RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Politics
FOCUS | Did Romney 'Win' the Debate? Print
Thursday, 04 October 2012 10:48

Intro: "The instant analysis after the first presidential debate - even on liberal-leaning MSNBC - was that Mitt Romney was the decisive 'winner.' But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so."

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama after the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama after the first presidential debate at the University of Denver, Oct. 3, 2012, in Denver. (photo: Charlie Neibergall/AP)


Did Romney 'Win' the Debate?

By Robert Parry, Consortium News

04 October 12

 

The instant analysis after the first presidential debate - even on liberal-leaning MSNBC - was that Mitt Romney was the decisive "winner." But Romney not only ducked the specifics of his plans but looked sneaky and nervous in doing so, writes Robert Parry.

n the presidential debate that I watched on Wednesday night, Republican challenger Mitt Romney was shiftier than Dick Nixon in 1960 and less coherent than George W. Bush in 2000, but the TV pundits, including on MSNBC, overwhelmingly declared him the winner.

When I tried to follow Romney's logic, I couldn't. Somehow the federal government was supposed to rein in rising health care costs but his only idea for doing so was to let the free-market work when it is clear that - whatever the shortcomings of "Obamacare" - the old model of health insurance was broken.

Romney also claimed that his health-insurance plan would cover people with pre-existing conditions and do other positive things that are in the Affordable Care Act, but, as President Barack Obama noted, Romney hasn't offered a serious explanation as to how that would happen.

Romney treated any reference to his 20 percent across-the-board tax cut costing $5 trillion over decade as a lie, likening the President to his "five boys ... saying something that's not always true but just keep on repeating it." After all, Romney has declared that his plan would be revenue-neutral. But he continued his pattern of refusing to specify how he would make it so.

In the debate that I saw, Romney seemed to be on the defensive, in large part, due to the incoherence and incompleteness of his arguments. And that reflected itself in his body language. He shifted nervously, blinked rapidly and displayed a forced smile. It looked like he was about to tear up during his closing remarks.

I saw a man struggling at the end of his rope. By contrast, Obama looked, well, presidential. He was never flustered and mounted vigorous defenses of his policies, offering details about what he had done and what he would do. Yet, he didn't sound overly defensive or whiny, a big risk in such a setting.

One could fault Obama for not being more aggressive with host Jim Lehrer, who curiously seemed determined to stop the President from exceeding his time limit while letting Romney ramble on. But that is more a criticism of Lehrer, who behaved like PBS types often do - they go weak in the knees when a Republican talks about slashing the subsidy for public broadcasting, as Romney pointedly did.

So, I came away from watching the 90-minute debate thinking that Romney had come as close to melting down in front of a huge national audience as anyone I have ever seen in my half century of watching presidential debates. Pundits often fall back on the cliché that "no one landed a knock-out punch," but this was as close to having one candidate lying on the mat as I have ever seen, although it was mostly Romney doing the damage to himself.

Yet, immediately after the debate - even on liberal-leaning MSNBC - Republican commentators were given the floor and allowed to set the tone of the meeting. On MSNBC, Rachel Maddow deferred to GOP campaign strategist Steve Schmidt, who gushed over Romney's performance. The verdict was "Romney won."

Everyone on the set except for Al Sharpton fell in line. Ed Schultz blasted Obama for not lashing out at Romney and especially for not blasting Romney's portrayal of 47 percent of the U.S. population as irresponsible moochers.

For the past several days, pretty much every pundit I watched had predicted that the "the 47 percent" comment would be the centerpiece of the debate, but I never thought that was likely, having watched Lehrer handle other debates. He almost never goes for the "gotcha" question, favoring bland policy discussions.

Without Lehrer introducing the remark, it would have been difficult and clumsy for Obama to shoehorn the comment in. Frankly, it would have elicited groans from many Americans as an overreach. But the pundits had decided that it had to be at the heart of the debate, so they blamed the President when it wasn't.

