Post-debate reaction

I’m kinda drunk, but not as drunk as the first debate. What’s your take? What are you hearing from the stalking heads?

All I know is I still hate Obama and Romney’s going to win.

About Woke Lola

Bitch, please.
This entry was posted in 2012 Elections. Bookmark the permalink.

239 Responses to Post-debate reaction

  1. DeniseVB says:

  2. Wine is definitely less deadly than beer, ftr.

  3. DeniseVB says:

    Wallace: If I had been on a desert island the past four years and just parachuted into this debate, I would have thought Romney was the President. LOL !

  4. What was up with the Obamas getting all up in the Romney family’s grill afterward?

    BTW, my house is nearly clean now. It was a productive debate.

  5. Lulu says:

    Fox is fact checking and it is not looking good for the Obama. Romney was right on three things he disagreed with Obama about.

  6. Erica says:

    Romney made a great point about the difference between investing in research and investing in specific companies. And that private capital investment is inhibited in any given company when the government is investing in its competitor.

  7. DeniseVB says:

    The Hammer up next on FNC.

  8. I thought that Romney was terrific—-simply terrific. He started out nervous, but settled down after awhile and did well. Obama had the same burden as always—defending his indefensible record. And he looked desperate.

    I just heard Chris Wallace say that if someone had been on a deserted island for the past 4 years and came back to watch this debate they would have thought that Romney was the president and Obama was the one trying to become the president—

    hahahahahahahahahahaha

    • wyntre says:

      Yeah. Heard that. Great analogy. And Wallace is a leftie.

    • cj says:

      I thought it was interesting that Wallace said it was Romney who decided on the no-offense strategy he used tonight. I think it was probably the best way to go, even if he let Obama off the hook on Libya, Israel…well, pretty much everything.

      His closing was a knock out though. I think he’ll keep the momentum going.

      • ME says:

        I read on Hillaryis44 (or somewhere else) that Romney advisers said that Libya attacks were polling badly. I think this was his strategy, we may not like “missed opportunities” but I think he did his job. He’s an excellent closer. The GOP should really feel awful for how they treated him.

  9. wyntre says:

    Mitt didn’t hit it out of the park but he held his own, remained presidential, warmed up as the night went on and gave a great closing.

    My score, Mitt won.

    • angienc says:

      Objectives are what is important — this was a follow up interview for Romney — he’s already proven himself presidential; just needed to reaffirm it. Obama had to make Romney look like a warmonger. Clear win for Romney.

      • wmcb says:

        Romney was pitch perfect on the warmonger trap. Strength without apology, but not belligerence.

      • cj says:

        Exactly. This was Barry’s last chance to get voters to fear a Romney presidency on foreign policy & it failed as miserably as the millions he spent smearing him on his domestic policy.

      • Underwhelmed says:

        And also, FP is about diplomacy as much as anything. Getting up in people’s faces at the negotiating table doesn’t actually help. Walk softly, carry a big stick.

  10. Hahaha!

  11. wmcb says:

  12. angienc says:

    FYI — Romney’s Op-Ed on Detroit was titled “A New Way Forward for Detroit” –NYT changed title to “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt.” And Obama was 100% wrong on Romney’s position. Here is link to piece:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=1&

  13. threewickets says:

    Thought Romney won pretty handily. We’ll see how it played in Ohio.

  14. Erica says:

    Obama closes with his usual stump speech. He is such a liar. I can’t believe he uses the phrase “keep faith with our troops.” and “I will work every single day to make sure the US is the strongest nation on earth.” Does he think nobody’s been paying attention.

  15. wmcb says:

    Obama flat out lied on Mitt’s GM bailout comments and op ed. He said was ok to ask for govt help, but GM needed a PLAN that was a win-win. That is done via managed bankruptcy.

  16. DM says:

    I don’t want to jinx it, but I think the SF Giants bagged the 7th game.

  17. catarina says:

    Glad to see Obama got a plug in for the ‘First Lady’s Joining Forces Program.”
    She’ll continue to volunteer her time and run that after Mitt puts them out. Right???

    • Erica says:

      Probably not. You know, when Obama gets a new post in Hawaii, her job will be phased out like it was in the hospital in Chicago.

