START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x

The Four Most Misleading Moments in Romney's Debate Performance


US Politics & Gov't  (tags: americans, candidates, debate, democrats, elections, ethics, government, media, obama, politics, propaganda, republicans )

Kit
- 713 days ago - tnr.com
Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He's outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor.



Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.

Comments

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 11:12 am
(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images News)

The pundits are unanimous. Mitt Romney had more energy, offered more specifics, and may even have come across as more empathetic. I agree and polls suggest voters saw it the same way.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.

My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.

Some details:

1. Taxes. President Obama repeatedly described Romney’s tax plan as a $5 trillion tax plan. Romney repeatedly took exception. The figure is correct. Romney has not given many details about his tax plan, but it’s possible to extrapolate from his promises and the Tax Policy Center, a project of the Brookings Institution and Urban Institute, did just that. Crunching the numbers, they determined that his proposed rate cut would cost… $5 trillion.

Romney has said he would offset those cuts by closing loopholes. The Tax Policy Center has analyzed that promise and found that it is mathematically impossible, unless Romney raises taxes on the middle class or lets his tax plan increase the deficit—neither of which Romney has said he's willing to do. Romney has challenged the Tax Policy Center conclusion and did so again tonight, referring mysteriously to “six studies” that supposedly prove he’s right. He's also been cryptic about what deductions he'd cut and, tonight, even suggested maybe he'd back away from some of the cuts if the numbers didn't add up—although, as always, he was so vague that the statements could mean absolutely nothing.

I wish Obama had pressed him on this inconsistency even more directly than he did: “OK, governor, you say you can offset the $5 trillion cost of your tax plan. Tell us how, with real numbers. Are you getting rid of the home mortgage deduction? The exclusion for health insurance? Be straight with the American people about what you are proposing.” Obama didn’t do that, but it's a question Romney has never been willing to answer.

2. The deficit and spending cuts. Asked by moderator Jim Lehrer how he’d cut the deficit, Romney outlined his plan for cutting spending. It included three main provisions.

First, Romney said, he’d repeal the Affordable Care Act. He’s serious about that, I presume. The problem is that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, the health care law reduces the deficit. Repeal it and the deficit goes up. Then Romney said he’d review programs and cut all that are non-essential, singling out PBS. Well, fine. That’s pennies on the budget. It wouldn’t be nearly enough to make a meaningful dent in the deficit.

After that, Romney mentioned “turning programs over to the states.” Here there is real money, particularly if Romney includes Medicaid, which will soon eclipse Medicare as the government’s most expensive health insurance program. But Romney suggested this would work because the states are more efficient. This is what he usually says. The implication is that the states can spend a lot less on the programs without dramatically reducing services.

That’s nonsense. Medicaid already pays less than every other insurance program, private and public. Cutting more from the program would inevitably force states to reduce whom or what the program covers. A year ago, when the House Republicans proposed a similar scheme, a Kaiser Family Foundation report by Urban Institute researchers crunched the numbers and determined that the Medicaid cut would mean between 14 and 27 million people would lose health insurance.

By the way, the researchers assumed states would deal with declining Medicaid money exclusively by cutting eligibility for the able-bodied and non-elderly. In fact, most of the program’s money goes to the disabled and elderly. Most likely, they’d feel at least some of the pain.

3. Medicare: Over and over again, Romney attacked Obama because the Affordable Care Act reduces Medicare spending by $716 billion. As you probably know by now, Paul Ryan’s budget made the exact same cut. And less than a year ago, Romney was praising this budget to the hilt.

But there’s another problem here: Romney’s own budget numbers don’t add up. Remember, he’s promised to cap non-defense spending at 16 percent of GDP. And he’s said he won’t touch Social Security. If he walls off Medicare, too, that would mean even sharper cuts across the board. How sharp? The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities ran the numbers. If Medicare is getting that $716 billion back, he’d have to cut other programs by an average of a third by 2016 and in half by 2022. Non-discretionary defense spending, which “has averaged 3.9 percent of GDP and never fallen below 3.2 percent,” would fall to 1.7 percent.

That’s simply not realistic. I have no problem believing Romney would cut domestic program deeply; his willingness to endorse the kinds of cuts he has specified, to Medicaid and food stamps, tell you everything you need to know about his priorities. But these figures are the stuff of fantasy. Either Romney can’t restore the Medicare dollars as he says or he’s not living up to his promises on deficit reduction.

The real shame of the exchange was that Romney's own plan got so little attention. Again, I wish Obama could have pressed Romney harder, or explained more clearly, why the voucher scheme he proposes would likely end the guarantee Medicare now makes to seniors—and why current retirees, as well as future ones, would feel the impact.

4. Health care and pre-existing conditions. Yeah, this was the part when I jumped out of my chair. Obama said that Romney’s alternative to Obamacare wouldn’t protect people with pre-existing conditions. Romney said it would. Sorry, but Romney is just plain wrong here. I’ve written about this before, so I’m just going to quote something I wrote previously:

Romney, like most Republicans, has long favored “continuous” coverage protection. But, for complicated reasons ... this protection is relatively weak unless it includes the sort of substantial regulation and subsidies that Romney, like most Republicans, has opposed. As a result, such protection would do very little for many of the people who need it most. Among other things, as Sarah Kliff points out ... “There are tens of millions of Americans who lack continuous coverage.” (A typical example would be somebody who lost a job, couldn’t keep making premium payments, and let coverage lapse.)

For people in this situation, Romney and the Republicans have traditionally said they favor coverage through “high-risk pools.” But high-risk pools are basically substandard policies: Although they cover catastrophic expenses, they leave people exposed to huge out-of-pocket costs. They also tend to be underfunded, because they cost a lot of money but serve only a small number of people. ...

So what would this mean in practice? Imagine for a second that you have cancer, diabetes, or Parkinson’s. With the coverage you’re likely to get form a high-risk pool, chances are that you’ll continue to struggle with medical bills. You’ll end up going into financial distress, just to cover your health are costs, unless you decide to start skipping treatment. And that’s obviously not a very good idea. These policies are better than nothing, for sure. But what you really need is comprehensive insurance and way to pay for it—in other words, the kind of protection that the Affordable Care Act will provide, starting in 2014, unless Romney and the Republicans repeal it.

I don’t want to pretend Obama was always as forthright as he could have been, any more than I want to suggest he was the more adept debater tonight. At one point, Obama talked about letting tax rates on higher incomes return to Clinton-era levels as essential to reducing the deficit. That’s true. But a truly serious approach to deficit reduction would let all taxes, even those on more modest incomes, return to Clinton-era levels (albeit after the economy is on sounder footing). Obama decried Romney’s plan to leave seniors “at the mercy of the private insurance system” but those are strong words from a guy whose own health care plan relies heavily on insurance plans, albeit with a lot more regulation than most conservatives like.

Still, these are tiny transgressions compared to Romney’s, which also included misleading statements about the origins of the deficit and claims of a jobs plan that is, if anything, even more unspecific than his tax plan. And I worry that nobody will call him on it.

As part of its post-debate analysis, ABC News asked correspondent Jonathan Karl to play the role of fact-checker. He picked out one statement from each side and rated it “mostly false.” But the Obama statement Karl picked was the description of Romney’s tax plan as costing $5 trillion—a figure, again, that comes straight from the Tax Policy Center. That’s not “mostly false.” If anything, it’s “mostly true.” Then Karl talked about Romney’s pre-existing condition promise, which really is “mostly false.” Sigh.

Update: Steve Benen and Greg Sargent noticed the same thing, so that's a start.
*************

By Jonathan Cohn | The New Republic

 

Arielle S. (317)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 11:20 am
Terrific article, Kit - thank you! Mitt was well-rehearsed, totally energized and very confident - in other words, a complete stranger! I think the reason the President looked down so much was so we couldn't see him smiling as he thought about how he is setting Mitt up for the next debate.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 11:34 am

That may well be Arielle, though he did look a bit tired to me. I keep hearing that Obama has a full time job beyond campaigning. Not every thing about the government is hypothetical.
 

Tamara Noforwardsplz (185)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 12:28 pm
I watched the debate and I have to admit that Obama looked defeated. Whereas Romney looked like he had already won, which just proves his level of arrogance. I did not believe the promises that Romney was making as they go counter to everything we have heard him say over the last few months. I wish Obama could have come across stronger, but I do not think he is ready to lay down yet.
 

Nancy M. (201)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 12:32 pm
I am expecting the Romney would love to get rid of the home mortgage deduction and probably find some kind of lame way to give the vacation home mortgage deduction instead.
 

Barbara K. (84)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 12:41 pm
I watched the debate and could see that Obama was writing and taking notes. Romneyhood has lied his way thru the campaign and debate and tried his sneery stare at Obama to intimidate him. Bet it really rattled him when Obama was oblivious to it. I think it was smart of Obama to just let Romney spew his lies, after all the fact-checkers would take care of that. Obama was busy enough just trying to answer the questions and didn't have time to call Romney out all he could have. He was cut off many times by the Bully and then by Lehrer too. Lehrer should have kept a better handle on the debate and stopped Romney from cutting off the President. Romneyhood is a disrespectful, bullying, lying thug who doesn't deserve to be President. We deserve so much better than that.
 

Yvonne White (232)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 12:46 pm
I don't watch presidential "debates" - I know WAY before the debates who I want to vote for (or who I'm stuck voting for)... I think it's all Theater - obviously the front-runner will coast & the second place candidate will pull out the snake oil & pour on the charm to see if Anyone is paying attention. How else are you going to get MORE money from your supporters???? I don't think anything Real comes out in the Debates - especially truth.
 

Laura H. (888)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:01 pm
Mittens is a great liar and it scares me. I know he has been rehearsing those lines for months now but STILL...he did say his 5 sons are great liars so I guess it is a family trait.
He spoke VERY fast-it was difficult to keep up with what he was saying. I am sure it was planned that way. 'LOOK and ACT confident and you can say ANYTHING'-who cares about fact checking?! 'Keep repeating the same lies over and over and POOF! It becomes the TRUTH'!
Some are saying Mittens seemed to be in a manic state; maybe that is why Ann says she worries about his "mental state". It makes me worry too. The man was practically foaming at the mouth-I found it to be very disturbing.
President Obama did seem a bit tired but who wouldn't be in his shoes? Besides, his nature is to be calm, cool, and collected; not a rambling, lying mess like Mittens. Romney was baiting and lying; the President did not fall for the game.
Mittens lied, didn't follow the debate rules, and came across like a bully. What exactly did he 'win'?
What about the tea party? Mittens threw them under the bus-WHY aren't they pissed off?

Thanks Kit-I'll share this one!
 

Carrie B. (304)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:14 pm
Wow, Romney is such an accomplished liar! I'm wondering how people feel after having a president and vice-president for eight years who lied to us and sent our men and women into war. Is that really what we want? Another president who will lie to us to accomplish his personal goals?
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:19 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Laura because you have done so within the last week. I was very disturbed by how few things he actually responded to with any facts rather than a personal assertion--especially when he took time that wasn't his and interrupted rudely-not statesman-like nor qualities for diplomatic world relations.
 

Cam V. (417)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:19 pm
OBAMA: "I've proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. ... The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue."

THE FACTS: In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 trillion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors. Take those "cuts" away and Obama's $2.50/$1 ratio of spending cuts to tax increases shifts significantly more in the direction of tax increases.

OBAMA: "Over the last two years, health care premiums have gone up — it's true — but they've gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years. So we're already beginning to see progress. In the meantime, folks out there with insurance, you're already getting a rebate."

THE FACTS: Not so, concerning premiums. Obama is mixing overall health care spending, which has been growing at historically low levels, and health insurance premiums, which have continued to rise faster than wages and overall economic growth. Premiums for job-based family coverage have risen by nearly $2,400 since 2009 when Obama took office, according to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation. In 2011, premiums jumped by 9 percent. This year's 4 percent increase was more manageable, but the price tag for family coverage stands at $15,745, with employees paying more than $4,300 of that.

When it comes to insurance rebates under Obama's health care law, less than 10 percent of people with private health insurance are benefiting.

More than 160 million Americans under 65 have private insurance through their jobs and by buying their own policies. According to the administration, about 13 million people will benefit from rebates. And nearly two-thirds of that number will only be entitled to a share of it, since they are covered under job-based plans where their employer pays most of the premium and will get most of the rebate.

OBAMA: It's important "that we take some of the money that we're saving as we wind down two wars to rebuild America."

THE FACTS: This oft-repeated claim is based on a fiscal fiction. The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were paid for mostly with borrowed money, so stopping them doesn't create a new pool of available cash that can be used for something else, like rebuilding America. It just slows down the government's borrowing.

OBAMA: "Independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Gov. Romney's pledge of not ... adding to the deficit is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more."

THE FACTS: That's just one scenario. Obama's claim relies on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group. The study, however, is more nuanced than Obama indicated.

The study concludes it would be impossible for Romney to meet all of his stated goals without shifting some of the tax burden from people who make more than $200,000 to people who make less.

In one scenario, the study says, Romney's proposal could result in a $2,000 tax increase for families who make less than $200,000 and have children.

Romney says his plan wouldn't raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center's findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney's tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class. Congress, however, doesn't use those kinds of projections when it estimates the effect of tax legislation
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:30 pm

Ain't it just a shame that you can't vote, Cam?

Romney is full of condensed, bull crap. I did watch the debates, I'm not surprised or turned off by any thing said about Obama. I have followed his presidency and his speeches, he doesn't suddenly change to appeal to an audience, Mittens does. That is probably his number one fault, that and not just saying, "this is what I propose and this is how it will be paid for...." Instead, though it was questioned again last evening, he still keeps his plans a big secret. No one can offer all that Romney claims and cut taxes, not without again following the path of Bush, and have even more debt. There is logic and then there is fantasy, or it is denial?
 

Jennifer C. (172)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 1:57 pm
Noted, Thanks.
 

Vance Daddi (65)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 2:50 pm
Kit, dear heart, whilst I agree with many points in this finely written piece, I must take issue with your somewhat condescending statement that this analysis is better.

By now everyone is familiar with Mitten's mendacious ways, but the details of the refutation of said lies do nothing for Obama's (and the nation's) cause when the President not only allows Romney to continue to lie and bully, but appears to be somewhat chastened and chagrined (looking down while Romney was speaking was poor optics at best). Pointing out the nature of Romney's lies has had no impact upon him at all; he needs to be called out, forcefully and made to back off; then Obama needs to show a bit of disdain for a liar, and move on.

I realize, as do most of us by now that President Obama does not do confrontation well. That is perfectly all right with me, it is his style and skin, and he must be comfortable with both. What I take issue with is that he has not presented us with any alternative political process methodology. That is to say if Obama wants, for example, to be a consensus president he must first have some sort of confrontation with the opposition or everyone will stay uninformed.

The time for the truth that so eludes Mitt Romney to be brought up was not after the debate in the New Republic, but during the debate by the President; anything else is an exercise in futility. President Obama lost the debate because he allowed an evil, self-serving, sociopath with daddy issues, dictate the terms and direction of the debate. He would have been better served by stopping Romney right out of the chute, confronting (there's that word again) the very first lie, and not letting up until Mitt said uncle...when the dog leaves a package on the carpet you don't give him a doggie treat and pat him on the head; you rub his nose in it and put him out back.

Sorry if I seem a bit blunt about this, but it is all very senseless and bewildering to me....and, due to my natural proclivity toward paranoia, highly suspicious.
 

Tierney G. (383)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 2:55 pm
Well Cam if you think thats so bad Obama and his 4 trillion Rawmoney lied about EVERYTHING yes Rawmoney won the award for biggest liar to the American people and the true American way of life. He and his cronies should be tryed for treason!
Besides that its hard to talk to a man who straight face lies about everything.
 

Barbara K. (84)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 2:56 pm
Cam: Too bad Romneyhood is such a liar, we all know that he plans to raise taxes on all but the wealthy. He campaigned on it. Everything he said last night was not what he campaigned on. At least, Obama has been consistent and hasn't been spewing lies no matter what FAKE NOOZ (the biggest liars of all told you).
 

Angelika R. (143)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 3:07 pm
I sacrificed my nights sleep to watch as one major TV station was airing the debate. There were no surprises to me either. I agree that the president looked tired, yet alert though. He is smart to save a tougher tune for the final round. I admit I was a bit disappointed in Lehrer, he appeared partisan to me.
As for Willard, he probably had a nice dose of bath salts borrowed from his Wall St friends, at least that's how it seemed! Well, looking forward to the 11, 16 and 22 Oct with great anticipation!
 

Kathy B. (98)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 3:54 pm
I didn't think Obama looked tired, I think he looked disgusted, and that smarmy look on Mittens face, well, it looked to me like he had gas.

I got so tired of hearing Mittens repeat the 716 billion dollar medicare cut lie I was ready to slug my monitor. Did anyone count how many times he repeated that lie?

And Mittins cutting PBS, that's going to go a long way to reducing the deficit.
 

Phil R. (29)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:02 pm
There will be a definite savings on military spending when the wars draw down. Not all of the money is borrowed. A good deal of it is part of the military budget.
 

Diane O. (149)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:20 pm
Romney didn't lie about anything. The $716 billion medicare cut is actually the truth. You didn't hear Obama refute it, did you? Of course not.

Open your eyes, Liberals, you've been duped by a Marxist-socialist, Cloward-Piven Strategy believer and a Saul Alinsky "Rules for Radicals" student in Obama.

The majority of Americans aren't buying it. Romney pulled in $11 million today. That's America talking to you.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:44 pm

No, Diane. He is not a Marxist nor is he much of a socialist . Read Karl Marx to understand his ideas, as for socialism, the US has had some forms of socialism for much longer then Obama has been alive. Though Obama has promoted more forms of Corporate socialism than some of us might like, they were done to assist the economy.

As for the $716 billion dollars, most of that money will still be used to support Medicare and Medicaid, and support those who have no form of insurance. Please do try and look up the actual facts.

So far, the election is not until November 6, and I have not yet heard America talking to me. When the votes are counted then we will all know who won, until then this is still just another campaign filled with the typical rhetoric.
 

JL A. (275)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 4:58 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kathy because you have done so within the last week.You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.
A reduction in estimates of future cost increases is NOT factually a cut Diane but a blatant misrepresentation to anyone who deals with budgets, fiscal estimates or statistical numbers ethically.
 

Angelika R. (143)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:05 pm
A Marxist-socialist? I am speechless... what happened to all the voices from the right who, in the beginning, used to call Obama "the best Republican the Democrats have ever sent to the White House" -??
 

Diane O. (149)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:08 pm
Well, yes, Kit, he is a Marxist-socialist. Have you read his book "Dreams From My Father?" Obama tells you exactly who he is. His racist comments throughout the book tell you who he really is. He was abandoned by his Kenyan father and in this book Obama elevates his father as someone who is actually "important." Why is he important? Because his father hated the UK and the US. It's called "unfinished business" from Obama's viewpooint.

I research every day. I know the facts. What you are exposed to and deem "fact" is the biased MSM garbage in the tank for Obama. But know this....the MSM came out last night and called the debate a win for Romney. So, sit back and watch where the majority of Americans are sitting....from a position of wanting to get Obama out of our White House and turning their attention towards a true patriot, Mitt Romney, an astute businessman, who understands, like Ronald Reagan, what it will take to energize our country again....our small businesses. Obama kicked our small businesses to the curb early in 2009 and opted to spend an entire year on ObamaCare. What he did at that time, at that moment, was to leave the job engine which employed 53% of middle class Americans dying on the vine. The Cloward-Pivan Strategy, which Obama taught at Harvard states one very important element to its success....a country MUST have control over the healthcare. Once that has been accomplished, socialism follows. A country cannot be socialist unless the government OWNS the healthcare system.

Please, know your facts, Kit. From where I sit tonight, America is pushing back because Obama has wasted four years doing nothing but maintaining a stalled economy and high unemployment. Please don't tell me how smart Obama is. Mitt Romney proved last night that Obama is incompetent. Obama was like a deer in headlights because Mitt was hitting on all the pistons of Obama's failed four years in office.

I honestly feel like you are an intelligent woman. But if you buy into the language that America needs to drop to a third world status, and offer apologies around the world even though we send billions of dollars to other countries then I have to question how you really feel about your country. Do you feel we need larger government intervention in our lives because they know what's best for us? That's socialism.

I believe Americans will do the right thing in November and vote for Romney. To vote to re-elect Obama, IMO, shows that the liberals have no problem in putting our children and grandchildren in a position of having to pay off massive debt handed to them by a generation who weren't smart enough to vote out a Marxist-socialist spender whose heart was not that of a true American.
 

