Skip to main content

Mitt Romney smirks after attacking President Obama over the Libya attacks
Not a nice guy
President Obama is an astute political junkie like any other astute political junkie, except that he is president, which means he is rather busy, and it is therefore possible that he hasn't had the time to pay enough attention to really understand the personality of Mitt Romney. It is possible that he hasn't had the time to pay enough attention to really comprehend just how depraved Mitt Romney is. Almost all politicians lie, and the greater their ambitions, and the higher they climb on the rungs of political hierarchy, the greater are the odds that lying will become taken for granted as but another of their basic political skills. All presidents lies. All presidents have lied. All nominees to be president have lied. This is a given. This is no surprise. But Mitt Romney isn't any ordinary liar.

Four years ago, then-Sen. Obama faced still-Sen. McCain, and of course being a skilled and astute political junkie and politician, Obama understood that McCain would tell an occassional lie. McCain revealed himself as cranky, and at times nasty, but he never was more than a garden-variety Republican liar. Nothing special, in that regard. Mitt Romney is different. Mitt Romney tells lies as naturally as he breathes. His entire campaign is constructed of lies. His entire identity is constructed of lies. Mitt Romney wouldn't find the truth if given a map, a compass, GPS and professional guides, because Mitt Romney isn't even interested in finding the truth.

President Obama's problems in the first debate were twofold, and one was about style and the other substance. On style, the president seemed too passive and reserved, while Romney seemed like he had had an extra couple cups of coffee, which may not be something to which Romney is habituated. He seemed hyped. Like a frenetic gerbil. And while at least some weren't charmed by his running roughshod over the hapless Jim Lehrer, most of the pundits and a good majority of the viewers seem to think he came off as aggressive and passionate.

The second problem for President Obama was that he seemed unprepared to deal with someone as gleefully mendacious as Romney, and if there was one characteristic that best defined Romney's demeanor during the debate, it was his glee. He was having fun. He was telling lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie after lie, and tens of millions of people were watching, and many of them were not informed enough to know that Romney was trying to become the Michael Phelps of political mendacity, and Romney was having the time of his life.

(Continue reading below the fold.)

One of President Obama's biggest problems throughout his presidency has been that he's a nice guy who genuinely attempts to understand and work with people, and he keeps running into Republicans who are not nice and who do not want to work with him. Mitt Romney is not a nice guy. He is a liar. He is an asshole. Pretending otherwise is doing him favors. President Obama can't say what we who are not president can say about Romney being a liar and an asshole, but by calmly and consistently refuting and revealing Romney's endless stream of lies he can prove it without saying it.

Scott Adams summed up the debate and the reaction:

I didn't watch the entire debate but I tuned in just in time to watch Mitt Romney use the President of the United States as a bar rag. I wondered if I was the only viewer who was thinking that one of the worst public speakers of all time was drop-kicking one of the best speakers of all time, but I see today that most pundits agreed on two points:  
  1. Romney lied 500% more than President Obama.
  2. Romney totally won the debate.
That tells you everything you need to know about the value of presidential debates. Sure, the fact-checkers weighed in afterwards, but by then the damage was done. Truth is literally an afterthought in politics, and apparently overrated.
Echidne concurred:
The consensus appears to be fairly strong:  Romney won the debate and he also lied the most.
And while it would be nice if a fairly strong consensus agreed that lying the most makes one the loser of a debate, that's not the world in which we live. Fact-checkers got busy, and lo and behold if they didn't discover that Romney had spent the bulk of the debate telling lies, but by then it was too late. The narrative had calcified. Romney was better at presenting his narrative, and it didn't matter that his narrative bore little relation to reality, because President Obama didn't respond to the narrative as narrative. It's not enough to refute one lie one time when Romney will repeat it 10 times in 38 minutes. It has to be refuted every time it is spoken. Romney's narrative has to be revealed not only as wrong but as deliberately dishonest. Had the president taken such an approach, the pundits and the public would have reacted very differently to the debate, and Mitt Romney now would be but a political bug splattered on the president's reelection windshield.

The advice to the president for future debates is simple: Mitt Romney is going to lie. Mitt Romney is going to lie a lot. He will repeat lies the president thinks he has refuted. He will ignore those refutations and continue to lie every time he has a chance to speak. It's not just Romney's political strategy, it's the kind of person he is. The president needs to be prepared. He doesn't need to be mean or nasty, but he does need to be alert to every lie, every time Romney speaks one. He needs to refute every lie, which will take up the bulk of the remaining debates, but that will become the narrative of the debates. Romney isn't just lousy on the issues, he's a lousy person.

Mitt Romney is a liar. A smug, smarmy, unrepentant liar. President Obama needs to take the fun out of it, for Romney. He needs to refute the lies, in real time, as they happen, with facts and figures, and it is very important that he have lists of sources to cite, so both the pundits and the more alert viewers at home will be able to check them, or at the very least understand that, unlike Romney's claimed sources, they not only are credible but actually exist. The president needs to enjoy himself. He needs to be serious and focused, but also bemused that the Republican Party has chosen as its standard-bearer someone who is so fundamentally dishonest. It's that simple.

Most presidential aspirants prepare for debates by crunching numbers and practicing sound bites and trying to anticipate every possible question and response. Debating Mitt Romney is different. Mitt Romney is capable of saying anything about anything at any given time. And that needs to be at the forefront of the president's consciousness going into the next debates. It's not only about explaining and debating the nuances of policy, it's about refuting lies. In real time. As they happen. Every time they happen. Because they will happen. Over and over and over. Because President Obama is not debating a typical politician. He is debating a politician who lives to lie, and who couldn't stop lying even if he tried, because he is so antipathetic to the truth that he wouldn't even recognize it if he accidentally stumbled upon it.

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

  •  there were 25+ lies in the first debate: you must (105+ / 0-)

    have a swift, decisive and with luck humorously sarcastic response to nail Mitt each time he repeats one of them, with the preface that "Mitt, you lied about that in the first debate...."

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:04:02 PM PDT

    •  i would like to see an ad that shows the 47 % (18+ / 0-)

      comment abbreviated to the part about mitt not caring about them, then the clip where he defends his points but says he didn't use the right words or whatever and then the recent statement where he completely disavows them.....followed by.....Mitt doesn't believe in evolution and yet he just evolved right in front of you! is this the guy you want looking out for your medicare and social security and taxes??  

      •  They only went as far as a web ad, minus the last (16+ / 0-)

        part of what you envision in there:

        I think if they start seeing media folk covering for Romney and claiming that he simply misspoke, they'll make it an actual least I hope they will.

      •  I love that (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, Onomastic, lirtydies

        "he doens't believe in evolution but he evolved right in front of you"!
        Problem is, there is nothing wrong with "evolving" around an issue, Obama says he did around marriage equality for Gay people. Maybe use another word or explain why this kind of evolving is not ok.

        I dont think that sentence would communicate what is salient about Romney's failure in how he speaks about that video. What is bad is not Romney changed how he spoke about it (ie 'evolved") but that he defended it for two weeks.

        We don't want to give Romney an excuse (lame as it is, that he gradually evolved/became clear) for his initially defense of disrespecting and devaluing half the country, some of whom are really struggling and would/should have received that criticism that they "are not taking responsibilty for their lives and never will" as a very low blow.

        He instead needs to be pilloried for defending the initial insult, period.

        I am on disability and like most I know, would LOVE to be able to work. I feel like I am climbing a greased poll...I expend so much emotional and sometimes physical energy/effort  just to stay the same --getting out of the hole of needing help seems out of reach for now. I actually teared up when I heard my ex-Governor say those of us who need help simply are not taking responsiblity for our lives! (despite my efforts and the efforts I know most of the lower income people expend). I guess I was thinking of him in a "what if " way, if (God Forbid) he was to be my President and think this way and talk this way about those like me. He betrayed us in saying that.  What he said was wrong, that he defended it for weeks was worse, and on top of all that he could not own the hurt he did and never has. I don't think he fully understands.

        That is why I belabor the point that we shouldn't have the President say he evolved. Again though I love the line...wish we could have him use it on something!

      •  And Repig candidates (4+ / 0-)

        for Congress have been repeating it firmly for 2 months previously.  Echoed by the Rush Limpbaugh clone AM shock jocks everyday.  There are many who think it is true.  Some have come to ask for clarification from candidates, as they don't know who is telling the truth.

        This is an opportunity for the Democrats - but they have to hit it hard and often.

      •  If they assert a lie 10 times, we have to replace (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        it with speaking the truth forcefully and concisely 20 times to gain back the ground and go on offense. There should be a short form answer, one going on for a few sentences, and a longer form answer that has all the references that any serious journalist would want to pursue.

        When life gives you wingnuts, make wingnut butter!

        by antirove on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 10:45:03 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  You can't refute all those lies and not be seen as (30+ / 0-)

      argumentative. If the President came off as argumentative, flash to next poll: Romney is seen as more likable. Obama came across as angry.

      I think the election is baked in the cake as it is. Democrats need to defend their President and not join the media attack against him, a la Chris Matthews and Ed Shultz. Republicans defend their own....

      •  it's not about direct refutation - rMoney gets (12+ / 0-)

        flustered with indirect challenge especially if the townhall member is used as an example, and if Mitt's as hyper as he was in the first debate, the gaffes will multiply

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:26:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We can expect Romney to argue back. He won't (9+ / 0-)

          just sit there. It will devolve into a shouting match. The president would be viewed through the prism of false equivalence in that they were both yelling and arguing.

          I think some challenging is in order, but Barack Obama cannot get down into the gutter with Romney, or he will end up with mud as well. The president has one thing going for him, and it is his likability.

          And this is the reason, even though the media, Republicans, and some Democrats are screaming the President lost, Romney has not been able to gain substantially on the President in the polls.....

        •  I'd like the President (9+ / 0-)

          to open with something like "I want to thank the American people and the folks here for participating in tonight's debate. Also I'd like to thank Governor Romney and get his commitment to have a straightforward and honest debate tonight."


          "I don't know which Governor Romney I'll be debating tonight, but whichever one has shown up I ask that we have an honest debate so the American people can make their choice for president based on the facts."

          "If fighting for a more equal and equitable distribution of the wealth of this country is socialistic, I stand guilty of being a socialist." Walter Reuther

          by fugwb on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:02:23 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  well.... (4+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Al Fondy, createpeace, vcmvo2, DSPS owl

            Commendable recommendations, but they won't work.
            Mittens lies, and when called out on any lies, he'll deny it/them and suggest the prevarication is on the part of the one calling him out.
            Liars will lie themselves into pretzels and always, always bamboozle others into thinking it was someone else who was the liar or who didn't hear what they (the liar) said.  There is no solid ground with these people.  Just when you think you know what will come next, they're off on a completely different tangent.  The only constant are the lies.
            Which brings up a fairly important point.  If Mittens is such a loose cannon, lying to cover other lies and not having any valid policy except acquiescence to monied interests, is he really fit to be President?  
            Short and sweet answer....NO.

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

            by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:03:32 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  In a townhall, he may crowd Obama as Bush (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          annieli, NedSparks, vcmvo2, lirtydies

          accused Gore of doing , ie getting his space and his face per se..we knew that was a crock of BS but voters seemed to defend Bush.

          In a townhall setting, Mitt may try to get in the President;s space and face and that sort of behavior is frowned upon. Granted many of us were turned off by Mitt being a bully in the first debate but I think some voters were OK with that because they were standing behind podiums, So physically, they were not in each other's space.  But a townhall is not like that and I can see Mitt walking in front of the President and crowding him out or interrupting and that will turn off some people.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:08:15 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I am more concerned about the audience being (5+ / 0-)


            Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

            by Micheline on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:09:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  we can assume that will happen as it has in (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              liquidman, wishingwell

              every town hall - sometimes it's possible to stop but there will always be ringers and there always have been. What will be worse will be the parallel MSM "focus groups" - expect to see a Luntz cold reading farce on CNN.

              yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

              by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:24:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  There always are some ringers but occasionally (5+ / 0-)

                there are one or two questions posted to the Repub candidate about a social issue the Democrat is stronger on and Obama can take advantage of that opportunity. I would be shocked if there is not at least one question on either marriage equality or womens health issue like abortion or contraception.

                Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

                by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:35:29 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

          •  Maybe the Secret Service will tackle Mitt. (0+ / 0-)

            Although the SS has not been outstandingly effective during this president's term in office.

            Hookers, anyone? The Saledheis (wtf) crashing a White House function?

            "I believe more women should carry guns. I believe armed women will make the world a better place. Women need to come to think of themselves not as victims but as dangerous." Anna Pigeon

            by glorificus on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:59:56 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  "Lies, Damned Lies, and Statistics" (5+ / 0-)

        Is what my Statistics professor drilled into our heads.

        Still, it isn't the "lies" themselves that matter, but their magnitude and whether they fall into the "damned" category.

        When no refutation accompanies a lie, what is one to think?

        When that line is crossed, not refuting them gives them credence.

        It is that wave of credence that Romney rode out of the debate.

        Obama must not let that happen again.

        What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

        by equern on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:51:25 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  A simple "that is not true" will put (0+ / 0-)

          Romney in the position of trying to prove that it is.  Obama should counter each and every time Romney tries to with another lie.  Romney will grow more and more irritated and flustered, especially when he runs out of his pre-rehearsed talking points. He may even have to resort to asking Obama what is untrue about it--and Obama can tell him.  It is not rocket science.  

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

          by livjack on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 10:58:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  that is defeatist bullshit (6+ / 0-)

        American's know Bullshit when they see and hear it, and they don't punish anyone for calling it out.

        Oregon:'s cold. But it's a damp cold.

        by Keith930 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:16:13 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's right (5+ / 0-)

          and President Obama doesn't have to refute every piece of BS, just a handful.

          I hope he memorizes some of the expected Romney lies and position changes and when Romney starts with his nonsense he can list off in detail 4-5 points with specific times and dates of the inconsistencies.  Then he just needs a tag line saying Romney has a tendency to tell the audience what it wants to hear to get votes and how can you believe him.    If he does it a few times he can just refer to his tag line whenever he suspects he is doing it again.

          He can differentiate himself as leveling with the American people and how the POTUS has to be truthful because  lies have ramifications.

      •  so Romney gets to say whatever he wants. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Kumbayah, Kumbayah.

      •  Thank you! All of the hand-wringers and... (6+ / 0-)

        ...pearl clutchers have been driving me nuts since Wednesday night. They want a Bill O'Reilly/Ann Coulter confrontation and it ain't gonna happen. And it doesn't need to happen.

        Best-selling true crime author Corey Mitchell. Please, buy my books!

        by liquidman on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:24:04 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Get the fuck over it. (11+ / 0-)

        The people who are likely to see the President as 'an angry black man' already see him as an angry black man.

        Being forthright, being clear on the facts, being engaged, standing the fuck up for what you believe in - that's what Americans respect in their politicians.

        I'm sick of the craven cowardice of those who constantly diminish the President's ability and stature by claiming he doesn't dare to do this.

        The real enemy of the good is not the perfect, but the mediocre.

        by Orange County Liberal on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:36:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Good point (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Nada Lemming

          Obama isn't an unknown quantity any more, and if there's one thing everyone knows about Obama's personality, it's that he's "Mr. Cool", unflappable.  The only people who look at Obama and can think "angry black guy" are either delusional right-wingers, or haven't paid any attention at all during the past 4+ years (but they're working the debates now?)

          But when unflappable people get angry, when the relaxed, always-smiling guy flips out over something, it really gets noticed, and they tend to get listened to.  If Obama was genuinely pissed off by Romney's lies, that could really be powerful.  But it would have to be genuine: it might be that Obama really can't do "angry" very well at all.

      •  Calling them lies is unparliamentary behaviour (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        glorificus, DSPS owl, FindingMyVoice

        And PBO is too genteel for that.

        However, he might say, "After our last debate, many commentators said that you performed well, and you did. Many of them also said that you appeared to be misleading the American people."

        "It is critically important that in this debate that the American hear the facts, and I will do my best to ensure that they do."

      •  I think you can refute (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        TheOpinionGuy, artmartin

        but you are right in that it is very hard and certainly not something most people could do when shocked in the moment by the extent of the lies on national television never before seen. I think Obama thought Romney would not dare lie bald faced to the American people in a debate the way he did even though he, his ads, his minions who speak for him lie in the media and on the stump.

        Obama was unprepared to counter the lies without seeming argumentative, as you point out. But now that he knows  perhaps they can find a way. Maybe Obama needs to explain what is happening (Romney's mendacity) once and not again but just have a line that he says when somethign is totally out there.  

        I wish Obama would say that "it is said that most politicians lie and I am prepared to accept that at times, but I have to say that I have never seen someone run for President who lies to the American people to the extent that Gov Romney has been doing. I've been interested in history and have studied it...I think it will be shown that this is the case. Anyhow, it can be hard to respond in the moment to things that have already been proven to be false that Romney knows is false...I would spend a good part of my time refuting him. Instead what I will do is simply say that "that has proven to be false, and i believe you know that".
        I myself pledge not to lie to to like that.

        I'd love Obama to say that.

      •  He can refute them calmly, and with humor. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mirandasright, Nada Lemming

        That is usually most effective ... and it is effective with bullies in general:  laugh at them.

    •  You're too kind ... (13+ / 0-)
      The advice to the president for future debates is simple: Mitt Romney is going to lie. Mitt Romney is going to lie a lot. He will repeat lies the president thinks he has refuted. He will ignore those refutations and continue to lie every time he has a chance to speak. It's not just Romney's political strategy, it's the kind of person he is.
      Hey Joe (Biden)
      Don't forget who YOU are going to deal with soon!

      ... my income falls because you’re spending less, and your income falls because I’m spending less. And, as our incomes plunge, our debt problem gets worse, not better. -- P. Krugman

      by MT Spaces on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:47:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  He doesn't have to refute all the lies, just deny (0+ / 0-)

      the lies.

      He can say something like: 'You listed 5 things there that I think are misrepresentations. I don't have time to go into each of them in detail, but I would like to go into detail and refute this particular one...'

      He can say that with a smile on his face and not come off confrontational.

      He just needs to make encapsulating statements which deny large volumes of MItt's responses. Cast doubt on them.

      At the very least, he does have to refute them, or disagree with them. He failed to even take issue with certain things in the first debate and, for that, he gets a failing grade. he really let everyone down. What is being asked of him in the debate is not impossible, and its not even that hard.... he was just plain terrible and he cost the party dearly.

      Give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will vote for the Republican every time - Harry S Truman

      by mr market on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:31:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Unfortunately, ... (0+ / 0-)

      that doesn't work. Romney used the Gish Gallop "debating" technique, which is incredibly effective in the debate format we were presented with.

      Debunking the lie takes longer than lying, and you literally run out of time trying to debunk the overwhelming number of lies you are faced with. This is why most scientists don't participate in public "Evolution vs. Creationism" debates anymore.

  •  Awesome! And thanks for the link to my blog. (17+ / 0-)

    We'll bring this SOB Romney down yet--together.

    Check out my blog Romney the Liar right here.

    by Yosef 52 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:04:31 PM PDT

  •  Mr. President, please.kick.his.f*ing.ass /nt (20+ / 0-)

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:04:48 PM PDT

    •  The optic for the first debate (14+ / 0-)

      where great for Romney. Behind a podium, speaking directly into the camera, he came across as a self assured CEO. No surprise. The next debate will look different.

      Mitt moves like a 65 year old man with a calcified spine. His weird short, fast steps will be obvious. Will he be able to connect with the audience in a town hall format without imparting the ick factor that people who have met him personally describe?

      Obama moves gracefully. His delivery is greatly enhanced by his body language. This is one reason I find his speeches much more powerful than formal interviews. Obama naturally connects with people and the town hall format will strongly favor the Presidents natural abilities.

      Romney's ability to interrupt during the first debate was aided by the fact that both men shared equal footing at all times. In a town hall, the person standing has the floor. Obama will be standing and in front of Romney as he speaks. Any attempt to talk over from a submissive position will not favor Romney.

      I look to Obama to keep his head up, connect with the audience, smile and gently ridicule each and every lie Romney tells. With luck he can cause Romney to come off his chair in an effort to interrupt.

      I like to believe in love as democracy - Salman Rushdie

      by crystalboy on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:19:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Do you remember the healthcare summit? (25+ / 0-)

    when Obama got dressed down by Cantor and didn't really respond.  That is how he operates in conflict - Krugman made the same point this morning.  The problem here is not what Obama doesn't know it is that he is going to have to operate outside of his comfort zone.  It will be interesting.  Perhaps the threat to his presidency will bring out the fight he needs.  The country wants to reelect him.  Lets see what he does.

    •  Wow, I think you said a mouthful here. (11+ / 0-)

      " is that he's going to have to operate outside his comfort zone." And funny, the Obama of 2008, knew how to do that.  

      But after four years of being president, no one gets out without being changed.  There's no way he or any other president doesn't have to fight the bubble effect of the presidency.  I think our president had a good reminder of that in this first debate.

      I do not insist Obama be any smarter and more able than he is.  I do insist he use his enormous skills to keep on learning, and so far in that, he has never disappointed me.  The guy has pulled it out so many times.

      I'm not a betting woman, but I'm betting on Obama. And it ain't because of any flavor of Kool aide.  It's because of what he's shown me he his capable of, since I first met him, on a night in 2004, at the Democratic Convention, when I had no idea of how to pronounce his name.

      It's 2012, and I've been getting to know this man for 8 years.  He's not a loser.  He won't lose.  

      "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

      by StellaRay on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:58:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I agree. (0+ / 0-)

      Obama is bad at conflict. it has been complained about here at Dkos for years now. he let the Repubs walk all over him in the health care lead up in the summer of 2009. He did NOTHING for well over a month. In the end, he really didn't put himself on the line, or come out swinging. This is a huge general failing of his presidency, he never does anything to make the opposition fear him. They are bullies and he NEVER stands up to them. They have no fear he will rally support to make them pay a price, so they go on and on.

      He doesn't have to be angry, or refute 100 lies in a 2 minute response... but he has SAY he disagrees with the lies in general and refute some of them. This is not rocket science. This is a huge failing on his part that is undoubtedly tied into who he is as a person.

      Give the people a choice between a Republican and a Republican and they will vote for the Republican every time - Harry S Truman

      by mr market on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 09:17:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Pretty sure (0+ / 0-)

        Everyone in north Waziristan fears him.   Maybe he should mention that.  I mean, its not my favorite policy to say the least, but his opponents regularly end up dead.  

        ‎"Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have the exact measure of the injustice and wrong which will be imposed on them." --Frederick Douglass

        by Nada Lemming on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 06:38:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  When that smug asshole says (15+ / 0-)

    "Did you see the debate?, Romney walked all over him!"  Agree that it certainly was a tour-de-force.  Then ask which they thought was better; the mendacity, the serial lies, or the cheap shot at Big Bird.

    Mitt will eat those lies before November, wait and see.

  •  Good stuff...but the debate is old news... (16+ / 0-)

    Unemployment is now 7.8%.  President Obama created 5.2 million jobs and Mitt Romney created zero...

    Let's not forget what's the real deal.  Vote Obama/Biden 2012.  

    Good news....unemployment is below 8% and that is change we can believe in.

    Oracle2021: The purpose of life is a life of purpose."

    by Oracle2021 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:06:50 PM PDT

    •  True but not quite old news yet, it will fade in a (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      few days but please remember the MSM will be talking day and night about new polls coming out post debate and they may show some Romney gains. That bounce will fade by the end of the week.

