Check the record: Auto bankruptcy vs Terror

I didn't think that the "Check the transcript, Candy" line would have affected me. (What's the difference b/w saying the word "terror" the day after?)

But during the debate, when Obama said, "Check the transcript" Re: auto bailouts -- I believed Obama was right again (when watching the debates, and when I internet searched afterwards - yeah, Obama was right again.)

Obama was (technically) right about his terror comment. And Obama is (technically) right about Romney denying the auto industry a bailout.

Romney wanted government help AFTER the bankruptcy. But he was against government help DURING the bankruptcy (ie [real direct quote] "allow these companies to go through bankruptcy"). Knowing that there will be money AFTER the bankruptcy does not help DURING the bankruptcy - especially when there is no other source of money to be lent.

So Romney said: "Under no circumstances would I do anything other than to help this industry get on its feet." Actually, if the circumstances were telling Americans that their tax dollars would (unpopularly) bail out the auto industry - Romney would NOT help the auto industry get on its feet.

Romney might have thought that "tough love" would have helped the auto industry more - but Romney's "tough love" would mean that the auto industry wouldn't have been able to go through a "managed bankruptcy."

The bigger point to me is that Romney will say anything to win points, and hope people are stupid/trusting enough to believe that help AFTER the bankruptcy equals help DURING the bankruptcy.

And I start trusting Obama more - when he says Obama is right if you check the transcript -- you can bet Obama will be right if you check the transcript.

3rd debate: Obama won foreign policy

Obama won the third presidential debate. Romney lost. Obama actually persuaded me that he would be better than Romney at foreign policy. (Maybe because I don't follow foreign policy as closely, so there was more room to persuade me.)

My previous complaint against Obama was that he couldn't unilaterally co-operate with enemies like Russia or Iran. (Just like he couldn't unilateraly cooperate with Congressional Republicans.)

My complaint against Romney was that his "competitive" approach doesn't fix everything either.

During the debate, Obama persuaded me that he could cooperate with our allies (and undecideds) and then act together with the world to stop world enemies.

This approach is vastly superior to Romney's "Cowboy foreign policy" - have a GIANT American military, and then our enemies won't dare act up.

---

Romney said America should have immediately imposed stricter sanctions (unilaterally) against Iran to deter nuclear weapon development.

Obama said, "We could have done that immediately, but I was smarter to take the time to develop alliances and have world sanctions against Iran - which work better than super harsh sanctions from America only."

Romney wants to unilaterally have America give guns to rebels - Obama wants to work with international allies. Obama's way takes more time, but will probably have better long-term results.

Point to Obama.

---

Romney had a litany of how things are worse in the Middle East

Obama had a list of stuff he's accomplished.

I'm siding with Obama - there has been some progress (even Romney doesn't disagree.) But Romney seems to think that since Obama hasn't fixed EVERYTHING in the Middle East, Obama is bad on foreign policy.

So I guess the only way Romney would have been satisfied with Obama's foreign policy is if ALL the world's problems were fixed in 4 years?

The biggest charge against Obama's specific policies is that Obama projected "weakness." I'm pretty sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons...because Iran wants nuclear weapons.

I don't think Iran would have acted all peaceful, but since Obama went on an apology tour and met with "enemies" - that means Iran should make nuclear weapons now!

---

Romney: Attacking me is not an agenda.

Seriously? Romney, your "strategy" is just to point out everything that's wrong with the world and blame it on Obama's weakness.

I know what I'm getting with Obama - Obama doesn't need an agenda for the next 4 years. It's YOUR job to propose YOUR agenda, and show why YOURS will work better than Obama.

---

Military Romney said that Obama's military has the least boats since before WW2. Obama: "Yeah, but we also have less bayonets and horses!"

Point to Obama.

Romney really doesn't make a case for why we need more military spending than Obama wants. This played to my pre-existing bias, but Romney really doesn't have a way to spend the money - he just wants to spend it so our enemies will think "America is spending more military money- let's do what America says!"

There's no reason to think that will work. And it seems like a waste of (a lot) of money.

---

So with the debates over - I'll think some more about everything and post who I'll vote for and why, soon.

Last debate: Expectations

They're going to talk about how China is ruining America's economy. They'll both make China sound bad and promise they will stop China from being so bad. Romney might try to sound tougher, but I doubt most will understand the difference between their policies.

