Originally Posted by Aramea

I agree.

Mitt Romney won the debate, no question.

Some critical thinking is in order here. Everyone knows that Obama is well-spoken. It was a given that Romney would be well-prepared. Obama stood there and let him talk as much as he wanted to talk. He looked tired and passive. Why?

Something isn't quite right. It is certainly possible that Obama miscalculated Romney's ability (doubtful), but it looked like Obama threw this one. Time will tell, but I doubt we see this again next time. Obama is known to rope-a-dope.

FWIW, Obama actually held-forth longer than Romney. Did anyone think that was the case? I cetainly didn't ... until I saw the numbers - Obama: 35 minutes, Romney: 30 minutes

Originally Posted by The Rani

Mittens, on the other hand, rode through the primaries trailing in the polls, and somehow ended up with the nomination.
He's like The Terminator of politicians. Someone call Hicks!

No, despite the fact that he was a governor who left office unupopular, Romney is no terminator, German accented or otherwise.
It's simple math. Romney ran in the GOP primaries as a moderate (by current GOP standards) in a field with half a dozen hard right wingers.
The wingers split their base's votes allowing Romney to win.

Originally Posted by Weave

Wow, the big mean liar meme....pathetic....

Romney ignored the very concept of fact, and said whatever worked. He was good and very polished, but don't argue that the facts align with what he said on any level.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Saying "you can't change Washington from the inside" is not a well-thought-out comment.
I think he's thrown in the towel, subconsiously or otherwise.

Mittens, on the other hand, rode through the primaries trailing in the polls, and somehow ended up with the nomination.
He's like The Terminator of politicians. Someone call Hicks!

Well, I certainly agree there. I am quite sure he wishes he hadn't said it.

We may not know until all three debates are over whether or not Obama has a method to his madness here. If he doesn't step it up on the next two, I will have to conclude that you are correct in that he didn't really want it. It doesn't add up, but we don't have all the data yet.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

FWIW, Obama actually held-forth longer than Romney. Did anyone think that was the case? I cetainly didn't ... until I saw the numbers - Obama: 35 minutes, Romney: 30 minutes

Rani mentioned that as well. It certainly wasn't obvious.

Originally Posted by Aramea

Rani mentioned that as well. It certainly wasn't obvious.

Watched most of the debate last night but not all of it. Not sure who the winner was. Have to give this one some more thought. May have actually been part circus.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

... Overall, I'd give Romney a B on his performance, Obama a D and Lehrer gets an F.

OK, scoring! I like it.

Obama: D to D-. Overall, he hit very few solid points, and alowed himself to be overrun by Romney
Romney: A-. He was able to dominiate the entire debate, including the moderator. Fact free yet clearly the winner.
Lehrer: C-. I like Lehrer, and he is a very good interviewer, but Romeny came prepared on him, too. He got rolled.

To be honest, I'm not sure what Lehrer could or even should have done when Romney was running a steamroller and Obama was half asleep. He might have said to both, "Apparently the agreed format is not working for either of you. Let's try short comments and short responsed for a while. Here's the first question ..." It may have worked by changing the pace, or made it even worse.

Originally Posted by Brian Beecher

Watched most of the debate last night but not all of it. Not sure who the winner was. Have to give this one some more thought. May have actually been part circus.

During the debate, hubby and I were focused on whether or not Romney laid out any substantive plans. We thought it was a draw since it was still mostly content free. In the harsh morning light, Obama did look medicated and bored. Romney definitely won on style.

The biggest papers in the country this AM all have Romney winning the debate, but ALL put it in the context that he did so by lying and by attempting to etch-a-sketch himself -

Romney repeats false healthcare claims

Nonpartisan reports challenges Romney tax claims

Romney's charge on Medicare misleading

Doubling the Deficit

Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. That is not true.

The $5 Trillion Tax Cut

Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney repeatedly sparred over whether Mr. Romney has proposed a $5 trillion tax cut.

