   |
||||
 |
||||
|
BUCKNACKT'S SORDID TAWDRY BLOG We should not be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive & well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate, bier or wein in hand, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WHOO-HOO, WHAT A RIDE!!!!!!"
04 October 2012
Video Shines Light On Drone Attacks 4OKT12
HERE is a different perspective on American drone strikes and how they are perpetuating the terrorist threat to the U.S. and American interest around the world. This is a huge moral, military and legal dilemma for everyone in the U.S. Nobody wants to kill innocent civilians. The USAF and CIA are already treating the pilots of the drones for psychological problems related to remote killings by their drones. The government of Pakistan is supposed to be an ally, but they are so corrupt and infiltrated with members or supporters of terrorist organizations they are unwilling to do anything about terrorist organizations in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas, so groups like the taliban, al-qaida and the haqqani network operate from save havens there. There are also American and International legal issues about war, war powers, and national sovereignty that are headed to courts in the U.S. and other countries. The situation is far from being black and white, and much needs to be considered. From Brave New Foundation's new campaign, WarCost....
Mitt Romney Won the Debate. But Why? 4OKT12
MORE debate lies by mitt robme romney exposed by Bob Cesca on HuffPost, and check this out from The Daily Kos Mitt Romney: Lying to victory (DEBATE ANALYSIS) 4OKT12
Mitt Romney won the debate last night but only if you judge the "winner" of a debate as the most hyperkinetic, oftentimes aggressive and condescending participant who used his rehearsed delivery to spackle over his lies, mistakes, generalities and misleading statements.
Almost on cue, the cable news people along with, shockingly enough, some people who I otherwise admire and whose work I read every day, confused style for substance and leadership quality -- and they've completely and totally ignored the words Mitt Romney actually said. More on that presently.
In contrast to Mitt Romney's used-car salesman approach in which he stabs you in the face but does so in a way that makes you thank him and shake his clammy hand in the end, Barack Obama's natural and authentic -- underscore authentic -- style might've seemed like he wasn't as polished.
No, the president wasn't as energetic as he could've been. Yes, he was far too kind and deferential to an opponent whose entire goal is to roll back every Obama administration achievement. But there was zero chance that President Obama would appear in Denver last night and suddenly reveal himself to be a snappy, idealized Aaron Sorkin character. Furthermore, many of my friends on the left lapsed back into this weird chronic amnesia in which they forget how Barack Obama carries himself, how he debates and who he is. With a few exceptions, the Obama you watched last night was the same Obama we watched win all three debates against John McCain four years ago, say nothing of all of the various town halls, press conferences and Question Time forums he's hosted. He's thoughtful and deliberate and, yes, he sometimes stammers during pauses, but that's no reflection on his leadership qualities or unrivaled intelligence. For the most part, this is how he's always comported himself. The problem, however, was that it might've come off as too deliberate and thoughtful when contrasted against Romney's caffeinated morning zoo deejay persona.
Speaking of which, let's talk about Romney's performance in terms of what he said.
Romney -- not the president -- made the biggest mistake of the night and almost everyone missed it. The president, in a very effective run, highlighted not only "corporate welfare" for oil companies but he also talked about how corporations receive tax breaks when they ship jobs overseas.
Romney's response to this tax break accusation?
"The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant." In other words, Why didn't I get that tax break when I shipped jobs overseas?
Right there, and on a televised presidential debate, Romney accidentally admitted to shipping jobs overseas -- but claims to have never received such a tax break, obviously when he's shipped jobs overseas with Bain Capital. In an alternate dimension of punditry that isn't an superficial as ours, this might have been the headline today, especially given that American job creation was a central point of debate. Romney appeared on television last night and was tasked with describing how he would create jobs, he ended up copping to eliminating American jobs and sending those jobs to China and elsewhere. Romney needs to be pressed on this point. Over and over and over.
And immediately following that discussion, Romney went on to repeat the tired and universally debunked lie that Obamacare "cuts" $716 billion from Medicare.
He also insisted that his tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of his economic plan, wouldn't cost $5 trillion. Of course they do. The Tax Policy Center agrees. This is the guy who fancies himself as the deficit hawk whose convention featured a real-time debt clock, and he's on deck to add another $5 trillion to the deficit. He also said the cuts won't result in tax hikes on the middle class. FactCheck.org wrote, "Experts say that's not possible." And regarding the "six studies" that Romney repeatedly cited as evidence against the massive deficit that his tax plan would create, it's actually five studies, not six. Further:
On top of everything else, Romney continued to be elliptical and deceptive about how he intends to pass a repeal of various unknown tax deductions; how he intends to pass a health care replacement through a potentially hostile Senate after repealing Obamacare, which most of the sitting Democratic senators spent considerable political capital to pass into law; how he intends to replace Dodd-Frank when he knows the tea party Republicans in the House will never vote for new regulations on Wall Street; or how tax cuts will magically create jobs even though businesses are enjoying the lowest taxes in history yet aren't spending the record $2 trillion in cash assets being mysteriously held in reserve.
Mitt Romney, for all of his spastic awkwardness, is clearly a good actor. Most serial liars and matchstick men are Oscar-worthy performers. You don't get this far in a race for the presidency with a record of 20-40 lies per week (that Benen knows of) without being a slick operator. President Obama, for his part, wasn't entirely as mighty as he could've been, but his side of the affair wasn't the disaster some pundits (I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz) and, sadly, fellow liberals have claimed.
Adding... Not that this will impact the broader conventional wisdom about who "won," but you should try reading some of the transcript of the debate.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Rockville attorney Kush Arora.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Mitt Romney won the debate last night but only if you judge the "winner" of a debate as the most hyperkinetic, oftentimes aggressive and condescending participant who used his rehearsed delivery to spackle over his lies, mistakes, generalities and misleading statements.
Almost on cue, the cable news people along with, shockingly enough, some people who I otherwise admire and whose work I read every day, confused style for substance and leadership quality -- and they've completely and totally ignored the words Mitt Romney actually said. More on that presently.
In contrast to Mitt Romney's used-car salesman approach in which he stabs you in the face but does so in a way that makes you thank him and shake his clammy hand in the end, Barack Obama's natural and authentic -- underscore authentic -- style might've seemed like he wasn't as polished.
No, the president wasn't as energetic as he could've been. Yes, he was far too kind and deferential to an opponent whose entire goal is to roll back every Obama administration achievement. But there was zero chance that President Obama would appear in Denver last night and suddenly reveal himself to be a snappy, idealized Aaron Sorkin character. Furthermore, many of my friends on the left lapsed back into this weird chronic amnesia in which they forget how Barack Obama carries himself, how he debates and who he is. With a few exceptions, the Obama you watched last night was the same Obama we watched win all three debates against John McCain four years ago, say nothing of all of the various town halls, press conferences and Question Time forums he's hosted. He's thoughtful and deliberate and, yes, he sometimes stammers during pauses, but that's no reflection on his leadership qualities or unrivaled intelligence. For the most part, this is how he's always comported himself. The problem, however, was that it might've come off as too deliberate and thoughtful when contrasted against Romney's caffeinated morning zoo deejay persona.
Speaking of which, let's talk about Romney's performance in terms of what he said.