Obama will make fun of Romney for thinking Russia is our major threat.

Romney will attack Obama for Libya - which doesn't seem like that big a deal to me

Romney will attack Obama for the gun walking to Mexico thing - which has no real details for anyone.

---

Neither side will explain specifically how they will fix the Euro-zone problem. (Which I think has a greater impact on the domestic economy than Russia/China.)

---

Obama will brag how he ordered special forces to kill Bin Laden. (Which is the fruition of intelligence garnered from W. Bush's years of work. So Obama will blame Bush for the bad things, but will take credit for the good things.)

Romney will brag how he won't cut military spending - and get challenged by Obama.

Obama will not "sleep through the debate" - like he was accused of during debate #1.

I doubt the debate will change anyone's mind about who to vote for, but Romney supporters will be fired up to vote for Romney, and Obama supporters will be encouraged to show up on election day.

Military Spending: Romney vs Obama

I'm not a big fan of deficit spending.

I'm against Obama borrowing $10 million from China to hire 100K more teachers, because we don't really need them that badly.

I'm also against Romney borrowing $100 million from China to maintain current military spending.

After World War II, we stopped building as many tanks. It would have been wasteful to keep spending the same amount of money on tanks.

Similarly, wrapping up Afghanistan/Iraq/etc - we should cut down on military spending.

Romney wants to keep spending on the military because... he thinks military spending is good. (It's not like he's said, "We need to build more submarines, because our current fleet is too small!")

Romney thinks that China/Russia will be impressed if America spends 30X as much on our military, instead of only 15X as much as them.

Really? We already have a much bigger military than them. If we have a SUPER much bigger military - that's what's going to convince them to behave?

I think that the extra money for the military is just "vanity spending" so Romney can feel tough - and that's a lot of money just for vanity.

Libya: Obama vs Romney

So the big "gaffe" in the 2nd debate was that moderator Candy agreed with Obama that he used the words "act of terror" the day after in the Rose Garden, which embarrassed Romney.

Me? I don't care. I don't blame Obama for not realizing that al Quida might attack an African embassy on the anniversery of Sept 11. (It would be more likely that they'd re-attack New York - but if we had to wait 10 more seconds for airport security just because it was an anniversery- there would be complaints of stupid precautions.)

And it's not like Obama would know 100% of what really happened immediately, as news came in, he revealed the extent of what he was certain. (He might not have revealed everything he suspected, but that's a lot of unsubstantiated rumours going round.)

And yes, "Protesting a Youtube video" could be considered an "act of terror" - in a broad sense. I think if the worst Romney can say about Obama's anti-terrorist record is 4 people dead 100,000 miles away - then Obama must be doing pretty well.

Obama vs Romney: Foreign Policy

I doubt the last debate is going to change anyone's vote. Why? Because it is about foreign policy.

It's not that I don't care about foreign policy. It's just that I care about domestic policy so much more.

It would be different if one candidate's foreign policy was better than the other. Instead, they are both different, and bad in different ways.

Obama's approach is "cooperative." After W. Bush made America's international reputation become that of a "bully" - Obama went in the opposite direction. Obama tried to play nice with everyone, NOT taking the lead on anything, because that would make America seem like a bully. (This infuriates Romney Republicans - who think that any time America isn't trying to beat up everyone else, America is making an "apology." However, only Romney Republicans think Obama has "apologized" for America - and even if Obama had apologized, I don't think it would be that bad.)

The problem with Obama's cooperative approach to foreign policy is the same as a cooperative approach domestically. Namely, you can't unilaterally cooperate. If Republcans don't want to cooperate with Obama on health care, Obama can't make them. Similarly, if China doesn't want to cooperate with Obama on trade, (or Russia on military) - Obama can't make them cooperate either. So I guess Obama's approach is to "stagnate" and not do anything.

Romney's approach is "competitive" - which seems like the alternative if "cooperative" doesn't work out. Unfortunately, competitive doesn't really work. If China won't trade fair, we'll beat China up? Acting competitive isn't going to progress things any more than trying to unilaterally cooperate.

I think the best foreign policy is "finesse." Acting cooperatively or competitively depending on the situation. Which is probably what Obama and Romney will both do, although neither will admit it, since finesse is too complex for a 2 second sound byte. So they both spout their cartoon-ish extreme positions, when they'd probably both do the same thing in the same foreign situation...

