Oh!pinion Rotating Header Image

Well-prepared with fresh lies
Romney wins debate with Obama

No voltage sign

Imagine the confrontation of a seasoned diplomat vs. a Marine Corps general, the former accustomed to conversation and negotiation, the latter’s attitude one of “Get out of my way or be prepared to wear my footprint on your face,” and you get the tone and tenor of last night’s first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney.

To fully appreciate the event, though, you’d have to imagine a president who had failed to get a good night’s sleep and hadn’t had a cup of coffee since 9 a.m., and a raring-to-go bundle of nervous energy with a few fresh lies in his repertoire.

In short, those of us rooting for Obama came away disappointed, while Romney’s supporters were overjoyed at the first sign of things looking up for them in months.

Pundits, tweeters and those responding to instant polls immediately panned Obama’s performance as flat, weak and even ambivalent. MSNBC’s Chris Matthews went ballistic, his mind blown at how Obama had passed up one chance after another to call Romney out for misstating facts long ago debunked by third parties. Zingers? Forget that. Pop psychoanalysis was easy to find in the post mortems, some tagging Obama with feeling he shouldn’t have to be there to defend his serious and overall good work of governing against a crass wannabe who changes positions on serious matters more often than most people change their socks.

Our take on Obama’s lack of combativeness is that by nature he’s not that way. He is a well-informed, thoughtful, reasonable guy. He’s most comfortable around others who share his preference for honest discussion and bargaining in good faith to lying and street brawls.

Mitt Romney, by contrast, is a competitor and a predator. Getting what he wants is his top priority. Concern about what that might mean to and for others is way down his list. If a company must be gutted, saddled with debt and its workers’ jobs destroyed, it’s nothing personal, just what’s necessary for him to make another million, or ten. If he must risk being caught at lying repeatedly to win office, so be it. Hey, as the successful Bain venture capitalist honcho, he left a trail of trashed and debt-ruined companies behind. But to hear Romney tell it, he created 100,000 jobs in the U.S.

All that was on display last night, delivered with energy and, often, a smile. A well-done New York Times story details Romney’s mendacious tour de force, for those interested in the facts. Here’s a sample we find especially compelling.

.

Mr. Romney said Mr. Obama had doubled the deficit. That is not true. When Mr. Obama took office in January 2009, the Congressional Budget Office had already projected that the deficit for fiscal year 2009, which ended Sept. 30 of that year, would be $1.2 trillion. (It ended up as $1.4 trillion.) For fiscal year 2012, which ended last week, the deficit is expected to be $1.1 trillion — just under the level in the year he was inaugurated. Measured as a share of the economy, as economists prefer, the deficit has declined more significantly — from 10.1 percent of the economy’s total output in 2009 to 7.3 percent for 2012.

.

Romney also falsely denied his plan would cut taxes by 20 percent and that his plan includes $5 trillion in spending cuts. Ample videos exist of Romney saying the exact opposite. In fact, Romney put up a steady barrage of lies, distortions and insulting innuendo.

Romney then capped his lying-like-a-champ performance by chastising the president for trying to have his own facts and making his own sons out to be young practitioners of the Big Lie Technique.

Gosh, we wonder where Romney’s sons learned The Big Lie Technique.

But never mind, because a thousand shallow media minds, amplified by Romney’s legion of liars and spinners, are made up today: dishonest style trumps honest, if uninspiring, substance. So, they’re naming Romney the clear winner.

.

The moderator who didn’t: We won’t belabor what a poor job PBS’ Jim Lehrer did as moderator. We will just say that having served as moderator for a number of past presidential debates, Lehrer clearly signed on for one too many. It should be his last.

.

49 Comments

  1. Octopus says:

    Much of the after-debate commentary suggested that President appeared “tired and flat.” Perhaps the media should focus speculation as to the reasons why. Here is my conjecture:

    Hours before the debate, an international incident occurred – one that did not get the media attention it deserved.

    The Syrian military lobbed artillery shells across the border into Turkey killing 5 villagers. Inasmuch as Turkey is a Nato member and all members are bound by the terms of the treaty, an attack against one is considered an attack against all.

    I am willing to conjecture this: Obama spent considerable time that day on the telephone urging restraint among Nato leaders in order to avoid a larger Middle East conflict. Obama has always been focused on performing his job; spouting “blah-blah-blah” before TV cameras has never been his top priority.

