Why It's Actually President Obama Who Will Benefit Most From the First Debate

President Obama gave such a clear walk over to the Republican candidate, Mitt Romney in the First Presidential debate that it now seems almost a deliberate well thought out plan. I mean just the very thought of not using the infamous 47 % remark against Romney shows a well thought out strategy on the part of the President. Can you even imagine the number of aides and campaign strategist's that had written the 47% remark as the first point in their presentations to President Obama before the debate. What is even more interesting is that even after Mitt Romney lied on various core issues, the President seemed in no mood to take his opponent to the cleaners on those points. Also Romney's camp must have written at least a dozen escape plans for him to defend his role in Bain Capital and yet not a word on that issue from the President. And most Democrats immediately went into a defensive mode, without even feeling puzzled even once?

But before we analyze the Obama camp's mysterious response to the debate, let us first set some facts in order. It's about Romney's blatant lies or misinformation. The last I checked the complete transcripts of the debate, I could easily count five misrepresentations on his part. And as I point out later in the article, Mitt Romney will soon realize that these five big lies he tried to sell to the American people will come out to haunt his campaign very soon.

First, on the issue of the magnitude of his Tax cuts, Romney denied his tax cuts could range 5 Trillion Dollars. Independent economist have well established that the price tag of his Tax cuts would exceed 360 billion Dollar in the first year itself, ballooning way beyond the 5 trillion dollar mark in a decade itself.

The second is related to his assertion that his tax cuts will be financed by closing a variety of loopholes and deductions in the existing tax system. Great! The only problem is he hasn't named even one that he can close! Independent tax experts have firmly established that Romney's plan will only result in a 'net tax cut for the highest income group' and a 'net tax increase' for lower and middle income households. On top of it Romney plans to have targeted tax cuts like the estate tax cuts, which will only make life easier for the richest, including his own sons' tax burden.

Third is the number he very emphatically produced during the debate, of 23 million American "who have stopped looking for work". Well, official figures show 12.5 million unemployed, 2.6 million who have stopped looking for work and does that add to 23 million? Not in normal arithmetic, unless it's convenient for Governor Romney to include the 8 million part time workers as unemployed! That is indeed imaginative.

Fourth is his charge that in Obamacare, the unelected board will decide what kind of treatment a patient can have or not. True, Obamacare does have a system of Independent Payment Advisory Board, but it is for constraining Medicare on excess spending. The private insurance market remains out of its purview. And also this specific body is explicitly banned from rationing or limiting healthcare facilities to seniors.

The Fifth was on his health care plan having 'pre-existing conditions' covered. Under Romney, if you have a pre-existing condition and have been unable to obtain insurance coverage or if you have had to drop coverage for more than 90 days because you lost your job or couldn't afford the premiums, you are done for. Insurance companies could continue to discriminate and deny you coverage. And Romney's own Campaign manager concedes that, but only and conveniently once the debate is over.

So coming back to the reason, this post was intended in the first place, why did Obama just let him get away with all that. We have all seen Barack Obama as the fired up debater during his campaign days in 2007-2008. The fiery debater, armed with facts, backed by eloquence, silencing even his greatest opponents. Where was he? Lets pause here for a moment and remember the fact, 'that' fiery debater is now the also the President of The United States of America. So, do I suggest that becoming the President Nulls one's debating skills or your wit or affability or command over facts!!! Nopes, but just some nuances do come into play and a hell lot of a sense of statesmanship and responsibility.

To understand this one has to look at it as a well thought out strategy or the limitations Barack Obama - the debater- has, as a President or as a finely balanced mix of both. First and foremost is the limitation or better put, responsibility to not look angry as the President of United States of America. He knew before hand, that even if Romney misrepresents facts, he just cannot be explicitly seen as the guy pointing out in the first debate itself that his opponent is completely wrong. It would portray him as THE President using his authority to denounce a fumbling guy, even if it were on facts. He knew that sooner or later any lies spoken, will be picked up by media and the people (as it has happened), and eventually his silence would be understood and appreciated.