  18. carol haka says:

    3 guys in line to vote today were Navy. 2 were in waters outside Cuba during Bay of Pigs. One said he was on Intrepid, I don’t remember the other ship’s name. They all read “Killing Kennedy” – said it was great. 👿

  19. angienc says:

    • DeniseVB says:

      This! I think the Romney internals were telling him to rise above President Interruptus and throw his qualifiers on the table.

      He achieved that tonight.

      Here’s Luntz……………

  20. Lulu says:

    Romney went large and Obama went very, very small (petty) per Dr Kraut.

  21. carol haka says:

    Palin and bolling on Hannity.

  22. wmcb says:

  23. bluestate says:

    i thought romney had a more clearer win to my eyes than he did in the first debate

  24. swanspirit says:

  25. driguana says:

    Two points that astounded me: 1) that the president does not understand the issues of troop withdrawl from Iraq…and that the “war” in Iraq, in fact, is not over; and, 2) that the president, trained as a lawyer, clearly does not understand how a managed bankruptcy works….astounding. Can’t wait to vote tomorrow!

    • wmcb says:

      Yep. I don’t 100% trust Romney, but Obama is fucking clueless.

      • DM says:

        I would think that Romney devoted more time to corporate law than Obama. That’s understandable. Business degrees also have different branches. Someone who goes into marketing, would have just the basics of finance and would not be able to have a good discussion with someone who studied finance.

      • DeniseVB says:

        Last 2x I 100% trusted a candidate ? Carter and Edwards. Never again. 😉

    • DM says:

      Law has several branches, and corporate law is the one that deals with bankruptcies. Though he may know a few basics about bankruptcies, I doubt he has a good grasp on that area of law.

      • wmcb says:

        Oh, baloney. The average intelligent businessperson displays more understanding of how bankruptcy works than Obama. It has Jack All to do with what type of law he practiced.

        • Mary says:

          Most Americans, even those without law degrees , know that under bankruptcy law, investors & bondholders (ie pension funds, etc) get first re-payment, according to 100 years of established business law.

          Obama? Nah. The investors got screwed. The unions got all the money.

          Paybacks for crony supporters. NOT legit business law.

      • angienc says:

        Actually I do bankruptcy law — it’s isn’t part of corporate law, it has it’s own code (US Federal Bankruptcy Code). Because of that, it is pretty straight forward — if you are the POTUS & want to deal with GM being in trouble, it isn’t that difficult to do a quick study of Collier’s (the leading bankruptcy law treatise) & know all you need in 5 hours — which is the average time Obama spends on golf course.

    • myiq2xu says:

      BK is an elective that isn’t tested for the bar exam.

  26. Lulu says:

    The sequester will not happen Obama said. Now WH is saying “should” not happen and correcting Obama.

  27. swanspirit says:

    The message from Romney tonight was, the country will be safe in my hands , you can trust me to run the country .

  28. myiq2xu says:

    Giants lead 8-0 in the 8th

  29. wmcb says:

  30. Lulu says:

    The focus group on Fox are yelling and fighting. LOL

  31. britgirls says:

    Wow … gonna be a brawl between Luntz’s dunces!!!

  32. tommy says:

    Hmm…..CBS instant poll : O-53, R-23, Tie-24

  33. holy crap Luntz focus group losing it!

  34. cj says:

    Luntz is losing control of his focus group.

  35. Lulu says:

    Republican talking point is Obama is “small”, petty. Rubio is rolling it out.

  36. DM says:

    I thought Romney pulled a few “obamas” in this debate with “I agree with what he says”.

  37. myiq2xu says:

    Rubio looks like Romney’s mini-me.

  38. catarina says:

    I like to think that afterwards, Luntz’s focus groups are drugged and dropped off in Mexico. <a

  39. cj says:

    David Burge @iowahawkblog

    I like to think that afterwards, Luntz’s focus groups are drugged and dropped off in Mexico. #letmehavemyillusions

  40. swanspirit says:

  41. myiq2xu says:

    HOME RUN FOR BRANDON BELT!!!

    GIANTS LEAD 9-0

  42. wmcb says:

  43. tommy says:

    The MSM is now spinning this as O the ‘comeback kid’.