Romney -- not the president -- made the biggest mistake of the night and almost everyone missed it. The president, in a very effective run, highlighted not only "corporate welfare" for oil companies but he also talked about how corporations receive tax breaks when they ship jobs overseas.
Romney's response to this tax break accusation?
"The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant." In other words, Why didn't I get that tax break when I shipped jobs overseas?
Right there, and on a televised presidential debate, Romney accidentally admitted to shipping jobs overseas -- but claims to have never received such a tax break, obviously when he's shipped jobs overseas with Bain Capital. In an alternate dimension of punditry that isn't an superficial as ours, this might have been the headline today, especially given that American job creation was a central point of debate. Romney appeared on television last night and was tasked with describing how he would create jobs, he ended up copping to eliminating American jobs and sending those jobs to China and elsewhere. Romney needs to be pressed on this point. Over and over and over.
And immediately following that discussion, Romney went on to repeat the tired and universally debunked lie that Obamacare "cuts" $716 billion from Medicare.
He also insisted that his tax cuts, which are the centerpiece of his economic plan, wouldn't cost $5 trillion. Of course they do. The Tax Policy Center agrees. This is the guy who fancies himself as the deficit hawk whose convention featured a real-time debt clock, and he's on deck to add another $5 trillion to the deficit. He also said the cuts won't result in tax hikes on the middle class. FactCheck.org wrote, "Experts say that's not possible." And regarding the "six studies" that Romney repeatedly cited as evidence against the massive deficit that his tax plan would create, it's actually five studies, not six. Further:
Two of the five "studies" were blog items. And none of three other studies was nonpartisan: Two were written by Romney campaign advisers and a third was by a former economic adviser to President George W. Bush.Romney also accused the president of doubling the deficit. This is a super-colossal lie. The president was inaugurated into a $1.2 trillion deficit for 2009 generated by Bush spending requests. The highest the deficit has climbed was $1.4 trillion by the end of that year. In every year since then, the deficit has been cut -- contrary to the wishes of liberals like me.
On top of everything else, Romney continued to be elliptical and deceptive about how he intends to pass a repeal of various unknown tax deductions; how he intends to pass a health care replacement through a potentially hostile Senate after repealing Obamacare, which most of the sitting Democratic senators spent considerable political capital to pass into law; how he intends to replace Dodd-Frank when he knows the tea party Republicans in the House will never vote for new regulations on Wall Street; or how tax cuts will magically create jobs even though businesses are enjoying the lowest taxes in history yet aren't spending the record $2 trillion in cash assets being mysteriously held in reserve.
Mitt Romney, for all of his spastic awkwardness, is clearly a good actor. Most serial liars and matchstick men are Oscar-worthy performers. You don't get this far in a race for the presidency with a record of 20-40 lies per week (that Benen knows of) without being a slick operator. President Obama, for his part, wasn't entirely as mighty as he could've been, but his side of the affair wasn't the disaster some pundits (I'm looking at you, Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz) and, sadly, fellow liberals have claimed.
Adding... Not that this will impact the broader conventional wisdom about who "won," but you should try reading some of the transcript of the debate.
Cross-posted at The Daily Banter.
Subscribe to the uncensored and totally raw Bob & Chez Show After Party podcast.
Click here to listen to the Bubble Genius Bob & Chez Show podcast.
BobCesca.com Blog with special thanks to Rockville attorney Kush Arora.
Follow Bob Cesca on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bobcesca_go
Mitt Romney: Lying to victory (DEBATE ANALYSIS) 4OKT12
LIES, lies and more lies is how mitt robme romney won the first debate with Pres Obama. From The Daily Kos, and check this out by Bob Cesca on HuffPost Mitt Romney Won the Debate. But Why? 4OKT12
The results of Wednesday night's first presidential debate are in and
it's official: Mitt Romney won round one. He was aggressive, he was
decisive, he delivered. Of course he also lied through his teeth for
most of the debate.
Romney lied:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
attribution: REUTERS
"How much did I lie?"
- When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.
- When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.
- When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.
- When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
- When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."
- When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/04/1139793/-Mitt-Romney-Lying-to-victory?detail=email
WATCH THE VIDEO "THE LINE" IT EXPOSES POVERTY IN AMERICA, AND IT IS NOT WHAT YOU THINK 2OKT12
WATCH The Line, to find out what poverty in America really is and why we, as a society, as a nation that claims to be guided by Christianity, must address the issue of poverty in America.
After you watch the video check out the analysis of the Obama-romney debate in my earlier post Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video & Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate? & THE LINE (VIDEO) 4OKT12
Poverty in America — It's not what you think
Many people in America are poor, due to no fault of their own—and their numbers are growing.
If you really know any poor people, you know that to be true. If you don’t, the first sentence of this post runs against the grain of many cultural assumptions in America that tend to blame people for being poor.
On the eve of the first Presidential debate, Sojourners premiered The Line — a film about the new faces of poverty in America. In this powerful documentary from award-winning filmmaker Linda Midgett, those popular judgmental assumptions against poor people clearly and convincingly are debunked.
The Line, which I am asking everyone who reads this column to watch, deftly dismantles many stereotypes about poverty and why a growing number of Americans find themselves falling into it. The film does so by telling the personal stories of people who have fallen beneath “the line.”
My 14-year-old son Luke, watched the story of John: a banker from a failed bank who once made a six figure salary, but who now finds himself a substitute teacher making $12,000 a year and trying to raise his three kids. John painfully talked about what it feels like to have to go to a food bank because he has no other viable choice.
His story caused Luke to ask his mom after the film, “John said he got straight A’s in school, so could that happen to me?”
My nine year old, Jack, was most impressed with James, a fellow who lost a blue-collar job after 23 years, and now — in his 50s — was working hard to be a successful busboy.
My Mississippi-born friend Burns Strider said he identified most with Ronnie — a self-employed fisherman in coastal Louisiana whose family has been in the shrimping business for generations who faces an uncertain future now that the shrimp have disappeared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil spill that have devastated the ecosystem and the economy.
And many in the hundreds-strong crowd that packed the DC theater where The Line premiered earlier this week were drawn to Sheila, a mother of three who, after lifting herself out of poverty and a poor, violent neighborhood in Chicago, tripped and fell down the steps of an “L” train stop and has fought against disabilities and health care costs ever since.
Sheila was attended the DC premiere and was a part of the panel discussion, along with the director, Linda Midgett, Adam Taylor from Bread for the World, and me, that followed the screening.
What also was true of each of the people profiled in the film is that falling into poverty made them feel alone. The line that most struck me was from Ronnie who, when speaking about himself and his wife, said, “We have no confidence in the future…and we worry about our kids.”
After the presidential debate last night, I doubt if the growing numbers of poor people in America feel less alone.
The political discussion today is only about who won the debate. But millions of people who are struggling financially (and otherwise) in America are not likely to feel that they did.
Presidential candidates could make it clear to those who are experiencing very hard times that they will not be left alone. But that didn’t come across last night, in the first presidential debate focused on domestic policy.
The competing narratives between Obama and Romney about tax policies, health care, the role of government, their focus on the middle class, and their differing arguments for economic growth now are being polled and debated as pundits and wonks try to determine to which candidate had the best performance and how it might affect the electoral numbers.
But one thing is certain about last night: there was no clarifying discussion about what the policies Obama and Romney debated will mean for the Americans who are struggling the most.
