made him appear to be reciting prepared lines rather than calmly conversing. It made him look weak. During split screens, Obama generally looked cool and calm as Romney spoke, especially in the first hour; Romney looked increasingly uncomfortable.

    By the last half hour both started to seem tired and a little testy. But then came Benghazi. Romney tried to nail the president on having failed to call the murders in Libya a terrorist attack within the days after; Candy Crowley, the moderator, herself fact-checked that, making Romney look foolish and as if he was once again politicizing a national security crisis. When the final question arrived, each candidate was asked how he was most misunderstood. Romney took the occasion to complain about the Obama campaign’s attacks and then say “I care about 100% of the people”—in a petulant, aggrieved tone. Obama grabbed at that opening and crafted a closing statement that, after saying he was misunderstood as thinking that government creates jobs, drove at Romney’s notorious 47% remark in the context of an uplifting statement about his own belief in the free-enterprise system, albeit one that must be tempered by “fairness.”

    Candy Crowley, like Martha Raddatz, was a fine moderator. Whether the debate makes much difference in the direction of the race remains to be seen, of course. And now all eyes will be on the coming debate this coming Monday.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think Obama did tonight what he should have done in the first debate. He was aggressive while also being even-keeled.

      I liked when he got serious when Romney was trying to politicize Libya. That seemed to be a real moment for him.

      1. The Frog Prince profile image75
        The Frog Princeposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Here's the Obama a saw quite often...

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJrBhtnQ42U

        The Frog

      2. profile image0
        SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        @Cody
        Let me get this straight, the best moment in the debate for you was when Obama outright lied (aided by the moderator) and completely dodged the actual question he was asked?

        Here is the question:

        "Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?"

        Obama: Well, let me first of all talk about our diplomats, because they serve all around the world and do an incredible job in a very dangerous situation. And these aren't just representatives of the United States, they are my representatives. I send them there, oftentimes into harm's way. I know these folks and I know their families. So nobody is more concerned about their safety and security than I am.

        So as soon as we found out that the Benghazi consulate was being overrun, I was on the phone with my national security team and I gave them three instructions.

        Number one, beef up our security and procedures, not just in Libya, but at every embassy and consulate in the region.

        Number two, investigate exactly what happened, regardless of where the facts lead us, to make sure folks are held accountable and it doesn't happen again.

        And number three, we are going to find out who did this and we're going to hunt them down, because one of the things that I've said throughout my presidency is when folks mess with Americans, we go after them.

        OBAMA: Now Governor Romney had a very different response. While we were still dealing with our diplomats being threatened, Governor Romney put out a press release, trying to make political points, and that's not how a commander in chief operates. You don't turn national security into a political issue. Certainly not right when it's happening. And people -- not everybody agrees with some of the decisions I've made. But when it comes to our national security, I mean what I say. I said I'd end the war in Libya -- in -- in Iraq, and I did.

        I said that we'd go after al-Qaeda and bin Laden, we have. I said we'd transition out of Afghanistan, and start making sure that Afghans are responsible for their own security, that's what I'm doing. And when it comes to this issue, when I say that we are going to find out exactly what happened, everybody will be held accountable. And I am ultimately responsible for what's taking place there because these are my folks, and I'm the one who has to greet those coffins when they come home. You know that I mean what I say.

        He never answers the question. Ever. And he and the moderator both lied about the Rose Garden speech. He never referred to the attack as an act of terror, he called it an outrageous attack and later when discussing America in general said America would not tolerate act(s) of terror.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Uh, so that would mean that he considered it a terrorist attack?

          And btw, how come George Bush was able to make 9/11 THE REASON why he was re-elected, while Obama gets criticized for the attack in Libya?

          1. profile image0
            SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            @Cody
            Okay, let's roll with that. So...why did he then blame it on the video 6 times when he spoke to the UN, I think it was what? five days later? Why did he send Amb. Rice around to every single news outlet claiming it was because of the video?
            You've ignored the original point I see though just as the President did. He NEVER answered who knew about the request for security and who denied it. Didn't address it at all.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I've read reports saying both things happened at once. Specifically that the attack was already planned, however, it happened at the same time as a protest against the YouTube video. Not outside the realm of possibility.

              I'm curious, have you ever been in a leadership position at some point in your life? Maybe a manager at work or lead some sort of non-profit group or anything?

              If so, you would know that you don't know what your people are doing at all times. It certainly looks bad, but again, Bush let 9/11 happen on his watch. He got re-elected using that as a reason to vote for him.

              1. profile image0
                SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                @Cody Even the Administration has given up on the protest claim. Entirely.
                I actually have Cody. Both non-profit and manager.  If you don't have the facts about something, you don't make stuff up and present it as factual. It's how people turn on you real quick when you're found out if you do that. It was fine to say we're investigating, we're not entirely sure, but that is not what they said at all. Now, with everything coming out about requests for more security and previous attacks and the like, we know it was all to cover their tracks. Much better to blame it on some protest.

                And he already had an out. They've already thrown Hillary Clinton under the bus. But once again, do you want a leader who apparently had no clue that there had been requests for additional security nor previous attacks? Is that who you want as Commander In Chief?

