Barack Obama did Democrats the courtesy of showing up for the second presidential debate, which was more than he did for the first. Unlike his lackluster performance in the first debate, Obama actually took the game to Mitt Romney, and showed Romney up for what he is (and for a change).
Obama is not a great debater; he missed a bunch of opportunities. By contrast, Romney is a terrific debater because he is unencumbered by any facts. He is willing to say anything in the moment if he wins the point. This was the untold story in the first debate. Democrats were so intent on attacking Obama for his performance that they failed to attack Romney for revealing himself as totally without principle. He is the quintessential hollow man. Romney was anti-coal before he was pro-coal. He was pro-choice before he was pro-life and now apparently modified pro-choice again. He abhors regulation except when he’s for them. He invented Obamacare back when he was a governor, but now he’s the chief critic.
Romney slid through the first debate because of Obama’s poor performance. You would have thought, based on the poll bounce he got, that Romney was the greatest public speaker since Cicero. This time, Romney’s slipperiness worked against him, helped in large part because Candy Crowley offered a demonstration in journalism by calling Romney out on his Libya comments. (This quickly led to right-wing attacks on Crowley, some of them homophobic.) Romney also helpfully tied himself in knots on a variety of issues, including immigration (he’s gone totally 180 there) and, especially, women’s issues. While we’re all relieved to know that Romney has “binders full of women” to choose from for Cabinet posts, he was unable to connect to women in a way that is going to help him at the polls.
Obama talked about contraception and Planned Parenthood as “pocketbook” and “family” issues. He smartly positioned Romney to the right of George W. Bush. And he proved he could eviscerate Romney, not just on Libya, but also on Romney’s “47 percent” comment. These were effective moments, and Romney didn’t have anything comparable. In fact, by the end of the debate, Obama was on a roll and Romney seemed off his game, which was a relief to all the Democratic pearl-clutchers, most notably Andrew Sullivan, who were convinced Obama was a closet Republican throwing the election for Romney.
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
And finally, can someone, anyone, please ask a gay question at one of these debates? Gay marriage, DADT, Project Runway, Kurt and Blaine–we don’t really care. Can we just get a little acknowledgment, particularly given the difference between the parties?
Who knows? Perhaps the country could learn something.
Photo by BarackObama.com
Dez
Well there was that small moment where Romney insinuated that gun toting criminals that massacre movie theater crowds are somehow a result of the existence of non-nuclear families. It was slight, but it seemed like he threw ‘alternative’ families under the bus with that little dig.
petensfo
Thank You, Qrty! I held my breathe waiting the whole time… & nuthin’!
CM79
I’d rather they didn’t. We all know where both men stand on the issue. Bringing it up again might not have the desired effect you’re hoping for. The LGBT community has tried to make this election about equality, but I’m not sure that’s how the rest of middle America see’s it.
jeff4justice
It’s pathetic these cowards won’t debate their alternative party options. The moderator was a pushover, both blatantly dodged questions, and the audience was pathetic. Really, the needed notes to ask all of their soft questions?!?
Worse, most Americans are not even aware of how a handful of corporations control the media so the media bias/blackout of alternative parties is a given; most alternative parties do not take corporate donations despite citizens united; there are many unfair election laws hindering alternative parties (like the top 2 law here in CA and now being attempted in AZ) and the corporations that donate to the Republican/Democrat Commission On Presidential Debates get to write off their “donations” to the debate organizers.
This is not a democratic republic. It’s a joke.
Mjl-428
Was anyone surprised that this wasn’t gonna come up? I knew it from the start that Gay rights issues weren’t gonna come up at any point of the debate.
@jeff4justice: Please tell me, as a means to combat this and make more Americans self-aware, that you are posting onto other sites, and have created/will create a site/petition/group whose goal is to turn our government back into a democratic republic, and push against the two party system, while promoting non R or D affiliated candidates on a more public level, and working a round the clock system that sends viral accurate news exposing our politicians, non-profit organizations, big corporations, etc.
because simply calling it for what it is and doing absolutely nothing about it to effectively change it means nothing.
searchcz
There may have been no “gay question”, but there was certainly an equality answer, and it came from President Obama:
“… we’ve also got to make sure that in every walk of life, we do not tolerate discrimination. That’s been one of the hallmarks of my administration. I’m going to continue to push on this issue for the next four years.”
jeff4justice
@Mjl-428: The answer is in this video: 6 Easy Steps To End The 2-Party System http://youtu.be/AS8cdu9ge0w
Here in CA, Equality CA used to have regional chapters and foolishly ended them a year before the Prop 8 battle. Comparatively, as much as I despise the Tea Party, I recognized there intelligence in organizing regional chapters nationwide. Compare that to the Occupy movement which was ineffective for numerous reasons.
Regarding what I do, I’ve started the first and second visible LGBT groups in my hometown. I work my ass off as an activist, However as a person in poverty I have to take care of myself first. There’s only so much I can do. Way to go for you for seeking proactive solutions. The “6 Easy Steps To End The 2-Party System” is a good path forward.
Mjl-428
@jeff4justice: this was what I wanted to see. I will admit, because I have seen so many comments from that just bash without convincing me of choosing an alternative and have met a few people here and there who’s only idea was simply not doing anything, I was skeptical if you would tell me anything. but I’m convinced.
like you there is only so much I can do, but I will try and find a chapter or during the course of these next for years, talk to a few people and try and get an independent group here in Richmond created if there isn’t one. I do believe that the two party system is pointless now, and feel like nothing truly gets done for the benefit of the American people as a whole regardless of who’s in charge. AND feel like queerty doesn’t really do much to show us that we have more political options (nor do is do much on a few other things, but for now, we’ll skip it).
Niall
Yes I kept on waiting for it, mainly because it’d be a moment for Obama to totally school Romney like Biden did to Ryan on the abortion issue. Sadly, it never came.
oldhouseguy
I find John Gallaghers’ article so typicalof a nasty pissy queen. One who follows the crowds of gays who put forth their own agenda of what gays “should” stand for. How sad you are that the element of you and those like you feel like being a Democrat is the only option. You’re too uneducated enough to truly look at the issue and conduct your own due diligence on what a low life Obama really is. So what do you do??? You hate any one who does not agree with you.. sad, sad little Johnnie…
balehead
people will vote for Mitt if this question is asked….Cause you know what he’ll say…
Eric Auerbach
Well, Cicero ended up with his head on display. Though for Romney, I’ll settle for a mere trouncing on Nov. 6.
Kevin B
@jeff4justice: You will never see more than two viable national parties until and unless we get rid of single-seat districting… which I highly doubt will ever happen. Single-seat districts reward large parties and encourage those with more “fringe” beliefs to sort themselves into the larger parties or deny themselves representation. It sucks but that’s really all there is to it.