After watching The Line, what so many of us felt was a desire to reach out to the people who, with great candor and courage, swallowed their pride (and their privacy) and told their stories, revealing how hard their lives have become.
Conservative, liberal, neither or both —I believe many Americans would want to reach out to the people whose stories were told in The Line.
Clearly it is the mission of the church to tell and to show the millions of people who have fallen below the poverty line that they are not alone. Jesus clearly says, in the Matthew 25 that how we treat them is how we treat him.
I think we also want to live in a society that makes sure that people who are struggling with poverty are not left alone. That is the responsibility of all of us, and it is also part of the role of government.
The presidential candidates could make those who are hurting the most feel like they are not alone anymore. But that didn’t happen last night.
Journalists tell us at Sojourners that poverty is not a “sexy” issue in America — especially not at election time. Some told us that again on the day The Line premiered.
We had hoped for perhaps 100 screenings of The Line around the country. By the time the film began rolling Tuesday night, we had more than 1,600 screenings of the film scheduled across the country and around the globe — including nearly every state and continent, even as far away as Japan, New Zealand and Australia.
The tremendous response we are getting to this extraordinary film tells me that while the issue poverty in America may not be a top issue for our journalists and our politicians, it most assuredly is for a growing number of people of all faith traditions and none, across denominational, political, and cultural lines.
The stories in The Line explain why.
See the film, share it, talk about it, and help make this poverty — a fundamental moral issue that respects the health (and wealth) of the soul of our nation — a priority during this election season and beyond.
After you watch the video check out the analysis of the Obama-romney debate in my earlier post Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video & Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate? & THE LINE (VIDEO) 4OKT12
Poverty in America — It's not what you think
The Line documents
the stories of people across the country living at or below the poverty
line. They have goals. They have children. They work hard. They are
people like you and me.
From Chicago's suburbs and west side to
the Gulf Coast to North Carolina, millions of Americans are struggling
every day to make it above The Line.
Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate?
by Jim Wallis
(L-R, top-bottom) John, Sheila, Ronnie, and James from "The Line."
If you really know any poor people, you know that to be true. If you don’t, the first sentence of this post runs against the grain of many cultural assumptions in America that tend to blame people for being poor.
On the eve of the first Presidential debate, Sojourners premiered The Line — a film about the new faces of poverty in America. In this powerful documentary from award-winning filmmaker Linda Midgett, those popular judgmental assumptions against poor people clearly and convincingly are debunked.
The Line, which I am asking everyone who reads this column to watch, deftly dismantles many stereotypes about poverty and why a growing number of Americans find themselves falling into it. The film does so by telling the personal stories of people who have fallen beneath “the line.”
My 14-year-old son Luke, watched the story of John: a banker from a failed bank who once made a six figure salary, but who now finds himself a substitute teacher making $12,000 a year and trying to raise his three kids. John painfully talked about what it feels like to have to go to a food bank because he has no other viable choice.
His story caused Luke to ask his mom after the film, “John said he got straight A’s in school, so could that happen to me?”
My nine year old, Jack, was most impressed with James, a fellow who lost a blue-collar job after 23 years, and now — in his 50s — was working hard to be a successful busboy.
My Mississippi-born friend Burns Strider said he identified most with Ronnie — a self-employed fisherman in coastal Louisiana whose family has been in the shrimping business for generations who faces an uncertain future now that the shrimp have disappeared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil spill that have devastated the ecosystem and the economy.
And many in the hundreds-strong crowd that packed the DC theater where The Line premiered earlier this week were drawn to Sheila, a mother of three who, after lifting herself out of poverty and a poor, violent neighborhood in Chicago, tripped and fell down the steps of an “L” train stop and has fought against disabilities and health care costs ever since.
Sheila was attended the DC premiere and was a part of the panel discussion, along with the director, Linda Midgett, Adam Taylor from Bread for the World, and me, that followed the screening.
What also was true of each of the people profiled in the film is that falling into poverty made them feel alone. The line that most struck me was from Ronnie who, when speaking about himself and his wife, said, “We have no confidence in the future…and we worry about our kids.”
After the presidential debate last night, I doubt if the growing numbers of poor people in America feel less alone.
The political discussion today is only about who won the debate. But millions of people who are struggling financially (and otherwise) in America are not likely to feel that they did.
Presidential candidates could make it clear to those who are experiencing very hard times that they will not be left alone. But that didn’t come across last night, in the first presidential debate focused on domestic policy.
The competing narratives between Obama and Romney about tax policies, health care, the role of government, their focus on the middle class, and their differing arguments for economic growth now are being polled and debated as pundits and wonks try to determine to which candidate had the best performance and how it might affect the electoral numbers.
But one thing is certain about last night: there was no clarifying discussion about what the policies Obama and Romney debated will mean for the Americans who are struggling the most.
After watching The Line, what so many of us felt was a desire to reach out to the people who, with great candor and courage, swallowed their pride (and their privacy) and told their stories, revealing how hard their lives have become.
Conservative, liberal, neither or both —I believe many Americans would want to reach out to the people whose stories were told in The Line.
Clearly it is the mission of the church to tell and to show the millions of people who have fallen below the poverty line that they are not alone. Jesus clearly says, in the Matthew 25 that how we treat them is how we treat him.
I think we also want to live in a society that makes sure that people who are struggling with poverty are not left alone. That is the responsibility of all of us, and it is also part of the role of government.
The presidential candidates could make those who are hurting the most feel like they are not alone anymore. But that didn’t happen last night.
Journalists tell us at Sojourners that poverty is not a “sexy” issue in America — especially not at election time. Some told us that again on the day The Line premiered.
We had hoped for perhaps 100 screenings of The Line around the country. By the time the film began rolling Tuesday night, we had more than 1,600 screenings of the film scheduled across the country and around the globe — including nearly every state and continent, even as far away as Japan, New Zealand and Australia.
The tremendous response we are getting to this extraordinary film tells me that while the issue poverty in America may not be a top issue for our journalists and our politicians, it most assuredly is for a growing number of people of all faith traditions and none, across denominational, political, and cultural lines.
The stories in The Line explain why.
See the film, share it, talk about it, and help make this poverty — a fundamental moral issue that respects the health (and wealth) of the soul of our nation — a priority during this election season and beyond.
Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners, and the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery and the forthcoming On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn't Learned about Serving the Common Good, which will be released in February 2013. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis or join him on Facebook HERE.
World-class boxer comes out as “proud gay man” Orlando Cruz has come out publicly, hoping he will inspire children who are bullied 4OKT12
I want to before and after pics of anyone stupid enough to call Orlando Cruz faggot so I'll know what they used to look like. ACTUALLY, I believe Mr Cruz has a lot more class than that and will not lower himself to the level of his critics. From Salon.....
(Credit: konstantynov)
(Credit: konstantynov)
Professional sports has another gay rights activist.
Orlando Cruz, a former Olympian currently ranked as the No. 4
featherweight boxer in the world, has come out as openly gay. As
reported in The Guardian, Cruz said on Wednesday:
h/t The Guardian
“I’ve been fighting for more than 24 years and as I continue my ascendant career, I want to be true to myself. I want to try to be the best role model I can be for kids who might look into boxing as a sport and a professional career. I have and will always be a proud Puerto Rican. I have always been and always will be a proud gay man.”Cruz is considered to be the first male fighter to come out publicly while still active in the sport. Although he did not explain why he has decided to come out now, he is expected to discuss the decision in an interview with Spanish network Telemundo next week.
