Tag Archives: 2012 election

An afternoon delight

It really was a very fine debate

I’ve watched debates for far too many years, over which time they’ve became more and more vapid, almost like campaign appearances.

I think this one was superior for four reasons:

  1. The quality of the questions
  2. The moderator’s success at keeping the candidates on track and on time
  3. The substantive nature of the debate itself
  4. The pace. It never slowed down. That alone made it compelling.

Most of all though, this debate was a success for the first reason. And that must be credited to Crowley; she chose the questions. Every single one was relevant, direct and well stated, and the balance of subject matter was meticulous.

The Benghazi ‘terror/act of terror’ kerfuffle aside (and that of course is taking up a lot of oxygen), this was a good debate and the moderator deserves a lot of credit for that. 

(Or did it just seem that way to me because my popcorn was especially tasty? )

Tired old question that the dems on my teevee have no idea how to answer

Are you better off today than you were four years ago? asked Ronald Reagan, 1980 in his debate with Jimmy Carter. And it’s been asked over and over and over and over since then.

It’s now the question of this week among the pundit class and is being asked of official Democrats with some frequency. And every answer I’ve witnessed has been a complete fumble. There is an answer. It’s yes, we are better off.

The month after Obama took office, the unemployment rate was 8.3 percent; it’s 8.3 percent now. Sticking him with the January number when he was president for only ten days [see below] of it seems silly to me (as, by the way, does the unemployment in his first year). But the difference is that in February 2009, we were losing 800,000 jobs a month; in July 2012, we’re adding around 150,000 jobs a month over the past year, despite a huge drop in government employment. The stock market has made big gains – from around 6500 in the spring of 2009 to almost 13000 today, inflation is under control, and interest rates are at deep lows. We’re out of the quagmire of Iraq and al Qaeda has been decimated. 30 million more people have potential access to health insurance. Yes, median household income is very meaningful – but it’s not the only metric. Of course, we’re better off.

That’s a response to an article in The New Republic, which claims otherwise, using an historical construct worthy of Paul Ryan’s speechwriter. The author, Timothy Noah writes:

There can be little doubt that Americans are worse off, economically, than they were in 2008. Median household income has fallen since 2008, and (according to one study) it’s fallen even more steeply during the recovery than it did during the 2007-2009 recession.  . . . At the moment the misery index is 9.7 (8.3 percent unemployment plus 1.4 percent inflation), compared to 7.8 (7.8 percent unemployment plus 0 percent inflation) the month Obama took office. So by that venerable metric we’re worse off than we were four years ago. We just are.

Well, sure, just like the Janesville auto plant ‘closed’ after Obama took office. Same thing.

Checkbooks to bootstraps . . . the natural order of things

Oh my dear Elvis, are the man’s advisors sleeping something off? He claims to  believe (something I very much doubt) that Liberals pray to fail – a claim that, with the assist of Dr. Neil Cavuto and Professor Limbaugh, resonates with the ‘regular’ folks the poor man is so desperately trying to relate to. But this part – this is genuine, this is the real Romney:

This kind of devisiveness, this attack of success, is very different than what we’ve seen in our country’s history. We’ve always encouraged young people: Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.

Someone’s got to stop him.

Glad someone else noticed

I just heard eternal prom date Howard Fineman (doesn’t he always look so pleased and relieved just to be on camera?)  say that the debaters last night, specifically Romney and Perry, acted like they were in a boxing match.

That’s exactly the way CNN wanted it, so we can say they succeeded I guess.

Jared Bernstein in the Washington Post today had a harsh word for the hosts:

“. . . . the debate had a clear loser, and it was Anderson Cooper and CNN . . ”

I think he’s too kind to CNN; Cooper didn’t chose himself to moderate the debate.


Pawlenty not as wimpy as I expected

I just watched Christiana Amanpour’s interview with Tim Pawlenty. She, as usual, asked substantive questions. He surprised me.

He’s smooth. A very good talker. Sounds fierce sincere. Between the lines I was taking issue with most of what he said. But he said it very very well.

If he has money, I think he can make a pretty impressive run against Romeny.

AN ASIDE: Since I’m without cable here, I turned to the intertubes this morning. TV websites are not friendly. They all seem designed to get me to watch their stuff on the ole teevee, which isn’t exactly what I have in mind when I’m at their friggin website!

At CBS, when I just couldn’t locate CBS Sunday Morning, I tried their search engine. Nothing. Entered Charles Osgood – got a 1999 story, the history of their on air anchors. Simply awful.

Went ot CNN – search engine pretty useless. Once I found GPS, which was what I’d been seeking (I had to find on my own), there was no way to distinguish between stories and video. These guys don’t get it.

ABC was pretty good. Haven’t been to NBC yet..

Colbert PAC dot com

See full size image

The motto? Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow. Here.

FOX News + Donald Trump

Staying classy. And as subtle as ever.

Fox & Friends has announced just the thing for the media nerd that simply can’t get enough of the most attention-grabbing potential 2012 Republican presidential candidates yet: “Mondays with Trump” . . .

Well, he’s definitely broken new ground

Tim Pawlenty is running for the big job.