Debate – Open Thread Cont:

The previous thread has become discombobulated due to the necessity of deleting racist and anti religion remarks, which will not be tolerated. So we will pick it up from here, beginning with Mark’s final thoughts:

 

UPDATE II, by Mark Noonan: Final Thoughts

Clearly Romney was in control through the whole debate.  You might be thinking that Romney actually talked more than Obama but from what I’ve read, Obama actually talked about 4 minutes longer than Romney.  That just shows how good Romney was.

Will it change things?  Not actually – you see, in my view, Romney came in to the debate ahead in the race.  Even some of the (still badly skewed) polls are showing a shift to Romney, but the basic facts of the race have not changed.  We’ve got a lousy economy, a reduced position in the world and a President clearly out of his depth – and there is no real argument Obama can make to convince a majority to award him four more years based upon his record.  Obama had to come out swinging tonight with a clear, rational reason why no matter how bad he is, Romney is worse.  Obama didn’t make that case – and Romney did all that was ever required of him:  present a credible alternative to Obama.

Romney can still blow it in the final debates.  Obama can still land a heavy blow.  Events can still develope which help or hinder either candidate.  Both men can win on November 6th.  My view remains:  Romney is likely to win, and may end up winning by a substantial margin.  But it ain’t over until its over.

Advertisements

87 thoughts on “Debate – Open Thread Cont:

  1. Cluster October 4, 2012 / 9:50 am

    Clearly Obama was out of his depth when sparring over the economy with the brilliant tactician that Romney is, and case in point was when Obama said that his plan would be giving tax breaks to 97% of small business’s, to which Romney scored a TKO response.

    Romney pointed out that the top 3% of small business’s employ half of the small business work force, and nearly half of the entire work force.

    Absolutely brilliant. Folks, it is Morning in America once again and I, as a small business owner am very excited about having a CEO run this country.

  2. irisspirit October 4, 2012 / 10:09 am

    Do believe that Romney is moving more to the center as we move close to the day Americans will cast their vote? Romney certainly won the debate last night but to me he was saying much different things than what I heard during the primaries and the past few months of campaigning.

    • Cluster October 4, 2012 / 10:18 am

      Iris,

      The truth is, Romney isn’t saying anything different, you are just hearing it straight from the source instead of hearing it from the liberal biased media who distort it.

      • irisspirit October 4, 2012 / 12:28 pm

        Wrong – he is saying things differently than before. There has been no liberal bias. That is the rights excuse for everything. I have listened to Romney’s speeches and watched him at his rallies. It was straight from the horses mouth.

      • Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 2:12 pm

        Let’s hear an example from the vast amount of Romney Speeches you’ve heard Velma.

      • tiredoflibbs October 4, 2012 / 2:41 pm

        Velma, let’s see some examples!

        Just because you say it doesn’t make it true.

        Despite what obAMATEUR says repeating a lie over and over doesn’t make it true….but only to the weak minded.

    • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 11:55 am

      Remember, Cluster, everything that Velma “thinks” is just what she has been told she thinks, by her minders who feed her slop on a regular basis. So she has not heard anything Romney has said, just what she has been told he said, and more important, what he supposedly MEANT when he supposedly said what she has been told he said.

      My image of the Velmas of the world is of baby birds cheeping, with gaping mouths, while big birds deposit already-digested muck into their mouths.

      Already digested means that if it moves in one direction it is fodder for the mindless and in other it is poo, and the only difference is where it exits.

      And Vel just LOOOVES it.

      • irisspirit October 4, 2012 / 12:31 pm

        Do you ever write anything that is not nasty you miserable twit? It is just way too hard for you just to have a civil conversation. It is people like you that turn off others from even considering the Republican Party as a possibility.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 1:21 pm

        meow……………

    • tiredoflibbs October 4, 2012 / 12:23 pm

      No Velma, what you have been listening to is dumbed down mindless talking points designed for drones like you filtered through the obAMATEUR media and not actually what Romney was saying.

      Pathetic

      • irisspirit October 4, 2012 / 12:32 pm

        I asked a simple question tired. Is that too much for you to handle? Apparently is is.

      • tiredoflibbs October 4, 2012 / 2:46 pm

        Uh, Velma, I answered your simple minded and inaccurate question. You couldn’t handle the accurate answer.

      • freethinker October 4, 2012 / 3:07 pm

        Actually tired, you didn’t. But I really do not expect an intelligent response from you. You lived up to your usual lack of intelligence.

      • tiredoflibbs October 4, 2012 / 3:24 pm

        Uh, Velma, obviously you can’t read. The word NO should have been your first clue to your “Do you believe….” inaccurate question. Your comprehension is pathetic. So I revealed you to be the fool twice!

        I notice you are still dodging the challenge directed to you. It is now time for you to disappear to get away from it.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 4:12 pm

        Velma can’t even keep track of her screen names, not that her style isn’t easily recognizable.

        The Obama Fan Club is just in shock, and I have a feeling that a lot of this is because deep down at least some of them watched Romney and thought “I’m on the wrong side here. My guy looks like a pouting weenie, and Romney looks presidential.”

