The New Republic

As I've been predicting for more than a year now: Gary Johnson dominated the debate tonight.

- Konstantin

October 4, 2012 at 12:12am

You are only half right. While there was hubris in suggesting themselves as guide to a president, they were not totally off the mark in wondering who the sleepwalker wearing the Obama mask was. The rude and embalmed Romney at least had enough animatronic robotics programmed into him to tell his sympathetic lies and baloney-ious pseudo 'big vision" to cover his rich man's bull. Obama was a fact lecturer. It was sickening and I loathe Romney and Ryan. No, I am not a fire-breathing liberal just a center-leftist who is astonished at Mr Polite's willingness to let this happen. Romney's own GOP primary candidates eviscerated him without being called bad names. MSNBC may have blown a gasket, but that doesn't mean they were way off base. (Besides, we need that aspect of commentary from a respectable source to counteract other spinners.)

- atlasqq

October 4, 2012 at 12:19am

"Rude and embalmed," indeed; plus he was flat out lying. "Rich man's bull," yes - arrogant, mean, bullying - this is true and well said - but - what exactly was Obama supposed to do, slap him? I suspect people have been advising President Obama not to take Romney's bait. ?

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 12:41am

I'd put it this way: Romney won the debate tonight. Whatever MSNBC did is epiphenomenal.

- basman

October 4, 2012 at 12:51am

I agree that Obama was trying to not take Romney's bait. I also don't think that Obama did all that badly. Romney had a big advantage in the fact that no one knew which Romney would show up at the debate - The Romney of the GOP primary debates? The former governor of Massachusetts? The Bain Capital manager? It turns out Romney decided to go with the former governor persona, and he'll have to deal with the blow back from the GOP base on that one. He'll also have to decide if he'll continue to stand by tonight's shaking of the etch a sketch over the next week. Obama also had to deal with the classic problem most Democrats face in presidential debates - how do you respond to someone who says you can have everything without having to pay for it? The only honest rebuttal involves getting bogged down in budget numbers, and Obama did a pretty good job of questioning Romney's lack of policy detail without diving too deep into mind numbing budget numbers.

- Attrill

October 4, 2012 at 1:00am

I think that in a general sense Romney did win tonight -- what we don't know, to pirate basman's term without invitation, is whether that win will itself turn out to be epiphenomenal or not. If the underlying problems of the candidate and his campaign remain unresolved, the win will be first cousin to Kerry's win over Bush in the first debate in 2004.

- ironyroad

October 4, 2012 at 1:07am

What matters in this exercise? Which way will the fence-sitters jump? If you watched this as a fact-challenged swing voter, who would you buy a car from? The hyper, in your face, slickster, or the diffident guy staring at his shoes?

- Vogelfam

October 4, 2012 at 1:39am

I don't know, perhaps I'm on another planet. Did not watch pundits before or after. Romney looked smarmy and panic stricken. Obama looked in control as usual. Maybe its a west coast thing. Debate first, dinner after. My friends and I were truly shocked to read that Romney won.

- koppgeo

October 4, 2012 at 2:08am

Mr. Noah has written a major truth: television news is about aggression, not inquiry. At times, the same can be said about The New Republic and the posts. Are we going to exchange ideas and to try to persuade with reason and logic, or are we going to hate an opponent. The enmity against Romney and Ryan has been so strong that it has blinded logic and reason. . This type of emotion is dangerous, if it develops on a large scale and becomes uncontrollable. History in the 20th century has many examples, and I do not need to cite them.

- john336

October 4, 2012 at 6:13am

Mm. Good point, John. The center-center-left New Republic is truly a harborer of dangerous emotional extremism. We need to be careful, here, for the future of society. I mean, look at the extremists they have on staff, here: Tim Noah, Noam Scheiber, Bill Galston...

- Curran1

October 4, 2012 at 6:34am

Whoa, there, john336: "Are we going to exchange ideas and to try to persuade with reason and logic, or are we going to hate an opponent. The enmity against Romney and Ryan has been so strong that it has blinded logic and reason." The passion is strong because Romney and Ryan HAVE said what they plan to do, and it scares the shit out of me. No blindness here: I've heard and read R&R's "reason and logic" and I want no part of it. This is where Obama missed the boat. He did not stand up loud and strong for liberal principles, my ongoing reservation about him. He needs to paint in broad strokes and stand with pride for his accomplishments and REAL American values. With a few cogent facts thrown in to reinforce his points. He needs to call out Romney on Romney's vision - or lack thereof - for America. As we know, these so-called debates are no place for facts, sadly. But they can be an arena for contrasting visions and perceptions. When presenting his VISION, Obama doesn't have to play the peacemaker, appear "presidential", or seem apologetic an any way, shape, or form. When defending your true beliefs with appropriate passion and feeling, you can't go wrong. Even if someone disagrees with you, it's hard not to admire the conviction.

- Claris

October 4, 2012 at 6:42am

IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html

- JAIMECHUCH

October 4, 2012 at 6:52am

IGNORING AMERICA'S POOR POSTING IN AL JAZEERA Ignoring America's poor With 46 million people living in poverty, why are the presidential candidates so quiet on issues affecting the poor? Inside Story US 2012 Last Modified: 03 Oct 2012 09:38 http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryus2012/2012/10/201210343152481862.html

- JAIMECHUCH

October 4, 2012 at 6:58am

What you saw was Blithe Barry who has slightly right of Eisenhower Republican policies and a Chamberlain-like personality not suited to countering big lies and intractable opposition. What else is new?? And you think he will do just fine as Prez when the financial crisis hits in 2013 and is faced with intractable opposition very believably saying "I told you so".. Godd luck with that.

- drofnats1

October 4, 2012 at 7:31am

Claris (above) - thank you for saying it and please keep saying the truth here and elsewhere. John (above, other commenter) is a a faux (even if he thinks sincere) handwringer who wants us all to "get along" even if one side is blatantly dishonest and smarmy. He is of the "let's present both sides fairly" (to a bizarre fault) school, when taken to the robotic non-reflective degree that Jim Leherer sometimes represents from his PBS program. Elsewhere, this is seen in things such as in science vs. 'intelligent design' in discussions of evolution. Sometimes the sensible heavily outweighs the patently ridiculous. You can acknowledge an overwhelmingly foolish argument without giving it equal weight.

- atlasqq

October 4, 2012 at 7:34am

You're right: TV news is about "aggression, not inquiry;" the president called it "toxic." A main cause is the (perceived) necessity of 24/7 high-alert, to scare up ratings by any means necessary. "Print" media (that is, accessed online from respectable outlets) has resisted this, as the journalist-editor relationship slowed reporting enough for introspection. Tweeting and live-blogging injects a must-respond-instantly vibe, which simultaneously produces group-think and, perversely, an intense urge to contradict the fast-emerging consensus. IOW, "aggression, not inquiry." I hit 'refresh' as often as the next Plank junkie, but those old media stars, Simon & Garfunkel, had it right...

- Wonderland

October 4, 2012 at 9:46am

"And you think he will do just fine as Prez when the financial crisis hits in 2013 and is faced with intractable opposition very believably saying "I told you so".. Godd luck with that." Drofnats: 1) You talk about the Depression of 2013 as if it has already happened. YOU DO NOT KNOW THAT ANY SUCH THING WILL OCCUR. 2) There are exactly two people who have any chance of being POTUS in 2013. Without resorting to some Rube Goldberg chain of causation whereby the economy tanks, Romney and the Republicans utterly fail to handle the crisis, and the American electorate suddenly comes to understand that all their problems will come to an end if they embrace politicians who embrace Keynesian economics, please tell us one single solitary reason why Willard Romney will be a better president for America than Barrack Obama. I didn't see the debate. (I was in a tent in the desert.) From all the commentary I've read in the past hour, I reckon he did exactly what he wanted to do and exactly what he needed to do. Mitt Romney likely did "win" the debate. It likely won't make a bit of difference. I've seen a few clips of the debate (on MSNBC); I thought Obama looked and sounded calm, confident and in control. Basically that's all he needed to do. The only people watching MSNBC have already made up their minds, and as frustrating as they found Obama's performance, they're still going to vote for him.

- AaronW

October 4, 2012 at 10:13am

Somebody on another site suggested that Romney was high on meth last night. Could be. He told a whole bunch of lies with a jagged-edge, blithering enthusiasm that reminded me of a used-car salesman. And he officially became the biggest flip-flopper in American political history. The Religious Right has so poisoned American politics with the dictum that faith trumps reason that this Machiavelli got many people to believe him, even after he lied to everybody, including himself. This chameleon has a big national-debt counter behind him on stage at some of his rallies. Obama should have a counter behind him at rallies that displays how many times Romney has changed his political positions that day. That would be an extremely effective tactic, but Obama is not nasty enough, not Republican enough, to use it. Romney is a sociopath. That's the nature of the chameleon. Will America bow down to the Lizard King? It appears ready to anoint him. Grit your teeth, America. You're about to get another shot to the solar plexus.

- magboy47.

October 4, 2012 at 10:47am

My better half thought Romney was speeding. I'll go with sociopath. I just hope Americans aren't as dumb as they were last time, when they elected Bush twice. Oh wait. We didn't elect Bush. See this is what maybe we don't fully grasp: the right wing in America isn't "Republicans" anymore. They are a full on, hard right wing party which has no intention of compromising or sharing power, period, let alone telling the truth to the people, for whom they have contempt. That is beyond obvious, and it's obvious also that we are the sheep who are being fleeced and worked to death. Of course, we can always go to the ER.

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 11:55am

About Bush and McCain and Bush I: they never upset me as much as Romney. I disagreed with their policies but they didn't make me want to throw stuff at the tube, start screaming at them and their surrogates and flat out scare me to my shoes. Romney and Ryan are different.

