The debate rehash

Let’s get at it.

The RNC released this video from last night. Titled “Smirk” I have to say, it is definitely one of the things I recall most from last night. That and Obama’s unwillingness to make eye contact. So odd.

I’ll be scrolling through my favorite opinion sources this morning and adding to this post as the day goes on.


I’m exploring the new meme that Romney “bullied” Obama. Anyone else seeing this?


Interesting. The LA Times says Obama had five minutes more speaking time at the 65 minute mark. I know Obama blew through the ending two minutes. So Obama actually had more time, but really seemed to say so much less.


Ooooh, please. Let this be America.


  1. This is what happens when Obama doesn’t have a Teleprompter to defend himself. And he just looks pissed. Great debate. I was shocked.

  2. Randy in Richmond says:

    Front page title of an article in the Richmond Times Dispatch,

    “Aggression by Romney cheers Republicans”.

    And no surprise, it’s an AP story.

    And from Bloomberg News, another title:

    “Debates are rarely game changers”

    On Daily Kos there are numerous articles on the debate–none of the titles mention President Obama. They are all negative on Romney. Same thing at Think Progress.

    HuffPo even asks the question,

    “Does Romney’s Debate Win Matter ?”

    All of this illustrates their guy was taken to the woodshed–at least last night.

    And now I await an October surprise. The Dems cannot have their guy’s poor showing dominating the news cycles and social media.

  3. I’m starting to see where “Romney is a bully” is being successfully repackaged by the right as “Obama is childish.”

  4. Randy in Richmond says:

    This is a mistake. I hope she changes her mind, or somebdy changes it for her.

  5. The Lorax says:

    Romney won but I don’t think it has anything to do with the TelePrompTer.

    Also Romney wasn’t a bully and Obama wasn’t childish.

    Anyone around here have actual substantive analysis?

  6. Yes. From a debate standpoint two things:

    Both candidates had a problem with simple body control. Obama needed two feet on the floor. Romney’s jack-in-the-box interpretation (rising up and down on his toes) during the closing was distracting.

    Next, Obama failed miserably by ignoring the initial debate instructions. He was told to address his opponent. Failing to follow that instruction, and not his boredom or arrogance, cost him. His lack of eye contact to the camera came from his lack of eye contact to his opponent. The camera did not follow him. It stuck to the rules. Obama, therefore, appeared to be avoiding contact with the American audience as he spoke to the live audience or the moderator. It cost him.

  7. The Lorax says:

    Oh I meant on the actual substance of their arguments….

  8. J. Strupp says:

    I agree that Obama’s biggest mistake was the lack of eye contact during the debate which, to me, signaled that he was uncomfortable with the accusations being made by Romney. It was pretty painful to watch and it cost him big time.


    Regarding substance, I picked out a few blatant lies Romney was telling right away. Obviously, his regressive tax cuts are mathematically impossible to offset without cutting deductions like the M.I.D. and/or raising the 15% cap. gains rate. So what to do? You pretend your tax cut plan doesn’t exist so your opponent has nothing to hit you with (which was a smart tactical move). Unfortunately, it’s tough to say what more Obama could have said on this subject that he didn’t say. Romney said that the top 3% of small businesses are responsible for a quarter of jobs in this country. That’s a bunch of nonsense to people who have a basic grasp of this issue but Obama let him get away with it. Romney said his health care “plan” will cover people with pre-existing conditions. That’s a big lie of course, yet there was no real response from the President here either.

    The bottom line is that it’s Obama’s responsibility to call him on this stuff and he didn’t. That’s on him. My guess is that his people will better prepare him for the second debate but what it comes down to is that the President failed to adapt to what was being thrown his way. Trying to run out the clock is a mistake.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:
  10. J. Strupp says:

    That he’s hired women in the past, he loves his wife and he’s a nice guy.

    These fluff pieces have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

  11. Randy in Richmond says:

    It has everything to do with the election. The Obama campaign has painted Repulicans as “at war” with women. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, said of the female speakers at the Republican Convention, they are “shiny packaging” to distract voters.

    Here’s a US News & World Report article stating that Republicans will “try to take away next: Votes for Women”.

    But mostly, it’s all about abortion. If you oppose abortion, you really are at war with women and their bodies.

    Mitt Romney himself was accused of causing the death of Joe Soptic’s wife.

    So yes, having women stand up for Mitt Romney is far more than fluff and has everything to do with the campaign and election.

  12. Randy in Richmond says:

    Ahhh. The “October surprise”.

    —————— 7.8% ——————–

    Right on time. I didn’t have to wait long.