    Meanwhile Rmoney has the luxury of sitting on plush and cushy piles of money stashed in offshore tax-sheltered accounts. $mittens has the TIME and MONEY to prepare for the debate. In contrast, Obama probably spent that day putting out fires.

  2. Tom Harper says:

    It’s true what Octopus said. Obama is busy working and dealing with urgent problems. Romney has had all the time in the world to practice his zingers in simulated debates.

    I can only hope that follow-up speeches from Obama and other Democrats, and well-publicized fact-checking articles, will counter Romney’s lies and zingers.

  3. I hope Obama’s performance was part of a longer range strategy…if five weeks can be considered long range!

  4. […] Critics » Mike’s Blog Round Up Originally Posted October 6, 2012 Oh!pinion: The debate was a clash of thinker vs. […]

  5. Kate says:

    Maybe we need an alpha male as moderator. I nominate Keith Olbermann.

  6. Romney only won among Republicans. Wait until the fright-wingers wake up and realize that Mitt morphed back to being a moderate. I totally agree with Octo but I also think it was a cool move to let that liar blow smoke out of his ass while bullying his way through the debate like a bull in a china shop.

  7. Harry Fyrre says:

    If BHO loses he’ll have no one to blame but himself. He blew it three years ago. Maybe he can get some things done in a second term if the world doesn’t blow itself up in the meantime.

    Mittens is a pathological lier. His sons are pathetic wanna be gangsters.
    Too bad because his old man was alright and pretty well liked in
    Michigan at the time. And those were VERY good times for ‘ Detroit’.

    I see “Kickback Kwame Kilpatrick” was in the headlines again. Just goes to show, you can’t keep a good bad man down.

    USA! USA ! USA!

  8. Shaw Kenawe says:

    From the analyses I’ve read, Romney succeeded in firing up GOPers who love bullies and liars. Independents did not move toward Romney. The jobs report gave the GOPers more evidence that the Marxist, Commie, Kenyan Hawaiian Devil Baby is the supreme Chicagoan Thug, capable of super-human manipulations, while at the same time, incredibly, being a weak and ineffective president!

    They’ve never been able to figure out the steady-as-you-go, no-drama-Obama presidency, so they’ve imputed everything their paranoiac minds could imagine to him.

    Meanwhile, Willard has tried to walk back his 47% remarks, after having doubled down on them TWICE. It’s been amply clear throughout the nomination process and this campaign that Willard will say anything to advance his prospects to win the presidency. The Goopers don’t care about that, because winning is the only thing that matters, the hell with truth and consistency.

  9. james2021 says:

    Lies win out over truth, a lie repeated often enough become TRUTH. Republicans cannot tell the truth, because then they wouldnt get elected. Mitten$ Robme is a dishonest and deceitful person, may work well as a Vulture Capitalist, but not as a president. All American Allies will be wondering just exactly where he stands. And this was the best the Republicans could offer UP?? Well they can always cling to their guns and idealogy.

  10. Zach says:

    Cut Mr. Lehrer some slack. A debate has rules, and the expectation is that the participants will have the dignity and class to follow the rules and behave in an adult manner. Bishop Willard was arrogant and rude and disregarded the rules from the very beginning (probably how he has behaved his entire life). The President did run over his time in a purely defensive reaction to Willard running amok, but when he did he was polite to Mr. Lehrer.

    Future debates should simply have the candidates’ microphones on a timer – time’s up, your mic gets cut. Period. And it stays off until it’s your turn to speak again.

  11. S.W. Anderson says:

    Octopus, I heard someone on MSNBC say Obama had been scheduled for two campaign appearances Tuesday and flew into Denver on Wednesday afternoon for the debate. The person who said that also said Obama should’ve arrived in Denver a day or two ahead, spent more time prepping and resting. The detail you add puts yet more distraction and stress on the president. No wonder he seemed fatigued. Thanks for filling in another piece of the puzzle.

    Tom, I think Obama will handle the next debate and time leading up to it differently. He probably still won’t be as combative as many of us think he should be, but I’ll bet he won’t seem like he’s sleep walking though it.

    Jerry Critter, in politics five weeks can be a very long time. I calculate Romney’s good for 300 more flip-flops in that time span, if he holds true to form.

    L.P., to the extent Obama’s approach was a “give Romney enough rope and let him hang himself” strategy, and if it works, more power to Obama. It could be the radical-right base feels obliged to give Romney some slack on what he says if he’s to have a hope of winning. Neither they nor anyone else has sound reasons to believe the man about anything except that he wants to be president. Romney has proven he’ll say anything and take back everything he’s said, if it looks like that will work for him at any given moment. He has no credibility.

