3 Weeks (And Debate Open Thread!)

We are 3 weeks out from arguably one of the most important elections of our lifetimes and the polls are tight, but Romney has the momentum, as do the Republicans overall. Nothing could be more indicative of that than in Missouri, where Todd Akin was written off a few months ago, but has come back and as of yesterday, now has the lead. Senate and Congressional races are tightening all over the country as the election day draws near largely due to Romney’s strong first debate performance which will be equaled tonight, as Romney will continue to dispel the caricature of him the Obama campaign hoped voters would believe. Obama wasted an inordinate amount of time during this campaign trying to convince voters that Romney was some evil, uncaring rich man and that Republicans in general were an anti woman, anti gay, anti black, pro rich party and now that voters are starting to pay attention, and actually see Romney first hand as they will again tonight, they are realizing that that caricature the Democrats have put forth, isn’t even close to the truth. So Obama now is left to defend his abysmal economic record, and floundering foreign policy, which is indefensible.

Tonight Romney will have a chance to interact with everyday people in the Townhall forum and we will again see someone of incredible compassion and intelligence, who is in command of the facts, who does understand the plight that so many Americans are enduring, and someone who will put forth common sense plans to turn this economy around. On the other hand, Obama will try and convince everyone that he just needs more time.  Regardless of how the debate turns out however, you can expect the liberal media to crown Obama as the winner as they have too much invested in Obama and they know that another poor performance on Obama’s part will seal his defeat.

On another note, in past elections I had seldom voted a straight party ticket having always found a local Democrat or two that I found preferable over the Republican candidate, and this year is no different as the Democrat candidate for the Senate in my state is not a bad choice over the Republican candidate, however this election cycle is much different in that a vote for any Congressional and Senate Democratic candidates, is a vote for Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and that is completely unacceptable. So I will vote a straight party ticket this coming election day and I encourage everyone to do the same.

About these ads

123 thoughts on “3 Weeks (And Debate Open Thread!)

  1. M. Noonan

    It is the crunch time – can Romney maintain his momentum? Can Obama create a game-changer in the last three weeks? Time will tell. It ain’t over until its over – but right now the advantage is to Romney and the GOP.

    1. Raj Kapoor

      Romney can not maintain momentum, unless he comes clean. I heard Ann say today that when in debate he takes watch off and writes word DAD on piece of paper. Then I hear him tell Wolf that he writes Dad as he thinks Dad scrificed for him to what he has and thinks dad is watching over him. WHAT A HYPOCRITE Romney is? If he respects his dad, he should also respect his wishes and like his dad said one or two years tax returns can be fluke, every candidate should release tean year taxes, Romney has not done that. He is exploiting his dad’s legacy without fullfilling his wishes, he is nothing but a hypocrite with no ethics, moral and character. I knew his father, he was a great man while Romney is nothing like his father with no Integrity. God Bless America and may he put Romney out of this country to Cayman Island where his accounts are, he puts Americans to shame.

  2. Retired Spook

    There’s an old lawyer joke that goes something like: if the law is on your side, argue the law, if the facts are on your side, argue the facts; if neither, pound the table. I expect Obama to do a lot of table pounding tonight. The best debater in the world would have a difficult time defending Obama’s foreign and domestic polices, and Obama is far from the best debater. I hope Romney gets the opportunity to ask him who sent Susan Rice out to 5 Sunday shows to lie through her teeth about the Benghazi attack.

    1. Cluster

      My understanding is that the third and final debate will be centered on foreign policy and that will be Romney’s opportunity to take Obama to task over Libya.

    2. J. R. Babcock

      I hope one of the questioners gets to ask Obama how spiking the football on Laden’s death has affected relations with the Muslim world.

      1. bozo

        Well, it’s refreshing to hear some people doubt Obama’s actually a secret Muslim. I just sat through Dinesh’s 2016 Obama’s America, and other than Dinouchebag’s vapid voiceovers, it was a very informative film.

        Could have done without the last graphic that slowly reveals “OBAMA…LOVE HIM…HATE HIM…NOW YOU KNOW HIM” since really, can’t I just elect him, and if he does a better job than the other guys, re-elect him. If not, vote for the other guy? Do I really have to love or hate him?

        I respect him for the ten pages of promises kept, most of which would not have happened with a McCain presidency simply because they’re different and I prefer Obama. Republicans don’t. That’s fine.

      2. neocon1

        blowzo

        there is NOTHING secret about al Ubamas being a muslim.
        Nor is there secret he is a usurper and a communist……..

      3. tiredoflibbs

        Uh, creepy assclown, obama promised to “go through the budget line by line and cut programs that do not work and invest in programs that do and make them work for less”.

        Promise: FAIL – not only that he increased baseline spending by NEARLY 25%!!!!

        His debt commission: FAIL – oh he set it up with great fanfare but promptly ignored their findings and CUT the budget.

        Again, the important promises to recover the economy and gain control of the debt he breaks but you are only worried about the divisive TRIVIAL little promises that he kept.

        Talk about small minded!

    3. irisspirit

      There are days I really wonder what world you live in Spook. Romney’s foreign policies are very close to Obama’s. And you should know by now that Obama is not a table pounder. I hope someone asks Romney why he held a press conference before he even knew that Ambassador had been killed. Very un-presidential! But keep grasping and remain in your fantasy world.