Which is why the last debate probably isn't going to matter.

2nd Obama/Romney debate = depressing

Well, my predictions just before the second debate have come true. (I'm not sure what the "gaffe" that the media will choose to amplify - I'm guessing Obama's statement of how he was calling Libya a terrorist attack "the next day.")

Obama was definitely more...insistent. So I guess Democrats can say he did "better."

Romney was as aggressive as before, so Republicans will claim "Romney won again."

As for my opinion? Both lost. Big time.

---

The reason that debates don't affect polls/voters? It's because the candidates don't say anything that we haven't heard before. They stick to their speaking points, and avoid the question.

---

Q: What about gun control/AK-47?

Obama: I'm taking a broader approach to control violence. Like school system and education. Romney will not hire more teachers like me. This is why my education plan is good....

Romney: Controlling violence is important, and I think that keeping youths in school and happier families will make things better. Let me tell you why Obama is wrong....

---

Depressing. Neither candidate will talk about what voters want/need to hear. Both candidates will find some way to talk about whatever their advisers say will win them "points."

And by improving their "debate score" both candidates just depress voters looking for content.

---

As for style? Romney did as well as in his first debate. Obama improved, but he still sounded like his Saturday Night Live caricature. (Its his rising/falling inflection.) Obama didn't say "Umm" as often, but he did seem to keep insisting for more time...

I will say that Obama's final response was the smoothest of the night. ("What is the major misperception of you by voters?) Romney: I care about 100% of America. Obama: Government doesn't create jobs. I care about everyone, and that's why I am asking for your vote.

I think the closing comment was the strongest moment in the debate. Romney (smooth at answering other questions) - seemed like that insincere televangelist that's been bothering me.

Obama really does care about 100% and really is trying and will fight. (My problem is that him trying and fighting may not be the most effective plan, and will definitely add to the deficit.) But Obama was "himself" at the end. (When he was "actively trying to be aggressive - Obama wasn't "himself.")

I think Romney's extensive debate practice has been paying off style-wise, but his content is non-existent (other than to say "Obama is bad, and let me tell you my non-specific non-plan.).

I suspect my previous "conspiracy theory" (Obama intentionally underperformed at the first debate) is unlikely - if that happened, Obama would have outperformed at this debate.

Obama improved, and he will improve some more (style-wise) at the third debate.

Content is another story though...

Town Hall debate predictions

Romney will do as good a job as in his first debate.

Obama's performance will improve from his first debate.

Neither side will unveil anything new/give me a reason to vote for them.

Both sides will claim that their guy won.

Media will "pick a winner" based on their existing biases. There will be a story about a gaffe/mistake that should excite their readers.

Overall, the debate won't change things, since the focus will be on style, not content. And the voters who decided based on style have already decided (the 90% of straight tickeers.) The undecided 10%? (Who are supposedly represented in the debate audience tonight.) They aren't going to get any substance that will earn the candidates a vote.

Romney's non-specifics: Mormonism, Corporate Raider and governor

I like Mormons. Okay, I don't know who were Mormons, but I met some nice people in Salt Lake City, and I'm guessing some of them are Mormons. Mormons seem to be "good, salt of the earth people."

Mormon leaders on the other hand.... They lead their flock of "blind believers." Who will believe what they are taught, because that is their faith. So Mormon leaders think that they don't need to justify why they think that believers go to "star heaven" and others go to "planet heaven."

(Not that Christians believing that some guy rose from the dead is NOT bizarre either...)

---

As a "corporate raider", Romney would take over a company (and maybe fix it) without giving specifics. After taking over, he would fire the (underperforming) CFO. "But, he's my brother!" protests the CEO. "Surprise!" says Romney.

When Romney took over a company, he didn't need to give specifics, if he gave specifics, they'd never put him in charge, knowing exactly how painful a Romney leader would be

---

As governor, Romney was bipartisan - by (as he claims today) not offering specifics.

He boasts that his success as governor was that he offered a direction, and let (Democrat controlled) Congress fill in the specifics.

---

Unfortunately, while "non-specifics" may have worked for Romney in the past, that's not what America needs now. Americans are less...trusting....that a Mormon congregation. If you want our vote, you need to earn it by telling us exactly how what you will do is better.

