90.9 WBUR - Boston's NPR news station
Top Stories:
PLEDGE NOW
Mark Halperin And John Heilemann ‘Double Down’ On 2012 Elections

Swap Hillary for Biden? Mark Halperin and John Heilemann are back with “Double Down.” We’ll look at the 2012 campaign, 2013, 2016.

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney answers a question as President Barack Obama listens during the third presidential debate at Lynn University, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012, in Boca Raton, Fla. (AP)

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney answers a question as President Barack Obama listens during the third presidential debate at Lynn University, Monday, Oct. 22, 2012, in Boca Raton, Fla. (AP)

Election results 2013 are all over the headlines today.  Chris Christie, living large as a moderate Republican.  Democrat Terry McAuliffe slipping by Tea Partier Ken Cuccinelli in Virginia.  Tale of Two Cities Bill DeBlasio landsliding progressive in New York.  Political reporters Mark Halperin and John Heilemann are watching.  They know the big trends and the juicy stuff.  Wrote “Game Change” on the ’08 presidential campaign.  Now they’re out with “Double Down,” on Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and 2012.    Up next On Point:  all the juice on 2012, 2013, and the political road ahead.

– Tom Ashbrook

Guests

Mark Halperin, editor-at-large and senior political analyst at TIME Magazine. Co-author of “Double Down: Game Change 2012.” Also co-author of “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime.” (@MarkHalperin)

John Heilemann, national affairs editor for New York Magazine. Co-author of “Double Down: Game Change 2012.” Also co-author of “Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime.” (@JHeil)

From Tom’s Reading List

New York Times: Playing the Game Again, With an Insider’s Look at the Players — “The portraits of the players in campaign 2012 — from the candidates to their strategists to their big-money backers — are drawn in this volume with a light and snappy hand. The authors write that non-Mormon Romneyites found the feud between their man and the Republican hopeful Jon Huntsman Jr. ‘as impenetrable as a Tolkien subplot rendered in Elvish.’ They write that the Republican contender Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota had a reputation on the Hill for ‘churning through staffers as if they were disposable razors.’”

Politico: The Five Biggest Losers in “Double Down” — “Earlier in this presidency, Obama met with billionaire George Soros at the Waldorf as part of an unsuccessful bid to get him to open up his wallet for outside groups during the 2012 campaign, as he’d done in 2004. Soros talked Obama’s ear off for 45 minutes, giving the president unsolicited economic messaging advice. Obama was ‘annoyed and bored,’ according to the book. ‘If we don’t get anything out of him,’ Obama complained to aides afterward, ‘I’m never f-ing sitting with that guy again.’”

New York Mag: The Intervention — “The president’s advisers were barely more rattled. Yes, Denver had been atrocious. Yes, it had been unnerving. But Obama was still ahead of Romney, the sky hadn’t fallen, and they would fix what went wrong in time for the town-hall debate at Hofstra. Their message to the nervous Nellies in their party was: Keep calm and carry on.”

Read An Excerpt From “Double Down: Game Change 2012″ by Mark Malperin and John Heilemann

Please follow our community rules when engaging in comment discussion on this site.
  • Shag_Wevera

    I can’t imagine a sane person who wants to re-live that election. BO-RING!!!

    • Ray in VT

      Not when we can discuss the machinations going on for 2016. I just threw up in my mouth a little bit over the thought that that campaign has already begun.

  • NewtonWhale

    The Biggest Winner From Last Night’s Election? Obamacare

    Virginia’s Ken Cuccinelli — the loudest critic of health care reform — went down in defeat on Tuesday night, paving the the way for the “bellwether for national politics” to expand Obamacare to nearly 400,000 Virginians.

    McAuliffe said that “he would not sign a budget that did not include Medicaid expansion.” A majority of Virginia voters say they support the expansion.

    The expansion is a good deal for the state: analysis from the Commonwealth Institute for Fiscal Analysis in Richmond finds that “net savings from Medicaid expansion would average about $135 million per year in the upcoming budget cycle,” as state would now “use federal funds instead of state dollars for these programs that already provide care to the uninsured in Virginia.”

    Republican New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, the other big victor of Tuesday night’s election, argued that “Accepting these federal resources will provide health insurance to tens of thousands of low-income New Jerseyans, help keep our hospitals financially healthy and actually save money for New Jersey taxpayers.” He estimated it would save residents $227 million in the next fiscal year.

    http://thinkprogress.org/health/2013/11/06/2897531/nights-election-vindication-obamacare/

    • HonestDebate1

      Credit where credit is due to McAuliffe but Cuccinelli closed a 10+ point gap because of Obamacare’s implosion and the associated lies. Obamacare was the loser. So were the establishment Republicans. They spent 9 million dollars in 2009 and won by 17 points. This time they spent $3 million and lost by a hair.

      • NewtonWhale

        That’s the media narrative, but it’s not at all clear:

        In the CNN exit poll. 27% said “health care” was their most important issue. But the two candidates basically split those voters, with Cuccinelli holding a 4 point margin.

        http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-obamacare-pivot-the-race-in-va

        • HonestDebate1

          I suppose it’s impossible to know for sure but what do you think is the reason for the squeaker? Certainly the Obamacare rollout has shifted opinion across the board. It seems unlikely it had no influence on the race.

          • NewtonWhale

            I think it may have motivated more Republicans to turn out, while reports of McCauliffe cruising to an easy win may have depressed Democratic turnout.

            Bear in mind that last night’s exit poll showed that 53% of Virginia voters said they opposed Obamacare. That’s entirely in line with about three years of polling about the Affordable Care Act, and doesn’t indicate any last minute “surge” against the law.

            http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2013_11/tell_me_again_who_won_in_virgi047678.php

            (Overall 53% of Virginians opposed Obamacare and 46% supported it – though most other polls would suggest that a significant proportion of the opponents oppose it from the left and believe it should be expanded.)

            http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-obamacare-pivot-the-race-in-va

          • HonestDebate1

            I guess that’s a theory. Nationally there certainly has been a surge against Obamacare since the roll out. Maybe VA is different but I’m dubious. McAuliffe was up by 12 with only 5% undecided before the rollout. He won by less than 3%.

            Either way, McAuliffe won, congrats.

          • Ray in VT

            What is the evidence behind a national surge against the ACA? Polls don’t seem to reflect that.

          • Don_B1

            In fact, there were polls before the election showing that since the shutdown, Obamacare has increased in popularity some 4%, from about 44% to 48% (plus or minus a point, my memory!)

      • TFRX

        Anything that makes the GOP chant “(Losing Republican X) wasn’t conservative enough” is a win. Cos it’s such a losing gambit for the future, especially in swing states.

        (I don’t expect anything from Halperin to fight that fantasy.)

        • HonestDebate1

          I didn’t say that much less chant it. I don’t know much about Cuccinelli. I can see why you want Republicans to stick with the McCain/Romney type and avoid the GWB’s, Reagans and Bob McDonnells though.