      1. irisspirit

        Actually you do not live in “this” world. You live in the far right world of the Tea Party – and that is not the world you referred to with your link. That you would support a flip flopper like Romney is surprising. Who knows which Romney would end up in the WH should he win this election.

      2. Retired Spook

        Actually you do not live in “this” world. You live in the far right world of the Tea Party

        Well, Velma, there can be no doubt that I’m an active member of the Tea Party movement, but let’s look at what dynamics drive the Tea Party. Adherence to the Constitution, a small federal government that lives within its means and generally stays out of people’s lives, the rule of law, personal responsibility, enterpreneurism, and the concern that future generations will enjoy at least the level of liberty and prosperity that we have enjoyed. So which of those do you consider “far right”?

      3. Cluster

        James,

        The tea party stands for those principles whether Obama is president or not. The world does not revolve around Obama whether you want to believe that or not.

        In terms of adherence to the constitution – this country has long ago departed from the strict interpretation of the constitution and we continue to go down that path which is dangerous in my opinion. It’s the boiling frog analogy. However, all of it is not all bad, for example Social Security, but we do need to start to get back on track, which would include giving states more authorities, with respect to education, entitlements, health care etc.

        In terms of liberties and small government – every dollar I pay in taxes restrict my liberties and there are so many great historical quotes on this that I am surprised you have to ask the question. As government grows, our liberties contract and that is a fact James, and the federal government is as big as it has ever been.

        Extreme taxation, excessive controls, oppressive government competition with business, frustrated minorities and forgotten Americans are not the products of free enterprise. They are the residue of centralized bureaucracy, of government by a self-anointed elite. – Ronald Reagan

        It is time we reexamine the size and scope of the federal government and the only candidate speaking to that issue is Romney.

      4. irisspirit

        So how old are you Count? You have the maturity of a 10 year old with your apparent necessity of name calling. My 6 year old grandson has better manners than you.

      5. irisspirit

        And yet Cluster, Reagan increased taxes numerous time and even voiced his opinion that the wealthy needed to pay more taxes than the bus driver. You do not want to remember those things about Reagan. Your taxes are lower now than they ever were under Reagan or even Bush. And yet, you whine. Reagan grew the government and left a substantial deficit. What Republican president was an actual “small government” president? The government under President Obama has not over taxes, been oppressive, taken any of your Constitutional rights from you or had excessive controls over businesses. You are just pissed that a Democratic President is in the White House at this time. Republicans are the biggest whiners and worst losers ever!

      6. Cluster

        Reagan increased taxes numerous time and even voiced his opinion that the wealthy needed to pay more taxes than the bus driver. You do not want to remember those things about Reagan

        Reagan did not raise taxes several times, he raised them a few times as a compromise with Tip O’Neil and the democratically controlled congress to get things done. Overall he lowered the marginal rates dramatically. And the wealthy do pay more than bus drivers, and everyone agrees they should.

        I also pay more in taxes than I did under Bush, not income per se, but in other ways ie; higher gas prices, insurance premiums etc. with much more to come if Obama is reelected.

      7. Count d'Haricots

        Cluster,

        Doncha just love how these (semi-illiterate) libiots try to give Oblabla credit for the lowering of Federal tax rates?

        You and I both pay 7% more in Federal income taxes than the Reagan rate. Top tax rate was 28% in 1988 under Reagan & 35% under Obama. Middle tax rates are higher for some lower for others. Lowest tax rate was 11% under Reagan/Bush; 15% under Clinton and 10% under Bush 41 & Oblabla.

        Additionally, anyone paying less than Reagan rates now do so as a result of the Bush era tax rate reductions.

      8. tiredoflibbs

        Velma has come loaded with the usual dumbed down and debunked talking points designed for the lefty mindless drones.

        She still has yet to answer any challenge with actual FACTS. I challenged her several years ago to track ALL taxes that she pays and she can see that “we are not paying lower taxes since Bush” as her dumbed down talking point states. She wanted me to send her my tax tracking documentation to prove my point and not to find out for herself that that talking point of hers is a big LIE.

        Velma is just scared of the truth.

        Like creepy assclown a constant regurgitation of promises kept by obAMATEUR. He favors the list of trivial BS that has nothing to do with bringing back the economy or paying down the debt as he promised and failed to keep them. No, that is not imprortant, just the trivial crap is.

        Pathetic are the examples of the average obAMATEUR VOTER. honey Boo Boo supports obAMATEUR just as Velma, creepy assclown, mitchie, etc. etc. – no need for explanation.

      9. Cluster

        Count,

        It is amazing the rinse and repeat talking points of the left without a critical thought behind them. As Rush said the other day, this country can and will survive Obama but can not survive the people who vote for him.

      10. Count d'Haricots

        Cluster,
        Soros pays by the word; but does he know just how many of them she can’t properly spell or use in a logical sentence?

        What do you suppose “slimmy” is worth?

    1. irisspirit

      Unlike Republicans, Democrats admit when a mistake has been made. God forbid that we admit we are human and make mistakes! We all know that 9/11/2001 was Bill Clinton’s fault. We all know that the economic collapse in 2008 was President Obama’s fault. We all know that the Iraqi War was the result of Hillary Clinton voting to support Bush. Lets face it, Republicans never make mistakes. And I think Bush killed Bin Laden. Or maybe it was 5 deferment Cheney.

      1. Cluster

        Democrats admit when a mistake has been made.

