Thoughts on the 2nd Presidential Debate!

I'm going to do it!  There is nothing else for me to do this evening and I just feel this strange compulsion to write and watch some crazy good debate action.

But tonight, instead of just commenting on the two men locked in hot one on one campaign action, I will be answering the people's questions.  Will I win the debate?  You be the judge.

Allright:

Question #1:  A young man named Jeremy wants to know if is going to have a job after college.  What can we do to make sure that the man has a job in 2014?  

Well Jeremy, that all depends on what you majored in.  Did you major in science, engineering, technology, or business?  I can tell you that I reckon you are going to have a pretty good chance at getting a job of some kind, somewhere, especially if you are willing to relocate.  Did you major in 1660's English Diarist Studies or Sackbutt performance?  We'll do our best to have a nice, mind-numbing, factory job open for you.  Congratulations, though, on following your dreams.

Mad props to Candy Crowley for telling Romney to shut up and sit the fuck down.  Howard Webb would be proud.

Next?

Question 2:  Is it the Energy Department's purpose to lower gas prices?

Nope.

Ho boy.  I hope "Jeremy the College Kid" doesn't become this election cycle's "Joe the Plummer".

Hey, in case you guys were wondering, a sackbutt is kind of trombone from the middle ages.  Let's see if I can find a good picture of it on the Internet here...

There you go.  Sackbutts, from a 1511 German treatise called "Das Schones Tootenhorn" by Heinz Himmelfahrendingledoppershchillmenschallmenpoofenpop von Ulm.

Next.  Hopefully, the next one will be a better question.  Though I must say for such a mundane question we have gotten a lot of fireworks out these guys.  I wonder if they are actually going to come to blows.  Like are they going to throw off the gloves and try to stab each other with their wingtips?  I wouldn't be surprised if by the end of these three debates someone loses an eye.

Question 3:  Taxes, Glorious Taxes!  Which tax deductions would Romney actually do away with?

I'm going to let Romney answer this one.  If he actually will stoop so low as to actually answer a question.  Romney would have made a great dodge ball player....and maybe he is.

Ugh.  What an awful answer.  So you are going to cap my deductions at $2,000 or so, and then you are going to make my income from investments and capital gains tax free?  That would great, you know, if I actually had capital gains coming in.  But I'm not the Monopoly man; I'm a middle class man working his ass off in a cracker jack factory with a heavy debt load.  I don't think Romney has really thought this one through yet, certainly not to the point where he can make a succinct statement as to what he would do.  I'm sure he has a 13 point plan though.

I actually had a co-worker at work defend low capital gains tax rates, and it was pretty compelling.  The low tax rate on capital gains encourages people to make a risky investment.  My income is guaranteed (provided I don't get fired)...but if you are investing in the market with no guarantee of a return, maybe you should be rewarded for your chutzpah for having a low rate.

The first plank of the the Romney make America okay again is ENERGY INDEPENDENCE IN 5 YEARS????  Are you kidding me?  You may as well say you are going to build three attack submarines a year....

Next?

Question 4:  In what ways can we rectify inequality in the work place, especially income equality for females.

Females and males should make the same amount of money if they are doing the same type of work.

How could I make that happen?  I don't know.  It's a good thing I am not in this debate, because this question really would have caught me flat footed.  As an engineer, I am not used to giving a half answer that I transition into talking points.

Oh, how magnanimous of governor Romney to go out and search high and low for women to fill his cabinet, and to give them flexible schedules so they can do all that stuff at home that they are supposed to be doing because even though they are in high powered political positions they still have vaginas.

Hey, how come women are always the one who have to leave at 7 or 8 so they can make dinner for their kids?  Because I can tell you there a lot of men out there who are coming home from work and then playing with children, cooking dinner, and doing dishes (did you hear that!?  Cooking dinner AND doing dishes!!). This ain't 1950.

Next?

Question 5:  Hey Romney, how different are you from George W. Bush?

Romney has a 5 point plan.  George Bush shot from the hip.  Didn't particularly take aim pretty well, either.

I wonder George Bush is watching this now?  What does he think of all this?  Or is he living blissfully on his ranch clearing brush and riding bikes?