  13. All he has left to do is open the Strategic Petroleum Reserves and lower gas prices. 😉

    That reminds me of another point of the debate where I wanted to run up and high five Mitt Romney. Obama went off on Exxon’s profits. That’s because Obama isn’t very imaginative on his feet.

    Romney reminded President Obama that if Exxon’s profits were that much of a problem for America then the president should have done something about it in the last four years as he discussed prior to his election. Romney then went on to explain the drilling issues Obama is quick to damn are primarily smaller company issues.

    This, since Lorax asked, was one part of the debate with real substance. Obama tried to toss in a tired quip, and Romney let him know it wouldn’t play. Then he nailed Obama for offering the equivalent of 50 years of tax breaks for green energy to companies that ended up bankrupt.

    I loved it.

    BTW, here’s the transcript for that debate.

    It still gives me a tingle up my leg to read it. 😉

  14. J. Strupp says:

    The idea that the administration would manipulate the household survey is dumb.

    Sounds like something Hannity would say. I can only imagine where you got that idea. Don’t tell me. I honestly don’t want to know.

  15. J. Strupp says:

    Oh. Jack Welch. Good God. Yeah a BLS economist is going to risk his or her career and reputation to doctor statistics for the President. These people understand game theory, risk etc. better than anyone in the world. The idea that they would manipulate this data isn’t rational.

  16. The Lorax says:

    Randy, the fact that you think all women boil down to the issue of abortion shows just how little your side understands about them.

  17. Lorax, it would explain how little Randy might understand, not “your side.” Plus, it’s probably a little too general a sweep to even expect Randy’s thoughts on women to be only about abortion.

    In other words, booo. You can do better.

  18. Mr. Strupp – who said anyone would manipulate the data? You took a big leap there.

  19. Randy in Richmond says:

    I’ll step up and say the numbers don’t add up. Interesting that payrolls are exactly as forecast but the household survey is way better. Also U6 is unchanged. And 114,000 jobs created.

    And the 873,000 jobs gained survey is the largest increase since 1983.

    And when does this economic perfect storm occur? In October of 2012 in an election year with a President having Chicago roots.

    People way smarter than me are very suspect of the numbers. Even talking heads on CNBC are shaking their heads. I’m willing to wait and see what happens on this in the next few weeks.

  20. J. Strupp says:

    “Then he nailed Obama for offering the equivalent of 50 years of tax breaks for green energy to companies that ended up bankrupt.”

    O.K. but this was a lie too. 50 years refers to $90 billion in green energy tax breaks. $90 billion has not been wasted on green energy companies that have gone bankrupt. Romney also said that he thought “like half” of these green energy companies have gone bankrupt. He should stop thinking. This is a lie too. He’s not even close.

    We’re better off talking about the things he was telling the truth about since there wasn’t many.

  21. So you don’t think it’s interesting at all, J. Strupp, that the president complains about tax breaks that subsidize oil companies when 50 times that amount went as tax breaks to subsidize green energy?

    That alone stands as an argument. That some of the green energy companies go bankrupt is just icing on a very tall cake.

    Go look at your entry again. I’m not sure you did yourself any good there. Other than to try to use the words “lie” and “Romney” in the sames sentence, you kind of repeated my point.

  22. BrkfldDad says:

    J. Strupp – check again. For 2009 and 2010 there were 7 firms tabbed by the Obama administration to receive the 1705 subsidies. It’s a pretty bipartisan opinion that any firms from 2011 can’t be judged yet, as most haven’t even had the chance to go to market or prove viability yet. Of the 7, one is on the verge of failure and 3 others including Solyndra are bankrupt. I’d say that’s about half in anyone’s book.

  23. BrkfldDad says:

    *one is ON

    –I took the liberty of editing it for you. — Cindy

  24. J. Strupp says:

    “So you don’t think it’s interesting at all, J. Strupp, that the president complains about tax breaks that subsidize oil companies when 50 times that amount went as tax breaks to subsidize green energy?”

    No, Cindy! Because “50 times” is wrong!

    Here’s the list of companies who have received loans:

    I count 33 companies. 3 companies are bankrupt. That’s not half. The amount of funds distributed is about $34 billion, not $90 million. $90 million is the amount of the total program not the amount of subsidies/loans distributed to green energy companies.

  25. Randy in Richmond says:

    Does anybody really believe a dot gov site to tell the whole story?

