Getty Images
One of the main drawbacks to televised political theatrics is that we tend to evaluate the events in an unconstructive way. We see players on a stage, after extensive rehearsals, playing to a packed house, and we judge them as if they are actors -- who seemed "crisp" and looked "confident."
In other words, we invariably value political theater on its theatrical qualities, watching to see who knew their lines and delivered them more effectively.
By this measure, when it comes to determining who "won" last night's debate in Denver, I'd argue the conventional wisdom is right: it wasn't close. Based on style and performance, Mitt Romney did all of the things a "winning" debater is supposed to do.
Did he know his lines? Obviously, yes. Did he deliver them well? Flawlessly. I argued last week that Romney's "strength as a debater is wildly underappreciated" and "if Democrats expect Romney to falter in the debates, they're making a big mistake." Last night illustrated what I was talking about.
President Obama, meanwhile, was listless and timid. He stumbled on his words. At times he seemed distracted and unfocused. There were key opportunities for the president to go on the offensive, but for whatever reason, he chose not to engage. For pundits checking boxes -- who gave the appearance of being "in control"? -- Romney excelled.
But all of this overlooks an element I like to think is sometimes important: substance. The men on the stage last night aren't actors; they're candidates for the nation's highest office. Delivering lines well is a nice quality, but as the dust settles, it's worth pausing to reflect on whether those lines were true and reflect reality in any meaningful way.
Indeed, it seems to me Romney thrived in large part because he abandoned the pretense of honesty. And as it turns out, winning a debate is surprisingly easy when a candidate decides he can say anything and expect to get away with it.
Romney told viewers his proposed $5 trillion tax cut isn't really his proposed $5 trillion tax cut. He suggested he could eliminate a $1 trillion deficit by going after Big Bird. He said his non-existent health care plan protects those with pre-existing conditions when in reality the exact opposite is true. He cited trumped up "studies" from far-right ideologues as if they're legitimate, assuming the public won't know the difference. He said a deficit that's shrunk has actually "doubled."
And when Romney wasn't repeating falsehoods, he was furiously shaking an Etch A Sketch, rolling out yet another version of himself.
This new model -- version 8.0? 9.0? -- likes regulations of the financial industry, wants to work with Democrats, thinks his Massachusetts health care law was a great idea, and has no use for the goals of his running mate's budget plan that Romney enthusiastically endorsed. Does this in any way reflect the candidate who's been running for president the last year and a half? No, but the Republican assumes most voters won't realize and most news organizations covering the campaign won't tell them.
He might very well be right.
But as Romney and his supporters take a victory lap this morning, it's fair to note their success was a triumph for style over substance.
Leave a Comment:
The reason everyone is surprised at how well Romney did in the debates is because they have been listening to MSM's interpretation of who he is and what he believes. Last night Romney had his first opportunity to talk directly to the American people so people could see for themselves and make their own judgement. I have to say the same for Obama - he opted not to show up and instead sent in the empty chair.....
Well, a lotta thrills are running up a lotta legs this morning!
There are, however a few clear eyed professionals still at work: Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight gives Obama an 84.7% probability of winning in November.
Maybe y'all need to put that champagne back in the refrigerator.
Really? This was the FIRST time Romney had the opportunity to speak directly to the American people?? Not the two years on the campaign trail for GOP nomination, not 2008 when he ran for president then and lost to John McCain in the GOP primaries?? Not the RNC which was dubbed the first night Romney could present himself to the nation?? Not the tens of dozens of political Op Ed pieces he's written over the past six years in public forum? This man has had ample opportunity to talk 'directly to the American people'. To say to the contrary is ridiculous. Maybe it was the first opportunity for Romney version 143.2 to unveil himself to the American people, but not Romney the actual candidate. This man wants to be president so bad he can taste it. He cares little for the middle class, if you've actually followed his campaign over the past two years. This version of Romney last night almost seemed to care. He must have practiced really really hard to "nail it".
Do you not consider any of his prior public statements to be "talking directly to the American people"? The debates leading to the nomination, for example? The candid Boca Raton dinner party?
I think that's the point here ... what we saw last night was very nice, Romney sold himself very well and I in fact found myself agreeing with a lot of the things he was saying.
Unfortunately, had he been debating himself from 6 or 8 months ago, I fear he would have drawn equally contrasting lines *with what he himself has previously stated*.
It certainly sounds nice to hear that he'll create 12 million jobs and generate a surplus and maintain or lower taxes and increase military spending ... but the *reality* of the matter is that many of these claims are either mutually exclusive at face value *or* they require draconic austerity in programs that qualify us as a First World Nation.
Sadly the general public doesn't pay enough attention to recognize the snake oil salesman, especially when Obama brought his B- game, at best. Much of the blame here goes to Obama. Not only was he stylistically off, rambling on tangents, not sharply stating important points, not nailing Romney at various opportunities ("Someone making millions, without even working should not be paying a 14 or 13% tax rate ... if it's even that high, we don't know because Romney won't release his returns! How can we trust that he'll improve tax policy for middle class citizens at his own expense?") etc. but his demeanor was rather poor. He looked defeated. He would not look at Romney nearly often enough, and head-down smirking should be reserved for off-camera moments. They do not bode well given the plight of the average person.
I think Romney did a great job of looking extremely concerned and as if he felt bad for Obama, giving the sense that Romney knew he was in over his head. Frankly Obama should have been looking angrily at Romney the entire night. He should be angry at the political game being played and about the consequences of losing. He should be angry and defiant in the face of the Romney machine. Burying his head and occasionally smirking at remarks (however smirk-worthy) was not a winning strategy, stylistically.
Talking directly to the American people makes no difference if the face is lying.
He's campaigned as a fancy empty suit, he debates as a fancy empty suit, and he'll be a fancy empty suit in the White House.
More specifically, Nate Silver puts the bump on winning the first debate at 1-2%, based on data going back to Carter. With Obama up 4% going in, that's not enough.
To further cite Nate's Sunday football analogy, Mitt was down 7 with 10 minutes to go. He just scored a field goal. But the clock is ticking, and Obama has the ball.
and intrade lowered Obama's chances from 72% yesterday to 65.7% as I write this. There is no doubt that Obama's performance hurt last nite. Hopefully, it won't hurt too much. Next time out, he better come out swinging.