        From now on all I will ever need to know about Velma/iris/freethinker is contained in her hateful and vile accusations against Col. West, which I have saved in a Word file for when she starts to squeal about someone else being mean.

        She is a bottom feeder who also brags about feeding on the bottom and makes it clear this is where she is most at home.

      • tiredoflibbs October 4, 2012 / 9:12 pm

        As predicted, Velma once again runs from the challenge to prove her dumb ASSertions.

  3. GMB October 4, 2012 / 10:17 am

    Mitt is moving more to the center? When did he ever leave it?

    • bardolf October 4, 2012 / 11:09 am

      I saw that he wants to defund PBS but he didn’t say much about the DOE, DHS … plus he wants to add 2 trillion to the military. He’s hardly a radical fiscal conservative. In fact he seemed to hope that the deficits would magically go away with job growth which will magically come from somewhere when he cuts back on a teeny amount of regulation.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 11:50 am

        Hey, Barry—-sorry, bardolf—–are you really and truly whining that Romney did not use up a lot of his very limited time to go into DETAIL on which agencies he would eliminate or consolidate?

        It was a debate, not a campaign speech. He said there are agencies he would eliminate or consolidate. Basically, you will vote for him because you like this idea or you won’t, and if you won’t you wouldn’t anyway.

        Are you upset that he is NOT a “radical fiscal conservative”?

        Please define”radical fiscal conservative”. Do you mean “conservative”in the Constitutional sense, “conservative” in the sense of not liking to take risks, or “conservative” in the sense of not wearing plaid with stripes?

        “….he seemed to hope that the deficits would magically go away with job growth which will magically come from somewhere when he cuts back on a teeny amount of regulation.” is what prompted me to call you Barry.

        It is so…..Obamalike….in its cluelessness about what leads to job creation and in its eagerness to misstate a fact to try to advance an attack. Just look at the inherently dishonest attempts at demagoguery in this one sentence fragment—“magically” X 2 and “teeny amount of regulation”.

        Shame on you.

      • GMB October 4, 2012 / 1:07 pm

        Wait and see. The repubs most likely will have two solid years of a united government. Lets see what they do with those years.

        Excuses, excuses. Done with them.

      • bardolf October 4, 2012 / 2:47 pm

        Amy

        A ‘radical fiscal conservative’ is one who is in favor of balancing budgets even if it means cutting back programs that truly impact a significant percent of his/her constituency.

        While pretending to have core ideals you are just a squat cheerleader for the GOP. In the same amount of time it took Mitt to say he would defund PBS he could have said he would defund the DOE. That’s not about limited time in the debates, that’s because PBS funding is an easy target. A hard target would be saying he was going to tackle defense. Mitt said multiple times that Obama was wrong about the 5 trillion in tax cuts but never contradicted the 2 trillion increase in weapons systems and nation building spending.

        As for job creation, I’ve said it a hundred times on the blog that I don’t give Bill Clinton or Gingrich credit for job creation when there were jobs created. I give the credit to people who took chances and started new companies. I don’t give credit to those who took existing companies and broke them up into their most valuable pieces.

        Overall the debate was surreal for anyone who has followed the accuracy of economists. It’s pretty much near 0 after removing chance. The idea that Mitt is counting on growth, predicted by astrologers known as economists, to overcome the drunken spending on both sides of the aisle and Obummer retorting with 6 astrologers is amazing.

        As GMB said, when Mitt gets in and has no excuses we’ll see if he puts forth balanced budgets or not. If he further bloats the budget we’ll see the cheerleaders defending him and saying he was saddled with a horrible economy.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        “…squat…” ?

        I’m 5’10”

        ” In the same amount of time it took Mitt to say he would defund PBS he could have said he would defund the DOE.”

        And he could have said dozens of other things as well. I see you are buying into the Leftist tactic of deciding what Romney SHOULD have said and then reading meaning into what he did not.

        “….never contradicted the 2 trillion increase in weapons systems and nation building spending. ”

        ……yet only you slip in “nation building”, oh so casually as if, if you are nonchalant enough, no one will notice that you just changed the entire meaning of Romney’s statement on a strong national defense.

        Again, “responding’ to what was not said, and not to what was. It’s an odd tactic, but probably necessary when there is no rational objection to what WAS said. So you hare off baying at phantoms that only you imagine.

        ” I give the credit to people who took chances and started new companies.”

        Clearly you also do not give credit to those whose policies created a business-friendly environment which encouraged those people to take those risks by reducing obstacles in their way and letting them know they will get to keep more of what they earn if they are successful.

        Oh, that’s right—this all probably falls into that “magical” territory you talked about earlier.

        “I don’t give credit to those who took existing companies and broke them up into their most valuable pieces. ”

        Of course not—because that would involve an actual thought process instead of your usual knee-jerk spasms of thoughtless reaction.

