Opinion

sg-debateDenver

I would be careful about declaring the presidential contest "a whole new race" following Wednesday's debate. Polls show that most voters have made up their minds, and some, due to early voting, have already cast their ballots. One good night for <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a> does not turn the world upside down. 
 But make no mistake, it was a very good night for Romney -- and a bad one for <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Obama</a>. This election wasn't a done deal before the debate, and it certainly isn't now. 
 The immediate impact of Wednesday's encounter was to buoy the spirits of <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a> who feared their chances of taking the <a href="/topics//White_House">White House</a> were irretrievably slipping away. Blunders by Romney and his campaign advisers had begun to unnerve <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">GOP</a> bigwigs and depress the party faithful. Conservative commentators wondered whether Romney had it in him to recover from his missteps, the worst of which -- his "47 percent" rant -- threatened to become a rhetorical albatross. 
 Anyone who wondered how Romney would explain his cold dismissal of nearly half the country is still wondering. No one pressed him on that, not debate moderator Jim <a href="/topics//Jim_Lehrer">Lehrer</a> and not Obama. I'm still shaking my head. 
 There's only so much ground that can be covered in a 90-minute debate, but you'd think a controversy that has so dominated recent weeks of the campaign might deserve a mention. 
 In any event, the gloom that had enveloped the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> camp has suddenly lifted. Now it's <a href="/topics//U.S._Democratic_Party">Democrats</a> who are answering questions about their candidate's performance on the stump, <a href="/topics//U.S._Democratic_Party">Democrats</a> who are somewhat anxiously looking forward to the opportunity provided by the remaining debates. 
 I don't know why Lehrer decided to take such a laissez-faire approach, but he gave both candidates the same latitude. Only one took advantage. 
 Perhaps many people, like me, had forgotten that during the 2008 campaign Obama never showed the kind of mastery in debates that he routinely demonstrated in campaign speeches. He out-debated <a href="/topics//John_McCain">John McCain</a>, but during the primaries he was often bested by <a href="/topics//Hillary_Rodham_Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>. She wasn't able to use those debate performances to move the needle. Now we'll see whether Romney can. 
 Much has been made of the contrast in body language. Obama, frankly, did all the things they tell you not to do when you're on television. He looked down a lot. Perhaps he was taking notes, but the effect was to make him seem to withdraw. When Romney was talking, sometimes the president nodded as if in accord, even at moments when Romney was saying things with which Obama clearly does not agree. Romney, on the other hand, looked straight at Obama when the president was talking. Romney sometimes seemed a bit hyper -- almost overcaffeinated, though he does not use caffeine because of his faith. But he was always engaged. 
 Obama is a reflective speaker who pauses frequently to find the right word. Romney just spits it out. Either style can be effective. The real problem last night was what went unsaid, or unasked. 
 During the long wrangle over taxes, for example, Obama tried to drive home the point that Romney's plan doesn't add up -- that it's impossible to close enough loopholes or limit enough deductions to recapture the revenue that would be lost because of lower income tax rates. But Obama never asked the simple questions that Romney has refused to answer: Which loopholes would you close? Which deductions would you limit? 
 Obama had to anticipate that Romney would try to draw him into a brawl, and may have decided to be presidential, to remain above <a href="/topics//The_Fray">the fray</a>. It's possible to maintain such a posture on the campaign trail, but I don't think you can bring it off in a debate. <a href="/topics//The_Fray">The fray</a> is the whole point of a debate. You can treat your opponent gently or roughly, but you can't pretend he doesn't exist. 
 It wasn't a disaster, from Obama's point of view, but it was a bad night and a missed opportunity. Even if the debate had been no better than a draw, Obama probably could have spent the rest of the campaign running out the clock. Now Romney and the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a> have a new spring in their step. They believe they can win. 
 The basic outline of the contest -- the president holding a modest lead and superior Electoral College prospects -- remains unchanged. Obama has bounced back before. But no, this ain't over. 
 <a href="/topics//Eugene_Robinson">Eugene Robinson</a> is a columnist for the <a href="/topics//Washington_Post_Company">Washington Post</a>.

EUGENE ROBINSON COLUMN

Robinson: Barack Obama gives Mitt Romney an opening, but the election isn't over yet

Yes, <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a> trounced <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Barack Obama</a> stylistically in their first debate -- it was the difference between soaring and sitting -- but he won on substance, too, a feat made easier because he had a basic truth on his side, namely four years of failed policy. Liberals are already hiding from that, as if hope and change materialized and <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a> could have made the case. 
 The defenses, in fact, are meager, and the president preferred to talk more about new welsh-ready promises than what's been. He also went on the attack, happily mischaracterizing his opponent's tax policy as gifts to the rich, burdens for the middle class and defeat for deficit reduction. 
 This story was first put forth by an outfit called the <a href="/topics//Tax_Policy_Center">Tax Policy Center</a> that added its own provisions to the Romney plan, added them up, found something horrendous and then passed the package off as a legit calculation of what Romney would do. 
 Even if you huff, puff, brandish graduate degrees and daily inhale the self-importance permeating Washington, you can't get away with that, and soon enough others showed what buncombe this study was, failing however to convince <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a>. Citing it, he said in the debate there was no way Romney could reduce tax rates and sufficiently lower deductions to keep tax revenue neutral without middle class punishment. He made it sound as if his own policies would take from the rich and give to everyone else while debt went away. 
 Romney explained it to him. He said there are three ways to deal with deficits -- tax hikes, spending reductions and economic growth. He favors the last two. If you cut taxes the right way, you get growth, and that means higher revenue. You do not rely on "trickle-down" government but can rely on private enterprise that does indeed need regulation, but not bad regulation, not regulations that make it overly difficult for people to buy homes, for instance. He said private enterprise would produce the jobs that he wants to give back to the nation, relieving us from a situation in which millions are either unemployed or underemployed and middle class incomes have dropped by thousands of dollars. 
 As for lowering the deductions, he is happy to work out the specifics later in negotiations with <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a>, he said. Romney can negotiate. 
 He proved it when, as the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> governor of <a href="/topics//Massachusetts">Massachusetts</a>, he worked successfully with a predominantly Democratic legislature. He noted that the leaders of Obama's own deficit reduction commission had recommended a plan something like his -- lower rates, lower deductions -- and said Obama had himself walked away from that plan. Obama replied that he was going to push commission principles hard, and Romney replied he had his first term to do that and had not. 
 Romney and Obama tangled over oil company taxes after Romney talked about the steep increase in gasoline prices under Obama. The president said that although he favored a drop in oil company corporate rates, he also wanted to end a deduction that Romney said he might get rid of, too, if he was first able to reduce the corporate rates. Romney then pointed out that Obama has arranged for many tens of billions more in grants or loans to green-energy companies than oil companies receive. He said that in a number of cases the benefiting firms have gone out of business, that the recipients included donors to the 2008 Obama campaign and that the money could have helped the hiring of teachers. 
 There was lots, lots more, but what the differences boiled down to was this: You can on the one hand have faith in constitutional limits on federal government, respect the capacities of states and aim to unleash the energies and genius of the American people, or you can insist on top-heavy, intensely centralized, Washington-knows-best, deficit-nutty programs of the kind that have lately given us the worst economic recovery since <a href="/topics//World_War_II">World War II</a>. 
 Jay Ambrose, formerly Washington director of editorial policy for Scripps Howard newspapers and the editor of dailies in <a href="/topics//El_Paso,_TX">El Paso</a>, <a href="/topics//Texas">Texas</a>, and <a href="/topics//Denver,_CO">Denver</a>, is a columnist living in <a href="/topics//Colorado">Colorado</a>.