        Well that’s true, it’s just that this current crop of Democrats blame others for those mistakes. Obama can not blame anyone other than himself for high gas prices, high unemployment, low participation in the labor force, rising insurance premiums, a confusing foreign policy, and a growing scandal on Libya – but that wont stop him from trying.

        It also appears that Hillary has more gravitas than Obama, which is no surprise. Democrats chose the wrong candidate in 2008, and I think they are starting to realize it.

      2. irisspirit

        Cluster, it is for sure that Republicans NEVER accept responsibility for any thing that goes wrong under their watch. When Bush was asked if he ever made any mistakes, he said he could not remember any. So it is not surprising that you blame Obama for high gas prices, high unemployment, low participation in the labor force (whatever that means) etc. etc. I also believe he was responsible for the drought this past summer, the BP oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico, the tsaumni in Japan, and bin Laden escaping once again into the mountains of Afghanistan. I forgot that Obama controls the oil companies, the banks and all of big business in the US so he should be able to control anything and everything that not only happens in the US but across the world. Hopefully if Willard is elected he will do a much better job controlling everything since after all, he was a business man for years and knows how to buy and sell a company, lay off thousands of workers, ship jobs to foreign countries and make huge profits by ending up with the assets of the companies and leaving the workers with nothing. I am looking forward to that for at least the next 4 years. Ann said it was their turn. I just don’t know if the WH is good enough for her. After that, Willard might be tired of the job like he was in MA and we can go on to the next Republican president. After all, their performances have been so successful in the past.

      3. M. Noonan

        Cluster,

        What is really rather funny is that our Democrats don’t want to admit that there is on promise Obama made which he had kept: he said that energy prices would skyrocket under his rule and he kept his word on that. Wonder why they never include that in the list of Obama’s kept promises?

      4. irisspirit

        Good response Cluster. Do you realize how many boomers are retiring every day in this country? Granted, there may be some out there looking for a job and not able to find what they want. But I see “help wanted” signs all over the place. There are many states with low employment numbers so maybe some of these folks need to consider relocating..

  3. irisspirit

    Would you seriously be proud to have Todd Akin as a Republican member of Congress? Seriously? He is one very disgusting person and an embarrassment to many Republicans who want nothing to do with him. When Karl Rove finds him to disgusting to do business with you know the man is slimmy.

  4. M. Noonan

    Hey guys, remember about a month ago how our liberals were telling us that Obama had so wrapped up Ohio that Romney and the GOP had conceded the State?

    1. irisspirit

      I have never once stated that Obama had anything wrapped up Mark. I think it is foolish and immature to decide a candidate has an election wrapped up until after the votes are counted. And even then there can be up-sets with recounts. BUT – I do recall that on many occasions you espoused that McCain had the election won during the last presidential race. And he was not the only candidate you were just positive had won – only to learn after the election they had not. In fact, I kind of like it when you predict that your candidate is going to win. You are very often wrong!

      1. M. Noonan

        Did I say “Iris said Obama had Ohio locked up”? No, I said that liberals said that Ohio was locked up. Several liberal comments here and just bags of them elsewhere were stating that it was all over – Obama had Ohio locked up. As an aside, even if I were to find a comment you wrote in the past which was proved wrong at a later date I wouldn’t quote it – because its not nice to point out peoples mistakes unless there is something crucial about it (so it is legit to point out the mistakes of a political leader).

    1. irisspirit

      So Count, why are we suppose to find this author credible? He writes for a far right wing organization and that makes what he writes truthful? Kind of like all those studies cited by Romney and Ryan that are suppose to be credible? Even Fox called them on that one. I am beginning to believe that the far right would not recognize the truth if the words came directly from God.

      1. neocon1

        iristupid

        He writes for a far right wing organization

        define…..”RIGHT WING”
        define “FAR RIGHT WING”
        define center
        define left
        define far left

        If not STFU because it is all BS

      2. Count d'Haricots

        neo,
        Victor Davis Hansen “writes for” the Chicago Tribune (Tribune Media Services) That far right wing conspiratorial newspaper. Velma’s an idiot.

  5. Raj Kapoor

    It is touching when you hear Ann Romney say that first thing he does, is takes off his watch and writes dad on piece of paper. When asked Romney says, yes he remembers dad and appreciates what dad went through and left him legacy. What an hypocrite? If he remembers his dad and respectes him so much, why does not he full fill his wishes and releases his ten years of TAX RETURNS that his dad and did and suggested everyone to do, saying one or two years of tax returns can be fluke. Romney has no character, moral or ethics and will even exploit his fathers legacy while distroying his mantra and guidance that rest of the country followed. Shame on Romney. Come on release your tax return and I will promise you over 100,000 votes even if you have not paid legally required taxes, that is true, otherwise why will you hide them. God Bless America and God bring back my GOP in 2016 please please, leaving behind TEA PARTY. Let us get our faith in god and American constitution restored by defeating Romney and bringing back GOP thriving in 2016.

    1. Cluster

      YOUR GOP????

      That’s hilarious. Do me a favor Raj, vote for Obama and stay in the Democratic party.

      1. neocon1

        raji krapoor

        and I will promise you over 100,000 votes even if you have not paid legally required taxes

        you couldnt even deliver an egg from the ,market moron let alone any GOP votes, stick with registering bums with smokes and cheap wine for the DNC.

        PS
        are YOU one of the 47% who pay NO taxes? …..

