Skip to main content

The media can say whatever it wants - and it pretty much does these days, inventing whatever stories it finds most suitable to its purposes regardless of reality.  The fact that Republicans are even taken seriously as political candidates is part of this general descent into tabloidism.  But when "liberals" act like what these people say has some foundation in or upon reality is just irresponsible: If you are even remotely part of a reality-based community, you know damn well that a debate cannot be "won" by lying.  When your claims not only deviate from established fact and your own documented record but enter a completely separate universe, you lose - those are the rules of a "debate."  The whole concept is distinct from merely two or more people making differing statements - there has to be logic and evidence to what they say.  Passionately asserting that 2 + 2 = 5 while your opponent fails to smash you with any withering ripostes is not a "victory."  

I know some of us had unpleasant flashbacks to the days when Democrats refused to call out Republicans on their depravity and madness, but listening to some of the reactions to the recent presidential debate, I've had some unpleasant flashbacks myself: To the days when we allowed pundits to decide what is and is not the case rather than our own morality and reason.  I'm so sorry you weren't treated to gladiatorial combat and shoe-banging "J'accuse!" speeches against some worthless, entitled shitbird with no ideas and no conscience - so sorry the President of the United States wasn't the entertaining zing-factory one must surely associate with Constitutional office.  And, boy, I sure am glad we aren't as degenerate and media-mindfucked as our opponents.  Right?  RIGHT???

But see, here's the thing: In this country - in this society where we choose to lead rather than just being whiny victims of douchebags - you can't win a debate by lying and treating people like idiots with amnesia.  It is simply not in the definition of debate, and doing it is mere forfeiture.  "Oh, but Obama didn't forcefully condemn it!  He didn't call it out!  He didn't whip out his dick and demand measuring tape from the moderator!  However will people know the difference between up and down if Barack Obama doesn't draw them a map?"  

Lookie here, Einstein - when you're the one who's talking, it's your judgment that matters, not some abstract 6th-person prognostication of what someone else might or might not think about it.  If it's your judgment that Romney lied through his teeth and contradicted himself while Obama was consistent with the facts - which seems to be the consensus despite all the hand-wringing - then that is the outcome of the debate.  And if you actually believe that Obama lost the debate because you didn't find his style as compelling as it often is, then...well...you're a victim who doesn't perceive themselves to be a full participant in these proceedings. and your deliberate embracing of that status makes me sick to my stomach.  

Tell me you believe that Mitt Romney made any kind of case, and I'll treat your opinion like the puzzling enigma out of another cosmos it is, but tell me the debate was "lost" because you just don't think Obama won the hearts and minds of undecideds and I'll know you live on Planet Pundit.  Citizens put weight in their own views even as they consider others' - they don't act like being intelligent makes their conclusions less objective, or like the outcome of elections inherently hinges on the vague perceptions of ignorant assholes.  Those are media fantasies that only come to pass through the complacency and surrender of the citizenry, and I don't play along with that crap.  If someone can win a debate in your world by engaging in what you know to be bald-faced lies, then you are already far removed from anything resembling citizenship, and guilty of far worse than a lackluster response to those lies.  You're at best a theater critic, and all due respect to that profession, I'm not interested.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
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

  •  Tip Jar (191+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    kalmoth, cuphalffull, owlbear1, VictorLaszlo, ChicDemago, jplanner, marabout40, FiredUpInCA, matrix, Lilyvt, skohayes, defluxion10, Fighting Bill, hannah, Lawrence, amazinggrace, Old Guild Guy, CocoaLove, bluesheep, Contra, mikeVA, Oothoon, Doctor Who, Broke And Unemployed, Tommy Aces, KiB, nuclear winter solstice, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, pico3, jennyp, Gowrie Gal, Curt Matlock, elmo, windje, aseth, fishboots, Loudoun County Dem, bluedust, simaramis, Cedwyn, Empower Ink, leeleedee, AllDemsOnBoard, Sybil Liberty, shypuffadder, DrWhk, MKinTN, Joieau, Supavash, Smoh, Chi, kestrel9000, 2thanks, stellaluna, ChemBob, concernedamerican, kerflooey, stagemom, Emerson, doroma, VickiL, Scioto, zenox, worldlotus, susanWAstate, PackLeader89, litoralis, DemandTruth, missquested, Sally Foster, Hopefruit2, buckstop, alba, citizen dan, frankzappatista, JoanMar, karma13612, Loquatrix, geebeebee, real world chick, reginahny, AdamR510, cachola, Only Needs a Beat, Statusquomustgo, reesespcs, katchen, political mutt, a2nite, awsdirector, hatecloudsyourthoughts, LookingUp, Diogenes2008, GDbot, crankypatriot, wyvern, jimmylutherking, Jim R, zesty grapher, 88kathy, cybersaur, Cronesense, UFOH1, i love san fran, Witgren, Anthony Page aka SecondComing, Sylv, tsunamiwave7, palantir, allergywoman, rja, zerelda, rgjdmls, Nulwee, SteelerGrrl, dotsright, Santa Susanna Kid, CS in AZ, GMFORD, Acktiv, sabo33, GAS, liquidman, tin woodswoman, ChuckInReno, MelKnee, Amayi, eru, eclecta, Beetwasher, sillia, sunbro, delphine, BalanceSeeker, Bailey Savings and Loan, not this time, KayCeSF, ReverseThePolarity, Fabienne, bibble, kurious, Roadette, Mary Mike, mahakali overdrive, MaryinHammondsport, glitterlust, SaintC, frsbdg, Christin, diffrntdrummr, TLS66, Mistral Wind, Janeo, haremoor, AoT, artmartin, Bridge Master, Mxwll, deeproots, rogerdaddy, luckydog, OldDragon, Russgirl, Nag, BasharH, Lucy Montrose, GWinkler, Brooke In Seattle, sharman, collardgreens, elwior, Jeff Simpson, scribe, psnyder, mofembot, sukeyna, OleHippieChick, Ran3dy, Glinda, Most Awesome Nana, Sassy, smartdemmg, jennylind, InformedDiva, EcosseNJ, jted, miracle11, vivian darkbloom, democracy inaction, Joy of Fishes, filkertom

    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:20:22 AM PDT

  •  Unfortunately, the Republicans have.... (41+ / 0-)

    been winning on bold face lies. And that is the problem with debates; it's often not substance that wins but style. The better speaker wins all. Frankly, I don't understand how anyone can credit Rommey with winning when he changed his positions simply to win over more voters. But if this man is what the majority of Americans want, then we as a Nation have no one to blame for the decrease in our quality of life but ourselves. In our reality show society, critical thinking has become a lost art. Ugh.

    •  When you're the one who's talking (23+ / 0-)

      the only thing that matters is your judgment, not your fear of what some idiot might think.  This attitude empowers the wrong people and makes you nothing more than a mirror held up to a poorly-selected minority.  We're beyond the point where self-fulfilling prophecies of doom can be justified - choose, speak your mind, and deal with the consequences.  There is nothing else.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:48:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The one problem with this argument is ... (8+ / 0-)

        that it's the "idiots" ... the audience ... who decide who the winner is.  If you're comfortable also calling the majority of democrats who thought Obama lost "idiots", so be it.

        Obama also fared poorly in his debate against Hillary.  It clearly isn't his strength.  Denial doesn't change reality.

        You also seem to have forgotten that, during the 2008 primary, Obama moved from hard-left positions to left-of-center to center to right-of-center, to the consternation of MANY here, in his quest to attract voters.  

        "Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, and I am not sure about the universe." -- Albert Einstein

        by Neuroptimalian on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:05:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You are the audience. (65+ / 0-)

          You are the one who's talking.  It's like the media has convinced you that you don't exist, and reality is all just someone else's third-hand opinion.  That's insane.  Were you convinced by Mitt Romney?  Did you believe him?  If not, what is this shit you're talking?  Who are you speaking for?  Does one guy being not living up to your fantasies mean the other guy won even if you know for a fact his key points are crap?  

          Asking that we each make a judgment call and take responsibility for our own opinions is not "denial."  Frankly, it's the opposite of that - it's demanding that you stop letting politics just "happen" to you and start putting your own mind to work on it.  Is it your judgment that Mitt Romney told the truth and made more convincing arguments or isn't it?

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:14:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Applause! (58+ / 0-)

            Thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU!!!!

            I've tried making this point in several threads since Wednesday night. Some have called me arrogant, said I tried to shame others. I just couldn't see how a legitimate debate would be won on lies and obfuscation. Mitt came off as a deranged person and bully. That wasn't a good look to me.

            You are the one who's talking.  It's like the media has convinced you that you don't exist, and reality is all just someone else's third-hand opinion.  That's insane.  
            Amen! Rove and crew have played these mind tricks on the population for years. We gotta stop falling for this crap and call it out. Call the media out as well.

            You've made the point I wanted to make so masterfully. Again, thank you!

            •  Me, too (15+ / 0-)

              Reminds me of the people back in 2004 who argued we should pick Kerry as our nominee because they thought other people liked him (he's electable!). Almost no one I encountered felt that way about him themselves, it was all projecting other people's reaction.

              •  Exactly. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                elwior, Troubadour

                In 2004 I met a Vietnam vet who preferred Clark but said he'd vote for Kerry in the primaries because the public wasn't ready for a general. No amount of logic could dissuade him--he knew he was right. ...of course he ended up admitting I was right.

                To this day I still say that everyone not behind Clark should be slapped; and blamed for the extra 4 years Bush got, (not withstanding that Kerry really had more votes).

                The fact is that the way the media wrote off Clark is exactly parallel to the second main point of your diary.

                •  Great point. (0+ / 0-)

                  I was a Clark supporter too, and was dumbfounded by the attitude of a lot of people toward him.  He had the clear potential to electorally annihilate Bush, he was eloquent and courageous, and had brought together a diverse and energetic coalition, but the media just made up reasons out of thin air to savage him and Democrats just nodded their heads to it like zombies.  I knew we had lost the initiative the moment we nominated Kerry.  

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:42:30 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Amen. (0+ / 0-)

                    I was a Clark supporter, too.  Broke my heart when he stood down.  For all the reasons you and others here have stated.

                    I'm late reading this whole thread of comments, but had to put my 2 cents in about General Wesley K. Clark!

                    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

                    by KayCeSF on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 02:56:45 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  THIS (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:59:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  MSNBC and Current-- (19+ / 0-)

              Both panels of superstar pundits fell for the perception based upon voice volume that vocal modulation that Romney overcame his annoying sociopathy and won the day. No one seemed to be looking at his frenetic, overstraining facial expressions, his angry and aggressive posturing, etc.

              BECAUSE the media, nearly as a multi-headed hydra, declared that Obama was incompetent, they seem to have persuaded the listening audience of all orientations that, indeed, Obama came out of the debate as a wimp. Thus, the slight bump in Romney's favor, when he should have been ridden out of the country on a rail for his abject dishonesty and phoniness.

              I didn't see any of it. I saw Romney as an emotional mess, a wild-swinging, go-for-broke challenger who's end justified any means possible. I saw him as a morally vacuous bully who, within the content of his responses and allegations, made no sense.

              I was appalled at the media stars' visceral reactions, especially that of Chris Matthews. One of the few voices of reason and restraint was Lawrence O'Donnell.

              •  The media NEEDED a Romney win (11+ / 0-)

                That's all there is to it. The media needed Romney to become "competitive" again, so they can continue to run with their "everyone does it," and "it's a horserace" theme. They are incapable of reporting the truth or substance. All they can report is style.

                Granted Obama was lackluster during the debates. But imagine what the "story" would have been if he got "uppity." "Angry Black man" as far as the eye can see. Imagine if he had been snarky and used a lot of zingers (as Romney was purported to be planning to do, but didn't. Hmmm what could THAT media frenzy have been about? Goading Obama to come loaded for zinger bear? Maybe?) And the media coverage would have been "How could Obama be so mean to nice affable Mitt?" All Obama could do was keep calm and use his talking points. Which he did.

                But I think hsi frustration with the media showed in his performance. He should have been more up and "presidential." In that he did fail. But he won on substance and content. The media doesn't do substance and content. He knew he was going to be judged the loser no matter what he did.

                Can you imagine the media reaction if Obama had called Romney on his lies? How DARE he? Romney would have been fully justified" in getting angry and been lauded for being a "fighter."

                Romney was going to win the debate as long as he didn't strip naked and fling poo at the camera.

                Get real, people. Obama didn't lose, he simply had no way to win. Obama losing is just the story the media was eager to report.

                •  thank you. (7+ / 0-)

                  and what's beyond disgusting is that they called out  Gore on his sighs and said he lost because of them.
                  yet the frantic posturing, the lying, the strange weird sickly smile throughout, the interruptions, the aggressiveness, the weird body language.
                  that all get s a HUGE PASS now.

                  uh huh.
                  and they wonder why they are so hated.

                  i wrote this yesterday.
                  i don't think POTUS did that bad.
                  not saying great, not at all. not saying he was good.
                  could have been much better - but meh.
                  don't think this will change anything.
                  but, what makes me sick is this:

                  what i'm hating with all my heart.
                  is everyone admitting MR lied through his teeth and was swarmy. and then going "he won".
                  it's whats wrong with society period.
                  knowing that  he lied, knowing that he was borderline socio in those lies, and still saying he won.
                  it send the wrong message. and the younger people..
                  no everyone. embraces it as the new reality.
                  in order to win, you lie. cheat and steal.
                  we teach that it's wrong.
                  but in reality, we embrace it and reward it.
                  and that's what makes me sick.

                  We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

                  by Christin on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:13:07 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Sorry, no. Competent politics is about perception (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Showman, Vicky

                  and truth BOTH, and figuring out how to sway people. Lots of liars have won elections, and lots of truth-tellers have lost. Obama lost the perception game in that debate, and was not a competent enough politician for those 90 minutes. Hopefully he'll make the adjustment, but there was damage done from a political and perceptual level.

                  This manipulation (by Romney as many before him) is a problem of human nature, but also of modern media-based elections since the 1940s. FWIW, great (if disturbing) article in the New Yorker recently about why political consultants and politicians can influence naive and lazy Americans -- which notes also why Truman lost the universal health care political debate.
                  http://www.newyorker.com/...

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:42:03 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  But why does perception always have to favor... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Troubadour

                    ... the worst of our natures? The instinct-driven, the craven, the shallow parts of ourselves? The parts that couldn't give a rat's ass about our fellow man, but are only about our own comfort?

                    Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                    by Lucy Montrose on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:22:00 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Whose perception? (0+ / 0-)

                    Where the hell are YOU in this sweeping statement?  It's like you've retreated into some little hole outside of time and space where you're offering boxing commentary instead of participating.

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:45:34 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Public perception, what else? Not sure what you (0+ / 0-)

                      mean by the last sentence, but interestingly metaphysical, if nothing else.

                      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                      by Kombema on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:11:29 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                  •  Ahem - the problem's been around since the 1920's. (0+ / 0-)

                    And certain very evil people were early masters of the black arts of political manipulation.

                    It was packaged, commercialized and mass-produced in the 1940's, is all.

                    If it's
                    Not your body,
                    Then it's
                    Not your choice
                    And it's
                    None of your damn business!

                    by TheOtherMaven on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:13:46 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Well, by that logic, it's been around since the (0+ / 0-)

                      nation was founded, since political manipulation is nothing new. I meant, of course, the professionalization of the political consulting business, the advent of the "mad men" in the business, etc.

                      "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                      by Kombema on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:10:00 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

              •  This is exactly what has been bothering me most (10+ / 0-)
                BECAUSE the media, nearly as a multi-headed hydra, declared that Obama was incompetent, they seem to have persuaded the listening audience of all orientations that, indeed, Obama came out of the debate as a wimp. Thus, the slight bump in Romney's favor, when he should have been ridden out of the country on a rail for his abject dishonesty and phoniness.
                I was not able to watch the debate live, so I had to rely on reading the liveblogs. I like to look around at different sources to see how various audiences are reacting. I read Andrew Sullivan, for one, and he was having a meltdown. Seriously, reading him I came away with the perception that Obama was laying on the floor behind his podium, asleep, and Romney was a shining bright star that he was in love with. He notes that Romney is lying about everything, but he doesn't care. Romney is "owning" the debate -- Sullivan is swooning over his manliness and "strength" and he does not CARE about the goddamn lies! They apparently mean nothing, as Andrew says at the end that Obama may have lost the election that night. So apparently blatant lies and bullshitting the country like a used car salesman is "presidential" and "strong" -- what a goddamn load of bullshit!!!! I tell you, I have lost all respect for Andrew Sullivan because of this incredibly shallow and dramatic reaction.

                But then is when it gets scary... I don't have television anymore, but I go online and see the clip of Chris Mathews, echoing everything Sullivan wrote. What the hell. Romney lies through his teeth, dominates and intimidates people and acts like an asshole, and oh yeah completely changes his positions 180 degrees and did I mention he lies about everything? And yet somehow this is perceived by everyone as "winning" ?!?!?

                Why are the media and pundits not going nuts about the fact that a presidential nominee just went on stage and spewed bullshit for 90 minutes? Why in the god damn fuck is that winning? Because he was macho? Oh good lord. We are in deep shit trouble. That was how I felt and have been feeling (in waves) ever since the debate. Scared to death because people are falling for this shit!

                But ... are they really? Well that I don't know. I have been breathless waiting for enough polling data to find out. I do not think we have the facts yet, so I remain worried, but the waves of fear are getting smaller and farther apart, and I sometimes feel optimistic. I watched the video of Obama in Ohio yesterday, read the Big Bird jokes, these gave me a lift. All is not lost. But overall still this is a bad time IMO, to see how easily people like Sullivan and Mathews are lead to swoon over macho-man bullshit and be persuaded by words they KNOW are blatant lies and still see it was winning. That is deeply depressing.

                •  andrew sullivan was an complete idiot that night (5+ / 0-)

                  an embarrassment.
                  to himself and his blog.
                  his hysteria was something that made my skin crawl.
                  and i lost a ton of respect for him that he'll never earn back.
                  this is not the FIRST time he did this, this year.
                  i let the others go.
                  this time he's off my bookmarks.

                  i loved him for his honestly, his independence, his sanity, his level headed take on things.
                  i love reading him because he's not a progressive, or a D.
                  i need to be out of the bubble.
                  he was a raving lunatic that night.
                  he is an obama supporter, but my god.
                  reading his rant that night cast a lot of doubt on the faith i had in him, that he knew what he was talking about.
                  he does not.

