VP Debate Thursday: Pre-Live Blog Politicizing!


Here we go again!

It’s VP Debate Time!

Here’s some punditry projections and hope-a-cizing!

First, from Joshua Holland:

The outcome of the debate is likely to hinge on whether Biden can hang Ryan’s past positions around his neck, or Ryan is able to dodge and wiggle away from the positions he’s held during seven terms in the House of Representatives.

For his part, Biden enters the debate in the immediate aftermath of Mitt Romney’s post-debate bump in the polls, and needs to have a strong performance to regain some momentum. Obama’s actual performance wasn’t that awful – a snap-poll of 500 undecided voters conducted by CBS at the end of the debate found that a majority thought it was either a draw or that Obama won – but the media narrative following it has been, and Biden needs to change the conversation.

From Robert Riech:

TO: VPOTUS

FROM: Robert Reich

RE: Debate

Beware: Paul Ryan will appear affable. He’s less polished and aggressive than Romney, even soft-spoken. And he acts as if he’s saying reasonable things.

But under the surface he’s a right-wing zealot. And nothing he says or believes is reasonable – neither logical nor reflecting the values of the great majority of Americans.

Your job is to smoke Ryan out, exposing his fanaticism. The best way to do this is to force him to take responsibility for the regressive budget he created as chairman of the House Budget Committee.

Ryan won’t be able to pull a Romney — pretending he’s a moderate — because the Ryan budget is out there, with specific numbers.

It’s an astounding document that Romney fully supports. And it fills in the details Romney has left out of his proposals. Mitt Romney is a robot who will say and do whatever he’s programmed to do. Ryan is the robot’s brain. The robot has no heart. It’s your job to enable America to see this.

I suggest you hold up a copy of the Ryan budget in front of the cameras. You might even read selected passages.

Emphasize these points: Ryan’s budget turns Medicare into vouchers. It includes the same $716 billion of savings Romney last week accused the President of cutting out of Medicare – but instead of getting it from providers he gets it from the elderly.

It turns Medicaid over to cash-starved states, with even less federal contribution. This will hurt the poor as well as middle-class elderly in nursing homes.

Over 60 percent of its savings come out of programs for lower-income Americans – like Pell grants and food stamps.

Yet it gives huge tax cuts to the top 1 percent – some $4.7 trillion over the next decade. (This is the same top 1 percent, you might add, who have reaped 93 percent of the gains from the recovery, whose stock portfolios have regained everything they lost and more, and who are now taking home a larger share of total income than at any time in the last eighty years and paying the lowest taxes than at any time since before World War II.)

As a result it doesn’t reduce the federal debt at all. In fact, it worsens it.

Ezra Klein:

The deeper we drilled into the regulations in Ryan’s plan, the more they sounded like the very plans he was arguing against.

For instance, he didn’t like that in Obamacare, “You’re having a person design how insurance can be sold.” Then how does his plan make sure people aren’t sold defective products? “In the Patient’s Choice Act, we do an actuarially equivalent minimum in each exchange that’s equal to the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Standard Option.” Well, isn’t that pretty much what Obamacare does?

What followed was health-care word salad. “The Senate bill goes a lot further than that. You need to define what insurance is. I agree with that. But what we’re trying to achieve here is a system in which the patient is the driver of it, not government bureaucrats.” Then how come you’ve got government bureaucrats deciding what insurance is?

In effect, Ryan’s plan and Obama’s plan would regulate insurance products sold through the exchanges in pretty much the same way. But Ryan didn’t want to say that. So he basically offered a lot of convincing sounding words on the topic. If you parse his response, it’s not terribly convincing. But you really need to know the issues to parse his response. The fact that you’ve caught Ryan in a bit of a contradiction doesn’t mean he’s going to admit it.

That said, Ryan is very good at admitting when you’ve got a point. He doesn’t do this when you’ve got a point that undermines his point, but he does it, and generously, when you’ve got a point that he can agree to. He’s also very good at admitting when Republicans have strayed from conservative ideals in the past. You can see that in our discussion of the economy, where he suggests he’s eager to fight Republicans over paying for their budget promises, even though he himself was one of those Republicans voting not to pay for anything in the Bush years.

The result is that, while he’s a highly ideological thinker, he doesn’t come off as particularly ideological. He comes off as an affable, decent, conservative guy who holds strong views, but recognizes that he doesn’t have all the answers and that his party hasn’t always lived up to its promises.

