I disagree with Hightower.

What you will find here is: a centrist's view of current events;
a collection of thoughts, arguments, and observations
that I have found appealing and/or amusing over the years;
and, if you choose, your civil contributions which will make it into a conversation.

He not busy bein' born, is busy dyin'. - Bob Dylan

Please refer to participants only by their designated identities.

suggestion for US citizens: When a form asks for your race, write in: -- American

Wednesday, October 3, 2012

The first debate

I think they both did well.  Romney succeeded in looking like a possible president.

I then watched PBS coverage and they thought that Romney did a little better.

I watched CNN now I understand that Romney was aggressive and  it was not good for the president, but he will come back.

I watched MSNBC and now I understand Obama was a disaster and looked horrible.
Why didn't he mention the 47%?  Why was he so tentative?  Why didn't he press back?
(Perhaps tomorrow they will realize that Romney was bullying both Obama and the moderator.)

CNN (they say scientific poll) 67-25 said that Romney won.  They now described it as a spanking,
but by winning he actually lost.

I couldn't bring myself to watch Foxnews.

As I said at the top, I realized long before it was over that Romney was winning big.


  1. What do you make of the argument that, simply by standing on the same stage as the president, Romney was certain to get a boost? As a young political observer who has only paid attention to a few presidential campaigns, this makes sense to me.

    1. That is the conventional wisdom and I agree with it.
      Romney did more than that here.

  2. Prior to the debate it was widely stated that debates don’t really mean much. I suspect that the results of the first debate will completely transform the perceived importance of the second presidential debate.