Dave C. (214)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:19 pm
I listened, but only because my family "made me".......I thought Robmey lied and sounded obnoxious and whiney, but agree Mr. Obama sounded tired.....

still waiting for Mr. Robmey to tell what he is going to do....Etch-A-Sketch Pinocchio is at it again I guess....

again, if you want a President that only votes for white wealthy fanatical Christians who want 'states rights' (except with respect to abortion, military spending, PBS, etc) and to put their religion in your life then do vote GOP.....

If you want a President who will work for ALL people and is willing to compromise then re-elect Mr. Obama.....its what I'll do....
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:23 pm

I already know that I am an intelligent woman. What I do not accept is that drivel you are attempting to pass-off as fact.

Nor will I play "rally 'round the flag, boys" I read many sources to find the facts what I do not do is rely on some silly, uneducated bloggers and second rate news sources.

Yes, I have read Obama's work, and I have read Karl Marx and no my dear, he is in no way a Marxist.

What is a liberal?

“If by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights and their civil liberties-someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal.” - John F Kennedy

Am I a liberal? Proud to say unequivocally, yes I am.
 

Diane O. (149)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:47 pm
Kit, I'll step down here because I respect you. However, until now, I didn't understand you. John F. Kennedy IMO was not a person to admire. So, we'll draw the line in the sand.
 

Diane O. (149)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 5:58 pm
There are two kinds of Americans...IMO...those who came to our country as legal immigrants, took the time to do their paperwork, leaving countries that were unsafe to raise their children and chart a path of normalcy in which to raise their children and have the opportunity to start their own businesses in order to support their families and educate their children. America provided that opportunity.

For Americans today to posture towards socialism, massive government intervention in our lives....the very countries the immigrants escaped from to face America today is breathtaking.

So, to all of you liberals who want to mirror the countries the immigrants escaped from to be America today is sad. very very sad.

 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 6:31 pm

My grand parents on my mother side were immigrants, they came to this country in both in 1908. That was a life of progroms, filled with hate for no other reason then religion, that was also before the !917 Revolution, they came from Russia. My dad's side of the family were also immigrants, they were here when George Washington's family first arrived, they never filled out any paper work.

In this country it has been a tradition, since the first president, George Washington that people fight, squabble and disagree about politics. There is always drama, tales of woe and how THIS president will end our way of life. It doesn't matter who THIS president is at the time, some will portray him (some day maybe her) as the devil incarnate come to steal our freedoms and eat our children. Yet, we go on, the country survives, even through war and depressions, we survive. We are a hardy people made of many different races colors and religions, maybe that's why we survive, because we have learned to accept each other, grudgingly at times, but we learn acceptance.

I may not agree with your opinion but I would die for your right to express it..... (paraphrased from Voltaire)

 

Beverly M. (85)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 6:50 pm
Romney's plan is a disaster. How many times did he mention developing more middle class jobs to generate more taxes to close the deficit without raises taxes on the rich? The guy is a crook and a liar, bought for by the rich and he intends to keep his buddies living the high life sponging off the middle class.
 

Lois Jordan (55)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 7:32 pm
Obama had barely taken the oath of office when members of the GOP began stating that he would be a "one-term President." That was their mission. They twisted much of what he said and lied about everything else. Their accusations could've been spoken into a mirror. What they did should've been grounds for treason. Obama was forced to compromise on every single issue...the GOP took their marching orders from scumbag Grover Norquist. Now, he's being taken to task for compromising. This was their plan all along.
 

Michael Carney (209)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 8:25 pm
The bar was set so low, and the expectations were so low for Mitt, that by just getting his name right, made the pundits declare Mitt the winner...Actually I watched the whole thing, and if someone asked me who I thought won this debate, I'd have had to say Mitt...But that being said, I know Mitt lied his ass off all night, and he was flip flopping saying one thing on the campaign trail, but saying alother at this debate...I have to say though, I was a little disappointed with the president for letting Mitt get away with all the lying...I kept waiting for the President to come back at him, but he really didn't...He was too much of a gentlemen...I have faith in Obama though, that I expect him to come out in these next two debates, and nail Mitt's lying ass to the floor, and show Mitt and the whole Country, that He Is The President, and he can handle little sniveling frauds, like Mitt Romney...So let's get rolling Mr. President...You must refute Mitt's lies, and show who's the boss...
 

Barbara W. (342)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 9:04 pm
You cannot currently send a star to Kit because you have done so within the last week.
 

Barbara W. (342)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 9:06 pm
"Romney is full of condensed, bull crap. I did watch the debates, I'm not surprised or turned off by any thing said about Obama. I have followed his presidency and his speeches, he doesn't suddenly change to appeal to an audience, Mittens does." Another star for you Kit, this time platinum..
 

Suzanne L. (152)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 10:08 pm
Romney presented with the same pizzaz and bull that a used cardealer conjures when they think they have a sucker lined up. And many people who are not familiar with the facts are falling for it. Presdient Obama did seem tired during the debate but as I listened closely he was the one with the substantive facts that he could quote from his administration and from the history from Clinton's administration, thru' Bush Jr.'s and to what Obama was faced with when he was freshly elected. I am an Obama supported, and I am hoping that in future debates thet President will use some different strategies, including different body language (not shaking head yes because he's listening when he probably disagrees with what Romney's saying; shake head no, look at Romney or the camera with some measure of disapproval). I have no doubt whatsover that President Obama is the more astute and experienced candidate for this job, but in today's climate presentation counts for a lot.
 

H Nick H. (1826)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 10:41 pm
Obama didn't seem to be himself. And being president he might know things going on that we don't, like when he got Ben Laden. It might also have been that it was also his anniversary and he loves his wife. So, I was disappointed with him and also the moderator who lost control and gave ti all to Mitt.

And speaking of lies, Mitt did his job of spreading the same lies and misinformation he is famous for doing. Those who know the truth, this is all scary. I hate to see our country go backwards to the dark ages, but if republicans win, we will. They have done everything they can to block any positive things for our country only for their purpose of getting rid of the black guy in the White House.
 

Sandra M Z. (114)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 10:47 pm
Romney said repeatedly he (sic), "Won't cut the military". No surprise there. I am for national security, but the Pentagon takes half the tax pie. They can save by reducing wasteful spending that works making defense contractors rich, quit wasting money on boondoggles, and start spending more that they do have on our troops, more training on equipment (like helicopters), medical needs, job training, insurance etc.. Also, those tax dollars can be spent on our infrastructure, job training and more for OUR COUNTRY, our CITIZENS. National Security need not suffer for this. Get some bloat off the dole!

Romney also brought up Keystone XL and slammed Obama for nixing it. Huh? It's not really gone, it's still being built! I would respect President Obama more if he would just really say NO to it, BE THE CHANGE TO NON FOSSIL FUELS. New fuel standards are good, but years away. Too many people now on Earth, Climate Change, Greed, and too much Industrial Pollution from the last 100 years are staring us down. I would ask either of them, "What is going to be left of (anything) if we keep burning fossil fuels? I sure hope all the enviro groups get the climate issue into the next debates, many groups are petitioning for that. Really, if you "have to" make certain people rich, then trade their oil shares in on solar ones, right quick.............and have the best people on the Earth coming up with the most innovative energy the World can LIVE with.

President Obama, get some rest and come back strong, you've got Forward to do yet.

Noted, Thank you Kit.






 

Susanne R. (249)
Thursday October 4, 2012, 11:52 pm
I think Michelle Goldberg (senior contributing writer for Newsweek and The Daily Beast and the author of the New York Times bestseller Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism and The Means of Reproduction: Sex, Power and the Future of the World, winner of the 2008 J. Anthony Lukas Work-in-Progress Award and the Ernesta Drinker Ballard Book Prize) summed it up nicely:

"Perhaps Obama, feeling comfortable in his lead, didn’t want to get down in the muck and call Romney a liar, or perhaps he was just unprepared for the level of deceit on display. Debating someone who is willing to simply make things up is incredibly discombobulating. Regardless, it means that most viewers will be left with a seriously distorted view of what the Republican candidate is proposing. Tomorrow, the fact-checkers will try to correct the record, but the Romney campaign has already decided that facts don’t matter. In August, when team Romney ran utterly mendacious ads accusing the president of gutting welfare-to-work rules, one of his staffers famously said, “We're not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers.” Clearly, he meant it.

Obama did have one decent moment, at about an hour and 10 minutes in, when he called out Romney on the lack of specifics he’s offering. “He says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan: we do not know the details,” said Obama. “He says that he is going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we do not know exactly which ones—he will not tell us. He now says he will replace Obamacare and assure all the good things and it will be in there and you don’t have to worry ... At some point the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason Governor Romney is keeping all of these plans to replace secret because they’re too good?”

It was an effective critique, but too little and too late. Overall, Obama was honest but listless and meandering. Romney lied with clarity and conviction. He won and the truth lost."
 

Surunatik WTF (38)
Friday October 5, 2012, 12:32 am
Diane O, pseudo-smartie, HA! Na, Rom-puke never lies, except when he's speaking. Wouldn't a consistent position on Anything make him more credible?

So many here have commented with love and liberty expressed as their message. Kit (Atta-Girl!) has done admirably, and with saintly patience. As patience, in our Liberal stance, plays a large part, ours is the larger and most sustainable vision.

I don't care to waste my time making nice with someone who needs the substantiation of the faux power fix of superiority fantasy. Small business, gag, the freaking Koch Bros. are a small business. Why do you feel that your goals out weigh in importance and value the goals of others? Freedom? ...from our massive government intervention? Really? Does "forced vaginal ultra-sound" ring a bell?

Regarding socialism, jocularity! [basically, that's ROTFLMAO!] Any scholar understands that Socialism is a grand dream, like Star Trek. We can aspire to the values, but we are still evolving toward the true manifestation.

Those embracing the Con the Republic position are self-serving A-holes. To blindly, or with complicity, agree to the "me, me, me" ideology, well, it's pathologically narcissistic, if not sociopathic. Paul Wellstone said, "We all do better when we all do better", he got it, you apparently don't.

As Obama understands and tries to communicate to us all, it will take all hands on board to create the society that will have the strength and resources to survive our changing world. Our world is one of equals, each due honor and respect, and a fair chance, not one so comfortable with the agreement that it is just fine to more deeply embed a class system of 'haves' and 'have nots'. Do you truly win if you've rigged the game?