Commentary

OPAMBROSE04

Ambrose: Mitt Romney wins first presidental debate with substance, style

Head to Head Debate Cropped

The presidential campaign, hitherto a plod through a torrent of words tedious beyond words, began to dance in Denver. There a masterfully prepared <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a> completed a trifecta of tasks and unveiled an issue that, because it illustrates contemporary liberalism's repellant essence, can constitute his campaign's closing argument. 
 Barack <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a>, knight of the peevish countenance, illustrated William F. Buckley's axiom that liberals who celebrate tolerance of other views always seem amazed that there are other views. <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a>, who is not known as a martyr to the work ethic and who might use a teleprompter when ordering lunch, seemed uncomfortable with a format that allowed fluidity of discourse. 
 His vanity -- remember, he gave <a href="/topics//Queen_Elizabeth_II">Queen Elizabeth</a> an <a href="/topics//iPod">iPod</a> whose menu included two of his speeches -- perhaps blinds him to the need to prepare. And to the fact that it is not lese-majeste to require him to defend his campaign ads' dubious assertions with explanations longer than the ads. And to the ample evidence, such as his futile advocacy for Democratic candidates and Obamacare, that his supposed rhetorical gifts are figments of acolytes' imaginations. 
 Luck is not always the residue of design, and Romney was lucky that the first debate concerned the economy, a subject that to him is a hanging curve ball and to <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a> is a dancing knuckleball. The topic helped Romney accomplish three things. 
 First, recent polls showing him losing were on the verge of becoming self-fulfilling prophesies by discouraging his supporters and inspiriting Obama's. Romney, unleashing his inner wonk about economic matters, probably stabilized public opinion and prevented a rush to judgment as early voting accelerates. 
 Second, Romney needed to be seen tutoring Obama on such elementary distinctions as that between reducing tax rates (while simultaneously reducing, by means testing, the value of deductions) and reducing revenues, revenues being a function of economic growth, which the rate reductions could stimulate. Third, Romney needed to rivet the attention of the electorate, in which self-identified conservatives outnumber self-identified liberals two-to-one, on this choice: 
 America can be the society it was when it had a spring in its step, a society in which markets -- the voluntary collaboration of creative individuals -- allocate opportunity. Or America can remain today's depressed and anxious society of unprecedented stagnation in the fourth year of a faux recovery -- a bleak society in which government incompetently allocates resources in pursuit of its perishable certitudes and on behalf of the politically connected. 
 Late in the debate, when Romney for a third time referred to Obamacare's creation of "an unelected board, appointed board, who are going to decide what kind of [medical] treatment you ought to have," Obama said, "No, it isn't." Oh? 
 The Independent Payment Advisory Board perfectly illustrates liberalism's itch to remove choices from individuals, and from their elected representatives, and to repose the power to choose in supposed experts liberated from democratic accountability. Beginning in 2014, IPAB would consist of 15 unelected technocrats whose recommendations for reducing Medicare costs must be enacted by <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a> by Aug. 15 of each year. If <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a> does not enact them, or other measures achieving the same level of cost containment, IPAB's proposals automatically are transformed from recommendations into law. Without being approved by <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a>. Without being signed by the president. 
 These facts refute Obama's Denver assurance that IPAB "can't make decisions about what treatments are given." It can and will by controlling payments to doctors and hospitals. Hence the emptiness of Obamacare's language that IPAB's proposals "shall not include any recommendation to ration health care." 
 By Obamacare's terms, Congress can repeal IPAB only during a seven-month window in 2017, and then only by three-fifths majorities in both chambers. After that, the law precludes Congress from (BEG ITAL)ever(END ITAL) altering IPAB proposals. 
 Because IPAB effectively makes law, thereby traducing the separation of powers, and entrenches IPAB in a manner that derogates the powers of future Congresses, it has been well described by a <a href="/topics//Cato_Institute">Cato Institute</a> study as "the most anti-constitutional measure ever to pass Congress." But unless and until the Supreme Court -- an unreliable guardian -- overturns it, IPAB is a harbinger of the "shock and awe statism" (<a href="/topics//Indiana">Indiana</a> Gov. <a href="/topics//Mitch_Daniels">Mitch Daniels</a>' phrase) that is liberalism's prescription for curing the problems supposedly caused by insufficient statism. 
 Before Denver, Obama's campaign was a protracted exercise in excuse abuse, and the promise that he will stay on the statist course he doggedly defends despite evidence of its futility. After Denver, Romney's campaign should advertise that promise.

GEORGE WILL COLUMN

Will: Mitt Romney's debate trifecta

Romney speaks during Denver debate

What would these guys do to end paralysis is Washington? 
 Romney says Republicans and Democrats both love America, but we need leadership. 
 Obama says he'll take ideas from anyone. Super. Problem solved. 
 Obama says you have to have a plan. well, he has always had a clear plan, which puts him ahead of Romney, but he's already failed to enact it, which costs him points against Romney. 
 Now it's to the closing statements. 
 And Obama is still stammering. The closing statement is supposed to be the slam dunk, well-rehearsed, delivered with confidence. One more aside, I'm so tired of hearing about the anonymous strangers these guys meet in some state. 
 "I'm reminded of the tall dude, in Sheboygan, who said, 'Mr. President, I need a solar power subsidy.'" 
 Romney seems to have picked up the Obama stammer-flu a bit, and he can't immediately bring to mind a mysterious stranger from the Midwest, but he is ably delivering a mess of promises he'll deliver upon his election. 
 Romney is going to close with a commitment not to cut defense spending. Does he really think we need to spend as much on defense as the next 27 nations combined? 
 Yes, yes he does. 
 So the first debate is over. The best thing you can say about it was that it was substantive and detailed. The worst thing was that it was boring, overly mathematical and didn't settle the main points of contention in the election. Additionally, Lehrer lost control of it, largely because he was asking the candidates to fix the hugest problems the nation faces in 120-second bites. 
 How, gentlemen? Not what would you do, or to what do you aspire, but how would you do it? Two more debates, too many questions left unanswered. In truth, Romney won, not just by not losing but by being smoother, more confident and more relatable. he was, honestly, presidential. 
 It does not seem Romney made any points that will change the spirit of the campaign, but he did make a convincing case that he understands what he's talking about and he's confident in his approach to the problems. 
 And the president didn't make any gaffes, but he was passive, professorial, cold and wonky. 
 It will be fascinating to see, in the eyes of the electorate and in the polls, just how much this matters.

Filler: Romney wins the first debate

Filler: Mitt Romney wins the first debate by being smoother than Barack Obama

Romney speaks during Denver debate - crop

This was not the Barack Obama who famously said, "I'm LeBron, baby," brimming with overconfidence before his 2004 speech. 
 This was not the sharp-elbowed Obama who would never be described as a soft player on the basketball court. 
 This was some other guy who simply lacked fire. 
 If the FBI is not busy in Benghazi, they should be checking out the abduction of the president.

Keeler: Where was President Barack Obama?

Keeler: Where was President Barack Obama during the first debate?

Barack Obama Debate - Cropped

Mathophobes like me are already watching a movie, unless their boss wants them to watch the debate. 
 Numbers at these levels can kill. 
 Why can't Jon Stewart be the moderator? Or Billy Crystal? Or Craig Ferguson? At least we'd get a great Scottish accent.

Keeler: First debate opens with overwhelming wonkiness

Barack Obama Debate

Education is such a great debate to have, because nobody actually has the slightest idea what to do. 
 Romney: "I love great schools." 
 Bold, sir, bold. 
 The debate right now is supposed to be about the role of government in America. 
 Romney is pushing the idea that the rights actually come from our Creator. They don't, of course. If they did, they'd have these same rights in Somalia and Liberia. But it's a nice thought. 
 Does the federal government have a role in education? 
 Romney is way off the conservative playbook in answering this. He's giving way too much credit and power to the feds and Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and it may not play well on the Red blogs overnight. 
 I cannot get over how badly Obama is doing in communicating tonight. He is just frazzled and off. 
 Lehrer has thrown away the clock and is trying to figure out how long it's going to take him to get a can of beer when it's over.

Filler: On education, neither candidate has a clue

Both

This entire debate was so specialized and in the weeds by 8:45 that normal people had already returned to playing Words With Friends even before the talk turned to government regulation. 
 Gracious. 
 Romney says banks shouldn't be too big to fail. That seems new, I think. Obama thinks the same, only more so, but he's the president, and we have banks on his watch that are way too big to fail. 
 Again, it's very flippy, this debate. They seem to be adopting each others' positions on this issue. 
 We are back to Obamacare. 
 Obama started this debate looking aloof and arrogant and geeky, but seems to have gotten more engaged as it went on. 
 Romney has generally been smooth and literate, if not specific. I'm not sure all of what he says makes sense but he's saying it well. 
 What strikes me about Obama defending Obamacare is always this: Even he doesn't think it's a good plan. He's likely supported single-payer for 20 years, and that would be a more honest system. He didn't think he could pass single-payer (and it was Hillary Clinton's thing) so he went with this, but I honestly never feel his heart is in it. he knows it's pointlessly complex and goofy. 
 I cannot believe it took a full hour for Obama to invoke Romneycare and Massachusetts, but he's done it now. Let's see how Romney responds. 
 This is one of Romney's weakest arguing points, because he made the point years ago that the entire country should look to Romneycare. If health care were a states-rights issue, we wouldn't have Medicare and Medicaid. This whole line of reasoning is just so disingenuous. 
 Both of these guys are terrible at looking normal when they're not speaking, tonight. They need classes in feigning respectful interest. 
 Romney is now going to argue for a plan that provides all of the benefits of Obamacare, without mandating people buy insurance. Which is not something he ever claimed was possible when he was imposing his plan. 
 And he's arguing against a board that decides what treatments will and won't be paid for, a topic on which he's just wrong. 
 How can we afford an infinite commitment to any and all treatments for all people, whether they're effective or not? 
 Obama has all the points on his side in this argument, but he really seems off his game. Stiff, stuttery, slow to react. This is where he should be scoring serious points, and he's not, or at least not as much as he should. 
 "What we did on Massachusetts in health care is a model for the nation, state by state." 
 What in the Lord's name does that mean, Mr. Romney?