          I’ve brought it up many times but no one ever responds, maybe you will. Romney won the independents (swing voters) big time, The base didn’t show up. How does that fit your premise.

          • TFRX

            I didn’t say you did.

            And you keep telling us your NotARepublican.

            The media has a fascination with not really examining the far right’s chant of “Any Republican X lost becuase they’re not ‘conservative’* enough”.

            Maybe all this “thebasethebase” stuff has convinced our Beltway Inbreds that are millions of swing-state Tea-Party types who haven’t yet shown up in polling numbers or at polling precincts.

            That mine has been played out. No more ore left in it.

            *Conservative is a word which used to have a meaning. Not any longer.

          • HonestDebate1

            Romney won Independents, no comment?

          • TFRX

            Yeah, so?

            Not enough Republicans in swing states because of the crazy Teabaggers destroying the GOP brand, maybe.

            TheBase votes don’t count double, as much as the mainstream press seems fascinated by Fox’s flogging of the value of the right’s base.

          • HonestDebate1

            So why do they need to pander to the swing voters if winning them loses the election. The base doesn’t count at all if they stay home. In 2012 they did.

          • TFRX

            Keep believing that the wingnut base is your wing’s future. It’s music to my ears.

          • HonestDebate1

            Accepting your premise, the wing nut base sure elected Obama.

          • TFRX

            Wingnut left?

            Here’s where you can say “I don’t know anything about Democrats” in the same way you said “I don’t know anything about Cuccinellli”.

          • J__o__h__n

            Enough of the base turned out to win the gerrymandered House seats. Romney lost the moderates. I hope the Republicans continue to focus on their shrinking old white Southern base.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            Maybe in some areas, but certainly not all areas. The independents aka unaffiliated voters way outnumber all other voters in some areas, and I think a majority of them went for President Obama.

          • HonestDebate1

            Nationwide Romney won Independents 50 to 45. The majority went to Romney.

          • TFRX

            When that directly turns into EVs you’ll have had a point.

            Good thing there are no white suburban married women in Texas who are getting their votes scrubbed because their birth certificates aren’t the same as their licenses. Yesirreebob, no swing voters to worry about in Texas.

          • HonestDebate1

            He won Independent in key states.

          • TFRX

            My guess is that leads to people who can’t stand to call themselves
            “Republicans” in polite company, i.e. a lot of suburban America, to
            distance themselves from the trainwreck that was GWB, who’ll come home
            to vote for the GOP. And all those “Libertarians” that pop up when the
            GOP is out of power also somehow manage to not be Republicans while also
            voting for the GOP.

          • Ray in VT

            How’d he do with the political moderates? I’m sure that some hard line right wing guy would have really brought them out in droves.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Negative campaigning works.

          • Ray in VT

            That’s right. Team Obama suppressed the conservative vote, despite the many millions that got dumped into the campaign against him by the like of Crossroads and all of the others.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            I still don’t understand how it is possible that 3M GOP McCain voters stayed home. Romney lost by less than 1M total votes in 7 swing states.

          • Ray in VT

            Less excitement? I’m sure that, for instance, a Santorum bid would have turned out the Religious Right, but likely more liberal voters as well.

          • HonestDebate1

            What’s a moderate? Some say Bush was a moderate and some say he was an extreme right winger. I say Obama is radical left and others say he’s a conservative. What’s in the middle of all of that? How does a poll deduce who mens what when asked if they are a moderate. Oe doesn’t register as a moderate.

          • Ray in VT

            Take a look at the self described moderates. Get enough of their opinions and one can get a good idea of what that middle ground is.

          • HonestDebate1

            I consider myself a moderate. I think you have said you considered yourself a moderate but please correct me if I’m wrong. If we both consider ourselves moderates, then given our disagreements, what’s a moderate?

          • Ray in VT

            Two is a pretty small sample size. This seeks to show who/what that is:

            http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/new-american-center-1113

            TEA Party sure isn’t moderate (as a whole), not at least according to TEA Party supporters when they’ve been invited to place themselves on a scale from liberal to conservative.

          • TFRX

            You’re a moderate.

            And “Brutus is a good man. They’re all good men.” (paraphrased)

          • HonestDebate1

            Exactly!

          • Don_B1

            Your source?

            As with your claim that Obamacare lost popularity, most of your unsubstantiated claims are bogus fiction, so you are at best on probation on any claim you make.

          • HonestDebate1

            My source it the votes, Romney won Independents by 5 points. Look it up, but I’m right and you can’t dispute it. Conventional wisdom is often nothing more than fed talking points. The talking point is that until Republicans reach out to Independents they will lose.

          • Ray in VT

            At least one poll indicates that 35% of independents self identify as conservative versus 20% liberal. It seems that they have a baked in advantage there. Self identified moderates went 56-41 for Obama and make up 35% of the electorate, so maybe we need to be talking about moderates and not independents. Although, if the GOP wishes to alienate the 41% of moderate independents, then I would be happy to let them do that and see how it works out.

          • TFRX

            Oh, and one thing you may want to know about Cooch: He wanted to outlaw oral sex.

            So, GWB is a TruePrincipledConservative this week? Hahahaha.

          • Don_B1

            And contraception!

          • MarcSFried

            what’s a GWB

          • HonestDebate1

            George W. Bush.

        • geraldfnord

          Yeah, but some Republicans will win _sometimes_, and I don’t want them to be nut-jobs, and if that’s all that’s left…. Democratic mis-steps, personal idiocies, and plain bad luck will make some Democrats lose sometime, and I don’t want to have only fanatics around to grab the fallen fruit—I don’t want a Bircheroid candidate elected whenever (for example) a male Democrat is discovered in bed with a dead man or a live goat.

          • TFRX

            I don’t want them to be nutjobs either.

            But it’s not my issue.

            It’s like I’m in a bar and two jagoffs are arguing. If one of them is not insulting or menacing or threatening me, it’s not my fight.

            I beliieve we have reached the point where the battle for the GOP is a case of “let’s you* and him fight”.

            *That’s the proverbial you, not the literal.

          • geraldfnord

            A man whom I can see is quite willing to fight another man, and fight more dirtily, is someone I must estimate would be worse to fight in the future. I hate to see other people fight, but I hate it worst when the winner were more of a threat to me and everyone else than the loser likely would have been.

            As a Democrat and an American (though not a Merkin), I should rather see moderate Republicans win 30% of the time than nutjobs win 10%…especially in the Senate.

          • Don_B1

            Particularly since it happens so often, though IOKIYAR.

      • geraldfnord

        Well, bits of it are flaking-off and this has led to accusations that it’s making the sky fall, but ‘implosion’ sounds like a verdict to be reached only after it were dead…one would almost think that the term were invoked as a Crowleyan incantation designed to help it along, but of course I should never accuse a fellow-commenter of (*gasp*) sorcery….

