Last Presidential Debate

Thank goodness.

Yeah, I know; I don't have to watch. And I actually didn't start watching until 9:30. A National Election at this point enters the realm of everyone simply waiting for a train wreck. There really isn't much more that can be "revealed" through a debate. And I don't much like waiting around for people to mess up.

I'm watching CNN despite the Daily Show's extremely astute and hilarious comments on the pointlessness of the "analysts" ("Ryan looks annoyed. You need a face analyst to tell you that he looks annoyed?!")

Obama is doing much better. But it makes me wonder, Where was he in the first debate?

Romney is holding his own. And so far, he is doing a good job coming back to his main points. Obama is much more on the attack. It's hard not to read petulance into his behavior. Both Romney and Obama's bases like their candidates to get aggressive, but the bases will vote for their candidates anyway. Middle voters don't find aggressiveness as attractive.

An Israel question--I've mentioned that I'm a hawk. I'm also pro-Israel. As far as I'm concerned, the United States would be a fool to back anyone in the Middle East except Israel.

Obama spun the question towards Iran. So did Romney. I guess that is what the question was really getting at. But it underscores my point. By this point in the election, the candidates are simply giving mini-speeches: "Oh, you mentioned chocolate. That reminds me of my position on the military."

The moderator isn't as interesting as Martha Raddatz.

Obama keeps saying, "That's not true." And he keeps needling Romney. I don't like this. I decided at the beginning of this year that Obama was not the gentleman I thought he was. And nothing has happened yet this election season to change my mind.

Romney is doing a good job saying, "This is what I did/will do." He does have a better track record than Obama.

But then, Romney did just refer to Obama's international tours as "apology tours," which is a fairly sharp needle.

"Nothing Governor Romney said is not true. Every fact checker said . . . "

I greatly dislike this type of generalized ad populum attack. It makes Obama sound less credible to me.

Especially since, instead of responding to Romney's criticism of his performance as president (skipping Israel), Obama is using a trip he made before he was in office. It is actually a smart response. But man, is anyone noticing that the president completely avoided Romney's main point?

Obama claims, "[The American people] can look at my track record." Uh. He seems to be using the "if I say it enough times, it must be true" approach. This approach can be effective, but it makes the skin crawl. Romney, at least, is trying to use specifics.

Obama keeps avoiding the issues by attacking Romney: "You've been all over the map." From the point of view of pure efficiency, this is not a bad approach. But I despise it.

It is one thing to say, "You are wrong and here's why." It is another to say, "I'm not going to talk about how to make the United States look strong in the eyes in the world; I'm going to mock the other guy instead and talk about how much people don't like him."

It also has a forced feel. I feel like Obama's advisers said, "Every time Romney stumps you, just attack him as wishy-washy." Obama's statement, "Everything you said isn't true" came after he went, "Uhhhh."

Obama is taking more time. Romney asked for an opportunity to catch up and was turned down. He took it like a gentleman!

Romney is doing a good job praising the administration when he agrees with things Obama has done. See, this is how a gentleman acts. 

Obama just made a point by saying, "This nation, ME . . . uh, this administration did accomplish . . . "

I dunno Obama. I think the ME was more honest.

Let's talk about China! Obama played the "keep jobs at home" card. Hey, I know what it is like to lose a job because I'm not willing to edit material for $1/hr (seriously). But I still think open borders is the future of the world. So call me Star Trek. But I don't see any real alternative.

Obama is "playing" quips. I know this sounds biased. But that's how his little digs at Romney sound. They are quite different from "I knew Jack Kennedy, and Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy," which was swift, cruel, and apropos. Obama's "quips" sound fed ("hey, Obama, make sure you get in that nasty crack!").

It's childish.

Romney has finally discussed the idea of "managed bankruptcy"! Good for him. I personally think that companies that are doing badly should not be "rescued" by the government. It is not the government's job to invest in privately owned companies. Like it or not, the United States is not a socialist state. Capitalism can work--not flawlessly but reasonably well--if it is allowed to work intelligently. Governments getting in bed with big business does not help capitalism work intelligently.

