There is no question that Mitt Romney performed well in the debate in Denver, with most experts saying that he won the debate. However, does that mean that the American voting public will not believe that Romney truly does represent the entire nation—including the middle class?
Governor Romney seems to be trying to pass himself off as a champion of the poor and the middle class now, and the debate showed that, but will voters be fooled? The fact is, Romney has said that he believes that 47% of America don't pay taxes, and don't take any personal responsibility, and that statement contradicts everything he stood for on debate night. So, the question is, do you believe the Romney that knew he was talking to 50 million people watching the debate, or the one talking with his wealthy donors, not knowing that he was being filmed.
Apparently, Romney's new image will include television ads that showcase his performance from the debate. Romney apparently has Senator Rob Portman and son Tagg Romney to thank for the victory on debate night, with Portman (R-Ohio) helping him to prep by playing Barack Obama.
Although the President did not bring up Romney's 47% comment, which was a surprise to many, Fox News did ask Romney what he would have said if the President had asked about it. "Well, clearly in a campaign, with hundreds if not thousands of speeches and question-and-answer sessions, now and then you're going to say something that doesn't come out right," Romney said. "In this case, I said something that's just completely wrong."
He apparently believes that his comment can be disregarded, because of his example, saying "I absolutely believe, however, that my life has shown that I care about 100 percent and that's been demonstrated throughout my life. And this whole campaign is about the 100 percent."
There can be no doubt, even for those who do not support Mitt Romney, that he performed well in the last debate. However, one solid performance does not make a President, and hopefully, American voters will be able to read between the lines. The next debate will be a town hall format.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 55
For example George Bush the draft dodger belittled the Viet Nam service of Al Gore, and Al Gore did not respond to that presumably being civilized and trying to stick to the point. Gore could have put Bush away for good if he had said yes, I was in Viet Nam fighting for our country while you Mr. Bush were using your Daddy's influence to get out of drunk driving charges and to keep from being investigated by the FEC for insider trading for making a million dollars dumping your stock in Harken Energy before the company collapsed.
At the 2004 RNC they handed out purple bandaids mocking John Kerry's decorated service in the military in Viet Nam ... and Kerry did not point out that George W. Bush was safe at home snorting cocaine during Viet Nam.
When the vote was rigged in Florida Republican called Democrats "sore losers" for demanding a recount of the ballots, which today we know were indeed rigged and that Gore actually won Florida in 2000.
Obama won the debate on the fact the other night - the question is, will the Democrats continue to not fight back, and will the American people keep being swayed by bullying rude behavior without thinking deeper about what it is we are voting for?
“I’ve got 5 boys, I’m used to people saying something over and over so I’ll believe it,” he said.
Get over it, the Vietman War has been over for more than a generation.
When you were serving over there you should have been grateful Bush wasn't shooting at you like the Mike boats Kerry was on were doing to the Army grunts. And before you call that a lie you better talk to some of the Riverine guys from the 9th Div.
"Al Gore did not respond to that presumably being civilized and trying to stick to the point. Gore could have put Bush away for good if he had said yes," I wonder what you were saying about draft dodging and serving in war when Clinton ran against Bush senior.
It seemed to be such a large portiont of you comment, I apologize just trying to help you move on from LBJ's war and into the present. Most of the voters either don't recall that war and weren't around then.
Actually I am pretty tired of and disgusted with PERFORMERS as President, be it Reagan, Scharzenegger or Romney.
Don't people remember the compassionate conservative George W. Bush who would not touch Social Security or Medicare, the guy who said he was a uniter not a divider, that he would absolutely not engage in nation building, the guy who said the environment was a priority.
The first thing Bush did as President was to toss out regulation of arsenic in the air from coal burning plants.
The Republicans lie as a general rule because if they did not they would never get elected and that is what Mitt Romney is doing now. If he really believed all that at the start of the election he should have been running as a Democrat so he would not have had to lie through all those Republican debates! ;-)
According to the Depart. of Labor employment summaries released today the participation of non-institution Americans in the work for is just 63.9%-or 47% aren't employed and hence aren't paying taxes on work-that is a very bad statistic.
Sure some of those people don't need to work, some can't find a job or aren't welcome to work facing discrimination against age or geographic origin or unpopularity with NPR (maybe), plainly though the Obama administration hasn't prioritized employment for the poor and has failed to take adequate measures to assure that the poorest and out of work longest go to the front of the employment line.
Good government supports the realistic opportunity for all people to work at least part-time so people can have cash earnings instead of food stamps. Obama programs tend to work against the free enterprise for the poor and like Obamacare a middle class bureaucratic dream scenario is foisted.
I cannot imagine what nightmarish difficulties a traveling, poor, journeyman painter of laborer will experience with Obamacare moving from state to state often in pursuit of work on a bicycle or motorbike. Each state where he was will deny that he has a 'domicile' there because he sleeps under the stars without a pillow.