People, including myself wanted the POTUS to jump in that fire, play Romney's game. we could make analogies and metaphors all day to the effect. Sticking to the fire thing... Romney just burned all the oxygen in the room, ( he has nothing left but the lies he spewed ) He melted that marshmallow mediator who would be fired right along with Big Bird. Our President came in with an oxygen supply of his own, grinned and bared it, stated facts, calmly, (albeit hesitantly at times), Allowing Romney to do what he does best. Romney is either going to be held accountable for the onslaught of lies and insult to the intellect of the American middle class or, he could be President. I have more faith in WE THE PEOPLE than that. Romney's run to the center was mind blowing. I live in Florida and have a very educated opinion on just how fast a man in flip flops can run... Our sand is sweeter than the Cayman's ..... just sayin...
LOL, I find the myopia of EITHER side to be amusing. The excuses you all make for why Obama sucked are funny and somewhat sad. You have a Liberal Republican who could very well be a Yellow Dog Democrat; you have him going against a Liberal ideologue who is hard=headed and wants his way. You folks in the media have pampered his butt for 4 years-REFUSING to hold his feet to the fire when he is wrong. Why did it take UNIVISION to ask the tough questions?? The VAST majority of Americans reside 'middle-right', whether you like or not and most folks would like their President to reside-philosophically in the same neighborhood or at least the same STATE. Prez Obama does NOT represent the majority of Americans. To top it off, He CANNOT defend his record-it is indefensible. 90 billion, 90 billion..how many teachers COULD you have hired?? LOL This is fun because it is on like Donkey Kong.
President Obama lost the debate last night -- and he may changed the outcome of the election. If the latter is true, its not because of the what he has accomplished in his first term or because his path for the future not the better path. He lost it because Romney was successful in doing what he did to every Republican that got in his way: Romney said whatever he needed to say to undercut his opponent - and very selectively threw in a data point here and there to make it sound like he had the “specifics” for which voters are asking.
Romney successfully and skillfully used small bits of data to characterize the President’s administration as having failed in jobs growth, tax policy, the deficit, the plight of the middle class, housing - just about every aspect of the economy that means something to the average voter.
The President failed to attack Romney on the facts, and more importantly, on credibility. The President allowed Romney to focus on the number of people hurting out there rather than the consistent improvement in unemployment. He allowed Romney to talk about taking $17B from Medicare rather than the hidden costs of hospital emergency care that are passed along to the rest of us through higher health care insurance premiums. He allowed Romney to misstate that his health insurance plan would allow all children up to 26 years of age to stay on they parents’ health insurance plans. He allowed Romney to never need to make the budget numbers to add up while reversing his previous statements about tax breaks for everyone, wealthy or middle class. The President failed to perform like an arrogant, bombastic bulls--- artist like Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump, and Rudy Giuliani. And the President allowed Romney to successfully do his imitation of them.
It seems to me that the President’s advisers did not anticipate the threat and did not prepare the President well. They decided to have the President be “presidential” rather than prepare him for an alley fight.
The President will recover but it will take more focus, more resolve, more clarity, and more toughness that anyone could have even imagined just 12 hours ago. I would like to see an ad campaign that ruthlessly compares Romney’s statements last night to what he has been saying leading up to the debate.
7:20am October 4, 2012
Obama phoned it in until later on when it finally dawned on him that Romney was landing punches. What we saw last night was Romney, in a hyper state, lying with a straight face, repeating them as he realized that no one was calling him on them. If Obama was rope-a-doping, then it was a bad game plan.
The next debates will have Schieffer and Crowley as moderators, and they, as the conservatives that they are, will stack the deck against Obama in their moderation. Obama is going to have to show up in person for those two debates. (Also, just a pet-peeve: Mr President, please lose the "aaand" verbal tic that showed up over and over again in your replies.)
A liberal ideologue??? President Obama? You might want go out and meet a few of us liberals. He's okay but he's so centrist that he adopted a conservative think tank's idea of affordable health care. Hardly what any of us liberals would have liked to have seen.
The reason Romney did well in presentation -not substance- is because he is good at being a CEO going before a Board or being Chairman of the Board and making a presentation. Romney has to be in control and scripted, when he is he performs well otherwise he gets into trouble. Romney could not handle a crisis because he would not have control and it would not be scripted. Even his wife worries about his well being. He talks to the American People every time he gives a stomp speech or an interview. Obama did have a poor showing - he had openings to call Romney out and he did not.
NeedMoreCoffee, WE know he's lying. I knew he was lying last night even without this morning's Fact Checkers, but do THEY know? And by they, I mean the common voter.
I'm just afraid this will damage Obama's campaign. I'm just hoping I'm wrong, and that he will bring it in the next two debates.
The problem with Mitt is that when he DOES show up to talk to the American people, he lies ... or maybe I should say, changes his position. You only find out what he really thinks during "open mike" moments.
I only caught part of the debates and I agree Obama was flat. What I will say about Romney is what some of you folks have already stated: he will say ANYTHING to get elected. If you see some of his previous interviews from the 1990s and 2000s, he says that he used to say anything to close a deal, because the goal was to close the deal. He would deal with the specifics later. Same true here...the Presidency for Mitt is nothing more than another business goal. But just because you say it, Mitt, doesn't mean it's true. Unfortunately, in a land of Honey Boo Boos, that might be enough.
i have a hard time with someone who won't look at the people he was there to talk to. at least Obama was talking to the American voters as a posed to drilling in on his opponent. that was a real turn off to me. shows he still has a problem with the middle class. i guess if your not looking at the voters, your not really lying to them.
Hitler was a great speaker too. Charismatic and had the German people believing his lies. Seems pretty much the same here in the good old USA when it comes to Romney. He may have shined as an actor but this is reality...real issues, real human beings in this country. So, ok, Romney may have 'looked' the part, but most of what came out of his mouth was b.s. I am still voting for the President.
Romney did win hands down. I am an Obama supporter. Obama did not show up prepared for Romney, totally underestimating him. He had many opportunities to counter Romney's change of position on taxes and health care. Obama seemed to think the facts would win the debate for him. But he failed to defend the facts. I am disappointed, but I think he will bounce back strong in the next debates :( He could at least have asked if that is going to be his plan tomorrow. I noticed that what your policies are depends on who you are speaking to. These weren't your policies yesterday. How are we supposed to know what they are tomorrow?
Romney promised cake.
I like cake.
Too bad he does not have a recipe. Or ingredients. Or an oven.
The minute you said "MSM" you lost your credibility. News flash: Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson, Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other conservative radio and television shows/hosts are absolutely as "mainstream" as network news, MSNBC, and the "liberal media machine" they rage against.
Stop pretending like they're rebels fighting the good fight against Big Media. They are Big Media. But they drill it into everyone's head that The Media is anything liberal. It's as bad as when a candidate refers to "Washington" as though they don't work in Washington.