Note that Romney said nothing about how Bush got us involved in a land war in Asia, implying that Romney would be a-okay with doing that again.  Clearly both he and President Bush have never seen The Princess Bride, so I guess that is one way they are not different.

Bold, bold move from Obama, actually trying to make Romney sound like he is worse than Mr. Bush.

And a folksy idiom from Ms. Crowley, saying Question 6 is in the same wheelhouse as Question 5.  I tried to use that idiom at work once, saying that a certain problem was right in my wheelhouse.  I was told never to say something like that again.

I guess that is another way I am not cut out for the campaign trail.  Not only do I have no grasp of the 5 d's of campaigning (dodge duck dive dip and dodge the wrench...I mean balls...I mean questions), but I also sound very clunky when I try to use folksy expressions such as:

That is better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.

I'm going to give it the old University try.

Mamma warn't born in no log cabin.

I come from humble origins.  My mother was born in a log cabin.

Well you know what they say...fairground food tastes like shit.

My nipples are just exploding with udder delight!

Okay, the next question

Question 6:  Why should I vote for you again, Mr. Obama? I am not better off than I was 4 years ago, and the things I need to live are pretty expensive.  

Sorry to hear life is so hard for you.  Take 50 CC's of "suck it up cupcake" and move on.

Vote for me.

Next!

Question 7:  Immigration. How you doing President Romney?  What are you going to do to immigrants that are here without green cards?

What's that you say?  Papers, please.

Woah woah woah there Romney! "You got an engineering degree, it's stamped to a green card, come on over"? You going to bring in a bunch of foreign scientists and engineers to take jobs from our own homegrown engineers?  From corn/beef/HGH fed Americans?  Is that how you are going to build three attack submarines a year?  You are going to bring in a bunch of ringers to do it for us?

Dude.  At least Romney maybe got the woman's name right.  Come on Obama.

Here in the 7th question Candy Crowley still has a pretty good measure of control over this debate.  

Next question please.  I am getting tired, I'd like to go to bed, and I am still hoping against hope to make it to the gym before work...I've got maybe another 30 minutes to go...

Question 8:  Change of topic.  Huzzah!  Kerry Latka is a man, man!  Obama seems to have been caught flat footed by this, as have I.  Can he recover his wits?  Who denied security for the Libyan mission?

Obama is kinda sorta taking responsibility for the Libyan screw-up, as he should.  He's boxed himself into a corner, and it's mate in one for Romney.  Will he move his rook to pen him in?

Oh no.  He doesn't just move his rook and complete the endgame.  He moves the rook, slams it down on the table, says "Checkmate Mothafucker!" and upends the board scattering pieces everywhere as he accuses Mr. Obama of going to a fundraiser the day after a US ambassador is assassinated and our country is in foreign policy crises mode.  Would Romney act differently under similar circumstances?

He transitions neatly into the Arab Spring and the Middle East.  I really, really, really wonder what else could be done about the Arab Spring.  Its such a fluid situation, there are so many factions.

Obama defends his leadership though, replacing the board, gathering the pieces, and throwing it back in Romney's face.  Hasn't Romney played politics with this whole situation as well?  

Romney accuses Obama of not telling the truth on national TV concerning the Rose Garden speech on the Benghazi attack, claiming that Obama did not call it a terrorist attack during that Rose Garden speech....

....Obama stands his ground and said that he did....

And....

GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

BARACK OBAMA has seemed to won a most improbable point here late on, and Candy Crowley has given him the goal saying that he did say it was a terrorist attack in the Rose Garden the day after the Benghazi affair.

But did he now? Did he?

Here is the transcript from the White House itself:

Statement by the President on the Attack in Benghazi

I strongly condemn the outrageous attack on our diplomatic facility in Benghazi, which took the lives of four Americans, including Ambassador Chris Stevens. Right now, the American people have the families of those we lost in our thoughts and prayers. They exemplified America's commitment to freedom, justice, and partnership with nations and people around the globe, and stand in stark contrast to those who callously took their lives.

I have directed my Administration to provide all necessary resources to support the security of our personnel in Libya, and to increase security at our diplomatic posts around the globe. While the United States rejects efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others, we must all unequivocally oppose the kind of senseless violence that took the lives of these public servants.