A good politician would have supported free walk-in public medical care for the poor in expanded VA hospitals and let the middle class pay for their own insurance from their prosperity.
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.htm
"In 2012,
employment growth has averaged 146,000 per month, compared with an average
monthly gain of 153,000 in 2011."
"Employment in financial activities edged up in September (+13,000), reflecting
modest job growth in credit intermediation (+6,000) and real estate (+7,000).
Manufacturing employment edged down in September (-16,000)"
You should rightfully compare Obamacare to the NOTHING that Republicans wanted to do.
Additionally you might want to look graphically at what unemployment has been doing in the last 4 years in the broad trends so you KNOW WHAT THE HELL IS REALLY GOING ON:
Oh, Gary ... i forgot ... "YOU FRIGGIN DIP!"
The majority of people favor repeal of Obamacare...
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
In engineering, technology, economics and social sciences constructing models of systems structures is generally a better way to go than to simply build a system willy nilly. In aircraft and ship design one make construct a model to fullfill the best way of achieving particular goals. Obviously my mention of a health care system for the poor that would expand the existing V.A. system and treat all poor citizens for free is a model of a structure that would create simultaneously better health care for veterans, the poor and create a larger emergency preparedness infrastructure for national emergency. I believe it would be the most cost effective as well.
I am not the best social scientist. I got a score of 99% on the CLEP General Social Sciences and History Exam and have followed U.S. politics about 50 years so my perspective on how the U.S.A. might develop a functional, practical medical infrastructure to treat the poor and veterans while keeping taxpayer costs as low as possible while delivering effective treatment is made less expertise than some. Even so the Obamcare system seems particularly onerous and patched together with vast potential cost overruns. In fact its purpose may really be to create jobs and profits for Americans that don't manufacture anything. In the September DOL report financial sector jobs went up while manufacturing dropped by more than 10,000. The same old trends are returning.
The Obamacare program is something like Richard M. Nixon's medical program as you may know. It followed Romneycare in Massachusetts (that state wanted it) and I would think that since Mitt's father was a 68 presidential candidate as well as Nixon that the source of Obamacare actually is Richard Nixon.
Nixon was a forward thinking guy. He didn't envision an America transformed by networking and financial schemes with computers and fiber optics, quantitative trading in Dark Pools and so forth-I think the plain practical approach of physical hospitals and clinics for the poor and veterans would be far cheaper than the convoluted vast potential for corruption of Obamacare.
Not lies, not characteristic of anything but my opinion which is you are lying.
Polling on Obamacare is corrupted because of exactly what you are accusing me of , except it is Republicans that have the fascist approach to free expression and have been calling it a government takeover, a socialist program, death panels, etc. Actually polling when people are told what Obamacare really is is overwhelmingly positive.
I am not for protection free expression when it is all lies to manipulate people, and I have little regard for people who do that like you, Gary -actually an understatement.
I favor Medicare for all thus putting incompetent private companies that really are death panels out of business and cutting about 30% from the gross costs of health care.
TIME has described Rasmussen Reports as a "conservative-leaning polling group".[69] According to Charles Franklin, a University of Wisconsin political scientist who co-developed Pollster.com,[70] “He [Rasmussen] polls less favorably for Democrats, and that’s why he’s become a lightning rod." Franklin also said: "It’s clear that his results are typically more Republican than the other person’s results.”[53]
The Center For Public Integrity listed "Scott Rasmussen Inc" as a paid consultant for the 2004 George W. Bush campaign.[71] The Washington Post reported that the 2004 Bush reelection campaign had used a feature on the Rasmussen Reports website that allowed customers to program their own polls, and that Rasmussen asserted that he had not written any of the questions nor assisted Republicans.[51]
Rasmussen has received criticism over the wording in its polls.[72][73] Asking a polling question with different wording can affect the results of the poll;[74] the commentators in question allege that the questions Rasmussen ask in polls are skewed in order to favor a specific response. For instance, when Rasmussen polled whether Republican voters thought Rush Limbaugh was the leader of their party, the specific question they asked was: "Agree or Disagree: 'Rush Limbaugh is the leader of the Republican Party -- he says jump and they say how high.'"[73]
Now, I know it is not pathetic little you that is doing this ,but every nutcase that piles on the Republican mashup is somewhat to blame, and you have little excuse these days not to know better.
Without such remedies people may have no regard for making public abuse.
On the other topic though-unemployment and Obamacare. The unemployment situation is very bad. More than 40% of the unemployed are long term unemployed.
The Obama D.O.L. revised upward 86,000 jobs for July and August in a revision of their first reports. They had to get that unemployment rate below 8%. I suspected they would. Its a lawyer's administration and they think its like a legal argument for publicity purposes they can win.
