Joe Conason watched the presidential candidates' debate this week, and had a reaction I could relate to.
"'It's not easy to debate a liar,' complained an email from one observer of the first presidential debate -- and there was no question about which candidate he meant. Prevarication, falsification, fabrication are all familiar tactics that have been employed by Mitt Romney without much consequence to him ever since he entered public life," Conason wrote.
Concerns along these lines were not uncommon yesterday. In fact, note David Gergen's take from Wednesday night:
"I think [President Obana] was so surprised, he thought Romney was just flat-out lying," Gergen said. And if the president was thinking that, he had good reason to.
Consider, for example, the 38th installment of my weekly series -- easily the longest of 2012 -- chronicling Mitt's mendacity.
1. In reference to the unemployment rate, Romney said, "The reason it's come down this year is primarily due to the fact that more and more people have just stopped looking for work."
2. On Fox News last night, Romney said in reference to the president, "[W]hat I find so offensive about his tax plan is by raising taxes on small business, as he does, he will kill jobs."
In reality, Obama has repeatedly cut taxes on small businesses -- by some counts, 18 times -- and if given a second term, his tax plan would have no effect on 97% of small businesses.
3. Speaking yesterday at the Colorado Conservative Political Action Committee Conference, Romney said, "this sequestration idea ... came out of the White House."
No, it didn't. This sequestration idea emanated from House Republicans.
4. In the same speech, Romney said Obama "spending more and more, borrowing more and more, putting us on a road to Greece."
5. In Wednesday night's debate, Romney said, "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about."
Independent analysts determined the proposed across-the-board rate cut would cost $5 trillion.
6. Romney said, "I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people. High-income people are doing just fine in this economy."
That's not true. The wealthy would receive a massive, disproportionate tax break under the Romney plan.
7. Romney said, "[G]asoline prices have doubled under the president."
To blame gas prices on the president's policies is ridiculously untrue.
8. Romney said, "I'm not going to cut education funding. I don't have any plan to cut education funding and grants that go to people going to college."
9. Romney argued, "Energy is critical, and the president pointed out correctly that production of oil and gas in the U.S. is up. But not due to his policies. In spite of his policies. Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land."
10. On taxes, Romney said, "I do want to reduce the burden being paid by middle-income Americans. And to do that that also means that I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans."
This is ridiculously untrue (and more than a little incoherent).
11. On taxes, Romney argued, "I will not reduce the share paid by high-income individuals. I -- I know that you and your running mate keep saying that, and I know it's a popular things to say with a lot of people, but it's just not the case."
Yes, it is the case.
12. Romney said, "I will not reduce the taxes paid by high-income Americans."
That's slightly different than the other lie. It's also equally wrong.
13. Romney said, "I will not, under any circumstances, raise taxes on middle-income families." He cited "six studies" to back him up on this.
There's ample evidence that Romney will have no choice but to raise taxes on middle-income families and the six studies don't back him up.
14. Romney said, "I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by 3 to $4,000 on middle-income families."
The study is wrong, and that's not what it said.
15. Romney said on tax rates, "Mr. President, you're absolutely right, which is that with regards to 97 percent of the businesses are not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half -- half -- of all of the people who work in small business."
That's a new one. It's also not true.
16. Romney said, "[Y]our plan is to take the tax rate on successful small businesses from 35 percent to 40 percent. The National Federation of Independent Businesses has said that will cost 700,000 jobs."
17. Romney said, "What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test -- if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it."
The implication here is that U.S. debt is financed by the Chinese, but this isn't true -- China only holds about 8% of the nation's debt.
18. In reference to how he'd balance the budget, Romney said he'll "get rid of" the Affordable Care Act.
This is incoherent and absurd. "Obamacare" cuts the deficit to the tune of about $109 billion over the next decade. It's simply incoherent to say you'll cut the deficit by eliminating a law, which would in turn increase the deficit. That's like promising to put out a fire by using more kerosene.
19. Romney said, "The president said he'd cut the deficit in half. Unfortunately, he doubled it."
Maybe Romney doesn't know what "double" means. The deficit on Obama's first day was $1.3 trillion. Last year, it was also $1.3 trillion. This year, it's projected to be $1.1 trillion. When he says the president "more than doubled" the deficit, as he has many times, Romney's lying.
20. Romney argued, "The president's put in place as much public debt, almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined."
He's said this before, but it's not even close to being true.
21. On subsidies, Romney said to the president, "[Y]ou say Exxon and Mobil -- actually, this $2.8 billion goes largely to small companies, to drilling operators and so forth."
Nice try, but no.
22. Romney said to Obama, "[Y[ou put $90 billion -- like 50 years' worth of breaks -- into solar and wind."
That's not quite right, and much of the $90 billion was appropriated by George W. Bush, not Obama.
23. Romney argued to the president, "[Y]ou said you get a deduction for getting a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about."
Romney's admitted cluelessness notwithstanding, he's simply wrong to argue the tax deduction doesn't exist. It's real.
24. On entitlements, Romney argued, "[N]either the president nor I are proposing any changes for any current retirees or near retirees, either to Social Security or Medicare. So if you're 60 or around 60 or older, you don't need to listen any further."
That's demonstrably wrong. Under Romney's policy, the cost of prescription drug prices and preventive care for seniors would go up immediately -- for current and future retirees. For that matter, since Romney's plan hastens Medicare's insolvency -- soon -- seniors should listen closely.
25. Defending his Medicare plan, Romney said the idea originated in part with Paul Ryan and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "who's a co-author of the bill."
According to Ron Wyden, that's ridiculously untrue.
26. In reference to Dodd-Frank, Romney said, "[I]t designates a number of banks as too big to fail, and they're effectively guaranteed by the federal government. This is the biggest kiss that's been given to New York banks I've ever seen. This is an enormous boon for them.... I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check."
This simply has no basis in fact.
27. In reference to Wall Street reform, Romney said, "It wasn't thought through properly.... [I]t's killing regional and small banks.
28. In reference to the Affordable Care Act, Romney said, "It cuts $716 billion from Medicare to pay for it. I want to put that money back in Medicare for our seniors."
