Usa Thread

[Steve]

Hiyh expectations for Romney in the next debate. i have a feeling we will see a much better prepared Obama on his A game. Romney sounded like a champion of the middle class but his policy is based on incentives for the rich. No one will call him on it because the media is all about the performance. Smart on the Romney teams part.

[Bangkoktraveler]

Hiyh expectations for Romney in the next debate. i have a feeling we will see a much better prepared Obama on his A game. Romney sounded like a champion of the middle class but his policy is based on incentives for the rich. No one will call him on it because the media is all about the performance. Smart on the Romney teams part.

 

People say Romney won the debate

but a major blunder was tax incentives

to move your company out of the States.

 

Gee he should have known about that!

[Flashermac]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_142475&feature=iv&src_vid=iNhUI8ktHuw&v=RsyS3xVxTyU

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Flashermac]

Noonan: Romney Deflates the President

 

 

Out on a limb, where the breeze is best:

 

The impact of the first debate is going to be bigger than we know. It's going to affect thinking more than we know, and it's going to start showing up in the polls, including in the battlegrounds, more dramatically than we guess.

 

It wasn't just Mitt Romney's strong performance. It was President Obama's amazingly weak one. He's never been punctured before. But by debate's end Wednesday night, if you opened the window this is what you could hear: Ssssssss. The soft hiss of air departing from a balloon.

 

And—amazingly again—he did it to himself. He didn't fight, he didn't show, he wasn't awake and hungry. He just said the same-old-same-old and let it go. He couldn't even meet Mr. Romney's gaze, never mind his arguments.Is all this dispositive? Has it changed everything? No.

 

Balloons can get patched. Opportunities can be squandered. Luck can turn.

 

But this whole race is on the move again, it's in play again, and it's going to get fun.

 

But it's going to get hot, too. And probably dirty.

 

***

 

America got its first, sustained look at the good and competent Mr. Romney. And it really was a first. He wasted his convention but showed up for his debate, and an estimated 58 million people were watching. Many of them were taking his measure for the first time.

 

What did they see? He was confident, gracious, in command of the facts. He looked like a president, acted like one. He was easily the incumbent's equal and maybe more than that, so he became for the first time a real alternative to the incumbent, a living one, not just a name on a ballot.

 

He has been painted as Richie Rich, a too-tightly-wound reject from the Republican Animatronic Presidential Candidate Factory. But again, that's not who he was. He was a normal, smart adult, and he knew things both about America and about public policy. He's supposed to be extreme, but he was not in the least extreme. He spent his time talking not just to Republicans or conservatives but to the American people, a huge and varied lot.

 

He reminded many of them of something they'd perhaps forgotten along the way: We don't like the Obama economy! We don't like ObamaCare! We don't like not having jobs! Nothing personal, but this didn't work!

 

Forced by time constraints to be clear and concise in his statements, he was both. Here we must stop and note: The way Mr. Romney spoke in the debate was the real Romney. The faux-flowery "prairie fire of debt" one we hear on the stump is the not-real Romney. He flowers himself up on the stump because he thinks it makes him sound better. It doesn't. The real Romney is the one who can communicate. He's straight and direct and not fancy, forgivably jargony, but worried about America and sincere. That's the Romney who showed up for the debate. Stay that guy!

 

***

 

All the books being written about the 2012 race will tell us the background and circumstances of Mr. Obama's surprising and deeply unimpressive performance. For now what can be said is this is how journalists described it in real time: passive, listless, effete, detached, flaccid, dull-brained, disengaged, professorial.

 

The last is unjust. Professors are often interesting. When Mr. Romney gave him the sweet-faced "You're a cute little shrimp" look, and he gave it to him all night, Mr. Obama couldn't even look at him. When Mr. Obama stared down and nodded at his notes it looked, as someone observed in an email, like his impersonation of a bored wife. Everything he said —everything—was something you'd heard too many times.

 

Mr. Romney gave the president some openings. The president didn't take them. Why? It crossed my mind he was playing possum. But possums wake up at some point.

 

Mr. Obama's likability numbers are about to go down. It's going to be a reverse Sally Field: You don't like me, you really don't like me.

 

Jim Lehrer has been criticized as an inadequate moderator. He was old-school and a pro. He didn't think it was about him. How quaint. He asked questions, allowed a certain amount of leeway to both candidates, which allowed each to reveal himself, and kept things moving.

 

Most of the criticism seems to have come from those who hoped Mr. Obama would emerge triumphant. Mr. Lehrer should not take it personally. Every shot at him was actually a warning shot aimed at the next moderator, Martha Raddatz. She's being told certain outcomes are desirable.

