world

Romney turns in strong debate performance

185 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

185 Comments
Login to comment

Very little difference between these two liberals. Business as usual no matter which elite 1%er wins.

-11 ( +3 / -14 )

Obama was too passive and weak. He missed a lot of opportunities to shoot down Mitt's inaccuracies....hopefully Obama does better on the next one

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

To be fair, Obama is a good speaker, I thought he had more in him, but he looked like he didn't want to be up there, normally, he is quite confident, I expected more, but he just didn't seem comfortable tonight.

13 ( +14 / -1 )

Obama should have been a lot harsher in calling Romney on his BS. I don't know if he was just trying to be "the bigger man" or something, but argh, I was cringing through most of Romney's lines.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

It's over. Not the debate. The election. Romney failed to move the needle.

So sad.

-16 ( +0 / -15 )

In regards to the complaints about Obama:

Obama is winning. He's playing defensively. He doesn't need to move the needle.

Rmoney does.

A "tie" here goes to the winner.

-11 ( +2 / -13 )

Thought is was fairly even. Mitt looked good, and held his own.

No fireworks, flubs, or kill-shots.

Basically, you were given two competing narratives, based on two alternative sets of facts. Which one you believed probably was dependent on what you believed going into it. Nobody's mind was changed by this debate.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

@JT

That's what you are saying, but that's NOT what all the networks are saying, even his enemies had to agree, Obama was off. He know he couldn't talk about his record on the economy, they knew it. But Obama still has 2 more debates, so we shall see.

8 ( +10 / -2 )

@JTDanMan

I don't think any of these debates are going to move the needle for either candidate. Fact: Today's the Obama 20th wedding anniversary. He probably didn't want to be there or had other things on his mind...and it showed.. But Obama's got one more debate to turn this back around....

-8 ( +1 / -9 )

Doesn't sound like the debate was really beneficial or harmful to either candidate.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Absolutely fabulous job by Mitt Romney.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Mirai

Turn what around? Obama is winning.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

Doesn't sound like the debate was really beneficial or harmful to either candidate.

That's kinda right. Remember: Obama is winning. So if Romney doesn't move the needle with this debate, that is a loss for him.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

@JTDanMan

Turn around meaning his debate performance

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Also

If we are judging just on delivery, then Romney CLEARLY won, but I think we need to wait until the fact checkers dissect this debate before we know who won on substance.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@JT

CNN, msnbc and the other liberal networks don't share your optimism, in fact, they are in shock, even I was shocked and I really don't like Obama, but Obama has two more debates and if he really wants to spike the ball, he needs to really get down, now it will still ultimately be up to the voter to decide and have the final vote, but we just don't know how the other 2 debates will turn out, none of us. If you can't see that, then you just don't want to see it. Just keeping it real.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

Thought is was fairly even. Mitt looked good, and held his own.

No fireworks, flubs, or kill-shots.

Basically, you were given two competing narratives, based on two alternative sets of facts. Which one you believed probably was dependent on what you believed going into it. Nobody's mind was changed by this debate.

I agree, on this one, 100% as far as if anyone has changed their mind....mmmmm....difficult to say.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

There weren't any really hard jabs between the two of them but what I did notice was that Romney was using his time to erode a lot of the groundwork of the criticisms lodged against him. He took some control over his stance on Massachusetts healthcare plan and made it sound vaguely reasonable and took the bite out of some of his critics.

I don't mention much on the President because he didn't really show up. He didn't do poorly but he didn't seem very engaged with his opponent or the audience. Spent a lot of time looking down and appeared a little agitated. Understandable, but in a televised debate you really need to bring your A game and it just wasn't there.

No fireworks, flubs, or kill-shots.

That's pretty fair.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

That's kinda right. Remember: Obama is winning. So if Romney doesn't move the needle with this debate, that is a loss for him.

Well. There is one point in Romney's favor: expectations for his performance were lower than for Obama (national polls back this up.) That means people expected Obama to win. He didn't.

At best, he drew. And when you are expected to win and you don't, it looks like a loss. Conversely, when you are expected to lose and you don't, it looks like a win. This is especially true in liberal circles, which seem to be regarding tonight as a failure for Obama.

And this bleeds over to the pundit circles. The commentary on the debate is going to be a lackluster Obama up against an aggressive, on message ("jobs jobs jobs") Romney. That's a problem for the President, because the post -debate spin has more effect than the actual debate (which most Americans won't bother to watch, but will just get recaps and soundbites of from their preferred news source.)

I'll agree that the debates are, statistically, unlikely to have a significant statistical impact. But as an Obama supporter, I wouldn't be crowing right now.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

The Oct 16 debate is a must win for either candidate. Its a town hall type setting which really resonates with a lot of people and opportunity to see how these guys interact with regular people. The is especially important for Romney who is perceived to be impersonal.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

How did Mitt "clearly win"? What I heard the whole time was him saying a lot of words that didn't have a lot of meaning. He sounded more or less refined, true, but to any rational person actually sorting out what he said, it didn't amount to much. Then again, Obama was not at his fiercest either..

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

CNN poll

67% Romney

25% Obama

Those are NOT peanuts.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

CNN Poll is reporting that Romney won the debate (among registered voters) 67 to 25

4 ( +4 / -0 )

How did Mitt "clearly win"?

67% Romney

25% Obama

Dunno, you tell me.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

I watched with interest, though not american their government clearly has a very tangible effect on the world.

I was a little disappointed in Obama's performance, and surprised Romney did as well as he did.

On body language and confidence I suppose I would say the "win", if there is such a thing was probably on Romney's side, however if you actually listen to what he's saying its more or less circle talk with almost no specific information about anything what so ever.

More or less every point Obama made about exclusionary policies in health care, education, student loans and so on, Romney would come back with.. "but we are going to give all the same benefits for less money with no increase to revenue" (and if you vote now you get a set of steak knifes...) like the business sales man he is.. but with almost zero information about how that would actually occur... though the man does believe in magic gold plates and so on, so maybe thats his answer.. Magic.

Obama didn't seem as well prepared to counter the attacks on his term to date as I might have expected.

The 24hr News networks are going to go absolutely bananas for a while.. but that would have happened whatever the out come..

2 ( +4 / -2 )

The President was "off" tonight. Romney came to play, and in my humble opinion, won. Certainly made things a bit more interesting.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@Aliasis

Again, it wasn't much as substance but more on delivery. Romney controlled this debate, and seemed better prepared. Obama seemed preoccupied, rarely made eye contact with Romney, and most importantly missed a lot of golden opportunities to rebut Romney's false claims. Romney again falsely claimed that Obamacare guts medicare by $716B, Obama didn't counter that claim. He didn't mention the 47% speech. He seemed use statements recycled from his campaign speeches.

Maybe he's waiting for the Town Hall debate on Oct 16 to really address this stuff, but whatever the reason, Obama just wasn't on his game tonight.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Either way, it was an interesting debate. No matter what you political affiliation may be.

5 ( +5 / -0 )

I get the feeling that someone has been watching a lot of MSNBC!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I dunno. The PResident has always been a good speaker, but has never been very intellectually agile. Give him a prepared statement and a podium, and he is excellent. However, in this kind of setting, he is frankly weak. His rebuttals and arguments seem too 'professorial' and not tied to anything.

If anything, Romney seemed the more approachable, at ease, and confident than Obama. I didn'T see any stiffness or discomfort at all. Instead, I saw a take-charge CEO type of guy who has confidence and vision and leadership.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

CNN just admitted that they "slightly" over sampled republican voters. Also, this is a poll of likely voters who watched the debate....so the results aren't that telling.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

From early September:

The new CNN/ORC poll of the presidential race released today shows a two percent lead for President Obama over Mitt Romney. The survey, that includes a smaller eight percent over-sample of Democratic voters, has Obama leading by a 49 percent to 47 percent edge. Among registered voters, the survey has a margin of error of three percent. Unskewed, the data from this poll would indicate a Romney lead of 50 percent to 46 percent. The news here is not that this poll is slightly skewed, but compared to the 15.4 percent skewed in favor of the Democrats in the controversial September 10 CNN/ORC poll, this latest one is based on a far less skewed sample.

A small oversample wont change those numbers 67/25. Plus, the last 2 CNN polls have been oversampled in favor of Democrats, so about time the "mistake" didnt go the Democrat's way. So while they reported in the poll that Obama was "winning" they came back later and said actually he is not. It is all manipulation to get people to think the outcome is altready decided when in fact it is NOT.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Another one from last week:

The Fox News poll released today continues the trend of skewed polls that over-sample Democratic voters to produce results favorable for the president. The poll reports President Obama leading over Mitt Romney by a margin of 48 percent to 43 percent. But this is based on a sample that includes eight percent more Democrats than it does Republicans for an electorate that is made up of four percent more Republicans than Democrats

So basically no one is "winning" and there is no way to know. Get out and vote for who you want, not who the media is trying to manipulate you into thinking will win.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Romney was the faster and louder speaker. Obama, who reportedly doesn't like nor respect Romney, looked annoyed to have to defend his first term against this overgrown fratboy. The real news is that Romney backed away from his own tax policy, a MAJOR flip-flop. And right after the debate, his handlers came out and reversed most of what he said, especially when it came to pre-existing conditions on healthcare, they're coming back in a Romney presidency. And if you've got one, you're not getting healthcare.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

..maybe.. just maybe... there are some big issues on the president's mind as of late... if so.. I wonder what? dot... dot... dot...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

so the results aren't that telling

Then why, in the 34 comments to date, has nobody said that "Obama was clearly the winner"

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Obama was clearly the winner.

-8 ( +0 / -8 )

@DentShop

I am not disputing that Romney won. He did win. What I am saying is that the other flash polls that CNN conducted after the debate were off.

@Blacklabel

The other polls taken by CNN and other pollsters are done over a longer period of time and done with much more diversity. The flash poll is done on a much smaller pool in a much shorter period of time, hence they aren't able to diversify the pool. As a result, you get some skewed polling. Either way, accurate or not..debates will probably have little affect on the outcome

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Obama won cause he didn't flip flop on his positions. Forget the dynamics, look at the positions.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Ron Paul suppose to be there.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I am not disputing that Romney won. He did win. What I am saying is that the other flash polls that CNN conducted after the debate were off.