There also seems to be a basic understanding in Obama's campaign, that attacking or increasing the heat in the hugely anticipated first debate has to be avoided at all cost. The strategy seems to be, 'let Romney misrepresent, make him seem- oh he is not that bad taking on Obama- for a day or two and then allow the real facts to roll. The Obama campaign knew it would be a double whammy for the Romney camp, for as people realize the truth, they will have a feeling that this guy is so desperate, he lied to us so blatantly and to top it, tried to pass it off as a victory!

In the end this debate could end up haunting Mitt Romney, a scenario very different to the initial sense of jubilation that the Republicans are showing. And if he continues like this, - which seems unlikely- he can be assured of massive political damage. As for the Obama camp, I would say it was a subtle inter mix of knowing that the truth is on their side, character and some great political acumen. They knew Romney has tried to trick America in the past, will come fast and furious again with the wrong facts again and ultimately pay for it.

As the days settle and the Debate is deconstructed everywhere, American's will realize one of their candidates lied to them blatantly just to look good in a debate, their President letting them knowing what Mitt Romney really is by not interrupting him, and finally the realization that the initial debate outcome perception was a bit skewed. Barack Obama as a candidate and as the President has always taken the initiative to talk things through, but this time he knew his inaction was needed. He knew the old adage of not interrupting when your opponent is making mistakes. This debate was lost by us. Because we needed to. Because we had to. Because we wanted to. Democrats have to realize and understand why the battle was lost, so that the war could be won.

The writer can be contacted at the following website. http://www.supportingobama.com/

View the original article here

The First Presidential Debate of 2012

This debate was at the University of Denver in Denver, Colorado with Jim Lehrer who's the host with the News hour on PBS. This 90 minute debate was to focus on domestic policy. The following debate is on October 16 th at Hofstra University in Hempstead New York. This 90 minute Town meeting format is on foreign and domestic policy. The moderator shall be Candy Crowley CNN Chief Political Correspondent. The last presidential debate is also a 90 min debate on foreign policy at Lynn University in Boca Raton Florida. The moderator will probably be Bob Schieffer host of Face the Nation. These candidates nevertheless have two debates to go through and also the massive question how will they carry out as a great deal is riding on them. In among these presidential debates the Vice president Joe Biden and Congressmen Paul Ryan hold a 90 minute debate on October 11th at Centre College in Danville Kentucky. The moderator for the moment is Martha Raddatz the News Chief of Foreign Policy at ABC News.

Former Gov. Mitt Romney geared up for these debates for a long time, and it is showing. He was ready exactly where as President Obama wasn't. Mitt Romney came to the debate focused on the economic climate and economic concerns. He also put forth his restricted government philosophy. He also demonstrated his pro-growth and tax reforms to move the economy forward. President Obama favors growing the size of government, raising taxes and leading from behind on our foreign policy. The debates showed the differences in the two candidates before the eyes and ears of the 70 million Americans watching the debates. This is the first time both candidates stood side by side talking to each other about their different philosophies.

Numerous conservative commentators felt that President Obama wasn't accustom to becoming challenged. During President Obama's 2008 run for the presidency he was in no way vented from the mainstream news media and never challenged with difficult questions. When he speaks with his TelePrompTers' he does incredibly properly. Take the TelePrompTer away and his aptitude to speak or answer queries are totally distinctive. This really is where he tends to make his gaffes which the mainstream news media down play. About 70 million Americans watched the debate and saw Mitt Romney energized and capable to speak the complications the nation is facing. They also saw Mitt Romney inside a diverse light than what the democratic advertisements attempt to portray him. They saw a President that they had not observed before. We've two more Presidential debates and a single Vice Presidential debate to see. The question is what effect these debates will have on the electorate?

I have numerous articles on my blog with the same theme as this article. I have had a large response with many positive comments regarding my blog and style. I hope you will visit my blog. The address is http://showcasepolitics.com/

View the original article here

Why Can't We Have a 45-Hour Presidential Debate?