What was particularly startling about the MSNBC commentary was its lack of substance - except for Sharpton, who zeroed in on the discrepancies between Romney's months of campaign statements as a "severely conservative" ex-governor of Massachusetts and his reinvention of himself as a caring fellow on Wednesday.

Yet, even on style, it was amazing to me that the pundits were favoring Romney, who looked more ill at ease than Nixon did in his infamous 1960 debate debacle with Kennedy and goofier than Bush in 2000, who was so unserious that he elicited a famous "sigh" from Al Gore. Romney wasn't as much on the offensive all night as he was testy. He talked fast, lacked specifics and nagged Lehrer about getting more time.

If Romney were a car salesman, he would be the one urging me to overlook the car's lousy mileage and poor repair record and begging me to buy his vehicle so he could meet his quota and not get in trouble with the boss. On Wednesday night, I was a bit worried that he would dissolve into tears during his closing remarks.

His shaky behavior and watery eyes brought to mind Ann Romney's comment last Thursday that her "biggest concern" about her husband getting elected president "would just be for his mental well-being." In a TV interview in Nevada, Romney's wife pronounced him competent and qualified but worried about "the emotional part of it" for her husband.

More on Point

Some of the newspaper commentators more closely represented the debate that I watched. Alessandra Stanley of the New York Times noted that "Mr. Romney managed, despite a dry throat and some rapid blinking, to keep a choirboy smile pasted on his face while Mr. Obama spoke.

"Mr. Obama was quicker to drop his bonhomie and adopt the look of a long-suffering headmaster enduring the excuses of a bright student he is going to expel."

The Times also did a solid job of assessing the claims and counter-claims from the two rivals. And the Times' lead editorial took Romney to task for his mendacity and Obama to task for not holding the Republican accountable.

But how to explain the behavior of the TV commentators, especially those on MSNBC, whose instant "spin" on behalf of Romney surely influenced the opinions of millions of Americans in their own assessments of who won?

Though MSNBC has done a relatively good job of creating some balance in a cable TV environment that Fox News has tilted sharply to the right, its hosts are under corporate pressure to present themselves as neutral newscasters in situations like Wednesday's debate. (Remember the trouble that Keith Olbermann encountered.)

So, aspiring careerists like Rachel Maddow can be expected to demur in a situation like Wednesday night. After all, for her there are grand career opportunities, like a regular gig on NBC's "Meet the Press" or possibly even replacing David Gregory as the host, a big step indeed.

So she immediately turned to Steve Schmidt, who did what you would expect a Republican political operative to do in such a case. He spun the outcome for Romney and did so with such confidence that he seemed to influence the remarks of MSNBC show anchors, Chris Hayes and Chris Matthews, who promptly fell in line.

For his part, Ed Schultz sounded more like a disgruntled lefty who wanted Obama to be the perfect gladiator mercilessly chopping Romney to pieces and then asking the American TV audience, "are you not entertained?"

But that approach would have opened Obama to another line of attack, the angry black man, a balancing act that Obama instinctively senses but that white liberals don't seem to get. The only MSNBC anchor cutting through the "Romney won" spin was Sharpton.

While it's true that Obama could have been tougher in demanding more time from Lehrer and in going after his rival, the President did resist Lehrer's curious eagerness to impose time limits on Obama but not Romney.

Obama also made the key point about how Romney and his running mate, Rep. Paul Ryan, keep evading specifics on their various plans. Indeed, that was my primary takeaway from the debate, that a shifty and shifting Romney won't tell the American people what he actually intends to do.



Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories in the 1980s for the Associated Press and Newsweek. His latest book, "Neck Deep: The Disastrous Presidency of George W. Bush," was written with two of his sons, Sam and Nat, and can be ordered at neckdeepbook.com. His two previous books, "Secrecy & Privilege: The Rise of the Bush Dynasty from Watergate to Iraq" and "Lost History: Contras, Cocaine, the Press & 'Project Truth'" are also available there.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
The First Presidential Debate Print
Thursday, 04 October 2012 08:25

Intro: "In Wednesday night's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance."

Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)
Portrait, Robert Reich, 08/16/09. (photo: Perian Flaherty)


The First Presidential Debate

By Robert Reich, Robert Reich's Blog

04 October 12

 

n Wednesday night's debate, Romney won on style while Obama won on substance. Romney sounded as if he had conviction, which means he's either convinced himself that the lies he tells are true or he's a fabulous actor.

But what struck me most was how much Obama allowed Romney to get away with: Five times Romney accused Obama of raiding Medicare of $716 billion, which is a complete fabrication. Obama never mentioned the regressiveness of Romney's budget plan - awarding the rich and hurting the middle class and the poor. He never mentioned Bain Capital, or Romney's 47 percent talk, or Romney's "carried-interest" tax loophole. Obama allowed Romney to talk about replacing Dodd-Frank and the Affordable Care Act without demanding that Romney be specific about what he'd replace and why. And so on.

I've been worried about Obama's poor debate performance for some time now. He was terrible in the 2008 primary debates, for example. Expectations are always high - he's known as an eloquent orator. But when he has to think on his feet and punch back, he's not nearly as confident or assured as he is when he is giving a speech or explaining a large problem and its solution. He is an educator, not a pugilist, and this puts him at a disadvantage in any debate.

Romney stayed on script. If you look at a transcript of his remarks you'll see that he repeated the same lines almost word for word in different contexts. He has memorized a bunch of lines, and practiced delivering them. The overall effect is to make him seem assured and even passionate about his position. He said over and over that he cares about jobs, about small businesses, and ordinary Americans. But his policies and his record at Bain tell a very different story.

The question now is whether Team Obama understands that our President must be more aggressive and commanding in the next two debates - and be unafraid to respectfully pin Romney to the floor.



Robert B. Reich, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage." He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
Billionaire Koch Brothers Try to Buy Florida's Courts Print
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=21551"><span class="small">Carl Hiaasen, The Miami Herald</span></a>   
Thursday, 04 October 2012 08:22

Intro: "The new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch."

David and Charles Koch. (photo: AP)
David and Charles Koch. (photo: AP)


Billionaire Koch Brothers Try to Buy Florida's Courts

By Carl Hiaasen, The Miami Herald

04 October 12

 

he new stealth campaign against three Florida Supreme Court justices is being backed by those meddling right-wing billionaires from Wichita, Charles and David Koch.

They couldn't care less about Florida, but they love to throw their money around.

Last week they uncorked the first of a series of commercials from their political action committee, Americans for Prosperity. The targets are Justices R. Fred Lewis, Barbara Pariente and Peggy Quince.

They were three of the five-vote majority that in 2010 knocked down a half-baked amendment slapped together by state lawmakers seeking to nullify the federal Affordable Health Care Act.

The Florida Supreme Court upheld lower court decisions in finding that the proposed amendment contained "misleading and ambiguous language," the hallmark of practically everything produced by this Legislature. Stoned chimpanzees have a keener grasp of constitutional law.

Conservative groups have gone after local justices before. In Iowa, a place which has nothing but vowels in common with Florida, three state justices were fired by voters after being vilified for ruling against a ban on gay marriage.

On the November ballot, Lewis, Pariente and Quince are up for merit retention, meaning voters can choose to retain them or not. This simple system was put in place to keep the state's high court above the sleaze of political races.

The mission of the Kochs, hiding as always behind their super PAC, is to get the three justices dumped at the polls so that Gov. Rick Scott can appoint replacements.

This is worth repeating: If the Kochs have their way, Rick Scott - yes, that Rick Scott - gets to pack the Supreme Court with his own hand-picked crew.

Yikes is right.

The head of the Florida chapter of Americans for Prosperity is a person called Slade O' Brien, whose job is to keep a straight face while saying things like: "We're not advocating for the election or defeat of any of the justices. What we're attempting to do is call more attention to them advocating from the bench."

Meanwhile the state GOP's executive board is less coy. It voted to oppose the retention of Quince, Lewis and Pariente, branding them "too extreme."

Well, let's have a peek at these dangerous radicals.