America is not a business. In business, it doesn't matter how unhappy the employees are - as long as money is being made. In America, it matters very much how happy the constituents are, and it doesn't matter (as much) if the government is turning a net profit. (It does need to "not collapse" under its debt load though. Which is why I was against the W Bush wars, and would prefer that Obama didn't borrow more money from China to hire more teachers.) But I don't think the debt load will collapse America in the next 4 years Under Obama. (Thank goodness for the current low interest rates....)

Finally, while non-specifics may have helped Romney in Massachusetts, he needs an "electoral mandate" if he's looking to lead a 50/50 split Congress (and American citizens.)

So, Romney would rather lose the election than offer specifics, since offering specifics is deeply ingrained from Romney's past as "bad."

His only specific cut: "I will cut funding for Sesame Street/Big Bird." has lead to protest. I'm guessing his other specific cuts will be less popular. And if Romney can't convince Americans that it's okay to cut from Sesame Street (which makes oodles of money off merchandising) - how is he going to convince America to cut from other things?

It is kind of late for Romney to offer specifics. Who knows what is going to be asked at the town hall debates tonight. And the last debate is on foreign policy. So unless Romney "knows" that someone is going to ask "What are your specifics" and Romney is ready to unveil his plan tonight... yeah, that's not going to happen.

So I'm probably going to vote for Obama, and hope he won't debt load America to ruin in the next 4 years...

Post-debate Romney bounce

The polls have been kind of depressing. Despite Romney's non-specifics, because he spoke more smoothly, it looked like he might win the election.

Luckily that "bounce" was temporary, maybe because it was an "immediate emotional" preference. But as people calmed down, they realized, "Waaait a minute - I still don't know what Romney is going to do, so I'm not going to vote for him."

I think Romney "won" the debate because he had "lower expectations" going in. All he had to do to "win" was not be a "47% eating, unsympathetic monster." He seemed not as bad as before. And Obama seemed "not as inspiring" as before, so Obama lost, and Romney "seemed" to win.

I suspect that Obama may have deliberately not performed as well as he could have. Now it will seem like he will have a "come from behind" victory - which will rally his supporters to actually go vote, or else Romney might win!

If Obama was polling ahead before the debates, and then won all three debates, people might not go to the booths to vote for him, since Obama "should win the election without my vote."

I doubt Romney will (ever) offer the specifics needed to earn my vote (see my next post) so I'll be voting for Obama by default.

the VP debates

I didn't care about the VP debates. I mean, who cares how someone (who is not the decider) talks about what the decider does/will do. Especially, when that non-decider someone/talker probably isn't going to say what he thinks, but rather what he has been coached to say.

Obama: (Alas) Reason for bipartison fight debate answer

In a pervious post, I lamented that Obama's missed the opportunity to earn my vote in the debate. He said "I will continue to fight with Congress for the good of the American people." I had wished he had said, "I will continue to try to find a way to work with Congress for the good of the American people."

Despite this, Obama will probably get my vote. (Because I know Obama will be at least barely adequate as president, but Romney isn't telling people what/how he will do stuff, so I don't know if Romney will be adequate or disasterous.)

I'm hoping that Obama will work with Congress after his election anyway. (Or that Congress will realize that stalling isn't going to get them the presidency.)

I'm hoping Obama did not say he will "work with Congress" because he knows that if he said that, Congress will resist him on the "financial cliff." If he showed a conciliatory side during the debates, Congress will say, "Hah, you said you'd try working with us, so try working with us now and give more money to the rich!"

I hope that Obama's non-conciliatory debate answer is just a short-term thing, and he will find a way to work with Congress after the lame duck season.

Next time: Romney's (Alas) reason for "no specifics" debate answer.

My reaction to "Instant Romney Debate Win" Results

So I've been surfing the internet, and it seems like most people think Romney won the debate, because Romney seemed more relaxed/fluent, and Obama seemed less enthusiastic.

It's like Nixon/JFK all over again, with the person with more style being deemed the "winner."

I've said in a previous post that Romney did "perform better." But would I have wanted Obama to neglect his presidential duties so he could iron out his debate performance?

I suspect Romney may get a "bump" in the polls from his performance, but while the (critical thinking) non-straight ticket voting Americans may "like" Romney more after this debate, that doesn't mean we're going to vote for him because he said "Um" less than the president.

