He thought they would actually have a debate... But of course that's too much for Mitch. We will see next time.
"Well, two things. I mean, you know, the debate, I think itís fair to say I was just too polite, because, you know, itís hard to sometimes just keep on saying and what youíre saying isnít true. It gets repetitive. But, you know, the good news is, is thatís just the first one. Governor Romney put forward a whole bunch of stuff that either involved him running away from positions that he had taken, or doubling down on things like Medicare vouchers that are going to hurt him long term.
ÖAnd, you know, I think itís fair to say that we will see a little more activity at the next one."
Not directed toward anyone specific just a general PSA
10-10-2012 11:40 AM
Yes, I already said both lied. It's just inaccurate to only say Romney lied, while Obama didn't.
They both did. Welcome to politics!
Obama lost. No way to spin it. And what you describe is what all politicians have to do when they have a primary to win. They need to win the primary, so they out conservative each other (in the case of Democrats they out-liberal each other) and then move to the center for the national election.
It's Karl Rove 101. They're not trying to win a Boy Scouts badge of honor here, they're trying to win the election. They are pandering to voters.
Remember this whopper told by Barack Obama in 2007.
Let's not forget all of his other campaign promises that he flipped on while in the White House.
And let's definitely not forget his flip flop flip, on gay marriage. His position on gay marriage is so transparent. In 1996, while in a local race, he stated he was 100% for gay marriage and would oppose any laws against it. Then, when the race changed to a more national race for Senate, he changed his position. He maintained this position until his own internal polling found that most of America was ok with gay marriage, and then he flipped the switch again.
Seriously, if we're going to be pissed about things politicians do, at least be consistent.
These guys are driven not by what they really want, but by electoral incentives. It's why barack obama switched his stance on gay marriage. Nationally, it was not acceptable yet. His vast minority base opposes gay marriage. Only when his campaign bean counters said it was ok, did he switch back to his true stance.
But again, I was just pointing out, that Obama lied plenty. They both did. And that's called campaigning. But to call one a liar and pretend the other was truthful, well that's just digging a hole in the sand and putting our head in it.
As you can see by the link above, Obama lied plenty during the debate. He better prepare harder for the next two.
So, Romney "won" the debate. Yeah, he was more dynamic, more personable, more energetic but then again, so is your average used car salesman; doesnt mean you really want to buy the car from him. The real irony here is that in order to "win" he actually had to distance and even downright disavow himself from his earlier positions that he has been advocating since before the primaries. In essence, to "win" with the American people, he had to make a major shift to the left. Not that any of that matters when it comes to the truth. Sure, he might have talked a good line and he could sell ice to Eskimos, but anyone who is a good liar, can do that, does not mean that you can trust anything they are telling you. Mitt Romney is a bit too much like Saruman from The Lord of the Rings or perhaps Wormtongue.....
10 of his most shameless lies:
Click here to read the 27 lies in 38 minutes of Mitt Romney in the debates:
So, if you are a Republican fine, but tell us how you can seriously have any idea of what you are voting for with this flip flopping shape shifter?
10-10-2012 06:17 AM
We're talking about cutting the DEFICIT! The DEFICIT!! Not the DEBT, not the DEBT, the DEFICIT!!! (Alan Iverson, where are you?)
... and the debt keeps on growing. I guess we all have to start somewhere (sigh) .
