Comments about ‘Romney v. Obama 2: feisty, toe-to-toe, and inconclusive’

Return to article »

Published: Tuesday, Oct. 16 2012 10:38 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
FT
salt lake city, UT

Mitt Romney may be the next President of the U.S. but tonight I think a lot of people saw a man they won't like or respect. He was disrectful and dishonest to name a few. And yes, the same could be said of our President. Hopefully, our Utah school districts give us the same opportunity to pull our children out of the class rooms when President Romne speaks to students as they offered when President Obama did. I certainly don't think he represents the strong values and morals that many of us are trying to instill in our children.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

It was fortunate for President Obama to have his campaign advisor Candy Crowley by his side.

KJB1
Eugene, OR

Oh, please. Romney could have shown up in the wrong city and the DN still would have found a way to try to make him look good. When Republicans have to resort to nitpicking the definition of "acts of terror", it's clear who the winner was tonight.

And it wasn't Mitt Romney.

BYUalum
South Jordan, UT

The only clear choice we have to save our country is to elect Mitt Romney President of the United States. Just because BHO was more aggressive tonight does not mean there was much substance. I thought Mitt held his own. I didn't like the moderator. She clearly favored the president. She actually backed one of his missteps. Unvelievable! When do we get some conservative moderators?

I thought Mitt Romney was the clear winner of this debate because he has a plan to get this country out of this mess. It only gets messier with Obama.

86&90UTE
Holladay, UT

Ok, what the heck? Romney said he was a pastor for ten years. He was never a pastor, with the accompanying training. He was a bishop. He may have even been an awesome bishop. But use the word bishop. Why would he not???

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

@86&90UTE

A Stake President, Bishop or other presiding leader in the Mormon church is considered a "pastor". People outside of the church are familiar with the term pastor, that's probably why Romney referred to his Stake Presidency as such.

Joe Moe
Logan, UT

I'm wondering, is the only way to keep within the agree rules of the debate to put each in a separate room with a microphone and camera, and when time is up, cut the feed and move on?

Regarding the debate, this one will not move the needle like the last one. Not sure if it will or won't stall the bump Romney has had after the last debate, but in and of itself this debate won't move undecided voters.

Howard Beal
Provo, UT

Pastor, minister or lay minister would all be acceptable terms. Nothing there to contend 86&90Ute...

Ali'ikai 'A'amakualenalena
Provo, UT

This article was written by a DesNews staff writer, right? And the headline said what? "Inconclusive?" What an odd choice of words. But then this is the DesNews. The DesNews managing editor much be doing his best to maintain some semblance of Romney momentum regardless of the story. This is simple bias, but considering that the DesNews serves a niche market of conservatives in Utah, it will be seen as an accurate portrayal of events.

The major national newspapers appear to have an entirely different take on the debate last night. Although many do not like the need to declare a winner and a loser in a debate (whatever that means), the second presidential debate was not "inconclusive" to most independent viewers.

Fox News ran a piece with Frank Luntz interviewing a focus group of older, white folk claiming to be "independent" where all but two people were very much in favor of the Republican candidate at the end. This is informative since Luntz is a Republican strategist and his audience's "independence" is questionable since this was a Fox News event staged for the post-game show. Having any other result would have been adverse to the show.

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

86&90ute
to mant people bishop is a lifetime, celebate compensated job

ute alumni
Tengoku, UT

One clueless and one with ideas and experience. Glglad mitt. Was there. O has to go

xert
Santa Monica, CA

Oh, it was conclusive all right. My conclusion was that the President showed up and took back this race. This is one of the biggest differences between Democrats and Republicans. When they debated two weeks ago and (in my opinion) Mr. Romney won the debate, Democrats were the first to admit it and demand that their President show up and fight in the second debate. He did so. He floored Mr. Romney on a couple of occasions (Rose Garden and 47%). He made Mr. Romney look petulant and like a spoiled rich kid who is used to getting his own way. Still--Republicans, from the safety of their bubbles are trying to claim that he won the debate. Laughable, a bit sad and a major reason our nation will still be in a lot of trouble even after President Obamas second term begins.

Jonathan Eddy
Payson, UT

@ xert

1. Disagree
2. Disagree
3. Disagree
4. Disagree
5. Disagree
6. Disagree
7, Disagree
8. Second term? If a president does a bad job (Google Jimmy Carter), one term is plenty.

one old man
Ogden, UT

It was infuriating to watch both candidates -- and most frequently Romney -- completely ignore the time limits without being shut down by the moderator.

