Mitt Proved Intellectual Superior to 'BHO' in Debate
Morristown resident says this is 'good news for those who aspire to participate in a growing economy.'
To the Editor:
The referenced author's silence this past weekend was particularly noteworthy following the "embarrassing" performance of BHO in the debate last week. Mitt proved to be his intellectual superior while BHO was lost without his Teleprompter.
It was clear to me, every poll and most of the demoralized liberal media that Obama is outmatched. Bad for him and those who prefer to only be takers in our society. Good news for those who aspire to participate in a growing economy.
—Edward Doyle
Morristown
Margret Brady
11:37 am on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
It all depends which Mitt Romney is presenting himself at any given time. I guess the public liked the most recent version of what he now claimed were his views at this last debate.
As soon as he took the floor away from the moderator and gave his speech rather than follow the debate format, I just felt sorry for the President. As a representative of the people, he was placed in the position of attempting to set a good example and answer the actual question.
I guess that Mr. Romney just wanted to prove how tough and agressive he could be even when he was wrong. The viewers forgot what the debate was supposed to be about.
6776mt
7:46 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Poor President...I feel so sorry.. You just "felt sorry" for him? He is the PRESIDENT he should be prepared for anything that comes to him.... This was a DEBATE he knew it was coming....maybe he should have taken 6 days off to prepare, the way Biden is doing!
Maura Souki
12:30 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Ms. Brady please explain how not looking at the person you are debating is good practice? And tsk tsking shaking your head when you do not like what you hear? That is not how I want the person who is representing me and my agenda to behave. He certainly set no example that I would follow. As far as his policies are concerned and what he has done to this country, they too have gone is the same direction as his debate performance.
Margret Brady
5:13 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
If you have ever gone to a local candidates debate sponsored by the non-partisan League of Women Voters, you would see that there are certain formats for any reasonable debate. What we saw in CO. was not a debate. Romney made statements that were not responses to the questions. He denied his prior statements. Romney refused to follow the format or answer the questions. Jim Leher was treated like a silly child working for NPR, who Romney threatened to get rid of anyway.
It was not the role of the president to participate in this nonsense but there he was stuck on the stage with this buffoon and watching him get away with his unacceptable behavior. Perhaps he could of simply left the stage when this began but he waited his turn to speak. He could of shouted liar the way the Republican representative did when he gave his state of the union address. He chose to retain some dignity and aviod looking at this man who was taking shots at him that were not fair and were not truthful. This could not have happened at a real debate with a trained moderator.
President Obama once said that Romney tends to shot first and aim later. This time I believe Romney had practiced his shooting and improved his aim. He was not there to debate but to prove how tough he could be. I don't like kids who bully, govemors who bully and candidates who bully. Sorry but that's my opinion and you won't bully me out of it.
Maura Souki
8:12 pm on Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Wow. That was not trying to "bully you out of your opinion" but simply stating mine. Why does name calling come in to play? We live in America where we are still allowed to have our own differing opinions. As far as the debate "not a debate" perhaps the following may be helpful to you.
Lehrer noted the barbs he endured for not following up more aggressively with the two candidates. But he said that was the goal of the new debate format established by the Commission on Presidential Debates.
“The whole point was ... if there was going to be any challenging, the candidates were going to have to do it themselves,” Lehrer said. “I was going to facilitate the challenging, but I wasn’t going to do it myself.”
I certainly seemed to me that Governor Romney was far superior in the challenging department.
Margret Brady
8:03 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Ms.Souki, While I don't agree that former Gov. Romney's tactics amd lies were an indication that he was more Presidential, I can appreciate your viewpoint, which is obviously shared by others.
I especially like the fact that you have the courage to use your name when you answer and that we can have a civil exchange of ideas. We are lucky to live in a country where that is possible.
Free speech and the right to vote are some of the most important privledges we have a US citizens. As a poll worker for many years, it always surprises me that so many of those who complain the most, don't bother to even register to vote.