How can you say that they are off, all of the polls are saying that as they come out except for ThinkProgress and the other far left liberal sites. Now, do I think polls are everything, certainly NOT, respect them, but don't discount them, when it's in Romney's favor, the public and conservatives shouldn't take them seriously, but if they favor Obama, the polls really matter, this is what I am talking about. Yeah, Mirai, I respect you being honest in what happened tonight, but don't just discount the votes either way. I try not to. I always knew Romney needed a good night and he got one, can he sustain that momentum, it has yet to be seen. He could suck the next time around, you never know. What happened tonight was a shock for both sides, respectively.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It looks like most writers are from the USA. Spudman called it correctly. Fortunately, nobody has to explain the electoral process here which will negate any popular vote. Nobody knows who will win.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

noriyosan : "Nobody knows who will win"..................................................................................................EXACTLY. The press was acting as if the election was faite accompli before this debate....................... But Obama showed himself to be the TRUE INTECTUSAL DUD he is . . . so voters are taking note.

-6 ( +0 / -6 )

Oh man, .even DailyKos concedes that Obama lost. If it was a prize fight the ref woulda stopped it by about the 5th round.

Oh, please. So much spin here you are going to go airborne. Did you even watch the debate?

As I attempted to explain before, liberal circles like Kos are more likely to be disappointed, not less, because they had unrealistically low expectations of Romney. They thought he was going to get slaughtered. Instead, he was poised, composed, and on message.

If you want to award Romney the victory on style, then fine. But don't make this out to be something it wasn't: it was a fairly unexciting, and frankly uninteresting, contest between two roughly evenly matched debaters.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I don't get it. Is somebody paying you for this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Sorry but as for me, I already voted in the primary elections and just yesterday sent in my FINAL vote for these US presidential elections, not gonna waste my time with these debates, already made up my mind! 4 more years OBAMA all the way!!

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A Romey government will clearly benefit China cause the Replican Government is clearly about economic incentives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

A 'strong appearance' for Romney simply means he held out his own in a debate that was expected to show a stronger appearance by Obama. That's a bit of a win for Romney, but it might be too little too late.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Triumvere:

" That means people expected Obama to win. He didn't. "

Which people? Not the those people having seen Obama without teleprompter before. They know he would be total failure.

But I agree with those who say it does not matter. Most people have made up their mind and nothing would change it. A lot of Obama voters would not watch political debate anyway. And the democrat-biased media keeps hammering away with pro Obama coverage, so those who just gobble up the media fare will fall for the democrat talking points.

The minority that actually watches a debate and judges it is really not significant.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

There are still two more debates left, not withstanding these debates are not supposed to convince those already decided/locked into who they are voting for, but those narrow undecided voters.

The problem with debates to begin with are that you can lie you butt off and get away with it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

What these debates need is a Ross Perot.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Quote from CNN John King

"a few points more Republican than a typical poll of all voters," but not by enough to hand Romney the victory. The sample included 33 percent Republicans, 37 percent Democrats and 29 percent independents.

I agree that this probably won't skew the win/loss poll; you really don't need a poll to know that Romney was clearly in control in the area of delivery. Anyone who watched would know that.

But CNN did other polls using the same group of 430 people, of which many were very close. For those, I would say that the sampling is biased enough to make the margin of error bigger.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Bill Maher, the guy that donated 1 miilion dollars to Obama's campaign on his HBO show tweeted this today.

I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Obama looks like he DOES need a teleprompter.

I betcha he would like his money back about now.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Clearly Romney won this debate, for the Obots and liberal media express their disappointments. This is the real Obama, a man of many words and less of substance and sincerity beyond his own domain. He did not utter a word of God and Constitution even most Americans see as their core values. Hopefully, the independents and women voters start to see the reality of worsening future of America under Obama's broken promises and failure policy. Romney attempts to offer a jump start in this divided nation. For America's sake, U.S.A needs new direction and leadership. Hope and Change did not pay the bills, instead increasing deficit that burden future generation. "Forwarding" on the same path (Obama 02), will lead to more debt, division, decline, and dis-informed nation.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Pretty much as expected; pulling weeds in the garden was more productive than watching the "debate". Watched the rerun. The take-away was Professional vs Amateur. But neither talked about Constitutionally limited government or actually promoting liberty(remember that?). It WAS funny to watch the lib pundits grasping at straws afterwards.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

If you are one of the millions of Americans who were between 15 and 17 years old when Obama became the president and are now of age to vote

And this is an advantage to Obama more than Romney. Obama consistently polls better among the 18-25 demographics.

first time you saw your president without his teleprompter.

You guys have got to find better zingers,because this one is so played out!

There is in America something called The Bradley Effect.

The Bradley effect never applied to Obama, otherwise he would have lost in 2008. As a matter of fact in 2008, e had the reverse Bradley effect. Many people who said that they wouldn't vote for Obama in the polls, did.

This is the real Obama, a man of many words and less of substance and sincerity beyond his own domain

Um this is where you guys are wrong. If you actually listened to the debate, Obama had PLENTY of substance, but gave a poor presentation, whereas Romney played a very good game, but the substance of his debate are very questionable. Obama didn't fight back on ANY of the questionable points Romney brought up,hence he lost the debate. Had he come back and called Romney out more on the 47% comment, on the $716B medicare statement, on Romney's $5T deficit reduction plan etc...the tables would have been easily turned. But he kept quiet which gave a subtle implication that he agreed with Romney.

He did not utter a word of God and Constitution even most Americans see as their core values.

Separation of church and state. You Conservatives really have to learn that: A.) Not everyone believes in God and B.) The founding principals of the US states that there will be NO official state sponsored religion. Read the first amendment, study it, memorize it, take a picture of it, but most importantly DON'T FORGET IT!

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Since he's trailing, Romney needed this first debate more than Obama. If Romney had faltered, then the gap would've widened such that it'd be too late to recover. That Romney held his own -- further helped by coming from a lower prior expectations of him by the public -- gave his campaign a chance.

This podium-style debate is favorable to both candidates, as both had good podium-style debate showings before. Romney needed to strike here because the next two debates are more open forum-style debates, which are not favorable to Romney's style.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Its great the republicans are citing polls above when for weeks they were bashing polls as being biased and worthless. It all depends on which way the wind is blowing when it comes to Romney and his followers.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

If you want to award Romney the victory on style, then fine. But don't make this out to be something it wasn't: it was a fairly unexciting, and frankly uninteresting, contest between two roughly evenly matched debaters.

Its great the republicans are citing polls above when for weeks they were bashing polls as being biased and worthless. It all depends on which way the wind is blowing when it comes to Romney and his followers.

It just tickles me at how thin-skinned you liberals are, you guys are just making a slew of excuses for a president who basically got shellacked. I don't want to wallow, but now all of a sudden polls don't mean anything to you liberals and the debate was boring and just not that interesting. Trust me, had it been the other way around, you guys would have said, it was the best debate, Conservatives should see the polls, they don't lie etc, etc... Even Chris Matthews didn't get that tingly feeling today. Talk about a serious meltdown. I'm not gloating, but I am really highly amused at how liberals have totally and live by different standards from conservatives. You guys can dish it, but you can't take it, that is liberal self-centrism at its worst.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Chris (aka Mr. Tingles) Matthews

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wgJoepQmS4

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mitt still ain't it.Obama will win the election.The American people are not ready to elect another first with Romney at this juncture.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

but now all of a sudden polls don't mean anything to you liberals and the debate was boring and just not that interesting. Trust me, had it been the other way around, you guys would have said, it was the best debate, Conservatives should see the polls, they don't lie etc, etc...

@ bass: You are correct. If Romney had made a mistake and Obama came out as a clear winner, then we would hear that the election is over. Just before the debate, we kept hearing that it was over because Romney was lagging in the polls, even though just by a few points.

The next attack will be that Romeny was racist because he was being "argumentive" towards Obama, and that the GOP doesn't want Obama to be forcefull because of the "Angry Black Man" that they are afraid of. Trust me on those, since I am a Black man and read other sites and have seen those sentiments expressed whenever someont begins to hold Obama to task on his record.

It was a good debate. I think Obama may have come out thinking he was too cool and probably didn't take Romney serious, and I can understand because Romney has made some mistakes. But Romney hit home on issues like Solyndra and Dodd/Frank. Obama, for his part, didn't try to answer back when Romney brought up those issues. If he would have said why he made some of the decisions, maybe he would have done better, but it looked as if Obama just didn't really want to answer for fear that it would bring out more questions.

One good thing about Romney, he stood up to Jim Lehrer and didn't let him just let Obama get away without Romney answering his comments. I don't think he was expecting Romney to actually strike back against him. I guess the next moderators will probabl try a different tactic.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Just paid entertainers in the stateroom on the Titanic.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Even Chris Matthews didn't get that tingly feeling today. Talk about a serious meltdown

He's right though...

If Romney had made a mistake and Obama came out as a clear winner, then we would hear that the election is over.

It's true though. Romney needed to win this. If you are losing in the polls and you also blow the debate, it only compounds the loss. Whereas if you win the debate, all it really will do is slow down the polling.

The reality is is the dye has been cast. Unless Obama really F's up or unless Romney does something to REALLY change the direction of the campaign (like come up with a real working plan to save the economy without coming across as corporate robot) , no one is really going to change their minds.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I just watched this thing, as to who won...................well Romney came off as a better SPEAKER,..........BUT he didnt say very much at all! He just voiced his usual vague platitudes as he has done for the most part.

Obama, isnt as good a SPEAKER as Romney, but hey I thought this was about who is to be the next president not who is going to be a better public speaker, that said I think Obama held his ground quite well & seemed to add a LOT more substance vs Romney.

I can Romney was a better public speaker but his content was sorely lacking, ok he cud cut into Obama some but the guy still virtually has NO PLAN.............I dont know how so many of you seem to miss that bit or perhaps you just dont care I suppose

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Romney on form there and Obama looked a bit jaded. Nobody came up with a real zinger - probably being kept in reserve for the next rounds.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

BUT he didnt say very much at all! He just voiced his usual vague platitudes as he has done for the most part.

@ GW: When Romney stated that Obama gave money to Solyndra a failed company beause the owners were huge campaign contributors to Obama, Obama said nothing. When Romney went on to explain the oil subsidy, that goes to smaller drillers and not big oil companies, which is $2 billion a year which he said he would look at doing away with, and then went on to state that Obama administration has given $90 billion to the "Green Enerby" movment, which is about 50 years worth of oil subsidies Obama said nothing. As well as when Romney pointed out that Obama cut the Keystone pipeline and was against clean coal.