Justice Pariente, 63, has been on the court for 15 years. She was graduated from George Washington University Law School and clerked in Fort Lauderdale under U.S. District Judge Norm Roettger, who was no softie.

Justice Lewis, 64, who was graduated cum laude from the University of Miami Law School, has been on the court almost 14 years. Both he and Pariente were appointed by Gov. Lawton Chiles, not exactly a wild-eyed liberal.

Justice Quince, also 64, is the first African-American woman on the Supreme Court. A graduate of the Columbus School of Law at Catholic University, she worked for years prosecuting death-penalty cases in the state Attorney General's office.

In 1999, she was jointly selected for the high court by Chiles and that wacky left-winger, Jeb Bush.

Twice before Floridians have voted to keep these justices, but now the Kochs from Wichita say they know better. You won't see David or Charlie in any of the campaign commercials because they don't like people to know they're prying.

Their multinational fortune comes from oil refineries, fertilizers, cattle, commodities, chemicals and paper mills. Next time you reach for Angel Soft toilet paper, think of the Koch brothers.

Both are MIT grads, philanthropists, unabashedly ultraconservative and anti-Obama. They're spending hundreds of millions of dollars trying to defeat the President and lesser officeholders all over the country who won't bend to their will. Some Florida Republicans - respected judges and lawyers - are disturbed by the sneak attack on the Supreme Court, which they view as a bald attempt to politicize the judiciary.

The two other justices who voted against the inept Obamacare amendment were similarly singled out two years ago, when they were up for merit retention. Tea Party groups bought TV time blasting justices Jorge Labarga and James Perry, and urging voters to remove them from the court. It didn't work.

Labarga was retained with about 59 percent of the vote, Perry with 61 percent. Those aren't bad margins, considering that the justices can't campaign in their own defense.

This time is different because Americans for Prosperity has a bottomless war chest to use against Lewis, Pariente and Quince. Be assured that Gov. Scott is rooting for the Kochs. He'd love to have three openings to fill on the Supreme Court.

The last thing these guys want is fair judges who know the law; they want partisan judges who'll obediently support their political agenda

It's worse than just trying to buy an election. It's trying to hijack Florida's justice system at the highest levels.

And all the Angel Soft in the world won't wipe away the stink.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
'Corporate Executive' vs. The 'Government Professor' Print
Wednesday, 03 October 2012 21:36

Memmot writes: "It was the 'corporate executive' (Romney) vs. the 'government professor' (Obama) and the GOP nominee appeared to be 'full of confidence and full of sales pitch.'"

Watching the proceedings at the University of Denver. (photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)
Watching the proceedings at the University of Denver. (photo: Damon Winter/The New York Times)


'Corporate Executive' vs. The 'Government Professor'

By Mark Memmot, National Public Radio

03 October 12

 

resident Obama and his Republican challenger, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, engaged Wednesday night in a sometimes spirited, but always cordial, debate that got very technical at times.

It was the "corporate executive" (Romney) vs. the "government professor" (Obama) and the GOP nominee appeared to be "full of confidence and full of sales pitch," NPR Senior Washington Editor Ron Elving says, while Obama put pressure on the Republican to explain what he would do as president.

There were few memorable lines - Romney at one point labeled Obama's policies "trickle down government" and Obama said Romney's plans for tax cuts would leave average Americans "picking up the tab." But overall, it wasn't an affair full of "zingers." Instead, the two contenders tossed around numbers - Obama said Romney would cut taxes for the wealthy by $5 trillion and Romney said Obama would cut Medicare funding by $716 billion - that they each disputed.

Will the debate at the University of Denver, the first of three in coming weeks, change the dynamics of what appears to be a very tight battle for the White House?

NPR national political correspondent Mara Liasson said afterward that as of this evening, there wasn't any reason to think the debate would change the race. But that could change in coming days as pundits weigh in and as video clips start circulating.

We live blogged as they debated at the University of Denver. The moderator was Jim Lehrer of the PBS NewsHour.