Obama kept interrupting Romney during Romney's time. Obama is taking more time. Have I mentioned the inability of Obama et al. to let other people talk (and think) for themselves?

They did end with only a 30 second difference (Obama took the extra 30 seconds).

Closing arguments: Obama did make me chuckle with "you've now heard way too many television commercials." Romney also laughed.

And . . . Obama is playing the populist argument. Oh, he has a plan! To bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States. Blah, blah, blah. I just don't think that's the future. 

Romney is going to make the future better. Everyone is going to make the future better. Romney promises he can work across the aisle. I actually believe he can more than Obama. But that's because I believe that Romney is ultimately a kindly man who listens. I think Obama is a nice man who doesn't listen.

It was a better debate (overall) than the first debate! I thought Romney came across as much more stately than Obama, but Obama did (barely) hold his own. They ended on a much more civil note.The Obama Family did a better job mingling with the Romney Family. Interestingly enough, I think the one time Obama broke stride in his little digs was when Romney said nice things about him. I do think that Obama is a good man at heart.

But Romney has the strength of believing that he can "learn" the office. And I believe he can. 

Brief Note on Second Presidential Debate

I watched about three minutes of the debate. At this point, everyone has said what everyone wants to say. The views are simply getting more and more entrenched.

As a brief note, solely regarding body language, both Romney and Obama look rather uncomfortable. I can't imagine a "town hall meeting" is either one of these men's particular cup of tea. However, Obama is doing a much, much better job looking engaged, interested. He is still using more time.

Truth is, the only politician who has ever looked completely cool wandering around a stage was Dubya--man, that guy wore his suits well. He had that baggy slouch thing going for him. He looked comfortable. Obama and Romney look slick but not particularly comfortable.

It would be far more interesting to watch Biden and Ryan debate again, just because they seemed to enjoy it so much.* But apparently, both parties felt that more debates with the presidential candidates was worth the extra strain. I'm not sure I agree. But when the stakes are high . . .

*After last week's debate, some CNN analysts chided Ryan, in a kidding way, for talking to Biden as if they were contemporaries. One of the analysts said, "Woah, Sunny Boy."

I can't say it bothers me to have a 42-year-old man perceived as a mere youngster, but I think the analysts missed the point: in many ways, Ryan's experience more closely matches Biden's than it does Obama's or Romney's. A number of analysts mentioned Biden's use of the word "malarkey." What they failed to mention was the exchange that preceded the word. Biden used the word "stuff." The moderator said, "What's that?" Ryan laughed and said, "It's Irish." Biden then said, "It means malarkey" at which point Ryan nodded.

Both men come from similar backgrounds with similar service in government. I don't think it ever occurred to Ryan that he was talking "up" or "down" to an older man.

I say that because I think the age gap does occur to Ryan when he discusses Romney. Ryan doesn't display any hero-worship towards Romney--he's not that kind of man--but there is a rather touching regard in his references to Romney. Biden is one of the boys. Romney is less easily categorized.

The Only Vice-Presidential Debate

Biden has a Giuliani-like conversational style. Ryan seems to get nervous when giving a speech but is extremely relaxed in meetings. It will be interesting to see which style prevails for each man tonight.

Whatever the case, Ryan is just fun to watch! He is a very handsome man in a craggy, interesting way. He may run the Dubya-risk except Ryan looks amused rather than bored when he doesn't agree with his opponent.

So far Biden and Ryan are far more respectful to the moderator than Romney and Obama were to theirs.

Biden is trying to get Ryan riled. But Ryan thinks like a congressman in a meeting where the debate will continue for several days. He keeps hammering away at a single point but not as forcefully as Romney or as desperately as Biden.

The debate is kind of boring so far. International politics are important, but I'm not sure how much impact they will have on this election. I've written elsewhere that in National elections, Americans like to kill their winter king. Kill the winter king and we will get a better harvest. Forget wrong or right. It's totally atavistic.