      But the talking heads will be talking about the impact of the debate on new polls conducted post debate.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:35:36 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree about the MSM (6+ / 0-)

        But isn't it about time for the progressives to focus on the good employment news?  This constant drum beat about last week's debate is frankly a Debbie Downer for our kills Democratic enthusiasm for the President and fuels the MSM and Fox News meme that the President is some how weak compared to Romney.  No one is focusing on the Employment news or Romney's many lies.  All I hear is liberals gnashing their teeth and expending lots of energy on yesterday's news and of course talking down the President a la 2010.  We know what happened that year...due to lack of voter enthusiasm.  

        C'Mon Man...debates don't decide elections but voter enthusiasm and their casting of votes do...

        Oracle2021: The purpose of life is a life of purpose."

        by Oracle2021 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:52:21 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You make a very good point, Oracle, we need (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Oracle2021, annieli, PinHole

          to keep the energy up and refuel our engines and get  back out on the track for the race to the finish.

          If we lack energy and enthusiasm, it may rub off on other Democrats..we need to stay enthusiastic for the President in our GOTV which some of us are involved in.

          Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

          by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:13:47 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Debate mattered more than 7.8% (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, mr market

      Last night SNL had a lot about the debate, nothing about the 7.8%.  I think the debate will continue to matter until the next debate, only because it was so disastrous for Obama and was the first good thing to happen in Romney's campaign.

  •  He better fuck him up or I am going to cry (56+ / 0-)

    I need Obamacare. I am a type I diabetic.. If I lose my job I am screwed without it.. Dear President Obama I need you to fight for me!!!!! If you don't I will never forgive you. Please please you an Joe! FIGHT like peoples lives depend on it.. THEY DO!

    "We need a revolution away from the plutocracy that runs Government."

    by hangingchad on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:07:35 PM PDT

  •  Lying Liar (9+ / 0-)

    And Lyin' Ryan will continue the lies on Thursday with Biden.  Martha Raddatz will do a better job than Lehrer though.

    "It's the Supreme Court, Stupid!"

    by Kestrel on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:07:53 PM PDT

  •  I find it incredibly hard to believe (11+ / 0-)

    that Obama could be so dense as to not get it by now that this is a fool's errand:

    One of President Obama's biggest problems throughout his presidency has been that he's a nice guy who genuinely attempts to understand and work with people, and he keeps running into Republicans who are not nice and who do not want to work with him.
    I never believed that Obama could have been this dense. He's know for years, likely decades, that this is who he was dealing with. There are other reasons he's doing this, but none of them have to do with his being naive. I think that, among these reasons, he simply does not like to fight, finding it distasteful and counter to his collaborative approach to problem-solving even when it proves to be the proper if not only way to get a particular set of problems resolved.

    Now, there are different ways of fighting, not all of them open, obvious and head-on, and perhaps Obama is fighting Romney and the GOP in his own unique way. But at a certain point, it's reasonable to expect there to be results, not setbacks.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:08:24 PM PDT

  •  this is a no win situation. (6+ / 0-)

    While everyone wants the President to be more aggressive Bill Maher pointed out on Friday that one of President Obama's best lines during the debate and most aggressive one " Big bold idea is nevermind" was actually received negatively among undecideds. So I really have no idea what the best path to go in is. I don't want to see the President dragged into a battle of chasing the lies over and over all night. The President will say one thing and Mitt will be all like no and the say another thing or say the President has done it as well.

    I have no idea what more can be done. Meanwhile the debate seems to be helping romney and huffpost said his poll bounce is solidifying. I feel like this is george bush all over again. The media is going to help romney no matter what.

    "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 Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:08:27 PM PDT

  •  Please, Mr. President, get your ass in gear -- (8+ / 0-)

    even if you aren't comfortable doing it.  There are so many people out there who don't/didn't know Romney was spewing lies like a fire hose. Please.

  •  I actually think the President will come out (13+ / 0-)

    stronger against Mitt Romney in the next debate.

  •  Debate advice for President Obama: (3+ / 0-)

    Romney used pure evilness to psychologically identify himself as your father figure.  Seek out God's help, this guy is a lot deeper than anyone has yet realized.

  •  But that means being reactive and on the defensive (13+ / 0-)

    and letting Romney control the agenda.

    During the foreign policy debate, would you rather Obama said "No, I did NOT go on an apology tour", or "Libya is free with zero American casualties, the entire Pacific is aligned with us, and our worst enemy's bullet-riddled corpse is at the bottom of the ocean"?

    •  Good point, the entire debate cannot be controlled (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      jalenth, starduster, PinHole, slinkerwink

      by Mitt and all the President does is refute what Mittens say..or maybe that is the only course and only option? At this point, I am not sure.

      But the President has to find a way to take more control and show more passion and energyh than Mitt , while refuting his lie. But the thing is the President has to also answer the questions posed to him and not just refute MItt.

      I think what happened is when it was the Pres's turn to speak to answer a question, he did answer the question but he had to choose between answering a question and refuting Mitt. He chose to answer the question according to what Axelrod said.

      Somehow he has to answer a question posed to him and save time to refute MItt Lies.  That is not easy to do.

      Axelrod more or less said that is what happened. Obama was trying to follow the rules of the debate and answer questions while MItt followed no rules and took control. David said they learned from that.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:48:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was disappointed that Obama (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    3goldens, mike101, Paper Cup, mightymouse

    didn't stand up for all of us who have supported him over the years and all of those who seemingly have no voice (the 47 percenters, for starters).  The Romney Camp must have been astonished when Romney time after time served up a bit fat pitch over the middle and Obama stood there with his bat on his shoulder.  Romney seemed to feed off of Obama's reluctance to defend his own policies or call Mitt out on his many lies.  I am still totally baffled by Obama.  For such a smart guy and politician, how did he not figure out what was going on and make some correction at some point in the 90 minutes?

    I also hated his lame email after the debate asking if we were proud of his performance and reminding us that we needed to keep working for him until Election Day.  Totally baffling.  He made his and everyone else's job a whole lot harder on Wednesday night.  

    •  Everyone has made up their mind! (0+ / 0-)

      The undecideds have decided, they just aren't telling.  The informed are watching the debates and have also made up their mind.

    •  Axelrod explained that and said they have learned (6+ / 0-)

      from that.  Axelrod seemed to indicate there was not enough time for the President to answer the questions posed to him by the moderator and refute all the lies as everything Mitt said was a lie.

      I got the feeling from Axelrod they are figuring out a way for the President to answer the questions posed to him and refute all the lies and that is not an easy road to navigate.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:51:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  it'll also depend on whether the moderator gets (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        her as kicked by rMoney

        yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

        by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:11:08 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  In this case (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        the best way to "win" would have been to spend the whole time refuting lies.

        Anyone can go read policy papers.  Obviously policy was not important in the least in this debate.

        Slam the shit out of Romney until everyone knows what a fucking liar he is, and you don't have to explain policy at. all.

        Why is it that a 3% tax increase for the wealthy is considered "socialism" and an 8% wage cut for the middle class is "doing your part"? MartyM

        by delphine on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:22:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Obama: "I have a question for you, Governor Romney (17+ / 0-)

    "Two weeks ago, you said X.  Tonight you said notX."

    "Last May you said Y.  A few minutes ago you said notY."

    "And at your convention, you said Z.  Just now, you said notZ."

    "So my question for you is this:  Who are YOU, and what have you done with the real Mitt Romney?"

  •  I would rec this twenty times if I could (21+ / 0-)

    THIS is exactly as I saw this debate. And exactly as I see Romney. Frankly, I can't believe what a liar he is. I'm not kidding now. I've seen Republicans lie and lie and lie, but never like this, and never with such shameless glee. It was sickening. If I were an undecided voter, Romney would have lost the Hell out of that debate after the fact checkers went to work.

    Because I won't forget GWB lying about the Weapons of Mass Destruction thing. Ever. And I think Romney would have delivered that yet better. Now, we have all this stuff brewing with Iran's nuclear programs, Libya, and the embassy attacks. I don't see Romney batting an eyelash lying to us about these things, for whatever reason and whatever personal gain.

    And that scares me.

    Obama knows what he's up against now. I saw Axelrod talking about it, and I could see your assessment in his eyes about Romney's atypical, sociopathic mendacity.

    Not to mention that shit about Big Bird.

    •  I don't believe big bird is anything more than a (7+ / 0-)

      red herring in this fight. Yes, Sesame Street could probably get plenty of sponsors, but what about programs like Frontline? Someone said that ending the funding for PBS is like trying to lose weight by clipping your fingernails.

      Republicans don't like PBS because every once in a while a liberal idea actually does get presented in a fair way. PBS has done this country more good than the Washington Monument, but you don't hear them calling for chopping off the budget for that.

      Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

      by RJDixon74135 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:38:27 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ReTHUGlicans do not like PBS because they do (0+ / 0-)

        not control it...YET!  The massed attack in Congress to "defund" it was all about intimidation to force some acquiescence.

        Robber Baron "ReTHUGisms": John D. Rockefeller -"The way to make money is to buy when blood is running in the streets"; Jay Gould -"I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half."

        by ranton on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:34:28 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Better yet, (4+ / 0-)

    Mitt Romney is a liar; furthermore, it is safe to assumed everything that spout out of the mouth of Mitt is a lie.  He even lied when you ask him his name, his name is Willard, not Mitt.

  •  A balancing act for the president. (6+ / 0-)

    If Mitt lies as much as he did in the first debate, the president will spend all his time just refuting the lies.  That will begin to sound just like whining and calling his opponent a liar (over and over and over).  That wouldn't allow him any time to lay out his own vision for the future.

    If anyone needs zingers, it's going to be the president.

    "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican." - H. L. Mencken

    by SueDe on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:17:39 PM PDT

    •  Exactly, it is a tough road to navigate as the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      President  needs time to lay out his vision and discuss his successes as President but also needs to refute some of the lies.  I know there is not time for him to do both completely. I guess what I would like to see if Obama just refuting the biggest lies and then laying out his plans for the nation.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:55:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Without reading other comments (7+ / 0-)

    First, I did not think Obama was THAT terrible.  He made a mistake in trying to stick with SUBSTANCE.

    People, after a couple of weeks, will eventually go.... "You know, this Mitt guy is a liar and that is not what I am comfortable with."

    Enthusiasm is a concern for me.  People that are enthused are so under a bunch of lies.  By the time they realize they've been taken to the cleaners for their votes, it will be too late.  

    Obama, while debating may not be his strong suit, has GOT to spend every extra minute he might have preparing for the next 2 debates, pure an simple.  He cannot let Romney get away with his lies, pure and simple.

    If he has to go with Style instead of Substance, again, in today's political world, pure and simple.

    Voter ID laws and Enthusiasm are an issue.... $181,000,000 in donations to the DNC and Obama is very good.  Wonder why we haven't heard about the Republicans yet.... Are they deciding to lie or tell the truth about their fundraising, which should have been very poor for the month of September.

    -6.13 -4.4 Where are you? Take the Test!!!

    by MarciaJ720 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:23:01 PM PDT

  •  Maybe he could call in sick and send (0+ / 0-)

    in Cousin Vinny - he turned out to be pretty good at the debunking thing.

  •  Thanks (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:24:34 PM PDT

  •  Good plan. Let's hope our guy runs with it. nt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Laurence Lewis
  •  What a lot of folks are worried about (21+ / 0-)

    is whether President Obama has it in him to be, in effect, a prosecutor.  He is so accustomed to the academic, reasoned, phlegmatic style, and I can't remember when he has ever turned in the kind of debate performance that he needs to deal with a guy like Romney.

    But the President is a very smart and determined guy, and if he works at it hard enough and has the right folks to get him prepared, he can do it.  I recall that as the 2008 primaries went on, he got better and better at debating.

    The template President Obama should be using for the next debate is not from any debate in presidential elections' past, but rather the approach he took when he visited the House Republican caucus at their retreat in Baltimore and pantsed house Republicans, one by one, on live national TV.  And if you recall, the entire thing was essentially him debunking the Republicans' bullshit, and he did it with clarity, relish and aplomb.

    If he can pull off something along those lines in the next debate, he will tear Romney a brand new asshole and people will forget all about his first debate performance.  