Update at 10:35 p.m. ET. In Closing, Two Different "Paths":

Obama, as determined beforehand, gave the first closing statement. He ran through some of the things accomplished the last four years, including the end of the war in Iraq and the killing of Osama bin Laden. And he said that among the promises he made four years ago was that he "wouldn't be a perfect president ... but would fight every day" to do what's right. "I've kept that promise," he said, and promised to do so again if he's re-elected.

Romney said he and the president would take the nation on "two paths that lead in very different directions." And if you look at Obama's record, Romney said, the path the president would take the nation would likely lead to weak job growth, cuts in Medicare and "dramatic cuts to our millitary."

Update at 10:25 p.m. ET. Romney Says Federal Government Has Role To Play In Education; Obama Says "Budgets Matter"; Romney Raps Obama's Priorities:

The Republican nominee says he agrees with some of the things the Obama administration has been doing on education. Obama responds that Romney's tax cuts for "folks like me and him" would force a 20 percent cut in federal education spending. To which Romney says he would not cut education funding and criticizes the Obama administration for putting "$90 billion into green jobs. That would have hired 2 million teachers."

Update at 10:15 p.m. ET. Romney Cites Reagan As A Model For How To Govern:

Obama says Romney isn't giving Americans enough details about the policies he would pursue. Romney responds that "my experience as a governor is that if I come in and lay down a piece of legislation and say 'it's my way or the highway,' " not much gets done. He would emulate Ronald Reagan, who "laid out his principles" and then worked with Congress.

Update at 10:10 p.m. ET. Romney Pushes To Repeal "Obamacare"; Obama Says It Was Modeled After Romney's Effort In Massachusetts:

After Romney makes his case for why "Obamacare" should be repealed - focusing on what he says are too-high costs and an "unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have" - Obama says "we've seen this model work really well, in Massachusetts, because Gov. Romney did a good thing working with Democrats in the state."

Romney responds that Obama didn't work across party lines, but instead came up with a plan "that you and Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid thought was the best idea."

To which Obama says that his plan originally was bipartisan, but it was Republicans in Congress who chose to not work with his administration. "Democrats in Massachusetts might have given Republicans in Congress some advice on how to cooperate," Obama says.

The president also disputes the charge that an unelected board will tell people what treatments they can have. It will be "health care experts" trying to "figure out how we can reduce the cost of health care," he says.

"This board ... can't make decisions about what treatments are given," Obama adds. "It's prohibited in this law."

Update at 9:55 p.m. ET. Sharp Differences On Medicare Policies:

Obama begins a discussion of entitlements by talking of his grandmother, who was able to remain independent at the end of her life because, he says, "of Social Security and Medicare."

Romney, looking to reassure seniors that he wouldn't do anything to affect them, says "neither the president nor I are proposing any changes for current retirees." But Obama, Romney says in a repeat of things he's said many times before, would reduce benefits for future retirees by "cutting $716 billion from the program."

Obama, who has previously said his cuts would not affect retirees, counters that the "voucher plan" favored by GOP vice presidential nominee Rep. Paul Ryan would "cost the average senior about $6,000 a year."

PolitiFact has previously said the charge that Obama would "funnel" $716 billion out of Medicare at the expense of the elderly is "mostly false." The charge that Ryan's plan would raise costs for Medicare beneficiaries by $6,000 each is "half true," PolitiFact says.

Update at 9:40 p.m. ET. Romney Points To Broken Pledges; Obama Talks Of Being Balanced:

Romney takes the president to task for promising to cut the budget deficit in half, but instead being in the Oval Office as annual deficits grew to more than $1 trillion. Obama, meanwhile, faults Romney for saying during the GOP primaries that he wouldn't accept $1 in higher taxes in exchange for $10 worth of spending cuts. There has to be a balance between raising revenue and cutting spending, the president says. Romney responds that "you'll never balance the budget by raising taxes." The way to do it, he says, is to reduce tax rates so that job growth resumes and more people are paying taxes.