Filler: Obama has the points, but can't score

Filler: On health care, Barack Obama has the points, but can't score

Debate

Overall, Romney seems more comfortable than usual, and Obama less. And Lehrer just seems like a paperweight. 
 Ah, the deficit. and how to fix it. 
 Romney wants to lower spending on all programs that aren't so critical we should borrow money from China to fund it. No Obamacare, no PBS (I agree, but there's no money in it), combining departments, etc. So, no answer at all, particularly when you consider Romney wants to increase military spending. 
 Obama is going to fight taking blame for the $1 trillion annual deficits, and he's right. The money is in the wars, the Bush tax cuts and unfunded Medicare expansion, all of which he inherited. Now what to do about it? 
 Obama has a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan, and it's $2.50 in cuts for every dollar in revenue. And he's hitting Romney on the Republican debate pledge of no new tax revenues under any circumstances. 
 It's a Simpson-Bowles showdown. Neither of them supports it but both want to bash the other over the head with it. Childish. 
 Romney is proud that he doesn't want any new tax revenues, but he's linking the idea to the recession more than an overarching political philosophy, saying he doesn't want to do it "in this environment." 
 Romney is a straight supply-sider on this stuff. he has Art Laffer in his corner, and he's not afraid to use the man's curve. So this is a real difference between the two candidates. Obama wants more revenue, and higher taxes in several categories. Okay, it's something to vote on, based on your preference. It's a clear, defined difference. 
 Oil subsidies, private jet subsidies, Obama is hitting a lot of tax increases that won't garner much money, but they are high on the emotional scale. 
 Romney says oil subsidy is only $2.8 billion, not $4 billion. I don't think I would have used my allotted time to make that point. But can he make more hay bashing green energy subsidies? Maybe. It is an awful lot of money, although the debate is getting so complicated it's hard to follow the specifics.

Filler: Sparring on deficit, Romney seems more comfortable than Obama

Filler: Sparring on deficit, Mitt Romney seems more comfortable than Barack Obama

Debate - Mitt Romney

It begins. 
 The emphasis, moderator Jim Lehrer says, will be on specifics and differences between the candidates. From his lips to God's ears. 
 First question: What are the major differences between the two of them, in how they would go about creating new jobs? 
 Obama wishes his wife a happy 20th anniversary, then talks about how horrible his challenges have been. Will he keep pivoting, or answer? 
 Oh, my, he answered ... 
 But not in a very meaningful way. Deficit reduction, tax simplification, etc., but no specifics on creating jobs. 
 Romney, also excited about the anniversary, then rattled off: Energy independence, better schools, balanced budget, encouraging small business. But how, sir, how? 
 "I'll restore the vitality..." Mitt says. Hmm. 
 Obama wants 100,000 new math and science teachers. He wants to keep tuition low. Actually he'd have to "make" it low, since it's already pretty darn high. 
 Obama's answer is essentially, "I'm already doing everything Mitt wants to do, so no worries, stick with me." I don't know if people will buy that. 
 But neither will people buy the Romney plans on tax cuts and military spending increases Obama says will cost $8 trillion. 
 They've almost flipped now. Romney is promising to make the rich pay more and cut taxes on the middle class, which is basically what Obama has been saying for his entire term. 
 Both, not shockingly, are pro-education. Really, really pro education. You never get a strong anti-education candidate, do you? 
 Romney wants a lot more fossil fuels harvested in the USA. Obama says we're getting more coal and natural gas now than we have in decades. But Romney says it's only on private lands. So? 
 Obama says he cut taxes on the middle class by $3,600, and he did, although in kind of a dumb, insupportable way. He did it by cutting the Social Security payroll tax, which seems to have further undermined the program without stimulating the economy. And it got people used to paying less, for no good reason. 
 They are going to keep arguing about what Romney's tax cut proposal would do, and to whom. It's the perfect kind of argument, because nobody has any idea what Romney's plan is, including Romney, so everyone wins this debate point. Or loses it. Whichever. 
 And Romney appears to be accusing his five sons of being serially dishonest with him, an odd aside. 
 Romney wants to bring down rates and lower deductions, because small businesses -- S-Corps he's talking about -- pay the personal rate. So what he's really espousing is a tax cut on small businesses, which is sometimes middle-class people, and sometimes rich people, and sometimes people slowly going broke. But I've never heard him give that explanation before. Interesting. 
 It's very hard to say who is winning this exchange. They're both doing fine, smooth, confident, articulate, but I still have no idea which deductions Romney wants to get rid of, and for whom, exactly. Nor do I believe Obama can decouple the Bush tax cut extension to let it go for the top 3 percent and keep the cuts for everyone else. So is "inexplicable versus impossible" a tie? 
 Obama is now painting Romney with the "Bush brush" and himself with the "Clinton Plan." Is that accurate? I'm not sure, really. 
 But Romney has touted a $5 trillion tax cut for months, and now he's bristling at it. He's much more effective hammering the last four years than he is touting his ideas for the next four.

Filler: Romney's tax plans, Obama's anniversary lead debate

Filler: Mitt Romney's tax plans, Barack Obama's anniversary lead first presidental debate

Presidental Debate

Finally, it's time for the next "moment we've all been waiting for" in the presidential election. The first presidential debate of the general election will begin at 9 p.m. EST. 
 This contest seems to have been going on since, practically, the dawn of time. It began the day after the 2008 election, for President Barack Obama. For Mitt Romney, it began even before that, by a few months -- on the day he conceded the 2008 Republican nomination to John McCain. 
 And truthfully, except for the most depraved political junkies, even a contest for leadership of the free world can't hold our interest for 48 straight months unless it's decided via physical violence, or through dance and song competitions a la "Toddlers and Tiaras.". 
 Sure, it was easy to keep paying attention when there was a Republican presidential debate seemingly every few hours and primaries twice a week. 
 Besides the contests, there were great characters early on: Uncle Ron, the friendly libertarian. Rick Santorum, the unfriendly but deeply sincere religious conservative who came in first among all Ricks seeking the nomination. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who sported an awesome cowboy squint and a fat bankroll but little else, and thus came in last among Ricks. There was Michele Bachmann, who may have only been there to make Santorum seem grounded and likable, and Herman Cain, the singing pizza magnate chased out by an extramarital date. 
 And Newt, good old Newt. Gingrich won primaries, by golly, with Callista gamely by his side and his personal peccadilloes safely in his past. 
 Don't forget Jon Huntsman and Tim Pawlenty, too ... unless you want to. OK, let's forget them for now. 
 So it was pretty exciting early on, but then, as Romney made it clear he would not be denied the nomination, things got boring. Oh, sure, there were the conventions, but those have become the over-chaperoned school dances of politics. You get excited, and all dressed up, but when the night comes you realize nothing too sexy or titillating is going to be allowed to happen. 
 So, it begins anew tonight. Actual debates. One-on-one. Mano a mano a moderator. But the manos aren't supposed to directly engage each other. Kind of like at those school dances. 
 As much as everyone's hoping Obama will forget himself and quote Karl Marx, or Romney, dazed by the spotlights, will call for his butler to come block the overly harsh rays by holding up a giant sheaf of $1,000 bills, none of that will happen. 
 We will likely see a couple of little gaffes, and a few neatly made points worth commenting on. We likely will not find out exactly what Mitt Romney wants to do, or precisely how Barack Obama plans to accomplish the things he's been promising to do for four years. 
 What we may get is a bit better sense of the men themselves, their manner and mood. And watching them together, I think, will have value. They've been shadowboxing each other for years, calling each other out but never directly engaging, like fighters trying to build up interest in a championship bout. 
 Tonight they'll step in the ring. It's about time. A knockout would be exciting, but it's unlikely. Still, it promises to be a bout worth watching for a horde of political junkies who haven't had a good fix since the 20-debate "Round Robin Battle Royale For Republican Dominance" six months ago.

Filler: Debate is the moment we've been waiting for

Filler: First presidental debate is the moment we've been waiting for

Presidential Debate

Will the questions in the presidential debates reflect the concerns of the Beltway and financial elites, or those of the 99 percent? 
 Plenty of questions would, of course, rightly reflect the concerns of both groups: questions about war and peace, the deployment of American forces, the right to marry, school quality. But a number of questions related to the top 1 percent's rise over the rest of our citizenry are simply not part of standard Beltway discourse, and asking them would require some outside-of-the-box thinking from the debate moderators. Herewith, a few helpful suggestions. 
 The hot topic here in the Beltway is Simpson-Bowles, which is shorthand for "how much pain are you willing to inflict on the American people to get to a balanced budget?" That's a question that surely should be asked. 
 But given that our country is so deep in the red because government has assumed much of the debt that ordinary Americans took on over the past quarter-century, and that ordinary Americans took on that debt because they were offered loans when their incomes stopped rising, how about some questions that touch on the most important development in the nation's economy for the past several decades: the stagnation and decline of household income? 
 I'd like to hear both <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Obama</a>'s and <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>'s take on what's behind this epochal shift in the U.S. economy. 
 Why have wages gone nowhere while productivity and profits have increased? Is globalization to blame? If so, does that call for changes in our trade policy with nations such as <a href="/topics//China">China</a>? Is the way to increase competitiveness in a global economy to reduce our wage levels to those in the developing world? If so, how low should we go? 
 Most American jobs are not in competition with those in Chinese factories. Waiters, carpenters, truckers and <a href="/topics//Nurses_(musician)">nurses</a> don't have their wage levels set by their counterparts in Chengdu. But their wages have stagnated as well. What's behind that? 
 Would full employment help workers bid up their wages? Should the <a href="/topics//Federal_Reserve">Federal Reserve</a> seek to boost employment during downturns, as its recent actions have sought to do, or should it focus solely on inflation even when none is on the horizon? Has the near-total disappearance of collective bargaining from the private-sector economy played a role in income stagnation? Should the government try to make collective bargaining more widespread? If not, what are the candidates' scenarios for increasing incomes in the private sector? 
 Americans' incomes are not keeping pace with the rising costs of medical care and <a href="/topics//Higher_Education">higher education</a>. Should the government be able to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over the price of prescription drugs? Are medical specialists overpaid? Should the government do more to hasten the shift from fee-for-service medical care to integrated group care? 
 As to colleges, should the federal government increase its financial aid to students? Should it set a tuition and fee threshold at colleges and universities, and deny all grants and aid to those institutions that exceed it? 
 Has the growth of <a href="/topics//Wall_Street">Wall Street</a> been a boon or a bane? Should we reenact the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated commercial and investment banking, as even former Citicorp chief executive Sandy Weill has advocated? In moving toward a balanced budget, should the United States enact a financial transactions tax? 
 Is the phenomenon of the wealthy sheltering income in tax havens such as the <a href="/topics//Cayman_Islands">Cayman Islands</a> a problem that the federal government should address? Is the solution to lower our taxes to Cayman-like rates? Or should we enact a special tax on Americans' income sheltered in such places? Is CEO pay out of whack? Are "golden parachutes" a good thing? Have corporate boards done a good job of setting pay rates for top executives? Should there be public or employee representatives on the boards of corporations over a certain size, or on their executive compensation committees? 
 Does government spending on the military that takes place within the United States stimulate the economy? Does government spending on non-military projects within the United States stimulate the economy? If the answer to the second question differs from the answer to the first, explain. 
 Why has intergenerational mobility in the United States declined? Why is there more in Europe? Why has life expectancy for whites who haven't graduated from high school declined over the past 25 years, while it has risen for everyone else? Is the American economy less fair than it used to be? Do ordinary Americans have the opportunities that their parents and grandparents once did? If not, who's to blame? 
 These questions do not frequently pop up in the chatter of well-heeled Washington, but they bear directly on the lives of most Americans. It would be nice to hear a few answered in the coming debates.