    “Th’ noise ye hear is not th’ first gun iv a revolution. It’s on’y th’ people iv the United States batin’ a carpet.” - Mr. Dooley

    by puakev on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:26:33 PM PDT

  •  It just seems to me like (4+ / 0-)

    Obama refuting each of Romney's lies puts Romney in control of the debate. With limited time for each debater to make their case, Obama has to spend his time refuting lies instead of getting his own ideas out there. Romney can just deny and insist that Obama is the one lying.  I suppose Romney is aware of the quandary this poses for Obama.

    I do think the town hall format will be better for Obama in that they can't just stand there and spew malarkey.  Obama is better in that situation than Romney is I believe. I'm hoping for a "these cookies look like they came from the 7-11" moment.

    •  it's not refutation - it's using the lie as pivot (5+ / 0-)

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:30:16 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Yes townhall much better format as the traditional (0+ / 0-)

      debate, tough road to navigate as he has to spend all of his time refuting Mitt lies and Mitt lies about everything.
      I noticed the times the President did call out Mitt lies, Mitt just insisted Obama was lying.

      I am not sure in a traditional debate how it is possible to refute every lie of Mitts as it is All lies.  But he could pick some major lies and refute those. As I did keep waiting for him to refute the Medicare lie and he did not.

      But the President absolutely must have time to lay out his plans and talk about his policies and his successes too. Ie the President has to defend his Presidency.

      Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

      by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:00:51 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  True, but it's still being said Mitt controlled (0+ / 0-)

      the debate.

      Obama refuting each of Romney's lies puts Romney in control of the debate.
      So if either way it's gonna be said Mitt was in control of the debate, isn't it better that at least the President get some refutation in as well?

      70 million people watching, the majority of whom don't bother with the details of politics but only watch the debates as their decision factor, is too many to risk allowing them to believe the Mitt they saw for the first time in that debate is the Mitt that will govern, if elected.  And absent the direct refutation of the President, not to mention the total absenteeism of the moderator, that is what they got out of the debate.

      I truly don't believe this is a game changer, and I'm confident the President will bring it back in the next debate, but honestly, this was an avoidable and undeserved 'win' that Mitt got, which, with this media dying to prop him up and make him a viable candidate at all costs, turns out into at least a two week 'positive' for him, after he'd been on the losing streak for over a month.

      It just kills me!

      "...I just want you to know there are BILLIONS of us rooting for you..." Sir Paul McCartney

      by eden4barack08 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:57:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If he's done as much as watch other politicians (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, starduster

    on the Sunday morning shows, he must know how to pivot from whatever's going on to whatever he wants to talk about. I'd think he could do it more gracefully than most. Maybe he wants to leave the dirty work, i.e, calling his opponent a liar, to his campaign staff, but they should be giving him some carefully crafted ways to do it.

    Eliminate tax breaks that stimulate the offshoring of jobs.

    by RJDixon74135 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:27:49 PM PDT

  •  I believe Obama did very good (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    But next time, he needs a panel of 2 to 3 expert college debate coaches to assist him. Let the campaign consultants, managers and speech writers get out of the way. Closet him with some college debate coaches and watch Obama and Biden shine!

    I believe Joe Biden will do great this week.

  •  I think President Obama should simply say (4+ / 0-)

    Governor Romney, If I were an American citizen watching you I'd be confused.  One day you say "xxxxx...whatever the point is" and the next you say "yyy...whatever the counterpoint / lie is."  Which is it Mr. Romney?  Which of those statements is a lie? And, how do you expect people to know what you stand for when you don't seem to stand for anything?

    The longer I live, the clearer I perceive how unmatchable a compliment one pays when he says of a man "he has the courage to utter his convictions." Mark Twain

    by Persiflage on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:31:59 PM PDT

  •  I want Obama to somehow make the statement (14+ / 0-)

    that he does NOT agree even a little bit with Romney's SS plan or idea or whatever.

    When Obama said:

     "I suspect that on Social Security, we've got a somewhat similar position.  Social Security is structurally sound. It's going to have to be tweaked the way it was by Ronald Reagan."

     ......I literally almost fainted.

    •  That's when I yelled at my tv...... (6+ / 0-)
    •  A very good point, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Bailey2001, Nada Lemming

      But what if he does agree with Romney?  Remember, Obama's no liberal.

      I know you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant. -- S.I. Hayakawa

      by tapu dali on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:00:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Oh my god, me too! I actually cried! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, Bailey2001

      This is the ONE time where the President completely needs to avoid EVER mentioning anything he may agree on with Mitt.
      Even the slightest or semi agreement! He has rightfully made this election about a CLEAR CHOICE between two visions, and successfully threw Mitt off his "referendum on Obama" election he started out with.   That was a winning move and has served the campaign superbly!
      To now mention even the minimal "common ground" or "agreement" would be to demolish that "clear choice".

      PLEASE, Mr President, I beg you, this is just not a man you have to try and show any 'agreement' with. Don't do it! All that does is elevate him to your level, which he totally isn't and doesn't deserve!

      "...I just want you to know there are BILLIONS of us rooting for you..." Sir Paul McCartney

      by eden4barack08 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:09:12 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  this is really good - thanks (3+ / 0-)

    in addition to refuting lies, the other thing for Obama to do in this environment is present his own vision with commitment.

    this can be done regardless of what Romney says. Even if Romney's shifting positions become impossible to follow, Obama can always focus on making his own case.

    An ambulance can only go so fast - Neil Young

    by mightymouse on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:34:45 PM PDT

  •  There's a Middle Ground That Shouldn't Overtax (5+ / 0-)

    a nonconfrontational speaker like Mr. Obama nor make him appear to be bickering.

    Some of the lies and reversals need to be pointed out regularly through the debate, but as part of it the audience and press can be directed to the fact that social media are putting out video and other debunking right now as we speak.

    We have to go with the candidate we have, which is not the right kind of candidate to take on this behavior and that's partly why they're going with it. A reference to the external factcheckers strikes me as something that would not require Mr. Obama to change his style and would go a long way to avoid another night like the first one.

    We are called to speak for the weak, for the voiceless, for victims of our nation and for those it calls enemy.... --ML King "Beyond Vietnam"

    by Gooserock on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:34:45 PM PDT

  •  So, the POTUS needs to spend his short allotted (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NWTerriD, starduster, Subterranean, vcmvo2

    time refuting Romney lies, instead of answering the moderator questions with what he planned to say, explaining his own agenda?  

    Or, he has to allow Romney's lies to stand uncorrected, so he can get his own points across.  

    Or he can try to use a combination of the two techniques in each short 2 minute or so segment of time he has to answer a question.  

    None of the above seems like a winning stragegy, IMHO.  

    Maybe the Only way to beat Romney is to join him in a lie-palooza of disinformation and distortion from both Candidates. Because, if the pundits, the moderators, and the audience only care about "passion" and aggressiveness, apparently whether the debaters are telling the truth or not.  (frustrated snark, BTW)

    Even after the fact-checking, the pundits continue to shrug and though they admit Romney lied, they still give him the edge on the debate.  

    Apparently, at this point in time in this election an honest man is at a distinct disadvantage.  While we were otherwise occupied, we failed to notice The Death of Facts. Romney and the Republicans did pay attention, and they are taking advantage.

    Unfortunately Romney's Lying isn't just an aberration to get sucked into trying to counter--It is a campaign strategy that the Republicans have successfully used for some time now.

  •  assuming one believes that Obama's (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, jalenth, starduster, vcmvo2

    debate performance where he didn't look like a mentally ill, big bird-stalking psycho, stuck to the script, talked to the American people in plain speak and told the truth was a big ol' FAIL!

    Personally, I think the President won the debate and it won't be a fail again if the big bird-stalking psycho comes out sputtering and swinging and says more foolish stuff that won't change a DAMN THING to fire up his nutty, racist base.

    Chief Justice John Roberts to President Barack Obama: "I'm not always there when you call, but I'm always on time..."

    by tha puddin on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:35:53 PM PDT

    •  Only in America would a debate (1+ / 2-)
      Recommended by:
      Hidden by:
      Paper Cup, Nada Lemming

      where the African American President clearly won would it be said that the African American President clearly lost just to prop up the losing white guy. We've come NOWHERE since civil rights.  In fact, the atmosphere right now in this country is pre civil rights any time the nutter from some fringe religious group's considered a viable candidate for the president of a first world nation (so y'all can stop thumbing your noses at Haiti now). Remember, it's Democrats/liberals/progressives who keep insisting that Romney won 'cause one ain't sure if the African American president is worthy of praise, even though Romney gave the most disastrous performance in presidential debate history. But, let's not let the President's race stand in the way of pointing that out.

      Chief Justice John Roberts to President Barack Obama: "I'm not always there when you call, but I'm always on time..."

      by tha puddin on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:45:11 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  That's still backwards (8+ / 0-)

    Never let a Romney put you in the position of responding to them.  Always come out swinging for his head first.  Make Romney play defense, he'll crack.  Let him run the show, and you'll never be able to make up the ground you gave away.  

    In short, Kennedy 1994, not O'Brien 2002, is the right way to handle Mitt.  Hit him first, hit him fast, hit him hard, and keep him down for the count.  Never let him back up.  If it means fighting dirty, well then that's what you have to do.  I know Dems are used to only using the knee to the crotch and the kidney punch against those to their left, and being all Marquis de Queensbury toward the right, but if you want to beat Romney, that will have to change.

    Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?

    by ActivistGuy on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:37:34 PM PDT

    •  nope (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Eric Nelson, annieli, Nada Lemming

      the lies will sit there, and people will assume they're true. revealing him as a liar is swinging for his head.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:18:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  I think ActivistGuy is on to something here (0+ / 0-)

      Simply calling out Mitt on his lies isn't going to work.  Romney will just lie again and then liken Obama to one of his lying boys.  

      Think of it this way:  bullies never are ostracized for their bullying.  The cool kids laugh right with the bully until his victim punches him in the nose, and then they usually forget about the bully.  Obama cannot get Americans to turn on Romney by pointing out his bullying or lying, he must bloody Romney.  

      Obama needs a moment like he had in 2008 when he dressed McCain down for being wrong about Iraq.  It shouldn't be hard, since Romney has a woody for the same damn deregulatory orgy that started the great recession.  Obama's been cleaning it up for four years, why isn't he angry about it?   He should be, and we need to see it.  

      Is there a risk of being seen as an angry black man?  Sure.  But we already know the dangers of being a nice black man.  It's time the president to set 'em on the table and see what happens.

      "When I was an alien, cultures weren't opinions" ~ Kurt Cobain, Territorial Pissings

      by Subterranean on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:56:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am coming around to thinking it' a better use (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DSPS owl

    of time to refute Romney's lies than use it to detail Obama's agenda. At least then all people hear is Romney lies, lies, lies. Too bad they didn't find out Obama's agenda - but they can look that up.

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

    by eXtina on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:38:09 PM PDT

    •  Do both, call out the lies with our own agenda.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DSPS owl

      ..and accomplishments as the hammer. Use every lie as the intro to the truth.

      Romney Lie: 90 billion spent on renewables. Answer: Well yes that is what is alloted over 10 years only 10% of which has been tapped so far and 50 % of that was for clean-up & other expenditures etc.

      Romney Lie: Pre existing conditions. Answer: Yes if you are employed and have never been out of a job losing your covereage.  PPACA has got you covered but Romney plan does not. If you lost your coverage no pre-existing condition protection.

       - repeat


  •  Best line in this piece for me: (13+ / 0-)

    "President Obama needs to take the fun out of it for Romney." And its corollary, he needs to enjoy himself doing so.  This says succinctly, and from a different angle, exactly what needs to be said.

    Of course Obama must do a much better job of refuting Mitt, but how to do that is sticky business.  If he is constantly refuting Mitt, he appears on the defensive, without time to speak of his own message. He's going to have to find a way to do both, and that is challenging.

    It's a tough business to debate with a sociopath.  A sociopath will say whatever, whenever.  As someone said, it's like trying to pin jello to the wall.