    Harry, welcome. I ‘m not sure what you mean by “he blew it three years ago.” Under the worst circumstances any president has walked into in 80 years, Obama has gotten landmark legislation through, made progress on the economy and jobs, ended one war and is winding down another. You couldn’t be more right about Romney though. One can easily tell when he’s lying. It’s whenever his lips are moving.

    Shaw wrote, “Romney succeeded in firing up GOPers who love bullies and liars.” True. Which is to say Romney fired up the GOP base. Are there any others left?

    Excellent point, too, about the obvious schizoid dichotomy in wing nut memes about Obama. One minute he’s a tireless Muslim Brotherhood-loving subversive out to get even for slavery, segregation, etc. The next minute they claim he’s a lazy, detached underachiever. Say what?!!

    james2021, welcome also. Agreed that a president without credibility will have a weak hand in foreign affairs. To make matters worse, Romney knows as much about foreign affairs as I do about setting up a secret Swiss bank account.

    “Republicans cannot tell the truth, because then they wouldn’t get elected.” A core truth of American politics since the 1960’s, and becoming more pronounced all the time.

    Zach, welcome aboard. Candidates should follow the rules without needing someone to act like a drill sergeant constantly, I agree. I just think Lehrer was way too lax and didn’t enforce the rules at all. Your microphone idea is a good one. It would also be great if a loud foghorn would sound every time a candidate tells an especially big lie, drowning him out for awhile. :)

  12. “Oh!pinion” has been included in this weeks A Sunday Drive. I hope this helps to point even more new visitors in you direction.

    http://asthecrackerheadcrumbles.blogspot.com/2012/10/a-sunday-drive.html

    1. S.W. Anderson says:

      Thank you kindly. :)

  13. Demeur says:

    It’s a real art form to go that far right and then try to swing back to the middle. I believe Romney waited way too long to try it. Add to that the fact that his own organization is trying to say what he said at the debate was untrue and not his real positions is a recipe for disaster.

  14. Snave says:

    Winning a debate on style points is certainly part of the formula for winning it. But when it comes to substance, I’m not sure Romney won.

    The media will focus on Romney’s zingers and on Obama’s flat demeanor and declare Romney the “winner”, but people who pay attention know better. I believe that in general the media is irresponsible and just looks for whatever it can find to sensationalize. The more sensational the story, the more people will tune in, and since media outlets are businesses, they have to focus on what improves their bottom lines. Those who own the presses control what we get to see and hear, and we are fed what they want fed to us in order to mold our opinions.

    The president on the ropes? New energy for Romney? Those things are sensational enough to suck in the people with short attention spans who have been conditioned to tune in to those kinds of things for the last two or three decades. Does a president running away with things make for an exciting story, or is it more exciting to think of it as a tight boxing match that won’t be decided until the last punch at the final bell?

    I suspect the next one will be portrayed as a draw, and the last one probably will be too.

  15. S.W. Anderson says:

    Demeur, Romney swung so far right, he would’ve had serious credibility problems with any independent moderates paying attention if he had started trying to move to the center in June. At this late date, after all his 180’s, I don’t see how anyone with a pulse can fail to see that he will say anything to win, and that you can’t count on anything he says.

    Snave, many in the media do like a good horse race. Grabs more eyeballs, sells more papers. Surprisingly, this time around I’m seeing the candidates being asked more substantive questions and fewer horse-race questions than in past years. Not that many of the candidates are giving answers that are all that substantive, however. Paul “Numbers Guy” Ryan is asked one and he hasn’t got time to do the math. Yeah, right. There’s no sense asking Romney a substantive question because he will just say whatever he thinks people want to hear at that day and hour. But what he says is subject to change, literally overnight. A candidate who says everything, and goes back on everything he says, can’t be believed about anything.

  16. F&B says:

    Anyone who sees the Presidential debate as anything other than a home run . . . no, a grand slam for Romney is kidding himself, or just being disingenuous. This isn’t high school debate club. This is a do or die debate with the stakes being the highest office in the U.S., the most powerful political office in the world. The winner isn’t determined by some tweed-jacketed school teacher with a clipboard. The winner is determined by popular opinion – who gained the most in terms of swaying voters to their side. It may not have been enough for Romney to secure a victory on my birthday (Nov. 6), but if the polls are any indication, the first Presidential debate was a clear and huge win for Mitt Romney.