So a lot was said at the debate, which Obama didn't have an answer for.

Romney on form there and Obama looked a bit jaded. Nobody came up with a real zinger - probably being kept in reserve for the next rounds.

I am actually glad that neither one of them came up with a "zinger." We don't need just a zinger or punchline to elect a President,but someone who will actually do something and just not be noted for a witty punch line. Maybe next time they both will continue to act like adults and not worry about a "zinger" to get trending on social media.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Someone obviously forgot to tell Obama that there wouldn't be any teleprompters. As an incumbent that debate was a disaster for him.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hey, it was Obama's anniversary, he didn't want to be there, he wanted to be home with his Michelle My Bell, his mind wasn't on the dumb ol' debate, give the man a break!

1 ( +3 / -2 )

A small battle won by Romney.. Indeed the war remains ahead ! Barack Obama, given his track record in past 3.5 years, appears less convincing in securing 4 more years. Poll outcomes can be indeed misleading, both have now a 50-50 chance on the way the throne !

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Hey, it was Obama's anniversary, he didn't want to be there, he wanted to be home with his Michelle My Bell, his mind wasn't on the dumb ol' debate, give the man a break!

That's kind of funny, but I bet that is what some on Team Obama will use as an excuse. I am sure it will be that he sacrifices his family time to do the job of the people. That may be the case, but I would counter with that with an't you and your team work with the Romney camp in a bipartisan way to get the date rescheduled? I am sure Romney being a family man would understand.

But he felt that he could go with it and wanted to show he could do all of it on his anniversary and it looks like he came up a bit short.

It will be interesting to see the VP debates next. I imagine that they are going to give Joe Biden plenty of training for this.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Alphaape

I imagine that they are going to give Joe Biden plenty of training for this.

You mean sow his mouth shut so his foot doesn't end up in it like usual? There aren't enough days in the year to prepare Big Joe for his upcoming debate. He's going to be slaughtered by Ryan.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

A small battle won by Romney..

Learned something from his past mistakes and gaffes? Not that they are about to be forgotten or dismissed.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ GW: When Romney stated that Obama gave money to Solyndra a failed company beause the owners were huge campaign contributors to Obama, Obama said nothing. When Romney went on to explain the oil subsidy, that goes to smaller drillers and not big oil companies, which is $2 billion a year which he said he would look at doing away with, and then went on to state that Obama administration has given $90 billion to the "Green Enerby" movment, which is about 50 years worth of oil subsidies Obama said nothing. As well as when Romney pointed out that Obama cut the Keystone pipeline and was against clean coal.

Alpha,

So what if the subsidy ends up going to smaller oil related concerns, its still a 100yrs of subsidy to an industry that makes MASSIVE profits.

And Obama throwing a large amount to green energy, well duh we need to go in that direction, sure some will bomb, but mankind NEEDS that break through. And oh some company that bombed supported Obama..............puleeze that amount the Repubs get direct & indirect(vis these stupid superpacs) is obscene, but then its an obscene WASTE all around by BOTH parties as far as I can see, the American people lose on all acounts.

As for "clean coal" now there is an oxymoron!

As I said Romney was good at cutting up Obama some, but when it came to what Romney wud do it was the usual vague platitudes, although he did make comments about NOT cutting or adding some taxes that if he happens to win will most certainly come back to haunt him.

The result for me was, Romney = smooth talking biz knob Obama = Regular guy, some thoughtful insight

Time will tell which prevails, whoever wins is in for a tough time & the people of the US for a tougher time

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama hasn't been challenged by the press over his policies and results for 4 long years. He has had no preparation for having to do so, really his entire pampered life, and it showed very clearly. Even people who agree with the president on the issues will admit that he doesn't like homework (he's lazy)...and preparation is required for debate. Not that he ever enjoyed the nitty gritty of governing or was going to win no matter how the debates went, but I think this pummeling will crack his confidence...and that's deadly for an emotionally unbalanced "confidence man."

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Doesn't sound like the debate was really beneficial or harmful to either candidate.

Ah that is not what peoples impression are when they watched this debate.

A 'strong appearance' for Romney simply means he held out his own in a debate that was expected to show a stronger appearance by Obama. That's a bit of a win for Romney, but it might be too little too late.

Well anyone who watched this debate would know that Romney didn't just simply hold his own but dominated. Even MSNBC commentators said that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Just watched it all.

Have to say this ( and I really wish I could take credit for this, but it rightfully belongs to a tweet by Mark Hemingway)

"That wasn't a debate so much as Mitt Romney took Obama for a cross country drive strapped to the roof of his car."

2 ( +4 / -2 )

sailwind - Har!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Looking foward to Biden vs Ryan next week.

7 ( +7 / -0 )

I'm glad it didn't get nasty. But there are 3 more debates to go including the VP one...

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Firing Big Bird, Oscar The Grouch, Elmo, The Count and Mr. Snuffleupagus.

I DRAW THE LINE WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO FIRE SNUFFY AND BIG BIRD !!!

Romney is the REAL Muppet !!!!!

1 ( +2 / -1 )

@Lizz Obama's 'Entire pampered life', eh? These Socialists and their class envy will be the death of America.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

BIG BIRD TERMINATED !!!!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kGhLeDugztY

He will get his walking papers when Romney's President !!!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ilv3VLIGJzE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWp8BZpEZYs

1 ( +2 / -1 )

whiskey, aren't you a bit old for Sesame Street ? Puh-leeze!!

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Serrano: Hey, it was Obama's anniversary, he didn't want to be there, he wanted to be home with his Michelle My Bell, his mind wasn't on the dumb ol' debate, give the man a break!

It's worth keeping in mind what some commentators have said here - the person without a day job had a lot more time to practice.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Hey, it was Obama's anniversary, he didn't want to be there, he wanted to be home with his Michelle

Second time this ridiculous comment has been posted.

If I was running for President, I would hope my wife would tell me to go out there and give 'em hell.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Boring rhetoric from both parties.. nothing new, romney won on style points? what the hell is this? a horse show?

...but no matter who put in the better performance last night, the banks have already won

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@bass4funk

It just tickles me at how thin-skinned you liberals are, you guys are just making a slew of excuses for a president who basically got shellacked. I don't want to wallow, but now all of a sudden polls don't mean anything to you liberals and the debate was boring and just not that interesting.

1) I am not a liberal. 2) I actually watched the debate, and formed an impression of it while doing so. It's posted at the top of the thread, for posterity. For the record, yours is as well:

To be fair, Obama is a good speaker, I thought he had more in him, but he looked like he didn't want to be up there, normally, he is quite confident, I expected more, but he just didn't seem comfortable tonight.

Now, that is a reasonable and fair assessment (an not some crazed partisan hyperbole). But now, you seem to want me to go back and adjust my impression because the polls don't agree with it?

I'll say what I said before: pundits and my liberal friends underestimated Romney severely, and are now freaking out about it. I think it would be fair to say that Romney wins on presentation, but I don't think anything dramatic or exciting occurred last night.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Another thought:

An important way this was a win for Romney, now that I think about it, is that debates (at least for me) essentially helps define a candidate in terms of personality and ability to operate under pressure (I don't think primary debates count, for a number of reasons which I won't go into here). You don't really get much of this from campaign ads and convention speeches; everything is prepackaged and crafted to sell you an image. In a debate, even a weak, softball-filled one, the candidates are on their own.

Obama, having been president for four years, is a known quantity. The debates won't change anyone's impression of him. But Romney (at least for those who aren't from Mass) is an unknown quantity. Therefore, it is important that he do well here, because this is the first real look many voters will get at him. This is especially true due to the various recent gaffes and errors which have been dogging his campaign. I think Romney made up for a lot of that last night: he looked calm, confident, and competent. He looked like a serious presidential candidate. That's important.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

I think Romney made up for a lot of that last night: he looked calm, confident, and competent. He looked like a serious presidential candidate. That's important.

@ Triumvere: I think you may be right. You would be surprised at how many people in America don't really know MItt Romney and what he stands for. People tend to follow the leader and believe everything that they hear or see from the one channel that they get their news and information from. If you only watch CNN, MSNBC, you get the impression that Romney is aloof and not caring.

The next attack will be that Romeny was racist because he was being "argumentive" towards Obama,

Well part of my prediction has come true. I just watched a DNC ad that had clips from the debate showing Romney taking control of the conversation and being direct with Obama, and interjecting that with commentators who said that Romney just kept going and going, and at the end of the ad it states: Mitt Romney, what a guy to say that he was not "nice" to Obama but hostile. Ad was paid for by DNC.

So in a few hours or days, we will get the "likeablity" factor thrown out at us and it will portray Romney as agressive, and not a nice guy towards Obama.

At times, American politics can make one sick.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

I don't see why issues in the USA are so difficult to solve

Just raise interest rates, and don't let government meddle in the free market

Will it suck for the first decade ? yeah probably. Will a lot of ppl dependent on the government to survive get screwed? Yup. But what other choice do we have?

Keep up this deficit spending and rely on other countries to fuel our spending? Or debase our currency by having the Fed pick up the slack and buy up debt by printing money?

This is what I don't get about voters and their issues. NOTHING is more important than the economy. If the economy is in shambles, nothing else matters. All other issues don't matter, when you can't afford to pay your bills, buy food, or invest for the future

God sometimes I just want the rest of the world to abandon the US dollar as the reserve currency, so I can laugh when the people in America wake up and realize "Why won't my dollars buy anything??"

So retarded.....

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Once again, "it's over. Not the debate. The election. Romney failed to move the needle."

Boo hoo.

Here is what I wrote a day before last night's debate -- as they are called

The stakes are not so high. These debates -- as they are called -- only matter when the race is close and volatile. Neither is the case here. Real Clear and 538 have had Obama ahead all year by a safe spread. Currently, in the popular vote Obama is up 3.4% at Real Clear, and 3.9% at 538. But Presidents are not elected by popular vote. In Ohio, Obama is up 5.5% according to Real Clear, and that includes the Ras.

And Romney is Toast when he loses OH. With Fl, Romney is within range, through 538 has is likely for Obama now. But not OH.

All in all, not a close race.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/world/view/high-debate-stakes-romney-looks-to-gain-momentum#comment_1417273

We'll know this weekend if Rmoney moved the needle. I bet he doesn't.