I'm not inclined to give much credence to this debate, it will fade. Rom-freak will continue to stick his foot in his mouth/lie, his 'handlers' will attempt to clarify statements. Stay focused, Obama-Biden 2012

 

Kathy Chadwell (367)
Friday October 5, 2012, 12:35 am
He's an idiot
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/27/romneys_olympic_enemies/
Romney’s animal terrorist obsession
When Mitt ran the Salt Lake City Olympics, he said he feared animal rights terrorists more than al-Qaida
 

Kathy Chadwell (367)
Friday October 5, 2012, 12:44 am
Was Obama on top of his game? No,, but in his defense he looked tired,, maybe a little sick. Some think it was jet lag. I did notice like all prez,, this job ages them. But even worn out,, he's still the better candidate,, romney is a lair, born with a silver spoon in his big mouth idiot. He's a canned hunter while ryan is a Trophy hunter. As unhappy as we are about our animal issues,, the animal rights community is backing Obama.
 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 2:06 am
Excuses, excuses for four failed years. Obama still thinks he's the smartest man in every room. However, his actions prove otherwise. Obama doesn't like to be challenged by others because he is a narcissist. Obama wasn't tired. He proved to our country that he's a bad leader. How do we know this? Look at our stalled economy and our massive debt. Thousands of Americans need jobs. Obama let our country down. He was never qualified to run a company much less a country.

The American people will decide if he stays or goes a month from now.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:08 am

Like I said, after the election, we shall see. The problem with Romney is still the same one. This man keeps saying he has a plan. By not saying what that plan might be, he can then say anything. He has changed his MO, more times than any of us care to count.

Diane, you don't like Obama, I get that, there are president's I have not liked. They were not terrorists or Fascists, just following their own policy wonks, and I didn't care for the outcome.

Honestly, Obama may well be the smartest man in most rooms. He is an exceptionally intelligent man, well intentioned and tried to steer a course for our country. You happen to not like that course. You have your guy, though I am curious why, as he has gone from being very conservative to attempting to be moderate or even centrist, and back again. Don't you want to know what Romney stands for, or is it just enough that he is not Obama? Can you make a cogent argument for your guy without disparaging or maligning the president?
 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:36 am
Kit, yes,you've got that exactly right. You need to know WHY I don't like him. From the very beginning of Obama's political career he has been lying about himself. No one can find any background information on Barack and Michelle. That's more than odd. Why would anyone have their college records sealed? What's the purpose of that? That suggests to me that they didn't want Americans to know how radical in their beliefs they were then and now. It's abnormal for anyone to spend the time, money and effort to erase their background.

I don't like that he spent an entire year on ObamaCare when the first thing he should've done was help our small businesses. That told me that Obama didn't care about the middle class. There are many reason over the past four years that have brought me where I am today.

Please don't ever suggest that I don't know what Romney stands for. He stands for everything I believe is right for my country. First of all, his education and business reputation is remarkable. He is strong in his faith. He is a family man and he has a gentle side to him. Politically, I believe he will step right up to the plate when he is elected and do exactly what he has promised he will do. I believe in smaller government and fiscal responsibility. I believe in a very strong military. I believe Mitt Romney will fix our heatlhcare issues and he'll do it in such a way that it will not bankrupt our country and will not compromise medical treatment. I do NOT believe in redistributive wealth. I believe in personal responsibility Americans.

So, you see, Kit, I KNOW exactly why I support Mitt Romney. Romney represents everything I believe in. Obama, in his own words in "Dreams From My Father" told me exactly who he was and he stands for everything I do not believe in.

Romney has stated that he has a5 Point Plan. He went over it in the debate. During the next debate, he will reveal more information about that plan and in the final debate he will lay it all out for us.

The tide has turned, Kit. The majority of Americans aren't going to back Obama in November. The question is "Why is that?"
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 6:18 am

Diane: "The tide has turned, Kit. The majority of Americans aren't going to back Obama in November. The question is "Why is that?"

I am not nor do I pretend to be a prognosticator of the future, I don't know that the tide has turned toward one or the other. It was but the first of the debates, and Obama is still slightly ahead in the polls. Though the polls can fall apart come election day for numerous reasons.

I can say this in response to what you offered. Being an accomplished businessman has not in the past proven to be helpful for many presidents. I'm not saying they were failures, just that business, free enterprise is not a tool that necessarily transfers into good governance. I have many friends from Masscheuettes, some I have known for thirty years and more, they are both republican and democrat, and each tell me that Romney was not a leader in the governing of that state. I did not live in Masscheuettes at that time, I can not speak to my own observations. I know these people to be reliable, they holding very different opinions about politics, but they seem to agree strongly on this issue.

You say he offered us a 5 point plan, I would say that as a voter, I would expect a candidate to present the details of that plan, then hold steadfast to his ideals. More later? Not really Diane, candidates are either ready to present the details or they do not. I don't argue that Romney is a decent fellow, a good family man, or that he has accomplished his goals in business. Though personally, I find some those of those business goals to be reprehensible, he most certainly did accomplish them.

As Americans, we all tend to agree that we want people to be able to stand on their own, take care of themselves and their families, there is nothing uniquely left or right about that. Though it does give pause to say "small government" and not define what that means.

To use the example of Reagan a president that said he wanted lower taxes but increased them 11 times, or smaller government then more then doubled the size of government, instituted policies that caused a 10% unemployment, which in turned led to tax increases and increasing the size of government again, then gave amnesty to 3 million undocumented immigrants, for that time, 3 million was a high number. I could go on here, but the point is clear, many factors affect the size and range of government, not the least of which is population growth. It is the responsibility of the government to do what we can not do, Eisenhower used his powers to increase taxes, but used those taxes to build an infrastructure.

Though I do prefer a balanced budget and moderation in governmental growth, I do not want to see people excluded from opportunity or not allowed to live within the basic ideals of civil rights for all, regardless of a religious code, or any other extraneous concocted reasoning to withhold those rights. I absolutely believe that we must hold strongly to our goals as a nation, to be free people, and most important to be accepting of others, though they may be very different from our own life experiences.
 

Arielle S. (317)
Friday October 5, 2012, 6:51 am
Actually, I did hear Mitt say a few things he would do - like open Alaska for drilling and approve the Keystone Pipeline. Cut funding for PBS. Repeal ObamaCare. Just those are reason enough to not vote for this charlatan - (didn't you almost choke when he asked, "have you tried to get a mortgage lately?" As if!)

Mitt was simply well-rehearsed and he must have had 30 cups of coffee because his cheese was bubbling. But it was still cheese.

I hardly consider watching Faux News as researching the facts - on the other hand, Kit, you get platinum stars from me, too....
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 7:24 am

I heard those points, but here is my take. How will he go beyond what is done for the OIL and gas companies? They already have more access to both private and government lands and hold what the OIL companies have stated is nearly 50 years of leases still untouched. There is sound business reasoning for not using all the leases they currently have.

The Key Stone Pipe ling is very unpopular, and with good reason, Canada can not run a pipeline for this filthy tar sand oil because the people of Canada have stopped that. Pipe lines the world over have an extremely bad record, though the companies do have access to ways to monitor all pipelines to prevent the enormous damage they cause, to both human health, soil and water toxicity, and of course irreparable environmental damage. That pipe line will provide some temporary jobs, that I do not argue, however, it will run from Canada through US farming country to Houston where new facilities must be built to handle tar sand oils. Even Houston, a place fully polluted with air, water and soil damage from the many refineries they already have, most residents are totally against this proposal, which is not to say that it could not be pushed through over residents objections.

Repeal and replace Obama-care - is that not a contradiction in terms? No matter what is set in place, and Romney seems, sometimes, to want to keep most if not all of the ACA, but doesn't speak directly to how it would be paid for, other than the system already in place. This is not a matter of robbing one system to pay for another but combing all health systems under one comprehensive umbrella, or if he offers us another way, what (details please) is that system? I know he said he preferred his private insurance, and I know many that can afford private insurance feel the same. For the growing numbers of people that do not have access to health care and can not possibility afford the additional expense without an employer contribution, what is our answer? Then there is this from the CBO:

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is out with a new estimate of the costs of repealing the Affordable Care Act, the national health care legislation signed into law in 2010. According to the CBO, if Mitt Romney and his fellow Republicans are successful in repealing the law, it would increase the federal budget deficit by an estimated $109 billion between 2013 and 2022." (CBO web-site)

De-funding PBS is nothing more than a "talking point" the vast majority of money for PBS comes from private donations and not the Federal budget, even that is such a tiny part of the budget that it is meaningless, but PBS does provide a national service to Americans.

I don't believe that Mitt Romney drinks coffee, the Mormon religion prohibits the use of any form of stimulant. That he was in "fighting form" is true, that he was a very different man then we have seen before is also true. So different that the man on the debate stage was contradicting every thing said by the other Mitt Romney, so I ask again, where does this man stand? What does he actually propose?
 

Angelika R. (143)
Friday October 5, 2012, 8:27 am
To be honest it sounds very much like a severe case of schizophrenia, does it not? Or what else do you call such a split personality??
And I pity the fool - that one goes out to Diane O. Oh, Diane, have you not noticed that you will not succeed in convincing anybody on this thread of your lonely views?
 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 9:15 am
Angelika, I have NO desire to try and change a liberal's mind. I'm here to reach those Americans who are on the fence and the buyer's remorse people who voted for Obama in 2008. Totally not interested in changing a liberal's mind...

Why are you here posting? Just curious.
 

TomCat S. (286)
Friday October 5, 2012, 9:25 am
Romney won on style.
Obama won on substance.

Do not feed the trolls. ;-)
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 9:48 am

When JFK and Khrushchev met for the first time, he Khrushchev gave a Russian newspaper to Pierre Salinger. Within that newspaper was a private letter to JFK (21 pages) the goal was to open a private dialogue between the two men. One that did not expect to change the world only to share private thoughts. Each man was tasked with representing his own government to best of his own ability. Once he was back in the United States, JFK read the letter and answered that letter. This began a 2 year dialogue between the two men. As JFK said, the correspondence would not and was not aimed at changing the personal or political views of either man. Only to open a path to for each to begin to understand the humanity of the other.

Though in his own private letters (JFK), and the later released letters of Khrushchev, it became clear that these letters, this dialogue lead each to able to negotiate the needed comprise that end the Cuban missile crisis.

