There’s been chatter around since the debate in Denver that Romney won, or failed to lose less than Obama failed to win. It’s a moot point to me, but important, I suppose, in a land where the only confrontation allowed without paid ads are the so-called debates.
One question is why did Obama not attack? There are several possible answers:
- Angry Black Man: There are still racial undertones, and Obama succeeds because of his smooth-spoken command of the English language, and his beautiful wife and children. He’s half white, and that is the part that many white people vote for.
- Prior Agreement: The debates are a farce, set up in advance by the two parties. Remember that they decided to exclude Ross Perot in 1996 on the grounds that he could not win. (Translation: He would not be allowed to win.) The softball host, questions to be asked, size of the podiums and who gets to attend are all agreed in advance. (Nader was not invited in 2000, and was arrested outside the forum for merely showing up.)
Even the upcoming second debate, where questions are perceived to be from regular people, is heavily scripted: Questions must be approved in advance, and the microphone will be cut if the question reader deviates in the slightest from the script.
- Vulnerability: For every attack point that Obama has, he has a weak point. Whether tacitly or explicitly understood, Obama cannot go certain places, and neither can Romney. So we have a standoff where the weaknesses of both candidates are off limits.
Given all of that, it is no surprise that Obama comes off as milquetoast. Romney has little to lose. But it is of no consequence, as the ultimate objective of the debate for each candidate is to not screw up. Getting through without looking at the watch, declaring Poland free or walking into a “there you go again” trap is considered a victory. Even Joe Biden, when he debated the very stupid Sarah Palin, had to pretend she was the real deal. Otherwise a trap might be in store, or he might appear to be condescending to her.
Each man really wants to be president. By definition, they are narcissists who love the attention (even if the power of the office is only a pretense). And in the end, the only votes that count have a $ sign before them. The candidate that can buy the most and best TV ads will win.
I intend to vote down-ticket this November – even if I cared about the presidential outcome, 2002 and 2004, and recently Wisconsin showed me that results can be flipped by electronic counting. But I assume that the local county commissioner and sheriff are too unimportant to have those shenanigans go on. So maybe my vote counts a little bit locally. That’s all anyone can ask in an oligarchy.
________________
It should be noted that Obama apparently said in the debate that he supported Simpson-Bowles. That is a dog-whistle message that he intends to go after Social Security and Medicare. Of course, Romney doesn’t have to bother with a dog whistle.
Piece of Mindful 
Obama lost because he has painted himself into a corner without a window or door to exit. Glib remarks no longer hold cache as an indicator of brilliance. He had NO ideas on the way forward. http://www.people-press.org/files/legacy-pdf/10-8-12%20Political%20Release.pdf
I have forwarded your comment to Montana Cowgirl for their consideration.
LikeLike
Please include Andrew Sullivan’s latest: http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/10/did-obama-just-throw-the-entire-election-away.html
[sigh]
I’ve been at this six years, and you still think this is a partisan blog. Craig, I don’t think I am reaching you.
And, you obviously didn’t read this piece before you commented. That’s not the end of the world but it does make you look a little silly.
LikeLike
You have to admit, it’s pretty damned funny that Craig, after all these years, believes you care who won the debate, or that you’re somehow rooting for Obama.
LikeLike
Ed, it’s the old “lips so no but the eyes say yes.” An accountant like Mark can do the math and see which candidate advances the bottom line of Mark’s agenda. He’s not stupid, just arrogant.
LikeLike
In 1956 the distinguished African American intellectual, Dr. W.E.B. Du Bois said, “I believe democracy has so far disappeared in the United States that no ‘two evils’ exist. There is but one evil party with two names.”
The real world shows that no political law can change an economic law. Both the Republican and Democratic candidates claim they can “fix” the economy, create jobs and stabilize the “middle class.” Neither dared to discuss the economic law that threw us into the “Great Recession.” That law is simply this—a capitalist must maintain maximum profit or be driven out of business. Maximum profit goes to the capitalist who produces the cheapest, thereby capturing the market. Producing the cheapest means cutting production costs to the bone.
There is a limit to how much a worker can be exploited. Therefore, there is an unending drive to create machinery to assist the worker—or in the case of robotics, replace him. If one capitalist replaces the worker with a robot, the rest must do the same. The result is the escalating, permanent replacement of workers. Every worker replaced by electronics shrinks the market for buying and selling while expanding production. Eliminate jobs and the market shrinks. More sophisticated equipment is called for, which shrinks the market more. Any political effort to “create jobs” will only expand the use of electronics and deepen unemployment.