As I suspect Romney knows -- he'd already endorsed these same cuts earlier in the year -- he's just not telling the truth.
29. In the next breath, Romney says of the health care law, "[I]t puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people, ultimately, what kind of treatments they can have."
This is getting awfully close to the "death panel" argument, and it's not true.
30. Romney vowed to "sit down with Democratic leaders as well as Republican leaders -- as we did in my state."
That's wildly misleading. In his one term, Romney issued more than 800 vetoes, over 700 of which were overridden, and demonstrated a "relative disinterest in bipartisan collaboration."
31. According to Romney, congressional Republicans unveiled a "bipartisan" health care reform plan in 2010. "It was swept aside."
There was no "bipartisan plan" from GOP lawmakers. Romney just made this up.
32. Asked what he would replace the Affordable Care Act with, Romney's exact words were, "Let, well, actually, actually it's , it's, it's a lengthy description."
That's a lie. Romney's online description of his health care reform plan is just 369 words.
33. Romney said, "Pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan."
I really wish that were true. It's not.
34. Romney, offering "proof" that the president's agenda is "not working," said, "23 million people are out of work."
That's not true. As of the time of the debate, there were 12.5 million Americans unemployed.
35. In reference to public support for green-energy companies, Romney argued, "These businesses, many of them have gone out of business. I think about half of them, of the ones have been invested in, they've gone out of business."
As Romney's own aides later admitted, this is demonstrably false.
36. In a TV campaign ad released this week, Romney said "Obama and the liberals already have ... raised taxes on the middle class."
That's obviously untrue; Obama has repeatedly cut taxes on the middle class. In fact, Romney admitted as much just last week.
37. In the same ad, Romney accused Obama of creating "government-run health care."
As Romney knows -- his own state health care law served as the blueprint for the president's plan -- the Affordable Care Act relies on private insurers, and is not "government-run health care."
38. The same ad claims consumers will be forced to "pay more for your medicine."
Actually, the only change in the cost of medication came for seniors -- and "Obamacare" closes the donut hole to make sure they pay less, not more.
39. The commercial goes on to say the Affordable Care Act "includes a trillion dollars in higher taxes -- even on the middle class."
This is apparently in reference to the individual mandate. And if the claim is true, then Romney's Massachusetts law also includes higher taxes -- even on the middle class.
40. In his weekly podcast, Romney said Obama's vision of international affairs is premised on seeing the United States "as merely one among many nations rather than as an exceptional nation."
Obama is the only president in American history to publicly and explicitly endorse the principle of American exceptionalism.
41. Romney also argued "our moral standing has declined" around the globe.
No, it hasn't. Respect and support for the United States around the world has improved under Obama.
42. Romney went on to say Obama no longer supports "standing with Israel."
43. Romney also said the president "refuses to meet with Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu."
Obama has met with Netanyahu many times.
44. He went on to say, hoping to draw a contrast with the president, "I will never apologize for America."
How is it possible the whole "apology" lie hasn't gone away yet?
45. At a campaign event in Wayne, Pennsylvania, Romney said the president is "planning on cutting our military by about a trillion dollars over the next decade."
No, he's not. Obama is planning to cut defense spending, on the recommendation of the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs, by about $500 billion over the next decade. There are other cuts looming, but they were crafted by Romney's party and endorsed by his own running mate.
46. At the same event, Romney argued, "[T]he president adds about a trillion dollars a year to the national debt."
It's true that in recent years, about a trillion dollars a year to the national debt, but it's not the president who's doing it.
47. Romney went on to say, "Do you realize that our Navy is smaller in terms of the number of ships than any time since 1917?"
This one again? Romney dropped this lie a while back, but it's apparently made a comeback.
48. Romney also vowed, "I will not raise taxes on middle-income Americans."
There's ample evidence that Romney will raise taxes on the middle class.
49. Romney went on to promise, "I've got a plan. I've got a plan to help free people pursue their dreams and get this economy going. And the good news is this: It'll create 12 million jobs."
Putting aside the pesky detail that Romney doesn't actually have a specific jobs plan, the fact remains that if we do nothing, we're on track to create 12 million new American jobs over the next four years anyway.
50. Romney added, "I want to take that big cloud off of the small business world that's hanging over them. Three-quarters of them say they don't want to hire more people because of this cloud and that cloud is Obamacare."
Romney's referring to a "survey" conducted by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce if its members. The claim, however, is a misleading joke -- the Chamber, a pro-Republican lobbying institution heavily invested in helping Romney, put up an unscientific online survey. Treating this as a legitimate poll of businesses is fundamentally dishonest.
Previous editions of Chronicling Mitt's Mendacity: Vol. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII,XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX, XXXI, XXXII, XXXIII, XXXIV, XXXV, XXXVI
Leave a Comment:
What else should anyone expect from a lying POS like Romney? He disgusts me!
Wow, Steve. You have got your work cut out for you... I dare say, chronicling Mitt the Mendacious, you'll have a hefty tome of Britannica proportions by the time Nov 6 rolls around. (Actually, I think you hit that point by the time you reached roman numeral X)
Watching the debate on Wednesday reminded me of a crime drama movie where you watch the crime unfold, hear the confessions, and then at trial the key witness comes to court and disavows everything they told the prosecutor in the lead up to the trial... Says that everything you saw, everything you heard is not true.
Have you ever been in a situation where you have been listening to someone tell you a story and when you get to talk with them, they suddenly deny everything they said in the past?
Imagine if your boss told you to do a job, and at the end of the day they asked you what you were doing all day. You tell then , and they say "I never said that, I never told you do do that."
Or a police officer tells you do do something, then gives you a ticket for doing it. When you get to court she says, "I never said that, that is not something I would do."
Or while you are out, your spouse asks you to pick something up at the store. But when you get home they are upset because you are late.. and when you say you are late because you stopped at the store for them, they say "I never said that, I never asked you to stop."
It is disorientating to say the least.
Now imagine you are the President and you are debating your opponent. You have heard his positions over and over for the past year, you have seen him make speeches, watched his commercials, read his book.. and now when you ask about things he said, he replies... I never said that, that is not my policy, that is not what I would do.
