NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish Pubs Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > People and Politics > Obama wins debate as gloves come off and punches thrown -- President strong on Libya and women but Romney hung tough

People and Politics by Patrick Roberts

Obama wins debate as gloves come off and punches thrown -- President strong on Libya and women but Romney hung tough

Posted on Wednesday, October 17, 2012 at 08:08 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

100 Comments

RSS

Archives

President Barack Obama and Republican presidential candidate and
former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney participate in the
second presidential debate at Hofstra University (Credit: ABC)

The gloves came off in the second presidential debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, and it was clear after 90-plus minutes that each man actively disliked the other.

Unlike the first debate, there was no knockout punch, despite the fact that a lot more blows were thrown, but Obama will be happier that he finally went toe to toe with Romney, unlike his insipid performance in the first debate.

Obama won the debate on several key issues and the CNN poll showing a 46 per cent than 39 per cent for Obama was about right.

On Libya, Obama had his best moment of the debate, one that drew applause from the audience when he accused Romney of playing politics with the tragedy of our ambassador and three of his aides who were killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi last month.

Conservative bloggers were hoping all night that the Libya question would be raised, but when it was, Romney fluffed it, giving an incorrect version of what the president said in the White House Rose Garden the day after the attack.

Obama’s other best moments were on women’s issues and also strangely linked to foreign policy when he talked about ending the war in Iraq, killing Osama bin Laden, and drawing down our troops in Afghanistan.

Romney’s strong moments came when he listed a litany of broken promises Obama made before he became president, but failed to keep after taking office.

Overall, however, Romney seemed far less at ease than he was in the first debate, and it seemed clear that the town hall format didn’t suit him as well as lining up at a lectern CEO style without intervention from an audience.

Read more on the US Election 2012 here

The question remains whether last night’s debate will move the needle for Obama even a point or two in what has become an extremely tight election.

Democrats have a better ground game than Republicans. Obama had no primary challenger, and the Democrats were able to marshal their forces across the country and focus on issues like early voting and absentee ballots which experts say are trending in their direction.

But Obama’s biggest fear must be that enough Americans will decide that it is time for a change, and that Romney has performed sufficiently well to trust him with that change.

If that occurs, a great debate performance may not change enough minds.

With 21 days to go until Election Day, the odds still favor Obama because of the Electoral College math and the fact that he continues to hold slight but consistent leads in key states like Ohio.

There was a sense before this debate that momentum had shifted significantly to Romney.

Afterwards it was clear that most observers believe that Obama did enough to stop that slide.
But it would be a brave person to call this election with under three weeks to go.

There are still mistakes to be made, accusations to take flight, and who knows, maybe even another October surprise.

E-mail

100 Comments

15 - 100 | See all comments

tom/peggy | Oct 23, 2012, 01:29 PM EDT

Please note Obama's plan to extend the Bush tax rates for those making less than $250,000 is only for one year. Makes you wonder why it's not permanent. Perhaps because that's where all the money is. If the government took everything from the wealthy it would be peanuts compared to what they can get from the middle class. As a middle class American that concerns me.

Report abuse

joanxis | Oct 22, 2012, 06:51 PM EDT

BrianO, Men aren't the only ones who work 2 and 3 jobs. I worked 3 jobs for quite a few years because I couldn't make it on a teacher's salary. And I didn't work in the summer. I worked 3 jobs all at the same time. Just wanted you to know.

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 19, 2012, 10:04 PM EDT

Ephraim , divide and conquer, face citizen against citizen. Make people hate. I believe in the individual. I do not hate a person for success. I do not spit on a person for being poor. I would prefer a poor man rise to a better place than to attack a man for his success. I sold product to make a living, the biggest and most frustrating part of my work was dealing with the state and federal bureaucracies, makes it harder and harder for one person businesses to make a decent wage.

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | Oct 19, 2012, 09:38 PM EDT

eiriamach - I worry that he does not even understand the fairy tale of the trickle-down machine beloved of the GOP. He swears his 20% tax rate reduction will be balanced by excising deductions leaving the 1% paying the same in taxes. If these lords of job creation are left without new money, what will they invest to create all the new jobs he promises. OOPS! Magical Mitt the Mendacious needs to go back to robbing pensions and leave the math to his friend Ryan. His 0% on capital gains would give the 1% lots of dollars with which to prime their mythical machine.

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | Oct 19, 2012, 09:21 PM EDT

BrianO - And one of those "few reasons" is "to promote the general welfare." Note that is the "GENERAL WELFARE" not the welfare of the 1% who are doing quite well with out the government's help. My point is that while the GOP tries to make folks think that the tax burden has been increasing, for the 1%, it has drastically decreased. Their decrease has been dramatically greater than in lower brackets. Just a bone now and then to keep the masses quiet while their economy is stolen.