                  We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

                  by Christin on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:17:30 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Men prefer strong and wrong to "weak" and right (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  near mrs, Vicky

                  "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                  CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                  by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:00:27 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  To their and everyone else's detriment. (nm) (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    near mrs, TrueBlueMajority

                    Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

                    by Lucy Montrose on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:22:27 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Ugh, another pundit zinger. (0+ / 0-)

                    Unless YOU are a man who prefers strong and wrong to "weak" and right - AND believes that Mitt Romney being a lying, depraved, sociopathic jerk made him look strong - all you're doing is defining reality by some stupid pundit trope instead of your own reason.

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:50:03 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  all i have is anecdotal evidence (0+ / 0-)

                      so many of the women on this blog and in my real life are admiring Obama's performance and so many men are talking about how O was "weak" because he didn't "stand up" to Rmoney more "forcefully".

                      i only ran across a handful of comments running the other way.

                      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                      CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:24:48 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                    •  so i am responding from what i am observing (0+ / 0-)

                      not just repeating someone else's trope

                      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                      CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                      by TrueBlueMajority on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:25:14 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                •  I wrote a diary last week (6+ / 0-)

                  Echoing your exact sentiments.

                  My take: when the loudest, rudest, most dishonest and disrespectful candidate is declared the "winner," our society is in deep trouble.

                  Seems to me that a good journalist would have merely pointed out that while Romney went off like a college kid on speed, the substance was not there.

                  I fear people in this country have been dumbed down.

                  •  But don't you see the problem (0+ / 0-)

                    with the statement that "the people" have been dumbed down?  Your only basis for that is what pundits say.  I think the people have developed something of an immunity to punditry - the zombie-like nodding of some around here notwithstanding.

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:51:57 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  The media's nihilism needs to be called out (0+ / 0-)

                  and punished, not rewarded and echoed.

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:46:54 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Yes. This has been confusing me no end. (26+ / 0-)

            How can people say: He won and he kept lying and bullying the moderator?
            To me, he has lost. He wasn't convincing to me. Neither on substance, nor on behavior. Quite frankly, sometimes when he talked down on the moderator I could have slapped Romney.
            What are the parameters?
            Did the guy win who convinced you?
            or
            Did the most guy win who was most macho during the debate?
            Honestly.
            That's why, during theses discussions, I began to ask my confused self: now -  what is winning?
            Thanks for unraveling my mental knot!

            The future is renewable.

            by KiB on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:48:44 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Romney did a debate filibuster. Ran out the clock (9+ / 0-)
              LEHRER: Excuse me. Excuse me. Just so everybody understands, we're way over our first 15 minutes.

              ROMNEY: It's fun, isn't it?

              But oops he couldn't resist firing everyone on the stage and your pretty Big Bird too.

              Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

              by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:47:15 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  i agree (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              CS in AZ, wewantthetruth, KiB

              Who the hell decided that if you go on tv and act like an asshole to thd moderator, that you will be decided the winner no matter what lying crap comez out of your mouth?   If that was the standard for mitt romney, the bar is waaaaay low.

              I think obama was stunnex like i was to see someone do the etch. Scetch without one blink to a national audience.  Mitts strategy was to lie his ass off and if obama called him out on it, then the debate becomes a match of calling each other liars.   Romney will never admithe lies and will do it with a straight face.  People like him really believe what they say, even if they know they are lying.  

              Republicans believe its not lying if its related to politics.  Thsy just say its whats done in politics.   See michael steele on hardball.

              •  This is a great question... (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                muzzleofbees, jgumby, Christin, near mrs, KiB
                Who the hell decided that if you go on tv and act like an asshole to thd moderator, that you will be decided the winner no matter what lying crap comez out of your mouth?
                I have been thinking about this too. It is disturbing. And I think the answer might be, Sarah Palin. She really demonstrated the technique, and showed them that it can work to boost popularity. For instance when she lied about the results of the ethics investigation, which found that she has guilty of misuse of power as Governor. She went on TV to respond to it, and said ... that she was glad to be exonerated of any wrongdoing! With a big smile. Truth? Whatever. She's got such a sassy style! Steve Schmidt and others were appalled and told her "you can't do that, it's not true!" and she just laughed at them. Watch and learn, you CAN just lie, and get away with it, and if you do it right people will eat it up and love you for lying to them.

                Apparently the Romney team has taken that lesson to heart. And Mittens was apparently a lot better than Palin at acting like he could be president, enough to fool a lot of people. The bar has indeed been lowered to the very bottom. To me the fact that someone like Mitt Romney has even a remote chance in hell of winning this election is just head-shaking and scary. What is wrong with people? My friend says to me last night when I asked her this question, one word answer: racism. Maybe she's right. I don't know. I just want so much for this to be over and President Obama back at his job. Sigh.

                •  Dumbya (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  OldDragon

                  was an expert at this......lying and not getting called on it. it's because he cleared brush and people wanted to drink a beer with him....

                  ......good call by Supreme Court.....maybe if they did not give Dumbya the election the almost 4000 people who died on 9/11 and the thousands who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan (americans and non-americans alike) would still be here.

                  That Supreme Court has blood on it's hands.

                  •  And yet another media zinger! (0+ / 0-)

                    People wanted to "drink a beer with Bush"!  Who the fuck were these people?  I never wanted to drink a beer with that pathetic psycho - did you?

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:56:17 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  This is still caught in a web of punditry. (0+ / 0-)

                  You don't know what other people thought when they saw the debate - you only know what pundits report other people believed that still other people thought about it!  This crap is a hall of mirrors, and ultimately the only people making it up are the pundits themselves.  They needed Romney to "bounce back," so that's what they reported.  Reality need not apply.  I don't think they would have cared if Romney had showed up at all: The headline would have been "Romney's Manly Absence Puts Obama on Defensive."

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:55:09 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  The "Gish Gallop" (7+ / 0-)

              It has been mentioned in several diaries that Romney used the "Gish Gallop" technique., whereby the speaker brings forth a rapid and extensive statements containing so many falsehoods, half-truths, exaggerations, and non-sequiters, that the opponent can scarcely keep track of them, much less refute them. To the audience, who also can't keep track of it all, it appears he is confident and has a great command of the material. That is how to many non-critical minds Romney "won" the debate.

              "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true." -- H. Simpson

              by midnight lurker on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:45:00 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  But since there is such a thing as reality (0+ / 0-)

                he didn't win the debate.

                Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:57:19 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Perception is Everything ... (0+ / 0-)

                  especially to those who cannot reason it out for themselves. The media (who should be neutral) have an interest in keeping the race alive because of ratings, etc. The GOP welcomes such distortions and keeps the cycle going.

                  "Facts are meaningless. You could use facts to prove anything even remotely true." -- H. Simpson

                  by midnight lurker on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:15:49 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

          •  Well the thing is people here obviously are (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            shypuffadder, Kombema, itsbenj

            About how others viewed the debate and how it will effect the numbers. All of us here already know mitt was lying but the rest of the country didn't as you can see by the shifting poll numbers in mitts favor. We can't deny that is what's happening. I'm worried about that.

            "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 Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:49:59 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  there are no shifting poll numbers in his favor (21+ / 0-)

              he improved his favorability among republicans.  that's all he got out of this. meanwhile, he's taking huge hits on sesame street and on lying his ass off.

              puhleeze.

              Die with your boots on. If you're gonna try, well stick around. Gonna cry? Just move along. The truth of all predictions is always in your hands. - Iron Maiden

              by Cedwyn on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:00:05 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Where is he taking hits? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kombema

                All I see is people in the msm and on this site talking about the debate and none of it is good for Obama. I personally agree that it's absurd people think Romney won while he lied but the thing is that is what is perceived right now. When democrats on tv say Romney looked presidential it doesn't help Obama. I'm worried about that perception and what it will do to the numbers. Nate even says he think Romney will get a decent bump. We can't be in denial. I just pray we can turn it around.

                "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 Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:42:11 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  There has been some movement (5+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                joynow, CS in AZ, Kombema, itsbenj, Vicky

                in Romney's favor since the debate per 538. On of the two polls cited (and showing small gains in swing states) was Rasmussen, so obviously take that with the appropriately sized grain of salt.

                It remains to be seen what effect the debate will have on the race, but I don't think we do ourselves any favors by arguing Obama didn't "lose" that debate. While in my perfect world debates would be judged on substance, of course there's more to it than that. Optics count whether we like it or not, and Obama's demeanor/energy/body language were all terrible. In addition, a big part of 'winning a debate' is clearly countering the assertions made by your opponent, and correcting blatant lies. Obama failed to do this.

                Obama's team, and Obama himself acknowledge this, so I don't see why we aren't allowed to acknowledge it ourselves:

                At first, Obama didn’t think his performance was a complete disaster. But he began Thursday morning by watching excerpts of his own performance and was especially struck by his own tentative, grim demeanor — especially when he and a more relaxed Mitt Romney were broadcast in split-screen. It was worse than he thought, according to one person close to the situation. He was subdued but positive on a conference call with staff.

                He huddled with his inner circle — David Axelrod, David Plouffe, Valerie Jarrett, Anita Dunn, Ron Klain and Jim Messina — and settled on the theme they hammered all of Thursday — a direct attack on Romney that accused him of out-and-out lying on his tax-cut claims and portrayed the former Massachusetts governor as a two-faced imposter willing to say anything to win.

                Hours after arguably the worst debate performance of his career, Obama charged that Romney is a different man than the guy he faced Wednesday. But it was the president who seemed to be a totally different guy on Thursday. Gone was the distracted, deer-in-headlights mumbler. In his place, suddenly, was someone doing a pretty good impersonation of Obama ’08.

                And as that article makes clear, the campaign team clearly identified a problem, and moved swiftly to correct it. Of course the first step is admitting there was a problem to begin with.
                •  Good article, thanks for the link! (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Kombema, Christin, cato

                  This is pretty much what I thought about what had happened.

                  For all that’s been written about his flop in front of roughly 67 million viewers, the reality, according to the people who know him best, is that he just wasn’t in the right headspace. The president had too many conflicting thoughts bouncing around his head and could never quite reconcile his desire to attack Romney with his fear of alienating voters by appearing angry or unpresidential. The result was a muddle that has given Romney new life.
                  For all that we would like to believe it was all part of a master strategy or planned response to Mittens dizzying lie-fest, it never made any sense to think that Obama deliberately allowed himself to come across as bad as he did that night. As to why he "was not in the right headspace" at such a critical moment, remains unanswered. No one seems to know...
                  Obama had always planned to play it pretty safe, but his advisers expected him to be more aggressive, peppering Romney with requests for specifics on his deficit and tax plans. They also figured on him smiling a whole lot more, a key part of winning the body-language battle.
                  So why did he have such an off night? I am beginning to think they may need to explain it. The president coming across to the country as confused and unclear and not sure of himself might be something he needs to address openly. Of course anything he says will be seen as an "excuse" and maybe rightly so. But still, whenever he appears in front of a national audience as the POTUS, and he comes across this way, would be concerning. At this extremely critical point in time, it does leave you wondering what the hell happened and why he had not gotten himself "into the right headspace" to go into that debate. If there is a good reason it might be wise to share it with the voters.
                  •  I don't know that he has to explain (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CS in AZ

                    it necessarily, though the above article is certainly a small effort from the Obama Campaign to do just that. For the next debate, he just needs to work on body language/demeanor and techniques for forcefully rebutting Romney's lies and distortions in an affable and presidential manner.

                    I would also like to see him rapidly list three or four of Romney's biggest lies from the first debate at the beginning of the second debate, thereby throwing Romney's credibility into doubt right from the start. (A "there you go again" moment would be fantastic). And for pete's sake throw Romney some curve balls and get under his skin, this is a man who does not react well to surprises or to being challenged.

                    I don't worry so much about why it happened, I chalk it up to a combination to being President AND having to campaign. Romney had the luxury of simply preparing for the debate. Obama had to do that plus run the damn country. Romney has also been through over 20 debates in the past 6 months, he was playoff form, and Obama was throwing the first pitch of spring training (to use a sports metaphor).

                    •  I agree with a lot of your thoughts here... (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Vicky, cato

                      but for me the biggest worry is that this was not the first pitch of spring training. To use another sports metaphor, I'll go with Nate Silver's article from a few days ago, that this debate was the opening play of the fourth quarter. Team Romney went into it having played badly and down by at least a touchdown, and they had very low odds of winning and were seen as floundering.

                      The debate was in effect a fumbled ball by Obama, and Romney captured it and made a field goal. This has the double hit of lost momentum for our side, and putting the opponent much more within striking distance. It revitalizes the game when we could have locked in a win.

                      There's not a good way to spin this. Obama can come back, and I'm sure he's going to give it his all and I know he has it in him. But the problem with waiting for him to come back in the next debate is where the football metaphor breaks down. In many states, voting has already started. The end game is happening now.

                      And as such, you would think that President Obama would have gone into this play, well, ready to play. Ready to put it away for the win. Maybe he simply underestimated Romney's ability to pull off what he did, after being a continuous bumbling fool for months, so Obama did not bother with serious preparation. If so that is understandable to a point. And his events in Ohio yesterday were uplifting. I don't think it's over by any means, but it does make the win more of a challenge than we had before.

                      •  I don't disagree. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        CS in AZ

                        It was an inexcusable performance, but I'm done rending my garments over it.

                        All of Mitt's lies and flip-flops have opened him up to some devastating counter-attacks, some of which we've already seen in new ads and Obama's stump speech - so the campaign isn't waiting for the next debate. It wasn't some brilliant jujitsu plan by the Obama campaign, but they are at least effectively counter-punching now, and I expect a much more combative and prepared Obama in a few weeks.

                •  I can see my message still isn't getting across. (0+ / 0-)

                  You are not a mirror.  Your opinion of how a debate went is not supposed to be based on your projection of what you believe other people saw, let alone uncritical acceptance of corrupt media's interpretation of what other people saw - a democracy can't function like that.  What did YOU see?  Were YOU persuaded by Mitt Romney's lies?  Do YOU think lying is an argument in favor of a political candidate?  We need to stop hiding in abstractions and accept that it's just us making decisions - other people will decide how they'll decide, and our responsibility is to decide for ourselves.

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:05:39 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's getting across, (0+ / 0-)

                    I just don't agree with it. I watched the debate in real time, and I had a sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach from Obama's opening statement right through to the end. My analysis of his performance was not swayed by the media in the slightest, since I didn't watch one second of post-debate coverage.

                    Of course I wasn't persuaded by Romney's lies. Come on. Like I said in my comment above, debates are about more than the facts (or lack thereof) put out there by the candidates. It's about demeanor, body language, gestures, and energy as much or more so than ideas. Modern debates do not exist to present the positions of each candidate in rational manner. They just don't. It's a big pissing match at best, and Obama fared horribly in that regard.

                    He was listless, unfocused, and unpersuasive. He let Romney lie his ass off without much pushback, and let himself and the moderator get pushed around. He looked small. He failed in the task at hand, and he and his team have acknowledged as much. He dropped a huge opportunity to end this race and boost our chances down-ticket.

                    I don't care what OTHER people saw, I saw a man who didn't look like he really wanted the job, and that pissed me off. I'm as big of an O-bot as they come, but god damn he didn't get the job done this week.

            •  What is happening is that you (0+ / 0-)

              are rewarding Mitt Romney's lying by echoing nihilistic "good news for John McCain" pundit bullshit trying to drum up support for Romney on sheer force of assertion instead of promoting your own views about what it means to lie in a debate.

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:59:35 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  This seems odd to me. What's wrong with (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Neuroptimalian, The Walrus, cato, Kombema

            admitting Romney "won" the debate?

            If the standards of a political debate are to try and convince people you are capable and worthy of their votes, and your opponent is not or has failed at the position, then Romney won. Obama looked indecisive and unsure. Romney constantly put him on the defensive and made it appear he had all the facts.

            From what I recall about debating, you are assigned a position and you try to convince the audience you are right and the other guy is wrong. By that standard, facing an audience not familiar with certain facts and Romney's previous positions, I think it's fair to say Romney won.

            A minor setback for team Obama, with the good fortune of Romney being Romney and saying something so stupid it undermined any benefit he might have gained. The heartless prick wants to outsource Big Bird. Unbelievable.

            Let's move along.

            Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

            by Pescadero Bill on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:54:17 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  By that standard (4+ / 0-)

              Mitt won the debate - with Mitt Romney. He contradicted his OWN positions. It was hard to tell who he was debating up there, to be honest.

              "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

              by Diogenes2008 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:33:56 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  You're talking about public (12+ / 0-)

              perception, diarist is talking about our individual discourse. Of course Romney won the punditry, which has helped fuel public perception. It's up to sane people, people who believe in rational academics standards of discourse, to point out that you don't win a debate by overwhelming your opponent with lies. If sane people concede this debate to Romney after all his OBVIOUS lies and clear deception then I'd like someone to tell me the purpose of these debates going forward. People here seem to accept that winning really does go to the boldest liar. And that's unacceptable for any community that values civilized discouse. If democratic pundits and democratic supporters defended civilized discourse, rather than cowering to Romney's stylistic stream of bullshit, the storyline on this debate would be much different.

              There are two types of republicans, the rich and the stupid. The rich ones strive to keep the stupid ones stupid and the stupid ones strive to keep the rich ones rich.

              by frankzappatista on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:35:44 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  What's wrong with it? A guy sells cars ... (6+ / 0-)

              ... and while he's selling, he's all slick and seemingly affable and really passionate about his cars, which he says are the best vehicles ever and you should buy them because they're practically free.

              But people who know a little bit about cars know the cars this guy sells take forever to start and when they finally do they blow smoke, don't steer, don't stop, and cost a fortune.  And even people who don't know specifically about cars have been following this guy around enough to know he usually says completely different things about cars when he's not trying to sell them to you.

              Should those people tell you he was a great salesman and leave it at that?  Or should the very first thing they say to you is that the salesman is looking straight into your eyes and lying his ass off?

              Members of the media are supposed to know cars, or at the very least, know the salesman.  So why was the story, "He won," and not, "He stood on a stage and lied directly to the American people over and over again?"

              That's what's wrong with it.

              •  this is a perfect restatement of the point (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                estreya, Troubadour

                this observation deserves to be a diary all its own

                "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:03:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

            •  this would be true (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              OleHippieChick, Troubadour

              if mittens had not lied and used facts.......not sure how much convincing he did, he sure was louder and more aggressive........and rude and not willing to adhere to the rules.....can't see how anyone can say mittens "won" when he was lying the whole time.

