|

Obama lost debate, so make excuses and attack Romney

According to the Associated Press, there was substantial criticism of  former PBS anchor Jim Lehrer even before the debate was finished coming from Obama supporters on twitter, that Mr. Lehrer had lost control of the debate.

Following the debate, the excuses for Obama abounded, and the attacks on the moderator and Romney’s aggressive stands and lack of respect for the president were sizeable.

Romney was even accused of bringing notes into the debate, against the rules, which turned out to be his handkerchief. Obama was the one who needed the notes to explain his trickle down government to the 67 million viewers.

Fox News Channel’s Greta Van Susteren wrote on her blog that Lehrer was being attacked because Democrats “expected the moderator to run interference for their candidate and the moderator didn’t bail out their bored, fumbling and unprepared candidate.”

“Instead,” she said, “moderator Jim Lehrer did the unthinkable — he let the candidates debate.” OMG, let the candidates debate in a debate, what an original concept!

The heart of Obama’s new message with less than five weeks to go: Romney is a liar. Expect that theme – from the president and from his aides, which will drive most of Obama’s advertising and messaging for days.

Excerpt:

“Gov. Romney may dance around his positions, but if you want to be president, you owe the American people the truth,” Obama declared in his first post-debate appearance, a Thursday rally in Denver.

The new line of argument is based on the Obama campaign’s contention that Romney, while sharp and commanding on the debate stage, delivered a series of statements that don’t stand up to factual scrutiny. They singled out Romney’s positions on tax cuts, education and outsourcing as misleading to the middle class.

David Plouffe, the Obama White House adviser who ran his 2008 campaign, called Romney’s performance “probably unprecedented in its dishonesty.”

Obama’s campaign quickly released an ad raising questions about Romney’s honesty, arguing that he didn’t level with middle-class families on how his tax plan would affect them. “If we can’t trust him here, how could we ever trust him here?” the ad says.

And,

As the president mockingly searched for the “real Mitt Romney” during an earlier speech in Denver, Vice President Joe Biden pounded the message in Iowa, another toss-up state.

“Ultimately, presidential races, unlike any other race, get down to character,” Biden said. “They get down to the character of the man or woman and the character of their convictions: Do they mean what they say and will they do what they say.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Romney was “peddling snake oil” by hiding the details of his plan. This reference coming from a leader who hasn’t placed a budget up for a vote in the Senate, in violation of the law, for over 3 years.

More excuses – Al Gore said it was the altitude in Denver that affected the president’s performance during the debate and Al should know about such things, he’s been dealing with the environment for years.

Whoppi Goldberg said Obama was “PO’ed” because he had to debate on his 20th wedding anniversary.

Joy Baher, also cohost of “The View” said of the debate, answering a question about the public unions jobs that Romney was dismissing in her opinion, said, “Oh, less government? That is an idiotic statement. Can I just say that?”

She then said, “I mean, I’d like to see his house burn, one of his millions of houses burning down. Who’s he going to call, the Mormon fire patrol?” Can you imagine what would happen to a conservative saying something like that about the president?

During the debate, Obama kept looking down at the podium. He was probably hoping that somehow, magically, his teleprompter would appear so he could debate with Romney’s explanation of the economy.

The liberal media have been throwing Obama softball questions for so long that he simply wasn’t able to withstand a cross-examination of his answers. Obama simply didn’t know what to do! There is no excuse for Obama’s performance – it’s simply that he doesn’t know the answers and doesn’t understand how domestic and international economies work!

Share:

15 Comments

  1. If Obama loses the election, and I think this likely, there is no way the liberals can spin his defeat as proof of deep racism in the electorate. Obama’s defeat will be cleanly traceable to his own shallowness, lack of ideas, and failure to perform in his first term.

    I am waiting for a Romney ad that shows the split-screen of the candidates at the first debate and asks, “Which man do you want across the negotiating table from the leaders of Russia, Iran, Korea, and China?”

    This is almost too delicious to behold. The mainstream media coddling and protecting Obama for 4 years, causing him to get flabby and supercilious. Then the first debate shows the emperor has no clothes, and the whole House of Obama collapses like a house of cards. Too cool.

  2. Willard was good on appearance, presentation, style and bull manure.

    • Ted Biondo

      Steverino, I see you have taken the Obama path, that Romney is a liar and that’s the only way he beat the heck out of Obama. Proof please!

  3. Wonder who the real prevaricator is?
    Princeton Economist: Obama Campaign Is Misrepresenting My Study on Romney’s Tax Plan

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/princeton-economist-obama-campaign-misrepresenting-my-study-romneys-tax-plan_653917.html

  4. shawnnews

    You can start with these.
    http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/10-most-shameless-romney-debate-lies-debunked
    I don’t know much about alternet but it’s not Daily Kos, Think Progress, Media Matters or any of the usual sites I see liberals use. However, they cite Think Progress a few times.

  5. The Obamunists are trying to create a dystopian society, similar to that of “Harrison Bergeron”. The only way that they can do that is to demonize and degrade their opponents down to their level.

  6. shawnnews

    SNuss ia complaining liberals demonize and degrade opponents while he uses the term Obamunist. Get a grip. Obama is pretty much the same guy Mitt Romney was ten or twenty years ago.
    http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/07/what-happened-to-the-obamacons.html

    • Ted Biondo

      Right Shawnnews, 20 years ago Romney was just as inexperienced in the economy, domestic and foreign affairs as Obama is now!

  7. shawnnews

    The same author I posted, Andrew Sullivan says Romney got a 12 point lead from the debate not because of Romney’s lies, but because of his inability for counters. As someone who has known Obama’s strengths were in prepared speeches, a Romney victory.does not surprise me, nor does Obama’s eventual comeback which always happens. Hillary was the presumptive nominee until the endorsement from Ted Kennedy.

  8. Carol Foster

    Still waiting to hear exactly which tax deductions now taken by Americans are on the chopping block to make the Romney tax plan work?????
    Still waiting to hear if those lost deductions begin before the 3% increase in the economy begins or after the 3% begins.
    Romney did say his tax plan wouldn’t happen if it affected the deficit by growing it further. So since growth won’t be 3% in January 2013, exactly how does this thing work, Ted? After all, it’s supposed to be a key element to Romney’s plan to turn this country around and create jobs.
    Maybe you’d like to tell me again this is only an excuse for the President’s poor performance in the first debate?
    Money talks and we all know what walks. Either you can answer the money questions or you can’t, which is it?????????

    • Ted Biondo

      Carol, do you understand the difference between a dynamic and static economy? I didn’t think so. Do you understand sitting down with both sides and meet goals set by the president, unlike Obama who dictates and works around Congress through Executive orders, czars and state departments who listen to no one. The presidents, except Obama, shouldn’t dictate to the others what deductions are to be made. Those are details and the president is the CEO, not the accountant like dictator Obama and company. You will never understand that the money I have saved didn’t come from you.

  9. Carol Foster

    Love the way you answser your own questions as if those who don’t agree with you have nothing to offer. Shows you need to have the wax cleaned out of your ears and a trip to have your eyes examined.
    Romney has only presented a “notion” of what he might like to see done if elected and according to you, expects everyone else to fill in the blanks.
    That’s not leadership. It’s not even very Presidential from a man offering what he’s telling the nation is a solution to its’ problems.
    I’d call it gutless, but perhaps that would be rather a harsh assessment, so let’s just refer to it as whimpy in nature and undecisive. That’s not saying asking for input isn’t good. It’s clearly saying fill in the blanks for the entire deal is unacceptable in the matter.
    Let us all know when you get over “executive order,”” czars,” etc. political speak, and feel it’s actually time to discuss the merits of ideas with the information needed to know if they have any chance of working. Even the Romney’s running mate has ideas on the table with the figures in them so American’s can see if that’s the direction this nation needs to take for themselves.Certainly the guy at the top of the ticket must be able to put it all on the line and do the same?
    I’d like to remind you Enron went under because the CEO etc. coudln’t understand the hoey the accountants were putting out and now you’re suggesting this is good business for a President of the United States to do the same thing???????????

    • Ted Biondo

      Well Carol, Nancy Pelosi expected Congress to vote for Obamacare without knowing what was inside its 2500 pages – explain the difference?

  10. truth hurts

    There is an old saying from Shakespeare “the lady protest too much” and never more has that been true than in the politcal ads/comments from obama/supporters.

    I found it in an unlikely source, facebook.

    I have (or should I say had) a friend there who I knew for years and also knew them to be an unapologetic liberal. When this whole romney/obama political season kicked off I saw an interesting trend.

    I started seeing multiple posts anti-romney with the usual half truths, lies and spin.

    Now (as I stated many times) I am a conservative (not bound to either party by name) and romney was not my first or even 2md choice.

    So being a conservative I pointed out the BS with truth on every post (as I would/have done when (ex) bush was doing stupid things). You know that whole first amendment thing. Yes this caused a more than a little friction but hey don’t post something and think no one may challenge you on it.

    But then over a two week or so span of this going on (and watching/listening to main stream media/talk) I had my Shakespeare “eureka” moment.

    I could not remember when on Facebook I had seen from my liberal friend a post touting the “good” obama had done over the last 3 years or reputing such “inconvient” facts as how he had raided the national debt almost 3 times more in 3 years than bush did in 8.

    So I tried searching past facebook posts and found none.

    So I paid attention over a 3 day span and found a fantastic fact. In one day (day two) alone I had 9 posts on anti-romney (over 15 in three days) but ZERO ones touting any good obama had done. I gave up on expecting an answer on (for example) the deficit question.

    Then I started scanning main stream media/talk and found better than 95% (and I suspect I am estimating low) comments, ads, obama supporters on attack but little on obama “good” done.

    Lets put this in contrast Ronald Regan (one of the most hated by liberals/media) reversed that number with over 90% on his record and maybe 10% on attack ads (and this number may be a little high).

    I pointed this out to my friend in a running total after each post (also after I pointed out the lies or gave “the rest of the story”).

    The breaking point was the post on the letter by the business owner on the telling what may happen if obama gets back in.

    As usual the whole story was not posted (gee who would have thought) and pointed/asked how that was any different than what unions do in their newsletters or how they spend union members dues on contributions, ads, endorcements without TAKING A VOTE of the membership.

    Oh I also pointed out after their rant that I also was part of the UAW and now in another union so could comment from fact.

    That ended the posts (unfriend) I could receive.

    So I ask here in simple terms to obama supporters.

    If your record “is so good” then please explain why you don’t run on his record and not spend so much time on the attack lie (half a truth is a whole lie) ads/posts/ect.

    So again why to supports “protest too much”?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CAPTCHA Image

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>