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 19, 2012, 10:20 AM EDT

Ephraim, it's true over the years more or less of a persons wealth has been confiscated by government. As I continue to talk to a wall, I remind you that government produces no income it only distributes confiscated income from it's citizens. Some confiscate more or less. To your list of rates please list deductions and exemptions for the period to get a net number. My only concession is that their are a few reasons for the confiscation of the citizens money, they are written in the Constitution of the US, that is the contract we are bound by, all else is theft.

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 19, 2012, 10:11 AM EDT

Eiriamach, it is true with more and more of the middle classes money taken by taxation and regulation it requires 2 parents to work. The children are left to be raised by some third party, not mothers or fathers. The socialist model loves this, attack the family, attack religion. Nice way to change the subject, maternal instincts do exist, parents make sacrifices to raise their children. Men tend to work longer hours, take second and third jobs to provide for their families. If you want to tell me men and women are exactly the same then you are right. I submit that women and men are different. Maybe someday in your utopia men will be impregnated, give birth, and have that special bond with their children. On a personal note, my 3 children never spent a day in daycare, my wife and I both worked, It was chaotic but well worth it as they have grown into good citizens, they know the Constitution, and attend mass.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 19, 2012, 07:32 AM EDT

BrianO is trying to help the GOP legitimize paying women less. He writes, "a great number of women leave the workforce to raise their families, you know being a mother." Very few women besides Ann Romney have that luxury! Businesses will value women's work equally when FATHERS value domestic work equally. There's nothing stopping a man from taking 3 months' family leave when a new baby arrives! If each spouse can afford a leave, the child will have the benefit of bonding with father and mother before entering day care and school. Not since the 1960s has the traditional gender-role thinking of child care and homemaking being "women's work" made sense to anyone. Come into the 21st century and do your half, BrianO.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 19, 2012, 07:18 AM EDT

That's scary Ephraim, for the folks whom Mitt calls job creators. He says you shouldn't frighten them with threats of higher taxes. Mitt sells himself as the Great Job Creator. His favorite line is "Government doesn't create jobs!" So why is he running for the top government job? He belongs in the private sector, where, he promises, the one percent will create jobs for everyone else-- if we don't tax their dividends and capital gains (leaving most of their income tax-free). Why should we believe him? Well, he did spend decades creating jobs in the private sector -- jobs in India, China, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and other cheap-labor areas. His profit-leeching firm, Bain Capital, sent 750 jobs from GS Steel of Kansas City out of the USA; Bain soaked DDi Corporation, Dade Intern'l, and KB toys for a net loss of more than 5,000 American jobs. Other Bain deals sent entire businesses out of the country, like Experian, which he sold to a British firm at a $600 Million profit for Bain investors. He knows how to make money for sure, but not to help the govt and not to re-employ American workers.

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | Oct 19, 2012, 02:22 AM EDT

Or maybe a top rate of 90% like it was post WWII would be more appropriate!

Report abuse

EphraimKibbey | Oct 19, 2012, 02:18 AM EDT

BrianO - How about these rates from 1964: (Marginal Tax Brackets Married Filing Jointly) Tax.Rate..Over...............But.Not.Over 47.5%...$260,570.................$289,522 50.5%...$289,522.................$318,474 53.5%...$318,474.................$376,379 56.0%...$376,379.................$463,235 58.5%...$463,235.................$550,092 61.0%...$550,092.................$636,949 63.5%...$636,949.................$723,805 66.0%...$723,805.................$868,566 68.5%...$868,566...............$1,013,327 71.0%...$1,013,327.............$1,158,088 73.5%...$1,158,088.............$1,302,849 75.0%...$1,302,849.............$1,447,610 76.5%...$1,447,610.............$2,895,221 77.0%...$2,895,221......................- How's that for scary, Clinton/Obama's 39% for the over $250,000 crowd seems pretty tame by comparison. If we went back to those rates, maybe our economy could repatriate some of the commonwealth stolen from the 99% during the Cheney/Bush years by the 1%.

Report abuse

seanomelb | Oct 18, 2012, 06:32 PM EDT

All two of them Stiofan,

Report abuse

conorsmom | Oct 18, 2012, 03:51 PM EDT

Hey jetsnoone were you wearing your white cape and hood while you typed your message? Be very careful of how Mittens whats to create jobes! Can anyone say "Drill baby, Drill"? He will deregulate EVERYTHING he can get his hands on and make us even a bigger mess than we are now!

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 18, 2012, 01:48 PM EDT

Sorry Eiriamach I didn't see you other post. The labor of citizens pay for all the agency's you listed. Think how much good could be accomplished if citizens didn't have to pay for all these bureaucracies. but stick with the "I'm from the government and I'm here to help approach.

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 18, 2012, 01:44 PM EDT

Was that expensive or expansive. Another stat that can be manipulated, but why is it that women on average make less? Could it be that a great number of women leave the workforce to raise their families, you know being a mother. More women tend to leave the corporate world than men do. This work doesn't seem to count to the left as being valuable, and a number cannot be applied to it. But go ahead use the alphabet soup that is the government to sue business and hurt all. You believe in litigation and punishment, lower the bar for all.

Report abuse