Romney’s debate tour de force
The Republican was the clear winner on points. Put them together, though, and they don’t add up.
On style, Republican Mitt Romney won Wednesday night’s presidential debate hands down. He was in command — of the stage, of the moderator, of his talking points.
President Barack Obama — well, he was there. Sort of. But on the substance of issues that affect the middle class, Obama was right.
October 5, 2012 - 6:16 AM
“President Barack Obama — well, he was there. Sort of.”
That one statement will be the one historians use to describe Obama’s one term in office.
Obama has avoided tough questions ever since he became President. He always picked friendly media for his interviews. It’s no surprise that he lost the debate. Up til now, he’s never been “wrong”.
They will have to change the format of the next debate to cater to him or he’ll fail again because he’s not going to gain any more experience before that debate.
And the excuses keep rolling in. Now I see that Obama had to contain himself so he didn’t come across an an angry black man.
Just read this in the Washington Post,
Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is disavowing his controversial remarks dismissing “the 47 percent” of Americans who don’t pay federal income taxes, saying in an interview Thursday night that the comments were “just completely wrong.”
“My life has shown that I care about 100 percent, and that’s been demonstrated throughout my life,” Romney told conservative commentator Sean Hannity on Fox News. “And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent.”
Flip flopping tempered with just a touch of flair.
President Obama has not “avoided tough questions” he has dealt with tough questions every day of his Presidency. What he has not done is courted or cossetted the press especially the right-wing TP/R media, and they are not happy about it. When you consider the posts of the right wingers here, the efforts of the insane birthers, the demands for college transcripts, applications and every other effort to de-legitimize and diminish him, it is no wonder he has no love of being confronted by their minions.
The press asks the slimy questions to avoid the important ones all too often. Their lack of investigations during the Bush years was stunning and their lack of substance and investigation during the economic crisis was legend. Their lack of credibility to cry wolf over Obama not loving them and answering their “questions” is just a front. What has Romney answered? What has Romney explained? What has Romney released?
Romney won the same way he always has. Obviously that is good enough for you. So please get off the high ground of complaining about Obama. It only worsens the hypocrisy effect.
I just don’t think you all are absorbing facts correctly. Romney is not honest. He is not credible and he has become such a chameleon that his plans and policy changed just from the campaign trail to the debate podium.
Debate Romney said “I like coal”, and he may indeed be friends with some coal owners, but Governor Romney had a different opinion:
“…Romney’s nine-year-old crusade against a coal-fired power plant in Massachusetts.
“I will not create jobs or hold jobs that kill people,” Romney said during a 2003 news conference as he denounced the deeply unpopular coal plant in Salem. “And that plant, that plant kills people.”
Incidentally, the plant in question is scheduled to shut down in 2014 and could be replaced by a natural gas plant.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0812/79734.html#ixzz28QmoNw93
Miners beware, don’t jump out of a frying pan and into a fire!
The TP/R spin on this whole debate has been hilarious. A “win” is a win at all costs, only the truth is, it isn’t.
Romney said: “Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.” No sir, they are not. His plan takes us back to the old system of fearing to lose or change coverage. He was lying.
Romney said: “I don’t have a $5 trillion tax cut.” But he does. If you look at this over the next decade, and since he offered no Bush type sunset, you should, it IS a $5 trillion tax cut when we have such huge debt and deficits.
Romney said “We’ve got 23 million people out of work or [who have] stopped looking for work in this country.” Exaggerate much? The problems with jobs is real and even if he wins he just dug himself a 23 million deep hole. It makes no sense except as hyperbole and Obama bashing. Never mind that Obama did not cause the job loss or underemployment. What are the odds he suddenly forgets those part time workers once he is elected?
Romney said: hoping just the name was an insult too, that Obamacare “puts in place an un-elected board that’s going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have”. Just a blatant lie and really beneath the dignity of someone who wants to be President, but he did it for effect, to demonize Obama. I am so sure he got wealthy by not having anyone monitor expenses and oversee systems, were they called “death accountants”?
Romney said: “I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans.” Why would they be funding him if that was remotely the truth? Not that we know which supposed “loopholes” and deductions he will remove, but there does not appear to be any combination or even all of them that would do that.
Candidate Romney is “on the record” saying these, and other, outrageous things and he needs to answer for them the way you have screamed about Obama answering for every utterance (oddly, even as you accuse him of dodging saying anything).