        Every business that went to Bain asked for their help because it was failing. There is no other reason to offer to give up part of your business. Every one of the businesses that was broken up, as you sneer, “into (its) most valuable pieces” would have gone under entirely without the help of Bain, which managed to salvage at least parts of it.

        Every salvaged part is a part that saved some jobs, jobs which would have been lost if the failing aspects of the company had been allowed to drag the productive parts down with it.

        Adobe tower academics seem to live in an either/or world, where if the original company is not salvaged in its entirety the salvage effort is a failure, even if some of the company is thriving as a stand-alone sub-construct of the original whole.

        Those of us in the real world understand this, as it is a calculation so many of make all the time, on many levels. From a housewife using old baby clothes to make a new quilt to a remodeler keeping the best parts of old cabinetry to use in another area of the house to the auto enthusiast who parts out a classic car because it isn’t reasonable to think it will ever run again, people in the real world understand that it is not always possible to salvage something intact, in its original form, but that it can still be saved to some extent by keeping the good parts and getting rid of the bad.

        ” The idea that Mitt is counting on growth, predicted by astrologers known as economists, to overcome the drunken spending on both sides of the aisle and Obummer retorting with 6 astrologers is amazing. ”

        No, what is amazing is your chutzpah in declaring, to people who actually watched the debate, that Mitt is “… counting on growth, …….. to overcome the drunken spending on both sides of the aisle …” But we remember him talking about cutting spending, too.

        As a matter of fact, so do you—you complained that he did not list the areas where he WOULD cut spending, not as thoroughly as you wanted him to, not in areas you would like to have spending slashed, but you DID reference his comment on cutting spending, using PBS as an example.

        And now you are declaring that his plan is to just “….. count(ing) on growth…………..to overcome the drunken spending on both sides of the aisle …”

        This is why you have no credibility here. You just blurt out whatever appeals to you at any given moment, if you think it will support what you want to prove at that moment, and if it sounds cute and pwesuhss and snotty enough, even when it contradicts what you said a few minutes earlier.

  4. js02 October 4, 2012 / 10:18 am

    the harder i think the more i question the whole debate

    questions that should have been addressed were barely touched…like executive orders that violate existing law…executive action that violate court rulings…stuff that would drive a definite wedge between who is who up on that stage…the closest romney got was when he talked about the declaration of independence and the constitution…if he kept on that track and detailed violations by obama, this would have been ten times more effective…

    but thats not what throws me off…BHo’s performance appears to be an intentional ploy…he is pulling romney out to expose his best…giving BHO a shot to pick the weakness’s up and crush romney later….closer to the election that would be more clear in the minds of his targetted audience….sly, cunning and ruthless….the way he was in 08 elections…no…im not on board the party wagon…cuz i see the horizon…

    • dbschmidt October 4, 2012 / 1:35 pm

      Even though many people think Obama is brilliant and a great debater–I think two things were in play last night. First, Obama may be “book smart” but has no real world experience to back it up. This you can see from his Presidency so far. Second is that I don’t think Obama has had anyone talk to him like that over the last couple of years–to take him to task. He just reminded me of the deer around here at night–you know the ones that stand in the middle of the road and you have to stop because they are so dazed they can not get out of their own way.

    • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 4:04 pm

      js, I understand your cynicism, but if this was a ploy by Obama it can very easily backfire on him. Yes, he might be sandbagging Romney, losing a hand or two to set up a big comeback. (I once dated a guy who had to take some classes to fill out his schedule, so he took bowling, and for the first half of the semester he bowled left handed. Then when he switched to his usual dominant hand he got an A for his incredible improvement. I AM familiar with the concept.)

      The thing is, this depends first on being able to bounce back, which would be a dangerous assumption, given Romney’s assertive, aggressive, knowledgeable and controlling performance last night. After watching what we saw last night, I think it would be foolish to think he could sandbag Romney.

      Another thing is Obama’s ego. I’m not sure he is capable of purposely showing America a weak, confused and cowed persona, even if he does think he can heroically turn it all around next time. He has to live with the embarrassment of last night for a long time before he has a chance to come from behind, overtake Romney, and erase the impression he made last night.

      Remember, his performance was not just about his inability to debate. It was also about presence, about body language, about owning the stage and what went on there. At the beginning, Obama tried the Dominant Male Handshake, with one hand gripping the bicep of the other guy in a show of dominance. That was the last time he had even a hint of superior strength in the whole hour and a half. I just don’t see him agreeing to act the part of a whipped puppy, with slumped shoulders, afraid to meet anyone’s eyes, staring down at his notes, etc.

      Maybe he DOES have the ability to play this part. But it is not consistent with what we have seen from him. No, I think he got blindsided, whapped up alongside the head by an opponent he had grossly ‘misunderestimated’, and it took him by surprise.

      And his speeches in the interim are only going to hurt him, because every time he makes one he is reinforcing the perception that the Obama with a Teleprompter is not the same Obama we see without one. The better he comes across with a Teleprompter, the bigger the contrast between that and the bumbling, stumbling, easily distracted and flustered Obama without one, trying to call a time out when he got backed into a corner.

      And I am sure the Romney campaign is ready to capitalize on that.