On a personal note, Chris was a courageous and exemplary representative of the United States. Throughout the Libyan revolution, he selflessly served our country and the Libyan people at our mission in Benghazi. As Ambassador in Tripoli, he has supported Libya's transition to democracy. His legacy will endure wherever human beings reach for liberty and justice. I am profoundly grateful for his service to my Administration, and deeply saddened by this loss.

The brave Americans we lost represent the extraordinary service and sacrifices that our civilians make every day around the globe. As we stand united with their families, let us now redouble our own efforts to carry their work forward.

Note that President Obama never actually calls it an act of terror, but rather an outrageous attack.  I think Romney is wrong in spirit, but technically he may be correct.

Tomorrow I am sure we will sort through the mess and Fox News will say that Candy Crowley, CNN anchor and card carrying member of the liberal media, was intent on making sure Obama won the debate.

For me, I think its clear that we need instant replay in these things.  The stakes are too high for the ref to just give a controversial goal to one side or the other.  We have the technology to make sure we get it right, and we should get it right.  On the other hand, this is a truly compelling moment in this debate, and one wonders if an official review would slow the game down too much.

Speaking of which, I have paused the debate to write all this up and do the fact checking that you deserve.  I had thought that Obama had just won the debate, but its turns out tomorrow he may lose it again.

Let's see what happens next...

It's confusion on the pitch.  Romney said Diego Maradona handled the ball before dishing it off to Barack, and Obama has whipped his shirt off in a Brandi Chastainesque celebration as he dives into the corner on his knees, hands splayed out and upwards in gratitude to the football gods.  He must be careful, because he could be booked for that.

Obama seems to know he is won a dubious goal, and with a nod to Crowley and the great mercurial Maradona the debate moves on to the next question.

Question 9:   Can we keep assault rifles out of people's hands?  Should we?

Ya'll know how I feel about this.

Romney's commentary on education and the state of our culture today are prescient.  But now he going to bring up fast and furious, ruining what could have been a good moment for him, I think.  Sometimes it's best to just hold your fire, for all the flak Obama has taken for not doing so during the first debate.

Question 10:  Stand up Carol Goldberg, and ask your question.  How are we going to keep jobs here?

I think, as Tenacious D suggest, we should build a Deth Starr.

Look, It's going to take millions of people to build a ship that looks like a small moon.  Millions.  Lots of engineering, lots of manufacturing, and of course you need people to serve those workers beer and burgers and sell them books and other stuff like that.

Ah, the last question.

Question 11:  Labor is cheap in China.  How you gonna get Apple to build their stuff here?

Look, there isn't enough time to answer this question.  I'll just throw some buzzwords out there.

Science.  Engineering.  Business.  Thought Leadership. America.

Question 12:  So Question 11 was not the last question?  Oh man.  

Hey, listen, I thought question 11 was the last question of the night.  You can't tell me there is one more question and throw another question out there.  I am sorry.  You just can't do that.  In protest, I will not answer this so called last question.

Romney is going to try though.  His message in a nutshell:  I believe in God, and I am awesome.  Don't settle for four more years of American lassitude.  Vote for me.  Don't vote for him.

And now Obama's turn.  His message in a nutshell:  Comrade Gary,  I will fight for you.  My grandad fought the Nazis.  If they were here, I would fight the Nazis too, you better believe it.  Vote for me.

Three more weeks to the election.  Can't come soon enough.

Let's call it a draw.  A quick spell check and it's off to bed.

P.S.

After further review, Obama did in fact refer to the attacks in Benghazi as "acts of terror".  If you actually watch the video of the speech, which is very, very different from the transcript posted previosuly, at 4:19 he does say

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

So in the end Obama earned his goal after all (though I am sure Crowley's role in giving it to him will still be a question featuring prominently on Hannity tomorrow), and Romney has a moment where he was mistaken greatly on the floor.  Only time will tell if it will end up mattering very much on Election Day, but its clear here that Romney got too greedy in going for the jugular and Obama scored big on the counterattack.  I wonder who outfoxed who here?

Here is the full speeh:



And a transcript of what was actually said:

10:43 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT:  Good morning.  Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation.  Often, they are away from their families.  Sometimes, they brave great danger.

Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith.  We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed.  And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack.  We're working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats.  I've also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world.  And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths.  We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others.  But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence.  None.  The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya.  Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans.  Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

It's especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save.  At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi.  With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya.  When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there.  He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on.  I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks.  We mourned with the families who were lost on that day.  I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed.  And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi. 

As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it.  Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.  Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America.  We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act.  And make no mistake, justice will be done.

But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers.  These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity.  They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

Thank you.  May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

END
10:48 A.M. EDT

A Message from the Anti-John Terry Faction

Allright, allright.  My last post (on politics, naturally) got a pretty paltry response.

I get it.  Y'all tired of politics.  If anything, many of you probably come here to ESCAPE today's obsession with politics, politics, politics.

So let's talk about something else....how about Football, with a capital F standing for "foot", indicating that we are talking football football, played with the feet and not with the hands, played with beauty and eloquence (and sometimes a bit of acting) rather than with violence and outmoded Jominian tactics; a game wholly European and yet, oddly enough, wholly capitalistic in its managerial style, rather than a game wholly American and yet run like some kind of benevolent USSR with planned economics designed to evenly distribute the talent around and a mustachioed strongman sitting at the top.

Okay, maybe Goddell isn't sporting a Stalinesque cookie duster, though I'll bet he is thought of it. Baduska Paduska, Comrade Goodell!  Baduska Paduska!

No.  We talking soccer.  And specifically, we talking Chelsea FC.

Now, one of the joys of being separated from your favorite sports team by the ocean is that you are not subjected to the barrage of gossip that surrounds any sports franchise.  And even if you do catch wind of some of it it doesn't figure highly into how you follow your sport, becuase no one here in America is talking about it.  They are more worried about sports talk issues more closer to home, things like:

-Can Frank Beamer's Hokies keep the momentum up after beating the mighty Blue Devils?

-Where did Frank Beamer get his sunglasses?  Are they special made?  Can I get a pair just like his?

-Is it true that Frank Beamer has a tattoo of Barbara Palmer, Duchess of Cleveland, mistress of King Charles II and a very young John Churchill, certified hottie from history, the Farrach Fawcett of her age (Samuel Peyps had a portrait of her installed in his private study), etched with great care upon his hind-quarters?

Her Hotness, the Duchess of Cleveland

Still, there are those times where even the distance between myself and London cannot keep me safe from the tumultuous life and misadventures of one Chelsea player in particular, and that would be Mr. Chelsea himself, John Terry.

For those of you who don't know, John Terry is the Chelsea captain and the cornerstone upon which the mighty Blues build their defense.  But last year he also made an incredibly foul and racist remark (I know what he said, but it's so offensive that even I, who am known for tossing around a few choice words on this blog, will not dare repeat them) to Anton Ferdinand, a defender at QPR, and the repercussions have played out very, very slowly.

In Britain, making a racist remark is actually a prosecutable crime, and while Terry has been cleared by the English courts thanks to a host of barristers wearing what I presume are funny little powdered wigs, he has been found guilty by the English Football Association (FA) and has had a four game ban imposed upon him.

He is appealing the ban, and so in the meantime he continues to play for the club.  How has the off field ruckus affecting his on field performance?  Well, as everyone in the football world knows, John Terry plays at his best with his back to the wall and his good name dragged through mud, because putting in a good performance on the pitch will obviously silence all his detractors and restore his good name.

It wouldn't be so bad, perhaps, if Terry would offer at least an apology.  His argument has always been that he said whatever he said in the heat of the moment and it wasn't intended to be overtly rascist.  Maybe so, but an admission and apology is probably still in order.

It also wouldn't be so bad if this was just your normal football star having a bad day and making a horrible lapse in judgement.  If it happened to Manchester United's Ryan Gibbs -  who has a reputation of being a hard working, professional footballer and a decent human being - we would all be shocked and saddened but we'd give him the benefit of the doubt, and Gibbs would undoubtedly do what was necessary to put it all behind him.