  17. Demeur says:

    F&B I assume you’re rooting for Raw Money but you need to realize nobody likes someone who changes positions in that short order. If you recall that’s how Hillary lost her campaign. She told the crowd what they wanted to hear forgetting that everything is recorded now. Nobody likes desperation or desperate people when they’re trying to win. It doesn’t show leadership. If Romney got in office he’d be led around by his nose just as George Bush was by Cheney, Rove, and Norquist.

  18. S.W. Anderson says:

    Demeur, I suspect F&B’s motives run more to wanting to see Obama get the worst of it now and then lose the election than to a deepseated desire to see Romney win the election. There is a difference. Your bottom-line statement is absolutely right. If Romney wins, the next thing he will want is to get re-elected, just like George W. Bush. So, like Bush, he will be a willing tool of the extremist Republican base and its enforcers.

  19. FandB says:

    Not so much now, S.W. I have moved from a Vote against Obama to a Vote strongly in favor of Mitt Romney.

    Many people I have talked to over the past week have voiced views similar to this: Over the last few years it has seemed more and more that the U.S. is getting itself into very serious economic trouble. It has seemed that the U.S. has lost its edge in the new global economy. It has begun to feel like we are no longer going to be the pre-eminent global super-power in science, medicine, technology, finance, and in the military. I have realized that these feelings have trickled down from our executive federal government. Watching Mitt Romney in the last debate left me feeling like I did during Ronald Reagan’s second term. He conveyed the attitude that America’s best days are still ahead of her, that we WILL recover from this depressing economy, and that we DO NOT owe the world an apology for our success or for our Freedom.

    In my opinion, and that of many others, this is what the last debate did for Romney. And it is this that will help him win the election, if he manages to win.

    The more people see of Mitt Romney, the more they will like him. Not the demonized image that the MSM and Obama’s campaign has portrayed, but the real, human, successful Mitt Romney.

  20. Dave Dubya says:

    The Right has embraced every dirty trick in the book, so it’s not surprising they contract mercenary propagandists.

    “I Was a Paid Internet Shill”

    I’m more convinced than ever F&B is a paid shill. He uses the buzzwords and Luntzisms geared to trigger emotional, rather than reasoned, responses.

    “a grand slam for Romney
    The winner isn’t determined by some tweed-jacketed school teacher with a clipboard.
    I have moved from a Vote against Obama to a Vote strongly in favor of Mitt Romney.
    Over the last few years it has seemed…
    It has begun to feel like…
    I have realized that these feelings have trickled down from our executive federal government.
    Watching Mitt Romney in the last debate left me feeling like I did during Ronald Reagan’s second term.
    America’s best days are still ahead of her, that we WILL recover from this depressing economy, and that we DO NOT owe the world an apology for our success or for our Freedom.”

    Note the fallacious ad populum argument, “Many people I have talked to over the past week…”

    America’s best days were not back in 2008. Obama can make the case we are far better off and more stable than back then.

    Reagan compromised. He would be unwelcome in today’s uncompromising totalitarian-leaning GOP. He never stooped to the flip-flopping, low down, dishonest and mean-spirited ways of Romney and the Tea Cult.

    Who said we owe the world an apology for our freedom? Nobody.

    Of course it is the radical Right’s propagandists’ duty to press on these emotion based fictions and fabrications. Anyone who builds an argument based on the “You didn’t build your business” lie would NEVER win a real debate. It is about pandering to anger and mobilization of resentments. Two favorite tactics of the American Right.

    F&B is right. This was not a real debate. It was ideological emotion-baiting against facts and reasoning. Note F&B’s emotion trigger words. A true debate is based and judged on rules, facts, evidence and reasoning, Romney lost in those categories.

    So, how much are you paid for this claptrap, F&B?

  21. F&B says:

    Dubya: “I’m more convinced than ever F&B is a paid shill.” — That’s because you are not intellectually honest with yourself, or at least with what you write.

    Dubya: “fallacious ad populum argument” — There is nothing fallacious about it. It is a fact. And many of the people I have talked to recently WERE Obama supporters in 2008, but are adamant that they will not vote for him again.

    Dubya: “It is about pandering to anger and mobilization of resentments” — In other words, exactly what the democrats and Obama did in 2008 and are trying to do now with their tactics of race-baiting and class warfare.

    I didn’t say it wasn’t a real debate, Dubya. You failed to read what I wrote. It was a real debate, not some amateur high school debate club exercise. And the winner is determined by swaying people’s opinions and votes.

  22. Dave Dubya says:

    Alright then, F&B is wrong. This was not a real debate; It was dishonest, flip-flopping, ideological emotion-baiting against facts and reasoning. Romney was more emphatic and more animated in his dishonesty, like some sociopath who had his first drink of caffeinated coffee. This is how the public perception was Romney “won”. But what did he “win”? Did he score more points for evidence and reasoning? No. Did he win over more voters? No significant evidence of that, either. Some “grand slam”.

    And no radical Right argument is complete without their patented projection:

    “what the democrats and Obama did in 2008 and are trying to do now with their tactics of race-baiting and class warfare.”

    Yes, remember the Orwellian twist folks. The growing number of poor and shrinking middle class have been waging class warfare on the rich. And who’s winning? And according to Rush and F&B, only liberals are the real racists now. Yup. How’s that for koolade, stirred full with projected anger and resentment?

    “The more people see of Mitt Romney, the more they will like him. Not the demonized image that the MSM and Obama’s campaign has portrayed, but the real, human, successful Mitt Romney.”

    Note this is coming from a guy with an Obama-as-the-devil avatar that screams hatred and demonization for Obama. This is textbook projection here, folks. Maybe he’s paid to demonize Obama by MSM propaganda giant FOX(R)…

    I wonder which “real” Romney F&B thinks the people see. Is it the brand new, and old, moderate Mitt? Or is it Mitt the “severe conservative”?

    Pick your Mitt, all you Mitt pickers.

    1. S.W. Anderson says:

      Dave, it’s pretty clear FanB’s point is that the end justifies the means. Doesn’t matter how a person wins, just that he wins. A win gained by lying, distorting and flip-flopping is as good as one gained by making honest arguments and respecting the audience’s intelligence. Pull enough wool over enough eyes and you win. That’s all that matters.

      Hey, it worked for Bush in 2004. Kerry decimated Bush in the debates, three out of three. It didn’t matter. Go see this; it explains where Romney, Ryan and FandB are coming from perfectly.

      1. Dave Dubya says:

        Let’s ask Red State conservative Erick Erickson about Romney:

        “Mitt Romney, on the other hand, is a man devoid of any principles other than getting himself elected. As much as the American public does not like Barack Obama, they loath a man so fueled with ambition that he will say or do anything to get himself elected. Mitt Romney is that man….. There is no issue I can find on which Mitt Romney has not taken both sides. He is neither liberal nor conservative. He is simply unprincipled. The man has no core beliefs other than in himself.” -Erick Erickson

        1. S.W. Anderson says:

          That’s an especially good quote, Dave. I can say that without being ticked about Erickson stealing my material. ;)

          1. S.W. Anderson says:

            Let me amend that. I don’t agree with the “as much as the American public does not like Obama.” Get beyond the deep south and tea partyers wherever, and I think most Americans find Obama likable. That includes some who oppose his policies.

  23. Dave Dubya says:

    Speaking of public perception and swaying people’s opinions and votes, President Obama is regarded as significantly more honest and trustworthy than Mitt Romney in a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

    1. F&B says:

      Yeah, Washington Post-ABC . . . no all-barack-channel bias there. I wonder what a Fox News poll would say.

      Barry Soetoro… errrr… Barack Obama was really trustworthy last night in the second debate, wasn’t he? Like when he planted a transcript of a speech with Crowley and then used it during the debate. What a lowlife. Seriously, what was going on with that moderator? Obama says “look at the transcript” when Romney brought up the Benghazi Scandal and Obama’s refusal to call it terrorism for two weeks, and lap-dog Crowley just “happened to have” the transcript of an Obama speech given a day or two after the terrorist attack??? Something smells fishy here. If the “moderator” takes sides during a debate, what does that say about the debate format? And if the President of the United States is involved in this subterfuge, what does that say about Obama? Disgusting yes, but certainly not “honest” or “trustworthy.”

      1. Dave Dubya says:

        Oh, look, F&B is back on the clock. And he looks like he’s had his first couple cups of coffees too.

        Barry Soetoro…Hmmm. Isn’t that what the racists, militias and other hate groups call Obama?

        Yes, it is indeed. And as we’ve been told by the propagandists, only liberals are racists now. ;-) F&B uses the racists’ term in order to “legitimize” it in discussion. Takes a lot of hate to do that, but it is, after all, his job.