                Honestly, the intel reports are a tad different than requests for security from your own personnel wouldn't you agree? We know that sometimes advanced intel can be incorrect. I wouldn't actually fault him for the intel reports to be honest. It is the fact that there were previous attacks in the the months prior to the anniversary of 9/11 together with requests for additional security. That is a very big problem with communication. He is after all, the Commander In Chief. As he himself said, he is the one who sends them there. It's just that there are only two answers to all this confusion regarding this attack. One is the President knew about everything and just denied the request for additional security and the other is he just did not read the briefings every day like he claimed. Because we already know he does not attend briefings like previous Presidents so there is no advice available to him. Either scenario is not a good one.

          2. Mighty Mom profile image91
            Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Because Bush conveniently started a WAR, ostensibly over 9/11.
            He invented the "war on terror" so his VP could get money to his company Halliburton.
            He kept feeding Americans' fear and if anyone dared question or disapprove of his invasion of Iraq, they were labeled unpatriotic.
            Whatever happened to all those "Support our Troops"  bumper stickers that were ubiqitous during the Bush years, anyway?
            Oh, and just to make damned sure Bush won reelection, John Kerry, a bona fide war hero (whereas neither Bush, Cheney or the chickenhawks in his neocon cabinet ever served a day in their lives) got resoundingly discredited. That is how the term "swiftboated" got its start.

            I suppose Obama could use the same trick. But he wouldn't do that.

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yea, I know.....

              I remember being in college at the time. In my debate class, we had to say who we were voting for and why.

              I was literally the only person in my class to say I was voting for Kerry.

              Everyone else said they were voting for Bush because they felt like he would keep them safe from harm.

              Irony, huh?

      3. Repairguy47 profile image58
        Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        It was a moment, a moment of complete stupidity! Obama has a record this time round, and Romney showed just how bad it really is.

        Binders.

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Oh, you crazy GOPers. Even when the truth stares you in the face you can't admit it. What about binders?

          1. Repairguy47 profile image58
            Repairguy47posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The truth, the truth came out, Crowely apologized for her Libya mistake. If Obama had blamed Libya on terrorist on Sept 12 why was he blaming the video for another 14 days?

            Gotta quit getting your news from Hubpages forums.

            Google Lilly Ledbetter and binders, that woman is nuts!

    2. tammybarnette profile image60
      tammybarnetteposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      MM, I actually thought Obama was the most presidential in the first debate...I thought Romney was like a obnoxious CEO and not at all someone who shows tempermant, however I did concede that Romney won the first debate...it was hard for me to watch actually, because he seemed to bully Obama and America loved that, harkening back to the olden times of Rome watching two men fight to the literal death, but the 2012 version...However, last night I thought obama gained back the ground he lost but not allowing Romney to bully him, but as the underdog, standing up for himself instead (I kept hereing we are the champions/Queen-in my head-ie. Revenge of the Nerds, LOL smile ) I thought Romney looked red in the face the whole evening...I do think Romney did a good job of explaining one piece of his plans we have all been itching to hear, not impressed with the policy, but in his explanation of it (tax policy-same old R stuff with new tweeks) He seemed very business like, again like a CEO.

    3. Genna East profile image86
      Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hi MM.  As an Independent, I was interested in watching what took place last evening.  I was not pleased with the way Romney has managed his campaign; I voted for him for governor in Massachusetts, and much of what he said he did here isn’t true.   He’s not a bad person, but he had a reputation of being a control freak. I saw this, again, last evening.  Beyond that, many of us don’t know who this man is any more.  I’m not saying I’m going to vote for Obama – I don’t think I’ll be voting this year.  But at this point, Romney scares me.

      1. JayeWisdom profile image92
        JayeWisdomposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Genna....If you don't vote this year and vote against "control freak" Romney, you may in effect be "passively voting" and giving your vote to Romney. How will you like a Romney who scares you sitting in the Oval Office?  Your vote is important, and President Obama needs it. Thanks.

        1. Genna East profile image86
          Genna Eastposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I’m not an Obama supporter nor am I a Romney supporter at this juncture.  My vote wouldn’t put a dent into how this state feels about Romney…Obama has a huge lead, and not because it’s a “blue state.”  (Mass. has voted red more than once...Scott Brown is the most recent example, but this is because he ran on a more Independent Republican stance.)  Massachusetts will never vote for Romney for President.  If he had kept the approval rating he had going into his first term – I think it was over 60% -- that might be a different story.   By the time he left, it had plummeted to 31% if memory serves.   I am voting in a way, I’m saying “no” to both.   Have a good evening, Jaye. :-)

    4. PhoenixV profile image79
      PhoenixVposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The one that wasn't lying to 65 million Americans on his cover up in Benghazi.

    5. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      In tonight's debate we saw a desperate Obama and a very calm candiate for POTUS to take his place and lead this country forward, no doubt Obama has I'm sure done some very good things . . . for someone or lots of small groups, kudos, but time's up, he clearly has zero ideas from his own intellect, or anyone else's of consequence, to take the USA as a country out of the whole we are in........

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Obama won the debate by 30 points among uncommitted voters.

        Not sure what debate you were watching.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Uh, no.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Uh, yes....

            1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
              Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this
              1. profile image0
                JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                CNN: 8 points.

                What's CBS's distribution of polled participants?

                1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
                  Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Jaxson....

                  He lost....get over it.

                  1. profile image0
                    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Did I say otherwise?

                    No. Actually, Mr. I'mnotgoingtopayattentiontowhatyousaybutinsteadjustpostlittlequibblets...

                    I said Obama won myself. So how about YOU get over YOURSELF.

                    I was asking, because CNN usually posts their sample demographics... did CBS?