"Hitler was a great speaker too. Charismatic and had the German people believing his lies."
Bingo! The comparison is spot on! I would slightly modify the comparison, though. Romney showed the stridency and belligerence that Hitler started to show once he came to power, becoming worse and worse until he eventually became a grotesque parody of an orator. I'm not making excuses for the President...he was flat and too subdued. However, I'm not about to agree with the fatuous hosannas I've been seeing about Romney. As one would expect of someone who is at best basically a sociopath, Romney came across as very unpleasant. Those on the right love that sort of thing, though. They routinely act as though thuggishness is "strength".
So, alQemist...
You firmly support lies over the truth?
Then I guess Mitt Romney really is your man.
There is no doubt that Romney crushed Obama in this debate. Obama better step up his game or it's over.
Heh.
That's laughable. You think a debate "performance" will win Romney the election?
If you really believe this, then you have to be one of those undecided/uninformed voters. The GOP can't win elections without people like you.
The debate was quite a spectacle, but "crushed" is not the operational world to describe the event unless one is given to sound and fury that signifies nothing. I did hear a more forceful voice from Mr. Romney, and I did see a flat no drama Obama, but I did not hear anything that satisfied my want to know who Mitt Romney is!
He meandered, rather firmly, into a political landscape of his own making, and said things that contradicted what he has been saying on the campaign trail. I saw a man who would be president tell me he is for everything good, and against everything bad - and then, if you wish, worked the bad to crush President Obama.
I still don't know anything more about Mitt Romney! Is he a tax cheat? How can he deny Obamacare is modeled after and performs very much like Romneycare? His talk of bi-partisanship is belied by Mitch McConnell's boast that he will make Barack Obama a one term president! Does he know math? Is his Ryan Plan good for our nation? Can he accomplish things simply by saying he can?
Ah, and riddle me this: Mitt Romney condemns government in its many functions and in particular in its ability to employ people, give them wages and help them support their families. So how does he brazenly think he can get away with telling me such tripe, and then tell me in the same breath, vote for me, make me president, and I will use the instruments of government to create 12 million jobs?
Answer, as soon as the Republicans regain power, the federal purse strings will be drawn open and government funding of a new corporate order will begin in all due deliberate fashion! -Kevo
Performance, good word.
People play to watch trained seals, but they don't put them into positions of importance.
It's hard to argue with bold face lies. I think the President was in shock that he was facing an opponent that was actually using lies in front of a live audience. If Obama seemed off his game, it was likely because he was trying to figure out how to respond without getting down in the mud with the lying snake.
I don't think it will change the polls much because Romney is still the most unlikable guy in the room.
Agree with you RimKitty.
Romney didn't raise his likability on bit. Possibly the opposite.
Please. To borrow a phrase... Romney went on a cross-country trip with Obama strapped to the roof of his car.
I'll get down in the mud with your analogy Blanks. Obama may have been strapped to the roof of the car, but when the diarrhea comes, he'll to point his end at the drivers side window and end the trip.
Are these two still fighting for Independents and fence sitters, is the question to your question, Rollo.
No, I KNOW that half this country realizes Mitt lies...and lies...and lies some more. President Obama will win.
Most IDIOTIC statement I've EVER heard. Puh-leeze.
As a life long Democrat, I cannot pretend that Obama did anything but hurt his cause - and many other Democrats running for office. Yes, Romney crushed him. And... Obama could not even come up with two 2 minute speeches (opening and closing remarks) that sounded good - or even not pitiful. A disheartening and disappointing performance.
I don't know. Yes, he was flat, but I actually think this could work to his advantage. I think alot of deems (myself included) were feeling so good about the election that they were starting to take a win for granted. I think this may motivate the base to turnout, work and donate. Peaking too early is never good.
Seems to be two camps here; Romney won but he lied, and Obama lost but he told the truth. One big problem I see is the number of ads that can be cut from the debate showing Romney looking very presidential, and Obama looking like a sour puss.
It's over? Really?
Hahahahahaha...
You Cons are all so knee-jerk reactionary.
Just like your hero George W. Bush.
You don't get to claim victory in a debate when you change your positions from ones that you've established for the past 1-2 years. This reinforces the 'flip-flopper' label that Romney has earned with his changing positions. Where does he stand? Bush voters of 2004, what's your excuse for voting for Romney? He's a bigger flip-flopper than Kerry and you wouldn't vote for Kerry for the same reason? No one should listen to hypocrites or flip-floppers.
As an informed voter, Romney didn't impress me or convince me to vote for him. He did not win the debate because like you say, Steve, Romney failed in substance and took any position he felt like taking and that alone should disqualify him for president.
But Obama FAILED to call him out on it. All the lies, all the position changes yet again, all the obnoxious things Romney-Ryan think and want to do, all of it, Obama failed to press the case. No mention of the 47%. No mention of Ryan's 70%. No pushback on the Medicare $716 billion lie. No mention of the Republican obstruction they have prosecuted. No making it known to the nation the Romney campaign is nothing but manufactured lies. None. Nothing. Nadda.
If you're not DISGUSTED with Obama right now, there's something wrong with you. He acted just like the loser Democrat of the last 20+ years, letting a bully and liar run right over his a$$. Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. Little Man, Mr. Timidity, Mr. Hormoneless. We saw right there why the Republicans had no fear whatsoever running over him the last four years despite the damage they have caused.
Pathetic.
I TOTALLY agree.
Romney's statements were handfuls of word salad, designed to sound plausible and acceptable, but don't square with previous statements or published policy documents.
It was not a debate - but a ONE SIDED FOOD FIGHT!
Re: my comment in #3.2 was in response to #3.1
@Disgusted
Think about what it is like trying to have a discussion with some of the people who comment on this site. I have tried to dispute lies and distortions, but eventually, you just have to remember - "DON'T FEED THE TROLL!"
Romney was being a TROLL.
President Obama did defend the Medicare $716 billion lie. But he couldn't stop Romney from repeating it over and over again.
God damn it, maphi. I KNOW what it is like. You know I know what it is like. And the difference is that in that "debate" there is a time limit. Obama can get his licks in and there's nothing Romney could do about it. And Obama's licks could have been the truth. He could have challenged every damn thing Romney lied about and he could have challenged the press right then and there to make sure to back him up. He could have done it without raising his voice. He could have done it looking Romney right in the eye and calling him a liar. He could have done it with nothing but the truth. Obama should have been in Romney face biitch slappin' the lying basturd everytime he lied.