That's the signpost up ahead— your next stop, the Twilight Zone!
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
Gish Gallop is the debate technique used by Mitt Romney. Look at definition on the above Wiki page. A rapid nonstop list of lies and halftruths to bury the opponent.
A facinatiing page to read.
Has he done this before?
Gish Gallop - excellent term!!
That's exactly what he did!
Romney - the Galloping Gisher... or is it the Gishing Galloper
The problem - or advantage, depending on your point of view - with "galloping" during a "debate" is that it is nearly impossible for the opponent to have a coherent response.
The argument has been made that President Obama and his team should have prepared for this. However, who in their right mind would think that Romney would have used this debating tactic?
And how do you defend against it other than just ignore the "galloper" and concentrate on stating your own positions. In other words - IGNORE THE TROLL.
If you look at it this way, that is exactly what Obama was doing - not looking at Romney, not rising to the bait (remember - don't feed the troll), staying calm.
You're really excited about this term aren't you, maphi?
I've already explained how Obama could have and SHOULD have handled it. Can't believe you're trying to claim Obama did the best thing by doing what he did. He blew it, man. Really, really blew it. And he and the campaign knows it. Best for us just to acknowledge that he blew it. There's no reason to rationalize he did a good job. He didn't.
Who knew there was another name for massive piles of verbal bull$#it?
It's well-known to people who deal with climate denial and in other areas of science where denial by the fundamentalists and reactionaries is a problem, like in evolution.
"The factual and logical content of the Gish Gallop is pure bull@!$%# and anybody knowledgeable and informed on the subject would recognize it as such almost instantly. That is, the Gish Gallop is designed to appeal to and deceive precisely those sorts of people who are most in need of honest factual education."
-urbandictionary.com
Yes, and simply acknowledging to the people who are being fooled by it that they are being given a load of crap would have helped a lot Wednesday. Obama failed to do that. He was too flabbergasted and stung with surprise by it all. There's no excuse for being that surprised by it.
Disgusted,
Re: #4.2
I used to agree with you that Obama did a bad job on Wednesday night. But today I had a long talk with a PR friend of mine and I now tend to agree with my friend who says Obama handled the debate brilliantly!
You have to remember who Obama was trying to reach: the "low-information" voters - he wasn't trying to reach you or me - we will vote for him no matter what. These "low information" voters don't watch cable news - they watch local news, and they tend to vote for the name they hear the most - they don't tend to vote on "issues" and they are pretty "disinterested" in what is happening in politics! People who vote on "issues" or who are interested in politics already have their minds made up and NO OUTCOME of that debate wouldn't have changed any of their minds.
So what did Obama need to accomplish? He needed to get local stations talking about HIM and not about Romney and he needed them to say something somewhat "positive".
And, yep, the local stations were all abuzz about the debate and saying things like "Obama is "better than" that" and they just don't know what happened"! Romney was barely mentioned. If you think about all possible outcomes of the debate, taking a dive was the ONLY way to get the local stations talking about him only!!
He also said you have to pay attention to what Obama was doing during the debate. Have you EVER seen Obama act that way when talking to ANYONE? He was staring down and acting disinterested ON PURPOSE!! Also, Obama is a great and funny extemporaneous speaker - did you see any of that?
It's like those irritating ads. Remember the irritating "HeadOn" ad. NOBODY could stand it, yet sales rose 234% after that ad ran!! Low information voters tend to vote for the name they "remember" most and Obama HAD to get their attention - which I think he did!
Winning the debate or tying the debate couldn't accomplish what he needed to accomplish - local stations talking about HIM only!!!
The polls may fall a little bit, but they were going to anyway- so Obama had nothing to lose and everything to gain!!
He also denied Romney the "heartfelt apology" he wanted to give on prime time with all the voters watching - that was also brilliant!
Another benefit of this tactic was to steal any momentum from the partisan republican media on the angry black man story. He wasn't angry, he was logical and calm and informative.
President Obama didn't need to counter all the lies and distortions from Mitt Romney- we have his back. Why waste time swinging at those pitches? Every reputable news outlet has chronicled the lies told during the "debate". Bringing up Romney's 47% comments would just be a rehash of what's been covered extensively in the media. The less the president reacted, the more time Romney had to fill with the fictions he now has to defend.
I think the president was brilliant- playing chess while Romney thought he could get by playing liars poker. Obama will win the next one, closer to the time undecided voters head to the polls.
@oncearepublican: Your PR friend is full of shhit. There's not a chance in hell Obama's act was brilliant. Obama was my avatar in reverse. All you have to do is watch a replay and look at Obama's face. He knew he was stinking it up, and was powerless to do anything about it. He simply was overwhelmed by an corporate bullying act in the zone lying his a$$ off and stealing everything he could get his hands on right in front of your face. Obama wasn't prepared for it and he got it shoved up has a$$. What your PR friend just gave you was a load of PR bullshhit too (un)clever by half.
@Eese: Same. If that's brilliant to you, then you're saying that assuming the position is the best that can be done in the presense of a Gish Gallop. You're saying that leaving the other side beating it's chest and pumped with adrenaline for the final rounds of a match or the final lap of a race and ready to punch you again is the best you can do in that situation . You're saying that leaving an audience, one for which you might not get another chance with, with the impression that the other guy is the one telling the truth and allowing him to tell you TO YOUR FACE that you don't even know the truth -- and you not even challenging it -- is the best you can do in that situation. You're saying that leaving that same audience with the impression that the other guy has the detailed plan and that you don't is the best you can do in that situation. You're saying Obama was logical and informative tells me you didn't even watch the thing. Because he WAS NOT informative. He was the opposite of informative. He was a disaster.
Good god, you boys are in it deep. What a load of shhit.
What Romney did was make a last-minute sprint to the center. He sprung this as a surprise, and Obama was simply stunned by it. There is nothing brilliant in being stunned and unprepared. And you better sure as hell hope Obama doesn't again use that strategy you guys are calling BRILLIANT. Because if he does, get used to the phrase President Romney. Stop fooling yourselves. Stop trying to deny the obvious.
