He reached new levels of mendacity and Obama wasn't prepared for Mitt lying and saying that he is actually a moderate.
Which is to say that Obama was unprepared.
As you say later, they were just repeating what they have been saying on the stump for weeks.
The idea that Obama was playing ropeadope is hard for me to believe. If that is the plan it is a stupid one.
Obama looked like he didn't want to be there.
It's no secret that he does not like playing political games. He likes getting things done.
There are people* here who said that Romney moved so far to the right in the Republican primaries that he wouldn't be able to move back to the center.
He has had little trouble moving to the center.
Everyone knew in the primaries that he was lying about being a conservative, just as everyone knows know he lying about being a moderate.
So what is he? An opportunist.
*The same people who said that Marco Rubio's career was over because of some scandal that no one can remember now.
This meads it's own thread, so I only have to go one place to see all your heads explode. I'll start things off. That wasn't a debate as much as it was Mitt Romney taking Obama fo a cross-country drive, strapped to the roof of his car. Even Bill Maher said, "Romney was just one minute away from holding Obama down and cutting his hair."
He did a very good job of promising that he can deliver everything to everyone without any sacrifice (or providing any details), while offering critique of the guy who honestly says you can't have it all. How does Obama argue with someone who has no record or a plan (that he will stand by)? Obama would have pleased liberals if he made personal attacks on Romney (the 47%/Bain/Flip-flopper/corporate shill) but that was clearly not his strategy. He would rather look good and lose, as Billy Hoyle once said, but in this case, he might be right. Let's see how this plays out over the next week when the Obama camp calls for Romney to back up his claims.
Good analysis, IMO, especially the part about how you can't argue against a guy that stands for nothing, except maybe to keep pointing that out. Obama said it best when he said for x number of months Romney's stated plan has been to give a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, but today, 5 weeks from the election, his plan is "Nevermind".
There are two more presidential debates. I'm glad that the President didn't come out swinging with the red meat; others can do that.
I will say that Obama looked like he had been working all day (president-r), and Romney looked like he just got back from vacation.
I was hoping Obama would directly ask Romney 'SPECIFICALLY, which loopholes do you plan to close?'..
I thought he tried to, but Romney's (weak) counter, which he's said already, is that it's not right to say it's may way or the highway (i.e., give ANY specifics). As if getting specific is a de facto ultimatum. Only children think that way.
Obama looked like he didn't want to be there.
It's no secret that he does not like playing political games. He likes getting things done.
When you say these things about probably the worst president the US has even had I am just appalled. Obama is a squirrel trying to get a nut. It is costing us out the wazoo. The future generations are going to have more blood on the tracks than the Bob Dylan Lp with the red inner sleeve due to Obama and his administration.
I can't even remember the last time a presidential debate really changed the complexion of a race. Anybody?
Well, Perot got a solid bump from debating. Also his candidacy probably deserves more credit for the eventual budget surplus. Initially the deficit was not nearly as important to the other candidates.
Reagan - Carter was tight until the debate, after which Reagan opened up a big lead.
i know who won the debate past night; THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.
this is my favorite stock response aside from the very effective solution of "uniting to pray" after a maniac with an automatic weapon open fires on people in schools or public places.
the red corner is the hunky son of a former prime minister and just announced his candidacy for liberal leadership, and thusly throwing his hat in the ring for PM.
"A CBS News poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 46 percent siding with Mr. Romney, 22 percent for Mr. Obama and 32 percent saying it was a tie."
^These numbers have to be bad news for Romney.
I think everyone here agrees that Romney won this round.
Even KVH, BV and TB, all of whom tend to place partisanship over objectivity.
So if 100% of soulstrut can admit that Romney won, but only 46% of undecideds see it that way... well it wasn't much of a win. 54% say tie or Obama win. My guess is the undecided are not much interested in pandering.
I think everyone here agrees that Romney won this round.
I have zero problem saying Romney did a much better job. I didn't think he would bomb at a debate. I thought there might be a chance he would come off as a bit boring. Which he wasn't. But I have difficulty saying he won as hard as some are saying. It's easy to "win" when you change much of the stuff you've been professing for the past 6-12 months to a point of straight up lying.
Last night he was talking about strengthening Dodd-Frank. Keep some good things from Obamacare like preexisting conditions. All the stuff about teaching and funding education. Cutting oil company subsidies. Etc... Much of this shit kinda blew my mind. It was (In my eyes) totally different from everything I've heard him say over the last year.
But maybe that was his game plan. Catching Obama like a dear in headlights.
I think his cutting PBS statement was a misstep that has not gotten much mention.
Did he have polling on this?
I think PBS remains popular and everyone knows that it's budget is equal to pocket change.
Didn't some other candidate in another race many years ago make a similar point about cutting funding for PBS? I can't for the life of me remember who and when this was but I had such a strong deja-vu when Romney said this last night.