Indeed, I've always said that I want a president who is smarter than me. There are not many topics that I can't speak for 20 hours or more without running out of information and things to say, or insights, innovations, or new concepts in those areas of the human endeavor. If you are going to run the greatest nation ever created in the history of mankind you need to be a superhuman with super intellect. You need to be able to reduce very complex topics into very simple and easy to understand layman's terms. You must be a communicator, and an executive leader.

No one ever said running a country with expenditures sometimes exceeding $1 trillion annually was going to be easy. It's a huge undertaking, and there will be no rest for the wicked, therefore we need someone who is wickedly smart, and has a handle on things. I don't think we ought to leave such an important job as running this great nation up to a politician who has no greater skill than perhaps being able to read a Teleprompter, or bully their way through a debate. As I've watched the 2012 debates for president, I've been completely bothered by the rapidly thrown out innuendos, gotcha politics, and Jerry Springer like cat fights.

Indeed, I want a president who can debate for 45 hours with the level of intensity that we normally see in a 90 minute debate speaking to the facts and realities, not the attacks or falsehood personal character assassinations. I want to see who can outlast the other, and never run out of information, and never repeat what they've already said. It's easy to remember one-liners, and a few stump speeches here and there, but I want to see someone that knows the issues backwards and forwards and upside down and every single direction to Sunday. I want someone who can think outside the box, in the box, and reconstruct the box as if it were origami.

Why do I believe this is possible because I could do it - further, as an entrepreneur you must do it. To survive in business and be the best in your industry you must be able to know every single aspect of that business and that industry. Any solid entrepreneur can talk about their line of work, and every aspect of their business and they can do it for 45 hours straight. To be President of the United States you need stamina, you need vision, and you need passion and you shouldn't run out after 90 minutes, nor should we allow them to get away with two-minute answers.

We deserve more than that because we are the greatest nation ever created history of mankind and it took a lot to build this country, and we need not throw away in one generation due to political correctness, political rhetoric, class warfare, socialism, or settle for some sort of "last liar wins" scenario. Why can't we have a 45-hour presidential debate, it takes at least that long to cover all the topics. This country is over 3000 miles wide, and that's just in the continental US.

We have the greatest military ever put together in all of human history. We have the greatest GDP of any nation, and we built the greatest country in just over 200 years. This is no time to rest on our laurels, or settle for a president who quite frankly isn't good enough. This is the time to get tough, get busy, and get the job done. We can do this, we don't need blame games, we don't need to avoid our enemies, nor do we need to sit back and pretend that we are no longer great.

We should not be apologizing for our greatness, we should be standing on our principles, and we should lead the world by example. That's what we've always done before, that doesn't need to change. Sure, there are new strategies to try, new ways of doing things, and we are now in a global economy. All that I grant you, but that doesn't mean we can't stand for justice, liberty, and freedom around the world. We do not need to backtrack, nor do we need to lie to our citizenry to promote a false agenda. We can live with integrity, transparency, and we can show the world what we're made of.

Some would say as the Council on Foreign Relations recently had a debate that America's time for being the world's superpowers is over. To that I say; bull. It's not over friends, that's wishful thinking on the part of those who wish they could be us, but they can't because they aren't as good as we are when we put our mind and focus, along with our vision and will on a goal. Let's keep America number one, and let's get this show on the road. Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow is the Founder of the Online Think Tank, a diverse group of achievers, experts, innovators, entrepreneurs, thinkers, futurists, academics, dreamers, leaders, and general all around brilliant minds. Lance Winslow hopes you've enjoyed today's discussion and topic. http://www.worldthinktank.net/ - Have an important subject to discuss, contact Lance Winslow.

View the original article here

New Political Strategy - Call The Opponent a Liar, If The Candidate Can't Win a Debate

Well sometimes, I just get so upset at the politics in the United States. Sometimes it just drives me nuts, and I'm sure you'll agree regardless of which side of the fence you are on. Personally, I happened to be somewhat of a libertarian leaning right, not due to religious reasons more so because I believe in free-market economies, and I am vehemently opposed to any sort of socialism for the United States of America. After 30 years of studying the politics, news, and being involved in business I have good reason for my observations and political viewpoints.