Unfortunately, John Terry is a repeat offender, as you can see by the rap sheet below:

• September 2001:  Terry is fined two weeks wages by Chelsea for an incident involving three Chelsea players and American tourists at a bar in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks.  I am not sure what he said, but I believe he decided it would be wise to make a bit of a joke out of the whole planes flying into building thing.  Not good.  I didn't know about that until after I started supported Chelsea, and if I had known about it I may not have thrown my hat in the ring.
• January 2002:  Terry and team mate Jody Morris are charged with assault and affray after a confrontation with a nightclub bouncer.  I think the charges were dropped.
• 2009:  Allegedly takes money from an undercover reporter for a private tour of Chelsea's training ground.
• January 2010:  Rumors circulate that Terry, recent winner of Father of the Year, had a four month affair with Vanessa Perroncel, the former girlfriend of team mate Wayne Bridge.  Oddly, the press was more concerned about the fact that Terry was sleeping with the ex girlfriend of a former team mate, instead of, you know, cheating on his wife.  The allegations cost Terry his England Captaincy, though it turns out that the press reported the story was made up and Perroncel herself would never admit to an affair.  John Terry and his wife remain married, so....let's give the old man the benefit of the doubt here. 

And there is the whole kerfuffle with Anton Ferdinand.  

Additionally, while Terry is a good defender, he is just kind of a dick about it.  I mean, any good defender is always kind of picking at the divas and pretty boys making up the opposition's attacking steel, looking to frustrate them, get inside their heads, and make them ultimately screw up or better yet lose their cool and get carded.  Terry is also constantly arguing with the refs, and while it is true that as captain he does have a right to do so, he does it so much and so persistantly that it comes of as a negative.  

In short, Terry is doing everything he is supposed to be doing on the pitch, but since off the pitch he seems like such a distasteful person it makes it tints his match performance in a negative light.  

I, for one, will be happy to see him off.  Yes, he's a good defender, but I think Chelsea can find other excellent defenders to take his place.  But the fans love him, for some reason, and so his departure from the club doesn't seem likely in the near future.  Though he is 32, and as a defender he can only have three more good years left in those legs of his.

I guess in closing only one thing can be said after weighing all the evidence that this blog post has provided.  The Duchess of Cleveland was hot, and John Terry is not.  How is that for an ending for ya?  I've been taking quip lessons from Joe Biden.

Image credit:  Barbara Palmer (née Villiers), Duchess of Cleveland published by Richard Tompson, after Sir Peter Lely, mezzotint, 1678-1679 NPG D20377 © National Portrait Gallery, London, used by creative commons permission

 

In Which Nick Proclaims his Probabable Support for President Barack Hussein Obama

So apparently declaring Obama the winner of the first Presidential debate is about as bad  as me declaring Virginia Tech the winner of their game against UNC (just in case you missed it...they were not).

By most accounts, Obama was shellacked, hammered, eviscerated, devastated, destroyed, smacked-down, swatted about, obliterated.  In a CNN poll, some 67% of respondents gave the  first debate to Romney while a mere 25% said Obama did better.  The only thing it looks like I got right, as I noted repeatedly during my liveish blogpost, is that Jim Lehrer had a really awful night has moderator.

First, let me say this:  I will not be blogging livesh during another presidential debate.  Clearly I did not do it during the VP debate, which I didn't even watch.  It's fun to do a stream of consciousness kind of thing for the occasional soccer match and it worked out okay during the two party nomination acceptance speeches during the GOP and DEM campaign conventions.  But the debates are just too long, too fast paced, and a wee bit too dull to really blog about live.  In short, I didn't enjoy myself, and as this blog is still a labor of love it doesn't seem worth doing again.

But the one thing the first debate did do was help me solidify my choice for this November.  A lot of you probably saw this coming, but I think I can say with a good deal of confidence that I will be voting for Obama, and I will be doing so for the following reasons:

1.  Romney has, so far, not arrived at the gate of my place of employment with a dozen fresh (not fundraiser) donuts.  Nor has he engaged the elegant Anne Hathaway to do it for him.  The offer still stands:  If Romney meets me personally at the gate of Newport News Crackerjack Factory with a box of fresh Krispy Kreme donuts, or if he sends Anne Hathaway in his stead in any state of dress or undress, I will vote for him.