    But at this point, the president needs to err on the side of risk, which one often must do to win.  He must get just a bit down and dirty, and he's way capable of that. Politics is not the place for a Socrates. It's a rabble rousing business, and it always has been.

    Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he didn't know how to sing that tune.  Oil up the pipes, sir, and let it rip.

    "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues." Theodore Roosevelt.

    by StellaRay on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:42:13 PM PDT

    •  Spot on! (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      StellaRay, Beetwasher

      I couldn't agree more with every word you said.

      "...I just want you to know there are BILLIONS of us rooting for you..." Sir Paul McCartney

      by eden4barack08 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:14:57 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Obama Had A Choice Last Week (0+ / 0-)

      Because sometimes objectives conflict. He chose to not engage the overwheliming lies and instead focus on getting his message directly to the people. He didn't want to appear combative either, at least not until it was absolutely warranted. NOW it's being demanded of him, so he will need to find a balance.

      It's a thin line and a tight rope, but if anyone can fine tune his performance to walk it, it's Obama.

      It's all well and good to second guess, but until you're in those shoes balancing over the abyss, you can't say you'd have done any better.

      Obama made a call for last weeks debate I believe, and he stuck to the plan instead of haphazardly shifting mid-call (Repubs like to do this and it more often that not leads to catastrophe), as he is wont to do. In doing so, he sacrificed something in order to get something else. It is what it is. But I have no doubt he'll adjust properly.

      This post is dedicated to myself, without whom, I'd be somebody else. Though I'd still be an asshole. My Music: []

      by Beetwasher on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 09:16:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  You Can't Lie on a Debate Team (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    jds1978, starduster, PinHole, Lilyvt, vcmvo2

    I heard the other day that in a debate team if someone lies or presents false information in his/her presentation, he/she become disqualified.

    It seems a sad commentary on the maturity of many Americans and also the pundits that they can overlook this basic debate requirement and declare as the overwhelming winner the person who continuously and blatantly lied throughout the debate.

    I've watched a lot of debates and lived through many Presidential campaigns, and I honestly can't remember anyone who has so consistently lied and used the "etch-a-sketch" approach the way Romney has. It's new stuff.

    Someone said recently that Romney's real motivation in being President is not to serve the country but  to get the glory and the prestige of the office, to win another trophy after making all his millions. This person said it was all ego for Romney, and I believe he was right.

    •  you can lie, if the lies can't be proved lies (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      annieli, Eric Nelson, exMnLiberal

      you can cite sources that are dishonest, and there are plenty of dishonest sources, but you can't make up sources or citations or change what the sources actually said.

      The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

      by Laurence Lewis on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:16:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But.... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Rmoney's lies can be proved lies.
        Clearly the source was dishonest, because the source was Rmoney himself, and there are innumerable videos and transcripts of Rmoney saying quite the opposite of what he said during the debate.  Why isn't there a consideration of disqualifying him?
        One person came to the debate prepared to debate, and the other came to lie. Yet the pompous bombastic liar was declared the 'winner' when he should have been disqualified.
        And if he isn't disqualified because he clearly lied, then it really can't be called a 'debate'.
        Call it anything else, but it really doesn't fit the 'debate' definition.

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

        by Lilyvt on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:14:50 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  in organized debate (0+ / 0-)

          it's technical. you cite sources, they can be dishonest- that can be proved through alternate sources, and that's part of debate. but you automatically lose a round and have your reputation trashed for good if you are proved to have faked or misquoted a source.

          in organized debate, romney's style of lying is pretty acceptable, because in every tournament you rotate every round whether you are for or against that year's proposition. one round you are arguing vigorously for something that the next round you will be arguing against. you use sources in one round that contradict what you argued in the previous round. you get to the out rounds- quarterfinals, semis, finals, you literally flip a coin before the round to see which side you'll be arguing.

          The cold passion for truth hunts in no pack. -Robinson Jeffers

          by Laurence Lewis on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:22:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Well.... (0+ / 0-)

            It will be interesting to see Rmoney arguing against himself (as if he hasn't already been doing that) in the next debate.
            He's a one man debating team, taking all sides and lying about every single one.
            It's like watching the '3 faces of Mittens' as a movie....I wish it was a movie, I could walk outta the theatre or flip the channel.

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

            by Lilyvt on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 06:28:24 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  There are three things Obama needs to accomplish (5+ / 0-)

    in any debate with Romney.

    One, to promote and defend his values and policies proudly and commandingly.

    Two, to not let Romney slap him around and make him look weak and feckless.

    And three, to turn the tables on Romney and make HIM defend his indefensible values and policies and reveal HIM to be the lying sack of shit he obviously is.

    I'm not convinced that Obama did any of these things in the first debate. Not convincingly and commandingly at least. I don't care if Romney lied and was mean to a 78 year old man. Obama needs to do these things in the next two debates. He will likely still win if he doesn't, but why on earth would he want to take such a chance? And doesn't he want to trounce Romney and not just beat him?

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:46:04 PM PDT

  •  I wonder just how effective a debate candidate (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA, starduster, jennylind

    can be in the face of such dishonesty.

    I think the Maddow Miit's Mendacity blog had about 45 lies - more than one per minute. Just calling them a lie and not explaining why that is so is hard to get away with in terms of public perception of the debate. And then, if Obama does that, he's spending the bulk of the debate time refuting lies, unable to get his positive message out about what he would do for the country in his next term.

    Somewhere in that mess, the debate should have a moderator who has some knowledge, integrity and journalism ability. Lehrer failed. Those words are not the first thing that comes to mind when I think of Candy Crawley who is scheduled as the next moderator. She's kind of GOP leaning and can be talked over.

    The media immediately after the debate attempted some fact checking but a bunch lost their heads and went over the top, sucked in by Romney's superficial, dishonest performance that was so lacking in factual substance - that they failed to give much importance to.

    As well, Romney can prepare for and attack Obama's plans because they are what they are - Obama doesn't flip-flop like Mitt.  Obama can't fully prepare for Romney because all the preparation in the world won't deliver whatever BS/flip-flopping Romney is going to make up in the next debate.

    The media in a democracy is supposed to be the arbiter for the truth. Obama is not going to be able to win a debate without the media doing that job - like they generally failed to do Wednesday night. Americans deserve the truth and they should have called Romney out for failing to deliver it on the spot - Gergen did so for example, but only in passing as a footnote.

    All Obama can do and probably will is generally make the charge with some examples of this behavior and go after Romney's character. Obama can lay the foundation for that with ads before the debate. But at the rate Romney lies - more than a lie per minute, Obama will never be able to shoot them all down during the debate - never.

    To some extent, again, it comes back to the media & moderator to stand up for the truth for American people. Sadly, I wonder if they're really able.

    •  Using humor is key (0+ / 0-)

      POB was using it the next morning when he said he didn't recognize the animated fellow on stage with him. Quick, sharp humor is key to calling out the lies without using the word liar.

      While I agree Obama's nodding was perplexing I think he just couldn't bring himself to look into Romney's falsely earnest face while the lies spewed out. I read most of those nods as sarcastic "sure... right".

      I wrote in another diary that beginning with the overdone handshaking, Obama was fighting with himself about how to react to a personality so repugnant that all his instinctive grace and good will was misplaced.

      The second thing Obama has to try and do is speed up the delivery. I typically like the cadence of his speech as thoughtful and deliberate, but juxtaposed with Mitt's hyper talk, his answers need to be quicker and punchier. Obama avoided any errors in the first debate by being so deliberate but next time out he has let his words go. He's got to get Romney out of his arrogant comfort zone.

  •  I think what we need to accept (5+ / 0-)

    is that democracy might be helpless against cynicism of the magnitude exhibited by Romney and his supporters -- especially when the media is complicit in enabling it. We've been experiencing the slow dissolution of democratic institutions since the impeachment of Bill Clinton, and Mitt Romney is its necessary and inevitable apotheosis.

    Should Romney win this election, I believe it will signal the end of the political party as an effective means of progressive change in America. Not solely because the Democrats failed to respond vigorously enough to the GOP's destruction of the system, but also because they couldn't given how degraded discourse has become in the last thirty years.

    I hope I'm wrong. But the trajectory since 1998 shows no signs of slowing down or leveling off.

  •  A show of hands, please. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Are you sick and tired of the MSM's mind-numbing use of "game-changer" with reference to the debate?  Only Romney's lies have greater frequency.

  •  Obama has an entire political team to (2+ / 0-)

    do oppo research and paint portraits for him of his challengers. I'm not willing to make such an excuse for the president. This truly is a critical election; it matters who gets into the WH and who wins those down ticket races. It's not a time to be caught flatfooted by a liar. Obama has been giving Republicans the benefit of the doubt -- or that's what he says he's been doing -- ever since he got elected. By now if he isn't prepared for duplicity from his opponents he's willfully sticking his head in a hole.

    If he had a bad night, was distracted by larger concerns than the media circus that is an election debate, most of us can understand that. He doesn't need to tell us precisely why he was off his game, but he needs to say something that acknowledges how close to betrayed many of his supporters feel in response to the debate and so many other instances when he seemed unwilling / unable to marshal the resources -- personal and otherwise -- to really fight for hope and change.

    Don't ask me nothin' about nothin'. I just might tell ya the truth -- B. Dylan

    by ponderer on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:50:01 PM PDT

  •  It seems that Romney was advised to dare the.. (5+ / 0-)

    ..President to break protocal since standard etiquette (or whatever it's called in the beltway), says you just can't call someone a liar right to his face.

    I'm now questioning that protocal and beginning to wonder if maybe the President could just get down to it and say it. Out loud. Not like that idiot Wilson, but in as direct a way as possible..

    President Obama can't say what we who are not president can say about Romney being a liar and an asshole, but by calmly and consistently refuting and revealing Romney's endless stream of lies he can prove it without saying it.
    ..even just saying "you know I'm tired of this word play, you are not telling the truth and I can right here right now show that you are lying"

    Then the President could tie Romney inextricably to Ryan and the wingnut house caucus explaining that there is no  meaningful difference - republicans all vote as a unit to follow Mitch McConnells "most important goal - to make Obama a one term president'. It is their highest concern (except for attacking womens rights etc). Not jobs, not the economy or anything else good for the country

     That for 3 1/2 years the republican party with Romney now at the helm has been proving that they are willing to fuck this country in order to control it.

    I can picture the MSM right now saying: 'How dare the president call Romney a liar right out in public'  At this point it might just be the cleansing truth people are waiting to hear.

  •  Ryan Too (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Ryan did the same thing at the RNC.  I hope Joe Biden is prepared to challenge the lies too!!!

  •  for a minute there (0+ / 0-)

    I thought you were calling Michael Phelps a liar.

    You know, it seems to me that the next Pres. debate matters even less than the first one, which mattered almost not at all.

    It's coming so late in the game.

    Lover, fighter, dreamer

    by kate mckinnon on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:52:36 PM PDT

  •  Hands down (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    exMnLiberal, wishingwell, mightymouse

    this is the best thing I have seen posted here about the debate, and particularly about the debates going forward.

    I really hope Obama's people see this and take heed.

    "These are not candidates. These are the empty stand-ins for lobbyists' policies to be legislated later." - Chimpy, 9/24/10

    by NWTerriD on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:54:17 PM PDT

  •  And ixnay Kerry! (4+ / 0-)

    I realize the next debate is supposed to be on foreign policy, and that's Kerry's strong suit.

    But I have absolutely NO faith in the ability of Kerry to be the kind of debate coach that Obama needs. Get John Stewart, get Stephen Colbert, get Howard Dean, get Barbara Boxer, or get Chuck Schumer but get SOMEONE in there who has a firm grasp of the issues and can think swiftly on their feet. Kerry's feet are clay.

    I know Kerry is a good egg, but he is NOT up to this task.

    Now is the time for some good talking head to come to the aid of our party!