        To me, modulo some problems I’ve also seen fixed in private industry, even ones sane enough not to roll-out the entire system to the entire public from the start, it seems to be working about as well as a system designed to benefit the insurance companies but avoid the indecencies of a market whilst giving us enough of something that _looks_ like a market that we don’t feel all ridden with socialist cooties.

        • HonestDebate1

          I think it’s more than just bits falling off and there are more shoes to drop. People still think they can keep their doctors and don’t know what their new plans will look like or cost. The administration used to say 7 million enrollees were needed for it to work now that seems like a pipe dream. Then there is the inevitable doctor shortage. The website is supposed to be up in 3 weeks or so, that won’t happen. Then the fines for not signing up while the site won’t let them sign up will ensue. And on and on.

          But I think it’s the lies that are causing the implosion and they are doubling down. Obama is now lying about the lie and saying he added a caveat that he demonstrably did not. Then he implied he had to lie or he would have broken a bigger promise…or something. They sent Feinstein out to say Obama only made the promise before the law was enacted but he was repeating it as recent as 5 weeks ago. They look silly.

          However, the train keeps rolling. We’ll see.

          [edit] Don’t forget the hackers and the goldmine of personal information.

      • Ray in VT

        Ten points? Based upon what? Most of the polls from the last 1.5 months show about a 5-7% lead by McAuliffe. The GOP ran out a nut in an off year election and lost.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          TMac outspent KC 4:1 in the last two weeks — almost all negative smear stuff.

          • HonestDebate1

            Mark Levin blistered theRNC for that.

        • TFRX

          I’m guessing there’s a Rasmussen or a Zogby outlying there someplace.

          And please, GOP, keep blowing the historic off-year advantage you have by running wingnuts who are so extreme they can’t be ignored like Cooch. And can be beaten by Mr. Nobody’s Dream Candidate Terry McAuliffe.

          • HonestDebate1

            Yea, and Washington post and Roanoake college. I’m hate polls and don’t live by them. I’m just saying…

            BTW, which polls predicted 2.5?

          • Ray in VT

            There were a few big outliers, including a 17% number, that I didn’t trust at all.

  • Duras

    Romney would have had a chance at winning if republicans did not have that war on healthcare.

    Republicans could have said, “We applaud Obama for recognizing our ideas.”

    But instead of championing the healthcare law that republicans originally formulated as a counter-policy to Hiliary-care, they went down the road of “Whatever Obama does is bad.”

    Romney could have claimed that he was the intellectual father of the healthcare bill and that this nation needs a president who has new ideas. I think that would have gone over well.

    • geraldfnord

      They were ashamed that they had ever had an idea that didn’t boil down to ‘I’m all right Jack, I deserve everything good I’ve got, I don’t deserve my suffering, which is all at the hands of the Evil Gummint, and everyone else deserves whatever suffering they get…and people who don’t make enough money for food or health insurance or care should go to the wall unless a church or a charity likes them enough to help them.’

      I would be nowhere as well-off without a government—just to the extent that it enables me to keep much more property than I could have done in the state of Nature (wherein the many guards I would have had to have hired would probably have divided it, and quite likely my torso). Its social schemes have allowed me both to be a sane man and to have taken risks, and also help me avoid having to step over the bodies of the destitute and the dying in the street, as one traditionally had to do in any city.

      I have some notable achievements of mine own, but none of them were all mine: for one thing, I didn’t invent this keyboard, or the finite state-machine (both of which, incidentally, were invented out of self-interest but not the kind that makes you any money, necessarily, but the sort where you want to do the things you love as well as possible). I also know what any self-aware actor would also know: though people love me in the part I play, there were likely at least ten other men who could have done the same or better, and I’m here by a combination of talent and random chance. Given that, the knowledge that much of my property really is a creation of society and so subject to the just calls thereof, the knowledge that try as I might disaster might bring _me_ low, and a conscience that wishes to avoid the Sin of Sodom (callousness), it seems in m y rational self-interest that there be social mechanisms that operate above the Market to keep anyone from falling too low.

      (Oh, and I think your sisters got a raw deal.)

      • Duras

        You are talking to a self-described Roosevelt liberal who thinks no one is more ‘entitled’ than Mitt Romney.

  • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

    I certainly hope that Chris Christie is the Republican nominee, because then the election can be about real issues. Like how he (Christie) has actually managed the recovery from Sandy. And about how climate change is the most important issue, bar none.

    But, I kinda’ doubt he can succeed where Romney failed. Romney had to run away from his signature legislation (healthcare); whereas Christie shook President Obama’s hand! I mean – perish the thought!

    • J__o__h__n

      It won’t be about real issues. It will be about how fat he is.

    • TFRX

      There’s a lot of ChristieLove (TM applied for) from people who really don’t care how much of a goddamn bully he is.

      • Ray in VT

        Maybe they’re just relieved to see a big time Republican who isn’t way out on the fringe somewhere.

    • Ray in VT

      With a track record like that I don’t think that Christie has a snowball’s chance in hell of winning the South Carolina primary.

  • toc1234

    liberals are on their way to taking NYC back to the 70s/early 80s.

    • HonestDebate1

      And with Obama’s EO on climate change people will be hanging their clothes out to dry and riding bikes like the good ol’ days.

      • Ray in VT

        That’s right. They’re just going to take the people from the local death panels and have them come by and confiscate your washer and drier when they smother your grandmother.

        • HonestDebate1

          Good point.

          • Ray in VT

            Quick! Get it on Rush. He’ll run with anything that hates on Obama. Be a good Dittohead and do your part today. Operators are standing by.

      • anamaria23

        Sounds good to me.

        • HonestDebate1

          I’m sure it does.

    • Ray in VT

      While conservatives just want to take everything back to the 1870s/early 1880s.

      • northeaster17

        Not to mention 1860

  • toc1234

    Obama is not into the theatrics of politics unless he has faux greek columns in the background…

  • thequietkid10

    Oh for **** sake! Enough with the cult of personality. George W. Bush was a disaster for this country and Obama will probably be worse. Is this anyway to decide a world leader? Is this any way to decide how 30 percent of our GDP is spent? Democracy can go to hell.

    • Ray in VT

      Well, democracy is the worst form of government devised by man, except for all of the others.

      • thequietkid10

        Then if we can not effectively devise a way to determine our leaders, then we certainly can work to limit there power as much as possible.

      • HonestDebate1

        Pop quiz: I’ll give a line then you give me the next.

        I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America…

        • Ray in VT

          So, what is a republic and how is that different from a democracy. Dictionary definitions please.

          • HonestDebate1

            We’re a Republic. It is what it is. We elect representatives, we do not hold a vote for every issue and let the majority decide. You can research it yourself or take a basic civics class. If I’m wrong then put me in my place.