2.  Whatever I think about Obama as a leader (and that is, honestly, not much) I find myself agreeing with him on most matters of policy.  The only thing I think I agree with Romney on is entitlement reform with regards to Social Security and Medicare, but I don't know if I agree on the mechanism.  From a purely self-interested standpoint I also stand with Romney on military spending because my job depends on it (Newport News Crackerjack Factory is the Navy's leading supplier of top quality crackerjack); but if you pressed me I would probably say that our military doesn't have to be so large, though if we are looking to downsize we need to seriously re-think our role in the world.  As big as our military is, it may not be big enough to do everything we ask of it.  

But otherwise on most things I tend to agree with Obama, especially the government's role in creating a sort of equality of opportunity, Obamacare, and his plan to reduce the deficit.  Though I would also admit that on any plan to reduce the deficit, I think Romney is more likely to actually carry it out.

3.  On social issues, which were not touched on in the last debate, I know that I agree more with Obama than I do with Romney.

4.  One thing that wasn't mentioned either in the last debate -- or really at all this campaign season, save a blip during Obama's presidential nomination acceptance speech, was Global Warming.  I did mention during Obama's speech  that I have my doubts on the issue.  But I didn't have the chance to explain what I meant.

On the underlying science behind the theory I have no doubts.  Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.  Human activity is increasing the amount of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, and that would increase the overall global warming effect (an effect that is necessary to sustain life on our planet, by the way).

I also believe (with one reservation, which I will touch on) that over a span of maybe the last 150 years or so we have seen global average temperatures rise at a relatively rapid rate.  The climate is undoubtedly changing in many ways.

The question for me is one of cause and effect.  Are the increased greenhouse gasses responsible for increased temperature?  If they are, to what degree (ha ha ha!)?  Or is it just nature running its course? After all, ice core records show that there have been similar temperature fluctuations in the past.  Is there a problem with data due to the urban heat effect, and the shutting down or more rural weather stations?  These are the questions I find myself asking at this point, and I am not sure they have been adequately answered.

And no, these are not simply objections raised by Michael Creighton in his book State of Fear (though he does raise them);  I'm actually making an effort to, very slowly and in my few moments of spare time, learn more about the problem.  This is just where my reading and thinking takes me for the present moment.  It is just one reasonably educated man's opinion, but it has been thought out.

With so many questions, the answer is not to stick one's head in the sand and say that Global Warming is not happening and there is nothing we can do about it.  Rather, I think we need to aggressively study the problem and start to think about ways we could either live with climate change or curtail it somehow.  Obama is much more likely to do something like that than Romney is, I would say, though sadly I think he still isn't very likely to do it.

I would also note that this is the thought that initially started to solidify my support for Barack Obama.  I am not a single issue voter, but I think that climate change is a very important matter that requires more investigation.  Obama is more likely to agree with that.  Maybe Romney is too, but its something he writes down in his Hello Kitty Book of Shame every night before he goes to sleep and shares with no one

5.  To vote for Romney validates the strategy of the right wing media (it is out there, I assure you, for all the talk of the media as a liberal juggernaut) and some Republican law makers to make Obama a one term president, a goal they have had in mind since day one of the Obama administration.  It feels to me in many ways that the 2008 election never actually ended.

To send Obama packing would not only give them the glory, but it would also encourage the Democrats to do the same thing to Romney.  The current state of politics is disastrous, and I do not want to see the cycle continue as it has.  I want to send Obama back the white house not with a clear mandate to whatever he wants, but rather with a message to both parties that its time to start, you know, actually governing the People of this Republic.

So there you go.  My vote, probabably for Obama.

Thoughts on the Denver Presidential Debate, Liveish

Well, it's finally here!  The shootout at the...place in Denver where they having the debates.  This one may be for all the marbles folks;  the undecideds in the electorate are dwindling, early voting has begun, and Mitt Romney has a lot of work to do to try to restart his campaign for the 23rd time and try to change the dynamic of this race.

Expectations have been downplayed by both contenders in a classic game of one-downsmanship, but don't be fooled.  Obama has been hitting the books and working on his fade away jumper, whilst Mitt Romney has been practicing some zingers and chasing chickens around the back alleys of Philadelphia to try to improve his speed.  He must also remember the five d's of debate:  dodge, duck, dip, dive, and dodge (the questions).