The task now is if Team Obama can fight against that sprint to the middle. Can they convince the voters they need that Romney was simply lying. I sure as hell hope so, because if not, ...
Re: #4.2
At least you didn't swear at me this time.
Yes I really like the term, because it makes it so much easier to talk about what Romney did.
President Obama is still my candidate, and I am sticking by him. Do I wish President Obama had reacted the way you wanted - yes!
What are you hoping to accomplish by pounding on this so hard?
Disgusted,
If Obama had come out and thrashed Romney, what would he have accomplished?
Would he have gotten all the free publicity on the local stations? Would he have reached the undecided?
All he would have done is made YOU happy, but somehow, I don't think that was what his campaign people were thinking about at the time.
Do you REALLY think that Romney "intimidated" the President? Do you REALLY think that Obama totally lost his mind? Are you kidding me? Go look at video of his debate with McCain. Did you see clips of his rally the next day?
Disgusted, you have to get over this - I know you are terribly pissed off, but there are more important things going on here than just Obama making his "faithful followers" happy - he's got an election to win!!
@maphi: I don't want to pound on this so hard. But people just keep saying stupid stuff. It's better for us to just acknowledge our guy did a bad job of standing up to a liar and bully and that our guy was simply inexplicably unprepared. It's really that simple. Obama knows it. His campaign knows it. The available polls in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida since the debate know it. (And I'm sorry I swore at you a couple of those times. I misinterpreted once and forgot to apologize. Once I meant it though. :-0 )
@oncearepublican: He didn't need to thrash him. He needed to rebut him firmly and he needed to present himself to the irresponsibly inattentive as a strong presence. He failed.
Do I think Romney intimidated the President? Answer: Yes. Obama is not accustomed to the brow-beating corporate boardroom personality.
Do I think Obama "totally lost his mind?" Answer: Are you purposely being ridiculous or setting up some dumb straw man? What Obama did was get utterly flustered and couldn't find a way out of his predicament. It was on his face. Experience tells a person that. Obama was not prepared for the situation he was in. He was surprised by it. If he was a musician, he wouldn't have been able to play "Mary Had a Little Lamb."
Apparently you have been following what I've been saying if you have to ask if I saw clips of Obama campaign rally yesterday. I've alluded to it several times in explaining what he should have been prepared to go with. Look, I predicted what Romney was going to do. I knew he was going to sprint to the middle as a surprise. And it irritates the crap out of me that Team Obama didn't see it, or at least be prepared for it. What the hell do they do with their time?
I don't need your advice on getting over anything. And my getting over anything is not germane to Obama keeping any "faithful followers" happy. What would be better is if Democrats -- I'm assuming you're one now -- demanded that people who are supposed to be standing up for the actually STAND UP FOR THEM. We might then get better governance. Obama
Here's what YOU need to do: understand Obama blew it. Obama knows it. His campaign knows it. You're the "faithful follower." Obama isn't going to win that election if, in his next mano-a-mano with the brow-beating corporate bully, he brings that BRILLIANT strategy of yours and your PR friend. He better show up with some testosterone in his drawers or it'll be Mitt Romney traveling around in Air Force One on Jan 21, 2013.
I'm embarrassed to say that I did. No credit for insight; I just know too many slimeballs.
Good to see there are some other world-weary warriors who could see it coming. I actually told people that Romney was going to shake the etch-a-sketch, sprint to the middle and lie his a$$ off straight into the camera. That's exactly what he did. I did however think it would be likely that Obama would be prepared for it since he had been dealing with the Republicans and had actually seemed to understand since the debt ceiling fiasco just viciously aggressive they could be. After about 15 - 20 minutes, it was clear a disaster was in the making. Incredible. Unbelievable. Assume the position.
Disgusted,
I disagree with you. Actually disagree is rather a weak word for what I feel about your posts. I call bull@!$%# on your posts. I do.
Now it is rather odd that I would disagree with you.
Obama didn't lose the debate. Unless you think lying all over the place, bullying and running over people as winning.
Obama cannot be a rude b@stard like Robme. To do so would earn him the label of the "angry black man" and really that label is unwelcome. Especially considering that Obama has NEVER rolled like that.
You are projecting what YOU would have done, which does not match what Obama is and how he communicates.
I would urge you stop having a tantrum about what YOU would have done, and look at what really took place with this debate.
Disgusted- If you think the President didn't get more free press with this, especially his remarks at his rally, that showed him in a better light than Romney, you are mistaken. If you think this was his only chance at the undecided voters, you are sadly mistaken. Who among the undecided voters (and the locked-in partisans) wouldn't want to watch round 2 of this? It was a Rocky moment! He's the underdog in the next debate. He has Romney lying outrageously to try to win the moderates, while unsettling his hard-core conservative base. He has the new job numbers and his record with the health care reform that will provide security to the working people who could lose everything to the cost of a devastating illness. He has the equal pay of the Lilly Ledbetter Act. He hasn't even touched his ammo. Howard Dean was pumped up and filled with adrenaline. We saw how helpful that was. I still think the President was brilliant. If it was a slight win, or merely a close loss it wouldn't have the same future benefit.
Stop with the nonsense people. Seriously, get your head out of the sand on this.
It's this simple: Obama SUCKED out loud Wednesday night. He knows it. His campaign knows it. And YOU should know it, too.
This is serious stuff. Everybody here knows Romney lied. Obama LET him get away with it. Got that? He LET Mitt Romney WALK all over him by not challenging his lies, by not exposing the mendacity of it, by not showing the audience that HE had the better plan. Understand that. He let Mitt Romney WALK all over you, by not exposing the mendacity of it, by not showing the audience that HE had the better plan.
You want proof how damaging this was. Look at the damn polls. That's what's it's all about folks. Nothing else.
Oct. 6: Romney Maintains Poll Momentum - NYTimes.com
RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama
Read, damn it. Keep up. Here's the bad part. We haven't even seen the worst of it yet. They're almost certainly going to be worse by Monday. And that means even I low-balled how bad the damage was. That's the reality. And you need to understand it.