            •  Pescadero Bill - you are exactly right (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Pescadero Bill

              By any standard of judging a competitive debate Romney won, why is that such a big deal to admit? When sports teams lose the first of a three game series they tip their cap to the winner and prepare for the next game. The next debate plays into the President's strength and he needs to bring his A game.  

              "let's talk about that"

              by VClib on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:29:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  This is not a game. (0+ / 0-)

                And the fact that Mitt Romney is playing one doesn't make it one.  I honestly don't understand how you could fail to understand that while believing yourself to be part of a reality-based community.  There is no possible way to win a debate by lying if you hold there to be such a thing as reality.  And if you don't hold there to be such a thing, what are you doing here?

                Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:10:18 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Let the white boy have his inning, (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            a2nite, Santa Susanna Kid

            it won't affect the outcome and it comforts his followers.  Meanwhile, we keep working.

          •  Thank you! (10+ / 0-)

            If Mitt Romney "won" by being a bully, then we might as well just have boxing matches, and whoever beats the other one to death "wins".

            Because that appears to be where we're headed - most aggressive person wins the day.

            Hell no.

            President Obama told us his policies, he didn't get sucked into the Mitt Vortex Of Lies, and he behaved like A RATIONAL ADULT, thank you.

            Lying, pandering, patronizing, bullying and (for fuck's sake) contradicting your own platform IS NOT WINNING. Not unless you're just an adrenaline junkie who cares nothing for facts.

            "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

            by Diogenes2008 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:32:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  This is absolute nonsense (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            billyb, Kombema, itsbenj, Vicky

            How can you assert that I can't watch a debate from the prospective of a third person? That I can't perceive how someone other than me might perceive something? The shorthand for it is "standing in someone else's shoes".  Ever heard of it? So yes, as an Obama supporter, I did not have a "come to Romney" moment because of the debate. But as a rational human being who has the ability to view things from the perspective of another, I can see how someone else - many in fact - might have had a "come to Romney" moment in that debate. You're the one who is delusional when you assert that we can know and therefore only speak about our own reaction.  That's just so utterly ridiculous.

            •  sad world you live in . (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              winning to you is lying.
              cheating.
              stealing.
              bullying.
                and you understand why others think that's a win.
              good luck.

              We consume the carcasses of creatures of like appetites, passions and organs with our own, and fill the slaughterhouses daily with screams of pain and fear. Robert Louis Stevenson

              by Christin on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:24:24 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  So what you're saying is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                itsbenj

                If the polls show Romney got a bump from the debate, then the polls are wrong because you didn't change your view? And since the goal of the debate is to move voters to your side, and Romney moved voters to his side, yes, he won. All that "lying, cheating, stealing, bullying" blah, blah blah has nothing to do with "whether" he won, they have to do with "how" he won. Are you saying because he didn't debate fair, he loses, even though polls will show a bump in his favor? Really? Good luck to you and your version of reality.

                •  If the polls showed such a thing (0+ / 0-)

                  then that's a fact to acknowledge and consider on its own terms, but it doesn't change the reality of the objective fact that Mitt Romney's claims were false, and the moral fact - and civilizational imperative - that the outcomes of debates have to be judged on facts, arguments, and substance.  

                  If you will not do so, then you have no moral standing from which to criticize others for not doing so, and you have as much as conceded the death of freedom, democracy, and rationalism.  In which case your participation in politics is a futile, sick joke.  Do you stand for something or not?  Or is your idea of reality so completely fucked that you think it means dittoing what pundits say and obeying their narratives as the Word of God?

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:19:21 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  speaking of rational.. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour

              ...a rational person that has been in a coma for the past 18 months may hear mittens and be interested in educating him/her self and reached the reasonable conclusion that mittens is a pathological liar.......there is no way anyone based on 90 minutes of , ahem, debate would ever be able to say for 100% fact "I am voting for mitt romney".

            •  While you're regurgitating pundit talking points (0+ / 0-)

              and your fears about what someone else is thinking, who is talking about what you're thinking?  Not a damn person.  The pundits don't want to hear your thoughts - they wanted a Romney win, and they created one out of thin air.  He didn't even have to show up.  And my question is if you think so little of your own opinions, why should anyone think more of them?  If all that concerns you are abstract worries about other people's perceptions, we already have an entire corrupt media industry for that - what do we need you for?

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:13:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Question: (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            I agree with this: I'm the audience, and each individual voter will vote according to his or her own opinion.

            What's the value of polling?

            That's a collection of many individual opinions. Campaigns, including Obama's campaign, place a very high value on polling. And several polls indicated that a majority of voters thought that the prevaricator won the debate. (I still don't understand how you can win such a debate, but that's a different story.)

            The real story line is this: Obama will win, and will win big, despite a lackluster performance. I'm very happy about that.

            -5.38, -2.97
            It's too big a world to be in competition with everyone. The only person who I have to be better than is myself. - Sherman T. Potter

            by ChuckInReno on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:03:01 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  We can acknowledge polled perception (0+ / 0-)

              while strongly advocating our own perspective.  It's simply like this: "Romney lied.  He lost the debate.  A majority were persuaded otherwise because they were unaware he lied.  Nonetheless, as a matter of fact, he lost."

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:21:11 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  But I'm not the only audience (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Kombema, Ash Tree

            And most of the audience isn't as smart or informed as I am.  And it's that audience that matters because I am committed to Obama no matter what.  

            Whether Romney told the truth or not is not the issue.  Because if you don't know what the truth is, and he came across has forceful and sincere while lying, people who don't know better will believe his lies both about himself and Obama.  

            Obama let so many of these lies go unchallenged.    

            This is not about the media convincing me, this is about my own impressions watching that debate.  

            The polls are starting to show a trend that the debate is having an impact.  How big an impact remains to be seen.  

            I think that you are looking at this from your vantage point that the GOP are the "bad guys," but the majority of voters don't necessarily share that view, so they do not see the debate the same way you do.  

            We live in a country where Bush got re−elected.  We live in a country where 46% of the voters put Sara Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency.    We live in a country where a good debate performance stuffed with unchallenged lies can sway lots of votes.

            It's childish to ignore these realities and think that because Romney was lying that he didn't win the debate.  

            •  Exactly. It's patronizing crap to assume we who (0+ / 0-)

              though Obama did a lousy job in that debate were effected by the pundits. Objectively, he did a lousy job.

              And it's naive to imply that only the truth "wins" debates. Lies and half-truths and distortions OFTEN win debates -- and they also often win ELECTIONS. Obama fans need to suck it up and and admit Obama blew that one and move on, and hope the Romney bump from the first debate is small, or passing.

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:19:07 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Well... (4+ / 0-)
          Obama also fared poorly in his debate against Hillary.
          President Obama clearly won.
        •  Realize it's another topic but you say (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          GAS, Troubadour
          You also seem to have forgotten that, during the 2008 primary, Obama moved from hard-left positions to left-of-center to center to right-of-center, to the consternation of MANY here, in his quest to attract voters
          I would remember that. One thing that struck me then was how much he did not do that, how much he did not shift positions too woo or please.
          Yet you use big letters for the MANY here so we can't both be correct and you sound pretty sure that you are

          I agree he is not a great debater, though he gets better when there are fewer involved. Early primaries he was weakest. He did okay against Hillary, as good as anyone could. She is the best.
          It is not his strength but it is not his weakness either...

          I was pretty shocked by reaction to last debate. Obama was not that good
          but I thought Mitt was horrible. He lied, he talked fast, looked strangely hyped
          So many lies.
          But then I thought Palin's convention speech was awful. Well delivered but a pack of lies, distortions and insults. Pundits swooned, even on msnbc.
          mitt was not so well delivered with blatant lies.

          And he won?
          I have trouble scoring lies equally with true things.
          I thought mitt was horrible

        •  Neuroptimalian - you are right Obama lost (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Vicky, Neuroptimalian

          Anyone who ever participated in competitive debate, coached debate or judged debate would conclude that Obama lost. It is the responsibility of the competing party to call out any falsehoods or exaggerations. It's not the job of the moderator. Unfortunately as one liberal columnist noted Obama did not play offense or defense and really looked like he didn't want to be there. I don't think that the first debate will have a big impact on the election, but it did give energy and money to the Romney campaign. On the biggest stage President Obama didn't bring his A game, or even his C game. What I don't understand is all the whining and gloom and doom.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:23:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Romney did 'win' back some low information (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        GAS, Kombema

        voters... because they don't KNOW he was lying like a cheap rug.

        I don't think it is enough for him to walk away the BIG WINNER of the entire enchilada, at the end of the day...BUT it was enough for Mr Mitt to 'win the news cycle" following the debate and THAT was enough for the RNC to go back to BIG FUNDER fence sitters and refill Romney's shrinking campaign coffer.    so the pundits are right, Romney won the 1st debate and survived to pretend he is a viable candidate.

        on the flip side OBAMA did lose,  not the election, not even his upward trajectory but he lost the chance to put this away NOW by making Mitt an unacceptable alternative...he had that chance, for whatever reason he didnt take it...BUT that doesnt mean he lost the enchilada...just the news cycle and the chance for an early end to all of this. So the pundits are right, Obama did lose the 1st debate.

        SO Romney WON and Obama LOST BUT just a debate and just ONE news cycle.... and that is why the Romney side FREAKED OUT when the new Job numbers came out yesterday... the positive Jobs Number ran over Romney's debate win like a MACK TRUCK being driven by BIG BIRD so despite the punditry and the partisan propoganda, it was a very VERY short lived and tainted by lies WIN for Mr Mitt.

        "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

        by KnotIookin on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:46:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Reality: MOST voters are "low information" ones (0+ / 0-)

          Those of us steeped in politics need to realize that the majority of voters rely on perception and emotional gut feelings -- NOT a thorough assessment of the issues. Most voters do not put the same value on the time needed for finding out the truth as most (though not all) of us do. Some of this has to do with laziness. That's reality. Impressions matter. Obama lost the impressions game.

          "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

          by Kombema on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:23:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  most voters DO take time to become informed (0+ / 0-)

            and that is why Romney can't get traction outside the gop base.

            "You've got to be an optimist to be a Democrat, and a humorist to stay one" - Will Rogers

            by KnotIookin on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 12:45:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Evidence? "Informed" is highly subjective, (0+ / 0-)

              but by most measures the average American -- and especially the many undecideds who watch the debates -- is not well informed. Why do you believe otherwise?

              "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

              by Kombema on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 11:18:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  Based on the idea that we can each (0+ / 0-)

        create our own reality. Nope. Doesn't work that way. Your plan for the President to simply allow Romney to walk away with 3 wins has been noted.

        •  There's a difference between "creating" (0+ / 0-)

          your own reality - like the pundits are doing, and you're rewarding them for it - and simply acknowledging what your own reason and morality tell you.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:24:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Most of the 67 million that tuned into the debate (17+ / 0-)

      don't KNOW Romney changed his positions.  They don't know he lied.   They don't know anything about Mitt Romney.  The pundits and those of us that pay close attention know all the fine details but the average person knows next to nothing.  Mitt played the debate perfectly, he introduced himself fresh and knew that would work because he knew his audience.  The Obama campaign expected him to lie his ass off, they just did not expect their to be this many fresh lies.  The etch a sketch meme is funny but very, very true.  Romney played it to his great advantage.  

      •  Talking about what other people know (25+ / 0-)

        or don't know is punditry.  Our job is to talk about what we know so that others will know it eventually.

        Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

        by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:02:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  They don't care to know what we know. If they (7+ / 0-)

          did they would pay more attention, they don't.  The fact they don't is what the R's count on.  Hell, if our electorate was even moderately informed, Fox News would not be possible.

          •  Evidently we don't care to know what we know. (9+ / 0-)

            Or we wouldn't be so pusillanimous about noting it even in discussions amongst ourselves, let alone with people who aren't clued-in.

            And who exactly is it that's supposed to be informing all these other people?  From what I'm hearing around here, we only get our information from the same crap media they do, just under different packing, and think too little of our own innate humanity and intelligence to passionately share our thoughts in mixed company if they differ substantially from some media narrative being dittoed around the cocktail circuit.

            Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

            by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:09:54 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  OK, how's this... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Kombema, Vicky

              Romney won the 'presidential personage' aspect of the debate, while Obama clearly won the 'facts and truth' aspect of the debate.

              Romney lied his ass off, but looked quite confident doing it. While Obama struggled to constantly set the record and facts straight.

              But you know what they say about debates, they're 85% perception. That's just the fact of it.

              Fortunately the only thing from the debate that seems to be resonating and lasting is the Big Bird comment. Romney's an insensitive fuckup that can't keep his big mouth shut and his cruel intentions hidden.

              Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

              by Pescadero Bill on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:07:28 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Presidential? (11+ / 0-)

                Bullying the moderator is Presidential? Telling people you want to fire Big Bird (and the moderator) is Presidential? Smirking? Patronizing? Pandering? Uhhhh....

                Not in my yard. The only person in that debate I saw as Presidential was... the PRESIDENT.

                "We have only the moral ground we actually inhabit, not the moral ground we claim." - It Really Is That Important

                by Diogenes2008 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:36:10 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Dubya proved that many like the cowboy macho (0+ / 0-)

                  crap, and see it as "presidential." Glad that you or I don't. But yes, sadly, that resonates with some people. Obama did not have to lie or bully, but he needed to look more confident and assertive and yet he didn't.

                  But with any luck, he knows he blew it and will not let it happen again. It was a setback, but it doesn't need to be a big one (and thank the gods for the jobs report).

                  "Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob." -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

                  by Kombema on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:29:01 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Dubya proved that pundits (0+ / 0-)

                    will say anything to rationalize the existence of power in terms they find more palatable than "His father had five Supreme Court Justices in his pocket, and he terrorized people with terror alerts."

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:33:54 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  ^^^^^^^^^^ (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Troubadour, Diogenes2008

                  what he said!!

              •  So the resonating perception is Romney's (5+ / 0-)

                insensitive fuckup.  How is that winning?  It can't be erased.  

                By the way, which doctor do you want.  Jonas Salk or Marcus Welby.

                Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

                by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:01:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  "Facts and truth aspect"? ASPECT? (0+ / 0-)

                Look, I'm beginning to suspect that some of us are just hopelessly enthralled in some Orwellian mind-web of pundit delusions, and it's becoming frustrating trying to argue with this kind of circular-logic nihilism.  

                If Mitt Romney hadn't even shown up for the debate and the media still reported he won, praising his "manly absence," you would be saying he won on the "having better things to do" aspect of the debate but lost on the "physical presence" aspect of the debate.  

                There is no "facts and truth aspect" - THAT IS THE DEBATE.  Everything else are simply flaws in how people judge debates, and when you SEE those flaws and openly acknowledge them, you don't get to hide from your own knowledge by pretending that what really matters is what the most ignorant and uninformed person thinks.

                If 65% of people tell you dog shit tastes like the best meal they've ever had, do you just keep chewing away and saying "Gosh, I sure wish this meal weren't so good so I could stop eating it," or do you spit it out and call it shit?

                Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:31:35 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  The polls show they didn't know shit! (6+ / 0-)

          Those polls yesterday were scary.  Even Nate Silver is saying Romney might get a big bounce out of his lie fest.  People truly are idiots and they bought into it.  It isn't punditry, the polls are showing it's reality.  If we didn't get those unemployment numbers yesterday, we'd be in deep doo-doo.

        •  Humans, as a whole, are fairly astute IF (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          OleHippieChick

          they have adequate data and tools.  For a functioning democracy we need a well-informed and educated population.  The corporate media ensures the data is faulty or simply not there.  We do not have this in great enough numbers in the population to keep the greed of money and power in check.

          Romney won because he dazzled America with bullshit.  On paper he lost, but that's not what average and below average humans care about.

          NOW SHOWING
          Progressive Candidate Obama (now - Nov 6, 2012)
          Bipartisan Obama returns (Nov 7, 2012)

          by The Dead Man on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:13:44 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  low information voters (0+ / 0-)

          don't know anything except what they are told.  they do not make political judgments for themselves.

          if the pundits afterwards had all SAID "bluster and lies don't constitute a win" then the low info voters would have been pulled along by the punditry, because they do not make these decisions for themselves.

          unfortunately, I did not hear any pundits say that, including the progressive ones.  (others have said Al Sharpton tried, but I turned off the TV after the debate ended.)  Instead the vast majority of them threw up their hands that first night saying ZOMG Rmoney was more animated and more aggressive, buying into and thereby reinforcing the assumption that that equaled a win.

          Most low info voters were not watching the debate.  (That's part of what makes them low info voters.)  All they know about the debate is what other people say afterward.  Spin, backed up by truth, should have led O supporters to avoid meltdowns as we explained the debate to them.

          As luck would have it, fortunately a lot of them heard "Romney lied like a madman" as part of the debate critique the following day and certainly in the two-day story.  And the Big Bird meme is EXACTLY the kind of thing that moves lo-info voters--they know more about Big Bird than they know about political issues.

          So in spite of the near-total capitulation of progressive pundits, the right story managed to come out anyway:  Romney lied, very aggressively, disregarding the agreed upon rules and steamrolling the elderly moderator.  Men who like aggressive bullies thought that was a win and everyone else thought it was creepy.

          And he wants to fire Big Bird.

          His poll numbers have not moved significantly among people who can help him win swing states, but he did shore up his base, which has a fair number of men who like bullies and the women who depend on them.

          It was a Pyrrhic victory for Rmoney, but it was an actual win for Team O12, and sets up the rest of the debates perfectly.

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:25:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Then the Obama campaign needs to (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        downsouth, kareylou, OleHippieChick

        TELL those people that Romney changed his positions.

        Swing states need to be blanketed with "flip/flop" ads showing Romney's many transformations. The meme needs to sink in that he may be a smooth talker but he's a liar.

        This needs to happen NOW. There are only a few weeks to go.

        I'm a dyslexic agnostic insomniac. I lie awake at night wondering if there's a dog.

        by rennert on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:11:11 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  You're missing his point (14+ / 0-)

        He's saying, stop worrying about other people.  Stop talking about what you are guessing other people think.  Own your own perceptions, and speak that truth.  Maybe you can make reality with it, instead of bowing, not even to a reality truly created by others, but to a reality we only think others are creating.

        Be powerful and own your own perceptions, that's what he's saying.  It's a subtle message, but a very compelling one, I think.

      •  If they didn't know he lied or changed his (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        zesty grapher, bws, allergywoman

        position, whose fault is that? Rommey has been campaigning for more than one year. By now people should be familiar with his issues. As I said, critical thinking is the thing that has taken a hit in this country when a billionaire weasel can convinced struggling working class American to vote for him.  

