rigorousintuition.ca

"Each candidate must submit to the staff of the commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils and the staff of the commission will place such paper pens and pencils on the podium"

http://www.c-span.org/pdf/memounderstanding.pdf

barracuda wrote:Well, I must be a "winger" then, because I thought Obama was either deliberately throwing the debate, or sandbagging in order to maintain the illusion of a horse-race, or was physically under the weather. If you literally are having a hard time raising your head up to look at the opponent in a debate, there's gonna be a few points off the top.

Beyond that, this had to be among the most boring presidential debates I'd ever witnessed - the only thrilling moments came when I was startled dumbstruck by Romney's chutzpah during some of his more amazingly blatant falsehoods and flippages. At one point I actually inhaled sharply. It was a highpoint for me. Yeah.

Apparently there's really no such thing as "cheating" in a presidential debate, either. That kind of talk is a conceit carried around by people who wish their man had done better. No else one cares that Mitt had notes. Obama should have been able to beat him if Romney was googling atop a stack of encyclopedias resting on Karl Rove's ass. Instead, he did some inexplicable other thing, call it what you will.

Gish Gallop

“ If I were wrong, then one would have been enough! ”

—Albert Einstein, commenting on the book 100 Authors Against Einstein

The Gish Gallop, named after creationist Duane Gish, is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood in real time. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education.

The formal debating jargon term for this is spreading. You can hear some mindboggling examples here. It arose as a way to throw as much rubbish into five minutes as possible. In response, some debate judges now limit number of arguments as well as time. However, in places where debating judges aren't there to call bullshit on the practice, like the internet, such techniques are remarkably common.

lupercal wrote:I listened to most of it but in the parts I saw, BO looked relaxed, congenial and confident, and Romney looked twitchy, sweaty and rude, which is about what I'd expected. He skipped the fake tan this time, and didn't look as grotesque as in other appearances, but he didn't look good. So I don't blame Obama for attending to his notes as Mittster in action is not a pretty sight. And he sounded exactly like what he is: a guy who's accomplished surprisingly little besides lining his own pockets who will promise anything to make his next "acquisition." Having seen what happened to the late great KB Toys, which Bain Capital ate for breakfast, and not being eager to be Mitt's lunch, I guess I'm not as receptive to his b-school baloney as others might be.

As I think Jack pointed out the whole debate was basically rigged to play to Mittler's strengths, starting with this first one exclusively devoted to "economics," which wound up meaning taxes and the deficit, Mitt's favorite topics. Lehrer didn't help by letting Bainboy walk all over him.

There's cheating, and I care. They both agreed to the rules, which were pounded out with utmost seriousness by both camps, and Mittler broke them. He repeatedly helped himself to extra speeches, ignored the moderator's attempts to guide the discussion, and brought and used notes which are contractually proscribed, see quote in OP above. Breaking the rules is cheating, and in my view -- and since the whole thing is staged to let viewers assess the merits of the candidates, that's the view that counts -- Mitt gets a zero on that score alone. Game over.

Canadian_watcher wrote:I dislike both candidates. That being said...

I listened to the whole thing yesterday while painting so I didn't *see* it per se, I only heard it. The fact that Obama didn't look at Romney isn't something that effects my opinion shuffling papers, who had a nicer smile, hand gestures, etc don't figure into my analysis.

My take based on speech alone, is that Obama was either too relaxed or he was very unprepared. I have never understood the claim that this man is an above average (let alone great) orator but in the debate he, to me, seemed to lose his train of thought continually. Someone who is running for president - indeed someone who already *is* president, ought to be able to get through a complete sentence without an "uhhhhh" particularly with regards to statements about middle income families losing their homes, paying too much for taxes and healthcare, needing jobs, etc. It's kinda the number one thing on everyone's minds right now, and if he can't choke thoughts on those matters out in one, passionate breath I can only assume that he's thinking about something else or that he never thought about anything he was going to say at all. Was he reading from notes, did he have an earpiece in, are there teleprompters? Because it seemed like he kept losing his place. And passion? He *almost* has less of it than my own Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, which is saying something.

Based only on the eloquence and attitude of the debate, the seeming knowledge of the issues, and the ability to bring up pointed examples that would connect his ideas to the needs of the middle class, I'd say Romney won, hands down.

barracuda wrote:I can't find a single article about the purloined notes anywhere outside of the most fanatic Democratic enclaves on the web.

A review of the debate tape reveals that, apparently, Mitt Romney needed a cheat sheet to keep the lies straight.

The rules of the presidential debates are clear about not bringing outside notes and presidents and aspirants have followed the rule for decades.

Video of the first eleven seconds of the debate available on YouTube shows Mitt Romney reaching into his pocket at the moment he is out of view of those in front of him, he used the lectern as a shield, and removing what appears to be folded papers from his pocket.

We see this because the camera that was broadcasting was behind Romney. Those in the audience and the moderator may have been shielded from his sleight of hand, but not the viewers.

Romney then proceeds to Romney then proceeds to unfold the item in front of him.

For those curious if it could have been some else, later video sheds some light on what Romney retrieves from his lectern.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/10/ ... he-debate/

And let's face it - you think he may have cheated, and that's enough for you in evidentiary terms.

Look, Romney's a scumbag. But most people who support him are in the "anyone but Obama" camp, and are looking for him to take any advantage, unfair or otherwise, to win back the presidency for the white man.

Romney won the engagement, by hook or crook. Some folks find that a characteristic they applaud in a president.

lupercal wrote:There's now an update saying "the evidence seems to indicate it was a handkerchief,"

The evidence seems to indicate it was a handkerchief. So there you have it folks. The mystery seems to have been solved.

But ye olde Mitt Romney saying, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, doesn’t seem to hold true for news aggregator that just this week promoted a five year old story that was covered five years ago — and was not a story.

I have no desire to be part of the peddlers of conspiracy and falsehoods like the birthers or the truthers.

I did write an essay pointing out that there were questions that should be asked and that there was suspicious behavior on the part of Mitt Romney.

Those questions have been put to rest. Honestly, I do not know a person that carries a cloth rag in their pocket when they have a runny nose — it is a little gross.

It doesn’t change the fact that it is incredibly stupid to walk into a Presidential debate and sneak something from your pocket. There is advance staff to take care of tissues.

It also doesn’t change the fact that Romney distorted his campaign proposals and presented a very different version of Mitt Romney than the one that has been running for President for more than half a decade.

So it seems that Mitt Romney did indeed memorize his lies rather than bring a laundry list of them with him. And he carries a hanky.

but if you watch the video above, you can clearly see that it wasn't.

There's no judge, jury, or referee issuing a decision here, just the viewer, and I'll render my verdict in the voting booth.

Nordic wrote:This whole "kill your TV" thing is such a great idea. I killed mine, and after a brief period of withdrawals, there's no desire whatsoever to watch this dreck. Or any of the dreck they offer.