Cruz said he did not want to “hide any of my identities”. The statement continued: “I want people to look at me for the human being that I am. I am a professional sportsman [who] always brings his best to the ring. I want for people to continue to see me for my boxing skills, my character, my sportsmanship. But I also want kids who suffer from bullying to know that you can be whoever you want to be in life, including a professional boxer. That anything is possible and that who you are or whom you love should not be an impediment to achieving anything in life.”
h/t The Guardian
Prachi Gupta is an Assistant News Editor for Salon, focusing
on pop culture. Follow her on Twitter at @prachigu or email her at
pgupta@salon.com.
More Prachi Gupta.
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/04/world_class_boxer_comes_out_as_proud_gay_man/
http://www.salon.com/2012/10/04/world_class_boxer_comes_out_as_proud_gay_man/
Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video & Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate? & THE LINE (VIDEO) 4OKT12
DEBATE analysis from Mother Jones of the first debate between Pres Obama and mitt robme romney offering an answer to the questions of why didn't the President raise romney's 47% comments and why was romney allowed to dominate the issues? And from God's Politics Blog, commentary of the plight of the poor completely absent from the debate. Other debate commentary available in my earlier post The First Presidential Debate & Five Takeaways From The First Presidential Debate 4OKT12
...
After the first presidential debate in Denver—which an on-the-attack Mitt Romney seemed to exploit better than a noncombative President Barack Obama—at least one question loomed: Why had the president not once referred to the 47 percent video
that showed Romney denigrating half of Americans as moochers and
victims who don't assume responsibility for their lives? After all, this
video seemed to have sent the Romney campaign reeling, and focus groups
conducted by both campaigns have found it had a serious impact on voter
perceptions of Romney.
The morning after the debate, I contacted several Democratic strategists. They each said they were puzzled by Obama's silence on this topic and by his decision not to say a word about Romney's days at Bain Capital. "This is the stuff that has been working for us," one remarked. "Bain, 47 percent, Romney not empathizing with the middle class. Why not mention it?"
The Obama campaign does have an explanation. When I asked a top campaign official why Obama had made no mention of Romney's 47 percent remark, he said,
Despite the pundit reviews noting that Romney performed better than Obama, is it possible that Obama's low-impact strategy worked—or didn't fail? Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super-PAC, has released a memo based on a "dial group session" pollster Geoff Garin held in Aurora, Colorado, during the debate; the participants were "weak Democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but who remain open to switching in the upcoming election." The results were mixed:
UPDATE: On a conference call with reporters, a defensive David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, noted that the president's supporters would have liked to see Obama slam Romney on Bain, tax returns, and the 47 percent video. But, he added, "a lot of these issues are well known to the public," and Obama's "choice was to talk about the main things people are worried about in their lives." Obama, Axelrod said, had wanted to avoid an insult-fest and instead use the debate to discuss the future. He did note that following the debate the campaign would "make some adjustments."
...
The morning after the debate, I contacted several Democratic strategists. They each said they were puzzled by Obama's silence on this topic and by his decision not to say a word about Romney's days at Bain Capital. "This is the stuff that has been working for us," one remarked. "Bain, 47 percent, Romney not empathizing with the middle class. Why not mention it?"
The Obama campaign does have an explanation. When I asked a top campaign official why Obama had made no mention of Romney's 47 percent remark, he said,
Not that we won't talk about it again. We will. But [what's] most compelling [is] hearing it from Romney himself. We've got that on the air at a heavy dollar amount in key states. And it's sunk in. Ultimately the president's goal last night was to speak past the pundits and directly to the undecided voter tuning in for the first time about the economic choice and his plans to restore economic security.It's clear, one Democratic strategist said, that Obama's inner circle concluded it was best not to turn the debate into a slugfest and hit Romney personally. That might come across as not presidential. It could distract from his aim of persuading those few remaining undecideds that they should see this election as a choice between two starkly different visions for the future and select his. Besides, there are weeks of ads to come, and if the 47 percent theme continues to resonate, the campaign certainly can keep producing ads that use the video as ammo.
Despite the pundit reviews noting that Romney performed better than Obama, is it possible that Obama's low-impact strategy worked—or didn't fail? Priorities USA Action, a pro-Obama super-PAC, has released a memo based on a "dial group session" pollster Geoff Garin held in Aurora, Colorado, during the debate; the participants were "weak Democrats and independents who voted for Obama in 2008 but who remain open to switching in the upcoming election." The results were mixed:
Compared with the beginning of the session, there was a doubling in the number of respondents who said that Obama has good ideas for improving the economy. While Romney also improved on this dimension, 63% of respondents said at the end that Obama expressed good ideas for improving the economy, compared with 27% who said the same about Romney in the debate…Not settle much. That's often the case with presidential debates. But perhaps the most worrisome of these findings for the Obama camp is that these voters ended up believing Romney's not such a bad guy. That suggests his debate performance has the potential to undo some of the damage he suffered from the Bain blasts and the revelation of his 47 percent tirade. Yet, as the Obama campaign official suggests, there's plenty of time—and plenty of opportunity—for the campaign to resume its Bain-bashing and reprise its 47 percent assault.
Romney did gain ground on the President on the issue of taxes, and he largely negated the advantage Obama had on the issue when respondents first walked into the room.
In the moment-to-moment dialing, President Obama’s high points were when he talked about outsourcing and tax breaks for shipping jobs overseas, the need for a balanced approach to dealing with the deficit, and clean energy. Romney’s high points were fewer, but he scored best whenever he spoke about making jobs the number-one priority.
Respondents who came into the room open to Romney as an alternative to Obama felt disappointed in Romney’s lack of specifics. But Romney did benefit from low expectations among this group, and several said that Romney did not seem as bad as they thought he might be. For these key swing voters, whom Obama must hold and Romney must win, the first debate did not change much, but it also did not settle much. Obama continues to have the advantage with them, but the deal still is not sealed.
UPDATE: On a conference call with reporters, a defensive David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, noted that the president's supporters would have liked to see Obama slam Romney on Bain, tax returns, and the 47 percent video. But, he added, "a lot of these issues are well known to the public," and Obama's "choice was to talk about the main things people are worried about in their lives." Obama, Axelrod said, had wanted to avoid an insult-fest and instead use the debate to discuss the future. He did note that following the debate the campaign would "make some adjustments."
If You Liked This, You Might Also Like...
SECRET VIDEO: Romney Tells Millionaire Donors What He REALLY Thinks of Obama Voters
When he doesn't know a camera's rolling, the GOP candidate shows his disdain for half of America.WATCH: Full Secret Video of Private Romney Fundraiser
Mitt Romney wanted the full tape. Here it is.SECRET VIDEO: On Israel, Romney Trashes Two-State Solution
At a private fundraiser, the GOP candidate calls Middle East peace "almost unthinkable" and says he would "kick the ball down the field."The Emotional Power of the "47 Percent" Comments Explained
The Washington Post on why Romney's now infamous comments are "taking a toll" more than his other gaffes.Obama Campaign Unleashes Blistering New 47 Percent Ad
MoJo's secret fundraiser scoop now airing in seven key swing states.Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate?
http://sojo.net/blogs/2012/10/04/who-didn%E2%80%99t-win-presidential-debate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+sojourners%2Fgods-politics+%28Sojourners+God%27s+Politics+Blog%29Many people in America are poor, due to no fault of their own—and their numbers are growing.