          • Ray in VT

            So, how is that different from democracy, which is supposedly mob rule? Why would direct versus representative democracy somehow be mob rule?

        • Ray in VT

          I also think that it is funny that you are citing the words of a socialist from a century after the Constitution was written and adopted as some sort of evidence.

          • HonestDebate1

            Socialist can be smart. Really they can.

      • HonestDebate1

        “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths…”,

        “We may define a republic to be … a government which derives all its powers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure for a limited period, or during good behavior. It is essential to such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion or a favored class of it; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, might aspire to the rank of republicans and claim for their government the honorable title of republic.” James Madison, Federalist No. 10, (1787)

    • HonestDebate1

      Democracy is mob rule. If we had a Democracy we’d still have slavery.

      • Ray in VT

        Please cite me a definition for that.

        • HonestDebate1

          Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well armed lamb.

          • Ray in VT

            And where is that from, and how did the founding fathers differentiate between a republic and a democracy? Repeating some lame line isn’t a definition. It’s a belief with no historical support.

          • HonestDebate1

            It’s said to have come from Ben Franklin but who knows.

          • Ray in VT

            It wasn’t Franklin. That much is pretty certain, considering that lunch (I think) wasn’t in that way until well after his death. I’m still looking for some sort of historical definition or how the Founding Fathers viewed the two. Madison certainly had something to say about it, but the sort of nonsense embodied in that quote is just more mindless claptrap as far as I’m concerned. My guess is that people who advance it don’t seem to care much for the will of the people, except when it suits them.

          • HonestDebate1

            I wrote “dinner” but around hear people call lunch, dinner. So of course the logical conclusion is we don’t care about the will of the people. No distortion there.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s just an opinion. It’s just sort of funny how people will say listen to the majority/the will of the people when it suits them, yet decry it when that will is against them.

          • HonestDebate1

            I have never been in favor of mob rule and I have always been a supporter of the electoral college.

          • Ray in VT

            So what is mob rule, and why is democracy mob rule? Here is what the OED says about democracy:

            Government by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them. In mod. use often more vaguely denoting a social state in which all have equal rights, without hereditary or arbitrary differences of rank or privilege.

            How is that mob rule? How is that not what we currently have. America is a democracy by that definition. Do you wish to argue otherwise?

          • HonestDebate1

            By part of that definition, sure, even though it gives two versions in the first sentence. If you go by the first (either directly…) then that is mob rule, my admittedly provocative framing. If you go by the second (or by..) then you will find it the same thing as the definition of a Republic.

            “a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law”

            Then in the second sentence the OED definition goes somewhere else entirely.

            In the Founders day the debate was between a Republic or a Monarchy not a Democracy and a Monarchy. One of them famously answered a question by saying (paraphrasing) we have given you a Republic, if you can keep it. They didn’t talk about democracies back then. Maybe you can correct me but I think I’m right on that.

            Democracy means rule of the majority. Our representatives operate in a democratic fashion. We elect our representatives in a democratic fashion. In that sense we certainly do operate under the constraints of a democracy. But we don’t enact laws by putting them to a vote in the public square.

            Call it what you want.

          • Ray in VT

            And how do we reach the end of a representative Republic? Via the mechanism of democracy. We are, in short, both. My problem is with the faulty notion that democracy is somehow “mob rule”. How is government by the people mob rule? Democracy does not mean the absolute rule of the majority, at least not in any sort of definition that I have yet found. The idea that democracy is merely the simple tyranny of 50% plus one vote my be believed in, but there is nothing in any definition that I have found that supports such a position.

          • HonestDebate1

            I would add to the below comment the word “Democracy” does not appear in the Constitution but “Republican form of government” does.

  • Yar

    http://media.kentucky.com/smedia/2013/11/05/19/13/17A9QX.AuSt.79.jpg Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

    • OnPointComments

      Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Anything on team Obama’s decision to attack Romney’s character starting before the primaries were close to complete? Romney has no core , he gave a guy’s wife cancer, and on and on.

    • Ray in VT

      So is Romney more liberal than Ted Kennedy or an arch conservative?

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        No labels.

    • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

      Romney’s deeds are what sank him. Criticizing his actions is not “attacking” him.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Obama didn’t deserve a second term.

        Yes, Romney could have been a better ‘candidate’ but the country is the real loser because EVERYONE (left, center, right) would be better off with a President Romney.

        Romney is a good man with a proven track record of success. Team Obama’s nasty tactics were the only way Obama could possibly win. It worked — barely.

        • brettearle

          Romney’s own comment about the so-called 47% is a good example of how he deep-sixed himself.

          No one needed to destroy his candidacy.

          In the final analysis, he was his own worst enemy.

          • Ray in VT

            Well, the media was out to get Romney, you see. We can see this by the fact that they reported something really stupid that he said that wrote off a huge part of the nation’s population.

          • brettearle

            Interesting….I think HD may have just committed an error of commission…..or is he buckling under the weight of the Truth?

            You, and others, may have likely observed what I am referring to, here.

            Congratulations, HD! His first concession, ever….until he realizes what I am driving it.

            And when he does, watch the Etcha-Sketch, Ladies and Gents.

          • HonestDebate1

            I don’t know what I conceded or why you would assume I would not concede a point if necessary. As the schoolmarm said:

            “He is a passionate true believer, and he defends his beliefs repeatedly and well. He’s not completely inflexible either, as he has conceded points to me on occasion.”

            http://onpoint.wbur.org/2012/11/06/internet-trolls#comment-701926634

            So there’s that but to the point, Ray completely distorted my comment. Scroll up and read my reply to him on the matter. I was clear. If you can distill it to what Ray wrote then…. well never mind. I’ll stay out of the gutter. I’m not interested in adversarial playground games. I’m just giving my honest opinion.

          • HonestDebate1

            Romney was right about the 47%. The press made it look like he disparaged them and didn’t care for their well-being. They used it to make him look hateful. That’s what they do.

          • Ray in VT

            So what he said isn’t disparaging? I would hazard to bet that those people (the elderly, many young people or couples with low incomes) may have felt differently. His my “job is is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them they
            should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.” isn’t disparaging?

          • HonestDebate1

            Only if the line is distorted to mean something it was not. It’s like when he said “I like to be able to fire people” and the MSM made it sound like that was a bad thing; like a world where no one could be fired for any reason was prudent. They distorted it to imply he meant “I like to fire people”. That’s the way they do.

            It was a fund raiser, he was talking about votes. He said the 47% would vote for Obama no matter what and he was never going to convince them to vote for him. It was futile to worry about getting their votes. To take his comment and distort it to imply Romney has no compassion for nearly half the country is really quite despicable. Thats what the press does and many eat it up.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Very well stated.

            However, I do think it highlighted a problem with the Romney campaign — at least at the time. Romney was running on a Reagan platform that would have helped 100% of the people. Reagan would not have written off 47% of the electorate. He would have showed how his policies would lift all boats.