The other day someone told me that I shouldn't tell anyone that I am a libertarian because they might think I'm crazy. I'm not, not even a little bit. "There's nothing wrong with my politics, it's everyone else I'm worried about," I told them, and they laughed. Doesn't everyone feel the same way? Now then, recently I was watching the first debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama at the University of Colorado. It was clear that Mitt Romney went on the attack demanding the president's explanation for dragging economy, and trillions of dollars of deficit spending in the last four years. Basically Mitt was asking; Mr. President, what do you have saved yourself?

The president didn't have a lot to say that night therefore it was deemed that he lost debate. Because of this the Democratic Party was quite concerned of how to play it. It appears their new strategy was simply to call Mitt Romney their opponent a liar. Perhaps if you say something enough times and keep repeating it, people will believe you. Rather than calling someone else a racist or a liar, or anything else, it might be better to have more legitimate debates at the higher end of the intellectual spectrum. Apparently, that's not happening. It's all about gotcha politics. Still, we cannot have a legitimate national discussion or debate, or maintain positive and respectful dialogue and discourse with all this vitriol.

Calling your opponent a liar is not a viable strategy in American politics, and it just further divides the left and the right. It is dividing our nation, and if we are going to have debates and televise them, then each party should put their best foot forward and make their case to the American people. Calling each other liars doesn't solve the problems or challenges we face as a nation. It turns Americans off towards politics it puts even more distrust of the government. Besides that, one could ask; who's really the liar? If someone calls someone else a liar but they aren't lying, then they are in fact a liar. If someone is a liar and calls someone else a liar, then in that case doesn't it just cancels-out the whole conversation?

If so, why have debates at all? Indeed I hope you will please consider all this and think on it.

Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Political Concepts. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net/

View the original article here

A President Debate or a Well Orchestrated Love Fest?

President Debate: A cordial smoke screen.

As many of you know the President debate took place last night in the mile high city of Denver, Colorado. An estimated 40-50 million people watched the debate. It was a chance for the candidates to show off their charismatic yet human sides. The candidates were very cordial toward their adversary. They performed within a narrow range of emotions. The candidates started off the debate with a welcoming handshake that could be mistaken for a greeting from long-lost friends. I know I was not the only one that thought the pleasantries were a little over done. I expected the candidates to act civil and I figured the candidates to not tip their hand in their much-anticipated debate. However, the background rhetoric indicated the debate would be a more of a respectful disagreeing slug fest.

Let me lay down the facts for you:

1. The candidates were reportedly not in the same room with each other for 5 years.

2. The ad commercials was a chance to question each other's facts.

3. They ideological disagree.

4. They both have questioned each other's character.

5. Did I mention 50 million voters could be watching?

6. It was a chance to change the opinion's of millions of voters.

When you consider these men have been at each other's throat for year, the candidates had plenty of time to prepare. The candidates have waited on this moment for years like a highly anticipated boxing match. The candidates engaged in debate rehearsals. I bet a college debate would have had more character than this unsanctioned love fest.

Mitt Romney's video recording says he would write off 47% of American voters. President Obama missed a golden opportunity in my opinion. The President repeatedly mischaracterized Mitt Romney's reduction of the debt plan. Mitt Romney said he would stop financial credits to the Public Broadcasting Station which produce favorite childhood characters such as Elmo, Big Bird, The Count, and the entire cast of Sesame Street. Vice President Biden said in front of a mostly African-American audience the Republicans would put you back in financial shackles. (Although, he never mentioned slavery but the insinuation was there) I did not agree with the VP any more than the negative language used by the Republicans. In my opinion, psychological undertones by either party have no place in politics.

