Allan: Hope you have a safe trip. You may also find the debate on a CNN radio affiliate, maybe some Fox radio affiliates, as well as a C-SPAN radio affiliate too, as well as the CBS radio and NPR stations.
Around here its 1150 WDEL when they carry the CBS radio coverage (which I believe they will for Wednesday's debate) and 90.9 WHYY-FM's NPR coverage.
WDEL's sister station, Delaware 105.9 WXDE Lewes, and WDDE 91.1 [NPR] Dover will also carry the debate Wednesday for those downstate.
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 1:45am
Case in point, the Gore /Bush debate on radio definitely went to Gore. I was shocked that those watching on TV had different impressions. (It was the famous social security lock-box one)
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 2:21am
Late night stumble-upon... in looking for a link for teatime, this was just above it. IT is so exciting, I've never heard of this happening before...
Across the nation all intellectuals are calling for allowing Gary Johnson into the debates. Bob Barr, the last libertarian presidential candidate, I could see excluding. Gary Johnson, is polling higher, almost as high as Ross Perot did. Gary Johnson, was elected to a state governorship twice. Gary Johnson was previously on the Republican ticket in Iowa. He is not, a Bob Barr fluke.
The news is... Phillip Electronics and the YWCA pulled their sponsorships of the debates over the fact that Gary Johnson was shut out. More may follow because an coordinated email campaign which I was not aware of or I would have joined, put the terms in such a way that they could not be ignored.
Remember, if it weren't for Ross Perot, we would have never
discussed the National Debt in 1992. Out of nowhere he brought it up, and it became central to the election. So much so that Clinton was forced early on, to own that issue. He succeeded admirably. And the surplus we had in 2000, was probably solely there because Ross Perot was indeed allowed into the debates.
I wish we were listening to Perot now...during a recent interview he issued a dire warning of possible hostile takeover of our country due to economic weakness.
I liked Bob Barr and like many of Gary Johnson's positions. I actually agree with you and wish Johnson was going to be at the debates. I would like to see him tackle many of the taboo issues neither of the other two will even mention in front of a national stage...but he won't be there so we shall see tonight if any real issues are discussed.
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 12:43pm
The headline below and the link below that show what I've been saying about Obama ONLY caring about Union workers and NOT caring at all about NON-Union workers. He's only been the President for unionized workers. The rest of us have been without a President representing us for the past 4 years.
House investigation: Treasury, Obama officials ‘clearly involved’ in decision to terminate non-union Delphi retirees’ pensions.
Romney is so far behind in the polls, he's going to need some kind of knockout punch in the debate, either a really proofound epiphany stated by Romney or a monumental stumble by Obama...neither of which is likely.
Obama can continue to hammer Romney as an out of touch billionaire who's only goal is to get more tax cuts for the rich. Romney will continue his anti-socialist diatribe and how the socialist agenda will ruin America.
Don't expect any major surprises.
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 9:46pm
I'm bowing out of the debate and watching "Who the (bleep) did I marry?", which is the exact question the American people need to be asking themselves regarding Obama.
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 9:50pm
After "Who the (bleep)" is "Dirty Little Lies", which Obama is a master at!
Mike from Delaware
Wed, Oct 3, 2012 11:37pm
Just turned off WDEL.com after listening to the debates and the 30 minute commentary coverage from CBS Radio. I watched the first 45 minutes of the debate on TV CBS3 (KYW ch3 there sound was louder than PBS ch12 which seemed muffled) and then went and listened to the second half on WDEL/CBS Radio.
