Presidential Debate Thread - Obama vs. Romney (2 Viewers)

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

Romney's quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

That sounds fair.According to the latest Energy Department study published this past spring, which reports on the 2011 numbers, and we do not have 2012 oil production numbers yet.

Although Romney might have some type of time machine.

 

[Flying Spaghetti Monster]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

Proof?Anything?

Or is that just the voices in your own head talking?

Intrade has been a remarkably accurate in showing the voting will go.

The total volume for Obama: 1,875,334 Total Volume for Romney: 370,236

How difficult do you think it would be to manipulate this market by one wealthy individual?

So you are going with the voices.

 

[bigbottom]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

According to the transcript I'm reading, you've misquoted Romney. Here's the quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

And more importantly, the idea that the president has very much to do with this is nonsense. In most cases it takes many years to go from policy change to a change in levels of production. What's being produced now is a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations. Advances in drilling technology and market prices also play a role. And in any event, production on federal land is only a small share of the market, particularly with respect to oil obviously. Debating these minor changes in production one way or another is a dumb point to make for either side.

FYI: FSM didn't misquote Romney. I read it wrong.

And your point regarding current production being a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations is a good one. On the other hand, the drop in production in 2011 appears, at least in part, to be the result of the moratorium on drilling in the Gulf after deep water horizon. That was a call made by the current administration.

Your point regarding federal lands being only a small share of the market is also a good one. Romney conceded that domestic oil production is up overall.

 

[cstu]

do you realize the consulate was attacked previously and had requested additional security several times?

Do you realize no one cares?

pretty flippant comment when 4 guys are dead. I'm sure you're more concerned with Paul Ryan's dishwashing skills.

Like I said before, there are 1000 dead in Afghanistan yet for some reason you are trying to make the 4 dead in these attacks into the huge issue.

 

[Joe T]

This thread is pretty bad.

That is all.

 

[sporthenry]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

 

[bigbottom]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Did either candidate say one substantive thing last night about controlling spending?

 

[Jojo the circus boy]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

He can't do worse than 0bama the last 4 years, anything different is better at this point.

 

[cstu]

The governor says that he is not going to allow the top 5

percent, believe is what he said, to have a tax cut, that it will all

even out, that what he wants to do is give that tax cut to the middle

class. Settled?

OBAMA: No, it's not settled.

Look, the cost of lowering rates for everybody across the board,

20 percent. Along with what he also wants to do in terms of

eliminating the estate tax, along what he wants to do in terms of

corporates, changes in the tax code, it costs about $5 trillion.

Governor Romney then also wants to spend $2 trillion on

additional military programs even though the military's not asking for

them. That's $7 trillion.

He also wants to continue the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest

Americans. That's another trillion dollars - that's $8 trillion.

Now, what he says is he's going to make sure that this doesn't

add to the deficit and he's going to cut middleclass taxes.

deductions, which loopholes are you going to close? He can't tell

you.

 

[GroveDiesel]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

According to the transcript I'm reading, you've misquoted Romney. Here's the quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

And more importantly, the idea that the president has very much to do with this is nonsense. In most cases it takes many years to go from policy change to a change in levels of production. What's being produced now is a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations. Advances in drilling technology and market prices also play a role. And in any event, production on federal land is only a small share of the market, particularly with respect to oil obviously. Debating these minor changes in production one way or another is a dumb point to make for either side.

Oh, so oil and gas leases are a big driver? Huh, so since Obama has cut leases by about 40%, I guess we should be attributing the current production to Bush and the coming slowing in production to Obama.Now, moving onto the second part of Romney's statement -- that Obama's "administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that has been critical of Obama, asserted in a September 26 report that the rate of oil and gas leasing (or licenses, as Romney stated) "has slowed by about half."

It then directs readers to a chart on the federal Bureau of Land Management's website.

This chart does show that fewer leases have been granted under the first three years of Obama's administration, compared to the last few years under Bush. Fewer drilling permits have also been issued, for these lands.

During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands. For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases. This works out to a 42.4% decrease.

Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term. This is a 37.4% decrease.

 

[The Commish]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:Economy: Romney wins 58-40%Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Folks are convinced running a business is pretty close to running the government if not identical. That's a positive for Romney. He's been able to convince them of that while redirecting focus from his equations to "Obama's been the suck. He doesn't deserve another chance"

 

[cstu]

He can't do worse than 0bama the last 4 years, anything different is better at this point.

There probably won't even be a United States if 0bama gets re-elected. Amirite?

 

[ericttspikes]

I loved the fact that Romney was caught lying about Obama by the moderator.

