Skip to main content

Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney speaks during the first presidential debate with President Barack Obama (not pictured) in Denver October 3, 2012.     REUTERS/Jason Reed (UNITED STATES - Tags: POLITICS ELECTIONS USA PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY)
"How much did I lie?"
The results of Wednesday night's first presidential debate are in and it's official: Mitt Romney won round one. He was aggressive, he was decisive, he delivered. Of course he also lied through his teeth for most of the debate.

Romney lied:

  • When he claimed that "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan." They're not.
  • When he said that President Obama had "cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare." Obama didn't.
  • When he denied proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. He did.
  • When he said President Obama had "added almost as much to the federal debt as all the prior presidents combined." Not even close.
  • When he resurrected "death panels." That was called "one of the biggest whoppers of the night."
  • When he stated that half the green energy companies given stimulus funds had failed. Only if three out of nearly three dozen is half.

Stay tuned. These just scratch the surface.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

    •  Here's my "Obama won" pitch. (54+ / 0-)

      I know the consensus is the opposite, here's a different take that just occurred to me.
      The Obama camp gamed this out. They knew that Romney would be doing something of a "Don't throw me in the briar patch..." in order to draw Obama into a tussle.
      The strategy was that Obama would not step down to Romney's level and get in a tussle on the lying.
      So, after the debate starts to fade, what you have is Romney having done a lot more blatant lying, on camera, and Obama didn't soil himself with Romney's stench.
      I think within a week that will be the narrative coming out of this debate.
      We should all help that along.

      You can't make this stuff up.

      by David54 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:44:33 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

        •  That's true, but I think that's the decision they (15+ / 0-)

          made not to get drawn into a tussle over bullshit. He probably did miss a few moments, but in the long run it won't matter. Romney is even more of a liar than he was going into the debate, as amazing as that sounds.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:55:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  That's a dumb ass decision. (18+ / 0-)

            I can't think anybody would give a guy advice that sounds like "When he says a bunch of things that aren't true right to your face, just go ahead and look down at your podium and remain silent."

            That's a dumb ass strategy. I can't think the Obama Campaign is that stupid.

            I'm more in the "he just wasn't into it" camp than the "this is all part of the plan" camp.

            •  i agree, (6+ / 0-)

              the President looked lost and distracted, his obvious contempt for Romney will not play well.  I cannot believe he was so unprepared, his well known mannerisms should be controlled.
              but my particular problem is why is it that when he is out greeting people one on one on the campaign trail he can speak directly to them and seem to be one of them.
              there are times he needs to speak the language of the american people and when he is speaking to sixty million of them he needs to be that time.  stop the professorial attitude and pronunciations.  (eye)ther, instead of (ee)ther seems affected even to my well educated ear.  thats just one example and it will turn off many voters.
              for the last ten years i seemed to have escaped the constant depression which overwhelmed me for thirty years, all night long i have been sinking into it in the face of the new possibility of a romney presidency.  the american people elected g w bush twice, do not overestimate their ability to avoid electing him (in the person of romney) again.

              ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

              by jts327 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:44:21 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  He always looks that way in debates, imo. It's (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                GrannyRedBird, vcmvo2, mon, PipeUp

                not his best format.  He thinks too much and see both sides, and he's careful no to get things wrong.

                I go with david54's analysis.  It's impossible to believe that Obama would be "not into it" in a big-time debate.  So they mustve gamed it out.

                Doesn't the challenger always or usually "win" the first debate against an incumbent?  If so and so planned for, we're left with the question What will be the longterm results?  Answer, imo:  Romney looks good and lies constantly, and Obama is a mediocre debater and is botton-line trustworthy.

                Which rep would you take?

              •  Syria and Turkey (0+ / 0-)

                This latest development in the Middle East may have weighed heavily on the President's mind; it may have been the distraction during this debate.

                •  if anyone misread my intent here, (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  George Strain

                  i just want to emphasize that i am a white, 62 yr old, well educated but poor man. and Barack Obama is potentially the best president of my lifetime, he is unfortunately being sabotaged by the traitorous actions of the republican held house of representatives.  maybe he is just weary.  so much hate has been directed at him, but he goes home to love from his wife and beautiful daughters.  sometimes it has to wear heavy on the heart and the performance.

                  ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

                  by jts327 on Fri Oct 05, 2012 at 09:53:48 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Well, I'm not saying this was all a strategy. I'd (9+ / 0-)

              agree with your assessment to a degree. I do think they planned not to "get drawn out" by Romney.
              I think the Biden debate strategy will be to go hard after gop obstructionism, as Ryan is the posterboy for it, and to pin Romney/Ryan to the obstruction.
              I don't think Obama could have countered a lot of what R said without talking about gop obstruction, and I don't think they wanted O to talk about that because R wasn't a direct party to the obstruction.
              I think they'll probably pin his ears back by the last debate.

              At any rate, we need to move forward and the fact is that Romney lied his ass off, and he did it on camera. So we should make that the takeaway.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:50:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Maybe it was a "dumb ass" decision... (0+ / 0-)

              ...but if it was it is done and appears there was limited negative impact.  Most before the debate didn't believe a word out of Romney's mind...but we have second-guessed the-man before and he came through for us. My take is he and his support team will make this work for us. The worst we can do is not correct those willfully-ignorant...that Romney has lied, did lie, and will lie much more in his attempt to become POTUS.  Always Forward.

              Our nations quality of life is based on the rightousness of its people.

              by kalihikane on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:20:06 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I think he missed a LOT of moments (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            fiestygrrl, lavonneann

            I thought the President should have called out Gov. Romney more and used his own past to bolster his calling the Gov. to the carpet.

            I would have liked to hear the President address Gov. Romney's history of outsourcing American jobs while at Bain Capital in the opening salvo of the debate. I would have liked to hear the President talk about Gov. Romney's involvement in eliminating collective bargaining rights and his disdain for unions. I would really have liked the President to bring up the 47% comments and talk about how, as President, you have to work for ALL Americans and that Mitt Romney doesn't think it's his job to "worry about those people". And several other things but, most importantly, I think it would have been a very strong statement if the President had said what he said this morning in his closing statement last night:

            That Mitt Romney owes the American people the truth and did NOT give it to them in that debate!

            "This is where some of my dreams become realities. And where some of my realities become dreams." -Willie Wonka

            by green917 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:10:28 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  maybe but (38+ / 0-)

          With no moderator of any ability to, well, moderate, and with Mitt's pathological skills at lying, what would have ended up is a he said/he said back and forth which would have accomplished nothing and would have more than likely hurt Obama more because, to put it simply, people expected that of Mittens but not of Obama.  There was absolutely no way in this debate circumstance for that moment when Romney would say "you got me" (verbally or otherwise) because Romney is lacking that gene most people have called shame.  
          Sometimes you win by "losing" and sometimes you lose by "winning".  This in many respects was the latter, or at least I think Obama saw it that way.  It is, I think, not the way he wanted it to go, but he's always someone who plays the hand he's dealt.

          Some of my best trials have been against the smartest, toughest adversaries mainly because they raise my game and it's about substance.  My worst have been against adversaries who, frankly, were not at my level but who I did not respect.  I see that in Obama...he just cannot hide it when he doesn't respect or believe in his opponent.  And that lack of respect (or whatever you want to call it) leads him to lack his mojo.  

          yes, there was no Bain, 47% etc. but here's why IMO: it's already baked into the meme; and rule #1 in any adversarial situation (especially where it's not an advantageous one, like this one with a bad moderator):  you never ever give your opponent another chance to clean up if you don't have to, because he just might do it.  Bringing up those topics in this setting was something Romney was salivating to have happen.  

          He made no major errors.  He hit his points.  He was overwhelmingly still seen as more empathetic and likeable, many of MItt's statements will come back to bite him, and Mitt's style will fall flat at the town hall setting and at the debate on foreign affairs.

          Would I have liked him to rip Romney's head off (verbally?) Yes, but I never expected it, and for the long game it is not worth it.  Plus, he is not good at it.  

          •  Just like a good cross examination (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            ProgMa57, Kombema, smartalek, loblolly

            Just like a good cross examination, Obama can use this material as a basis for going after Romney in the next debate.   Obama now has a 3rd party fact check he can hit Romney with if he tells any of these lies in the next debate.

            Also, Obama will be more ready for the tacking to the middle that Romney did.

            That said, there were some easy responses to some of the Romney bull s&*t, but Obama is too much of a Blue Dog to hit Romney with them without carefully planned parsing.  That disappointed me.

            •  Obama wasn't simply looking down to avoid (4+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              lirtydies, hooper, bardgal, loblolly

              eye contact or appearing bored and distracted.  I saw him taking notes.  Lots of notes.  I wish he'd acted with more immediacy on his observations of Willard's BS rather than waiting for fact checkers to point it all out or for the next debate.  I predict a much better performance next time.

              •  I saw Romney furiously writing notes too n/l (0+ / 0-)

                In a world of the blind, the one eyed man is a pariah. Ask Galileo. Ask Darwin.

                by OKParrothead on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:52:20 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  However - (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                vcmvo2, RO45, loblolly

                By allowing the factcheckers to do their thing, he is never sullied with the dirt of the fight.  He artfully let Romney ramble on; lots and lots of rope to hang himself with, and sure enough, Romney will spend the next 2 or 3 news cycles trying to jump through the rings he set on fire in the front window of Politifact, FactCheck, PEW, MSN, ABC, ProPublica et al.  What a show it will be.  By avoiding the meme of 'angry black man' that the (R)s are dying to paint him as, he let Romney shoot his load.  It will make round 2 interesting, at the very least.  And incidentally, Kerry won his first debate, and we all know what that meant. Absolutely nothing.  Use this as a battle cry to get the (D) ground game going.  I got a call today, first one of the season in Indiana.  And just when I thought we had been forsaken...

                The intesity of your opinions is offensive...

                by SomeChic on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:14:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Fact checkers will have little influence compared (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  to Obama's failure to counter Rmoney in front of 50 mil viewers.  It was not 11-dim chess, it was a f-up.  Now Obama's got to get back on the horse fast, or everyone's in trouble.

                  Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob. -- FDR

                  by Kombema on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:48:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I wish I could agree... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:

                  But Jane & Jo Sixpak don't pay attention to "fact-checkers."
                  (We do that -- but we always have to remember, we are not the norm in America.)
                  Those few "undecided"s would have been decided by now if they did so.
                  Plus, progressive voters need to see someone willing and able to stand up for us, and for the whole citizenry -- and no fact-checkers or surrogates can make the Presidents' utter fecklessness last night disappear from our memories.
                  Obama's performance (read:  lack thereof) is of a piece with his choices and behaviors in '09-'10 -- the very reasons so many Dem's and Dem-leaners didn't vote in '10.
                  I fear something similar this round.

                  •  Agree - Obama Blew A Great Chance To Let The (0+ / 0-)

                    undecided voters see what a liar RMoney is, and he didn't. Low information voters probably don't even know what a "fact checker" is. Obama needs to have a strong performance in the next debate. I hope Joe Biden takes a lesson from his lousy performance in his upcoming debate with Ryan.

                    •  Its not over. Its our job to spread the truth (0+ / 0-)

                      around. I know I did today. I challenged someone on Romney.
                      I got a chance to tell her what a tax cheat he was.
                      Look up "Double Irish with a Dutch sandwich". It describes
                      Romney's tax schemes to a t.

                      My hubby is a CPA. He went to the computer right away after Romney made a claim that companies don't get a benefit by locating overseas. There is a tax code for just such thing.

                      Right now the IRS is investigating some of his 401K benefits. He is clearly out of the legal realm of how much you are permitted to set aside. If Obama confronts him with this, it will not be pretty. I am sure the IRS is filling Obama in on the whole story. Romney will lose it right in front of millions of people. Obama needs to keep a low profile so that he does not appear viscous. He needs to be cool with "just the facts,man".

              •  Willard? (0+ / 0-)

                Wasn't that a Rat movie?

          •  Moderator was great (0+ / 0-)

            He essentially was not there.  As close to a Lincoln/Douglas debate as we have had in decades.  The candidates asked the questions and discussed and debated, and the moderator was virtually non-exisitent.  he did become the story and did not insert his opinion into anything.

            Obama is POTUS -- he does not need a moderator to "protect him" -- what he needed was to grow a pair and keep up with Romney.

            In fact, Obama has been protected from tough questions since he first ran for president.  The press does not ask any.  His cabinet does not challenge him.

            This is the first time we saw Obama without a teleprompter and having to answer the questions on his own -- with no help from the moderator or anyone else.

            And he came up short.  Sure, he reads a great teleprompter (as Bill Maher Tweeted during the debate -- "perhaps he does need his teleprompter") -- but he clearly was not up to Romney's skill level for a one on one debate.

          •  this is the best commentary I've seen. (0+ / 0-)

            Thanks, kulta1

        •  Exactly what I was thinking. (7+ / 0-)

          Either POTUS or Lehrer could have called Romney on some of this crap.  They're STILL spewing the 700 billion Medicare lie?  The mind boggles.

          •  That was one of the things (5+ / 0-)

            that irritated me the most about last night's performance, I gotta say.

            Even a mild "Your VP's medicare proposal contains exactly the same thing" would have forced Romney to recant on that one or undermine Ryan.


            The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy... the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

            by lcbo on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:24:45 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  But....It's not the same (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              President Obama ended the tax gift to Medicare Advantage. You have to understand/know what Medicare Advantage IS to get what that means.

              - When you turn 65, you get Medicare A (free) & B (small fee)
              - Medicare pays about 80% of the claim.
              - Private Insurance Cos sell "supplements" which cover the other 20%.
              - Medicare Advantage is a plan where you sign ALL of your Medicare benefits over to the For-Profit Insurance Co for them to then administer for you (which means they can deny claims that Medicare MUST cover.)
              - The GOP (via For-Profit Insurers) came up with it because it For-Profit Insurers told them to.
              - PBO ended that, along with the fraud and other waste - see the BIG STING that happened yesterday - which is just ONE of the many that have already happened.

              Ryan basically just wants to put the Insurance Cos back in charge of embezzling everyone's money.

          •  the ads will write themselves. n/t (4+ / 0-)
        •  he said Romney's plan is "never mind" (7+ / 0-)

          How can you debate someone who is on stage lying about his own proposal's and campaign?

        •  Yes (8+ / 0-)

          As an attorney of 25 years experience and a college debater of 7 years experience last night was painful to watch.  I would have opened Romney up like a sharp razor going after a cheap vinyl purse.  I would have used words like lie, rich, greedy and death with a big 47% bow neatly tied around it all.

          I have to hope that someone has a long game figured on this and the fear that Obama would look like a bully controlled their strategy.

          I am however tired of attempting to fill the holes Democrats allow to be blasted into our agenda with the time of my nights and weekends.  Since 2009 politics in this country has devolved into a brutal, manipulative fight Democrats are too pure and special to show up properly armed and trained for.

          The opposition will not be persuaded.  They will only be stopped when they're flat on their back, with a foot on their neck staring up at something heavy and dangerous capable of spreading their brains across the pavement.  They do not understand lesser methods.  This is not a class our education obsessed party can teach.  The Republicans are not going to learn.  Their winning and that is what the money wants.

          William Hamilton practices Law and is a writer and community activist in the Charleston, SC area. He can reached through

          by wjhamilton29464 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:01:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "When they're flat on their back, with a foot on.. (0+ / 0-)

            their neck staring up at something heavy and dangerous, capable of spreading their brains across teh pavement."

            quote of the freakin day.  I have boots, may I join in the fun?

            The intesity of your opinions is offensive...

            by SomeChic on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:18:07 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I wish I could give this comment 1000 rec's (0+ / 0-)

            But you left out one thing:

            "Democrats are too pure and special to show up properly armed and trained"
            ignores those Dem's and ostensible Dem voices in the coporate "news" media -- far too many of both! -- who are sympathetic to, and even actively working for, the opposition.
        •  True, but here we are so it needs to be dealt with (0+ / 0-)

          Obama blew it and now we need to use Romney's lies.

          I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

          by Dave from Oregon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:06:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  I agree (8+ / 0-)

        Maybe Obama's game was off, but I can see a long term strategy behind this as well, so it's not all bad.

        Rather than drawing out a few lies by countering, Obama, on purpose or not, gave Romney opportunity to talk more, and dig the hole deeper. The immediate impression might have been bad, but we know statistically how long that lasts. It's the after-debate analysis, the fact checking, all that. Especially, when Romney says something opposite what he said in the debate on the campaign trail or on an ad.

        Give him more rope, I say.

      •  TOTALLY agree! Thank you! (0+ / 0-)
      •  "Obama won" (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I agree that President Obama was more factual and articulate, therefore the winner...

        •  Winning and "Winning" (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          orlbucfan, DSPS owl, David54

          Yes, the President wins on facts and articulation. But I'm not sure about what we really score debate "wins" on. I thought I heard Axelrod or Plouffe comment that they didn't bring up the 47% because 100% of Americans already know about those statements. And I think that is a HUGE mistake to assume that. A good chunk of the population gets their "facts" from Fox news or god knows what other venues where these types of things don't get the airplay. So where is the harm in not only presenting your facts, but challenging Romney on statements that are clearly false? Do we all know he's lying? No. You and I know, but a good portion does not. And the President needs to capture that portion and point out this liar and snake for what he is. He can hem and haw and fake his way all he wants, but this is really getting scary that this guy could possibly get the job since the lie machine is already in place to jam it through. And this is just the grease they need. Voter suppression. Bald faced lies. He will and is doing anything it takes to get it. Very scary.

          What happened last night is not going to change my support. In this day and age of instant feedback, you only get a very small window to get that message out. And we only have less than 40 days to score the only "win" that matters after all is said and done.

          •  Except... (0+ / 0-)

            ...that, on this one apparent foregone opportunity, at least, there are compelling and valid theories -- some in this very thread -- behind not going after that infamous comment, including:
            gives Rmoney the chance to re-spin, with more lies
            cedes subject-ground to Rmoney
            plays into the Publican "angry Black man" narrative
            This one, I'm buying -- at least provisionally.

      •  Oh yeah! (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        DEMOCRACY is a Relay Race... and you pass the baton by VOTING! So don't vote for OBAMA, VOTE for M&M's, MEDICARE and MIDDLECLASS

        by LOrion on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:00:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  FactCheck's analysis seems to be attempting (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      susanWAstate, jts327, DSPS owl

      to show an even number of falsehoods or exaggerations by  alternating between Romney's deceptions and Obama's overstatements:

      •  Grrrrrrrrrr! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheChocolateChips, createpeace

        We're ALL better off when we're ALL better off!

        by susanWAstate on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:35:32 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i was afraid (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheChocolateChips, createpeace

        that the fact checkers would want to appear to be fair and balanced.

        ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

        by jts327 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:47:00 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They say "Romney lied" but don't want to say it (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Dem In VA, jts327

          From the Factcheck site, but edited to include all statements in the same format, "Snopes" style annotations about truth values, and a scorecard; and then I sorted the list by truth value. Their list also doesn't include statements that were completely true (eg, they discuss Romney's "six other studies" claim as being false, but it's not in their list and that clearly means that Obama's claim was fully true - but I don't have time to do the full transcript, and even just looking at the contested claims paints the picture that matters). They do say, "Romney came off as a serial exaggerator," which as close as you can come to calling him a liar.


          True - 4pts;
          Mostly true - 3pts;
          Almost true - 2pts;
          Not true - (-1)pts


          Mostly true (3): Obama accused Romney of proposing a $5 trillion tax cut. Not true. Romney proposes to offset his rate cuts and promises he won’t add to the deficit.
          Mostly true (3): Obama oversold his health care law, claiming that health care premiums have “gone up slower than any time in the last 50 years.” That’s true of health care spending, but not premiums. And the health care law had little to do with the slowdown in overall spending.
          Mostly true (3): Obama said 5 million private-sector jobs had been created in the past 30 months. Perhaps so, but that counts jobs that the Bureau of Labor Statistics won’t add to the official monthly tallies until next year. For now, the official tally is a bit over 4.6 million.
          Mostly true (3): Obama again said he’d raise taxes on upper-income persons only to the “rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president.” Actually, many high-income persons would pay more than they did then, because of new taxes in Obama’s health care law.
          Mostly true (3): Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event.
          Somewhat true (2): Romney claimed that middle-income Americans have “seen their income come down by $4,300.” That’s too high. Census figures show the decline in median household income during Obama’s first three years was $2,492, even after adjusting for inflation.
          Somewhat true (2): Romney claimed half of all college grads this year can’t find work, when, in fact, an AP story said half either were jobless or underemployed.
          Not true (-1): Romney said Obama “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, a figure that actually reflects a 10-year target for slowing Medicare spending, which will continue to grow.
          Not true (-1): Romney again promised to “not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans” and also to “lower taxes on middle-income families,” but didn’t say how he could possibly accomplish that without also increasing the deficit.
          Not true (-1): Romney claimed a new board established by the Affordable Care Act is “going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have.” Not true. The board only recommends cost-saving measures for Medicare, and is legally forbidden to ration care or reduce benefits.
          Not true (-1): Romney said “up to” 20 million might lose health insurance under the new law, citing a Congressional Budget Office study that actually put the likely number who would lose employer-sponsored coverage at between 3 million and 5 million.
          Not true (-1): Romney said 23 million Americans are “out of work” when the actual number of jobless is much lower.
          Not true (-1): Romney accused Obama of doubling the federal deficit. Not true. The annual deficit was already running at $1.2 trillion when Obama took office.

          Truth Score:
          Obama - 15;
          Romney - NEGATIVE 2

          Romney is a liar.

          •  hey (0+ / 0-)

            thanks for running that down, good work!

            ...sin that pays its way can travel freely, and without a passport,whereas Virtue, if a pauper is stopped at all frontiers. from The Sermon, Moby Dick

            by jts327 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:06:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  @ least one factcheck fail (0+ / 0-)
            "Obama again touted his “$4 trillion” deficit reduction plan, which includes $1 trillion from winding down wars that are coming to an end in any event."
            Um -- they're "coming to an end" only because Pres. Obama chose (against Publican & Villager opposition) to end them!
            To fail to credit him with this simple, obvious fact is itself utterly deceitful, because, absent Obama's Presidency, they would not have been ending "in any event."
    •  At Last Night’s Debate: (5+ / 0-)

      Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes

    •  Thar's gold. But WE have to dig it. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Thar's gold in them thar lies.

      But it won't do anybody any good unless we dig it out and put it before people.

    •  exactly, here are 5 good attack ads (0+ / 0-)

      just waiting to be made and distributed.

      I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

      by Dave from Oregon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 10:46:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nope...I Want to know why SUPERGOVRomney... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Is not wanted back in MASSACHUSETTS.

      They are the people who know how he governs. Why don't we hear from any of them why he was bad?


      Must be somebody in MASS who can tell us.

      DEMOCRACY is a Relay Race... and you pass the baton by VOTING! So don't vote for OBAMA, VOTE for M&M's, MEDICARE and MIDDLECLASS

      by LOrion on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:04:56 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  But pundits loved it (19+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:07:04 AM PDT

  •  Doesn't matter... (36+ / 0-)

    Obama should have called out those softballs last night.  He didn't.  Damage is already done.

    Why is Mitt Rmoney so happy that an American embassy was attacked? Why does he hate America?

    by RichM on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:07:46 AM PDT

  •  if only there was someone to counter the lies... (16+ / 0-)

    like say... a PRESIDENT.  Where were you, Barack Obama?

    That guy would not have lasted 2 weeks against Hillary Clinton in 2008.

    On DailyKos nothing is significant unless Obama doesn't do it.

    by glutz78 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:07:51 AM PDT

  •  I guess Obama should have been prepared for (14+ / 0-)

    THe lie-a-thon. After all Mitt said he the President is known for 'how shall I say it, being a liar' and didn't want to spend his debate time refuting Obama's lies. PROJECTION!

    "I'm sculpting now. Landscapes mostly." ~ Yogi Bear

    by eXtina on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:08:25 AM PDT

  •  All of the commenters who complained that (15+ / 0-)

    President Obama "wasn't used by being questioned," or had "spent too much time listening to Hail to the Chief" missed the point -- President Obama just wasn't prepared to nail Jello to the wall ... but he should have been.

    We must drive the special interests out of politics.… There can be no effective control of corporations while their political activity remains. To put an end to it will neither be a short not an easy task, but it can be done. -- Teddy Roosevelt

    by NoMoJoe on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:08:37 AM PDT

  •  So far Axelrod has been making the rounds (27+ / 0-)

    focusing on the lies.  Would like to see Obama list out a bunch of them in his speeches tonight.  Something like "The American people expect their politicians to be honest.  Mitt Romney didn't pass that test last night."  Something like that.

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:10:23 AM PDT

    •  Enought of this mealy mouthy bullshit (11+ / 0-)

      Just say it: "Mitt Romney is a liar. Here's why:". You don't have to nuance and elaborate every statement. That is a sickness of Democrats. They can't speak plainly and bluntly

      Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

      by Joe B on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:22:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The only problem... (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bluezen, eXtina, DQKennard, Kombema that he didn't call out Romney to his face on those lies.

      Yes, he and his surrogates need to talk about those lies.  But if he just makes a speech the next day on it, the danger is that it will come across that the president waited on the accusations instead of making those to Romney's face.  It could come across as gutless.

      Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

      by TexasTom on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:22:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  true. & a lot of people don't have the luxury (4+ / 0-)

        of following everything that's said every moment of the day, either.  they tune into the debates & that's it -- & unfortunately (or not) that's how they make up their minds who to vote for.  they don't pay that much attention to tv ads or talking heads bullshit.  they listen to what the candidates say & evaluate whether they're being lied to or told the truth.

        countering the lies the next day is like closing the barn door after the horse has already run away.

        •  Great point. 98% of voters view the debates (4+ / 0-)

          as a kind of a reality tv show, where the winner is the one with the most bravado and energy.  They think it's theatrics, not a policy presentation.

          Sadly, the importance of truth and accuracy are left to us...the 2%...the truly engaged on both sides.  And our minds are made up.

          •  the obama campaign has to pick up their game, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Rube Goldberg

            that's all.  convincing the unconvinced &/or changing the minds of voters who think romney did a better job in the debate (or would make a better prez) is only part of it.

            the merits of the democratic argument must be presented in a more cogent & effective way than it has been.  that's what political advisers get paid the big buck for, right?

            i wish the prez (& all d's for that matter) would brag more about the good the d's have done, & not play into the rw narrative of doom & gloom.  for instance, most people think their taxes have gone up since 2008 when they've actually gone down, & who's to blame for that discrepancy -- ???

      •  He did (4+ / 0-)

        contest the big ones. But he let most of the lesser ones slide. Otherwise, he would have had no time to say anything at all about his own approach.

      •  Obama did... (11+ / 0-)

        but the thing is Obama did call out those lies a couple of times. No he didn't do it over and over again because if he had... well he would have spent the entire debate talking about Romney's lies.

        The debate situation basically allows Romney to tell his lies and then Obama says "no that's not true" then Romney tells it again.

        The point should be to make Romney pay for those lies after the fact. He is now on tape... lying lying and lying some more. I just don't understand how that's not a liability?

    •  Yep, Obama is going to have to call Romney a (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick, Womantrust, DSPS owl

      liar in no uncertain terms.  He's going to have to change the narrative from what Romney said, to his dishonesty.

      What I kept thinking during the debates was this man is standing in front of the American people and convincingly lying to them about Obamacare, and budget plans.  If he did that as President, it would be grounds for impeachment.

      That is a disservice to the American people.    

      •  I hope Obama isn't listening to all this crap (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Oh yeah, that would have been the gold strategy -- turn a debate between the POTUS and the challenger into two men on stage calling each other liars.   The only path to victory for Rs is depressed turnout and that would be the way to do it.

        This isn't a reality tv show.    Before the debate they were all saying that Romney would be losing if he had to keep explaining his positions -- and Romney had to keep explaining his positions and did a horrible job of it.   I'm really not sure what debate other people were watching, but Romney looked nervous and unprepared.   He looked like he was making up his plans as he went along.

        I think (the metaphorical) Jack Welch was in the MSNBC control room.   Rachel started out saying that Romney looked like he was hyper, but then said "oh, I don't mean that in a bad way."    Romny did look hyper.

    •  Man, you are dreaming. BO doesn't (0+ / 0-)

      work like that. Damned shame, too. I didn't watch the debate last night. Good thing, too.

      Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

      by orlbucfan on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:59:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  A lie is only effective when your opponent... (7+ / 0-)

    lets it stand. Then it becomes truth.

    They won the class war

    by ThanxAl on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:10:41 AM PDT

  •  Even as I was watching (11+ / 0-)

    the debate I was imagining a fact check subtitle running on the side. Sort of like the comments during Stephen Colbert's The Word.

    Romney pretty much emitted a steady stream of lies and exaggerations the whole night so every time he makes a claim, freeze the video and run the subtitles. Mr. Romney, you've been Colberted!

  •  Never Argue with a Liar because he will tell lies (34+ / 0-)

    If winning debates is about telling lies with a straight face then Romney won. But it is a pyrrhic victory because, as in a trial, the lies are best exposed not by arguing with the liar but with contradictory statements from the liar

  •  We Better Face Up To The Truth (17+ / 0-)

    The US declared today a national day of mourning because President Obama got KILLED last night.

    That's one problem with policy half measures, e.g., a Heritage Foundation "market based" health insurance plan instead of Medicare for all. How can one give a full fledged, vigorous defense of half measures? Answer: One can't.

    When presented with a choice between ruthless Republicans or milquetoast, mealy mouth, watered down, half measures people will opt for the real deal every time.

    The lesson from this debate and the last four years is Democrats better embrace and fight for the mantle and policies of the party of FDR, JFK and LBJ or they face extinction.

    If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

    by stewarjt on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:11:23 AM PDT

    •  Obama got "killed" on rhetoric and tactics only. (10+ / 0-)

      Obama clearly won on substance and honesty.  And as the dust settles, people should realize that Obama came out on top.  And was dignified and presidential to boot.

    •  I'm Not So Sure (5+ / 0-)

      Romney said a lot of things that sounded good to people last night, but if they're all lies, he's going to have to explain himself.  And it may come back to him in the next debate.  The next time he contradicts something he said last night, the story will be, "first he said 'A', then in the debate he said 'not A', then he just said 'A' again".

      •  That could be a good result. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Womantrust, DSPS owl

        Fill flopping and truthfulness have been Mitts weakest characteristics with the public.  Now that he has definitively taken a position for all to see it should be easy to point out these characteristics. (if by easy you mean 100s of millions of dollars of ad money).  Now we don't have to pull out some obscure statement in a Podunk town during the primaries to prove he's a liar. Hopefully this can be done.

        "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

        by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:49:39 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  high drama (8+ / 0-)

      "national day of mourning"?  Please.

      Going back to the healthcare debate and pretending that we didn't have Lieberman and Nelson, that the Republicans were willing to give Obama a victory, that talking passionately about Medicare for All would have made it so, etc., is pretty silly at this point.  It's like Romney last night, saying he would "sit down with the opposite party" and get things done.  Neither is reality.

      Obama was wishy washy in last night's debate, it's true.  He probably spent the whole day dealing with Syria and Turkey and other problems, and was tired and not combative.  I agree.  But I don't think the debate changed your vote, did it?  Or mine.  Or most sentient beings who made up their minds long ago.

      "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

      by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:42:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  He Didn't Even Try (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Excuses, excuses.  We'll never know if he could have had Medicare for all because he didn't even try.  United Health Care's lobbyists wrote the Obamacare law.  Does that sound to you like someone who's fighting for the working class?

        Did LBJ have all the votes he needed to pass the Civil Rights Act when he started?

        For goodness sakes, Did GWB have all the votes he needed to start an unprovoked war of aggression that almost no one wanted?  And yet, he got a war.

        Apologizing for weak tea policies is exactly what President Obama did and he rightly got his ASS KICKED!

        If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

        by stewarjt on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:52:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  indeed (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DSPS owl

          all that was missing was a glance at his watch like Bush Sr.  He clearly didn't want to be there and looked as if he felt he was above it all.  Also, seemed to get a bit chippy w/JL but quickly pulled it back before it was to obvious.

        •  The claim about United Health Care is unsupported, (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kefauver, Womantrust

          repeated, but unsupported.  That you cite it is telling.  That you would believe an insurance company with an axe to grind is telling.  

          I've read the original article that is the genesis for your claim.  Read it again.  Who makes the claim?  Insurance company lobbyists who insist that the Obama administration RENEGED on the alleged deal.  The deal they cite looks very much like a "first demand" letter that opens negotiations from one side.  If you believe all first demand letters, I have a divorce decree for you to ink.

          And by the way, do you know how FDR passed his great economic plan in his first term?  He made a deal with the devil and sold out civil rights to White Southern Segregationist to buy their votes for the New Deal, even though FDR has an overwhelming majority (greater than Obama's first two years) of Democratic votes.  The New Deal was purchased on the backs of  the continued subjugation of black Americans.

          Before you sound off on how deals are made to make law on the federal level you ought to take a closer read on history.  

          and for the record, the Civil Rights Act was paid for in two ways - the murder of JFK, and the ceding of the racist South from Democratic to the Republican Party for the next 6 decades.  It wasn't because of a great debate between LBJ and Goldwater.

          And GWB?  Really?  9/11 ring a bell?  Mass US hysteria?  Do you really think it was because he was an effective whip?  Or an effective speaker?  Maybe it was all those lies about "weapons of mass destruction" and "mushroom cloud".  Is lying your way into national policy the model you want to follow?    That's Mitt's way.

          "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

          by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:42:00 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Here Ya Go, Buddy! (0+ / 0-)

            I know someone who works for United Health Care.  He's the one that told me their lobbyists wrote the bill.  So, you couldn't have read the article that's the basis for my claim.

            You're attacking a straw man on civil rights.  I don't recognize my position when you obliquely refer to it.  Read my comment again and maybe you'll comprehend my point.  Then, if it's necessary I respond to a comment relating to what I said.

            That's right.  GWB SOLD a war very few people wanted.  Most people wanted universal health care and the President capitulated without a fight.  That's very different than what GWB did.

            If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

            by stewarjt on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:03:34 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ugh, your buddy who works for United Health Care (0+ / 0-)

              yeah, and "someone I know" who saw the "proposal" from United Health Care knows the difference between the proposal and the actual legislation.  You can search it yourself, using teh Google.  And then compare and contrast to your heart's content.

              It ain't the same, Buddy boy!  

              Next time, don't listen to anecdotes from "someone who works for someplace who heard..."  and palm them off as corroborated facts.  You  and everyone else who reads your claims can fact check this one.  Really.  I urge you do so, so you won't look like a parrot.  

              It's clear you have never had to negotiate anything with an elected body that vows to oppose everything you propose no matter what it is, despite popular opinion.  That's the difference between reality and hyperbole.

              Did I miss that "Democrats vow to oppose everything GWB proposes no matter what" action in 2001?  Well, I guess GWB has to have a fan here, even if it is you.

              "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

              by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:00:36 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I Understand Your Confusion (0+ / 0-)

                You didn't respond to any but one of my points.  I guess that means I carry the day on those others since you don't respond, but just engage in ad hominem attacks which is a logical reasoning fallacy.

                You should have seen the look on the United Health Care guy's face.  He looked like the cat that ate the canary.  He was pleased he knew what most people didn't.  I'll take his account over your personal attacks.

                Try and respond to what I write and we can have an exchange of ideas.  So far this is all one way from me.

                If I was a communist, rich men would fear me...And the opposite applies. The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.

                by stewarjt on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 01:05:26 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Nice reality check, thx N/T (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
    •  Gee, you sound like someone just itching (7+ / 0-)

      to criticize the President about something. I have to ask again what universe you live in where Medicare for all was within the realm of possibility in 2008 - 2010 in the United States of America.

      And let me also give you a hint: even if we had Medicare for all, Mitt Romney would still be calling it a job killing, deficit busting, death panel abomination that he would repeal on day one.

      Heck, he's trying to take the actual Medicare and turn it into a crappy voucher system.

      Get real, will you?

  •  It wasn't just lying; there was a a strange moment (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He threw the President off somehow when he made the comment about his five sons.  It's like he stung the President personally at that point.  We'll never known what the hidden dynamic of that interaction was.

  •  ALL the WAR Costs Still Added to Deficit Daily!! (6+ / 0-)

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:11:55 AM PDT

    •  Extended War Costs (0+ / 0-)

      And the beat of Huge Amounts of Money Wasted, making private government contractors and the wealthy even more wealthy, from the previous, bush, administration, to his and tepubs liking the private sector they tout for doing the public sector needs, just never stops adding onto the reality of what they left us into today, and still grows daily!!!

      Report: Post-9/11 intelligence effort named citizens, not terrorists
      3 October 2012 - A multibillion-dollar information-sharing program created in the aftermath of 9/11 has improperly collected information about innocent Americans and produced little valuable intelligence on terrorism, a Senate report concludes. It portrays an effort that ballooned far beyond anyone's ability to control. read more>>>

      Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

      by jimstaro on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:45:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Lie now, apologize later (6+ / 0-)

    Sadly it seems to be working.

  •  I can't join the freak out (32+ / 0-)

    or Romney really lost groups.  I wasn't looking for a knockout punch from Obama.  I was hoping for better moderation from Lehrer, however.

    Romney and his handlers will and should feel pretty pleased with how things went last night.  Sadly, for them, they will assume this strategy will work at the town hall.  It won't.  Neither will all the lies told with such breathtaking ease.

    I saw a tired President -- and don't believe for one second that his docility was a strategy of rope a dope.  I do think the revelation of the lies -- on the web -- and maybe in some media outlets -- will cause a lot of damage in the end.

    " My faith in the Constitution is whole; it is complete; it is total." Barbara Jordan, 1974

    by gchaucer2 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:12:22 AM PDT

    •  I hope you are right about the lies. (4+ / 0-)

      I am really concerned about the President's demeanor. It's extremely hard to believe that Romney is what put him "off".  Romney didn't do anything that shouldn't have been anticipated.   Honestly I thought the President seemed lackluster and unengaged from the beginning. Even his Anniversary comment seemed to fall flatter than it usually would. So I guess I'm saying that the debate concerns me obviously, but I'm more concerned about whatever it was that caused such an uninspired performance by the President. Yes he's usually low key and not confrontational but more than that was lacking last night. Hopefully the campaign knows and can correct for it.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:20:10 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Yup.... (4+ / 0-)

        He was 'elsewhere'.  He looked exhausted.
        Who knows what world affair or domestic turmoil he's been dealing with on a daily basis (that we have no inkling about) that took his complete attention and then afterwards he had to deal with this lying pompous fool.
        We won't know til much, much later.

        I think, therefore I am........................... Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose....AKA Engine Nighthawk - don't even ask!

        by Lilyvt on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:41:26 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Frankly, I think being President used up (4+ / 0-)

        his energy yesterday.  Big doings in Syria, Turkey, that he couldn't put on hold.  The debate was important, but his job as world leader more so.  We all expect him to be Superman.  We expect him to crack wise and always be on top of his game, as he was at the Correspondents' Dinner during the bin Laden raid.  But he's a human being, with a finite amount of energy.

        Romney just took positions that are polar opposites of what he's been promising on the stump.  Now let him live with them.

        "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

        by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:48:17 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  I saw the same thing you did. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Lilyvt, gchaucer2, OhioNatureMom

      Lies on one side, tiredness on the other.

      If you starve the middle class, whose gonna pay for your crap?

      by rosabw on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The President does have a day job, after all. (5+ / 0-)

      I thought he looked somewhat passive and tired, too. Of course, he must be tired. Look at the Middle East right now...the situation today with Syria and Turkey especially and doG knows what else. Afghanistan ain't exactly mumblety-pegs at the moment, either.

      Then there's the Mittwit who's been holed up prepping his lying ass off for the last weeks.

      Gack! I hate these so-called debates. They're a trainwreck you just can't take your eyes off.

      Inspiration is hard to come by. You have to take it where you find it. --- Bob Dylan.

      by figbash on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:39:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Interestingly, I saw something looking at Romney (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      I haven't watched Romney much, so watching him last night was a pretty new experience for me.  One thing that jumped out at me pretty early on was that he doesn't look healthy; he looked to me like someone with cardiovascular issues.  I'm not a doctor; it's just the impression I got from looking at his face.  Perhaps it was the stage lighting; or the result of being out on the campaign trail for two years; or perhaps it was the stress of the moment; or maybe the effect of his incessant whining and belligerence.  But he just didn't look healthy.

      Love one another

      by davehouck on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:03:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  You are a level head, here, gc2 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      and thanks for that.

      "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

      by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:43:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  No one cares that he lied. (13+ / 0-)

    all people see is romney won and obama lost. Romney strong, obama weak. It's simple as that.

    The President let romney back in the game ugh.

    "I'm not mad at them (tea party) for being loud, I'm mad at us for being silent for the last two years. Where have we been"? "it was never yes HE can, it was Yes WE can". - Van Jones

    by sillycilla on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:13:00 AM PDT

  •  Challengers always win the 1st debate (12+ / 0-)

    Reagan beat Carter

    Mondale beat Reagan

    Clinton beat Bush

    Dole beat Clinton
    Kerry beat Bush

    that's as far back as I can remember. Maybe someone older can comment on if Carter beat Ford.

    -1.63/ -1.49 "Speaking truth to power" (with snark of course)!

    by dopper0189 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:14:08 AM PDT

    •  Ford was considere the winner (4+ / 0-)

      of the first debate but "lost" the second because he made that comment about eastern europe not being dominated by the soviets.

      I don't think Dole won any of the debates against Clinton however.

    •  Dole did not beat Clinton (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      belzaboo, sethtriggs, bwintx, pademocrat

      I don't think any polls showed this:

      A Gallup poll conducted for CNN found that 51 percent of Americans believed Clinton won the debate, compared to 32 percent who were more impressed with Dole. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

      A CBS News poll gave Clinton 50 percent to Dole's 28 percent, with 17 percent calling the debate a tie.

      An ABC News poll showed 50 percent for Clinton, compared to 29 percent for Dole. Nineteen percent said it was a tie. That poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage point

      Dukakis did beat Bush 41, though. Still, there's no masking how putrid of a performance by Obama this was.

    •  The 1980 one is what scares me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delilah, Dr Swig Mcjigger

      People were unsatisfied with Carter's performance as president but wary of Reagan. After Reagan showed he could go tow to tow in the first debate, people became more comfortable voting for him. I'm afraid that may be what happened last night. I think there were people who were looking for a reason to vote for Romney or not to vote for Obama and they got one last night.

      I really hope I am wrong...but I feel like this could be a game-changer.

      On the other hand, it could be more like 2004, when Kerry got a boost after the first debate but still lost the election.

      •  Nah (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        pademocrat, Delilah, orlbucfan

        Obama's approval rating is  waaay better than Carters and Mitt Romney is no Ronald Reagan in terms of charm and likability.

        If Romney "wins" all the debates then you're looking at a razor thin election result - but Obama still wins with about 272-280 electoral votes

        Go to 270towin and ID the states you think will flip to Romney due to last night - maybe Florida, maybe VA, probably NC. But that's it. The electoral math remains an almost insurmountable challenge for Romney.

        And another thing - by the time of 1980 debate Reagan was the mild favorite. The debate just blew it wide open.

        •  Main difference with Carter (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Iranian students were holding US citizens hostage and it was a public humiliation for the country. There was some hope that Carter would get them freed prior to the election and that this might provide him with a bump to push him past Reagan, in what was considered a close race. Once it was clear that this was not going to happen in time, the floor fell out from under Carter. It was not the debate that killed him .

          •  Rayguns was also a professional grade (0+ / 0-)

            B actor. Carter wasn't. Rayguns could lie his way thru an earthquake cos all he needed was a script to read from. It drove me to tears when Rayguns fooled too damned many Americans, and won in 1980. Also, it wasn't just Iranian students who kidnapped the Americans. Rayguns' handlers had their dirty little paws involved in that one, too.

            Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

            by orlbucfan on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:19:33 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Reagan had likeability. Romney not so much. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Reagan seemed like a genial likeable sincere old fella.  (The 8 year bane of my existence, ugh) But Romney doesn't engender warm feelings.  He's still a stiff.  He may have come off as a sharp stiff or a smart stiff, but there's still something brittle and mean and creepy about him.  Romney seems like the kind of guy that would smile while he gutted you.  Not nice.

        Reagan was likeable despite the fact most Americans didn't think he was that smart or that sharp (not smarter or sharper than the high IQ Carter), but he seemed real, and genial.  And nice.  And sincere.  

        Really, Obama wasn't Carter, and by god, Romney was not Reagan.  

        ps.  Reagan ranks up there as one of the WORST Presidents in US history as far as I am concerned, but his style was one of the best.

        "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

        by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:50:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Uncle Moji, I DESPISE Ronald (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uncle Moji

          Rayguns. But, his profession of being a grade B actor won him the presidency. You and I saw through his BS, but too many Americans didn't.

          Inner and Outer Space: the Final Frontiers.

          by orlbucfan on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:22:28 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, which is why I have to suffer (0+ / 0-)

            the indignity when I travel through DC of the old National Airport renamed after that idiot.

            His best work was not as President but as a comedic actor with Bonzo the Chimp.

            "Out of Many, One." This is the great promise of our nation -9.75 -6.87

            by Uncle Moji on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:26:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  Regan came off as human and likeable (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Romney, not so much.  

  •  Hey Paul're up dude. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
  •  Who knew that the October surprise (21+ / 0-)

    would be Mitt Romney embracing his MA governorship and declaring his empathy and concern for the middle and lower classes?

    Unfortunately for those in the audience unfamiliar with what Romney really has said over the last several months, it was April 1st.

  •  If only we had someone at the debate to refute (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    This stuff instead of Mitt the lying fraud debating a caricature of what I thought was our president.

    •  Leher had no responsibility to correct an error? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Obama had no responsibility to call out the lies?  I just don't get it.

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:22:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I don't understand debating. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Sixty Something, highacidity

      The candidates have their opportunities to speak, which they can use by refuting their opponent's lies or else talking about their own positions and accomplishments.  The moderator, apparently, needs to be "neutral", which involves letting lies stand.  When one debater is honest and the other is a perpetual liar, what is there in a debate format to counteract that?

      "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

      by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:52:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  still some ad money left right? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Steve Magruder, DSPS owl

    Here's hoping there's a bunch of footage of Romney saying various things being edited together. "You can't trust a thing he says"

    If you didn't like the news today, go out and make some of your own.

    by jgnyc on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:16:11 AM PDT

  •  Ya it is the pundits fault (3+ / 1-)
    Recommended by:
    rhauenstein, Joe B, belzaboo
    Hidden by:

    for not calling out Romneys lies... what about Obama?

    Typical milquetoast performance from a centrist.

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:16:16 AM PDT

    •  Typical erroneous conflating of centrist beliefs (4+ / 0-)

      with milquetoast personality. Bill Clinton has centrist beliefs and I don't think anyone thinks he would have lost this debate. The Presidents performance has nothing to do with his policies and everything to do with his personality and whatever else impacted his demeanor last night. So hate on the President for his beliefs. Or hate on him for his performance. But stop thinking that the performance was a result of centrist beliefs. There is simply no evidence of that.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:27:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Evidence (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Obama constantly looking for "common ground" with Romney. There's a winning strategy for a debate...

        Milquetoast centrist.

        I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

        by Jazzenterprises on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:31:19 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So you believe that debate strategy is the same as (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Uncle Moji, highacidity, kefauver

          Policy beliefs?  If that's the case then you must believe that Mitt Romeny doesn't intend to reduce taxes for the very wealthy. Or that he intends a health care plan for children up to age 27. Debate strategy is not policy.  Or evidence.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:53:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Wasted effort to try to change minds that were (4+ / 0-)

        made up long ago.  

        "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

        by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:54:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're correct. Silly me. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          SottoVoce, Uncle Moji, kefauver

          I'm just feeling the need to be a little more confrontational this morning.

          "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

          by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:56:56 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  it's been nice to be able to read Saturday (6+ / 0-)

            Daily Kos without the dual attacks in the comments after the President's weekly address and kos' hatemail fest.  For a brief moment, the attacks from the left quieted down.  This was in large measure out of the gut-wrenching fear of what a Romney/Ryan administration would mean.  It was also because Obama became more combative and partisan in recent months.  But now that he was tired, distracted and somewhat passive in the first debate, and let Mitt lie without ripping his throat out (which, I admit, I wanted to do several times) the naysayers are back.  They've already written off an Obama victory, and as usual, know more than he does about how to run a campaign, and the country.  One such poster called it a "national day of mourning."


            "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

            by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:07:55 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I saw that. How sad. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SottoVoce, kefauver

              Theres a reason incumbents don't do well in debates.  Because they don't have to act like a President. Can you imagine what today would be like if the President had acted as hysterical as Romney did?  We would all be running for the bomb shelters and Hillary would need a transporting machine to meet with other world leaders in time to prevent them from playing with their locked suitcases.

              "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

              by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:14:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Caption: (0+ / 0-)

    "And then I'd have this big eagle come down in the middle of Big Bird's song and rip his Socialist head off!"

    "If you're going to go down with the ship, make it a submarine." - Wayne Shorter

    by Oliver Tiger on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:16:50 AM PDT

  •  I just hope the jobs numbers (3+ / 0-)

    tomorrow are good.

  •  for what it's worth, (15+ / 0-)

    my husband, who once seriously considered voting for john mccain in 2008 (until i persuaded him to vote for obama) -- & who is not swayed by media gasbags or campaign hype -- thinks romney dug himself a very fatal hole in the debate by cheering obamacare like he did.

    he said romney lost his base on that issue, & later, in his closing comments, when he was checking off his list of rw must-haves, he said romney was alienating undecided & indie voters by rah-rahing more spending for the military & his love of states rights.

    so, as far as not-so-liberal types are concerned, the prez came out the winner.  not romney.  mitt looked like the liar/bully he's always been.

    for what it's worth  :^)

    •  I do agree that Romney made stances that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      contradicted what he's been promising on the stump all along.  To moderates, he comes across and insincere in these "new" beliefs, and to the die hard righties, he's betraying his principles.

      "My dear friends, your vote is precious, almost sacred. It is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have to create a more perfect union." ---Representative John Lewis

      by SottoVoce on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:56:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I briefly checked FR to see (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Delilah, bluezen

      if any of them were incensed at being thrown under the bus by Romney's October conversion. Nary a peep. They're too focused on hating Obama.

      2012 GOP Platform: "I Got Mine, Jack."

      by Yankee Patriot on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:12:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  yep (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        These people don't give a shit about consistency... they just want to beat Obama and it feels good to them today.

        I vote Democratic because I am a woman with self-respect , who rejects bigotry of all kinds, subscribes to science, believes in universal health care, embraces unions, and endorses smart internationalist foreign policy.

        by Delilah on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:08:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  i don't deny the power of hate, but a seed has (0+ / 0-)

        been planted, nonetheless, & it's the same seed of doubt that the diehard rw has always had about romney.

        let's hope obama & biden can water it a lot.

  •  Why Did Presiden Obama Let My Wife Down (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vet, mrbeen38

    My wife has cancer.  She watched the debate with me wanting to see President Obama put Romney away.

    She knew he was lying why didn't the President call him out?  Something is wrong here,  What kind of strategy lets the other team score 50 points in the first quarter.  

    Last night was very costly.  In momentum.  In dollars lost and gained.

    We both receive email from Obama daily.  We want and deserve an explanation...

  •  53% (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Let's exaggerate,  the other 53% knows, and feels, bigotry.  All Romney had to do was not look Mormon scary to please these people.  He succeeded--thus tightening the race.  Facts are so unimportant in the world FOX created that we need to move away from thinking truth brings victory.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:18:06 AM PDT

  •  Pity there wasn't (0+ / 0-)

    a Democrat present to bat down those lies - oh wait...

  •  and my dear president didn't call him out on it in (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rhauenstein, Joe B, paradox, DSPS owl

    plain english.  That's what was needed, not more stastics because everyone's already heard it on the campaign trail and in the convention.  The debate is to DEBATE and my president failed to call all of the lies out on the spot when he had the chance.  When Romney said he was going to get rid of PBS the pres ignored it.  Being afraid to come across as the mean black man at this point in his presidency is silly.  Didn't he learn anything from Prez Clinton's convention speech?  That was what we needed not more statistics in detail.

  •  We know he lied, and Romney knows he lied... (10+ / 0-)

    So WTF didn't Obama call him on any of his more blatant falsehoods? I would have liked to see Obama break his Regal Yet Tired President act just once and ask Romney something cutting instead of nodding when Romney was speaking, or staring at his notes, or staring distractedly at Lehrer, or telling Romney that they agree on Social Security, or any of the other thousand blunders BO committed. (See: Debate 101).

    Many people tuned in to see our candidate of choice pin Romney to the Matt and keep him there. What we got is a guy who was well-mannered. But good manners aren't what's needed in a cage fight. When the other guy is kicking and spitting and choking and hitting below the belt, it's foolish to not defend yourself and instead sit there waiting for the sleepy referee to cite the Marguis of Queensberry Rules to the opponent.

    Cogito. Ergo sum ​​atheus.

    by Neapolitan on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:18:55 AM PDT

  •  I hate to say it, but Twitter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    janemas, paradox

    was better refuting Rmoney's bs than the President.  That is not good. At all.

    Please read and enjoy my novella, Tulum, available in soft cover and eBook formats.

    by davidseth on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:19:26 AM PDT

  •  Make up a number (5+ / 0-)

    For me, the most telling quote that showed Romney is just making stuff up, about his tax plan specifically, but every other plan he has, came at the 22:11:10 answer. He was talking about how to bring down deductions, the key point of his tax cut plan if it does not explode the deficit again. He said " one way, for instance, would be to have a single number. Make up a number, $25,000, $50,000." Here is a candidate who has been running for 18 months (this time) and has to make up a number to flesh out his tax cut plan. Its all smoke and mirrors and "make up a number" is the tell.

    •  I thought it was 17,000 (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Middle class people like me who have more than that in out of pocket medical expenses and home mortgage interest would take a hit. Now he is saying it is 25 or 50.  

      Who was this guy and what did he do with the other Mitts that have been campaigning for months?

      •  that was the first number Romney floated (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl

        only a few days ago. That's now changed, apparently.

        See, all these trivial details are just so unimportant. Make up your own number, one you like. Whatever.

        Multiple choice Mitt!

    •  Romney's answer to the Q on role of govt (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OhioNatureMom, sethtriggs, DSPS owl

      He said "freedom", we work, and when we need help that we care as individuals for one another. I.e. no safety net.  It's your personal responsibility!

      It was a plain "you are on your own" statement. That should be made into ads.

  •  How about this for spin... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, rosabw

    The prez was sandbagging the debate on purpose. He played coy in order for the big money donors in the gop to decide to continue funding romney, instead of cutting their losses and moving to down ticket candidates. Its the pres taking one for the team.

  •  Romney will not win (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, doroma, pademocrat

    Yes, Romeny lied and lied and lied, but he is not lying to victory. Romney cannot and will NOT win!

  •  Of course Romney was lying. The President forgot (0+ / 0-)

    to point on last night on several occasions Romneys way of being less than truthful and for changing his views constantly. There was room for improvement for Obama last night.

    •  Actually, I disagree. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, elmo, sethtriggs

      I think it was more effective for Obama to say that Romney offers no specifics than it would have been to call Romney a liar.

      If Obama had called Romney a liar to his face, it would have invited the usual tit-for-tat, "is the President also lying" false equivalence game from the media. However, by saying Romney offers no specifics, it invites greater scrutiny of Romney's statements.

      I think Obama's strategy was good here. Leave the fact-checking to the media, and the charge that Romney lied to surrogates.

      Have you googled Romney today?

      by fou on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:33:30 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right, in a swearing match between two people (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        each accusing the other of lying, how does an uninformed voter decide?

        But when Obama points out that Romney's not revealing the details of his plans, anyone can notice "hmmm, that's actually true. Wonder why? Could it be because the details of those plans are just so good?"

  •  How does Paul Ryan debate... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, sethtriggs, bluezen, DSPS owl

    ...after all the shift to the middle by Romney last night?  I think if Biden can highlight the shift and put Ryan on the defensive then the conversation will shift to the shifty and shifting Romney campaingn positions.  Romney believes in "socialism" at the state level but not at the federal level?

    Buy Monkey Milk for your next Tea Party!

    by just us on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:22:21 AM PDT

    •  This is a potential silver lining. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      wishingwell, sethtriggs

      Joe Biden could make up a lot of ground if he can hoist Ryan on the petard of Romneys centrist lies. If I were in charge of the campaign that's all I would be preparing to do. Romney told his big lies and I would shove them down Ryan's throat. What can Ryan do?  Agree with Romney? Their weakness is Ryan's intransigence and his lack of appeal to the center. Romney just staked himself out as an easygoing centrist. Surely there is some good that can be made from that.

      "Speak the TRUTH, even if your voice shakes."

      by stellaluna on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:37:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Who did President Obama think was going to ... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    ... set Mitt  straight?

    Calling Romney on those non-facts and non-details would not have difficult. A few phrases would have done it. Chris Wallace did a better job in a few seconds calling Paul Ryan to task on the $5 Trillion and Ryan had no answer.

    Romney looked like a leader, in charge and knowledgable. What a shame!

    Obama and strong Democratic majorities in 2012!

    by TRPChicago on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:22:23 AM PDT

  •  What we got last night (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    khyber900, irmaly, lvv, DSPS owl

    was the side of Obama that drives us all nuts. The one that keeps on thinking that Republicans will work in good faith, that the American people will somehow come to the right decision, no matter how much his opponent is lying. You know, the one that gave us the 2010 election result, and the Tea Party. The Obama that keeps on letting Lucy tee up that football...  It must be something deeply pathological inside of him. He is given the chance to totally eliminate his enemy, and instead, he blinks. This is the Obama that has made it possible to even have a race that is this close, when he should be running away with it. It shouldn't have been this way, the Republicans were on the verge of extinction in 2009, but here we are...and there is now the very real possibility that Mitt could pull this off.

  •  On NPR (5+ / 0-)

    In one of the news reports, this morning, they had a woman speak that said how Romney scares her, especially as to his mentioning the 'Bill of Rights' and the 'Constitution' and the 'Rights of All' then goes on to say except for a couple of groups she mentions who's 'rights' are being attacked and then especially as to Women's Rights!

    I thought of a number of issues myself as he pointed out the 'Bill of Rights' and the 'Constitution' in his speaking prior to and continuing the rest of the debate!

    Vets On FLOTUS and SLOTUS, "Best - Ever": "We haven't had this kind of visibility from the White House—ever." Joyce Raezer - Dec. 30, 2011

    by jimstaro on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:23:39 AM PDT

  •  Barack Obama (0+ / 0-)

    Letting Mitt lie and constantly seeking common ground...

    I didn't abandon the fight, I abandoned the Party that abandoned the fight...

    by Jazzenterprises on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:24:26 AM PDT

  •  This is going to be a tough next few days. (4+ / 0-)

    Romney is being declared a winner based on nothing substantive. He lied, he bullied. So the fuck what? It still comes down to returning to policies that worked for the top and screwed everyone else or moving forward with policies that have historically worked for everyone and have created twice as many jobs.

    I'll poke around here but I may well spend more time posting things like this on other blogs as I've already done here and there this morning.

    On that CNN Poll – when you poll almost exclusively white southern seniors over 55 then you end up with just as skewed a number as if you polled almost exclusively non-white northern youth. The CNN poll was skewed to keep this a horse race.

    As for Maher’s and Matthews’ takes, these guys wanted Obama to be a liberal fire breather. First of all, that’s not Obama. It just isn’t. Second, that would not have played well with moderates and Independents who admire and will stick by Obama becasue he is calm. measured, and smart as hell.

    Ultimately the debates will make no difference becasue the choice is as simple and clear now as it’s been all along. Go back to the GOP policies that only benefit those at the top and created the mess to begin with OR keep moving forward with Dem policies that are proven to work for everyone, poorest to richest. Dem policies have always yielded better economic results for more Americans. More than twice as many jobs have been created under Dem administrations. The people know this. The people have experienced this first hand. No one is going to come along and convince them their reality was just a mirage.

    This race isn’t as much now a choice between Rommey and Obama as it is a choice between party policies. The electorate was not as clueless and has been paying closer attention than the GOP had assumed. This is why Obama will be re-elected. This is why the Dem candidate will win in 2016 unless the GOP adapts it’s policies to meet the approval of a majority of the electorate. If the GOP refuses to evolve, nature will select them for extinction.

    Posting those thoughts of mine where they'll be seen by idiot undecideds may make me feel better. I usually have MSNBC on in the bckground all day long. Not sure that's gonna happen. Not sure I can take what ratings-whore pundits will have to say.

    Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

    by JTinDC on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:25:18 AM PDT

  •  Dems shouldn't participate in debates (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    Which aren't moderated by fact checkers. We could change the political culture if we insist on the centrality of facts and fight against superficiality.

    Conservatism = greed, hate, fear and ignorance

    by Joe B on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:25:38 AM PDT

    •  Lehrer was a complete fail. I thought he sounded (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cybersaur, Knockbally

      weirdly nervous to begin with, and he interrupted the President a lot more than he interrupted Romney's lying blather.  

      It was as if Romney was on speed.  He seemed frenetic and  crazy.  Obama blew an excellent chance to hand him his head on a platter of truth.  But no.

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:30:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Bloodshot, squinty eyes; speeding; coked up (0+ / 0-)

        There were no whites to be seen in Mitt's eyes. He was squinting. He reminded me of someone speeding or flying on coke. He was speaking a mile a minute, hardly pausing to breathe, and interrupting Obama and Lehrer throughout.  Maybe there should be mandatory drug-testing for these debates
        I also suspect a rope-a-dope strategy. Obama let Romney talk and talk, letting most lies unchallenged, which only encouraged him to tell more and bigger lies. The commercials are already drilling Mitt for his new moderate views/lies.
        Mitt acted like he'd never heard of the tax breaks for moving jobs overseas. Obama should have nailed him on that lie but he is and will continue to do so

  •  It doesn't matter if he lied (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, bwintx, pademocrat

    Because there's a large majority of Americans who don't research their candidates and want bother couple checking the facts.

    by DAISHI on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:26:07 AM PDT

  •  And we laughed ... (3+ / 0-)

    When Romney's campaign said the general election would be like an Etch-a-Sketch. Last night's debate is what they meant.

    •  Except that I think Romney just etch a sketched (0+ / 0-)

      away his promise to voters in the top income brackets that he would cut their taxes.

      Those are his investors; if they believe what he said last night, they can't be too happy this morning.

  •  Romney said half work for "last 3%" of small bus. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    “those businesses that are in the last 3% of businesses employ half, half, of all the people who work in small business. Those are the businesses that employ one-quarter of all the workers in America.”

    Is this true?

    History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation. -- Patrick LaGrange, aka Julian Barnes

    by Nicolas Fouquet on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:27:17 AM PDT

    •  he also said he knows about small business and (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      how to HIRE people.  Give me a break.  

      If the plutocrats begin the program, we will end it. -- Eugene Debs.

      by livjack on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:30:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Good Call Nick... (0+ / 0-)

      Wal-mart employs 1%  of all American workers.  But are they small business?  It just doesn't sound right.

      Follow your hunch.  I think he's fudging the truth.

      If you starve the middle class, whose gonna pay for your crap?

      by rosabw on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:51:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If Romney said it (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      odds are, no.

    •  That was a real twist of the truth (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BlueDragon, Nicolas Fouquet

      in at least one way: remember, they were talking about tax policy for personal taxes. You know, what you report and pay on a form 1040. Now, a very small business like a sole proprietorship may report net business income on a personal return. That is reasonably common. But if you are in the top 3% of "small businesses", then you are almost certainly not doing that. At that point you have set up a corporation or some other structure and then your business return is not your personal tax return, and changes to personal tax policy don't affect your business.

      Plus in any case, owners are taxed on the net income they tax home from their business. Giving them a tax reduction for that is practically the same as handing every business owner a government check. And if you did that, how many would immediately use that money to hire someone? It is just free money to the owner. Why not take a nice vacation instead? It is a very inefficient way, at best, to spur hiring.

      •  I certainly agree with your supposition (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Slightly Wobbly

        I am a small business owner with 30+ employees.  An increase in profits/cash will get "spent" paying people I owe money to, first, and then a lot of other things.  But, it NEVER plays into my hiring decisions.  Those are made on the prospect that I can grow my sales, even at little or no margin sometimes.  Growth in revenue is the primary driver because that means more flexibility to grow profits.

        My conservative colleagues will tell pollsters or their gov't representatives that Obamacare scares them and that it will depress our hiring, when asked.  They'll say that increasing tax rates will decrease our incentives to invest.  

        They'll say it, but it NEVER actually happens.

        Romney claimed these were results of polling business leaders about taxes.  That's because most business leaders ARE REPUBLICANS!  They'll say what R's want to hear.

        Drives me nuts.

        History is that certainty produced at the point where the imperfections of memory meet the inadequacies of documentation. -- Patrick LaGrange, aka Julian Barnes

        by Nicolas Fouquet on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 04:29:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Depends... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Nicolas Fouquet

      If you don't include businesses with "no employees", that is, you are self employed or a sole proprietorship, then the statistic Romney stated is plausible. If you include businesses with no employees, which constitutes 75% of all businesses, then it is not even close. You can find data on or from the census. A lot of the reports on small business statistics do not include single person businesses, even though that would seem to be the epitome of a small business. A small business is defined by the SBA as one with fewer than 500 employees.

  •  I don't like the title of this diary, (5+ / 0-)

    though I like the diary itself.  "Lying to Victory" sounds like Romney is winning the election!  Polls don't support that.

    How about "Lying to Victory in Debate #1"  Or simply,
    "Mitt Romney: Liar."   Or "Mitt Romney 'Zings' a Bunch of Lies"

  •  I disagree that Romney "won" (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ClevelandAttorney, wishingwell

    Unless Progressive ideas about winning include lying, blustering and ignoring the rules, we should stop declaring Romney the "winner" and and judge his debate performance  by progressive standards.  

    I understand the frustration with Obama not fighting back against Romney's tactics (and this may even remind some of Kerry's refusal to fight back against the Swiftboat attacks).  I get that and I understand the frustration; but to declare Romney the debate winner is IMHO to use Rovian memes to judge winning and losing, and as a Progressive, I just cannot do that.

    •  Romney wasn't "energetic" (5+ / 0-)

      to my and my 67 y/o father. He couldn't believe he was staring at the President like he was lecturing. Glad the president took the high road.

      The only thing I will remember from that debate is his utter lack of respect, and that I have no idea what he thinks about anything except things Obama did would be good and we'd do those, but other things his base hates are bad?

      •  agree. he was more like "manic" than energetic. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ClevelandAttorney, DSPS owl

        his campaign's desperation was clearly on display.

        •  I honestly thought he was on Adderol (sp) (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          or something.

          He came across to my Dad and I not like Chris Matthews said.

          As a prick. The split screens were great.

          Romney staring at the president, the President generally looking pensive, taking notes. AND STAYING ON MESSAGE.

          The most memorable exchange is with the Moderator.

          I hope Romney does this again and again.

          He was pandering to the elder vote. My dad literally stopped watching because he said "I cannot watch or listen to this guy he is such a jerk"

          My dad pointed out he thought he was staring at the president on purpose, I said he just lacked ettiquette (as it seemed like someone told him to stop).

          Jim Lehrer actually did a great job. As Moderators usually do too much. He let everyone see what most know.

          The funny thing to me is that Obama explained Romney's policies more than Romney. And his own.

          He couldn't have time to pick everything I yelled at Romney about apart. Plus that is Obama.

          I honestly watched as impartially as possible and turned off immediately when Chuck Todd started talking. Because couldn't believe. I would love to watch with no volume.

          "Energetic" "Passionate" does anyone saying that remember about what? All I remember is he seemed to not care, where you could see the contrast

          He was lex luther.

          There are only 2 things I wished Obama nailed him on. But I'd bet 100 bucks Biden says. First, that it is not taking from Medicare (but wasn't worth for Obama as Romney said "Yes" when asked are you going to vouchers). But it's in the Ryan plan, Ryan knows it's coming (ie the same cut).

          Second the vetoes. But I think ppl fail to realize a clip from the debate with a stat he led the league in BIPARTISAN vetoes (yes he brought together by alienating all).

          Looking forward to Obama (who realizes he can take high road and Romney can get pounded by others).  Hope Romney thinks he can relax. And continue to dig a ditch. I'd love a campaign blitz showing how much bs there was right before next debate and Facebook question "is it true you'll say anything to get a vote"


    •  very well said, you make excellent points (0+ / 0-)

      We should not judge this using Rovian Memes. Bravo !

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:38:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Am I only one who hates won/lost? (5+ / 0-)

    Did Romney further his chances of being elected In my opinion? NO.

    Did Obama pick up votes where they weren't shored up, Yes?

    I turned off before I could hear pundits. If they knew how to win a campaign they would not be pundits, they'd be working for them.

    •  Even so, investing in more subsidies for green (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ClevelandAttorney, Eddie C, DSPS owl

      stimulus agressively is only making up for decades of lost time. Had those investments been made over the last 50 years we'd be energy independent even as we speak.  

      Ds see human suffering and wonder what they can do to relieve it. Rs see human suffering and wonder how they can profit from it.

      by JTinDC on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:38:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  And Obama let him get away with it all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    •  With what (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Looking like an ass?
      Contradicting himself in the same debate?

      Obama could've used all his time and still not dispelled the things I was shouting at the screen. In the end I got it.

      He is staying with the theme from the Convention. If you want x (looking at Camera) he is your guy. But this is what I am clearly about.

      •  I'm Obama all the way. Always have been. But (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        DSPS owl

        if your takeaway from last night is that Obama did a good job, I don't think you're being honest with yourself.  Of course I could be wrong, as you're the only one who knows your exact perspective on last night, but even as a staunch supporter of Obama I was beyond disappointed in his performance last night.  Doesn't mean this changes the end game of an Obama victory, I just think he needs to significantly step up his game and/or adjust his strategy for the next two debates.

  •  If "green" companies hadn't received stimulus (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    funds, many wouldn't have survived.  The reason so many small businesses couldn't make it was because Mitt's asshole banker buddies weren't/aren't lending.  I'm sick of all the hand-wringing and hysterics.  The President was rock solid last night, and Mitt came off as though he'd chugged a pot of decaf right before he went on stage.

  •  And President Obama didn't challenge him (0+ / 0-)

    on any of that.

    Why?  How does giving him a free pass to lie to the biggest audience of the election help?

    “What’s the use of having developed a science well enough to make predictions if, in the end, all we’re willing to do is stand around and wait for them to come true?” - Sherwood Rowland

    by jrooth on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:33:29 AM PDT

    •  How is Obama going to debunk (0+ / 0-)

      each and every one of Mitt's lies? There were dozens of them.  Obama would have had no time to speak at all about his own ideas if he refuted every false thing Mitt said.

      And Mitt just doubled down on anything the President did refute.

  •  Why Bush and Reagan won (3+ / 0-)

    I was always shocked that G.W. Bush and Reagan won with all their lying and deceptions. Not surprised the pundits and TV viewers bought Romney's lies last night.

  •  Didn't watch, knew this would be the result (5+ / 0-)

    You can't debate an habitual liar in front of an audience that refuses to accept that Republicans will offer ANY lie to get in power for their own, greedy little motives.

    The soil Romney walks upon is paved with the poor an middle-class souls his party has trampled for decades.  How do you explain this the entire night without sounding like an extreme leftist/reactionary that the far-right has placed squarely into the mind of our culture as the weakest link in our society?

    You use humor.  Obama's team was not going to come out using humor in a first debate, but was going to make the mistake that Gore's team did with Bush: let the Republican's lies speak for themselves in a self-evident manner.

    That doesn't work.

    I was shaking with tired frustration and and annoyance with my spouse last evening, who had cranked up the debate when I dropped early into bed, in my day clothing still, due to weeks of fatigue catching up.  There's no way I could sleep, tired as I was, with the voices of that debate reaching my bed.

    I knew the outcome.  Lots of others felt it would work like this, as well.  There is no popular, objective media to help an insipid, Democratic communications strategy based on self-evident truth and high-ground posturing.

    Anybody panicking truly has not been seeing things as they are since at least Gore vs Bush.  Hopefully, now we can all see that more equally.

    There's no fix in, just a terribly, horribly broken system from long ago that's now calcified and frozen in its tracks - pointed towards irrelevance.  Government and media have less relationship to their publicly stated purposes than ever before here, so events such as this are not only predictable, they are normal.

    This is normal in a broken culture.  Let's all get used to it and get the vote out as best possible, please.  Speaking with real people as other real people and standing up to extremist shite in our day-to-day seems best, I feel.  That makes the impression our own political party and the traditional media are not able to offer everyday people, the folks who matter, our neighbors and friends . . . us.


    "So, please stay where you are. Don't move and don't panic. Don't take off your shoes! Jobs is on the way."

    by wader on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:34:17 AM PDT

  •  The POTUS still has to be the POTUS (0+ / 0-)

    One thing overlooked is Romney is a good debater and has been practicing for weeks. The President still has to be President and does not have a lot of spare time for debate school. In other words he has the responsibility of running the country while Romney has all the time in the world to prepare. When all the fact checking is in we will see that Romney's so called flailing of the punching bag was done with blows with not very much behind them.

    Greed, Capitalism's Achilles Heel

    by Bluescat1 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:04 AM PDT

    •  Romney does not have a job except running for (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      President which he has been doing for what, 6 yrs now. Mitt is not even doing many campaign appearances , just fund raisers and debate practice.

      Mitt had no distractions last night. He does not have a job or any responsibilities at all !!!

      The President is extremely busy with fulltime job that is extremely demanding, exhausting, important and vital.  

      Mitt had all the time in the world to prepare, the president did not.

      The President has a job, Mitt did not.

      All Mitt cares about is winning for the sake of winning and nothing else. The President cares about his job and the American people.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:52:17 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please review (0+ / 0-)

      All the posts during the GOP debates on this site ...

      Nearly all universally declared Romney a HORRIBLE debater, usually the worst of the whole field.

      Now that he spanked Obama he is suddenly a "good debater."

      Debate prep is completely not needed -- if one has all the facts in their head.  You don't have to prep me on how to change a spark plug or how to program in C.  I know how to do that.

      Presumable POTUS would not need a lot of prep.  He either knows WTF he is doing ... or he does not.

      In kind of looked like he was clueless and lost out there, to me.  Perhaps Bill Maher was right, he DOES need his teleprompter.

  •  He also LIED about his "revenue neutral" taxes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Formerly "severely conservative" Mittens is now advocating a "revenue neutral" change in taxes, e.g., lower rates, and fewer deductions.

    Mittens says a reduced tax burden is necessary to have the economy flourish.

    So how does a "revenue neutral" tax change, which does not change the total taxes received, provide the reduction in tax burden Mittens is advocating as the key to growing the economy?
    Answer: It doesn't.

    This is analogous to a shoe store that says "Here is a $25 coupon good if you buy our $125 pair of shoes." (You pay a net of $100)

    The next day the shoe store says "We just reduced our price by 20% to $100, and the coupon in no longer valid." (You still pay a net of $100.)

    That is revenue neutral, too. Does a whole bunch for you as the consumer, RIGHT?

    "The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave." -- Patrick Henry November 6, 2012 MA-4 I am voting for my friends Barry, Liz and Joe (Obama, Warren and Kennedy)

    by BornDuringWWII on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:22 AM PDT

    •  Easy (0+ / 0-)

      1) Romney has always had the revenue neutral position for anyone that bothered to read his plan
      2) as to your question:

      So how does a "revenue neutral" tax change, which does not change the total taxes received, provide the reduction in tax burden Mittens is advocating as the key to growing the economy?

      I can easily answer that as a small business person (which is perhaps why Obama and you cannot do so).

      I make a lot of decisions about future staffing and assets and marketing plans and so forth.

      The DOMINANT issues is ALWAYS the "tax consequence"

      Anything major has to be run through my accountant.  In general I am not making decisions based on "good business" I am making them based on "best tax planning" -- or best after-tax result.

      I will NOT expand to the level the requires me to purchase employee health insurance.  Period.  If I get accelerated depreciation on a machine that will work for 10 years replacing one man's job -- for the price of 10 man-years work -- I will take the machine because of the accellerated depreciation.  That was a tax choice, not a business or personal or human decision.

      If there are no tax games -- no accelerated depreciation, no special deal for making wooden arrows or drilling oil, no deduction for buying a Rolls Royce or private jet for "business travel" ... if that all goes away and a flat rate is charge the same for all people ... my decisions then become rooted in PURE BUSINESS -- and in general a "good business environment" is what creates JOBS.

      Romney's plan is a hybrid -- not entirely a flat tax, but a step in that direction (and actually it makes more sense to move to a flatter tax slowly rather than quickly as some business already made decisions based on current tax law).  But a revenue neutral plan makes everyone pay their fair share -- nobody can buy a Rolls and write it off.  The business man is on an equal playing field as his employee.  And this all will boost the economy.  Exactly as Romney has ALWAYS said his plan was -- revenue neutral and it will boost the economy.

  •  "Victory" is all that matters (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat, Ronbo60, DSPS owl

    Th title of this diary says it all.  If Romney gets the Presidency by lying and Obama let's him lie, it doesn't matter how Romney won.  Winning is all that matters and Its Obama's job to at least try and make an efoort to call Romney out on his lies.

    Obama was an abject disaster last night.  It's nearly impossible to describe how bad he was and it was a pure impossibility to think he could be that bad.  I'm convinced - and I'm not joking here - that they gave him some type of anxiety medication and it turned his mind into much.  

    Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

    by JCPOK on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:23 AM PDT

    •  meant "mush" (0+ / 0-)


      Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

      by JCPOK on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:35:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  A Disaster is too strong, I think, and I do not (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Uncle Moji

      think Mitt will win the election.  But if he does, I will be glad to tell you that ou were right and i was wrong.

      You will really think this one debate is that huge of a game changer that Mitt is now the frontrunner or will be soon?

      I am with the crowd that thought it was a tie until the media started talking afterwards.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:55:02 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agreed with you but then re-watched the debate. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Re-watching the debate cleanses you of your inherent biases - i.e., I was cheering for Obama during the first viewing.  This debate was a debacle of epic proportions. The damage will be lasting.  Obama cannot recover from this.

        Trust-Fund Kids of America Unite... save the Bush tax cuts!

        by JCPOK on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:03:34 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Go away (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Unless the above comment is intended to parody the infantile comments that populated this site late last night.

          "This debate was a debacle of epic proportions. The damage will be lasting.  Obama cannot recover from this."


        •  Play with some electoral map, that helped me to (0+ / 0-)

          feel better plus doing GOTV all weekend and looking forward to it.

          You do realize Obama can lose FL, IA, NC, VA, CO, and one other small state and still win if he keeps OH and NV.

          Or the math can be done a ton of other ways.

          It would be a disaster and really strange if Obama loses 5 or more pts in OH, WI, and then goes on to lose about 7 other states.

          The Electoral map favors the President and strongly too. He would have to lose a ton of states he won just 4 years ago and lose a lot of ground in polling.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:57:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Now this is a good diary (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, cybersaur, Uncle Moji

    This is exactly how we should be responding to this debate. This is our chance to go on the attack.

    Romney offered up lie after lie after lie. Now we must make him pay for them.

    Romney's lies and contradictions (with everything his campaign has said up until his latest etch-a-sketch shake...) should be the big story from now until the next debate.

  •  Thank you Barbara (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Uncle Moji

    That list says a lot.  Thank you.

    Love one another

    by davehouck on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:38:13 AM PDT

  •  Obama better show up next time (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He needs to attack, the average voters are to dumb to understand when they are being lied to. If Obama doesn't just come out and call Romney a liar he could end up losing if his voters don't show up.

    •  NO -- don't call him a liar (0+ / 0-)

      that leads to a he said/he said

      Instead ignore the "lie" (distortion, mis-representation, or whatever) --> and instead combat with a comparison of plans.

      e.g. -- yes you have a pre-existing conditions plan -- but it is totally inadequate compared to mine for the following (list 3 reasons)

      That was the technique used by Romney -- it was almost a Power Point presentation with the pages flipped mostly under Romney's control, and sometimes to counter Obama.

      It was devastating.  To say the least.

  •  This Knickerbocker's song comes to mind (0+ / 0-)

    Check out this classic from the 60s:

  •  Just. Plain. Stupid. Rebuttal. Everyone knows pols (0+ / 0-)

    Spin facts and no side is exempt. Whining about who spins/ lies more is not going to capture undecided voters. Jeez, if all you OT is whining, I'm starting to worry. This is a Team Democratic PARTY election, and our ship is sailing with the current of the country's conscience. Emphasize our values, and we win. Tit for tat about spin/lies is oft-putting and calamitous for Democratic victory.

    "If the past sits in judgment on the present, the future will be lost." Winston Churchill

    by Kvetchnrelease on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:41:30 AM PDT

  •  Does Obama actually believe? (0+ / 0-)

    I came away wondering if his views are actually close enough to the Republicans that he himself doesn't believe in the gravity of the stakes of the election.  He agrees with Romney on Social Security?  What about the cap?  What about the IOUs?  

    Other thing.  Does he actually know Romney's platform inside out?  If he did he'd have been all over it, pointing out the distortions and the lies.  As lightly moderated as that debate was, Obama had all kinds of opportunity to take Romney down and he didn't.

  •  Obama team needs to counter Romney claim about (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, DSPS owl

    health care costing families an extra $2500

    I haven't heard any pushback anywhere on that yet

    •  Because it is true (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      there but for fortune

      My family's has gone up MUCH more than that -- for crappy insurance I can't change.

      Why can't I change it?  Pre-existing condition.  But Obamacare handles that?  Wrong.

      I have to not be insured by anyone for six months and also be turned down for insurance within that time ... before I qualify for the pre-existing condition insurance.  Problem is, I can't afford to go unpcovered for six months.

      So what use is it?  And my current company does have to keep me ... but they can charge so much more for my condition that it is insane.

  •  Yet another "jerk store" moment for Obama. (0+ / 0-)

    Money doesn't talk it swears.

    by Coss on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:45:12 AM PDT

    •  What ? Some of we women thought Mitt was a bully (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Coss, Uncle Moji, elphie

      and shrill and rude.  Granted, the President could do better but he was not a jerk by any stretch and it was not a complete disaster that will swing the election.  If it was,  I will gladly tell you that you are right.

      But the undecided womens line on CNN during the debate said it all for me, very high anytime Obama spoke, lower for Mitt. Women still do not like Mitt.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:00:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sorry, it's a Seinfeld reference (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        to coming up with a great comeback well after the fact. I certainly don't think President Obama is in anyway a jerk. I adore the man!

        Money doesn't talk it swears.

        by Coss on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:18:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ok I get it, Yes I now remember that episode (0+ / 0-)

          and it is interesting that I just saw another video of a Focus Group of Undecided Voters who based Just on the Debate confucted by Chris Kofinis. 14 would vote for Obama and 11 for Mittens.

          THe president did much better in these focus groups of undecided voters than he did in some snap polls, most of which skewed heavily towards white people over the age of 50.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:54:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  I know most are very disappointed and upset (0+ / 0-)

    and I get that as I am fighting that feeling and trying to stay very optimistic.  Looking at the electoral map makes me feel more optimistic. I guess because I never expected this to be easy and I nevr saw a landslide. I just never guessed a turning point might be the debates and I am still uncertain how much impact this debate will have.

    What I do not get is...

    1 A couple of people in other threads saying this debate is a game changer and Mitt could win the election based on this one debate.  

    2.  People so certain all the swing state polls will be tied or MItt will be leading in them very soon.  I can see the President losing some ground in a few states but not like 4 or 5 pts like a couple of people predicted.

    3.  People upset because it may not be a landslide victory for the President. In a way, i get it but then again, I never ever thought this. I thought this would be a close election all along because of the economy, jobs, gas prices.  

    I am not putting down those in the numbered categories above . just saying I must be dense or out of it as I do not get that extreme thinking.  But then again, a couple of the really negative, very hysterical commenters in a few other threads, we have not seen much of them in 4 years or they only show up when the Pres has had a bad day or only came here in 2010 to talk about how it was all the Presidents fault.

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:45:13 AM PDT

  •  Instant Gratification is killing us (4+ / 0-)

    We all harp on Obama not refuting all of Romney's lies last night and losing the debate but I think overall he lead the former Governor down a path that will lead to better ads and stump speeches for the Democrats. Now romney supporters will have to explain if they support VoucherCare.

    They will have to explain why or why not they differ from Romney on keeping ObamaCare and renaming it RomneyCare (That was essentially what the former Governor said)

    Also in a side note, I was watching the Debate on XBox Live and the President was winning by 20% on the instant polls. Also I ended up actually listening to the debate rather than watching it and thought Obama did not preform as badly as the pundits thought. I had Obama winning the debate because he played defense and set Romney up for failure post debate which is all he had to do.

  •  Romney won? News to me. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, bluezen

    To everyone who keeps claiming the win for Romney - here is the perspective from someone who doesn't know anything about debating - other than what I've seen on TV.

    Romney looked awful.  Obama looked presidential.  Romney was smarmy.  Obama was presidential.  

    Maybe in terms of debate rules he "won".  If winning means being rude to the moderator, rude to the president, and generally sounding like Arnold Horshack on Welcome Back Kotter.  

    But to a person who sat listening - I wound up disliking Romney more and more as the debate went on.  Yes, I never liked him to begin with - but typically I can find something to like about even the worse candidates - this went the other way for me.

    Obama just seemed not on his game - so maybe you could say Romney won, simply because he didn't lose.  

    Also - the expectations for Romney were SO LOW that he could have skated around Jim Leherer in a pink tutu and people still would have been surprised at how good he did - how he operated beyond expectations.  

  •  You know when THESE fact would have been useful? (0+ / 0-)

    LAST NIGHT !! Out of the POTUS' own mouth!

    Last night was political malpractice, pure and simple.

  •  the title of the post is off (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Uncle Moji, highacidity

    It should be called Lying His Way to Defeat.  Otherwise, it's just beginning.   Eric the Etch a Sketch has already "rescinded" the lie about pre existing coverage, saying that under Mittens such coverage would be left to the states to figure out. Eddie Gillespie said that he could not/would not provide specifics on either the size of the tax cut or the deductions that would be affected.  The only truth in his whole presentation is that he realy would fire Big Bird.

  •  . (0+ / 0-)

    Whose interest does ignorance serve? - Carl Sagan

    by spgilbert on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:52:19 AM PDT

  •  The debate itself is not a game changer. How Obama (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, highacidity, DSPS owl

    responds will be the basis of how he will be judged.

    He has to 'show people what he's got'.

    Obama made a conscious decision to stay above the fray and remain Presidential. He didn't want to come across as a jerk because he is pretty tough on Romney on the stump and in ads.

    That strategy just didn't work.

    The campaign needs to move aggressively on Romney's lies.  They need to blanket the morning shows and political talk shows.

    Obama needs to call out Romney lies in his stump speech.
    Obama needs to also go to interviews and be aggressive and clear.  He needs more sound bites, and less wonky explanations when he is not reading the teleprompter.

    He has to draw energy from the crowd, allow them to get into it.  He can't be the post-partisan Obama.  He has to be a hard-charging partisan.  The one who ran an aggressive if not dirty campaign in South Carolina to upend Hillary Clinton after getting beat in NH.  

    Alternative rock with something to say:

    by khyber900 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:52:43 AM PDT

    •  He "made a decision to stay above the fray"? (0+ / 0-)

      I don't think that volunteering to be road-kill for Mitt frigging Romney is considered a "fray".  

      If Obama couldn't look Romney in the eye and proclaim the truth then, do you think it matters now?  

      Epic fail!

  •  There's no point in hashing this now (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ronbo60, DSPS owl

    A good debater should be able to call his opponent out when he is playing loose with the facts.

    Obama had ample opportunity to do so, instead he seemed lost. I say 'lost' very charitably. He looked like someone very, very uncomfortable over there. He did not like the Oxford style back and forth debate with very little to no moderation. He did not look or sound presidential. When you let your opponent walk away with several whoppers without calling him out on them, this is what happens.

    In the coming weeks the polls will tighten considerably, but unless he can come up with a superlative and commanding performance in the second debate, which means sometimes shedding his Mr. Kumbaya image and becoming nasty, the momentum will shift towards Romney.

    "Mr Obama wishes to be president of a country that does not exist. In his fantasy US, politicians bury differences in bipartisan harmony."

    by tarheel74 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 06:53:57 AM PDT

  •  Trouble is, anyone apathetic or ignorant enough (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    to still be "undecided" about such clear choices, by last night, won't bother to read any corrections or checked facts.


  •  Well, it's now time for the fact checkers. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Since Mitt pissed them off good and early, here's to hoping that some of them have an axe to grind against that misanthrope.

    "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

    by politicalceci on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:17:33 AM PDT

  •  TV (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    I want Obama ads on TV in swing states TODAY using clips of Romney's lies, with their rebuttals, and clips of Romney's contradicting things he's said as recently as earlier that same day. Hammer it.

  •  "Romney lied". What else is new. The only (0+ / 0-)

    'one' who was able to refute those lies apparently didn't.
    The last word of your title is the scary one: "Mitt Romney: Lying to victory" .
    It does not matter how he wins; if he does, we will all pay the price.
    Our candidate needs to show some actual leadership to avoid a Mittsaster for us all, so far he isn't doing a very good job of it...

    "Double, double, toile and trouble; Fire burne, and Cauldron bubble... By the pricking of my Thumbes, Something wicked this way comes": Republicans Willkommen auf das Vierte Reich! Sie Angelegenheit nicht mehr.

    by Bluefin on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:37:45 AM PDT

  •  You all are going to think I'm crazy, but... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    ...Obama's lack of fight or combativeness in the debate tonight was all part of a master plan. The President doesn't need to "win" any of these debates to gain a second term. Conversely, Romney has to at least appear to win in order that his losing, seriously flawed campaign salvage any semblance of credibility and stave off total embarrassment come November 6th. Obama was cool, calm, collected, dignified and, of course, Presidential, even at the expensive of seeming like he had no fire in his belly. Romney was hyper, bullying, frenetic, overly aggressive, wore that tell-tale smirk, and falsely stated positions as his own that were so far removed from right-wing conservative ideology that at times he almost appeared as though he was a Democrat. My takeaway from Obama's performance and body language: it was as if he felt it was beneath Presidential politics for him to even have to share a stage with a rank pretender and failed Republican Governor like Mitt Romney. If you don't think Obama's cool, almost detached demeanor wasn't part of a grand strategy, ostensibly not to disturb his huge likeability ratings, then you don't know the man or the political strategizing genius of David Plouffe. Romney may have appeared the aggressor tonight, but the debate did nothing to move his likeability meter a smidgen from the depths it's been in almost since the race began. Score a sly, calculated win for Obama.

  •  None of the lies (0+ / 0-)

    None of the lies Romney told last night will make any difference unless the Obama campaign goes on the offensive against them.  

    Upon reflection, I could understand why Obama didn't want to do that last night.  On second thought, I don't understand.  One or two "Mitt, you're lying" would have been nice.

    If we don't see Obama ads contrasting "Debate Mitt" with "Candidate Mitt" starting tonight, we can count last night's debate as a loss for Obama.  

    Simply put, when your opponent hands you a loaded gun in the form of non-stop lies, aim straight and fire.  

  •  It doesn't matter. (0+ / 0-)

    If he wasn't called out for the lies last night, it doesn't matter.  It will be perceived as truth by those who want to perceive it that way.

    And that doesn't matter, either.  Voters have mostly already decided who they are voting for and the "undecideds" are, generally speaking, idiots who don't care and likely did not watch the debates anyway.

    The debates are like a baseball game -- the partisans for the two teams care immensely, but no one else cares.

