Jack Nicklaus Endorses Romney, Mitt calls Jack “Greatest athlete of the 20th century.”

[clubchamp]

So anybody watch the debate?

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by clubchamp

So anybody watch the debate?

Watched with sound off, for most of it.

With the sound off, Obama looked good and Romney seemed manic and ready to pounce.

When I turned on the sound, Obama was flat and professorial, Romney was animated.

Obama apparently let Romney off the hook.

Went to the fact checking sites - they say Romney misrepresented almost everything he had previously said during the campaign.

Not a surprise - and even his campaign had to "clarify" what he meant to say - meaning we have no idea what Romney will say tomorrow.

I think Big Bird won the debate.

[David in FL]

Obama apparently let Romney off the hook.

That conservative stallworth, the NY Times called Mr Obama "President Xanax". I guess we're really lucky that he let Romney off the hook! :-) Not gonna take a victory lap over one debate though. Long ways to go.....

[newtogolf]

While I'd like to see Romney win, the challenger has a distinct advantage over the incumbent when it comes to debates.  Romney has no history as President to point at and tear apart, Obama does.  I said 4 years ago whoever won the last election was a sacrificial lamb because no one could take the mess they were handed from GW and show any positive results after four years.

Where Obama went wrong is he put most of his early efforts into Obama care when the country was watching banks fail, peoples houses get foreclosed and unemployment skyrocket.  I get that he had an agenda, but sometimes in management you have to change your priorities to deal with more critical issues.  Whether anyone wants to admit it or not Obama care divided this country worse than it had been.  It made people take sides and once that happened no one was going to work well together.

Romney or Obama have another tough 4 years ahead of them, there's still an issue with bad mortgages out there, no immediate solution to create more jobs, and we have to deal with the fallout of all the money Obama printed these last four years as a band-aid to much larger domestic and world wide economic issues.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

While I'd like to see Romney win, the challenger has a distinct advantage over the incumbent when it comes to debates.  Romney has no history as President to point at and tear apart, Obama does.

A challenger also has the advantage of being unemployed, and can therefore spend as much time as he needs to prepare.

[newtogolf]

Agreed, though I almost laughed out loud when I read liberal press blame Obama's less than energetic performance on the high altitude and pointed out Romney got to CO early to adjust.

Originally Posted by Golfingdad

A challenger also has the advantage of being unemployed, and can therefore spend as much time as he needs to prepare.

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

While I'd like to see Romney win, the challenger has a distinct advantage over the incumbent when it comes to debates.  Romney has no history as President to point at and tear apart, Obama does.  I said 4 years ago whoever won the last election was a sacrificial lamb because no one could take the mess they were handed from GW and show any positive results after four years.

Where Obama went wrong is he put most of his early efforts into Obama care when the country was watching banks fail, peoples houses get foreclosed and unemployment skyrocket.  I get that he had an agenda, but sometimes in management you have to change your priorities to deal with more critical issues.  Whether anyone wants to admit it or not Obama care divided this country worse than it had been.  It made people take sides and once that happened no one was going to work well together.

Romney or Obama have another tough 4 years ahead of them, there's still an issue with bad mortgages out there, no immediate solution to create more jobs, and we have to deal with the fallout of all the money Obama printed these last four years as a band-aid to much larger domestic and world wide economic issues.

Hey - if it weren't for ObamaCare, my Insurance Co. would have dropped me.

It wasn't ObamaCare, it was the lies about ObamaCare that divided the country.

I bet over 50% of the people don't realize that ObamaCare is private insurance and everyone participating by having insurance to bring in more customers in order to bring down the costs of bringing in those with pre-existing conditions. There is more to it, and every law needs improvement.

Obama's real problem was dismissing the Republicans at the beginning of his term, by saying "I won." That was naive. His insular style, leaving people in the lurch when negotiating, and a poor staff were his problems. If he had looked at the GOP and realized that he was effectively a minority President because of a radical right GOP and worked with them, treating them as equals - he would have had a successful first term and we'd be better off as a country.

[newtogolf]

Whether it was lies about Obama care or Obama care my point was it divided government and the country.

I agree he mis-handled the GOP but there was a lot of arrogance on both sides.  I think the GOP was a bit on edge after paying the price of being associated with GW for 8 years.

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Hey - if it weren't for ObamaCare, my Insurance Co. would have dropped me.