      2. Count d'Haricots

        Cluster,
        Hey, I believe “Raj” is a real Republican. ;-)

        A real Republican stuck on some irrelevant talking point that has no basis other than to give “Raj” a smug sense of “gotcha”.

        As I stated when the other idiots were parroting the tax return meme, they’re all entirely too stupid to understand Romney’s tax returns, so they only wait until their told by their libiot overlords what to squawk and when.

        “Raj” apparently didn’t get the memo that the tax return thing backfired on their stupid asses BIG TIME, just ask Hairy Reid.

        Notice how “Raj” (hysterical … Raj really?) hasn’t focused on the returns we do have, “Raj” is a caricature of an outraged concerned citizen … predictable dim-bulb useful idiots~ straight out of Alinsky.

    2. neocon1

      raji krapoor

      good to see you hate Romney and his father so much

      tell us what you think about Ubamas communist, bigamist, “father” who abandoned his bastard kid, you know the one Ayers wrote about in “ubamas” book……

  6. Cluster

    Today Gallup has it – R 50% O 46%

    I still believe Rasmussen though which has it tighter – R 49% O 47%

    I think Biden hurt the ticket in last weeks debate, so the pressure is really on Obama tonight.

      1. neocon1

        notice how little TROLL activity there has been….EXCEPT for today….just in time for the “debate”?

        soros and media matters must have sent out the call for the flying monkeys to flap around the net.

  7. dbschmidt

    Obama is his standard POS. At least Candy hasn’t been as terrible as expected. Terrible, yes, but not as bad as she could have been.

    1. tiredoflibbs

      Wow, one big whopper after the next!!!

      Does obAMATEUR have no shame? Of course not…..

      In response to a question concerning high gas prices, President Obama explained that gas prices were low when he took office in January 2009 “because the economy was on the verge of collapse”.

      1. watsonredux

        Well, tired, the economy was on the verge of collapse. And gas prices were $4.35/gallon in today’s dollars in July 2008, after which prices plunged to about $1.70 / gallon in today’s dollars in just six months. What do you think was the cause of that? Treat us to your awesome wisdom, tired.

      2. Retired Spook

        gas prices were low when he took office in January 2009 “because the economy was on the verge of collapse”.

        The economy undoubtedly played a part, but the day after Bush lifted the moratorium on east coast off-shore drilling in July, 2008, the price of crude oil experienced the largest 1-day drop in over 5 years, falling 6.44/barrel, and continued to fall nearly $20 from its peak over the 3 days following Bush’s announcement. By Christmas, 2008 the price of crude oil had dropped from a high of $147 to under $35, and the national average for a gallon of unleaded regular dropped from almost $4 to $1.60. Bush began his first term with the national average for unleaded regular at around $1.40/gal. and left office with the national average at $1.85. Compare that to the nearly $4 national average today, and you can see why so many working people (those who ARE still working) who voted for Obama in 2008 won’t be doing so again.

      3. Retired Spook

        Watson, based you your assertion that the price of gas reflects the state of the economy, we were completely recovered by spring, 2010. (on the quick charts line, click on 5 years). Now that I think of it, I do recall someone saying something about the recovery summer in 2010.

      4. bardolf

        Spook

        If it true and obvious that the Bush lifting of the moratorium gets some of the credit why did he wait until July of 2008 to do so?

        The increase in oil production from the lifting of the moratorium was minute compared with the total world supply. To believe the moratorium fantasy you must believe that the price of oil has little to do with supply and demand and instead is mostly speculation and leveraging.

        From that POV you could say he was helping his oil buddies make a ton of money and right before leaving office pulled out a trick to give the impression that things weren’t so bad, basically putting either McCain or Obama in a corner 4 years later.

        OTOH maybe the US isn’t the only country on the planet. Maybe China uses lots of oil. Maybe oil companies sell to the highest bidder just like companies are legally obligated to do, independent of patriotic fervor. Maybe the worldwide economy was in the toilet and things are getting slightly better.

      5. Retired Spook

        If it true and obvious that the Bush lifting of the moratorium gets some of the credit why did he wait until July of 2008 to do so?

        It was a pretty sharp and steep spike, Bardolf, going from around $2.90 to $4.12 in less than 90 days. It was, by all accounts, a speculative bubble, and Bush’s rescinding of the moratorium burst the bubble and erased that entire spike by the time the stock market crashed in September. You can say the remainder of the drop from mid-September to Christmas was related to the economy, but to call what happened from mid July to mid September a fantasy just makes you look ignorant.

      6. bardolf

        Spook

        Do you mean from $4.12 to $2.90 in 90 days or are you talking about an increase from some other period?

        You avoided the question of why it took Bush so long to work the ‘magic’ of lifting the moratorium. You avoided the question of whether oil prices are determined by supply and demand.

        Your explanation (denying the rest of the facts) is analogous to a
        Texan who fires some shots at the side of a barn, then paints a target centered on the biggest cluster of hits and claims to be a sharpshooter.

      7. Retired Spook

        Spook

        Do you mean from $4.12 to $2.90 in 90 days or are you talking about an increase from some other period?

        You avoided the question of why it took Bush so long to work the ‘magic’ of lifting the moratorium. You avoided the question of whether oil prices are determined by supply and demand.

        Dolf, I’m sorry if you have a reading comprehension problem and can’t read a simple chart. You’re too far away to come hold your hand.