It is true that Mr. Romney has proposed “revenue neutral” tax reform, meaning that he would not expand the deficit. However, he has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion.

To make up that revenue, Mr. Romney has said he wants to clear out the underbrush of deductions and loopholes in the tax code. But he has not yet specified how he would do so.

Green Energy

Mr. Romney said that half the companies backed by the president’s green energy stimulus program have gone out of business. That is a gross overstatement.

Mr. Romney repeated the claim, suggesting that the $716 billion in Medicare reductions would indeed come from current beneficiaries.

While fact-checkers have repeatedly debunked this claim, it remains a standard attack line for Mr. Romney.

Romney Goes On Offense, Pays For It In First Wave Of Fact Checks

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/us...e.html?hp&_r=0

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,5148610.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3813713.story

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,3111207.story


http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolit...of-fact-checks



- this is just a small example of what is getting started. The crescendo will be at the next debate where Romney has to defend all his lies and bullshit.

As with most things in life there are very few absolutes, more likely gradients.. And so it is with belief in magic ponies.

There are a few, like myself, that see them being created in real time. Then there are those that get caught up in the creation but eventually become embarrassed that they didn't see them as the weightless farts that they are. Then there are those that will turn on the TV set one day and wonder what happen to Big Bird. We seem to have a ponderance of that latter set on this forum.

The trending meme right now is that Robme wants to kill Big Bird (that is, eliminate PBS).

Originally Posted by Odin

The trending meme right now is that Robme wants to kill Big Bird (that is, eliminate PBS).

That's where it's headed; I give it about 24 hours to settle the foundation; it will then get hyped a little as part of the VP debate and then fully blossom with the next Prez debate.

It will be derive from Romney explaining how he gives a $5T tax cut without there actually being a $5T increase in the deficit or taking away the mortgage deduction, child credits, etc. from the middle class. The answer will increasingly lead back to -



Big Bird will emerge as the "there you go again" of this first debate; hopefully, the entire series.

Except for the magic pony people who will be found mutterring, "but, but, but Mittens won the debate?!!!"

I think the lying on the $5T tax cut and it being paid for by Big Bird is going to eventually be Romney's milestone from the debate on the national level.

However, the other one that will be more in select battleground states (i.e. Florida) is that they finally got him stating he wants the voucher system for Medicare.

Here's the transcript -

LEHRER: We'll talk about -- specifically about health care in a moment. But what -- do you support the voucher system, Governor?


ROMNEY: What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare. And the president supports taking $716 billion out of that program.


LEHRER: And what about the vouchers?


(CROSSTALK)


ROMNEY: So that's -- that's number one.

They'll need to clean it up a little but a lot less so than most attack ads.

Getting Team Romney in the mode trying to explain that this will not impact you if you're over 55 will be a killer. Seniors are smart enough to understand how this eventually drains away the pool for Medicare - it becomes a question of them having to die before they lose their Medicare and have to go out and get insurance in thier 70s or 80s - fat chance and they know it.

someone poses this question -

Romney makes up a fake number: "the top 3% of small businesses are responsible for a quarter of jobs": where did this come from?

3% of small business employ 25% of all US workers????


If you don't find that really funny and bizarre, then you are about as good at magic pony math as Romney is!

Originally Posted by playwrite

someone poses this question -



3% of small business employ 25% of all US workers????


If you don't find that really funny and bizarre, then you are about as good at magic pony math as Romney is!

The biggest employers in some county seats are the school district and the hospital. Then Wal*Mart because it has squeezed out lots of small businesses.

The following article has an amazing analogy of the warp that most liberals and progressives are in. As the following article expresses, their in a pretzel loop. A loop where we stay stuck in a time warp. Nothing will change because we continue to repeat the same mistakes every four years. As I've said many times, all we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You would think that after we keep repeating the same turnings, people would realize that all we appear to do is repeat the same mistakes. When in hell will we ever learn?