I'm becoming really, really disappointed with my fellow Democrats here. You're behaving just the wingnuts when they don't want to see reality. They deny it. WAKE the HELL UP! Our side not DEMANDING that our Democrats do a better job standing up for US is the reason we have lost so much over the last 30 years. DEMAND that our Democrats stand up to these asswholes.
And this is for you Eese: anybody doubling down on the fu king stupidity that Obama was brilliant by playing a doormat to let a lying, obnoxious corporate walk all over it in order to get local TV coverage confused that could only have been about what the Doormat was doing is an IDIOT. And perhaps you simply don't follow the media. Do you actually see them saying what a great strategy Obama used? No! What you are hearing and reading in the media is how dominating Romney was. They're mesmerized by a fake alpha male. And the alpha male wasn't named Obama. The media is a damned clueless as you are. WAKE THE HELL UP! (Nobody gives a shhit what Howard Dean is saying for crying out loud.)
Obama is going to have to change this. And if he comes out with that same BRILLIANT strategy you love so much next time, there won't be a second term for Obama. He'll be toast. And so will we.
We are VERY close to losing it all. All of it. A Romney-Ryan Administration is not only the end of the country you grew up in, it's the end of the world you grew up in. Because a world that endures a Romney-Ryan Administration will not be a world you want for your children or grandchildren.
You need to understand just how Obama was the other night. He was a disaster. You don't have to look far to find that.
Jezebus fu king Criste.
Maybe it was rope a dope; you let the fool lie on the record and then you beat him up daily until the next debate.
Mitt's disdain for the truth essentially shows that the only thing Mitt cares about is Mitt. As unseemly as this sounds, it is not unbelievable that Mitt would sell everyone but perhaps his own family in order to become president. Anyone that nonchalantly can write off 150 million people, and ask or tell his family to lie for him, has already sold his soul and leased out his family's soul. His whole life has been without personal risk, see Bain employment guarantees, VietNam ideals, and not spending a dime of his own money on the campaign. He is spiritually corrupt. His trustworthiness is a joke, and his desire to be president is horrifying to thinking, and feeling people.
thanks for linking Gergen's remarks- nice editing- no lead in and incomplete representation of the point he was making. Oh and let's not forget how Romney called out BHO on his lies about oil drilling permits. The look on BHO's face said it all- lot's of Rev Al's pie all over it. It amazes me at what passes for journalism on MSNBC.
what "lies" David? Please, if you want to make such claims, then you need to tell us what lies were told and how Romney supposedly called him out. And please do tell us the "context" of Gergen's remarks, what do YOu think should have been the "lead-in" and what do YOU think is a "complete" representation? All you have seems to be vague accusations and that's it.
Actually, it was the Lyin' Sack of Mitt that was lying and obfuscating about the drilling:
Let's turn the mic over to Mitty:
Now let the facts have the mic:
Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn't begun exploring or developing.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/
What a surprise, huh?
There were so many lies put out there by Romney, the President would have had to use ALL of his debate time correcting them. As far as oil drillling--it is a point of some contention with Liberals and Progressives, how the President has diligently and repeatedly allowed drilling, allowed MORE permits, etc. The facts ARE: oil companies are making record profits and there is MORE drilling under Obama, than when Bush was in office. WE don't like it, but YOU should. The main problem, and you are a perfect representation, is that he gets NO credit for all the things he does, that Republicans LOVED under Bush. We get it--for no good reason, whatsoever, you HATE President Obama. It couldn't be that you are continuously being fed negative, hate-filled lies about him, day, after day, after day. Do you really believe SO many people would be on his side if he was as bad and inept at EVERYTHING as the Right makes him out to be? He has received more respect overseas, from foreign leaders, than any President since Clinton. He has done everything he can do to try and help our Veterans--didn't war and Vets, used to be a specialty under the Rightwing aegis? NOW, they are voting against protections for veterans because Obama proposes them? WTF is that. There has NEVER been the immense loathing, shown for a President, by the Right--EVER before! NEVER!
Even so you do realize David that the US government cannot control how much oil production exists unless we become communist and take over the oil industry, yes? Making more federal lands available for the oil companies to drill on may increase drilling, but it does not guarantee an increase in drilling. This is especially so if private lands are available that the oil industry wants to use as opposed to the public lands. So even by Romney's own logic this argument doesn't make any sense. I remember thinking this at the time.
The most vital problem in this country is the existence of FOX "News". I talk to people all the time, who think, it, actually, IS news. When you have a 24 hour propaganda factory, pumping peoples' minds with detritus containing lies, misinformation, disinformation--it will eventually, warp and erode those minds. I speak from experience. I lived in Colorado and was married to someone who enjoyed FOX 24/7. But, this was during the Bush administration, so it seemed rather comforting, to be constantly bombarded with the "news" that Bush was doing such a great job, "protecting" the American people, and getting the "terrorists" who attacked us (in Iraq), and what bad, unpatriotic Americans those Liberals were, to criticize a President during a time of war. Some, if not most of your logical and critical thinking, just, goes out the window. I'm afraid most of the people watching now, have a vast lack of logical and critical thinking, which makes them more susceptible to the brain-washing. FOX (and by "FOX", I would include all the radio offshoots--[but at least they don't call themselves "news"]) is the largest threat to democracy there is today, because the Rightwing agenda would NEVER get through without them. People would have to work things out for themselves and obtain real information from other sources. Have you ever tried to convince a FOX-watcher/Limbaugh-listener that what they are repeating to you is NOT true? Losing battle, my friend....losing battle.
here is another take on 50 ways
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFtqcS0rL4&feature=g-upl
True It is hard to debate a liar. But romney has done little besides lie during the entire campaign and Obama should have been prepared for anything.
I second this sentiment, everyone (and I mean everyone!) knew Rmoney would come out lying. I find it truly dazzling that nobody would expect this nor respond to it from the onset. Maybe it's a gentleman's formality!
@!$%#ing Democrats...
It's easy to refute a lie sitting in a chair the next day when you can easily research the facts. But if you and I were on a stage and I asserted that the distance from the Earth to Pluto is seven billion miles, how would you refute it without recourse to an iPad? Have you ever had a conversation with a pathological liar? It's simply impossible to have a meaningful conversation. The Republican party has nominated a joke of a candidate as the hail mary play of all hail mary plays. Don't blame the Democratic party for that -- rather, credit the party when so many of its candidates are victorious in November.