  5. Retired Spook October 4, 2012 / 10:18 am

    Several random thoughts: no one else has commented on it, but I liked the relaxed, no bell format. Many in the media were aghast at Jim Lehrer’s moderation of the debate, and several even described Lehrer as the real loser in the debate.

    I was disappointed that Romney didn’t attack Obama’s assertion that he “inherited” a $trillion deficit. Bush’s last budget, submitted in February, 2008, projected a deficit of a little over $400 billion. The $trillion + deficit that Obama inherited was the result of a number of factors, all of which had either Obama’s vote (TARP and first auto bailout) or his support and signature (Stimulus and Omnibus Spending bill, 1st quarter. 2009).

    The first few paragraphs in the American Spectator article say it all:

    The great James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal and The American Spectator long ago posited what is called the “Taranto Principle.” In short, it means that the liberal media so coddles liberal politicians that they have no idea how to cope outside that liberal media bubble.

    It’s safe to say that Barack Obama tonight came face-to-face with the latest embodiment of the Taranto Principle — which is to say, Mitt Romney.

    Barack Obama has been so totally coddled by the liberal media that he looked absolutely shell-shocked in this debate. Stunned, unhappy, angry, sour — and at some points genuinely incoherent.

    My reaction, about half way through the debate was Obama really wished he were somewhere — anywhere else. He really came across as, “I’m STILL the one you’ve all been waiting for. Why do I even have to do this?”

    I’m looking forward to the foreign policy debate where, thanks to recent events, Obama is every bit as much vulnerable as he is on the economy.

    • dbschmidt October 4, 2012 / 1:41 pm

      Even though it appeared that Jim Lehrer started and with softballs for Obama, I think that Romney disarmed him and with the no real bells format he did his job which, in part, is to not be part of the debate–just moderate it.

  6. J. R. Babcock October 4, 2012 / 10:29 am

    One of my favorite parts of the debate was Romney’s response to Obama’s assertion that Romney’s tax reform plan would raise taxes on middle income Americans by $2,000 a year:

    Romney: And number three, I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong. I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families.

    • irisspirit October 4, 2012 / 12:36 pm

      We shall see what happens if Romney is elected. And after President Obama’s performance last night that is a real possibility. It was pretty obvious he did not want to be there.

  7. Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 10:37 am

    “Agressive”

  8. Retired Spook October 4, 2012 / 10:41 am

    Nothing illustrates Obama’s disconnect from reality more than this statement:

    Bill Clinton tried the approach that I’m talking about. We created 23 million new jobs. We went from deficit to surplus. And businesses did very well. So, in some ways, we’ve got some data on which approach is more likely to create jobs and opportunity for Americans and I believe that the economy works best when middle-class families are getting tax breaks so that they’ve got some money in their pockets, and those of us who have done extraordinarily well because of this magnificent country that we live in, that we can afford to do a little bit more to make sure we’re not blowing up the deficit.

    Obama has had 4 years to try the Clinton approach, which he appears to think is as simple as raising the top marginal rate from 35 to 40%. Either he’s tried it without anyone knowing about it, and somehow it just didn’t work for him, or he’s wasted the last 4 years.

    • Retired Spook October 4, 2012 / 1:15 pm

      As I’ve thought more about it, the reference to the Clinton economy was one of the few hanging curve balls that Romney let go by. It was a golden opportunity to ask Obama the following:

      What part of the Clinton years would you like to replicate? Welfare reform? I don’t think so. Cutting spending AND the capital gains tax? Nope. Banking deregulation? Not a chance. Balancing the budget? Don’t make me laugh. Repeating the dot.com boom? The green tech bubble burst faster than bubblegum on a hot day.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 3:06 pm

        Spook, those would have been great questions, and I’ll bet Romney will be ready with them the next time Barry tries to run on Clinton’s record.

        While Obama’s team is doing the equivalent of throwing water on a boxer’s face in the corner, after he narrowly escaped a couple of TKO moments, and he is being exhorted to come out swinging harder next time (while his Inner Barry is whimpering “But I don’t waaaaant to go back out there!) we know that Team Romney has already isolated missed chances after careful review of the game tapes, and next time Barry will have an even more formidable opponent.

        And he won’t have our horrible, debilitating, altitude to deal with.

        Maybe by then they will have a teleprompter watch for him, so he can speak while examining his shirt cuff, or maybe an implanted receiver so his minders can talk him through the overly complicated things that he has, supposedly, been dealing with on a daily basis for nearly four years but still hasn’t got figured out.

    • Mark Noonan October 4, 2012 / 8:45 pm

      That is the crushing weakness Obama brings in to 2012 – the fact that he’s been President for four years and nothing has worked out as he promised in 2008. He promises to make it better if given four more years…but who other than an Obama-bot would actually believe that?

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 11:41 pm

        freakzo, you are spinning wildly.

        Yes, Obama has kept some promises. The problem is, the promises he has kept have not made the nation a better place to live. Many, like the expansion of insurance coverage to “children” up to the age of 26, have resulted in increased insurance premiums.

