Home » debates

Picking Winners and Losers

Romney and the Republicans love to tell us that the government shouldn’t be picking winners and losers. This is hogwash. Romney has been hammering the Solyndra thing. Of course, he doesn’t want us to know that while he was at Bain Capital 22% of businesses that he invested in went belly up.

Romney also saidBut don’t forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years’ worth of breaks, into — into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tesla and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don’t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?

This is not true. The Obama administration did not spend $90 billion on energy projects. I wish that they had. We need to spend more money on energy… but I’m getting off the subject. We spent $21 billion. Now, anyone with access to an internet search engine could look up this number. It is easily available. So why did Romney tell millions of Americans (both via his web site and in the debates) that the Obama administration spent $90 billion? Republicans will believe it. They have been taught that the government simply wastes, burns and flushes our money. So, any big number will be believed by Republicans.

By |2012-10-30T21:55:28-04:00October 29th, 2012|Elections, The Daily Show|Comments Off on Picking Winners and Losers

Yep, So What? Debates wrap up

Debates suck. I’m sorry, but they do. They are completely meaningless. We learn nothing from debates. All I can do is quote the great jazz trumpeter Miles Davis and say, “So What?” Let’s think about this just for second. Suppose Barack Obama had come out on the offensive. Suppose that he had jumped on every misstatement and unsupported piece of data that Mitt Romney offered up throughout this first debate. What would have happened? Barack Obama would be painted by the Right as having been too aggressive. “He is overly aggressive. He’s a man; he’s angry.” You know where this would be going. Then, on the other hand, what if Barack Obama took a scholarly approach? Well, that would also play into one of those conservative memes. As far as I can tell, debates rarely change the outcome of an election. By now, everybody knows who Barack Obama is and everybody knows who Mitt Romney is. If you don’t know what they stand for by now, it is because you have been living in a cave.

From the Daily Kos:

So what will happen moving forward? There will be aggressive fact checking, which may make a dent in Romney’s win, but I’m not confident of that. Romney’s favorabilities, if the snap polling is to be believed, will also improve. But nothing will knock Obama’s down, and in fact, that CBS snap poll found that people found Obama more empathetic.

We’ll be watching the polling carefully over the coming days and weeks, obviously, for signs that the damage runs deeper. It wasn’t a great night, but not a catastrophic one. The fundamentals still favor our team, by a longshot, and Team Blue has three more debates to turn things around (two presidential and one vice-presidential). But they will definitely need to make adjustments.


By |2012-10-04T19:49:55-04:00October 4th, 2012|Elections, Party Politics|3 Comments

More on the 20th debate

I know that many Americans have moved on from the debates, but I’m stuck. Why? What the hell was all of that? 20? Why did we need 20 debates? Why couldn’t we ever get a format that really helped inform the American people about the issues that are facing our country? Why do we continually get these sound bite answers that can fit on a bumper sticker? How is that adequate? The debate process has been so inadequate, I would argue that it has actually detracted from our democracy. I would argue that we learned absolutely nothing except there’s actually a penalty for trying to answer a straight question with a straight answer. Nobody wants to hear a nuanced answer. We are living in the age of American Idol, Survivor and the Amazing Race. Thoughtful hard work gets you voted off the island. Instead, it was the sound bites that got all the applause. Newt Gingrich kept yammering on and on about how dangerous the world was – why couldn’t we have a serious discussion about the dangers that face the United States and how to combat those dangers? I simply don’t understand why we can’t have an intelligent discussion on television. The epitome of this mindless, childish and time wasting event was the one-word answer to describe yourself. Really? One word? What is this – the Dating Game? How does this 7th grade exercise help our democracy? How does this help you and I decide whether any these guys are qualified or have the right ideas to move the country forward?

The Daily Show has more:

By |2012-02-25T11:21:21-04:00February 25th, 2012|Party Politics, The Daily Show|Comments Off on More on the 20th debate
Go to Top