It wasn't ObamaCare, it was the lies about ObamaCare that divided the country.

I bet over 50% of the people don't realize that ObamaCare is private insurance and everyone participating by having insurance to bring in more customers in order to bring down the costs of bringing in those with pre-existing conditions. There is more to it, and every law needs improvement.

Obama's real problem was dismissing the Republicans at the beginning of his term, by saying "I won." That was naive. His insular style, leaving people in the lurch when negotiating, and a poor staff were his problems. If he had looked at the GOP and realized that he was effectively a minority President because of a radical right GOP and worked with them, treating them as equals - he would have had a successful first term and we'd be better off as a country.

[Golfingdad]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Agreed, though I almost laughed at loud when I read liberal press blame Obama's less than energetic performance on the high altitude and pointed out Romney got to CO early to adjust.

Seriously?  Ha!  Maybe there are guys on political forums arguing about whether or not debating should be considered a "sport."

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Whether it was lies about Obama care or Obama care my point was it divided government and the country.

I agree he mis-handled the GOP but there was a lot of arrogance on both sides.  I think the GOP was a bit on edge after paying the price of being associated with GW for 8 years.

And my point was, it did not have to divide the country.

It was a Republican Inspired Plan for goodness sakes - at least he did not go for single payer, government health care. Imagine the fight on that one.

[David in FL]

at least he did not go for single payer, government health care. Imagine the fight on that one.

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Make no mistake, that's his ultimate goal.....

[Mr. Desmond]

Originally Posted by David in FL

You eat an elephant one bite at a time. Make no mistake, that's his ultimate goal.....

LOL!

His best chance of that was in 2009. That's why liberal Dems laid out on him after the bill's passage. They did it, but they didn't like it.

I've heard too many conspiracy stories from the right - all started by the right ... and all false.

Obama has several personal issue that screwed up his first term - his bad, and the GOP was worse - they tried every way to delegitimize a President with 53% of the vote and an electoral landslide - and they succeeded. Problem is they brought down the country in doing so.

Oh, well ... at least you can't say you get what you pay for. Because we didn't.

[Mr. Desmond]

The facts and opinion about last night debate ...

NY Times Editorial:

The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.

That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent , which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.

None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said . “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense.

The rest of the story is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?hp

[Leftygolfer]

By all accounts Romney crushed Obama in the debate.  Liberal and Conservative outlets alike.  I really couldn't watch much.  Obamas voice makes me want to cut off my ears.  And his policies have done nothing for our future.

[Leftygolfer]

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

The facts and opinion about last night debate ...

NY Times Editorial:

The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.

That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.

None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense.

The rest of the story is here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?hp

These are facts? NY times, come 0n you can't be serious.  And its an opinion article.

[David in FL]

LOL! His best chance of that was in 2009. That's why liberal Dems laid out on him after the bill's passage. They did it, but they didn't like it. I've heard too many conspiracy stories......

The hardcore liberal Dems...... The Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, and Harry Reid crowd. Unfortunately for that group, there are more moderate Democrats out there and the President understood that there wasn't any way in Hell that what he really wanted would get out of the House. Hence the first bite. And by the way, the whole "vast right wing conspiracy" ship sailed a loooong time ago. You're starting to sound a little shrill.

[David in FL]

These are facts? NY times, come 0n you can't be serious.  And its an opinion article.

Mr Desmond does a lot of "cut and paste" of other people's opinions to try to make his points.

[x129]

Other things have also divided the country. It doesn't make them bad things.  It is not like desegregation, civil rights, letting woman vote, social security, buying Alaska, the apollo space program were wildly popular at the time either.   Most of them had a slight majority in favor with a lot of loud desenters. The popularity of most of them is a lot higher now. Maybe in 20 years we will look back and admire the political courage it took to do it. Or maybe we look back at what an utter failure it has been and that they wasted the chance to go single payer.

Long term we need Obamacare or something else similar in nature. Short term it sucked up a lot of time and capital that could have been used on our economy and getting out of Iraqi and Afganistan.

Originally Posted by newtogolf

Whether it was lies about Obama care or Obama care my point was it divided government and the country.

I agree he mis-handled the GOP but there was a lot of arrogance on both sides.  I think the GOP was a bit on edge after paying the price of being associated with GW for 8 years.