        Keeping promises is no good if the promises kept have made things worse.

      • M. Noonan October 4, 2012 / 11:53 pm

        Bozo,

        That’s nice, but most of that happened not because Obama, but because Republicans and Democrats worked to get it passed through Congress.

        Here’s the deal –

        Obama promised us 5.6% unemployment.

        A deficit of either $400 billion or $200 billion (depending on what you want to consider was the deficit he would “cut in half”).

        Obama promised us renewed respect around the world.

        Obama promised us victory in Afghanistan.

        Obama promised us he’d close Gitmo (true, not a promise I liked, but he did promise it).

        On and on it goes – he didn’t carry out the promises he primarily campaigned on. Its all gone wrong – and all he can do is promise to do all the things he promised to do 4 years ago.

        It won’t work.

  9. Cluster October 4, 2012 / 10:45 am

    Another great moment was when Romney pinned Obama on the deficits and the Simpson Bowles recommendations which Obama ignored, and to which Obama replied that he was working with Congress now on that very thing, to which Romney responded by saying that he was 4 years late.

    Obama spoke as if he hasn’t been in office the last four years.

    • Retired Spook October 4, 2012 / 11:12 am

      Obama spoke as if he hasn’t been in office the last four years.

      Between golf, vacations and campaigning, he really hasn’t.

  10. Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 10:45 am

    The Liberal Media (but, i repeat myself) has found the buzzword to try to damage Romney’s performance.

    This theme will be the start of every “analysis” from the Left for the next week. They will attempt to convince the public that Romney only “had a good night” because he started off “aggressive” and continued “attacking” all night.

    Meanwhile, the objective pundits will replay the Obama talking points relentlessly giving their chin-stroking opinion that “Obama was correct when he said … (Insert talking point here), and Romney didn’t have an answer.”

    Most of the listening public recognized the talking points when they heard them, and nearly everyone was left scratching their collective heads as the talking points were unrelated to the questions posed or the conversation engaged.

    • Retired Spook October 4, 2012 / 11:11 am

      as the talking points were unrelated to the questions posed or the conversation engaged.

      And the President did that over and over, ie.

      Obama: Now, if you take such an unbalanced approach [to reduce the deficit], then that means you are going to be gutting our investments in schools and education.

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 12:04 pm

        I know Mitt had to pick and choose what he could address, in the time period allowed, but I was hoping he would jump on the repeated use of the word “investment” to describe “spending”.

        It is a favorite tactic of the RRL, trying to sanitize the distribution of OPM by calling it an “investment”. And for a real, savvy, successful investor like Romney, this would have been a great time to nail down the coffin lid on THAT little semantic game.

        When I buy a gallon of milk, I am not INVESTING that money. If I put $10.00 down on a blackjack bet, I am not INVESTING that money. If I give money to someone I am not INVESTING that money, especially if the someone is someone to whom I owe a debt.

        In a way we invest in our nation’s future by funding the education of our children, but the money is SPENT, not INVESTED. It is a semantic manipulation to try to detoxify the reality that money is being SPENT on things. Because we instinctively know that when money is SPENT it is gone, but if we INVEST there is expectation of return in kind.

      • dbschmidt October 4, 2012 / 1:57 pm

        The difference I notice about schools around here in NC is every time a magnet school is opened with real demands on the children and parents–not just the standard seat warmer public schools–there are more applications than seats.

        Very competitive to get into by both the children and the parents so they have gone to a lottery system so both poor and middle class get equal seating in the final draw. Even though these are considered for all intents and purposes as public schools (no additional $$$ required) these are being filled with people that want an education.

        While the next county over from me has been in the news for the past few weeks because the newly elected Democratic majority board has fired the Superintendent (buyout of $250,000) because he leaned right and are starting a search (if they can get the money) for another one while they don’t even have the money to run the school buses they need to feed the schools. These folks kind of remind of the DC board. Or Obama pushing ObamaCare for the first couple of years instead of doing his real job of getting the economy going again.

      • Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 2:02 pm

        Amazona,
        Ditto “Revenue” when speaking of Taxes; “n a balanced way with some revenue and some spending cuts.

        All the while the moderator was assisting Obama;

        MR. LEHRER: No, about the idea that in order to reduce the deficit there has to be revenue in addition to cuts.

        PRESIDENT OBAMA: There has to be revenue in addition to cuts. Now, Governor Romney has ruled out revenue. He’s — he’s ruled out revenue.

        MR. LEHRER: That’s true, right? (turns to Romney)

        MR. ROMNEY: Wait … How’d you do that Jim? I didn’t see your lips move once!

    • Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 3:58 pm

      “New York Times columnist Paul Krugman: “OK, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn’t or shouldn’t be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.”

      Are these Obama Dung Beetles predictable or what?

      • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 4:19 pm

        “Are these Obama Dung Beetles predictable or what?”

        Well, they have certainly had plenty to feed on these past few years, and I think the plentiful food supply has made them a little careless—as seen in the infamous Paul Krugman actually lecturing on “…the moral equivalent of a lie…”—–WHILE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE SAID!