The Illusion of Democracy

As I wrote in a previous post, an increasing number of people favor an alternative to the two parties. A recent Suffolk University poll conducted in cooperation with the USA Today found fifty-three percent of “unlikely voters said a “third party or multiple parties are necessary.” Only about a third of the “unlikely voters” found “the Democratic and Republican parties do a good job of representing Americans’ political views.” Twenty-three percent of unregistered Americans said they would choose a third party candidate. Eighteen percent of registered voters said they would vote for a third party candidate.These numbers reflect growing discontent toward the two most prominent parties. More and more Americans are choosing not to vote, because they do not think the system represents them (a completely rational decision yet one which demobilizes people and strengthens the plutocrats or owners of America).


In conclusion, there is a pretzel logic that holds respectable liberals or progressives captive and in a loop. The logic generates behavior that ensures voters are in the same position on Election Day that they were four, eight and twelve years ago. It makes certain they will be in a similar position four years from now, where people are lamenting the absence of democracy.

Voters in both parties believe there is choice in presidential elections. If the people really had a choice, Obama and Romney would not be presidential candidates in this election. The reality is there is no choice. There is only the illusion of choice.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...tial-election/

I missed another magic pony from the debate that might actually poop some gold for Obama -

http://www.angrybearblog.com/2012/10...-specific.html

Yup. All those farmers in Iowa and Nebraska who’ve been waiting for the Farm Bill to pass are as nervous tonight as Richard Nixo … er … Mitt Romney was this evening during the debate, but their problem is different than his was. Instead of babbling incoherently while wearing a frozen, glassy-eyed smile, the farmers are spending the night tossing and turning while trying to figure out whether the program that they rely on so much is much is worth borrowing from China for.


Maybe tomorrow they can put in a call about that to Ohio senator and Romney “surrogate” Rob Portman, and ask him. Portman, according to a very serious-faced CBS reporter Jan Crawford (of Clarence-Thomas-is-an-intellectual-leader book fame), told her immediately after the debate ended that Romney we’ll be “repeating” the “specifics” of his economic plan throughout the next five weeks. Just as he did tonight! Oh, and be just as confident in his manner as he was tonight!


As a Democrat, I surely hope so. And once those farmers find out, specifically, whether the Farm Bill subsidies are worth our borrowing from China for them, the can call Portman back and verify that massive tax cuts for the wealthy are worth borrowing from China for.

Hmmm, I'm sure this is going to help close Romney's gap in Ohio and Iowa.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Romney ignored the very concept of fact, and said whatever worked. He was good and very polished, but don't argue that the facts align with what he said on any level.

Eventually the facts bite back. Let us all hope that they bite the Romney campaign before they manifest themselves in a bad Crisis Era of strikes, riots, and perhaps even a coup.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The following article has an amazing analogy of the warp that most liberals and progressives are in. As the following article expresses, their in a pretzel loop. A loop where we stay stuck in a time warp. Nothing will change because we continue to repeat the same mistakes every four years. As I've said many times, all we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You would think that after we keep repeating the same turnings, people would realize that all we appear to do is repeat the same mistakes. When in hell will we ever learn?

The Illusion of Democracy



http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...tial-election/

Obama is not planning to give the rich a $5 trillion tax cut, increase defense funding by $2 trillion more than even the generals want, and pay for it all by firing Big Bird.

If you can't understand that difference, then maybe you deserve Romney as a President and perhaps sending your loved ones to an all-out war with Iran to get it or maybe having your kids stand in a soup line when the next economic contraction is handled by Team Romney by telling you not to be so lazy.

The claim that 3% of "small" businesses employ 28% of all workers is interesting. I just looked up the total number of businesses in the US and found that there are about 5.7 million of them with employees. 3% of that would be about 171K. And there are roughly 120 million employed workers in the US. 28% of that would be about 33.6 million working for that 171k companies. That average out to nearly 200 employees per "small" firm.

Is not 15 employees or less often sited as the definition of a small business.