  2. Xenonlit profile image61
    Xenonlitposted 4 years ago

    I also think that the Libya discussion was President Obama's most powerful moment. He was passionate and strong when he took responsibility as the President and chastised Romney. He made it personal by recounting his experiences when he personally greeted the coffins and met with some of the family members.

    Romney seemed to have  lost his temper and his compass. He was stuttering and wandering. He should never have expected the President to allow him a repeat of the first debate, yet he tried the exact same behavior. When it did not work, he seemed to have lost it.

  3. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Libya was the only section where Romney really got flustered, I would too if the moderator falsely fact-checked me during my own time.

    Sorry, but Obama interrupted Romney about 10 times total. That is not presidential temperament.

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I'd counter, but I think we have gone round and round enough this evening smile

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Well, if you would just acknowledge facts wink

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Haha

          Wait....

          Is it still OK for a democrat and republican (or at least I assume you are republican?) to disagree on the issues yet still be cordial?

  4. pisean282311 profile image57
    pisean282311posted 4 years ago

    obama has great proven on the job temperament...

  5. rebekahELLE profile image92
    rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago

    I think Obama showed his presidential self last night. He was in command contrary to Romney's rehearsed, aggravated stream of saying nothing of substance.

    1. livewithrichard profile image85
      livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I agree here.  The President was more aggressive but he had to be against an aggressive opponent.  Romney was like a used car salesman using fast talk and intimidation as a persuasion tactic.  MITT ROMNEY: You'll get your chance in a moment, I'm still speaking…  the tone in which he spoke to the President here was not at all presidential... it was the way a superior talks to a subordinate and very disrespectful. 
      Both men made some good points but Obama showed more class.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        So Obama interrupts Romney during his allotted 2 minutes multiple times, and Romney is the one who loses class points for telling Obama that he is speaking?

        1. livewithrichard profile image85
          livewithrichardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          When the President made interruptions he wasn't indignant about it, Romney was.  Romney came off to me as the bully in the playground.  Well that bully's nose is bleeding right now and it's going to continue to bleed until this election is over.

          1. profile image0
            JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Romney interrupted Obama once, halfway through the debate. He wasn't even trying to take control, he just spoke over Obama that one time.

            Obama interrupted Romney 10 times, in 6 different segments. It was almost constant. Even during times when Romney's 2 minutes were on the timer, Obama kept interrupting.

            Seriously, go look at the transcript. You will see this, over and over and over.

            Obama : long section of uninterrupted text.

            Romney: line, line Obama: interuption, line Crowley, line interruption.

            I'll post an example.

  6. profile image0
    Justsilvieposted 4 years ago

    It was a much better debate than the last one and actually was exciting to watch. Even my quiet husband was commenting on it. I thought President Obama did well and acted like a sitting president. And I agree with what livewithrichard said, Romney talks Like a Boss not a leader and I have a feeling his continued rhetoric on how you must work in a bipartisian fashion and how good he is at it… might just be stretching the truth.

    I also see that Mitt put his foot in it once more on the discussion of guns. Because when the mentioned the answer to gun crimes was FAMILY. I thought I am betting there are to be a hell of a lot of single mothers who take this as a slam and they did.

    Looking forward to the next debate, but I am betting we will see a very strong President.

  7. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Candy, there’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up. But our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently.

    And very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We’ve opened up public lands. We’re actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration. And my — the previous president was an oilman. And natural gas isn’t just appearing magically; we’re encouraging it and working with the industry.

    And when I hear Governor Romney say he’s a big coal guy — and keep in mind when — Governor, when you were governor of Massachusetts, you stood in front of a coal plant and pointed at it and said, this plant kills, and took great pride in shutting it down. And now suddenly you’re a big champion of coal.

    So what I’ve tried to do is be consistent. With respect to something like coal, we made the largest investment in clean coal technology to make sure that even as we’re producing more coal, we’re producing it cleaner and smarter. Same thing with oil; same thing with natural gas.

    And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years, oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient.

    And that’s creating jobs. That means those cars can be exported, because that’s the demand around the world. And it also means that it’ll save money in your pocketbook. That’s the strategy you need, an all-of-the-above strategy, and that’s what we’re going to do in the next four years.

    (This is where Romney's time starts)
    MR. ROMNEY: But that’s not what you done in the last four years. That’s the problem.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Sure it is.

    MR. ROMNEY: In the last four years, you cut permits and licenses on federal land and federal waters in half.

    PRESIDENT OBAMA: Not true, Governor Romney.

  8. livewithrichard profile image85
    livewithrichardposted 4 years ago

    I don't need a transcript... I watched the debate from beginning to end.  Romney was flustered, angry and indignant.  Why... because the President called him on every single lie that he made. The President wasn't going to repeat the first debate where he allowed Romney to just walk all over him.  Romney faced a President last night not one of his subordinates and President Obama showed himself to be more presidential than Romney ever could.

    Romney: "Now, how about deductions? 'Cause I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now."

    Obama: "Governor Romney has a different philosophy. He was on 60 Minutes just two weeks ago and he was asked: Is it fair for somebody like you, making $20 million a year, to pay a lower tax rate than a nurse or a bus driver, somebody making $50,000 year? And he said, "Yes, I think that's fair." Not only that, he said, "I think that's what grows the economy."

    Romney: "And why do I want to bring rates down, and at the same time lower exemptions and deductions, particularly for people at the high end? Because if you bring rates down, it makes it easier for small business to keep more of their capital and hire people."


