Personally, I am sick of the press telling us how clever a Democrat is when he lies and gets away with it, as was their take on Bubba Clinton and all contenders with a "D" ever since.
We pretty much know what they are going to say.
What are you going to say?
I say Go ROMNEY!
Debate in progress:
ReplyDeleteI'm sorry, but the president looks like such a goof ball, head down, frown on his face, then a goofy grin. And such a mish mash of answers. He wants to build the transcontinental railroad like president Lincoln did. Isn't this the railroad he referred to as the Intercontinental railroad? Yes, well, Obama has spent five trillion. Where's the railroad? Where is the evidence that it was spent on anything of value? For pete's sake.
Romney, on the other hand, looks great, sounds great, well informed, pleasant, pointed. Looks good. Even Jim Lehrer, thumbs on the scales, seems unable to tip things Obama's way.
Two thumbs up... way up... for Mitt Romney. He just knocked it out. Very solid.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure Obama's bum is black and blue this morning. Well done Mr. Romney!
DeleteI only saw edited highlights, but actually that makes for a very fair test of my biases and preconceptions, given that any edited selection is going to be slanted heavily in favour of Obama.
ReplyDeleteAnd I honestly thought that Romney - for whom I have no great regard or affection - more or less stopped debating with him about halfway, because he realised you can't debate with someone who can't debate, and instead opted to get some housework done, picked him up, and used him to wipe the floor. And all without any invective, hyperbole or tit for tat.
Especially impressed by the way he wasn't goaded into defensiveness by those few of Obama's slurs that he wasn't able to instantly demonstrate as falsehoods, but instead just took the high ground. A superb performance.
Obama looked terrible: trying to deflect the mood with cutesy jokes and chat about his family, but with nothing of substance to contribute; absolutely nothing at all; and visibly, eyes-down and lip-lickingly nervous and outclassed.
My feeling is that any undecided voters will be far less so now, when they can see that despite the mainstream media's campaign to the contrary, Romney is a) manifestly someone who knows what he's talking about, and b) manifestly a regular guy. And his opponent is peddling the exact same donkey shit they let him get away with last time: "Leave it to me; I know what's best; I'm on a higher path; this isn't about your life it's about destiny; aren't I just the coolest?; anybody want to buy some hope?"
Looking through the pro-Obama commenters this morning there is an unmistakable air of sobriety that tells more than the honesty they are incapable of ever could. Apart from a few delicious incurables proclaiming it an outright Obama triumph, the tone is one of grudging admission that Romney did a good job, coupled with the suggestion that Obama was for some reason 'holding back'. And the admission that Romney did a good job, of course, presented in all cases as if to do so was to show unbelievable generosity and earn them a place in heaven.
Oh, and Romney was 'lying' of course. When he gives a good performance it's only ever technically so. In substance, it was all 'lies'.
ReplyDeleteBut I have a feeling that, unlike that much vaunted 'change' you voted in last time, these are lies you can believe in.
Just come across this - I was right! (Why that should still surprise me after all this time, I've no idea...)
ReplyDeletehttp://twitchy.com/2012/10/03/undecided-voters-in-focus-group-swing-sharply-toward-romney-frank-luntz-ive-never-seen-anything-like-this/
Sorry for hogging these comments like some kind of a hog, but thought you might like to know that all the UK media, which has until now been openly contemptuous of Romney, has declared it a Mitt victory, with varying degrees of ruefulness, true, but few if any dissenters I can see.
ReplyDeletePeople even now get annoyed when they discover they've been lied to, and last night we saw not just a very different Romney but a very different Obama, too, to the ones our youth culture (ie: culture) sells us.
I'm still far from confident, and it infuriates me how few people of all persuasions grasp just how much is riding on this, but the media pattern until now has been to pretty much say night is day where these men are concerned: this degree of honesty is incredibly rare and probably reflects not any kind of integrity on their part (I'm pleased to say) but rather - and much more satisfyingly - the sheer scale of the victory. Democrat commentators are openly depressed.
Sorry for hogging these comments
ReplyDeleteNo, please do. (If I get a vote) It's been a long time since our last fiz at your digs, Bedes, (Yes, I see that you have a new piece today on Spartacus Chetwynd) and your comments here get us through.
Absolutely. Yes, it's great fun to read your comments, Bedes, and it's fun to hear what's being said in Britain as well. You are all very welcome to comment away to your heart's content!
ReplyDeleteThat was "fix," not "fiz,"btw.
ReplyDeleteI can't even remember when I had my last fiz.
I think it was after a Spartacus Chetwynd show.
Or maybe during.
ReplyDeleteJust a brief perusal revealed Michael Moore to be rather out of sorts with the debate:
ReplyDelete"This is what happens when u pick John Kerry as your debate coach"
He also did not think Jim Lehrer worked hard enough on the president's behalf:
"Eastwood's chair would do a better job moderating..."
Eastwood's chair was unavailable, Mike. It was wearing a blue tie and standing behind a podium.
As predicted, there's a lot of talk about Romney's lies and myths today amidst the grudging praise for his 'technique' (and not a word about how miserable Obama's contribution was in both departments: that needs no defence at all!)
ReplyDeleteSo we're back to normal ...
The British economy, nay, the whole European economy could collapse if it is seen that the Emperor Barack has no clothes.
ReplyDeleteWe still have memories of all those BBC TV shows that build up the Obama legend far beyond the mortal plane. Like Russell T. Davies' Doctor Who 's The End of Time where Barack Obama is going to deliver a Christmas speech that will solve the worldwide recession overnight. "Barack will save us!" Indeed. What other hope do souls who are having a run of bad luck--like 16 years on the dole--really have? Too bad Davies never divulges the contents of that speech, nor does Obama get to deliver it. The Russians I knew during the Cold War were always happy that there was a Capitalist alternative that could provide currency to fuel their black market and provide a safe haven for any ill-gotten gains in such they should acquire during their lifetimes. They would have never wanted one of their own with their hand on the throttle of the economic engine in the US. Sadly such common sense doen't exist today.
On the blogs and forums and Facebook, the response has been the usual anti-Romney insults and the mass-sharing of this monstrosity:
ReplyDeletehttp://jezebel.com/5948707/president-and-first-lady-celebrate-their-20th-anniversary-with-barf+inducingly-cute-video
Some of the comments are just extraordinary.
Personality cults in politics are always dangerous, and always signals of dangerous times. But this is something else again: the mix of confidence and desperation gives it a uniquely depressing quality.
And this, from the Huffington Post, is beyond parody or comment:
ReplyDeleteFormer presidential hopeful and environmentalist Al Gore is coming to President Barack Obama's defense and blaming Denver's high altitude for the president's dismal debate performance.
By most accounts, Obama lost the first presidential debate, held Wednesday night at the University of Denver in Colorado, to Republican nominee Mitt Romney. Pundits said "he choked," and some went so far as to question whether his performance will cost him the election. Many noted Obama's unorthodox demeanor. Chris Matthews asked, "Where was Obama tonight?!"
Still, Gore does not think Obama should be to blame for his lackluster debate. He thinks it may have been the altitude.
During a post-debate analysis on Current TV, Gore went out on a limb and questioned if Denver's environment had something to do with the president's flop.
“I’m going to say something controversial here,” Gore started, “Obama arrived in Denver at 2 p.m. today, just a few hours before the debate started. Romney did his debate prep in Denver. When you go to 5,000 feet, and you only have a few hours to adjust. I don't know... Maybe."
Current TV host Cenk Uygur interjected saying he came in from Los Angeles and was able to just guzzle some coffee, but comedian John Fugelsang did not think Gore's theory was that far-fetched.
"It's really different. The first time I ever did stand-up in Denver I had the same exact effect," Fugelsang said. "I flew in that day and when your lungs aren't acclimated to that kind of air, yeah, it makes you drawn, it makes you off. The president had an off night."
Altitude sickness is a proven illness.
Since Obama spends a considerable amount of time in Air Force One, and 747s are pressurized well above atmospheric pressure to something like 7000 ft at cruising altitude, Gore's excuse doesn't fly any more than his belief that the Earth's Core is several million degrees, as he said on the Conan O'Brien show in 2009.
