What they didn't say at the debates

The stage is set prior to the first presidential debate at Magness Arena at the University of Denver, Oct. 3, 2012.

/ Saul Loeb/AFP/GettyImages

With three debates down and one to go, much has been made of what the candidates and the moderators said. Depending on who you ask, President Obama was pacific, then feisty. Mitt Romney was presidential, then peevish. Sleepy Jim Lehrer dropped the ball; steely Martha Raddatz did not. And Candy Crowley was assertive, for better or for worse.

Less attention has been paid, however, to what the candidates and moderators didn't say - the questions (and answers) left on the cutting room floor.

Admittedly, 90 minutes is too short a timeframe to check every box. Constituencies who demand ample airtime for pet issues must face the reality that these debates are at once the briefest and most potent events in the campaign timeline. At a nationally-televised presidential debate, economizing the discussion is not irresponsible, it's inevitable.

• Conservatives assail debate moderator Candy Crowley
• Full coverage: The Debates

But with the domestic policy portions of the 2012 debates now elapsed - the final debate will deal exclusively with foreign policy - it seems appropriate to take stock of the domestic issues about which we heard very little (or nothing at all).

Housing

Since 2007, roughly four million homeowners have been pushed into foreclosure. Average home prices are close to where they were a decade ago. Approximately one in four homeowners are saddled with mortgages that exceed the value of their home. In short, the housing market, despite recent signs of tentative recovery, remains dismal. Problems with housing helped crash the economy in 2007, and the moribund housing market remains arguably the biggest drag on overall economic recovery today, crimping the spending habits of homeowners who are simply trying to keep their heads above the water.

Critics left, right, and center have slammed the Obama administration's housing policy as inadequate or ineffective. The government bailed out the banks, it bailed out the auto industry, it bailed out insurance giant AIG - but it did not bail out beleaguered homeowners. Instead, the administration incentivized banks to refinance mortgages or write off debt, opting for carrots over sticks.

Romney's own housing proposals, meanwhile, have been criticized for their lack of detail and specificity.

Given the lethargy of the housing recovery and the myriad, substantive critiques of the candidates' housing policies, it seemed like a foregone conclusion that Mr. Obama and Romney would be pressed on the issue. After all, four years ago, in the wake of financial calamity, all three presidential debates touched on the housing crisis.

This time, nary a peep - Romney briefly mentioned housing during the first debate in the context of explaining his opposition to the Dodd-Frank financial regulatory reform bill. But there was not a single dedicated question about the housing market and the candidates' plans to resuscitate it.

The omission grated on some. Alan Jenkins, executive director of the Opportunity Agenda, told the San Francisco Chronicle, "I'm astounded that the candidates haven't addressed housing. After jobs, it's the most important aspect of our economic recovery."

Then again, they may not have much to say. "It's not really a winner of an issue for either candidate," explained Trulia Chief Economist Jed Kolko. "Obama's main housing initiative fell short of expectations...but at the same time Romney hasn't proposed bold new ideas for housing."

Immigration

Few debates in American life today are as fractious as the national conversation about immigration.

Among Mr. Obama's first-term agenda items, immigration reform stands out as perhaps the most glaring unfinished business. The president, who promised to sign a comprehensive immigration reform bill in his first term, has described the failure of the DREAM Act as his biggest disappointment.

Despite the lack of legislative activity on immigration reform over the last four years, there has been quite a bit of administrative action. Mr. Obama issued a series of executive orders granting a reprieve - and a visa - to undocumented youths who would have trekked the path to citizenship under the DREAM Act. The administration also refocused deportation proceedings on those with a criminal record and has expelled undocumented residents at a record pace - almost 400,000 in 2011.

A September Univision forum dealt extensively with the issue, perhaps understandably given the centrality of the issue to the political concerns of the Hispanic-American community.

Fights over immigration also animated the Republican primary more than any other single issue, with numerous GOP primary debates diving deep into the weeds of immigration policy. And in 2008, the issue surfaced repeatedly during debates between Mr. Obama and Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.

But in 2012, after three general election debates, only one immigration question has been asked (and that one by an undecided voter at the town hall debate, though the question was curated by moderator Candy Crowley.)

Voter interest in the issue is evidently intense, if social media are any guide - the lone immigration query was the single most tweeted moment in the town-hall forum - but you wouldn't know it based on immigration's meager showing in the debates.

• no previous page
• next

1/2

[Sambo1326]

Well as far as foreign policy Obama has the upper hand . He has more experience dealing with those who hate America , bill ayers , Michelle Obama , Jeremiah wright. Etc

[josephSteel]

On foreign policy, I was disappointed that, when it came to Obama's use of drone attacks, Romney did not qualify his "agreement" on their use with the point that Obama's attacking and killing American citizens was a violation of the Constitution and due process. That would have been nice. Romney does believe this, so should have mentioned it.
Second, he should have reminded the president that commiserating with violent mobs as he and Hillary Clinton both did with respect to the stupid YouTube video only gave justification to the mobs' actions and was as well tantamount to giving lip service to the idea that US free speech standards need to be revisited here in the US.
The president's handling of this latest debacle is just one more clear reason Obama needs to go. I fear he will not.

[Shibbol]

They should be. The jobs numbers have been perking along, the housing market is improving, and you win three of four debates (as decided by undecideds), and you should feel bullish.

[hillzhaveays]

You should look up the definition of "perking". I don't think it means what you think it means.

Job growth is
1) not keeping pace with population growth
2) slowing down actually
3) almost 70% part time work

Stop drinking the Koolaid.

[Buzz_Dengue]

What was the largest export for the US in 2011?
Bring THAT up in a foreign policy debate...

[IVoteMyConscience]

"I believe in the American spirit," President Obama said. "A President must care about 100% of their people."

Obama said that on film:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fNUQQBE8iE"

"My priority is jobs," Romney said.

Romney's record on jobs is on video:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZMndjLIQUFw"

In America, "47% of the people believe they are victims," Romney said. "That 47% believe they are ENTITLED [emphasis Romney's] to health care, food & housing. These are people who pay no income tax. Forty-seven percent of Americans pay no income tax. It's not my job to worry about those people. I'll never convince them to take responsibility for their lives."

Hmmm.

The steelworkers in the video above pay income tax. They take responsibility for their lives. I'm guessing that you reading this pay income taxes and take responsibility for your lives. My husband and I pay 35% income tax. We sure as heck take responsibility for our lives!

Meanwhile, Romney's defense of his unreleased tax returns is that last year he paid 14.1% income tax. (And there's evidence that he paid extra so American wouldn't know how low his tax bracket actually is--that's trying to buy votes.)

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all are endowed with CERTAIN UNALIENABLE RIGHTS, among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."--the US Constitution

Did Romney really dismiss in contempt all of us Americans who pay taxes more than twice as high as his, as well as the basic tenant of our US Constitution, when he thought he was speaking secretly behind closed doors?

The record is on video:

"http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser"

So who told the truth in this 2nd 2012 Presidential debate? Who lied?

The record is on video:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXpKq4UYtXw&feature=related"

Who stood firm on his platform for election? Who switched his positions?

The record is on video:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jebDlVAcpGo"

Who told the truth in the 1st 2012 Presidential debate? Who lied?

The record is on video:

"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=TWHLgMCDuOs"

Romney's handlers claim debates are no place for "fact-checking" and that Romney will not be limited by "fact-checkers."

A Presidential candidate who doesn't want to be fact-checked?

What could that possibly mean. . .other than lying?

Apparently, Romney's handlers claim it means they disagree with "facts" because they like "empirical data." However, "empirical data" ARE "facts." A "fact," according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is "a thing known or proved to be true," and "data" is "a collection of facts." Yes, data are facts. "Empirical" simply means anything at all "verifiable by observation or experience."

Empirical DATA = [observed or experienced] FACTS = THE TRUTH

This is a particularly meaningless red herring designed to fool Republican voters into believing there's a difference between two identical terms and confuse them about why the facts, when checked, don't match what Romney says.

This is why President Obama doesn't object to being fact-checked.

It's a good thing American voters aren't as easy to lie to as Romney thinks.

Americans deserve the truth from our Presidential candidates.

Fact-checker's list on the 2nd 2012 Presidential debate, with citations, compiled by Milt Shook:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/second-debate-romney-lies-debunked.html

Fact-checker's list on the 1st 2012 Presidential debate, with citations, compiled by Milt Shook:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/a-small-sampling-of-romney-lies-at-last-nights-debate.html

For moderate voters, Obama and Romney compared, with citations, by Milt Shook:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2012/10/if-youre-a-moderate-voter-thinking-of-voting-gop-read-this-first-please.html

Obama's record as President, with citations, compiled by Milt Shook:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/what-has-obama-done-since-january-20-2009.html

Whom among the American people Obama has really represented during the past 4 years? Revealed in detail by Milt Shook:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2011/08/more-politics-101-obama-is-smarter-than-us.html

By mid-October, 2012, the Obama campaign had broken all previous records for number of individual donations with 10,000,000 donations from Americans of all walks of life. That's ten million Americans not only voting for Obama, but investing their hard-earned money in a future lead by him. (And we all know exactly how hard-earned that money is these days.)

