Presidential Debate, Round II

[Conan71]

Preview of tonight's debate and some distillation of the distortions from both sides.  Everyone here seems to know which way we are going to vote, but hey, might as well post it to increase the fatigue over this election. 

Debates matter. Everyone from the two presidential candidates to an enraged, post-debate Chris Matthews, venting on MSNBC, was recently reminded of this important election year detail. The meeting in Denver between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney changed the course of the race, catapulting the GOP challenger into a lead in many national polls and placing Obama on the defensive in several battleground states.

Tonight's second presidential debate could be just as influential, making it equally important to get the facts straight as the candidates hustle for a victory on stage. The scope of discussion at the town hall-style event will increase, with questions from the audience on both foreign and domestic policies. Here's a cheat-sheet to help separate the fact from the spin.

Libya

Obama: Moderator Martha Raddatz didn't mince words in the vp debate when she asked Vice President Joe Biden why the late U.S. Ambassador Chris Stevens and his team did not receive increased security before Stevens, Glen Dougherty, Sean Smith and Tyrone Woods were killed by terrorists at the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

"We weren't told they wanted more security there," Biden said.

Tonight, President Obama may need to revise that answer: With many aspects of the attack still unclear, questions are arising as to whether or not the State Department left its agents vulnerable in an atmosphere of increased security risks.

And as Politifact.com notes, during a House investigation into the attack just a day before Biden's remarks, the State Department's regional security officer for Libya went on record saying that he personally asked his superiors for increased security throughout the country.
Energy

Obama: The president likes to say he's "doubled" a lot of things, most notably the generation of renewable energy and, in the long term, fuel efficiency of cars and trucks—and is likely to do so again tonight. These boasts will sound great, but they're heavily exaggerated.

Since Obama took office, only a certain division of renewable energy, that of wind and solar power, has doubled; overall, the increase in capacity is under 30 percent. And while the EPA is indeed raising fuel standards for increased efficiency by 2025, FactCheck.org has noted that, contrary to the president's rhetoric, our cars will hardly take us "twice as far" by that point.

Romney: The GOP nominee has his own favorite talking points on energy, starting with his misleading claim that the president has "doubled" something else: gas prices. This statement is technically true, but should be qualified by the fact that prices were extraordinarily low when Obama took office.

Also hyped up is the nominee's talk about Keystone XL, the pipeline project to transport oil from Canada to plants in the Gulf Coast.

The Romney refrain is that Obama botched a crucial energy project by wholly trashing the plans to import more oil from our neighbor to the north. But what Obama did delay was the assembly of the northern part of the new pipeline that was set through Nebraska's Sandhills, and he did so with bipartisan support from the state's lawmakers. A new, more environmentally sensitive route is set to be approved in a few months, and the whole thing should be up by 2015.

Iran

Romney: The former governor of Massachusetts is known to downplay the observable effects of the Obama administration's sanctions on Iran. He repeats variations on the line that he delivered earlier this year: that Obama "could have gotten crippling sanctions against Iran," but did not.

Given that Obama has presided over biting sanctions on the Islamic Republic—sanctions that Iran's leaders identify as responsible for the battering of its currency and wider economic turmoil—this talking point seems to require some obvious clarification. When asked about it, Romney's campaign told Politifact that the GOP candidate was specifically referring to an instance in 2010 when the administration failed to pass a UN resolution sanctioning the Iranian Central Bank.

Setting aside the probability that the veto-prone UN giants Russia and China would've blocked that particular resolution if it were pushed by any U.S. administration, it looks as though Romney is hoping this maneuver will come off to undecided voters as a broader failing of Obama's Iran policy.

Obama: The Obama campaign, again through Biden, has pushed back on this Romney line, stating that the president is waging an unprecedented diplomatic and economic effort to squelch the Ayatollah's nuclear program. But the administration overreaches when it makes statements giving the impression that before Obama's presidency "there was no international pressure on Iran," to quote Biden.

Politifact.com notes a few serious international initiatives the Bush administration undertook to stifle the Iranians' nuclear program:
Resolution 1737, passed in 2006, which banned trade with Iran in all items, materials, equipment, goods and technology that could contribute to the country's development of nuclear-weapon delivery systems.

Resolution 1747, adopted in 2007, which banned the country's arms exports and restricted the travel of additional individuals engaged in Iran's nuclear activities.

Resolution 1803, approved in 2008, which froze the assets of people involved in the nuclear program.

Despite the current campaign of sanctions, the theocratic regime has not renounced its nuclear ambitions, nor have simultaneous negotiations begun to produce any diplomatic solution.

So while Romney will likely try to undermine the severity of the administration's sanctions, expect Obama to leave out the fact that, not only do sanctions predate his taking office, but they still haven't achieved their main purpose.