If you think Romney completely changed his tune for the debate then I don't think you've actually been paying attention to him, just what Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, John Stewart, HuffPo, etc. say about him maybe.
If you think Romney completely changed his tune for the debate then I don't think you've actually been paying attention to him, just what Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, John Stewart, HuffPo, etc. say about him maybe.
LOL... it took you a cool 24 hours to come up with that one?
Picking out Romney's lies last night was like shooting fish in a barrel.
It might've been that easy for Obama, too, if he could've accurately articulated what he actually stood for.
There was a point when Obama started talking about how to lower medical costs while improving care.
The Mayo Clinic, Intermountain model.
But detailing best practices does not make for pithy debate fodder, and the Pres stumbled and flubbed his response.
If you think Romney completely changed his tune for the debate then I don't think you've actually been paying attention to him, just what Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, John Stewart, HuffPo, etc. say about him maybe.
Picking out Romney's lies last night was like shooting fish in a barrel.
The fact that you disagree with it or don't understand it does not make it a lie.
Obama's got something like a 5-1 edge in campaign office presence in the states that matter.
This is important.
Back in July 2011 they had 60 field offices in 39 states.
Today I think they have a field manager and office in every state, including Kentucky, Texas and Utah.
Romney has nothing like this.
This will make a big difference on the one day it counts, election day.
If you think Romney completely changed his tune for the debate then I don't think you've actually been paying attention to him, just what Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, John Stewart, HuffPo, etc. say about him maybe.
If you think Romney completely changed his tune for the debate then I don't think you've actually been paying attention to him, just what Rachel Maddow, Bill Maher, John Stewart, HuffPo, etc. say about him maybe.
Picking out Romney's lies last night was like shooting fish in a barrel.
The fact that you disagree with it or don't understand it does not make it a lie.
Wait. I'm confused. So you believe Romney was being truthful when he says half of all the green firms Obama invested have gone out of business?
Which brings me to another mind bender. He says he's a fan of green energy and all for it last night. But then says something like "I had a friend who said you don???t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the loser". So all these Americans companies are "losers"?
Then he pulls a ???In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that???s about 50 years??? worth of what oil and gas receives.???
"The president???s 2013 budget called for elimination of tax breaks for oil subsidies, which the White House estimated at $4 billion per year. Dividing $90 billion ??? the federal money that Romney claims went toward clean energy ??? by $4 billion in breaks for the oil industry amounts to 22.5 years, not 50 years.
It???s also worth noting that the $90 billion was not ???breaks,??? but a combination of loans, loan guarantees and grants through the stimulus program, and they were spread out over several years rather than one, as Romney claimed.
Furthermore, not all of the money went to the ???green energy world.??? About $23 billion went toward ???clean coal,??? energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites. ??? Josh Hicks and Steven Mufson"
Wait. I'm confused. So you believe Romney was being truthful when he says half of all the green firms Obama invested have gone out of business?
Which brings me to another mind bender. He says he's a fan of green energy and all for it last night. But then says something like "I had a friend who said you don???t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the loser". So all these Americans companies are "losers"?
Then he pulls a ???In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that???s about 50 years??? worth of what oil and gas receives.???
"The president???s 2013 budget called for elimination of tax breaks for oil subsidies, which the White House estimated at $4 billion per year. Dividing $90 billion ??? the federal money that Romney claims went toward clean energy ??? by $4 billion in breaks for the oil industry amounts to 22.5 years, not 50 years.
It???s also worth noting that the $90 billion was not ???breaks,??? but a combination of loans, loan guarantees and grants through the stimulus program, and they were spread out over several years rather than one, as Romney claimed.
Furthermore, not all of the money went to the ???green energy world.??? About $23 billion went toward ???clean coal,??? energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites. ??? Josh Hicks and Steven Mufson"
Yes, the solar companies Obama invested in are a failure. They got low balled by the Chinese. Furthermore, the companies are major contributors to the Obama campaign.
Yes, the solar companies Obama invested in are a failure. They got low balled by the Chinese. Furthermore, the companies are major contributors to the Obama campaign.
Why reply with bullshit? You aren't addressing what I actually brought up. But thanks for playing...
Comments
Which is to say that Obama was unprepared.
As you say later, they were just repeating what they have been saying on the stump for weeks.
The idea that Obama was playing ropeadope is hard for me to believe. If that is the plan it is a stupid one.
Obama looked like he didn't want to be there.
It's no secret that he does not like playing political games. He likes getting things done.
There are people* here who said that Romney moved so far to the right in the Republican primaries that he wouldn't be able to move back to the center.
He has had little trouble moving to the center.
Everyone knew in the primaries that he was lying about being a conservative, just as everyone knows know he lying about being a moderate.
So what is he? An opportunist.
*The same people who said that Marco Rubio's career was over because of some scandal that no one can remember now.
Good analysis, IMO, especially the part about how you can't argue against a guy that stands for nothing, except maybe to keep pointing that out. Obama said it best when he said for x number of months Romney's stated plan has been to give a $5 trillion dollar tax cut, but today, 5 weeks from the election, his plan is "Nevermind".