I mean really, I bet he doesn;t. And you can to. Just go to Intratrade and put your right wing money where your right wing kisser is.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Mirai

Turn around meaning his debate performance

Oh, O.K. Yeah. That would be nice. But it really doesn't matter. Obama's got my vote. He's got a lot of people's vote. Just as Rmoney has all the right wingers here's vote. Sure, it would be nice to see Obama smack down Rmoney. But that ain't gonna help him necessarily with the people Obama has to retain. At least that is the obvious calculation he made last night.

While, obviously, I want to see Democrats tell the Right Wing Nut Jobs to STFU, that is not the kind of thing a President, espicially the first Black President, is gonna getta away with.

Obama came off looking good, and Rmoney looked like a dick.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

It just tickles me at how thin-skinned you liberals are, you guys are just making a slew of excuses for a president who basically got shellacked.

"how thin-skinned you liberals are"

That is rich coming from you who has done nothing but whine about how mean the librul media to Rmoney for making Rmoney skrew up time and time again. Too funny. Good thing no ones believes the lies you tell about We Liberals.

'Cause We Liberal Dems got OBL. And We Liberal Dems don't whine.

As for Obama got shellacked? Waaa ha ha ha ha ha.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

if romney gets into office the poor will suffer greatly.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

The official Farmboy poll shows that the debate was a rehash of previously stated positions, so it added zilch to the dialogue. It was all about audience perception of style and confidence, not about substance. Nobody will change their vote based on this.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It was all about audience perception of style and confidence, not about substance.

lol And most people vote on the issues ?? If Obama were forced to run on substance against a tough opponent it is pretty obvious he would never have been elected to anything, ever.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

whiskeysour:

Firing Big Bird, Oscar The Grouch, Elmo, The Count and Mr. Snuffleupagus. I DRAW THE LINE WHEN YOU ARE GOING TO FIRE SNUFFY AND BIG BIRD !!!

Fired? No, they'll just all be working for Viacom. Seriously, the show has been on for decades, makes a killing in merchandising, has been made into movies... why the heck is it still subsidized? Looks like it can stand perfectly well on its own. Not continuing to borrow money from China to keep it on the air won't get anybody fired. Any of a number of private-sector production companies will jump on it (and the merchandising rights) and keep it going... profitably.

Geez, no wonder you Leftists/collectivists have no business sense and have to rely on grants, subsidies, and welfare.

Yes, I watched the debate too, although I think it was a different debate from the one Obama's faithful on here watched. The one I saw did not energize a single Democrat, did not sway a single independent to Obama's side. But it sure energized the nation's conservatives, and showed independents a leader who is confident, commanding, and knowledgeable. Mitt walked away with it. Even Chris Mathews knows it. Chris Mathews, for cryin' out loud.

Sure, Obama looked like he didn't want to be there. But he didn't look like he wanted to be with Michelle. (He never looks like that.) He looked like he would rather be out golfing or fundraising. (He always looks like that.) He looked like he was thinking, "I bet Chavez never has to put up with this."

Look, my fellow JT'ers of the Leftist bent, when you don't take questions at your pressers (full of favorable media) for... what, two years?... you're going to be completely unprepared for a debate with an actual opponent. It would have helped if he had a record he could stand on, but he doesn't.

Just wait until the deaths from Fast and Furious are brought up. Or that the administration has illegally blocked notices of pending layoffs for federal employees during the final months of the campaign. Or that Obama's response to the murder of one of our ambassadors and three others was to hit Vegas for a fundraiser. Or that the administration refused to provide adequate defensive personnel to the embassies. Y'all can't defend Obama on such corruption and incompetence, and he won't be able to either.

Finally, the media's filter was off of Romney and we got to see who he actually is, not who they have been saying he is. He looked quite a bit more presidential than the golfer-in-chief.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Ha ha ha ha

When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney.

But it couldn't have been Mitt Romney, because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn't know anything about that.

So here's the truth: Governor Romney cannot cannot pay for his $5 trillion tax plan his tax plan without blowing up the deficit or sticking it to the middle class. That's the math.

We can't afford to go down that road again. We can't afford another round of budget busting tax cuts for the wealthy

Rmoney is such a dope.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

People, people. Has anyone seen the prior debates with Romney and the other Republican canidates? i guess not. in those debates, canidates often fell pray to Romney's style of fast generalzations and speech style and would get caught up in it, and often speak beyond thier own competence trying to match wits with him (Romney), belive this, the DNC, and the electorial College knows, Romney is full of it, and so is his campaign staff, Nothing he is talking about is coming from him, it's all memorized retoric. Obama, and his staff know this, and for this very reason Obama, did not become very engaged. Didn't anyone listen to Bill clintons speech? A Romney and Ryan ticket is a package of fast talk and lies, generalizations, and non articulate plans. Romney will not win. Get over it. And if you are a mainstream Christian and are supporting Romney, you should be ashamed of yourself, because your a sell-out to the hoopla. To all the others, if your judging by entertainment and not pragmatic understanding, and some sort of moral scrutiny, then you will probably vote for Romney. Christians? Held to an even higher standard, so I won't comment, because you already know what you should do, you need to face up and do it. peace

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Finally, the media's filter was off of Romney and we got to see who he actually is, not who they have been saying he is. He looked quite a bit more presidential than the golfer-in-chief.

This a very good point. For a lot of Americans, the debates are when they first start paying attention, and this is very true. They went in having heard a lot of negative stuff about Romney, then watched him essentially make a strong case for himself as President, while Obama just basically sat there and sputtered. Obama is a good speaker when he has the teleprompter, or is reading prepared remarks. Without them, he never does well. And Americans saw that last night.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ONLY poll that really counts will be on November 6th!

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@ fivegogo - I believe the 1st post said something about both Romney and Obama being in the 1%, so not everybody is an idiot. Speaking of idiots, Gore is saying Obama was having problems with the thin air. I guess he's just trying to help?

Obama is a accomplished speaker. That Romney got the better of him is going to re-energize the campaign. How much is yet to be seen.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Trium

Fair enough. I was a bit rash. I apologize for the slip of the tongue.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Rmoney is such a dope"

Har! Hey, DanMan, is the next debate on foreign policy the one where Obama is going to make Romney look silly?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@JT

While, obviously, I want to see Democrats tell the Right Wing Nut Jobs to STFU, that is not the kind of thing a President, espicially the first Black President, is gonna getta away with.

That's what you want to see. I want to live in Maldives, but that ain't gonna happen. Again, the race is close, really tight and we don't know, but what we do know is, is that there are a lot of voters, Independents such as myself that are not happy with the this President. You far-left crazy liberals like Chris Matthews and Ed Schultz are the real nut jobs, in fact, It's the same Whacko Looney liberals that actually hijacked and are holding the Democratic party hostage. The average liberal you can talk and have disagreements with and go back and forth on issues, but Progressive liberal loons are a whole NEW breed, far too polarizing!

Obama came off looking good, and Rmoney looked like a dick.

Sorry, 100% Obama was the one looking like a dick and to be honest, it was good for him to eat a little crow to bring his a** back down to Earth and teach him a bit of humility. I think for the first time he got a dose of Kryptonite and that woke him up. Obama always acted as he is the only person in the room, chin up, Mr. Know it all and that kind of over-confidence is slowly killing him and now he's eating crow as for all the other Obamabots that are out there, having ice water splashed in their faces. But seriously, If I wouldn't know better, I would swear you don't like Romney. Is that safe enough to say?

@Chris Lowery

Chris, you are starting to sound like Chris Matthews, just face facts, and stop living in denial, no cheating, nothing devious, Obama just over-inflated himself and bit off more than he can chew, yes, even a good speaker like Obama can get caught off guard, if you realize that, then you are ahead of the game. He is a man, NOT a God. Fact is, Obama does excellent with his teleprompter, but without it, and we all know now that is his biggest weakness. Sure, Obama is no dummy by a long shot, but he really has to be quick on his feet and as long as he has his teleprompter, he's really good, but without it, total disaster. Likewise, Romney can't make a mistake, if he stumbles, big trouble, so he has to be real careful from here on out, both of them do. And yes, Obama is in a bit of a better position as far as the likability factor is concerned still, but it was a wake up call for all liberals that Obama is a fallible guy.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@gelen

Obama is a accomplished speaker.

As we all saw the other night.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

While Factcheck.org had instances where both President Obama and Mitt Romney were fast and loose with the truth however, in summary, they referred to Mitt Romney as a "serial exaggerator."

Mitt may have one the battle of the debate but the battle of the fact check is not going so well.

And here's something that doesn't make any sense to me. Romney wants to push a lot of programs down to the state level but he fails to explain how the states are going to pay for them. To my knowledge, North Dakota is the only state in the union with a budget surplus. Everyone else is in debt. Now they are going to have to pick up the costs of healthcare and education. Where does that money come from?

Also, pushing things down to the state level doesn't really work when there is so much inequality between the states. The deep south cannot bring in the money they need to run their states so to get by, they receive welfare from the North. California, Minnesota and North Dakota all pay for the south to run their businesses. Pushing federal programs down to the state level means very little cost increase for the deep south, because they don't pay their own way anyway. It would be very damaging to the north, however. Already, local taxes in Minnesota are through the roof and that money is leaving the state, and going into the coffers of the tittybaby south, who ironically, consider themselves all about personal responsibility.

I can only laugh.

If I were elected president, the first thing I would do is legalize and recognize the confederacy. If fact, I'd kick their deadbeat welfare mooching asses out of the United States because they are about as useless as tits on a manhole cover. It would be the best thing that ever happen to the rest of the United States. We'd still have our manufacturing sector, agricultural sector, technology sector and entertainment sector. Really, I can't think of a single good use for the South other than to be a buffer between Mexico and the North in the event Mexico attacks. The north doesn't need the south at all. The south has been sucking on the teat of the North since they lost the Civil War.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Once again, because it bears repeating: In reference to his debate performance, Factcheck.org referred to Romney as a "serial exaggerator."

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Romney is a big lier. His speech last night contradicted everything what he has been saying in the past. He told you everything you wanted to hear. If you believe his lies, then lies will not be lies. He reminded me a teaching in Proverb. Just mark my word, once he is elected, then he will apologize for the slip of the tongue, and change his position back to what he has been saying in the past. He is a man of multiple colors.