For the long term unemployed and for those without good health care who are injured or sick and have lost their retirement property to pay for medical and can't find work the Obamacare legal technicalities are of little consolation. One wants a healthy economy and not one moribund, sick and trying to stagger over the election day finish line before collapsing into recession.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57527161/job-numbers-up-but-recession-unemployment-persists/
The problems with our economy have been made systemic over a very long period of time and what pushed it into brittleness and acuteness were the Bush tax cuts and unfunded wars.
If you read Joseph Stiglitz's latest book you get the POV of a Nobel Prize winning economist who has worked for the other side, who has seen it all. To oversimplify things, all of the economists who speak their own minds and do their own research believe the problems with the American economy is lack of demand because of lack of jobs because all the money is locked at the top of the .1%.
Stiglitz makes the point with numbers and examples. Robert Reich does a similar thing with his book "Aftershock" in a less rigorous more easy to read way.
Romney is being totally dishonest in what he says, and the idea that we are going to grow ourselves out of this jobs deficit and if we don't just abandon our duty to the poor, elderly and unemployed tossed the social contract on the garbage heap and is damn unAmerican.
Obama should be able to articulate this better, but even if he cannot, he is still a better choice than Romney because Romney is trying to use the same tactic Obama used on Bush, but Bush drove us into the weeds and Obama is getting us out even if it is too slowly.
Romney's focus is macro-economics, but just because he has that focus does not mean he knows what he is talking about or how to fix the problem or will fix the problem within the constaints of morality. The other day on 60 Minutes Romney told us we do have health care for the poor because we have ERs. Today I heard a story about a man who handled a bat in our local area and died of rabies a few weeks later. He did not have the money for health care, nor did he know what hit him so he was able to make the decision to go to the ER, because if you go to the ER you get a hugely inflated bill that will destroy your credit and life. People cannot use that for health care, that is not health care.
Obama got beat up because he had nothing to punch at or he could have tried punching all night at Romney's not bound by facts positions ... what Teddy Kennedy said - not pro-choice, multiple choice - when Romney flip-flopped to Pro-Choice ... which he now repudiates, as with RomneyCare.
How can we know what Romney really thinks?
His past actions. He is all about breaking up small business and putting them under the control of BIG BUSINESS, or selling them and shipping them overseas to China - along with our jobs.
It's easy to say he is all about jobs and the middle class now at the last minute his money rich but vote poor hand out to the very people he was given the finger to most in the past.
Romney kept the facts out of the debate, just what he said, that he is not going to be dictated by facts.
How does that make Romney's positions any more specific, any better, any more EXIST AT ALL?
Romney is still running on tax cuts, war, cutting off needy people, and smiling while he lies about it. Pretty simple, but yes, his drama and acting were unexpected Wednesday night.
This debate was like a Mafia thug going up to to Stephen Hawking and pushing his wheelchair over and then claiming to be a better physicist! HOGWASH!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTE1Y3bvqwM
One debate victory does not a victorious candidate make.
HOWEVER, the economy is so unstable, and so uncertain, that there may be enough Undecideds and "Leaning Towards", who could move towards Romney--UNLESS the President is clear, direct, assertive, and convincing.
The President MUST take his case to the people in Debate II--and he HAS to show his case and not simply say it. The President must demonstrate why his policies will improve the economy in a second term and why, despite his policies in the first term, the economy did not improve as much as his Administration would have liked.
The President needs more facts, more figures and more citations of pundits, policy wonks, think tanks and government agencies who back up his claims and WHY they do.
In the same way that he is challenged in the preceding paragraph, the President should also challenge Romney.
It isn't enough to SAY things. You have to SHOW them.
The President cannot simply say why Romney's economic plan is wrong. He must SHOW it.
And The President must also challenge Romney to PROVE his case and to explain, specifically and clearly, how the Republican's tax policies would succeed.
But the Format and the Moderator may not allow for this.
Totally agree~let's face it, if Obama had won the debate, this election would all be over (& the media would have to spend the next month thumb-twiddling)!
Every week, New York Magazine writer-at-large Frank Rich talks with assistant editor Eric Benson about the biggest stories in politics and culture. This week: why the debate was more boring than game-changing, and what Obama and Romney should do to prep for the next one.
The overwhelming pundit consensus on last night's debate was that it was a big win for Romney. Did you see it that way?
