Thoughts on Tonight's Debate
Disclaimer: I identify as a "libertarian" - which I supposed probably makes my commentary biased. But, it makes it biased against both candidates that were allowed to debate, so I suppose I'm at least "balancedly biased".
So, in no particular order:
(1) The debate lacked "clash", for the most part. Example: in their opening points, they gave almost exactly the same list of priorities. Energy, deficits, education, small business. Median voter theorem anyone?
(2) I was surprised that Gov Romney did so well and that Pres Obama didn't do better than he did. I'm used to Romney saying stupid things ("stupid" here just meaning "politically unwise") and Obama appearing very polished. Romney managed to avoid any obvious political idiocy, and Obama seemed a little off his game.
(3) Debate fact-checkers show that both candidates were twisting the truth. This is not a surprise. As one Facebook friend put it, Presidential debates are mostly about who the most convincing liar is.
(4) The clear loser of the debate: Jim Lehrer. Alternatively, the technician that didn't cut the microphones when the candidates went over their time limits.
(5) Another point that is clear - that was clear before the election - the political class doesn't care about the rules that they impose on themselves. In the conventions, we watched the people chairing the conventions blatantly disregarding the rules - for BOTH parties. Tonight, we watched both candidates blatantly disregarding time limits. And Gov Romney wants us to believe that he'll hold to Constitutional limits on government authority? The man can't keep his answers to two minutes. At least Pres Obama doesn't pretend to believe that the Constitution matters. So, it's less shocking that his "I had 5 seconds left" turns into 3 additional minutes of answer.
(6) Both candidates had serious failures in logic. Pres Obama talked about how efficient Medicare is - and then proceeded to claim that it would fail to compete with private insurers. Why? If it is really so much cheaper and offers such good care, then it would BEAT private insurers in competition. Gov Romney's failure in logic is a bit broader. He wants to balance the budget without raising taxes on anyone and without cutting anything except for PBS and Obamacare (which is projected to save money - in part because of the cuts that Romney specifically wants to prevent happening). On this point, Pres Obama is correct: the math doesn't add up. Of course, Pres Obama's math about his own plan is also a bit dodgy (see the link in #3 above for details).
There are lots of big questions out there for me...
Romney: If we're cutting tax rates and tax deductions and credits in a revenue neutral way, how do we guarantee that no individual person sees an increased tax burden? How do we cut the deficit if you refuse to cut entitlements at all, given that projections show entitlement spending ALONE outstripping tax revenue within 20 years? If regulation is as necessary as you say it is, what specific regulations do you have in mind?
Obama: How did you cut taxes for 98% of Americans when only about half pay income taxes at all, and 8% or more have been out of work? What was the return on investment for that $90 billion in green energy subsidies, given that many of those companies did go under? Why did a temporary stimulus plan lead to seemingly permanent deficits? If Medicare is so great and cheap, why don't we open it up to anyone who wants to pay a premium to be in it?
Anyway, neither candidate offered me a Cabinet position so they didn't change my mind about who I'm voting for. But, more of that when we get closer to the election.
So, in no particular order:
(1) The debate lacked "clash", for the most part. Example: in their opening points, they gave almost exactly the same list of priorities. Energy, deficits, education, small business. Median voter theorem anyone?
(2) I was surprised that Gov Romney did so well and that Pres Obama didn't do better than he did. I'm used to Romney saying stupid things ("stupid" here just meaning "politically unwise") and Obama appearing very polished. Romney managed to avoid any obvious political idiocy, and Obama seemed a little off his game.
(3) Debate fact-checkers show that both candidates were twisting the truth. This is not a surprise. As one Facebook friend put it, Presidential debates are mostly about who the most convincing liar is.
(4) The clear loser of the debate: Jim Lehrer. Alternatively, the technician that didn't cut the microphones when the candidates went over their time limits.
(5) Another point that is clear - that was clear before the election - the political class doesn't care about the rules that they impose on themselves. In the conventions, we watched the people chairing the conventions blatantly disregarding the rules - for BOTH parties. Tonight, we watched both candidates blatantly disregarding time limits. And Gov Romney wants us to believe that he'll hold to Constitutional limits on government authority? The man can't keep his answers to two minutes. At least Pres Obama doesn't pretend to believe that the Constitution matters. So, it's less shocking that his "I had 5 seconds left" turns into 3 additional minutes of answer.
(6) Both candidates had serious failures in logic. Pres Obama talked about how efficient Medicare is - and then proceeded to claim that it would fail to compete with private insurers. Why? If it is really so much cheaper and offers such good care, then it would BEAT private insurers in competition. Gov Romney's failure in logic is a bit broader. He wants to balance the budget without raising taxes on anyone and without cutting anything except for PBS and Obamacare (which is projected to save money - in part because of the cuts that Romney specifically wants to prevent happening). On this point, Pres Obama is correct: the math doesn't add up. Of course, Pres Obama's math about his own plan is also a bit dodgy (see the link in #3 above for details).
There are lots of big questions out there for me...
Romney: If we're cutting tax rates and tax deductions and credits in a revenue neutral way, how do we guarantee that no individual person sees an increased tax burden? How do we cut the deficit if you refuse to cut entitlements at all, given that projections show entitlement spending ALONE outstripping tax revenue within 20 years? If regulation is as necessary as you say it is, what specific regulations do you have in mind?
Obama: How did you cut taxes for 98% of Americans when only about half pay income taxes at all, and 8% or more have been out of work? What was the return on investment for that $90 billion in green energy subsidies, given that many of those companies did go under? Why did a temporary stimulus plan lead to seemingly permanent deficits? If Medicare is so great and cheap, why don't we open it up to anyone who wants to pay a premium to be in it?
Anyway, neither candidate offered me a Cabinet position so they didn't change my mind about who I'm voting for. But, more of that when we get closer to the election.