Okay, enough setup.  The two champions are in the tunnel, the crowds are holding up their scarves and singing, and at the end of 90 minutes only one man can be victorious.

50 million people are watching....what are the other 250 million of us doing?  Probably having fun.

00:00  We are introduced to the referee of the debate, Jim Lehrer.  There is a hand shake between  Ann and uh....shoot, what is her name?  Rats.  Domestic issues are the topic of the day, and Mr. Lehrer holds all the cards.  And he's told everyone to shut up and stop singing.

00:00 And the two men take the stage and there is a warm handshake between the two.  Lots of speculation on whether they would shake hands or not, but there you go.

1:00 Obama wins the toss and the first question is on jobs.  20th anniversary for the Obamas.  Obama, not surprisingly, is wearing a blue tie.

3:00 Romney, of course, is wearing a red tie.  And a funny joke about the 20th anniversary of Barack Obama that makes the crowd chuckle, which is nice.

4:00 And Romney busts out a 5 point plan!  But I can't remember any of the points.  But he does say we are going to do more for small business, and that he knows how to do that, but I again believe that just being a business leader doesn't mean you are going to govern well.

6:00  Obama counters with investments in education and training, all of which is good, and goes into to sort of a plan of his own.  Don't know if I think the race to the top is so good.  Obama promises to lower the capital gains tax.  Surprised that Romney wants to add $2 trillion of additional military spending.

8:00 Romney is trying to appeal to the middle class.  I really wonder how much of the economy the president really has any control over.   Nice dodge by Romney to avoid having to actually confront Obama with a question as Lehrer would have done.  These are merely talking points.  Merely talking points.

10:00 I find it interesting that Romney's idea of fairness is that if the middle class gets tax cuts he can't increase the burden on the upper classes.

13:00 Jim Lehrer is losing control of the debate.  I know he wants to go down a certain role.  But Romney and Obama are not letting him to do it.  They are just going through their well rehearsed talking points.  Lots of discussion about studies and studies and studies.  Romney does make a decent point about the individual tax rate, though Obama says he is doing or is going to do the same thing.

17:00  You know, I find it sad that I have a difficult time believing anything that either of these guys are saying.

20:00  It seems as well that Romney is talking to the president, not to the American people.  Obama though, seems to be communicating a little more effectively.  Does that mean anything?  I don't know.  But I think that Romney's having a difficult time getting across again, which seems to be his problem.

21:00  Ho boy.   Romney is arguing with the Ref.  Not very classy at all.  But he is on the attack.  He has the momentum.  As we go into the second segment, Obama has maybe to get it back.

23:00 Okay, the defecit.  I think Romney's argument is pretty poor.  Obama is hoping the economy gets going again, through spending.  It's kenysian.  Does it work?  I don't know.  But I still think Romney is mis-representing the truth.  As Obama starts his rebuttal I have to agree with him.  As long as the deficit is being amassed to fight wars its okay, but as soon as we start spending to try to get the economy going again its a bad thing.  I think that Obama has a good defecit reduction plan, mixing revenue increases with spending cuts...though I worry he is going to cut crackerjack subsidies.

28:00 Obama is also flouting the rules of the debate.  But he's doing it more gracefully.

30:00 Romney's prayer cutting taxes and hoping that helps business which will generate more revenue, I just don't agree with it.

31:00 Obama is taking on the oil industry here.  He makes a good point, I think, on the tax breaks for oil companies.

34:00 Obama is making a very compelling argument here for why a balanced defecit reduction plan, I think.  But if what Romney is saying about green energy is also an excellent point.  It will be interesting to see if Romney's claim on the tax breaks for offshoring is true.  Romney may have been in business for 25 years, but to my recollection he hasn't been in business for a good number of years here.  And how much has the business world changed in the last, I don't know, 10 years?  And Romney has been pretty much just running for president for the past six (and he's not doing the best job of it...)

37:00  Romney made sure he had the first and the last word in the second segment.  That is either good debating or poor referreeship from Jim Lehrer.

39:00  I find my interest flagging as we move on to entitlement programs.  I know what I would do if I was the president.  I call it the grand swap:  The government will take care of healthcare, but you have to take responsibility for your retirement if you can.  I would swap my social security for healthcare costs in an instant.  It may just be that I am so far away from social security and medicare, and I am not counting on either being around when I am older, that I just don't care.