Moving on to unemployment. Biden, selling a populist image, has relaxed. Ryan repeats his and Romney's 5-point plan. This is wise, but I wish he would respond to Biden's accusations. Ryan is quite good at rebuttals. I get the impression that his staff told him NOT to start an argument.

Ryan just scored: "I think the vice-president very well knows: words don't always come out the right way."

AND Ryan did a GREAT job selling Romney's personal generosity: "Romney won't tell you these stories. He gives 30% of his income to charity: more than the two of us combined."

Biden is staying on task though--he's a way better debater than Obama.

They are both starting to act more like debaters, addressing each other, directly disagreeing with specific points.

Medicare, Social Security, and ObamaCare (which term, Obama "owned"): as I mentioned above, Biden is a much better debater than Obama. He has warmed up, and he is fighting Obama's battle. But Ryan is beginning to fight back.

Biden is starting to interrupt Ryan too much. He is using more time than Ryan. These interruptions may backfire.

Biden does have more "experience" to call on. I trust Ryan's facts and figures more, but I'm not sure that  facts & figures sell as well as "experience."

Ryan did managed to get in the idea: "When a candidate can't run on his record, he tries to make people scared of his opponent."

Tax cuts:  Ryan tackled the small business question. Thank you, Ryan! I'm so tired of the stupid Scrooge McDuck imagery that the Democrats use: oooh, we will tax rich people more because they have ALL the money. Stupid populist pandering; it really makes me sick.

Biden keeps thinking Ryan is using his time when Ryan is actually right within his time. Guess Democrats think that nobody has the right to talk instead of them. Look at how Obama snapped at Lehrer.

Elitists. 

Biden does know how to play to his base: "It is the responsibility of the Afghans to take care of their own security." Many moderates feel this way. It's a kind of cautious isolationism. I'm frankly a hawk--probably one of the few people in America who thought going into Iraq was a good idea. But Biden makes a strong argument that speaks to the American public.

This moderator asks really good questions! I'm impressed.

I'm not sure why Ryan didn't respond to Biden's insistent, "We are sending in more Afghans to do the job!" It wasn't a missed opportunity. He seemed to think Biden doesn't know what he is talking about. I don't know enough about Afghanistan politics to know. 

Abortion: the moderator asks really, really good questions!

I'm impressed that Ryan didn't try to qualify/soften his position. He is definitely pro-life!

Biden has also made a good response; it is actually fairly close to mine: I have my personal morality, but I don't automatically impose it on the public, which I perceive as principally secular--not in nature but in operation.

Biden has hammered on Romney's 47% remark. Wonder why Obama didn't? (I don't know exactly what Romney said, but I'm not sure that liberal Democrats understand that even people on welfare will often perceive those other people on welfare as leeches, not them. Does anyone actually think they ARE that 47%?)

The last two questions were good--what would you say to a returning soldier and what can you offer the American people in terms of character?

Biden is still whining about his time. He is using more time! Man, Obama and Biden are cry-babies: they both talked longer . . . Biden talked a minute more than Ryan.

The closing remarks were strong. Personally, I'd call this debate a draw with Ryan making a strong showing (as a non-incumbent, this was very important!), especially since he did his job!!! He backed Romney to the hilt.

The moderator, Martha Raddatz, gets an A+!

Quiet Darcy: A Man of Few Words, Chapter 1 continued

Recently, The Gentleman & the Rake came out in print! This omnibus includes updated versions of Mr. B Speaks! and A Man of Few Words. As I did with Mr. B Speaks! I am now posting notes about A Man of Few Words.

One of my major objectives in Chapter 1 was to establish my interpretation of Darcy as an introvert. This was surprisingly easy to do, not just because Austen's text supports that interpretation but because Pride & Prejudice begins with a party!