David Steketee
9:00 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The president performed poorly. But then again, it's easy to perform well when you're not standing on principles but merely shifting your position to whatever suits your audience.
On another note, why is it that Republicans always seem to use Barack's middle name (or in this author's case BHO)? Use of his middle name seemed to start with those 'mericans who think he's a "Mooslim". Just like how they always seem to call Democrats "dems" as a slight.
Edward Doyle
9:25 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
JFK.....LBJ. Soon enough BHO will be a bookmark in history.
David Steketee
9:37 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
A fair point. But it seems BHO or Barack Hussein Obama always carries a peculiar emphasis on the H / Hussein.
Cynthia Beagles
10:54 am on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
The writer, ED, is confusing 'intellectual superiority' with the ability to flat-out lie. And lie, lie, lie like you believe it. Say anything to get elected. Flip-flop, etch-a-sketch. If those are the qualities you admire and look for in a leader, then you need look no further than the Romney/Ryan ticket.
-- Cynthia Beagles
Edward Doyle
2:18 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Keep drinking the Kool Aid. 24mm un/underemployed, 47mm on Foodstamps, $16T in debt ($7T alone in BHO's administration) implementing a tax on our children and grandchildren from which they will never be able to dig their way out of, lies that an obscure video was the reason for a disastrous foreign policy......you can buy into this failure. The good news is the die is cast and BHO will be routed on 11/6. One and done. Read it and weep.
David Steketee
8:52 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
I think your numbers are slightly off. The 2009 deficit was from Bush's last budget which added $1,412.7 trillion to the debt. Obama's first budget cut that to $1,293.5 in 2010. I have no idea how you arrive at $7 trillion. The government grew twice as fast under Bush as under Obama and Bush-era policies have resulted in the huge deficits we currently have. $400 billion of deficit is from the Bush tax cuts alone.
Here's a lovely graph you might enjoy. http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/4e1b069c49e2ae172a000000/us-federal-receipts-and-expenditures-2000-2011.png You can see the problem is not an increase in spending, it's a decrease in revenue thanks to Bush.
David Steketee
8:53 pm on Wednesday, October 10, 2012
BTW, this type of recession (financial downturn as opposed to business cycle downturn) is substantially more difficult to recover from because people spend more money paying off debt than buying things.
V
9:07 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
Interesting graph, Mr. Steketee. I see that the revenue curve dynamics nicely co-trends with which party controls the Congress, not the White House. As you see, the new positive trend started in 2010, with well deserved "shellacking" delivered by the Tea Party and relegation of Botox Queen to minority status.
Now, one minor inquiry. You said that Bush's last budget added $1,412.7 billion dollars to the deficit. Could you perhaps link to any non-partisan source confirming this impressive number? I couldn't find any.
David Steketee
9:27 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
Maxim, http://www.cbo.gov/publication/42911
TableF-1 L51
2009 - (1,412.7)
V
9:47 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
Thanks, Mr. Steketee. Even Cato Institute confirms the number. Does it mean that the policies of Bush and Obama are much closer than the latter would like us to think?
David Steketee
9:59 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
It's hard to tell. As we both know the President doesn't control the purse. BUT, under Obama's administration, the deficit has fallen since 2009. And, in real terms (accounting for inflation), the 2013 budget will actually be slightly below 2008.
V
10:24 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
To me, no President has ever submitted an acceptable budget since Clinton, and even those were iffy due to borrowing against SS fund. Between "nation building", bank bailouts, foreign aid, and welfare expansion, I'd rather give Romney a chance. He's a businessman and supposedly knows how to balance the bottom line. And if he fails, there's always another Clinton available...
David Steketee
10:30 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
"Nation building" and bank bailouts (which only cost $24 billion according to the latest CBO estimates) were both Republican policies. Welfare expansion is a result of the downturn. And well, I'm with you on foreign aid. :)
I just don't think there's any evidence that Romney's policies (not that he's laid out any specifics, just broad guidelines) will reduce the deficit (if that's your goal).