      • Count d'Haricots October 4, 2012 / 4:34 pm

        Please, we prefer terminological inexactitude!

  11. Raging Bull October 4, 2012 / 12:30 pm

    i found it great that zerobama was running on clinton’s record and not his own. some people on twitter were wondering if they could then vote for clinton instead of zerobama. the best one i read was “the empty chair debated eastwood better than zerobama did last night.”

    the MSM will go into full bunker mode now. the next debate, zerobama will be more on the offensive. he won’t hit on substance but with style. he still doesn’t have a record to run on, but it won’t matter to the MSM, only style matters. romney better be ready, and i think he will be.

  12. dbschmidt October 4, 2012 / 2:11 pm

    Here are the five biggest–and worst–excuses for Obama’s defeat:

    5. We won’t know for 2-3 days whether Mitt Romney actually won.
    4. Romney lied with a straight face for ninety minutes.
    3. The free-flowing format was bad and let Romney dominate.
    2. The moderator, Jim Lehrer, let Romney win.
    1. Obama didn’t show up tonight.

    #2 is “This is the Obama campaign’s official excuse, judging by the post-debate comments of Stephanie “Felon” Cutter…

    Read the post here: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/10/04/Fact-Check-Top-5-Liberal-Excuses-for-Obama-Losing-the-First-Presidential-Debate-to-Romney

    Yep, I know–blame the messenger.

    • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 2:22 pm

      The LOSER LOST………..next?

  13. Amazona October 4, 2012 / 2:48 pm

    http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/10/04/Romney-Humiliates-media

    By John Nolte:

    “Where was the bumbling, elitist, out of touch, awkward, wife-killing, gay-hating, corporate vulture who tortures dogs and stumbles through Europe like Chevy Chase in a “Vacation” sequel?

    Well, he didn’t show up last night because that’s not who Mitt Romney is. That Mitt Romney is a media creation manufactured out of lies and desperation by those who spend 24 hours a day crafting trip wires, fabricating gaffes, and standing before the elephant of Barack Obama’s failures and asking, “What elephant?”

    ************************************

    In ninety short but delicious and unforgettable minutes, Mitt Romney not only exposed President FailureTeleprompter as the churlish, entitled failure he truly is — he also destroyed the caricature our thoroughly corrupted media institutions had built around him.

    • Cluster October 4, 2012 / 3:36 pm

      This needs repeating:

      In ninety short but delicious and unforgettable minutes, Mitt Romney not only exposed President FailureTeleprompter as the churlish, entitled failure he truly is — he also destroyed the caricature our thoroughly corrupted media institutions had built around him.

      The best description of last nights debate so far, and will be hard to top.

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 3:41 pm

        all the above = EMPTY chair, community agitator.NOTHING more.

    • Amazona October 4, 2012 / 4:21 pm

      Cluster, I liked this part:

      ….. that’s not who Mitt Romney is. That Mitt Romney is a media creation manufactured out of lies and desperation by those who spend 24 hours a day crafting trip wires, fabricating gaffes, and standing before the elephant of Barack Obama’s failures and asking, “What elephant?”

      “..crafting trip wires…” I love it.

  14. Ricorun October 4, 2012 / 7:18 pm

    Romney kicked some serious butt last night. Whether every last point he made was true in every detail is beside the point — Obama had the opportunity to rebut, and he was woefully unprepared for the task. THAT, I think, is going to be the lasting take-home message. The corollary message — and again whether it’s true in every detail or not is beside the point — is that Obama is not so much the President as the people around him are. Obama just didn’t lose the debate, he got trounced. And if I were Romney I’d start running Wizard of Oz type ads — except without a wizard.

    • Mark Noonan October 4, 2012 / 8:48 pm

      What Romney should do is a campaign swing through California – not so much with a hope of winning the State (impossible unless Romney is heading for a 1932 type landslide win) but to highlight just where Obama’s liberal policies are leading us – to the catastrophe which used to be known as California. And it only helps Romney to make his point that gas in LA was $4.34 a gallon yesterday and de-facto rationing is in place as stations run out of gas.

    • GMB October 4, 2012 / 9:12 pm

      Translation for Rico. Mitt lied about everything. Right? LOLzer.

      barky stellar debate performance summed up in one word. Just repeat it over and over.

      http://www.buzzfeed.com/dorsey/obama-uh

      • Ricorun October 6, 2012 / 12:02 am

        GMB: Translation for Rico. Mitt lied about everything. Right?

        Not exactly. What I’m saying is that both candidates lied through their teeth. That’s to be expected — it’s a campaign, after all. It’s just that Mitt did a much better job of it than Obama. But that’s the lesser half of the story: more egregious for Obama is that he didn’t have the wherewithal to call Romney on essentially any of his lies, whereas Romney jumped all over his! it was a HUGE victory for Romney, and I suspect the polls will show it in the next couple of days.

        I hope you put down your bet on InTrade a couple of days ago!