ABC’ Sarah Parnass on  “Getting to Know ABC News VP Debate Moderator Martha Raddatz”:

Martha Raddatz was named senior foreign affairs correspondent for ABC News in November 2008 after serving as White House correspondent during the last term of President George W. Bush’s administration. She first joined ABC News as the State Department correspondent in January 1999. Before that, she covered foreign policy, defense and intelligence issues for National Public Radio.

Her coverage has won numerous awards, including the Fred Friendly First Amendment Award this spring.

In her acceptance speech for that award, Raddatz said she wants “people to know about the world.”

“I want people to remember,” she said. “I want people to feel. I want people to question.”

Raddatz has traveled to Iraq to cover the conflict there 21 times. She is the author of a New York Times bestselling book about her experiences there, “The Long Road Home — a Story of War.”

After decades of reporting on foreign affairs, Raddatz said she is honored to sit down with two men who have devoted so much of their lives to public service. Both Rep. Ryan, R-Wis., and Biden first came to Washington in their 20s and have remained there ever since.

NBC News and 10 things to watch for:

Biden told reporters last week that his top priority in preparing for the Thursday debate was a thorough review of Ryan’s budget and policy proposals.

“What I’ve been doing mostly quite frankly is studying up on Congressman Ryan’s positions on the issues,” he said. “And Governor Romney has embraced at least everything I can see.”

Foremost among those positions espoused by Ryan are those contained in the two budgets he authored as House Budget Committee chairman. Several aspects of the original 2011 Ryan budget – which includes a complete overhaul of Medicare – are staples in Biden’s stump speech. He gives visceral examples, telling audiences to imagine their 80-something mothers using “coupons” to shop around for a good insurance deal.

What are you looking for tonight?

ONE hour to go!

Meanwhile you cn watch this great YOUTube by Joseph Cannon our friend at Cannonfire:


Open Thread and Live Blog: Massachusetts Senate Debate #3

Elizabeth Warren meets Scott Brown again tonight at 7PMat the Springfield, MA Symphony Hall.

Brown and Warren are engaged in what is already the most expensive Senate race in the history of the commonwealth, and before it’s finished will be the most expensive Senate contest in U.S. history.

At the two previous debates, the candidates have dueled over tax policy, immigration reform, Warren’s Native American ancestry and Brown’s votes on bills relating to women’s rights. In Springfield, moderator Jim Madigan of WGBY will be asking the candidates a variety of questions aimed at getting them to not only offer specifics on their ideas, but also to reveal where they stand on issues which may not be the everyday talking points.

The event, which will take place at 7 p.m. inside the city’s historic Symphony Hall, will be streamed live on MassLive.com, broadcast locally on WSHM CBS-3, ABC-40/FOX-6 and WGBY and available outside the Springfield market on NECN and C-Span and covered by a variety of news outlets from across the country.

WBUR (NPR) in Boston will also be covering the debate.

Tufts University political science professor Jeff Berry described the race in an interview Wednesday on WBUR’s Morning Edition as “dead even.”

“What we’re down to is a race that’s gonna be about turnout,” Berry said. “Both Brown and Warren tonight are gonna want to motivate their voters.”

To draw support, Berry thinks Brown will avoid the issue of Warren’s Native American heritage — according to Berry, pushing the issue makes Brown “look like a bully” — though that doesn’t mean he’ll back off her past entirely.

“[Brown] scored points on [Warren’s] work for insurance companies, making her look like just another lawyer or politician who’s willing to work for either side, whoever’s willing to pay her,” Berry said.

Berry believes Warren will counter by bringing the Senate election to a level of national importance, noting that this seat may decide which party controls the Senate. As a result, Berry predicts Warren will attack Brown’s claims of bipartisanship…..

Jobs will likely be a big ticket item at the debate, and Berry believes Warren will stick to supporting small business whereas Brown will oppose the Obama administration’s tax increases.

David at Blue Mass Group asks: Is Obama’s debate debacle trickling down into MA-Sen?

…yet another poll, conducted by YouGov for UMass-Amherst, shows Warren with a narrow 48-46 lead among likely voters. YouGov uses a non-traditional methodology, but Nate Silver says they do OK. The poll was taken Oct 2-8, so almost entirely after Obama’s debacle in Denver. The moral seems to be this: we can expect the polling in this race to bounce around quite a bit over the next four weeks. So just keep winning the old-fashioned way. – promoted by david

*sigh*

US Senator Scott Brown has regained a lead over Democratic challenger Elizabeth Warren in a new WBUR-Mass Inc. poll, after a string of polls showed Warren with the lead…. The telephone poll of 502 likely voters, taken Oct. 5 through Oct. 7, showed Brown leading 47 percent to 43 percent, within the 4.4 percent margin of error. The lead drops to 3 percentage points — 48 percent to 45 percent — with the inclusion of respondents who say they have not fully made up their mind but are leaning to one candidate….

[T]his was the first poll taken after the Oct. 3 presidential debate between President Obama and Governor Mitt Romney. That debate has helped boost Romney’s campaign, which may be affecting races lower on the ballot.

Obama lead[s] Romney by 16 points on the newest WBUR poll. It’s a sizeable advantage, but down from the 28 point lead he held in the previous WBUR poll.

If you’re going to watch the debate, please share your reactions in the comments, or use this as an open thread.


Soledad Spins the Spinners Again

Tara Wall was put to the Soledad Truth treatment yesterday. She was unable to defend a contradictory set of statements on Israel and Palestine made by Wall yesterday after Romney’s NeoCon speech.

Here’s the basic gist from Alternet.

The exchange over the Israel/Palestine conflict has attracted the most attention, with O’Brien grilling Wall on Romney’s “contradictory positions.”

The topic of the segment wasRomney’s foreign policy speech earlier today at the Virginia Military Institute.

O’Brien first tried to get into the fine points of Romney’s foreign policy, questioning whether Romney was laying out any different options on Iran than President Obama. O’Brien asked three questions about Iran, but Wall was not interested in getting into specifics.

Then O’Brien turned to the Middle East. O’Brien juxtaposed the remarks Romney made at the infamous Florida fundraiser that was secretly taped, and his planned remarks today. In Florida, Romney said that peace with the Palestinians was not an option because the “pathway to peace is almost unthinkable to accomplish”–meaning a Palestinian state is unthinkable.

But in Virginia, Romney vowed to work for a “democratic, prosperous Palestinian state living side by side in peace and security with the Jewish state of Israel.”

O’Brien asked Wall about these “contradictory” positions. Wall fired back, and said, “the fact is that it’s the president who’s failed.” O’Brien then talked over Wall’s remarks, saying, “Tara, that was an excellent shift, but answer for me about Gov. Romney.”

O’Brien repeatedly tried to get an answer to her question, but it was to no avail. “I’m not going to get into a big foreign policy debate with you here,” said Wall, explaining that foreign policy is not in her purview in the campaign

Wouldn’t it be nice if all the media wouldn’t act like stage props and actually call out campaigns on inconsistencies and lies?

Interestingly enough,Paul Ryan was rude to a reporter in Michigan who was evidently asking unwanted questions about guns and violence. There’s some indication that Ryan actually walked off the interview.

A Michigan ABC affiliate posted video of an animated exchange between Paul Ryan and a local reporter on Monday evening, prompting questions about whether Ryan walked out of the interview.

When it aired, reporter Terry Camp characterized the interview as ending badly, and said Ryan was “not specific in his answers.” Meanwhile, the Ryan campaign said the candidate was asked a “weird question” relating gun violence to tax cuts.

The Ryan campaign said the interview had simply run past its allotted time, but that Ryan didn’t end the interview prematurely. Video of the interview that was posted to YouTube shows an off-camera aide (later identified as Ryan spokesman Michael Steel) calling the interview to a halt while Ryan is standing, still in casual conversation with the reporter while removing his microphone.

“Does the country have a gun problem?” Camp asked Ryan during the interview, held in the library of the Cornerstone School.

“This country has a crime problem,” Ryan responded.

I guess that Republicans expect the “Fox” treatment wherever they go.  Good to know that some reporters keep after them.  I just wish they all would!!


NeoCon Wet Dreams live in Romney

The one thing I don’t ever want to see again in my life time is a fiasco like the Iraq invasion.  The same gang that brought us that costly and horrible misfortune is advising Mitt Romney.  Romney waded in to the foreign policy arena today with a speech to Virginia Military Institute.   He inkled a lot of the Cheney/Rummy/Wolfie/Bolton threats in a speech that you really need to read.  Can we really afford more of this mass invasion of the Middle East in the name of oil and empty dreams of US imperialism?

Romney channeled their evil intent.  Make no mistake about it.  First, he’s riding a wave of lies about what happened in Benghazi. Second, he’s rattling sabers again.

The GOP candidate added that “the blame for the murder of our people in Libya, and the attacks on our embassies in so many other countries, lies solely with those who carried them out—no one else.  But it is the responsibility of our President to use America’s great power to shape history—not to lead from behind, leaving our destiny at the mercy of events.”

He also laid out a broad foreign policy vision that called for the U.S. to “lead the course of human events” with “more American leadership.”

In other words, it was a boilerplate speech with nods to the neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, a wing that leads his foreign policy team as well. But asWired’s Spencer Ackerman notes , “the policies Romney outlines in his speech differ, at most, superficially from Obama’s.” Obama’s record on foreign policy is an aggressive one, with escalated drone strikes that have killed scores of civilians in Pakistan and Yemen and the continuation of the war in Afghanistan. Romney didn’t offer anything specific that was more aggressive than Obama, though his rhetoric was ratcheted up.

Romney indicates that all we need is a bit more military presence in  the Middle East.  At least we know where those $2 trillion dollars that none of the military folks want will actually go. Get ready to send your grandchildren to Iran.

When Romney says “the 21st century can and must be an American century” and that is the U.S.’s responsibility to steer the world towards “the path of freedom, peace, and prosperity,” that’s code for the maintenance of U.S. hegemony. Romney still believes that the U.S. should be able to shape the world as we see fit–the rest of the world who refuses to go along with it be damned. These ideas are particularly galling given that Romney was partly addressing the Arab Spring–a series of revolts that were decidedly against U.S. support for repressive dictatorships.

Romney also believes that in the case of Iran, “American support”–read meddling– for the opposition in that country would be helpful. But that ignores the fact that the Green movement in Iran did not want U.S. support and intervention.

The Republican candidate also lamented the fact that “America’s ability to influence events for the better in Iraq has been undermined by the abrupt withdrawal of our entire troop presence.”

Lastly, he hinted that U.S. involvement in Afghanistan could continue for years to come if he was president. “The route to more war – and to potential attacks here at home – is a politically timed retreat that abandons the Afghan people to the same extremists who ravaged their country and used it to launch the attacks of 9/11,” the candidate said. “I will evaluate conditions on the ground and weigh the best advice of our military commanders.”

Neocons in the US and Israel are dying to invade Iran.  We’ve already implemented tough embargoes of the country.  Evidently, this will never be enough for the likes of Romney and his neocon advisers.  Romney offers to send more Navy into the region.  He offers to further arm Israel and to extend free trade agreements to any one under the sole circumstance of not being aligned with ‘enemies’ .  Hopefully, this is the Romney we will see at the next presidential debate.  However, given the flip flops and lies of the last debate on the economy, I would assume that he may walk back his eagerness to display Neocon belligerence.  Do we really want a few more wars and conflicts in that region.  Haven’t the lessons of the Dubya presidency taught us enough already?

UPDATE:  Okay, well this firms it up completely.

Romney’s New Freedom Agenda Draws Praise From Bushworld

“Terrific,” says Rumsfeld. “A kinder, gentler neocon.

Would you let any one you love vote for some one that just was praised by Donald Rumsfeld?

But it was Romney’s speech, and its echoes of the Freedom Agenda, that drew rave reviews from some of the leading avatars and supporters of the clear and combative foreign policy of Bush’s first term.

“Terrific, comprehensive speech by Gov. Romney,” Bush’s first term Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, tweeted “He knows America’s role in the world should be as a leader not as a spectator.”

Romney’s speech offers a new Republican articulation of the Bush doctrine of moral clarity, wielded — as Romney said — “wisely, with solemnity and without false pride” to “make the world better—not perfect, but better.”

“What’s not to like?” asked Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol, a leading foreign policy hawk and backer of Bush’s war in Iraq, who called the speech “kinder, gentler neocon.”

Kristol’s fellow travelers on the neoconservative right were ebullient.

“Kristol could have written it himself,” said Michael Goldfarb, an aide to Senator John McCain’s 2008 campaign who now chairs the conservative Center for American Freedom. “Strong on defense, strong on foreign involvement and aid, strong (and courageous) on Afghanistan and Iraq.