  44. DM says:

    I took my cap off. I think it’s safe now.

  45. I’m out. Time for low-salt peanuts and an episode of 30 rock in the mafia bed. Hubby at work. I have the bed all to myself. ♥

  46. DM says:

    I’m glad the rain waited to come down late in the game.

  47. britgirls says:

    CNN asks “Who was more likable?”

    48 % O and 47 % R

  48. angienc says:

    CNN debate Poll: Can O handle job of Cmdr. in Chief? Yes: 63%. Can R? Yes: 60%. A draw on that Q

  49. Lulu says:

    Lutz and the crazy people up next.

  50. catarina says:

    Obama’s polling as the winner because the viewers wanted excitement and Romney stayed in control.
    Sorry folks, no blood drawn tonight. But Romney was smart to act the grownup.

    • angienc says:

      CNN admitted at last debate that the only “undecideds” left that they could find are people who voted for Obama in 2008, so there’s that too.

      • catarina says:

        Those aren’t the undecideds, they’re the embarrassed!
        IMHO (or not) Romney did great. He gave them nuthin.
        No ad material, nuthin. Ha.

  51. myiq2xu says:

    THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT! THE GIANTS WIN THE PENNANT!

    OH MY GOD THE GIANTS WIN IT!

  52. taw46 says:

    Once again, it was nice to watch and listen to President Romney. Good night, all.

    • britgirls says:

      Night all! I’m outta here, too.

    • bluestate says:

      romney was great. of course the media will attempt to spin the obama comeback. it’s not gonna fly. the media tried to claim biden won as well. romney won the first, tied the second, won the last. the end.

      • bluestate says:

        if romney had handled that libya answer a little better in the second, i think he would’ve won the second as well. it was kind of a setup though with candy getting involved.

    • Lulu says:

      I think it is becoming clearer that uncommitted voters are really just voters that don’t want to vote for Obama but for whatever reason (too little info, difficulty making decisions, etc.) haven’t committed to Romney. I think Obama has reached his ceiling of support and his pollsters and advisers have told him this .

      • DM says:

        What you see with the polls is the normal when voters don’t want to reelect an incumbent. The incumbent has difficulty reaching the 50% mark, and unless the challenger is a total ass, like we seen in MO with Akin, the undecideds will break for the challenger.

  53. angienc says:

    Look at this! Politico leftist hack John Harris: Obama Diminished Himself As A Commander-In-Chief (Video) http://bit.ly/X5oNkK

    • Lulu says:

      “Obama was rude, snide and condescending in his frequent interruptions, cracks and facial expressions. You know it’s bad when a Politico leftist hack like John Harris says Obama diminished himself as Commander-In-Chief with his act during the debate.”

      The prospect of Obama losing is causing a new perception of him. In 2008 this would have been a plus but not when he is behind in the polls. Politico wants the Romney Administration on speaking terms with them or they have no website.

  54. DM says:

    MLB needs to stop playing baseball this late in the year. Baseball is for summer games.

  55. HELENK says:

    HERE YOU GO MYIQ

  56. eriezindian says:

    Loved Wallace’s and Hume’s evaluations and Krauthammer rules!!!

  57. DM says:

    That’s a beautiful trophy. Great job, Giants. You earned it.

  58. DM says:

    Giants have heart. Lots and lots of heart.

  59. catarina says:

    Juan Williams definitely smoked a doobie. Jeez, he looks like a vampire.
    Sorry Juan, Obama’s going down!

  60. angienc says:

    I’m going to bed — night all!

  61. yttik says:

    If you need a measure of how the debate went, most of the Obama supporters I know were really dreading it. They were not looking forward to watching it at all. Post debate the depression is even worse. Nobody wants to talk about it.

  62. Lulu says:

    Rove says Obama is too aggressive and contemptuous.

    • DM says:

      Obama lost the first debate because he believed that all he had to do was show up and walk all over Romney. That’s how contemptuous he is of Romney. That’s why Obama and Biden are always mocking Romney.

      • Lulu says:

        I think Obama thinks of most people that way. Rove is calling Obama Louis XIV. He is the state and the state is centered around him.