    What separates us, divides us, and diminishes the human spirit.

    by equern on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 04:55:08 PM PDT

  •  I think Obama should be ready to ignore Romney (13+ / 0-)

    Fairly soon into the debate, the president realized that all of the responses he had been practicing for weeks were unusable because the Romney next to him on the stage had just flatly contradicted them all (and Obama really, really tried to use some of them). At first, he probed a bit about the $5 trillion tax cut, but each time, Romney just repeated his lie. A bit later in the debate, Obama actually referred to this: he pointed out that Romney had been campaigning on certain things he was then denying. But it was no good: Romney just denied them again.

    Once Obama realized this, he also realized that what he had to do was, at all costs, NOT let himself get sucked into a playground-like “Liar!” “If I'm one you're a bigger one” exchange. That would have been worse than useless. Instead, he tried to follow the form of the debate and to repeat as many positive things, more or less in context, as he could.

    This obviously wasn't enough, but, in my view, it was a good start. Next time, he should be better prepared simply to ignore Romney. When Romney repeats one of his lies, I think Obama should limit his response to “That's not accurate, it's been de-bunked many times, so I'm not going to spend my time discussing it” and then spend the rest of that time slot talking about whatever he wants to talk about. If there are a flood of lies with mingled half-truths à la Gish, then same thing, but more “Much of what you just said is inaccurate” and then proceed as above.

    Only if Romney actually says something truthful and substantial should Obama even engage him. This could happen, so he does need to be ready for it. But he should also be ready to turn the debate into a series of homilies on various topics he can speak well on, for the most part directly connected with the subject of the debate.

  •  Just look at Mitt (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Flyswatterbanjo

    and ask who are you and what have you done to Mitt Romney?

  •  I remember during the GOP primary debates that (5+ / 0-)

    I think both Newt and Santorum were saying it is very tough to debate Mitt because all Mitt does is lie. It is hard to tear apart each and every lie with lmiited time.

    I know they were bitching about this and I thought they were just doing their usual whine. But if you  study those debates, Mitt is always a bully and continually lies and then lies some more. When he is called out on them, he gets even more defiant and insists the other guy is lying.

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:02:42 PM PDT

  •  That's what the internet is for.... (4+ / 0-)

    "Governor, what you are saying just isn't the truth.  My campaign has compiled a list of youtube videos that literally, and I mean literally, refutes just about every claim you've made with your own words.  I invite the public to go to for the complete list."

    They already have the site.  Let Obama mention it in his next debate.  Maybe even give the Prez a cheat sheet with the dates and times of Romney's previous contradictory statements.  Work the math for Romney.

    Hell, Mr. President, revisit some of Romney's lies from the last debate in the next debate.  Work the math for him, show him up to be a liar without saying "liar."  No need for long-winded speeches, just say:  "For the specifics of this particular Romney misstatement, please go to"

    Also...Obama's campaign staff should twitter links while the debate is taking place.  And run ads on TV with the information after the debate.  Political death for Romney by multimedia.  Republicans would be bashed and trashed without the Prez having said an unkind word.

    Please feel free to HR me for my informative and argumentative nature. 'To know what is right and to do it are two different things.' - Chushingura, a tale of The Forty-Seven Ronin

    by rbird on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:03:45 PM PDT

  •  Mitt is tough to debate but Ted Kennedy handled (6+ / 0-)

    him well.  But I also realized when I first said this earlier this week, Mitt is a far more confident debater who is more aggressive, more of a bully, and more of a liar than when he debated Teddy

    Follow PA Keystone Liberals on Twitter: @KeystoneLibs

    by wishingwell on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:03:45 PM PDT

  •  Unrealistic to think that PBO (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JSW from WA, DSPS owl

    can refute each of Mitten's lies without coming across as scolding and unlikable but he can and should be prepared on the big ones to proactively insert crisper, cleaner descriptions of Mittens' positions on several issues.

    First, he needs to do better on the $5T tax cut and why it will fall disproportionately on the middle class. His explanation in the first debate was too wordy and convoluted. Second, he needs to explain the $716B cuts to Medicare providers. PBO barely refuted Mittens' lies on this one in the first debate. Third, he needs to explain that block granting and capping growth in the medicaid program will result in dramatic reductions in the coverage of nursing home care for seniors. Fourth, he needs to nail Mittens on preexisting conditions. And fifth, PBO should get on the table the fact that the Rs plans to curtail reproductive rights.

  •  My son had the best comeback Obama could have used (11+ / 0-)

    When Mitt said that he was able to work with a legislature that was 87% democrat.  My son said "yeah that's because democrats can get shit done!!!!"  

  •  Last comment on the Debates (7+ / 0-)

    Enough already...the debate is not the end of the world.  I can't understand this constant focus on the can't be changed.  Move forward.  Quit dousing out the flames of the Obama campaign with this outpour of criticism, cynicisim and give up ism.  This kills voter enthusiasm...why give your competition food for fodder.

    Let's talk about the improving economy.  I am happy that my spouse got a new job after months of looking.  Thank you President Obama for supporting the creation of jobs.  Thank you President Obama for the ACA so I can keep my disabled adult child on my health care program.  His anti-seizure medications would cost me over 41K per year.  Thank you President Obama for allowing me to be able to manage the health care expenses for my 79 year old mother...Thank you to all of the progressives who support refinancing of a home that is underwater.  I am grateful to President Obama and his administration for keeping my family above water and allowing us to hope for a better tomorrow.

    Please stop bashing the President over a silly debate...lets tout the good and stop saying Romney, a serial liar won the debate...Romney's lies makes him a loser...not a winner.

    Oracle2021: The purpose of life is a life of purpose."

    by Oracle2021 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:06:06 PM PDT

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

      Your pom-poms, that is.

      Constructive criticism is not "bashing", something most of this internet generation fails to realize.

    •  The problem is not the debate, (0+ / 0-)

      it's MSNBC.  

    •  We are in a bubble here too. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      After the debate I was anticipating lunch room discussions at work. We've had many interesting ones there. No one watched them but me. This weekend I had dinner with another group of friends--they were vaguely aware that some people thought Romney won the debate. Today everyone I know was watching football. All of the people I'm referring to are voters. They made up their minds before the debates, and really don't care about these tiny details we obsess over.

      "I think of the right-wing Republicans as jihadists; they’re as crazy as those people. They want to destroy the country that we want to save." Paul Auster

      by zesty grapher on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:09:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  If President Obama had one (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    volunteer GOTV worker or phonebanker for every self-appointed pundit ladling out the smug, superior advice, he would win in a landslide.

    Still enjoying my stimulus package.

    by Kevvboy on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:06:56 PM PDT

  •  The electorate (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Paper Cup, wishingwell

    Seems to me that the big problem with these debates is not Mitt Romney or Jim Lehrer.  The root issue is a disengaged and clueless electorate that can be easily bamboozled.  I don't know what the short- term fix is for this dilemma.

    How can we have a third party when we don't even have a second party?

    by Eagleye on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:07:52 PM PDT

  •  A musical interlude... (0+ / 0-)

    from the original soundtrack, "Romney in Wonderland"

  •  Biden should do well in the upcoming debate (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    Biden has a lot of experience and should do well.
    Ryan is a new kid on the block....
    Biden will treat Ryan as the student and will give
    Him instructions on governing and being truthful.
    He will challenge him what Obama failed to do.

  •  easier said than done (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    When Obama called Romney on his tax lie, by saying that Romney's big, bold new tax plan was "never mind," the room of mostly Obama supporters I was in erupted in applause. The problem was that the CNN focus group of undecided voters scored that line as Obama's low point of the night.

    And when Obama mentioned that Romney wants to cut education funding, Romney had the gall to accuse Obama of making up facts.

    In other words, Romney came out looking better each time Obama accused Romney of lying.

    It is very difficult to argue with a liar. People who are undecided just don't like it when one side calls the other side a liar. I see this in court all the time. When a lawyer calls the other lawyer a liar, judges hate that more than anything. You have to restrain yourself from doing that.

    You just have to make your own case, and hope the other side trips itself up with its own lying. Romney looked good at the debate, but hopefully people will get the message that he cannot be trusted.

  •  As I watched the Presidents... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, exMnLiberal

    ..body language, I recognized the type of reaction that I have myself when confronted with people who lie like Romney.

    At first, I figured I must be mistaken, but as I observed it more and more it alarmed me, because I knew that this was going to be a very long night.

    The president was indeed knocked back, and did not know precisely how to deal with it.

    I hate to use the word "choke", but he did to a certain extent.  Romney's lying and condescending posture and smirking unnerved the president.

    Not relative to me or you, but relative to what we have come to expect from him.

    It's very hard to deal with somebody who is a polar opposite, and I think it's safe to say that is the situation we have here.

    The President, as nice, normal and honest a man as we have ever had as president, and Romney, a ruthless, lying asshole.

    I literally don't think the president could believe his ears, and was not able to on the fly to come up with a consistent strategy to combat it.

    It was obvious he did not want it to descend into a "bar room brawl" scenario, so he just defaulted into his "comfort zone", which is the "professorial" president.

    Unfortunately, that mode is not optimal for a debate, especially when you have a crazed, pathological liar on the other side of the stage.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:17:11 PM PDT

  •  It's obvious Obama refuses to defend his (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    think blue, slinkerwink

    record and has trouble calling out the BS of the Republicans. For a politician, it's a severe weakness. He has floated by using his charm & likability but at the expense of the overall policy battle and at the detriment of party strength at the polls. Each time he does make an effort, it always seems forced. He has achievements but Obama never utilizes the bully pulpit effectively enough to drown out the GOP noise machine. The debate crystallized this BIG problem.

    •  why does he not defend his record more (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, DSPS owl

      vigorously? I just don't get it, he has some great accomplishments.

      "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 Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:29:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Agreed. Why does Bill Clinton have to be (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mightymouse, think blue

      the "Great Explainer" of Obama's records.

      I guess Obama will show the success of his method after he wins this election.

      But not defending the Stimulus Package and the Affordable Care Act vigorously gave an opening to the GOP and the Tea Party.

      The President can use the Bully Pulpit to celebrate and explain successes!

  •  Seems a Democratic disease that, when it comes (4+ / 0-)

    to politics, the politicians think being objective and intelligent is sufficient to win voter's approval. Despite a decades-long track-record showing that's not enough.

    One thing about Obama that's different from most Democratic candidates is that he has shown that he's able to punch hard, while remaining a gentleman.

    Hopefully, he'll access that side of his nature, instead of listening to the quite-brain-dead advisors our party has suffered for so long, who think you can get undecided voters by being bend-over-backwards nice.

    Reasonable AND not taking bullshit works much better.

    The Internet is just the tail of the Corporate Media dog.

    by Jim P on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:19:50 PM PDT

  •  OT #Mitterature is trending and is hilarious. nt (0+ / 0-)

    if a habitat is flooded, the improvement for target fishes increases by an infinite percentage...because a habitat suitability index that is even a tiny fraction of 1 is still infinitely higher than zero, which is the suitability of dry land to fishes.

    by mrsgoo on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:20:38 PM PDT

  •  I'm somewhat new to Kos but I read widely (0+ / 0-)

    so though I don't know people here, I am aware in general of the political commentary that is out there. Mr. Lawrence,this is a phenomenal piece of thought and writing and is very's better than most things I"ve read. So astute.
    Thank you so much for your contribution.

  •  "there you go again" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Eric Nelson, mightymouse

    If there was ever a more appropriate time to bring out that old chestnut it's now.   People will laugh and Obama can keep using it over and over again.  He won't even have to refute every lie.  Just say "there you go again, so let's start with X."

    Eventually, he could say "there you go again...and again...and again."

    "Wall Street expertise, an industry in which anything not explicitly illegal is fair game, and the illegal things are fair game too if you think you won't get caught." — Hunter

    by Back In Blue on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:21:39 PM PDT

  •  And don't let that Lyin' Snake call YOU a Liar (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wishingwell, Oracle2021, annieli, HCKAD

    to your face, again and again...while telling obvious lies himself and making up new positions as he goes along. If someone told you it wasn't gentlemanly and presidential to call Romney a liar, just remember that he did it to you over and over again, and when the smoke cleared, people said he won because of it. So, next time, bury your foot in his lying a$$!  