Immigration

Romney: When the hot-button issue of immigration comes up, be ready for the candidates to resort to political hit-and-runs. Romney is likely to toss out the charge that Obama "did nothing" to tackle immigration in his first three years. But while the Obama administration certainly hasn't reached a comprehensive plan, the president lobbied for the DREAM act—which would qualify undocumented youth for a conditional path to citizenship—while the Democrats controlled the House. The DREAM Act faced opposition once the Republicans gained control.

Romney might also complain that Obama's deferred-action plan—granting some children born to undocumented immigrants in the U.S. a reprieve from deportation—doesn't offer a clear, permanent solution for immigrants hoping to stay here. Yet in his own plan, only young illegal immigrants who join the military would be able to avoid deportation.

Obama: Meanwhile, Obama may claim that during the Republican primary season Romney endorsed Arizona's controversial SB1070 law—requiring police to determine detainees' immigration status, some argue through racial profiling—and that the challenger called the law a "model for the nation."

Ever since, Romney says he was actually talking about Arizona's e-verify law, which more modestly requires employers to check a job candidate's immigration status on an online database.

China

Obama: Each candidate is trying to out-bluster the other on "standing up to China." For his part, Obama often alleges that Romney is a "job exporter." Super PACs supportive of the president echo this line of attack, broadcasting that thousands of Chinese employees "owe their jobs" to Romney.

While it's true that a good deal of Romney's money is invested in China, many of the claims that give more weight to Obama's jabs—sure to be repeated tonight—rest on flimsy foundations. Take the charge that Global Tech, a company Bain acquired while Romney was CEO, began producing products in China that could have been made here at home.

Politifact notes that this is mostly misleading: It may be that America had sufficient labor and technology to produce the company's products, like coffee makers. But long before Romney started his work at Bain, a larger trend in the global market had decided such production would be located in China.

What's more, Obama tends to conflate the fact that many Chinese employees found jobs at companies that Romney had invested in with the more controversial idea that Romney "outsourced" American jobs as a matter of protocol.

Romney: Romney, through ads and in stump speeches, accuses the president of essentially allowing the Chinese to "cheat" trade agreements through currency manipulation, saying that Obama has had "seven opportunities to stop them" that he simply passed up. What exactly were these opportunities?

The Treasury Department issues assessments of trade partners twice a year and presents them to Congress; if it calls out any partner on an offense like currency manipulation, then negotiations go through the IMF. Romney's complaint is that "under president Obama, the United States Treasury Department has refused to label China as a currency manipulator seven times."

That's true, but what makes this charge hyperbolic is that it's never been clear that labeling China as a manipulator through the Treasury will stop them from cheating. As Politifact notes, it was tried in 1994 to no avail. Plus, the idea that the Obama administration has simply been appeasing China amid its economic mischief is false: sticking with Romney's magic number, the administration has filed seven trade complaints against China through the WTO,

Abortion

Obama: Perhaps the most reflective and personal moment of the vp debate last week came via the question on abortion. So it seems likely that Obama and Romney will be pressed to articulate their stances on this key issue.

On this issue, the president has pulled no punches in his advertising. In TV spots called "Dangerous," the Obama camp states that both the top and bottom of the Republican ticket backed "proposals that would outlaw abortions even in cases of rape or incest." Politifact verifies this is true for Romney's running mate, Paul Ryan. Yet the GOP nominee himself has historically waffled on this issue, which makes the truth-value of Obama's charge a bit harder to uncover. Romney has at several junctures voiced support for legislation that stipulates "life begins at conception," often a slogan of hardline pro-life advocates.

However, contrary to Obama's ad, and perhaps his remarks tonight, Romney has never in any concrete way backed a bill or initiative to outlaw abortion, whether outright or with exceptions for rape, incest or life of the mother.

Romney: Romney will have to fit his remarks into his latest, unexpected statement on abortion and his presidential agenda.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-obama-debate-truth-113025531--election.html

[Townsend]

Here's your live ABC pre-show for the debate.

http://abcnews.go.com/politics/live/

This way you can really get burned out.

[Townsend]

There Are To Be No Follow-Up Questions of Any Kind at Tonight's Debate

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/10/16/debate_rules_obama_romney_camps_agree_to_bar_follow_ups_at_town_hall_debate.html

As we explained yesterday, the Obama and Romney campaigns have set some interesting ground rules for tonight's town hall debate. Most notably, neither camp wants the moderator to do a whole lot of moderating, specifically requesting that Candy Cowley doesn't ask any follow-up questions to a candidate who may choose to talk his way around a difficult question.