For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb, and her mouth is smoother than oil

Obama did not change anything what he has been saying. Which one do you believe? Romney or Obama?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama won because he had plenty of facts, real ones, and accomplishments. Mittster had vague promises and no facts on his planned programs. For all I know, Mittens is planning to finish the job of enslaving Americans at the whim of the elites. With O, there is a chance this may be slowed down, but with M, there is no chance.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I love the excuses that Obama didn't do well in the debate since he was too busy doing the job of the President. If you call going on The View and The Letterman Show doing the "job" of the President the US is in big trouble. @JT explain to me how Romney accomplished so much in his life being a dope?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Yesterday, shortly after the debate I commented that Romney had clearly won. I still stand by statement with a few caveats. Romney won on delivery. He seemed be in more control, he was more polished than he was before, make less mistakes (in terms of gaffes) and seemed much livelier than his opponent. However, after having watched the debate 3 times now (in its entirety -twice on my PC at work, and once on my TV at home) I have come to the conclusion that Romney won on ONLY delivery.

Watching it on my TV at home (without the distractions of my surroundings at work) made a big difference. I was able hear more carefully what was being said and how it was being delivered. Many news outlets reported that Obama seemed to be annoyed or distracted as if he didn't want to be there. Well, when I re-watched the debate at home, I specifically looked for those points and noticed that Obama seemed the most annoyed when Romney was telling Obama that he was wrong on his accusations (especially on the subject of taxes and his health care plan).

Example: Obama stated that Romney's plan will add an additional $5T to the deficit, to which Romney responded "My plan is not to put in place any tax that will add to the deficit". This got a good reaction from the people watching the debate because it seemed like it put Obama's accusations at bay. HOWEVER, according to the Tax Policy Center, the reality is Romney's plan does add $4.8T to the deficit over the next 10 years. Quoted from NBC News http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/10/03/14207584-truth-squad-the-debate?lite.

As I watched the rest of the debate yesterday and last night, I noticed that Romney's claims were RIDDLED with falsehoods. He made MANY claims that just won't pan out or were flat out lies. Now when you're doing a debate, its easy to be upbeat and articulate when you're making statements that aren't true.

Examples:

Claim: "The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it.”

Fact: "When Obama took office in 2009, the deficit was projected to be $1.2 trillion during that year, and it ultimately turned out to be $1.4 trillion, according to Congressional Budget Office data cited by The New York Times. The deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion for fiscal year 2012. "

Claim: "Obamacare "puts in place an unelected board that’s going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have.""

Fact: "Though Obamacare does create an independent board, the law prohibits the board from making recommendations to "ration health care," or "otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility,” according to Bloomberg. "

Claim: "The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more -- if you will, trickle-down government would work."

Fact: "President Obama's proposed budget is estimated to cut about $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years and, so far, Obama has signed $2 trilion worth of spending cuts into law, according to Democratic Party Pollster Bernard Whitman. "

Claim: "You never balance the budget by raising taxes."

Fact: President Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget during his time in office with a tax boost for those in the top 2 percent of earners, according to Duke professor William Chafe.

Claim (on green energy): "And these businesses -- many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they’ve gone out of business."

Fact: Businesses that got government clean energy loans failed at a rate of about 1.4 percent at the end of 2011, according to The Washington Post.

But having said all of this, by Obama not calling Romney out on all of these lies and false claims effectively made him seem weak hence giving people the impression that Romney was telling the truth dominated the debate. But if you go on presentation of facts and presenting a real working plan, Obama had the control and had the win. Just wished he was stronger in his delivery.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Romney's own campaign is having to walk back some of the false claims he made yesterday:

Romney's Claim (during the debate):

"I do have a plan that deals with people with pre-existing conditions. That's part of my health care plan," Romney said.

Statement from Romney's Top advisor, Eric Fehrnstrom:

“With respect to pre-existing conditions, what Governor Romney has said is for those with continuous coverage, he would continue to make sure that they receive their coverage,” said Eric Fehrnstrom, referring to existing laws which require insurance companies to sell coverage to people who already have insurance, or within 90 days of losing their employer coverage.

Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.

“We’d like to see states do what Massachusetts did,” Fehrnstrom said. “In Massachusetts we have a ban on pre-existing conditions.”

So, there is no "plan"..its just wishful thinking, and Romney "hopes" that the states don't allow preexisting conditions, but won't do anything on a federal level to prevent it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Claim: "You never balance the budget by raising taxes."

Fact: President Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget during his time in office with a tax boost for those in the top 2 percent of earners, according to Duke professor William Chafe.

Here is another fun fact for you....NO (zero, none, donut, nada) REPUBLICAN president has balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower. For those who don't know, that was over a half a century ago....

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Mirai HayashiOct. 05, 2012 - 08:07AM JST

Romney won on ONLY delivery

Mirai, you've got it! I have taped the debate and compared the notes. Romney is contradicting everything what he has been saying while Obama was very steady in contents of speech. I am glad you feel the same as well as I am. Unfortunately, many voters do not follow Romney's record as well as you and I do, and believe everything Romney delivered. He is a fake.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@bass4funk

No harm, no foul.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@globalwatcher

Fact checkers are very busy today and have found that most of his claims to be wrong or contradicts what he claimed earlier. Hopefully the network media pick up on the facts as well and doesn't just brush the whole thing under the carpet. NBC has been doing a good job so far. Factcheck.org is alright but they missed a critical on on the $5T tax cut claim...maybe they'll walk it back once people call them out for it.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Fact: Businesses that got government clean energy loans failed at a rate of about 1.4 percent at the end of 2011, according to The Washington Post.

@ Mirai: Then what about Solyndra? And if they are just a part of the "1 % ers" is if fine that they can take over $500 million of our tax dollars and blow it.

For the record, the federal subsidy for a kilowatt/hr of electricty given to the "Big Oil" companies is .64 kw/hr. The Federal subisdy for each kilowatt/hr given to "Big Solar" is $775.64. That's not a Romney generated statistic but from the society of Civil Engineers. So Romney was not off in his assertions of Obama and his "Green Jobs" fiasco and wasteful spending.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mirai, you've got it! I have taped the debate and compared the notes. Romney is contradicting everything what he has been saying while Obama was very steady in contents of speech.

Why is it then that the AARP put out a statement that the Obama campaign should not use them as a talking point when Obama brought up the fact that AARP was in favor of Obamacare. They were so much in favor of it that they got waivers from having to be in it, yet when Obama mentioned them they are pulling the non partisan role. Funny thing is they were solidly behind Obama in pushing for Obamacare to pass.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Then what about Solyndra? And if they are just a part of the "1 % ers" is if fine that they can take over $500 million of our tax dollars and blow it.

And....? Solyndra is like one company dude...hardly comes close to Romney's "half of the businesses failed" claim...business will fail..that's the nature of business...can't blame the government for a business failing...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

NolivingOct. 04, 2012 - 09:04PM JST

Doesn't sound like the debate was really beneficial or harmful to either candidate.

Ah that is not what peoples impression are when they watched this debate.

Smith and Nolving, here in US, over 60 million Americans watched the debate last night. This is a very important debate as our life depend on the policy changes involving jobs, health care, investment, cost of living, taxes..... We cannot choose health insurance carriers until the election is over and done. That's just one of examples, though.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

business will fail..that's the nature of business...can't blame the government for a business failing...

@ Mirai: No you can't blame the government for a business failing, but I suggest you do a little research in the Solyndra issue. You will see that government regulators in the DOE suggested not giving them the loans. But, they used the influence that they had to cut the red tape, and get the loans made to them, knowing (the company that is) that their business was failing. The issue with Solyndra is that they were close donors to Obama's 2008 campaign, and the personal calls put in on their behalf by members of the current administration make it more worse. Funny thing is that when they went bankrupt, the FBI came in and seized all the documents. Where are they and what do they contain, no one knows.

But, the former head of Solyndra was vidoed by ABC News (not a right wing organization) in NC at the DNC being shown at exclusive donor events, and of course when questioned by the ABC News they were told to stop filming and ushered out. So there is more to that story, but we are not getting it.

Funny how when Enron went belly up, people went to jail and it tainted Bush. But I guess this one is fine since it was "Green Energy."

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I was actually pretty amazed at how easily Romney handled Obama during the first debate. You could just look at Obama's face, the fact that he was looking down and even looking back around himself at one point, that he realized that he was not as prepared and was getting his butt kicked. Romney was able to elevate himself a great deal in the eyes of the American public. If was good to see that the moderator stayed out of the debate; just steering it and keeping it on track while not interfering with the back and forth between the candidates. Both candidates were respectful to one another and they stayed on topic and didn't go off on personal attacks.

Romney was much more confident and coherent than Obama but to be truthful his job was quite easy really. It was Obama that needed to defend the last four years and he just couldn't. The economy is actually worse now than it was just two years ago based on GDP growth. Unemployment is still above 8%. There are 23 million people out of work. College graduates cannot get jobs. Gas prices are twice what they were when Obama took office. Obama's reset with the Muslim world and with Russia are now in tatters. I know there are a lot of true believers in President Obama. But the facts are the facts - he is a failed president. People know deep down inside that this is true and that is why even if he carries a polling edge into the November election he will probably still lose. Why? Because people don't believe him. Most of his followers except for Progressive lefties and blacks are not enthusiastic about him anymore. By contrast, Republicans are enthused and Romney's debate performance will just enhance that enthusiasm.

If Romney stays around even in the next two debates he will be the next president. However, I think there is a very good chance that Romney will win decisively again in one of the two remaining debates. What you see from Obama is who he is. He isn't all that great without a teleprompter. By contrast, Romney does his homework and gets the job done.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

@Alphaape

I don't see how this relates to Romney's claim that HALF of green energy businesses fail...you're bringing up a completely irrelevant topic...meh

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Obama did not change anything what he has been saying. Which one do you believe? Romney or Obama?

Uh, I tend to believe Romney. No matter what excuse you have and Dems have more than enough, hear Al Gore's idiotic comments? The altitude? Are you kidding me?

@Mirai

And....? Solyndra is like one company dude...hardly comes close to Romney's "half of the businesses failed" >claim...business will fail..that's the nature of business...can't blame the government for a business failing...

Why are you trying to spin again? Solyndra isn't the ONLY public funded company that failed.

Ener 1-Bankrupt, Beacon Power-Bankrupt, Abound Solar-Bankrupt, Amonix Solar-Bankrupt, Spectra Watt-Bankrupt, Eastern Energy-Bankrupt All government funded.