    What really got me in this debate was when Romney was called on his 'tax plan' where he would cut taxes across the board and shore up loopholes for the wealthy... and then not even rebut the President's statement.  His reply seemed a bit contrived and contradictory to what he told American's on 60 Minutes. He can't say and believe he wants to shore up loopholes and also claim his tax rate is fair.

    Yes it is fair for the current tax code but he is saying he wants to change the tax code but his tax rate will remain the same... How is that possible?

  9. readytoescape profile image60
    readytoescapeposted 4 years ago

    I think Romney wins this one again but not in as dominating a fashion, the President at least showed up.

    I thought the President did nothing but amplify the volume of campaign talking points. Obama rarely answered a question directly and used each one to agressively introduce a campaign point of view. The President also spent a lot of time with each answer (in both debates) trying to introduce dim and skewed interpretations of Romney’s plans in what appeared to be a clear attempt to confuse voters rather than presenting any ideas or plans of his own. 

    The President tried to obscure his record on the economy, he never answered questions about why an Obama voter should vote for him again, he lied about Libya, was wrong about oil and gas, as the Fact Checkers are reporting this morning.

    My impression is also the moderator choose some clearly left leaning, softball questions thrown as a rescue line in the President’s direction; the assault weapons question, the equal pay for women, and the how are you dislike George Bush. She also interrupted Romney on the Libya issue tossing the President a life preserver by issuing an incorrect fact check statement.

    I also thought that the President’s statement of indignant outrage when challenged about the deceptions employed by the administration after the deaths of four Americans in Libya was trite and contrived and insincere. If he had really felt that way, they would never have tried to hide the attack by blaming it on a nonexistant crowd angered by a video, and continuing to do so days/weeks following the attack. We would have heard the truth on day one, not a month later and only after the administration was trapped in the lie told purely for electoral expediency.

    The best declaration of the night belonged to Romney when he stated “We don’t have to settle for what we’re going through. We don’t have to settle for gasoline at four bucks. We don’t have to settle for unemployment at a chronically high level. We don’t have to settle for 47 million people on food stamps. We don’t have to settle for 50 percent of kids coming out of college not able to get work. We don’t have to settle for 23 million people struggling to find a good job”

  10. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    You dont need a transcript, because it PROVES Obama kept interrupting Romney, and that Romney didn't.

    1. Backwater Sage profile image60
      Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Please, Romney? I am an independent. What are the Republicans thinking running Robo-Romney? Unbutton your shorts so you can see where you are going. Let's chop down the national forests, drill for oil off of the Gulf coast of Florida and strip mine for coal in West Va. where the mountain flattening robber barons have enough loot to buy a rich man.

      If DC gives you a permit to drill here, don't even try it. We have been fighting for three generations to keep your greedy  paws away from there. If the malingering idiots in Washington say it is okay, don't believe them. Keep your drills away from here, their authority is not enough to keep you safe.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Wow...

        so you're basically against every modern convenience that we enjoy, aren't you?

        1. Josak profile image62
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I am guessing you don't have much experience with the devastation wrought in parts of the south by mountain cut mining and unsustainable logging practices.

          1. Backwater Sage profile image60
            Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            They watch Fox News until their eyes glaze over. They get so indoctrinated by the agitated agitaters that they will do whatever Glen Beck says to do.

        2. Backwater Sage profile image60
          Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No, I am for modern conveniences, but not destructive, nasty, wasteful antiquated power sources and delivery systems. Here we are blathering away with space age technology and the electricity is still being produced and delivered by the same method used on day one. It is time to embrce new ways to produce electricity. The grid is vulnerable. With a modular approach, your power won't be off for a month until they a billions worth of repairs over three states.

          We can either make adjustments, or sit in the ruins of our civilization wondering how we could have been so stupid. Don't be ignorant and stubborn it is a terrible combination.

          If you think you are going to drill for oil in Florida, come give it a try. Bring a flag to cover your body for burial at sea.

          BP - Beyond Petroleum and off the grid! We can do it right now if we have a mind to. The technology exists, it just isn't being developed fast enough. Get ready to walk.

  11. The Suburban Poet profile image80
    The Suburban Poetposted 4 years ago

    A sitting President has an advantage (experience; he should know the issues and be well-versed) and a disadvantage (his record in office if things are not going well). But there should be no way that he fumbles on his points; either he understands what is happening or not. He also should know and articulate his own solutions and philosophy. I didn't watch the debate because I don't like lying.

  12. taburkett profile image59
    taburkettposted 4 years ago

    scorecard:
    Romney - 8 correct questions (Better)
    President - 2 correct questions (Incomplete)
    Moderator - 21 interruptions (Failure)

    1. Jean Bakula profile image94
      Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think the President had the right to interrupt when Romney was saying things which are false. He is the President, and whether Gov Romney likes it or not, he has to show the office some respect. I have read the whole thread. I think Romney came across as more personal and likable this time (even though I don't like him). It took Obama a while to get into the flow of the debate, and he improved much as it went on. Both of them ignored the rules, they were not supposed to engage each other at all. But I suppose if facts are wrong, Obama couldn't let Romney get away with it, he's been doing it all along. I know Obama can be much more personable than he was last night, and those watching at my house were puzzled at first. But then Obama stayed calm and spoke out, so I would say he won. He needed to be stronger on substance, as it's generally thought he just charmed his way into office the first time. He was more personal at the end. I wouldn't want to moderate one of these things, Candy did a great job, and I was glad she called Romney out on the Terrorist attack issue. Does anyone know how many people actually got to ask their questions? I know they were probably waiting at least 5-10 hours to be checked for weapons, and it seems a shame to do that to someone. Perhaps the questions could have been emailed and the most pressing ones on people's mind's could have been answered? The audience was just a prop, but I've waited hours to see one of these things with Clinton/Obama, and it's really hard.

