• Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On October - 10 - 2012

In their first debate, President Obama seemed blindsided and bewildered by Mitt Romney’s tidal wave of lies and denials of reality. Obama came to the debate ready to battle over issues and Romney came with sacks of manure to pour out at each opportunity. As has been discussed since, it is truly shocking that a man can stand in front of America and lie so openly and the Mainstream Media, knowingly hands a “win” to him and Presidential standing for being so successful at convincing Americans of deceptions.

It is a disgusting travesty, how the MSM calls a man that they know is lying to the country, the winner of a debate based solely on how aggressive he was in his lies and attacks and because his opponent chose to discuss issues instead of returning personal attacks…as if this was a WWF match where the winner is determined by the one who was most hostile and the dirtiest fighter.

For any of those out there who learned to debate in school, am I remembering all of this wrong but wasn’t the winner of a debate the one who used documented facts and reason to best convince those watching to their viewpoint? Does anyone remember a debate being won by someone who claimed he was right because he said so and was simply a smooth liar?

Add to this, the fragile and panicky Democrats who have been running in circles with their hair on fire because of this one positive week for Romney. Obama has had around two months non-stop of good news and one week that goes to Romney is the end of the world? Being seen as losing a debate because his opponent was an aggressive liar is the end of the Obama campaign? To this I say “pshaw” and I say it loud.

There are three more debates, the debate between Joe Biden and Paul Ryan tomorrow (we’ll be live chatting throughout it here so do join us!) then two more between Obama and Romney. It is likely that this bounce for Romney will be short lived and the high point of his campaign. Why? Follow me over to the Obamatron 9000…


Predictions For Upcoming Debates

1. Joe Biden will beat Paul Ryan in tomorrow night’s debate

Joe Biden is the butt of many a joke, laughed at for what a gaffe-machine he is, he’s discounted and ridiculed. So he doesn’t go into the debate as a big favorite. Paul Ryan is (curiously) seen as an intellectual of the Right and a brilliant guy who can carry the flag for the Right Wing. He is not seen as being outmatched in a debate. So, here are Joe Biden’s Advantages as I see them:

a. The low opinion of Biden on the Right and in the MSM is a benefit, making it easier for him to outperform expectations than it was for Obama.

b. Joe Biden is actually a great debater. In the 2008 Dem primaries and against media sensation Sarah Palin, Biden was skilled, effective and successful. Not many could have taken on Palin without looking condescending or bullying…or weak for not going after her enough, Biden threaded that needle with great precision.

c. Joe Biden is a “regular guy” who blue collar voters like and relate to. Many of the undecided voters remaining are in this demo and Paul Ryan is the kind of smarmy, nerdy brat that doesn’t appeal to them.

d. Biden can get tough because he doesn’t have to worry about Fox News branding him “an angry black man”. He can go after Ryan with a tenacity that is not natural for Obama, not Presidential nor problematic in a still-racist society. And if the first Obama-Romney debate has taught us anything, it’s that substance is less relevant to who the MSM crowns the winner of a debate than aggression. And between Biden and Ryan, I’ll take Biden as the tougher fighter and Ryan as the weaker wonk. If Biden wins as I think is likely, then the momentum for Romney evaporates.

e. Paul Ryan is not greatly experienced in debates or national campaigns. He is also not an inspiring speaker. Most importantly, he is the architect of plans that destroy Medicare, Medicaid and a broad swath of most social programs so he will be the perfect punching bag for a populist like Joe Biden.

Typically, VP debates don’t change the dynamics of a Presidential race in a big way but seeing how fragile the undecided vote is this year and how it swung after the first Obama-Romney debate, it isn’t unreasonable to presume that it will have a meaningful impact.

The VP debate then ramps up to the second Obama-Romney debate.

2. President Obama will beat Mitt Romney in their second debate.

a. The debate format is Town Hall style. An audience will surround them and ask questions. Obama draws energy from being around people, he’s far more comfortable in that format than standing behind a podium. Meanwhile, Romney’s insincerity is on full display when interfacing with human beings. Yes, he will be slick and well rehearsed with “humanizing” statements but he will be far more vulnerable to being seen as a phony in that environment.

b. A main topic will be foreign policy. When it comes to foreign policy, Mitt Romney is an empty suit with no concrete opinions or solutions. Sure, he’ll attack and blame Obama for events he had no control over (would Mitt have sent troops into Egypt to stop the people from overthrowing their tyrannical leader?) but Obama has many accomplishments and specifics to tout including killing Bin Laden, killing many Al Qaeda leaders, helping oust Gaddafi from Libya, etc. And while Romney wails about Obama on foreign policy, his “stands” are either identical to Obama’s or non-existent. Romney loses on foreign policy.

c. Romney has shown his hand and is a one trick pony so Obama will be well prepared in the subsequent debates. In the first debate, Romney surprised Obama by being wholly shameless about lying about everything. This can be a bit disorienting when a man who has frequently declared that he wants to cut taxes for the wealthy by 20% as part of a $5 trillion tax cut suddenly states that none of that is true and that unicorns really exist. Obama may have had low expectations about who Romney was but it seemed clear, he hadn’t imagined Romney was THAT unprincipled. Now however, Obama knows that. Romney has no surprises left, all he can do is play this hand again and again. Lie, lie, lie and deny the truth about his policies and stands on the issues. This “strategy” was effective as a stunt and surprise in Debate #1 but it will become redundant and less effective each time he tries to use it. And might Obama have put any thought into how to deal with it in the future?