I do not expect to change any ones thinking, ideology or political views. I pose questions, which I hope are addressed, this is only to allow me to more clearly, and perhaps fairly understand the thinking of others who hold differing ideas from my own.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Friday October 5, 2012, 10:14 am
Re: "Romney has stated that he has a5 Point Plan. He went over it in the debate. During the next debate, he will reveal more information about that plan and in the final debate he will lay it all out for us."

Why would a candidate for the highest office in the land wait until just just two weeks before election day to lay out his all-important plan for this country? If that proves to be an accurate description of what he intends to do, one has to wonder WHY he gives the voting public so little time to consider his plan...

Sorry, Tomcat. It's not that I don't respect your advice because I absolutely do --but some "assumptions" just beg to be challenged...
 

Angelika R. (143)
Friday October 5, 2012, 10:34 am
Tom I hear you. So that one remains unanswered. Thank you Kit, if I missed saying this thus far.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 11:00 am

I do agree Susanne, some assumptions need to be challenged, and in many cases addressed with nonpartisan facts. It is a curious idea that Romney will not give details of his plan. Should any one want to go to Obama's site that is open and questions about his ideas can be put forward. Though at this point in time, those who are not or have not bothered to question how either candidate will address the issues, then they probably will not.
 

Barbara K. (84)
Friday October 5, 2012, 11:52 am
It all boils down to this: On election day we enter a voting booth with a ballot that has essentially 2 choices -- we can MOVE FORWARD or STEP BACK.
 

Robert B. (57)
Friday October 5, 2012, 11:56 am
Diane O,, You are so utterly arrogant misinformed, and brainwashed by the extremists in your party. When Obama took office we had a massive loss of jobs that started Two years before the end of Bush's term. As soon as Obama took office the unemployment numbers started to improve and then we started to see employment gains. He saved our auto industry, wound down the war in Iraq and has been MOVING THIS COUNTRY FORWARD. Yet the bigots that took over the republican party immediately dug their silly heels in to oppose EVERYTHING Obama tried to do after only a week in office. You can believe your Faux news and those jackasses like Limbaugh, Hannity, Beck and all those other ditsy clowns on the air all you want, BUT, it will NOT change the fact that Obama pulled us from a financial Abyss, gave us health care (which can be improved) and has moved us FORWARD. If you seek to lay blame, look no further than the deregulated Wall Street Robber Barons who bought this Democracy with the purchase of a B Actor named Reagan. He was their perfect puppet. Your illogical and misguided ramblings will not change anyone on the fence.
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Friday October 5, 2012, 12:09 pm
Rmoney DID commit himself to ONE thing -- SMASHING BIG BIRD AND PUBLIC TELEVISION.

Of course, NOT for the miniscule "savings" entailed -- but, rather, for the PRINCIPLE of the thing.
The PRINCIPLE being -- PRIVATIZE EVERYTHING!
That means, that Sesame Street and other Children's Television -- will have to be "self-supporting", i.e., FIND ADVERTISERS.
And these ADVERTISERS, would not only have a CAPTIVE, IMPRESSIONABLE AUDIENCE in small kids, toddlers and pre-schoolers --
but, the Corporate Advertisers WOULD INFLUENCE CONTENT ALSO. Both subtly, and not-so-subtly. Both by INclusion, and by EXclusion.
Yeah, kiddies, Fracking and GMO foods are GOOD for ya!
TRAINING kids from the very EARLIEST ages, to become GOOD LITTLE CONSUMERS -- which is ALREADY being done on all the NON-PUBLIC-TELEVISION KIDS' SHOWS. And movies and music videos, etc. {Can of Coke carefully placed in the background -- identifiable brand-name clothes the "stars" wear -- etc}.

This is MIND CONTROL, DISGUISED AS "SAVING MONEY". A TYPICAL "STEALTH" TACTIC of the Repukelicans and their Koch brothers and Corporate sponsors. Getting in under the Public's radar.
 

Louise D. (38)
Friday October 5, 2012, 12:55 pm
Mittens and the truth have been strangers in the night on many occasions, watching clips of the debate showed him to be butting in and rude. He did win this battle but the next debate is on foreign policy will show him in harsh perspective. Which if memory serves me when he went on an international trip in an attempt to portray himself as worldy and Presidential. It was an unmitigated failure with Romney insulting just about everyone he engaged with, may be a bit of a less comfortable ride for him. He lied repeatedly in the debate but then politics are so polarized in America that there is no real debate.
 

Angelika R. (143)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:03 pm
Very true and very good point there by BMutiny! The other- way- round-version of communist propaganda as seen on certain state TV.
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:08 pm

Communist propaganda indeed! To date no country has had a communist government, first the two words are incompatible, second and most important, is that like the ancient Greeks and all things of Utopia ideology, they don't and can't work. We are self-centered group, we humans.
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:17 pm
I think we were all expecting Rmoney to do a real GAFFE -- as he has been in the HABIT of doing regularly, recently -- and were shocked when he "didn't do too badly". We were waiting for a Gaffe, like people watch a NASCAR race for a horrible accident to happen!
Rmoney's "zingers" missed the mark and fell flat. Among these were, "you have your big house and your big airplane", apparently referring to the White House and to Air Force One. Very STRANGE, to say the least, coming from one whose Mansion has a separate elevator for all his cars! Hard to figure out what this was supposed to do -- picture the President as a "privileged elitist" thus taking the heat off Rmoney being one? STUPID!

Then there was the one where Rmoney ACCUSED THE PRESIDENT TO HIS FACE OF LYING -- FIGHTING WORDS that I think even President Obama couldn't have been prepared for! The only "proper" response to THAT, in some parts of the country at some times in history, was to reach for your gun! And, stupid idiot Rmoney kindof "softened" his remarks a little, by saying that "his 5 boys lied to him all the time" {I am paraphrasing}. So, that accusation isn't REALLY all that bad...just like saying "naughty, naughty" to my kids!.
[I'd like to tell Rmoney here, that I have raised a daughter, and I CAN'T REMEMBER A TIME WHEN SHE LIED TO HER PARENTS. We had brought her up to NOT BE AFRAID to tell us the Truth.... I mean literally, I can't remember a time when she lied, or would have felt she had to....]
As someone else said, Obama should've gone across and SLAPPED THE HELL OUT OF MITT THE TWIT.... very self-controlled that he did nothing!
Of course, to Rmoney's kind of people, it is OKAY TO DISS "N" WORDS, THEY HAVE NO "HONOR" TO DEFEND LIKE A WHITE MAN DOES...
And then there is Rmoney's "I love Big Bird", which may be remembered for a while. I have dealt with that above.
While Rmoney's wanna-be "zingers" fell absolutely FLAT, and were offensive as could be --
what made them "pass" with little comment, was Rmoney's DELIVERY. Of his whole "debate" style.

Rmoney's body language, phoney facial expressions, voice, etc., have before this, suggested Insecurity, Desire to please, Kowtowing to Public Opinion... not very confidence- building in a potential Prez!
I and others FULLY EXPECTED A MELT-DOWN during, or even before, the Debates. Mitt the Twit was NOT HANDLING HIMSELF WELL. He was having "temper tantrums" backstage and LOSING IT. Even Ann Rmoney, said she was worried!

Somehow, all this CHANGED OVERNIGHT. Rmoney spoke very rapidly and non-stop and wouldn't be interrupted. He DID look, for a change, CONFIDENT. Not at ALL what we expected, could have expected from previous live interviews and videos, where he appeared anxious, and with that nervous, wide-eyed eyebrows-up eager-to-please look!
He morphed into the aggressive high-school bully with the scissors in his hand, into the guy on the Mother Jones video speaking confidently to those who liked him in the first place.

Of course it was a GREAT advantage for Rmoney, that the debate people were persuaded, for the first time in Presidential debate history, to let him see the questions IN ADVANCE. So he could REHEARSE. And rehearse and rehearse and rehearse.... until "perfect". {And, given the Koch brothers' influence, probably the QUESTIONS were DESIGNED to please the Rmoney camp, also.}

But, a lot of people see MORE than just "canned answers and rehearsals" here. The WAY Rmoney spoke.... well, Cocaine is said to give people super-confidence in themselves, super-energy. A feeling you are on top of the world, can't be stopped. Of course, using that would be illegal, wouldn't it. However, there are now synthetic DESIGNER DRUGS that imitate the effects of ANYthing. And some of these Designer Drugs are too new to be illegal, yet.
Besides a Cocaine High {or imitation one}, other people have said they detected a Speed, or Methamphetamine High. Others have seen just a plain Caffeine High. {Caffeine being banned for Mormons, if he used it or some synthetic substitute that had the same effect, Rmoney might be super-susceptible to even a small amount of it.}

Anyway, some sort of a Speed-Freak High would explain a LOT -- the BULLYING attitude, the IGNORING of time limits, the RAPID talking as if to get it all out before it's forgotten, and the "CONFIDENT" carriage and body language, which are otherwise SO STRANGE to see in Rmoney's usually zombie-like, robotic self. Even his "death-look" eyes, looked somehow different!
I'm just sayin'. It's not necessarily anything illegal. It could be just a Caffeine high. But, it's gotta be SOMEthing. SOMEthing has changed about Rmoney's public appearance. You CAN'T NOT notice it! {Double negative.}
 

Michael Carney (209)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:33 pm
Diane? Mitt didn't lie about anything? Man you seem like a very intellegent Woman, who seems to have a good grasp on Politics, but to come here and Champion Mitt Romney, I have to wonder are you just brainwashed, or crazy?
 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:36 pm
Mitt Romney stated the facts well IMO. I've seen the fact check on him today. In contrast, Obama comes out today like he hit a grand slam because unemployment is down to 7.8%...like he did it all by himself. What he isn't telling the American people is that so many Americans have dropped out of even looking for a job and if they hadn't the unemployment rate would be 11%. Now would you say that Obama was lying or just leaving some information out?

Oh, yes, I'm behind Romney 100%.
 

Dandelion G. (387)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:47 pm
Diane your statement of Romney didn't lie about anything. Oh really?

Frankly I don't know where he is on any one issue. I thinks he says whatever he NEEDS to depending on how the wind is blowing. I think he has no personal stance but speaks what his backers tell him to say. So when you say you are here for those still sitting on the fence, well all this man does is sit on the fence, except when he was out attacking Big Bird.

That is why he states one thing one day then another a few months, days, or even hours later. So when you do not speak Truth 100% of the time you must be speaking LIES.