10-10-2012 01:57 AM
Twelve lies of Obama on debate night (and counting)
THE CLAIM: Obama: “I’ve Proposed A Specific $4 Trillion Deficit Reduction Plan.” OBAMA: “I’ve proposed a specific $4 trillion deficit reduction plan. … The way we do it is $2.50 for every cut, we ask for $1 in additional revenue.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Virtually No Serious Budget Analyst Agreed With This Accounting.” “But virtually no serious budget analyst agreed with this accounting. Obama’s $4 trillion figure, for instance, includes counting some $1 trillion in cuts reached a year ago in budget negotiations with Congress. So no matter who is the president, the savings are already in the bank.” (Glenn Kessler, “Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012,” The Washington Post‘s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
THE FACTS: Obama’s $4 Trillion Figure Includes Money From Legislation Enacted With Republicans And From War Savings That Would Occur Anyway. “In promising $4 trillion, Obama is already banking more than $2 billion from legislation enacted along with Republicans last year that cut agency operating budgets and capped them for 10 years. He also claims more than $800 billion in war savings that would occur anyway. And he uses creative bookkeeping to hide spending on Medicare reimbursements to doctors.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)
“Take Those ‘Cuts’ Away And Obama’s $2.50/$1 Ratio Of Spending Cuts To Tax Increases Shifts Significantly More In The Direction Of Tax Increases.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/3/12)
Obama “Twisted The Truth” With The $4 Trillion Figure. “Obama also twisted the truth when he repeated the claim that his proposals would reduce the 10-year deficit by $4 trillion. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that Obama’s budget would increase cumulative deficits by well over $2 trillion over that time period.” (Meghan McCarthy, Katy O’Donnell, Amy Harder, and Catherine Hollander, “Fact Checking The Presidential Debate,” National Journal, 10/3/12)
LIE #2: OBAMA CLAIMED HE WOULD RETURN AMERICA TO TAX RATES UNDER CLINTON
THE CLAIM: Obama: “We Should Go Back To The Rates That We Had When Bill Clinton Was President.” OBAMA: “But I have said that for incomes over $250,000 a year, that we should go back to the rates that we had when Bill Clinton was president, when we created 23 million new jobs, went from deficit to surplus, and created a whole lot of millionaires to boot.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Obama Repeated A Favorite Talking Point” But Americans Will Pay More Under Obama Than Clinton Due To New Taxes In ObamaCare. “Obama repeated a favorite talking point, saying that his tax plan would return rates for the wealthy back to where they were during economically prosperous times under President Bill Clinton. But those making over $250,000 a year would actually pay more than they did under Clinton due to new taxes imposed on upper-income people to pay for the health care law.” (Brooks Jackson, Eugene Kiely, Lori Robertson, Robert Farley, D’Angelo Gore and Ben Finley, “Dubios Denver Debate Declarations,” Factcheck.org, 10/4/12)
LIE #3: OBAMA SAYS ROMNEY’S MEDICARE PLAN WOULD COST SENIORS $6,000 A YEAR
THE CLAIM: Obama: “The Problem Is That Because The Voucher Wouldn’t Necessarily Keep Up With Health Care Inflation, It Was Estimated That This Would Cost The Average Senior About $6,000 A Year.” OBAMA: “The problem is that because the voucher wouldn’t necessarily keep up with health care inflation, it was estimated that this would cost the average senior about $6,000 a year. Now, in fairness, what Governor Romney has now said is he’ll maintain traditional Medicare alongside it .” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: The Washington Post ‘s The Fact Checker: “He Still Clung To An Outdated Estimate Of An Earlier Version Of The Plan, Claiming It Will Cost Seniors An Extra $6,000 A Year. (He Had Previously Earned Two Pinocchios For This Claim.)” “In the debate, Obama acknowledged that the GOP Medicare plan, authored by Romney running mate Paul Ryan, has been changed. But he still clung to an outdated estimate of an earlier version of the plan, claiming it will cost seniors an extra $6,000 a year. (He had previously earned Two Pinocchios for this claim.)” (Glenn Kessler, “Factchecking The First Presidential Debate Of 2012,” The Washington Post‘s The Fact Checker, 10/4/12)
LIE #4: OBAMA SAYS ROMNEY’S PLAN WOULD RAISE TAXES ON MIDDLE CLASS FAMILIES
THE CLAIM: Obama: Under Romney, “The Average Middle-Class Family With Children Would Pay About $2,000 More.” OBAMA: “And that’s why independent studies looking at this said the only way to meet Governor Romney’s pledge of not reducing the deficit — or — or — or not adding to the deficit, is by burdening middle-class families. The average middle-class family with children would pay about $2,000 more.” (President Barack Obama, Presidential Debate, Denver, CO, 10/3/12)
THE FACTS: “Romney Says His Plan Wouldn’t Raise Taxes On Anyone, And His Campaign Points To Several Studies By Conservative Think Tanks That Dispute The Tax Policy Center’s Findings.” “Romney says his plan wouldn’t raise taxes on anyone, and his campaign points to several studies by conservative think tanks that dispute the Tax Policy Center’s findings. Most of the conservative studies argue that Romney’s tax plan would stimulate economic growth, generating additional tax revenue without shifting any of the tax burden to the middle class.” (Calvin Woodward, “FACT CHECK: Presidential Debate Missteps,” The Associated Press, 10/4/12)
yes it's from GOP.com, but they're just compiled. These are just the first four. Hit the link for 8 more lies told by Obama, factchecked by websites not known to be conservative (like Washington Post).