(L-R, top-bottom) John, Sheila, Ronnie, and James from "The Line."
If you really know any poor people, you know that to be true. If you don’t, the first sentence of this post runs against the grain of many cultural assumptions in America that tend to blame people for being poor.
On the eve of the first Presidential debate, Sojourners premiered The Line — a film about the new faces of poverty in America. In this powerful documentary from award-winning filmmaker Linda Midgett, those popular judgmental assumptions against poor people clearly and convincingly are debunked.
The Line, which I am asking everyone who reads this column to watch, deftly dismantles many stereotypes about poverty and why a growing number of Americans find themselves falling into it. The film does so by telling the personal stories of people who have fallen beneath “the line.”
My 14-year-old son Luke, watched the story of John: a banker from a failed bank who once made a six figure salary, but who now finds himself a substitute teacher making $12,000 a year and trying to raise his three kids. John painfully talked about what it feels like to have to go to a food bank because he has no other viable choice.
His story caused Luke to ask his mom after the film, “John said he got straight A’s in school, so could that happen to me?”
My nine year old, Jack, was most impressed with James, a fellow who lost a blue-collar job after 23 years, and now — in his 50s — was working hard to be a successful busboy.
My Mississippi-born friend Burns Strider said he identified most with Ronnie — a self-employed fisherman in coastal Louisiana whose family has been in the shrimping business for generations who faces an uncertain future now that the shrimp have disappeared in the wake of Hurricane Katrina and the BP Oil spill that have devastated the ecosystem and the economy.
And many in the hundreds-strong crowd that packed the DC theater where The Line premiered earlier this week were drawn to Sheila, a mother of three who, after lifting herself out of poverty and a poor, violent neighborhood in Chicago, tripped and fell down the steps of an “L” train stop and has fought against disabilities and health care costs ever since.
Sheila was attended the DC premiere and was a part of the panel discussion, along with the director, Linda Midgett, Adam Taylor from Bread for the World, and me, that followed the screening.
What also was true of each of the people profiled in the film is that falling into poverty made them feel alone. The line that most struck me was from Ronnie who, when speaking about himself and his wife, said, “We have no confidence in the future…and we worry about our kids.”
After the presidential debate last night, I doubt if the growing numbers of poor people in America feel less alone.
The political discussion today is only about who won the debate. But millions of people who are struggling financially (and otherwise) in America are not likely to feel that they did.
Presidential candidates could make it clear to those who are experiencing very hard times that they will not be left alone. But that didn’t come across last night, in the first presidential debate focused on domestic policy.
The competing narratives between Obama and Romney about tax policies, health care, the role of government, their focus on the middle class, and their differing arguments for economic growth now are being polled and debated as pundits and wonks try to determine to which candidate had the best performance and how it might affect the electoral numbers.
But one thing is certain about last night: there was no clarifying discussion about what the policies Obama and Romney debated will mean for the Americans who are struggling the most.
After watching The Line, what so many of us felt was a desire to reach out to the people who, with great candor and courage, swallowed their pride (and their privacy) and told their stories, revealing how hard their lives have become.
Conservative, liberal, neither or both —I believe many Americans would want to reach out to the people whose stories were told in The Line.
Clearly it is the mission of the church to tell and to show the millions of people who have fallen below the poverty line that they are not alone. Jesus clearly says, in the Matthew 25 that how we treat them is how we treat him.
I think we also want to live in a society that makes sure that people who are struggling with poverty are not left alone. That is the responsibility of all of us, and it is also part of the role of government.
The presidential candidates could make those who are hurting the most feel like they are not alone anymore. But that didn’t happen last night.
Journalists tell us at Sojourners that poverty is not a “sexy” issue in America — especially not at election time. Some told us that again on the day The Line premiered.
We had hoped for perhaps 100 screenings of The Line around the country. By the time the film began rolling Tuesday night, we had more than 1,600 screenings of the film scheduled across the country and around the globe — including nearly every state and continent, even as far away as Japan, New Zealand and Australia.
The tremendous response we are getting to this extraordinary film tells me that while the issue poverty in America may not be a top issue for our journalists and our politicians, it most assuredly is for a growing number of people of all faith traditions and none, across denominational, political, and cultural lines.
The stories in The Line explain why.
See the film, share it, talk about it, and help make this poverty — a fundamental moral issue that respects the health (and wealth) of the soul of our nation — a priority during this election season and beyond.
Jim Wallis is CEO of Sojourners, and the author of Rediscovering Values: A Guide for Economic and Moral Recovery and the forthcoming On God's Side: What Religion Forgets and Politics Hasn't Learned about Serving the Common Good, which will be released in February 2013. Follow Jim on Twitter @JimWallis or join him on Facebook HERE.
Voter Guide 2012 ELECTIONS
Questions about who is running for office, where and what their positions are? Questions about what else might be on the ballot? Check out this nonpartisan voter guide from WAMU covering the entire nation, click http://voterguide.wamu.org/
The First Presidential Debate & Five Takeaways From The First Presidential Debate 4OKT12
I was disappointed in Pres Obama's debate performance last night, I thought he allowed mitt robme romney to get away with the lies and deceptions he has been repeating while campaigning and failed to challenge him directly on his economic agenda, bain capital and outsourcing jobs to the prc china. Pres Obama can not repeat last night's performance in the remaining two debates if he wants to win this election. Here are two sane, sobering, realistic analysis of the debate from Robert Reich on HuffPost and NPR, and for commentary on what wasn't covered in the the debate see my post Why Obama Didn't Mention the 47 Percent Video & Who Didn’t Win the Presidential Debate? 4OKT12
.....
In Wednesday night's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor.
But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.
I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high -- he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.
Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.
The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our president must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates -- and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-first-presidential-de_1_b_1938720.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Mitt Romney may have given his campaign something of a reset with his performance in the first debate against President Obama.
He appeared more comfortable on stage than the incumbent, and was able at least to lay the groundwork for a message of bipartisanship that could appeal to remaining undecided voters.
Of course, it's not clear yet whether the debate will create enough momentum to offer Romney an advantage heading into the next debate, let alone through Election Day. Perhaps some of the inevitable post-debate fact checking will challenge Romney's credence on certain points.
But it's notable that Obama failed to do much of that himself, launching far fewer attacks during the debate than his aggressive campaign advertising strategy suggested he might.
Here's a quick review of five takeaways from the first debate in Denver:
Obama Looked Tired And Sounded Defensive
Obama's advisers noted before the debate that the president was having a hard time finding much unbroken debate practice time, and much of what he did have was devoted to boiling down his positions to fit the time limits. All of this showed.
Romney looked straight at his opponent, often wearing a confident Mona Lisa grin. Obama looked down at his notes or over at the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, only occasionally looking directly into the camera.
Aside from his body language, some of Obama's answers came across as wonky. Both men offered laundry lists of their ideas, but Obama failed to craft a compelling case for his own record or second-term agenda, instead repeating complaints that he had inherited a mess.