Romney did a great job. He was strong, knowledgeable, wouldn't let Obama get away with any misrepresentations of his positions or plans, yet was very respectful to the President. Romney presented his positions well. He went after the President's plans as not doing the job. Mitt explained his plans. Where he agreed with Obama on some point he said so, just as Obama did when he agreed with Romney on some point. Mitt made an interesting point when Obama made a shot about how the oil companies get about 2 billion dollars in corporate welfare each year. Mitt calmly responded that most of that money goes to small oil companies that are doing exploration for future American oil and that Obama gave enough money that equaled about 50 years of money given to the oil industry instead to green industries that most have failed and gone bankrupt. There were other issues like that where Mitt corrected respectfully the President on something he said that was incorrect. During the time I watched on TV Romney looked directly at the President when he spoke to him, he was focused, sharp, and on point. Mitt looked Presidential, he didn't speak as fast as he did in the GOP debates. He sounded confident as he knew the issues, the facts, the figures, and just calmly presented his case or rebuttal of something Obama said.
Obama, did a good job too defending his positions, (it's not as much fun playing defense vs being able to play offense as he got to do in 2008). He quite often looked down or around and not at Romney. Obama did do a good job of explaining his policies as he too is a good speaker, but he lacked the fire that Romney had going.
So you guys who tuned out, missed a good debate.
The CBS Radio post debate analysis was well done having CBS reporters, a DEM Senator, a GOP Senator, as well as a GOP voter, a DEM voter, and an Independent voter, a political professor all offering their points of view on what they heard, etc. Also they had a pollster on who had some quick polling data that was taken immediately after the debate using 500 people, which showed that a majority of the people polled thought Romney did a great job and Romney's approval ratings went up after the debate vs what it was prior to the debate. Obama's didn't do as well in the debate and his approval ratings among that polling group stay the same before and after the debate.
Having listened to both Obama and Romney tonight, I'm even more in Romney's camp than ever. He made his case tonight.
Next week's debate should be fun, VP Biden vs Paul Ryan. What sort of "winners" will Biden say and embarrass Delaware or the President (today's was pretty good, where ole Joe said that the middleclass has been buried during this past four years). Hopefully WDEL will be carrying the CBS radio coverage of the VP debate. The Phillies are done, they lost today to the Nationals, so Phillies shouldn't be an obstacle.
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 4, 2012 8:08am
Even liberal comedian Bill Mahar said that Romney won, and Obama needed a telepromter.
Mike: I watched the entire debate and completely agree with you…Romney did an excellent job last night, he really surpassed my expectations in his first face-to-face with one of the most powerful men in the world. I actually think Romney did a better job than even Gingrich could have done; something I didn’t think was possible.
Romney laid out point-by-point plans to solve the problems in our country and called the president out every time he lied about his plans, but in a very polite and respectful manner.
Mr. Loudell: I think there were several Kennedy/Nixon moments you missed by listening rather than viewing the debate. Obama never wanted to make eye contact with Romney and chose instead to look at his podium, the moderator or (if talking about ObamaCare) the TV camera. There were several other interesting postures and “moments” that happened during the debate but they were not captured on the radio…
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 4, 2012 3:41pm
EarlGrey: I agree, that Mitt did a better job than even Newt would have done, because Mitt's a gentler softer spoken, respectful kind of guy, where as Newt can get very biting and come across in a harsh disrespective way.
Both Mitt and Newt have a great command of the issues, but Newt lacks people skills that Mitt has as his successes in life demonstrate.
Thu, Oct 4, 2012 4:12pm
There was no knockout punch, but the pundits generally agree that Obama was not at his best during the debate. The president seemed rather reserved, timid, not very aggressive as he could be. He made no reference to the 47 percent of Americans that Romney does not care about, which was a mistake not for Obama to at least mention.
It was disconcerting to see the revisionist history of Governor Romney. During the past 18 months, he has promised a three trillion dollar tax cut and a two trillion hike in military spending. Romney has stated this publicly many times, but during the debate kept denying he had made this statement previously. Romney showed he's not trustworthy to be president, when he lies about his previous public statements about policy.
Interesting to see what post debate poll numbers are.
Thu, Oct 4, 2012 8:56pm
Obama didn't mention the 47% story because it would have given Romney the opportunity to explain what he actually said...instead of the twisted version that claims Romney doesn't care about 47% of the US population because they are not "rich".