        •  Whose fault isn't it? (0+ / 0-)

          First of all, it's his fault for lying - which negates the concept of winning a debate.

          It's Obama's fault for not calling it out immediately, although the pundit mouthpieces might have declared the same bullshit even if he had.

          It's the pundits' fault for being so corrupt and nihilistic that they would declare someone they know to have lied through his teeth the "winner" of a debate.

          And it's our fault for being more concerned with what those pundits were saying and what it might indicate about what "low-information voters" might think than what we saw with our own eyes.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:39:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Those people didn't watch the debate either. (0+ / 0-)

        They get their opinions forwarded to them in crayon font by aunt Sally.   But the debate can't be erased.

        Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

        by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:55:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  how would you know that? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour

        "most of"........where'd you get that bit of information? based on everything we do know, there are 6% of the voting population that is "undecided". You think that there were most of those that viewed the debate as "undecided"?? I don't know for a fact, but I would doubt it.

        mittens may have "won" in snap polls but O's favorability ratings were 63% in the snap poll.

        6% of 67 million is 4 million.4 million would be .0035 of number of people that voted in 2008..........I'm not worried even if they all decided to vote for mittens however i think in that 6% are a number of people who will take the time and educate themselves and find out that the bastard was lying.

        with unemployment numbers and news today that deficit will be $200 billion less than budgeted, housing starts up 4.6% and a ton of other stuff, mittens is not going to get elected.........but i am doing all I can to help make sure.

        mittens has no black vote, 20% hispanic, down by 18-20 with women and no even with O on white voters over 65%..............mittens needs 72 of white male vote and Dumbya only got 68%.......

    •  No, there are objective standards of behavior. (9+ / 0-)

      They are derived from our organic, and even inorganic, natures. Rocks do not fly on their own. Neither do humans. Humans have hands with which to grasp, but no claws to capture prey like raptors on the spot. For humans to behave like raptors is contrary to their nature and, ipso facto, bad.
      Some organisms change color to communicate their status -- that berries are ripe to eat and have their seeds dispersed. Most humans have the faculty of speech to communicate. When they use that speech to mis communicate or deceive as to their actual status, that is bad. On the other hand, deception is widely dispersed in nature, so it must have a useful/benign purpose. And it does. Deception in nature promotes self-preservation in the presence of enemies. So, given that, we can argue that, in the presence of enemies, it is appropriate for humans to deceive, even if only to play possum.

      What's Willard's excuse for deceiving the American people, whom he's asking to hire him? Does he see us all as enemies? If so, then the man is deranged. However, the people who are promoting him are creating a spectacle. One is reminded of the circus gorilla in a cage. It's not a nice image. But then, the political operatives who have created this spectacle are not nice. They have no respect for their own kind.

      Shirley Jackson's "The Lottery" still comes to mind.

      Iago is the villain in "Othello," but Othello killed his wife. Willard wants to kill Big Bird. Since Big Bird is a figment of the imagination, it would be a vicarious murder -- not real, but still an unmittigated disaster, totally in keeping with the character of the Vicar of Wall Street.

      We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

      by hannah on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:54:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  People ARE idiots with amnesia! (8+ / 0-)

      You can argue the technicalities of who won the debate or not, and I kept a score card during the debate and had Obama with a slight lead, but in the end it doesn't matter.

      What matters is how the idiots with amnesia will vote and what will move them to vote.  If theatrics will move them, you better get your ass off the presidential throne and give these morons what they want!  Give them a show, put on a performance, do what you have to.

      We are in a country of idiots with amnesia where someone can stand up in front of them and tell one bald face lie after another, and they jump up and down and say hooray he's our man.

      We Dems just learned that we have to fight back against the Republicans crazies, now we have to learn HOW to fight back.

      •  "People ARE idiots with amnesia"! (0+ / 0-)

        So sorry to hear you think democracy and self-governance are futile enterprises.  Your surrender to the forces of darkness, subjugation, and fascism is regrettable, but you'll forgive us if we continue to live our lives as free, rational people who judge based on facts and civil standards of behavior (e.g., you can't win a debate by lying).  

        What matters is how the idiots with amnesia will vote and what will move them to vote.
        No, it doesn't.  That doesn't matter AT ALL.  The only people who claim it matters - because they WANT it to matter - are the pundits, because idiots with amnesia are the only people persuaded by them.

        Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

        by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:43:34 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  It's style that wins debates (10+ / 0-)

      only if people like us go along with that premise.

      I don't. I never will. It's crazy.

      Would you agree that nutter creationist Gill (of the Gill Gallop) won those debates about evolution and come away convinced the earth is only 6000 years old? I sure hope not.

    •  The old Roman style of 'winning' (4+ / 0-)

      ...was the 'winning' for the sake of 'winning,'  not necessarily the establishing of facts. Rome went down for many reasons and such corruption was the main one among them.

      We are still teaching these debate/argument styles to our students. We ask them to simply pick a side and try to "win" by style, rather than the factuality and the credibility of their supporting material. Sure style counts bit it is not the 'whole' of the argument, only a 'part' of it. When treated as the 'whole,' like the way Romney's performace has been in the recent debate however, then we know that something is wrong with our public judgment as a collective.

      Time to wake up.

      Romney did not 'win' the debate. By thinking that he 'did' however, we, in general, became the ones who 'lost' it.

      "Corruptio Optimi Pessima" (Corruption of the best is the worst)

      by zenox on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:53:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  back in the old days (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OleHippieChick, Troubadour

      Mitt would have been a snake oil salesman - Fooling the easily deceived into buying his remedy medicine, with nothing more than a good face and smile and a good sales pitch.

      "Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government" T. Jefferson

      by azureblue on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:42:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The really depressing part is... (0+ / 0-)

      ... that lies are so much more exciting than the truth. So much more entertaining and colorful.

      That's really been the secret to the Republicans' success: the truth that much of the time lies, myths and magical thinking are irresistible to us. And we will overlook shadiness, even outright sociopathy, if it's dressed up in an attractive and emotionally resonant package. We are so hungry for meaning and romanticization that we will follow any shady character who promises it.

      Real Democrats don't abandon the middle class. --John Kerry

      by Lucy Montrose on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:20:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I don't think that's the case at all. (0+ / 0-)

        If the GOP's lies are so attractive, why did Bush lose 2000 by 500,000 votes despite having the media totally in his pocket and Gore basically mind-fucked into playing possum by the same pundits who are now mindfucking people about this debate?  Why do they have to snuff out every last drop of truth and morality from the media for their bullshit to have an impact?  Why did their breathless, desperate, 24/7 declarations of "good news for John McCain" never yield good news for John McCain?  The claim that their lies are attractive is just another one of their own lies: Being cynical about humanity only serves Republican purposes.

        Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

        by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:48:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sure you can win a debate by lying. (29+ / 0-)

    It's just not an overall winning strategy after the debate is over when you read editorials like this one in The Baltimore Sun.

    Two of the more memorable observations to come out of Mitt Romney during the first presidential debate had to do with fibs and Big Bird. The candidate said that as the father of sons, he knows that repeating a lie doesn't make it true. As to the latter? Look out, "Sesame Street," your days as a "victim" on the federal dole are numbered.

    (snip)

    We'll say this about Mr. Romney's performance last week. He was forceful, confident, energized and well-prepared for the debate. Small wonder that most observers declared him the "winner." But what he was selling is pure fantasy, and he needs to be taken to task for it.

    The nation is facing serious economic challenges, and it requires a serious debate over how best to spur growth but also reduce the deficit in the long term. What Mr. Romney has offered so far is little more than tax policy flimflam — well-packaged and convincingly presented, perhaps, but no more real than a giant, yellow talking bird.

    Lies, damn lies, and Big Bird

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

    by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:49:29 AM PDT

    •  No, you can't. (13+ / 0-)

      Debate is not propaganda.  When your logic fails - which obviously includes breaking completely with the facts - you lose.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:53:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Wrong. Propaganda works. e.g. Reagan (17+ / 0-)

        Reagan lied through his teeth and screwed the working man with his union and wage busting policies, but many blue collar workers still think Reagan was the greatest.

        look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

        by FishOutofWater on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:23:14 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, propaganda is not debate (9+ / 0-)

          regardless of whether it "works."  This goes to the very heart of the fact that there is such a thing as objective reality, and if you don't believe that, I don't know what to do for you.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:31:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  You're mistaken Troub. (20+ / 0-)

            If facts and truth rather than style and presentation were what debates were all about, then you'd only see honest, rational politicians ever engage in them.

            Right now, as of this very moment, Democrats are saying that Mitt Romney wants to fire or kill one of the most commercially successful fictitious birds in media history. Is this a fact? Is it truth? Or is this hyperbole and spin in search of votes?

            What you call objective reality, and yes there is such a thing, has nothing to do with how people interact with their television set. Anyone who works in television will tell you the first thing one has to do when watching television or a film is suspend disbelief. No matter if its news reporting or soap opera. That is what makes the medium powerful...it goes beyond your "fact brain." That is why Star Wars or Star Trek have had far more impact on our culture than Frontline. In fact, that is why Sesame Street works.

            Dismiss it all you want, to our peril. But that fact is for the vast majority of the 60 million who watched that debate, they saw a very compelling liar and a president who was silent in the face of it. Anybody who lives in the objective reality of modern political media will tell you to bet on the compelling liar.

            The good thing is that Romney's lies make for good fodder because they are number based. One can't dispute math. (although the Romney campaign will try with "Dynamic Scoring"....and that argument has worked before)

            But before this campaign goes and gets all factoidy in the hopes that people vote based on their brains and not their guts, you should take a step back and realize that all those little things...the performance art if you will...that is what people see when they watch and listen to television. Performance Art. Not undergrad lectures.

            •  Oh...my...God. (8+ / 0-)
              If facts and truth rather than style and presentation were what debates were all about, then you'd only see honest, rational politicians ever engage in them.
              facepalm

              The caption in the above image is not hyperbole - I'm literally having trouble putting into words just how insane what you just said is.  Here's what you just said, rephrased in other contexts:

              1.  If breathing were about oxygen, people wouldn't smoke.

              2.  If nutrition were not about eating your own feces, people wouldn't drink out of the same rivers they use as toilets.

              3.  If mass media were not about totalitarianism and genocide, it would not be such an effective tool of them.

              4.  If the internet were not about child molesters and credit card scams, it would not be so rife with them.

              I don't have enough palms to cover my face with to fully express the sheer head-exploding, world-ending madness of your statement.

              Right now, as of this very moment, Democrats are saying that Mitt Romney wants to fire or kill one of the most commercially successful fictitious birds in media history. Is this a fact? Is it truth? Or is this hyperbole and spin in search of votes?
              It's a judgment call about a pattern of statements and policies - also known as an opinion.  
              What you call objective reality, and yes there is such a thing, has nothing to do with how people interact with their television set.
              Or how they taste food, because there are messages on the packaging; or how they experience sex, because they're affected by cultural expectations and the social interactions used to get to that point; and so on, and so on.  There's always an excuse to act like human beings are powerless, ignorant robots under someone's control, and ultimately it doesn't add up or the alleged powers that be wouldn't have to go through all this trouble over and over.  Propaganda is not a substitute for debate anymore than it's a substitute for science.
              Anybody who lives in the objective reality of modern political media will tell you to bet on the compelling liar.
              And where in this powerless, deliberately impotent Orwellian ideology of a "political media" casting "bets" do things like free will, citizenship, and democracy come into play?  Or are they inventions of The Matrix too?  

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:57:45 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Your'e confusing REAL debates with political debat (12+ / 0-)

                A political debate isn't anything like being on the college debate team.  It's 100% dog and pony show.  Romney proved it's not about facts, especially when you've got a public that doesn't know what a fact is, and a media who is only concerned about being "fair and balanced" and having a good horse race.

                •  this is the point that people miss. 'Winning' is (4+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ozsea1, pollwatcher, Ash Tree, Vicky

                  controlling public opinion and the media narrative.  Romney won.  This isn't an Oxford-style debate--it's political theater.

                  Admit it--Romney won the political debate.  But--even if this were a real debate--Obama wouldn't have done well because he hardly challenged.

                  •  I think you would be ashamed (0+ / 0-)

                    if you understood how corrupt your reasoning is, and the fact that you've basically abandoned the core philosophical concepts of democracy and self-governance.  You dismiss simple morality and reason as "Oxford-style debate," like it's unrealistic to demand that statements remain within the plane of reality.  Are you or are you not still a member of the reality-based community?  

                    Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                    by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:56:43 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You're confusing whining and surrender (0+ / 0-)

                  to depravity with acknowledging facts.  Real politics transcends all moral and definitional boundaries and ultimately boils down to thermodynamics, but that doesn't mean you have to an excuse to be nihilistic and dismiss all rational standards of behavior as some kind of academic naivete.  YOU are the one defining political debate is a "dog and pony show" by treating it as such, and YOU are contributing to the problem.    

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:54:34 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Alright. (14+ / 0-)

                Advertising doesn't work on you. Propaganda doesn't on you. Performance and artistry don't work on you. Therefore they do not work on anyone else in the whole world.

                You win.

                •  Yes. The argument appears to be mostly about (4+ / 0-)

                  semantics.  A real debate is exactly what Troubadour is talking about.  Political debates, for decades, have been performance art.  The presentation of actual facts after the debate is a very important and integral part of political debates.  Willard opened himself up to all kinds whoop ass with his lies.

                  Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

                  by Smoh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:38:04 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  So can we say Obama handed him the can of (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    GAS, hungrycoyote, Troubadour

                    paint and the brush in the first debate.  The debate paint can't be erased.  Mitt, for the first time, is in non-eraseable territory. So can we say this is a 3 debate debate.  

                    Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

                    by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:10:42 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  There are several kinds of debates; Presidential (0+ / 0-)

                    debates are an idiosyncratic variant on what, in debate circles, is known as "parliamentary debates":

                    Unlike CEDA {ed: Cross-Examination Debate which resembles a courtroom where the lawyers question each other - but with tighter rules}, parliamentary debate has managed to preserve its emphasis on persuasion, logic, and humor; this success is most likely a result of eschewing excessive preparation and evidence.  The spontaneity and openness of the format makes parliamentary debate free-wheeling and exciting, whereas other styles of debate can become boring because every debate round at a tournament revolves around the same topic.  The downside is that in the absence of any evidentiary burden, debaters are free to spew utter nonsense, or even outright lies, without providing any support for their assertions.  (The prohibition against specific knowledge fortunately helps to curb this problem.)  All things considered, parliamentary is the most entertaining of any debate style I've found, and also the most conducive to the development of good rhetorical skills.
                    (my emphasis)

                    "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

                    by nailbender on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:05:52 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  You seem to have outsourced (5+ / 0-)

                  your opinion to whatever the pundits and the rest of America thinks.  The point is who did YOU think won the debate.  If YOU think that Romney lied and YOU were not persuaded by him then logic dictates that YOU think that Romney lost.  It does not matter what the rest of America or the pundits think.  The point is for you to own your opinion and not cede it to group think.  I don't get the confusion.  

                  IMO, Romney lost.  I own that.  It does not matter what you think/say, what Troub thinks/says, or what the pundits think/say. Romney did not win on Wednesday night.  

                  My opinion may be influenced by the channel where I watched the debate.  I watched on C-SPAN and did not receive the same optics that you may have through network coverage.  C-SPAN kept the camera on the candidates the entire time.  I didn't see Jim Lehrer once during the 90 minutes. Romney appeared crazy and somewhat unhinged.  He kept looking up and down from the podium like a bird eating feed.  Lots of jerky head movements, it was weird.  It was like he had a massive dose of redbull before coming on the stage.  Very unnerving and distracting. The President appeared calm, positive, and resolute.  His answers were thought out, somewhat long, but truthful and responsive. Such optics together with all the Romney lies indicated to me that Romney could not defend his positions and his presentaion was bad.  Therefore, IMO, Romney lost the debate.  That is my truth.

                  When I turned to MSNBC afterwards and heard the handwringing from Rachel, ED, and others I was "severely" confused.  Did we all watch the same debate?  On every channel the pundits unformly derided the President's performance.  I came here and the parroting had infected this community.  This is suppose to be the bastion of independent thought.  Personally, I never let someone dictate to me how I should feel about something and never will.  Why?  Because my opinion is just as valid, if not more, when it comes to situations/individuals/things that affect my life.  Remember that.

                  One final question, if the polls come out next week indicating that the President's debate performance won over independents and the pundits jump on the bandwagon will you then change your opinion to conform with the new majority?  If so, what do you really stand for  if you let others tell you how to think or what to believe?

                  What have you done today that makes you feel proud?

                  by jai2 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:58:23 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I participated in the live blog. (3+ / 0-)

                    The whole time I kept saying that Obama's performance was awful. Why? Because he wasn't responding to Romney's bullshit and to me, you just don't let that happen. That was long before I ever saw a pundit comment. Read my comment history and see for yourself.

                  •  I'll save you the trouble: (3+ / 0-)
                    Pretty pathetic performance from Obama. nt (6+ / 0-)
                    Yo.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 09:59:18 PM EDT

                    That's an hour in after waiting patiently.
                    Obama's the president. He needs to assert himself. (6+ / 0-)
                    Yo.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:04:22 PM EDT

                    [ Parent | Reply to This ]

                    Obama scored on that last point. STICK WITH IT. (45+ / 0-)
                    Yo.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:13:18 PM EDT

                    Finally something to cheer.
                    President is the president. He should assert (8+ / 0-)
                    himself and say shut the fuck up both of you...im the president.

                    Yo.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:18:53 PM EDT

                    Still looking for some pushback on the lies.
                    Boy is this boring. But Romney did very well... (9+ / 0-)
                    well prepared, well executed. All of his attacks got no response from Obama and Obama rarely attacked and the few attacks waged were fairly limp wrist.

                    Net effect on polls, modest bump for Romney. Obama very weak.

                    Yo.

                    by brooklynbadboy on Wed Oct 03, 2012 at 10:25:21 PM EDT

                    That was five minutes before the debate ended. I hadn't heard from a single pundit. That was purely my own assessment.
                    •  If this is what you believe (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Troubadour

                      then own it and stop citing the pundits and the American people as evidence that Romney won the debate.  IMO, Romney did not win the debate regardless of how many people think that he did.  Therefore, you making declarative statements of opinion as if they are facts, even if others are saying similar things, do not make them facts.  You have no idea how people formed their opinion about Wednesday night's debate.  You are not an low info voter, you're merely guessing as to their opinions about victory.  Further, such opinions could have been formed based on corporate media propaganda put out by Fox News, MSNBC, Limbaugh,etc.  We also know that the appearance of a horse race increases ratings so you have no idea if the pundits even believe what they are saying.  Therefore, you citing other folks, pundits, etc. support of your opinion as evidence of its validity advances nothing.  There are very loud microphones that spew out crap everyday and people are influenced by it. It proves nothing.  