After the president says that some corporations can get tax deductions for moving jobs overseas, Romney - citing his business experience - says, "I have no idea what you're talking about. ... I may need to get a new accountant."

Update at 9:30 p.m. ET. More Dispute Over Taxes:

The president says again that Romney wants to "cut taxes by $5 trillion and add $2 trillion in spending that the military is not asking for." If the American people think that can be done and they won't end up "picking up the tab ... then Gov. Romney's plan is the one for you," he says.

Romney says, again, that "I'm not in favor of a $5 trillion tax cut. ... That's not my plan." He wants to "bring down rates ... but also bring down deductions at the same time."

Update at 9:19 p.m. ET. Differences On Job Creation, Taxes:

The first question from Lehrer is about jobs. "What are the major differences between the two of you about how you would go about creating jobs?"

Obama first says the most important point he wants to make is that "20 years ago I became the luckiest man on Earth because Michelle Obama agreed to marry me."

He then goes on to say that four years ago the nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. He cites the creation of about 5 million jobs since he took office. But more work needs to be done, he says.

Romney, says Obama, believes that cutting taxes alone will get the economy moving. "I think we've got to invest in education and training" and take other steps, Obama says.

Voters, he says in a reference to GOP positions, need to decide whether they want to "double down on the policies that got us into the mess."

Romney begins by congratulating the Obamas on their wedding anniversary, and jokes that "this was obviously the most romantic place you could imagine ... Here with me."

Then Romney begins drawing differences with the president. "It's going to take a different path" to boost job growth, he says. "My plan has five basic parts": Energy independence. More trade. Training. A balanced budget. And "championing small business."

"The path we've been on is just not successful," says Romney, calling Obama's plan "trickle down government."

Asked by Lehrer to address the president directly, Romney disputes Obama's claim that the GOP candidate has a $5 trillion tax cut plan. "I don't," he says. And he tells Obama that "middle income families are being crushed."

Romney continues on taxes, saying, "I'm not looking to cut massive taxes and reduce the revenues to the government. ... There will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit."

Obama says that "Gov. Romney's proposal ... calls for a $5 trillion tax cut. ... He is saying he's going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. ... He's been asked more than 100 times how he's going to pay for them" and hasn't been able to answer.

"Virtually everything he just said about my tax plan is inaccurate," Romney responds. "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans," Romney adds, after joking that as the father of five boys he's used to having someone say something many times even if it's just not true in the hope that it will be believed.

"For 18 months he's been running on this tax plan and now, five weeks before the election he's saying his big, bold idea is 'nevermind,' " Obama says. It's impossible, he says, to enact Romney's plans without either increasing the deficit or raising taxes on the middle class.

Watch for this discussion to be among the several that fact checkers pay close attention to.

Update at 8:55 p.m. ET. Lehrer Tells Audience To "Sit On It!":

Adding to the earlier warning about not making noise during the debate, Lehrer just instructed the crowd that "if you hear something that's really terrific, sit on it! If you hear something you don't like, sit on it!"

He jokingly asked first lady Michelle Obama and Ann Romney, wife of the GOP nominee, to enforce the rules on each of their sides.

Update at 8:45 p.m. ET. No Cheering, Please, Audience Is Told:

With "50 to 100 million" Americans watching tonight, "it's wrong for us to intrude on them," debate commission Co-Chairman Frank Fahrenkopf just told the several thousand people in attendance. "So please, don't clap, don't cheer, don't make any noise."

He also asked those in the building to turn off their cellphones. "Hopefully, we can live for 90 minutes without these things on," Fahrenkopf said.

Fahrenkopf is a former chairman of the Republican National Committee. The other commission co-chairman is Mike McCurry, one-time press secretary to Democratic President Bill Clinton.

Update at 8:35 p.m. ET. What Does Each Man Need To Do?

On All Things Considered today, NPR's Mara Liasson said the conventional wisdom holds that Romney "has the bigger task." He needs, she said, to "criticize the president without looking too harsh or negative." And Romney must "show how his economic policies can make people's lives better in the future."