When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.

"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."

Obama interrupted Romney, telling the Republican presidential candidate to "get the transcript" of his remarks. When the governor doubled down on his charge, Crowley interjected, saying the president "did in fact" call the attack an act of terror.

"He did in fact call it an 'act of terror,'" Crowley said.

Freaking beautiful.

Not only that, but it was such a lame point to be making in the first place. As if being the first person to say "terror" is some kind of desirable presidential attribute.

Yeah, I don't get the Libya thing at all. Is it a attempt to score a political point by saying it was an attack on "American soil" since it was an embassy? If so, that is really sad and pathetic. The bandwidth being used up over the attack is bizarre. I remember the Lebanon attack during Reagan. That was a huge deal and he didn't say it was terrorism, he called it a massacre. Big deal. I'm pretty sure Democrats didn't spend months arguing about the classification of the attack or using dead Americans as a political football. Pretty sick IMO.http://millercenter.org/scripps/archive/speeches/detail/5860

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Fair or not, it's a fact of life that any challenger would have an advantage over Obama on this issue. When you the incumbent and the economy has been lousy on your watch, you get blamed for it. I've argued elsewhere that is one step removed from blaming the president for the weather, but it's always been that way.

 

[The Commish]

He can't do worse than 0bama the last 4 years, anything different is better at this point.

 

[HellToupee]

WASHINGTON — In the rough-and-tumble of a town hall-style presidential debate, the facts took something of a beating Tuesday night.Mitt Romney wrongly claimed that it took 14 days for President Barack Obama to brand the assault on the U.S. Consulate in Libya a terrorist act. Obama yet again claimed that ending the Afghanistan and Iraq wars makes money available to "rebuild America," even though it doesn't.A look at some of their claims:OBAMA: The day after last month's attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, "I stood in the Rose Garden and I told the American people and the world that we are going to find out exactly what happened. That this was an act of terror and I also said that we're going to hunt down those who committed this crime."ROMNEY: "I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror."OBAMA: "Get the transcript."THE FACTS: Obama is correct in saying that he referred to Benghazi as an act of terrorism on Sept. 12, the day after the attack. From the Rose Garden, he said: "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for. ... We will not waver in our commitment to see that justice is done for this terrible act."But others in his administration repeated for several days its belief that the violence stemmed from protests over an American-made video ridiculing Islam. It took almost a month before officials acknowledged that those protests never occurred. And Romney is right in arguing that the administration has yet to explain why it took so long for that correction to be made or how it came to believe that the attack evolved from an angry demonstration.___OBAMA: "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well."THE FACTS: What Obama didn't mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus, using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit.___ROMNEY: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent. Why? Because the president cut in half the number of licenses and permits for drilling on federal lands and in federal waters."OBAMA: "Very little of what Governor Romney just said is true. We've opened up public lands. We're actually drilling more on public lands than in the previous administration and my — the previous president was an oilman."THE FACTS: Both statements ring true, as far as they go. Obama more correctly describes the bigger picture.According to an Energy Department study published in the spring, sales of oil from federal areas fell 14 percent between 2010 and 2011 and sales of natural gas production fell 9 percent, supporting Romney's point. The lower oil production was a result mainly of a moratorium on offshore drilling imposed by the Obama administration after the April 2010 BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history.According to the same report, though, oil production from federal areas is up 13 percent since Obama took office despite last year's dip, and analysts say Gulf oil production is expected to soon exceed its pre-spill levels.Natural gas production from federal areas has been declining for years because drillers have found vast reserves of natural gas in formations under several states that are cheaper to access than most federally controlled areas.___OBAMA: "For young people who've come here, brought here oftentimes by their parents, have gone to school here, pledged allegiance to the flag, think of this as their country and understand themselves as Americans in every way except having papers, we should make sure we give them a pathway to citizenship. And that's what I've done administratively."THE FACTS: His administrative actions do not provide a pathway to citizenship. The administration is allowing as many as 1.7 million young illegal immigrants to apply to avoid deportation for up to two years and get a work permit. And the government has begun a policy of prosecutorial discretion under which illegal immigrants with longstanding ties to the U.S. and no criminal history are generally not arrested and deported by immigration authorities. But these steps do not extend legal status or a process resulting in citizenship.___ROMNEY: "I know he keeps saying, `You want to take Detroit bankrupt.' Well, the president took Detroit bankrupt. You took General Motors bankrupt. You took Chrysler bankrupt. So when you say that I wanted to take the auto industry bankrupt, you actually did. And I think it's important to know that that was a process that was necessary to get those companies back on their feet, so they could start hiring more people. That was precisely what I recommended and ultimately what happened."THE FACTS: What Romney recommended did not happen, and his proposed path probably would have forced General Motors and Chrysler out of business. He opposed using government money to bail out the automakers, instead favoring privately financed bankruptcy restructuring. But the automakers were bleeding cash and were poor credit risks. The banking system was in crisis. So private loans weren't available. Without government aid, both companies probably would have gone under and their assets would have been sold in pieces.___OBAMA: "And what I want to do is build on the 5 million jobs that we've created over the last 30 months in the private sector alone."THE FACTS: As he has done before, Obama is cherry-picking his numbers to make them sound better than they really are. He ignores the fact that public-sector job losses have dragged down overall job creation. Also, he chooses just to mention the past 30 months. That ignores job losses during his presidency up until that point. According to the Labor Department, about 4.5 million total jobs have been created over the past 30 months. But some 4.3 million jobs were lost during the earlier months of his administration. At this point, Obama is a net job creator, but only marginally.___ROMNEY: "The proof of whether a strategy is working or not is what the price is that you're paying at the pump. If you're paying less than you paid a year or two ago, why, then, the strategy is working. But you're paying more. When the president took office, the price of gasoline here in Nassau County was about $1.86 a gallon. Now, it's $4 a gallon. The price of electricity is up. If the president's energy policies are working, you're going to see the cost of energy come down."THE FACTS: Presidents have almost no effect on energy prices; most are set on financial exchanges around the world. When Obama took office, the world was in the grip of a financial crisis and crude prices — and gasoline prices along with them — had plummeted because world demand had collapsed. Crude oil prices have since risen even as U.S. oil production has soared in recent years because global demand is reaching new heights as the developing economies of Asia use more oil.Other energy prices have fallen during Obama's term. Electricity prices, when adjusted for inflation, are down, and homeowners are finding it much cheaper to heat their homes with natural gas. That's because natural gas production has surged, reducing prices both for homeowners and for utilities that burn gas to generate electricity.___OBAMA: "What I've also said is, for (those earning) above $250,000, we can go back to the tax rates we had when Bill Clinton was president."THE FACTS: Not exactly. The Bush tax cuts set the top income rate at 35 percent. Under Obama's proposal to raise taxes on households earning more than $250,000, the president would return the top rate to the 39.6 percent set during the Clinton administration. But he neglected to mention that his health care law includes a new 0.9 percent Medicare surcharge on households earning over that amount — and that tax would be retained. The health care law also imposes a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for high earners. So tax rates would be higher for the wealthiest Americans than they were under Clinton.___ROMNEY: "I'm going to bring rates down across the board for everybody, but I'm going to limit deductions and exemptions and credits, particularly for people at the high end, because I am not going to have people at the high end pay less than they're paying now."THE FACTS: Romney is proposing to cut all income tax rates by 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax and the alternative minimum tax, maintain and expand tax breaks for investment income, and do it all without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden from the wealthy to the middle class. He says he would pay for the tax cuts by reducing or eliminating tax deductions, exemptions and credits, but he can't achieve all of his goals under the budget rules presidents must follow.The Tax Policy Center, a Washington research group, says in a study that the tax cuts proposed by Romney would reduce federal tax revenues by about $5 trillion over 10 years. The study concludes that there aren't enough tax breaks for the wealthy to make up the lost revenue, so the proposal would either add to the deficit or shift more of the tax burden onto the middle class.Romney's campaign cites studies by conservative academics and think tanks that say Romney's plan will spur economic growth, generating enough additional money to pay for the tax cuts without adding to the deficit or shifting the tax burden to the middle class. But Congress doesn't recognize those kinds of economic projections when it estimates the budget impact of tax proposals.___ROMNEY: "A recent study has shown that people in the middle class will see $4,000 a year in higher taxes as a result of the spending and borrowing of this administration."THE FACTS: Romney's claim is based on an analysis by the conservative American Enterprise Institute that examines the amount of debt that has accumulated on Obama's watch and in a potential second term and computes how much it would cost to finance that debt through tax increases. Annual deficits under Obama have exceeded $1 trillion for each year of his term.However, Obama is not responsible for all of the deficits that have occurred on his watch. Most of the federal budget — like Medicare, food stamps, Medicaid and Social Security — runs on autopilot, and no one in a leadership position in Washington has proposed deep cuts in those programs. And politicians in both parties voted two years ago to renew Bush-era tax cuts that have contributed to the deficit. Even under the strict spending cuts proposed by Romney, the debt would continue to rise, just not as quickly.___Associated Press writers Jonathan Fahey, Tom Krisher, Stephen Ohlemacher, Andrew Taylor, Bradley Klapper, Matthew Daly, Matthew Lee and Alicia A. Caldwell contributed to this report.