This brings me to the audience participation section of this post: What should Obama do to deal with Romney’s lying in the next debates? Your thoughts and comments on this question are invited, desired  and welcomed. To get the ball rolling, here’s my suggestion:

President Obama shouldn’t try to address each and every lie Romney spouts in two minutes because they simply can’t all be covered in appropriate detail in Obama’s two minutes (or whatever time limit they’ll have). When someone is shooting a lot of arrows at you, don’t try to catch each arrow, you take his bow away. Meaning, Obama should attack Romney as an untrustworthy liar and use each question or response to drive that point home. If Romney can be seen as the rampant liar he is, it won’t matter what claims he makes if he’s not believed by voters.

There are many effective ways to approach this (just calling Romney a liar isn’t one of them). First, Obama could preface answers and responses by saying that Romney will say whatever it takes to win the Presidency and that he simply can’t be believed or trusted with the Presidency because he isn’t a person who is open and honest with the public. He’s hidden his tax returns, he’s hidden the hits that the middle class will take to pay for tax cuts for the wealthy, he’s hidden what he’ll do on health care for the uninsured…we don’t need another Republican in the White House who hides the truth from the American people and destroys our economy in the process (linking him to Bush without mentioning Bush seems like a good strategy).

Second, Obama should ask Romney questions that put him on the spot about his statements and his record instead of asking him about policy specifics about which Romney can simply lie. He could ask Romney details about his 47% speech or about his inability to stand up even once to the racists and misogynists in his party. The one question I would like to hear Obama ask is, “As a matter of displaying how principled you are, name just three principled positions you’ve held for the last ten years without flip-flopping on them.”

Your turn, what do you think Obama should say in his next debate with Romney?


Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

70 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. agrippa says:

    I am not worried about the ‘debate bounce’. Basically, I think that people who are going to vote have already deciced who they will vote for. In that sense, there are very few’undecideds’. I think that the true ‘undecideds’ are those who have not decided if they will even vote.

    And, I know nothing about polls: who they talk to; how they decide who to talk to; the questions they ask. And, poll results have nothing to do with who I will vote for. It is my civic duty to vote.

    • AdLib says:

      Well said, agrippa!

      What is messed up is that polls are supposed to be reflective, not influential but because the MSM elevates them so much to promote the horse race, they do influence the low info voters.

      As you say, any thoughtful voter shouldn’t care what a poll says when it comes to choosing who to vote for, if voting is merely an exercise of trying to pick the winner, we might as well nominate race horses for President.

      Wholly agree, we have a duty as Americans to consider the substantive issues behind candidates and retain our power by voting with our heads.

  2. AuntieChrist says:

    I don’t care what anyone says, you’ve got to admire this President.


    • bito says:

      Towards the end of the interview, Obama sought to assure listeners that he was still confident, alluding to an internet meme that features him: “As some of these emails that go around with my picture on them say, I can’t quote the entire thing, but ‘I got this.’


      • AuntieChrist says:

        Thank you Bito, that looks much better. One of these days I’ll figure out how to do that.
        My Inner Homer Simpson voice is saying to me, “dumb brain… Be more smart!”

  3. bito says:

    How can Obama or anyone break down facts and lies in any kind of format of debate that are presented in this article? This study will be lucky to get out of the nerdy blogs let alone in the broadcast media

    Romney’s $4,000 Tax Tale

    Mitt Romney falsely claims in a series of TV ads that President Obama “will raise taxes on the middle class by $4,000.” That’s nonsense. The ads cite a conservative group’s study, but even the group itself doesn’t say Obama will raise taxes on middle-income taxpayers. It says his budget could result in a “potentially higher tax burden” over the next 10 years.


    The first of these ads — titled “Who Will Raise Taxes?” — touts the AEI report as an “independent, nonpartisan study.” It also says, “The same organization says the plan from Mitt Romney and common-sense conservatives is ‘not a tax hike on the middle class.’”

    Although the group bills itself as “nonpartisan,” it is a conservative pro-business organization whose board of trustees includes prominent Republicans, including Vice President Dick Cheney, and major GOP donors who are actively helping to elect Romney.

  4. As far as strategy goes Obama has to do what Bush did in his second debate in 2004. He’s got to make the point to America that someone who changes positions all the time and has no core cannot do that in the oval office when you literally face hundreds of tough decisions. You can’t be pro choice one minute and anti-abortion the next when the final decision is made whether to sign a piece of legislation or not. You can’t waiver on touch foreign policy choices waiting for a poll to tell you what to do. You can’t tout only the popular parts of policy like the $5 trillion tax cuts and then hope the unpopular parts are done by congress. Obama has to make the point that’s not leadership. If anything that’s the vulnerability Romney set himself up for the most to be attacked.

    • agrippa says:

      In that second deabte, GWB kind of ignored Kerry.
      Obama should concentrate on relating to the audience and their questions and concerns.

    • bito says:

      Excellent KQ, how would a leader of fellow G-20 nation take Mitt’s ideas? Would they have to be constantly second/third guessing Mitt’s foreign policy?

      • AdLib says:

        Hey Bito, how about taking that to foreign policy? How would Al Qaeda, the Taliban, etc. take Romney as President contradicting himself constantly and speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Wouldn’t they see him as weak and vulnerable?

    • AdLib says:

      Like it, KQ, that would seem to be a very potent line of attack and it avoids playing into the Romney lie machine by focusing on character instead of issue details.

      Romney does need to be taken down on the issue of character and it can and should be tied to the 47% statement, self-deportation, rejecting Romneycare for the nation and all nature of opportunistic flip flops.

      Why couldn’t Obama describe Romney as an opportunistic corporate raider who is using the same tactics for a hostile takeover of the nation’s highest office? Link his immorality as a hedge fund manager who thinks corporations are people with his political campaign?

  5. Romney used a debate technique called spreading. Basically when it’s used with lies it’s akin to trying to baffle the audience with bullshit. It’s been outlawed in many debate formats just because it’s to difficult to determine the veracity of claims quick enough to evaluate a debate performance. Climate change and other denialists use this technique extensively to undermine truthful public discourse.

    That being said Obama should have been ready for anything because Romney has used this technique to a lesser degree before.

    A non-partisan pollster someone on MSNBC quoted last night said ‘when conservatives see a poll they don’t like they want to kill the pollsters but when a liberal sees a poll they don’t like they want to kill themselves’

    There is some truth in that because the left seems so beaten down by the right since the Reagan era that some of us do have a tendency to withdraw.

    • AdLib says:

      KQ, thanks for the explanation of the technical term of “spreading” though you left out the word “bullshit”.

      This is a standard Rove/Repub tactic, they used it in the ACA debate and elsewhere. The idea is to overwhelm the other side with so many lies that they have to spend all their energy on trying to address the lies and be on defense, which allows you to stay on offense all by yourself.

      This is why I say that the trap is trying to correct each lie, then you’ve given up being on offense. This is where the old saying comes in, “The best defense is a good offense.”

      Obama and Biden need to aggressively go after Romney and Ryan as unprincipled liars who will damage the economy and the lives of the 99%. When Romney and Ryan launch lies, the response needs to be an attack on them for another lie. Destroy their credibility and their lies are ineffectual.

      As for that quote, it’s very good. It does reflect the nature of Repubs and Dems. Repubs live in a bubble where the world needs to conform to their beliefs or the world is wrong. Dems live in reality and accept it, which can be discouraging at times, especially for those who focus too much on the immediate instead of the big picture.

      So they both have failings but only the Dems reflect any respect for truth.

  6. SueInCa says:

    I fully expect Biden to get his sincere on tomorrow night and say something like this:

    “Listen folks, I have been at the President’s side countless times over the past four years and you are not going to get a more caring man who thinks about you in everything he does.”

    He will go on, but I expect he will give a re=run of parts of his convention speech for the people who were not there to hear the original

    • AdLib says:

      Sue, yes, I do think Biden’s praise for his running mate will stand out because there is little Ryan can authentically say about Romney. I do expect Biden to hammer Ryan on killing Medicare, slashing Medicaid and social programs and lying at the RNC and since.

      Biden can let loose on Ryan, no worries about being seen as mean as could have happened against Palin or, as I mentioned above, being portrayed as an “angry black man”…Biden’s about as white as you can be…though Ryan and Romney take it to the limit.

      • SueInCa says:

        Biden really has nothing to prove. We know he can sit second chair and he has no problem doing so. He can go in there with guns blasting and take no prisoners. If Ryan comes across like he has in interviews, he is going to have a real uphill climb. Someone said getting Ryan to answer a direct question is like nailing jello to the wall. I saw a pic the other day about nailing water to a tree, same inference.

        • AdLib says:

          I think Ryan will be prepped like Romney to use the “spreading” technique of spewing a flood of lies but if Biden comes at him hard, I think he will falter.

          • SueInCa says:

            Who is moderating? Is it Crowley or Raddatz? Martha seems like a pretty on the ball lady, hopefully she will put a stop to the same crap that Mitt was allowed to go at unabated. If Ryan is chastised once, he will most likely slump, he does not seem like the type who can handle rebuke in any form. I have no love for Crowley at all.

            • AdLib says:

              Martha Raddatz is the moderator so hopefully she will do a better job than poor old Lehrer. I too can’t stand Crowley, probably best that she’s mod on the town hall debate so she has less to do and mess with.

  7. foodchain says:

    AdLib, Here’s what bothers me: the economy is important and is doing as well as can be realistically expected and we lost that debate. We lost is because no one seemed prepared for Mitt to lie. Fancy that! Or they expected a news moderator to demand the truth. Fancy that! They prepared no contingencies: if Mitt lies, if he challenges, if he’s peevish, is he’s aggressive, not one contingency plan. Fancy that! Civility toward a thief and a liar is viewed as weakness; do no self harm against a thief and liar is not possible with some type of self defense and no one understood that letting yourself get punched makes you look weak. Fancy that!

    All that said causes me to worry. Foreign policy is even harder to explain than the economy. The changes in the Middle East that we can’t control (Get Rummy to put another Shah in Iran, yeah right) don’t work into the average or under-informed voter’s mind set because the time frame is too long. Mitt’s foreign policy of America first, be strong, and don’t apologize is a hard card to play against even though is dangerously simplistic.

    So, what to do? Understand every position Mitt has stated related to foreign policy. Have a damn good answer for the embassy killings. Be ready to talk about the money “bully wars” cost such as Iraq. Talk about how many of the GOP can’t leave Afghanistan because you can’t announce a timeline and what will Mitt do with that? Stay indefinitely like McCain would do? Point out what the GOP has stalled on re veterans affairs and support. What would Mitt do differently and what would he cut to pay for it?

    I think a strong strategy would be to tie everything to cost and cuts. Mitt wants a balanced budget, a type of austerity related to spending. Make him explain how he would pay for anything and everything. I still want someone to explain how wealthy individuals create jobs. I know corporations are people but last time I looked wealthy people were not corporations. They hire maids, lawn caretakers, nannies and so on. Not much trickle there.

    If the economy is readdressed, there is an abundance of data showing that most of the jobs created under George were federal. Under GOP state stewardship, federal and state jobs were cut. Why didn’t George’s trickle down work? Why did Reagan raise taxes? Why have jobs increased under Obama even under the government of NO and corporations which refuse to commit to our economic growth?

    I love Joe, always have

    • AdLib says:

      Foodchain, excellent comment!

      Your point is well taken and I think it actually speaks to your concerns.

      Economic issues are easy to gloss over and lie about. “I’ll cut taxes and give you more services! It’s magic and I can perform it!” But as you say, foreign policy is far more complex and Romney just can’t provide the same kind of easy answers.

      As for who has the simplest, sound byte type answers, Obama has the best. “I’ve presided over the killing of our top enemy, Bin Laden and we have decimated Al Qaeda leadership, Gaddafi is gone and we continue to pursue and kill those who would harm us.”

      You’re right, because Obama did not mount an aggressive-enough attack on Romney’s lies (though he did point them out repeatedly) and Lehrer was as useless as a broken watch, Romney was crowned the “winner” by the MSM.

      Those days are over as I’m confident will be made clear in the Biden-Ryan debate.

      In that debate, you can count on Biden returning to the lies of Romney on the economy and taxes and Obama will do the same in the next two debates.

      As I mentioned in my article, Romney has played his hand and accomplished his goal in the first debate through the tactic of surprise. He doesn’t have that anymore and now the Obama camp knows that the game is about cornering Romney as a liar.

      And I give them plenty of credit in being clever and creative enough to accomplish their goals.

      BTW, historically, the challenger almost always is called the winner of the first debate solely because it is the first debate and standing up there with the President for the first time is often seen as enough to earn the win. Not so on the subsequent debates as I think we’ll see.

    • I agree that Obama should have been ready. Big difference on foreign policy though. Romney really really does not know his shit on foreign policy. So his lies won’t make any sense. His foreign policy speech was bluster and vapid at the same time. In other words it will just be harder for him to lie.

  8. SueInCa says:

    This was written by someone I do not know but I belong to a couple of groups on FB and it was posted there. WARNING***** He does not hold back with the language but if you are not sensitive to such talk, it is a pretty good post and a good spanking for Obama supporters or the left in general.


    • AdLib says:

      Sue, some of these same Dems have criticized Dem politicians for not standing up and having a backbone when under pressure. Perhaps now they can relate to how difficult it can be at times to put aside concerns and fears when you’re face to face with them.

      In such situations, it seems best to rely on your beliefs in the strength of people you trust and common sense. Obama is winning this election in the majority of swing states, he is a resilient, brilliant and capable man and the sitting President. Put side by side with Romney, he is the superior man and candidate.

      There may be a little faith involved but there is also a lot of reason and extrapolation of the facts.

      • SueInCa says:

        You know Adlib that is one of the first things I thought when people started going off the rails. I kept quiet because I am one of the ones who says “get a spine” so for me to start criticizing him over one debate did not seem right. My friend got all out of shape over it and started panicing. I told her exactly what you said above and she calmed down a bit but she is still worried.

        IMHO if he were to lose the election over one silly debate, then people in the country need to take a real good look at themselves and see where they really stand. I would not blame him I would blame them for being so shallow. I just did not put it into a written document.

        • AdLib says:

          Sue, I simply don’t believe that the nation will elect someone based on a single slick debate performance. And even with this strongest week for Romney…Obama is still beating him decisively in the electoral count.

          Is that something to be disappointed over? Nope.

          It may be challenging to stand behind the confidence of your grounded beliefs when those around you are freaking out but that’s a challenge that should be conquered.

          • SueInCa says:

            I know it was hard though. My first instinct was to go off but I thought about it and realized I would be doing what I call others out on, not having a spine. I sure hope you are right about people in this country, sometimes I wonder.

            I have read some articles in the Guardian in the past two weeks and it seems they have a better perspective than most Americans have on the direction of this country and they are certainly not afraid to call Mitt out for what he is: an empty suit.

            Did you hear his family is running things now? I found an article on FB last night saying Tagg and Ann were now at the helm? Big mistake.

            • AdLib says:

              I don’t buy that propaganda from this liar, they want to soften Romney’s image so they promote his campaign as a “family thing”. Nope, not buying it. His campaign team isn’t stepping aside.

  9. AdLib says:

    Another reality check, here’s what Right leaning Gallup’s numbers say today:

    Obama Approval -- 53%

    Obama Disapproval -- 42%


    Registered Voters

    Obama -- 50% +1
    Romney -- 45% -1


    Nothing worrying here, Obama’s numbers are good and going back up.

    • bito says:

      Isn’t it interesting that anytime the media, or whoever, wants to get into the “hair on fire” phase, the conveniently leave out any mention of “registered voters,” the electoral college and the swing states and instead go to national polling of warm bodies that may or may not be voters.

      • AdLib says:

        Bito, so true. Most of this hysteria is over ONE poll, the Pew Poll which gave Romney a 4 point lead. The same day, Gallup released a poll showing Obama up by 4…yet HP and the rest of the MSM focused solely on the poll that made the best story line for their bottom line.

      • SueInCa says:

        Hey bito

        Just wanted to say hi to you. Hope you are doing well.

  10. Maryl says:

    Great article! I don’t think I’ve ever posted here before but I enjoy your posts very much.

    As to the debate, he could always try Reagan’s line: “There you go again!” It could sound something like this: “There you go again! Last week you said “blah”, tonight you’re saying “blah”. In response to what you are NOW saying…(fill in the answer).

    • Welcome great to see new folks.

    • AdLib says:

      Hi Maryl, welcome to The Planet, great to have you here! And thanks for the kind words!

      Yes, I think it would be very effective for Obama to have a catch phrase for every time Romney lies and invoking Reagan’s “There you go again” line would fit in well.

      I’ve played around with a few terms like “Once again, in Romneyland, there are no details, there are no principles to be held, there is only saying whatever will deceive people into voting for him so he can be President.”

      I think we’ll see some consistent calling out of Romney as a fraud from Obama. He has got to be pissed off at what a slime ball Romney is and how bad he made Obama look for being honest.

      My bet is that Obama will be the clear winner in Rounds 2 and 3.

      • bito says:

        Well there you go again AdLib:

        Romney Pitches Tax Plan Details That Favor the Wealthy

        Is this not some of what Mitt denied in the debate and now he is twisting it again? Why is the MSM not on this story like like white on rice? Lying comes to him so easily and the media just can’t seem to even know truth let alone report it.

        Nothing new here at all from me on this, nothing at all, but it does want to make me scream that isn’t reported that Mitt says one thing one day, denies it, repeats it and the media seems they have to give Mitt a chance to deny he changed his policy.
        Just report what he said, he lying. Seems they have to give Mitt a chance to deny, why? Report the truth.

        At a rally here, Romney told the crowd that Obama would raise taxes on middle-income families by $4,000, a claim that has been debunked by several fact-checking websites. Romney promised to reduce the burden of those making $200,000 a year or less.

        […] The wealthy are the major beneficiaries of low taxes on capital gains, dividends, and interest; many middle-income Americans don’t have investment income.


        Though he did not mention it on Wednesday, Romney’s tax plan also includes reducing income-tax rates by 20 percent across-the-board, a figure which could significantly reduce the tax burden of middle-income Americans. But some experts are skeptical that Romney would be able to keep tax rates low for middle-income taxpayers without getting rid of loopholes like the mortgage tax deduction, a popular tax break for people in the middle class who own their own homes.


  11. AuntieChrist says:

    The damnable thing about the whole first debate was that if the President had asserted himself more forcefully in calling out Romney’s continual spew of untruths, the MSM would have said that he came across as an angry black man. As it was, I believe that the President, being an honest man and wanting to actually have a real debate was taken back by the sheer dishonesty being vomited from the mouth of Mitt.
    Romney reminded me of Linda Blair’s Regan in The Exorcist. Every time he opened his mouth and said something was like a never ending stream of unbelievable lies — And President Obama was probably wishing he had some holy water and a couple of priests.