  15. Ricorun October 4, 2012 / 7:28 pm

    As a follow-up, Bush didn’t do nearly as badly against Kerry in 2004 as Obama did last night, and yet Kerry nearly closed the gap against a spread in the polls that was about as wide as Obama had against Romney going into the debate. This could be a game-changer. I hope you guys took my (admittedly somewhat cryptic) advice and put your money down on InTrade, et. al. You can’t get rich if you don’t take chances, you know?

    • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:30 pm

      reek-o

      yet Bush WON by the same margin as BEFORE the Q&A .

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:33 pm

        Debate #1: Romney buries President Empty Chair McTeleprompter

        NO sixth graders there LOL

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:35 pm

        goes with above ^^^^

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:44 pm

        Real talk: Sununu calls President Obama “lazy” and “detached”
        Hot Air ^ | 4 Oct 2012 | Erika Johnsen

        is that racist ????? mmmmm mmmmmm mmmmmm

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:50 pm

        I hate these commie bastards in this regime…….

        America’s Warriors Being Denied The Right To Vote By Obama Administration

        The Pentagon is not doing its job, and the Obama administration doesn’t seem to care.

        Under the Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment Act (MOVE), which was signed into law in 2009 by President Obama, the Federal Voter Assistance Program (FVAP) is supposed to assist service members with voting on military installations.

        A Defense Department Inspector General report released in August found that FVAP hadn’t set up those voter assistance offices, using budget cuts as an excuse.

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 7:57 pm

        Al Gore Blames Altitude For Obama’s Debate Skills

        yeah he was TOO HIGH allright….choom gang? or coke with muslim buds?

      • Ricorun October 4, 2012 / 8:07 pm

        neocon: yet Bush WON by the same margin as BEFORE the Q&A .

        Well then, the bad news is that Romney is still screwed. The good news is that I’m pretty sure I’m right. Either way, where’s your evidence?

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 8:10 pm

        reek-0

        no, because the “polls” for Ochimpy are BS biased everyone knows that.
        PROOF? go to the library son and look it up.
        catspuke is the “teacher” not me.
        I report you decide.

      • Ricorun October 5, 2012 / 11:38 pm

        Me: Well then, the bad news is that Romney is still screwed. The good news is that I’m pretty sure I’m right. Either way, where’s your evidence?

        neocon: reek-0

        no, because the “polls” for Ochimpy are BS biased everyone knows that.
        PROOF? go to the library son and look it up.
        catspuke is the “teacher” not me.

        If you don’t consider yourself a “teacher”, neocon, then maybe you should STFU. Seriously, everything you say in public teaches someone something. Sure, maybe it’s just a lesson in how much hot air you are inclined to spew (which it is if you can’t document what you say), or maybe it’s just to elicit a knee-jerk reaction from people you perceive as supporting you in whatever undocumented babble you engage in (which is probably not a very positive lesson either), but it’s still a lesson. Lessons aside, I wouldn’t call much of what you do a contribution to constructive discourse. And I for one applaud the Moderators in redoubling their efforts to ensure constructive discourse on this site, which I presume means discourse unsullied by personal attacks along the lines of “reek-O” and “catspuke”. For the record, I’m fine with “Ochimpy”, cuz he’s not a commentator. And if he was, boy would HE be in trouble, lol!

  16. jesusfreakneil October 4, 2012 / 8:45 pm

    I am glad that Romney did well but I will not gloat about Obama’s failures. Proverbs 24:17,18 Do not gloat when your enemy falls;
    when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice,
    18 or the Lord will see and disapprove
    and turn his wrath away from them.

    • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 8:48 pm

      PSALM 109:8

      preach that “freak”

    • Mark Noonan October 4, 2012 / 8:49 pm

      You do speak a truth – and I hope many of Obama’s opponents remembered to pray for him last night.

      • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 8:51 pm

        I did and he lost……now I’ll pray for the election and our country.
        let the muslims do a dip for him.

      • M. Noonan October 5, 2012 / 12:05 am

        Neocon,

        Generosity, my friend, generosity. Obama is a man like you and me and just as I have been a fool my whole life and only barely scrape through by the grace of God, so I hope Obama will escape from the webs of his own folly.

      • Amazona October 5, 2012 / 10:27 am

        There is a spark of God in each of us—it’s just that in some it is deeply buried, and hard to find. I think it is that spark that we are enjoined to recognize, no matter how hard it may be, and that spark for which we are to find mercy and forgiveness.

        I don’t believe it is up to us to forgive the actions of such a person, but merely to pray for his soul, given the damage he has done to himself.

  17. jesusfreakneil October 4, 2012 / 9:18 pm

    I am a preacher to those in jail. I know it may be hard to show compassion to some but the Word does say “Blessed are the merciful for they shall obtain mercy.” and I do want to encourage others to speak the truth in a non-mocking way.

    • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 9:21 pm

      would you ask the Germans to pray for Hitler?

      I can pray for the redemption of al Ubambas soul, but also for the destruction of his farce illegal pResidency of our nation.
      so lets be clear what you are saying.