    "Don't bring that horse in here!" -- Cassandra

    by tc59 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:02:35 AM PDT

  •  Thanks, Barry (0+ / 0-)

    The American voter has forgotten George W. Bush. Style over substance is back in play. We're all gonna get rich. Women will be put back in their place. Let's beef up our military. Specifics don't matter. Shut the fuck up, Jim -- I'm talking.

    I didn't expect a lot from Obama last night, but I did expect him to defend the principles we progressives have fought so hard for when we elected him the first time. He at least could have gone after Romney's lies. But Obama's a gentleman, you see, and didn't want to appear "angry."

    The race will now tighten a few percentage points, and given Obama's slim lead, those are precious points, indeed.

    Obama's now on the defensive. The tables have turned. Even better for Romney is the fact that he no longer needs to fear any prying questions from the debate "moderator," whoever that may be next time. Romney's lies are safe, as Obama's too nice of a guy to bring them up when the moderator won't.

    Thanks, Barry.

  •  Lost in centrist land (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ronbo60, DSPS owl

    Obama appeared tired, distracted, unprepared and had terrible body language; however, all of that could have been overlooked EXCEPT for the fact that he appeared to be in his centrist New Dem mode.  For example,  Jim Lehrer served up the softest of pitches down the center for Obama and he whiffled it.That pitch was the question about Social Security!!!!  No differences between Republicans and Democrats about Social Security??? Really?  The answer Obama should have given was YES, there are differences between me and Romney on Social Security-I want to preserve it and he does not.  Insted this terrible answer that both he and Romney want to save SS by changing it.  He lost the debate with that answer and other answers where he appeared to agree with Romney by not challenging him.   I also felt his answer re Social Security truly is telling-folks, there is a "grand bargain" coming down the road for us if Obama is elected and Social Security is on the table for cuts.  

  •  Lies? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Obama lies, Romney lies, Biden lies, Ryan lies, Reed lies, McConnell lies, Boehner lies, Pelosi lies.

    Do you see a common theme here?

    Let us be realistic, they all have, will and do lie.

  •  What I saw was.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    a disingenuous, contemptible, smirking, sneering liar, that our right-wing media is just so in love with. Granted it wasn't Obama's best night, but the media inspired Romney orgasm is just too much to endure.

  •  It is pretty funny, really (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Yesterday Romney was toast and the Republican party was over.   Today it is total disaster for the Democrats.

    Do we really have such short attention spans?  

    I actually rather enjoyed the debate.   I guess I like my politics raw.    Romney dug himself a rather deep hole and it was fun watching him do it.  

    Courtroom observers often think that the witness is getting the best of the lawyer and they are usually wrong...

  •  The Obama campaign was playing prevent defense (0+ / 0-)

    As is often said about the prevent defense, it prevents you from winning.

    They need to go man-to-man.

  •  "well, that's what limbaugh says", should be a (0+ / 0-)

    regular retort in all debates when dems are faced with with the usual GOP lies because without talk radio's UNCHALLENGED repetition they couldn't take them mainstream..

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and partisan lying by broadcasting sports on Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:20:01 AM PDT

  •  does it matter if they were lies? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    much is being made this morning among disappointed obama supporters (like me) about how much mitt romney lied during the debate.

    but it seems to me that that's irrelevant because the president let him get away with his lies during the debate.  given that most of our pathetically apathetic electorate probably won't be reading any in-depth post-debate analysis -- and those who do will most likely stick to those outlets that confirm their opinions -- the president handed mitt romney the debate victory on a silver platter.

    what will stick in the mind of most voters is not what the pundits say afterward, but what they saw in the debate.  and what they saw was mitt romney stating facts that -- while untrue -- went unchallenged, thus giving them the ring of truth.

    i'm afraid i'm feeling very disheartened this morning.  not just about the presidential race, but about obama's failure to energize his own base and to instead let mitt romney energize his, which could have repercussions through house and senate races as well.

  •  Lies about debt accumulation (0+ / 0-)

    The chart you link to in the NYT counts TARP against Bush, and not against Obama.  However, TARP was loans, that have largely been paid back, with interest.  If Obama spent those repayments instead of returning the money to the treasury (as he promised he would do in Campaign 2008), then shouldn't the TARP debt actually be counted against Obama?

  •  WHERE WAS OBAMA?? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hopalong, DSPS owl

    WHERE WAS OBAMA?? I mean, Romney's got to be the World Champion Flip-Flopper! Where was Obama to say "WHAT? You're NOT lowering taxes on the rich? And raising them on the middle class? You're NOT cutting education? You LIKE regulation in the free market? You DON'T get breaks for shipping jobs overseas? (Then why does Big Business do it?) You'll RESTORE $716B of Medicare WASTE? WHAT??" Where was he to ask Romney about the 47%? Or Bain's unprecedented levels of outsourcing and firing? Or "getting rid of" ( = firing!) private insurance he doesn't like? Or specifics on how he'd replace Dodd-Frank or ObamaCare? Or his tax returns? Or even his BIRTH CERTIFICATE?? Where the HECK was Obama??

  •  When Are Newscasters, Sunday Talk Shows... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BlueDragon, elphie

    and Debate Moderators, etc going to stop politicians dead in their tracts when they mention a known lie?

    Why should I have to depend on blogs or websites to know the real facts vs what the politician is saying is true?

    Hey Frank Luntz - What Should I Say To Make Myself Sound Like A Brainless Parrot?

    by hopalong on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 10:57:20 AM PDT

  •  Romney lies... (0+ / 0-)

    Hasn't this been his campaign strategy all along? Tell as many lies as possible, be as opaque as you can (no transparency, even on details of your own plan), trust in the stupidity of the sheep of America to buy into EVERYTHING you say.... and do all this with a confident smirk and attitude, making your own rules and being loud and obnoxious. WAKE UP, AMERICA! This is not presidential!

  •  The level of denial here ... and lies (0+ / 0-)

    On the list of "lies"

    1) Romney's plan is as such:  If someone has continuous coverage, they would be able to get and keep insurance.  It does not cover it the same as Obama, you could argue that it is not as good as Obama's plan -- but his plan does specifically address pre-existing conditions and they are covered on some level.  So it is not a "lie" -- instead people should explain why Obama's plan is better.
    2) A good DailyKos post some time ago tried to explain this -- the bottom line is that the author said that Obama was creating 716 billion in "savings" in Medicare -- instead of the word "cuts."  This is pure semantics.  If I offer to "cut" the education budget by 716 billion or provide education budget "savings" by hiring less teachers -- there is little difference in outcome except semantics.  Again, not a "lie" but a disagreement on semantics when one is explaining things in a sound bite.  The DailyKos post took pages to separate the semantics.
    3) Romney plans to cut tax RATES 5 trillion and reduce decuctions such that total revenue received by the treasury remains the same (revenue neutral).  Saying he will not cut taxes 5 trillion is far from a "lie" -- it is in fact people here who lie about his plan, and Romney effectively handled that.  A simplified example -- marginal tax rates at the top are ~35%  (e.g. the most one would pay) yet the marginal tax rate (what is actually paid) for the rich (on average) is ~19-23% depending who you ask.  They do this using deductions and credits.  If one changes the RATE to 23% and removes the deuctions such that the rich still pay (on average) 23% -- there is NO TAX DECREASE for the group as a whole.  So what is the difference?  The sneaky people with fancy lawyers and accounts and most importantly lobbyists pay less than those that play fair.  Romney showed this with the oil companies where he said if their tax rate is reduced their special tax breaks are on the table.  The code is complex and nobody understand the 80,000 pages of IRS code.  A lot of business decisions are made solely based on tax consequences and virtually all consider tax consequences.  So instead of doing things that are best for growing a business and hiring people, the business does things to escape the tax man.  This is in Simpson-Boles and has traditionally been supported by Democrats.  So Romney's statement is far from a lie -- he will not lower taxes for the rich nor increase taxes for the middle class.  He will reduce rates and deductions so that the result is revenue neutral and everyone pays a fair share.
    4) Debt was just over 10 trillion when Bush left office.  It is just over 16 trillion now.  Is 60% almost?  That is a judgement call.  However, on the current trajectory, Obama will add another 6 trillion before leaving a second term making his total 12 trillion -- which exceeds the "more than all previous presidents combined" -- so do you count Obama's plans and project it to his full term?  This again is not a "lie" but an over simplification (problem with sound bites).  On an annualized basis, the statement is more than true -- it is sadly true.
    5) The word "death panels" was not in the debate.  There is a panel that will have the final word on best practices which Romney spoke about -- which will affect Medicare/Medicaid patients at the very least.  This is far from a "whopper"
    6)  Again, not even close to a lie.  Romney used the companies who received money in the first two years.  Three of seven failed which is "almost" 50% (as almost as you can get without being more than 50%).  Why only those and not the dozens that got money in the last year and a half?  Simple.  If I gave a company -- any company -- millions last month, they won't go broke by now.  A year or even two is not enough to evaluate a startup company and it's chances of success.  Certainly you would agree that a company that got 100 million yesterday should not be considered a "success."  To early to tell.  A businessman with experience in how capital investing understands this (oh, that is what Romney is) -- a community organizer who knows nothing about business would try and claim as successes companies he gave money to just recently.  So, again, not even close to a "lie"

    This indictment of this article and the general trend to call Romney a liar is meant to be a wakeup call -- if that is all we have, we WILL lose.  You over-estimate the knowledge of the average voter (they don't know who Joe Biden is, let along what Dodd-Frank and ACA and Solyndra are).  So when both people just call each other a liar it is a draw.  When one side calls the other a liar, and the other explains their position emphatically -- the one calling people a liar loses.  Obama needs to (for example using #1) not sit there and say "liar liar" -- he needs to say -- Romney covers pre-existing conditions and I cover pre-existing conditions -- but our coverage is different and this is why my coverage is BETTER.  If we all stick with liar liar prepare yourself for President Romney.

    •  While watching the debate, (0+ / 0-)

      I at least knew enough about the positions espoused by both Romney and Ryan to recognize fudging the truth when I heard it.  Maybe you missed it, but Romney was obviously referring to the death panel crap when he twice pushed the idea that Obamacare creates a panel that decides what you personally can and can't have for care.

      Romney also obfuscated left and right when talking about his medical plan program in MA, the actual details of his tax plans, what actually caused the debts Bush gave us vs. the cause of the debts under Obama (one overspent to help his cronies and the other overspent to try to bolster the economy), and of course the claims about Obama's taking billions out of Medicare.

      I don't know what debate you watched, but I was able to spot lies and general fudging of the truth all over Romney's alpha dog bluster.

      •  The word "death panel" never appeared (0+ / 0-)

        The panel that is created determinies "best practices" to be used when reimbursing doctors for Medicare/Medicaid and will likely also be picked up by private insurance.  What this means is that if the panel decides that mamagrams are only required every two years instead of every year ... then insurance will only pay for one every two years -- certainly Medicare/Medicaid.  Strictly speaking you are correct -- the panel does not decide what you personally can and can't have care for -- it only decides if your insurance will pay for it.  If you want a mamagram every six months you can -- you just have to pay for it.  For many people, this is not possible, so the affect is that the panel -- for many people -- will indeed decided what they personally can and can't have care for (and for the men the same applies to prostate tests).

        As to the money out of Medicare -- you can call it "cuts" or "savings" -- pure semantics.  What you cannot do is count the same dollars to your benefit twice.  ACA was consider revenue-neutral (actually 200 billion less debt) by CBO based on subtracting the 716 billion from the costs of ACA (at the time the estimate was a little less than 716 billion).

        So if you count the money as a reduction of cost for ACA it cannot then be counted as remaining in Medicare.  If you want to say it is Medicare "savings" and you are going to leave the money in Medicare then you don't get to reducs the cost of the ACA by that amount.

        Romney's plan has the same 716 billion in "savings" -- the difference is he does not use those saving to offset other spending increases -- hence, in his case, it is strictly savings within Medicare that extends the life of Medicare.  In Obama's case I think it is perfectly fair -- if you accept the 716 billion reduction  on the ACA price tag -- to call it a cut in Medicare.

        And before you say the money is all the same -- it is not.  Government uses "fund accounting" and Medicare has it's own trust fund, SS does too.  These are apart and seperate from the General Fund which picks up ACA expenses.  Hence, the money is in two different buckets according to Obama -- it is in the ACA (general fund) bucket AND it is in the Medicare (trust fund) bucket as well -- counting it twice.  Since Obama specifically told us the "savings" were being used to pay for ACA, it is perfectly fair to say that 716 billion was taken from Medicare.

        But my real point is that most people don't have the depth of knowledge you appear to have.  No clue.  What I heard last night was a petulant Obama leaning on the "liar liar" strategy and a Romney in command going down his list almost like a Power Point presentation.  And nothing Obama or the moderator said or did interfered.

        If we want Obama to win the "liar liar" defense is a poor one -- one that I am sure will fail.  Rather, the "yeah -- he does have a plan for pre-existing conditions, it just sucks compared to mine" is a MUCH better approach -- an easily winnable one.

        Or to put it this way -- if the rest of the debates go like last night, Obama is done, gone, a memory.

        •  Private insurance already (0+ / 0-)

          limits how often certain procedures will be covered, and they are not called "death panels" (although sometimes they should be). Plus, Medicare and Medicaid already have guidelines on what can and can't be covered, so this whole alarmist attitude on the part of Romney and the GOP is one flaming strawman.

          It is my understanding that the cuts in medicare are to come mostly from routing out fraud. My mother got a call from Medicare asking if she had had a cat scan that was billed to Medicare in her name, and she had not.  It is that kind of increased oversight and cutting out of purposeful fraud that the Obama administration has been talking about.  At least, again, that is what I have read about this $716 billion figure.

          While I saw a weak performance by Obama, I did not seem him even mention or allude to Romney's statements as lies or fabrications. I only wish he had.  It is the writers and commenters here and in other parts of the media who are talking up the "liar" angle, and I am glad they are.  Now all Obama has to do is pick up on this and express it in clever and effective ways in the next debate without coming across too harshly.  That is a difficult skill, but I have seen him do it before.

          If I had been Obama, I would have scrapped my planned final statement and simply said, "I would like to thank the gentleman to my right here tonight for his comments and hope that in the next debate, the real Mitt Romney shows up so we can have a dialogue based on reality."

  •  Mid debate line for Obama next time around: (0+ / 0-)

    "to quote one of your heros, There you go again" followed by a dismantling of the point at hand and then a rehashing of the crap that Mitt spewed last night.

    I have never been able to figure out if Fox is the propaganda arm of the Republican party or is the Republican Party the political subsidiary of Fox.

    by Dave from Oregon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:42:02 AM PDT

  •  Liars Are NOT Winners (0+ / 0-)

    When we elevate liars to winners, we're doing a disservice to the morality of America and the American people.

    I wish to Gawd journalists would declare that instead of giving Romney a victory for bullying, aggression and flat out lying!

    Have we become so used to egregious ethics that this behavior is rewarded instead of punished?

    Have we become so jaded by the behavior of the GOTP, Romney, Ryan, baggers, necons and suppressionists  that we've now become desensitized after nearly a year of listening to this?

    It would seem so.  Liars do NOT win!

    •  Diff between liar and over simplifying (0+ / 0-)

      A lie is telling an untrue thing deliberately.  It is pejorative.

      Someone that believes the world is flat and says so is not lying.  They are wrong.

      Someone that says the world is round is not a liar just because the world is not exactly round (it is wobbly pear shaped) -- the "round" description is a simplification which is generally true enough for a general audiance.

      A strategy that depends on proving the exact correct name for the shape of the earth is a losing strategy.

