(c) 2012 Earl L. Haehl Permission is given to use this article in whole as long as credit is given. Book rights are reserved.
Thinking about debates I have always regarded them as roughly less interesting than going in a spare room and measuring how much the wallpaper has peeled since the last go round.
Some thoughts regarding debates and polls.
Explaining the shift in polls after the first debate indicates that the debate gave an nation a side by side look at the candidates showed that a) people were waiting to see how strong Romney could come off, or b) some people were waiting to see Obama as less than invincible (therefor inevitable), or…
The big OR. Or the electorate is highly fluid. If the tables turn in the next couple debates—or shift with each one—the electorate is also extremely volatile and the demagogue who gets the last shot may win.
Do not worry about prevarication. Lies about economic plans are relative. Paul Krugman, who will not debate an Austrian school economist, is not an expert worth listening to. Romney ignores the fact that we have not had real capitalism in this country since before the passage of anti-trust in 1890, and certainly before the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. Obama, who snagged the name of a defunct CPUSA publication as a campaign slogan, lives in a fantasy world of centrally planned economy. His one venture into relevance was his reference to Lincoln—in those days Presidents did not propose or advocate legislation and the one of the three that required expenditure of funds was the Transcontinental Railroad in which he had a vested personal financial interest.
And I have a question for those who place great stock in the debates. Who cares or even remembers Quemoy and Matsu?