There are two more presidential debates. I'm glad that the President didn't come out swinging with the red meat; others can do that.
I will say that Obama looked like he had been working all day (president-r), and Romney looked like he just got back from vacation.
I thought he tried to, but Romney's (weak) counter, which he's said already, is that it's not right to say it's may way or the highway (i.e., give ANY specifics). As if getting specific is a de facto ultimatum. Only children think that way.
I would be in favor of that, The flipside, though, is more political threads. Heads would explode.
:real_headz:
When you say these things about probably the worst president the US has even had I am just appalled. Obama is a squirrel trying to get a nut. It is costing us out the wazoo. The future generations are going to have more blood on the tracks than the Bob Dylan Lp with the red inner sleeve due to Obama and his administration.
Oh, we have a presidential scholar on the Strut.
:comedy_gold:
The superintendent does not call it a snow day because it is cold outside. They declare a snow day when the buses aren't running.
Reagan - Carter was tight until the debate, after which Reagan opened up a big lead.
Kennedy moved ahead of Nixon after debating.
Oh how I have missed you in the President Romney thread.
Thank you for showing Gator Toof how shit stirring is done.
this is my favorite stock response aside from the very effective solution of "uniting to pray" after a maniac with an automatic weapon open fires on people in schools or public places.
the red corner is the hunky son of a former prime minister and just announced his candidacy for liberal leadership, and thusly throwing his hat in the ring for PM.
THIS IS HOW YOU DEBATE
I was kinda hoping Marc Garneau would run. But if Justin drops some decent ideas. I will support.
^These numbers have to be bad news for Romney.
I think everyone here agrees that Romney won this round.
Even KVH, BV and TB, all of whom tend to place partisanship over objectivity.
So if 100% of soulstrut can admit that Romney won, but only 46% of undecideds see it that way... well it wasn't much of a win. 54% say tie or Obama win. My guess is the undecided are not much interested in pandering.
I have zero problem saying Romney did a much better job. I didn't think he would bomb at a debate. I thought there might be a chance he would come off as a bit boring. Which he wasn't. But I have difficulty saying he won as hard as some are saying. It's easy to "win" when you change much of the stuff you've been professing for the past 6-12 months to a point of straight up lying.
Last night he was talking about strengthening Dodd-Frank. Keep some good things from Obamacare like preexisting conditions. All the stuff about teaching and funding education. Cutting oil company subsidies. Etc... Much of this shit kinda blew my mind. It was (In my eyes) totally different from everything I've heard him say over the last year.
But maybe that was his game plan. Catching Obama like a dear in headlights.
NYT Article
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?_r=1
"Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running."
:micro:
I think his cutting PBS statement was a misstep that has not gotten much mention.
Did he have polling on this?
I think PBS remains popular and everyone knows that it's budget is equal to pocket change.
LOL... it took you a cool 24 hours to come up with that one?
Picking out Romney's lies last night was like shooting fish in a barrel.
It might've been that easy for Obama, too, if he could've accurately articulated what he actually stood for.
The Mayo Clinic, Intermountain model.
But detailing best practices does not make for pithy debate fodder, and the Pres stumbled and flubbed his response.
The fact that you disagree with it or don't understand it does not make it a lie.
This is important.
Back in July 2011 they had 60 field offices in 39 states.
Today I think they have a field manager and office in every state, including Kentucky, Texas and Utah.
Romney has nothing like this.
This will make a big difference on the one day it counts, election day.
You sound old.
Wait. I'm confused. So you believe Romney was being truthful when he says half of all the green firms Obama invested have gone out of business?
Which brings me to another mind bender. He says he's a fan of green energy and all for it last night. But then says something like "I had a friend who said you don???t just pick the winners and losers, you pick the loser". So all these Americans companies are "losers"?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/romney-tesla-loser/
Then he pulls a ???In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that???s about 50 years??? worth of what oil and gas receives.???
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/factchecking-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2012/2012/10/04/9d47934e-0d66-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_blog.html
"The president???s 2013 budget called for elimination of tax breaks for oil subsidies, which the White House estimated at $4 billion per year. Dividing $90 billion ??? the federal money that Romney claims went toward clean energy ??? by $4 billion in breaks for the oil industry amounts to 22.5 years, not 50 years.
It???s also worth noting that the $90 billion was not ???breaks,??? but a combination of loans, loan guarantees and grants through the stimulus program, and they were spread out over several years rather than one, as Romney claimed.
Furthermore, not all of the money went to the ???green energy world.??? About $23 billion went toward ???clean coal,??? energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites. ??? Josh Hicks and Steven Mufson"
Yes, the solar companies Obama invested in are a failure. They got low balled by the Chinese. Furthermore, the companies are major contributors to the Obama campaign.
Why reply with bullshit? You aren't addressing what I actually brought up. But thanks for playing...