                      My only point is that it's up to me to form my own opinions based on my prorities and life experiences and speak that truth even if may be unpopular at the the time. If I jump on the bandwagon because others hold a different view, what exactly is my truth? I'm no better than Romney.  I believe that may be what Troub discusses above.

                      What have you done today that makes you feel proud?

                      by jai2 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Find me one single instance where i cited a (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        FishOutofWater

                        single pundit about anything. Fine one and quote me.

                      •  Look, first (0+ / 0-)

                        you said I don't have my own opinions and that I'm just a robot programmed by pundits. Now you say I have opinions but I don't believe in my own opinions. At some point you're going to just have to say I have my opinion and stated it clearly and left it at that. Which is what I did.

                        It is folks like you that are coming about saying 'hey wait a minute...you're opinion is wrong!" And when I say, okay...explain...what I get a convoluted mess of some weird combination of aikido, 11th dimensional chess, sun tzu, and 7 habits of highly effective people or some shit. Then what proves to be so implausible, especially since its been refuted by the Obama Campaign and the principal himself, I get the rather interesting argument that politicians that lie never defeat politicians that tell the truth.

                        At this point its just grasping around for even more ridiculous explanations. Whereas mine, which is so simple and elegant it needs no further explanation, still manages to hold up:

                        Obama had a bad night, shit happens.
                        •  Obama did not have a bad night...people (0+ / 0-)

                          like yourself happens.  

                          I never said your opinion is wrong.  What I said is that it is your opinion and not mine so please stop declaring it as fact.  As for you being influenced by the pundits...it's implicit in this statement.

                          Advertising doesn't work on you. Propaganda doesn't on you. Performance and artistry don't work on you. Therefore they do not work on anyone else in the whole world.

                          You win.

                          What have you done today that makes you feel proud?

                          by jai2 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:41:44 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                  •  nail hammer bang (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Troubadour

                    I also watched C-SPAN.  I always watch C-SPAN so that I can come to my own conclusion before I hear any pundits.

                    Maybe that influenced both of us, jai2.

                    "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
                    CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

                    by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:31:25 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

              •  A debate is won by making unrefuted points. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FishOutofWater, Vicky

                Mitt made more unrefuted points.  Obama failed to refute many of them.  For instance, when Romney was citing the partnership of rivals between Reagan and Tip O'Neill as an example of how he'd do better at bipartisanship than Obama, Obama let that comment stand without making the obvious counter that Tip O'Neill didn't declare that his party's primary goal would be to make Reagan a one term president like McConnell and Boehner have done.  That would have been the high point of the debate and the soundbite du jour the next day, but it was passed up.  Obama did make a halfhearted "maybe your Republican friends in Congress could take some lessons from those Democrats back then" comment which packed about as much rhetorical punch as a down pillow.

                I went to a Jesuit high school where debates were part of the curriculum.  Shading the truth is a common and approved tactic, as is heightened rhetoric, and just because Romney shaded the truth to the point of obscuring it, and engaged in rhetorical hyperbole, that doesn't count as points against you in a debate  - although it certainly matters, as we have seen, in the aftermath of a political debate when the analysis kicks in, but that's not the debate, that's the aftermath of it.  Romney won the debate.  Obama won the aftermath, certainly primarily because of the lies Romney told. But Obama lost the debate.  

                You are wrong about this.

                "Well, yeah, the Constitution is worth it if you succeed." - Nancy Pelosi // Question: "succeed" at what?

                by nailbender on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:40:18 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

        •  Don't ask anybody who worked for the railroad (7+ / 0-)

          about Reagan, like my dad.

          You'll get an earful. And it won't be about how Reagan was the greatest.

      •  I once read a biography about somebody (20+ / 0-)

        and for the life of me I can't remember who it was, but there was a story about how he was so good at persuasive argument that he won a debate. A week or two later he argued the other side of the same topic and won the debate again.

        Debating has nothing to do with telling the truth. Debating is about the power of persuasion, style and how you present your arguments. In that context, yes, Romney won the debate. There are no rules in debate that what you say has to be honest or true.

        Really good lawyers get guilty clients off all the time because they present more persuasive arguments to the jury. That's why they earn the big bucks.

        Now if you want to argue that by winning the debate Romney won absolutely nothing other than the title "winner of the debate" then we have something to discuss. Because as my original comment indicated, all anybody is talking about is all the lies Romney told and Big Bird. What did he really win? Did he move poll numbers in his direction. No. Did he persuade enough people to vote for him that he's going to win the election? No.

        Did he give the Obama campaign plenty of ammunition to use against him in TV commercials and web ads? Yes. They've already produced several. I know because I transcribed them and posted them here and here and here and here.

        Has Romney put out any commercials using President President Obama footage from the debate? No. Why? Because President Obama didn't make any major errors that could be used against him.

        Romney won the debate. Get over it. It's like winning a battle, but losing the war. In order to win the debate Romney had to lie. Now those lies are going to come back to haunt him from now until November 6 when President Obama will win reelection.

        “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

        by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:26:40 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The claim that truth is irrelevant to debate (14+ / 0-)

          is just a more cultivated, urbane version of the psychosis of tabloidism and propaganda - it may have a more exalted history than modern Republican politics, but it boils down to the same thing: The devaluation of one's own reason and morality in favor of pure style over substance.  I can't and won't ever agree to that.

          I can admit that I can be deceived, but it's the height of pointlessness to be so obsessed with one's own limitations that you treat the most basic of your own judgments as being entirely subjective while the instantaneous opinions of abstract Others are regarded as a law of the universe.  In other words, you can admit that lies can deceive you in a debate, but to claim that lies you instantly perceive and dismiss as such can win a debate is just to dismiss yourself as irrelevant.  That's insane, and a democracy can't function on such a basis.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:41:23 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sure. You and I can agree that what (8+ / 0-)

            Romney said during the debate were lies because we are informed political junkies. We know that his claims about so many subjects were bogus. I read somewhere that he told over two dozen lies the other night.

            I know this is difficult, but try to imagine that you were a voter that hasn't been keeping up with politics. You're just an average Joe who is struggling to make ends meet, and you are too busy working your butt off to think about worldly things or just national things like the presidential election, or you just don't even care. If you were that average Joe (and didn't already know what you do and did when you watched the debate) and you watched the debate because it was on every channel of the only basic cable you can afford, and you were just relaxing before going to sleep ... what did you see as Joe? You saw a bunch of convincing arguments (you don't know whether they are true or not) coming out of Mitt Romney's mouth.

            As Joe, you also saw President Obama NOT refute most of the things that Mitt Romney said. Like FishOutofWater said down thread:

            If Obama had convinced people that Romney had "entered a completely separate universe" he would have won the debate. Unfortunately, he failed to do so and failed to make his own case well.
            It doesn't matter what universe Romney was arguing in, or whether or not Romney actually believed what he said in which case in his own mind he wasn't lying. A debate is about two people having a discussion and presenting their arguments for their point of view.

            Troubadour, you're an awesome member of this community. I read, enjoy and often recommend your diaries. In this case you just happen to be arguing the big picture when this is a small picture event. Spending your time arguing that Romney didn't win the debate is not a constructive use of your time or your talents. This community would be better served if you devoted your time to picking any number of the lies Romney told and writing about how what he said was a lie and why. That would inform readers more than a debate about the debate. It was one small event in a campaign filled with lots of other events. In the larger scheme of things, whether or not Romney won the debate doesn't matter. Let it go and move on to what you do best.

            “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

            by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:03:20 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  "Try to imagine you were a voter that hasn't (13+ / 0-)

              been keeping up with politics..."

              Why not imagine you're a bumblebee, or a plastic spork, or the element Ytterbium?  I mean, as long as you're imagining that you're something you're not, and reality is not what you perceive it to be, just go the full nine yards - criticize Barack Obama for failing to convince hexapodal species or inanimate objects that he is on their side.  Say Mitt won the debate in the eyes of fungi because he grew some magic mushrooms in the shape of a "Mitt Iz Kewl" sign.

              A debate is about two people having a discussion and presenting their arguments for their point of view.
              And we run yet again into a word that can't apply to lying - arguments.  I shouldn't have to break out the Monty Python to remind people that an argument is not a mere claim or contradiction.  There is one and only one meaning to saying someone won a debate - and that is that you were persuaded.  This is not a rhetoric class, it's a presidential election.  Were you more persuaded by Mitt Romney than Barack Obama or not?  Say you were, and I'll acknowledge it and move on.  But if your only problem is your fear about what you believe someone else thought...that's ridiculous.
              In this case you just happen to be arguing the big picture when this is a small picture event.
              I happen to think politics exhibits fractal geometry - as above, so below.  

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:34:20 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  No, I was not persuaded by Mitt Romney's (7+ / 0-)

                arguments. Romney could have told the truth and I wouldn't change my vote to his column. I'm 100% behind President Obama and I recognized Mitt Romney's lies when I heard them. It's not me you have to convince. Once again, I'm informed just like you are.

                But I have a father who suffers from Fox Geezer Syndrome, and if you were having this discussion with my father, he would call you stupid for believing anything President Obama said and not seeing what a brilliant man Mitt Romney is and there is absolutely nothing in this world you could say to my father that would convince him otherwise. My father is an educated man. He has a Master's Degree in Electrical Engineering, graduated from the US Navy Test Pilot School and was chief test pilot for a major airplane manufacturer. He built his first computer, and bought the components and built his most recent computer. And yet, he thinks Mitt Romney is right about everything and Barack Obama is destroying this country.

                Arguing about whether or not Romney won the debate is a pointless exercise. My father would say that you are wasting your time on trivia and minutia. Based on the rules of debate, Mitt Romney won the debate. There are many more ways that you could be using your time more wisely. You could list every single lie Romney told, with the proof backing up what he said were lies, and it wouldn't change the fact that he won the debate because President Obama didn't hold up his end. He did not challenge Mitt Romney on each of those lies, and so under the rules of debate, Romney's unchallenged assertions (false or not) won the debate.

                I've really enjoyed engaging in this discussion with you, but I'm getting very sleepy now and need to get some sleep. Have a great day.

                “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

                by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:52:22 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I think you're confusing (7+ / 0-)

                the concept of winning the debate.

                By this, I mean you assume that each individual person will decide for themselves who won based on logic, and that collectively if everyone did that, then clearly obama won since one cannot reach a valid conclusion based on false premises.

                But that isn't winning the debate. What constitutes winning the debate is who was most effective at persuasion and presentation to the broadest number of people. Why is this the case? Because that is the entire purpose of putting the debates on television in prime time. To reach the broadest, lowest common denominator and be effective at performance. That's called a winning show. And yes, this is a show.

                So when you think winning, you think "did he win ME." Well that would be like me saying "I don't like American Idol, therefore American Idol is not a successful show."

                This is obviously ridiculous.

                •  But I find it hard to say what convinced most (5+ / 0-)

                  people. I am not them.
                  Nor are the pundits.
                  Actually, I am still waiting for respectable, meaningful polls that could tell me more about it.
                  But now I might never know, because of the new unemployment numbers. Or, more probable, I'll have to wait a little longer to be able to discern the trends.

                  The future is renewable.

                  by KiB on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:17:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  As an example (8+ / 0-)

                  My late 80's mother, an Obama supporter but does in fact vote for the person rather than the party, listens to talk radio and does a pretty good job of identifying the BS watched the debate in its entirety and her reaction is probably typical of many in her demographic.
                  Her verdict?  Obama lost the debate.  Not Romney won the debate because she felt he came across as sleazy and pretentious.  She was tremendously upset by the way Romney treated Jim Lehrer but she thought that his message was by far the more effective of the 2 candidates.
                  She doesn't closely follow politics but she believed Romney when he talked about his tax cuts (or lack thereof), she came away with the impression that he decided that he could support Obamacare, she was appalled that he talked up his voucher program for medicare but is relieved that the 2 candidates agree on Social Security.  Basically she got the impression that Willard is a pretty moderate candidate.
                  She told me that Obama doesn't seem to be who she thought he was, she doesn't distrust him but she thought his failure to defend or rebut Romney on the points where she knew they differed was unpresidential.  He didn't act like the man in charge.
                  So yes she's still voting for Obama but she doesn't see the vast differences between the two.  The important thing is that she is convinced that Obama lost and she feels comfortable that whoever wins in November we'll be OK.
                  This is an actual result from the debate.  It isn't who said what, it's who HEARD what that matters.

                  •  What actually matters is her vote, (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    hungrycoyote, KiB, Troubadour

                    which she said is still for Obama, in spite of not seeing vast differences between the candidates.

                    Why hasn't she switched sides or decided to sit it out?

                    Until the economy recovers, I'll settle for cheap laughs

                    by Clyde the Cat on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:23:51 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Ultimately yes (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      KiB

                      The point of the debate though is to go in front of 60 or 70 million people and make the case for why you should be president.  Yes, my mother will vote for Obama because that was her decision prior to the debate and she'll stick with it.  Inside her circle of friends are people who hadn't decided or were kind of soft.  She's not certain what they'll do but the chit-chat between them was that Romney didn't appear to be the conservative whack-job that they had thought he was and Obama looked out of place.  I don't know how they'll vote but they were far from sold on Obama.

                  •  Thank you for posting that. It is the perfect (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KiB, KathyinSC

                    example of what is going on here. It's pointless to spend time arguing over who won the debate. It's the aftermath that matters. Did Romney sway any one to vote for him that was going to vote for President Obama?

                    The description of your mother's reaction was exactly what Romney was probably going for when he told so many lies. He wanted people to think that he was a reasonable man.

                    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

                    by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:38:15 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                •  No, I assume that *I* will decide for myself (0+ / 0-)

                  based on logic, and that others in this community have no excuse to do otherwise.  As a matter of fact, no one has an excuse to do otherwise, and I will not excuse ignorance let alone kowtow to it by devaluing my own judgment.

                  What constitutes winning the debate is who was most effective at persuasion and presentation to the broadest number of people.
                  No, that's information warfare, aka propaganda.  The whole concept of debate requires logic and evidence.
                  So when you think winning, you think "did he win ME." Well that would be like me saying "I don't like American Idol, therefore American Idol is not a successful show."  This is obviously ridiculous.
                  Yes, it is ridiculous to use entertainment as an analogy for politics.

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:07:50 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  because bumblebees don't vote. (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Matt Z, rivercard

                "It is my job to make government cool again" - Barack Obama

                by transilvana on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:32:24 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  But they sting people who vote. (0+ / 0-)

                  So, you could argue, they affect the outcome of the election at least as much as any ignoramus whose thoughts and opinions are 100% dictated by pundit bullshit.

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:09:36 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know how to do the quote box thing but (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                "I happen to think politics exhibits fractal geometry - as above, so below."

                Brilliant. Politics is an extension of the interaction of the psyche with physical reality. If you compromise your psyche, you lose reality.

                I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil.

                by ReverseThePolarity on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:37:25 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Indeed, I've been kind of horrified (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ReverseThePolarity

                  listening to the way so many people around here have basically abandoned their individuality and dissolved themselves in some abstraction of what others think - an abstraction completely controlled by the pundit agenda.  People who think this way are Owned, body and soul.

                  Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

                  by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:10:46 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

              •  Beautifully phrased (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Troubadour

                Really, outstanding (the paragraph from "Why not imagine").

            •  If we are dealing with a truly uninformed voter (4+ / 0-)

              what do you imagine that voter is going to make of two guys up on a stage both accusing the other one of not lying?

              Not much, I would expect. How can they choose between them?

              No, what the president did actually is more effective. He asked viewers to use their own common sense and to think about why Romney was being so secretive about the details of his plans. Is is only because those details are just so good?

              That's a question any uninformed voter can answer for themselves.

          •  ah, this is why i love Daily Kos (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Troubadour

            "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
            CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

            by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:32:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  The debate referring to was sport (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          or recreation, like a chess match. Yeah, you can win when you play black and you can win when you play white.

          A presidential debate is fundamentally different than recreational debates. It's real. And there are real consequences to the lives of the debate watchers depending on which of the debaters they choose as their leader.

        •  Right, until we have the technology (0+ / 0-)

          To make a person's nose grow another 2 inches every time they tell a lie (or ring a buzzer, etc.), people will use lying as a tool to get what they want.  Romney used lying as a tool to win the debate.

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

          by susanWAstate on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:55:08 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Troubadour, I'm so sorry- I wish the Truth could (6+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Fury, Matt Z, Joieau, pademocrat, Chi, Vicky

        prevail and I totally agree with you. But we have never established that there would be a factual basis to the "debates" to begin with. Was that in the established "rules" set up for Lehrer's version? "Thou shalt only state facts." I don't think so. Why? Because Obama didn't need to and Romney wouldn't want to.

        What I wanted was not zingers, I came to admire Obama's quiet patience and was hoping that Romney would fly further off the handle.

        But it is true that there were times when Romney slid in stuff that really was important, and because the details went unheard, the devil won.

        Please pardon me, not intending to pimp my own comments, but I watched every minute of the debate, couldn't hack too much time with the pundits, then went to work where my boss, who thinks like me on politics (after I re-explain it to her because she gets her news from morning teevee) told me how she 'didn't care, she heard Mitt won the debate, and she wished Obama had said x,y,z...' to which I countered BUT HE DID! Everything you wished for, even everything I wished for, he actually said! I will now vote for him and not strike my usual blow for third party independent politics. But Boss, you'd never know Obama said anything if you only watch the rest of teevee.

        This is why we need a simple commercial where Obama says something about how even though he's in the White House he does understand that most of us need the mortgage deduction- the one that Mitt very quietly promised to cut along with Big Bird.

        "Had we gone the invasion route, the US could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land." -- George H. W. Bush, "A World Transformed," 1998 memoir (explaining why the US did not occupy Iraq in the 1991 "Desert Storm" war)

        by nuclear winter solstice on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:45:33 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In a society with a healthy fourth estate you (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Matt Z

        might be right Troub.

        In this case, we and Obama must go over the media.

        The a few in the media called out some inconsistencies, their overarching response was that Romney won.