Immediately, they may have picked "Romney" as the winner, but as they think about it, I hope they'll also realize that Romney doesn't have a plan....

Good job Lehrer, presidential debate moderator!

I wanted to say that I think the moderator (Jim Lehrer) did a good job with the open debate format.

I suspect Obama got more time (since he is the president, and Romney didn't want seem more like a jerk in public). But I think both sides got a chance to say what they wanted to say.

It also was (mostly) more civil/polite than I thought it would be.

I know Jim Lehrer would have preferred to stay retired, but I appreciate the work he put in to this.

Edit So I'm reading what "the internet" thinks of Jim Lehrer, and it's mostly negative. I think it's because people expected/wanted an aggressive moderator, and Jim wanted to let the candidates drive things.

Would the debate have gone better if Jim had enforced stricter time limits? It would be one thing if people were complaining that Jim prevented candidates from saying what they needed to say, it's another thing to complain that Jim let the candidates speak too much....

Zingers: Obama beats Romney

My last post was about how Romney actually had a believable moment. This post is about Romney's awful zinger- attempts.

• Trickle down government.This might catch on because Fox news is obliged to repeat Republican "cleverness." This might appeal to Republicans, but the phrase makes no sense normal people. (What, we'll have a lot of good government to big corporations, and that will eventually trickle down to good government for individuals?)

  Lehrer asked if Obama would like to respond to "trickle down government" and Obama (wisely) changed the topic to "Race to the top" and "close overseas loopholes. I don't think anyone will blame Obama for changing the topic/not responding to Lehrer, mostly because, there wasn't anything to respond to.

• Economy tax. Right after Romney quoted Biden's "middle class is buried" (but alas, not saying anything specific that Obama did to contribute to the burying) he said that Obama effectively instituted an "economy tax."

  Er, a poor economy doesn't give more money to the government...

• Energy production is up "in spite of politics" - it is because of private land use. Okay, but isn't this free-market - by not drilling on government property, it encourages private land to drill instead?

• Deficit is a "moral issue." An attempt to unite his Evangelical with his business supporters. But increasing deficit is "immoral" if you're going to make all your kids pay back what you borrowed. Really, the kids are benefiting from the borrowing (ie no economy meltdown) as much as the old people.

• You pick "winners and losers" and Obama ends up with just "losers" Presumably, like Solyndra, and ignoring GM. Not that GM is an unqualified win (at best it's a break even, with benefits for Ford via economies of scale.)

• You're entitled to your own plane and your own house, but not your own facts This is the most AWFUL zinger attempt of the night. It's like Romney new he was running out of time, but hadn't tried enough zingers, so he threw this out.

• I think Romney's best delivered joke was "Michele is probably very happy to spend her anniversery at this debate - very romantic isn't it." It made me smile. It was probably planned in advance, but at least it was well-delivered.

---

Obama's Zingers

• Donald Trump is a "small business. Fox News will probably use this as "evidence" of Obama's "lack of respect for Romney" - but it does illustrate Obama's point, that the tope 3% of successful small business (that create 50% of the jobs) that will get their taxes increased, can afford to pay more in taxes.

• Romney has ruled out revenue Probably not a planned zinger, what gives it sticking power is that Romney agreed to this statement. When you haven't put forward specifics, you can't rule out any potential solution contributers.

• My grandmother (who helped raise me) worked all her life for her entitlement, and she's not "dependent." Ouch galore for Romney, the only (subtle) nod to Romney's 47% gaffe during the entire debate (that I remember) and which went unanswered by Romney. Conservative biased media will never mention this, and I suspect liberal biased media can mention this to "angle" for their candidate.

• Romney: If you're over 60, you don't have to listen, because there's no change for current retirees. Obama: If you're 55, you might want to listen, because vouchers affect you. What makes this zinger effective is that it is a direct response to Romney - it had the "freshness" of unscriptedness that make debates different from everything else.

• Obamacare means that if you have insurance, insurance companies can't jerk you around anymore. Okay, it's a lot informal/non-presidential, but it showed that Obama can relate to normal people colloquially.