        Gotta love the yarn Rush and the gang had to weave around Mitt getting caught in a sputtering lie. (Serves him right for parroting the Right Wing Hate Machine. )

        Oh the horror! Obama didn’t have a teleprompter!! Romney was caught in a lie. So… time to blame the moderator…for telling the truth.

        Just imagine, Crowley just “happened to have” the transcript of an Obama speech given a day or two after the terrorist attack!

        She’s the devil all right! The Evil One of the Liberal Media had a computer. Just like you, dear reader, she just “happened to have” the transcript of an Obama speech. And so do you, dear F&B, you have a copy of that speech too.

        Just like that. .

        Obama has NEVER apologized for America. They love to repeat this lie, but NEVER show us the words. Never. Why? Cause he “didn’t build that”. They Right built that lie.

        They are the silver tongued devils. No question about it.

        Yeah, how can anyone support the efforts of someone who inherited the abysmal failure of Republican rule?

        Four years ago we saw collapsing Wall Street banks and a huge bailout, we saw financial instability, severe recession, steeply rising unemployment, and a looted economy. Why should Republicans help someone fix that?

        Better re-elect them so they can finish their job, eh?

        Speaking of unfinished work, F&B never did finish explaining how things were so much better four years ago than now.

        I hope he earns his pay and educates us.

        1. FandB says:

          Dubya: “Speaking of unfinished work, F&B never did finish explaining how things were so much better four years ago than now. ”

          Yes. Yes I did.

          Re-posted:

          Here’s another for you Dubya: “Report: Median Income Worse Now Than It Was During Great Recession” (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2012/09/18/report-median-income-worse-now-than-it-was-during-great-recession/ ).
          From your beloved MSM outlet CBS (not exactly known for their conservative views). “The median income for American households in 2009 – the official end of the Great Recession – was $52,195 (in 2011 dollars), while the median income dipped to $50,054 last year, falling 4.1 percent over two years.”

          Also from the article above: “The poverty rate rose from 12.5 percent in 2007 to 15 percent last year as the median household wealth fell by 39 percent over a three-year span, from $131,016 in 2007 to $79,431 in 2010.”

          Or maybe you would prefer this article which discusses the current “Unprecedented” increase in Food Stamps: The Food Stamp Recovery. http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ir_23.htm#.UFinhEbCz8A

          Yes, indeed, Obama’s “recovery” makes Americans miss the good old days of 2007-2008.

          1. Dave Dubya says:

            F&B dug up a statistic. How thoughtful.

            As you noted, the devastation of the Republican crash reverberates today. What you conveniently exclude was the fact that median incomes were dropping between 2007 and 2008. Unemployment numbers were beginning their steep rise in 2008 as well.

            The crash is always quicker than the long process of recovery. Everybody prefers a recovering economy, even a slow one, to the crash of 2008.

            The dark days of Autumn 2008 were not the good old days. They were the days of teetering on the edge of the abyss. Nobody wants to go back there.

            As you failed to present a larger picture, allow me.

            Inflation Adjusted Household Median Income:

            2000 – $54,841
            2008 – $52,546

            Thanks again, GOP and corpo-dems. I’m sure your economic elites show a much more prosperous picture.

            But cheer up. Enough voters are duped. You are winning your war on the middle class and poor.

            I don’t see how an obstructed Democratic president can fix it. But we KNOW the Republicans will continue to make things worse.

            History teaches those of us who care to pay attention.

            1. FandB says:

              Dubya: “…between 2007 and 2008…” — You didn’t ask about 2007, you asked about four years ago.

              Dubya: “I don’t see how an obstructed Democratic president can fix it” — Bush was obstructed as badly or worse by Pelosi and Reed during his last years in office. Yes, that’s right, the years when the economy tanked, due in large part to regulations involving bundled securities that the democrats were involved in writing. Plus, Obama and the democrats had full control of the House and Senate for two years after he took office. It was due to his Failure during those two years that democrats won back the House in 2010. And Reid continues to be an obstructionist in the Senate, refusing to bring bills to the floor for a vote, and then Obamaco blames the republicans. And you just drink the kool-ade down.

              Another part you don’t seem to see is that President Reagan “inherited” an economy that was much worse than the one Obama “inherited.” Double-digit inflation, double-digit interest rates, double-digit unemployment, but he didn’t whine about it like Obama, he just fixed it.

              I know democrats like to say that this recession was worse, but the things that made it worse than the Carter-Reagan recession are Obama’s Failed economic policies – his inability or refusal to get the economy back on track as Reagan did. The economy continues to teeter along at about 1% GDP growth, and has recently been declining, rather than a typical post-recession recovery growth of 3-5%, because of Obama’s failure as President and the democrats failure in Congress to address the root causes of the problems, and their failure to create a business-friendly environment in the United States.