In truth, what he said was that 47% don't pay federal income taxes and a portion of this group(estimated to be around 20%) will never consider a Republican because they fear losing "free stuff"...like ObamaPhones. (16 million "free" phones have been given out by this administration).
Mike from Delaware
Thu, Oct 4, 2012 10:54pm
EarlGrey: Obama's folks gave away 16 million phones, isn't that kind of like buying votes? Isn't that illegal? Oh wait, he's from Chicago, that's how things are done in the windy city, I forgot- heh heh.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Oct 5, 2012 9:56am
Here's the Huffington Post with info on latest poll Romney vs Obama.
Earl Grey: Romney did say "my job is not to care for the 47 percent..."
By the way, Earl, he's talking about YOU. Unless you're a millionaire, you're "not taking any personal responsibility."
Fri, Oct 5, 2012 3:26pm
teatime...I am faaaaaar from being a millionare.
When Romeny said "my job is not to care for the 47%..." I believe he meant that his job (as candidate running for president) needs to focus on the "winnable" voters, not wasting time on the 20% loyal to Obama, or any Democrat for that matter, who will NEVER vote for a Republican (not even a RINO). He regrets making the statement but seriously do you actually believe Obama cares about the Middle Class? Joe Biden himself admits this administration has "buried" the Middle Class...and IF ObamaCare kicks in we "the Middles" will be paying around $2k-$3k more in taxes.
You are free to vote for whomever you wish but at least look at both candidates through the same lens of critique.
Romney is far from perfect (and as you know from previous posts on this blog..he wasn't my first choice) but we only have two serious contenders to choose from.
And again I ask you ,as a former Ron Paul supporter, which of the two remaining choices is going to AUDIT the FED? Not Obama. Which of the two have a budget plan? Not Obama.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Oct 5, 2012 5:55pm
Teatime: I didn't like Romney making that comment about the 47% either and he admits it was wrong, but if you listen to the actual words EarlGrey is correct, Mitt was essentially saying in this race to win the White House, I can't be worried about those folks who, because they get some sort of benefits from Uncle Sam will vote DEM, so I've got to focus on the rest who are paying the bill. So let's move on and not make this something it wasn't intended to be.
Bottom line Teatime, if don't vote for Romney and you vote for Ron Paul, or anyone else, then you've essentially voted for Obama. So are you saying that you'd rather the nation be saddled with another four years of Obama as punishment for NOT picking Ron Paul??? I seriously hope you're not that petty. So then the choice is clear, granted Romney isn't a libertarian, but he's also not a liberal DEM. So given the real choice, based on your preference for Ron Paul, that makes Mitt Romney your candidate for 2012.
This will be a close election, each vote could make a difference. Bottom line is we either get Obama for a 2nd term or Romney gets elected. A protest vote will do nothing to help this nation, please make your vote count and vote for Mitt.
Fri, Oct 5, 2012 11:24pm
Well I am a millionaire and I support Obama. Here is why. i love my country more than I love money. If my country falls short and stumbles, then eventually that will not only affect my money and everything I own, (money's cheap: they print new every day) but more importantly it will affect the happiness of those human beings I consider friends and charming acquaintances, including those here.
I know that Romney's economic plan will cause chaos. What we had these past four years, is a very fine financial team's attempt to rebound from the chaos caused by following Romney/Ryan's current plan, the first time.
The only thing I would have done differently and Mike actually mentioned it above, would be to guarantee three months of mortgages for everybody, so they could get themselves financially stable immediately after the hit, and without a mortgage to pay for three months, they could have kept on spending money.. I would have taken that approach instead of saving the banks. We had a vehicle that would have done so painlessly.
However, at that same time with Republicans swearing to make Obama a one term president, it was nixed because it would opened charges of the new president leading this nation to socialism, by giving people money they didn't earn. It was felt at the top, that this political battle would be difficult to win. Especially so soon after Joe the Plumber.
However though it had never been tried, it would have worked, and if there had not been enough Republicans to stop it, we would have gotten it passed very early.
Other than that, one cannot fault Obama for what he did over his full term.