 

[The Commish]

Obama won on style last night. He scored a few more points, was interrupted less, was given more time to speak but even if you give the 'win' to Obama is wasn't by much. I talked to the fiance last night, a few guys in the office this morning and pretty much everyone thought Obama won the debate but came away liking him less. I think it's kind of like the VP debate. If you were scoring points you probably gave it to Biden but you also came away thinking Biden was a buffoon and Ryan a likeable, earnest guy.

I think the post debate CBS Poll is very telling. Respondents scored Obama the winner 46% - 39% but gave Romney the edge in every single category:

Economy: Romney wins 58-40%

Health care: Romney wins 49-46%.

Taxes: Romney wins 51-44%.

Deficit: Romney wins 49-36%.

Strong leader: Romney wins 49-46%

Interesting.

It is scary people think Romney wins on the economy/taxes. His math has proven to not add up but instead of defending the actual policy behind the numbers, he just said "Well of course they add up, I've run businesses before..." He then talks about balancing the Olympic budget which was helped by receiving $410 million from the government. So wait, he balanced the budget with government money? And somehow being a businessmen puts him above the laws of mathematics. And perhaps most importantly, the government isn't run as a business. As Romney alluded to last night, he would have let the Detroit car companies go Chapter 11, not completely bankrupt but restructuring. And this seemed to be the Republican's response to raising the debt limit, well we can just let it go bankrupt and figure it out from there not realizing that the only thing that backs our money is the same government you were going to let fail. The government doesn't exist to make a profit, this isn't to say it should run a deficit either, but government's running deficits in times or recessions and depressions isn't unheard of and is rather common and encouraged by economists.

Fair or not, it's a fact of life that any challenger would have an advantage over Obama on this issue. When you the incumbent and the economy has been lousy on your watch, you get blamed for it. I've argued elsewhere that is one step removed from blaming the president for the weather, but it's always been that way.

They certainly get blamed for it, but that doesn't automatically mean that the other person is "better". I'd agree with this premise if Romney just sat back and didn't say anything at all about his "plans" but even the slightest details he's given us point to him being relatively the same (and an argument made for worse) than Obama...especially on taxes. I don't understand why folks aren't looking at net effects in this arena. They seem to stop at "Romney says he's going to lower taxes" without listening to the rest of what he says he's gonna do.

 

[Clayton Gray]

He can't do worse than 0bama the last 4 years, anything different is better at this point.

John Kerry says !

 

[IvanKaramazov]

OBAMA: "Let's take the money that we've been spending on war over the last decade to rebuild America, roads, bridges, schools. We do those things, not only is your future going to be bright, but America's future is going to be bright as well."THE FACTS: What Obama didn't mention is that much of the money that has been paying for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was borrowed. In fact, the government borrows nearly 40 cents for every dollar it spends. Thus, using money that had been earmarked for wars to build schools and infrastructure would involve even more borrowing, adding to the federal deficit.

This is another example of "fact-checkers" screwing up. First of all, "the facts" don't contradict what Obama said. Moreover, you can make an excellent argument that the social rate of return on infrastructure is greater than whatever return we're getting from Afghanistan, and that that rate of return justifies deficit spending. Finally, shifting spending from the war effort in Afghanistan to infrastructure spending has no direct effect on the deficit at all. The "fact-check" shtick has been really, really bad this election cycle.

 

[bigbottom]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

According to the transcript I'm reading, you've misquoted Romney. Here's the quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

And more importantly, the idea that the president has very much to do with this is nonsense. In most cases it takes many years to go from policy change to a change in levels of production. What's being produced now is a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations. Advances in drilling technology and market prices also play a role. And in any event, production on federal land is only a small share of the market, particularly with respect to oil obviously. Debating these minor changes in production one way or another is a dumb point to make for either side.

Oh, so oil and gas leases are a big driver? Huh, so since Obama has cut leases by about 40%, I guess we should be attributing the current production to Bush and the coming slowing in production to Obama.Now, moving onto the second part of Romney's statement -- that Obama's "administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that has been critical of Obama, asserted in a September 26 report that the rate of oil and gas leasing (or licenses, as Romney stated) "has slowed by about half."

It then directs readers to a chart on the federal Bureau of Land Management's website.