Several times, when the moderator tried to do her job, Romney tried to bulldoze her.

Maybe next time, the timers should be shown on screen for all to see with a loud air horn to blast when time is up.

Itsme2
SLC, UT

It is total liberal media bias. Obama lied through his teeth (and the liberal moderator joined in) about Libya - oh, and just about every other topic brought up last night. And the liberal pundits are saying that he won the debate! What a joke! Just because he was more aggressive doesn't mean he won! I don't care whether he can debate lies! I care that his record is beyond horrible. He may be running for reelection, but he certainly can't run from his record!

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

Re:xert

Good points.

Republicans are reality challenged and it isn't good for their party or the country.

Romney kept saying he knows how to get the economy moving but didn't say how. He talks about the $5 trillion in tax cuts, but doesn't say how he's going to make them revenue neutral. He's going to give himself a $674,000 tax cut when he repeals the AMT, and is determined to keep the special carried interest loophole that enabled him to amass his great fortune.

Even if one believes in the Laffer curve, at some point, taxes can become too low and not generate enough revenue. But maybe that's the Republican goal.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

The President supposedly had 2800 pages in his debate brief book. That is a lot of information and Mitt Romney would have had a similar type of briefing process. That is a lot of information to spew out. If they got 70 percent, hopefully, they could have passed their test.

However, even though they couldn't take their notes with them, I will agree that the professor, Candy Crowley helped crib for the President, a time or two. She didn't give that type of advantage to Mitt Romney and sort of told him that he was wrong a time or two, also.

This President doesn't know reality and has a hard time answering a question directly, whether it was asked by one of the supposedly undecideds or from Mitt Romney.

You could see some evidence that the President despises his opponent and his principles. The President even showed some of Joe Biden's smiles last night but the cameras didn't use the split viewing as with the VP debate so it was harder to see.

Honesty is the best policy and the President doesn't have any real policies except shooting from the hip without advisors close.

JWB
Kaysville, UT

I am glad the debate had the Libya question posed so that will be part of the foreign policy or lack of foreign policy from this President.

You have to have diplomacy at the highest side and this President has Mrs. Clinton be his messenger of bad tidings. He likes to be glitzy and his time killing Bin Laden was not his forte since it was a military operation and he doesn't really like the military and now we see the State Department in a hostile country either.

Being a President for him is riding around in his 747 everyday, almost, and taking nice vacations that cost our economy $200M a day to provide support people, equipment, aircraft and a carrier fleet. He knows how to spend money and attacks those that make it for our economy. He supports the fight of those that have not made money to those that have made money. He played that card several times last night.

He can't show that performance is what he should be judged on. He avoided that topic more than once, also.

He was tactical and strategic in bringing up the 47% when Mitt could not rebut it.

athought
Salt Lake City, UT

FT - I already see a candidate I don't like or respect in the form of Obama. I don't think either of them "looked good", but I didn't really hear one question answered by Obama. Both skirted around issues, but not answering questions -- last one did it for me when the question was about how they were percieved and how that is different from who they really are. Romney did answer it, but Obama only went on the attack against Romney -- didn't say a thing about himself. And I can see why Romney used the word "pastor". If he had said bishop and stake president, that would start the Mormon thing all over again. We're not voting for a religion -- I could care less. I'm surprised Clinton's responsibility wasn't jumped on. If she is that inept at her job, why hasn't she resigned -- case of misdirected blame before the election? Obama said he was Commander in Chief -- he knew about the request for extra security -- give me a break. I've said in the past few elections vote for the lesser of two evils -- in my book the choice is clear.

Truthseeker
SLO, CA

"I was talking with an old friend who is with one of the nonpartisan polling outfits (and who also happens to be a very good and fair-minded pollster). We were discussing the large shifts in some of the polls on the presidential election and the feedback he receives whenever he puts out new numbers that make one side or the other unhappy. He offered an observation so priceless that it needs to be widely shared.

“When you give conservatives bad news in your polls, they want to kill you,” he said. “When you give liberals bad news in your polls, they want to kill themselves.”

I am protecting his identity because I don’t want him to get any additional phone calls. I would only add: Buck up, liberals!"

(E.J. Dionne Jr., journalist and columnist for the Washinton Post)

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments