This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Thinking Romney is a better option than Obama, fine. I don't agree, but thats atleast in the realm of possibility. But worse than Dubya's second term? You mean the President that was in office for the biggest financial collapse since the Great Depression? That's just absurd.
I don't think you get to play the fast and loose high roller card when you bailed and cut the original bets in half out of fear.
You've got to think it's a significant advantage to be Romney here. It's like an evening student without a job testing against a full-time student. I still have faith in the POTUS. He'll bounce back from this.
Probably regrets that he brought Bobby Valentine with him
You seem to have real problems here. There was no sense in claiming anybody but Romney won. That just seems to be the fact of it. And when they say he was speaking to people at home they mean his answers were aimed at the undecided who were watching not the media, the moderator or the relative handful of people on attendance.
I was shocked that he didn't hit this repeatedly. Should have thrown down the gauntlet in his closing comments too.Romney did very well stylistically. He dominated Obama. Whether it translates to votes will depend on whether the media pounces on Romney's complete lack of specifics about how he'll accomplish the impossible.
They let Obama run on unnamed failed policies of Bush and Hope and Change.
I think Obama was thrown off his game early on when Romney flat out denied that his tax plan was what he said it was. But I guess when you haven't laid out your plan, you can just deny everything.
Yeah, just imagine how much better he would have seemed if he hadn't been doing important Presidential duties like appearing on Letterman or breaking out the champagne tower at Jay-Z's campaign fundraiser.
Those ladies at The View must have worn him out.
Hey, I agree. However, I'm referring to the last few days, not the bubblegum crap these guys do to get votes and money.
FBI on the ground today, but nothing that wasn't already in the works. I've been supportive of Obama on the Libya front so far, but I'm starting to think this is the issue that could sink him if some of the recent claims about security are true.
And that was Bush's fault? It had nothing to do with a housing bubble which was caused mostly by policies that were in place long before Bush was in office? The difference with Obama, a lot of the problems we have is because he has implimented a lot of dumb policies which are hurting the economy more than helping.
Let me see if have your position straight. The collapse of 2008 was not Dubya's fault because of policies of prior adminstrations and legislatures, but Obama is solely responsible for not completing a recovery from that same collapse inside of 4 years?That's Boston level homerism there.
Name one policy which Bush did which caused the housing bubble and financial collaspes. Bush was the only politician in DC who even attempted to do anything before it burst, but Barny Frank would have no part in that. The securitization of home mortgage loans lead to horrible practices in giving out terrible loans was the primary cause and was implimented under Clinton. Yes, Bush could have screamed louder and done more, but the animals had already left the barn. That bubble was going to crash. Bush's TARP was a huge success and by far the most important policy leading to our short-lived recovery. Under Obama, his policies of focusing on trying to keep government jobs, infastructure projects, green energy and demand side economics completely failed at producing long term results. That $800 billion stimulus should have focused on giving small businesses incentives to hire people. That would have produced real self-sustaining long terms jobs instead of the temporary ones which dry up as soon as government money goes away. The results of us headed back into decline was easily predictable based on Obama's stupid short-sided policies.
He was thrown off by that but I don't t agree with the comments that Obama didn't go after Romney on it. He kept bringing this issue up throughout the debate, which certainly lost him style points. On the plus side, he did back Mitt into basically admitting he is using voodoo economics to claim it is revenue neutral.
Obama lost. Romney was often the aggressor. However, Romney did finally admit that he raises zero revenue and would not raise a single tax rate. Yet he gets rid of deductions, which A) do not pay for his reduced rates and B) will result in higher taxes paid by those in the middle. This needed to be more explicitly explained by Obama.
Serious business?
They didn't have to. Romney surrogates and campaign guys are already walking back things he said. Like when he said he would cover per-existing conditions. His campaign was walking that back before the lecterns were cold. There was no way to spend the whole night countering Romney. Now they'll do it in TV ads.
Speaking of, I did appreciate Romney's sleight of hand when he asserted that Obama supports trickle down economics, which is the notion that government can make wealth trickle down. That and the "I'm not going to cut taxes, I'm talking about tax relief." Frank Luntz is smiling today.
Saw that this morning. Win the debate by misrepresenting your position, then walk it back when nobody is looking. Brilliant.
Romney spent the whole night misrepresenting everything. As far as I can tell if the Democrats are aggressive they can get at least 6 ads out of Romney being less then truthful. And they can use his own words to do it.
I thought Obama explained it pretty well, but that is never a conversation that is going to work in a debate.
Did you actually watch the debate yet?Or just relying on selected clips?
Well, last night he was the loser.
Pretty easy to go through all the fact checks, articles and see how the spin went. Both sides were a little loose with the facts on occasion. The 4 trillion in deficit reduction Obama claims relies on some tricky accounting for example. But from what I have read it seems Mitt kept it up with the same old lies. Half of Green companies that the DOE gave money to are not out of business for an example on his side. And as I mentioned above his surrogates are already out and about walking back the things he said in the debate that his plans simply don't do despite him saying they would on national television.
So, you haven't watched the actual debate?Reminding me of when Tim had all kinds of comments about a boxing match he never watched.
I thought Obama was right to pass that up, as well as the tax issue. Those were two areas where you know Mitt would have been drilled to death with responses, and the worst possible outcome from the debate would have been a Obama making a major slip or opening up an opportunity for Romney that wasn't there. I don't think that means being passive though, and he needed to be able to do a better job hitting Romney on the black box policy details.
What does watching it have to do with it? I have already said Romney won. But that doesn't mean he didn't shade the truth and even outright lie on occasion. And I don't have to watch the debate to get that from it. Plenty of articles and fact checkers making sure it's all out there.
Kept Greenspan as Fed ChairRelaxed lending standards to up homeownership