So then where will the follow-ups come from? By the looks of the memo signed by both campaigns, they won't come at all. The document not only bars Cowley from asking them, but also the audience members and even the other candidate on stage.

7 (c), IV: "The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invited the candidate comments during the 2 minute response period."
7 (d): "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions."
5 (e): "The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates."

Here's the document, which covers all four presidential and VP debates, and was first obtained by Time magazine. Tonight's town-hall specific rules start on Page 6.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/110073567/The-2012-Debates-Memorandum-of-Understanding-Between-the-Obama-and-Romney-Campaigns

[Gaspar]

Since I'm clairvoyant, here are my predictions.

There is a slight altitude change from Washington to NY, so we will have to see how that affects President Obama's cognitive abilities.

Because foreign policy and national security is to be the focus of this debate, there will be significant effort on the part of President Obama to segway into secondary issues.  If Romney plays his cards right, he will be able to deal a knock-out punch with Hillary's statements today.  If not immediately, over the next week or so as career members of the intelligence community step forward (refusing to camp under the bus with Hillary) and contradict whatever the President says.   There has already been some allusion to this which tells me that the Romney camp probably already knows some high-ranking folks willing to talk.

Questions related to domestic and economic policy are where you will see the President go on the offensive and attempt to paint Romney into a corner.  President Obama's inexperience in this realm in the private section combined with his failure in the public could make him vulnerable unless he knocks Romney off balance and keeps him there.

I fully expect the president to dominate the clock again, but I'm hopeful that he will at least answer one or two of the questions with real answers rather than just word clouds.

Candy Crwoley will get run over by both participants.  They need to choose someone like Gordon Ramsey to be the moderator! 

[Teatownclown]

I hope Candy has the balls to ask:

1) "We know Mr. Obama was reared and raised with the help of his grandmother. Gov. Romney, which of your 5 grandmothers helped raise you?"

2) "Candidates, when you die do you think you will go to heaven or to Kolob?"

[Gaspar]

This will complicate things.  Apparently being buried in the news is the fact that the State Dept is about to negotiate keeping troups in Afganistan past the 2014 deadline.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/16/state_department_official_negotiations_to_extend_us_troop_presence_in_afghanistan_s

"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, explained today that's not the whole story.

Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.

So that changes the narrative and opens another discussion for Romney on President Obama's foreign policy commitments.

Teatown, No one here cares how these two men choose to worship. 

[Conan71]

Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.[/color]

Advisors?

Hmmm, where have I heard that one before...

[Gaspar]

Advisors?

Hmmm, where have I heard that one before...

Gotta call them something besides troops.  With Al Qaeda on the rise again, we simply don't have enough CIA drones to kill all the roaches.

[Conan71]

Gotta call them something besides troops.  With Al Qaeda on the rise again, we simply don't have enough CIA drones to kill all the roaches.

But you don't understand.  Al Qaeda ceased to exist after Bin Laden was exterminated.

[Townsend]

But you don't understand.  Al Qaeda ceased to exist after Bin Laden was exterminated.

That's good news.

[Gaspar]

No matter how this debate turns out, you can be assured that most of the media will fawn over the President this time because they can't afford to report another failure.

[Teatownclown]

This will complicate things.  Apparently being buried in the news is the fact that the State Dept is about to negotiate keeping troups in Afganistan past the 2014 deadline.
http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2012/10/16/state_department_official_negotiations_to_extend_us_troop_presence_in_afghanistan_s

"We are leaving in 2014, period, and in the process, we're going to be saving over the next 10 years another $800 billion," Biden said. "We've been in this war for over a decade. The primary objective is almost completed. Now all we're doing is putting the Kabul government in a position to be able to maintain their own security. It's their responsibility, not America's."

Marc Grossman, the State Department's special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, explained today that's not the whole story.

Grossman said Tuesday that the point of the upcoming negotiations is to agree on an extension of the U.S. troop presence well past 2014, for the purposes of conducting counterterrorism operations and training and advising the Afghan security forces.

So that changes the narrative and opens another discussion for Romney on President Obama's foreign policy commitments.

Teatown, No one here cares how these two men choose to worship. 

All I am trying to point out, Gassious, is that nobody cares who is in the backdoor with their thumb up RMoney's butt....Again, with a slim chance the Bain of The GOP might get elected do any of you have a clue about his inner circle? We knew plenty about the one's Obama had designated to run the government by this time 4 years ago. You have no clue about the Mittenizers and Morons making up Mitt's smile stuff.