            Again, Romney (and his professional team) are not good politicians but would be great at governing.

          • HonestDebate1

            I agree with you all around. He also conflated the 47% that would not vote for him, the 47% dependent on government and the 47% who don’t pay taxes. It was a political gaffe.

            It’s just gripes me that they had to make him into an evil villain. He’s a good, compassionate, capable man.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Scorched earth campaigning works only IF the media lets you get away with it. Very sad.

          • HonestDebate1

            Alinsky would be proud.

          • brettearle

            `Alinsky’:

            The typical, cursory, unintelligble Red Scare cliche jargon of the irrational and radical propaganda of the Fangless Radical Right.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Is the Obama 2012 campaign a campaign to be proud of?
            I guess the ends justify the means.

          • HonestDebate1

            I would never call you names but that’s cool.

            There really is quite a correlation between Alinski’s 12 rules and Obama’s tactics, especially #12.

            Obama directly quoted Alinsky (unattributed) in Jerusalem in a speech to young Israelis.

            Here is a picture of Obama teaching his student the Alinski concept of Power Analysis:

            http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/obama-alinsky-e1340158116207.jpg

            Alinski’s son certainly though Obama was using his father’s tactics:

            “Obama learned his lesson well. I am proud to see that my father’s model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008. It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday.”

            http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/item/5750-saul-alinskys-son-praises-obama

            There is much more than I am citing here. It’s not a stretch at all if one looks at it honestly. That’s all I’m doing.

          • jefe68

            Ray, I have to hand it you. You have a lot of patience.

          • keltcrusader

            “They used it to show him as the hateful person he actually is.”

            There I fixed it for you. Your welcome :)

          • HonestDebate1

            It wasn’t broken. Romney may be a lot of things, hateful is not one of them.

          • jefe68

            You have to be kidding.
            Ask people who had to work under him when he was governor. Were still wondering what happened to all the hard drives he took when he left office.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Comments unethically recorded at a private fundraiser back in the previous winter?

            Yes, those comments were not handled well (and I contend show an lack of political electoral savvy AT THAT TIME). However, I remember comments recorded in a similar fashion about another candidate that didn’t get the same coverage in the media. Something about “clinging to their guns and bibles”. Maybe timing of events are a big difference.

            Here are two other examples of huge media bias. The coverage of a Romney tweet in the aftermath of Benghazi vs. the LACK of attention to the administration lies and distortions #youtubevideo. The second is the nitpicking on Romney’s overseas trip vs. the fawning coverage given Obama on his first overseas trip.

          • Ray in VT

            How dare someone shed some daylight about what he was saying about huge numbers of Americans behind closed doors? I’d rather hear such comments before the election rather than after the nation could have gotten stuck with him.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            You missed my point.

            Is it too much to ask for equal treatment by the media?

          • Ray in VT

            No, but it depends upon what one calls or considers equal treatment. Team Romney and it supporters certainly like to blame the media, but that campaign and many of its supporters certainly did quite a bit to hurt itself.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            No question — a horrible campaign on many levels. The only thing that made it close was debate #1 — and that had NOTHING to do with the campaign. It was all Romney.

            They should be sued for malpractice and this includes bungling what should have been an easy primary.

          • HonestDebate1

            What was Obama saying behind closed doors on the night of Benghazi? Where was he?

          • Ray in VT

            Watching it all live and specifically telling no one to go to their aide, of course! I was under the impression that he met with top people and was kept fully informed, but that isn’t what the right wing media entertainment complex tells me, so I must be wrong.

        • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

          What part of President Obama getting many more votes than Romney don’t you get? You think that your opinion should override the majority of voters in the election?

          Really?

          Romney was a terrible candidate – he was self-contradictory on virtually EVERY ISSUE! How can you say with a straight face that he would be anything but a disaster as president?

          Romney’s actions are what defeated him. Not anything that President Obama did.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            L.I.V. Period.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard

            W.D.Y.P.M.A Question mark.

          • HonestDebate1

            Contradictory? Does Obamacare have a mandate that Obama excoriated Hillary for having? He said it wasn’t a tax then argued it was. Is it a tax or not? Did he close Gitmo? Is he for gay marriage? Did he appoint lobbyist? Did he say you could keep your plan if you liked it? What is his position on the debt ceiling he called Bush unpatriotic for raising?

            I could do this all day.

          • http://neilblanchard.blogspot.com/ Neil Blanchard
    • brettearle

      No core?

      Romney’s flip flops and the “Etcha-Sketch” comment were not manufactured by Democrats.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Axelrod started the no-core nonsense in February. Romney wasn’t even a shoe-in then.

        • Ray in VT

          Plus Axelrod started that whole vulture capitalism thing, right?

      • keltcrusader

        Worried was just so sure Romney was going to win, he was his personal cheerleader on OP. Talk about blinders.

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          On Nov. 4, 2012, I lost, you lost, the country lost.

          The only winner was Romney since he probably added 10 years to his personal life expectancy.

          • keltcrusader

            No, Romney both lost and you with him.

            He was an absolutely lousy candidate who couldn’t keep his huge foot out of his own mouth.

            Accept it and move on.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Oh, I have moved on.

            Unfortunately, I am reminded every day what could have been by the ineptitude and paucity of leadership in the Oval Office.

    • Sy2502

      He gave somebody’s wife cancer? Wow, so now he has superpowers uh…

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        Not only that I hear he bullied kids in high school, paid no taxes for 10 years and tortured his dog.

  • Jeff

    I hope Christy runs in the 2016 election.

  • WorriedfortheCountry

    Last nights big loser: Obamacare

    VA gov race was much closer than expected because of Obamacare’s recent failures and huge money disparity ($15M).

    http://www.politico.com/story/2013/11/terry-mcauliffe-virginia-governor-2013-elections-99441.html?hp=t1

    • TFRX

      Per CNN’s exit poll:

      27% said “health care” was their most important issue. But the two candidates basically split those voters, with Cuccinelli holding a 4 point margin. In my mind that makes for a pretty thin argument that opposition to Obamacare drove this outcome.

      (Overall 53% of Virginians opposed Obamacare and 46% supported it – though most other polls would
      suggest that a significant proportion of the opponents oppose it from the left and believe it should be expanded.)

      http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-obamacare-pivot-the-race-in-va

      • HonestDebate1

        The exit polls said Kerry won in 2004.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        CNN exits at 7pm had Tmac +7. It ended at +3.

        • TFRX

          I quoted from the 11pm final version. Different precincts report at different times.

          But hey, whatever you need to tell yourself.

          http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2013/images/11/05/va.gov.exit.polls.1120p.110513.v2.final%5B1%5D.copy.pdf

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Sorry. I think you missed my point. The 7pm data said the exits were off by 4 points PLUS the margin of error for the specific question.

            You passed on demographic exits not the total. So maybe the 11pm is more accurate but I can’t tell from what you posted.