The party is the assembly ball at Meryton where Darcy makes such a bad impression. The characters present perceive Darcy as proud/unapproachable. I wrote Darcy as uneasy, uncomfortable, with the beginnings of a headache. It is very easy to mistake the latter emotions for the former attitude.

Channeling Darcy's emotions of discomfiture was remarkably easy. I grew up with a dad who would quietly, not at all rudely, slip away from parties, even in his own home, after an hour or so. A few hours of chatter was enough to fill his people quotient for the weekend, even the week.

In addition, my idea of hell is an endless cocktail party. Fire and brimstone sounds downright relaxing in comparison. I'll even take snow and ice. But people standing around with napkins and cheese cubes on sticks, discussing job promotions, car loans, vague politically-correct politics is the kind of thing that makes me want to run for cover, any cover, as quickly as possible.

Consequently, I can easily understand Darcy's curt desire to stop dancing--no matter how insistent Bingley gets--rush home and settle down with a good book.

The First Debate

Both Romney and Obama both look a little uncomfortable when not talking. Romney is WAY more comfortable when talking than Obama is when talking.

They are focusing mostly on the economy which makes sense.

And Obama immediately lost me when he went after "millionaires" for not being small business. I think Democratic presidential candidates sound so stupid when they say stuff like this. I've worked for "small" businesses (less than 40 employees) whose owners were close to millionaires, if not actual millionaires. The idea that only tiny mom and pops equal small business is so ridiculous it makes my brain hurt.

Romney is much more aggressive than Obama about defending his time. I don't know if this will backfire or not.

Romney is being VERY honest about what he would cut, including PBS! That's a very bold statement!! And he comes across as knowing what he is talking about. Obama sounds kind of clueless.

"Does anyone think that Exxon Mobil needs an extra tax break?" Obama asks.

"Sure! Why not?!" I say. A tax break is NOT giving money back! It is simply NOT taking more money away from people/companies that earned it!

Obama keeps employing the bandwagon fallacy: all the economists say so . . . Who are all these people?

The funny thing is, though, Romney and Obama are arguing minutiae. It's kind of blah, blah, blah-ish after awhile.

Romney is much better at bringing the minutiae back to everyday life.

Romney is saying more, but Obama is talking as long--this is because Obama is REALLY slow. Romney gets excited--which is fun!

I always think it is funny when candidates say stuff like "if you are in favor of X, then the other guy is for you," and I think, "Yes!"

So when Obama said, "If you think less regulation is good, then Romney is for you!" I thought, "Yes!"

Lehrer keeps trying to interrupt Romney. It's annoying because he doesn't do it to Obama.

Lehrer did just interrupt Obama. Obama's response was funny. But rude. Lehrer recovered well.

Romney just made a mild verbal gaff, which I won't rewrite. I hate these because I hate how the media and news latch onto them and repeat them over and over again. (Like Reagan quoting John Adams: "Facts are stupid . . . ah, stubborn things.") Yeah, like news people never slip up!

I would feel the same if it was Obama.

Romney is really good at listing points.

Obama has sped up. He is far more comfortable on topics where he can claim an "ethical" approach--it doesn't matter how much money is involved, our children shouldn't suffer!

Romney is still taking less time (but saying more).

Obama shouldn't try to be clever--it falls flat.

To be fair, neither of them are particularly good at the "zinger"!

Obama went WAY over (by debate standards): 40 to 36 minutes.

One of the analysts on CNN just said about Obama's discomfort: "I don't think anyone has spoken to the president like this in the last four years. He actually looked angry sometimes . . ." Another added, "He wouldn't look at Romney. He wouldn't engage with him."

Since I listened more than watched the debate, I didn't note this, but it doesn't surprise me. Romney is an objective reserved introvert. Obama is a subjective reserved introvert. I don't really blame him for not wanting to engage with an aggressive guy he doesn't know. But it doesn't look good for a president to act put-upon when someone criticizes him.

Romney loves to debate. So does Ryan.

First vice-presidential debate: October 11th.