One advantage Romney has, Mara said, is that he comes in "as an underdog." So the expectations are lower for the Republican.

President Obama, she said, must "avoid a mistake ... [and] not come off as smug or arrogant or thin-skinned."

As for how important the debates may be, Mara said it's "hard to find an example since the Kennedy-Nixon debates" in 1960 when they appeared to significantly affect the outcome of an election. But in a race that's likely to be "decided by a hair," said Mara, "little things really do matter" and a good or bad debate performance could be important.

Update at 8:25 p.m. ET: What's The Format? What Are The Topics?

According to the Commission on Presidential Debates, tonight's debate will be divided into "six segments of approximately 15 minutes each. ... The moderator will open each segment with a question, after which each candidate will have two minutes to respond. The moderator will use the balance of the time in the segment for a discussion of the topic."

A coin toss has determined that President Obama will get the first question. Romney will get the last word before the debate ends.

Domestic policy is the overall topic tonight. Lehrer has announced that he plans to focus on the economy in the first three segments. After that, he plans to move to health care, "the role of government," and "governing."

As The Christian Science Monitor notes, in past years "debates have typically had more questions and shorter discussion times. Lehrer, in part, advocated for the new format, and pushed to reduce the number of questions from nine to six, in the hopes that it would encourage more of a television talk-show approach, in which the candidates engage in discussion rather than just deliver talking points."

The other presidential debates will be on Oct. 16 (a town hall format) and Oct. 22. The one debate between Vice President Biden and his GOP challenger, Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, is set for Oct. 11.


e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Back in Effect Print
Wednesday, 03 October 2012 14:26

Gerstein writes: "A federal appeals court has extended a temporary stay of a district court judge's order barring the government from using an indefinite detention provision."

Protesters hold banner opposing indefinite detention. (photo: Occupy LA)
Protesters hold banner opposing indefinite detention. (photo: Occupy LA)


NDAA Indefinite Detention Provision Back in Effect

By Josh Gerstein, Politico

03 October 12

 

federal appeals court has extended a temporary stay of a district court judge's order barring the government from using an indefinite detention provision in a defense bill passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama late last year.

A three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit issued the order Tuesday afternoon, indicating they saw flaws with the scope and rationale for U.S. District Court Judge Katherine Forrest's original order blocking the disputed provision of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2011.

"We conclude that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the government's motion for a stay," Appeals Court Judges Denny Chin, Raymond Lohier and Christopher Droney wrote in a three-page order that also expedited the appeal.

The judges continue:

First, in its memorandum of law in support of its motion, the government clarifies unequivocally that, 'based on their stated activities,' plaintiffs, 'journalists and activists[,] . . . are in no danger whatsoever of ever being captured and detained by the U.S. military.'

Second, on its face, the statute does not affect the existing rights of United States citizens or other individuals arrested in the United States. See NDAA § 1021(e) ('Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States, or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States.').

Third, the language of the district court's injunction appears to go beyond NDAA § 1021 itself and to limit the government's authority under the Authorization for Use of Military Force...

Last month, Lohier alone temporarily blocked Forrest's order, using a so-called administrative stay.

The case will go forward now before what will likely be a different trio of judges, but the stay will likely remain in place pending resolution of the government's appeal.

The import of the law is disputed. Proponents say it simply reinforced authority a federal appeals court in Washington had already accorded to the U.S. government, at least as far as foreigner are concerned. Critics say the measure exposes journalists and human rights activists who meet with alleged terrorists to the prospect of open-ended detention.

All three judges on the motions panel were appointed to the appeals court by President Barack Obama.

  • A copy of the panel's order is posted here.

  • CLARIFICATION (Tuesday, 4:08 P.M): This post has been revised to indicate that Lohier's administrative stay was issued last month.

  • CLARIFICATION 2 (Tuesday, 5:01 P.M.): This post has been revised to clarify that all three judges were appointed to the appeals court by Obama.
e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 
<< Start < Prev 3241 3242 3243 3244 3245 3246 3247 3248 3249 3250 Next > End >>

Page 3246 of 3432

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN