2012 debates

[August1991]

Some of the best quotes from the debate (CNN transcript):

Romney: What things would I cut from spending? Well, first of all, I will eliminate all programs by this test, if they don't pass it: Is the program so critical it's worth borrowing money from China to pay for it? And if not, I'll get rid of it. Obamacare's on my list.

Obama: You know, my grandmother -- some of you know -- helped to raise me. My grandparents did. My grandfather died a while back. My grandmother died three days before I was elected president. And she was fiercely independent. She worked her way up, only had a high school education, started as a secretary, ended up being the vice president of a local bank. And she ended up living alone by choice.

And the reason she could be independent was because of Social Security and Medicare. She had worked all her life, put in this money, and understood that there was a basic guarantee, a floor under which she could not go.

And that's the perspective I bring when I think about what's called entitlements. You know, the name itself implies some sense of dependency on the part of these folks. These are folks who've worked hard, like my grandmother, and there are millions of people out there who are counting on this.

Romney: The second topic, which is you said you get a deduction for taking a plant overseas. Look, I've been in business for 25 years. I have no idea what you're talking about. I maybe need to get a new accountant.

Romney: I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS. I'm going to stop other things. I like PBS, I love Big Bird. Actually like you, too. But I'm not going to -- I'm not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for.

Romney: But don't forget, you put $90 billion, like 50 years' worth of breaks, into -- into solar and wind, to Solyndra and Fisker and Tester and Ener1. I mean, I had a friend who said you don't just pick the winners and losers, you pick the losers, all right?

Obama: Are we going to double on top-down economic policies that helped to get us into this mess or do we embrace a new economic patriotism that says America does best when the middle class does best?

Obama: But under Governor Romney's definition, there are a whole bunch of millionaires and billionaires who are small businesses. Donald Trump is a small business. Now, I know Donald Trump doesn't like to think of himself as small anything, but -- but that's how you define small businesses if you're getting business income.

[kraychik]

Here's another pathetic video from the DNC released post-debate, showcasing some ridiculous leftist pundits. Apparently, Romney is a big fat meanie poo! Anyone else notice how the vibe of these ads sort of resembles Apple's marketing, which primarily appeals to yuppies to feed their dogs organic biscuits and order complex coffees?

Edited October 4, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

Obama prefers just being eye candy and awing his audience by robotically repeating talking points. You know...the rich should pay their fair share....we have to invest in education....I've created 5 million jobs.....I killed Osama....the auto industry is robust....ad nausea

Did you catch the part at the end where Obama had what seemed to be a Freudian slip when he said that everyone should GET "their fair share"? He giftwraps his socialism, class warfare, and racism in a fancy package like all demagogues. The problem for Obama this time, however, was that he wasn't alone on stage.

[cybercoma]

I must be missing the point of debates because everyone seems to be talking about how the debate looked, rather than what the debate was about this morning.

This is pretty telling about the state of politics.

[kraychik]

I must be missing the point of debates because everyone seems to be talking about how the debate looked, rather than what the debate was about this morning.

This is pretty telling about the state of politics.

Obama was destroyed substantively as much as he was stylistically. Again, Obama went in with a huge handicap. He HAS been the President over the past four years with a disastrous record on almost all fronts. There's no way this was going to be easy for him.

[cybercoma]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWmGDsbq3o

[Shady]

Al Gore's blaming the altitude for Obama's weak performance. Michael Moore is blaming John Kerry. It's a democrat circular firing squad. I love it!

[PIK]

Jim did his best to help out obama,even gave him a extra 4 minutes.

[kraychik]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oWmGDsbq3o

Are you seriously parroting the Buzzfeed narrative that was given by the Obama campaign, blaming Jim Lehrer for Obama's decimation at the hands of Romney? That's literally straight from Stephanie Cutter post-debate spin room analysis. It's sad when you're so dishonest that you can't admit what we all know. Romney won. Big time.

Nevermind the fact that Jim Lehrer wasn't so subtle about trying to assist Obama, interrupting Romney far more than Obama, giving Obama more time to speak (I guess that's a perk that comes with the Presidency?), and actually reminding Obama of his own talking points to reorient the visibly befuddled President.

I want you to do me a small favour, watch this video. Just watch the first three minutes and compare Jim Lehrer's recollection of an angry and mean Bush during his debate with Dukkakis to the actual video of the moment and ask yourself if this seems like a non-partisan journalist with integrity. Lehrer is a leftist, and was clearly trying to assist Romney. Good for Romney for denying Lehrer's transparent attempt to misdirect the dialogue towards favouring Obama. I hope he does it with the next two leftist journalists Crowley and Schieffer.

The video on this page is about nine minutes, but it's the first 2 minutes and 45 seconds that are really revealing.

[Guest American Woman]

If he wants to continue in his position, one of the elements is to perform on stage and defend your record against challengers and call them out when false or misleading statements are made or have been made. Its also an opportunity to connect to the public with your values and visions of why you deserve another term. Its a time when the public see the President and the Challenger and not their adverstising and marketing campaigns.

Romney may not be distracted by the ongoings of running a government, but Obama term could be shortlived if this is what he has to demonstrate to the American Public.

I'm not so sure the debates have that much of an impact come election day.

In short, I would suggest a level of arrogance and not taking the challenger seriously enough and believing that the challenger would do his own damage by opening his mouth.

But that didn't happen. The stereotype and formed image of Romney was not what showed up in the debate.

The Slick and polished image of Obama and his ability to connect to the public also didn't show up.

Anyone involved at that level of politics knows what the stakes are and what their job is to get re elected or to get elected.

This one goes to Romney. No excuses just results.

Perhaps the debate did go to Romney, but again, from what I've read, I don't think the debates have been shown to make much of a difference. I didn't watch it, so I don't know how much of the conclusions about the debate are partisan opinions, but of course there are two more debates, so who knows how those will go?

I'm just pointing out that Obama is under the stress of running the country, as Romney has really nothing outside of the election to tire him or sidetrack him. I question the difficulty of running a campaign and running a country at the same time - seems to me running the country would be an all consuming responsibility, especially with all of the problems facing the world/U.S. right now., and I wonder if other people pick up on that reality, too - which is why I mentioned it.

Edited October 4, 2012 by American Woman

[Shady]

Jim did his best to help out obama,even gave him a extra 4 minutes.

Yeah, I noticed that too. But I think most of that extra time was Obama stubbling over his own words, and rambling incoherently. Um, uh, uh, um, uh, uh, um, uh.

[cybercoma]

Jim did his best to help out obama,even gave him a extra 4 minutes.

He may have given Obama an extra 4 mins, but the impression that Romney won is in no small part due to Lehrer letting Romney have the last word every single time.

[kraychik]

He may have given Obama an extra 4 mins, but the impression that Romney won is in no small part due to Lehrer letting Romney have the last word every single time.

There was a coin toss to determine who got to speak last, you realise that right? Also, Romney gets to "have the last word" when Obama gets the first word. That's sort of how things work. It's hilarious how just a few posts earlier in this thread you were lamenting the (dishonest) assumption that this debate was won by Romney on superficial grounds, and now you're complaining that about those very same superficial grounds by crying about Romney fairly being given the closing comments when Obama was permitted to begin on a new segment.

Edited October 4, 2012 by kraychik

[kraychik]

I'm not so sure the debates have that much of an impact come election day.

Perhaps the debate did go to Romney, but again, from what I've read, I don't think the debates have been shown to make much of a difference. I didn't watch it, so I don't know how much of the conclusions about the debate are partisan opinions, but of course there are two more debates, so who knows how those will go?

It was not perhaps. Romney destroyed Obama. It wasn't even close. Even the Obama camp has indirectly admitted this by going into defence immediately post-debate. Whether it will make a difference is anyone's guess, we'll know on November 7th.

I'm just pointing out that Obama is under the stress of running the country, as Romney has really nothing outside of the election to tire him or sidetrack him. I question the difficulty of running a campaign and running a country at the same time - seems to me running the country would be an all consuming responsibility, especially with all of the problems facing the world/U.S. right now., and I wonder if other people pick up on that reality, too - which is why I mentioned it.

This really is a pathetic excuse. If Obama had a record of success to run on, he'd be more than prepared to articulate it. Obama doesn't lack communication skills and he isn't stupid. Moreover, he is arguably the laziest President in decades. He skips more than half of his PDBs, and he's always campaigning. I guess he's really exhausted from all those intense interviews with entertainment magazines and local radio stations talking about his favourite chili in New Mexico (I'm not making that up). Actually, your excuse was advanced by the Obama reelection campaign in the days leading up to the debate, asserting that Obama is oh-so-busy and doesn't have the free time that Romney has to prepare. The emperor has no clothes, and it shows.

[kraychik]

Al Gore's blaming the altitude for Obama's weak performance. Michael Moore is blaming John Kerry. It's a democrat circular firing squad. I love it!

It's pathetic. Al Gore's Current TV socialist groupies all nodded their heads in agreement. The altitude? Really? Yet somehow we're supposed to believe the idiotic political analysis from kimmy telling us that "Willard" is having a really rough campaign. I guess that's why Obama is doing hard-hitting interviews with The View and David Letterman.

[sharkman]

each of those guys should wear uniforms like nascar drivers do and the logos of all the corporations who give them millions should be pasted on their uniforms.

And the very first thing you would look for is the star of david logo.

[Guest American Woman]

It was not perhaps. Romney destroyed Obama. It wasn't even close.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't take your word for that, as you've proven yourself to be nothing but partisan.

This really is a pathetic excuse.

It's not an "excuse" at all; simply a statement based on fact, in response to the comment that I was responding to.

[punked]

Debates aren't won on the stage anymore, they aren't won by snap polls made up of only white people over 50, they are won after the debate, after the spin when the fact checking starts. In the end if everything you say is a lie and the other side can make that stick you are in trouble. So what is the media saying besides Romney did well? Well this is a good start.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html

The fact checking only just started. The clip cutting where Romney today is arguing with the Romney of 4 months ago just started. The questions like "If your tax isn't 5 Trillion just how much is it, and be specific" (BTW many members of the media are asking this questions and getting the report back that Romney doesn't know) just started. The fact checking on something like "what is your medical plan because last night you said it is to complex to explain yet on your website it is only 300 words long" just started.

Give it a week then come back and tell me who is better off because of this debate. Newest Gallup poll (which includes questions polled last night) has Obama up to highest approval in 3 years just came out. I think the right should be happy their guy showed up, it is to bad he showed and ran away from everything you guys stand for and tried to agree with Obama on everything.

Quick break down of the lies Romney told last night. There are least 27 big lies told last night.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2012/10/04/958801/at-last-nights-debate-romney-told-27-myths-in-38-minutes/

Michael Grunwald of time Magazine says last night when Mitts campaign was presented with the fact last night that his estimate that 50% of all green energy companies are failures was off by around 100% (it seems less then 1% of green energy companies have gone belly up) they said Mitt was just mistaken. What a misinformed lying asshole eh guys? Don't say it if you don't know the numbers Mitt.

Edited October 4, 2012 by punked

[sharkman]

Wrong punked. Reagan, Clinton and 2004 Obama all won their debates and 'fact checking' activists couldn't change it. Romney won last night and all the major left wingers like Moore, Gore etc know it. Now there will be major blow back as they try to prop up Obama's performance. Gore is blaming the thin air in Denver, like Romney wasn't breathing the exact same air.

[BubberMiley]

Wrong punked. Reagan, Clinton and 2004 Obama all won their debates and 'fact checking' activists couldn't change it.

Kerry won all three debates without even resorting to lying. It didn't make much difference for his campaign though.

[punked]

Wrong punked. Reagan, Clinton and 2004 Obama all won their debates and 'fact checking' activists couldn't change it. Romney won last night and all the major left wingers like Moore, Gore etc know it. Now there will be major blow back as they try to prop up Obama's performance. Gore is blaming the thin air in Denver, like Romney wasn't breathing the exact same air.

You forgot Kerry. As for Clinton and Obama the fact checkers were on their side. Reagans debate was a 6 days before the election. You are dead wrong if you think the American people are going to be ok being lied to. If that is what comes out of this debate, no sound bites but everything Mitt said was a lie. He is done. It took a week for that story to sink after the Republican convention, it will take time now. However the media is having a field day with the fact checking, and here is the bad news there is only so many times you can report who "won" or "lost" a debate. In a 24 hour news cycle with at least 27 lies you get to fill the next weeks worth of political programing.

I don't think I am wrong, and I haven't seen that the further we get out from this debate. Give it 5 days and come talk to me because I don't think telling a lie every time you speak is going to help you win the presidency. I have more confidence in the American people then that sharkman.

There just has not been an election like the one we are seeing. No one has gone on stage in a national debate and just told lie after lie after lie like last night. Not even Bush, he avoided questions, he gave poor answers but the lying never happened like last night. If nothing else this election will be looked back on a fight for America's political soul. Are they going to vote for someone who lies to them, doesn't actually tell them his plan, and clearly has a different answer everytime he is asked a question, or will they demand more out of their president.

Edited October 4, 2012 by punked

[Shady]

Kerry won all three debates without even resorting to lying. It didn't make much difference for his campaign though.

ROTFL! Yeah, Kerry never lied. Either has Obama.

[punked]

ROTFL! Yeah, Kerry never lied. Either has Obama.

This is what it has come down to. Shady can't even defend Romney because the lies were so obvious.

Obama is running a different campaign, he is doing what LBJ did in Texas when he fist ran. Trying to apply old rules to a new campaign is a dumb idea.

The debate isn't over yet. Now team Obama get to take every debate clip, break it down to its core points, show that is was a lie and cut the commercials so he ends up looking weak and a liar. That is how this debate will be won. The debate is won on Nov 6th, and ever day until that point. Team Obama now has Rmoney on video lying to the American people for 38 minutes. He will use every minute of it. He will cut with clips of the Republican debate from 2008 and 2012. It is going to be something else.

Edited October 4, 2012 by punked

[cybercoma]

Again the problem with Romney winning last night is that it has everything to do with the creating the perception of a winner. He didn't substantiate a single thing about his platform. The talking heads went so far as to say, "if you watched the debate with the volume off. Romney clearly won." I mean, seriously? The debate has been boiled down to a pageant. If you actually look at what Romney said, if his base actually listened to him, they should be infuriated with his claims. He's going against everything he has said in the past. Shady's unflappable support for Romney makes him look completely foolish. The things that he has vocally argued against, were supported by Romney in the debate. It's pretty easy to win a debate when you go out there and just lie about everything you said you stood for in the past and simply refuse to outline specifically how your policies will work. It's pretty easy to win people over if you're just going to go out there and lie your ass off telling everyone you're going to cut all kinds of government revenues without touching any government expenditures and in fact increasing military spending. Romney's a winner alright, but only amongst the most painfully naive.

[sharkman]

You know that Romney won big time when the Obama fans around here won't even dispute it, but instead say he lied(then why didn't Obama call him on it like Romney called Obama on it again and again?), he cheated, his responses were shallow, etc.

Romney won last night and all the 'yah buts' in the world will not change it, nor all of the "fact" checking leftwing activists. If Obama knows whats good for him, he won't be focusing on these shallow claims either. He'll fire his debate coach and get serious about how to do better next time. His anger showed through too much on TV and his preference to not even look at his adversary.