“For all the talk about fissures in the party — the [Project for a New American Century] guys are the ones who will be toasting the Republican candidate tonight,” he said, referring to a group that pushed in the 1990s for, among other things, an invasion of Iraq.

A range of leading Bush Administration foreign policy figures also embraced the speech.

“Mitt Romney understands that the best way to preserve international peace and security is for America to lead from the front,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, a figure who never entirely shared the neoconservative worldview. “President Obama believes that American strength is provocative, that we are too much in the world, and that a U.S. recessional is necessary and appropriate. This is exactly opposite of what we need. It is not our strength that is provocative, but our weakness, which our adversaries worldwide interpret to mean it is safe to challenge us. We need to reverse this dangerous American decline, and return to Ronald Reagan’s philosophy of ‘peace through strength.’ It has worked throughout our history, and it will work again under President Romney.”

Jamie Fly, who served in the Pentagon and National Security Council in the second Bush term and now heads the Foreign Policy Initiative, praised Romney for making clear that “the answer is not to lead from but to be every clear.

Fly said he heard “hints” of Bush’s Freedom Agenda rhetoric in Romney’s speech, “but any time the governor ventures that sort of territory, it is tempered by recent events.”

ARGHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!


“Winning” in the Sheen/Romney mode: Does truth matter?

Okay, so my first impression of the “new” Romney was actually thinking he came off like the old Charlie Sheen. How can people be impressed with some one that continually lied, presented himself and his agenda as something diametrically opposed to what he’s been saying for the last year, and continually, frantically interrupted both the moderator and the president?  Is this really WINNING!? Are we after a debate where we learn about issues and facts or a reality show meltdown?

Obama has never been a spirited debater.  Any one that was paying attention to the 2008 primaries knows that.  The big difference that I can see in this debate performance and the 2008 performance is that Obama actually has a grasp on policy this time out and he can talk about it.  Evidently, that’s not enough for the punditry these days.  They want tingly legs. They want something akin to a reality show. IMHO, only Romney gave them that.

The morning after appears to be filled with fact checking in the print press.  Romney is losing on substance and facts.  I posted a series of fact checking posts early this morning.  There’s more today.  Here’s the shrill one.

And the fact is that everything Obama said was basically true, while much of what Romney said was either outright false or so misleading as to be the moral equivalent of a lie.

Above all, there’s this:

MR. ROMNEY: Let — well, actually — actually it’s — it’s — it’s a lengthy description, but number one, pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan.

No, they aren’t. Romney’s advisers have conceded as much in the past; last night they did it again.

I guess you could say that Romney’s claim wasn’t exactly a lie, since some people with preexisting conditions would retain coverage. But as I said, it’s the moral equivalent of a lie; if you think he promised something real, you’re the butt of a sick joke.

And we’re talking about a lot of people left out in the cold — 89 million, to be precise.

Furthermore, all of this should be taken in the context of Romney’s plan not just to repeal Obamacare but to drastically cut Medicaid.

So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.

Here’s another one from Jonathan Chait.  Most of the print press is picking up on the lies big time.  However, the TV punditry personalities are still enthralled with the Romney Sheen-style “WINNING!”. Romney’s successful debate strategy was manically and aggressively lying. WINNING!!!

Romney was forceful and articulate and dodged his association with almost all the most unpopular aspects of his platform. But his success at doing so was built upon two demonstrable untruths.

The most important was taxes. Romney asserted, “I cannot reduce the burden paid by high-income Americans.” Let me explain how this is untrue even by his own campaign’s accounting.

Obama badly flubbed this topic by allowing Romney to change the baseline of the discussion. Romney is promising to extend all the Bush tax cuts and refuses to accept even slightly higher revenue as part of a deficit deal. On top of that, he is proposing a huge, regressive income tax rate cut that would reduce revenue by an additional $5 trillion, but promises to make up for it by closing tax deductions. Obama directed his fire almost entirely at the additional tax cut, leaving mostly untouched, until the end, Romney’s pledge to never bargain away any of the Bush tax cuts.

Obama’s case was sound. The Tax Policy Center has shown that the stated parameters of Romney’s plan don’t add up — even under favorable assumptions, there are not enough tax deductions for the rich to close to pay for the rate cuts. Romney has disputed this and cited a series of studies that, in various ways, change the parameters of the Tax Policy Center study. Some of these studies find that it could be theoretically possible that Romney could cut rates and, by closing loopholes, do so without losing revenue or raising taxes on the middle class — if you lower the bar on who is middle class from $250,000 to $100,000, or count the repeal of Obamacare to help pay for the tax cuts, or use really wildly optimistic growth assumptions.