    Here’s another list:

    Azure Dynamics………..BR……………March 2012
    Ener1 Solar…………..Filed BR………January 2012
    EvergreenSolar………..BR……………Aug 2011
    UniSolar………………BR(ch 11)…….June 2012
    BeaconPower…………..BR……………Oct 2011
    AboundSolar.………….BR……………June 2012
    SolarTrust……………BR……………April 2012
    Solyndra……………..Closed………..Aug 2011
    LSP Energy……………BR……………Feb 2012
    EnergyConversion Devices BR……………Feb 2012

    I got tired and stopped. Time for football.

  26. J. Strupp says:

    You aren’t to half yet Randy. Or $90 billion. Not even close. Feel free to take Romney’s direct statement and use any source of material available to make it add up. $90 billion. Good luck.

    I have no problem with Gov. Romney nailing the President on this issue or any other, but he needs to do it with facts.

  27. Randy in Richmond says:

    I’m not trying to get to half or anywhere else. You pointed out 3 bankrupt companies. I just pointed out more. I could care less about the amount.

    In a previous post on Obama lying you said this, “Obama was either misinformed or outright lying. It’s unfortunate and wrong. But it’s what politicians do…”. Apparently you’ve had a change of heart with Romney.

  28. Randy 2, Josh 0

  29. Randy in Richmond says:

    In the debate Romney said, talking to President Obama, “You put $90 billion into — into green jobs”. We can argue about the word ‘put’ but I suggest Governor Romney was being no different than any other politician.

    From the “Recovery Act Third Quarterly Report – Supplement, as published by the Obama administration.

    CEA’s Second Quarterly Report described our classification of 56 projects and activities in the ARRA related to the clean energy transformation. This list includes 45 spending provisions with a total appropriation of $60.7 billion and another 11 tax incentives that will cost $29.5 billion through fiscal year 2019, according to the Office of Tax Analysis, for a total investment of over $90 billion.

    This is close enough for political speak.

    **Cindy’s edit**

    Randy emailed me a graph to embed, so here it is. I might have put it into the wrong comments, though, so cut me some slack.

  30. Isn’t $34 billion greater than $90 million?

    I have to confess I don’t really care. My mind is already made up, and so, apparently is yours Mr. Strupp, but there’s this funny thing about accuracy…

    Plus, I could have sworn we were talking tax credits and not other subsidies, but then, maybe I’m lost.

    PS – Thank goodness Randy does the heavy lifting around here. My goodness you can be amazing sometimes, Randy.

  31. J. Strupp says:

    “In a previous post on Obama lying you said this, ‘Obama was either misinformed or outright lying. It’s unfortunate and wrong. But it’s what politicians do…’. Apparently you’ve had a change of heart with Romney.”

    Not really. How is my statement considered a change of heart? I’m consistent on both candidates. Politicians lie and it’s wrong regardless of political affiliation. Romney is full of crap and I’m calling him on it. Making 1 plus 1 equal 2 is a reoccurring issue with Romney.

    Randy, about ten whole hours ago you wrote this:

    “Does anybody really believe a dot gov site to tell the whole story?”

    And now you’re quoting from the “Recovery Act Third Quarterly Report – Supplement, as published by the Obama administration.” So this is a quality source but the dot gov sites are garbage? I consider both sources as reasonable. You’re cherry picking.

    “…through fiscal year 2019, according to the Office of Tax Analysis, for a total investment of over $90 billion.”

    Through 2019. Except it’s 2012. $90 billion hasn’t been appropriated. Not even close. That’s problem number one. Second, “…related to the clean energy transformation” means more than loan guarantees to green energy companies. A good portion of those funds went into other areas such as energy efficiency credits for things like new windows. Hell, you even put the chart up to screw up your argument. The $90 billion in this case has nothing to do with direct loan guarantees to green energy companies by the government.

  32. J. Strupp says:

    “Isn’t $34 billion greater than $90 million?”

    Sorry, that was a my mistake. I meant $90 billion as my previous comment stated. Big difference obviously.

  33. Randy in Richmond says:

    I use sites all the time that don’t tell the complete story–dot gov sites included. What the energy site you linked listed wasn’t the whole story–what it did include was correct. If choosing sites to makes one’s point is cherry-picking, color me guilty.

    Apparently we have wasted a great deal of words and time here on FC. There are scores of comments and posts devoted to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, cutting taxes for the rich, vouchers, Ryans plan, and others. The dates 2016, 2019, 2024, and yes one commentor went to 2038, were routinely discussed. Except it’s 2012.

    And in every case not $1 had been
    “appropriated”. If funds being appropriated is the standard for discussion, whether here or in a political debate, there is no need for any politician or blogger to address the future re economic issues.