All this hand-wringing of Romney's "victory" in the debate is just flipping ridiculous.
Easy to say. Yes we all knew Romney is an inveterate liar, but he has pretty well kept to the same old, same old throughout the campaign. Obviously the President's campaign was expecting that whole line of lies again. Did you really expect him to blatantly lie about what he has proposed over and over throughout the primaries and up to the day before the debate?
Even the "experts" admit that it is almost impossible to refute a Gish Galloper. Due to the speed, the amount of fallacious authorizations and distortions of surveys, the number of lies being told and exponentially inflated, you would spend the entire debate time doing nothing else.
Add to that the fact that the President has to maintain a Presidential demeanor, not show his disgust and anger (lest he be called an angry, black man by the press), try to discuss the specifics of his plans for the second term (the purpose of the debate), that he had just been informed of the situation of Turkey/Syria, the fact that it was his 20th wedding anniversary and the ineptitude of the debate moderator to even maintain any of the agreed to rules of the debate, I thought he did an excellent job. He is, after all, a human being, not Superman or Iron Man.
Sure would be nice if people acknowledged that.
Well said, grama.
No, no, no, folks. Nobody expects the President to be able to respond to each and every little lie within a Gish Galloper's dance on the truth. But there are ways that the President could have handled it.
He could have taken on the biggest ones. And he could have used the lines his campaign prepared AFTER the debates when they realized they had blown it. It didn't take them long to come up with some handy responses. They should have done it before the debate and not after. This one is on really, really, really bad and cavalier preparation for this no-do-over event.
Obama blew it. And there's no excuse. He looked fu king terrible. We'll find out the cost soon enough, but the initial indications are it's pretty bad.
I'll say it again: have you ever had a conversation with a pathological liar?
Every day I do.
But this was a timed event. And Obama could have gotten in his licks to avoid taking the pounding a bully and liar gives you when you don't fight back. He found the words to take on the Gish Gallop AFTER the debate. He should have had them ready BEFORE the debate, ready to go. After all, it's not a secret Mitt Romney is a liar. They should have known and they should have prepared. They didn't.
BS, Disgusted. He didn't meet your expectations, that is your problem. There are more than enough that really weren't looking for a Chris Matthews battle. Personally, President Obama came out of it pretty well considering what he was dealing with. You know, liars expect everyone to lie. Honest people really don't think that a person would be that venal.
Lighten up. Obama has integrity, that came through beautifully.
You must really enjoy reading Hallmark cards as literature. Obama stunk. There's no shame in acknowledging when your guy did a bad job. He let a bully take advantage. Is that a surprise that a Democrat would do that? Those nice guys surrounding Obama simply haven't taken on the sort of personality that comes out of boardrooms when the corporate people want something and they don't have to defer to you. McCain wasn't like Romney. They simply didn't see the bully train steaming their way, and they blew it.
Nobody's arguing Obama's doesn't have integrity. But he did allow himself to be biitch-slapped, and there's nothing "beautiful" about that.
Disgusted, nope he didn't.
Yes, he did. He couldn't even look Romney in the eye when Romney was staring him down the whole time Romney was talking. And the reason is because Obama simply was not prepared for the onslaught of lies. Obama was NOT prepared. He knew that he didn't have the words to expose Romney. And there's no GOD DAMN excuse for that!
Look, please understand this. I really like Obama. I admire him. But we NEED Barack Obama to win. We desperately need Barack Obama to win. And we can't pretend he did a good job. We just can't. We have to let him know we expect him to stand up to the bullies and liars in our country. He hasn't done that and there's been a pattern of it. The only way is to stand up to these people because that is ALL they understand. And he has to stand up to them now. There's no tomorrow.
Actually, Disgusted, there are several tomorrows.
There is every day between now and the election for the President to refute the lies and for ads and fact checkers to point out the fallacies.
There is the debate between Vice President Biden and Lyin' Ryan. The Vice President won't be concerned with looking Vice Presidential and will certainly be prepared to face any of the lies. Hopefully the moderators will be a lot more insistent on abiding by the rules. Vice President Biden is much more liable to really speak his mind without worrying about appearing "angry".
And finally, there are two more debates between the President and the master of deceit. I seriously doubt that the President will be overwhelmed again. He is a fighter, he has fought against the obstruction in congress and has managed to accomplish quite a bit. He has fought the good fight for 4 years and he isn't going to give up now.
Take faith, Disgusted, it looks like we lost a battle, but there is still hope for winning the war. If it doesn't work, we can try a civil war.
I know all that gramapoetmn. Don't take my "tomorrow" as literally as you did. It means this Presidential campaign. Obama simply has to get in their face and call the liars LIARS. Because if he doesn't, he is going to lose. The press is a scandal in this country and it should be clear what the results of Obama's non-performance was the other night. The press was all agog over fake alpha male Romney and what the hell was wrong with Obama. Obama was simply unprepared for the audacious mendacity of the serial liar. There is no fu king excuse for that. NONE. Surely you've seen the reaction in the press. Hell, even SNL was making fun of Obama's wuss act. David Letterman, who prior to Wednesday was making fun of Romney as a coward for not coming on his show, had changed his tune on Thursday and saying Romney was better than he thought. That Letterman is clueless is not the point. Obama was a disaster Wednesday, and it has affected his image and wrongly make Romney something he isn't. The whole thing is so disgusting to me because I knew what Romney was going to do, I predicted it, and I thought Obama would be prepared. Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
The even more sickening part is that Mitt Romney was on the ropes. Obama could have delivered the knock out punch Wednesday. This race would have been over on Thursday if Obama would have stood up to that asswhole. Instead, just like he has done so often throughout his Presidency, he was a god damned wuss. He was unprepared. He did not fight. He did not tell the liar to his face he was lying. He let the liar call him a liar, and did NOT challenge it! He let the liar tell the nation that the liar cared, and did NOT challenge it. He let the liar make the impression that the liar's plans are the ones that will work. He let the liar tell the nation that the plans that have already caused all the problems are the solution and did NOT challenge it.