ReplyDeleteMaybe the president of the old Choom gang got nostalgic for days past when he started thinking about that Rocky Mountain high in Colorado.
Yes, that's all very well, but don't forget: altitude sickness is a proven illness.
ReplyDeleteI've been watching some of John Fugelsang's work on You Tube, and believe me, he needs a better excuse than unacclimated lungs.
I watched your video of the Obama's, Bedes. Well, perhaps half of it before the ringing in my head became too much and I knew I had exceeded my limit. I kept thinking "Was this marriage just another of a number of political calculations on the part of this man?" I don't know, but it is clearly possible. Most of the commenters there didn't see it that way, far more taken (or taken in) by the shared romantic gestures.
ReplyDeleteThe non-partisan George "Stefi" Stephanopolis said he didn't see any knock-out punches. What he did see is anybody's guess. What I saw was a clear spoken, well informed candidate make a clear case for why he should be elected president. That came from the guy in the red tie, George. Your guy was looking at the floor.
The reason you stopped watching is because you couldn't trust yourself. You found yourself wanting to vote Obama. Be honest. You were questioning every certainty you ever held. How could I have wanted to vote against this man? That's what you found yourself thinking. He's just adorable. And aren't they just the cutest couple? They love each other, and he hugs old women, and they're sincere, and he obviously knows what's best for me. And if Iran wipes Israel off the map: well, it's not like we wanted that to happen. Some of my best friends are Jews. But aren't they just the cutest couple?
ReplyDeletePerhaps not. Cute - yes, well, I suppose some might see it that way. Me, the idea of being married to Mrs. Obama would be more akin to a nightmare. And for a woman to find herself married to Barry - would it not feel like a scene out of some Hitchcock movie - 'Rebecca' or 'Suspicion' or some such. You'd look over at those vapid eyes and wonder "What is he thinking as he sits over there smiling to himself. Who is this man really, and can I trust him." If I were her I'd hope I was a light sleeper.
ReplyDeleteAaaaaw!
ReplyDeleteThey are so much in love that you'd think they's spend all their free time together. But alas they seem to do everything but. I'd like to send them to that $38 million estate in Hawaii that Penny Pritzker is putting together for them. I know that Penny was looking at a four-year window for that effort but I think we could arrange for the Obamas to need it in January 2013. Get busy, Penny. If you remove all the fraud safeties on your credit card donation system like Obama has done the last two times during his campaign, I'm sure you'll reach your goal in no time.
What are your analyses of last night's debate? From this distance it looked to me like a draw, performance-wise (be like the media: forget content for a minute). The last one was devastating because it might have actually changed some minds or convinced some undecideds; this one I'm thinking maintained the status quo, with both men performing well enough. What was certainly lost in the audible relief that Obama did not lay another goose egg is the fact that Romney has been consistent and he has not: this was the exact same Romney this time as we saw last time, whereas Bazza has obviously been trained and coached and was like an actor trying on a different role. ("This time you gotta come out swingin', champ!")
ReplyDeleteWhat was obvious to regular people was that Candy Crowley was part of the debate, not the moderator. People got to hear the rules of the debate and learn the moderator's function because it made the news over the weekend when the Debate Commission tought it might be a good idea for her to sign the written terms she actually agreed to--and she refused. As blogger/pundit Jim Traecher said tonight, "Candy Crowley said she wasn't going to sit there like a potted plant. True. She sat there like an Obama plant."
ReplyDeleteThe initial polls by the networks among their selected focus groups had Obama winning the debate. But those same groups, in the detailed questionaires they had to fill out had Romney winning on most issues--and more importantly saying that Romney had a better vision of the future. CBS Poll: Romney Wins 65-34 on Economy;
CNN Poll: Romney Wins 54-40 on Economy,
49-46 on Health Care, 51-44 on Taxes, 59-36 on Deficit, 49-46 on Leadership, All in Favor of Romney. Even MSNBC which is so in the bag for Obama and the Left that they don't even pretend any more, their handpicked panel went heavily for Romney. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDanNdzAUn0&feature=player_embedded
I thought Romney won the debate strongly. Part of that is knowing that Obama's "facts" were wrong or greatly distorted. Part of that is seeing him say the he has a good record and feeling that even he doesn't believe that--and then quickly changing the subject. I hate "townhall" debates. Too much opportunity to pack the house with true believers with pre-packaged questions--as Clinton demonstrated everytime. He even had the Secret Servive come to a guy's house in the middle of the night for asking a question different than the one he was given to ask. The explanation? Clinton made a mistake and answered his question when he was giving the answer to the previous "citizen's" question. So that format, combined with a legacy media that's really a part of the Democratic Party, puts a Republican down by 14 at the opening whistle.