What's more, he failed to go after Romney aggressively. There was no mention of Bain Capital or Romney's dismissive videotaped comments about the "47 percent" of Americans who are dependent on government.
Only in the last 20 minutes of the 90-minute debate did Obama land much of a blow, complaining that Romney was keeping the specifics about his tax plans and his approaches to health care and banking regulation too much a secret.
Romney Grasped The Mantle Of Bipartisanship
Romney said he didn't want to lay out anything other than broad principles during the campaign, because he found out as Massachusetts governor that a "my way or the highway" approach doesn't win over legislators.
Even before Lehrer had made "partisan gridlock" the subject of his final question, Romney stressed the importance of bipartisanship. He said that something as important as the federal health care law should have been passed on a bipartisan basis (it received essentially no GOP support) and paid homage to the working relationship of Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill in the 1980s.
"I had the great experience — it didn't seem like it at the time — of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat," Romney said, "and that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done."
Given consistent Republican opposition to Obama in Congress — some have called it obstructionism — no doubt Democrats will question the sincerity of Romney's embrace of bipartisanship. But it's a message that could be welcomed by voters, particularly centrist independents.
You're A Drinking Game Winner If You're Middle Class
Both candidates were at pains to pay tribute to members of the middle class, again and again. Each referred to specific members of the middle class they had met along the campaign trail, who had gone back to school or were now out of work. Each insisted his plan would do more to help such people out and create middle-class jobs.
Obama argued that Romney's plans to cut taxes and increase military spending would necessarily cause the deficit to balloon or "burden" the middle class, because there would not be sufficient savings available to offset their cost by ending deductions or closing loopholes.
Romney insisted that his tax-cut plan would impose no such hardship. "I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families," he said.
When Candidates Have The Microphone, They'll Keep Talking
Romney sought to refute a study Obama had cited to show his tax package would hurt the middle class was wrong: "There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong," Romney said.
Many of the candidate's responses were like that: Sometimes arcane, often straying from the original question that Lehrer had asked. At one point, Romney used an education question to repeat a charge that Obama had squandered billions on unsuccessful green-energy programs.
Nearly all politicians use debate questions merely as jumping-off points, concerning themselves with highlighting policies they deem most important. Both men did that Wednesday, ignoring Lehrer's frequent invitations to confront or question their opponent directly, in favor of rattling off other arguments of their own.
Partly as a result, the debate's intended format, of 15-minute segments each covering six different topics, was broken almost immediately, leaving only three minutes for the final segment.
Lehrer struggled unsuccessfully to cut off the two candidates and redirect them to the supposed topic at hand. A stammering Twitter handle called @SilentJimLehrer went up during the debate, quickly attracting thousands of followers.
Democrats Will Want To Retool For Future Debates
For all his oratorical gifts, Obama has sometimes struggled in debates. He was often out-mastered during the long series of debates during the Democratic primary season in 2008 and hasn't had much practice since then — except for his debates against Sen. John McCain in 2008.
Republicans, meanwhile, have been nearly salivating for months at the prospect of the vice presidential debate, which takes place on Oct. 11. They believe Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has the intellectual and rhetorical firepower to wipe the floor with Vice President Joe Biden.
That may prove to be wishful thinking. Ryan has put many of his own ideas on ice while serving as the loyal No. 2, while Biden is deeply versed in both domestic and foreign policy.
But Obama's lackluster performance — coupled with Biden's remark Tuesday that "the middle class ...has been buried the last four years" — will leave GOP partisans giddy with anticipation of next Thursday's debate.
http://www.npr.org/2012/10/04/162265100/five-takeaways-from-the-first-presidential-debate?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20121004
.....
In Wednesday night's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor.
But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan -- awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.
I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high -- he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.
Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.
The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our president must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates -- and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor.
Follow Robert Reich on Twitter: www.twitter.com/RBReich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/the-first-presidential-de_1_b_1938720.html?utm_source=Alert-blogger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Email%2BNotifications
Five Takeaways From The First Presidential Debate
Enlarge Charlie Neibergall/AP Republican
presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Obama talk after the
first presidential debate at the University of Denver on Wednesday.
He appeared more comfortable on stage than the incumbent, and was able at least to lay the groundwork for a message of bipartisanship that could appeal to remaining undecided voters.
Of course, it's not clear yet whether the debate will create enough momentum to offer Romney an advantage heading into the next debate, let alone through Election Day. Perhaps some of the inevitable post-debate fact checking will challenge Romney's credence on certain points.
But it's notable that Obama failed to do much of that himself, launching far fewer attacks during the debate than his aggressive campaign advertising strategy suggested he might.
Here's a quick review of five takeaways from the first debate in Denver:
Obama Looked Tired And Sounded Defensive
Obama's advisers noted before the debate that the president was having a hard time finding much unbroken debate practice time, and much of what he did have was devoted to boiling down his positions to fit the time limits. All of this showed.
Romney looked straight at his opponent, often wearing a confident Mona Lisa grin. Obama looked down at his notes or over at the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, only occasionally looking directly into the camera.
Aside from his body language, some of Obama's answers came across as wonky. Both men offered laundry lists of their ideas, but Obama failed to craft a compelling case for his own record or second-term agenda, instead repeating complaints that he had inherited a mess.
What's more, he failed to go after Romney aggressively. There was no mention of Bain Capital or Romney's dismissive videotaped comments about the "47 percent" of Americans who are dependent on government.
Only in the last 20 minutes of the 90-minute debate did Obama land much of a blow, complaining that Romney was keeping the specifics about his tax plans and his approaches to health care and banking regulation too much a secret.
Romney Grasped The Mantle Of Bipartisanship
Romney said he didn't want to lay out anything other than broad principles during the campaign, because he found out as Massachusetts governor that a "my way or the highway" approach doesn't win over legislators.
Even before Lehrer had made "partisan gridlock" the subject of his final question, Romney stressed the importance of bipartisanship. He said that something as important as the federal health care law should have been passed on a bipartisan basis (it received essentially no GOP support) and paid homage to the working relationship of Republican President Ronald Reagan and Democratic House Speaker Tip O'Neill in the 1980s.
"I had the great experience — it didn't seem like it at the time — of being elected in a state where my legislature was 87 percent Democrat," Romney said, "and that meant I figured out from day one I had to get along and I had to work across the aisle to get anything done."
Given consistent Republican opposition to Obama in Congress — some have called it obstructionism — no doubt Democrats will question the sincerity of Romney's embrace of bipartisanship. But it's a message that could be welcomed by voters, particularly centrist independents.
You're A Drinking Game Winner If You're Middle Class
Both candidates were at pains to pay tribute to members of the middle class, again and again. Each referred to specific members of the middle class they had met along the campaign trail, who had gone back to school or were now out of work. Each insisted his plan would do more to help such people out and create middle-class jobs.
Obama argued that Romney's plans to cut taxes and increase military spending would necessarily cause the deficit to balloon or "burden" the middle class, because there would not be sufficient savings available to offset their cost by ending deductions or closing loopholes.
Romney insisted that his tax-cut plan would impose no such hardship. "I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families," he said.
When Candidates Have The Microphone, They'll Keep Talking
Romney sought to refute a study Obama had cited to show his tax package would hurt the middle class was wrong: "There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong," Romney said.