He FAILED. Stop with the nonsense. He FAILED.
He didn't just fail himself. He FAILED you. He failed Democrats. He FAILED the country because a lot of these irresonsibly inattentive idiots who don't pay attention to politics like we do got the wrong impression. He FAILED and now Romney has a new life despite all his lies.
Obama FAILED. He let a bully and a liar run right over him.
The debates aren't meant to convince informed voters.
Exactly.
So, Romney couldn't continue to lie?
Do you think there would have come any point in the debate where Rombey would have admitted he was lying? Romney made up studies that claim his tax plan works, out of thin air. You know he lied, I know he lied, but to uninformed aka undecideds, it would have been a he said she said all night long. Romney would have never relented from the lie.
But, I do believe the video evidence will be the undoing of Romney in the coming days and weeks to come. Romney changed his entire platform last night. Was Obama supposed to be prepared for that? Should he have prepared for Mitt 3.0, Mitt 4.0, etc?
It's not easy debating a liar that does not have a moral compass. It is doubly difficult to do it with the MSM telling the viewing audience that his lie filled "performance" was good.
@DisgustedWithItAll
I think you've hit the nail on the head, unfortunately. The silver lining here is that the upcoming debates inherently play to some of Obama's strengths, but I agree, this was a very important opportunity and he lost it, hands down. Domestic policy is the driving issue of this election, and Romney just won the debate on it, without question.
As to how many votes that may garner, who knows.
@Derek: I don't think Obama lost the "debate" per se. At least not on the substance. What he lost was the effective functional purpose of the "debate." He lost the chance to paint an accurate picture of reality to those irresponsible citizens who were tuning in for the first time. He lost by letting Romney appear -- and only appear -- to be the one in command of what is good for the country and who has the best ideas. He FAILED to expose the malignancy that is the three R's of America: Romney-Ryan-Republican. He simply let a liar and a bully convince ignoramuses that the malignancy has a point. It doesn't.
@rollo: C'mon man. Seriously? Do I think Romney would have admitted lying? Are you fu king serious? It doesn't matter if Romney admits it. Of course he's not going to admit it. But wouldn't it have been nice if Obama actually said that Romney was a lying sack of shhit (in so many words) and pressed it forcefully. The headlines would be a hell of a lot different today and the race would be over.
Look, here's what happened last night. Romney knows without a shadow of a doubt the base is voting for him. He could become Mao or Che and they would vote for him. And you know it. So that long awaited shift to the middle that was expected a long time ago but was impossible for him till he solidified his base? It just happened.
Obama should have been in his face. But he was too busy doodling on his notepad and too intimidated to confront a liar and a bully because the audacity of the lying took the breath out of him. Are you gonna tell me Obama and Democrats, at this point, should not expect Romney-Ryan-Republicans to lie? And not to know how to handle it? Nonsense. There's easy ways to deal with that. And one is to keep pointing it out. Forcefully.
That's what I, rhetorically asked you. So I don't understand why you would repeat it back to me. Did you read my entire comment? You didn't address anything I said other than repeating a sentiment that I already expressed.
And do you really think it would have been a good idea for Obama to behave like you suggest in your reply?
As you said, "C'man on man".
As I said, the video footage will comeback to bite Romney on the butt. As Rev Al said "He will be indicted on perjury".
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/?mobile=wp
At Last Night's Debate: Romney Told 27 Myths In 38 Minutes
---
Was Obama supposed to fight every single on of these, only to have Romney continue to lie? 90 minutes of he said she said?
Romney mendacious performance may have garnered short term gain, but it will do him long term damage in this campaign. The ads are coming.
You're right Rollo. I messed up on your intent of that post I responded to. I'm really pissed off right now after that disaster last night. Sorry I didn't take enough time on your post before I began another rant.
As for how Obama should have behaved? I definitely think he should have been just as forceful -- make that more forceful -- defending the truth and attacking Romney's lies and position changes as Romney was in pressing his lies and position changes. And every time Romney repeated a lie, Obama should have called him on it, and challenged the press -- explicitly -- to do the fact-checking item for item.
Yes, that's what I think would have been better than what happened. The headlines would be a lot different today if he had. We see what the alternative looks like. To think it has to be that way, to think Obama did the best that could be done in that situation, is to think that lies and liars always win. I will NEVER believe that.
As for Sharpton, well, he had some good lines (fish keeping it's mouth closed can't get caught, etc), and he did a good job, but ..., the opportunity for Obama was lost. Who knows if Romney sealed the deal with some ignoramuses last night. And he has pumped up his supporters at a time that Obama could have dealt a death blow to the Romney campaign. Now the money will keep pouring in. The press and media are all tingly that they got themselves a horserace.
This race should be over. It's not. And it's not because of Obama timidity. Same ol' story.
As for ThinkProgress and all the fact-checking: Yes, I know. But will the irresponsibly inattentive know? That's what's important. These people aren't impressed by all that sissy fact-checking. They're into hormones and body language and appearances. And that's where Obama failed. Miserably.
i disagree with the comment that the President failed to counter Mr. Romney's falsehoods. There were multiple times where Pres. Obama stated that what Mr. Romney just said is the exact opposite of what he's been running on the past 18months (tax cut for top, repeal ACA and replace). He also called him out for all the pandering to popular things about the ACA and other reforms (regulations are the one that stuck out to me). i also thought the zingers were weak
Romney won the style battle, no argument here and i made that case with my wife and friend after the debate. However, the way that he ran over the moderator at times, and his brash style made Mr. Romney look more like a bully than a president (my wife and friends opinion that i have to agree with). The President can not afford to get down in the mud and be labeled as the 'angry black man' running for reelection. It is better for him to face a bit of fallout from his base (who are going to turn out regardless) than to give the right wing smear machine ammunition for him being 'angry' (Rush was telling his listeners that Obama was going to be angry and to watch for it yesterday). President Obama did a very good job of keeping his cool and making valid arguments for his policies when all Mr. Romney could do is claim the President's versions of his plan were just straw men because he says so during the debate.
The serial liar may have looked good, and sounded good, but lies won't convince voters that he is on their side, especially after the fact checkers get done with him...
You don't know how much I hope you're right. I tried to let those arguments give me solace last night but it didn't do much good.
The best understanding of the human mind shows it is VERY difficult to dislodge lies and myths that are planted in someone's mind. That's why we're having such a problem with climate change mythology right now. It is not going to be easy to make up for that very bad act Obama put on last night. People who don't know any better were given the wrong impression. And that's extremely important.