      1. profile image0
        JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The president isn't at the debate to act as POTUS. He is there to act as a participant in the debate.

        Being POTUS doesn't give you the right to be rude to your opponent and constantly interrupt. Remember, Obama had his fair share of lies too... more than 10 that I counted.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image94
          Jean Bakulaposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Jaxson,
          I respect your opinion, but still feel as Obama is the President, he deserves better treatment, especially since the Republican Party has treated him like a dog since he's been elected. To be fair, neither one of them followed the rules, so I don't know why they have these "rules" anyway. I did see a montage on MSNBC that was funny, they showed Romney whining that other people weren't following the rules from way back when there were so many R contenders in the race. He knows life isn't fair if he's the businessman he supposedly is, so he just came off as immature and complaining. I wonder how much these debates matter anyway, most people made up their minds.

  13. Greek One profile image79
    Greek Oneposted 4 years ago

    Temperament?

    You can just feel the anger in Mitt's eyes!


    http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mc1gslgbhs1rj8amio1_1280.png

  14. JayeWisdom profile image92
    JayeWisdomposted 4 years ago

    Mitt looked like he was gritting his teeth. He has trouble hiding his anger.

  15. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    Without a doubt and very oviously the President showed he had the temperament. Romney seemed like a spoiled man-child that wanted to be heard saying what he was told to say.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      And Obama sounded like a child who can't wait his turn to speak. It's pretty sad that being rude and disrespectful to a debate opponent is now considered 'Presidential'.

      1. Mighty Mom profile image91
        Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You are kidding, right?
        That is exactly what Romney did in the first debate, nonstop.
        I didn't hear you or any of those who gleefully proclaimed Romney the winner complaining about interrupting then.

        This is not a new phenomenon. For years Dems have played doormat because they're "lovers not fighters."
        Suddenly you have Joe and POTUS learning to play the same game.
        And suddenly yout team doesn't like it.

        You just can't handle it when it's not your guy on the offensive.

        1. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Not true MM. Romney interrupted Obama once in the first debate, Obama interrupted Romney some 8 times. Romney kept interrupting the moderator in the first debate, because he was messing up the format to give both the first and last word in a section to Obama.

          Go look at the debate transcript for the first debate. All of Obama's sections, minus 1, were interruption free. Many of Romney's sections were interrupted several times.

          You can't change fact just by saying it. The moderators have cheated Romney out of time(even after he has fought to get his share) in both debates. Obama has gotten almost 10% more speaking time than Romney.

          In the two debates, you have Romney interrupting twice, and Obama interrupting some 18 times. So tell me MM. Who is being the rude one?

        2. profile image0
          JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Absolutely not MM.

          Are you contesting my claim that Obama has gotten preferential treatment? Over 4 minutes more speaking time in the first debate. Over 3 minutes more speaking time in the second. Both moderators have attempted to give Obama more speaking blocks than Romney. Candy interrupted Romney three times as often as Obama. She fact-checked Romney, incorrectly, once, and never Obama(who lied over a dozen times).

          And the moderator bias aside, Obama is the one who has been constantly interrupting.

          So don't try to spin it that Obama is the victim here.

  16. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    It's pretty sad when being as disrespectful to the President as possible is consider a victory in a debate.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      How was Romney disrespectful?

      Obama tried to interrupt Romney during 6 different segments. Yes, Romney got forceful 'Sit down Mr President, I'm speaking', but that's just Obama stepping out of line.

      1. profile image0
        The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Respect is something earned, Junko, not handed out like candy. Not everyone respects Obama. You should know how this feels. Think of your opinion of Bush.

  17. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    It's pretty sad when hate replaces reason.

    1. profile image0
      JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Where has hate replaced reason?

  18. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    The hate of the President has caused so many people to vote against their interest and side with Romney and Ryan because they want to get Obama and his family out of the White House. It's not because what he did in the first four years didn't benefit them, because it did. It is who he is thats been used to blind the people with hate.

    1. profile image0
      The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      That's in your opinion, Junko. Not all Americans agree with and want what Obama is doing. That doesn't make them wrong. It just means they have a different idea of where this country should go.

    2. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      We are poorer as a nation than when he took Office. More of us are on the government hand out than ever before since it began, both in numbers and percentage. The Middle Class has shrunk considerably as more and more move below the poverty line. So really, don't sit there and preach like we're in some great time of prosperity and you can speak for the masses because you can't. If you're better off than four years ago, you are among the few. His policies are failures. Period. If he'd been successful at all, he would be virtually unchallenged for re-election. See the Reagan recovery if you don't believe me. We were not anywhere near where we needed to be but the recovery was enough that people actually felt it, and he won his re-election by a landslide.

      Back on topic however, I felt pretty much the way the polls are showing about the second debate. Obama had a slightly better showing than Romney but it was not a substantial win by any means.

      http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/10/17/poll … bate-no-2/

      1. Backwater Sage profile image60
        Backwater Sageposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Hello?! Bush emptied out the treasury and gave it to the too big to fails. Sure, the Democrats crazy ideas about how to handle our money is whacked. We could have solved the world's hunger problem with the money wasted, so I don't want to here how they are the poor man's friend.