    • yttik says:

      Aggression is not strength. We’ve been saying this since 2008, being a bully doesn’t make you powerful and it sure doesn’t make you right. It just makes you a bully.

      Real strength is gentle and calm and it doesn’t have to argue with anybody.

      • DM says:

        I don’t see Obama as a bully but an underhanded dirty Chicago politician, using others to do his dirty work.

      • Erica says:

        “Real strength is gentle and calm and it doesn’t have to argue with anybody”

        and that’s exactly how Romney conducted himself.

  63. ME says:

    Mitt and Paul have excellent poker faces. Great for dealing with world leaders.

  64. lorac says:

    Debbe Whatshername on with Greta – I can’t stand her voice. Can’t someone teach her to not talk through her nose?

  65. swanspirit says:

    If the front page of the Huffingluepost is any indicator , those obots love that hateful glare of his YUK , i cannot bring myself to link to it

  66. DM says:

    It seems to me that Romney accomplished what he wanted, offer the voters someone who has the wisdom to carry the same policy as Bush and Obama. The difference is not policy but a president who’s engaged, not leading from behind.

    • yttik says:

      I don’t believe that at all. Romney opposed several things Bush did, the bail outs for the auto industry, for example. Romney’s policies are very different from both Bush and Obama’s.

      A president who is engaged is important, as is the ability to work cooperatively with others. You can have the best policies in the world but if you have no leadership skills, you’ll just create dead lock in congress and a whole slew of unintended consequences. Your policies will never see the light of day.

      • DM says:

        I was speaking of FP, not domestic. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear. I was talking about the debate.

        • DM says:

          My view is that on FP, there’s very little difference. If we were to examine in writing the two policies, one would find little difference. Obama is not engaged, other carry the policy. Without leadership, the policy is not effective. Romney will be more engaged.

        • DM says:

          others carry policies.

        • yttik says:

          I think there’s a huge difference in their foreign policy, also. I read Romney’s book and Obama’s and there is just no comparison when they talk about foreign policy.

        • DM says:

          I’m of the opinion that U.S. FP is stuck, changing in details, but not on goals. Whether is Europe, the ME, Asia or other developing nations, the policy established after WW2 stands unchanged. No president can change it because it’s not up to him to do so. The population, the military and the companies that benefit from the FP would fight any significant change. Even if Romney were to attempt to change current policy, he couldn’t. Changes occur when the other side changes. For example, when China was ready to change, Nixon went to China. U.S. policy. But it was China’s willingness to change that allowed Nixon to visit and change its policy towards China. The same thing with Russia. When it changed, our policy towards Russia changed.

        • DM says:

          For example, when China was ready to change, Nixon went to China. U.S. policy.

        • myiq2xu says:

          No president can change it because it’s not up to him to do so.

          Can you imagine if we adopted totally new foreign policies after every election? Our allies would hate it more than our enemies.

          • myiq2xu says:

            BTW – treaties (after signing and Senate approval) are considered law. POTUS is supposed to not only obey but enforce the law. (I say “supposed to” because the last couple of them were unclear on that concept.)

        • DM says:

          Exactly Myiq. A president has very little room to maneuver in FP. When one looks at the sanctions against Iran, many of those sanctions were imposed by congress. So whatever Obama or the next president does, must conform within the same framework that’s been in place since WW2.

  67. DM says:

    I borrowed this comment and link from another website. It’s worth considering

    22 Oct: Arutz Sheva: Former Mossad Chief Dumps on Romney over Iran as Election Issue
    HaLevy also urged direct Washington-Tehran talks on the Islamic Republic’s nuclear development program.
    The former Mossad director took potshots at Romney, whom he said has delivered “a heavy blow to the ultimate interests of the United States and Israel.”
    “Obama has placed emphasis on negotiations,” HaLevy told Laura Rozen, writing for the Al-Monitor website that focuses on Middle East affairs and Arab media.
    “In this current election for the U.S. presidency, his hands are tied,” HaLevy reasoned. “He cannot proceed, because he cannot appear soft on Israel’s security.
    “Negotiating with Iran is perceived as a sign of beginning to forsake Israel. That is where I think the basic difference is between Romney and Obama. What Romney is doing is mortally destroying any chance of a resolution without war. Therefore when [he recently] said, he doesn’t think there should be a war with Iran, this does not ring true. It is not consistent with other things he has said.”…
    During the interview, HaLevy said that his view that “engaging” the enemy in dialogue also should have applied to Hamas but that it is “too late now” because “In order to meet public opinion, both Israel and the U.S. governments have tied our own hands. There is a law…which prohibits U.S. officials from talking to Hamas…In the end, you create an inherent disadvantage for yourself.”
    http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/161183