We are in agreement that it was not a good Obama performance, but I just think Romney did long term damage by totally changing what he has been saying for this entire election.
Like I said, it is difficult to prepare for a liar without a core.
And I truly believe that there is an opening to, use the Rev. Al analogy again, to rebut perjured testimony with video footage of the many Mitt Romney iterations.
Team Obama has been reluctant to pounce on the flip flopper issue, but I think now they have to do it. Romney has left himself wide open.
@Tzalaran: Forget your impressions. Forget intellectualizing it. All you have to do is look at the headlines today. The press is giddy with blood in the water and a renewed horse race coming down the stretch. For the press, the adrenalin is flowing because their life is a little more interesting for the next 5 weeks. The Republicans are rejuvenated. The Right Wing Noise Machine is in overdrive. That wouldn't be the case if Obama had done a good job.
Obama sucked last night. There's just simply no other verdict.
That scene from "The Untouchables".....
Obama didn't even bring a knife to the gunfight.
How could he let Willard off the hook from his 47% comment?
As soon as the word "Solyndra" passed Willard's lips he should've been met with a faceful of 47%, but Obama just let it pass. He had numerous other times that he should have countered Willard's lies...but, nothing...silence...
I know he doesn't want to be that angry black guy, but to just let himself get steamrolled over and over again was depressing to witness.
"Oh well... it's just the first debate" can't be the attitude that anyone takes away from this. As silly as debating has become over the years it still matters. The President cannot afford another performance as bad as this one. He needs to bring enough heat to melt away the jello that is Willard Romney.
DisgustedWithItAll: I couldn't agree more. WTF happened to the Obama we saw at the DNC?
It was too painful to watch. Obama acted like he didn't want to show up, but HAD to. Romney came off looking like the confident, well spoken, facts in check, spunky and ready to go guy.
I hope President Obama's performance or lack of, was a clever ploy? Maybe? Something?
Thought today I'd be saying OBAMA...YEAH!!!
Instead, it's like obama...yeah.
@Rollo: I knowwwwwwwww. I know you can't prepare for every lie. But you can forcefully call them lies. And without being defensive. As for Romney's long-term damage, it didn't have to be long-term. It could and should have been immediate. I'm not convinced it's long term damage.
One thing is for certain, though. Obama certainly took on short-term damage. And my guess is it's long-term, also. It didn't have to be that way.
I really, really, really hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Exactly, party. Exactly. What we saw on stage last night was a lying, phony, chest-pumping, faux alpha male and a Democratic wuss allowing the faux alpha male to have his way. And there's nothing I'm more sick of that Democratic wusses. I couldn't watch Plouffe and his act last night. Just couldn't watch it.
I have to eat my words. I really thought Mitt would be as wooden and stilted as he usually is. He was not.
Obama could have turned all the material Mitt's given him and cracked the electoral margins wide open with it. He did not.
It's a tough thing to face this morning.
There are more than two constants in life: death, irresponsible tax cuts from Republicans, and Democratic impotence.
Anybody who's dealt with somebody like Mitt Romney and the incorrigible, implacable, brow-beating, overconfident, unabashed dishonesty and self-entitlement knew what was coming.
Obama and his handlers did not know what was coming. Obama was intimidated by all the lying. It took his breath away. He did not know it was coming. He did not know how to respond to it. How can Obama and his handlers be so fu king clueless after all that has happened?
There are ways to handle what happened last night in real time. What a disaster. The truth and good just got ran over by the unprincipled.
That is an interesting angle. Was Romney unusually specific on points enough to hang himself with this video when his positions finally are made clear (after it's WAY too late and he's in office)?
Hi Disgusted ... I understand where you're coming from. I was angry last night. And then I read a bit (a lot) and waited for the results, and listened to my MSNBC and started to feel a little better. And then I woke up - and the ache was back. I think what I'm feeling is "beat up on". It feels like justice or fairness or whatever you call it, is not on our side. The Republicans are cheating and getting away with it. They are lying and not being punished. And we're sitting here and having to "take it" and want someone - our leader - to stand up for us and shove a mirror in their face. At least that's what I'm hoping for. But then I remember what happened yesterday. THEY reintroduced a video. And in that video they highlighted all the things about Obama that they know "Americans" are sensitive about. And they relied on the momentum of the racist backers to promote this idea that we have, waiting in the dark or under our beds, a black, angry President. I don't know if there was anyway for the President to win last night. Whatever he did, there would be fuel, would you agree? So I'm thinking that our Leader weighed his options. And thought this option of being maybe a bit too passive, would work out better for him. And in the meantime he just might, MIGHT, gather some information that would serve the party (and us) well in the days to come. I think it's important for me to remember why I'm so angry. It's not just because of this latest debate. It's the frustration I feel of how the world seems caught up in some back to the past 1960 type racial @!$%# right now. And even though the law has stepped in many times, the intimidation, videos, billboards, etc. continue. How is that just? So I come in here with like minded people who see what is going on. And I rely on the strength of others to get me through and to pump me up for the next round. And I, although somewhat timidly, have faith our President to see us through this. I trust that he knows what he's doing. And that he has our back. And I give him a few passes due to the incredible @!$%# he has to wade through in order to get it done.
Obama did what he has done for the past three and a half years, play pattycake with the Republicans. And his reward was the same. He got his ass kicked.
I wish I didn't feel like you nailed that exactly, but I do. Let's hope Obama brings his A game to the town hall.
I am with hells littlest angle. Obama was kicked all around the stage. He is President of the United States but he kept looking for cover. Just once he should have stood tall and proud. He should have pushed back when the moderator called time. Romney didn't give a crap about the moderator and nobody but the President seemed to care.
Dear Mr. President,
As much as we like our Presidents to be dignified and act presidential, doing so carries very little weight with today's electorate. We expect fire to be fought with fire, hardball tactics to be met with homerun swings, and liars to be called out.
You didn't do much of that last night, and it may cost you this election.
People loved Harry Truman's no-nonsense approach. When people lied to him or about him, he didn't just look down and smirk; he shot right back at them with the fury of a prize fighter. Even if that is not your nature, we need to see a little - no, a LOT - of Harry in you.
Take the gloves off. We will not think less of you for it.
Do not let Mitt Romney lie and buy his way to the White House. We cannot afford for you to continue to be cordial and deferential. You are the leader; so LEAD.
Sincerely,
KJ
Hillary gave us "it takes a village". Obama in putting it as "We built it" gave those who love to twist and shout a way to twist his words into an attack against their sponsors.