Now as a business man myself, you have hits and misses, that is what capitalism is all about, but in Romney's case, unlike Obama's, he's had more hits than misses.

AMC Entertainment, Burger King, Burlington Coat Factory, Clear Channel Communications, Dominoes Pizza, Dunkin' Donuts, Guitar Center, The Sports Authority, Staples, Toys "R" Us, Warner Music Group

Not to mention the Staples Sports center in Los Angles and the 2002 Winter Olympics, now if you want to spin and call it small, fine, then you are just detached from reality.

Now contrast that to Obama's failed policy

$16T debt, 8.1% unemployment, AAA credit rating downgraded to AA, NO annual budget, Welfare claims up, disability claims up 19%, 1.2 GDP growth, printing money, borrowing from China, spending 60 cents on every dollar we spend. Government take over of GM! 32 million people out of work, is against oil, coil and natural gas. Blacks 14.4% unemployment, Hispanics 11%, Whites 7.3% Add to that his foreign policy that he promised a new beginning in the Middle East would make the Muslims love us, exploded (pun intended) in his face.

So you can make a fundamental choice, do you want a President like Obama with proven failed policies with a huge inflated ego or a man that has at least a proven record and can say, I have something to show for it. Obama cannot.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@bass

He's a fantastic private sector business man...no one is disputing that. But to say a great businessman = great president is a fallacy... And in Mitts case, it doesn't apply..check his record as Mass. governor....47th in job creation..nuff said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I don't see how this relates to Romney's claim that HALF of green energy businesses fail...you're bringing up a completely irrelevant topic...meh

@ Mirai: How about the IMF Global fiasco. John Corzine, former NJ Gov and Senator (Dem) lost $1.5 billion in investors money, and is still living large and no jail time. Corzine, a key figure in the Dem party and yet Obama who claims he is for the people has done nothing to bring the SEC to bear on IMF. Those who lost their money, were mostly small time farmers who had their money invested in agri funds.

he realized that he was not as prepared and was getting his butt kicked.

@ WOlfpack: Not making excuses for the Dems, but I bet if they could go back in time, they would and put up some other candidates for the primaries. Not so much to replace Obama, but to at least go through the process and have candidates question him and let him go through the primary process to get his debating skills back up again. In 2008, Obama was scene in the debates as a great speaker and presented a good image. He didn't have to do that this time, and he and his team probably assumed that they would be able to just breeze through Mitt. Mitt was not well spoken at the first of the many GOP debates, but he had the opportunity to practice against opponents in public, not just with sparring partners in private that can be interrupted.

I think the take away is that in 2016, no matter who wins, both parties will make sure that there will be competition in the primaries, if anything to get the candidates familiar with debating in public and getting the point across.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Face it Chris Mathews wannabees, this time Obama is facing a formidable candidate in the debates and not a broken-down old man like in 2008. Maybe if Obama challanges Mitt to a one-on-one game of hoops he can beat him at that...

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@Mirai

And in Mitts case, it doesn't apply..check his record as Mass. governor....47th in job creation..nuff said.

Come on, man...you really think Romney's record is worse than Obama's, come on, seriously!! You cannot believe that. That is totally absurd and you know that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

How about the IMF Global fiasco. John Corzine, former NJ Gov and Senator (Dem) lost $1.5 billion in investors money, and is still living large and no jail time. Corzine, a key figure in the Dem party and yet Obama who claims he is for the people has done nothing to bring the SEC to bear on IMF. Those who lost their money, were mostly small time farmers who had their money invested in agri funds.

Again, I don't see how this relates to anything I wrote...but if you want to go there, shall be talk about how all of the executives on wallstreet made bad bets (due to lack of regulations under the Bush administration) that tanked the economy and yet not a single person was arrested for fraud? NO? I didn't think so.

Let's stick to the topic...which is the debate...Romney lied 27 times in 38 minutes...wow..I mean WOW...rapid fire action! And this doesn't include the number of times he reiterated them...these are 38 unique lies..

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

sorry...27 unique lies

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

47th in job creation? yes I do...especially for a man who is campaigning on the premise of being a business titan, and a jobs creator.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Mirai Hayashi:

...according to the Tax Policy Center...

Uh oh. You might want to check your sources. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/the-tax-policy-centers-5-trillion-blunder-nonpartisan-nonsense/

As the article notes, Romney's plan would eliminate the TPC's tax-exempt status (something they hold fraudulently, just like Brookings, Urban Institute, Media Matters, the NAACP, etc., etc.), which means they're not a disinterested observer.

Now when you're doing a debate, its easy to be upbeat and articulate when you're making statements that aren't true.

Well that explains Obama's performance against McCain in '08. Would you like a list of Obama's broken campaign promises?

Claim: "The president said he'd cut the deficit in half."

Well? Has he?

...the law prohibits the board ...

The law also requires that federal employees be notified in advance of pending layoffs, but this president has decided to break the law and withhold notifications of pending layoffs until after the election, and stick taxpayers with the costs of the lawsuits. You might want to read up on the executive orders Obama has signed before insisting that the law prevents his administration forom doing anything.

Fact: "President Obama's proposed budget is estimated to cut about $1.1 trillion over the next 10 years and, so far, Obama has signed $2 trilion worth of spending cuts into law, according to Democratic Party Pollster Bernard Whitman.

Wow, a DNC pollster. Great source. Why didn't you quote Sasha and Malia?

Oh wait, almost forgot this one:

Fact: President Bill Clinton managed to balance the budget during his time in office with a tax boost for those in the top 2 percent of earners, according to Duke professor William Chafe.

Again, check your sources. Chafe, like many Duke professors (and I have a friend at Duke) is hardly an unbiased source. For example, who led Congress when Clinton finally started balancing the budget? With many of Clinton's cuts (the ones he pushed for) gutting the military and leaving us open for attacks, was it truly a "balanced" budget?

"Mr. President, as president, you're entitled to your own airplane and your own house, but not your own facts."

Here is another fun fact for you....NO (zero, none, donut, nada) REPUBLICAN president has balanced the budget since Dwight D. Eisenhower. For those who don't know, that was over a half a century ago....

Can you name a Republican president that hasn't had a Democrat-controlled house and senate since Eisenhower? Do you know where spending bills originate? Even when Bush 43 had a Republican house and senate, we had been attacked and there was a new war to fight. Can you name any presidents that oversaw one war (much less two wars) and balanced the budget? No? Fascinating.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Obama did not change anything what he has been saying. Which one do you believe? Romney or Obama?

Uh, I tend to believe Romney. No matter what excuse you have and Dems have more than enough, hear Al Gore's idiotic comments? The altitude? Are you kidding me?

bass, you have a very unhealthy thinking style I cannot ignore. Did you realize you always shift issues instead of focusing on the true issue? Did anyone tell you about it? Hope you take this as a positive constructive feedback. You do not have to boast to make a point to others.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Fact checkers are very busy today...

...ignoring everything Obama said.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Solyndra is like one company dude...

...among at least 18 others that have failed, dude. Did you know that almost 80% of the "green" companies supported by the nearly $900T stimulus were campaign donors for Obama? Ever heard the term "corporate cronyism"?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

...you're bringing up a completely irrelevant topic...

Hmmm, an Obama donor that received $535B in funding from Obama's stimulus, was a major photo op for the Obama administration, and then went Tango Uniform during Obama's first term is suddenly irrelevant? No, that's called "evidence". Evidence of the Obama administration's knack for picking losers.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

globalwatcher:

He is a fake.

Right. And Obama is "the real deal".

Barack "I'm Kenyan-I mean-Hawaiian" Obama?

Barack "I'm Not a Socialist" Obama?

Barack "All My Personal Past is Sealed Up" Obama?

Barack "I didn't hang with Jeremiah Wright" Obama?

Barack "I didn't know Bill Ayers belonged to the Weather Underground" Obama?

Barack "My Muslim Faith" Obama?

That Barack Obama?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Mirai:

He's a fantastic private sector business man...no one is disputing that. But to say a great businessman = great president is a fallacy... And in Mitts case, it doesn't apply..check his record as Mass. governor....47th in job creation..nuff said.

No, "nuff" not said. You're omitting context (again). How much was the economy growing during that time? What was the unemployment rate in Massachusetts then? 4.7%. How much do you expect Romney (or any governor) to improve job growth when the unemployment rate in their state is 4.7%?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

among at least 18 others that have failed, dude. Did you know that almost 80% of the "green" companies supported by the nearly $900T stimulus were campaign donors for Obama? Ever heard the term "corporate cronyism"?

And you got this from where? I'm sure you made it up like all of the other fallacies republicans like to make up. $900T? really???? I mean REALLY? that is like 1500% of the WORLD economy. In other words $900T doesn't exist unless you live in bizarro world when mathematics don't matter, unicorn prance and play with fairies, and republicans balance national budgets by cutting taxes.

...ignoring everything Obama said.

Obama has some but far less

@gw

Did you realize you always shift issues instead of focusing on the true issue?

All republicans do this...go to Youtube and pick out any random interview Romney, and you'll see that we will never answer a question he doesn't have the answer to, and give an answer that is completely irrelevant.

Wow, a DNC pollster. Great source.

Yes, he is because pollsters usually have to keep track of facts and stats...that's their job.

The president said he’d cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it.

No he didn't..but thanks for the outrageous lie Mitt!

Maybe if Obama challanges Mitt to a one-on-one game of hoops he can beat him at that...

Thanks for that unsolicited "racialist" comment

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher:

He is a fake.

Right. And Obama is "the real deal".

Barack "I'm Kenyan-I mean-Hawaiian" Obama?

Barack "I'm Not a Socialist" Obama?

Barack "All My Personal Past is Sealed Up" Obama?

Barack "I didn't hang with Jeremiah Wright" Obama?

Barack "I didn't know Bill Ayers belonged to the Weather Underground" Obama?

Oldhawk, I disrespect all comments who tries to misuse what I have said. I did not say Obama is a fake. Get it right, Romney is a fake. I am ready to talk about policies, nothing else. Can you do that? I am ready to respond, nothing else. Thanks.

Barack "My Muslim Faith" Obama?

That Barack Obama?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldHawkOct. 05, 2012 - 11:13AM JST

...you're bringing up a completely irrelevant topic...