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 11:57am

Can't resist: Jennifer Rubin: ...The left-wing TV talking heads were in full meltdown last night. Asample: I have to say MSNBC was must-see TV last night for many conservatives. The liberal media, and MSNBC specifically, have no one to blame but themselves, however. They have never given President Obama the sort of scrutiny he got last night. They have mouthed the president’s false talking points (“a $5 trillion tax cut for the rich”), egging the president on. When Mitt Romney debunked these easily, Obama had nowhere to go. He looked lost without the protective blanket of compliant media and over-eager left-wing bloggers. Jim Lehrer was, comically, the target for many on the left. The complaint was that he didn’t “control” the debate. In fact, what irked them was that he didn’t control Romney. Did he not know his role as media combatant for the president? Ironically, Newt Gingrich was dead right in suggesting un-refereed debates: The president without a structure and without a moderator to help him defend against an opponent is out of his depth. It was no doubt a bitter blow to see the president stripped of his mythic reputation. The more “likable” candidate couldn’t seem to make eye contact and was obviously put out having to endure this. The more “eloquent” candidate seemed not to have prepared a closing argument. He sounded weirdly defensive, skipping from thought to thought and pleading to give him another shot. (“You know, four years ago, I said that I’m not a perfect man and I wouldn’t be a perfect president. And that’s probably a promise that Governor Romney thinks I’ve kept. But I also promised that I’d fight every single day on behalf of the American people, the middle class, and all those who were striving to get into the middle class. I’ve kept that promise and if you’ll vote for me, then I promise I’ll fight just as hard in a second term.”) But the media, who too often view themselves as on the president’s team, should share in the blame. They built him up. They parroted his excuses and four-Pinocchio attacks. But they couldn’t save him when it mattered most. They made the campaign about gaffes and polls, which are of no use in a debate. They lambasted Romney, man of the 59-point job plan, for lack of detail without ever urging the president to come up with any substantive policy commensurate with the challenges we face. They might want to rethink their approach to presidential boosterism. On the right, there is no hesi­ta­tion in letting candidates and officials know when they are messing up. To the contrary, the Romney team has been overwhelmed with advice and criticism of late. And you know what? The team took it to heart, improved and did not engage in self-delusion. In the end, that did Romney a world of good....

- basman

October 4, 2012 at 2:53pm

Sophia, Bush 43, the beginner of the Iraq war which he then surged "...didn't make me want to throw stuff at the tube, start screaming at (him) and (his) surrogates and flat out scare me to my shoes"? I don't believe you. I don't think you're a liar. I think your hatred of the moment so overwhelms you, that your memory of past hatreds and tantrum inducing behaviours simply can't compete with your present ones vis a vis Romney.

- basman

October 4, 2012 at 3:01pm

Excuse me? With respect basman, I wasn't writing here when Bush was President let alone when he started the war. That said, yes, I was frightened by his policies but as a person he never affected me the way Romney does. And if you don't feel the same way about Bush policies and now by Romney, his very persona, I don't know what to say to you. Your perceptions are from another planet than the one I inhabit. But then you seem supportive of Romney. Why?

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 3:21pm

PS if you are not passionate about threats, direct threats on your nation, on the animals and environment of this planet, on the weak around the world you can't defend themselves, something is wrong with you.

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 3:22pm

I meant, "who" can't defend themselves; this includes people in the path of bombs.

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 3:23pm

OK I thought of something else: damn straight I get mad when I see liars. Especially bullying, entitled, rich liars. I get really mad when I see the same old praise for the oil and other related industries, and attacks on green energy, and attacks on reality itself. Don't you? Why the hell not?

- Sophia

October 4, 2012 at 3:25pm

John336 said, "This type of emotion is dangerous, if it develops on a large scale and becomes uncontrollable. History in the 20th century has many examples, and I do not need to cite them." John, your point is apt, but directed at the wrong crowd. The threat you allude to is coming from the right in this country, not the left. Here is an entire book for you on the subject: http://books.google.com/books/about/The_Eliminationists.html?id=4KO44oqqH2kC

- Fishpeddler

October 4, 2012 at 4:13pm

Sophia give me a break. Your concern reeks of self dramatization and self righteousness. Like Gatsby, you spring from your Platonic conception of yourself. You think you have some franchise on moral concern? You do in fact, but it's a home grown product, existing only in your own head. Romney frightens me not a whit. And he didn't frighten or harm the good people of Massachusetts when he was governor. Plus if you could see past your highly dramatized self righteousness and apocalytic fantasizing, by which you seem to give yourself tremors of fright, you would have observed that Romney yesterday pivoted precisely to the moderate Republican right leaning centre, where his true ideological and political self is, pragmatic, case by case, and essentially careful and incremental, just like Obama, but from a different angle. You don't know my politics and are wrong about who I'd support and vote for if I could. But I can see things more or less for what they are, and take them fairly calmly, one thing at a time. I'm infinitely less self satisfied than you with my grand moral concern and less publicly excited than you about the dangers that bode ill against my nation, the environment, the wretched of the earth, to quote Fanon, and, yes, let's not forget the animals.

- basman

October 4, 2012 at 5:29pm

". . . .let's not forget the animals." As a founder member of Squirrels for a Rational Health Care System, I could not agree more! My many conversations with Canadian squirrels in convivial circumstances -- hey, love that acorn and vodka cocktail! -- have inspired me in my work.

- ironyroad

October 4, 2012 at 9:34pm