        PBO knew what he was up against.  There's a way to advocate for us and the Truth without being an asshole.

        One calmly looks the opponent in the eye and says, "Governor, these are the FACTS".

        Then confront the liar with the facts and watch him squirm.

        •  Where exactly do you think this "healthy (0+ / 0-)

          fourth estate" comes from?  The sky?  Divine intervention?  Teachers being from Krypton?  It comes from citizens like you and me not tolerating lies and bullshit - and certainly not surrendering to them by acting like it's "all in the game" to lie through one's teeth.  Repeat after me: Reality is not an opinion.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:20:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not true. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rivercard, Vicky

        I spent countless Saturdays in my younger days timekeeping debate marathons and tournaments. Sitting at the back of the room with a stop-watch and big flash cards so the contestants could keep within their limits. The subjects were always something that could be argued either way, and the individual debaters drew 'pro' or 'con' on the spot.

        The very good debaters are usually slated to become lawyers or politicians in life. The training is intense for the ability to argue either side of an issue, and judges score like juries (or voters) do - by which presentation is the most convincing.

        It is customary to give quotes from famous or knowledgeable people supporting one's position, and enough arguably factual data to sound impressive but not enough to lose the audience. It's not about 'truth' or mountains of wonky details, and it never really has been. It's about advocacy and the ability to convince others with your arguments.

        So while I understand people's desire that debate be about 'truth', the fact of the matter is that it's not. It's about idea/position selling, and winners are better salesmen.

    •  This is the core issue. (0+ / 0-)

      I think you have defined it perfectly.  Realism and optimism all in one place.

      Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

      by Smoh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:26:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  They weren't lies, just Mitts-understandings. (0+ / 0-)

      He wraps his statements in truthiness with his projection and conviction.  Facts are a nuisance when you take this approach in a debate.

  •  Bravo (20+ / 0-)

    It is true that part of our problem as a society is that we confuse reality with entertainment.  A lot of people seem to think that a Presidential vote is about which person makes a better TV character in the national sitcom.

    A lot of people actually want to be lied to because it just makes it easier to face up to things that way.  

    Romney was kind of magnificent in a horrid sort of way, as an inspired liar, the sort of guy who made a living talking money out of other people's pockets and into his own.  

    The guy can lie in just pyrotechnic ways.  But that is no way to address the true plight that this nation is in, considering the truth of the 21st century we actually face.  

    I listened to Obama.  He was careful to stay factual and to keep his poise.  

    I haven't seen anyone else mention this, but someone might as well.  I grew up in Texas.  It just was not all that long ago that a highly educated, successful black man talking in forceful terms that might win a debate with a white man could be lynched for it.  

    You see people being careful, guarded and precise.  You might think of the term "buttoned down."  Romney was all full of swagger and it may have undone him.

    He really went overboard to say some really loopy things, if anybody is paying attention.  

    I think the progressive community can play a role in making noise to make people pay attention.  Actually there are probably not that many people who are going to swing either way, so the universe is small.  

    Bottom line, the time to have the arguments is now, not after the elecdtion.  

    I for one, plan to redouble my own efforts.  We cannot allow Romney to lie his way into power.  God knows what kind of catastrophe this radical dumbshit could produce.  It could take years to undo.  

    Obama is a fighter and a resourceful and clever one.  We need to have his back and just not let Romney win.  We also need to do what we can do assure down ballot success wherever possible.

    Thanks, Troubador

    hope that the idiots who have no constructive and creative solutions but only look to tear down will not win the day.

    by Stuart Heady on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:54:10 AM PDT

  •  Troub, gotta hand it to you. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    naka

    You've elevated this shit to an art form.

    I'm so sorry you weren't treated to gladiatorial combat and shoe-banging "J'accuse!" speeches

    ...

    Oh, but Obama didn't forcefully condemn it!  He didn't call it out!  He didn't whip out his dick and demand measuring tape from the moderator!

    Don't tell me you didn't invest in straw futures at the optimal moment.

    Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

    by WisePiper on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:19:40 AM PDT

    •  Nice "zinger." (10+ / 0-)

      On some plane of existence your tactical criticism of the President and of me must mean something more than the real-world points I'm making and the consequences of this election.  Put it on your resume when applying for an internship on a talk show.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:25:04 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Now THAT was masterful. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        hungrycoyote

        The subtle linking of my point of view to the Romney supporters.

        Free advice. (Yeah, I know, we were all born with one.) Before you dig TOO deep a hole, acquaint yourself with AXELROD's acknowledgment that Obama's performance was flawed and that they're working to insure they don't make the same mistake in the next debates.

        Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

        by WisePiper on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:30:27 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  So 'flawed performance' = Romney victory? (7+ / 0-)

          If I paint a flawed picture, it means some psychotic mental patient who smeared his own feces on a canvas has outshined me as an artist?  This pie I baked is flawed - guess I'll go eat some dog shit instead!

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:34:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Ignoring the humorous scatalogical aside, (0+ / 0-)

            I'll posit that it makes no freaking sense for Axelrod to acknowledge the flaw in Obama's performance if they were convinced, as you are, that he won this first debate.

            We won guys, but the mistake is we could've won won.
            OK, I'm bored with this. And it's not fair to continue to tie you up engaging me here.

            Following bbb's attempt to inject a little reality into the debate performance discussion, LL's going to be taking a stab at it on Sunday, too. You'll obviously want some time beforehand to concoct even more grandiose accusations against those kossacks who DARED to criticize Obama for his failure to directly call out Romney on a few of his misrepresentations. (You know, while he had a captive freaking audience of 60+ million voters.)

            Sharpen up that quill pen, sport. You've already set the bar pretty high for your next effort.

            Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

            by WisePiper on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:47:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  So you consider it your job (6+ / 0-)

              as a campaign supporter to sift for and endlessly amplify Democratic acknowledgements of flawed performance?  That's usually how pundits see their job, not people actually aiming for Democrats to be in office.

              more grandiose accusations against those kossacks who DARED to criticize Obama
              So you think it's somehow courageous and honorable to repeatedly reward Mitt Romney's mendacity, all in the guise of critiquing Barack Obama for not being forceful enough in condemning it?  How very professional of you.

              Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

              by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:54:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Well, no, it actually does make sense (0+ / 0-)

              to go along with the river rather than try to swim against it. And don't wait 17 days to do so. Move on, the question of who won the debate isn't significant in the grand scheme of things.

          •  asdf (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            transilvana

            And, to be crystal clear, by failure to directly call out Romney on his misrepresentations, I mean specifically the failure to inform millions of voters that what Romney was saying there on the stage was diametrically opposed to what he was saying as recently as the previous week.

            The best, most effective time to do that was while it was happening. Millions of voters are not going to catch that call out when it's made at whistle stops and in campaign ads after the fact.

            OK, at this point, I'm beyond bored - I'm falling asleep. Heading off to bed now.

            Don't ask if I'm better off now than four years ago. Ask if I'm better off than I would have been under four years of McCain.

            by WisePiper on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:15:21 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  You are making up your own rules (14+ / 0-)

    You can make up you own rules if you want to but you are denying reality.

    When your claims not only deviate from established fact and your own documented record but enter a completely separate universe, you lose - those are the rules of a "debate."
    If Obama had convinced people that Romney had "entered a completely separate universe" he would have won the debate. Unfortunately, he failed to do so and failed to make his own case well.

    Fortunately, Obama woke up the next morning on fire, knowing that he had performed poorly. We should do the same.

    look for my eSci diary series Thursday evening.

    by FishOutofWater on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:35:08 AM PDT

    •  Very well said. And I completely (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      cheerio2, FishOutofWater

      agree.

      “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” — Tom Perriello

      by hungrycoyote on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 02:39:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "If Obama had convinced people..." (13+ / 0-)

      Who are these abstract people you're speaking of like they're the unquestionable, objective metrics of the universe?  It's just you listening to pundits.  And if you don't believe your own judgment means anything, why in the hell should I care what you think if you don't?  I can just ignore you and listen to those same pundits and snap polls, since that's where you get all of your ideas of reality instead of your own reason and common sense.  But I don't do that: I'm talking to you, because you are a person with a mind.  

      I don't need other people to tell me what happened when I watch it with my own eyes.  Why do you?  They're welcome to offer interpretations I hadn't considered - I'm even open to the possibility that what I see is an illusion made up by my fallible, biochemically-evolved brain.  But see, like I demand of debates themselves, I demand some kind of justification of interpretations - one that doesn't rely on deprecating my own capacity to make rational judgments.  I do not, and will never, accept an ideology that venerates propaganda and treats the truth as an irrelevancy.  And acknowledging the potential potency of propaganda does not require letting go of my own innate consciousness.  

      A truthy argument for the "fiveness" of 2 + 2 being met with a lackluster defense of arithmetic is not a debate defeat, and I will not tolerate the totalitarian mentality (or the surrender to same) that admits such tactics as remotely legitimate in American politics.  A candidate can dodge, mislead, or engage in sophistry, but when they simply claim things that are demonstrably false, the debate is lost because I fucking say so and I'm entitled to make judgments and state an opinion.  Why do you not think you are not?  Why do you think morons have a higher claim to reach conclusions and affect elections than you?

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:09:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Because the vote of a moron (9+ / 0-)

        is equal to the vote of a mathematician.

        You're saying you don't want the moron vote?

      •  "It's just you listening to pundits" (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rivercard, FishOutofWater

        Nope. It's people trying to understand the political impact of the debate. If you think that entails "deprecating [our] own capacity to make rational judgments" and "treat[ing] the truth as an irrelevancy," consider it possible that you may be mistaken.

        By the way, could you post a handy list of which polls are to be ignored and which are to be taken as gospel? I must have missed that lecture in grad school.

        Election protection: there's an app for that!
        Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

        by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:36:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  polls to be ignored (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          Rasmussen
          We Ask America
          and the CNN 67-25 snap poll right after the debate

          "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
          CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

          by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:39:10 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well, it's an interesting list (0+ / 0-)

            I basically agree with Nate Silver's take: don't ignore Ras and WAA polls, but bear in mind the house effects and the mediocre methodology. (Lots of people say that Ras actually makes stuff up, and I'll believe them if they marshal the evidence, but I haven't seen that happen.)

            As for the snap poll, there is no reason to ignore it, and every reason to disdain the silly claims that they only interviewed people from the South, that they rigged the poll to gin up a horse race, etc. The thing to understand is that as a quick-turnaround panel survey, it isn't likely to be representative of debate viewers in general. But the benefit of it being a quick panel survey is that it provides apples-to-apples evidence on the impact of the debate on particular viewers, with limited opportunity for the media to tell people what they saw. Finding: the favorability ratings basically didn't change.

            Apparently many viewers were capable of judging that one candidate or the other won the debate without that judgment having much effect on their overall evaluations. If a similar degree of minimal nuance pervaded discussions here on Daily Kos, how cool would that be?

            Election protection: there's an app for that!
            Better Know Your Voting System with the Verifier!

            by HudsonValleyMark on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 12:24:16 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  You know damn well the "impact" of the debate (0+ / 0-)

          if you watched it.  You are a person, and it had an impact on you.  Talk about that, here and in your immediate community.  That's our job as citizens.  If the polls disagree with how you perceived it, then you know your job of public education will involve more effort than otherwise.  If they agree with you perceived it, then your job will be easier.  But if how you perceive it is completely based on those polls, then you're not really participating, just acting as a passive mirror.

          Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

          by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:33:44 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  OTOH (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FishOutofWater, Troubadour

      if pundits had convinced people that Rmoney had entered a completely separate universe, the consensus would have been that Obama won the debate.

      Why didn't the pundits do that? including the pundits here?

      that's part of what pundits are supposed to DO, either as spin or as voices amplifying truth.

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:36:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  The point is move on (9+ / 0-)

    This constant brooding going on 72 hours now is unhealthy. The first debate is over, the next one is over a week away, stop picking at a scab and let it heal. I can assure all concerned that the White House is taking the next debate very seriously and Obama is getting an earful of advice coming at him from all angles. I honestly did not have high expectations for the debate because I remembered Obama from 2007 and 2008. He's not a confrontational man. His debates with Mccain frankly weren't that great. I enjoyed Biden-Palin much more, and really look forward to his debate with Ryan. Take a look at him here

    •  It's impossible not to move on. (7+ / 0-)

      But I'm not just going to pretend a tsunami of fear and mindless media regurgitation didn't just happen.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:57:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Well, that's got to change. (0+ / 0-)

      The problem is that his people have made him so afraid of being the angry black man that they have neutered him.

      Let him be him. Let him be angry. That way the people will know he is on their side.

      It didn't look that way Wednesday night.

      •  not being the angry black man (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sukeyna, Troubadour

        is the pattern of his whole life, not just this campaign.

        people here who wanted him to be the angry black man in 2008 would have cost him the election.  fortunately Obama knew better.

        it's offensive to imply that the only choices for Obama are "angry black man" and "neutered".  If those were his only choices, there would be no way for him to win.  And so far one thing he has demonstrated over and over again is that he knows how to win.

        "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
        CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

        by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:42:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Huh? (7+ / 0-)

    So basically you're saying lies don't matter because they are lies.  In that case, you should just call up the Obama campaign and tell them the good news that since nobody will believe lies, they can stop the ads pushing back against the lies and save a lot of money that way.  After all, since I know the 716 billion is a lie, then so must everyone else in America!  Since I know Obamacare raising taxes on the middle class is a lie, so must everyone else in America!  Since I know cutting taxes won't create jobs...and so on.

    I know you're trying to keep everyone's spirits up, but I certainly hope Obama's advisors are not saying what you're saying and telling Obama that this debate went fine with nothing to change for the next ones (and they aren't).  Acknowledging that something could have been better and kicking it up a notch for the next thing is not defeatism.  It's part of life and part of success.

    •  Lies matter because they are lies. (0+ / 0-)

      What I'm opposing here is the attitude that lies are an acceptable part of debate that can legitimately lead to a victory in a debate.  If that's the case, then why even have a debate with the candidates?  Just do a split-screen with their ads, and let those ads be completely fictitious and judged on the basis of passion and form, so that Leni Riefenstahl's material defeats Churchill's every time.  Or hell, why even bother with the pretense that there is information content involved?  Just literally go to war and declare that whoever survived "won the debate."

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:37:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  While I agree with you on some points, (7+ / 0-)

    the point that Mitt could not have won the debate because he lied all the way through it ignores the reality TV these types of debates have become.
    Mitt won the debate by lying according to the media, to popular opinion and as mentioned above, by Obama's own team.
    To people who listened to the debate on the radio, most I've heard said they thought Obama won. They heard what the two men were actually saying (and they were calling into political shows, so I'm assuming they were informed on the issues) and thought Obama was good on the issues and Mitt lied all the way through. They didn't have the optics to judge, only the answers, so I think the substance of the debate on TV was lost, and thus the debate was lost.
    It's not a big deal and certainly not worth all the garment rending I'm seeing on Twitter (maybe I'm just avoiding the right diaries, but I'm not seeing much of it here, which is a nice change), but that's certainly disappeared since the new jobs numbers and Big Bird have taken over the conversation.
    Let's move on to the next one and stop dwelling on something we can't change.

    “We are not a nation that says ‘don’t ask, don’t tell.’ We are a nation that says ‘out of many, we are one.’” -Barack Obama

    by skohayes on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 03:36:46 AM PDT

  •  I love this diary but I also agree with (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    hungrycoyote, MKinTN, Matt Z, Chi, Troubadour

    many comments.

    I agree a debate cannot be won with lies and I do believe Obama won. But, as you assert there is debate and propaganda and even when you say the truth it must be packaged persuasively and address claims  made by the other side.

    If we agree both debate and propaganda occurred I think this communities queasy feelings about a devastating propaganda loss can justifiably outweigh any satisfaction from the technical notion Obama won the debate.  

  •  In politics, you can certainly win by lying (7+ / 0-)

    It happens all the time, as we all know.

  •  This has got to be something we fight for. (6+ / 0-)

    Republicans want to dumb down the elections, just like they want to dumb down schools, science, the work force and everything they can get their grubby little faith-based hands on.  

    We've already had fact-checkers throwing their hands up in the air because of the Republican Primary. That is reported fact. We need to make sure the media reports the lies, flip-flops and distortions.

    Romney's first substantive sentence in that debate was a lie. His first two substantive paragraphs were chock full of lies, one servile platitude (Uriah Heep anyone?) and a nonsensical observation. This was part of Romney's first substantive sentence in the debate:

    "... not the one the president describes as a top-down, cut taxes for the rich. That's not what I'm going to do."  Mitt Romney (10/3/12)

    "Mitt Romney has proposed huge tax cuts that principally benefit the wealthy, while refusing to say how he’d pay for them by closing unspecified loopholes. This lacks credibility and may become one of the rare tax-cut promises that is a political loser.
    ...

    On taxes, it’s Romney who’s ducking. He has proposed a tax cut of more than $4 trillion over 10 years, an across-the-board 20 percent reduction in individual income-tax rates, the elimination of the estate tax, the alternative minimum tax and taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for those earning less than $200,000. The corporate rate tax rate would come down to 25 percent from 35 percent." BLOOMBERG  (9/16/12)

    I would tip you, but the man took away my tips.

    by Tortmaster on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:15:16 AM PDT

  •  I have been saying since (11+ / 0-)

    Wednesday night on this site that Obama won the debate in the long run, although Romney definitely won the Pundit Score.  O's coolness will hold up well against Romney's heat and lies.  Initial poll movements are not everything and I want to see where we are in a week before declaring anyone moved the needle.  I think Romney may have brought home some straying Republicans with his energetic lying.  That's it.

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 04:42:52 AM PDT

  •  Amen! (10+ / 0-)

    The moment that the media decides that something didn't go our way, we resort to our fallback bed wetting position.

    Was I screaming at my TV, along with my friends watching with me, for Obama to come back and hammer Mitt on his BS? Hell yeah! But at no point did I think Mitt won the debate.

    We get so wrapped up, trying to get inside the minds of the mass audience in general, making assumptions about who they think won.

    We know who won. We know who lied and who was truthful. And I think that we know better than to think that there's not a method to the madness of the O-Team.

  •  Ladies and Gentlemen...we have a winner (0+ / 0-)

    “Mitt Romney is the only person in America who looked at the way this Congress is behaving and said, ‘I want the brains behind THAT operation.’ ” Former Democratic Congressman - Tom Perriello "Small Businesses Don't Build Levees" - MHP

    by justmy2 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:11:25 AM PDT

  •  Since when was lying a liability for a politician? (0+ / 0-)

    Lies are particularly effective when your opponent can't be bothered to respond to or refute them.