OPMEYERSON03

Meyerson: 35 debate questions from the 99 Percent

9. podiums

The first presidential debate is tonight, and one of the few things we can be sure of is this: After it, news analysts will declare that neither candidate threw a "knockout punch."
One pundit will say that <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Barack Obama</a>'s failure to deliver a knockout punch made Gov. <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a> the winner of the debate, because Romney showed that he could stand toe-to-toe with the president without going down. Another will say that Romney's failure to deliver a knockout punch may have been fatal to his hopes of capturing the White House, since Obama emerged with his aura of authority intact.
But what would a knockout punch even look like? 
If Obama were to make such a cogent case against Romney's tax plan that the governor conceded, "Gee, I <a href="/topics//Guess">guess</a> Barack is right. I <a href="/topics//Guess">guess</a> it would be a disaster for pretty much everybody except me" -- that would be a knockout punch. 
If Romney were to marshal the relevant evidence about the economy so persuasively that Obama could only reply, "You know, Mitt, when you lay it out like that, I have to admit that I really sort of am a socialist" -- that, too, would be a knockout punch. 
Neither of these seems likely. 
The hunger for a knockout punch often leads analysts astray, disposing them to find great significance in moments that have little. If you're old enough, you probably remember how excited pundits were after <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Ronald Reagan</a> shook his head and said, "There you go again," in response to an assertion by President <a href="/topics//Jimmy_Carter_(boxer)">Jimmy Carter</a> in their 1980 debate. (Fewer people remember that Carter's assertion -- that <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Reagan</a> had begun his political career as a campaigner against Medicare -- was perfectly accurate.) 
Even more strangely, commentators may seize upon the body language or demeanor of one of the candidates, finding it to be tremendously revealing. Think of the moment when <a href="/topics//George_H._W._Bush">George H.W. Bush</a> looked at his wristwatch during a Town Hall-style debate with <a href="/topics//Bill_Clinton">Bill Clinton</a> and <a href="/topics//Ross_Perot_Jr.">Ross Perot</a> in 1992. Somehow this was said to demonstrate that Bush wasn't interested in the problems of the ordinary Americans who were asking the questions that night. 
Or one thinks of a debate four years earlier in which <a href="/topics//Michael_Dukakis">Michael Dukakis</a> was asked whether he would abandon his opposition to the death penalty if his wife were raped and murdered. After Dukakis replied that he would continue to oppose the death penalty even then, many commentators were shocked -- not by the content of his answer, but by his calm and even tone. Evidently they would have preferred it if he had met the question with a show of rage, as if they somehow believed that a hot temper would be a good qualification for the presidency.
Moments like this mean nothing in terms of showing us which candidate has displayed more fitness for the presidency. But after TV analysts have spent a news cycle talking about them, they seem to mean everything. 
When commentators go on about knockout punches, they're misunderstanding their job. It's not to act like judges on "<a href="/topics//American_Idol">American Idol</a>," telling us which candidate was the more charismatic and which had the better zingers. Their job is to tell us whether the candidates' arguments were factual, whether they accurately represented their records and their positions, whether they accurately represented those of their opponent. 
About questions like these, the viewing audience can use some help. We don't need any help determining whose jokes were better -- we can decide that for ourselves.
Brian Morton directs the creative writing program at Sarah Lawrence College and is the author of "Starting Out in the Evening" and other novels.

OPMOR03

Morton: Mitt Romney, Barack Obama and the knockout punch

S1VOSB03

The Commission on Presidential Debates, which is responsible for organizing and producing the presidential and vice presidential debates, has been charged with bias. The allegations have come from those on both the left and the right -- and they're worth taking seriously. 
 The charges of gender, racial, ethnic and political bias first came to light in August when the commission announced its lineup of moderators for this year's debates. The list includes <a href="/topics//Jim_Lehrer">Jim Lehrer</a> (<a href="/topics//PBS">PBS</a>), <a href="/topics//Bob_Schieffer">Bob Schieffer</a> (CBS), Candy <a href="/topics//Candy_Crowley">Crowley</a> (CNN), and Martha Raddatz (<a href="/topics//ABC">ABC</a>). 
 Given the equitable gender split, criticism regarding gender bias may, at first blush, seem inappropriate. Not so says Carole Simpson who in 1992 became the first woman and minority to moderate a presidential debate. In a recent commentary in "The Atlantic," Simpson makes a compelling case that the CPD is indeed biased against women. 
 According to Simpson, the commission "marginalized" these female journalists "not by leaving them out of the process but by the assignments they've been given." 
 She bemoans the fact that once again a female journalist has been assigned to moderate the vice presidential debate arguing that "apparently, women can handle this secondary event, which has virtually no impact on how people will vote for president." 
 Similarly, she takes the CPD to task for assigning Crowley to moderate a town hall style debate. This assignment insures that Crowley, unlike her male counterparts, will not be able to look the candidates in the eye, ask her own questions and follow up questions. Instead she will be forced to emcee "Oprah-style". 
 Simpson is not alone in charging the CPD with bias. Shortly after the line-up of moderators was announced the CEO of <a href="/topics//Univision">Univision</a>, Randy Falco, criticized the commission for failing to include bilingual moderators. Similarly, <a href="/topics//Geraldo_Rivera">Geraldo Rivera</a>, the <a href="/topics//National_Association_of_Hispanic_Journalists">National Association of Hispanic Journalists</a>, and the <a href="/topics//National_Association_of_Black_Journalists">National Association of Black Journalists</a> all expressed their dismay at the lack of diversity on the panel. In a statement posted on its web site, for instance, the NABJ stated it is "disappointed that the journalists chosen to participate in the presidential debates don't reflect what has become the most diverse electorate in U.S. history. We find it unacceptable that no journalists of color will be involved." 
 <a href="/topics//Rush_Limbaugh">Rush Limbaugh</a> and Los Angeles-based novelist Roger L. Simon have also taken the CPD to task for failing to choose any conservative moderators. <a href="/topics//Rush_Limbaugh">Limbaugh</a> described all four of the moderators as "far left-<a href="/topics//Wing_(musician)">wing</a> <a href="/topics//U.S._Democratic_Party">Democrats</a>." Similarly Simon noted that there is "not even a token representative from Fox or the <a href="/topics//Wall_Street_Journal">Wall Street Journal</a> -- not in the moderator seat anyway. 
 The root of the problem may well be the CPD itself. Originally formed in 1987 by the political parties to wrest control of the debates from the <a href="/topics//League_of_Women_Voters">League of Women Voters</a> and help ensure they remain bipartisan and informative, the question now is whether they are up to the task. 
 The turmoil following their announcement of moderators and their failure to respond to calls from both sides for a re-examination suggests they aren't. Simpson chalks up the absence of female moderators in key positions to the fact that only two of the CPD's nine board members are women, and both of its co-chairmen -- as well as all its honorary chairmen -- are male. There is a similar lack of diversity when it comes to race, ethnicity and, some say, ideology. 
 Blogger George Berkin, for instance, argues that the moderators are "left-<a href="/topics//Wing_(musician)">wing</a>" because "nearly all the nine members of the Commission on Presidential Debates, who choose the moderators, are active liberals." 
 The charges being leveled against the CPD are serious. If the commission cannot live up to its own mission to ensure that the debates "provide the best possible information to viewers and listeners," it's time for the political parties to look for another alternative. 
 Jeanne Zaino is interim dean of the School of Arts &amp; Science and a professor of political science at Iona College.

News

WOPZAI03

Zaino: Does the Commission on Presidental Debates need a shake-up?