      • jesusfreakneil October 4, 2012 / 9:39 pm

        Yes, the Word of God is all true or none of it is. We are commanded to love our enemies in what ever package that may be. I do forgive the evil that Hilter did to the Jews. God say’s revenge is His……I also do pray for Obama’s soul. And yes indeed I pray for a change of leadership in our Nation’s capital. But if we do not get a change I will still focus on God’s plan and not the devil’s plan.

      • neocon1 October 5, 2012 / 7:43 am

        I also do pray for Obama’s soul. And yes indeed I pray for a change of leadership in our Nation’s capital.

        Good then we agree,
        the sooner we pray this regime out of existence the better.

    • M. Noonan October 5, 2012 / 12:07 am

      You got that right – and mercy is the quality we really lack these days, on both sides of the political aisle. There is, I believe, more mercilessness on the left than on the right, but both sides are poisoned with a desire not just to win the fight, but to lacerate and destroy the foe. I don’t want that – I desire mercy for myself and so much show it to all.

  18. GMB October 4, 2012 / 9:19 pm

    barkys super pac pulling ads from Florida and Wisconsin. The donkrat internal polling must be horrendous if they are pUlling ads from those states already.

    • neocon1 October 4, 2012 / 9:22 pm

      GMB

      saving the money to flee to Iran no doubt.

    • M. Noonan October 4, 2012 / 11:56 pm

      They are also pulling their ads against Alan West. Triage has started and Democrats are starting to work on cutting their losses.

  19. freethinker October 5, 2012 / 9:49 am

    Yesterday, I asked the question, do you believe that Mitt Romney was moving to the center with his policy positions and was summarily trounced by the likes of Cluster, Tired and of course, the Ann Coulter of B4V, amazona. Non one person responding to my question had the moral authority to be honest. This morning I read this from Romney’s own camp:

    http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/10/05/966031/campaign-surrogate-admits-romney-is-changing-positions-just-to-win-votes/

    • Amazona October 5, 2012 / 10:22 am

      Velma, it’s not that no one has the moral authority to honestly answer your question, it’s that you lack the moral authority to expect an answer.

      NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK

    • Amazona October 5, 2012 / 10:23 am

      (thinkprogress.org is not "Romney's own camp")

    • tiredoflibbs October 5, 2012 / 12:12 pm

      Velma, again, you are listening to dumbed down talking points! ThinkProgress?!? A known left wing site?!? Who will print anything to get obAMATEUR reelected?!?

      We already know you dismiss the FACT that the MSM is biased towards obAMATEUR, no matter how many FACTS are presented to you. Why should you not accept any other FACTS when you have “comfort” words from your so-called “sources”?

      From your source:

      ““[T]he Republican, the conservative candidate in the primary, is always going to lean right and come back to the center for the general, the opposite for the Democrat,” Gingrey explained. “That’s all you are seeing here. It is very typical. We strong conservatives understand that. There are a lot of undecideds in this country…we want those votes too. So, this is campaign strategy.” ”

      “lean right and COME BACK to the center…”

      So Romney is RETURNING TO THE CENTER – or his original “position”. Your INACCURATE description of Romney “moving to the center” implies that he is “right wing” (EXTREME RIGHT WING if you listen to the MSM and other drones) and is just moving to the center to get votes.

      However. YOUR “SOURCE” says is he moving BACK TO THE CENTER. To “move back” states that he is returning to his original position.

      Now, do you want to explain why obAMATEUR is moving from LEFT to CENTER and LEFT AGAIN (depending on what group he is speaking to) just to get votes? Explain and prove that obAMATEUR did not do that during the 2008 campaign! You can’t. We have shown EXTENSIVELY that obAMATEUR PANDERS to the group to which he is speaking – JUST FOR VOTES (or CASH that he desperately needs to fool Americans that he is not a failure as pResident).

      And please, stop your incessant WHINING! If you don’t want to be “trounced” (you are in a different way – intellectually), then stop posting stupid and whiny comments and don’t pretend you “haven’t heard…”, “haven’t seen….” or “haven’t read…” anything that will prove your candidate is unqualified for this job.

      Pathetic.

    • tiredoflibbs October 5, 2012 / 12:18 pm

      Velma, you are so worried about “moral authority”.

      Perhaps you can also explain why obAMATEUR is LYING about his own record. Several FACT CHECK groups have shown his comments on job creation and the economy, his opponents actions are LIES and yet he still keeps repeating them!

      Where is your moral outrage?!?

      He lied about the embassy attacks stating they were caused by some video. Members of his own administration admitted that these were terrorist attacks. And yet, he still blamed the video and has not answered any questions that he and his administration dropped the ball on embassy security and ambassador protection. Their inaction has lead to the deaths of the ambassador and navy seals.

      Where is your moral outrage?!?

      Of course, you won’t show any. You will just run away again.

      Remove your obAMATEUR kneepads and wipe your chin of the leftist kool aid and be an ACTUAL freethinker for once. That alone will be a feat in itself.

      Pathetic.

Comments are closed.