None of these studies back up Romney’s claim that he won’t reduce taxes on the rich. They confirm that he will reduce taxes on the rich. They merely suggest that he could make up the revenue some other way than taxing the middle class or increasing the deficit — that the economic growth will help the tax cuts for the rich pay for themselves, or that some of the lost revenue can be made up for by cutting off subsidies for the uninsured. Romney flat-out misstated his position.

My first reaction to the opening Romney statement was “WHOA, Nellie”.  He basically made statements on policy that were 180 degree turns from everything he’s previously said.  No wonder the President look flummoxed.  You basically prepare for a man whose entire platform is based on tax cuts for the rich and calling 47% of the population moochers and the guy says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  Then, he says he thinks regulation is okay?  AND, he’s back to saying that his plans actually keep the popular parts of “ObamaCare” when they don’t?  Lying is WINNING!

I called my dad–who could serve as an archetype of the Republican Small Businessman–immediately after the debate and nothing about the debate impressed him.   He said it wasn’t a debate at all.  He was nonplussed.  My immediate reaction was to be appalled by the degree of Romney rudeness and aggressiveness   I don’t consider ordering a moderator around and calling him out for not keeping to the exact second of the time rule to be anything but extremely rude and bullying.  I don’t like that kind of disrespectful behavior.  I don’t consider aggressive lying and hyperactive speed talking to be “WINNING!”  It certainly hasn’t taken Charlie Sheen any where but to cable reruns.  But of course, both Jim and Big Bird seem to be “likeable enough” for Romney.  Just not worthy of a few tax dollars.

Here’s “The Four Most Misleading Moment’s in Romney’s Debate Performance” from Jonathan Cohn at TNR.  These are my thoughts exactly.

The debate may not change the dynamics of the election. But if I knew nothing about the candidates and this was my first exposure to the campaign, I’d think this Romney fellow has a detailed tax plan, wants to defend the middle class and poor, and will take care of people who can’t find health insurance.

Problem is, this isn’t my first exposure to the campaign. I happen to know a lot about the candidates. And I know that those three things aren’t true. Romney has made promises about taxes that are mathematically incompatible with one another. He’s outlined a spending plan that would devastate the middle class and (particularly) the poor. And his health care plan would leave people with pre-existing conditions pretty much in the same perilous situation they were before the Affordable Care Act became law.

My standard for candor in politics is whether candidates have offered the voters an accurate portrait of what they’ve done and what they are proposing. Tonight, Romney did precisely the opposite. And that really ought to be the story everybody is writing, although I doubt it will be.

My question to every one is how does any one prepare for a debate with some one who lies and recreates himself and his positions continually?  It’s like a trying to catch a greased pig who is also shot up with methamphetamine and testosterone to amp up the squeals. Which Romney do you prepare for?  The Romney who continually says he’s going to lower the tax rates for the rich or the one who says he’s not going to lower taxes for the rich?  The Romney who wants to repeal everything in Obamacare or the Romney who insists that preconditions are covered by his health care policy which is basically pre-Obama care which means it’s NOT covered. The Romney who hates regulation or the Romney who finds things he likes in Dodd-Frank?  Romney’s statements make Charlie Sheen look decidedly un-Bi-Polar by comparison.

The only hint of Romney that actually came out in the debate was the one who insisted that he supported Medicare Vouchers but only by reassuring his older voters that the sucky plan wouldn’t impact them. Not so coincidentally, Obama’s counterargument was the best one on this topic.   Obama held a rally in Denver this morning.  He made the arguments at this rally that he should’ve made last night.  Unfortunately, that’s a little late for the TV pundits who should take notes from their print colleagues and start fact checking Romney’s “WINNING!” performance.

It didn’t impress me and it didn’t impress my father. It turned both of us off.  Are we alone on this?   I saw the bully and the liar in the Romney performance.  Didn’t you? But then, I think both of us were looking for substance and not a reality show meltdown where Obama out-Charlie Sheen’d Romney.  I wasn’t looking for “Fire-breathing Fists” or “Tiger Blood”.  Were you? It seems that Tweetie wants tingly legs and Tiger blood.  That’s not what a debate should be about.  So, shut up about already and get on with dismantling the lies and inconsistencies.