Romney strong out of the gate in debate: Obama Stumbling

Originally posted by Ghost375
Saying one candidate won is the same as saying one person looked better while spewing a bunch of lies.

So many sheep on this website.

edit on 4-10-2012 by Ghost375 because: (no reason given)

Presidential debates haven't been about substance for a long time. In the Kennedy/Nixon debates, those that watched on TV thought Kennedy indisputably crushed Nixon...who looked flustered, sweaty etc. Those that listened on the Radio (a decent number at the time) thought Nixon won the debate.

So yes...on the metrics of style etc that modern debates are measured by, Romney won.

On substance?...he lied through his teeth, flipped-flopped, etch-n-sketch galore.

Flash over substance...the nature of our politics.

reply to post by xavi1000



Interesting how Romney aims for the middle class "47%" in this debate
when a year ago, he showed no concern.

EDIT: This statement is completely inaccurate and makes no sense. Please don't flame me. Thank you.

Originally posted by Phoenix

Either way he just made President Carter look positively brilliant in comparison.

Personally I think majority of folks watching got their first real view of who and what Obama really is when he's all out there on his poor little lonesome.

BABO = Blame Anybody But Obama

Overconfidence and hyperbole IMHO....Romney ducks and weaves his way to a debate win and the right goes bonkers. Those on the left can only hope that the over-confidence reaches the Romney campaign. The odds of Pres. Obama not comming with a new strategy to pin down the "greased pig" on his claims and policy in round two is slim.

reply to post by Indigo5


Nature of our politics? Ha... the nature of American Culture.

We're not on 'The View' anymore, Barack.
Why did the president lose the debate so miserably last night?
The answer is simple:
Obama didn't have a teleprompter in front of him.
What we saw witnessed was the REAL Barack Obama. He's in over his head...and, in fact, was never qualified for this job.

Originally posted by IAMTAT
We're not on 'The View' anymore, Barack.
Why did the president lose the debate so miserably last night?
The answer is simple:
Obama didn't have a teleprompter in front of him.
What we saw witnessed was the REAL Barack Obama. He's in over his head...and, in fact, was never qualified for this job.

Obama couldn't even handle Elisabeth Hasselbeck, I wasn't surprised when Romney tore him a new one haha. No Whoopi Goldberg to whine the common sense away here Obama!

I know I'm not American but I do pay a great deal of attention to American politics. Well, I don't think Obama lost his speaking abilities and he always could do fine without a TelePrompter and I know it. For me he just was taken completely by surprise.

You may hate me for this and you can present any study based on economic liberalism, but 2008 were much more brutal on countries where the market operates with less federal regulation. Of course it's not a perfect statement and we have exceptions, economics is far from a exact science, but that was the general rule for this recession. Point being; the Republican golden rule of cutting rich people and big company taxes so they can reinvest the money into the US economy is not working so well as it did with Reagan. There are dozens of more interest countries to invest right now and the investors could not care less about patriotism or social well being. They put there money where the profit is higher.

Democrats and Republicans always disagreed when it comes to taxation and government regulations. With this economic recess peculiarities the Democrat build a solid speech based on their economic views and there was a very visible contrast between the two candidates. Until yesterday. Romney talked about taxing the people with higher income and taking the burden out of mid class shoulders. Romney also spoke in favor of regulations with such conviction he sounded like a true Democrat. And that took Obama completely off guard. When Romney defended less taxes for mid class citizens, small business, market regulation (even Dodd–Frank), the debate sounded more like a Democratic Party primary.

Now, I don't know if Romney actually means everything he said. I don't know if the Republican Party agrees with that kind of program. Even thought Mitt clearly stud up for some Republican ideals; “The president has a view very similar to the view he had when he ran four years ago, that a bigger government, spending more, taxing more, regulating more — if you will, trickle-down government — would work,”, he was not stubborn in denying that 2008's can be majorly faulted as a lack of regulation free-for-fall festival.

What I do know is that Romney is a terrific debater and he used very well the element of surprise.

reply to post by Indigo5

That said...we will see on the 2nd debate. The Pres. certainly flubbed this one, but he is also fiercly competitive, I wouldn't expect him to make the same mistake twice.

