Romney knocked it out of the park . . .

[Grim17]

Honestly, I don't see how Romney won this debate. If you're looking at style points and Romney seemed more energetic, then maybe, but on almost every point I thought the president won. The president called Romney out on his tax plan, how he wanted to cut taxes and increase military spending, and expects to cover 5 trillion somehow by cutting loopholes. 'The math just doesn't add up'. On medicare, Romney was called out on the voucher system, but repeatedly tries to say that it won't affect current medicare recipients. President responds saying if you're 55 or 54 listen up because it may affect you. Romney was being vague on how to solve the deficit, president says balanced approach is the best, Romney called out on rejecting 10 to 1 spending cuts.

The few good points Romney had were on energy, how 90 billion could have been spent on education instead of energy, and also the keystone pipeline and developing energy at home. Other than that I think the President had a good response for everything and I think he won based on what they said instead of how they looked or acted in front of the camera.

The reason why you don't understand how Romney won, is obvious based on your post... It's because you only heard the things you wanted to hear and basically tuned out everything Romney said, especially his responses to Obama's descriptions of his policies.

 

[Taylor]

The AP just reported that Mitt Romney's garbage man handed him a Gatorade, gave him a hug, and told him what a good job he did tonight.

 

[Opteron]

The reason why you don't understand how Romney won, is obvious based on your post... It's because you only heard the things you wanted to hear and basically tuned out everything Romney said, especially his responses to Obama's descriptions of his policies.

Maybe vice versa as well... Please point out how Romney made such a good performance, and not just by seeming energetic in front of the camera..

 

[MaggieD]

Credit for what? For things that I have always and openly despised in American political culture? Now, that would be dishonest.

If I was going to give him credit, it would be for something like Romney stating that his proposals would cause hardships but that these would have to be endured for the greater good of America's future. That would have brought some reality to the situation, even though I don't agree he is putting the hardship on the right people.

I have no obligation to stop making critical arguments because other people are pleased with the improvisational theater of televised debates.

You are one angry dude. If you despise America's political culture, what the hell are you doing here? I suggest a cup of hot cocoa and a good book might serve you better. If you think any politician would ever be elected by telling people they were going to have to endure hardships? Skip the cocoa. I doubt it mixes with what you're obviously smoking. (Those kinds of conversations are better made as Fireside Chats.

 

[Grim17]

Please point out how Romney made such a good performance, and not just by seeming energetic in front of the camera..

Why don't you personally ask someone who watched it, because based on the post debate polls, 2 out of 3 people saw Romney as the winner. If there's nobody around, check out the post debate discussions at the news network of your choice, because every one of them conceded that Romney won.

 

[Opteron]

Why don't you personally ask someone who watched it, because based on the post debate polls, 2 out of 3 people saw Romney as the winner. If there's nobody around, check out the post debate discussions at the news network of your choice, because every one of them conceded that Romney won.

I don't blindly believe things because polls say so or everyone else believes something. Care to respond with actual points or quotes, or is it not possible for you to do that? I watched that debate and Romney was proven wrong on most points. Also flip-flopped on his positions from previous campaigning.

 

[Grim17]

I don't blindly believe things because polls say so or everyone else believes something. Care to respond with actual points or quotes, or is it not possible for you to do that? I watched that debate and Romney was proven wrong on most points. Also flip-flopped on his positions from previous campaigning.

You see... Right there... Neither Obama or Romney was proven wrong on anything. The so called "proof" comes from your pre-determined set of partisan, political facts. You went into this debate believing everything Obama has said, and not believing anything that Romney has said, and that is the prism with which you saw this debate through.

What's so funny is, you don't believe polls, but tomorrow when Obama's favorite fact checker Politifact finds something Romney said to be a lie in their eyes, you will gobble it up.

 

[Higgins86]

I thought Romney spent most of the night on the defence when he should of been on the attack!

 

[radcen]

If only intelligent voters were allowed to vote, Obama would have never won to begin with, but would be laughed out of the campaign this year.

Well, if only intelligent voters were allowed to vote, Romney wouldn't have won the primaries, either.

 

[Opteron]

You see... Right there... Neither Obama or Romney was proven wrong on anything. The so called "proof" comes from your pre-determined set of partisan, political facts. You went into this debate believing everything Obama has said, and not believing anything that Romney has said, and that is the prism with which you saw this debate through.

What's so funny is, you don't believe polls, but tomorrow when Obama's favorite fact checker Politifact finds something Romney said to be a lie in their eyes, you will gobble it up.

Nah, its called common sense and math. When Romney says that he will reduce taxes and increase military spending, but not increase the deficit, you know that somethings up. Im actually pretty objective and give credit to Romney for his points on energy and I don't 'gobble things up'. The other points Romney was not strong on and I see you still don't want to provide substantive points on which Romney might have bested the President... Probably buy into style vs substance like many other people.

 

[Bronson]

 

[Loki97]

That might be a line you could apply to President Bush - who did put the duties of the office as top priority.

Obama doesn't really spend much time doing the job of POTUS - he just has the title. He spends his time smoozing with celebrities and fund raising. He let the crisis in Libya simmer while he partied in Vegas and sent out his minions to lie about what was going on over there to keep from revealing his incompetence.

Obama is an empty suit, and a bit of a jerk at the same time.

Face it - Obama is just not very smart. Romney out-smarts Obama by leagues.

Obama is an affirmative action success - he has no personal characteristics to qualify him for any job - surely not the POTUS.

Have you suffered recent brain damage? Assuming you mean Bush II, he took more vacation than any President since Herbert Hoover. He spent 32% of his time in office on vacation. Really, these lies you are trying to promote are sad even by the low standard of the Tea Party.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Romney sounded a lot better tonight. Unfortunately for him, most of things he said were outright lies, flip flops, empty platitudes, and vague promises.

For example... if you're going to lower rates and close loopholes... aren't you effectively not cutting taxes? And if it's supposed to be "revenue neutral", doesn't that mean that you're just continuing what's going on already?

Romney put on a good show, but he won't look as good once the fact checkers get done with him.

That's the beauty of it, from his perspective. A lot of people will not fact check this stuff today. Sure, you and I will. We care and are informed. But average joe just saw Gov Romney smack down Pres Obama and that's what he goes to work with today and talks about.

 

[MarineTpartier]

Well, if only intelligent voters were allowed to vote, Romney wouldn't have won the primaries, either.

Yeah, Ron Paul would've

 

[Billy the Kid]

President Obama will be walking around carrying his butt today because Romney handed it to him last night.

I don't know if the problem was no teleprompter or the President started believing his own press but he sure lost that one.

 

[Jonsa]

After reviewing the various fact checking done on debate, it seems Romney was a little more loose with the truth than Obama. The education cut thing was a lulu, the Dodd/Franks thing was bald faced.

Another thing that nobody seems to want to address is the fact that Romney apparently used the debate to announce all kinds of "plans" he didn't tell anyone about until then. Why aren't any of the "plans" available or review".

And the other odd thing was the surprising extent to which Romney was including ALL the elements of Obama's plans that polled well. Instead of the litany bills he'd repeal that he's be touting on the campaign trail for the past 2 years, all of a sudden he's keeping the good stuff in Obamacare, dodd/franks for example. After stating repeatedly that he was going to shut down Education Dept and provide bloc grants to the states, he now is adamant that no teachers will be fired or schools shut down or student denied - hardly a claim he can make. As he stated a number of time, let the states figure out how to use the money.

He won the debate because he was suprisingly facile and energetic. But in the winning, he once again demonstrated that his "policies" are extremely flexible and he's willling to say whatever he thinks the audience wants to hear. Its truly remarkable how much his "plans" have morphed since the primaries. I wonder when the morphing stops and we get to see what he really wants to do?

 

[Paschendale]

That's the beauty of it, from his perspective. A lot of people will not fact check this stuff today. Sure, you and I will. We care and are informed. But average joe just saw Gov Romney smack down Pres Obama and that's what he goes to work with today and talks about.

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the electoral process in this country. The facts should be the most important thing. Truth should be the most important thing. I've heard the "Obama's record sucks" mantra for years. It still isn't true, no matter how many times people say it. We should not be praising the candidate with prettier lies.

 

[haymarket]

Romney destroyed Obama

Obama looked like a cornered demagogue out of excuses because that's exactly what he is. This debate will change the election in Romney's favor. No doubt about it.

Romney did win - and by quite a bit. As to if this makes the difference, we will see. Obama could change that with in the next two debates IF he is willing to learn from his mistake last night and come oour swinging a baseball bat with as nine inch nail drive tnrough it and aim for Mittens head.

Of course, he will not.

 

[Conservative]

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the electoral process in this country. The facts should be the most important thing. Truth should be the most important thing. I've heard the "Obama's record sucks" mantra for years. It still isn't true, no matter how many times people say it. We should not be praising the candidate with prettier lies.

Do you even know what the Obama economic record is? Sorry but you don't seem to understand results at all. Answer a couple questions for me

Are there more unemployed today than when he took office?

Has the labor force kept up with population growth and is it higher than when he took office?

Is the labor participation rate higher than when he took office?

Is the misery index lower than when he took office?

Is the economic growth stronger this year vs last year and last year vs 2010?

Are there more or less on food stamps and below the poverty level today vs when he took office?

Is the median income higher or lower than when he took office?

Are there more or less discouraged workers today than when he took office?

How about some specifics and what is better today than when he took office and what he promised?

 

[Conservative]

Romney did win - and by quite a bit. As to if this makes the difference, we will see. Obama could change that with in the next two debates IF he is willing to learn from his mistake last night and come oour swinging a baseball bat with as nine inch nail drive tnrough it and aim for Mittens head.

Of course, he will not.

I hope he does learn from last night's debate and resigns. He cannot defend his record as he can only campaign as if that record doesn't exist. We saw last night which person was Presidential and we saw what an empty suit Obama was.

 

[Loki97]

You see... Right there... Neither Obama or Romney was proven wrong on anything. The so called "proof" comes from your pre-determined set of partisan, political facts. You went into this debate believing everything Obama has said, and not believing anything that Romney has said, and that is the prism with which you saw this debate through.

What's so funny is, you don't believe polls, but tomorrow when Obama's favorite fact checker Politifact finds something Romney said to be a lie in their eyes, you will gobble it up.

What is even funnier is you and most of the Romney supporters who are now taking a series of flash polls right after the debate as gospel and evidence of a massive sea change have spent the last two weeks before the debate claiming all the polls unfavorable to Mitt were invalid. I think we have clearly established what constitutes a valid poll in your book. I'm not sure that some who thought Romney won won't have a morning after experience. Those who take the time to do a little research will see that Romney lied repeatedly about his past proposals and won't name any specifics on anything that matters. It's kind of like waking up after a night carousing and discovering the person you thought was a beauty queen 12 hours ago is really more of a drag queen in the light of day.

 

[Conservative]

What is even funnier is you and most of the Romney supporters who are now taking a series of flash polls right after the debate as gospel and evidence of a massive sea change have spent the last two weeks before the debate claiming all the polls unfavorable to Mitt were invalid. I think we have clearly established what constitutes a valid poll in your book. I'm not sure that some who thought Romney won won't have a morning after experience. Those who take the time to do a little research will see that Romney lied repeatedly about his past proposals and won't name any specifics on anything that matters. It's kind of like waking up after a night carousing and discovering the person you thought was a beauty queen 12 hours ago is really more of a drag queen in the light of day.

What you saw last night was one candidate looking Presidential and the other showing that he is a empty suit. Interesting that an Obama supporter would call repeated lies from Romney, this coming from someone who voted for an empty suit who ran a campaign of lies. You wanted specifics? You got them a total smackdown of the President's economic record and a President who wants to ignore that the last four year's results were his.

How can you support the empty suit and continue to buy his lies but more importantly ignore his record?

 

[shiang]

I really hope he wins. I thought he did an excellent job. Has a terrific stage presence...what he said made sense...he held his own against the President of the United States. (This was not the debate(s) with McCain four years ago.)

I loved what he said about not having specifics. Paraphrased, he says he doesn't start with specifics. He starts with goals. He knows what he wants to accomplish and will work in a bipartisan way to get it done to the best of his ability. Romney should have said, "I don't work the way you did when you dumped a 2,000-page document on Congress and said my way or the highway." He has pretty good evidence of his ability to work across the aisle seeing as Romneycare was passed with a Congress made up of 87% Democrats.

I liked his phrase of "Trickle Down Government." Catchy and really does a good job of describing Obama's philosophy.

I thought Obama did very well. I expected him to. He's got the inside track. He's an excellent speaker with an engaging personality. I did notice we didn't see that confident little boy grin. I think he was genuinely challenged.

I really thought Romney held his own. He had to nail this debate in order to have any expectation of a win. I think he did.

You?

I disagree, both with "knocking it out of the park" and Obama did well or even OK. I thought Romney exceeded expectations for sure and did better than Obama. He was hardly perfect and flawless though, he left himself open to attack a few times and Obama was too concerned with "not losing the lead" to use his head and make a move. Obama seemed fatigued, weary, and confident, it's like he's not there - at least 53% of him. =P

If you have the time please read the new thread I posted.

 

[Loki97]

What you saw last night was one candidate looking Presidential and the other showing that he is a empty suit. Interesting that an Obama supporter would call repeated lies from Romney, this coming from someone who voted for an empty suit who ran a campaign of lies. You wanted specifics? You got them a total smackdown of the President's economic record and a President who wants to ignore that the last four year's results were his.

How can you support the empty suit and continue to buy his lies but more importantly ignore his record?

Discrediting the other guys plan isn't the same as offering one of your own. This isn't a high school debate where all the negative team has to do is defeat the proposal of the affirmative team. Romney won't give vital specifics of his economic plans and without them they will certainly make the deficit worse. Romney claimed he wasn't reducing taxes for the rich but has proposed a 20% cut across all brackets. Economists say that even closing every loophole on the rich won't make that plan revenue neutral. That means you have to start hitting the other tax brackets. If this was a formal cross examination debate instead of the free for all the moderator allowed it to become, Obama would have cited those sources and Mitt merely claiming they are incorrect wouldn't have cut it.

 

[clownboy]

Maybe vice versa as well... Please point out how Romney made such a good performance, and not just by seeming energetic in front of the camera..

Well, you could try reading from any of the dozens of editorial pieces from both liberal and conservative media outlets this morning - that should educate you some.