    Since Romney pulls things out of his ass without a qualm, the President should be be able to do the same and insist that there’s an old saying which fits Mitt and it goes something like this: You change positions more often than a whore with a bad back.

    …of course that won’t happen, President Obama respects the people of this country, which is why he was ready to debate the truth, only to be surprised when Regan showed up, head spinning and vomiting over everything decent.

    What’s not to like about that?

    Auntie Christ

    • SueInCa says:

      Bingo AC, I said the same thing. And whoever said being an angry black man was a bad thing anyway? Oh yeah I get it, that means they are about to pull off a crime. Yet the angry white man is ok? Hell they even made a good movie about 12 Angry White men.

      • AuntieChrist says:

        Hi Sue,
        Since you brought up a film from 1954, let me close the loop from a film made 13 years later:
        At the next debate when President Obama shakes RMoney’s hand he should pull a Sidney Poitier and say aloud, “THEY CALL ME MR. PRESIDENT!”

        …And hopefully, Mitt will be caught totally off guard in the heat of the night.

        • SueInCa says:


          That is a great comeback. I love it. They call me Mr. Tibs was another great movie. Would you believe I just saw To Sir With Love for the first time about a month ago? I remember my brother watching all his films but I never did. I am going to make it a point to catch up though.

    • AdLib says:

      Hey AC! That debate was once again a stain on this nation, where the honest and respectful man is booed by the Thunderdome MSM because he’s not slashing and spilling as much blood as the lying, deceitful man.

      And as you say, Obama has had one arm tied behind his back because returning the hostility would indeed incur the “angry black man” label.

      Still, I do expect Obama to use his sharp mind in the next debate to slice Romney up. Because of the first debate, the MSM has sanctioned Obama to come back at Romney aggressively so though it won’t be as nasty as Romney, it will be effective.

      • AuntieChrist says:

        Hey AdLib!
        I do hope that Obama takes it to heart that Romney, Mormon or not, is one the the biggest liars to ever disgrace this nation’s political discourse.
        Forget Romney the Mormon, remember Romney the Narcissist.
        It’s disturbing that such a cold psychotic sociopath and serial liar is only enabled by his family and a cold aloof bunch of supporters. This country is in definite need of some serious mental health care.

        …No wonder they’re so afraid of a health care plane that would work.

        The MSM is a useless bunch of self masturbating chimpanzees. With all apologies to actual chimpanzees, whom I believe are thousands of times more honest and intelligent than any pundit on FOX.

        Also, in regards to the next debate, it’ll be interesting to see if there are any Jeff Gannon / Andrew Britbart (who is STILL dead) types planted in the audience by the GOP.

        • AdLib says:

          AC, I’m certain that Obama will never again take for granted how low Romney will go as a liar.

          Agreed, his family, especially Ann, are scary people in the way they soldier behind all of his lies and propaganda. It is not flattering to the Mormon Church to see “the perfect Mormon family” as lying and deceitful, greedy and selfish elitists. Then again, it may be an improvement in the eyes of some.

          The people of this nation are under a constant barrage of propaganda and emotional manipulation so of course they’re a bit off at times. Everywhere you turn, there is something or someone using the sophisticated marketing tools out there to manipulate the feelings and thoughts of Americans.

          There’s a tv show called Homeland about a time when all the world’s electricity just stops. I think a few months like that could clear the minds of a lot of people.

          Yep, I will be looking for plants in the audience, Romney is famous for doing that in the GOP debates but if there is any integrity in the debate commission, they will pre-screen those who will ask questions…if not, they deserve having someone give a shout out to Howard Stern’s penis.

          • SueInCa says:


            Mormons believe a lie is ok if you have a good reason. Everytime they have been confronted with outlandish rules of their church, they always tell a lie. If they don’t lie, the book of mormon produces a never before seen journal that changes things so they are in compliance with normal human activity. You cannot base a religion on a book of lies, well you can but then you should not wonder why people think you are a cult.

            In my opinion Evangelicals are betraying their own beliefs more than any other segment of the right. They insist it is a cult but they are voting for a cultist to become president. That defies explanation except to say they have so much hatein their hearts. WWJT?

            • AuntieChrist says:

              The evangelical party of the moral majority (aka the neither of either) were more than willing to accept Sun Myung Moon as an influential voice after he showered them with all kinds of cash.

              Something about the love of money being the root of all evil comes to mind… A quote from someone whom Sun Myung Moon declared a failure.

              Republicanism and Christianity are like oil and water, in that they don’t mix -- tho Joe Barton would have us apologize to BP for the catastrophe they leveled at us.

              Republicanism is regressive, aggressive, and destructive. The GOP is about as useful to the world as the Taliban.