You may not like Obama, but that is your problem, nothing he can do about that. But fix the economy after the biggest implosion of our lifetimes... he's got that.
And if we can get no Republicans in the House or Senate, then smooth sailing is ahead for our economy.
Mike from Delaware
Fri, Oct 5, 2012 11:56pm
Here are some facts to consider about Obama's record. This is a 30 second Romney spot that documents the sources for each fact.
Lol. You're not right. You are nuts... Look at at advertisement again....
It says ... Obama says he's creating jobs. He is not creating jobs, he's creating debt.... then it goes on to talk debt and never comes to the point which everyone knows: that Ryan is the reason we don't have deficit reduction. If you remember, it was Ryan who walked out of the agreement when it looked like it was actually going to get passed. Ryan withdrew HIS support and tanked the bi-partisan Simpson Boyles plan agreed to by the head of the Republican Party in the House of Representatives.
Obama did create jobs. In this past month of September alone, he created more jobs then George Bush did over his entire presidency!...
Obama is the best president we have seen in our lifetime. This ad Mike brings up, is as silly as me saying... (cue somber music)... "Mr. Pizza says he runs a business.. when in reality, he makes pizza's. His hand crafted pizzas have cheese, tomato paste, and sometimes toppings... We can't afford to associate with a person who touches our food..... Get the facts. Food is for eating.... "
Seriously, you guys would be better off voting for Gary Johnson; they at least have Republican values similar to Ron Paul. Not those fashioned on Wall Street that don't care for 47% of the population... What was the term? "They don't matter?"
And Mr. Pizza. I know you ARE a business man, despite what Mike of Delaware says about you in his ad... lol.. :)
Sun, Oct 7, 2012 11:53am
Mike from De;aware amd Earl Gray, the tea party has always championed for cutting taxes on moiddle class voters and cutting governman signicantl.
It' clear Romney will spend the country into an economic disaster. Romney wants to cut $3-trillion in taxes, to add to th deficit. He also wants to hike military spending by another $2-trillion.
Our children and grandchilden will suffer if Romney's elected.
Yes, Obama has created jobs...part-time jobs in the private sector and thousands of new GOVERNMENT jobs. You do realize more govt jobs means more taxes are needed from private sector?
I would like to know how many of these "new" jobs are being filled by those who have exhausted their 99 weeks of unemployment benefits.
Curious how it was 99 weeks...just like the 99%ers (coincidence?)
And their benefits run out right before the election.
So, there are millions of underemployed or jobless people who are mad at the "evil 1%ers" right before a presidendtial election...very well "organized" indeed.
We now know what a Chicago Community Organizer is and he is running our country just like one. We need a PRESIDENT not a community organizer.
BTW, if we are recommending movies...I highly recommend Occupy Unmasked. Very informative movie on Anonymous, OWS, SEIU, community organizers (like Saul Alinksy) and how our president's relationship with them is very dangerous.
Another good movie is Monumental...it's pretty boring but great info on how our country began (on a solid biblical base) and how we can return our country to greatness...starting with our own families and God. It's not all dependent on the government leaders it's the American citizens.
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 10:22am
kavips: I just read where Chavez got re-elected in Venezuela. How about you take your millions and move down there and give it away to those poor people?
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 11:29am
"...no sitting President since Franklin Roosevelt has won re-election when unemployment was over 7.2% on election day."~New York Times
And President Obama is no FDR.
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 2:03pm
Kavip, a closet millionaire. A member of the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. Maybe even part of the 1%. You never know.
Mike from Delaware
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 3:46pm
Kavips could be a millionaire. If so, that's cool for him and his family. If he is, then he kind of has the Warren Buffett thing going in terms of his views on life and politics, rather than the Donald Trump thing.
In any case, I enjoy his comments, he gets me thinking. He does a lot of digging and backs his point of view with pretty solid stuff most of the time.