Many of the candidate's responses were like that: Sometimes arcane, often straying from the original question that Lehrer had asked. At one point, Romney used an education question to repeat a charge that Obama had squandered billions on unsuccessful green-energy programs.
Nearly all politicians use debate questions merely as jumping-off points, concerning themselves with highlighting policies they deem most important. Both men did that Wednesday, ignoring Lehrer's frequent invitations to confront or question their opponent directly, in favor of rattling off other arguments of their own.
Partly as a result, the debate's intended format, of 15-minute segments each covering six different topics, was broken almost immediately, leaving only three minutes for the final segment.
Lehrer struggled unsuccessfully to cut off the two candidates and redirect them to the supposed topic at hand. A stammering Twitter handle called @SilentJimLehrer went up during the debate, quickly attracting thousands of followers.
Democrats Will Want To Retool For Future Debates
For all his oratorical gifts, Obama has sometimes struggled in debates. He was often out-mastered during the long series of debates during the Democratic primary season in 2008 and hasn't had much practice since then — except for his debates against Sen. John McCain in 2008.
Republicans, meanwhile, have been nearly salivating for months at the prospect of the vice presidential debate, which takes place on Oct. 11. They believe Romney's running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, has the intellectual and rhetorical firepower to wipe the floor with Vice President Joe Biden.
That may prove to be wishful thinking. Ryan has put many of his own ideas on ice while serving as the loyal No. 2, while Biden is deeply versed in both domestic and foreign policy.
But Obama's lackluster performance — coupled with Biden's remark Tuesday that "the middle class ...has been buried the last four years" — will leave GOP partisans giddy with anticipation of next Thursday's debate.
Close Read: NPR Reporters Examine Denver Debate
Our team provides analysis and checks the facts behind the candidates' statements in Denver.Election 2012
Obama, Romney Clash Repeatedly Over Taxes
In a 90-minute debate, Romney aggressively challenged the president on his record.http://www.npr.org/2012/10/04/162265100/five-takeaways-from-the-first-presidential-debate?ft=3&f=1001&sc=nl&cc=nh-20121004
Turkey authorizes military action in Syria after mortar attack that killed civilians 4OKT12
SYRIA is playing with fire with it's attacks against Turkey. Continued violations of Turkish territory, especially if they result in injury or death of Turkish civilians and / or members of the Turkish military, will result in retaliation from Turkey and possibly NATO. assad is loosing control of the Syrian military and nation, over 30000 Syrians have died in the civil war, tens of thousands of Syrians are refugees in Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon, and the civil war is destroying the infrastructure of Aleppo, Damascus, and every other city, town and village in the country. The possibility of a regional war increases with each day assad clings to power. From the Washington Post....
Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay told the Associated Press that the 320-129 vote “is not for war,” but is intended to deter Syria from further violence that could spill over the border.
Even before the vote, Turkey launched artillery attacks against Syria Wednesday night and Thursday in retaliation for the deaths of its five civilians, marking the most serious escalation in international tensions since the Syrian revolt erupted 19 months ago.
Though this was not the first time the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Turkey since Syrians rose up in revolt against President Bashar al-Assad last year, the five people killed Wednesday after a shell launched by the Syrian military crashed into the Turkish border town of Akcakale were the first Turkish civilians to die.
Within hours, Turkey’s military retaliated with artillery strikes against unspecified targets, according to a brief statement issued by the office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
“Our armed forces in the border region responded immediately to this abominable attack in line with their rules of engagement; targets were struck through artillery fire against places in Syria identified by radar,” the statement said.
The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted activists in the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad on Thursday as saying that an unspecified number of Syrian soldiers were killed by early-morning Turkish artillery fire that struck a military base.
Amid growing international concerns that the conflict could escalate further, Syria’s ally Russia on Thursday urged Syria to publicly admit that its forces had fired the shell that killed the civilians.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the Syrian authorities had told him the incident “was a tragic accident and that it will not happen again,” the Russian news agency RIA quoted him as saying during a visit to Islamabad.
“We think it is of fundamental importance for Damascus to state that officially,” he added.
Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi told state television late Wednesday that the government was investigating the source of the gunfire, but he did not acknowledge Syrian responsibility.
“In case of border incidents that occur between any two neighboring countries, countries and governments must act wisely, rationally and responsibly,” Zoubi said.
NATO, of which Turkey is a member, met in emergency session Wednesday at Turkey’s request and issued a strongly worded statement calling the Syrian shelling “a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies.” Although NATO pledged to continue to “stand by Turkey,” it proposed no immediate action.
U.S. reaction
In Washington on Wednesday, the White House also condemned the Syrian shelling and affirmed the United States’ solidarity with Turkey. “We stand with our Turkish ally and are continuing to consult closely on the path forward,” spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Pentagon spokesman George Little condemned what he called “the depraved behavior of the Syrian regime.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated the United States’ support for Turkey in a telephone call with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu and pledged that the United States would stand by Turkey in any future discussions of the crisis at the United Nations, according to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.
Turkey sent a letter to the United Nations calling on the Security Council “to take necessary action to put an end to such acts of aggression.”
Turks, however, have expressed little appetite for a war with Syria, and Syria’s government has no interest in provoking international military intervention in a conflict that it still believes it can win.
“This is a gesture, not a war,” said Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University, referring to the Turkish retaliation.
Erdogan has repeatedly made bombastic statements about Syria, and the first deaths of Turkish civilians left him with little choice but to retaliate, Barkey said.
“The Turks don’t want to go to war,” he said. “They don’t want to do this by themselves, and there is absolutely no support at home for a war.”
The incident nevertheless pointed to the dangers of a conflict that has already polarized the region, stirring ancient rivalries and newer enmities.
“This is the latest manifestation of a worsening situation,” said Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “This is not the only place it is spilling over. It is spilling over into Jordan, into Lebanon. They’re shelling on a daily basis. The difference today is it’s the first time we have a country calling Assad out.”
In a statement issued before the Turkish retaliation, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued an appeal for restraint, warning that the incident demonstrated the risks the violence in Syria poses to the region.
“Syria’s conflict is threatening not only the security of the Syrian people but increasingly causing harm to its neighbors,” he said.
Tension comes to a head
The strike followed more than a year of growing hostility between Turkey and Syria, former allies who have turned into bitter foes since Erdogan joined his Western allies in calls for Assad to step down.
The tensions soared sharply after Syria shot down a Turkish jet in June, killing two pilots over international waters, according to Turkey, and within Syrian territorial waters, according to Syria.
Meanwhile, a surge in the levels of violence in Syria over the summer months has propelled tens of thousands of refugees into Turkey, straining government resources and heightening government frustrations with the failure of its Western allies to take tougher action against Assad.
The number is likely to grow as the violence continues to rage. A suicide attack in Aleppo on Wednesday, which killed 34 people, signaled that the rebels are growing more sophisticated in their strikes against government targets, at a time when the regime is stepping up its assaults against rebel-held areas with aerial bombardments.
According to state media, two suicide bombers detonated car bombs containing more than 2,000 pounds of explosives in the city’s central Saadallah al-Jabri square shortly after 8 a.m., killing 34 people and injuring 122.
A third explosion nearby occurred while officers were dismantling a bomb, according to the official Syrian Arab News Agency.