Look, I understand Obama's tendency to not relish confrontations with the sort of personalities that are someone like Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan. It sickens me to be in a room with those sort of overbearing, transparently lying corporate boardroom, chest-thumping, fake alpha male bullying basturds. But that doesn't matter. These sort of people simply have to be confronted and bullies have to be backed down. Obama is the one who has to do it. Nobody else can.
My fear is that Obama's performance was so damaging that he and/or Biden have only one option left: pointing in the liar's faces, calling out their lies, and calling them liars TO THEIR face in a very challenging way. Then challenging the press to do it's job and report on the substance and lies and not the animal posturing of the fight. But even though that would be entirely warranted, the irresponsible inattentive ignorant citizens in our midst might think that too aggressive. So that's dangerous. But a nation saw a wimp of a President on display Wednesday. And that image isn't going away soon.
Obama stunk, damn it. DEMAND from the people who are supposed to be standing up for you (and those of yours who come after you) to actually stand up for you (and those of yours who come after you)!!! Because if he doesn't, this country and world is going to be a much lesser place for those of yours that come after you than it was for you.
this is another take on 50 ways...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aGFtqcS0rL4&feature=g-upl
I debated back in high school, pre-internet - the late neolithic period. As I recall debates were won or lost based on factual accuracy and playing by the rules of time limitations and courtesy to your opponent. Why then does the media keep insisting that Romney won the debate? His lies left me hoarse from screaming at the TV screen and the fact that he kept over-stepping Obama's responses alone should have cost him points. Thank you for keeping us informed on Mitt's mendacity.
Well, was the class Presidency contingent on you convincing fellow students you had the answers to their life-and-death problems when you "debated" in high school.
A high school debate is a completely different animal than a Presidential "debate." The goal of a Presidential debate is, essentially, to get people who don't know who they're voting for to vote for you. It is not a practice session in logic and rhetoric or a moot court.
I wonder what it is like to be a family member to someone like this...do you think they intentionally avoid watching tv/reading to avoid the truth so that they can give their blind support?
Indeed, the world is full of vicious gangsters whose mothers think they're boy scouts.
What we saw in the debate was the use of the age old method of buffaloing your way through a verbal exchange with lies, bombast, and aggressiveness. The use of smoke, mirrors, and noisemaking has been a con-artist's method for winning an argument, or selling a questionable idea or product, since time immemorial. Romney came in like gangbusters, unencumbered by ethics or truth, determined to dominate and befuddle, both Lehrer and the President. Romney knew that he could not win a reasoned argument with Obama, so he came into the debate with the intention of taking it over, by knocking everyone off their feet, and then by creating the impression that he was the one with a command of the facts and an ability to win like a leader. Previous to the debate, many pundits had suggested that it was appearance that determines whether a debater wins a debate, and not the facts. Romney heard that, and as one whom had used the business-con all through his career, felt right at home blowing smoke, flashing mirrors, and blasting noise-makers, in order to look like he had command of the floor, and thus would be a better Commander in Chief.
I'm a mathematician by trade, and I've started to notice an interesting mathematical pattern. Namely, Romney tries to fit every numeric argument into factors of two. "Obama said he would cut the deficit in half, instead he doubled it." "Half of green energy companies Obama funded have gone bankrupt." "Gasoline prices have doubled." "Three percent of small businesses employ half of all Americans that work for small businesses." "The president's put in place as much public debt, almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined." (i.e., the total amount of debt ever taken out has doubled under Obama) Obviously Romney is lying, but this is too consistent to be an accident- it's a clever framing device to hook people who aren't mathematically inclined. Using the messy kinds of numbers that happen in reality would be hard to remember. Talking about the unemployment rate being at 8.1% or the tax rate shifting from 35% to 39.6% don't stick in people's minds. It's hard to picture numbers like that and to sense what they mean. But halving and doubling- even the bulk of the population who aren't mathematical experts can visualize those numbers. Romney is no idiot- he's a very clever propagandist who knows how to exploit people's weaknesses.
RawMoney is a two-bit Hitler. Yes, folks, some people really are comparable to Hitler, maybe not in absolutely every aspect, but nevertheless comparable.
Cue the bleating from the "It can't happen here!!!!!" crowd in 3...2...
Oh, another thing- did anyone catch Romney talking about the Constitution saying we are "endowed by our creator" with rights? Though it's possible I misheard, I'm pretty sure that's what he said, but of course those words come from the Declaration of Independence. This is a common lie on the Right.
All humans are "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" [from Declaration of Independence].
Government does not grant these rights.
But what some people seem to miss is that it is the responsibility of Government to protect the rights of each individual when they are being threatened.
Yes he did, but his point here was that he thinks Obama has attacked religion which Obama has not done. Requiring religious institutions to not discriminate against their employees when those employees are not holding official religious positions (so they are working as custodians, doctors, or teachers as opposed to priests, nuns, bishops, etc) and were not hired under the premise of being forced to adhere to the church's doctrine is called equality. That, to the fundamentalist right wing, is religious intolerance. But Obama won't point it out, if it comes up and if I had to guess, because he'd essentially be calling the "Christian" right exactly what it is: a bunch of Pharasies posing as Christians when they are only doing so because "it's just good business."
This is all fine and good, and we can whine about his mendacity but how does the message get out to those that are voting for Mittens and the independent voters?
The reality is that there is no message that "we" can get out to those who are voting for Gish Romney. They are so locked into either the greed factor, the race factor, the fundamentalist stop the women's rights issue or the "Oh my God! The LGBT is going to take over the world!" issue that they really don't care about anything else. In most cases they are so rabid about their issue they won't listen to anything.
As to the Independent voters, there are more debates and many more ads that will be informing them of the facts. I hope that now that the Romney/Ryan campaign has revealed their intents to Gish Gallop (yes, I like that term too!) the moderators will be ready for the game and I really will relish watching how Vice-President Biden and the Obama/Biden campaign will hand them their Gish on a burning plate.