In closing I hope the next debate is more spirited. I believe we should show passions more because they are more believable than a well-rehearsed speech. I watched the entire debate waiting to see a clear difference in ideological beliefs. Those are my opinions, now it is your turn to weigh in. Were you please at what you saw? Which candidate do you think gained the upper hand? Did you fall asleep watching?

http://www.ethicalbehaviorboy.com/ Hi, thanks for reading my article. I write on ethical behavior in the workplace.

View the original article here

What I Learned From the Debate

In looking at the forest of the second Presidential debate and not the trees, here is what I saw:

1. Americans don't want government interfering in their lives and yet they want to know how the next President is going to help them go to college, lower gas prices and find a job.

2. It is now acceptable to say anything to "get elected" and the public is not going to hold officials accountable as long as it doesn't impact them directly.

3. That being President means you are responsible for everything that goes wrong within the government and have no part in what goes right-even in the face of a status quo that encourages animosity and disdain from the other branches of government, not cooperation.

So the first thought that occurs to me is why would any sane person want this job? The second is how are any of these issues going to be successfully addressed until the American people come to terms with their own cognitive dissonance around our relationship with government?

In this Presidential election as in many of the other down ballot races this year the choice has become a vote the between either the philosophy of allowing a free market profit motive to drive society or a government centric vision that views itself as the final authority. In the battle to ensure each side's worldview reigns supreme have we lost site of insanity of the arguments they are making? And what about us-as voters in a democracy are we going to take responsibility for our fuzzy thinking and allow our elected officials to lead in a way that will actually address the issues we face or rather do we prefer they simply tell us what we want to hear?

Some specific examples:

· Governor Romney repeatedly pointed to high gas prices, high unemployment high cost of education as a failure of the Obama administration and he asserted as President he would do better. Yet according to his philosophy, all these things really ought to be up to the free market to determine. If people are willing to pay $5 a gallon for gas and the suppliers can make a profit so be it. If this puts a crimp on family budgets, work harder and figure out how to make more money, this is an individual issue and not one that should be clouded by government intervention. In his pursuit of the presidency he postures as if he believes this is an issue in which he should have a role.

· President Obama spent much of his time defending his record of the past four years as if he alone is able to move much of anything forward without Congressional cooperation. The posturing of incumbent Presidents that they alone have made something happen is absurd-both to my previous point that it is much easier to cast blame towards them and to the idea that nothing can be truly implemented without bipartisan support. President Obama needs to level with the American people about the enormous limitations of governing in a politically toxic environment and he needs to substantially revamp his approach to this challenge if he is to serve a second term.

· In the town hall debate format the third player in this election gets a small role-the public. If these undecided voters are a reflection of the greater electorate is there any wonder why we have the problems we have? Where is their leadership? So many of the questions come from a place of being totally unempowered and looking up to these powerful men to solve these problems for them. Regardless of your partisan sympathies no government, no business, no one is going to do for you what you are unwilling to do for yourself. Ultimately it is up to each person to determine their quality of life, to create it and not look to someone else to do it for them. In addition, it is up to each of us to hold our elected officials accountable for their leadership in creating a partnership that fosters growth and doesn't impede it.

In working with hundreds of people to improve their leadership efficacy I know that what people want for themselves and for others is to be happy, fulfilled, secure and free to do what they love. Yet somehow in the evolution of our democracy we have become convinced that there is only one way to get there and we must crush those who believe otherwise. This is not only absurd; it is diminishing our ability to create what we want for our society and ourselves. If we are to move forward it is time to look in the mirror and become the leader we want to see in the world.

Being President is not the only way to solve problems-in fact; it is one of the slowest avenues to change. If you see something that you want changed in your life or in your community-ask yourself what YOU can do to be a part of the solution and then GO DO IT. As each person takes greater responsibility for putting their talents, skills and passion into the world real, change occurs. When this happens in greater numbers it won't matter if it is a business or government or as Democrats or Republicans-in fact when individual leadership blossoms who is President will matter a whole lot less and who you are as a leader will matter a whole lot more.

View the original article here