              The only history you seem to be aware of is the Revisionist history the democrats are creating, and you are swallowing whole, Dubya.

            2. Dave Dubya says:

              Here is comes:

              “Obama and the democrats had full control of the House and Senate for two years after he took office.”

              No, not really. This is simply another radical Right false talking point taken as scripture by their cult.

              Watch how Jennifer Granholm exposes the radical Right’s “two year supermajority” lie.

              Assuming Radical Right wing hatred for a female Democrat is too intense to watch a video presentation, here are some printed words that debunk their lie.

              Depending upon which metric is used, Democrats had a super majority for roughly six months which includes the seven weeks between Franken’s swearing-in on July 8 to Ted Kennedy’s death on August 25 and the four months and nine days between Paul Kirk’s swearing-in on September 25, 2009 to his replacement by Scott Brown on February 4, 2010.

              Only in the hot air bubble of radical Right propaganda is six months the same as two years.

              Keep those lies coming, F&B. After all, it IS your job.

        2. F&B says:

          Dubya: “She’s the devil all right! The Evil One of the Liberal Media had a computer.” — Yes, I know it this very difficult for the Obama-bots. Crowley did not have a computer in front of her, but she did have papers in her hand. She had the papers that Obama pointed at when he said “check the transcript.” There is only one way Obama could have known that Crowley had the transcript of a specific speech in front of her. She didn’t have a three foot tall pile of transcripts of many speeches, she had a few pages that appeared too be stapled together. She had the transcript that Obama gave her.

          As I said before, this level of deceit from the left-wing media is almost to be expected these days, but this level of deceit from the President is despicable.

          Obama knows he is not capable of beating Romney in a fair debate, or a fair election. So he intende to cheat.

          1. F&B,
            Don’t you think it is much more likely that the papers the Crowley was handling throughout the debate were dealing with the debate, like who was going to be asking the next question, what they were going to ask, etc. rather than a transcript the Obama campaign had somehow slipped to her? Come on, use a little common sense. Also, Obama’s comment about checking the transcript was directed at Romney. He is the one that was saying that Obama did not say it.

            1. FandB says:

              Yes, I’m sure he had those too. But she also had the transcript which she was looking at when she inserted herself into the debate. And, watch the video again, his comment was directed at Crowley and he pointed his finger.

              But, hey, it’s water under the bridge. Republicans have to go into these debates knowing that the democrats are going to cheat, lie, interrupt, distract, whatever they can do to prevent an honest, even-handed debate.

            2. FandB says:

              *she had those too*

          2. Dave Dubya says:

            “he intended to cheat.” …by calling out Romney’s lie???

            Ha!

            Obama saying “check the transcript” as he pointed at Crowley is not evidence she had it in hand, now is it?

            Show us the proof sport. We know your assertions are always dishonest, so let’s see proof.

            Yeah, just like I thought, you have none.

            Romney is a liar, and he has lots of enablers.

      2. S.W. Anderson says:

        “Like when he planted a transcript of a speech with Crowley and then used it during the debate.”

        “Planted” a transcript? Are you a scriptwriter for Glenn Beck, or a disoriented refugee from the Worldnut Daily and Freakrepubic online asylums?

        FYI, whenever the president gives a speech or holds a press conference, a transcript is made and posted on the White House Web site.

        If Obama or his people provided Crowley with a transcript beforehand — which I strongly doubt — it was most likely because of indications across the right-wing noise machine accusing the president of not having said terrorism in his speech about the killed diplomats, that that would come up in the debate.

        You’ll have to forgive Crowley for not replying, “No, Mr. President, nothing in the transcript.” First, she’s not a Fox propagandist. Second, she’s still in touch with reality. And third, she values her own credibility. All of which obviously makes Crowley a threat and an enemy of the political right.

        Like the polls, courts and Bureau of Labor Statistics, it’s all part of a vast devious plot to tell the truth. C’est la guerre.

  24. S.W. Anderson says:

    FandB wrote, “. . . I have realized that these feelings have trickled down from our executive federal government.”

    My, you credit the “executive federal government” with having much more power and influence than liberals do. George W. Bush and his wrecking crew left the government corrupted, weakened through mismanagement and deliberate discouragement of conscientious managers by ideological and crony appointees, and with crippling debt. That’s hardly a condition from which great initiatives in the fields you mention flow. But then, having the federal government have a hand in great, constructive initiatives was the last thing Bush and his ideological wrecking crew wanted.