I don't want a Commander in Chief that can not speak Truth, I may not like what Ron Paul offered, but at least I did understand where he stood, and he is consistant with his ideals.

In the ways of my ancestors they did not have a jail, they understood humans made mistakes, mistakes were then given an opportunity to learn from, to make correct, but there was one taboo that they did not tolerate, and that was to lie or not be consistant in their Truth. If you were caught in a lie that was the only thing that carried a death sentence or the very least expulsion from the Nation. One could not be Trusted with the lives of those who lived within the Nation with a liar among their midsts.

And we should consider electing this person to the Highest Office who tells one thing one day then something else another?

You defend someone that tells one thing one day and something else another day. You don't call that a liar. Then it is someone who speaks NO Truth. You would defend that DisHonor?

Unbelievable what Dominent Culture supports. Personally I think both Parties are a bit lame at this point.

As to Angelika I guess she can post here the same reason that Cam does. Why wasn't that question asked of Cam?

Unless you can state your are First Nations, then you too are an immigrant. My ancestors should of asked you all for your papers first instead of giving you food so your ancestors didn't starve to death, sort of like an early food stamp program for when you were down on your luck. You know like the 47% who need temporary help while the economic mess drags on. If I recall it was under Ronald Reagan that offered amnesty to many who were not in this Country legally, yet he is the Republicans darling.

And what is so wrong with a President wanting the citizens of this Country to be able to have health coverage when it is needed. We are the only Industrialized Country in the world that limps along with the "for profit" system that is neither healthy nor caring. I personally don't like this Affordable Care Act, and I wish people would correctly call it that in particular when they are trying to enlighten those on fences, but as President Obama said he was getting a bit use to the name himself, well ok.....so be it. Funny how it is based off of Romney's Massachusetts plan who is a Republican, why so many Republicans don't like it because a Democrat got it to be a Federal Plan. I don't like it because I don't think it went far enough, I would like to see a Universal Health Care in this Country.....but oh, let us all start shaking on this......shhhh.....it might be too socialistic, you know like the libraries are, the police and fire departments are, like our educational system.

Which our educational model at one time was the best in the world, not for the Oligarchy, they want to dismantle that, got to many "thinking" citizens, so privatize the education so that one day only the well to do can send their children to school. The Slave Masters didn't want the slaves to read it was too dangerous to have them thinking, I mean after all one day one might actually become President.

Some of us have seen through the fog, behind the curtains, such as BMutiny and others on C2. Thank goodness.





 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 1:48 pm

Gee, Diane even the Wonderful Wizard Obama, doesn't get to manipulate the number like that. The unemployment rate did drop a little for the month of September, though it might be much lower if we began to train our own people for the newest jobs and newest technologies. We still have nearly 400,000 jobs in this country that could be, should be filled by Americans - if only we had a JOBS bill to correct that.

This is how the numbers are calculated:

1) To calculate the unemployment rate for a particular area or region, you will need to know the number of unemployed workers and the total number of people in the labor force in the particular area (such as a state or country). In the United States, this data is available from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Labor Force refers to the number of people of working age and below retirement age who are actively participating in the work force or are actively seeking employment. Note that the total population of the area or region is irrelevant when calculating the unemployment rate.

2 The formula for calculating the unemployment rate (expressed as a percent) is as follows:
Unemployment Rate = (Unemployed Workers / Total Labor Force) * 100

3 For example: A small country has a population of 15,000 people. Of the total population, 12,000 people are in the labor force and 11,500 people are employed. What is the unemployment rate? First, find the number of unemployed by subtracting the number of employed (11,500) from the labor force (12,000). So, 12,000-11,500=500. Therefore, 500 people are unemployed. Now, to find the unemployment rate, plug the numbers into the formula: Unemployment Rate = (500/12,000)*100 = 4.2 percent.

The Bureau of Labor Statistics takes into account those of working age, the total number of unemployed and those who are working even part time, so the total number of possible workers is calculated, no matter who is president.
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Friday October 5, 2012, 2:22 pm
One strategy of the Rmoney camp, is to TURN OFF BLACK VOTERS who of course will vote Democrat. This they do not only by purging voter rolls, and challenging dark-skinned voters at the polls, and other underhanded tactics. They also are going to want to use every possible trick-in-the-book between now and Election Day.

One tactic I perceive operating here, is to discourage Black voters from enthusiastically turning out for President Obama, by MAKING OBAMA LOOK WEAK. It reminds me of that scene in "Roots", where the white owner rapes the about-to-be-married black slave woman and her slave husband "loses his manhood" in her eyes, because THERE'S NOT A SINGLE THING HE CAN DO ABOUT IT.

President Obama is "a scholar and a gentleman" -- he can hardly be anything ELSE, and "respectably" represent the U.S. here and abroad! He can't be a boor and a bully, not in public anyway! {And, given what I think of Michelle, I don't believe he for an instant would get away with such an attitude "at home"!} In ANY Debate, he has to keep his famous "cool" and show restraint and reason!

Given Rmoney's BOORISH, UNRESTRAINED SUPPORTERS {and we certainly SEE them here on Care2! as everywhere}, Rmoney's tactics appear to be "LET THE DOGS OUT", "PUT ON THE BOXING GLOVES". Or, NO, PUT ON THE BRASS KNUCKLES! And Obama, by the very nature of his POSITION, canNOT stoop to "using the Brass Knuckles"!!!
Therefore, a super-hyped-up Mitt Romney {whether on Drugs, or just a personal High based on pep-talks and the Mormon god's blessings -- ONE of the Mormon gods, Mormons are Polytheistic} -- a hyped-up Mitt Romney, with a surge of adrenalin or endorphins or whatever animating his frame,
will unrestrainedly RANT, BULLY, BELLOW, LIE SHAMELESSLY, DEFAME, DO WHATEVER HE PLEASES -- and the Black Man will be seen as HELPLESS, at best, to stop him! A "weak" representative of their "race" -- is supposed to then "turn off" those Black voters who voted for Obama before.... that appears, to ME, to be the sneaky-but-oh-so-clever, KARL ROVE STRATEGY for winning....

It of course DOESN'T MATTER A HOOT WHAT RMONEY SAYS.... or what EITHER of them say, for that matter.
About "Policy", that is.
What DOES matter, is the APPEARANCES.
What DOES matter, is that the Bully can LIE -- and the President can't stop him! The Bully can Break the rules -- the Black Guy is helpless. The Bully can Strut his stuff -- and the response is tepid! The more Bully, the better for Rmoney and the Rethugs!

Note: This does not reflect what *I*, personally, think about Black people or White people or Voters of any Race or Color. This is how I INTERPRET WHAT SEEMS TO BE A NEW RMONEY STRATEGY. Which of course comes from his Handlers, which of course ultimately means Karl Rove.
 

Lois Jordan (55)
Friday October 5, 2012, 2:30 pm
One of the comedians last night commented that it seemed like Obama took an Ambien, and Willard drank a couple of sodas, (comparatively speaking), prior to the debate. Although I laughed, (partly because Mormons aren't allowed caffeine), I thought it seemed about right. While watching the debate, I thought something seemed a bit "off." It was that Willard was very animated, spoke very quickly and was aggressive...almost like someone who was taking cocaine or a comparable substance. Just weird.
 

michael sullivan (1027)
Friday October 5, 2012, 2:46 pm
the bottom line for me is that this was a "debate", meaning an opportunity to clarify some of the issues by challenging your opponent on what he is saying that you don't think is true -- barack did not challenge the mitter often enough nor with enough energy -- he needs to show the american people that he can stand up to and challenge/confront someone like the mitter on his lies, deceptions, and evasions -- he needs to show the american people that he has a backbone, that he can stand the heat, that he is strong -- he needs to do the same to the republican leaders once he is re-elected -- he didn't stand up strongly to the republicans during his first term, and he didn't stand up strong to the mitter during the first debate -- perception is reality to most people -- these people are perceiving barack as weak after the first debate -- let's hope barack grows a backbone and some balls and takes on the mitter in the next two debates -- thanks for the article!
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:03 pm

Does the Word of Wisdom forbid soft drinks?) This is, for some reason, a question debated by Mormons themselves. However the same answer has been given repeatedly by the Church. The official statement is: (from a reply to someone asking...)

"... with reference to the cola drinks that the Church has never officially taken any attitude on this matter, but the leaders of the Church have advised, and do now specifically advise, against the use of any drink containing harmful habit-forming drugs under circumstances that would result in the acquiring of the habit."
-- Elder Joseph Anderson, Secretary to the First Presidency (1971)
 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:08 pm
Obama had a democratic congress his first two years. However, he had his legacy healthcare bill as his goal and in so doing let the middle class down by not addressing the small businesses. Obama owns that. Also, Obama doesn't have a good record to run on for re-election. He was like a deer in headlights during this debate. My guess is that the second debate will be more of the same. Obama cannot defend his four years of failures. When you factor in the green companies he threw millions of taxpayer dollars on and all of them failed...well....that's a tough road to defend.

Obama is weak. He is detached. He has been a loner in the White House. He has distanced himself from everyone but Valerie Jarratt, his Chicago friend whose only claim to fame was being Mayor Daley's administrative assistant. Yet, she is the person closest to the president and "advises" him on what he should do. Not good.

The other thing that should be noted is that Obama's own democrats didn't back him. They shut him down as well. In November 2010 the American people stood tall and voted and took the democrats out who were feeding Obama's spending frenzy and replaced them with "No More Spending" republicans.

The facts are the facts and cannot be altered. What we saw in this debate was Obama standing naked before the American people. The very next morning, he made a fool of himself making excuses for why he was a dud during the debates. This is what a narcissist does....they can't believe they've done anything wrong and so they have to pass their incompetent choices over to someone else. In other words, it was never Obama's fault that the economy has stalled and unemployment is still high. Obama will want you to believe that he, alone, was responsible for the 7.8 % drop in unemployment. However, the truth is, many Americans simply dropped out of looking for a job. The real unemployment number today is around 11%. Obama didn't tell you that. He can't tell you that. The walls are crumbling around him. Why? Because he was never qualified or experienced to run a country much less a country.

Liberals, it's at your feet. He's YOUR man. He was never going to be a president who loved his country. Read his book "Dreams From My Father." Obama tells you who he is. It's a good read.
 

Jae A. (323)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:21 pm
As Daine O makes obvious...you can not locate the mind of a teabagger as they're generally too small or missing needed brain cells to think for themselves... much less change theirs. They started Obamas administration with racist hate and ignorence in general ...Since that day they keep returning to care2 to prove those facts about themselves, time and time again.................in my opinion.

