Archives for: October 2012, 06
Not everyone was preoccupied with debate night and debate-aftermath week. Nancy Hanks at The Hankster leads a discussion in a conference on how to save the world. Frankly, I kind of like the world, and I'm pretty much for saving it. So I guess she gets a pass on Denver.
With some pundits frustrated that Mitt Romney's 47 percent was not mentioned, not every conservative would have been disappointed if it had come up. Chuck Thinks Right believes the Mitt Romney attack on the half of the country who want everything for free and who refuse to take responsibility for their own lives was an oversimplification. But he defends the overarching message as essentially valid.
Jack Jodell at THE SATURDAY AFTERNOON POST was frustrated at misinformation by candidate Romney and missed opportunities by President Obama.
Ryan at Secular Ethics goes policy-wonk on us, as if debates should have substance. He posts the best analysis yet of the Romney tax plan, with what he see as the likely effect. He does it all in two sentences that are really quite good.
Tommy Christopher of Mediaite fame examines the debate from a different angle, concluding that, as usual, journalists are more interested in the style of exchange than whether the candidates carried with them the virtue of truth.
My own reaction to debate night has centered less on initial popular reaction to style and energy level, focusing more on policy points and ultimate political effect. I suggested the President will end up a little ahead of the game. This was met with some mirth from our frequent honored antagonist, the ever pugnacious Heathen Republican, who proposed the site owners change the name to Burr's World. I thought fleetingly of Burr's Galaxy but that may be ambitious.
Today I discovered that the latest negative review of Obama's debate performance, in contrast to my own analysis, comes from ... President Obama.
Et tu, Barack?