Gleaning Facebook: The Presidential Debate

Post 1:

Comments:

Dawn N Luke Andrews

Looks like a bag of empty rhetoric that better hold on tight because there is a rising tide about to sweep his smirking, adolescent behind right out of Washington

Terrell Shaw
You continue your astute, mature evaluations. I'm almost convinced Luke. Keep trying. 

Dawn N Luke Andrews
No delusions here....you are beyond reason in your adoration of this man. His behavior last night was evidence of his adolescent, petulant nature....smirking or scowling the whole time and looking far less presidential than his opponent. Fortunately, this will all be over in 2 weeks and we can begin a true recovery from the damage of the man-child in chief.

John Countryman
I appreciate the comic relief…

Steven Bell
a true recovery...ah

---------------

Post 2:

Great job, Mr. President. Romney played defense all night. Romney continues to deny his previous positions. And did I hear him right? Romney doesn't know Iran has a coastline?

Comments:

Greg McCary
Romney looked bad. He sounded tired. I think he lost it tonight.

Wanda Mulkey Dagraedt
Yep.. You're right on the coastline.

George Barton
I think I know where the Syria connection came from. During WWII, Iran was considered the USSR's path to the sea, to be re-supplied by the allies for their fight on the eastern front. The allies took over Iran and put the Shah in place to insure this route, and this was the beginnings of our problems with Iran. Romney just didn't quite remember this bit of history, but he was probably in the 8th grade when he learned it.

Patricia Canada
Terrell, I love you dearly. but if Obama is elected president the world will surely come to an end.

Terrell Shaw
If one listens to the right wing you'd think that, Pat. It's hilarious till you think of how sad it is that so many folks swallow that nonsense and really fear the fine young President who has led so ably through the recent economic crisis and also led the battle so successfully against al Qaeda.

Dan Bevels
Iran does in fact have a coastline. That's where our troops Biden was referring to were posted.

___________

Post 3:

"If the debate had continued another thirty minutes Romney would have endorsed the President." - (CNN guy whose name I can't remember)

Comment:

Howard Smith

Ain't that the truth!

___________

Post 4:

Comments:

Rodney Karstetter
The GOP is stating the President was trying to draw Mitt into a fight, but Mitt did not take the bait. LOL Drawing Mitt into a fight was not what Obama was doing. Why would Obama attempt to draw some one totally unqualified to be president into a fight. What President Obama was doing was clearly stating his record on Foriegn policy, and it is not the President's fault that Romney is so weak in foriegn affairs that all he could do was say he agreed with Obama, and his policies. It is not the President's fault that Mitt did not know that Iran was not a land locked country and it was Obvious that he was thinking of Iran as being Russia's access to the Sea. It was not the Presidents fault that Mitt's thinking of building up the Navy of pre WWII. The Presidents comments were so on point. "Govenor we have less horses and Bayonets" LOL this was a great revealing debate of how unqualified Romney is to be President.

J. Chris Lawler
And Obama is qualified? he has proven for the past 4 years he isn't.

Rodney Karstetter
J. I think you should stop watching FOX news and look into what the President has accomplished. The President has proven more qualified than the man he replaced these last 4 years. And tonight he has proven that Mitt is not remotely qualified to be the Commander and Chief when once again he did not mention the Veterans. He whole hartedly endorsed Obama tonight so you tell me then J. if Mitt agrees and Endorsed Obama's policies in foriegn policy and Obama is not qualified how scary then would it be to elect this guy. The Republicans should have ran a better candidate not this guy. So if you want what is right for this country and not what's right for the Republican Party who has moved to far to the right. The best choice in this election is Obama. This debate has shown this fact in bright neon flashing lights.

Terrell Shaw
Chris I sometimes wonder if my friends on the right live in a completely different realm. Four years ago:

- we were on the verge of depression

- al Qaeda was strong and Bin Laden was alive

- the US auto industry was on the verge of collapse

- our reputation in the world was at the lowest point at least since the early seventies.

- we were the only major industrialized nation without universal healthcare insurance.

- Mubarek & Gaddafi were in power

And the President's successes came despite unprecedented stonewalling by the Republicans.
And tonight the President was calm, friendly, thoughtful, factual, and forceful. His answers were responsive, eloquent, and accurate. Romney was weak, waffling from many previous stances, and came close to completely endorsing the President on foreign policy except for a few blatant untruths like the "apology" falsehood.