The reality is that the rapid expansion of electronics is replacing the contradictions of capitalism with antagonism. All countries—America, Brazil, China, all the way to Zambia are facing the same reality. Jobs are disappearing never to return. Production is increasing alongside indescribable poverty. The final correction to overproduction—a major war—could spell the end to civilization.
This is the evil we face.
LikeLike
North Dakota is hiring, even with an advancement such as “fracking” which eliminates the needs for numerous wells because one rig can drill miles down and miles horizontally.
And Rally, are you pen pals with the Unabomber?
LikeLike
The development of the electronic means of production is just following the objective laws of competition. The means of production will continue to develop as long as humankind exists. Advanced electronics can be used to benefit the majority or enrich the few and impoverish the many. How we use it will be up to us.
LikeLike
Swede – you’ve tossed this “Unabomber” comment in here before. It is the shallowest of ideas, and offers us a look inside your brain. You apparently cannot grasp even the simplest of concepts (in this case the Achilles heel of capitalism, overproduction coupled with high unemployment) without resorting to the bunker mentality. That’s all “Unabomber” means as you use it – They’re attacking us!” That is as deep as it goes with you.
Oil booms are nice as wealth is spread around by the temporary high employment. With the Bakken boom, and the fact that the wells takes months to drill and a massive reservoir, the employment might last longer. Oil prices appear stable, so rather than a couple of years, we might be looking at ten years of real wealth really working its way into the cities and towns of ND and Eastern Montana. But after the wells and pipelines are in place, they will resort to skeleton crews, and poverty will return.
Remember the boom of the late seventies and early eighties in the same places? They returned to the same state as before, farm belt poverty and families only kept in business by massive subsidy. Food is just like electronics – technological advancement creates high production coupled with high unemployment.
You’ve got no answers for us Swede, cannot even grasp the problems. Your essential opaque comprehension makes debating with you pointless. Rally offers up a thoughtful point, and you throw Unabomber at him. I mean, like, what are you dude, like, as dumb as Sarah?
LikeLike
I should add that once oil and gas fields are tapped and infrastructure is in place, the wealth thereafter leaves the area. Unless states, counties and towns can enact severance taxes, it only flows up and out. The only exception would be the farmer or rancher fortunate enough to own land where surface and mineral rights are still intact, not common. Court decisions of the past allowed investors to sever the two, assuring us that local populations would not see long term benefit from oil and gas exploration.
LikeLike
Have you benefited by the computer boom Mark? How about other stock holders?
This anti-capitalist crap you guys spew would have some creditability if these rich owners were only sole proprietorships.
Which they’re not and others like you, retirees, employees, even on the lowest of scale benefit from a booming business sector.
LikeLike
The business sector booms when there is consumer demand. Consumer demand is brought about by shared, rather than funneled wealth. Wealth naturally flows upward from producers to rent seekers. Higher tax rates on rent seekers recycles wealth downward, creating consumer demand.
Rent seekers do not create wealth. They merely harvest it.
LikeLike
Ted’s words sound a lot like what rally’s saying.
“The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.”
LikeLike
I don’t suppose you’re able to overcome the source of those remarks and delve into the substance. He was criminally insane and randomly harmed and murdered people. That’s more a right-wing trait, but he’s an exception. The words you cite above are prescient.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mark, for the specific information on the oil field contradictions in North Dakota.
Interesting article in the New York Times titled “Skilled Work, Without the Worker”
I am reminded of a story a autoworker union friend told me some years ago. He was walking through the factory with one of the managers who said to him, “See all these new robots: they will not be joining your union nor will they be demanding health care,”. at which my friend responded, “Yea, and they won’t be buying any of the cars they helped produce.”
LikeLike
Thanks for the link, and the quote is insightful. Business managers are naturally short-sighted, thinking at most three months ahead. That’s why all cutting edge research is done by government under the guise of military spending. Businesses are incapable of doing expensive long-term research, and especially “blue sky*” research, without subsidy.
*Research without a known objective.
LikeLike
Ted did not write the article in the New York Times. It was John Markoff.
LikeLike
For me? I knew that. For Swede? He’s off at Heritage and Beck’s looking for more links.
LikeLike
Both youngsters and adults who snore habitually is going to be
developing up future damage of undesirable well being hazards
to their wellness as severe oxygen depletion results in lack of
concentration, high blood pressure and also other significant well being problems.
But when it really is particularly a youngster which has a nightly snoring problem, there are the instant risks of a mimicked ADHD problem during
the day hours.
LikeLike