This chart does show that fewer leases have been granted under the first three years of Obama's administration, compared to the last few years under Bush. Fewer drilling permits have also been issued, for these lands.

During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands. For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases. This works out to a 42.4% decrease.

Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term. This is a 37.4% decrease.

Can you point out specifically what lie by Obama you are referring to? A specific quoted statement would be helpful.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think this Libya thing is going to be a problem for BO.At the very least, how did Candy have the quote on her desk ready to protect BO?

I was wondering that, too...She didn't exactly have anything with a network connection either. So how did she know what he did or didn't say at that exact moment like that?

The questions were all pre-screened and Crowley picked which ones were going to be discussed. This was talked about before the debate.

So she memorized the exact quote?Or did she decide to have the transcript right there with her?Either way, not really appropriate. It isn't her place to fact check (and if she's going to, she should be fact-checking everything).(and before you say its because it hurt Romney, I'd say the same thing if it was done to Obama)

 

[sublimeone]

You guys who don't think Obama gained anything last night are in luck. The Intrade price on Obama to win the election has jumped about two points in the last 12 hours. Use your super-duper insight that I'm sure isn't affected by your political leanings at all to short him now, and make big money! Good luck, fellas!

2 points! Wow! with volume of about 50,000 shares that's like, not really a big deal at all. With volume so low it would be extremely easy to manipulate that 'market.' And given the fact that intrade has become a political football itself it's no longer a reliable indicator.

Proof?Anything?

Or is that just the voices in your own head talking?

Intrade has been a remarkably accurate in showing the voting will go.

The total volume for Obama: 1,875,334 Total Volume for Romney: 370,236

How difficult do you think it would be to manipulate this market by one wealthy individual?

So you are going with the voices.

My link

 

[BigTex]

So the takeaway is that the polls say Obama won by about an 8% margin. Unfortunately for him, they also say that he lost the economics debate by about a 40% margin. Also, the MSNBC panel's undecideds actually had Romney winning the debate overall.

With the economy being the biggest issue for this election, I don't see how any rational person can claim last night as a big win for Obama when he is still getting clobbered on the #1 issue.

link?

My bad, it's closer to 30% after the debate, down from over 40%. CNN's poll had it closer than that at 18%. None of those numbers are good in any way for Obama though.

I don't understand what you're saying. If I'm reading this correctly, you "don't see how any rational person can claim last night as a big win for Obama" because he lost the previous debate?So you're not allowed to celebrate a win if you get clobbered in the previous contest? If so, I'm curious to get your thoughts on the Bills-Cardinals game last Sunday, bearing in mind that the Bills lost 45-3 in the previous contest. I hope you're not claiming a big win for the Bills.

None of those numbers have anything to do with the first debate. HTH

OK. So what are you saying? I don't follow it at all. Obama won the debate by all measures. The links you offered said Obama won the debate. How is that anything other than winning the debate?If you're saying that he didn't win the debate because people still favor Romney on the economy, that also makes no sense. The Cardinals gained more yards than the Bills. Can the Bills therefore not celebrate the win?

Who cares what the breakdown is by issue? The polls showed the election tied or maybe a slight edge to Obama before the second debate. He won the second debate. If people prefer Romney on the economy, that's great for Romney. But that edge isn't new, it was already built into the previous polling. A win is a win is a win.

Daffy Duck owned Bugs Bunny in talent contests too, but in the long run, people just didn't like him.

link?

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

 

[bigbottom]

I think this Libya thing is going to be a problem for BO.At the very least, how did Candy have the quote on her desk ready to protect BO?

I was wondering that, too...She didn't exactly have anything with a network connection either. So how did she know what he did or didn't say at that exact moment like that?

The questions were all pre-screened and Crowley picked which ones were going to be discussed. This was talked about before the debate.

So she memorized the exact quote?Or did she decide to have the transcript right there with her?Either way, not really appropriate. It isn't her place to fact check (and if she's going to, she should be fact-checking everything).(and before you say its because it hurt Romney, I'd say the same thing if it was done to Obama)

Then why aren't you complaining that she did the same thing to Obama?

 

[pantagrapher]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

Yeah, he and his friends were sitting around wondering what question they would ask with their once-in-a-lifetime chance to appeal directly to the two candidates in a presidential debate ... and they decide to regurgitate Paul Ryan's accusation from the VP debate.

 

[ericttspikes]

Obama:

"Well, think about what the governor -- think about what the governor just said. He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse, because we were about to go through the worst recession since the Great Depression, as a consequence of some of the same policies that Governor Romney's now promoting. So, it's conceivable that Governor Romney could bring down gas prices because with his policies, we might be back in that same mess."