    “. . . we DO NOT owe the world an apology for our success or for our Freedom.”

    I’m glad you cleared that up for us, FandB. I was so hoping to not have to hang my head in shame on my next trip abroad. Here, President Obama and Hillary Clinton had me thinking sack cloth and ashes were de rigeur when addressing foreigners. After all, they set the example by going on one apology tour after another around the world.

    Seriously, you poor Fox propaganda-soaked drone, instead of regurgitating wrote-learned nonsense, why don’t you go in search of an actual apology Obama, Clinton or anyone in the administration has made for our “success and freedom”? Include the Clinton administration. Provide a direct quote and document that with a link to a reputable, independent information source.

    I’ll be waiting, but won’t hold my breath because you won’t find any.

    1. F&B says:

      Obama has apologized for America a number of times, now that you have brought it up. You know this as well as I do. Of course he did it in his own insidious way, being careful not to use the word “apology” so he can maintain deniability – there is no question that he is a skilled politician and orator, and very slick, even to the point of being slimy. He is easily skilled enough to issue an apology with overtly “apologizing”, that guy certainly is a silver tongued devil. No question about it.

      However, you will have to show me where I previously accused Obama of apologizing for America as I do not recall mentioning it.

      S.W.: “…weakened through mismanagement and deliberate discouragement of conscientious managers by ideological and crony appointees, and with crippling debt.” — That’s an interesting statement, it sounds exactly like what Obama has done.

      The really scary thing is that someone such as yourself, S.W., who are obviously intelligent, can still support Obama after his abysmal failure over the past four years.

      1. S.W. Anderson says:

        “. . . you will have to show me where . . .” Your second comment on this post.

        Despite exceptional efforts across the right-wing spectrum, Obama has been remarkably successful. His most egregious failure is not making Republicans’ selfish obstruction and the harm that has done to millions of Americans something many more millions of Americans are acutely aware of.

        1. FandB says:

          I just looked at my second post. I did not say anything about Obama’s apologies.

          1. S.W. Anderson says:

            FandB: “(Romney) . . . conveyed the attitude that America’s best days are still ahead . . . and that we DO NOT owe the world an apology for our success or for our Freedom.”

            That’s innuendo. The implication is obvious and undeniable.

            I take your song-and-dance reply where I had challenged you to provide a direct quote from a reputable source as proof you’re just parroting an unsubstantiated right-wing meme. Unsubstantiated because it’s made-up BS.

            1. F&B says:

              Yeah, I never have been one to take orders well, just a personal flaw of mine. I would just refer you to my response above. The answer is in Obama’s song-and-dance apologies.

      2. Dave Dubya says:

        Obama has never apologized for America.

        This is just another lie. The liars always refuse to show proof.

        I wonder why…

        1. S.W. Anderson says:

          FandB provides no proof because there isn’t any. Put up or shut up time has come and gone, and this matter is settled. If he continues to use my blog to repeat this nonsense he will no longer be welcome to comment here.

  25. S.W. Anderson says:

    FandB wrote: “. . . democrats like to say that this recession was worse, but the things that made it worse than the Carter-Reagan recession are Obama’s Failed economic policies . . .”

    Insufferable ignorance makes you a perfect dupe for right-wing propaganda, FandB. What made this recession worse was that every part of the U.S. economy and much of Europe’s was massively overleveraged when the housing bubble burst. The Reagan recession was a cyclical downturn. The 2007-2009 recession was the result of a market collapse. There was nothing like a $7 trillion loss on investments within a few months in the Reagan recession. Nor did as many people and businesses have substantial securities investments then. Layoffs never got near 800,00 a month then either. Manufacturing was still the backbone of the economy then; the U.S. was still a lender nation and not a debtor nation; and the balance of trade hadn’t gone negative yet.

    Also, the U.S. wasn’t on the hook for two off-budget wars and an off-budget prescription-drug program that were ballooning the deficit more than $1 trillion/year when the Reagan recession began.

    Obama’s stimulus approach was precisely what needed doing. The only problem with it, besides Republican subversion and obstruction, was that it was too little and applied too gradually.

    Instead of wasting space parroting noise-machine propaganda on other people’s blogs, go read some history. Get your facts straight. Use your head to think. That is, unless you’re a paid shill, as Dubya suspects.