Please--read, follow up citations to their sources, educate yourself.

Don't be bought by simple-minded television ads paid for by billionaires who hope to gain financially by your loss.

Make an informed decision about what's best for you and for America.

And VOTE.

[ber-ber24]

Yeah, and Obama made over 3 million dollars last year and only paid as much income tax as his secretary--who only makes $55,000 a year. OOPS!! Guess you didn't hear about that one. Wonder why you didn't hear about that??? Because Obama and the eat-out-of-his-hand-media didn't want you to hear about that. Your "informed" decision may have tilted the other way.
Want to know why Obama hasn't been heard saying anything "off the cuff" for the last 4 years??? Of course you don't, but I feel like telling you anyway. BECAUSE since his HUGE GAFFE in his first campaign about pathetic "people clinging to their guns and their religion" was caught on a cellphone, he now has the Secret Service confiscate every electronic device brought by anyone to any of his fundraisers, and they don't get them back till he's gone. Guess he didn't want you to be "informed" about that either. You talk about "fact-checking", well, I guess the "fact checkers" you listen to forgot to check their facts on this next one.

Yes, people, read this, and then make a truly informed decision. http://www.foxbusiness.com/on-air/willis-report/blog/2012/10/16/president-obamas-big-lie-exposed

[niko1415]

I am disturbed by the fact that no Environmental Policy issues have come to my ears. No, this doesn't just concern green tech (I've only heard slightly), or Domestic Energy Policy (if people think they can survive long term on oil, nat. gas and coal, are sorta blowing smoke out of their *****, and are looking at short term sustainable growth). I am talking about EPA regulations that the Republican and the Coal Industry Cronies (and Nat. Gas) are trying to repeal, calling the EPA EVIL and crooked for doing the right thing in saving the air we breath and the water we drink and recreate.

[lilyjinks]

i certainly agree with the bwb2020 person and the statement that we will be better off and less to deal with if the far right does not reach the oval office. as mean spirited as i have seen the far right be toward the leader oh the u.s.a. they would definitely take their agenda and cram it down our throats and also mikefilms made a good observation the 47% that romney dosen't particularly care anyway . he will make those people pay, yes get even with them for not voting for him and i guess for not having more money because if they were ultra rich they would have felt more comfortable voting for him. good reading guys i really enjoyed it and was enlightened by a few of the comments

[BWB2020]

There are actually three points of which we can all be certain.

First, neither party actually has the means to address any of the real problems facing the country, and so can only add their own little idiosyncrasies to the political discussion.

Second, with the GOP/bagger/far right party, one thing of which we can be sue is that they will attempt to cause a resurgence of war mongering, racism, worship of corrupt aristocracy, and general intolerance, to add to the list of problems we will be facing.

Third, with the Democrats, we will only have to deal with worship of corrupt aristocracy.

For that reason, far better for us as a country if the far right gets nowhere near the offices of influence.

[rationall7]

What Obama didn't say was under the Bush Admin. they carried two sets of books not reporting the miltary spending on the war efforts and under Obama he combined both books for a true military cost on defence spending.

[democracy8]

tiredofbeingbanned: You made a completely IRRATIONAL response to rationall7's very RATIONAL post. Now don't you just feel so clever?

PS--You're NOT.

[mikesfilms]

Obama forgot First to ask Romney about his refusal to show tax reports and offshore accounts. Reason: Hiding companies and jobs he's outsourced to China? Second, he didn't go far enough on the 47% comment. The real Romney behind closed doors actually said he didn't expect half of the nation to vote for him because they live off the govt and pay no taxes (if in the WH no doubt he plans to shaft the 47 to get even).

[mikesfilms]

Obama forgot First to ask Romney about his refusal to show tax reports and offshore accounts. Hiding companies and jobs he's outsourced to China? Second, he didn't go far enough on the 47% comment. The real Romney behind closed doors actually said he didn't expect half of the nation to vote for him because they live off the govt and don't pay taxes (if in the WH no doubt he plans to shaft the 47 to get even).