Obama might be "fiercely competitive" on the basketball court, but he certainly hasn't shown any competitiveness when dealing with Congress. He chooses to talk smack about them instead. He has no intentions of working with them again.

I knew Obama was quitting the entire game after the last debt ceiling debacle. Instead of trying to lead and attempting to "drive the car out of the ditch", he chose to pull the keys out of the ignition and throw them into the ditch, leaving the country stranded.

Here's another recent clue...

"The most important lesson I've learned is that you can't change Washington from the inside. You can only change it from the outside," Obama said.

"That's how I got elected and that's how the big accomplishments like healthcare got done, was because we mobilized the American people to speak out. That's how we were able to cut taxes for middle-class families," the president said.

Obama said that in a second term he would maintain "a much more constant conversation with the American people" to attempt to leverage their support to spur Congress to act on his agenda.

abcnews.go.com...

First of all, we all know that Obama didn't get Obamacare passed by mobilizing the American people. Most Americans were against it and we saw a large number of Democrats booted in November 2010 over it.

Secondly, the last sentence says it all. His whole tactic is to get Americans to do his dirty work for him. He wants to give speeches all day to the American public, give them limited facts, and then sick them onto Congress instead of fighting on their behalf. All talk, no action.

Obama just loves to talk. In fact, here's what the CBO had to say during the budget talks fiasco..

Months later, Obama still hadn't produced anything substantive. In fact, when the head of the Congressional Budget Office was asked in June about how Obama's "plan" would actually work, he said he couldn't give an answer because "we don't estimate speeches."

news.investors.com...

Obama has already accomplished what he came to do. He can spend the rest of his life (or not) boasting how he was able to pass healthcare reform when Bill and Hilary Clinton couldn't. I think he's just fine with that and ready to move on.

While I was a ron Paul supporter, I feel much more confident in supporting Romney. The "image" that has been painted by the media of both these two was shattered last night.

While understand the general cynicism, Romney does has a track record of fixing things, getting results of sorts. That, IMO, gives him more credibility to do more of what he states. he was pretty emphatic on where he would and wouldn't go. On a first impression basis, I tend to lean toward trusing him, at least until he violates that trust.

I do agree, there is no need for a federal "Obamacare". It is and should be a state to state issue chosen by their citizens. Those that want it, can have it. The feds have fouled up enough of those areas they are responsible for, immigration and the like, they don't need to be buy votes with national health coverage. The time should be on fixes, not expansion of federal services.

On that basis, Romney now has my support.

reply to post by Xtrozero


Then Ryan will take off his shirt and do his best P90X flex aaaaand done!

Originally posted by bigrex
America - if you smell something burning it's because the president just got SMOKED.

Lol I can see Romney and Ryan now "Shake and Bake" :lol

I didn't watch the debate, Got better things to do then sit in front of the tv getting lied to. I don't plan on voting for either of them anyway. But all the talk is Obama got his butt handed to him.

reply to post by Dustytoad


Who cares about this farce anyway?

I didn't watch the debate. I'm so tired of all of it. I do want to remind everyone that like him or not, Obama was the strong vocalized man during the debate prior to his election.

Kind of makes you wonder what happens behind the scenes which the public doesn't see in 4 years which causes a once strongly spoken, confident man to stutter as much as the posts here say he did, 4 years later.

Just food for thought.

reply to post by MRuss



All I know is if I had the job of running the country for 4 years, you'd need to roll me on that stage in a wheel chair and pump me full of tranquilizers. I'd also need a translator, some crayons, and diapers.

www.npr.org...

"Romney flatly disputed that number. "First of all, I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut," he said.

Who's right? The Washington Post's Fact Checker says the facts on this one are on Obama's side. The New York Times notes that Romney "has proposed cutting all marginal tax rates by 20 percent — which would in and of itself cut tax revenue by $5 trillion."

FactCheck.org has weighed in too, tweeting during the debate that "Romney says he will pay for $5T tax cut without raising deficit or raising taxes on middle class. Experts say that's not possible."


Romney appeared stronger with providing convincing numbers, but the fact checkers disagree. Aces.

Originally posted by Deetermined

I knew Obama was quitting the entire game after the last debt ceiling debacle. Instead of trying to lead and attempting to "drive the car out of the ditch", he chose to pull the keys out of the ignition and throw them into the ditch, leaving the country stranded.