A gaffe, as the fellow once said, is when a politician tells the truth. We might add: Or unintentionally reveals his or her true thinking. 
 We journalists love gaffes. They are compact little newslets that save us from having to write about sprawling and difficult issues like the economy. With the first presidential debate this week, we will enter the last chapter of a campaign that has been dominated by gaffes. 
 It's not that the politicians are making more impolitic remarks. It's that journalists have become more dependent on gaffes to supply drama and forward motion to their reporting of the campaign. Gaffes are perfect fodder for the Internet, with its voracious need for new content and controversy. 
 <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>'s little boat is the one that has been tossed and turned most ruthlessly by the gods of gaffery. He became the frontrunner for the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> presidential nomination when <a href="/topics//Texas">Texas</a> Governor <a href="/topics//Rick_Perry">Rick Perry</a> said he wanted to abolish three federal departments but could name only two of them. It seemed obvious that <a href="/topics//Rick_Perry">Perry</a> really didn't give a hoot about abolishing these departments. He had just been spoon-fed by his hired-gun political strategists. Also, it seemed that he might not be all that bright. 
 Neither of these matters was a surprise. But -- paradoxically -- a gaffe is more likely to be damaging to a candidate if it confirms a previous narrative or prejudice than if it tells you anything new. This is what they mean by "pack journalism." The late Senator <a href="/topics//Eugene_McCarthy">Eugene McCarthy</a> used to compare it to a flock of birds sitting on a wire. None will move. Then one does, and they all follow to the next wire. Then the process repeats. 
 Talkin' Trash If someone else's gaffe got Romney the nomination, a gaffe of his own might cost him the election. The line on Romney was that he is a rich guy with no understanding of or sympathy for the middle class. So that video of Romney talkin' trash with fellow rich <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a> at a fundraiser last spring, released by <a href="/topics//Mother_Jones">Mother Jones</a> last month, was devastating. 
 A proper gaffe is an insult to some valuable constituency, which then indulges in umbrage: being, or pretending to be, hurt, angry or -- I love this one for its especially obvious phoniness -- "saddened" by some politician's remark. Why would anyone insult an important constituency? Good question. In general, no one would intentionally do so. Romney was captured on video without his knowledge. <a href="/topics//Rick_Perry">Perry</a>, well, let's just say that he went beyond expressing a disqualifying truth to actually demonstrating it. In most cases, the insult is either bogus or inadvertent. 
 A good test of whether you're in the presence of a genuine gaffe is whether the speaker would take it back if he or she could. If they wish they'd never said it, it's a gaffe. This raises the question: Why should we pay so much attention to things people say by accident? Why should more credence be given to words someone wishes she'd never uttered than to the many things she has no desire to retract? The theory is that the gaffe is actually the voice of the politician's subconscious. But gaffes have become so ludicrously central to American politics that demand outstrips supply. So standards are low. Almost any statement that can be twisted into the shape of a gaffe will be. Any person or group who arguably might be offended is offended. To borrow from <a href="/topics//Rahm_Emanuel">Rahm Emanuel</a>, you never want a gaffe to go to waste. 
 At the same time, it's much harder today than it was just a few years ago for politicians to tell outright lies. Media organizations are already "fact-checking" the debate, even though it hasn't started yet, and they will have SWAT teams ready to expose Romney or <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Barack Obama</a> should either of them dare to say 27 percent when the correct figure is 31 percent. 
 Gaffe-Checking Where is the similar scrutiny of gaffes and alleged gaffes? We need official answers to questions like: When has a politician committed a genuine gaffe and when is the accusation just demagoguery from the other side? If it's a real gaffe, how serious is it? Should the gaffing pol just shrug it off? Apologize and move on? Slit her wrists? It depends on the nature of the gaffe. 
 Some rulings will be easy. The prize for most spectacular gaffe of 2012, so far, clearly goes to <a href="/topics//Todd_Akin">Todd Akin</a>, the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> nominee for <a href="/topics//U.S._Senate">U.S. Senate</a> from <a href="/topics//Missouri">Missouri</a>, for his animadversions on women and rape. In the end he may go down and take Romney with him. Akin's gaffe was too clinical and too bizarre to label as a slip of the tongue, and too nutty to be called a lie. It's a kind of jaw-dropping ignorance that is sui generis and unclassifiable. 
 Much more <a href="/topics//Common_(musician)">common</a> is the stupid small lie that is also a gaffe because you inevitably get caught. Or the statement that is technically true but patently ridiculous. 
 These kinds of gaffes are a Romney specialty. He has claimed to have been "a hunter pretty much all my life," and that "there were a couple of times I wondered whether I was going to get a <a href="/topics//Pink_(singer)">pink</a> slip." Occasionally Romney has said things that are true, and not ridiculous, for which he has been ridiculed unfairly. I would put his heart-felt declaration that "corporations are people, my friend" in that category. Romney's point was that corporate profits don't disappear forever into the corporate maw but end up going to real people. Rich people, perhaps, but nevertheless real. Fair enough. Not a gaffe. 
 Truth is not always a defense, however. If you say something perfectly true -- maybe even true and important or courageous -- that the opposing side takes up and willfully mischaracterizes, that's still a gaffe if you regret having said it. Surely Obama regrets having said, "You didn't build that," which the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a> then made so much of at their convention. All Obama meant was that every business depends to some extent on the government. To listen to <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republicans</a>, you would think he had endorsed the Communist manifesto. Nevertheless, it was a mistake to have said it. In short, a gaffe. 
 It's too bad. Neither of the two candidates is a terribly spontaneous guy. With the risk that one or two ill-chosen words can plunge you into Gaffe Hell, and no comparable <a href="/topics//Benefit_(designer)">benefit</a> that can be so easily achieved, this year's presidential debates are likely to be more rehearsed and cautious than ever. In Gaffeland, the less said the better. 
 <a href="/topics//Michael_Kinsley">Michael Kinsley</a> is a Bloomberg View columnist.

OPKINSLEY03

Kinsley: Watching for Mitt Romney and Barack Obama's gaffes during the first presidential debate

Not since Rocky Balboa met Apollo Creed have so many greeted a matchup with as much anticipation as Wednesday night's debate between <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Barack Obama</a> and <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>. 
 Not even Honey Boo Boo can beat out these two in the ratings. (We pray, really, we do.) 
 Presidential debates have rarely held us in such thrall, but this one is especially riveting because, despite the fact that this election has been in progress for about four years, voters expect to learn something they don't already know about the candidates. 
 Can Romney get under Obama's skin? Can Obama force Romney to be ... Romneyzoid? 
 Obama comes to the ring with this understanding: He is likable but can be aloof; he is cool but perhaps too cool for school. He is intelligent but strangely unknowing about the ways most Americans view their country. His recent "bumps in the road" comment after the terrorist attack on the American consulate in Benghazi and his oddly submissive address to the <a href="/topics//United_Nations">United Nations</a> thereafter come to mind. 
 And though he enters <a href="/topics//The_Fray">the fray</a> with a quiver of negatives, including an <a href="/topics//Unemployment">unemployment</a> rate that still hovers over 8 percent, he is nonetheless popular and, at this stage, leading Romney in battleground states. 
 Voters should know all they need to know about Obama -- including the possibility that he isn't the leader that a majority hoped he would be -- yet there's still a chance he may reveal something that tips the scale toward Romney. Will he gaze down his nose at Romney the way he did <a href="/topics//Hillary_Rodham_Clinton">Hillary Clinton</a>? We want to see. 
 Romney enters the ring with a tattered campaign dragging behind him like tin cans on a rusted-out honeymoon coupe. His once-sterling reputation has been tarnished by the perception that he is awkward and callous. 
 His party has managed to alienate women in such droves that it may be impossible to woo them back. In <a href="/topics//Ohio">Ohio</a>, 60 percent of likely female voters favor Obama over Romney (35 percent), according to a recent poll. In <a href="/topics//Virginia">Virginia</a> and <a href="/topics//Pennsylvania">Pennsylvania</a>, Obama leads Romney among women voters by 19 and 21 points, respectively. 
 Meanwhile, Romney's dismissal of 47 percent of voters essentially as shiftless mooches has stuck to him like Styrofoam peanuts on a cheap suit. Add to those voters African-Americans and Latinos, and his competitive standing in the overall polls is nothing short of miraculous. 
 And yet. There is a sense that there is something more. 
 But then. 
 Romney has managed throughout 36 primary debates and about six years of campaigning to elude being known by those whose <a href="/topics//Hearts_FC">hearts</a> and minds he seeks to convert. Family and friends -- and staffers who are deeply loyal and steadfast -- seem to know a different Romney than the public persona. 
 There's no denying that the media have emphasized Romney's awkwardness because it is strangely amusing. And because, as Obama joked at his first <a href="/topics//White_House">White House</a> Correspondents' Association dinner, most journalists voted for him. The media know and like Obama, and he flatters them with the sort of bonhomie that Romney seems incapable of expressing. On Wednesday night, it is probable that Americans will tune in as much to hear Romney puncture Obama's record and describe his own as they will to witness what else there might be to the man. 
 The conventional wisdom is that Romney has to slay his opponent or the election is really, really over this time for sure. Even a slight bounce for Obama is viewed as certain victory in five weeks. By contrast, according to this same wisdom, a Romney victory only guarantees he's in the game until the next debate. 
 The truth is, no one really knows. <a href="/topics//Reading,_PA">Reading</a> voters is like <a href="/topics//Reading,_PA">reading</a> Tarot cards. The current debate about polling integrity and turnout models suggests that what we think we know can change quicker than it takes a voter to fib to a pollster. The great anecdotal secret of this election is that many more than anticipated will vote for Romney without admitting it. Why? Because they don't want to be accused of being racist and because they aren't really convinced of their wisdom. 
 History tells us that debates, especially the first one, help the challenger. <a href="/topics//Life_(show)">Life</a> tells us that an honest man with a sense of humor can win all <a href="/topics//Hearts_FC">hearts</a>. One can do worse in a debate than be remembered for saying, "There you go again." 
 Romney's job Wednesday isn't to beat Obama. It is to win over America. You could sell tickets. 
 <a href="http://www.newsday.com/topics//Kathleen_Parker">Kathleen Parker</a> is a syndicated columnist for The <a href="http://www.newsday.com/topics//Washington_Post_Company">Washington Post</a>. 
 &nbsp;