    Two hundred million Americans, and there ain't two good catchers among 'em. --Casey Stengel

    by LongTom on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:21:51 AM PDT

  •  Unsolicited Campaign Advice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CanyonWren

    Why doesn't the Obama campaign make an issue out of Mitt Romney's constant lying?  I don't mean just pointing out specific things that Romney has said that are untrue, which is fine.  I mean pointing out to the American people that Mitt Romney is a compulsive lyre who will tell you a lie any time he thinks it benefits him.  He has lied to you throughout his campaign and there is no reason to believe that he won't lie to you throughout his Presidency if he gets elected.  He is morally bankrupt who never misses an opportunity to twist the facts or tell you a bald face lie if he thinks it benefits him.  

    Say to the American people, "Most of you know people that lie constantly.  How do you feel about them?  Do you trust them and value their judgement, or do you shun and avoid them?  Do you want someone like that as your President?"

    I could go on and on about how important honesty with the American people is in a President, but I'll let you all extrapolate.

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:22:54 AM PDT

    •  they do have ads like that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      and people will be seeing them a lot for the next month.

      my question, and I think Troubadour's question, is, why don't the pundits do that?  Including the pundits here?

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:44:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  sadly, honesty is not as important as it once was (0+ / 0-)

      there are a LOT of people who admire liars that get over.

      there are a lot of people who believe that if you can get what you want by lying, you're a fool if you don't lie!

      just check out the recent research about cheating on college exams.  or check out the reputation of a playa who lives off several women he's keeping on the string. or google the concept of "lying for the lord".

      I could go on and on about how people admire dishonesty, but you get the idea.

      "Politics is like driving. To go backward put it in R. To go forward put it in D."
      CALL EVERYONE YOU KNOW in OH, PA, FL, NC and TX. Make sure they have the ID they need to vote, and make sure YOU are registered and ready to vote!

      by TrueBlueMajority on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:52:14 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Good an necessary diary. Thank you. (3+ / 0-)

    The hand wringing does get old.  The anger, frustration and disappointment are much better put to use fighting for our candidates.  Lefthandedman has a diary up that makes a great companion piece for this one :

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Cats are better than therapy, and I'm a therapist.

    by Smoh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:11:18 AM PDT

  •  Fox: "Soledad O'Brien stretches the def. of lying" (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    It would be hilarious if it weren't true.  To Fox, if you accuse someone of lying, you yourself are lying.  

    No wonder Fox viewers are in such a disconnected stupor.

    Republicans...What a nice club...of liars, cheaters, adulterers, exaggerators, hypocrites and ignoramuses. Der Spiegel -6.62, -6.92

    by CanyonWren on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:14:23 AM PDT

  •  As I've said: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour
    BIG DOG

    BIG BIRD

    BFL

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:20:07 AM PDT

  •  Actually (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    willynel, Chi, tonymil, Vicky

    Candidates do win by making egregious lies in debates.  Reagan did it, Bush 41 did it, and Bush 43 did it.  All 3 made the exact same staments as Romney did on Wednesday.  I thought Romney sounded alot like Reagan in the first debate.  He also channeled the "compasionate conservatism" of Bush 43.  He made grand promises like Bush 41.  Obama sat there and let him do it with little objection.  Felt alot like the Dukakis debates of '88 when Dukakis seemed to think America would see through the lack of honesty and illogical statements.  So yeah I AM PISSED!  

    Obviously the debate is not swinging the election, I never thOught it would, but I saw an opportunity for Obama to gracefully hold Romney accountable, and Obama failed to act.  

    I take political action every day. I teach.

    by jbfunk on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:22:58 AM PDT

    •  I disagee on what the debate did. (0+ / 0-)

      The polls are moving in Mitt's direction. They could have been moving the other way. What with the job numbers and Mitt's stupid, "I was wrong about the 47%". My God, Obama could show up in two weeks and look at his watch the entire time if he just would have challenged Romney at this first debate.

  •  You can win the first Presidential debate by lying (6+ / 0-)

    make no mistake.  The problem is winning anything after that debate.  The thing about Romney is that there was no way the Obama team could have prepared to debate a man who has no core, no convictions, and no well established policy that he isn't willing to cast into the abyss for convenience.  Obama's handling of the first debate was painful, but necessary.  It's seen by some as strong when a candidate is rude to his opposition and to the debate moderator.  If a candidate tells 8 lies in 2 minutes, it is impossible for his opponent to take 1 1/2 minutes to not only debunk the lies just told, but to also give his own vision.  

    Mitt Romney knew this, which is why he carpetbombed Obama with a birage of lies so deep Big Bird couldn't wade through them. He left the debate in full smirk mode, that same smirk he had after the Benghazi speech, where he basically shitted all over himself and no one saw the skid marks until they soaked through his pants. The next day, all the media could talk about was what a fool Romney made of himself, and, as usual, he was the last one to know.

    The next debate, I believe, will end Romney's campaign.  After the first debate, Obama now has real ammunition that Romney can't sweep under the rug during the next debate.  He started running the ads calling out his lies the next morning.  Romney won't have the opportunity to run roughshod over regular citizens asking questions without being perceived as the colossal dick he is.  This is where being generous, humble, silently strong, and empathetic will matter.  At this point, Romney will have to equate what he said in the first debate to how it will affect the lives of real people.

    The poll numbers will show a swing for Romney, no doubt.  However, as usual, Romney danced in the end zone too soon and people here cried on the sidelines before the touchdown came out of review.

  •  Amen (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sallystrutt, KayCeSF, Troubadour

    Took me reading a few comments to get it, but you are correct.  Well stated.

  •  You can win an election by lying. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Chi, davidkc, cheerio2, pademocrat

    Everyone Chill the fuck out! I got this - unknown but credited to Barack Obama

    by natedogg265 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:47:59 AM PDT

  •  The nay-sayers in this thread still don't get it. (12+ / 0-)

    Troubadour is commenting on many people's knee-jerk deference to other people's opinions as objective truth.  Obviously, an opinion is an opinion, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are at the same level of discourse.  Opinions CAN be based on a qualified, objective point of view that's based on good judgment.  So why not express yourself?  Why not get in the game?  

    Because we're still acting like Republicans should be included in public discourse.  We need to start running as the standard of quality in politics that we are, not like a ninth-grader who discovered Ayn Rand.  We're not at their level of discourse, so there is no reason to appeal to them.

    "B-but there are more them than us!"  There are plenty of criminals out there, too, but do you see us trying to win them over?  Wait, hold on.  WE ARE.  Why are we doing this?  

    So let's switch to base-building while staying vocal and out there.  "If you build it, they will come."  We have to remain a visible choice for people to consider.  Over the long run, we can change the framework of discourse in this country back into something that doesn't favor the worse narcissist.  That's the fucking point of being a Democrat.

  •  You can win by lying easily (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, pademocrat, Vicky

    You win by gaining votes.  You win by getting donations.  You win by gaining energy.  You win by creating the right optics.

    Note that none of the above would qualify you for a win on a high school debate team but that is NOT what we are talking about here.  This is not about substance.

    You lose by looking down, looking small, taking a lot of time to answer questions that you should know cold.  You lose by not addressing your opponents lies right on the spot.  You lose by sapping energy from your side as they question your performance.

    Note that failure to address lies and falsehoods by the other side will KILL your score on a high school debate team.

    •  Is there a high school debate rule about the (0+ / 0-)

      Gish Gallop?  It is new to me.  The Gish Gallop.

      Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

      by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:26:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Had a friend on the debate team (0+ / 0-)

        but wasn't on it myself.  The format is different because you have a rebuttal phase (as I recall).  You are required to address everything that your opponent said.  So if they indicated that something was a result of little green men from Mars you would have to at least devote a sentence to saying how stupid that was.  Gish gallop would probably get you dinged.  The technical term for the Gish Gallop is "proof through verbosity" which is not considered to be a valid logical argument, but it works well on stupid people.  

        Obama took a pass on all such occasions to refute Romney which quite frankly made me wonder a bit about him and I think gives the lie to the idea that he was setting up Romney.  I mean he could have thrown Romney's statement about there not being a tax deduction for moving companies right back in his face which would have been a huge win for Obama.  But he said nothing.  The answer is that all business expenses are tax deductible to include moving companies overseas.  

        Obama did a bad job.  This was no set up on his part and people are now making lemonade out of lemons.

        •  My opinion is that Obama accomlished what he (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KayCeSF, Troubadour

          wanted to accomplish.  He didn't do it as pretty as we are used to.  I think he hoped to get as much on record as possible.

          On the tax issue Romney was muddying it up.  It is tax deductible if you MOVE, but if you sell off everything here and buy fresh there, is it still?  That is what my company did.  Sold all the machines here.  Bought new machines in China.  

          Taxes are Romeny's home turf and I think staying away from hand to hand there was not a bad idea.  Romney was doing a filibuster, running out the clock.  Talking taxes is where Romney gets air.

          LEHRER: Excuse me. Excuse me. Just so everybody understands, we're way over our first 15 minutes.

          ROMNEY: It's fun, isn't it?

          Hey Ryan, where you goin' with that trans-vaginal probe in your hand

          by 88kathy on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:48:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  "This is not about substance." (0+ / 0-)

      Speak for yourself.  If it's not about substance for you, then I don't know what you're doing here.  And if it is about substance for you but you think not for others, why are you just accepting that as an immutable law of nature and adopting nihilistic style criteria as the basis of debate victory instead of fighting for decency and intelligence?

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:47:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Stupid Response (0+ / 0-)

        You go "fight for decency and intelligence" while losing the election.  Knock yourself out.  Go back to your cheerleading.  Avoid real analysis.  Put your head in the sand.  Do whatever it is that you do to avoid reality.  

        Even Obama's own team and Obama himself admit that they fucked this thing up.  They could have put this thing away but instead of pushing back against Romney's lies and distortions, he looked like he was taking a scolding.  He didn't defend his record.  He looked like a small man that was not in command of the facts and did not look presidential.  Romney looked like he ran the place.  That gets votes.  Period.  End of Story.  

        Another performance like this and we might well be looking at a Republican president, substance or no.

  •  Perceptioin is reality (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    humanistique, Vicky

    If  the public perceives Romney as the winner than he is and the polls are starting to show this.

    •  "Perception is reality." (0+ / 0-)

      Which is why we are now all speaking German or Russian today, right?

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 05:48:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  huh? (0+ / 0-)

        We were perceived as having lost to Germany and Russia in wars? I don't get it. Anyway, its the voters who decided who wins debates. If they say Candidate Jones won, even though there's no reason to think he did better than Candidate Smith, then Jones won. Even if Jones economic ideas make more sense to a panel of Nobel economists. Even if he told the truth 100% of the time while Smith lied on major issues. Even if Jones' theory about global warming is backed up by MIT Scientists and Smith's is from  something he read in the Bible, or somewhere.

  •  My Facebook question last night: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, Troubadour

    To my "American" friends, can you explain to me why EVERYONE is saying that Mitt Rmoney was masterful and soooooooooooo well prepared. I thought debates were about issues and ideas not about mere image (plus Mitt's image was that of a bully asshole anyway). It's at times like this when I realize that no matter how long I live in this country I will always be an outsider.

    I can understand the right reveling on how "great" Mitt did, but the people on MSNBC are making me awfully angry.

    PS:  (not included in the original post because my friends know what I mean)  I wrote American in quotes because I am a firm believer that the term American encompasses everyone from Newfoundland to Tierra del Fuego. There might be other territories there, I am not that good with geography.

  •  Sure you can. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Dr Swig Mcjigger, pademocrat

    Reagan did it twice.

  •  This was not a prizefight where one person is (5+ / 0-)

    expected to overwhelm and bully himself into being the winner - or at least it was not supposed to be.  That is what it became.  Rmoney "won" the end result of the event he turned it into.  He did not win a debate, because a debate is not what occurred, in my opinion.  

    "When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time. " Maya Angelou

    by awsdirector on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:34:00 AM PDT

  •  You... (8+ / 0-)

    ..need to e-mail this to Rachel Maddow:

    And if you actually believe that Obama lost the debate because you didn't find his style as compelling as it often is, then...well...you're a victim who doesn't perceive themselves to be a full participant in these proceedings. and your deliberate embracing of that status makes me sick to my stomach.
    Over the last 2 days, she has yelled into her studio monitor at least a dozen times that Obama lost the debate.

    By the 10th time I was wishing I could toss a bucket of cold water on her.

    FOX News = where David Axelrod spends his every Sunday morning legitimizing the illegitimate.

    by wyvern on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:35:12 AM PDT

  •  Withering! Exciting! Superb! (4+ / 0-)

    I adore your blistering writeup on the annoying handwringing from the Many.  Of COURSE the debate was painful to watch.

    Better, however, to have it go this way than to have provided Slytherin with even one new campaign video. Hell, we have 27.

    Well said, sir!

    Lover, fighter, dreamer

    by kate mckinnon on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 07:39:50 AM PDT

  •  But the President didn't look at Romney so fail! (6+ / 0-)

    Ugh. Really, people? Really? Can YOU make notes without looking at what you're writing? I can't.

    And if we want to go with style over substance...that Romney horrid smirk didn't make you sick? Really? Or his constant stammering and stuttering, choking on his own lies? Compared to THAT, the President looked like the only adult in the room.

    •  Everyone I know, but one woman, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      allergywoman, sukeyna, Troubadour

      said Romney came off a bully.  Everyone of them who were listening (off DailyKos -- they don't blog) said Obama was making great points and explained his side better than Romney who was ranting.

      Oh, and my AP Social Studies husband's high school students said Obama won because they could understand what he was saying and couldn't understand Romney.  haha.

      How much of our perspective is independent and how much of our perspective is influenced by outside opinion?  

      I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

      by KayCeSF on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:22:19 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wonder. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KayCeSF, Troubadour

        I wonder how much of this reaction is based on expectations, not what actually happened on Wednesday. I didn't really have much in the way of expectations, other than Romney lying his ass off. Maybe that's why I, along with Norman Goldman and a significant minority here on DK and Facebook, thought the President did okay and Romney looked like a lying fool.

        •  YES! One person I talked to said just that: (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          allergywoman, Troubadour
          ...much of this reaction is based on expectations ....
          My initial reaction the first time I watched the debate was that Obama was submissive, looking tired and angry.  Then I watched it again because I always know the MSNBC panel is less than objective whenever they watch and opine about Mr. Presidents SOTU speeches or debates.  The second time I watched I actually listened to Obama.  He really had a lot to say, heady and fact-based remarks.

          My initial reaction the first time I watched the debate was also that Romney was bullying Lehrer and Obama.  He looked like a bully.  No doubt about it.

          But yes, expectations can influence reality.  

          I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

          by KayCeSF on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:39:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Dominant dog vs. submissive dog. (0+ / 0-)

      The visceral message was powerful to those who did not already have a position or opinion. Romney may have seemed like a bully but Obama appeared wimpish. Which would people, especially men who have not followed politics, want as their commander-in-chief?

      Dems keep thinking people vote rationally. Only a small percentage do. It's primarily the older parts of the brain that vote. Repubs have used brain science much more effectively than Dems for decades.

  •  This is absolute nonsense (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rivercard, newpioneer, Vicky

    How can you assert that I can't watch a debate from the prospective of a third person? That I can't perceive how someone other than me might perceive something? The shorthand for it is "standing in someone else's shoes".  Ever heard of it? So yes, as an Obama supporter, I did not have a "come to Romney" moment because of the debate. But as a rational human being who has the ability to view things from the perspective of another, I can see how someone else - many in fact - might have had a "come to Romney" moment in that debate. You're the one who is delusional when you assert that we can know and therefore only speak about our own reaction.  That's just so utterly ridiculous.

  •  The people who make up their mind based on the (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, KayCeSF, pademocrat

    "debates" are the type of people who don't really have strong opinions -- and they're mostly listening to the talking heads on the tee-vee. The talking heads are telling them Rmoney won, and are not telling them that Rmoney LIED and that Rmoney CHAMELEONED.

    These are the same people who voted for "kinder and gentler" and "thousand points of light", which were bullshit slogans tossed out on the campaign trail to make it look like the Bushes weren't the rabid red-meat extremist right wingers that they were.

  •  Exactly the argument I had with my brother, (7+ / 0-)

    the moderate Republican.  His position: Romney won. My position: Romney lied.

    He wanted me to pretend both were telling the truth and then decide who won.  I explained I couldn't do that because I have too much knowledge and that affected what I heard when I was watching the debate. I heard a liar lying, not two earthlings saying things.

  •  I take issue with the diary title - as a premise (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority

    "You can't win a debate by lying" - I hope and pray that does not mean Romney can win the larger argument by simply lying. But, that is a different matter from whether you can, or Romney did win the debate by lying.

    Well, ah, yes, apparently you can lie and win the debate and yes the lying sack of shit did just that.

    Why would I assert such?

    True, the first rule of a formal Debate club might be "Don't Lie!" That is because a lie should be the easiest thing to point up in response.

    But, a Presidential Debate is a "Debate" not a Debate.

    A Presidential Debate is an opportunity for two candidates to impress on the electorate their personae, their positions and the flaws in their opponents arguments. But, it is not a true formal debate - it is more a 90 minute, mangled campaign infomercial.

    So, how did Romney win the debate on Wednesday?

    -- By default, because his persona came across as aggressive, engaged, commanding - while Obama came across as tired, disconnected. This is of course the theatrics part of the win.

    -- By default (again) because Romney largely avoided getting tagged by Obama on any contradiction or weakness in his positions. He did this by first articulating versions of those positions which were totally at odds with anything he previously, or even presently espouses. He got an assist when the President's responses basically boiled down to exchanges of "Is Not!" to Romney's "Is Too!" Instead of throwing the $5 Trillion cut number back into Romney's lap Obama could have had him defend the premise, a 20% tax cut, across the board - but he totally failed to do such. Establish the premise  and Romney has far less wiggle room - he loses one cup under which to hide the pea. Fail to do so (and Obama did so fail) and Romney wins by default.

    -- Because Romney took the clear tactic of not treating a Presidential Debate as a formal Debate - freeing him up to say any damn thing that suited him. Lying, in simpler terms. Meanwhile the President took the tack of treating the night more like a formal Debate. Yet, curiously, Obama did not effectively bat down the confabulation, contradiction and confusion Romney threw up in his face.