Obama got his butt whooped and now his supporters are trying to say it's because Romney lied. Hah. He lost it because he was ill-prepared and he's terrible off the cuff.
That's why he needs a teleprompter. He's a smart guy, but he's not used to being challenged. It's like a rapper who can write rhymes very well, but can't freestyle off the top of his head or battle for shit. Like Kanye West. Great lyrics when he can write them down. But listen to him freestyle he's shit.
That's Obama. He's not Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton is a master at communications. it's an insult to all great speakers to call Obama a great speaker. He's a great speech reader.
Not trying to pick at you Kirk, and definitely not saying Romney didn't lie. They both lie. They're trying to get elected. I just want you and others to know, these guys are the same man!
10-10-2012 01:48 AM
Here is Stephanie Cutter, a leader of Obama's campaign, admitting (after being pressed) that Obama's $5 trillion claim, is a lie.
So when calling Romney a liar, he ... lied himself.
Watch the whole thing. It's pretty good. The money phrase:
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.
CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.
Obama's campaign KNOWS that Romney isn't trying to cut $5 trillion, and accuses Romney of lying when he says he is not going to cut taxes $5 trillion, and then just a few days later his campaign manager is on national TV admitting it's not really $5 trillion. Even stipulates to it.
Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney's Tax Plan
I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral.
Princeton economist agrees with Romney that it is plausible his proposals can be achieved. Obama cites this very economist while presenting the opposite conclusion.
Yeah, only Romney is lying. This is what Obama said at the debate:
At last night's presidential debate, Barack Obama said that Mitt Romney's tax plan--cutting rates by 20 percent across the board and maintaining revenue neutrality by eliminating loopholes--is mathematically impossible.
"If you are lowering the rates the way you describe, Governor, then it is not possible to come up with enough deductions and loopholes that only affect high-income individuals to avoid either raising the deficit or burdening the middle class," Obama said. "It's — it's math. It's arithmetic."
And then goes on to cite the Princeton economist who actually agrees with Romney, and says the Obama campaign is telling us the wrong facts. I.e., lying.
Ok I'll give them a pass. Obama misunderstood the study he was citing when calling Romney a liar.
A smattering of polls are out showing a huge Romney bounce from the debate, but overall they don't. And the 'huge' bounce is only 2 points in the more reliable polls.
The bad news for Mittens is that he still trails by 80 votes in the Electoral College. (no emails about the Electoral College, please)
Obama was running ads the next day illustrating Romney's blatant lies. The right leaning pundits claim they don't have to cover or even admit to the fallacies because Obama didn't point them out during in the debate. Which is yet another lie, he did point them out as much as there was time to do it. Responding to 26 different lies is nearly impossible in such a format, not counting Romney simply repeating the lie when Obama challenged him. If you listen to the debate and don't focus on the closeup of Obama looking down on the split screen, Obama won. Willard comes across as a giant sewer rat on Meth.