Reminds me of him explaining Clinton era tax rates bringing back Clinton era prosperity..

Does this man know how this thing works? Doesn't seem like it..

I was more surprised that a free market guy like Romney didn't understand that markets determine prices based on demand.

 

[DoubleG]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim,You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

He was clearly a right wing plant. I mean what else could possibly be a reasonable explanation for the question? We've already established that no one cares about this issue and if so they are right wing nut jobs who are already voting for Romney. Or work for sensationalistic media companies. That must be it - he's a conservative from FOX. Grab torches and pitch forks everyone!! We found the villain!!!!

 

[Sam Quentin]

Romney was flabbergasted Obama would parse words and ignore earlier statements? Rich.

sounds silly when you say it that way, but I think he was stunned by how blatant it was

 

[SmoovySmoov]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

That "undecided voter" was really bad at veiling his hatred for the President.

 

[bigbottom]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim, You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

That "undecided voter" was really bad at veiling his hatred for the President.

Same goes for the "undecided voter" who wanted to know how the candidates differed from the Bush administration which got us into this mess.

 

[sublimeone]

Jeremy's Spoken

 

[TobiasFunke]

You know your debate strategy sucks when not only your opponent calls you out for lying but the moderator does as well. I wonder why type conversation Mitt had with his fact checkers after the debate.

So where do you stand on Obama's Romney's lie regarding oil and gas leases and production on federal lands?

Fixed.Romney: “Oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.”

In fact, the Congressional Research Service has said that oil production on federal lands was up slightly in 2011 compared with 2007.

According to the transcript I'm reading, you've misquoted Romney. Here's the quote: "As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production is down 9 percent. " Oil production was down 14% in 2011 from 2010 levels. Assuming he misspoke and meant 2011, not 2012 (since we don't have total oil production data for 2012 yet), Romney's statement was correct. But Obama's statement was correct as well. Oil production on federal lands for 2011 was up over 10% from 2008 levels. So neither of them lied on that point. Romney was looking at the most recent year's data, while Obama was looking at the three years of his tenure in office.

And more importantly, the idea that the president has very much to do with this is nonsense. In most cases it takes many years to go from policy change to a change in levels of production. What's being produced now is a reflection of leasing decisions made mostly during previous administrations. Advances in drilling technology and market prices also play a role. And in any event, production on federal land is only a small share of the market, particularly with respect to oil obviously. Debating these minor changes in production one way or another is a dumb point to make for either side.

Oh, so oil and gas leases are a big driver? Huh, so since Obama has cut leases by about 40%, I guess we should be attributing the current production to Bush and the coming slowing in production to Obama.Now, moving onto the second part of Romney's statement -- that Obama's "administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half."

The Institute for Energy Research, a nonprofit research and advocacy group that has been critical of Obama, asserted in a September 26 report that the rate of oil and gas leasing (or licenses, as Romney stated) "has slowed by about half."

It then directs readers to a chart on the federal Bureau of Land Management's website.

This chart does show that fewer leases have been granted under the first three years of Obama's administration, compared to the last few years under Bush. Fewer drilling permits have also been issued, for these lands.

During the last three fiscal years totally under Bush, there were 9,661 "new leases" granted for federal lands. For the three most recent fiscal years (which includes a few months of Bush's administration), there were 5,568 such new leases. This works out to a 42.4% decrease.

Take the same comparable periods for drilling permits on federal lands. There were 20,479 for the last three years under Bush, then 12,821 for the most recent three including much of Obama's first term. This is a 37.4% decrease.

Literally not one word of your post contradicts anything I said. You did a fine job of cherry-picking your data, though.

A recommendation: next time, don't have your research dictacted by a "nonprofit research and advocacy group that has been critical of Obama" described on Wikipedia as:

... a tax-exempt public foundation and is funded entirely by tax deductible contributions from individuals, foundations and corporations. No financial support is sought for or accepted from the government., According to the liberal watchdog group, Media Matters, since 1996, $110,000 of IER's funding has come from the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation, a trust set up by private energy company Koch Industries. IER also received over $300,000 in funding from ExxonMobil,[3] but Exxon has not given to IER since 2007. The Institute's CEO, Robert L. Bradley, Jr., was formerly a director of policy analysis at Enron, where he wrote speeches for Kenneth Lay. Bradley has written books indicting Enron's crony capitalism including "Capitalism at Work" and "Edison to Enron."