    So, yes, Romney won the debate - and it was in large part because he lied, massively, on stage. I suspect he was nearly as surprised as the audience that his efforts were met with a near total absence of effectively articulated counter-points. He lied as a brute tactic, and because it was, like the Scorpion, always in his nature to do so.

    I am recommending the diary despite the above disagreement with the titular premise. But, that is because I think what you speak to is the later sale on the argument, the larger campaign.

  •  Why isn't O practicing with Bill Clinton? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat

    Clinton is the only incumbent president in the modern era to win his first debate, yet why isn't Obama practically living with the dude at this point in debate preparation? I just don't get why they are not pushing debate prep to the meddle. I think Obama should cancel some appearances because they will not matter if he doesnt do much better in the next two debates. The debates are THE priority now.

    •  Also why can't Obama debate Dole and not mitt? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      TrueBlueMajority

      That helped Clinton win!

      Still I agree he needs some special help... not because he is generally a horrible debater but because romney's style is rather unique.

      I rewatched  some of debate and really could not think of a right way to respond. Mod asked mitt if he had question to ask Obama. Mitt went into economy, middle class, health care, gas prices. drilling, food prices, health insurance, taxes and more. There was no question actually, just swirling accusation and statements.
      Obama started by addressing the tax part of it, with mitt swiftly objecting and mod saying he had to let mitt defend that.
      What? And in doing so he went into other swirling mix of lies and strange assertions.

      I don't know even now the right way to respond to anything like this. If Clinton does, great, get his help. I think Bill might scratch his head here but would have some good ideas.

      •  someone explained the technique earlier (0+ / 0-)

        in another journal.  There is a debating method where a person tells lies as quickly as they can.  Basically, that is what Romney did.  No doubt there is a counter-attack technique.  I betcha the President is already working on it.  

        "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

        by noofsh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:29:12 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The problem is they say there is no (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Troubadour

          counter-attack technique in this kind of set up.
          That is why scientists have just refused public debates

          They said you deal with it by setting up debate to be over just one point at a time and allow for immediate rebuttal or something like that. Too late to change debate set ups.

          Well next debate is a town hall
          But here's hoping they come up with something

    •  As to Bill Clinton & debates (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      The 1996 polls showed Clinton  far ahead of Dole and he tried hard to avoid debates altogther before finally agreeing to do two rather than the three Dole's people wanted. Even in 1992, Clinton's debate performance was not stellar and many observers judged that Ross Perot beat both him and Bush.

      If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

      by Valatius on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:31:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Kudos for an excellent diary!! (4+ / 0-)

    You have put into perfect words exactly what I have been feeling since Wednesday. Check my comments that night and see how I was making many of these same arguments as the debate was happening. Of course, the Chicken Littles were more concerned about whether or not Obama spent all night rebutting Romney's lies or whether or not he looked back at Romney during the debate.

    And I thought I would NEVER say this, but fuck Jon Stewart, Bill Maher, and (sigh) Rachel Maddow. They have perpetuated this myth that President Obama lost the debate despite knowing full well that lying makes you a loser.

    Again, great diary!  

    Best-selling true crime author Corey Mitchell. Please, buy my books!

    by liquidman on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 08:52:57 AM PDT

    •  And Chris Matthew, and Ed Schultz, (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      liquidman, Troubadour

      and, and, and....

      all of them backing off the next day and focusing more on the lies.

      It's a game the pundits play.  We don't have to play the same game.

      I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

      by KayCeSF on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:18:59 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Bravo (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, Troubadour

    Thanks for pointing out that the whole concept of "winning" vs "losing" this debate is based on smoke and mirrors. But it goes deeper than that - I find that the hang wringers on the left that are saying that the sky is failing because the POTUS "lost"  the debate are acting as brain dead as Tea Party  Republicans. You know, the ones that say the POTUS is going to take away their guns but then you ask then for examples of policies  that would logically lead to that conclusion and they are suddenly tongue tied.  Same deal here - you ask the hand wringers what it means  in the grand scheme of things that the POTUS "lost" the debate and they are tongue tied.  So you probe and ask about the effect on the polls and they mumble something about it being  too early to tell  a- you ask about historical precedent and they bring up Jimmy Carter vs Reagan and I go "are you fucking kidding me ?". The economy was in the tank and getting worse, we were constantly reminded via Ted Koppel  on Nightline of American hostages in Iran and Carter's inability to rescue them and Carter's approval rating was at 33% but yeah - he lost because of the debate.  So the handwringers on the left are running around using some American Idol style superficial bullshit criteria to frame the outcome of the debate and have no clue what that  bullshit outcome means in the grand scheme of things . That kind of total intellectual dishonesty is the kind of shit that gets you lifetime membership in the Tea Party.

  •  Lessons from high school debate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat, Troubadour

    Years ago I coached a high school debate team. Our school was very low-income and 95% minority and in our first time out we were matched up with the city's most most selective high school, which had won national trophies in debate. My students simply could not match their opponents in background knowledge or verbal agility. Yet the judges determined that we won because our opponents simply never answered the points I had told my kids to bring up. In retrospect, I am not sure my students even knew what they were saying but they kept repeating their points - and the far better prepared opponents did not rebut their admittedly simplistic argument - probably out of disdain.

    Afterwards, I tried to explain to my kids that they only won by a fluke and they needed to be far better prepared. But being teenagers, they thought they didn't appreciate my downer analysis - and were wiped out in the next round by a team that took their arguments seriously and refuted them one by one.

    If my soldiers were to begin to think, not one would remain in the ranks. -Frederick the Great

    by Valatius on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:28:16 AM PDT

  •  Thank you for saying it! (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, TrueBlueMajority, Troubadour

    I will not say do not weep, for not all tears are an evil.

    by ReverseThePolarity on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:29:49 AM PDT

  •  Rec because I agree with the feelings (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    behind this, and for the good discussion, although I do fear that they can and have in the past won by lying. "Winning the debate" is subjective, and I fully agree that lying and bullying is not 'winning' to me. But the reason Romney "won" -- according to everyone who thinks he did -- has nothing to do with what he said, it has everything to do with his aggression versus Obama's passivity. President Obama appeared passive and unable to challenge Romney, and that has trumped all the lies. This is troubling for many reasons.

  •  You CAN win a debate by lying... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    davidkc, pademocrat

    if your opponent doesn't even bother to challenge you.

    •  Ahh but he challenge him! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      I think it's the style he used making his challenges that some don't like.  Some want the President to just down  Romney's throat calling him a liar rather than refuting the lies strictly with facts.  I suspect he'll find a way to succinctly call Romney a liar and then follow up with the facts the next time around.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:21:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Thanks, I agree (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, TrueBlueMajority, Troubadour

    I am one of those people who thinks that Obama followed a strategy that was initiated by Romney lying. AT that point, I believe Obama and his campaign strategists wanted to get as much on the record as possible.

    I don't think he meant to come across as passive and tong-tied as he did, and I hear on today's news that he recognizes these problems in the debate (MSNBC, 9:30 am).

    So we'll see about next time. In the meantime, there are the ads...

  •  the seahawks can't "win" (0+ / 0-)

    by pushing a guy in the back onto the end zone floor, then grabbing onto a ball with his hands that the cornerback already intercepted and pulled into his chest either. surely instant replay would bring justice, and right quick!

    ah, well. i guess it depends on your definition of winning...

    Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please. -- Mark Twain

    by TeWooding on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:46:02 AM PDT

  •  Thank you (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KayCeSF, Troubadour

    for saying what's needed to be said. Some powerful hypnosis going on. Splash of cold water and sharp slap to the face are just what the doctor ordered.

    Our great mother does not take sides, Jake. She protects only the balance of life. -- Neytiri

    by ailanthus on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 09:46:07 AM PDT

  •  Fricken AMEN, Troubadour! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TrueBlueMajority, Troubadour

    I had a conversation, yesterday, with a woman who was so outraged about Obama not calling the lies, she forgot to be outraged with Romney's lies.  She spent all of 30 minutes going on and on about shoulda, coulda, woulda...

    I listened to the debate 3 times -- twice the night of and again yesterday.  Mr. President won that debate hands-down, and as you said, Romney didn't win it by lying.  Are we a country so stuck on grading performance we forgot to grade the debate on facts?

    Our collective outrage needs to be with Romney.  Screw the pundits!  Screw the faux hand-wringers on DKos, too.  I believe they are obviously revealed anyway, continually castigating our President and would rather give pundits some kind of validity the pundits don't deserve, and worse, are bent on taking our President down with their long-held intensity against him.  IOW, they are no friend to Democrats or our President.  We need to ignore them and get our own game on for Obama!

    WE all agreed Mr. President's countenance showed he was "off his game."  But now I wonder,was he really?  I think he was intent on letting Romney reveal himself as the fraud he is, and I think Obama's countenance was deliberate with intense concentration on staying quiet while Romney lied... one lie after another.  President Obama's eyes said it all for me.  He was seething inside, but he let Romney bang away to reveal just how much a liar he is... the debate was taken over by a hustler.

    Are Americans going buy into the illusion of Mitt Romney or will they fight for the goodness, astuteness and great instincts of President Obama?

    Oh!  Which reminds me of a Hunter S. Thompson quote and I will ask how long will America give credence to the bad guy?

    The tragedy of all this is that George McGovern, for all his mistakes and his imprecise talk about new politics and honesty in government, is one of the few men who've run for President of the United States in this century who really understands what a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little hustlers like Richard Nixon.

    McGovern made some stupid mistakes, but in context they seem almost frivolous compared to the things Richard Nixon does every day of his life, on purpose, as a matter of policy and a perfect expression of everything he stands for.
    Jesus! Where will it end? How low do you have to stoop in this country to be President?

    Thank you Troubadour!

    I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

    by KayCeSF on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:05:29 AM PDT

  •  Lawrence O'Donnell made the most sense (4+ / 0-)

    He said that he no longer judges who wins and loses a debate.  The only win that counts is the election.

    So let's stop feeling bad about the debate and start working again.  We can't do anything to help the President debate but there are plenty of other things we could be doing.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:10:44 AM PDT

    •  To be fair to Rachel, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour

      she did show past debates and how incumbent Presidents have lost their first debates, and how the statistics show that debates actually have no bearing on which candidates actually wins the election.

      And I did disagree with O'Donnell when he said he preferred Lehrer's format, and that moderators should not hold the debaters to any rules, in fact, the moderator should just let the debaters fight it out. It's my contention that time is so very short during an all-important Presidential debate anyway, so allowing a bully to take over is not right.  

      Otherwise, I heart Larry.  He's got an edge over many on MSNBC and is pretty darn level-headed.

      I would rather spend my life searching for truth than live a single day within the comfort of a lie. ~ John Victor Ramses

      by KayCeSF on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:46:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Mitt Romney... (0+ / 0-)

    The shiny object.

    The Republican Party has been taken over by the corporatists and christian fundamentalists; the seeds of fascism have been sown.

    by glb3 on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 10:28:51 AM PDT

  •  OK..before you HR me (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat

    You can win a debate by lying. I just watched it happen Wednesday.

    •  What exactly do you think a debate is? (0+ / 0-)

      And how does your sense of it differ from mere propaganda?  Why even have a debate if there's no difference?  Why even have an election?  Just have civil war and call the bullets "zingers."  Or we can stop tolerating lies and bullshit, and insist that yes, debates require some basic level of adherence to facts.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:04:33 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You can win by Lying (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pademocrat, Vicky

    Sometimes.  I just wanted to say, that, in our high-school debate team we realized that at tournaments, you could win by lying.  The judge made his decision right after your debate, and if you stated your lies with confidence and he didn't know the subject you were talking about (but you can always quote from an imaginary study, and the judge can't know ALL studies and polls) you would get away with it.  No win was ever turned over due to facts.
    Anyway, that's how that works.  I think the media has a little too much of that "instant decision" mentality.

    •  But we are the judges (0+ / 0-)

      when we are the ones making the statements about who won, and we know Romney lied.  When you know someone lied, you don't get to claim they won a debate.

      Everything there is to know about the GOP: They're the Bad Guys.

      by Troubadour on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 06:05:14 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  We should get over this silly notion of (0+ / 0-)

    candidates "winning" or "losing" these debates. They state their case--you believe or not. I believe Romney not.

    "Let's stay together"--Rev. Al Green and President Obama

    by collardgreens on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:42:14 AM PDT

  •  Hear! Like Nobatter!, Nodebate! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    It was a Potemkin Debate anyway. The Bellowing CEO foghorned his way to a warped definition of a "win."

    rMoney: Just another jerk, lookin' for work.

    by OleHippieChick on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 11:56:19 AM PDT

  •  In a Kentucky hair salon this morning: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    EcosseNJ, Troubadour

    A woman and her elderly father came in, he's just had surgery and she's helping him get around, and he needed a hair cut.

    Once in the chair the grumpy but funny old guy started crabbing about various things....and someone mentioned Facebook. He said, ehhh, I don't get into that mess. His daughter said she had posted that Romney was a butt, because of his behavior at the debate. "Some of my friends got upset, but he was! He was awful!" Her dad threw in "That look on his face, that ... grin, or smirk, or whatever! He would have done better without that!"

    At that point his daughter flat-out shuddered. "He looked like the Joker," she said.

    Even here in small-town Kentucky, y'all, people really can't stand Romney. And I know a lot of them would probably relish having a decent candidate against Obama. They may not vote for Obama, but it's clear that many are too disgusted by Romney to vote for him.

  •  Amen, Brother. Amen. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    "May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house." - George Carlin

    by Most Awesome Nana on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 12:08:39 PM PDT

  •  My problem was and still is we all knew Romney (0+ / 0-)

    Would do this, he has nothing else in his arsenal. But for Obama to tacitly agree in front of 50 million voters, that's why Romney won. He sat on that stage, and as I previously stated, possibly dumbfounded by the extent mittens would take it, he allowed Romney back into the narrative as a serious candidate. Maybe it's my history in boxing, but when you have a chance for the 6th round ko, you go for it because you never know what can happen in the last 4 rounds.

  •  Actually, you can: if the election is the next day (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    But if there's time for the fact of the lying to be 1) rolled into effective campaign communications; and 2) to sink into the minds of voters, then you're right.

    I diaried on exactly this point here.

    Short-term gain for Romney happened, let's not argue about it. But basically, he has lit himself on fire to keep from freezing to death. Longer-term impacts will not be to his favor.

    Have a flagon and discuss the news of the day at the sign of the Green Dragon, or hear me roar on Twitter @MarkGreenFuture

    by Dracowyrm on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 12:51:19 PM PDT

  •  I know that technically (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour

    you can "win" by lying, but morally it might be a bit harder.

    People looking at the debate outside our country might substantiate what you've said, for instance:  Many people in Canada couldn't believe who was named the "winner."  They, like you and I, also think that you can't win by lying. Maybe it should be that you shouldn't win by lying, but that sentiment still swayed them toward the President.

    "In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer."- Albert Camus

    by valadon on Sat Oct 06, 2012 at 01:21:47 PM PDT

  •  one debate Romney and most republicans wont win.. (0+ / 0-)

    the one debate they wont win is the one with God.. he despises liars.“He that worketh deceit shall not dwell within my house: he that telleth lies shall not tarry in my sight.”
     Bible quotes.. looks like there is going to a lot of extra room in heaven , but hell will be a little crowded. they brought it on themselves..

davej, Sylv, Chi, filkertom, teacherken, kate mckinnon, Christin, Jeff Simpson, MarkC, Emerson, dengre, Fabienne, simaramis, donna in evanston, ChicDemago, SanJoseLady, hyperstation, LeftHandedMan, Doctor Who, concernedamerican, 88kathy, Loquatrix, Glinda, Cedwyn, jted, artebella, CocoaLove, Janeo, Lilyvt, Mxwll, psnyder, Nag, elmo, Lawrence, crankypatriot, delphine, katchen, defluxion10, kalmoth, Timbuk3, strengthof10kmen, Sembtex, Curt Matlock, KayCeSF, tomjones, justmy2, Sybil Liberty, bibble, Sassy, Longwing, Gowrie Gal, i love san fran, democracy inaction, ChemBob, stagemom, Brooke In Seattle, eru, owlbear1, Beetwasher, Fury, sunbro, jtg, Savvy813, sillia, Jim R, wewantthetruth, stef, BalanceSeeker, kestrel9000, AoT, fromer, zesty grapher, VictorLaszlo, luckydog, global citizen, real world chick, antboy, AllDemsOnBoard, vivian darkbloom, NancyK, democracy is coming, BB10, chgobob, Statusquomustgo, kurious, Nulwee, ailanthus, Cronesense, Loudoun County Dem, rgjdmls, Mary Mike, noofsh, Matt Z, GMFORD, aseth, Empower Ink, alba, TheOtherMaven, Mighty Ike, rogerdaddy, windje, GAS, OleHippieChick, Sixty Something, dadadata, elwior, binkaroni, PatRiots, Akonitum, hwmnbn, bluesheep, liquidman, palantir, Diogenes2008, GustavMahler, MrsTarquinBiscuitbarrel, Sun dog, artmartin, Ran3dy, litoralis, lilsky, CanyonWren, susanWAstate, PackLeader89, jennylind, CamillesDad1, jai2, geebeebee, papahaha, sfarkash, cachola, haremoor, Tortmaster, reesespcs, GWinkler, mahakali overdrive, karma13612, montecristo, LookingUp, collardgreens, not this time, Broke And Unemployed, awcomeon, marabout40, Laurilei, estreya, CS in AZ, VickiL, ATFILLINOIS, NM Ray, MelKnee, JoanMar, ItsSimpleSimon, rja, eclecta, amazinggrace, Onomastic, cdkipp, kerflooey, muzzleofbees, sabo33, fwcetus, MaryinHammondsport, AdamR510, Amayi, fishboots, Mistral Wind, deeproots, CoExistNow, boomerchick, Santa Susanna Kid, awsdirector, Tommy Aces, floridablue, worldlotus, bluedust, diffrntdrummr, SteelerGrrl, zenox, Auriandra, allergywoman, mikeVA, Only Needs a Beat, KiB, OldDragon, ahumbleopinion, Hopefruit2, a2nite, AreDeutz, 2thanks, FiredUpInCA, Yonkers Boy, stellaluna, reginahny, Keith B, dianamherrera, pittie70, doroma, cuphalffull, OooSillyMe, Kayjay, Most Awesome Nana, madcitysailor, nuclear winter solstice, Dancun74, Illinois IRV, nolagrl, ReverseThePolarity, Smoh, geonello, JRElliott, Rumor

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site