As for those 'four most misleading'...I think those were ...from the moment he began to speak...all throught the mddle........and on to the end. Ok,so that's just three... but very important moments I thought.. as to the topic :-) .

 

Diane O. (149)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:29 pm
Jae, your desperation is evident in your posts. I believe in the Tea Party movement because they understood early that Barack Obama was not an American born, flag draped across your heart, patriot of our country. He was confused. He was indoctrinated early into a family who had communist leaning views. They were the radicals. They didn't love America and they weren't going to support American values. Read Obama's book "Dreams From My Father." And, when you do, you'll understand that to support Obama is to support radical communist beliefs and Obama's latent bonding with his father who hated the UK and the US. Obama brought personal issues with him to our White House. Thank God that the American people in 2010 and next month will cast their votes to get a radical, communist leaning president out of our White House. Americans are proud of their country. Early in 2009, after being inaugurated, Obama went around the world "apologizing" for our country. That told me...right then and there, that we did not have a President who believed in his own country. Perhaps it wasn't his country. The debate told me that his heart simply isn't into defending and protecting the American people. He threw the middle class under the bus when he ignored our small businesses. That told me that Obama had his own agenda. Now, four years later, our economy is still stalled and the "real" unemployment number is at 11 percent.

Jae, you are a trip. Obama was revealed during the first debate. IMO there's no way he can recover from it. The swing states are leaning Romney now. Take a moment and ask yourself why that is.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:30 pm
Diane stated: "The facts are the facts and cannot be altered."

We both know that's not true, Diane. Mitt does it all the time --and so do you. After fact-checking "assertions" that you made on various threads and proving that your so-called facts were incorrect, I asked you to validate those "assertions" using credible sources. This happened at a least a half-dozen times. Not ONCE did you rise up to meet the challenge. If you're going to preach for the purpose of influencing other people's decisions and ruin a good man's reputation in the process, make sure that what you're preaching is based on fact. Conspiracy theories are just that --theories-- and the ones you borrowed from Glenn Beck are the kinds of things you find when you scrape the bottom of a particularly foul barrel.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Friday October 5, 2012, 3:46 pm
"Obama went around the world "apologizing" for our country. ..." In her response to Jae, Diane just repeated (for the thousandth time) one of "her" facts, which earned a "pants on fire" rating by a Pulitzer Prize-winning fact-checking site. The ratings don't get any lower than that. Diane, you repeat the same pre-programmed comments so often that you're beginning to sound like a pull-string toy. That's not debating. That's reciting. And what makes that technique even worse is that the sound bites are based on lies.
 

Dandelion G. (387)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:06 pm
Well I see the leopard showed their spots. Not facts just conjecture.

Per Diane: "Barack Obama was not an American born, flag draped across your heart, patriot of our country."

Don't you think Diane, if anyone could PROVE he wasn't American born that those of the Democrat party who also wanted to be President, and running in the Primaries, would of done so.....IF that were the case.

Why do you keep going back to this tired worn out story? Even the Health Dept. in Hawaii verified he was born in Hawaii, and recently it was verified again to Arizona that had contended he wasn't a citizen to be on the ballot. The State of Arizona is satisfied. But we are going to have from now and until hell freezes over people think he still isn't a citizen just like some refuse to believe that Elvis is not dead.

As to Obama being communist influenced and such. If we want to tie people to these types of things, I like to know where the Republicans and others were when the both Bush's that were President and had ties to Prescott Bush, direct line relative, as he was Father and Grandfather to them.

In 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act, the U.S. government seized several companies in which Prescott Bush had an interest. Prescott at the time was an investment banker with Brown Brothers Harriman, which had funneled U.S. capital into Germany during the 1920s and '30s. Among the seized companies was the Union Banking Corporation of New York, which was controlled by German industrialist Fritz Thyssen. Thyssen had been an early financier of the Nazi party.

So should we all jump to the place that the former President Bush's were Nazi's? With that logic you present on Obama, I guess we could quickly do the same with the two former Presidents. Maybe we should of checked out their birth records.

Prescott Bush was a member of the National Birth Control League which in 1942 changed it's name to Planned Parenthood and served as it's Treasurer. Imagine that! Now this same party that had once embraced Planned Parenthood wants it's destruction. Don't you realize that if any Party is less than loving of America and supporting it's values it's this mix up Republican Party.......that is NOTHING like it's former self. I WISH the REAL Republican Party exisited, but they carry it in NAME only!

If there is any radical stuff going on its coming from the right. My goodness for the real Liberals the Democrat Party is more like the former Republican Party was. There is nothing close to what the Liberals really would like, for one being Universal Health Care, instead we got a take off of Romney's plan.

Look Thomas Jefferson said, ""The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government." Yet, when someone tries to get food and health care to unemployed, disabled, and the Elders that is looked at as somehow distributing the wealth down to them by this new Republican Party.

Yet it hadn't seem to matter to the Republicans and many of the Democrats either for the most part because they didn't yell loud enough and even helped in places that wealth was distributed up. Unregulated capitalism and the sell-off of public domain to profit multinational corporations has caused a U.S. financial crisis shifting wealth upwards at the expense of federal, state and local governments and the working class.

In fact Obama's tax deal with Republicans to cut the Social Security tax, will make the short-term finances of Social Security look worse, setting the stage to ultimately squeeze and cut Social Security, and fulfilling a long-time dream of corporatists to gut all New Deal-type programs. This is why I say, Obama is nothing as you claim him Diane, a Socialist....omg far far far from it. Is why I'm not supporting either of these two Parties.

The Tea Party started as disenchanted American citizens that saw that things were not going well, and they were correct, but the Koch brothers seized onto this populist movement and started to take control of the various demonstrations, turning their anger from where it should of been placed, at the Koch's, Alec, Wall St., and turned this anger at their fellow citizen or at each other.

So here we are, the Koch turned the anger toward the Democrats as they represented the New Deal. The Koch brothers and other Oligarchy type are exploiting as shills the Tea Party people whom they seek to disempower eventually, who in turn agitate for disempowerment of workers in unions, who is the thin line between the people in general and the Corporate overlords. The Tea Party members were ambushed and have been playing right into the hand of the Corporate feudal overlords.










 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:23 pm
I want to sum up what I have written at greater length on, above:

I believe it is ALMOST CERTAIN, that Mitt Rmoney was on some sort of DRUGS, during the Debate.
The debates are a matter MUCH TOO IMPORTANT, for Karl Rove and Rmoney's handlers to leave to CHANCE. And to how Mitt HAPPENED to be feeling that evening: Manic {as he acted}, or its opposite!
This ALSO explains their Strategy, of wanting the Debate questions in advance {breaking with all precedence for Presidential debates}.
Under Drugs, Rmoney wouldn't be able to "reason" the answers to unexpected questions {not that he ever would be, anyway!}.
This way, Rmoney could memorize the answers to each question; and rehearse, and rehearse, until he was letter-perfect.
Being under the influence of some sort of drugs, would also explain Rmoney's unusual "animation", his rapid delivery, his repeating himself, his speaking over Jim Lehrer, and his unstoppability once he got going.
Ever see a person on Speed? {Methamphetamines}. This sort of behavior is VERY recognizable.

It's right in front of you, folks.
You just maybe don't want to see it.
Hitler also was hyped-up on drugs.
Utilizing the latest Medical developments of his time.
This is just a dog-and-pony show, DESIGNED to get Mitt Rmoney elected by ANY MEANS possible, to be a FRONT for his Corporate backers and their wishes to rape our entire Planet's resources.....

Cocaine is a drug WELL-KNOWN to lead to feelings of "Confidence" and "Ease", almost to the point of megalomania, "you can do nothing wrong".....
There may be Designer Drugs with similar effects. What is NOTEWORTHY, is that Mitt Rmoney's behavior, his BODY LANGUAGE, CHANGED ABSOLUTELY OVERNIGHT. I repeat, OVERNIGHT. {Like his orange "tan"! That wasn't from any "natural" process of "development"!}
How you are SEEN on TV, is MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT EITHER CANDIDATE ACTUALLY HAD TO SAY.
PERCEPTION, IS THE WHOLE THING.
The Drug with Cocaine-like effects, in giving Mitt "Confidence", UNLEASHED HIS "INNER BULLY" -- WHICH WAS HIDING THERE ALL ALONG.
This stance is DESIGNED TO APPEAL TO ALL THE RACISTS, BULLIES AND HOMOPHOBES IN THE REPUKELICAN PARTY.
Obama is not only a President who has to act Presidential -- that is, with restraint -- he is also by nature a Scholar and a Gentleman. Therefore, against a Rampant Raging nothing-is-too-Obscene BULLY, it is SET UP SO THAT OBAMA WILL LOOK WEAK. President Obama is FORCED to play by a different, a CIVILIZED set of rules!
The USUAL rules!
Rmoney gets creds for BREAKING THE RULES. {Among his followers.} Obama disappoints, looks like a {"feminine", "gay"} sissy who caves in to the "tough" Bully. Not-a-Contender.
The Debates are intended to be a TRAP, an AMBUSH, and were set up to be so from the moment the Debate rules were changed.

Karl Rove is a guy you wouldn't want to play a game of chess against!
[Making President Obama look "weak" is intended to PUT OFF BLACK VOTERS FROM VOTING FOR HIM AGAIN. Another part of the "Nullify the Black Vote" Strategy. Like the scene in "Roots" where the Black Slave can't prevent his wife-to-be from being raped by their White owner -- he's HELPLESS. This is the sort of SUBLIMINAL imagery involved. As I said, this guy Rove plays a mean, but oh-so-clever, "game"! On many levels.....]
 

Kit B. (276)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:23 pm

Oh my! Diane please tell us you were just kidding. No one believes that nonsense. Not any rational, thinking person.
You "believe in" the tea baggers? It's not a religion it was a group of people as Dandelion just explained.

Still haven't read Karl Marx have ya? Till then, don't toss around phrases that are misused. There is a whole boat load of facts about both candidates up today, haven's seen you there talking about either candidate, now why would that be...umm.! I bet because:

1) it is a lot of reading

2) sure does give old Mittens a pants on fire award

3) you just might not understand it....

4) Obama has told a few whoopers too, just not as much, as often or as badly as your boy!

You just keep on doing what your doing, it not makes us stronger it brings people to the fold. Thanks!
 