KATHLEEN PARKER COLUMN

Parker: Mitt Romney and Barack Obama face off

obama romney crop

Mr. President, you're entering dangerous territory. With Election Day a month away, you hold a slim lead in the national polls. And when elections are close, debates matter. 
 Here's the bad news: Incumbents often fare poorly in their first debate. Everyone remembers the Gipper's famous zinger from his second 1984 debate ("I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience"); few remember that he was responding to a question about his abysmal performance in the first debate. <a href="/topics//George_H._W._Bush">George H.W. Bush</a> so disliked his first debate in 1992 that he checked his watch to see when it would end. 
 But there's good news: Having watched all of your past debates as well as Mitt <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Romney</a>'s, I'm confident you can pull this off. I know you're busy - you've got a taxing day job - so here are a few quick tips on what (and what not) to do this Wednesday. 
 Because the debate is about domestic issues, I've limited my advice to that realm. If you want to talk foreign policy before the next debate, drop me a line. 
 Swing for the middle. In 2008, <a href="/topics//John_McCain">John McCain</a> received almost 46 percent of the vote. To paraphrase a certain <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> presidential candidate, there's no way you're going to get that vote (that doesn't mean they're not your concern, but that's a topic for another time). You need the swing voters left in the middle (Hello, <a href="/topics//Ohio">Ohio</a>! Hello, Florida!). And those voters want to see that you: Have a plan. It's not enough for you to argue that we just need to stay the course. You need to talk about tangible domestic goals and a path for reaching them. You've got to discuss some policy Wednesday night. Plus, that will help you to: Be presidential. If people come away from this debate thinking that <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Obama</a> is running against former Gov. Romney, you're in great shape. While the debates provide Romney with an opportunity to appear next to you as an equal, you've still got the prestige of the presidency. This means not losing your cool, getting flustered, or sounding caustic. 
 Of course, even if you do all of this, you could still fall into several potholes. Here are the major ones I see looming: Don't blame Bush. I know, you inherited the worst economic situation since <a href="/topics//The_Great_Depression">the Great Depression</a>. And it takes more than four years to solve, particularly with a <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a> like this one. But the American people don't buy that argument. And if you blame <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">President Bush</a>, it leaves you open for Romney to deploy another famous Reaganism: "There you go again." Talking about <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</a> is like putting your high school achievements on your resume when you're in college. It's just not seen as relevant. 
 Don't just take hits. I know some of your advisers are arguing that as long as you fight Romney to a draw, you've won. And one way to do this is by smiling and staying above <a href="/topics//The_Fray">the fray</a> while he hammers you. That's wrong. This election is too close for you to play Rope-a-Mitt. You've got to come out swinging. So when he asks, "Are you better off today than you were four years ago" (another Reaganism), you've got to return fire, and show that while we can do better, you've got a record to run on. 
 Don't listen too much to debate advice: Don't listen to hacks like me. The strongest thing you have going is that the American people like you, and they don't like Romney. So stay relaxed up there - don't take so much advice that you try to change who you are, because the American people know you after four years. If you get up and act too much like a different person, they'll catch on. Besides, you did the debate thing in 2008; it's a piece of cake. No sweat. 
 That's all I've got, Mr. President. Good luck. 
 Aaron Zelinsky of New Haven, Conn., served as special assistant to the legal adviser of <a href="/topics//University_of_Miami">the U</a>.S. Department of State from 2010 to 2011. He is the editor of the Presidential Debate Blog (( www.PresidentialDebateBlog.com ). He wrote this for The <a href="/topics//Hartford_Courant">Hartford Courant</a>.

OPZELINSKY02

Zelinsky: How Barack Obama can go for the win during the presidential debates

152927804

By the time the first presidential debate adjourns Wednesday night, we'll probably know whether <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>'s candidacy is on the mend or circling the drain. 
 His maiden faceoff with <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Obama</a> is arguably his last best chance to halt his steady poll erosion and dispel the perception that he's the most ineffectual candidate since <a href="/topics//Bob_Dole">Bob Dole</a> in 1996. (You don't remember a thing that Dole did or said? I rest my case.) But for Romney, the hour is already late. 
 One debate - actually there are three, but the first is most important - can't wipe the slate clean. One debate can't magically erase the image that has taken root, of a guy from the one percent who seems out of touch with the average Joe, a conviction-free candidate who has refused to fill in the details of his bare-bones budget, tax, and economic plans. 
 It's tough to rewrite a campaign's prevailing narrative in a mere 90 minutes. Romney has been running for the White House since 2006, and if the tiny percentage of undecided voters don't know where he stands by now, they're not likely to feel more enlightened after the closing statements. And <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a> will take every opportunity to reinforce that narrative. An incumbent with a solid lead in the key swing states clearly has the much easier job. 
 I don't mean to suggest that Obama will ace the Wednesday test with ease. Lest we forget, he's not a great debater. He was inconsistent during the long '08 campaign; on occasion, he was also lordly and condescending ("You're likable enough, Hillary"). And, of course, he hasn't debated since. He's out of practice, and on Wednesday he'll be on a stage devoid of presidential trappings. It's no coincidence that incumbents sometimes lose the first debate; it happened to <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</a> in 2004. 
 But even though <a href="/topics//John_Kerry">John Kerry</a> was widely judged the winner that night, he failed to change the prevailing narrative of that campaign. The Bush team had already painted him as a charisma-challenged flip-flopper, and that doomed Kerry in November. Romney, at this point, is in similar straits. 
 In Wednesday's debate, Obama can play the flip-flop card by merely quoting Romney himself - the 2007 Romney, who extolled health-care reform and who insisted that his landmark <a href="/topics//Massachusetts">Massachusetts</a> law, which requires that all citizens buy coverage, would be great for America. (Actual quote: "Our program is based on a private model health insurance program and that model will work for the nation.") More important, there's the charisma factor. 
 I could pack this column with paragraphs of wonky policy issues, but let's not kid ourselves: Presidential debates are not really about the issues. They're about how the candidates look, behave, act, and react while talking about the issues. 
 Voters at home ask themselves, "Which of these guys do I really want to see on my screen for the next four years?" 
 Obviously, the voters who hate Obama want him off the screen, but the fact is, most Americans - even those who are disappointed in him - still like him. They have a comfort level with him. Whereas Romney has the <a href="/topics//Al_Gore">Al Gore</a> disease; in his 30-odd debates during the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">GOP</a> primaries, he often seemed stiff and awkward, especially when forced to improvise. And when he's on script, he can't connect with the working stiff; in the apt words of <a href="/topics//The_New_Yorker">New Yorker magazine</a> contributor Nicholas Leeman, "He talks to voters businessman to businessman, on the assumption that everybody either runs a business or wants to start one." 
 There will be much policy talk in these debates about the economy, the deficit, Medicare, Obamacare, <a href="/topics//Libya">Libya</a>, Israel, <a href="/topics//Iran">Iran</a>, the whole nine yards. But viewers will likely look for character cues, those rare moments when a candidate inadvertently reveals something real about himself (or something that seems real, or something that confirms what people already think is real). 
 So it went in 1976, when President <a href="/topics//Gerald_Ford">Gerald Ford</a> inexplicably insisted that the Soviets did not dominate <a href="/topics//Eastern_Europe">Eastern Europe</a> (reinforcing the perception that he was a tad slow on the uptake); in 1988, when <a href="/topics//Michael_Dukakis">Michael Dukakis</a> spoke in legalese after he was asked how he would respond if his wife was raped and murdered (reinforcing the perception that he was soulless and robotic); and in 1992, when the senior <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">George Bush</a> peeked at his watch in the midst of a debate where he was taking citizen questions (reinforcing the perception that he was out of touch with people's pain). 
 Ah yes, spontaneity. And this is where Romney really needs to be careful. 
 Off script, his character cues have hurt him - like when he said that the $374,000 he earned in speaking fees over a recent 12-month span was "not very much," or when he said that America's "middle income" was between "$200,000 and $250,000" (the nation's median income is $50,000), or when he boasted that wife Ann has "a couple of Cadillacs." Granted, those were not debate remarks. But it was during a debate when he turned to <a href="/topics//Rick_Perry">Rick Perry</a>, in the midst of a policy dispute, and said, "Ten thousand bucks? Ten thousand dollar bet?" I'll go out on a limb here and suggest that the median-income lunch-pail lugger would be reluctant to place 20 percent of his annual pay on a sporting bet. If Romney says anything on Wednesday that's even remotely like what he said to <a href="/topics//Rick_Perry">Perry</a>, he'll be dead politically on Thursday. Rest assured, he has been warned. 
 But his biggest problem is that fat-cat fund-raising video, where, in private, he painted "47 percent" of the electorate as government-addicted moochers who pay no income taxes and who refuse to take responsibility for themselves. (The moochers include soldiers, seniors, young people, and the working poor.) Obama has launched a new ad that quotes from the video, and don't be surprised if he alludes to it in the debate, if only to make Romney play defense. 
 Obama, aided greatly by Romney's unforced errors, has managed to make this race a referendum on the challenger. The "47 percent" video has fed the prevailing narrative and buttressed Obama's poll rise. Indeed, Romney's hopes for a miracle comeback may be dashed if nearly half the American public watches the first debate and wonders: "What difference does it make what he says to our face, when we already know what he says about us behind our backs?" 
 Dick Polman is a columnist for the Philadelphia Inquirer.