It was an unequivocal win for Romney — or, more accurately, an utter stumble for Obama, who seemed to forget the most elemental strategies of his own campaign (and not just the 47 percent) and too often failed to counter the most obvious Romney disinformation. But was this a win big enough to merit so much GOP triumphalism (Michael Barone likened Mitt to Sitting Bull at Little Big Horn) and liberal bedwetting (“He may even have lost the election tonight†— Andrew Sullivan)? I don’t think so. The hyperbole on both sides reflects the Twitter-blogging-cable hothouse emotions of an overcaffeinated commentariat. That is a test sample containing perhaps zero undecided voters. Back in the real world, what I think the less committed public saw, especially in the crucial first half-hour, was a mostly tedious exchange of dueling numbers that only the guinea pigs in a Frank Luntz Fox News focus group could get worked up about. When there was a sudden, unexplained boom behind the two debaters in the early going, I wondered if it was a stagehand fainting from boredom.
You said on Twitter during the debate that the whole thing could be "a non-event except for the junkies & partisans" unless it yielded sound bites that would be replayed over and over again. Did you hear any of those moments? Or do you think the debate will, indeed, end up as a non-event?
You know you don’t have those sound-bite moments when the most memorable anyone can come up with involves Big Bird. The proof that they don’t exist could be found in both parties’ ads the next morning. The DNC had to make do with a spot showing Romney behaving like an entitled country-club swell riding roughshod over Jim Lehrer’s feeble efforts to cut off a filibuster. The RNC came up with “Smirk,†in which you see the president either looking down or bored as his opponent rattles off facts at a lightning pace. Neither ad is remotely effective, and the good news for Obama is that his failings were of focus, energy, verbal facility and, seemingly, memory rather than of the “you’re likable enough†kind. It was a mediocre performance, but too Ambien-esque to be memorable. Obama should be grateful for the GOP primary-season debates; those halcyon days of “Oops!†and “9-9-9!†raised the audience’s standard for gaffes to a level he didn’t remotely deliver.
Obama is currently leading by big margins in the most vital swing states. Do you think we'll see those erode after this?
No idea. Most incumbent presidents lose their first debates — anyone remember the doddering Reagan of 1984? — with only temporary consequences. We’ll see. Of all the post-debate analytics, the most interesting, perhaps, was a non-Luntz focus group of undecided voters convened by NBC News in Denver. In the clip I saw, those who spoke up had kind words only for Romney. But when the moderator, Ron Allen, asked for hands to indicate who had now chosen a candidate to vote for on November 6, not one was raised.
If you were Stuart Stevens, what would you do to capitalize on Romney's performance?
Besides tell off Peggy Noonan and all the others who wanted him fired and will now proclaim him a genius? His first task, perhaps impossible, is to prevent Romney from making another unforced error before the next debate. His second is to figure out the miracle that will make women and Hispanics give the GOP ticket a second look. That Herculean task was not so much as attempted in the first debate. It also might be a good idea not to succumb to the Republican reflex mode of underrating Biden and overrating Ryan. (Though in truth, the vice-presidential debate is not going to decide this election even if Biden turns the opening handshake into a French kiss.)
If you were David Axelrod, what would you do to come back from this?
Perhaps using John Kerry as a surrogate was not the most brilliant idea. On Wednesday night’s Daily Show, Jon Stewart brought on Stephen Colbert to prepare him for this weekend’s webcast debate with Bill O’Reilly. Colbert might be a good coach for Obama, too. But seriously, this isn’t about Kerry or Axelrod or Plouffe, it’s about Obama. He has no one to blame but himself for his lack of concentration, specifics, and fight. And given that his convention speech was also pallid, it’s past time for him to wake up and fight.
One thing Romney should do to prep for the next debate?
Come up with a foreign policy that doesn’t sound like he’s running for president of Israel as a trigger-happy neocon. Luckily for Obama, that’s unlikely to happen with Dan Senor and the other Bush administration incompetents who populate Romney’s foreign-policy team.
One thing Obama should do?
Figure out what the hell he might be doing when he is listening to his opponent. Looking down at the podium or seemingly daydreaming about some place he’d rather be doesn’t cut it.
Any advice for Candy Crowley and Bob Schieffer, the moderators of the next two debates, based on Jim Lehrer's performance?
What Lehrer did was inexcusable. He didn’t clearly explain the format, didn’t enforce it (whatever it was), didn’t effectively police anyone’s time (Obama spoke four minutes longer than Romney, not to Obama’s advantage) and provided a distracting off-camera soundtrack of grunts, failed interjections, and non sequiturs while making no attempts to adjudicate either of the candidates' endless parades of facts and factoids. Crowley or Schieffer couldn’t duplicate this performance if they tried. But when the dust on 2012 has settled, it’s time we look into the old boys’ network that calls itself the debate commission and demand an accounting. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan, we are paying for these microphones.
You have to realize that Romney is basically a salesman and salesmen have no compunction about lying while looking you right in the eye and smiling.
There were other mistatements from Romney.
The only lie Obama told was when he said Lehrer was doing a great job! ;-)
But some people will still vote for him. I guess there are more foolish people now than there were in Lincoln's time.