Surunatik WTF (38)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:37 pm
To Ms Small Business is my mantra, Obama's so called failures are our failures. Where were we when our President tirelessly worked to move us forward? Did we give him (and ourselves) a Congress that would work in concert with a stimulus orientated agenda, or one that fought and stopped a good faith effort to correct the crap that needed to be cleaned up. It was Bush and the republicons that created the mess, blocked freaking everything of consequence, and stated their intention to do so as President Obama was inaugurated. I call that treason, they should be prosecuted for their conspiracy to undermine the security of the US of A.

I really get sick and tired of self-righteous bigots challenging our patriotism as if they own it, bull pucky to that. It is clear they have no true sense of what being a patriot means. More inflammatory rhetoric. pisses me off!
 

Surunatik WTF (38)
Friday October 5, 2012, 5:42 pm
and... Rightie points and arguments trade on the repetition of empty and hollow rhetoric, they've been masterful in the abuse of this tactic. This scheme has seen its day, we are are no longer innocent and ineffectual children. When we ask questions we expect cogent, thoughtful answers. Don't pat me on the head and expect me to relegate myself in shame to the dismissed 47%. I know that I am not alone on this point. We heard what was said, know full well its implications, and a tardy, lame-assed apology means nothing. Romney stands revealed as the plutocrat and oligarch that he is.
 

John C. (81)
Friday October 5, 2012, 8:44 pm
First off the bat I declare myself an independent. I can vote either way without guilt or feelings of betrayal.
I have in the past voted republican for 32 years.
I don't see the agenda of the "party of Lincoln" either reflecting that heritage or living up to it.
(Diane O neglected to mention that Ryan's budget plan also clips that 716 billion from medicare.) He has never addressed that to the public.

The format of the debate was agreed upon by both parties before it took place. Obama hoped for an opportunity to explain the details of his policies. It only gave Romney an opportunity to answer them with "zingers". I think Obama saw Romney as being bigger than that. Everyone knows better. This was the first of three debates. It is not anywhere near over and way too soon to gloat.
The debates between Ryan and Biden will be very interesting in the respect that these contenders inherit the White House if anything goes wrong. This is important too.

Have to say at this point that I am so less interested in what the "parties" think. I am looking for a way to live. My choices center around "the status quo", and a corporate raider that pays 13% in taxes. Yes, yes I know , (mostly from him), that HE understands "job creators". He has never demonstrated that he understands them well enough to create jobs here instead of China. Status quo looks good to me so far. If Romney wants respect of the voters he needs to earn it in a way that shows in his life. It doesn't and no amount of apologizing TO America when he opens his mouth to change feet will make up for it.

Only a "specialist" in foreign affairs could go to our closest ally and piss everyone off while touting his expertise. I don't want him speaking for me. These people are my friends. I have served with them. Their blood is just as red as ours no matter how they run their Olympics. Its not worth the angst of criticism.

I refuse to be polarized by rhetoric. I am choosing the world I can live with versus the one that will cost too much in ways I don't want to give.
 

Susanne R. (249)
Friday October 5, 2012, 9:48 pm
"You cannot currently send a star to Dandelion because you have done so within the last week."

Sorry Dandelion --you certainly deserve many. The comment you posted at 5:06 pm was outstanding!!!
 

Kathy Chadwell (367)
Friday October 5, 2012, 11:50 pm
Read the drug comment,, great observation, and it would not be the first time the romneys have used drugs to their advantage (gain). What type of people do this to animals? Think about how he'd handle the white house:(
http://www.politicolnews.com/ann-romneys-horse-lawsuit-over-drugging-a-lame-horse-to-sell-it/
 

Kathy Chadwell (367)
Saturday October 6, 2012, 12:03 am
Wow Diane. O you have signed only 2 petition and are a care member?
Yup, I see why you are a romney fan
 

BMutiny TCorporationsEvil (467)
Sunday October 7, 2012, 7:05 pm
Yes, Kathy, that "drugging a lame horse" is very apt and to-the-point. Drugging the horse, SELLING it {for a great deal of money} lame and drugged {a FELONY! that would put a less wealthy person in JAIL!}, then trying to put all the blame on the horse's Trainer -- that DOES give a good idea of how Rmoney would run the country!
 

Kathy Chadwell (367)
Sunday October 7, 2012, 8:10 pm
You cannot currently send a star to BMutiny because you have done so within the last week.
 

Michael T. (82)
Tuesday October 9, 2012, 8:27 pm
Wow, Dianne can shovel it even better than Mitt. Not here to convince anyone? Probably true. Here to poke people in the eye with sharp verbal sticks. Yuppers seen your ilk all over Care2. Most of them can''t spell as well as you can but they are just as brainwashed.

BOSTON—For weeks many Beltway insiders had written off the Romney campaign as dead, saying the candidate had dug himself into too deep a hole with too little time to recover. However, with a month to go before ballots are cast, Romney has pulled even with President Obama, and the former Massachusetts governor credits his rejuvenated campaign to one, singular tactic: lying a lot.

“I’m lying a lot more, and my lies are far more egregious than they’ve ever been,” a smiling Romney told reporters while sitting in the back of his campaign bus, adding that when faced with a choice to either lie or tell the truth, he will more than likely lie. “It’s a strategy that works because when I lie, I’m essentially telling people what they want to hear, and people really like hearing things they want to hear. Even if they sort of know that nothing I’m saying is true.”

“It’s a freeing strategy, really, because I don’t have to worry about facts or being accurate or having any concrete positions of any kind,” Romney added.

Romney said he is telling at least 80 percent more lies now than he was two months ago. Buoyed by his strong debate performance, which by his own admission included 40 or 50 instances of lying in one 90-minute period, the candidate said he will continue to “just openly lie [his] ass off” until the Nov. 6 election.

Whether it’s a senior citizen, military family, working mother, businessman, or middle-class American, Romney said, he will lie to every single one of them as often as he can if that’s what it takes to win the presidency.

“The best part is, it’s really easy to lie,” said Romney, who added that voicing whatever untruths come into his mind at any given moment is an easy thing to do because all it requires is opening his mouth and talking. “For example, if someone accuses me of having a tax plan that makes no discernable sense, I just lie and say that I do have a tax plan that makes sense. I also say there is a study that backs up my plan. See that? Simple. None of it is remotely true, of course, but now we’re moving on to the next topic because people are usually too afraid to ask me straight up if I’m lying, because that is apparently not something you ask someone who is running for president.”

Moreover, Romney said, if anyone does accuse him of lying, he will simply say he is not lying, which he noted is just an extension of the overall strategy.

“So, if I’m talking to retirees,” Romney continued, “I lie and say I’ll fight tooth and nail to save Medicare, which causes them to applaud. On the other hand, if I’m talking to the party base, I lie and say we have to cut Medicare, which causes them to applaud. So, you see, my goal here is to get everyone applauding for me, because if everyone is clapping their hands, standing on their feet, and shouting my name, that means they like me and will vote for me.”

Romney’s campaign advisers said that they adopted the strategy of lying a lot after realizing several things: (1) Lying sounds good, especially when the truth sounds bad, (2) the American media doesn’t care if you lie, (3) the American people don’t care if you lie, and (4) it’s okay to lie if you are very, very desperate to become the president of the United States.

“If we’re going to be carried into the White House, it’s going to have to be on a wave of lies,” Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades said. “Most important, Mitt is comfortable when he is lying because then he doesn’t have to say anything bad. And in this last month it’s important that we just let Mitt be Mitt, whoever the hell that is.”

“It’s late in the game, but this campaign has finally found its groove,” Rhoades added. “And that groove is lying. Bald-faced, make-no-apologies, dirty, filthy lying.”

According to Romney, amidst all the lies, there is only one thing that remains true.

“I literally have no clue where I stand on any single issue at this point,” said Romney, adding that when it comes to women’s rights, gay rights, health care, the middle class, the economy, or the U.S. military, all he knows is how to lie about them. “I understand what other people want. And what I’ve learned, especially in the past week, is that in order to be a viable candidate for the White House, that’s all you really need to know.”

Following the interview, Romney told various reporters that, if elected, he would save the newspaper industry
 

Dandelion G. (387)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 6:36 am
This is why when I quote whole pieces from a newspaper I like to leave the link as to where I got it from. While I do agree Romney lies, when I read the above it didn't sound like he would of said exactly that. He might lie, but I don't think he is that stupid to admit it so boldly. So I look it up and found that it came from The Onion, which is a satire paper, that Kit herself puts on for fun now and again.

If you are reading this Michael don't feel so bad, long long time ago The Onion tripped me up on some Native American story. I put it on the news with ???? like does anyone know if this is for real? I was in hopes it would of been; but knowing how the treatment of natives have been in this Country it didn't seem it could be real. It wasn't. Someone came on to the thread and told me it was The Onion and explained to me what it was. It wasn't on the Onion itself, but some other publication picked it up as factual and ran with it.

The waters are muddy enough, and if we are going to vote for or not for someone let it be based on fact. There is enough "real" documentation of Romney being caught in lies, or his flip flops, or untruths, however one wants to phrase it. The link to The Onion is below.....
The Onion
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 8:14 am

Actually, this article was written by Jonthan Cohn from The New Republic. The Onion did do a take off on this article, and it was very funny, after this article was published. Mr Romney has indeed changed his position on many important issues, many times. He has made statements that he must know are not factual, Mr Romney is not a stupid man.

When I submit some thing from the ONION I do try to make it very clear that it is humor.
 

Dandelion G. (387)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 8:53 am
I realize your article was Kit, I was speaking on Michael's comment right above mine. Sorry if I didn't make it clear enough.
 

Michael T. (82)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 9:50 am
No problem Dandelion. I intentionally left out the link. I simply wanted to treat cam and dianne to a poke in the eye like they seem to enjoy doing. I also find that their opinons might as well have been crafted by the onion in the first place.
 

Kit B. (276)
Thursday October 11, 2012, 2:31 pm

And funny poke it was....
 

Dandelion G. (387)
Friday October 12, 2012, 8:00 am
lol, on that, I quite agree Michael.
 
Or, log in with your
Facebook account:
Please add your comment: (plain text only please. Allowable HTML: <a>)

Track Comments: Notify me with a personal message when other people comment on this story


Loading Noted By...Please Wait

 

 
Content and comments expressed here are the opinions of Care2 users and not necessarily that of Care2.com or its affiliates.