Honestly...all partisanship aside...these avenues of attack seem bizzare to me. Pres. Obama and Boehner reached a deal, Boehner couldn't sell it the TP caucus. There was talk about Boehner's leadership position being at stake. Cantor undermining him etc. gunning for his job. CONGRESS passes a debt ceiling increase, not the President. What powers do you thin the President posseses? The debt ceiling debacle was 100% GOPs baby...or to qoute Boehner after the debacle...fiscal cliff included "we got 99% of what we wanted"

Originally posted by Deetermined

Secondly, the last sentence says it all. His whole tactic is to get Americans to do his dirty work for him. He wants to give speeches all day to the American public, give them limited facts, and then sick them onto Congress instead of fighting on their behalf.

Again...In theorey, congress are OUR representitives, they don't report to the president.????? What kind of political system are you advocating? One where the President rules Congress?

Obama just loves to talk. In fact, here's what the CBO had to say during the budget talks fiasco..

Months later, Obama still hadn't produced anything substantive. In fact, when the head of the Congressional Budget Office was asked in June about how Obama's "plan" would actually work, he said he couldn't give an answer because "we don't estimate speeches."

Again you seem confused. Congress holds the purse strings. The President submits a budget proposal oulining broad strokes...and Congress takes or leaves that framework and creates the actual budget.

The CBO has NEVER rated a Presidential Budget Proposal...duh. They rate full budgets that Congress...who has the sole power to create that budget...presents.

As per law, Obama has submitted a budget for each fiscal year he’s been president -- fiscal years 2010, 2011 and 2012, according to a quick check on the Government Printing Office’s website, where the documents are posted. It’s as simple as that.

But regarding Roemer’s second claim-- that Congress has worked for two years without adopting a budget -- budget experts say Roemer has a point.

Congress last adopted a budget resolution in fiscal year 2010. It neglected to do so in fiscal year 2011 and appears unlikely to agree on a budget framework for the next fiscal year, 2012, which begins Oct. 1, said Steve Ellis, a budget expert with Taxpayers for Common Sense, an independent group that analyzes federal spending.

www.politifact.com...

Assuming the truth matters?

Originally posted by renegade1179
reply to post by MRuss

 

All I know is if I had the job of running the country for 4 years, you'd need to roll me on that stage in a wheel chair and pump me full of tranquilizers. I'd also need a translator, some crayons, and diapers.

Wheelchair, tranks, diapers, crayons, translator? Sounds like my honeymoon.

Seriously though, Obama wanted the big chair. No whining about actually getting it.

reply to post by EyesWithoutAFace


The NPR article was dishonest, they only spoke of the 20% cut, but not the additional cuts in deductions and loopholes which negates that $5 trillion.

Obama, in referring to Romney’s plan as a $5 trillion tax cut, is basing that on the estimate of reducing tax rates by 20 percent while also extending the Bush tax cuts, two planks of the plan. Romney has argued that he can eliminate loopholes and deductions to make up that revenue but has not specified which ones.

www.washingtonpost.com...

As usual the media is only giving half the facts depending on their agenda....

Mitts whole idea IMO is to simplify the ridiculous tax codes.

Obama appeared to have a million other things on his mind; which isn't surprising given all the things he has to be briefed on and make recommendations on everyday; while Romney can sit and get coached 24/7 and memorize the rhetoric he plans to use and stick to it.

It was also clear Romney was pandering a bit to the Ron Paul crowd talking about the Too Big To Fail; like Romney really cares about that. I noticed Romney was making a great effort; to make the same gestures and make his voice softer too; to sound like Ronald Reagan.

Both of these candidates are not good for the country IMHO. No matter who "wins" we all are going to lose. So I am expecting small steady growth; unless one of the idiots elected decides to help Israel in their Iran paranoia. Iran is an issue but it appears sanctions are working...unlike in N.Korea; Iranians will revolt instead of starve under the current regime.

Doesnt matter who is blinking more, who seems more nervous or whos knows what they're talking about....the Candidate has already been selected. Neither one of them can or will make our world any better, because they arent the ones making the changes, they dont run a thing, they are merely a face for the people to turn to.

Thats why im not voting, I really dont see the point, unless someone can convince me otherwise...