Originally Posted by Deb C

The following article has an amazing analogy of the warp that most liberals and progressives are in. As the following article expresses, their in a pretzel loop. A loop where we stay stuck in a time warp. Nothing will change because we continue to repeat the same mistakes every four years. As I've said many times, all we are doing is rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic.

You would think that after we keep repeating the same turnings, people would realize that all we appear to do is repeat the same mistakes. When in hell will we ever learn?

The Illusion of Democracy



http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/201...tial-election/

George Farah made a good point on Democracy Now last night about how the two major parties have taken control of the presidential debates, in order to shut out 3rd party candidates and make sure they don't get challenging questions, which happened when the League of Women Voters were still running the debates.

http://www.democracynow.org/2012/10/..._romney_debate

Originally Posted by playwrite

Obama is not planning to give the rich a $5 trillion tax cut, increase defense funding by $2 trillion more than even the generals want, and pay for it all by firing Big Bird.

Right, there are easier and quieter ways to give rich people trillions of dollars:

"“It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed … so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. It’s much more akin to printing money.”"

There are some differences, sure, but it's like asking what kind of frosting you want on your cow pie.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Since Romney made a sweeping gesture towards the U.S. Constitution on the wall behind him at one point last night, I'd like to see someone ask him how he feels about executing U.S. citizens without a trial at the town hall debate. For that matter, I'd like to see someone call Obama on that shit.

Security!!! Bring the tasers

Originally Posted by The Rani

Since Romney made a sweeping gesture towards the U.S. Constitution on the wall behind him at one point last night, I'd like to see someone ask him how he feels about executing U.S. citizens without a trial at the town hall debate. For that matter, I'd like to see someone call Obama on that shit.

This is where Obama has hurt himself with the Democratic base and liberal libertarians. Indefinite detention and drone assassinations would seem to violate our principals regarding "due process".

Originally Posted by playwrite

Obama is not planning to give the rich a $5 trillion tax cut, increase defense funding by $2 trillion more than even the generals want, and pay for it all by firing Big Bird.

If you can't understand that difference, then maybe you deserve Romney as a President and perhaps sending your loved ones to an all-out war with Iran to get it or maybe having your kids stand in a soup line when the next economic contraction is handled by Team Romney by telling you not to be so lazy.

Obama told Romney was saying "never mind" about his tax plan. Mittens claims that somehow he will lower taxes, lower deductions, and get the same revenue. How does the same revenue, lower the tax expense on businesses? I don't get that one. Is he going to get his Republican friends in congress to tighten deductions only on the top earners, the very same ones he claims are the "job creaters?"

And he claims he "will not support lowering taxes if it raises the deficit." He said that several times, replying to Obama that the $5 trillion tax cut is "not my plan," and that his plan has never been tried before. We don't know what that means. Is he claiming his plan will not raise the deficit, because supply side will work and thus increase revenues? But, he'll have to lower taxes and increase the deficit first, before supply side even gets a chance to work (assuming it works at all)! Or is he saying he won't lower taxes after all, and so how is this going to "create jobs" according to the usual trickle-down economics/supply side/don't tax "job creaters" theory?

It is clear that any further lowering of taxes will drastically explode the deficit. In fact, the deficit will continue to be huge unless taxes are raised-- or unless spending is cut that hurts many people "severely," as Obama said. So it amounts to saying he is not going to lower OR raise taxes; just try to cut domestic spending, and at the same time raise defense spending. So deficits will continue to be huge; we will just be spending on the wrong things; and which don't create jobs (defense).

Originally Posted by playwrite

Obama is not planning to give the rich a $5 trillion tax cut, increase defense funding by $2 trillion more than even the generals want, and pay for it all by firing Big Bird.

If you can't understand that difference, then maybe you deserve Romney as a President and perhaps sending your loved ones to an all-out war with Iran to get it or maybe having your kids stand in a soup line when the next economic contraction is handled by Team Romney by telling you not to be so lazy.

Big Bird needs to get off his lazy yellow ass and get a real job ...