The target, apparently a military officers club, was completely demolished. The blasts also caused widespread damage to the surrounding area, ripping the facades off several buildings. State television showed the bodies of three men wearing military uniforms lying amid piles of debris.
SANA said civilians and military personnel were among those killed, but rebels claimed that all of the victims were members of the security forces, saying that the area represented a legitimate target because it had been turned into what rebel spokesman Mohammed al-Halbi called “a military barracks.” High-ranking officers were living at the officers club, and two government-owned hotels damaged in the blast were being used to accommodate Syrian and Iranian intelligence operatives, he said.
Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Jabhat al-Nusra, a militant group that has carried out a string of suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo in recent months.
Colum Lynch at the United Nations, Ahmed Ramadan and Suzan Haidamous in Beirut and James Ball, Anne Gearan, Scott Wilson and Craig Whitlock in Washington contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-again-shells-syria-to-retaliate-for-mortar-attack-that-killed-civilians/2012/10/04/ff256bcc-0e0b-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_print.html
By Liz Sly
BEIRUT — Turkey’s parliament voted Thursday to authorize military cross-border operations into Syria, a day after an apparently errant mortar strike from inside Syria killed five Turkish civilians.Deputy Prime Minister Besir Atalay told the Associated Press that the 320-129 vote “is not for war,” but is intended to deter Syria from further violence that could spill over the border.
Even before the vote, Turkey launched artillery attacks against Syria Wednesday night and Thursday in retaliation for the deaths of its five civilians, marking the most serious escalation in international tensions since the Syrian revolt erupted 19 months ago.
Though this was not the first time the Syrian conflict has spilled over into Turkey since Syrians rose up in revolt against President Bashar al-Assad last year, the five people killed Wednesday after a shell launched by the Syrian military crashed into the Turkish border town of Akcakale were the first Turkish civilians to die.
Within hours, Turkey’s military retaliated with artillery strikes against unspecified targets, according to a brief statement issued by the office of Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.
“Our armed forces in the border region responded immediately to this abominable attack in line with their rules of engagement; targets were struck through artillery fire against places in Syria identified by radar,” the statement said.
The British-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights quoted activists in the Syrian border town of Tal Abyad on Thursday as saying that an unspecified number of Syrian soldiers were killed by early-morning Turkish artillery fire that struck a military base.
Amid growing international concerns that the conflict could escalate further, Syria’s ally Russia on Thursday urged Syria to publicly admit that its forces had fired the shell that killed the civilians.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said the Syrian authorities had told him the incident “was a tragic accident and that it will not happen again,” the Russian news agency RIA quoted him as saying during a visit to Islamabad.
“We think it is of fundamental importance for Damascus to state that officially,” he added.
Syria’s Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi told state television late Wednesday that the government was investigating the source of the gunfire, but he did not acknowledge Syrian responsibility.
“In case of border incidents that occur between any two neighboring countries, countries and governments must act wisely, rationally and responsibly,” Zoubi said.
NATO, of which Turkey is a member, met in emergency session Wednesday at Turkey’s request and issued a strongly worded statement calling the Syrian shelling “a flagrant breach of international law and a clear and present danger to the security of one of its Allies.” Although NATO pledged to continue to “stand by Turkey,” it proposed no immediate action.
U.S. reaction
In Washington on Wednesday, the White House also condemned the Syrian shelling and affirmed the United States’ solidarity with Turkey. “We stand with our Turkish ally and are continuing to consult closely on the path forward,” spokesman Tommy Vietor said.
Pentagon spokesman George Little condemned what he called “the depraved behavior of the Syrian regime.”
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton reiterated the United States’ support for Turkey in a telephone call with Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davotoglu and pledged that the United States would stand by Turkey in any future discussions of the crisis at the United Nations, according to State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland.
Turkey sent a letter to the United Nations calling on the Security Council “to take necessary action to put an end to such acts of aggression.”
Turks, however, have expressed little appetite for a war with Syria, and Syria’s government has no interest in provoking international military intervention in a conflict that it still believes it can win.
“This is a gesture, not a war,” said Henri Barkey, professor of international relations at Lehigh University, referring to the Turkish retaliation.
Erdogan has repeatedly made bombastic statements about Syria, and the first deaths of Turkish civilians left him with little choice but to retaliate, Barkey said.
“The Turks don’t want to go to war,” he said. “They don’t want to do this by themselves, and there is absolutely no support at home for a war.”
The incident nevertheless pointed to the dangers of a conflict that has already polarized the region, stirring ancient rivalries and newer enmities.
“This is the latest manifestation of a worsening situation,” said Andrew Tabler of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. “This is not the only place it is spilling over. It is spilling over into Jordan, into Lebanon. They’re shelling on a daily basis. The difference today is it’s the first time we have a country calling Assad out.”
In a statement issued before the Turkish retaliation, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon issued an appeal for restraint, warning that the incident demonstrated the risks the violence in Syria poses to the region.
“Syria’s conflict is threatening not only the security of the Syrian people but increasingly causing harm to its neighbors,” he said.
Tension comes to a head
The strike followed more than a year of growing hostility between Turkey and Syria, former allies who have turned into bitter foes since Erdogan joined his Western allies in calls for Assad to step down.
The tensions soared sharply after Syria shot down a Turkish jet in June, killing two pilots over international waters, according to Turkey, and within Syrian territorial waters, according to Syria.
Meanwhile, a surge in the levels of violence in Syria over the summer months has propelled tens of thousands of refugees into Turkey, straining government resources and heightening government frustrations with the failure of its Western allies to take tougher action against Assad.
The number is likely to grow as the violence continues to rage. A suicide attack in Aleppo on Wednesday, which killed 34 people, signaled that the rebels are growing more sophisticated in their strikes against government targets, at a time when the regime is stepping up its assaults against rebel-held areas with aerial bombardments.
According to state media, two suicide bombers detonated car bombs containing more than 2,000 pounds of explosives in the city’s central Saadallah al-Jabri square shortly after 8 a.m., killing 34 people and injuring 122.
A third explosion nearby occurred while officers were dismantling a bomb, according to the official Syrian Arab News Agency.
The target, apparently a military officers club, was completely demolished. The blasts also caused widespread damage to the surrounding area, ripping the facades off several buildings. State television showed the bodies of three men wearing military uniforms lying amid piles of debris.
SANA said civilians and military personnel were among those killed, but rebels claimed that all of the victims were members of the security forces, saying that the area represented a legitimate target because it had been turned into what rebel spokesman Mohammed al-Halbi called “a military barracks.” High-ranking officers were living at the officers club, and two government-owned hotels damaged in the blast were being used to accommodate Syrian and Iranian intelligence operatives, he said.
Responsibility for the attack was claimed by the Jabhat al-Nusra, a militant group that has carried out a string of suicide bombings in Damascus and Aleppo in recent months.
Colum Lynch at the United Nations, Ahmed Ramadan and Suzan Haidamous in Beirut and James Ball, Anne Gearan, Scott Wilson and Craig Whitlock in Washington contributed to this report.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkey-again-shells-syria-to-retaliate-for-mortar-attack-that-killed-civilians/2012/10/04/ff256bcc-0e0b-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_print.html
A GRAPHIC ANALYSIS OF LAST NIGHT'S PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 4OKT12
A graphic analysis of last night's presidential debate....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)