      8. Bardolf

        Spook the chart has 8 years, you picked a partisan timeframe. You still can not explain the magic or why Bush didn’t lift the moratorium sooner if that was actually the reason.

        Go look at the last 8 years and explain the graph only in terms of Bush vs Obama as you can.

        Btw are you predicting a Romney win in November or just that there will be an election in November? You are pretty good at predicting analyzing the past. Your record with understanding future trends is much poorer.

      9. tiredoflibbs

        watty the mindless drone: “Well, tired, the economy was on the verge of collapse.”

        Yeah, so? If the economic state has such a big influence in the price of gas (and not the CONFIDENCE of supply), then this PATHETIC “recovery” gas prices should be lower than they are.

        I am afraid an explanation in the CONFIDENCE of present and FUTURE supplies (something obAMATEUR has no interest in increasing) and its affect on oil prices is just too complicated for your simple little mind, who loves soundbites from this pResident, guzzles them down like a kid does to kool-aid and mindlessly regurgitates them.

        Remember, oil production on lands directly controlled by the federal government is way down. Look back into several threads on this for proof. It is there if you have the courage to look. The only areas where production is way up is on PRIVATE and STATE lands. But the government is trying to slow down those developments also with their “fracking” farce.

        Wipe your chin watty. You look foolish enough already.

      10. Raj Kapoor

        no one has threatened Romney, is that the new one after his explaination that in first debate he wrote dad before start of th edate. Why is he letting his dad not rest in peace and have him roll over in his grave by not complying to his desires that one or two years tax release is fluke it should be minimum of ten years. He will not abide by his fathers desire and thinks he is watching over him. Yaah he is watching over him and rollin gin grave to make sure that he does not get in white house, because who will know Romeny better than his dad who he is not listening to!

      11. you've got to be kidding

        So what you have Raj is a crystal ball telling you a secret conversation George Romney had with his son many years ago before he died (easier to talk that way) where he sad “Son, if you ever run for president I want you to be sure to give at least ten years of tax returns.”
        This is the best you got?
        George Romney is moving from the grave so Mitt won’t get into the White House because George is pissed off? You would think if you are on the other side you would be smart enough to have a better plan than make Obama look like a fool and keep telling such big lies that they will come back to bite him on his skinny ass from now till election day. George is so petty even when dead he would screw his son over to get even with him for not doing what some crackhead says he thinks he should do? Maybe this is how you would treat your son but George was a class act and a good father.
        Nothing like an illiterate gypsy fortune teller telling us what George Romney wants from the grave to make the left look smart. You just keep telling us you wont vote for Mitt because he is a bad son, its about your speed.

  8. M. Noonan

    I had thought the debate was a draw which means a Romney win – because Obama had to score a knock out. But watching the Luntz focus group, it is becoming clear that this is a strong win for Romney. At the end of the day, I guess, all Obama really has is his record and no one but an Obama-bot is buying the BS a second time around.

    1. Retired Spook

      The Luntz focus group was a shocker, wasn’t it.

      all Obama really has is his record and no one but an Obama-bot is buying the BS a second time around

      That’s becoming more obvious by the day. In 3 weeks we’re going to find out just how small his BASE really is.

    2. bardolf

      cnn scored it a win for Obama

      strange that you live in Vegas, use a boxing metaphor (knockout) and then assume it is the challenger that needs to be knocked out for the current holder to retain the title

      1. tiredoflibbs

        “cnn scored it a win for Obama”

        That was a given before the debate started. Anything short of a repeat of the last debate was going to be a win for obAMATEUR by the proggy media in the tank for obAMATEUR.

      2. tiredoflibbs

        Your analogy is faulty as usual baldoof.

        Romney was the “champ” of the last debate. ObAMATEUR needed a knockout to unseat him.

        He failed – like everything else in his pResidency.

      3. js03

        CNN polled registered voters, not just undecideds.

        Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

        Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

        Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

        Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

        Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%.

        The worst news is that 25% of voters switched their vote to Romney and 25% wen to Obama.

      4. tiredoflibbs

        Sorry baldoof, you ASSumptions about me are wrong again.

        Romney won the first debate by a KO. obAMATEUR lost his title in the first round – the worst debate by a seated pResident in history. Last night, all obAMATEUR had to do was not act like the empty chair seated next to Clint.

        The newspapers also have the analogy wrong. obAMATEUR is not the “champ” because he is pResident. Romney was the champ due to the K.O. he gave obAMATEUR in the first debate. I guess using your pathetic analogy (regurgitated from “worldly” newspapers) Romney can never win since there are only three debates and a normal boxing match barring any KOs or TKOs is 15 rounds. You and the worldly newspapers apparently do not consider the first debate a KO (nor any other debate for that matter), in which Romney would have won the championship belt.

        But what else can we expect from you mindless dumb ASSuming drones?

        Pathetic – try again drone.

  9. J. R. Babcock

    Unlike the unemployment rate, which is finally back to where it was when Obama took office, the price of gasoline, with a couple minor corrections, has done nothing but go up since January, 2009.

    1. teedy

      Yes, except the times where they went down, gas prices have done nothing but gone up. How poignant. Is a 7 month period of downward trending in 2011 totaling around 75 cents a gallon a “minor correction”?

      What the world must look like to somebody who is willing to casually handwave away entire seasons for an attempt to sound pithy.