          • AuntieChrist says:

            Propaganda. That right there nails the problem.
            The GOP is heavily invested in the idea of American exceptionalism, and the Mormons? They believe that early Americans were visited by Jesus after his resurrection -- making them a chosen tribe to later be revealed through golden tablets by Joseph Smith in the 19th century. Fundamentalists have long made the claim that they’re the chosen ones, now that a church with some of the most bizarre beliefs which was founded in this country, and has struggled long to shed the negativity that has always enshrouded them, has the chance for the highest office in the land?
            That’s scary as hell -- another thing which Mormons don’t believe in.

            • SueInCa says:

              All good points Auntie. I personally have no use for the evangelicals of the immoral majority but I guess I have made that clear from the writings I have posted here.

  12. foodchain says:

    Mitt Romney, the only candidate so incapable that he can publicly say that people are commodities and corporations are people. There seems to be no limit to the debasement of the GOP.

    • AdLib says:

      The GOP has become a party representing only soulless people and corporations, those who display no compassion for others and a limitless greed.

      It will take time but this party will continue to be forced to shrink or change.

  13. SueInCa says:


    Good post. One thing everyone should think about at this point is that many people have already voted. Those votes are cast in stone and cannot be changed. All reports I saw indicated that Obama was leading in Iowa and Ohio as voting got underway. So a certain percentage of voters have already cast their votes in stone. The next segment of the population is the party loyalists, they have also made up their minds and will vote accordingly.

    So my suggestion would be to speak to the undecided (what I refer to as low information) voter. These are the people who do not pay a great deal of attention to the lead up to the election. I am not saying they have to be political junkies like the rest of us, but a little information please. Speak to those voters. Don’t leave out the rest of us for that small segment who would be butt hurt, but really speak to undecideds. Point out to them how Romney has taken different sides on all issues depending on the way the wind blows. Encourage them not to take your word for it, see for themselves. Tell them you have remained steadfast in your beliefs except for occasions when you have done some serious soul searching and decided your beliefs had changed by life’s experiences, not just because you want a certain group to like you. He has to be passionate with these people because professorial does not work, it frightens them because they are not that deep. Then stay at the end and work the rope line. I remember at the town hall debate last year how people were impressed that the Obamas did that and the McCains took off.

    Of course he also has to speak to all of us but a bit of an adjustment for the undecideds needs to be in the cards. I am not sure how he can remind people of Romney’s flip flops without calling him on it everytime but he certainly needs to make it clear when a position has changed. Perhaps he asks if that change appears to be from soul searching or just to appeal to a voter block and if so how can they trust he will support them in the White House.

    If it was me I would just ask the audience, do you want the Mormons in charge of a Romney administration? Evangelicals were in charge of Bush’s and look where that got us. But I would probably lose too.

    • AdLib says:

      Sue, I think there are a lot of directions Obama can use to come at Romney but since he is such a prolific liar, I think it’s playing into Romney’s strategy to argue details in each case. If Obama is on defense, Romney benefits.

      Obama needs to go on the offensive and I think that the approach that accomplishes both offense and defense in a big enough picture is portraying Romney as an insincere fraud and liar. Romney will provide the proof in each response of his so as in judo, use the weight of your opponent against him. When Romney lies, use that as further proof that he’s a liar.

      Romney got his sucker punch in on Obama, next round, watch for the Rope-a-Dope and I do mean “dope”.

      • SueInCa says:


        I agree with that totally I am just saying to come directly at the undecideds. The rest of us know Obama and quite frankly many have already voted. In my scenario I would definitely say go at a high level, undecideds are not that deep and would only understand at a high level. And I will for sure be watching for the rope a dope. I need to go back and read that post that empi posted of Obama’s interview before I forget.

        • AdLib says:

          Sue, that’s such an important point, many people have voted already and are voting…with Obama’s margin locked in. It makes less and less of a difference if Romney’s numbers were to get better because more and more votes will be already locked in.

          Low info voters may prefer less hostility but they also are influenced by the superficial and that includes the MSM’s BS.

          So, the tightrope to walk is to be tough enough on Romney to be seen as the winner of the debate without being so negative that it displeases the low info crowd.

          You are right though, Romney may have gotten a brief bump but Obama’s performance appears to have held him in good stead with the low infos.

  14. empi says:

    The president was on Tom Joyner’s radio show today. All of the hand wringers and fretters should have a listen. Get a grip folks. It was only one debate and you are falling into the MSM’s trap of making a mountain out of a molehill. Have a listen. The President knows what’s happening.


    • Hey empi great to see your moniker on the planet. I sure will listen to the recording.

    • AdLib says:

      Appreciate the link, empi!

      I do think it’s easy for people to be swept up by the hysteria the MSM whips up over every trivial and manufactured tidbit. It’s best to recognize the game of the media and when they rev their engines over the latest BS, you just don’t jump in and go for the pointless ride.

      BTW, nice to see you!