        We are ignorant about who the president is supposed to be and how much power he has to accomplish what we expect in our ignorance. At the end of the day, it is up to us, the people to pitch in, work together and do things right. forget the government. They all need a drastic cut in pay. They aren't worth what they are sucking us dry for.while they drive us into ruin.

        How can you just bend over and take these two choices?

        We need to loose these idiots. Considering the times, we should seek out leadership from Native American elders. They have been dreaming of this day for so long, and now it is here. They have a lot more experience with the collapse of a civilization and subsequent survival.

        Neither one of those men are good president material, although President Obama seems more balanced and down to earth. Michelle Obama is the best first lady ever, and she has inspired a whole generation with her generosity with her hugs.

        I will be voting 3rd party so I don't not vote. I suggest that we all do the same. If enough people dissent, maybe we will be heard. If you held a gun and make me choose . . . Obama hands down. I don't trust the people who have distorted his image. It is insidious and counterproductive. I say shut up and get to work, "public"! The leaders suck because the "people" suck. We can change that.

      2. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        sassysue, don't you know all this pain being felt by the people is in an attempt by some people who want to make Obama a 1 term President  Make the people suffer as much as you can and blame the President, don't be duped by the people who caused the pain. They have openly said they don't care for 47% and 30% respectively before they said they care about 100%. Vote than stop,look, and listen  and get off the tracks.

      3. Don W profile image84
        Don Wposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Would be even poorer I think without him in office.


        Even more if the President hadn't taken the steps he did when he entered office.


        Think it would have shrunken more without the steps the president has taken.


        Didn't see any mention of "prosperity". When the President entered office the country was bleeding to death. He immediately slowed the flow. He made the decisions that prevented a much longer and deeper depression. That benefited everyone. Prosperity is a long way off. At the moment the country is still poorly, but it's out of intensive care thanks to one man and his administration. That man is not Mitt Romney.

        On topic: I think the President is still too restrained. Not sure why he is. I think it might be reluctant to play into certain stereotypes, and trying to get the balance between bullish and boorish (as Romney has failed to). Romney always seems to like he's about to cry. Something about him makes him seem like he wants to run and tell mom the big kids were picking on him again. And he comes across as emotionally immature. I can imagine him in a room with seasoned world leaders, being utterly out of his depth.

  19. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    I understand Longhunter, what you say and don't say. Everybody should understand by now. Most of the time when we do wrong it is by choice not ignorance.

    1. profile image0
      The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Are you sure, Junko? I mean you are liberals after all.

      I was being sincere before whether you want to believe it or not. Just trying to engage in conversation. This is still a forum, right?

      Please don't tell me you have jumped on the "If you disagree with Obama, you're a racist bandwagon."

      1. Greek One profile image79
        Greek Oneposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        no, you just hate dogs and want to insert woman into binders for your perverse pleasure!

        1. profile image0
          The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And obviously it's 5:00 wherever Greek is!

          Cheers, Greek!

  20. junko profile image79
    junkoposted 4 years ago

    No Longhunter I'm not on that band wagon. You and I both know the race of the President is, was, and will be a consideration of his Presidency. It is his job performance and all things considered that would make me think that If Bush performance was similar or like Obama's he would considered a hero by Conservatives and Liberals. You know that he saved the economy and help the middle and underclass survive the last four years inspite of unprecedented attacks on his attempts to be the President of all Americans. All I'm saying is that there are a few million American who can't see pass his race and will never vote for him or agree with anything he does. If you are one of millions I don't think you know you are, so i'm not accusing you are anyone of being racist, I can't say who is a hater, but I know they are out there.

    1. profile image0
      The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      There are numerous people who just happen to be black who would make exceptional presidential candidates. Only the ignorant allow Obama's race to factor into their decision as to who to vote for, Junko.

      No, if Bush's performance had been as bad as Obama's I would not have voted for him a second time. We obviously disagree completely on what Obama has accomplished or the lack thereof. That being said, I can assure you my disagreements with Obama have nothing to do with his race but rather his ideology.

      1. junko profile image79
        junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Longhunter, We have spoke before along these lines and your arguments were policy related and not personal hate of the President You're right if Bush and Obama were tested by the same America 2008 I.m sure you wouldn't reelect Bush also.

        1. profile image0
          The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          I hate no one, Junko. Barack Hussein Obama seems to be a good husband and a great, loving father. I can respect that. I believe he would be great as president if this were Venezuela, China, Cuba, or maybe even Russia. But it's not. This is the United States of America and I firmly believe Obama does not believe in our Constitution. I have no doubt, given the opportunity, he would shred it with his bare hands and burn the pieces. I believe he's a citizen on paper but not in his heart or way of thinking. And this has nothing to do with his skin color. To try to imply that it does only solidifies ones inability to bring anything else to the table.

          1. junko profile image79
            junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Longhunter, I feel those who say the President hate America and the Constitution are hiding their feeling about the President. Those people always praise the President as a person, father,  and say their feeling has nothing to do with skin color. Venezuela, isn't that one of the big oil exporting countries mentioned by Romney (your choice for President) in the second debate? Well... like I said, I can no more prove you hate the President's skin color than you can prove the President hate America and the Constitution. But I believe he did teach constitutional law and know more about it than most Americans.