• Romney: Healthcare in Massachusetts was bipartisan, Obama care was rammed through Congress, entirely partisanly. Obama: Affordable care act is a "bipartisan idea" and Democrats can give advice to Republicans on how to cooperate. Negating Romney's point (and blaming gridlock on Republicans) - it's easy to be bipartisan if the other side is working with you :)

• Why is Romney's plan secret? Is it because it is too good? Okay, I like this because it speaks to my own bias (and Romney had missed his chances to offer specifics.) This actually made me smile. I think most undecideds don't take notes during the debate like I do, and if there is one "memorable Obama moment" this is probably it.

• I said I'm not a perfect person, and I wouldn't make a perfect persident. But I said I would fight every single day, and I promise I will fight every single day in a second term. This was Obama's closing statement, and not the zinger I wanted to hear. It will fire up his base, but I was hoping he would end by saying "I will keep trying to find a way to work with Congress" , instead I heard "I will keep trying to find a way to fight against Congress."

Obama's zingers (except for the depressing last one) all made a valid point, and some were immediately responsive to Romney (so they were extemporized, not canned.) Romney's seemed to be looking to sound clever, never mind if they were valid, and that is why Romney's zingers didn't work.

Romney's debate performance: good style (if not content)

I've lamented Romney's "missed opportunities" for specifics in a previous post. (Which is why I'm probably voting for Obama in November.)

I will say Obama "Won" with the "who's speaking performance was better"

As I predicted, Romney was "aggressive" to make his supporters feel like he was "taking Obama to task" for the bad economy. Romney cited unemployment statistics and his oft quoted fake numbers (Obama cut 700 million from Medicare - which Ryan's plan also does...)

Romney's "style victory, Re: aggressision" is that he appeased his base without getting "emotionally belligerent." By attacking with rational numbers, Romney didn't seem mean, he did show his attitude could be presidential.

Romney did give off "fake televangelist" vibes during his debate "performance" (his opening/scripted statement: things are bad now story) - when he tries to show he cares - it just shows how bad he is when he's trying to show it.

For the first time though, Romney convinced me that he did care. Maybe it's because it's the first "extended Romney" I've seen. (Not counting his scripted RNC acceptance speech, or short sound bytes in the media, or his rehearsed stump speech.) And when he was extemporizing (ie not saying things combed over by his staff a billion times) he seemed more "real."

When Romney was faced with Lerher's "biparisan question" at the end, Romney knew this was an easy/softball for him. "I was a Republican governor with an 87% Democratic Congress, and it worked because both sides cared about America." I actually believed Romney wanted to make both sides of America better.

I think he didn't over-script this answer - if he lucked out and got this question, his answer is so easy, let's not worry about it too much - and since he didn't worry about it too much -- that's what made him believable.

So a month before elections, and I finally see a believable Romney moment. Now if only he had a good plan, I might actually vote for him.

Obama's debate performance: Missed opportunities

Obama and Romney both went over their "15 minutes" alloted talking time on earlier questions, so Lerher didn't get to cover all his taking points. With like 3 minutes left, the moderator said, "We've got limited time, but what will you do about partisan gridlock when you're president."

Romney's answer is easy "I got along with an 87% Democractic state legislature when I was governro, I can get along with Democrats in national Congress when President. In Massachusetts, I sat down with Democratic leaders every Monday and we worked on a collaborative basis."

Romney missed his previous opportunity to explain specifics, was Obama going to miss his opportunity to renew his pledge to bipartisanship?

Here is (the gist of) Obama's answer:

---

I've long said I'lll take ideas from anyone. (Specifics) That's how we cut taxes, and made trade deals and succeeded militarily. (Principles) 1. Have plan specifics, and 2. Be able to say "NO" to both sides.

I have said no to Republicans about Wall Street regulations and Obamacare. Romney has never said "NO" to his Republican supporters, he's taken whatever extreme positions the fringes of his party made him say.

---

Obama had a good "political" answer that won him points by pointing out his accomplishments (specifics) and his opponent's weakness (Romney's lack of principles).

But Obama had a BAD "persuasive" answer to people like me (who want reassurance that a vote for him will NOT equal more political gridlock.)

Specifics: Yeah, stuff got done, but things you listed: kind of small in comparison with that whole "deficit ceiling/fiscal cliff thing."

Principles: Good for you to not just cave in to everyone (which is why I'm probably voting for you over Romney. Romney knows the only way he can please everyone is not to say anything specific/offensive). But in addition to saying "No" you also have to say "Yes" to some things you wouldn't want to do otherwise. (Not that you'd admit doing such a thing in a debate, as that would "Cool down" your needed "Ardent support" amongst your base.)