42:00  Still, I got to say that Obama is taking it to Romney here.  If you are 54 or 55, you may want to listen, because hey, guess what, you are going to be subject to whatever future voucher program Romney wants.  And he has AARP on his side.  It looks like Obama may have scored a crucial goal here, but let's wait and see what Romney says in rebuttal...

44:00  Lehrer asks point blank if he supports a voucher program...and Romney doesn't really answer.  He's resurrecting Bush's privatized social security plan, which I think maybe is something I would actually support.  If I could take my social security money and plow it into my 401k every week, I would definetly do it.  But its probably the end of social security as we know it.  And I don't know if that is a good thing.

48:00  Regulations now.  Jim Lehrer tries to get Romney under heel as Obama flashes a smile.  He's definetely a cooler customer than Romney, and while I know that is due to aloofness I still can't help but find it admirable.

52:00  So Romney would basically write better regulations.  Good luck with that.

52:00  Allright.  Healthcare.  Here we go.  Romney clearly doesn't like Obamacare (no surprise there).  Obama is in favor.  I think he is doing a better job at pointing out the good things about it, though Romney made some good points about why he doesn't like it.  I think its also pretty neat that Obama has taken the name of Obamacare up and embraced it.  It just kind of helps take some the venom out the turn.  Good move from the big man.  He turns Romney's argument for repeal against him arguing that Massachusetts is the model, though I guess Romeny's point is that the plan was best suited to that state, and it worked there, but maybe it doesn't work well everywhere.  And that is the plan he goes on to make quite well.  Though his claim that the Republicans had a counterplan (with bi-partisan support) is false.

60:00  Though I guess I would argue against Romney that healthcare, being a national issue, being too big for some poorer states to handle, is a matter for the national government IF you think giving everyone access to healthcare is a right.

63:00  I am just shaking my head at Romney now.  You can't outlaw pre-existing conditions without making sure that the pool is big enough, and that means everyone has to have insurance.  I think he also mis-characterizes the healthcare plan as a government takeover - it isn't.  It seems only that it is a way to make sure that everyone has insurance.  Doctors, hospitals, are all still private.  Except of course for the VA.

67:00 Obama levels a pretty good zinger at Romney.  Critizises him for not giving details, though I must say that Romney does have a pretty good grasp of various policy details.

70:00  Allright, the roll of Government now.  Let's have a little but of philosophy.  Obama invokes Lincoln, as he so often does (it is a dangerous and arrogant thing to do), but again he is making a clearer argument for what is trying to do (use the govt to create frameworks for opportunity) than Romney has so far.  But here is his rebuttal.

72:00  Romney's rebuttal is basically his interpretation of the constitution.  But it's a pragmatic argument, not a philosophical one.  And now as he goes into the next question he sort of says that government can improve education through subsidising charter schools, which is sort of counter to some of the other stuff he has already said.  One could also argue, if one talks of the pursuit of happiness, that using the government to increase opportunity can help those who are willing to work hard enough pursue happiness that they may not be otherwise able to pursue.  Read Outliers.  Successful people don't just work hard:  they work hard and make the most of their opportunities.

79:00  A low blow from Obama on the whole...ugh, I forget what it is.

80:00  Is Romney taking credit for Massachusetts schools being number one?

82:00  Jim Lehrer is going to have them solve grid lock in 3 minutes?  He should just let them move on to closing statements.  God knows they are going to go over the 3 minutes.  The officiating has been poor.  Very poor.

85:00  Closing statements.  Obama makes some pretty modest promises, which is kind of refreshing.  Mitt Romney promises hellfire if he isn't elected, and if he IS elected everything is going to be better.

89:00 Okay.  That is done.

The next debate is the vice presidential debate, and I won't be watching that one, because I don't care.

It is really nice to see the two families meet and talk for a bit afterwards.

Okay, so who do I give the debate to?  I'd have to give it to Obama.  I prefer the coolness, I think he had the better lines, and Romney said little that makes me, personally, want to vote for him.

Watching the post analysis, it looks like NBC is giving the debate to Mitt Romney.  If that doesn't say anything about where my loyalties obviously lie, then I don't know what else does.