    • Lulu says:

      I agree with Mr HaLevy except that a US president should have been doing this all along in his term and not leaking it to the NYT (as well as other sensitive information) when his polling was tanking and as a re-election ploy. Obama has shown the entire world that anything he does is usable as campaign fodder even if it is ruinous to negotiations and US interests. I watched the interview this weekend with the NYT shill who was fed the story about opening a negotiation with Iran and she would not have been able to suss it out on her own (she was cocksure and preening and proud to be an Obama tool). Blaming Romney for Obama’s idiocy is par for the course and Mr HaLevy should know better.

    • DM says:

      I visited an obot website and a commenter said something like: “what is wrong with ann, why is she clinging like a child to Mitt after the debate?” But the comment was written with hatred. I said that perhaps the m.s. was acting up due to the stress, and her balance was off. Obots will bring out the venom against anyone who forces their god to defend his record.

    • DM says:

      From that link this excerpt:

      It was Obama who appeared to be the challenger at times – a clear sign that he fears his re-election hopes are slipping away from him – hammering away at Romney, trying to belittle him and all but calling him a liar.
      Romney tried to remain above the fray and appeal to moderate and undecided voters. He was noticeably less tetchy than in the bad-tempered second debate in Hempstead, New York.
      But the Republican nominee hit home with a precise attack on Obama’s ‘apology tour’ of the Middle East in 2009, which seemed to rile Obama visibly. He said that the President had said he was sorry the U.S. had dictated to countries, adding: ‘Mr President we have not dictated to other nations, we have freed other nations from dictators’.
      The Romney campaign appeared confident in the aftermath of the debate, arguing that Obama was ‘shedding voters’ and was ‘trying to manage the rate of decline’ in support ahead of election day.

  68. westcoaster says:

    summary of the debate from 1.35 to 2.14 (Bugs Bunny and Napoleon):

  69. DM says:

    I have a dumb question for anyone who can answer. Who is the equivalent of Axelrod in the Romney campaign? Messina is Obama’s campaign manager, and Matt Rhoads is Mitt Romney’s campaign manager. How much is Axelrod in charge of Obama’s campaign? Is he a strategist besides being the communication director?

    • Karma says:

      IIRC, you have it pegged, and was recently discussed in the MSM how Rhoads was doing the job of three people in Obama’s campaign. I guess Plouffe is missing. But Obama did give Alexrod a tweek at the Al Smith dinner so I assume he’s the main guy.

      Here is a pretty good run down of the campaign structure. job titles, and their bios.

      http://www.p2012.org/candidates/obamaorg.html

      Romney’s

      http://www.p2012.org/candidates/romneyorggen.html

      When looking for the top two links found this, Matt Rhoads is infamous from the Florida 2000 election and the Brooks Brothers’ riot. Good, any campaign would need someone who knows dirty tricks to deal with the dirty tricksters from Chicago.

      http://www.baracksbackers.com/?p=1157

      • DM says:

        A fish rots from the head. The Obama campaign smeared Mitt’s personal character. I’m not aware of anything dirty that the Mitt campaign has used against Obama. While Matt may be capable of playing dirty tricks, I don’t believe that he has the okay to do that from Mitt.

        • Karma says:

          True. I haven’t seen any dirty tricks either. While Obama is dirty tricks all the time. If they put as much effort into playing it straight and working on policy, Obama might have been a success, with a real record to run on.

          Of course, requiring results would get in the way of all that pay-to-play cash floating around. So I guess that idea would be a non-starter.

  70. myiq2xu says:

    Another new record yesterday. 8791 hits.

  71. foxyladi14 says:

    Congratulations Giants. :mrgren:

Comments are closed.