Rodney Karstetter
What these debates have truely proven imo is that Romeny is trying to show he relates to the middle class and the common man. However, his only experience he can draw upon is his youth when his father was making a better life for his family. It is amazing that his veiws of America are based not in the present but in the past. Obama strongly pointed that out tonight. Romney's policies for the milatary are from pre WWII, his views for the economy are from the 20s and his views on equal rights are that of the 50s. This is how Romney has to relate to the common man because he does not represent the common man of 2012.

This chart shows part of the change that President Obama pledged to seek and has, in fact, achieved. He and all his fellow Americans had hoped it could have been even more dramatic, but few of us realized the hole we were in during the winter of 2008-9.

Mitt/Rick/Newt, with straight faces, call the President's policies "job-killing". Check out the facts one more time boys.

The President's policies have not yet brought us to full-employment, but they have allowed us to make a dramatic turn in the right direction. We can argue the causality, but fact are facts. The trend changed in the President's first month and reached positive job growth by a year later. Now we've had two full years of positive job growth. All this despite constant stonewalling by the GOP.

January 20

One year from today George Bush and his policies will be history. One of my favorite bloggers has given her take on the major Republican and Democratic candidates to replace Bush. Her opinion seems to be that we have a "paltry choice".

My take is very different.

Ignoring, for the moment, their stands on the issues that face the country, I am very impressed with the field of candidates, by and large. All seven are smart and articulate and have been seriously involved in national public policy. I do not understand why anyone would feel that the candidates are any less able, articulate, sincere, or patriotic than previous fields of candidates in our history.

On the Republican side I was very unimpressed with those who seemed contenders before Iowa. McCain was considered out of it. The lackluster Guiliani led the polls. Another son of a politician with lots of money and not much else was contending. And there was an effort to fill the social conservative void with a disinterested Fred Thompson. Then Huckabee came out of nowhere (this coincided with hiring my niece) and McCain was reborn. Now we seem left with two quality candidates (Huckabee and McCain) and two politicians on the Republican side.

As I have said for months, I believe our major Democratic candidates - Clinton, Edwards, Obama, Biden, Dodd, and Richardson, are brilliant. Any one of them could take office today and do very well. Even our "fringe candidates" - Kucinich and Gravel - have contributed strongly to the debate. The eight have now been winnowed down to three contenders - Edwards, Clinton, and Obama.

I have long thought that a prime factor to be considered is the candidate's comfort in his own skin. The quintessential examples of Presidents who have had that confidence, sincerity, eloquence, and calm that I call "comfort in his own skin" are Ronald Reagan for the Republicans and Bill Clinton for the Democrats. On the Republican side Huckabee comes closest to that ideal. McCain lacks the easy eloquence of Huckabee but comes off as sincere. Romney and Guiliani fail the test, partly, perhaps, because they must campaign as more conservative socially, than they probably really are. In this year’s field John Edwards and Barack Obama stand out on the Democratic side (as did Biden earlier), though I think Hillary Clinton has begun to find a more genuine voice, as well.

All of the major candidates have ample experience to perform well as President. Huckabee and Romney were governors, Guiliani ran a big city governement for many years, And McCain has had a long career in Congress. On the Democratic side Obama has the shortest experience, as a state legislator and US Senator, but makes up for it in savvy, vision and eloquence. Edwards has been dealing with national issues through a term in the US Senate and two campaigns for President. Hillary Clinton has been in the thick of national issues during seven years as US Senator and as a partner to Bill Clinton during his service to Arkansas and to the nation.

None of the candidates is a lightweight. They all strike me as serious folk. All seem sincere patriots who will take the oath of office as a sacred trust. I have some reservation about Romney and Guiliani who seem a bit slippery to me -- Guiliani downright dangerous.

Unfortunately we are in a time when sincerity and patriotism are not enough. We need an inspiring leader who is willing to correct the mistakes of the past eight years while putting together a concensus that can make us one country again. I realize , of course, that no one can please the hateful Limbaughs or Coulters, but I believe the right candidate can unite a majority of us. Someone who will stand on principle but who will also be willing to reach across the aisle and compromise.

I have been an Edwards supporter since 2003, but I am excited at the prospect of either of the other two as our nominee, as well. I find Huckabee and McCain very likable but wrong on the issues. Romney and Guiliani are not likable to me, for whatever that’s worth.

Here's a rundown --

Edwards
Articulate, right on the issues, inspiring speaker, sincere, has been vetted through a national campaign. brilliant mind, strong vision for the future. He has the most completely delineated platform of any candidate. He is a committed husband and father. Unfortunately for us and for him the press decided to ignore him some time ago. Should he manage to pull out a victory in South Carolina, the press would barely mention him but instead blather about Clinton's loss and Obama would be declared the winner even if he were third, because of Clinton's loss. After all, when she won New Hampshire they had to talk about the fact that a majority voted "against" her even though a larger majority voted "against" each of the other candidates -- I suspect a majority of Democrats are like me and will be solidly behind the eventual nominee. I'm sticking with John Edwards through South Carolina, then I'll re-evaluate the situation before we in Georgia vote on February 5.