 

***

 

The next Obama-Romney debate will be different. The same Obama will not show up. He's been embarrassed. He'll bring his LeBron. He'll be tough, competitive, and he'll go at Mr. Romney professionally and personally: "We know you love cars, you've even got an elevator for them!" This is where Sen. Rob Portman, in future debate prep, has to go. He has to play a newly energized and focused Chicago pol. But then he knows that.

 

Advice to the Romney campaign:

 

1. There's no way to know if the debate changed everything but for the next few weeks Pretend it has. Underscore the gain in stature your candidate now enjoys. Makes things new, dress it up.

 

2. Everyone at podiums. Stop with the rambling man with the cordless mic on the empty stage. Forget the bales of hay and the tired local GOP activists in the background. Keep the candidate looking like a president. Weeks ago you threw together a stage with a podium, flags and deep blue curtains. It was for Mr. Romney's Libya statement, which flopped. But the setting was good. Get it back.

 

3. Everyone in suits and ties. Enough with the high-thread-count, open-collar shirts with the sleeves rolled up. The presidency is not a TED conference. Especially for Paul Ryan. You know what we like to see in a 42-year-old man who wants to change a 45-year-old program? Grown-up clothes.

 

4. Maintain the rhetorical tone and tenor of the debate—sharp but respectful—Debate Romney, not Prairie Fire Romney.

 

5. Watch out for Big Bird. Putting the merits and realities of overall PBS funding aside, Mr Romney here gave a small gift to the incumbent. Democrats will merrily exploit it. Big Birds will start showing up outside Romney rallies, holding up signs saying "Don't Kill Me!" Think this through.

 

6. As things tighten up, they will probably get dirty. It is a matter of conviction in both parties that the other side is more ruthless and brutal in its use of underhanded tactics. Both campaigns have probably been sitting on potentially damaging opposition research. Why? Because they don't want to win that way. Political operatives say they hate oppo because they hate to lower the tone of the national discourse. The truth is, oppo is bad for business. The press goes into full Lascivious Puritan mode, spreads the dirt and then tries to nail the provider. When everyone knows a strategist won dirty, he becomes controversial, future clients shy away, and the mortgage on the house in Umbria goes unpaid. But losing is even worse for business.

 

Chicago won't go quietly. Be ready for trouble and able of rapid response.

 

My link

[Flashermac]

Romney's debate victory spooked the mainstream media. This is why Republicans nominated him

 

By Tim Stanley

 

Mitt Romney didn’t just beat Obama on Wednesday night. He also beat the liberal media. So great was his performance that liberal journalists simply had to concede the President’s defeat – a humiliation for an industry that has spent several years setting Obama up as the wisest, most eloquent, most popular politician since FDR. No longer can Romney be dismissed with a gag about a dog strapped to the roof of his car. This uptight rich guy could be the next President of the United States.

 

Evidence of liberal panic is everywhere. In the hours after the debate, the mood in the MSNBC bunker was near-suicidal – and it’s in tortured moments like these that all pretence of objectivity disappears. Chris Matthews (a former Democrat staffer turned TV motor mouth who undoubtedly talks in his sleep) ranted that Obama ought to watch MSNBC to learn how to fight conservatives. Ed Schultz was “stunned†and Rachel Maddow thought it might be sort of a draw (in the same way that the Titanic's encounter with an iceberg was “sort of a drawâ€). The New York Times ran with the vague headline, “Obama and Romney, in First Debate, Spar Over Fixing Economy†and called the evening “unhelpful.†Why? Because their guy lost.

 

Who to blame for the President's poor show? Al Gore put it down to the high altitude of Denver, which would suggest that this was the first debate in history to be decided by topography. Whoopi Goldberg said that Obama was distracted by his wedding anniversary. Many others are pointing the finger at the moderator Jim Lehrer, whose lack of command allowed Romney to dominate. Lehrer sure was useless. At one point he announced that there was only three minutes left of the programme – and took about three minutes to do it. But blaming the referee because your side lost is a tired old excuse. And the President did lose. According to CNN, 67 per cent of viewers thought Romney won, compared to just 25 per cent for Obama.

 

Beating the low expectations of the mainstream media is one thing, but will it translate into a tighter race? A couple of polls signify that Romney’s positives are already creeping up and that he may have leapt by a couple of points. But it will take days to see that translated into accurate state-by-state polling that gives us a better picture. A lot is made of the figure that nearly half of viewers said the debate won’t change their mind and only 35 per cent said they now preferred Romney. But, actually, those stats match what we already know about the relatively low number of undecideds. This was the most watched debate since 1980 (itself an indicator of voter indecision) and 35 per cent of 67 million is pushing 25 million viewers who are willing to give Mitt a second look – pretty much the number that Romney has always needed to win over to win. Moreover, the debate seems to have helped rally the GOP base and spike donations.

 

It can’t be disputed that Obama is still the man to beat – thanks in part to a big lead in Ohio. But while the conservative joy about Wednesday night might seem overblown, it’s justified by two things. First, Republicans are thrilled that someone finally got to say to Obama all the things that they’ve been wanting to say for four years. Second, they’ve remembered why they nominated Romney. He was the most articulate candidate in the 2012 primaries and has only now got a chance to prove his worth. There might be many draw backs to a Romney candidacy: Bain, the u-turns etc. But on intellect and presentation, he was the best conservative option available.

 

In the last couple of days, I’ve done a lot of interviews talking about the debate. A conversation with one producer was illustrative of Romney’s battle against poor media expectations. He called just before the debate and said, “So, I guess Obama’s going to win easily tonight. Do you want to come on and talk about it?†I replied that I’d love to but that Romney was actually the stronger debater and I’d be tipping him to win. “Really?†Yes. “Well, that is a surprise. I’m not sure people will buy it, but if you want to say that – it's up to you.â€

 

The day after the debate he rang again. I was expecting him to say, “Hey, you were right! Can you come on to talk about how Romney won?†Instead, he said, “Can you come to talk about how debates don’t really matter?†I sighed deeply.

 

My main point throughout my commentary of this election hasn’t been that I want Romney to win but that I think he can. He can because a) this President’s domestic record is poor, Romney is a much better candidate that many people realise and c) Romney’s values are more representative of a slim majority of the American people than Obama’s. After Wednesday’s debate, I hope that all three of these points have become more apparent. That’s why it mattered so much.

 

My link

[kamui]

Romney's debate victory spooked the mainstream media. This is why Republicans nominated him

 

My link

 

The difference between conservative and liberal media is, that the liberal media immediately agreed that Obama's performance was poor. While the conservative media flatly denies facts which don't fit into their perception of reality:

 

Conservatives: Jobs data are phoney

By: Kevin Robillard

October 5, 2012 09:51 AM EDT

 

The release Friday of unexpectedly positive jobs numbers immediately touched off a conspiracy theory among conservatives, who suggested the data was being manipulated to benefit President Barack Obama’s reelection.

 

“Chicago style politics is at work here,†Florida GOP Rep. Allen West wrote on his Facebook page. “Somehow by manipulation of data we are all of a sudden below 8 percent unemployment, a month from the Presidential election. This is Orwellian to say the least and representative of Saul Alinsky tactics from the book ‘Rules for Radicals’- a must read for all who want to know how the left strategize.â€

 

http://www.politico....2070.html?hp=l3

[Flashermac]

Yahoo notes:

 

"Still, many of the jobs the economy added last month were part time.

 

"The number of people with part-time jobs who wanted full-time work rose 7.5 percent to 8.6 million, the most since February 2009. "

 

My link

[Bangkoktraveler]

Romney made it clear during the debates that

a lot of the 'socialize programs' will be done away with.

 

I don't think so!

The burdens will be shifted to the States which

means sales tax increases will incurr.

 

Sounds like Ronald Reagan's form of government - shift the tax burdens to the States!

[Bangkoktraveler]

Hiyh expectations for Romney in the next debate. i have a feeling we will see a much better prepared Obama on his A game. Romney sounded like a champion of the middle class but his policy is based on incentives for the rich. No one will call him on it because the media is all about the performance. Smart on the Romney teams part.

 

 

Under Romney Federal taxes will be lower

but overall taxes such as State and sales taxes will increase

causing an overall net tax increase.

 

Willard is playing the same cards Ronald Reagan played

who the Conservatives claim was 'a great American'.

 

I guess selling missiles to the Iranians wasn't a bad thing after all......

At least the Conservatives don't think so.

 

What does Willard plan to do about Iran? Same stuff Ronald did?

[Bangkoktraveler]

The Border Patrol agent that was killed about

50 miles north of where Mitt Romney's father was born in Mexico

seems to be developing a few twists.

 

The Mexicans have arrested a few guys

but this happened before the rumor was released

that the one agent who was killed and the other agent

who was shot a couple times may have been the work

of friendly fire!