            1. profile image0
              JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Taxation for not purchasing something.

              Lawyers don't just know law, the know how to twist words to get around law.

              I'm sorry, but that is not constitutional. They have re-defined what a tax is. A tax has always been on an action. You get taxed on things you buy, or money you make, or things you do. Now, you get taxed for NOT doing something.

            2. profile image0
              The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Your feelings are duely noted no matter how wrong they are when applied to this Conservative. I've seen racism firsthand, even experienced it once to a very small degree. It made me realize even more how ridiculous it is.

              As for Obama teaching Constitutional law, what better knowledge to know how to then usurp it for your own use. I've known a lot of teachers who were forced to teach things like the big bang theory but, as Christians, didn't believe in it. I don't believe Obama is an American in his heart any more than I would believe in the existence of a real Santa Claus.

              Take them for what you want but those are my beliefs.

              1. junko profile image79
                junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Longhunter ,what is different about the President is not that he is not an American by heart, because he is an American, by heart. The difference you can't understand is that he is not a Negro.  He has no inferiority complex. As far as me being wrong about you, only you and your Christian God know if i'm right.   .

                1. profile image0
                  The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Whether or not Barack Hussein Obama is a negro in inconsequential to me. Obviously, I'm not the one fixated on his skin color. You are. I simply see him as a man I don't agree with because of his, IMHO, lack of belief in our Constitution or way of life. Unfortunately, this man is president and I'm doing all I can to change that.

                  1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
                    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It seems that you are more fixated on his middle name...as if somehow, that doesn't make him an American?

  21. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    junko you are the one who's bought the Party line. What about those first 2 years there ? Where he complete control? Nothing got done there either. He's had his chance, he failed. The blame game doesn't work four years later.

    1. junko profile image79
      junkoposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Iam independent, SassySue. The first 2 years he was being Presidential and got some big things done inspite of Blue and Yellow Dog Democrats and the Republicans plotting a Tea Party rebellion his first 2 years in office. You don't have to agree, I understand.

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Its OK.....they don't understand context...

        Or leadership. In the GOP world, everything is black and white.

  22. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    Aside from ObamaCare, which while I'd agree was pretty big, we'd disagree on whether it is a good thing, name one big thing. And are you saying he's been un-Presidential the last 2 years? If you are implying he was being bi-partisan, try again. He asked for, received and then ignored every single solitary little suggestion the GOP made, even though he requested it. All a big show.

    1. Josak profile image62
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Don't ask don't tell repealed, Bush tax cuts extended to low income earners, Stimulus package, fully funded the veterans administration and extended it's coverage to all areas of the country including rural areas, ended Iraq war, changed legislation on the use of torture, Changed the Cuba travel embargo, increased renewable energy and renewable energy investment, reformed the patent system, Ban lobbyists gifts to executive employees, helping families save their homes act, Small Business Jobs Act.

      I could go on.

      1. ib radmasters profile image61
        ib radmastersposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        None of these events changed the economy, unemployment, or people losing their homes.

        The economic stimulus failed, and that is verified by the FEDs infusing $40 billion dollars a month in Mortgage Based Securities every month until the economy starts to show recovery.

        Obama failed, and he has no real accomplishments to run on his record for reelection.

        Gasoline is well over four dollars a gallon.
        23 million plus millions that have given up looking for work are out of work.
        46.7 million people on food stamps
        The budget hasn't been balanced on a yearly basis during the Obama presidency.
        I could go on...

  23. profile image0
    SassySue1963posted 4 years ago

    Josak, the Bush tax cuts were only extended by a deal the GOP demanded in return for extending unemployment benefits. The stimulus package did little of what we were promised it would do so I would hardly count that as a great thing. Plus it wound up costing way more than was originally stated as well. As for bailing out those home buyers, I fail to see how it is now my responsibility to foot the mortgage bill for someone else's home now. I know you're going to think that sounds selfish but you know what? No one is helping me pay my rent so why should I have to foot the bill for someone else's home? Does that even make sense? There are personal reasons I do not own a home but we're not talking about the poor here. We're talking about home owners who made poor choices and now want bailed out.  He did not end the Iraq war. He merely stuck to a time table already established in April of 2008. If you recall, he promised to bring the troops home in 3 months. Then he just forgot about that and said, eh, we'll just use this time table already there. As for that renewable energy...all that money got us what? Bankrupt companies. Yeah that created a lot of jobs. Do you know that natural gas and clean coal initiatives (both resources we have in abundance) received, combined, only 6% of that energy money? That is failure at its best. It created few jobs. I do recall we were going to have all these green energy jobs. I remember that. Where are they? If these are all you've got, it only proves the point of failure. Now we are to once again bail out those home owners (how many times should we do this exactly?) and once again throw good money after bad for a stimulus bill exactly like the first one that did not do as promised. That is all Obama is promising. Nothing new. Just more of the same stuff that has already failed.

  24. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago

    LOL is really all I have to say to that. You seriously think that the President just calls his advisers every so often when he feels like it?

    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Ah so you admit that the President most assuredly knew about the previous attacks and the request for additional security?

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure he hears about a lot of things in the Middle East that go on. Hearing about a potential threats in Libya probably isn't any different than saying it will most likely be cold in January.

        But keep this in mind..

        The ambassador was actually well liked by the people of Libya. They considered him an ally and a friend. Do you usually plot against your friends? Or is it more likely that this caught everyone by surprise?