      1. Retired Spook

        Bring up the Gas Buddy chart; click on 8 years as that’s the longest time frame available. Draw a trend line through Bush’s last 4 years and through Obama’s first 4 years. Except for seasonal adjustments, Obama has been at a plateau range of $3.30 to $4 for 2-1/2 years. Geez, I didn’t realize chart reading was so haaaaaaard.

      2. teedy

        Surprise! There are still 7 months of downward trending totally 75 cents a gallon in 2011.

        I guess reading charts really is that hard.

        I’m not even saying that Obama did anything in particular to move gas prices any which way in 2011. The idea that a sitting president has any particular ability to directly affect gas prices more than a couple of tens of cents in either direction in the short term is ridiculous. Both candidates have to subscribe to the shared delusion, though, because the challenger has to use the potential ammunition, and the incumbent would get crucified for admitting that it is actually outside of his power to control.

        Remember, on the chart you just cited, the highest gas prices ever are still during Bush’s term. More nuanced attempts at an explanation are well and good, but “Gas prices have continually and steadily gone up under Obama. Wait that’s not what the data shows? Close enough. Oh and it is only the president’s fault when I don’t like him. Haha narf.” is not exactly a reasonable explanation of anything.

        Oh, and make sure when you get around to blaming it on Bush’s congress that you remember that gas prices were still not that much over $3.00 a gallon until Republicans got control of the House of Representatives in 2011. Which, by the way, is less than 2-1/2 years ago. Again, I guess reading charts really is that hard.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        Wow terdy, Bush’s short term higher gas prices vs obAMATEUR’s LONG TERM slightly lower gas prices (but still almost 100% higher than when Bush left office), where the prices of food, transportation, etc. etc. are rising higher than Bush’s……..Hmmmmmmmmm which one would I want?

        It is a no brainier…….. but for you you need someone to explain it to you, then decide for you.

    2. tiredoflibbs

      “Unlike the unemployment rate, which is finally back to where it was when Obama took office”

      Those figures are heavily suspect as well. It is no surprise that the federal BS errrr BLS came out with those magic numbers just before the election.

      1. js03

        heavily suspect isnt the right word eh?

        seeing how many people actually are not counted because they ” left the workforce” suggests that the real unemployment level is far, far higher than reported through the manipulation of deadlines…

        If ya dont get unemployment…they dont count ya…so when that check stops comming….you “leave the workplace” permanently…

  10. Cluster

    The President outright lied on the Libya issue, and had no economic plan for the next four years other than to tax the rich and hire more teachers. Obama is clearly not prepared to lead this country out of this current malaise while Romney was again on message and in command of the facts with a common sense plan to help get the economy going.

    I think the group Luntz had is indicative of the country. Many former Obama supporters are not voting for him again and the conservative/republican base is fired up. Dick Morris thinks it will be a Romney landslide – I hope he is right.

    1. Retired Spook

      The President outright lied on the Libya issue

      An even more blatant, in-your-face-lie on drilling on federal on-shore/off/shore land. Romney was right on the money with his “50% drop figure. Right after the debate Chris Wallace read the actual figures: a drop of over 60% on off-shore and over 30% on on-shore, for an average of OVER 50% drop.

      BTW, anyone else think that some of the questions were a little goofy? Income inequality? Assault weapons ban? Really? And when the black guy asked Obama what he had done to earn his vote, I half expected Obama to pull out Bozo’s 10-page list and read it.

      1. Cluster

        I don’t like the forum period and hope they change it next time around. What concerns me the most as a small business is that Obama has NO PLAN for the next four years – zero, nada!! And in contrast, Romney has a well thought out plan on several fronts to reignite the economy – and the people in Luntz’s focus group said the same thing. That is what will win the election for Romney.

      2. Count d'Haricots

        I seriously doubt they’ll agree to another Town Hall Style in the future. Preening around in circles like a pair of roosters looking for a tender spot is ungainly and unprofessional. Seated or podiums is more dignified; allows the listener/watcher to focus on questions and answers.

      3. KapoorRK

        You are mentally retired. Do you know of BP spill or not? Yes, we want to eat fish, tuna, shrimp, oysters and not give everything to exxon mobile, BP and Chevron. I am glad that he did put moratorium and Chris Wallace mentioned that you mentally retired person forgot to hear, learn and write mnetally retired Spooky B.

  11. Count d'Haricots

    Got to watch live, even tweeted during the debate.

    I had the “when I was President” line on Twitter quickly, but had a hard time seeing through the tears of laughter.

    Stopped and rewound-replayed the Benghazi lie several times; the look on Romney’s face when Obama stuck with his obvious lie was priceless. There was a “I Just Decided how to Decorate MY Oval Office” look in Romney’s eyes. Sycophantic Crowley tried her best to salvage Oblabla, but he was obviously irritated that someone actually held him to his ridiculous answers.

    Oblabla was very obviously irritated, surly nasty, un-presidential and desperate.

    I listened to NPR this morning as the O-Faithful tried their best to recite their well-prepared “comeback” story. The first question to the panel of Obama Experts was if Romney was correct that Obama had cut permitting by 50%. The “expert” said, “first let’s talk about …” and never answered. Good little lap-dog.

    On substance and debate points, Obama by a hair. Given the stellar performance at the last outing, Obama needed a decisive win; he didn’t get it. Advantage Romney.

    Btw, Who-T-F is “Carl”?

    1. neocon1

      count
      Oblabla was very obviously irritated, surly nasty, un-presidential and desperate.

      you mean like some foreign, AA, community agitator, who never ran a lemon aid stand, hack might look?
      just wondering?

