[Debate] Romney vs. Obama - 10/3/2012

Come on Donny, lol.

Not everything that happens is calculated brilliance by Obama.

 

Dude, this is basic political strategy. What do you have to gain by giving Romney the opportunity to clean up his mess in front of a national audience in primetime? This is not brilliant, it is elementary. When I say "calculated" I mean it wasn't coincidence. It does not mean it's some kind of masterstroke.

 

Just like it was strategy that he tanked the debate in national primetime to setup ads?

 

Never said, or even intimated that. You have me confused with another poster.

(Hint: it's mcmark, and in response to his post about that, I agreed with your assertion that "losing" the debate on purpose was silly)

 

quoted this yesterday morning (page 13):

the random andrewsullivan reader was spot on.

 

My bad. I did get you confused.

 

It was me!

But that really wasn't what I meant by being calculated. Just that I think Obama's team made a conscious effort not to be aggressive and let Romney hang himself by talking so much.

 

I know people are going to dispute this claim, because Obama had more time to speak, but I would be curious to see exactly how much each person actually said. Because Romney was talking much faster than Obama, and Obama stuttered and paused a ton. I think most people, if you polled them without showing them the clock, would say Romney dominated the mic. He just made better use of his time.

 

Don't forget that he even sounded like a douche when he made the statement:

"and I actually like you, Jim."

jerk

 

Yes, I have 2. Do they watch Seasame St, Arthur, Clifford, Curious George & Dinosaur Train? Yes. Would any of those shows go away without PBS? No.

It is freaking TV.

 

Because the average American is an idiot.

 

I disagree with you.

I didn't ignore the point, but you ignored mine. I've actually thought it was completely funded through donations and sponsors. Still always seemed pointless.

 

So you don't care if they are bombarded by commercials? I certainly did when mine were of an age for those programs, and was grateful that I had a choice.

 

What point did I ignore, that it's "crap"? That "money could be better spent on schools and food!" - that's a slogan, not an argument.

The point is that public broadcasting uses a public resource to provide a public good which has produced a number of positive externalities. That's the kind of thing governments are supposed to do.

The slackjawed knuckle dragger argument that you've put about 4 seconds worth of thought into about "food" doesn't rebut this.

Obviously not, as you implied that it would not exist but for the publicly funded CPB - this is false.

 

:grin: That's what I am talking about.

 

The more time that passes it already looks like the big bird line is becoming the most memorable thing from the debate.

Romney doing well in a general sense is agreed upon, but I've heard no talk about any specific thing he said that was good.

What sticks with people is a quick one liner or phrase. In this case Romney's big bird phrase seems to have the lasting power.

 

Yup.
Republican has been talking about cutting PBS for years but they always talked about artsy or nature programs that do not resonate with the "common" folks.
Mitt made a boo-boo trying to cut Big Bird. He will be hurt for that.

 

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the only competent journalist left at CNN today:

Get it, Soledad. You go girl.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MqiXVpskK3c" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

So to clarify, are you arguing that since most Americans are idiots, then any and every educational program must not be working?

 

That was great. Using his football coach example, a football coach would tell the running backs to run it down their throats, but a linebackers coach would tell them to let the other team score. Dumb.