    • TFRX

      And one more bit: Politico never says “We don’t know yet”. They’re the “WinTheMorning” website.

      Josh Marshall has the balls to say: We’ll keep looking at the numbers because I don’t think we yet have a sufficient handle on the data and the question.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        OK. I get it. Politico isn’t your favorite left wing site.

        • Ray in VT

          Left wing: anything that isn’t blatantly right wing?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            MSM tilts left. And Politico is loaded with MSM lifers. But I take your point — TPM is proudly left wing and are honest about it. They deserve credit.

          • jefe68

            Just shows how far to the right these regressive extremist are.

          • pete18

            Sip!

        • TFRX

          “Drudgico” got its name for a reason.

      • pete18

        How’s Balloon Juice reporting on the voting data?

        • TFRX

          You mean that site which caught out CNN’s straight-arrow Jake Tapper fluffing a Foxholer because the Fox guy was “cool”?

          • pete18

            Oh yeah, that was a major scoop. Pulitzer prize no doubt will be awarded.

          • TFRX

            Annnnd another rightie shows how little actual journalism matters to him.

          • pete18

            It’s funny, every time I ask you to give us an example of what you think “actual journalism” is you are unable to come up with an anything. The one time you actually posted a source on anything it was a left-wing blog, whose claim to fame was that it exposed the earth shattering story of some journalist coddling another journalist. But, just like the news source you were trying to critique at the time, it wasn’t original journalism, it just referred to another news source. Obviously, this is the type of stuff you read and consider valid and yet it is an even lower form of the “journalism” that other people who disagree with you post, which you then rabidly attack as somehow inferior. Sort of reminds me of the preachers who so vociferously attack homosexuals and then it turns out that they are actually gay.

            Time for you to come out of the closet. Your Pavlovic attacking of the messenger instead of ever debating or arguing content with the excuse of a having a professed expertise on the media is laughable. Put up or shut up. Who are the media sources that you consider valid messengers of
            of the news?

          • TFRX

            Another rightie who doesn’t give a crap for keeping journos honest.

            Jake Tapper is not an honest broker. Calling out hacks like Tapper is a vital part of media. Nobody is doing it on TV.

            And, like that, Mark Halperin called Obama “Kind of adick”, and didn’t have to grovel to get back on the polite sphere that is NPR. It only goes one way.

  • TFRX

    It seems that

    Cuccinelli actually won independents by a 9 point
    margin.

    But we need to remember the crystal clear lesson of 2012,
    which is that a substantial number of conservatives, often the most right-leaning and ideological, have seceded from the GOP and now self-identify independents. So the days when “independents” could be a proxy for the non-ideological middle are really over.

    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/did-obamacare-pivot-the-race-in-va

  • Blue_To_Shoe

    I don’t really trust anything Mark Halperin has to say: If anyone ever catches his behavior on MSNBC’s awful ‘Morning Joe’, one will see Halperin consistently play the role of a ‘toadie’ to Joe Scarborough’s aging frat-boy bully routine.

    (Halperin) was even suspended by the Network for a period for using foul language – at the urging of bully Scarborough – to describe the Prseident.

    Halperin seems to have the natural personality of a ‘toadie’; yet, now, we are to buy into this measured, analytical, persona.

    By the way…for anyone interested in knowing what a ‘toadie’ is – look up the classic movie “A Christmas Story”!

    _________

    • TFRX

      I’d almost forgot about that.

      Mark Halperin is “kind of adick”, indeed.

      Good thing there’s someone on the panel besides the king of the Kewl Kidz.

  • Blue_To_Shoe

    I have always felt the obsession with Obama’s ‘aloofness’ (reserved, distant) personality is really about race: Obama doesn’t fit into the constant media ‘talk-show’, ‘VH1′, stereotype of minorities as emotionally immature, anti-intellectual, loud-mouths.

    Perhaps, some (more prejudiced) whites are threatened by such measured intellectualism – which contradicts the convenient stereotypes.

    • WorriedfortheCountry

      “clean and articulate”?

    • brettearle

      Couldn’t agree more–except I have never thought of the President as aloof, at all.

      I experience him as a concerned, caring, and compassionate man.

      He, of course, has flaws–not the least of which are the holes in his management acumen.

      For my money, he is the most likable President in my lifetime.

      Nevertheless, there are some things that he needs to answer for.

      • WorriedfortheCountry

        I appreciate your thoughts brettearle

        “I experience him as a concerned, caring, and compassionate man.”

        What do you think about the “I’m really good at killing people” comment?

        Simply a flippant joke?

        • Ray in VT

          If that quote is accurate, is that not what one would want from a leader who is directing a campaign against international terrorists? To paraphrase something attributed to General Patton: “It is not your duty to die for your country. It is your duty to make sure that your enemy dies for his.”

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Try telling that to the survivors of the wedding party.

          • Ray in VT

            So, by comparison, how many people has Obama’s drone program killed versus the carnage unleashed upon the population of Iraq by Bush or by Reagan’s support of dictators and death squads in Latin America? Many civilians died during our conflict with the Axis powers as well. Civilian deaths are one of the very unfortunate side effects of warfare. Would you prefer that we start sending in boots on the ground into Pakistan to strike at the Taliban? How many deaths (American and Pakistani) do you think would result from that?

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            When did either Reagan or Bush say they were “really good at killing people”?

          • Ray in VT

            Touche. For Bush it was probably some time after the mission was accomplished. For Reagan, it was probably when he was telling Congress repeatedly that things were getting better with the people that we were supporting while those people massacred their own civilians.

          • HonestDebate1

            I can’t believe either would go near a line like that, in any setting for any reason.

          • Ray in VT

            Actions speak louder than words. How many were killed by death squads that were getting weapons illegally supplied to them by the Reagan administration?

          • HonestDebate1

            …and Truman nuked Japan. I am not talking about a President acting in matters of war. I am talking about how seriously they view their obligation. I support Obama’s killing terrorist and he is very good at it.

          • Ray in VT

            That was during a war. That was not supporting goons massacring people by selling weapons to a nation that supports terrorism.

          • HonestDebate1

            Okay, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory. Same thing.

          • Ray in VT

            How many did that kill? Thousands died in Central America because of what Reagan did. How does that stack up? What’s Obama’s drone tally versus those who died because Bush lied to the American people and led us into Iraq? Kind of a different matter of scale there.

          • brettearle

            Wow, Ray…..

            To my way of thinking, you have opened up a boundless and significant debate…..(you could argue, I suppose, that it’s implicit, redundant, and/or obvious; but it is, nevertheless, an essential debate about nations and geopolitics.)

            I use Hiroshima as the standard of reference in this matter…..

          • brettearle

            After I wrote this, above, I then noticed a mention of Hiroshima, below….