Sad to say, I have been really upset with some of the tactics of our President in dealing with the opposition in the past. Interestingly, most of the time I have been screaming "What the heck are you doing????!!!!!" the issue has ended up going his way. After this debate, I am sure their campaign really expects to roll over both Vice-President Biden and President Obama in the rest of the debates. I won't start screaming until the "over" is over.
14. Romney said, "I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by 3 to $4,000 on middle-income families."
This may be correct!!!
What the blathering bloggers and corporately owned media tools never seem to remember is that Mittens almost always talks about middle income families and not middle class families AND that Mittens has defined middle income families as having income between $200,000 to $250,000 a year.
After all, Mittens is on record as saying that protecting the middle income families is why we must not cut taxes on higher income families. I suspect that Willard has some empathy for middle income families and a lot of scorn for what most consider middle class families.
MITT THINKS WE'RE INCREDIBLY STUPID.
Well then, he's right about the majority of people.
The Amurrican Peepul are a vastly over-rated group.
Can you please calrify - you keep saying the deficit is 1.2 trillion but wikipedia says " At the end of September 2012, debt held by the public was approximately $11.311 trillion or about 72% of GDP. Intra-governmental holdings stood at $4.848 trillion, giving a combined total public debt of $16.159 trillion[4][5][6] As of July 2012, $5.3 trillion or approximately 48% of the debt held by the public was owned by foreign investors, the largest of which were China and Japan at just over $1.1 trillion each.[7]
The difference is between "deficit" (the difference between what we spend and revenue each year) and "debt" (the total of everything we've borrowed, ever).
The Wikipedia article you reference is talking about debt. The $1.2 trillion figure is the deficit.
The old Conservative Pundit Move…Speculation but by George I think I got it….
I think I know why President Obama froze up on the debate….I have seen that before, I couldn’t put my finger on it, but I had seen that look and reaction by Obama before, with very very very smart Democratic guests that you have on MSNBC, Michael Steele used to use this strategy, and Alex Castillanos tried to use it on Rachel Maddow on Meet the Press. They use a hard aggressive voice and just speak over the Democrats. They interrupt before the Democratic guests can get there thought out. They use to do it a lot more, until the Hosts finally stopped them and moderated the discussion, but it took awhile for the MSNBC host to do that.
Democrats seem to innately shy from confrontation, they want to be above that sort of thing. I have seen Ron Christie try it with Ari Melber but Ari Melber pushed back on Martin Bashir. The MSNBC staff has gotten adept at pushing back. But President Obama doesn’t seem to like to do that, because he is still working under the old rules of being polite when interrupted. That is what the Republicans used to count on as guests on MSNBC and CNN. The Democratic Pundits looked the same way President Obama looked in the debate...surprised by the rudeness, but unwilling to shut the “BULLY’ down. Jim Lehrer looked like President Obama, surprised by the rudeness….Jim Lehrer did get Romney to back down from his “let me finish” with his firm “Let’s not”….
He just has to be equally as aggressive and shut the Bully down...."Excuse I am speaking”, they always back down with that phrase, or the "I let you speak now it my turn" in a firm voice....nothing wrong with that!
I’ll just bet ya that’s what happened….just sayin!
I think Obama was so soft because he's trying not to awaken the "angry crazed black man" racist trope. I think it was a political mistake on his part, but his margin is small for this.
The Tucker Carlson/Drudge Report stuff actually works on a lot of people. Sad.
@Yahoo Tom - I've come to another conclusion about this whole thing - by letting Mitt's inner bully run wild, the Prez gifted his campaign 90 minutes worth of Romney's raving lies for campaign ads. It also put a very Manic Mitt on display before the nation . One thing missing from the pundits declaring Romney the winner is that I've heard very few of them say Romney actually looked presidential, or like he's ready to lead the country. Granted, I don't think this was a deliberate strategy on the Prez' part - but it seems to turning out to be a slow-burn version of giving Romney enough petard to hoist himself.
One of my first thoughts was why is robme twitching? Why is he shifting foot to foot and grimacing? Why is he pursing his lips? I've had a hearing impairment for years and have always " read" facial expressions and body language. I've come to the conclusion ( and I agree with the gish gallop above) he had a high dose of caffine, maybe a couple of espressos prior to the debate. Because of all the lies and distortions, his facial expressions and his body language gave him away.
Give it up. GW Bush lied us into war and damn near a depression yet he was their choice twice. Face it the republican party has zero sense of honor and in fact see honesty as a weakness.
This is all fine and good and we can whine all we want about his mendacity, but how does the message get out to the independent/undecided voters?
In keeping with the scientific survey and data, I suggest Mitt now uses Ed Schultz's polls. They show that 97% of Americans don't trust Mitt Romney, and 96% would never vote for him. Sorry Mitt. Science!
Watching Fox news has been extremely illuminating. I just figured out how Mitt plans to 'cut' taxes on the rich without raising 'taxes' on the middle class. Today in CA, a "FEE" passed by a simple majority (a tax would require 2/3 majority) assessing a $150 "fee" to help pay for firefighters. ????? When asked by a guest on Fox news if someone who does not pay this "fee" should be allowed to have firefighters come to their house in the event of a fire, the Fox news commentator said no. So, the Romney plan is to innundate the middle class with "fees" rather than taxes. Grrrr. This opens up a whole 10 pages worth of anger but I will refrain for now.
That figures. He touts that he didn't raise taxes in Massachusetts, however he raised "fees" on almost everything.
Pawlenty used the same thing in Minnesota when he raised the taxes on cigarettes. Part of the settlement with the cigarette companies was that the state would not raise taxes on tobacco products. When he increased the tax on cigarettes exponentially, the tobacco companies tried to take him to court, but T-Paw changed the designation from a tax increase to a fee imposition. The most disgusting thing is that the funds that the cigarette companies paid to the state to alleviate the health problems from cigarettes wasn't being used under Pawlenty to help the citizens. I haven't heard what use those funds were applied to.
When so called Christians applaud what they must know is a lie and support a known liar who himself thumps a bible from time to time(even if it is a "Mormon" bible) then calling them on it is pointless. If they lie in front of their god risking damnation then you are nothing.