Instead of letting these people interpret the numbers for you, why not just go straight to the numbers? If you do that, what you'll find is, generally speaking, there has been a small dip in new leases early in the Obama administration, but generally things have been pretty steady, as reflected by the total number of leases in effect. You would also find that, while the number of permits approved has dipped since the high point in the later Bush years, it's still pretty high when viewed in historical perspective, in fact comparing favorably to the first few years of the Bush presidency.

So, essentially, nothing worth getting your panties in a twist over, just like I said. Especially since, as I pointed out earlier, market factors affect these statistics as much or more than anything else. The recent boom in shale gas production, which is located mostly on private land, has driven producers away from federal leasing (which is always more expensive, for good reason, since it's our land they're leasing and we all deserve a say in how it's used and how we're compensated) and towards private leasing. Plus the price of natural gas generally is way down, which obviously gives companies less motivation to get permits to produce at marginally commercial sites.

 

[Sam Quentin]

No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for, (except when we made sure to rouse that YouTube video guy in the middle of the night and locked him up because we found a rationale to do so)

fyp

 

[bigbottom]

Jeremy's Spoken

I wonder what the job prospects are for exercise science majors.

 

[Mr. Pickles]

I agree that it isn't a top issue for most people, but the rest of this is , and so is Tim's stance here. It's pretty clear that some people care about this, even if you want to argue that they shouldn't. They do.

When I say nobody, what I mean is nobody that matters in terms of this debate. In other words, I don't believe independents and swing voters care about this. (Outside of Bigbottom, that is.) Conservatives certainly care about it, but they're already voting for Romney, so how they perceive this debate makes little difference.

Tim,You are aware that last night's audience was made up of Independent/undecided voters, aren't you?

That guy who asked the Libya question was definitely undecided.

But he and some guys were sitting around at work and talking about this issue. That whole presentation from him was off.

He was clearly a right wing plant. I mean what else could possibly be a reasonable explanation for the question? We've already established that no one cares about this issue and if so they are right wing nut jobs who are already voting for Romney. Or work for sensationalistic media companies. That must be it - he's a conservative from FOX. Grab torches and pitch forks everyone!! We found the villain!!!!

You feeling alright?

 

[17seconds]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.

In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.

I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

 

[RBM]

Whether you think O won or Mr Romney won, it was close, and no way did anything happen that would give the legions of voters who flocked to Team Romney after the first reason to flip again.

 

[Sam Quentin]

So she memorized the exact quote?Or did she decide to have the transcript right there with her?

considering that this story has been discussed a lot on her own network, you'd think that a "journalist" would be remiss if she didn't bring this up sooner....

 

[jonessed]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.

In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.

I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

Jeremy's Spoken

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Romney was flabbergasted Obama would parse words and ignore earlier statements? Rich.

sounds silly when you say it that way, but I think he was stunned by how blatant it was

Sorry. Still rich.

 

[17seconds]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.

In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.

I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

Do you disagree with her statement or are you just laughing at the name?

 

[RBM]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

I think the only anger you should hear from the right is because of the dope moderator getting involved to aid Obama. If she was doing those little fact checks all night for both sides, fine, but to pick that one time to do it was not in good taste.

 

[bigbottom]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

I think the only anger you should hear from the right is because of the dope moderator getting involved to aid Obama. If she was doing those little fact checks all night for both sides, fine, but to pick that one time to do it was not in good taste.

She said Obama was right on the phrase and that Romney was right on the more susbtantive point.

MR. ROMNEY: Yeah, I — I certainly do. I certainly do. I — I think it's interesting the president just said something which is that on the day after the attack, he went in the Rose Garden and said that this was an act of terror. You said in the Rose Garden the day after the attack it was an act of terror. It was not a spontaneous demonstration.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed.MR. ROMNEY: Is that what you're saying?PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please proceed, Governor.MR. ROMNEY: I — I — I want to make sure we get that for the record, because it took the president 14 days before he called the attack in Benghazi an act of terror.PRESIDENT OBAMA: Get the transcript.MS. CROWLEY: It — he did in fact, sir.So let me — let me call it an act of terrorism — (inaudible) —PRESIDENT OBAMA: Can you say that a little louder, Candy? (Laughter, applause.)MS. CROWLEY: He did call it an act of terror. It did as well take — it did as well take two weeks or so for the whole idea of there being a riot out there about this tape to come out. You are correct about that.MR. ROMNEY: This — the administration — the administration — (applause) — indicated that this was a — a reaction to a — to a video and was a spontaneous reaction.MS. CROWLEY: They did.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Romney was flabbergasted Obama would parse words and ignore earlier statements? Rich.

sounds silly when you say it that way, but I think he was stunned by how blatant it was

Do you think Obama was similarly stunned in the first debate?