          • Ray in VT

            It is one of the unfortunate realities of total war. War is no longer, if it ever was, primarily concerned with the actions of armies upon the field. The populations and infrastructure that allows that force to remain in the field have also become legitimate targets in the modern era.

        • JGC

          I think we would have to read the whole passage, I am going a little crazy here trying to remember the source where I read it/about it, but it was apparently in the context of rueful musing about how he came into the presidency expecting to get great things done like immigration, healthcare, anti-poverty measures and the like, and things have not gone at all as he envisioned, it was more like a strange observation, Who would have known I would be so good at killing people, “meditating on drone strikes”.

          I don’t think it was a flippant joke. Again, the whole passage must be read to try to ascertain the context. I don’t have the book.

          • WorriedfortheCountry

            Hey, I agree. Context matters; as well as tone. btw – I don’t consider the remark a litmus test on his character.
            There are many things we just don’t know.

      • pete18

        It’s hard to say about the aloof premise, people who have worked with him have certainly said that
        but those things must be taken with a grain of salt. My guess is that he at heart may be a concerned, caring and compassionate man, I don’t see any evidence that would show otherwise. I think he is also very bright and a good politician. But he is not even close to being the genius intellectual that his devotees paint him as. However, I think it’s undeniable that he is terribly vain and self absorbed man who was probably one of the least prepared men to ever enter the White House.

        • JGC

          And people who worked with Reagan said for all his folksy friendliness, he was a cipher that no one (not even his own children) really ever knew, with the exception of Nancy Davis. His official biographer had a devil of a time trying to find anyone who felt close Reagan.

    • HonestDebate1

      I would never say white liberal’s disdain for Clarence Thomas, Herman Cain, Condi Rice or Ward Connerly was because they are threatened by intellectualism. I would never imply they are racist despite their calling Condi Aunt Jemima; Cain, a monkey in a window; Connerly, an uncle Tom or wishing death upon Thomas. I would never accuse those on this very blog who say Thomas Sowell spends his time at white supremacist websites of being racist or threatened by his intellect.

      I would never consider Obama’s intellect to be unique among blacks like when Biden was so impressed that he was clean and articulate. I would never think he should be bringing me coffee as Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy.

      That would be sick.

      • Ray in VT

        It’s pretty funny to hear some of your “libruls are the real racists” lines considering some of the stuff that comes from you. The real question is does Obama know cursive?

        • HonestDebate1

          I just wrote an entire comment saying I would NOT claim liberals are racist. I just don’t think they realize many of their positions are.

          • Ray in VT

            It’s a good thing, then, that there are people like you to let them know that they are. You just might have a hard time convincing most minorities of that.

          • HonestDebate1

            I often catch myself confusing pronouns when used in the same sentence, it’s tricky. If I use “them” I try to make “they” represent the same. I mess up all the time though. So if by “they” you mean liberal’s (notice I didn’t write their) views then you’re right. If by “they” you mean liberals then you are dead wrong. I don’t throw that word or implication around easily.

          • Ray in VT

            I thought that my statement was fairly clear, but allow me to clarify: good luck trying to convince most minorities that it is conservatives who are looking out for the ability of minorities to fully exercise their rights in society versus liberals.

            How are those white conservatives passing legislation that disproportionately affects minorities and the principled opposition to civil rights legislation things going? I’m sure that there’s nothing remotely racist going on there. To paraphrase a North Carolina GOP official who recently stuck his foot in his mouth: so what if it keeps some lazy blacks away from the polls?

          • HonestDebate1

            It is only racist if you assume that blacks are too stupid to get an ID because they are black instead of believing it’s a correlation. It’s a racist position held by people who may not necessarily be racist. That’s my point.

          • TFRX

            It’s voter scrubbing, pure and simple. Take your reasonable questions to someone who cares.

          • HonestDebate1

            Thank you, They are certainly reasonable questions and Ray certainly doesn’t care.

          • Ray in VT

            Just because it has been often explained to you how these laws disproportionately affect minorities in particular in general doesn’t mean that the case hasn’t been presented. Please tell me when liberals have said that African Americans are too stupid to get an ID. I can present examples of when that group has been described as mob-acting, white lady rape happy, Caucasian haters, but it wasn’t liberals doing that.

          • HonestDebate1

            You will nit convince me that being black makes it harder to obtain an ID but as you have pointed out, Democrats have certainly convinced many that it’s true.

    • OnPointComments

      I feel the blind adoration of white liberal Obama sycophants is really about race: they derive immense pleasure from pointing to themselves as being oh so progressive to support a black president. These Obama groupies have abandoned any semblance of critical thinking and judgment when presented with this administration’s policies, statements, and actions; their only response is fawning praise regardless of President Obama’s failures. There can be no criticism because someone might say its racist. In its own way, the undiscerning attitude of these liberals is another form of prejudice.

      • pete18

        Spot on commentary.

      • TFRX

        Then why didn’t we all vote for Presidents Cain or Keyes?

        • WorriedfortheCountry

          Gloria Alred

        • HonestDebate1

          Why didn’t we all vote for Shirley Chisholm?

    • Sy2502

      You said “race”. You must be racist.
      /sarcasm

  • Sy2502

    Despite the liberal media’s effort to convince everybody the GOP is defunct, and despite the name calling and smear campaign of the Obama administration toward its opponents, it seems the GOP is doing just fine. Lesson: don’t swallow everything the media tells you. Especially when it’s too biased for its own good.

    • OnPointComments

      After every major election, the media comes out with its stories of the _________ (Democrat or Republican) Party is defunct, depending on which party won. Their prognostications have never come true.

    • Duras

      You know, before the 1980s, newspapers once carried Labor sections and Business sections. Now they only carry Business sections.

      When do you see stories about labor conditions in America. Where in the presidential debates was Romney or Obama asked about unions?

      Where is the coverage on the Afghan War?

      Would it be liberal bias to cover the Afghan War?

      I once saw CNN report that middle income dropped while poverty stayed the same. CNN neglected to report that top income rose the same amount middle income lost.

      That’s not liberal bias; that’s reality. The lack of international coverage, the lack of labor coverage, the lack of war coverage, helps the macro-economic elites who you allow to run this country.

  • HonestDebate1

    Kudos to John Cornyn for saying Obama lied. The “L” word is not used lightly but way else fits? Bill O’Reilly is still refusing to say Obama lied but he’s wrong IMHO. He claims Obama didn’t read the bill and didn’t know people couldn’t keep their plan which, if true, would mean Obama didn’t lie. That is giving a benefit of doubt that is far beyond credibility. Fox sucks.

    • Mike_Card

      I don’t know the back story; but generally speaking, it seems to me the opposition has accused President Obama of lying, when the opposition accused President Bush of being dumb–in roughly equivalent situations (roughly, I repeat). Just offhand, I’d say there’s a degree or two of distinction between lying and being inept.

      • HonestDebate1

        It’s the inept liars that you really have to watch out for.