Would it have killed you to say something like "While we've worked together in the past, (and inserting this phrase) AND I WILL TRY TO WORK WITH REPUBLUICANS MORE IN THE FUTURE (end my inserted phrase) it's important to say No to both sides....

With that phrase, you could have earned my vote. As it stand (barring unforseen political earthquakes) you are getting my vote by default (ie Who is Romney) and I know I'm getting at least "barely adequate" and hoping that A) Republican will soften since they can foil your next presidential run or B) you will make overtures to Republicans (not just steal their best ideas) maybe in your inaugeral/state of the union address?

Presidential debate: Who won (my personal opinion)

Obama and Romney both "met my expectations." This means they both lost. Romney won for "speech performance style" - but lost his opportunity to get me to vote for him. (I don't care if a president sounds better in a TV debate; I care that he has better ideas.) Obama lost his opportunity to lead bi-partisan-ly; he stayed conservative (as I predicted, he didn't risk his probable "election win" by being too aggressive) and since I was leaning towards Obama before the debate, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama in November.

Obama did say, "Umm" and "Err" a lot in his speeches - in fact, he sounded much more like the Saturday Night Live exaggeration ("Stick with someone who is barely adequate, or take your chances with the other guy.") than the (less soaring than 2008 but still soaring) Obama of the 2012 DNC convention.

Romney did not put forth the specifics to get my vote. He did bring up a "potential maybe of capping potential tax deductions (at some number to be decided in the future)" - but that is not a plan. Plans have upsides and downsides, and then you defend your plan by saying your plan has the most upsides and the fewest (unfortunate) downsides. Romney had his chance to reveal his "plan" - but he didn't say anything with a downside (if he gave actual specifics, they would have a downside, and that would (gasp) cost him votes!). Instead, he gave his "justification" for why he doesn't share specifics:

"You don't get alot done if you have specifics. I'm like Reagan, I only present principles for Congress and then we'd work on it together to get stuff done."

Umm, Mr. Romney, that is a (very) fake "justification" for not sharing specifics. At some point, when Congress is working on specifics, they are going to bring specifics to you, and what, is it THEN (after you are elected) that you will reveal what specifics you are for and against?

Romney opened with his "5 point plan" from the RNC. (We heard that before and are not impressed) And Romney had opportunities to provide specifics. Instead of specifics he offered "principle for tax cuts:"

• No tax cuts that will increase the deficit. (which I guess means there will be no tax cuts, since it will be pretty tough to cut that much spending.

And these principles for which programs to cut:

• 1. Is project critical that we need to borrow from China to pay for it. (He specifically stated Obamacare and cutting PBS. But is that really ALL that he is going to cut? After election, he might decide, "You know, we don't really need to maintain the highway system. If businesses want roads, they can pay for it privately!") The only thing that Romney believes is critical is a high military budget. Without defining "Critical" Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."

• 2. Is it better at the state level? Romney seems to think that healthcare is better at the state level. What's his justification? (Other than he was governor of Massachusetts when he passed Romney care, and he needs a "reason" to repeal Obamacare.) Are conditions really that different state to state? The "individual mandate" of Obamacare still allows for some flexibility state to state as well, I think - does there need to be more?

  On the other hand, Romney seems to think that state/local schools need a federal hand, to "increase competition"? Can't states decide that on their own?

  Without saying how to evaluate if it's better at the state level, Romney doesn't have a "guiding principle."

• 3. Is it better to combine agencies? He mentioned that there are 47 government training programs across 8 departments, and that he can decrease overhead by sending it to the state level. It'd be great if he mentioned how setting combining the departments would help. (We could save $2 million in xerox costs!) Sure, there may be some jobs that are duplicated, but he needs to show that the 8 departments addressing different point of views is not more effective than 4 departments doing twice as much work...

---

Am I being unfair because Obama doesn't exactly have specifics for his next 4 years either? Maybe, but I don't need Obama to be specific, I have a good feel that his values are (at least) "barely adequate" and he's not going to gut the interstate highway system.

Obama missed his opportunity to EARN my vote in the debate as well (more on that in my next post) But I believe Obama can be president for the next 4 years, Romney had his chance to convince me that he could be president, and he missed his chance. Unless something amazing happens, I'm probably going to be voting for Obama.