  12. Count d'Haricots

    Despite numerous media outlets attempting to downplay the issue, Twitter exploded last night following the debate with new threats from Obama supporters to assassinate Mitt Romney if he defeats Obama in the presidential race.

    Obama supporters at their finest. For those that don’t speak Ebonics, “Yeap somebody finna assassinate Romney ass” the word “finna” is a contraction of “fixin’ to” or in English, “preparing”. Lovely Progressives, huh?

    1. KapoorRK

      Are now you people planning something against Obama so diverting the protection view? Guilty Conscious?

      1. neocon1

        krapoor rk

        you might contact sharpton and the NOI or the NBPP, that seems to be their strong points

  13. Retired Spook

    I keep hearing today that Obama won on points. He must have gotten extra points for the bald-faced lie about the Benghazi attack and even more extra points when Candy Crowley intervened to back up the lie.

    1. Count d'Haricots

      Bonus points for his prophetic “ when I was President” statement. I think we all awarded him points for that.

      1. KapoorRK

        under what rocks you came out of? We know that retired spook is mentally retired, but where did you come from? He never said when I was president, Mr. Liar.

      2. KapoorRK

        same BS and different names, how many time you sign on and sign off and still write like a brain dead?

    2. you've got to be kidding

      How about Candy interrupting Mitt when he was talkign about Fast And Furious telling him the question was not about that but about AK47s?
      Who picked the questions? Who decided to let that stupid cow drag Bush into this or that a question should be about what women make when it wasnt even true?

      1. neocon1

        WHY does the GOP agree to do these charades led by leftist brain dead morons?

        why not insist at least one moderated by Hannity, Coulter, Beck etc…..

      2. neocon1

        ‘Act of Journalistic Terror’: Limbaugh Rips Candy Crowley’s Moderator Performance

        “The equivalent of blowing up her career like a suicide bomber.”

      3. Count d'Haricots

        neo,
        Don’t you remember 2008?

        All the dimocrats’ puffery about standing up to Mahmood Im-a-Dinky-Dog in Iran, and Obama ben Laudinum but they didn’t have the stones to be questioned by Brit Hume @ Fox News.

        Obama has never been challenged, was pissed that Romney didn’t just swoon and accept his specious arguments; there is no way thes libiots would agree to a debate in front of a moderator that wasn’t knee-padding for the dimocrats.

      4. neocon1

        Big Brother Reads Minority Report (If you read only one article today, this is it)
        pjmedia ^ | October 17, 2012 | SARAH HOYT

        While our friends on the left celebrate the fact that their president showed more life than the dead parrot in the Monty Python sketch, and convince themselves they won, someone needs to tell them any time– any time –they let Obama talk in public without a teleprompter, he lets ideology leak out. And that their ideology is scary to those of us in the real world……

        The one thing I’m sure of is that the man making way too many executive decisions for our economy has the same understanding of economics as my cat. At that, my cat might be better. He understands he can’t eat food that’s not in his dish.

        The second of the president’s pronouncements that needs a lot more attention (and in many, many ways) is this:

        “And so what can we do to intervene, to make sure that young people have opportunity; that our schools are working; that if there’s violence on the streets, that working with faith groups and law enforcement, we can catch it before it gets out of control.

        “And so what I want is a — is a comprehensive strategy. Part of it is seeing if we can get automatic weapons that kill folks in amazing numbers out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill. But part of it is also going deeper and seeing if we can get into these communities and making sure we catch violent impulses before they occur.”

        There are so many layers of wrong there that it’s going to take a while to unpack. The first one is that, despite the president’s later assertion that he doesn’t think the government is the solution to everything, he does in fact believe the government is the solution for everything. He’s not trusting the police and faith

      5. neocon1

        Threats to kill Romney explode after debate
        Obama supporters fear food stamps will be taken away

        the 47%??

    3. teedy

      THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. Every day, all across the world, American diplomats and civilians work tirelessly to advance the interests and values of our nation. Often, they are away from their families. Sometimes, they brave great danger.

      Yesterday, four of these extraordinary Americans were killed in an attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi. Among those killed was our Ambassador, Chris Stevens, as well as Foreign Service Officer Sean Smith. We are still notifying the families of the others who were killed. And today, the American people stand united in holding the families of the four Americans in our thoughts and in our prayers.

      The United States condemns in the strongest terms this outrageous and shocking attack. We’re working with the government of Libya to secure our diplomats. I’ve also directed my administration to increase our security at diplomatic posts around the world. And make no mistake, we will work with the Libyan government to bring to justice the killers who attacked our people.

      Since our founding, the United States has been a nation that respects all faiths. We reject all efforts to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. But there is absolutely no justification to this type of senseless violence. None. The world must stand together to unequivocally reject these brutal acts.

      Already, many Libyans have joined us in doing so, and this attack will not break the bonds between the United States and Libya. Libyan security personnel fought back against the attackers alongside Americans. Libyans helped some of our diplomats find safety, and they carried Ambassador Stevens’s body to the hospital, where we tragically learned that he had died.