    • RolloMartins

      It is true that many people will lose their insurance. But shouldn’t we really be using quotes: “insurance”? These plans were crap and shouldn’t have been on the market in the first place.

      • HonestDebate1

        That’s a good point about the quotes on insurance because it’s no longer insurance when pre-existing conditions are not considered. Just because my plan didn’t dover pre natal care and drug rehab doesn’t mean it was crap.

  • Roy Merritt

    I suspect president Obama didn’t do well in the first debate simply because he couldn’t take Romney seriously. Romney made it clear time and again in his speeches and his back and forth with the press that he was devoid of any real intellect. His commentary and lack of depth when even discussing economics gave me pause as to even his business acumen. Could it be his only expertise was in the art of predatory capitalism, that his major approach to economics is taking over a company, cutting corners and disenfranchising the employees. And then often accruing so much debt that the company goes bankrupt and eventually has the government having to get involved and taking on more debt for the taxpayer. But Romney has made millions in the process. The president is a man of great intellect and his statement as to not being wired for the theatrics that has become a part of politics since the intimacy of television got involved in the campaigns is understandable. He thinks a debate is a far more serious thing than how one appears on camera. And Romney had somewhat a leg up in that department despite the president’s likability.

    Romney looked like someone from central casting the epitome of what you would think an American president looks like if making a movie about it. He is attractive and the gray temples gives him an air of wisdom. But the president had, like all the rest of us rational enough to evaluate the knowledge someone running for the presidency is required to have to occupy the office, seen how Romney had comported himself on the campaign even before the first debate and no doubt had concluded Romney was a vacuous empty suit whose ambition for the office was based on nothing more than hubris and a misguided need to seek vindication for his father whom he perceives was done wrong by his Republican colleagues at the time when he too sought the presidency. And Romney’s comment as to his contempt for half of the population made it clear he really didn’t much care about average Americans. Obama’s questioning his ability and lack of confidence after the defeat at the first debate, which I personally didn’t think was that bad. I think most of it results from the fact that Obama truly is professorial and introspective and he’s more academic than politician. In fact as to the first debate, I personally before hearing all the analysis of it as a defeat was convinced Obama had won. But that could simply reveal my bias for Obama. I knew he would rebound. Contrary to his protestations that he isn’t wired for the theatrics of politics Obama is one of the greatest at employing them. And he seems always prepared for discussion of any topic and capable of recalling relevant facts as to the subject. He can think on his feet and has the charisma of a rock star. In short he was made for television and has the theatrics down to an art. He appeals to me because he seems to be highly intelligent and considers all the ramifications of a decision before arriving at one and does his utmost to carry them out with all due efficiency. I must confess I find any book about the president in which Mark Halperin is involved somewhat suspect in that I’ve over time of seeing him on various news programs make not so subtle disparaging remarks about the president and too offer a spirited defense of his enemies. And wasn’t he briefly suspended from appearing on MSNBC after using profane language toward the president when he thought they were off the air and weren’t? I believe it was one of his many appearances on the “Morning Joe” program of Joe Scarborough. Heilemann on the other hand seems to be a straight up journalist who has no political or personal ax to grind as I have come to believe Halperin does. I’m going to purchase the book nevertheless stay alert for any passages that Halperin may have included that contains some maliciousness toward the president.

  • MordecaiCarroll

    Ugggh- Beltway insider hacks like Mark Halperin are forever peddling the “both sides are equally to blame for inability of Democrats and Republicans to work together”. In addition to being an example of lazy “he said, she said” type reporting, it’s entirely inaccurate

    Has he forgotten how Obama spent months trying to appeal to supposedly moderate Republican senators like Olympia Snowe (really only moderate when her vote wouldn’t change the outcome) while the ObamaCare bill was being crafted? Months of talks and compromises and in the end not a single Republican senator could bring themselves to support reform of a system that most reasonable people agreed at the time was horribly broken.

    Many on the left (myself included) wished that Obama would have argued more forcefully for the public option, if not single payer. But in an attempt (ill-advised, in my opinion) to meet the Republicans half-way, he started his bargaining with Republicans by embracing a plan closely modeled after the plans put forth by Romney in MA in the early 2000′s and Republican Bob Dole during the 1990′s. In spite of this, Republicans would have none of it, and directed all their efforts to making sure that health care reform wasn’t passed during Obama’s presidency. This was done out of a desire to thwart Obama (“making sure that Obama’s a one-term president”, to quote Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stated goal) more than out of any desire to serve or help the American people.

    Republicans have engaged in scorched earth opposition to Obama basically for the get-go. Why wouldn’t Obama give up on working with them after a certain point, especially when experience showed that the Republicans weren’t interested in engaging in good faith negotiations with him.

    • Blue_To_Shoe

      Couldn’t AGREE more with you on everything you’ve stated…!
      I’m also sick and tired of these lazy, “every things 50/50″, beltway pundits.
      Can’t stand Mark Halperin – (or as I refer to him: ” ‘toadie’ to frat-boy bully Joe Scarborough”).

ONPOINT
TODAY
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

RECENT
SHOWS
Apr 18, 2014
This undated photo provided by NASA on April 2, 2014 shows Saturn's moon Enceladus. The "tiger stripes" are long fractures from which water vapor jets are emitted. Scientists have uncovered a vast ocean beneath the icy surface of the moon, they announced Thursday, April 3, 2014. Italian and American researchers made the discovery using Cassini, a NASA-European spacecraft still exploring Saturn and its rings 17 years after its launch from Cape Canaveral. (AP)

Oceans in Space. The new discovery on a moon of Saturn, and the possibility of life there.

 
Apr 18, 2014
Russian President Vladimir Putin speaks during a nationally televised question-and-answer session in Moscow on Thursday, April 17, 2014. President Vladimir Putin has urged an end to the blockade of Moldova’s separatist province of Trans-Dniester. Trans-Dniester, located in eastern part of Moldova on border with Ukraine, has run its own affairs without international recognition since a 1992 war. Russian troops are stationed there.  (AP)

Deadly clashes in Eastern Ukraine. A white supremacist rocks Kansas City. The Marathon bombing anniversary. And Bloomberg on guns. Our weekly news roundtable goes behind the headlines.

On Point Blog
On Point Blog
The Week In Seven Soundbites: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Holy week with an unholy shooter. South Koreans scramble to save hundreds. Putin plays to the crowd in questioning. Seven days gave us seven sounds.

More »
Comment
 
Our Week In The Web: April 18, 2014
Friday, Apr 18, 2014

Space moon oceans, Gabriel García Márquez and the problems with depressing weeks in the news. Also: important / unnecessary infographics that help explain everyone’s favorite 1980′s power ballad.

More »
Comment
 
Some Tools And Tricks For College Financial Aid
Thursday, Apr 17, 2014

Some helpful links and tools for navigating FAFSA and other college financial aid tools.

More »
Comment