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:25:59 PM PDT

  •  Obama also can't fall into the trap (0+ / 0-)

    of only trying to re-fight the last battle -- Romney could come into this next debate with a strategy of trying to avoid lying (which for him would mean avoiding specifics and hammering the "revenue neutral", "competent" and "no 'trickle down' government" happy horseshit).  I'd also expect him to ratchet up the "real American" stuff as he tries to gain some traction in southern, midwest and southwest swing states.  One thing BO could do is point out that the things he wants to do -- like ensuring fat cats pay their fair share, hiring more local police and teachers, preserving Social Security & Medicare, bringing our troops back from the no-win situations the Republicans created, and giving hardworking decent immigrants a chance to stay and strengthen the US, are all things that the American people want him to do.  Why do Mitt and Paul Ryan hate Americans -- not the 47% but the majority of us -- so much??  

    When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." ~ Mikhail Bakunin

    by Sick Semper on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:26:39 PM PDT

  •  Hope President Obama reads this post!!! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, johnosahon

    Tell it!!!

    "The Internet is the Public Square of the 21st Century"- Sen. Al Franken

    by Kdoug on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:27:31 PM PDT

  •  Frame the debate. Getting into the snake-pit (4+ / 0-)

    of refuting lies will serve to confound the average voter.  That's what Romney wants.  That's how he will 'make the sale'.  Obama needs to explain the forest with concrete references to the trees.  Talk to Bill.  He knows how to do that.

    •  I Think You've Got Something (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      exMnLiberal, bakeneko

      Initially, I accepted the spin that Obama had a bad night because he was passive, refused to refute Romney,and may be even ill-prepared. However, when I look at excerpts from the debate, I really do see Obama refuting Romney.

      What I think happened is that Romney used the debate to tell a story about how he is a compassionate businessman who was going to unleash the power of capitalism to get the economy going again. He used emotional personal stories to tell how government hurts individuals and coined the phrase "Trickle down government."  He used the constitution as a moral authority of why his program is morally right, then used statistics from Conservative Think Tanks to sound credible. The key is that Romney is telling a story, so each statement he makes is designed to advance the story. Thus, each segment is connected through the use of themes.

      Obama did challenge Romney's facts, but was largely ignored because Romney's story sounded plausible. What Obama did was to think of the debate as a series of separate questions and answers. Thus, he answered each question like a professor would. If you look at the excerpts, Obama's individual answers actually sounds reasonable. But Romney won because he was effectively using frames.

      Looking tired also hurt Obama. This look reinforced the idea that maybe he was ill prepared for the debate. Even I thought that perhaps Obama was up all night handling an emergency in the Middle East or he had procrastinated and had an all nighter preparing for the debate.

      •  Obama got to be President Obama by (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        mightymouse, Nice Ogre

        telling his story.  Humans relate to stories.  That's why we tell them; initially to our children then to each other.  When I went to Obama-camp in 2008 one of our training sessions was learning to 'tell our story'.  We could relate to everyone by doing that.

        He needs to regain the narrative by telling the story of why he needs to be re-elected; in order to preserve and further our common story-the one that makes us America.  It was told over and over again at the convention.  

        Falling into the trap of arguing about the balance in the checkbook will go nowhere.  

        Actually; it may well go the way of divorce.

  •  Next debate Mitt will be all wounded innocence (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Oracle2021, mightymouse

    When the president challenges him, Romney will blush like a virgin who's been groped, bat his baby blues and accuse Obama of rape.  Willard is a snake who will shed his skin and appear in a new one at each debate.

    •  agreed - Mitt Zombie is quite the slippery fish (0+ / 0-)

      and I don't think there is any reason not to expect him to morph in phase 2 of his debate strategy.  But -- c'mon people -- do you really think the Prez didn't go into this with a long-range plan either? The whole point of this has to be (1) to flush out the Zombie/Ryan lies (2) to expose the man behind the the Etch-a-Sketch and (3) to contrast the Republican candidate's Ti-D-Bowl Man persona with that of a real, tested leader.  I think some of the groundwork has been laid for this, but as several commenters have noted, you have to leave room to respond to your opponent's strategems as well.

      Debate uno was clearly not Obabm's best performance, but it ain't over.  And, BTW, that wasn't Romney on a coffee high -- that was a 5-hour energy drink OD!

      When the people are being beaten with a stick, they are not much happier if it is called "the People's Stick." ~ Mikhail Bakunin

      by Sick Semper on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:14:32 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Great post! (5+ / 0-)

    I coach witnesses, not only my own, but I occasionally get hired to coach other attorney's clients or witnesses.
    Judges and/or juries react badly to "you lie".  I coach them to say 'I do not remember it that way.'  "I distinctly remember seeing this, not what has been previously described."  "That is certainly not what I heard/saw/ remember..."  "Despite what you calculate, I was given the same numbers, and my calculations are different." "I want to correct the former witness on this one thing."  "That is not possible, because..."  "I am relying upon this source, which I believe is more trustworthy than yours."
    Refutation has to be subtle.  Calling anyone a liar, no matter if it is a courtroom, or a debate, has to be done with great finesse.
    But it must be done each and every issue, and Obama must get more into the fray.  There are so many uninformed or misinformed voters out there, it just makes me shiver.
    Nevertheless, calling anyone a just sounds acidic, ungentlemanly, unprofessional, and will not play well.

  •  I think you meant "calcified," not "calcined," (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Eric Nelson

    which is rather the opposite.

    The GOP can't win on ideas. They can only win by lying, cheating, and stealing. So they do.

    by psnyder on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:43:18 PM PDT

  •  27 lies in 38 minutes... (0+ / 0-)

    That has to be some kind of record. So, the problem then is to focus on which lie to refute. They were all bad. The 716 billion reduction in Medicare was the worst, IMO. So, as I have told other people, the problem Obama has is he has no idea which Mitt he is going to be debating. And we don't know either. I will assume, Mitt is going to try to be Moderate Mitt from now on. Or maybe he will be Moderate Mitt in debates and Tea Bagger Mitt on the campaign trail. Either way it appears the best strategy might just be to put out rapid fire ads the way Mitt tells rapid fire lies.

  •  "There you go again" lying about this or that ... (3+ / 0-)

    Better would be to add "You used to say X and now you are saying the opposite of X."

    EVERY time.

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

    by BornDuringWWII on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:46:46 PM PDT

  •  Natural Liar (0+ / 0-)

    There is a medical term for Mitt.  It is "natural liar".  It is someone who literally lies so smoothly end effortlessly that it is very difficult to spot.  A lie detector won't spot it in his signs - it is totally natural.  He believes his own lies of the moment.  I had a boss like that once.  

    It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.

    by GrinningLibber on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:49:29 PM PDT

  •  You can't refute them all. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    I have been very critical of Obama's approach in the last debate.  I agree he shouldn't have become bogged down in refuting individual facts because, it's absolutely true, that just wastes time and loses.  Refutation fails against the Gish.

    Instead, just accuse him of reversing his position on something important.  It doesn't require Obama explain the previous position.  And I even explained my preferred and simple method for doing it.

    "I applaud Gov. Romney for changing his position on the subject of X, and accept his apology.  Er, that was an apology wasn't it?  I'm not sure now.  But his change now, at this late date, into repentance towards the Republican position and his own past position is a step in the positive direction.  Still, it makes me wonder about his sincerity, and what his position will become if/when he should become president and doesn't have to stand accountable in a debate anymore."

    Rinse and repeat.  It puts Romney in the position of not moving on to his next Gish-y lie, but instead having to defend his honor.  Romney wrote a book, "No Apologies!"  And repenting Republican positions?  He couldn't move on past that with a simple brusque, "Oh, no, that wasn't my position before."  If he tried to, it would become the central talking point of the post-debate.

    That's how you do it.  Now the Obama campaign should FIRE all the nitwits in their comfy high-rise offices that he is paying bookoo bucks to prep him for debate and hire me, because, as dumb as I am (and it's in my handle, if you notice), I still have to be more competent than those people that are sucking down Obama campaign donations and doing a shit-for-brains job.

  •  I think the president just need to find what makes (0+ / 0-)

    Romney go ballistic and get under his skin. Romney doesn't like to be interrupted or accused of anything. He gets very entitled and possessive. Obama need to needle Romney and get him to lose his cool. Then, just calmly states his case to the American people and watch Romney come unglued.

  •  The President can say... (8+ / 0-)

    I see that Mitt has a brand new position again tonight! At this rate he'll be voting for me  by election day!!!  :D

    "Let Mitt Romney go bankrupt!"

    by PlinytheWelder on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 05:59:32 PM PDT

  •  No one can rescue a republican better than Obama. (0+ / 0-)

    A republican can be lying face down on the sidewalk looking completely lifeless and all Obama has to do is drive by. The republican will be doing the old-school heel-toe shuffle before Obama’s limo makes the next turn.

  •  Elton John (0+ / 0-)

    Says it so well
    Perhaps people should play this on their cell phones at his rallies

  •  My Response to Stephanie Cutter (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mike Taylor, NoMoreLies, DSPS owl

    Dear Ms. Stephanie Cutter,

    I am the biggest supporter of the President.  But he blew it during the debate.  I know you and his entire brain trust are aware of this.

    1. Nobody likes to see the guy they are supporting get bullied on a national stage for 90 minutes;

    2. Everybody knows Romney lies and we all knew he would lie during the debate - why didn't the President?;

    3. If you want a useful video, splice a video of Romney debating himself on the key issues; just make 30 second clips of video with Romney debating himself similar to what they dailykos has done here: - paint him as a pathological liar with his own words - flood the airwaves with this before the debates and everyone will doubt the man has a shred of authenticity before he next gets on stage;
    use footage of Republicans calling Romney a liar - a democrat or Obama calling Romney a liar does not resonate as much

    4. Tell President Obama to run on simplifying the tax code - get  a vision to excite independents - if he cannot tell us his reelection platform in 5 bullet points during the debate, he will lose.  If Romney says "You won't do that, you've had 4 years"  Tell them - "If I took on Healthcare and won, I darn well can take on the IRS", or Immigration reform, or anything else for that matter.

    5. On the televised debates it doesn't matter if Obama is right, it matters that he looks tough - many people in this country hate Obama because of his race, because of his name, because of healthcare - he cannot ever go on stage and look like an unprepared wimp again - it means you are wasting the $1 Billion we are donating.

    6. This is politics - everybody knows Romney is a liar - so just have a simple phrase like "Once again, my opponent is saying anything to fullfil his 7 year campaign to become President - even if it is not true."  Have the President repeat this line in refutation of everything Romney says - true or not - assume if Romney's lips are moving, he is lying - this is a safe assumption to make.

    7. He should no longer refer to Romney by name on the stump or in debates - but rather as "My Opponent"

    8. These debates are fights - President Obama sends emails asking for money saying he is fighting for me.  I have sent him money on several occasions now I expect him to FIGHT FOR ME when faced with these people - does he think a blue collar worker in Ohio likes to see his team get pummeled for 90 minutes?  No one wants to back a wimp or a loser.  Quit pussy-footing and looking for areas of agreement with Romney - you will extend your hand and they will make you look foolish; never utter I am sorry to the moderator or anyone on the debate stage again; stand up straight - you are 15 years younger than your opponent and President of the most Powerful nation in the world - Mitt Romney is they one who had better recognize, not you.  Mormons have posthumously baptised his mother; republicans have claimed he wasn't born in this country; they have accused his deceased mother of being a woman of ill-repute; they have attached his Christian faith and accused him of of being a muslim which he is not.  If he cannot fight for himself, then FIGHT FOR ME.

    9. President Obama should stop running away from his accomplishments and should be direct about the obstructionist Republicans - we were all there; they did not help; they wanted his downfall - be overt - ask Americans to vote Democrat downline to get the extremist and obstructionist elements out of government.

    10. Talk directly about the fact that those politicians decrying government healthcare and government expenditure use it:  Mr. Romney is using Secret Service when he can afford his own security; Paul Ryan, Michelle Bachman, Rand Paul all have government healthcare, pensions, and draw government salaries.  They are hypocrites and should be called on the carpet for accepting things they wish to disallow for veterans and seniors and the less fortunate.