It appears the president woke up, so that's a good thing I guess. Really, it was tough for me to sit and listen to it all because the president's comments and answers were just so full of Malarkey. Candy Crowley putting her thumbs on the scale and "correcting" Governor Romney with that hog wash over the White House cover-up was way over the line. And no, her back tracking after the fact doesn't get her even. I read her saying that Governor Romney came up to her after the debate and told her she had done a great job, so she figured if the Governor was happy then no one had any basis to complain. As if Governor Romney was going to come up to her and say "Man, you sure stank up the joint tonight." No, I don't think so, but for me the most tell tale moment came when we got to the closing comment, and Barry reached for that 47% comment at a time when Romney had no chance to respond, I was struck by what a gutless thing that was to do. O'Reilly thought that was his best moment. I thought it was one of his worst. Say what he likes, the president can't talk himself out of the disastrous economy we are in, and I think Americans are starting to realize that. I hope so. I'd say as a performance it was a tie, but as to facts Romney had a lot of telling things to say and Obama had nothing but flim-flam to answer him with. Flim-flam may sound good when its pitched, but it's the cotton candy of political debates.
ReplyDeleteHow important is the economy, would you say? I don't mean the issue itself but as a voting decider? Could it sway people to vote against their inclinations? It's interesting to me, as a non-American, because it looks like that's the area where most would concede Obama has screwed up, and where Romney is most obviously the better man for the job. So in that sense the Republicans should make it the key issue, if it has the potential to prove the most important issue in terms of dictating what the actual result will be.
ReplyDeleteOf course, looking at it selfishly, as an outsider, it is of least importance to me. If Obama was only an inept accountant that would be bad luck for you guys but I imagine you'd survive it. It is his foreign policy that actually has the potential to destroy the world as we know it, but that, ironically, is the hardest point of all to sell, to the extent that the Republicans have to downplay it in order to get any kind of a hearing at all. A strange paradox.
They have to pretend the risk he poses to world security is nothing like as great as it is, and the need to ensure he is not re-elected is nothing like as life-or-death imperative as it is, because if they told the truth millions of only half-interested voters simply wouldn't believe them ...
ReplyDeleteSo they have to subtly convince on other counts, and hope that's enough. And of course, if they win, nobody will recognise the cataclysm that has been avoided, and will continue to focus on the smaller issues, and maybe next time it'll all start again.
An impossible situation, really, and a vivid example of how apathy - not malign commitment - is the red carpet of tyranny.
Romney has tried to stress the economy, but he is running against the Left and the Left controls the media and what people hear. Obama counters with numbers out of his arse that show how wonderful things are becoming and the media pushes the narrative that it was all Bush's fault to begin with and that Romney is lying because his numbers don't agree with those coming out of this administration. "Experts" the media assemble, back up the White House numbers. Regular voters who don't understand the technicalities, just take away that Romney is stretching the truth.
ReplyDeleteThe only thing working in Romney's favor is what people see in their daily lives.
The litany of scewups and lies concerning the terrorists attacks on 9/11/2012 is resonating with the American people. The media has been exposed as liars for not doing their job. Their excuses are so flimsy that even people that don't pay attention are wondering why the press remains incurious.
Obama is saving the most stupid ideas cooked up in those university echo-chambers over the last 20-30 years for his second term. But it's hard to convince anyone of a danger that hasn't happened yet.
ReplyDeleteMy gut is telling me that people have decided to fire Obama. Given the current political climate, that is something that they are keeping under their hats until they go to the polls. We'll see in a few weeks.
Please, please, PLEASE be right, Darrell's gut!
ReplyDelete