OPPOLMAN

Polman: Mitt Romney has an uphill battle going into the debates

152912674

There may be only one impediment to <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">President Barack Obama</a> maintaining his small lead in the presidential election over the next week: arrogance. 
 For all the focus on the first debate between Obama and the <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> presidential nominee, <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Mitt Romney</a>, in Denver on Oct. 3, history suggests these forums rarely are settled on substance; Romney and the president both are smart and cautious, not gaffe-prone. The very few game-changers in debates occur when a candidate makes a mistake or exposes an unattractive personality trait. 
 Obama and his top political advisers basically are contemptuous of their opponent, according to people who've spent time with the president in private. Four years ago, the Obama camp viewed <a href="/topics//John_McCain">John McCain</a> as wrong for the times, but had personal respect for him. 
 It's different today. The president's campaign sees Romney as an out-of-touch stiff without core beliefs, willing to say or do anything for political advantage. 
 Fair or not, that's a derisive characterization. 
 It is the expression of that viewpoint, not any substantive shortcomings, that poses the greatest danger for the president in the debate. Even with a seasoned veteran, <a href="/topics//Jim_Lehrer">Jim Lehrer</a>, serving as moderator, you can expect the two candidates to largely stick to their programmed views and responses. More compelling and revealing would be for the candidates to question each other in freewheeling exchanges. That is off limits. 
 The most seminal of the 10 presidential elections with televised debates was the first, John F. <a href="/topics//John_F._Kennedy">Kennedy</a> versus <a href="/topics//Richard_Nixon">Richard Nixon</a> in 1960. 
 Since then, few have changed the predisposition of voters. In 2008, the <a href="/topics//Gallup">Gallup</a> polling organization examined surveys before and after all the debates. The conclusion was that the forums had "a substantive impact on election outcomes" only a few times. The 2008 election wasn't one of them. 
 One that did matter was the 1980 exchange between <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Ronald Reagan</a> and President Jimmy Carter just before the election. It was less because of the way <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Reagan</a> framed the issues - though his line, "Are you better off than you were four years ago?" remains a classic - than it was his triumph on likeability. Undecided voters saw him as sufficiently competent and they warmed to the idea of seeing him on their television screens for the next four years rather than the hectoring Carter. 
 The other was in 2000, when Vice President Al <a href="/topics//Al_Gore">Gore</a> had a lead going into the first debate. Most people who watched it, and those who heard it on the radio, gave the <a href="/topics//U.S._Democratic_Party">Democrat</a> the clear substantive advantage over <a href="/topics//Texas">Texas</a> Governor <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">George W. Bush</a>. 
 Yet, over the next few days, press coverage focused on the vice president's interruptions, audible sighs and disdainful exasperation toward his rival, and largely ignored Bush's substantive mistakes. A downward slide in the polls began for <a href="/topics//Al_Gore">Gore</a>, who lost the presidency even though he won the popular vote. 
 In the debate this week and the ones to follow, it's this potential for showing <a href="/topics//Al_Gore">Gore</a>-type scorn for your opponent that is the chief danger for Obama. In the heat of campaigns, almost all politicians develop some hostility toward their foe. After the hard-fought 1960 campaign, Jack Kennedy said, "If I've done nothing for this country, I've saved them from Dick <a href="/topics//Richard_Nixon">Nixon</a>." Yet most good politicians also possess a healthy, if begrudging, political respect for an opponent. Kennedy did in 1960. The president in this campaign doesn't even bother with begrudging. Look at the tape of an address he gave Sept. 21 in Woodbridge, VA., in which he sarcastically noted that "for some reason," Romney "got really excited" when he rewrote a speech to include a new attack on the president. It wasn't so much what Obama said; it was the contempt that he conveyed in his voice and expression. 
 Hubris caused him difficulty once before. In 2008, after a stunning victory in the <a href="/topics//Iowa_City,_IA">Iowa</a> Democratic caucuses, he was cruising to a win in the <a href="/topics//New_Hampshire">New Hampshire</a> primary that might have sealed the nomination. In a debate days before the contest, while discussing the personal appeal of his opponent, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama sniffed: "You're likeable enough, Hillary." This condescension produced a backlash and a few days later she scored an upset in <a href="/topics//New_Hampshire">New Hampshire</a>, setting the stage for a protracted nomination battle. 
 Team Obama is now in full spin mode, stressing how great a debater Romney is and warning that the president is a little rusty. Don't take it seriously; it's a game to lower expectations. 
 There are many reasons the president is ahead, including the marked deficiencies of his opponent and the deteriorating <a href="/topics//U.S._Republican_Party">Republican</a> brand as the party ideologically moved right. 
 There are also positive explanations, including the sense that Obama inherited an economic mess and made it better. And, no small matter, the president easily wins the likeability contest; by huge margins, voters say they would prefer seeing him rather than Romney on their TV or computer screens for the next four years. 
 Romney can't change that; Obama could. 
 <a href="/topics//Albert_R._Hunt">Albert R. Hunt</a> is Washington editor at Bloomberg News.

OPHUNT01

Hunt: Barack Obama's penchant for arrogance is a bigger debate foe than Mitt Romney

ObamaRomCOMP - crop

The spectacles we persist in dignifying as presidential "debates" -- two-minute regurgitations of rehearsed responses -- often subtract from the nation's understanding. But beginning this Wednesday, these less-than-Lincoln-Douglas episodes might be edifying if the candidates can be inveigled into plowing fresh ground. 
 The judiciary. Three justices will be in their 80s before the next presidential term ends, so the next president probably can solidify today's conservative majority or create a liberal majority. 
 For Mitt <a href="/topics//Mitt_Romney">Romney</a>: Many conservatives advocate "judicial restraint," denouncing "judicial activism" and defining it as not properly deferring to decisions by government's majoritarian branches. Other conservatives praise "judicial engagement" and define it as actively defending liberty against overbearing majorities. Do you favor "restraint" or "engagement"? Do you reject the Kelo decision, in which the Supreme Court deferred to governments' desire to seize private property and give it to wealthier private interests who would pay higher taxes? 
 For Barack <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a>: You deplore the court's <a href="/topics//Citizens_United">Citizens United</a> decision. What is your constitutional basis for rejecting the decision's principle that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities to speak collectively? You say you would "seriously consider" amending the First Amendment to empower <a href="/topics//U.S._Congress">Congress</a> to regulate political speech. Explain why you choose to make the Bill of Rights less protective. 
 Foreign policy. For both: On Oct. 7, we begin the 12th year of the war in <a href="/topics//Afghanistan">Afghanistan</a>, and 51 recent <a href="/topics//NATO">NATO</a> fatalities have been at the hands of our supposed Afghan allies, causing U.S. commanders to indefinitely suspend many joint operations. Why are we staying there 27 more months? 
 For Romney: You envision "countervailing duties" to punish <a href="/topics//China">China</a> for manipulating the value of its currency. Do the "quantitative easings" by <a href="/topics//Ben_Bernanke">Ben Bernanke</a>'s <a href="/topics//Federal_Reserve">Federal Reserve</a>, which vastly expanded the money supply, constitute currency manipulation? Would duties increasing the prices Americans pay for Chinese imports violate your vow to not raise taxes? 
 For <a href="/topics//Barack_Obama">Obama</a>: Your campaign boasts about increasing the number of unfair-trade charges against <a href="/topics//China">China</a>. How would Americans' welfare be enhanced by raising the prices they pay for consumer goods and production materials from China? 
 Domestic policy. For Obama: Your opponent proposes cutting income tax rates 20 percent and implies he'd pay for this partly by means testing some deductions. Do you oppose his plan for making the income tax more progressive? 
 For Romney: You say "redistribution" has "never been a characteristic of America." You're kidding, right? Is not most of what government does -- from agriculture subsidies to entitlements -- the redistribution of wealth from one cohort or region to another? 
 For Obama: You recently said changing Washington "from the outside" is "how some of our biggest accomplishments like health care got done -- mobilizing the American people." You're kidding, right? A majority of the American people never supported passage of Obamacare. Did you not secure passage by deals with Big Pharma and other inside Washington players? 
 For both: Do you agree that a financial institution that is too big to fail is too big to exist? If not, why not? 
 For Obama: Your deep blue <a href="/topics//Illinois">Illinois</a> -- like another essentially one-party Democratic state, California -- is buckling under the weight of its portion of the estimated $2.5 trillion in unfunded state pension obligations. Will you promise to oppose attempts to force the taxpayers to bail out badly governed states? 
 For both: Do you assume the Almighty is not paying attention whenever you say "I approve this message"? 
 <a href="/topics//George_Will">George Will</a> is a nationally syndicated columnist.