Meanwhile Mr. Rape and Pillage took pappa's money and used it and "other peoples money" to amass a fortune by taking over failing companies and using bankruptcy law and outsourcing to slave camps to squeeze a profit out of them.
These are our choices. History will record our decision.
Obama set a trap last night and Romney fell in it!
What trap is that?
Wake up. Obama was an intimidated little girl unwilling to WIN. He's simply let a liar and a business bully run right over him.
What you saw last night is why we're fighting to salvage the 20th century instead of the Republicans being out of power for two generations like they should be and could have been if Obama had the fu king sense a decent politician has to WIN when you can.
Colossal defeat and a sickeningly cowardly performance.
Cowardly?Is it cowardly to debate at a national level?Is it cowardice that prevents a man from becoming a "liar,liar pants on fire" child? Who was hiding in this debate? Was Obama or Mitt? I say it was Mitt as he hid behind his aggressive approach and his veil of lies.
In truth I have never seen a brave liar.Brazen yes but brave-not hardly.
When a man retreats into his own little world where things are as he sees them and not as they are he is running away from reality. Thus Mitt should be seen as either a coward or a truly psychotic individual in dire need of help.
It was cowardly to stare at your notepad when a liar is lying right in your face and staring at you. cowardly not to call the liar on his lies over and over and over. Obama was intimidated. If you couldn't see that, I don't know what to tell you. He simply had his breath taken out of him when Romney started with all the lies and position changes in real time. He had no answer to "trickle down government." He had no answer when Romney -- ROMNEY -- called OBAMA the liar. Are you FU KING kidding me? Seriously? Who were the idiots prepping him? They needed Rahm Emanuel playing Romney instead of Kerry.
Obama had no choice but to show up. What showed up though was a timid man unwilling to deliver the final blow. This race could be over. This race SHOULD be over. The only reason it's not over is because of the same ol' shhit. Democratic political impotence and incompetence.
The Republicans have done uncountable damage to the country. How can it be that the country is largely unaware of it? You know the answer. How can it be that 50% think Romney would do a better job with the economy? You know the answer. How could it be that it's roughly a tie on who will protect Medicare? You know the answer. And on and on and on..... You KNOW the answer.
To be intimidated by Romney, when Obama has the world of facts, logic, sense, and stature behind him.
Romney has nothing but fabrications, delusions, and ego.
And that's what's so damned frustrating about it all. All the Republicans have are lies. Nobody can tell me lies will win if you have somebody that will stand up to them with as much conviction to the truth as the liars have for their lies. Obama FAILED to stand up for the truth. And it pisses me off to no end.
When you call liars on lying, it quickly devolves into a fight. Obama is against fighting. Kudos to him for keeping his cool around an aggressive mendacious Mitt. Getting angry and talking over Mitt would have been the worst thing he could have done.
I see, so the right wingers are correct in assuming that the majority of the voting public is to uninformed to be allowed to vote. After all when you need to be reminded of the facts relevant to the issues every time you hear a lie then you really are uninformed. If you have no comprehension of just what Obama has done nor of how the republican party has refused to participate in congress well stay home. On the other hand if you see how the republican party caters to zealots by constantly trying to push anti-abortion,anti-gay legislation upon us as they deregulate and promote off shoring and try to continue the trickle down fantasy then by all means vote.
This is no longer a simple decision of who is the best of the worst. It has become a decision between "we the people" that believe in democracy and them the corporate pawns who yell back that America is a republic not a democracy and then show us they mean it as they pass voter suppression laws and person-hood amendments.
You better quit waiting for a hero and start standing up for what you believe in!
I can't figure out who you're responding to in your last post, Paul.
That's alright I'm obviously just wasting time.
Well, me too, then.
Come on you guys. None of us are wasting each other's time! We're frustrated, angry, hurt, frustrated (bears repeating), disillusioned, and probably exhausted. How well did all of us sleep last night? How many of us are pouring over blogs and stats and avoiding social media so we don't have to be sickened by the other side running around waving their flags singing "We Are The Champions"?
There wasn't much momentum before, I noticed. People were becoming a bit too complacent on our end. We "had this", remember? Well, now it's time to sit in here (or out there) and fight, and energize ourselves to get busy and direct our anger to the real causes of it. Not to one another. Not in here.
So I'll start - how can President Obama as a leader - stand up against this obvious racist bully bull@!$%# and not come off as a lawyer, angry black man, or smug? I agree - he HAS to look up. He has to make the liar look him in the face. In the eye. I think that might have made me feel a bit less of a victim last night if he had just made Mitt look him in the eye and lie to him. Don't get me wrong, Mitt still would have been able to lie, but there is power in at least maintaining eye contact while he does it.
I think he was writing on his pad so he didn't lose his temper. He needs to be coached to not do that as much. And I think they will talk to him about that, don't you?
Romney was obviously targeting low-information voters. And the thing about low-information voters is, if they haven't been following the campaign up to now, they probably weren't watching the debate. Especially if 'Honey Boo-Boo was on. Anyone who follows politics knows that basically everything he said last night was a lie. The only thing Obama failed at was calling him out on his falsehoods.
The Right may feel good right now, but I suspect the media will begin to parse the substance of Romney's answers once the afterglow of his performance wears off.
Methinks you have way too much faith in the media...
Yes, Rachael and Ed and Lawrence will parse the substance and (rightly) condemn it, but the undecideds tuned into GMA this morning and heard "Romney wins first debate" and that (and the occasional chain email) is the extent of their political knowledge until the next debate...
The minute you said "MSM" you lost your credibility. News flash: Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Lars Larson, Dennis Miller, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and other conservative radio and television shows/hosts are absolutely as "mainstream" as network news, MSNBC, and the "liberal media machine" they rage against.
Stop pretending like they're rebels fighting the good fight against Big Media. They are Big Media. But they drill it into everyone's head that The Media is anything liberal. It's as bad as when a candidate refers to "Washington" as though they don't work in Washington.
I doubt the low information voters were watching MSNBC for their coverage, but the MSNBC pundits negativity immediately after the debate ended surely didn't help the perception that the President had held his own on actual substance.
Like most successful Republican's Romney has one face for the masses, full of empty promises and fuzzy logic; and another true face for his wealthy donors and backroom deals. That is the main difference between Republicans and Democrats. You cannot take Republicans at face value, while Democrats can be trusted to give you the straight facts of the matter.