    The $90 billion in the chart is exactly what Romney referred to in the debate. The narrative there describes the chart listings as “spending provisions” and “tax incentives”. I do not believe he limited his statement to loan guarantees. Most every company doing business ties it’s products or services to being green if they can–certainly window companies do.

    Now you have made it clear. “Romney is full of crap” for your perception of lying and Obama is just “doing what politicians do” when he lies. Got it.

  34. I need to add a “like” button for comments. 🙂

  35. The Lorax says:
  36. Randy 4, Josh 0

  37. J. Strupp says:

    “I do not believe he limited his statement to loan guarantees.”

    Romney, from the transcript:

    “Ninety billion dollars. And these businesses — many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business.”

    “Ninety billion dollars” followed by, “and these businesses”, followed by Romney’s half went out of business fallacy.

    This should be pretty straight forward. But why do I have the feeling it isn’t.

  38. Randy in Richmond says:
  39. BrkfldDad says:

    Solar panels that failed because they were exposed to the sun… Would love to meet the professionals that did the due diligence on the use of taxpayer’s money for these firms.

  40. Randy in Richmond says:

    Just out yesterday.

    “Workers at the Compact Power manufacturing facilities in Holland, Mich., run by LG Chem, have been placed on rotating furloughs, working only three weeks per month based on lack of demand for lithium-ion cells.”

    Lack of demand? They haven’t made one battery as of yet. And their $150 million wasn’t a loan–but a grant.

    President Obama attended their groundbreaking over 2 years ago.

  41. Randy 6, Josh 0

  42. Randy in Richmond says:

    Today the new initial jobless claims were released for last week– they fell by 30,000 to 339,000, the lowest number since 2008.

    Great news right. Not really.

    “one large state didn’t report additional quarterly figures as expected, accounting for a substantial part of the drop, the Labor Department noted”

    This is so obvious. A large state didn’t report. I guess it would have been too much trouble to call them. But then the Obama administration couldn’t flaunt the cooked numbers for a few news cycles.

    This has the same validity as providing last night’s lottery numbers less one ball.

  43. Yep. Any bets on it being Illinois?

    How is this administration supposed to be taken seriously with this kind of thing going on. Geeze.

  44. Randy in Richmond says:

    Just in today. Another battery company files bankruptcy. It’s A123 Systems. They’re done. Stick a fork in them. This time it’s a $249 million grant.

    In 2010 President Obama said to officials of the Company:
    “This is about the birth of an entire new industry in America — an industry that’s going to be central to the next generation of cars. “When folks lift up their hoods on the cars of the future, I want them to see engines and batteries that are stamped: Made in America.”

    Four more years????

  45. BrkfldDad says:

    Did they only get $249MM? I saw a few writeups that say $300MM in fed, plus $150MM in MI funds.

    And JCI picks them up for $125MM. Nice deal…

  46. Randy in Richmond says:

    I just caught this but B-Dad pointed it out yesterday. A123 is still alive.

    “But soon after the filing, news of a lifeline for A123 emerged when giant energy technology company Johnson Controls agreed to buy A123’s auto business, including its battery technology and manufacturing plants, for $125 million. Johnson Controls operates an auto aftermarket battery plant in Middletown.

    The bankruptcy filing, A123 eventually acknowledged, had been done in order to “facilitate the transaction process” with Johnson Controls. With the deal in place, A123 is expected to continue fulfilling contracts for its automotive products, with the help of $72.5 million in new financing from Johnson Controls.”

  47. Randy in Richmond says:

    It’s now official. US taxpayers will get $000
    from the settlement of Solyndra LLC’s bankruptcy and sale of assets. That’s $535 million down the drain.


  48. Jobless claims increased by 46,000 to 388,000 in the week of Oct. 13 from a revised 342,000. All states reported.

    Four-week moving average was pretty much flat. So I guess the 24 hour news networks can move on to bigger conspiracies.

  49. I am constantly amazed, Strupp, that we can read the same stuff and have such a different response.

    A week before: “The number of Americans seeking unemployment aid plummeted to 339,000 last week, the lowest level in more than four years.”

    So “plummeted” to 339K, then revised to 342K, and then tada! one week later at 388K. That’s up 14% from the original number the week before.

    But you know what? No news here. Except the advert that will come out in a week using “THE LOWEST LEVEL IN MORE THAN FOUR YEARS.”

    Yes. That one.

  50. Randy in Richmond says:

    The state under-reporting unemployment claims was California, most populous state in the union. And the official in charge of the reporting agency, Marty Morgenstern, — an Obama contributor.

    But I’m not surprised.