The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Any new thoughts on the debate last night?

News is reporting that Obama was more assertive this time around.

What are you thinking?

More assertive Obama trades barbs with Romney, targets wealth issues

A much more aggressive President Barack Obama showed up to the second presidential debate Tuesday, which at times devolved into angry crosstalk with Republican rival Mitt Romney.

President Obama was under pressure to perform dramatically better at this debate—held at Hofstra University in Long Island, N.Y.—than the one held two weeks ago. Gov. Romney's energetic performance at that first debate quickly boosted him in the polls, with some recent measures showing he and the president in a virtual tie among likely voters.

Romney kept up his Denver demeanor, attacking Obama on his jobs record, failure to pass immigration reform, policies in the Middle East, and other issues. But this time, instead of simply repeating portions of his stump speech, Obama was ready with specific retorts and counter-attacks. The president frequently accused Romney of twisting facts, occasionally interrupting him as he spoke.

At one point, the debate almost became a shouting match over whether President Obama had cut back oil extraction from public lands. Obama repeatedly said Romney was lying about his claim that oil production was down, pointedly saying, "Not true, Governor Romney." (Politifact ranked a similar claim by a conservative super PAC "half true.") Feeling the heat, moderator Candy Crowley took the candidates to another topic.

Read the rest here.

2 members like this

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Loren Miller on October 17, 2012 at 8:00am

No, actually, I didn't watch the debate. I cued up Thirteen Days on my home theater (rather apropos, considering the date) and watched most of it.

If I didn't watch the debate, it's because I shout enough at the TV as it is. It's a bad habit I indulge in too much, and so I opted not to watch something which would only exacerbate my tendencies in that direction.

Permalink Reply by Pat on October 17, 2012 at 8:33am

I did watch it - against my better judgment. I've already taken advantage of early voting so I've cast my die. However, I do have to give credit to the President. As opposed to the last debate, at least this time he didn't come impersonating a zombie. He actually stood up to Romney. One thing I took away from it is that these two guys do not like each other! As to "hitting one out of the park," maybe not. But, he did break it off in Romney more than Romney did to him. Overall, I'd give to the President. But, that doesn't mean it will necessarily translate into votes this coming November. I fear what Daniel said is correct. Americans want instant gratification; without worrying about long term consequences. In politics, it's the same as the guy wanting a steady diet of triple cheeseburgers to satisfy his immediate wants. He's not even considering the long term consequences of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, etc.

Permalink Reply by Tammy S on October 17, 2012 at 9:36am

Now one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort. But number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce that sometimes you need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school.

She said, I can't be here until 7 or 8 o'clock at night. I need to be able to get home at 5 o'clock so I can be there for making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said fine. Let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

No one is talking about this statement by Romney today and it's very telling, what he's really saying, is if you hire women you'll need to be willing to 'make concessions'. It's very obvious oh golly gee whiz, that Mr. Romney thought it made him look like a wonderful white knight for hiring this 'woman', when the point was no woman needs a savior but rather an equal opportunity. We certainly wouldn't want this turd to help us up the stairs to the glass ceiling, talk about out of touch! What in the Dickens indeed!

Permalink Reply by Sarah on October 17, 2012 at 11:38am

Believe me, I'm talking about that line! My mom and I text each other a lot during debates and that line immediately prompted me to scream about what a sexist pig Romney isl Did it ever occur to him that he might have some male employees who are fathers who would need to go home at a reasonable hour to make dinner for his kids?

Permalink Reply by Tammy S on October 17, 2012 at 1:09pm

Sarah, I am so glad that John and I weren't the only people in the world to stop what we were doing the minute he said that last night to turn around, yell at the television!

Permalink Reply by Sarah on October 17, 2012 at 1:25pm

It just goes to show how out of touch he is with middle class families. Because among my circle, I don't know of a single two-parent household where one parent does all the cooking, cleaning, grocery-shopping, etc. As it is becoming increasingly common for the woman to have the higher income, it is becoming more common for men to do their share around the house. Even my 74 year-old retired dad has caught on to the fact that it was pretty unfair all those years both he and my mom worked for him to expect her to do all the housework as well. He now puts his own dishes in the dishwasher and is in charge of vacuuming. I suspect Mitt has never done either of those things, or changed a diaper, in his life. But if he wants to be president, he should probably clue into the fact that an awful lot of men do these things.

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on October 17, 2012 at 10:46pm

Oh I so agree with you Sarah. Woman are now making more money than men and so it is more common to have men do more work around the house or be househusbands and take care of the kids.

Permalink Reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on October 17, 2012 at 10:10pm

I watched it. It's a sad commentary that hardly anyone seems to care about the lack of actual policy debate. We're used to two politicians calling one another liars, with no agreed upon basis for validating facts. Should the fate of a nation - indeed the world since US energy policy over the next four years will hugely impact climate change - comes down to whose body language and voice tone are more dominating?

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on October 17, 2012 at 10:47pm

Yeah I agree Ruth - just a sad commentary on what it has become.

Permalink Reply by Chris Dodds on October 18, 2012 at 2:41pm

Yeah, I say we get America to just scrap the voting this time around, put Obama and Romney into a big room together, and have them fight to the death! That's actually not a bad idea for every elected position.

Permalink Reply by Chris Dodds on October 18, 2012 at 2:39pm

Yes, the president was far more assertive this time around. I personally think he won the debate. But I'm surprised that more people are focusing on Romney's lie about how Obama responded to the Libya crisis but not Romney's lie about unemployment. Romney said that when Obama first took office, unemployment was at 7.8% and that it's still at that now. That is an outright lie, unemployment was at at least 10% when Obama took office. Am I the only person living today who was alive back then?!

Permalink Reply by Steph S. on October 19, 2012 at 6:56pm

Yeah Chris - at least Obama was awake this time around.