Romney gave the illusion of more specifics in the debate that only had an impact from the lack of any real specifics that he has been willing to offer to the press up until this point. Piece by piece Romey's points could be refuted by his own past statements and record; but the massive volume of the deluge was somewhat impressive. #1 his promises of more jobs was made when he ran for governor of Mass and then quickly forgotten when he held the office while Mass ranked 47th in job growth. #2 his promise of raising incomes for working Americans demands an explanation when his party and his business practices thrive on holding back wages and lowering the bottom line on their ledgers in order to funnel every available dollar into corporate profits and CEO bonuses.
President Obama held firm and took the high road; but the onslaught of half-truths and empty promises by Romney/Ryan/Rove and Co. has just kicked into overdrive.
Dems4Ever
You can't trust ANY politicians regardless of their political stripes. Every politician will lie, cheat, and distort their or their opponents record for political gain. This is the nature of a political system where money = power. I agree that the GOP is unabashed in their falsehoods and distortions (as they are now at a point where they don't even feel facts matter), but you can't turn a blind eye to an entire party out of loyalty - that is what you are decrying that the Republican voters are doing right now.
It's impossible to debate a person who lies in every answer and reverses all their positions without warning. This wasn't a debate, it was a gamble by Romney. He's betting the American People won't care that he is a liar and a flip flopper.
The obvious "we win!" comments here reinforce Romney's hope that racism overpowers common sense.
Unfortunately Ritt Momney might have been successful in pulling a fast one over the illiterate masses during this debate. I believe Obama is going to blow him out of the water next time. Barak is going to try a different strategy, one that will show the truth to the American people! It makes me cringe thinking about the votes Romney has already gotten from people going to the polls this morning.
I don't agree it's impossible. You stand straight, state facts, and hold eye contact. High schoolers are taught this in debate class.
I would like to encourage all my fellow Democrats to exhale and remember: One debate does not an election make. We progressives are too quick to pounce on anything that does not line up with our narrative of what "we" think should have happened. I watched this same scenario unfold in 2010...and what happened? The Republicans won the House! Why? Because many voters stayed home as Progressive commentators and bloggers repeatedly attacked the President's inability to move a Congress that from the onset of his administration set out to make him a failure!
Mitt Romney is a pathological liar with no core! He is willing to say anything, if it serves his own selfish purpose. In the South, we have a phrase which describes people like him: "Once a person shows you who they are, you better believe him." Mitt Romney has shown his true colors over and over again. He didn't fool anyone last night!
Let us learn from our mistakes of 2010, and stand by our President and others Demos who are fighting for the middle class who truly have been buried by an avalance of Republicans lies for the past 3 1/2 years. President Obama has endured immeasurable disdain and disrespect from the other side. Must he now suffer the same from members of his own party?
It's not easy to debate an empty chair with a lot of hot air, but no substance. Calm down, relax, and stay the course. Victory is at hand!
If there were any such thing as "liberal bias" in the media, the headlines would have read "Mitt Romney- now a moderate democrat?".
PatfromBham - Agreed. If you think one debate is that important. Ask President John Kerry about that.
I completely agree with you, Steve. Moreover, what I'm left with after the debate is disappointment. I'm disappointed Obama didn't fight for us, for what is right, and for our country. I know he can't stand to look at Romney, but he needed to stay engaged and fight. After his performance last night, it gives more credence to the criticism of Obama not partnering with folks on Capital Hill to get things done. I know the right has obstructed him (and they're a bunch of racists), but now I wonder if Obama isn't more at fault. I love Obama and he'll never lose my vote, but I'm angry that last night he didn't fight for my vote.
Don't loose hope, our president is an amazing leader, and speaker. I believe next debate Obama WILL fight for your vote, will call Romney out on his lies, and will win this election!
I hope he'll fight more in the next debate but it seems he doesn't like to fight in debates and doesn't like to get his hands dirty (i.e. not mentioning the 47% or letting Romney talk about what is moral in health care when he and his policies are immoral). And the next debate is on foreign policy and right now people are really worried about domestic policy, which is why last night was so important.
election day is important, last night was just last night.
I think once the glow fades, this will end up being the key line of the night from Obama:
“He says he will close deductions and loopholes for his tax plan: we do not know the details. He says that he is going to replace Dodd-Frank, Wall Street reform, but we do not know exactly which ones — he will not tell us. He now says he will replace Obamacare and ensure all the good things and it will be in there and you do not have to worry. At some point the American people have to ask themselves, is the reason Governor Romney is keeping all of these plans to replace secret because they are too good?”
Easy to win debates when all you do is to promise to sell dollars for 25 cents.
It won't change the vote. Obama supporters will still support him and ditto on Romney supporters. What they are fighting for are the undecideds and they tend to wait until all the debates are over to make a choice.
There is a saying in medical circles - that you can't judge a doctor by his bedside manner. Sometimes the worst doctors make the best impression.
Obama was certainly being very cautious last night. One pundit said that according to his staff, Obama has "the bare minimum of high regard" for Romney, and may have had to be very careful not to seem contemptuous of the man. (See "sighing Gore" 2000).
And I agree with others that it is hard to debate someone based on their records and plans, when they have absolutely no compunction about lying, short of saying "liar liar." Which would have made low-information voters think Obama was a bully.
Yes, Romney "won" the debate. Short of tripping over his own tongue, it's hard to see how he could have lost, given Obama's defensive stance.
But the debate is not the election.
I agree and Obama is very good at the long game.
Obama has "the bare minimum of high regard" for Romney, and may have had to be very careful not to seem contemptuous of the man. (See "sighing Gore" 2000).
Perhaps the President was trying to not come off as the angry black man?
I think it was a damned if you do, damned if you don't moment.
Well in Obama trying not to look contemptuous of Romney, made Obama look weak. And I think there is a huge continuum between being weak (which he was last night) and looking angry.
@Sunshine - I agree there is a huge continuum between being weak and looking angry. Typically. But - remember - He's black. :) And as black people the continuum seems, at times, a bit shorter than normal. I don't know how many times I've been talking to someone - excitedly - and people say "Why are you so ANGRY?" And seriously - I'm thinking, girl! I'm not angry in the least little bit. I'm just having a great time trying to get my point across. I know the President is not me (and we can be very thankful for that) I'm just suggesting that in light of the video that came out, the wiggle room might not be as spacious as one would think.
It's very hard to debate a ghost. What are Romney's personal beliefs? We really don't know. We don't even know if he believes in trashing the 47%. He says what he has to say at the moment. Not good as a leader. Obama on the other hand was too respectful of the night's format, which quickly evaporated. The President actually made some very good points.
Question: Do businesses get a tax break for sending business over seas? YES. Romney went blank on that one....