Hmmm, an Obama donor that received $535B in funding from Obama's stimulus, was a major photo op for the Obama administration, and then went Tango Uniform during Obama's first term is suddenly irrelevant? No, that's called "evidence". Evidence of the Obama administration's knack for picking losers

OldHawk, please rewrite, so I can understand. Which stimulus are you talking about?

OldHawkOct. 05, 2012 - 11:10AM JST

Solyndra is like one company dude...

...among at least 18 others that have failed, dude. Did you know that almost 80% of the "green" companies supported by the nearly $900T stimulus were campaign donors for Obama? Ever heard the term "corporate cronyism"?

OldHawk, please rewrite, so I can follow your post and I am ready to respond. Thanks.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

globalwatcher:

Oldhawk, I disrespect all comments who tries to misuse what I have said. I did not say Obama is a fake. Get it right, Romney is a fake.

I did not misuse what you said. I know you said Romney is a fake. What I did was point out the irony of you calling Romney a fake when Obama's history is sealed, made up of "composite characters", changed for the agenda-of-the-day, and a pack of outright lies.

Can you follow that? Do you understand irony? Like you claiming that you only want to talk about policies, but calling Romney a fake. That's irony. No wait, that's comedy.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oldhawk, I did not say that lightly. Romney is a fake. Let's talk about Romney's policy, okay?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldHawk, please rewrite, so I can understand. Which stimulus are you talking about?

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, started by Obama in 2009 at $787B, and has grown from there. Which "Obama's stimulus" did you think I was referring to?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

...and I am ready to respond.

Somehow, I doubt that.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Yes, let's look at in full context..shall we:

Quotes from factcheck.org

“Romney had the best jobs record in a decade.” Yes — Massachusetts added more net jobs during Romney’s four years in office than during the four-year period of either his predecessor or successor. But — that ignores the national recessions before and after Romney’s time in office. If you look at how Massachusetts stacked up on job creation compared with other states, Romney actually fared worse than his predecessor and successor.

Romney “reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent.” Yes — Massachusetts’ unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But — the state’s unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

Romney “balanced every budget without raising taxes.” Yes — Romney never raised personal income taxes. But — in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, Massachusetts' law states that the governor MUST balance the budget. He had no choice, and this is the way he did it.

So how did Massachusetts do compared with other states? As the Obama campaign has repeatedly noted, Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50 states over the entirety of Romney’s four years as governor in terms of job creation. By comparison, Massachusetts ranked 37th in job growth under Swift, and it ranked 10th in Patrick’s first term. By that measure, Romney had the worst record in a decade.

Source: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/romneys-jobs-record-is-best-or-worst/

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass4funk Fair enough. Ensightful rebuttal.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Mirai:

And you got this from where?

Oh, now you're going to complain about sources? That's rich. Since you're quoting Left-wing activist professors from Duke, and DNC pollsters, here is a source that I'm sure you'll enjoy: http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/06/green-scam-80-of-green-energy-loans-went-to-obama-donors-19-companies-went-bust-video/

The list of companies that received funding from Obama's stimulus (I presume you know which "Obama's stimulus" I'm referring to and don't need it pointed out) and are now failing or have filed for bankruptcy as of June 2012 are:

Evergreen Solar

SpectraWatt

Solyndra (received $535 million)

Beacon Power (received $43 million)

AES’ subsidiary Eastern Energy

Nevada Geothermal (received $98.5 million)

SunPower (received $1.5 billion)

First Solar (received $1.46 billion)

Babcock & Brown (an Australian company which received $178 million)

Ener1 (subsidiary EnerDel received $118.5 million)

Amonix (received 5.9 million)

The National Renewable Energy Lab

Fisker Automotive

Abound Solar (received $400 million)

Chevy Volt (taxpayers basically own GM)

Solar Trust of America

A123 Systems (received $279 million)

Willard & Kelsey Solar Group (received $6 million)

Johnson Controls (received $299 million)

Schneider Electric (received $86 million)

Feel free to fact-check that and post your findings here.

I'm sure you made it up like all of the other fallacies republicans like to make up.

Quick, who said "The private sector is doing fine"?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

$900T? really???? I mean REALLY? that is like 1500% of the WORLD economy. In other words $900T doesn't exist unless you live in bizarro world when mathematics don't matter blah blah blah

$900B. A typo on my part. I'm tired. Would you like to know why?

Yes, he is because pollsters usually have to keep track of facts and stats...that's their job.

Google "Harrison Hickman". Okay, I know you won't. So here is the link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2012/10/a-pollster-under-oath-137100.html

No he didn't..but thanks for the outrageous lie Mitt!

Thanks for yet another broken campaign promise, Barry!

From CBS News, so you can't complain about the source:

"The Debt rose $4.899 trillion during the two terms of the Bush presidency. It has now gone up $4.939 trillion since President Obama took office.

The latest posting from the Bureau of Public Debt at the Treasury Department shows the National Debt now stands at $15.566 trillion. It was $10.626 trillion on President Bush's last day in office, which coincided with President Obama's first day.

The National Debt also now exceeds 100% of the nation's Gross Domestic Product, the total value of goods and services.

Mr. Obama has been quick to blame his predecessor for the soaring Debt, saying Mr. Bush paid for two wars and a Medicare prescription drug program with borrowed funds.

The federal budget sent to Congress last month by Mr. Obama, projects the National Debt will continue to rise as far as the eye can see. The budget shows the Debt hitting $16.3 trillion in 2012, $17.5 trillion in 2013 and $25.9 trillion in 2022.

Federal budget records show the National Debt once topped 121% of GDP at the end of World War II. The Debt that year, 1946, was, by today's standards, a mere $270 billion dollars.

Mr. Obama doesn't mention the National Debt much, though he does want to be seen trying to reduce the annual budget deficit, though it's topped a trillion dollars for four years now."

Maybe if Obama challanges Mitt to a one-on-one game of hoops he can beat him at that...

Thanks for that unsolicited "racialist" comment

I didn't post that, but what is "racialist" about it? Would golf be less "racialist"? How about bowling? No, better not have a bowling challenge. Obama already admitted his game was only good for the Special Olympics. Nice going, President Sensitive.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

globalwatcher:

Let's talk about Romney's policy, okay?

Sure, go ahead.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

In an interview Thursday night with Fox News, Romney was asked what he would have said had the "47 percent" comments come up during his debate in Denver on Wednesday night with President Barack Obama.

"Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."

Flip flop --back pedal! back pedal! back pedal! back pedal!

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

OldHawkOct. 05, 2012 - 12:08PM JST

...and I am ready to respond.

Somehow, I doubt that.

OldHawk, you abviously cannot tell me about Romney's policies. Tell me if he is in supply side or demand side economy first. Okay? Tell me the difference. Is he for pro-life or pro-choice? Does he believe in public school? What does he want to do with Sally Mae? What does he want to do for medicare and social security? What does he want to do for the financial market? Which tax loopholes does he want to close? I would like to hear how much you know about Romney's plan. Thanks.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Yes, let's look at in full context..shall we:

Quotes from factcheck.org

Romney "reduced unemployment to just 4.7 percent." Yes - Massachusetts' unemployment rate went from 5.6 percent to 4.6 percent under Romney. But - the state's unemployment rate was slightly lower than the national rate when he took office, and was roughly the same as the national rate when he left office.

And? Romney reduced unemployment. Just think if Obama got unemployment under 8%, just once. Not only that, but median incomes are at the lowest they've been in 13 years. Do you know why? Because almost 20% of Americans are either unemployed or under-employed (check the U-6 stats). Romney clearly has the better record, no matter desperately you or factcheck.org try to spin it.

You didn't answer my question: How much do you expect Romney (or any governor) to improve job growth when the unemployment rate in their state is 4.7%?

Romney "balanced every budget without raising taxes." Yes - Romney never raised personal income taxes. But - in order to balance the budget, Romney increased government fees by hundreds of millions of dollars. Furthermore, Massachusetts' law states that the governor MUST balance the budget. He had no choice, and this is the way he did it.

Ah, another "yes, but" response from your favorite site. Did Romney balance the state budget? Yes. Did he do so in a way different from most other state governors? No.

Quick question: That pesky "fee" that took Obamacare to the U.S. Supreme Court... was it a penalty, a fee, or a tax? Because the Obama administration is trying to have it all three ways at once. Do you know how many other "fees" are incorporated into Obamacare alone?

Flip flop --back pedal! back pedal! back pedal! back pedal!

Sure, keep defending Obama every time he - wait, you don't defend Obama. Is that because you can't?

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Mirai and gw, OldHawk rebuffed all your twisting, just like a firm paddling. The debate was a milktoast version. Use a fluffy cushion to sit down.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Does anyone know if the candidates are allowed to bring notes to the debate? In 2004 they weren't allowed to..what about now?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Does anyone know if the candidates are allowed to bring notes to the debate? In 2004 they weren't allowed to..what about now?

@ Mirai: I think that they can, but it looked like both were using notepads to write down items that each had said so that they can counter them. I don't think either person had the questions given to them before hand. But it is a good question to find out. I think if you go to the election commission website they may have a link to the rules of the debates.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I already went there and they didn't have the rules for this debate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I havent decided if its sad or hilarious that conservatives think Romney was so great in the debate..................After I watched it it totally reminded of the saying

""BS baffles brains!""

Romney was lieing his butt off, making stuff up, being amazingly vague haha........... I wudnt be surprised if the Dems, just let him shoot his mouth off so they cud then go & point put all the LIES & BS he spewed.

Seriously you conservatives REALLY need to know the difference between SUBSTANCE & BS/LIES.............I know wishful thinking but hey

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Wednesday night's debate was by far the best campaign ad to vote for Romney that the GOP has released this entire election season.

RR

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Dan: "Obama came off looking good, and Rmoney looked like a dick""

According to who? You? Har!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

OldHawk is clearly a shill or behaving like one. Suggest ignoring this one.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

David Axelrod: "Governor Romney is a very eager and willing candidate on the attack"

Translation: Romney whupped our candidate.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Nice heated and somewhat emotional discussion here with only a few of you with the facts and the in-depth knowledge of politics, economics, finance, the social security system, the mortgage financing system, etc. to give real "perspective" to the "substance" of the debate which is the actual (not advertised, propagandized, or assumed) STATE of USA and the WORLD, economically, politically, etc. I had hoped that after reading through all of your contributions, more of you would have been more "serious" about the election of a President of a country that affect the "entire" WORLD.