      It’s especially tragic that Chris Stevens died in Benghazi because it is a city that he helped to save. At the height of the Libyan revolution, Chris led our diplomatic post in Benghazi. With characteristic skill, courage, and resolve, he built partnerships with Libyan revolutionaries, and helped them as they planned to build a new Libya. When the Qaddafi regime came to an end, Chris was there to serve as our ambassador to the new Libya, and he worked tirelessly to support this young democracy, and I think both Secretary Clinton and I relied deeply on his knowledge of the situation on the ground there. He was a role model to all who worked with him and to the young diplomats who aspire to walk in his footsteps.

      Along with his colleagues, Chris died in a country that is still striving to emerge from the recent experience of war. Today, the loss of these four Americans is fresh, but our memories of them linger on. I have no doubt that their legacy will live on through the work that they did far from our shores and in the hearts of those who love them back home.

      Of course, yesterday was already a painful day for our nation as we marked the solemn memory of the 9/11 attacks. We mourned with the families who were lost on that day. I visited the graves of troops who made the ultimate sacrifice in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hallowed grounds of Arlington Cemetery, and had the opportunity to say thank you and visit some of our wounded warriors at Walter Reed. And then last night, we learned the news of this attack in Benghazi.

      As Americans, let us never, ever forget that our freedom is only sustained because there are people who are willing to fight for it, to stand up for it, and in some cases, lay down their lives for it. Our country is only as strong as the character of our people and the service of those both civilian and military who represent us around the globe.

      No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America. We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act. And make no mistake, justice will be done.

      But we also know that the lives these Americans led stand in stark contrast to those of their attackers. These four Americans stood up for freedom and human dignity. They should give every American great pride in the country that they served, and the hope that our flag represents to people around the globe who also yearn to live in freedom and with dignity.

      We grieve with their families, but let us carry on their memory, and let us continue their work of seeking a stronger America and a better world for all of our children.

      Thank you. May God bless the memory of those we lost and may God bless the United States of America.

      1. you've got to be kidding

        THE PRESIDENT: Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

        Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

        But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

      2. tiredoflibbs

        Thanks teedy for reinforcing the LIE that obAMATEUR labeled the Benghazi as a terrorist attack.

        Or… did you prove that it was a LIE???

        obAMATEUR statement “No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for.” was speaking of 9/11/01 and not the attack on our embassy the day before.

        You posted the entire transcript exposing the proper context of the statement and not the spin and lies stated in the debate.

        Remember, for the next TWO WEEKS obAMATEUR kept referring to the video sparking the violence. He stuck to that theme in speeches to this nation, especially on the VIEW and to the world at the United Nations.

        This is a situation he cannot LIE his way out. But the weak minded drones will accept anything that he states as gospel.

        Pathetic.

      3. tiredoflibbs

        Sorry sockpuppet, but obAMATEUR did not continue the theme you claimed (and he as well).

        He maintained for nearly two weeks that the attack on our embassy was caused by the VIDEO.

        obAMATEUR maintained it was the video too many times to try to spin away from it.

        He blamed the VIDEO in his VIEW interview and this VIDEO theme presented in front of the UN. If he were talking of the attack in Benghaze as an act of terrorism, he would have stated it so and had SEVERAL opportunities to do so.

        He did not. He is only trying to save his @$$ after a horrific blunder.

  14. theamazona

    Well, back from a week or so in the wilds of Northern Wyoming to find that if I can’t remember my password from days gone by when I first signed up, I need to get a new user name. Pshaw.

    We had a debate watching party and had our own takes on what went on. Some have been covered here, some on the news, some not.

    I see a comment here about the interruption of Crowley when Mitt was trying to talk about Fast and Furious, which I have not seen in any of the media. When Obama refused to answer the question about who was responsible for the refusal to add to security in Libya, she let that pass, but when Romney tried to tie in the AK47 gun ban with the government participation in sending guns illegally into Mexico, she cut him off with the rebuke that the question was just about AK47s. We all caught that but there has been no comment on it anywhere, and I thought it was a transparent effort to shield the President from Fast and Furious.

    Something we noted in passing, not that it is very significant, but….the President’s body language when Mitt was speaking. Evidently he was told to lean forward a little to look engaged, but instead of him actually LEANING forward, he just jutted his head forward, with an odd look on his fact that looked more constipated than engaged, and it was very strange.

    We pretty much agreed that the main purpose of the debates, aside from giving the nation the chance to see candidates side by side and decide which team comes across, overall, s more competent and presidential, is to provide fodder for new campaign ads. And Obama has done more than his share.

    The lie about the White House stand on the Libyan incident and the lie about oil and gas production ought to make some good ads—maybe already have, I’ve been on country back roads shopping for hay and not watching TV—–and then there is the effort to imply that without federal funding Planned Parenthood will go under, which I hope will be addressed as misleading if not an outright lie. If I were writing ads I would link this with the Biden claim that overturning Roe v Wade would make abortion illegal, and with the false claim by the questioner on Tuesday night that women make only 72% of what men make, and show that the Left has been lying incessantly to create a false impression of a “war on women”—but most women are too smart to fall for it.

    I’d also like to see the comments on the job creation resulting from oil and gas exploration and production expanded to explain that this is not just oilfield jobs—it is about all the material needed to support oilfield jobs. It is not enough to just toss out that it creates manufacturing jobs—-Romney needs to go into detail about what those jobs ARE. It’s about making pipe, pumps, light towers, tanks, trucks, tires, hoses, fire resistant clothing, etc. To entertain the Count, I will mix a couple of metaphors and comment that the oil derrick is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the vast scope of job creation associated with the petroleum industry.

Comments are closed.