I wonder if Bain took the deduction for it on any tax returns.
And Obama should have been all over him for that...
Indeed, as one pundit said, debating Romney is like debating jello.
Obama may have looks sluggish and Romney may have looked sharp, but I really do think (and maybe I'm being optimistic here) that "Big Bird" will be the real takeaway from this debate.
That may seem odd and minimalistic, but consider this--what Romney highlights is that he wants to balance the federal budget by getting rid of funding that is at best .01% of the federal budget, and may be as little as .00001%. One-percent of one-percent or one-percent of one-percent of one-percent. As Neil deGrasse Tyson puts it, it's like clearing space on a 500GB harddrive by deleting text files. Or as I would put it, it's like being morbidly overweight and going on a diet by eliminating one chocolate chip from your diet per year, and not the massive buckets of deep-fried Twinkies.
What "Big Bird" does, then, is put a cute face on a real problem; Mitt Romney is ridiculously disconnected from real math. It also shows that he is disconnected from real people. If would be one thing to say "We're going to go top to bottom on the budget, and if that means cutting funding for PBS, then that's what we may have to do." That gets no retweets, and is forgotten.
Firing Big Bird? Might as well say "I'm going to evict Fred Rogers; he'll have to find a new neighborhood."
Sorry to say that Mr. Rogers found a new neighborhood,He's dead. So much for informed people on this site.
Yes, because one apparent "mistake" refutes the entire argument. Derp.
Why not go with "You can't fire Big Bird; he's a puppet and you'd have to fire the puppeteer. So much for informed people on this site."?
Many Romney supports are thrilled at their candidate's debate success. Mitt Romney's speech was full of lies, and impossible promises. How can I help shed light on these fallacies if fellow friends are only got up in the delivery of message? How can his confidence cover up his crap? How can we expect the average voter to dig through his speeches and find the contradictions if people are so joyed by Romney's catchy closing statement. I believe Obama couldn't even keep up with Romney's lies, enabling Obama to stumble and wince.
Thanks, Rachel, for mentioning substance. I believe that the news media has a clear job here. Why are they scoring performance and not mentioning the lies and flip flops that Romney is so famous for. Can you imagine all his tax cuts adding NOTHING to the deficit? The media should demand he tell which loopholes he'd get rid of. After all, don't we, as voters, need to know? Will it be my mortgage deduction, or those for my children? These will affect the middle class, a group that suddenly he cares so much about. I still believe in Obama and in his honesty. If you turned off the sound and looked at Romney when he was quiet, this is a man we cannot trust.
The MSM has done a magnificent job in not mentioning the lies and flip flops of the Grand Campaigner. I don't feel there's any hope they'll start now, even to save the future of their own country, let alone ours.
The smell of profitting from another Republican in office must be intoxicating the media moguls in their crystal towers. They aren't going to help a Democrat.
'Perception' is what matters in a Presidential debate, not 'substance'. The people who are going to be impacted by that debate are not going to fact check what each candidate said, that's the job of the opposing debaters. Romney did his, Obama didn't.
Perhaps we nominated the wrong Democrat in 08. Maybe we got taken in by pretty speeches and promises. The Liberal agenda has been watered down and compromised for 4 years, Obama refusing to defend it on stage last night wasn't a glitch, it was a pattern.
I, personally, would like to see a Jeopardy-style debate format.
Wouldn't it be so awesome to see Alex Trebek say "Oooh, sorry. That's wrong." when one of the candidates makes a bogus claim?
(Potential answers we'll here from the great AT: The correct answer was "What is the 47%?" And we all know that only AT can pronounce Mahmoud Ahmadienijad in correct intonation.)
You could get your fact checking and debate moderation in one swoop.
Tricia, make it happen, champ. ;-)
Oh god, yes.
Oops, I meant for this to be on Tricia McKinney's post.
And I meant "hear" instead of "here". Or maybe I meant "hair". Hmmmmmm.
THe president cannot afford to have another debate night like the one in Denver. Sadly, voters and pundits appear to be giving Mitt full cover for the dozens of flip-flops and complete evasions of detail he found himself in last night. Romney disavowed his entire tax plan, then reaffirmed his support for cutting taxes for the rich, said he doesn't think government should have a say in Medicare, and refused to say how he would create 12 million jobs other than with "deductions." But Obama's apathy stole the show. Part of it was his attempt to remain "likable," but his reserve lapsed into peevishness and disinterest much of the evening. Where was his comeback that Mitt thinks health care is fine if we just parcel off the uninsured to emergency rooms at taxpayer expense? The polls will be tied next week, although how much of it is caused by Denver is hard to say. - progressive
Yup. Mitt handed him some unmitigated openings he could have used with confidence and truth.
Obama really needs wide margins to prevent the opportunity of any accidental cheating at the election. Debates like this will keep those margins far too close.
I don't know. I listened to the debate on the radio, and I came away with a big "meh." Nothing really new to think about, the usual "etch-a-sketch" comments from Romney (he will say anything to get elected), the usual stilted reasonableness from Obama (his willingness to be reasonable is a political weakness in our partisan environment). I learned nothing I didn't already know about the candidates.
The only thing Romney did was to lie louder and be more obnoxious than anyone. I still say "Where's the beef?". I turned off the sound and watched the body language...basically the bully in romney was forefront and the mellow Obammer was too mellow in making his points. It seems Romney bullied the moderator (who should be put out to pasture after this performance), and wouldn't let up. I just hope Barry (the hoops player) shows up for the next debate and starts stuffing the ball down romney's throat.
Very interesting point, I noticed that also. I had the TV muted because I was watching the expanded debate on democracynow.org. I would glance over at the TV at times and it was weird to watch.
This is becoming just too disgusting with Republicans, when you know that Romney is more or less a criminal on income tax evasion in which he was given a waiver so he would finally pay his taxes and probably still lied on how much money he had. If the average person did that they would be nailed to the wall as they were jailed or penalized to the hilt. The Republicans sit there and act like Romney is a great guy, especially on Morning Joe promoting Romney who would steal you blind and should be in the White House. What the heck does Republicans do encourage people to be non-Americans and criminals. This is just too sickening to even watch as you see how low these Republicans can go. Hate to say it, but it is becoming just too difficult to even watch someone like Joe talking his load of crap. Republicans want people to be criminals by being so greedy that you will lie, cheat and steal anyway you can just to get rich, even if it destroys our environment and the very health and welfare of other people. Republicans would prefer to tell you what to do as they lie through their teeth, but live by a whole set of different standards that is sick as it gets.