I agree with him on some stuff and other stuff, I don't. Of course I agree with you conservatives here on some stuff and not on other stuff. That's me, the moderate, in the middle. I see some good stuff with the DEMS and some good stuff with the GOP, and see bad stuff from both GOP and DEMS so I end up being an Independent.
It's one of the bad things happening in our nation now, where someone can not disagree without being labeled in a negative way, and painted as being the anti-Christ, evil, an A??Hole, etc, etc. Bush Jr. isn't evil (he definitely isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer), but he wasn't trying to destroy America, I just didn't agree with how he did things (or how Chaney got Bush to do his will). Same with Obama, he isn't evil either (he is pretty smart and articulate, and clean cut as Biden famously said heh heh), but Obama isn't trying to destroy America either. He has a different point of view from what many here believe.
So each of us should vote for whom we believe will do the best job for our nation. Kavips believes Obama is the best Prez ever, I disagree as do others here (FDR is one of the best in my view), that's OK, all of us are entitled to our opinions and our freedom to express those opinions. I'm sure there are some here who believe Reagan was the best, again I disagree, but support your right to believe and express that view.
This is an important freedom we should never allow either side to steal away from us.
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 8:17pm
For anyone who may still think Obama is the lesser evil vs. Romney, read this:
Trouble with this is, it may already be too late even if Romney is elected, as there are proposals for the "lame-duck" session after the election.
Mon, Oct 8, 2012 9:04pm
mrpizza: You are correct, win or lose next month, the current occupant in the White House is dangerous...but I would still prefer the Nov-Jan time-frame instead of another four years. Four more years...and we are France.
I think Dick Morris may be overstepping. I found a link that tells about the UN wanting global taxes, but nothing in the article implies at all that Obama favors this.
Obama may favor this, but there's nothing I can find anywhere from a reliable source, only bloggers, that say Obama is in favor of this.
Come on, we can beat Obama without saying something we can not prove. Dick Morris offers no proof. I'm certainly not going to buy his book to see this proof. If its that important hold a press conference and spill the beans.
There's nothing in the Dick Morris article, which is really an ad for his new book.
Now it appears the UN may be in favor of a global tax, but nothing on Obama being in favor of such a tax.
Yes, hearing the debate on the radio, it wasn't as apparent to me that Obama had blown it big time, until I saw the video...
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 8:10am
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 1:40pm
Welcome back. Not sure which route you took, but you could, based on the latest poll, have crossed a blue, then red, then blue, then red to get to a blue state. (However, if you took the PA extension north to tie into the Ohio Turnpike, you didn't cross the panhandle of that red state I inserted there.) For the record most trucking companies prefer their trucks head west on 70 and turn up 65 at Indianapolis. I believe it is because of toll savings counteract the extra mileage.
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 2:18pm
... and back to the thread.
The reason Warren Buffet is pro stabilization and against the Republican's policy of tax cuts, tax cuts, tax cuts, is because he knows it will make him money.
There are two ways to run a business. Long term and short term. Long term business owners invest to get benefit out of the long term. Eventually costs drop near zero, and money comes pouring in. Short terms invest to get money out of the short term....
Short termers can't be trusted to do what is best for the long term. They buy a business, squeeze it for its last penny, then sell the remains. House flippers, are such. Caring little for the quality of their materials, the future buyers have no idea of the problems they will soon be paying for. The think they have a nice new house, until, the mold that never got cleaned, just covered up, eats through their wall, killing them as they sleep. Bain capital is such too. Buying companies and flipping them, not caring what problems it gave the communities, (not our problem they said), and splitting them up, selling the pieces when they had squeezed everything out they could. Shells of broken companies are scattered across America.
One could call Bain Capital, the Freecycler of America.
The other approach from this, is to invest and build up one's business. It means one spends more for raw materials so people will feel they are paying for a bargain, it means losing money occasionally when you wronged someone, to keep a customer coming back, it means giving to your community, even though you know never ever get a payback from it. But you do it because it is right. You do it because you give back. You do it because if you didn't, that little league team would never get off the ground, that girl scout troop would never get to go to Washington DC, that foundation would go under and not be able to do the good it was meant to do...