You cannot make it up as you go along, tell lies and create false fear if you want to be President. Say what you will about Obama, he offered us hope and he promised to try for change at a time when we were literally frightened to turn on the TV. Not that the right wing ever got that, but Obama believed in us! He has worked hard to deliver both and he was met by the Congress from hell. This will be noted in history far more broadly and fairly than anything either candidate says, even the lies. The TP ruined the R and hurt this nation, far more than Obama. There will be no denying it.
#4 – It takes a good man to stand up and admit he was wrong…unlike someone else who always blames someone else.
Maybe Obama knew the BLS numbers that were about to break? Stands to reason he would be informed before they are released…tailwinds?
Digging into those numbers a little…
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t08.htm
…the biggest growth in jobs was in people with part-time jobs for economic reasons (those who worked 1 to 34 hours during the reference week for an economic reason such as slack work or unfavorable business conditions, inability to find full-time work, or seasonal declines in demand). Such workers increased by 582,000 (7.2 per cent), the highest since last September. According to the chart, 306,000 of that increase are working part-time because of slack work or business conditions (a 5.9 per cent increase). Another 65,000 of that increase are working part-time because they could only find part-time work, an increase 2.6 per cent.
Not quite as rosy when digging deeper.
@Michael #8 Yeah, I suppose something he said 4-5 months ago had stuck in his craw and his conscious became overbearing. Do you know what the four letter answer to the crossword clue, “What politicians always tell” is?Hint, it begins with an “L.”
I don’t think anyone can color those numbers “rosy” but they are showing a trend and that we are not as bad as we could be. What was Reagan’s number when he was re-elected, 7.4%? It can be done.
I’m not particularly worried … unless the election hinges on style versus substance, as unfortunately it may. Romney was less awkward and geeky than usual, more animated, but he offered few specifics while throwing out a lot of grandiose promises about job creation. Obama tried to stay more diplomatic and on point, but he’ll have to do a better job of taking Romney to task. Obama will learn from this and be more confrontational in the next debate. But most voters have made up their minds anyway.
In a related story, as part of his debate-launched makeover, Mitt is out with a belated attempt to defuse his 47% comments. He’d prepared for the topic for Wednesday night but never got to unveil his new spin: “Clearly in a campaign with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you are going to say something that doesn’t come out right. In this case I said something that’s just completely wrong.”
This DESPITE the fact that Limbaugh and Hannity and O’Reilly said the 47% comments were completely RIGHT.
13… “unless the election hinges on style versus substance,”
Chuck, that is EXACTLY how Obama got elected in the first place.
“Obama will learn from this and be more confrontational in the next debate.”
He will probably have his trusty teleprompter and an earpiece, too.
Remember the quote from Newt Gingrich about Romney? “How can you debate someone who lies about everything?”
Obama knew this about Romney. He knew that Romney would get on that podium, lie and filibuster and bully.
And he knew that you can’t really debate someone like that.
Romney is an entitled prince. He again proved that he believes the rules don’t apply to him. And that type of person has the ability to bend those of weaker will to his point of view.
But, again, in this debate, Mitt Romney showed the country just what kind of person he is. Entitled, Prickly, Without a moral compass, Evasive, Dodging issues, Willing to jettison any “belief” to gain a momentary win.
Why hasn’t the media called Mitt Romney on his lies? Nearly every point he “made” in the debate was a lie, and the fact that he could shout them over the president and the moderator made him the “winner?” We are truly down the rabbit hole.
Anyone seen the movie 2016 yet? Its worth your time and money to see the real Obama.
#18 2016 is so full of malarkey, why would anybody bother?
Thanks Bugsgrandpa, but I think we have had enough right wing lies and distortions. The real Obama is President of the United States. Funny how the right wingers were all on fire when the Brits made a movie with an assassination attempt on a Bush like president but are now touting this trash as something worth seeing. Hypocrites!
Excellent point JimW, and we chose substance in 2008 too!
21 – Only because McCain had neither!
21….not substance Sandy. Substandard maybe, but not substance.
The liberal spin is turning faster that Iran’s centrifuges.
16…Sandy, Mitt Romney showed he had a backbone which is sorely lacking in the current President. I am certain Romney will have something more substantial for the Russian President to transmit to Vladamir than, “I will have more flexibility after the election.” I am betting Romney will ask Obama about that little exchange during the foreign policy debate. Romney also needs to ask about Obama’s bowing to everyone except the Burger King.
in all fairness to obama, al gore and the rest of the pundits, maybe one of the two remaining debate sites can be moved to or near sea level. the florida keys ( has the president vacationed there ) would work because we now know what altitude can do to ya!
Yeah well, all that “backbone” brought us was the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and an economic collapse, so pardon me if I am done with economic and foreign policy cowboys, with rigid ideology. That is cold comfort for thousands upon thousands of American families! Yes, I have no doubt the fool who thinks Russia is our #1 geopolitical enemy will have much to crow and preen about.
You do know that other Presidents have bowed as a show of respect…right?
Despite right wing claims, Obama is not the center of all that is evil, or even wrong in politics or this nation.
20. Sandi, Why do you think the movie 2016 is trash? It’s not a liberal fetish driven movie about assassination like the Bush movie. It’s a well researched documentary on Obama’s life.
27…There you go again, back to Bush. Romney is not Bush.
28 – “malarkey” and “trash” are synonymous terms which describe facts that are inconvenient to the liberal narrative…at least in this case.
My guess is, those in this thread who have used those terms, most likely have not even seen the movie. They’ve simply heard that it’s a not-so-flattering account of Obama’s life and influences…so they simply dismiss it.
According to gdad, the movie 2016 “is so full of malarkey”, and according to Sandi, it’s “trash”.
I would bet my last dollar that neither one of them has seen it.
Oh and all of the right wingers who blamed us for the “Bush movie” saw it too?
#31 You are exactly right.
#32 – Feel free to provide facts pointing out the errors in the movie, Sandi.
Oh, wait…I forgot. You did mention in your love letter to Obama that you were unable to look into all allegations.
It’s much easier to call something “trash” than face the possible truth, isn’t it?
How convenient.
@18 Funny how the lefties who haven’t seen 2016 can only criticize and yet they cite no credible source that can debunk 2016.
#31 Michael, I wouldn’t waste my money or the time. I’ve read plenty about it, and my wife and two other friends have seen it. All agreed: Don’t bother. I’m sure that others have told you not to bother seeing a Michael Moore movie and I bet you heeded their advice and yet were still highly critical of the movie you have never seen. Why? (BTW, I’ve never been to a Moore movie and I won’t go because of HIS hyper partisanship).
As for malarkey in the movie, a simple google search will bring plenty of that up. Note that I didn’t call them lies or errors because a number of the worst ones aren’t actually lies. They’re, well, malarkey.
#36 – You lose that bet, gdad. Believe it or not, I was once a Michael Moore fan and have seen all of his movies. I stopped being a fan when I saw firsthand how much he used “creative editing” to twist facts.
#36, gdad, check TheJacksonFreePress.com for an interesting critique of D’Souza and his film…an excellent deconstruction of the bad craziness and paranoia of one of the mouthpieces of the Radical Right/New Fascists.
#35 “…no credible source…” and who, exactly, gets to determine what is “credible” and what isn’t? You? And therein lies the root of the problem; subjectivity. D’Souza obviously has his own agenda, as do the people going to see the “movie.” And, of course, so do the people debunking the work.
The Obama propaganda movie “Zero Dark Thirty” about the killing of bin Laden by Navy Seal Team Six, directed by the big time Obama supporter Kathryn Bigalow, celebrating Osama bin Laden’s death will hit theaters two days before the November election. Just a coincidence I’m sure!
Bigalow was given unprecedented access to the details of the operation by the White House. I am sure it will be fair and balanced in its portrayal of the importance Obama!
Oh but the “creative editing” and wild speculation in “2016″ is fine with you?
http://www.cjr.org/the_audit/forbes_shameful_obama_dinesh_dsouza.php
http://mediamatters.org/research/2010/10/04/dsouzas-the-roots-of-obamas-rage-rooted-in-lies/171476
http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/05/27/dinesh-dsouzas-lies-about-obama-now-in-movie-fo/186695
But the thing is there is no use to debunk the trash, or refute the lies, because right wingers CHOOSE to believe them. Nothing can be done when someone wants to believe a lie.
I am with this fellow: “Unfortunately, in this climate, political debates often end in this manner. It seems now that anger seethes in conservatives, often right below the surface. When whipped up by inflammatory theories like D’Souza peddles, it erupts into a conflagration that costs relationships, such as ours yesterday. No minds are changed, and pharmaceutical companies that sell blood pressure medicine make more money.
I know nothing else to do in the face of this onslaught but to keep speaking what I see as the truth, and not allowing that truth to be overrun by intellectual laziness. That being said, I’ll sure be glad when November 7 comes.”
http://dailyhurricane.com/2012/07/lunacy-now-mainstream-cons-giddy-over-2016-obamas-america.html
Eight minutes I can never get back, that will fall on closed minds.
IDK if “Zero Dark Thirty” is “propaganda” or entertainment, but who started the “movie wars” and why do you presume only one side gets to propagandize?