        1. profile image0
          SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Keep this in mind. If I hear about a guy driving around my neighborhood offering candy to kids to get into his car, even if my child is well liked by all the adults I know around me, I'm going to make sure I'm with them. It isn't about hearing about something. There were two previous attacks there in the months before, more security was requested and it was the anniversary of 9/11. Are you saying in order to simply beef up security he needed a video of the assassins planning the attack? At least be honest. No one in their right mind under those circumstances should have denied extra security. No one. We're not talking about launching an attack here, just doing all you can to insure the safety of your citizens abroad.

          1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
            Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I'm not sure how the two situations equate....

            If Libyan terrorists are offering candy to my kids, then we have bigger problems than who are president is.

            1. profile image0
              SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              lol No there are no Libyan terrorists offering candy to the kids. My point being that I wouldn't need a picture of the car, a background check on the driver, proof of candy just to make sure my child was protected.

              Just as the President didn't need to invade Libya or drop bombs. He just needed to provide additional security during a crucial time. He refused to do so and they were told to stop making requests for additional security.  Then he orchestrated the lie, because you've already made the claim he called it a terrorist attack from day one, and we now know they knew it was a terrorist attack. But they lied, intentionally. And they went to great lengths to foster that lie for three entire weeks. That should concern anyone.

              1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
                Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Well, I'm glad your kids are safe from the Libyans smile

                Anywho, that assumes a lot. It assumes that the President was intentionally covering anything up. I'm more inclined to believe that this was a situation that evolved rapidly as most situations of this nature do.

                I'm also inclined to believe that security forces were declined to show confidence in the new Libyan government. Was that a mistake? Well, if nothing has gone wrong, would anyone even care how much security the embassy in Libya had right now?

                When you say "he didn't need to drop bombs, just add more security," well, now we are just mixing up events. It's like a history book I read once that said 9/11 happened because we invaded Iraq in 2003.

                1. profile image0
                  SassySue1963posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  You mean you and I? No we wouldn't care how much security it had because we do not have access to that information for one thing and for another, we assume that our Security Advisers and our President are taking care of that.
                  What do you mean evolved? We already know they knew within 24 hours it was a terrorist attack. Now you are just in denial.
                  I'm not mixing up events, you made it seem like it was this great big thing for the Administration to provide additional security, hence saying he didn't have to drop bombs. This isn't about Iraq or 9/11.
                  The issue of providing security is actually an entirely different topic since we've stopped using our own Marine's and given it over to government forces. Yes, an entirely different topic of discussion.

  25. Mighty Mom profile image91
    Mighty Momposted 4 years ago

    Nice Freudian slip there.
    Deep down, even you don't believe your rhetoric.
    lol

    1. movingout profile image60
      movingoutposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      lol...This is like the Million Dollar Movie, years ago! All i need is some popcorn, soda, and a comfortable chair! Maybe a girdle as well to help keep the extra weight I'm carrying from rolling around from all the laughter watching this socalled campaign!

    2. KFlippin profile image61
      KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Really???????  And my words are not rhetoric, they are my words plain and simple.  I do realize that Dems live in a rehotorical world of spin, so I do understand your own wish to see rehetoric where it does not exist..........

      1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
        Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Rhetoric is a fancier way of saying words...

  26. profile image0
    JaxsonRaineposted 4 years ago

    Dude, I just want to know what you think his stance was as governor. If you say pro-choice, I can't twist your words. If you say pro-life, I can't twist your words.

    I just want you to post your opinion. Then I'll post what he said. Then you can compare.

    My hope is that you will put aside partisanship, forget what the media has been feeding you, and look at what he actually said.

    Why are you so against that?

  27. Ken Burgess profile image84
    Ken Burgessposted 4 years ago

    Obama came across harsh and condescending at times, as if he completely forgot about all the troubles he has had in the last four years, but for the first hour, I thought he had the upper hand.
    The last 20-30 minutes, I thought Romney made some great points... and at the end of the day, the most critical one, we can not have a strong Foreign Policy if our economy is weak, and we are neck deep in debt.
    That was THE truest statement made that night.

  28. KFlippin profile image61
    KFlippinposted 4 years ago

    allrighty then, is that a Webster's definition of rhetoric?  I think not.  How about a construing and stewing up or stirring up and bastardizing of words from fact to fiction with media endorsed spin?

    1. Cody Hodge5 profile image59
      Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Rhetoric: The art of using speech to persuade, influence, or please; oratory

    2. Uninvited Writer profile image83
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Much like the speeches of Ronald Reagan... remember "the great communicator"?

      1. profile image0
        The Longhunterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And lets not forget Barack Hussein Obama's teleprompter. Unfortunately, it's all been wrong and anti-American, much like it's reader.

      2. KFlippin profile image61
        KFlippinposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, I do remember him, and he did not need a teleprompter.  But more importantly, he did not need, did not require, the media to wholely and soley and completely endorse him to just glide by in an election by a few electoral points, to follow him, kiss his butt, give him ad nauseaum more media time so they got invited to the 'current' right party nights of the times -- yet he won, imagine that.......... and Mondale the Moritician became gladly a candidate America esceped.  Americans back then were left to think to a great extent on their very own.  I was 24 years old and I remember it well, and I'm not paid to remember a darn thing from those days or  attempt to make right through rehetoric a darn thing about this election to anyone now..........

 
working