 

[sublimeone]

The Debate Romney Won

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. — Bullish Democrats are calling it a blow-out. Pundits are giving the president the slight edge. And the late-night insta-polls splashed across cable news chyrons initially appeared to give Obama a solid, if not game-changing, win.

But the Romney campaign spent the hours after the contest contending that the debate strengthened their position — and they may have a point.

A CNN/ORC International poll published late Tuesday identified Obama has the overall winner, 46 percent to 39 percent.

But the poll also showed that Romney won on virtually every issue he's chosen to place at the center of his campaign, from handling of the economy and tax policy, to the deficit and even health care. The Republican National Committee quickly seized on the results, and blasted out screenshots of Wolf Blitzer standing behind a giant, illuminated screen displaying the findings.

"I like the numbers," said one senior Romney adviser in the lobby of a nearby Marriott hours after the debate. As he spoke, he waved an iPad with the RNC press release pulled up on the screen, and repeatedly gestured toward it as he tried to convince a small group of reporters that Romney came out on top — horserace analysis be damned.

"I think the president hurt himself with women," he said. "He had no answer on gas prices, which our polling shows is one of the biggest concerns for women." He added that the president came off "as a weak leader."

Senior adviser Kevin Madden similarly highlighted Obama's response on gas prices, arguing that Romney's performance played better with the middle class than with the pundits.

Obama aides themselves seemed to grant Romney the win on the economic questions — particularly his answer to an undecided voter that entailed a biting critique of Obama. Easily shifting into a stump speech riff he's been practicing for a year, Romney went through a point-by-point indictment of the president's economic record, and attempted to tap into the disillusionment many 2008 Obama supporters have expressed.

"I think you know better," Romney told the disappointed voter. "I think you know that these last four years haven't been so good as the president just described and that you don't feel like your confident that the next four years are going to be much better either."

It was Romney's strongest moment of the debate — and the weakest moment for Obama, who, surprisingly, chose not to challenge the Republican on his response. The Romney campaign turned part of the exchange into a campaign ad.

After the debate, Obama surrogates emphasized topics like immigration, equal pay, and Libya, while almost completely ignoring Romney's rhetoric on the economy.

Their only statements on the issue: Top Obama aides repeated the president's prepared attack that Romney's tax and jobs plans are "sketchy."

"If you go with Gov. Romney, you're going to risk going back to the same failed polices that wrecked the economy and he's got a sketchy deal on taxes and jobs that won't work for you," said senior adviser David Plouffe on the message Obama tried to convey on the economy in the debate.

But Team Romney smelled victory on that issue. A Romney aide said afterward that he is still planning to give a major speech on debt and deficits between the third debate and Election Day.

 

[17seconds]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

I think the only anger you should hear from the right is because of the dope moderator getting involved to aid Obama. If she was doing those little fact checks all night for both sides, fine, but to pick that one time to do it was not in good taste.

The anger I've seen from several people on FB is that Obama was spouting BS the whole time. Even saw someone post "IS OBAMA EVER GOING TO OWN UP TO BENGHAZI?!?!" after he did just that in the debate.. twice.It's a type of general anger that usually happens when someone you hate is doing well.

 

[DoubleG]

He was clearly a right wing plant. I mean what else could possibly be a reasonable explanation for the question? We've already established that no one cares about this issue and if so they are right wing nut jobs who are already voting for Romney. Or work for sensationalistic media companies. That must be it - he's a conservative from FOX. Grab torches and pitch forks everyone!! We found the villain!!!!

You feeling alright?

Thanks for asking - I was trying on the whole "victim/conspiracy/let's assume everyone who disagrees is just an idiot" thing that many of the ultra-libs here use. I was feeling a little queezy and disoriented. But I stopped trying to imagine that government has to wipe my ### for me - so I'm better now. Thanks again for your concern.

 

[sublimeone]

Rachel Maddow's take on the debate was spot on. Romney was just as strong as the first debate but the prez was much, much better than last time. Had his best debate performance ever.

In the aftermath it's very easy to tell who won based on the partisan reactions. The right is either saying the debate was boring or that the moderator wasn't fair... A lot of anger on FB from the righties as well. Listened to a little bit of Wilkow Majority this AM and the guy spent forever talking about Libya.

I don't think Obama gets a big boost from last night but I do think it nullifies much of Romney's gain from the first debate. The sentiment that Romney owns Obama face to face is gone.

Do you disagree with her statement or are you just laughing at the name?

he's the same way FSM or Drummer would be if someone quoted Sean Hannity