Clinton
Articulate, right on the issues, good speaker and getting better, unique experience as the partner of a wonderful president, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first woman with a serious shot at the White House. Cannot be further damaged by the Republican swift-boaters. I was intriged by her autobiography. She is about my age and shares much of my history as a baby-boomer and a reformed Republican. We were both greatly influenced by our experiences in Methodist Youth Fellowship. The cold calculation she is accused of in some quarters is simply an invention of the Republican smear machine. As an aspiring professional in the 70s, she had to have a formal exterior. Her dedication to her beliefs is evident and illustrated by her dedication to her marriage.

Obama
Beyond articulate - eloquent, right on the issues, a history of working “across the aisle”, brilliant mind, inspiring as the first black with a serious shot at the White House. He would represent a “passing of the torch” His supposed inexperience does not bother me. Our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, was less experienced. Like Obama he gained his experience in political debate. And like Lincoln, Obama is a poetic and inspiring orator.

Huckabee
Articulate, sincere, had the good sense to hire my brilliant niece as a close aide. BUT... has a crazy, dangerous, disastrous, plan to shift the greatest tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class via the so-called “fair tax”. Wrong on virtually all the issues: anti-choice, pro-constitutional amendments on marriage and abortion, would appoint more Alito/Scalia type justices, no sign he would extract us from Iraq. I won't hold the worst-five-o’clock-shadow-since-Nixon against him, but if I were Charmaine I'd give him an electric razor to use whenever the cameras are pointed the other way!

McCain
Less eloquent but sincere, dislikes Bush about as much as Democrats do, history of reaching across the aisle and treating opponents with respect. Gary Hart and Bill Cohen were his groomsmen.
BUT... is VERY conservative on almost all issues, something of a hothead, a war hawk, likely to appoint right wing judges. A record of infidelity in marriage.*

Romney
Articulate, slick, well-coifed, strong family values, BUT...
a Mormon (Yes, I know, I’m prejudiced. But a serious Mormon has to reject recorded history). A record of big changes of mind - admirably openminded or shamefully wishy-washy or crassly poll-driven, you pick.

Guiliani
It is hard for me to see any thing good about Guiliani, but I’ll try: he is pro-choice.
BUT... he would be the closest thing to a continuation of the present administration. The Bill of Rights would continue under attack, the country’s reputation would continue to be smeared, we could expect to see more cowboy adventures. A record of blatent infidelity in marriage.*

I think it is good for our democracy in 2008 that we have a strong field of candidates for both parties' nominations and that the nominations are not a foregone conclusion after Iowa and New Hampshire but instead we have a real competitive race. The candidates are having to defend their policies and positions to a big hunk of the country. There have been a LOT of "debates" and though they haven't matched the Lincoln-Douglas debates in depth or style, in the aggregate, they have given those paying attention a pretty good look at these guys.

May the best candidate win in each party.

And, please, may the Democrat win in November.


------

* I mention this personal failing only because some Republicans actually hold the infidelity of Hillary Clinton’s husband against HER, the one who stood by her husband and worked to save her marriage. Two of the major Republican candidates had notorious affairs and ditched assorted wives.

Romney: Coulter speech "a good thing"

Governor Mitt Romney believes that Jesus preached among the horse-riding!, steel-using!, pre-Columbian Indians and that Joseph Smith found some gold tablets with that whole astounding new chapter of history engraved on them (sometimes in King James' or Shakespeare's words a thousand years before either lived) -- I'll try not to hold that against him: Harry Reid shares those same strange beliefs. I personally know a number of fine up-standing folk who are Mormons. I happen to believe their religion is among the goofiest of major cults. But I would consider an otherwise level-headed Mormon for President if I shared his/her ethical, moral, and political views.

Despite my disbelief in Mormonism (Sorry Rachel, I respect your right to believe it, but it doesn't fly in my book of mixed metaphors), his astonishing religious beliefs do not disqualify Brother Mitt.

But Mr. Romney also believes that Ann Coulter occupying a prestigious conservative podium to rant about "faggots" is "a good thing". It is fine to afterwards admit to the outragegeousness of her comments, but you, Mr. Mitt, knew of her previous vile words. Any conservative who treats Ann Coulter as a legitimate spokesperson for his cause has lost his moral compass and I can no longer give his moral, ethical, or political judgments any credence. Period.