But there is a benefit. If people are working, they aren't casing houses to come back to steal from when owner are gone. If people are improving their outlook is more positive and hope is returned to the human equation. If people feel good triumphs evil, when it comes time from them to choose between the two, they'll choose good. And some of this good comes back to you in the form of business.
All these little things that are good, add up to make our lives worth living. Sure, one could have a lot more money. and fight the guilt with alcohol. One could have a lot more money, and look the other way as people who you could have helped, now hurt, and perhaps die. Sure, one could have had a lot more money, and lived walled up in their cages they built, never going out because they know, at what moral price their money was earned... So ironically, they live less well than the person who gave back. They are ostracized. Whereas the longtermer, is honored.
So, he does get it back in the quality of his life. Also he does get it back perhaps in another world, where he can see what a difference he was able to make in people's lives each time he chose to what was right, and not what gave the best profit.
It's the same moral play we've seen many times. "It's a Wonderful Life", "The Christmas Carol", are two that come to mind.
There is a reason I support Obama, and that is because his policies are exactly what is needed for America to grow again. Tax the wealthy, earmark that money towards paying off the debt, create no new bureaucracy, directly invest that money where it can grow tenfold, but refixing America's infrastructure, energizing America for the upcoming century we are just beginning.
The sixteen hundreds were the age of wind. The seventeen hundreds were the age of plantations. The eighteen hundreds were the age of heavy industry. The nineteen hundreds were the age of science. This century seems to be dominated as the age of information.
Instead of investing in iron mills, we are investing in rare-earth minerals, with names we can't even remember from the periodic chart hanging up in eleventh grade.
Continuing the policies of the past, such as Reaganism, is like investing in last century's technology. We have moved on. We don't have time to go backwards and play like we are living in 1980 again.
If we do, then we deserve to lose our top spot. We were stupid, and we chose, to simply let it be taken from us.
That is why, the big money is on Obama. The long investors are behind him, and not Romney. Romney will give those who don't give a damn, a couple of extra billions. Then, it will be completely over. Then, while the rest of the world prospers, we will be France. :)
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 6:32pm
Mike: I heard Dick Morris live on Sean Hannity, and he explained it in a lot more detail than the article. As I remember it, there's a set of treaties that only require ratification by the senate threatening to be passed during the lame duck session. One has to do with guns, which if passed would circumvent the second amendment. Then there are taxes, including an income tax on American citizens, which if I understand it correctly, we would have to file individually with the U.N. in addition to our federal, state, and local taxes. There was also a U.N. tax on a barrel of oil, and then some environmental stuff. It would in effect cede all U.S. sovereignty to the U.N., and American citizens would be directly answerable to the U.N. I'm not going to by DM's book either, however, I don't think we should dismiss this as fantasy. There is a movement going on out there that must be stopped. The tabloid press has ignored this as they do everything that they're trying to sneak under the table.
Speaking of sneaking under the table, Woodrow Wilson and the congress of 1907 passed the federal income tax in the middle of the night. The left has gradually been creeping into our lives ever since.
Mike from Delaware
Tue, Oct 9, 2012 10:23pm
Mrpizza: If this is real, then why aren't ANY GOP folks in Congress saying anything? Surly they must know about this, so why are none of the Conservative TEA folks, or even RINO's in Congress sounding the alarm? What about Fox News? What about Human Events? What about the Washington Times or the Wall Street Jounal?
One lone voice, Dick Morris. Why hasn't Sean Hannity called some of his conservative pals in Congress to find out more? If this is real then it is a real serious threat to our nation, but to be frank, it sounds more like some crazy thing to get the conservative base fired up to sell Dick Morris' book. Where are the conservative journalists who should be asking a whole bunch of questions?
Maybe Allan will do some digging and interview some Republican in the Senate to find out IF this is real, or has Dick Morris taken a button and sewn a vest to it.
Add your comment: Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal
responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of
the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members
Only Group username and password are required to process your post.
You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please
Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.