V
10:57 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
The real cost of bank bailout is hidden (presumably, on purpose) by the CBO. The money was laundered through AIG and FM/FM, allowing banks to cash out their otherwise-useless credit default swaps. The $24B you refer to are only direct costs associated with banks that chose not to utilize CDS, minus whatever interest banks paid on the part of the bailout that went to liquidity loans.
"Nation building" is a neo-con abomination; you don't have an argument from me on that. If we absolutely had to go to war (the necessity is open to debate), I'd rather follow Trump's advice and expropriate all oil income until our war expenses are fully paid.
I didn't see much of Romney's economic plan details, either. Unfortunately, in that, he's not different from the incumbent ("tax the rich" is so 1917's Russia). However, since I see the last four years as an unmitigated economic disaster, I'm willing to risk an unknown evil over the known one.
David Steketee
10:59 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
But, by "tax the rich" Obama's only proposing to allow the Bush tax cuts to expire (like they were supposed to).
V
11:13 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
Letting Bush tax cuts to expire for the $1M+ incomes will yield $80B a year; that is enough to run the federal government for about three weeks, and only assuming static behavior (i.e. people not leaving for Singapore or Cayman Islands, hiding their income in funds, or getting out of business altogether). This is not a solution. Au contraire, killing a few choice departments in Washington would not only have a much bigger impact on our national bottom line but also decrease future liabilities.
David Steketee
11:14 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
That's still $80 billion. So, which departments would you like to do away with? I'm all for slashing the military.
V
11:22 am on Monday, October 22, 2012
Even though common defense is one of a few constitutional budget items, military could use some trimming. I'd suggest starting elsewhere, though, just a few places, off the top of my head: EPA, USDA, FCC, BATFE, BPS, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, UN budget, foreign aid... ObamaCare, a.k.a. ObamaTax (h/t: Justice John Roberts), which according to CBO will cost twice its original estimate, should also go. And if we aren't turning a net proficit by then, start tying Medicare to average life longevity.
David Steketee
1:02 pm on Monday, October 22, 2012
"EPA, USDA, FCC, BATFE, BPS, Dept of Education, Dept of Energy, UN budget, foreign aid... ObamaCare, a.k.a. ObamaTax"
EPA - I guess you don't want clean waterways, air, etc? There's a reason this agency exists.
USDA - Same thing here. Sure, it could be reformed, but it seems rather important to have a regulatory body in this capacity.
FCC - So, we just allow people to use whatever airwaves they want without any regulation to prevent interference?
BATFE - I agree, this one seems wasteful.
Not sure what BPS is.
Dept of Ed - I'd need to do more research into what it does.
Dept of Energy - Fundamental research into energy technology isn't important?
UN - You may not agree with them, but they serve a fundamental role in addressing global issues. It needs reform, but it's a valuable body.
Obamacare - What exactly is your objection? This is mostly a Republican policy.
V
1:29 pm on Monday, October 22, 2012
EPA: We do need clean air and water but it's not what they're busying themselves with lately. Carbon dioxide, a pollutant, really?
USDA: Leave it to the states.
FCC: Wavelength ranges is what they were created for, and they must stick to it. Janet Jackson's exposed nipple? Net neutrality? not on my dime.
Dept of Ed: All it does now is pumping money from states who refuse to lick Washington's boot to those who do. Give me one useful thing they *ever* did.
Dept of Energy: Let them be an expert body and a gatekeeper for national electric grid, and get them out of redistribution business.
PBS (sorry, my typo here): It's not the 70-ies. The Big Bird's earnings are big enough to compete on its own.
UN: The only "useful" purpose it has these days is stealing our money and giving speech podium to tyrants and anti-Semites of the world. Cut this blight out of NYC, too, and let them convene in Tehran where they all belong anyway.
OCare: It's not a Republican policy; it's loosely based on what Romney and fully-Democrat Congress of MA could agree upon. There's too much wrong with it to fit onto the comments page. :)