[Teatownclown]

On a more serious note:

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/10/16/1019121/debate-questions-taxes-deficit/
8 Important Economic Questions For The Presidential Debate That Have Nothing To Do With Taxes Or The Deficit
By Pat Garofalo and Travis Waldron on Oct 16, 2012 at 9:53 am
During both the first presidential debate and last week's vice presidential debate, moderators said that they wanted to focus on "the economy," an admirable sentiment considering the still slow recovery that is underway. However, "the economy" has, for the most part, meant discussing taxes and the budget deficit. Those are important issues, but they by no means account for all of the economic challenges that the nation faces.
For starters, neither candidate has been pushed on how they plan to bring unemployment down below its current 7.8 percent. Romney merely promises to create the number of jobs that economists say will come along regardless of who is president, while Obama hasn't had to address record high long-term unemployment. Here are eight other significant issues that the candidates should be asked about during tonight's debate:
1) Housing: While the housing market is slowly recovering, it still remains a drag on the economic recovery. President Obama should be asked to explain why his administration was so slow to change foreclosure prevention programs that were clearly not meeting their goals, and why he has not named a new director for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (since the current acting director is blocking policies that would help troubled homeowners). Romney, meanwhile, should be asked to flesh out a housing plan that has absolutely no details.
2) Poverty: More than 46 million Americans — 15 percent of our population — now live at or below the federal poverty level, and the United States has one of the highest child poverty rates in the developed world. So why does Romney support a budget that takes 62 percent of its spending cuts from programs that help the poor? How would Obama protect the poor from spending cuts in any "grand bargain" deficit deal he might sign?
3) Breaking up the big banks: The nation's biggest banks are back to making pre-recession profits. In the last several months, high ranking economic officials, as well as several former Wall Street titans, have called for breaking up or capping the size of those banks. Do either of the candidates support such a step? Why or why not?
4) Mass transit: More Americans are using mass transit and driving less and less. But the U.S. mass transit system trails those of its peer nations, and fails to connect workers who need it most to their jobs. How would Romney square this increasing demand with his desire to cut funding for Amtrak? Does President Obama have any plans to push transit development beyond the infrastructure investments included in his never-passed American Jobs Act?
5) Income inequality: The level of inequality in the United States now rivals countries like Pakistan and the Ivory Coast. This inequality crushes economic mobility for America's shrinking middle class and its growing number of working poor. Romney said that a focus on income inequality was "about envy" and said it should only be talked about in a quiet room. Does he view income inequality as a serious issue threatening the future of America's economy, and if so, how do his policies address it? How would Obama bolster the lower- and middle classes and reduce the growth of inequality aside from increasing some tax rates on the richest Americans?
6) The Farm bill: The last farm bill expired, leaving several programs that support farmers and public health efforts out to dry. But the expiration also provides an opportunity for Congress to reevaluate wasteful agriculture subsidies. Where do the candidates stand on a path forward for the farm bill?
7) Student loans: Total student loan debt is expected to hit $1 trillion in 2012, and a record number of Americans are now in debt thanks to such loans. College costs have sextupled since 1985, and student debt is hurting young adults' ability to buy houses, get jobs, and transition into full members of the American economy. Even worse, the student debt crisis is starting to resemble the housing crisis. The Affordable Care Act, which Romney opposed, contained significant student loan reforms that reduce costs by removing banks from the federal student loan process. Would he include that in his proposed repeal of Obamacare? What would Obama do to further address the growth in both debt and the cost of college, and how would he ensure that more Americans can afford a college education?
Equal pay: Even as more women are becoming top earners in their households, women in the United States make just 77 cents for every dollar earned by men, and the gap is worse for women of color. The average woman loses more than $430,000 over her lifetime because she makes less than men for doing the same work. The Romney campaign refused to say if he supported the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, though it later clarified that he "support pay equity."  Would he support the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would take substantial steps to close the pay gap? For President Obama, more than three years since the passage of the Lily Ledbetter Act, the pay gap is mostly unchanged. How would he proceed to ensure that women receive equal pay for equal work?

5 Facts You Should Commit To Memory Before Watching Tonight's Debate
By Annie-Rose Strasser on Oct 16, 2012 at 10:36 am
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/16/1018931/second-presidential-debate/

[erfalf]

Ask why it is our policy to pay banks to do nothing by lending leaving the fed funds rate at 0%. We are allowing banks to pad their balance sheets on our dime on the pretense that the government is inducing them to lend more.

[Teatownclown]

Ask why it is our policy to pay banks to do nothing by lending leaving the fed funds rate at 0%. We are allowing banks to pad their balance sheets on our dime on the pretense that the government is inducing them to lend more.

That issue may be settled in the future by dismantling investment bank power and separating these financial institutions from common deposit banks. New regs would not be implemented under RMoney for obvious reasons.

There was a time when banks were servers to our communities....then the government allowed them to be master instead.