The next President can and will affect what will happen the Chinese threat, Taiwan, S. Korean and our host country Japan. It is sad that very few of you have done your homework to be able to participate in a meaningful way.

The debate was about USA's economy and government policies that affect the economy and lives of not only the people in the USA, but every other country in the world. The next debate will cover other areas of concern.

What are your view on that?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Ranger_Miffy2:

OldHawk is clearly a shill or behaving like one. Suggest ignoring this one.

If you can't back up your arguments, then yes, you shouldn't waste my time with your opinions that are nothing more than prejudice. If you're insecure about your political beliefs, then don't engage someone like me in a debate, as I will question them. If I'm feeling particularly industrious, I will construct my arguments so that they question not only what you believe, but why you believe it and how you arrived at that set of beliefs.

But if you can form a substantive argument (as Mirai-san tried), then by all means go ahead and engage me. It will make for interesting conversation, and you might even sharpen your debate skills. That's why I engage people who disagree with me. If I wanted to have a political discussion, I certainly wouldn't be hanging people who only agree with everything I say.

Over the decades, I've learned why I have the opinions and political beliefs that I do. I've even changed some of my stances after being questioned on the "why" and "how" and learning the answers within myself. So if you feel confident in your political beliefs and you're not afraid of a little personal growth, then don't be afraid to debate me. But if you just want to bitterly cling to your uninformed (or mal-informed, as one pundit says) prejudice, then avoid me and go find an echo chamber. There are plenty of those on the internet already. I can give you links.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

@Mirai

I guess there is nothing left for me to say since OldHawk summed everything up. Bottom line is, you liberals would be singing a different tune had Obama won and you know it, you all thought that Mitt would fail and he didn't. The problem is, Obama can debate and is a good orator as long as the discussion is within his own narrative, you bring the fight to him and he just doesn't know how to counter-punch. Also you guys seem to forget, Romney is a business man, how do you think he amassed his millions? By being dumb? I outlined earlier a few of Romney's accomplishments whether you want to accept it or not and want to believe the liberal media that Obama doesn't care or left people behind is absolutely false. No politician is perfect, I never said and no one is saying that Romney is perfect, but you guys think that Obama is beyond perfect and without any flaws, to the point where it's almost scary. Personally and honestly, I don't think Obama can overtake Romney in the debates, I could be wrong, I could be, but I felt from watching the debate that Romney is in his element and I really passionate about what he believes and that makes a world of difference in a debate when challenging someone like Obama.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@global

you have a very unhealthy thinking style I cannot ignore.

You mean just because I don't follow and pray upon the altar of Obama

Did you realize you always shift issues instead of focusing on the true issue?

You do it all the time, when someone puts hard facts in front of you, you just trumpet "4 more years and Obama will win" as if you know without a shadow of doubt that there is NO way on God's green Earth that Obama could lose. Even now you can't and won't recognize that Romney gave Obama a serious shellacking. No, you are the one that constantly shifts and never focuses on the truth.

Did anyone tell you about it?

Only people that have nothing to say in a debate or are simply lying.

Hope you take this as a positive constructive feedback.

No, I don't and respect constructive criticism, but It seems like you can't and this is not a personal attack, but you are not being fair in you commenting on Romney. If you are a fair person, you would acknowledge Obama's flaws and yet, you NEVER do.

-Think about it.

You do not have to boast to make a point to others.

I am boasting because if Obama had won, you liberals would have been boasting and you know it, I know it and everyone else that is fair and center knows it. This should be a lesson to you guys to "always expect the unexpected"

0 ( +1 / -1 )

First off, let's all recognize that these are fundamentally two good men. Good fathers, good husbands, extremely intelligent, and very good at what they do.

However, they come from different worlds. Romney is used to selling his ideas one on one. That is his forte. He is mentall agile and responsive. That's what good businessmen do. The President, OTOH, is a talker. He is very good addressing a gathering, but not at responding to spontaneous questions. He can lecture and persuade, but isn't used to having his ideas attacked.

As for all the "lies" that Romney told, let's assume (for the sake of argument) that it is true. He lied. What does it say about the PRESIDENT that he let Gov. Romney get away with telling them? It goes back to the above- Obama isn't used to that situation. He has staffers to research for him, gather info, and type it up.

He lost. Badly.

4 ( +4 / -0 )

It's sort of funny/pathetic/telling that if you just begin reading through the first postings, folks on here - particularly the liberals - were saying 'pretty even, not so bad' right after the date and then the next day the media and every poll was stating what a complete failure the debate was for Obama. It either shows how little most here understand politics, or how skewed people are to see things how they wish to see them.

The President is no Winston Churchill as far as speaking prowess. As far as experience and policy, he's a disaster. But he clearly lost the debate. A good orator does not need a teleprompter, nor proper 'prepping' from his handlers. I'm not saying Romney is either - but he was certainly able to take the lead on this one.

I wouldn't read too much into it (unfortunately). I seem to recall a debate where Ronald Reagan (a great man) hardly seemed to know where he was, and he still won the election.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Did you realize you always shift issues instead of focusing on the true issue?

You do it all the time, when someone puts hard facts in front of you, you just trumpet "4 more years and Obama will win" as if you know without a shadow of doubt that there is NO way on God's green Earth that Obama could lose. Even now you can't and won't recognize that Romney gave Obama a serious shellacking. No, you are the one that constantly shifts and never focuses on the truth.

The truth teller always win. See it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy that is based on lies.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The truth teller always win. See it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy that is based on lies.

I have never done that, this is the reason why I always cry foul when I hear people stretch the truth and when people try NOT to acknowledge the hardcore facts, especially here on JT.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Too funny. Obama's "disastrous" performance hasn't budged his number. Rmoney has a 2% boost in the national polls. And, as always, ever important OH registers no change. So sad for Team Money.

Also too funny: Republicans are losing the the post-debate spin. The"moment" that came out of the debate wasn't anything Obama said, but the fact that Mitt Romney wants to fire Big Bird.

Just one more bit of evidence supporting the obvious: Obama is winning.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"Obama's 'disastrous' performance hasn't budged his ( poll ) number"

Heck, Obama still has the charisma!

And Romney's entitled to his own airplane and his own house, but not his own facts!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The truth teller always win.

But that doesnt mean the winner is always a truth teller.

In this case we have two liars running. One of these liars will win.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@bass:

I am boasting because if Obama had won, you liberals would have been boasting and you know it, I know it and everyone else that is fair and center knows it. This should be a lesson to you guys to "always expect the unexpected"

This is so true. In exactly one month, all of us will be back here and we will either boast of victory or we will have to withstand a defeat while trying to hold our heads high. I didn't expect Romney to do so well and I support him!

What happened in this debate is that the candidates discussed their governing philosophies and were not playing gotcha' and throwing put downs at one another. Based on overall philosophy, Romney won hands down. Obama's vision for the country has failed and Romney demonstrated that over 90 minutes.

Obama loses when he talks about his governing philosophy and that is why he will avoid doing so in the next two debates. Instead he will focus on Romney's gaffe's and on those things that divide Americans. But the gaffe's don't amount to a hill of beans. The reason they are irrelevant is for every 47% comment that Romney has made, Obama has made his own gaffe "you didn't build that" or "clinging to their guns and religion". Obama must hone in on class, race, sex, or some other difference in order to divide American's as a way to gain an advantage. In truth, Romney made the same mistake with his 47% comment - which to his credit he has acknowledged to be wrong.

In the next presidential debate Obama will bring up the 47% line of attack. Romney knows it's coming and he will be prepared. He will admit that it was wrong and if he is smart, he will throw Obama's own gaffe's right back at him. Obama has a superiority complex and has underestimated Romney; it could cost him the election.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It felt like Obama wasn't himself during the debate. I was quite surprised.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Besides, everybody knows the best debate this season won't come from Romney nor Obama nor Ryan nor Biden but rather from Jon Stewart and Bill O'Reilly debating each other!

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/tv/2012/10/06/jon-stewart-oreilly-rumble/1617481/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/decision2012/jon-stewart-bill-oreilly-rumble-and-zingers-fly/2012/10/06/61a347c8-0f0c-11e2-a310-2363842b7057_story.html

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Romney has reversed himself on his 47% statement whereas he was backing 100% before. So he has changed his mind again. But you all know that he has not, he just has "adjusted" his message because saying half the country that does not pay taxes, a good bunch of which are republicans, did not help his election chances.

So why are your conservatives so happy about the Robboid lying so well in a debate. He did that for months in the republican 50 debate rounds, that no one watched. His opponents are hated for lying so much.

But in the end the republicans have no idea who they are voting for in Romney. The liberal MA governor, the elitist out of touch tax dodger, the right wing nut job that won the republican primaries barely, or now the newly minted "I am just like Obama" tax the rich and I love medicare new Romney. There is only one thing you can say for sure about this guy, he wants to be the first Morman President. The rest is smoke and

0 ( +1 / -1 )

"he ( Romney ) has changed his mind again"

Romney admits it when he makes a mistake, unlike Obama.

"republicans have no idea who they are voting for in Romney"

Of course they do. He's basically the only alternative to Obama.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"Obama clings to a narrow lead"

If Romney is so bad, why is Obama's lead narrow? I don't get it...

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

somebody must have put a little something extra into romney's apricot juice.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Poles are poles and their reliability is questionable at best for this election. Statistics depend a lot on "how" such data was gotten and "how" the questions were stated and asked and "how" the acquired data is interpreted. It appears that this election especially is influenced by "who" is taking the data.

Regardless, it is important that we know, understand and appreciate the core of the debate in order to have a meaningful discussion. The issues for the debate were based on "economics".

Here, it is important that we have the "correct" perspective on economics. I suggest everyone read "THE PRICE OF CIVILIZATION" by Jeffrey Sachs. It will enlighten you as to whom you may want to "back up" and "support" for this election when you consider economics and your own financial stability within the USA and the rest of the world, including here in Japan.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Here, it is important that we have the "correct" perspective on economics. I suggest everyone read "THE PRICE OF CIVILIZATION" by Jeffrey Sachs.

Soon to debate GOP vice-presidential nominee, US Congressman from Wisconsin and chairman of the House Budget Committee, Mr. Paul Ryan, critiques this book, at the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903703604576589090204327736.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Oh look, a huge Obama-issued DNC talking point is a lie: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites