NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics 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

Next Previous Page 2 of 7 pages

olovely | Oct 18, 2012, 12:35 PM EDT

Obama is going to be re-elected. Only the most deluded Tea Party relics think otherwise now. Romeny's binders full of women is about to sink him.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 18, 2012, 12:05 PM EDT

BrianO, I didn't mention the EEOC and other anti-discrimination enforcement agencies together with the federal court system, which make it possible for me and others like me to earn our 77 percent of what you and others like you earn (the average male income). These try to protect you from liability as they help protect my (unequal) income, so I'll add them to your list of "defense, border control, and interstate commerce" as absolutely essential to justice. You're delusional about being able to succeed without the work of expensive government agencies.

Report abuse

Searlit | Oct 18, 2012, 11:57 AM EDT

Great post McNamara31!

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 18, 2012, 11:53 AM EDT

A set of government agencies and government-supported institutions, such as schools and hospitals with government grants, agencies like FDA, HHS, NLRB, SEC, and FDIC and other fed insurance agencies, US embassies working with foreign governments, etc., etc. all allowed you and enabled you to acquire your wealth, BrianO, and the effort of hard-working employees supplied the actual work required! We're all in this economy together, except that those at the bottom are currently picking up the tab for those at the top, as the Bush-era statistics clearly show.

Report abuse

McNamara31 | Oct 18, 2012, 11:34 AM EDT

For all who actually watched the presidential debates(and GOP primaries)I ask one question: Do you want a president or do you want an arrogant Gordon Gekko who rolls over your every word like you don't exist? If you turn off FOX for a day, you will find: the stock market which feeds our 401K's and pension plans has doubled since Obama took office. People with pre-existing conditions (nearly everyone over 50) have medical insurance, unemployment has steadily decreased, we're out of Iraq and leaving Afghanistan,the American car industry and feeder companies were saved. The other guy told the car industry "to fail", will end medicare and replace it with a voucher program so your 80 year old grandmother will have to "shop" for medical insurance yearly (how's that for a secure feeling)and as for wars, he's right in their with Bibi perched to start WW3 with Iran. I wonder if he'll put the trillions cost on credit cards like GWB did?

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 18, 2012, 11:19 AM EDT

To the point of who is robbing who? All the income a person makes is his or hers. They earned it. It is their money. You can not rob something that is already yours. If a person makes $1 and allows .25 to go to government, he has given 25% of his property to the government leaving him with 75% of his property. Government is a necessary entity that produces nothing in income.

Report abuse

BrianO | Oct 18, 2012, 11:13 AM EDT

eiriamach, I know you think other peoples money should be confiscated to be used by your heroes. Many of these vilified Rich contribute greatly to charities that they believe in. How would you feel if instead of you being able to contribute your money to causes you supported, I instead took those funds and mandated they go to the NRA. Today these people who as a gruop pay the majority of taxes and contribute to charity, watch their funds supporting things they are morally against. I know you hate the limitations of the Constitution, but except for defense, border control, and interstate commerce, all of we citizens of The US should not be forced to support anything else.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 18, 2012, 09:53 AM EDT

I should add that as Allison Linn of NBC News reports, "More than 35,000 people who had income of more than $200,000 in 2009 paid no federal income taxes that year, according to a new report from the Internal Revenue Service."

Report abuse

eiriamach | Oct 18, 2012, 09:44 AM EDT

BrianO asks, "What does fair share [of taxes] mean?" Brian thinks the poor are robbing the rich through the IRS! Just the opposite has happened since the Bush tax cuts, while we've waited for the promised blessings of the cuts to trickle down to incomes under $200,000. In 2001, average gross income was $57,592, nearly $4,000 less than in 2000. The next year, it fell by $6,000 in inflation-adjusted dollars, to $55,513, and again fell nearly as much in 2003. It rose slightly 2006-07 until, by 2008-- the last year of the GW Bush presidency-- it reached $58,005, which was $3,512 less in inflation-adjusted dollars than the previous year. During those 8 years, revenue collected by the IRS fell from $1,225,955 in 2000, to $1,081,295 in 2008-- a decrease of 11.8%-- even though the number of taxpayers increased by 10.1%. Total loss in incomes during the Bush years was $2,743,744,047,735 -- close to 3 Trillion Dollars! (IRS Statistics of Income Table 1.4, inflation adjustment David Cay Johnston) Results of Bush tax cuts: NO economic growth, a record number of Americans in poverty, and decreases in incomes below $200,000: In 1998, 1,467 of those with $200,000 or more paid Zero Income Tax, and by 2008, 22,256 of them paid Zero! Who's been robbing whom???

Report abuse

jetsnoone | Oct 18, 2012, 07:37 AM EDT

at the beginning of Obama's term he set out to destroy the white middle class so as to get them hooked on socialism.....but Americans want to work and don't want their heads taxed off... The communists greatest tool, the destruction of Catholicism, came too late in his term, so perhaps we can get this mutt to retire. The Blessed Mother appeared at Fatima and warned us all not to imitate the mistakes of Russia (communism) and idiots like seagreen ignore here.....

Report abuse

seagreen | Oct 18, 2012, 06:18 AM EDT

People on social security voting for Romney/Ryan are masochists. Privitizing social security!!!! "getting control of peoples money that know nothing of the stock market"

Report abuse

seagreen | Oct 18, 2012, 01:58 AM EDT

What does fair share mean? By fair share do you mean all income made by the rich? If so that would not solve the problem, and would kill the golden goose. In a free society it is the initiative and hardwork of the people that makes the difference. leave the money in the private sector and jobs will grow and all will be prosperous. Believe that you can steal other peoples money to supplement your income, is a fairytale. Those people being stolen from will either leave or produce less. This president drives a wedge between we citizens of the USA, divide and conquer, belittle and guilt, a small, nasty cold man.

Report abuse

IrishAndProud | Oct 18, 2012, 01:34 AM EDT

I might also add: isn’t it interesting that of all the posters (and columnists) on Irish Central, those who openly, verbally HATE the United States of America the most intensely also back Barack Hussein Obama the most ardently? Perhaps by the most astronomical mathematics it’s just coincidence; nevertheless, it does tend to affirm what the American majority have long-since realized about this strange man Obama and his supporters...and is quite notable. So, my personal thanks for the affirmation.

Report abuse

IrishAndProud | Oct 17, 2012, 10:30 PM EDT

Report abuse

pilib04 | Oct 17, 2012, 10:24 PM EDT

Stiofain, I'm on Social Security and Medicare and I already voted for President Obama, Offaly's favorite son!

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 7 pages