I cannot believe my ears. Marc forgave Obama’s “uh”s. Why when Marc was Mister _ _ _ _ , he would dump anyone who displayed an “um”, which is just another form of speech disfluency. Just another example that this Marc is not the same Mister _ _ _ _ we all came to know and love.
Yes the “3 Um/uhh Rule”. Warned after the 2nd Um, then dumped at the 3rd and moved on to the next caller.
I don’t know what debate Marc and Dina watched. I’m an Obama supporter, but by every measure, Romney won that debate.
No doubt. Obama was off his game. Romney had excellent presentation. So my votes goes to Romney for president of the debating society. Romney still didn’t have any comeback to Obama’s points about his flip-flopping(a big issue with GOP in last election). Essence VS. Substance. Which do you judge a candidate on?
I listened to the entire debate on the radio, and felt that it was boring – and a dead heat. Then I watched on CNN and felt that Romney clearly had the edge.
They took the grease out of his hair. He appeared calm, confident and maybe ‘presidential’ for the first time. He engaged in rhetorical tomfoolery that seemed to fly with viewers. The approach seems to be that the real race didn’t start until last night, and I’m inclined to believe that his team’s calculation may be correct.
Obama appeared off his game, like he put out a hit on somebody just before going on stage. He phoned it in and I expect a sharper message in debate #2.
Did you guys watch the recap from MSNBC? They are mostly the source of conformation for Al and the group.They seemed to have a rather different take on last night’s event.
No winner? Romney off his game? Sorry you guys are delusional.
Romney gave the better debate performance, clearly. He etch-a-sketched like crazy, but he was more succinct and forceful. Obama was too wonky and barely challenged Romney. Consider the people on the fence, or those just tuning in to the race. On pure debate performance, they saw Romney far outshine the President. It’s fine to agree with Obama’s policies and distrust whatever Romney believes. I concur on both counts. But it’s another to look at that debate and say it was a draw, or that Obama had the upper hand. I’m surprised someone with Marc’s common sense would conclude this.
Typically for someone with a handle with the implications of “leftistpuke”, you don’t pay attention to the facts. No one says here that Romney was “off his game”. We said that Obama was off his game in terms of his debating performance as compared to his usual speaking performance. And you may be happy to read (if you would please)that we believe Romney did win the debating form contest. My point is that we’ve seen Obama speak enough to know that he was not in his best form. Romney on the other hand was obviously well prepared. His hair was even minus the ‘Brylcream’ look he usually sports. He obviously has good handlers. But Romney still failed in the substance department by failing to respond to Obama’s points, especially regarding Romney’s flip-flopping relative to his stands as governor of Mass.
Winner or debate? Yes, it was Romney by a petroleum-free hair. The delusion is in the mind of anyone who’d think that a well coiffed slimeball corporate raider and job-deporter could ever be a president that would be good for the vast majority (47-99%) of the American people.
“My point is that we’ve seen Obama speak enough to know that he was not in his best form.”
Key differences, no teleprompter this time, no swooning media, real challenges.
He has no record to run on, what can he say that we should want more of?
“The delusion is in the mind of anyone who’d think that a well coiffed slimeball corporate raider and job-deporter could ever be a president that would be good for the vast majority (47-99%) of the American people.”
Really? As compared to a community organizer that voted present most of the time?
In response to: “He has no record to run on, what can he say that we should want more of?”
I say: Better than Romney who is in full flight from HIS record – thus the flip-flopping.
“no teleprompter”: There’ve been plenty of talks by Obama where he is talking and responding off-the-cuff, obviously teleprompter independent, where he’s shone much brighter than during a debate poorly presented by the over-the-hill moderator.
“Community organizer” – Better that than a job deporter andcommunity destroyer like Romney.
Your criticism is pretty thin puke.
Thanks for demonstrating that Obama has no record to run on.
Your claim that Romney is a “job deporter andcommunity destroyer” is exactly what leftist puke means; spewing words that you know are untrue.
Puke: That article goes into the kind of excessive detail that a good defense lawyer does in defending a client that could only be kept out of the pokey by the most nit-picking defense. The article starts out stating that “There is no question that Bain invested in some companies that helped other companies outsource work and that some of that work went overseas.” It is this “some companies” and “other companies that helped” language that masks what really happened that Bain took part in. The article further distances Romney from Bain’s takeover, plundering and outsourcing of US businesses by claiming that most of this happened after Romney had left the company. But as the recent PBS “The Coice 2012″ documentary detailed, Romney remade Bain. What Bain was after Romney left was largely what Romney redesigned (programmed) it to do. As the article stated “we found no evidence to support the claim that Romney — while he was still running Bain Capital.” That last part is key.
One of the subtle distinctions sited of Romney’s activities states that “The state wasn’t outsourcing contracts. Rather, in some cases, state contractors were subcontracting work to companies overseas. Romney vetoed a bill that would have prevented the state from doing business with companies that outsourced any state work to other countries.”
“we have documented instances in which Bain enriched itself and its investors with hefty fees and dividend payments that left companies heavily in debt and vulnerable to bankruptcy”. But that doesn’t make Romney a corporate raider, which has a specific meaning in the business world
If Romney were defending himself in a court of law, those kinds of SPECIFIC definitions might get him off the hook. But an election is conducted in the court of public opinion. A courtroom would have found Al Gore and John Kerry did answer their country’s call and served in a war they both had reservations about at a time a certain senator’s son was put in ahead of the line to a unit that never would be sent to Vietnam. The court of public opinion will select this president as well.
By the way, I was impressed whey that PBS special noted that Mitt’s father, George Romney felt he’d been “brainwashed” into believing the Vietnam war was justified. Of course this was at about the time his own boy was reaching draft age and (wouldn’t you know it) winds up spending the remainder of the Vietnam war in France trying to save the French from their wine.