      Obama would be better servered by not calling Romney a liar when he does not accept Obama's characterizations, or being surprised at his answers.  Rather he should say why HIS PLAN is better than Romney's.  As long as we argue about whether or not Romney has a pre-existing condition plan (he does) time is a-wasting.  That could have been put to bed in 30 seconds by a sharp Obama "yeah you do have a pre-existing conditions plan.  unforunately it is totally inadequate compared to mine for the following reasons (list 3 reasons)"

      That is what Romney did to Obama -- effectively.  And keep in mind most voters have no clue if Romney has a pre-existing plan or not and no interest in looking it up.  So the result was that if you believed Romney (and what he said was true and believable) you were left with the impression that his plan is the equal of Obama's.  It is not.

      A better way to make you understand my point -- if the rest of the debates go as this one did ... if the only response to Romney's performances is "liar liar" -- do you think it is more likely that Romney will win, or Obama will win?

  •  Hope isn't going to float. (0+ / 0-)

    All this talk of "liar liar" doesn't matter - at this point - that's what a loser says.  The American public can't tell the difference between a lie and the truth anymore.

    Obama looked less "presidential" than Romney and it could cost him dearly.  Well... Obama may be out to cash his public appearance checks earlier. . . So it's a personal cash windfall for him.  

    For the rest of us who are invested in Government, we lost and will lose much more.  The calm black man doesn't stack up well against the slick business man, when we want a job.  

    Plan on Romney and be happy if Obama can hold on.  I'm secretly glad that it might not be a Democratic President who evicerates Social Security and Medicare.  If someone is going to lie to my face and stab me in the back... I'd rather it be a Republican.  What am I saying, Obama IS a Republican when you look at his economic policies.

    •  And we have very little change left in our pockets (0+ / 0-)

      And who would have predicted 4 years ago that we would be talking about Obama as the man with substance and his challenger as the "slick" one -- that we would say his challenger was not specific (coming from a man who won on "hope and change" and little else).  I tend to agree with Bill Maher about Obama in the debate -- he DOES need his teleprompter.

  •  Romney should lead by example (0+ / 0-)

    The key to an economic recovery is strong presidential leadership and a stable, functioning, predictable Congress. Regardless of who wins this next presidential election, all Americans must see the next president as fully vetted and qualified.

    To that end, Romney should lead by example and allow the Obama campaign complete and full access to his natal hospital records, as well as his Michigan Health Department records, to publicly prove he is a natural born Citizen, and ask Obama to do the same with his Hawaiian Health Department records and his natal hospital records*.

    ex animo
    *This should only be done if Romney truly believes Obama is a natural born Citizen, born in Hawaii.

    •  Yeah -- and tax returns, school records, etc (0+ / 0-)

      How far back do we have to go looking at this nonsense?  Obama won't release his school records nor reveal who paid for his education.  Fine.  Next.  Romney only want to give 2 years tax returns.  Fine. Next.  But really, natal hospital records?!

      •  Natal records a must (0+ / 0-)

        Remember when Donald Trump first published his birth certificate and the press howled at him because it wasn't his 'official' state-issued birth certificate, and three days later there he was again, waving around his state-issued birth certificate?  It took Trump about two weeks to first produce his original, predicatory, natal hospital birth certificate and then his state-issued birth certificate.

        Since his state issued birth certificate was created using his natal hospital records, with these simple two documents in hand, one substantiating the other, Donald Trump establish his Art. II, §1, cl. 4 natural born Citizen bona fides.

        Sadly,  after four years, Obama has failed to produce his natal hospital records (hospital birth certificate) to prove he is qualified to take the oath of office of the President of the United States.

        I think If Obama told Romney he would reveal these records if he would publish the last ten years of his tax return records would also be an excellent way to proceed, as well. I just wonder why Obama hasn't made just such an offer.

        ex animo

  •  "I get the last word" (0+ / 0-)

    Did anybody else notice that Romney whined at the very first question, "I get the last word because he opened, he'll get the last word on the next question."

    But yet again he lied, because he insisted on getting the last word ON EVERY SINGLE QUESTION.

    •  Whined!? (0+ / 0-)

      He did not whine -- he TOOK the last word.  He dominated the stage.  So much that most people thought he had stole ... until Rachael Maddow got the news from the geeks that whisper in her ear that Obama actually had 4 minutes more time than Romney.  Fact is, Romney dominate so much that it only appeared like he stole time.  

      As to whining -- I think Obama plaintively asking "You might want to change the subject" is whining ... especially while Romney is saying "this is fun" and "I'd like to stay on Medicare" (which he did).

      Obama says he'll fight for the middle class.  If that was an example of how he fights ...

    •  It isn't whining (0+ / 0-)

      when you have to interrupt to get a word in edgewise.  Obama got 4 whole minutes more to talk than Romney did.  Romney had a right to complain.

  •  Feed back from email re: Debate (0+ / 0-)

    I sent out a mass email early this morning --that included a link to this dkos thread, Mitt Romney: Lying to victory --regarding last nights "Presidential" debate. I put "Presidential" in quotes because for all intents and purposes there was no "president" there. Several people replied to the email saying they were somewhere between disappointed and devastated by Obama's performance last night. Some felt that at least the MSNBC folks and a few of the blogs called Romney on his crap and felt that would counteract Obama's poor performance. But relatively few people listen to them or read them. Some tried to pin it on Leherer--but though he did a lousy job with a poor format, that doesn't account for what Obama did, or didn't do. I don't know what Obama was trying to do last night...but whatever it was it sure didn't work. It made him look weak, tired and maybe even a little stupid and uninformed. (Someone even suggested that he looked like he was paid to throw the fight.) Last night was the time for him to confront Romney with his lies....when 60+ million people were watching.

  •  Robmoney's legacy (0+ / 0-)

    Romney doesn't call it lying, he calls it saying whatever is necessary to close the deal.  If elected, this pathological liar will make Tricky Dick Nixon look like a saint.

    Some enterprising reporter should dig up the trove of his lies and flip-flops, starting back in high school.  It's sure to be a best seller.

  •  Debate performance effect (0+ / 0-)

    I can only judge from my own case. It's possible to contradict falsehoods politely but firmly! In my case, every time in debate Obama fails to contradict Republican Big Lies I get further disillusioned and less motivated to vote for him.

    He has thrown so many opportunities to stand for truth and just policies under the bus I may have to vote for Jill or Rocky. I think there are enough progressives to make a candidate lose!

  •  Why even try to spin this? (0+ / 0-)

    If this was their strategy, it was a bad strategy.

    If this wasn't their strategy, they had better damn well get up to speed with the fact that Mitt Romney is (a) a sociopath and (b) will literally say anything to get elected.

    This isn't the goddamn Harvard Debate Club. His opponent is devoid of human emotions, feels no guilt about lying to achieve his ends, and knows damn well the media will never call him on it.

    On top of that, Romney wasn't talking to educated voters. He wasn't trying to persuade any Democrats to come on board. He was talking to the 5% of the country that manages, at this late date, to be ill informed and have no idea who they want to vote for.

    Think about the dumbest person you know. That person just got a 90-minute debate that ended with "I think i'll vote for Romney, he seems to have my back". Is it true? Of course not. We have a mountain of evidence that says so. Fuck, we have ROMNEY on TAPE saying he doesn't care.

    But none of it matters if the president refuses to punch, punch hard, and when hit, punch back.

    #hitmitt at the next debate. Use the tag.

  •  The Election (0+ / 0-)

    I think President Obama really needs to explain in simple terms about his healthcare program and point out the differences between his and Mr. Romney's plans. I am a nurse and patients constantly express concern and fears over this. It is completely misunderstood and is one of the biggest issues on the ballot.

    I hope he will do this and SOON. It can make ALL the difference. It is something that EVERYONE is involved in and cares about.

    Please President Obama........explain your plan in simple terms. Get it out there.

  •  Late to this party, BUT... (0+ / 0-)

    I wonder if Obama still believes that the GOP have the country's best interest at heart, and wants to work with them to construct "compromises" that somehow in some fictitious universe make things "better" because they represent a "consensus" of more people.

    But that is idea of Democracy, a search to find a middle ground that satisfies the most people has NEVER been an American model, except in rare occasions. I has almost ALWAYS, going back to Jefferson and Adams been a "to the victor goes the spoils" system.

    We never would have had the Civil Rights Act if consensus was the aim. We never would have had Social Security, or Medicare, or many of the other gazillion things that make this country great. Heck, even Abraham Lincoln realized that consensus was not the right course for the country, and the country bled that much more because of the search for it. "Slavery is bad, and no, you can't have it even if you want it" much earlier would have saved countless American lives.

    I thought Obama got woken up to this recently with the Battle of the Budget, and how the GOP's intention was to screw the country for political gain at his expense.

    I don't know. It's inexplicable to me. Maybe he should have asked to reschedule a debate on his anniversary.

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:36:15 PM PDT

  •  27 lies (0+ / 0-)

    in 38 minutes according to Thom Hartmann on his show tonight. Going to listen to Mike Malloy now!!!

    "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke

    by one person on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 10:31:12 PM PDT

  •  Style trumps substance. (0+ / 0-)

    All the day-after fact-checking means very little, since the debate was Wednesday, and Romney has been acclaimed the winner.  

    Democratic candidates should probably never agree to these debates, anyway, since their tendency toward the truth handicaps them so severely.  I tend to favor letting the candidates grill each other, and neither party seems ready for that.  

    I once felt that a panel of journalists should be allowed to take candidates apart, but journalists who might be effective at it aren't allowed near a politician these days.  The question "exactly how would you do that" or any other probing followup question is seldom heard these days.  Candidates are allowed to slide by with anodyne responses, much like those our congressmen mail us when we drop them a line on some topic.

  •  Obama didn't step in it (0+ / 0-)

    What the President did do, was to let Romney continue mugging for the camera, with his smarmy, smug facial expressions.
    People have commented on how Romney's facial expressions, color, and hair all looked phony.
    Romney spent his time offering his Five Point Plans, never once getting to the details of each point for each plan.
    Romney actually co-opted the President's point of view, at times, then dared Obama to call him out.
    The bully who cut the gay classmate's hair was quite evident in this debate, as Romney steamrolled over Jim Lehrer often, and Mr. Obama at times.

    The President should have taken Romney to task for his statements about how he crossed the aisle in MA, by asking whether the DEMs in MA had taken an oath to block all of his initiatives, as the GOP had done when President Obama took office.
    President Obama also should have taken Romney to task on the 47% issue, but let him off easy.
    Romney did show his Mitt-fits often, showing why a person of his temperament should never get near the White House.
  •  Hard to believe but true (0+ / 0-)

    I know it's hard to believe but Obama has almost doubled the national debt (total amount of debt our government has amassed). You can see the numbers at the Congressional Budget Office website.

    Furthermore, the deficits (difference between money spent and revenues (taxes) in one year) in 2009, 2010, and 2011 were at least three times the amount of any other year.

    I listened to Plouffe this morning on NPR and he stated that the deficit would explode if Romney were elected. Really?

    For the record, I'm a registered independent and voted for Obama the first time. But not again, these numbers scare me. They should scare everyone. As the debt to GDP (Gross Domestic Product) approaches WWII levels, we have a lot to worry about.

    One final note, Obama's camp keeps hammering Romney on education. Romney's state is ranked #1 no matter how you slice it. I live in New York and we are an abysmal 33rd yet pay the most per student than any other state.  

    See for yourself:

    New york also has a 10:1 student to teacher ratio (also highest in the nation). Hiring more teachers is not the answer. Romney knows what he's talking about regarding education - look at the results.

  •  About the Debate (0+ / 0-)

      I do not understand how anyone can say Romney won the debate. He should have been disqualified within the first half hour. I presume both parties agreed to a debate and to act in accordance with formal debate rules.
       He did not. What he did do was interrupt Obama, went overtime, and when asked to cease speaking he refused and shouted over the moderators remonstrations. He was impolite and uncivil to the point of being down right rude. If anyone else were to do something like that in a public forum they would have been asked to leave --which he would have not done and no one had the moxy to send in security to haul his happy ass to the principle's office. He ran a bully pulpit with Gish Gallup tactics.
        From what I'm reading of late he did similar things when he was a governor. And then had the gall to accuse Obama of pushing the legislature into a non-partisan Affordable Care Act.
        Is this the kind of example we want for our children? They already don't know how to be civil to one an other.
        Bottom line, he is a slick (read slimy), abusive, lying, flip-flopping, glib, fast talking snake-oil salesman. A very dangerous man for the people in this country who don't or aren't able to think for themselves and follow anyone who sells superficial charm in bright shiny packages.
        And don't tell me what Obama shoulda woulda coulda done or said. He is far too principled to lower himself to that level of debate or demeanor. Besides, how could anyone have gotten a word in edgewise?

kos, GainesT1958, MoDem, Grassroots Mom, vicki, Sean Robertson, glitterscale, abarefootboy, Powered Grace, LynChi, donna in evanston, CleverNickName, eeff, polecat, Matilda, exNYinTX, nicki37, 88kathy, kalihikane, annrose, rhp, Janie, Dhavo, ramatgani, lirtydies, Everbody, litigatormom, Eddie C, Lilyvt, menodoc, hopesprings, ninothemindboggler, hangingchad, elmo, lezlie, chickeee, raster44, bwintx, Diana in NoVa, KayCeSF, Sybil Liberty, Longwing, Ohkwai, hopalong, UFOH1, irate, kitchen sink think tank, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle, FutureNow, lennysfo, Beetwasher, rosabw, wbr, peacestpete, El Camino, reddbierd, Shirl In Idaho, Patriot Daily News Clearinghouse, BlueInARedState, TalkieToaster, gpoutney, Libby Shaw, MBNYC, justiceputnam, Turbonerd, Dyana, Koleppski, Temmoku, Aaa T Tudeattack, hooper, Karen from Maui, Cronesense, weneedahero, SharonColeman, Msinformed, edsbrooklyn, LillithMc, Mary Mike, Blue Waters Run Deep, flumptytail, certainot, bearian, Misty Fowler, jnhobbs, Bridge Master, gchaucer2, leonard145b, TwoPuttTommy, vet, Cordwainer, OleHippieChick, beanbagfrog, VL Baker, Greasy Grant, Lujane, pademocrat, No Exit, Womantrust, sydneyluv, cadfile, artmartin, ProfJonathan, dharmasyd, CamillesDad1, politicalceci, jomi, IreGyre, Clyde the Cat, smileycreek, GBC, Kwaku Azar, estreya, breathe67, politik, LOrion, Progressive Pen, mjbleo, deboChicago, anonevent, NYWheeler, Yasuragi, SoonerG, rja, JanG, slice, Onomastic, annieli, spooks51, KCthinking, Possiamo, Olympia, mikejay611, mujr, KelleyRN2, CoExistNow, Grandma Susie, loblolly, jgnyc, ziggyinbos, waiting for lefty, Vatexia, cactusgal, stlsophos, thejoshuablog, DRo, googie, Auriandra, ParkRanger, mikeVA, livingthedream, KiB, RhodaA, OldDragon, TheLizardKing, Eric Nelson, David54, orpurple, JGibson, This old man, shanesnana, ivy redneck, bewareofme, pittie70, james321, Glen The Plumber, George Strain, FloridaSNDad, tn mountain girl, nomandates, kickthecan, remembrance, pilotron82, Dave9000, minnec, mtnlvr1946, LaraJones, Icicle68, GrannyRedBird, rigcath, geonello, Jillian Barclay, XenuLives, clovejoy, Catkin, RogersParker, KHKS, lostintheswamp, TheChocolateChips

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site