OPWIL30

Will: Some questions for the presidential debates

vpboth

From <a href="/topics//Richard_Nixon">Richard Nixon</a>'s five o'clock shadow to <a href="/topics//George_H._W._Bush">George H.W. Bush</a>'s glance at his watch, lasting images inevitably emerge from presidential and vice presidential debates. And lines from historic contests can have far more longevity than the speakers' political careers: <a href="/topics//Lloyd_Bentsen">Lloyd Bentsen</a>'s retort to <a href="/topics//Dan_Quayle">Dan Quayle</a>, "You're no Jack Kennedy." And <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Ronald Reagan</a>'s response to Jimmy Carter, "There you go again!" 
 In its presidential oral-history archives, the <a href="/topics//University_of_Virginia">University of Virginia</a>'s Miller Center has discovered timeless debate lessons learned by candidates and their advisers. 
 -- Stuart Spencer, Ronald <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Reagan</a> campaign adviser, on the 1980 debates: 
 "I don't think anybody in our organization really wanted to . They were scared. ... was really nervous about a debate, and she entered <a href="/topics//The_Fray">the fray</a> in the discussions. I had come to a conclusion in my own mind. ... We've got to debate. It's become part of the system. We're going to lose more by turning it down. Done the right way, the format and everything done the right way, <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Reagan</a> can hold his own. That's all you can ask for. Maybe win, but hold his own. 
 "In that same discussion, Reagan looked at me and said, 'I've got to do it.' I said: 'That's right. You've got to do it, so you've got to get ready and do it right.'" 
 ---- 
 -- Stuart Eizenstat, assistant to Jimmy Carter, on the 1976 debates: 
 "So after some pulling and tugging, the president agreed to see us in Plains. I think it was a Saturday or a Sunday. We got down there, and we sat in his living room, and I said, 'Governor, we have some questions here, and perhaps what we ought to do is throw some questions at you and let you answer, and then we'll critique it.' 
 "Oh no, that was not going to be done. He [Carter] didn't need that. Somehow he either said or implied that that would be contrived, and that was just not the way he was going to do it. He didn't mind talking through some points, but he was not going to go through any sort of rehearsal. So we talked through it a little bit. I don't think the session lasted more than an hour or so, and that was it. That was his preparation for the first debate. ... And then the first debate occurred. His first answer to the first question was as dreadful as one could possibly imagine." 
 ---- 
 Sigmund Rogich, campaign adviser to <a href="/topics//Ronald_Reagan">Ronald Reagan</a>, on the 1984 debates: 
 "I noticed that when they put the lights on overhead, that there was a big difference as to how it was in the lighting. I stood at Mondale's podium and President Reagan stood at his, and we just had a little conversation so he could get a feel of the size. There was only about 10 feet between us. The Mondale people came running up and said: 'Get away from that podium. You're not supposed to be around that podium.' I said, 'All right.' 
 "When the lights were on overhead I noticed, as I stepped back, I could see President Reagan. I noticed large sockets under his eyes ... because the lights above bounced off the podium and cast a shadow back up under his eyes. So I went over quietly and I put a blue pad on our podium. After the president left, I went in and had it measured precisely. So when we came back in, we put our blue down, and the president looked terrific. 
 "You may recall <a href="/topics//Walter_Mondale">Walter Mondale</a> didn't look so good. That's why, the lighting coming off his podium. It was a little thing, but it was a way of getting even for them kicking me offstage. And people all commented on how tired Mondale looked in that debate. It wasn't that he was more tired; it was that they didn't pay attention to the detail of the lighting." 
 ---- 
 -- David Demarest, campaign communications director for <a href="/topics//George_H._W._Bush">George H.W. Bush</a>, on the 1988 debates 
 "When Bernie Shaw asked that opening question ... all of us went: 'Huuuh. Oh, my God, what an opener.' Then, when Dukakis gave the answer, which was dreadful, like a robot, unfeeling, no emotions, cerebral, it fit the entire narrative that we were trying to portray him in. 
 "Several of us said: 'We just won. Not just the debate. We won. This is over.'" 
 ---- 
 -- Vice President <a href="/topics//Dan_Quayle">Dan Quayle</a>, on his 1988 debate with <a href="/topics//Lloyd_Bentsen">Lloyd Bentsen</a>: 
 "The debate coverage focused on Kennedy line. People came up afterwards and said, 'You should have had a lot of comebacks on that.' I said: 'OK, fine, you tell me what. The most interesting comeback would have been, "Now wait a second, if my memory is correct, you voted for Sen. Johnson in those days. You weren't even for Sen. Kennedy when he was running for president, so what's this buddy-buddy business?" That was the best one.'" 
 ---- 
 -- Phillip D. Brady, staff secretary to George H.W. Bush, on the 1992 debates: 
 "At the very beginning of the debate, Carole ... had said to <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">President Bush</a>, Bill <a href="/topics//Bill_Clinton">Clinton</a> and to <a href="/topics//Henry_Ross_Perot_Sr">Ross Perot</a>, 'Now, there won't be any filibustering here.' And she said, 'That means you, too, Mr. Perot,' because <a href="/topics//Ross_Perot_Jr.">Ross Perot</a> had been cited in the press many times for his tendency to go on and on; that had happened in previous debates. 
 "So <a href="/topics//George_W._Bush">President Bush</a>, at one point during the debate when Ross Perot was going on at great, great length, looked at Carole -- and if you watch the tape, you'll see he looked at her, then his watch, suggesting clearly, 'Hey, Perot's time is up' -- meaning he's filibustering. The media picked it up and wrote the story as another example that he didn't get it." 
 ---- 
 -- David Demarest, White House communications director for President George H.W. Bush, on the 1992 debates 
 "We talked about when Clinton was asked about the <a href="/topics//US_National_Debt">national debt</a> by an African-American woman . She said, 'How has the <a href="/topics//US_National_Debt">national debt</a> affected you personally?' What she meant to say was, 'How bad is the economy?' Bush struggled with trying to figure out -- and he was so much of a literalist, he kept trying to figure out what it was she was getting at, and then he didn't give a very good answer. Then Clinton walks right up to her, and he talks about all the people that he knows personally in Arkansas who lost their jobs and their factories, and he's talking to her like she's the only person in <a href="/topics//Universe_(show)">the universe</a>. It was just such a contrast. It was great. He was incredibly compelling. 
 "Clinton also had gone to that site before, and he had talked to his media people. He knew where the camera shoots were, and he knew when they'd be doing an over-the-shoulder cut. He was into that sort of stuff. Bush hated that. He no more would have done that than fly to the moon." 
 Russell L. Riley is chair of, and Barbara A. Perry is a senior fellow in, the Miller Center's Presidential Oral History Program at the University of <a href="/topics//Virginia">Virginia</a>.

OPDEBA27

Opinion: For Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, debate dos and don'ts

0MB2LUHC.JPG

Opinion and Analysis about the first presidential debate

Newsday

Opinion Columns

Opinion Rail Module

"I'm on a journey, I don't know where that path will end," Blakeman said.

An oath in Nassau, a mission in Albany

The protests have been unprecedented in scale.

U.S. lacks moral authority in Iranian dissidents' fight

It is capable of an astonishing variety of tasks.

A human marvel that's hard to replicate

Maduro was a key Kremlin ally in South America.

Venezuela shake-up bad news for Putin

Summer lays out the palette. Winter makes you conjure it.

December's light makes you work

Opinion Article Bottom Module

See Matt Davies' latest cartoon

The Point is Newsday Opinion's daily newsletter inside the local, city and state political scenes.

Trump pardon recipient with LI ties running for governor

Only a few people with access to Starlink internet have managed to send images.

Behind the blackout, Iran is drowning in blood

Hungry whales now come into crowded estuaries to feed, making them vulnerable.

'Save the whales' worked for decades, but now gray whales are starving

LIRR ticket changes, suicide prevention

After her State of the State comes the hard part: turning the words into action.

Hochul's promises could make a dent for NYers

Sign up for the Viewpoints newsletter

Viewpoints Newsletter Widget

Opinion Video Playlist

Hochul and Romaine huddle before her State of the State

It'll now be much more difficult for Powell to back further rate cuts.

Attacking Powell only undercuts Trump's goals

Banning institutional investors from buying single-family homes will not help.

This is not the way to make housing more affordable

Renee Good shooting by ICE in Minneapolis, 3D printing

The Justice Department should drop this sham investigation.

Threat to Fed is one to economy, too

What job does Anthony D'Esposito really want?

Americans are extremely dissatisfied with how things are going with the economy.

Americans are right to be worried about the labor market

The riskiest borrowers would be forced to turn to more expensive lenders.

Trump's credit-card cap would feed the weakest to the sharks

Musings: Thinking about the 'Journey' ahead

Musings: Will it be a book you'll love?

Musings: Nothing to do with anything

App Nativo Ad Unit Slot

Opinion - megaslot

Nassau County and Suffolk County editorials, columns, guest essays, cartoons, letters and more.

Opinion Columns

Stay logged in.