    10. Do not shy away from your record; it is perceived as weakness - fight for us and we will fight for you.  

    You will receive my donation AFTER you decisively win the next debate.  If you lose the next debate, you have lost my donation, my vote, and likely the election.

    Your supporter,

    •  yeah ok but what r we doing to help (0+ / 0-)

      win this election?  I started to sense way too many people sitting on our lead weeks ago.  The time for that has stopped.  Get going.

      "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

      by noofsh on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:22:19 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  He needs to say something like, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, Eric Nelson, DSPS owl

    "Governor Romney seems to be as confused about his own positions as he is about mine"... something like this, a general statement.

    "Say little; do much." (Pirkei Avot: 1:15)

    by hester on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:22:34 PM PDT

  •  Let's face it Obama's a bad debater (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    He does not speak very well when unscripted, he tends to stammer, pause, use unusually long-winded pedantic sentences. None of these are signs of a good debater. At a debate one has think his your feet, be alert and speak well.

    However, what was really astounding to me was that he did not bother interjecting when his opponent was being factually wrong and misrepresenting his record. This can mean one of two things: either he was just trying to be the nice guy, or insulated in the bubble of inner advisers he does not keep up with the facts of his administration.

    Most of the lies that Romney spouted are conservative misinformation that are being spewed everyday on Fox News, and other right-wing news agencies. Romney did not make any new claims (other than reinventing himself). So either Obama's inner circle basically asked him to be this way (e.g. not even bringing up the 47% comment, that is debating and political malpractice of the highest order. If his advisers had indeed told him not to bring it up and wait for the moderator to do so, they all of them need to reassess their roles after this debacle), or his debate preparers did not prep him on all the urban myths and arm him with the facts.

    In either case it was a horrendous performance. As an ex-debater myself it was positively gag-inducing. Obama needs to listen less to Jim Messina & Valerie Jarrett and more to people like Bill Clinton and learn a thing or two about representing facts (and oodles of them) and debating from the former president. Heck even John Kerry would be a much better alternative to any of the clowns who prepped him the first time around.

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

    by tarheel74 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 06:25:41 PM PDT

  •  To Potus: (0+ / 0-)

    Just tell the truth to Romoney's face and the nation and it will seem like and actually will be like Hell for him and he richly deserves that bit of fire.

  •  how about this (0+ / 0-)

    ``mitt, mitt, mitt, the ground rules for presidential debates don't allow you to bring an etch-a-sketch.''

    (substitute "gov romney" for "mitt mitt mitt" if you want to be polite.)

    ``is that an etch-a-sketch in your pants pocket, or are you just glad to see me?''

    ``my opponent believes 53% of america can be fooled at least twice.''

  •  President Obama (0+ / 0-)

    should maybe crack subtle jokes about Romney's changing positions, correct the lies, and then pivot to what he wants to talk about.  The problem with the last debate is President Obama didn't really seem to have anything he was passionate about.  So he never framed the debate to fit his advantage.  He just didn't engage at all which left the floor wide open for Romney to run wild.

    I think it was somewhat smart for President Obama to shut down as opposed to trying to refute every lie.  He saw Romney was blitzing him with new positions and thrown off.

    There are tactical things/techniques he needs to work on: his gaze, body language etc.  And yes, he needs to point out false statements.  But the biggest thing he needs to do is use the debate to paint a picture of his vision for the country.  If he keeps that in mind, he'll be mindful to keep pivoting back to his strengths.  The overall lack of a spoken vision is what has been missing in President Obama's reelection campaign, IMO.

    "Stand! There's a cross you have to bear. Things to go through if you're going anywhere." - "Stand" Sly & the Family Stone

    by mirandasright on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:18:18 PM PDT

  •  A note from getting a glimpse at CNN tonight (0+ / 0-)

    Since when is lying OK? CNN Republican strategist Ana Navarro seems to think lying is all right when she claims that all Democrats are doing in pointing out Romney's lies is "spinning all over the place." I thought lying violated Biblical commandments, and for Navarro and CNN's Don Lemon to insist that Romney won the debate without bringing up the lies is to participate in the total dishonesty that the Republican campaign has become. Lemon may want to push CNN's desire for a horse race by repeating the "Romney won" meme, but that is not an acceptable substitute for the need for candidates to tell the truth. Romney was a total failure on that, and anyone who says that Romney won based on lying is to disserve the public and participate in Romney's lie-a-thon.

    "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." --Gandhi

    by alaprst on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 07:36:52 PM PDT

  •  I had a sneaking suspicion (0+ / 0-)

    that r-money was going to do this at some point.  I am just surprised he wait this long to attempt a move to the middle.  Of course, how anyone can believe him at this point is the real question.

    "The real wealth of a nation consists of the contributions of its people and nature." -- Rianne Eisler

    by noofsh on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:20:33 PM PDT

  •  Only O can deter MR liar. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Laurence Lewis, DSPS owl

    cheerleaders need not apply.

    by kravitz on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:28:26 PM PDT

  •  Need an AARP ad about Romney's 716 billion lies... (0+ / 0-)

    and still counting.

    Just doing my part to piss off right wing nuts, one smart ass comment at a time.

    by tekno2600 on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 08:39:14 PM PDT

  •  Obama should not be a fact checker... (0+ / 0-)

    He should stick to his vision for his second term and let his surrogates and friends hang Romney with his own lies.

    But he does need to be less halting and more self assured than last time since in TV debates appearance is what matters.

  •  Liar Liar (0+ / 0-)

    From one one-hit-wonder to another, here are The Castaways with the song they wrote for Mitt Romney back in his heyday of 1965. Performing with them - in her presidential red, First Sister Lady, magic Mormon underwear - is none other than the lovely young Ann Romney.

  •  Why the fuck was he "unprepared" at this point? (0+ / 0-)

    Since when is conservatism lying to justify itself a new thing?  Since when is conservatism lying to justify itself anything but the norm?

    President Obama is either an eternal fool, or he has objectives other than you think he does.

    Or he's just not all that special, and simply got swept along in the anti-conservatism that presented itself in 2008.

    What's wrong under Republicans is still wrong under Democrats.

    by gila on Sun Oct 07, 2012 at 09:48:40 PM PDT

  •  Best part of diary was discussion of Romney's lies (0+ / 0-)

    He is a serial liar. He doesn't know when he lies. To him it is just talking. He doesn't see it as lying. It is as natural to him as breathing. What appears to us as "flip-flopping" is just him lying and saying anything, anything, anything that sounds good at the moment. And he is aggressive and convincing when he talks. He looks like he believes what he says. So people believe him, until they realize that he is going around in circles.  How has he risen so high in the business and political world? It's because he is forceful and convincing and a bully. Most people don't know the facts of the issues well enough to realize that he is lying, or contradicting himself. He is a phony that has blustered himself to the front to the line by sheer bullying.  

    "@MittRomney spent five interviews last night whining. Time to buck up. This is politics after all, not Horse Ballet." Brad Woodhouse @woodhouseb 7-14-2012

    by surfermom on Mon Oct 08, 2012 at 01:25:28 PM PDT

  •  WTF???? (0+ / 0-)


    What the heck was this statement about? When has Michael Phelps EVER been caught cheating? This is a BAD FAIL...I suspect you meant Lance Armstrong. You should be sure to correct this SLIP-UP

    "Romney was trying to become the Michael Phelps of political mendacity, and Romney was having the time of his life."

  •  Facts? I don't need no stinking facts. (0+ / 0-)

    I want to be President and I'll say anything to get there.  Obama should get Romney to flip on his "moral" issues because that will knock the pins out of his Christian fundamental base.

    Unfortunately, if Mr. Obama is not more attentive in the next debate, he will be a one term President.   Everyone I know caught the lies immediately and Mr. Obama has TO THIS DAY not effectively countered those lies.

    A lie will travel 10,000 miles while the truth is putting on its shoes.

    Mitt Romney's moral compass points to the Cayman Islands.

    by captainlaser on Tue Oct 09, 2012 at 07:14:18 AM PDT

  •  I think Obama was shocked at the brazenness ... (0+ / 0-)

    ... of Mitt's lies.  The way he just flat out stated that the position he'd taken for the past 8-9 months was not actually the position he'd been supporting for the past 8-9 months.  I know I had the wind knocked out of me when the debate first started.  Then I turned it off.

    To be prepared for that kind of lying, you have to be prepared with quotes from your opponent, rather than with facts on which you might base a policy position.  And I think that is why Obama came across as unprepared for the first debate.  

    I don't think it will happen again.  It had better not.  If I' was him, I'd be looking for my first opportunity to say, "So this is what your campaign manager was talking about when he compared your campaign strategy to an etch a sketch."  It shouldn't take long.

    "I’m not familiar precisely with exactly what I said, but I stand by what I said, whatever it was." - Mitt Romney

    by Deighved H Stern MD on Thu Oct 11, 2012 at 07:45:06 PM PDT

Meteor Blades, GainesT1958, Kestrel, ljb, DeminNewJ, hester, grollen, krwada, billlaurelMD, CleverNickName, Oracle2021, frsbdg, MarkInSanFran, bookbear, niemann, 714day, EricS, chuckvw, farmerhunt, Vinasai, jhklawyer, lirtydies, antirove, revsue, Quege, Lilyvt, hopesprings, Getreal1246, psnyder, hangingchad, TexDem, figbash, Jujuree, betson08, chickeee, rlharry, Sophie Amrain, zerelda, valadon, Sassy, Longwing, vcmvo2, Los Diablo, marina, 3goldens, Freakinout daily, democracy inaction, MT Spaces, llywrch, boofdah, Beetwasher, WisePiper, FindingMyVoice, bunsk, captainlaser, mightymouse, Land of Enchantment, Paper Cup, xaxnar, Jim P, BalanceSeeker, vigilant meerkat, emeraldmaiden, Russgirl, Left Behind, ruleoflaw, KenBee, zesty grapher, PapaChach, tommyfocus2003, justiceputnam, Persiflage, fiddlingnero, nannyboz, chgobob, kurious, dochackenbush, mapman, ammasdarling, hooper, donnamarie, Loudoun County Dem, drmah, bfbenn, puakev, FishOutofWater, Mary Mike, jedennis, jnhobbs, rogerdaddy, jack 1966, GAS, MikePhoenix, Cordwainer, Sixty Something, Involuntary Exile, brooklynbadboy, Sharon Wraight, Mother of Zeus, beanbagfrog, VL Baker, tofumagoo, Gemina13, phrogge prince, suesue, Mike Taylor, JBL55, pileta, Ran3dy, rubyclaire, bsmechanic, Zotz, jennylind, I give in to sin, delillo2000, kravitz, manucpa, NWTerriD, TheOpinionGuy, johnosahon, haremoor, mahakali overdrive, astral66, smileycreek, FogCityJohn, eXtina, gramofsam1, Orlaine, Monkey Man Hermit, gulfgal98, ItsSimpleSimon, sharonsz, ericlewis0, Oh Mary Oh, wwjjd, dwayne, numi, stevenaxelrod, JanG, slice, Quantumlogic, no way lack of brain, Onomastic, annieli, surfermom, FTLSun, Matthew D Jones, ozsea1, fwcetus, donaurora, ardyess, jkay, OhioNatureMom, cleduc2, lillyspad, deeproots, Tommy Aces, CherryTheTart, createpeace, TRPChicago, peregrine kate, bakeneko, jolux, SteelerGrrl, Catlady62, weinerschnauzer, Chitown Kev, quill, jacey, OldDragon, Heart n Mind, IndieGuy, Eric Nelson, a2nite, 2thanks, phpasion, pittie70, wxorknot, Dumas EagerSeton, Blue Dream, nomandates, DamselleFly, glorificus, SanFernandoValleyMom, Ree Zen, paccoli, Icicle68, Laura Wnderer, Chocko Rocko, OregonWetDog, Ivan Shaver

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site