      • empi says:

        My pleasure and I agree with you. We just have to keep our heads. I have all the faith in Obama to come through.

        P. S. I read your blogs almost every day

        • AdLib says:

          Very pleased to hear that! Thanks so much!

          I retain my faith in Obama as well and would urge those who’ve gotten worried to recall the many times that Obama was confronted with serious conflicts and difficulties. Did he rise to the occasion or was he defeated?

          If you believe in the many strengths and remarkable qualities of President Obama, you should indeed have faith in his ability to prevail right now and not worried by one lapse in a two month period of many lapses by Romney…and no doubt, more to come.

    • SueInCa says:

      Thanks for the link Empi. I don’t think I have seen you before here so welcome from SueInCA too. Hope you find this site as great as I do. Adult conversation is refreshing after you have surfed other sites.

      • empi says:

        You haven’t seen me because I haven’t posted here on POV for a long time. KQuark and I are old friends. I read the POV posts every day but I don’t always post because of time constraints, but since I know everyone is going crazy overreacting to the debate, I thought this might calm and sooth some nerves.

        Thanks for the lovely note. I appreciate it

  15. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Of course, I am still nervous as hell and wearing a track in the carpet from worried pacing.

    (You knew that did you not?)

  16. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Ad Lib…..great thinking here.

    My mantra the past few days is borrowed from you:

    For the Media, all media, stories are generally not valued for their truth- they are valued for the attention they garner. That attention is the key to their bottom line. The big story is the Presidential Race and the more conflict, the closer the contest, the more clicks, the more listeners/viewers, and the bigger the profits.

    Thus the media takes a story like the debate and replays it because it was so unexpected and thus exciting. For the same reason, they have NOT done as you suggest, apply the rules of debating to the REAL OUTCOME.

    I was a debater in high school and college. The number of times when the duller, less animated, less audience pleasing team won far outnumbered the pyrotechnical crowd pleasers. WHY? As Joe Friday used to say: “Just the facts.”


    Here is the line that we should have heard from real news people.

    “A lackluster presentation by President Barack Obama, especially when compared with the energetic and confident performance of Governor Mitt Romney, has left many Obama supporters stunned. But that reaction misses the point. A debate is a method of interactive and persuasive argument. Logical consistency, factual accuracy and some degree of emotional appeal to the audience are, in that order, the principal elements of the art of persuasion. While Mr. Romney won the day for emotional appeal, he failed miserable in the areas of logical consistency and factual accuracy. As a result, it is clear that the night was won by the President……” And then they should have provided samples from the night in the way of illustration.

    • AdLib says:

      Murph, thanks for checking me on this. I have never seen such offensive behavior from the media that I can recall. Crowning someone they know is a liar as winner of a debate? That’s outrageous! It’s like calling the runner who elbowed other runners the most the winner of a race.

      A debate is about a contest of facts and reason…how can someone be tapped by the media as the winner who presented neither?

      Because of course…it leads to a more profitable scenario for the MSM. How perverse, our democratic process is merely a money making venture for the MSM?

      As you say, the winner of the debate based upon the way debates are supposed to be judged was Obama.

      In the end, as I mentioned above, Romney won’t prevail through this parade of lies but it will be despite the unprincipled MSM.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Ad Lib -- Starting with your great article and then based on our conversation, here is the article I wrote for HP….Just posted. Spreading Planetary Wisdom to other Solar Systems.

        As they did for the Obama-Romney “Debate” Last Week

        For the Media, all media, stories are generally not valued for their truth- they are valued for the attention they garner. That attention is the key to their bottom line. The big story is the Presidential Race and the more conflict, the closer the contest, the more clicks, the more listeners/viewers, and the bigger the profits. Thus the media takes a story like last week’s debate and replays it because it was so unexpected and thus exciting.

        For the same reason, they have NOT done as you suggest, apply the rules of debating to the REAL OUTCOME because that would have awarded the victory to Obama.

        I was a debater in high school and college. The number of times when the duller, less animated, less audience pleasing team won far outnumbered the pyrotechnical crowd pleasers.

        WHY? As Joe Friday used to say: “Just the facts.”

        A debate is a method of interactive and persuasive argument. A Well Developed Thesis, Logical Consistency, Factual Accuracy and Reasonable Emotional Appeal to the Audience are, in that order of importance, the principal elements of the art of persuasion. Points were awarded for each category with emotional appeal getting the fewest points.


        While Mr. Romney won the day last week for emotional appeal, he failed miserably in the areas of thesis development, logical consistency and factual accuracy. As a result, it is clear that the night was won by the President.
        I want debater Biden and debater Ryan judged as an honest representatives of policy and a truth tellers not as an actors delivering his lines effectively.

    • SueInCa says:


      You over estimate the MSM they are not that deep nor do they care. It is all about ratings for their network although some appear to get away with being straightforward…….

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        That’s what I think as well. I wrote “For the Media, all media, stories are generally not valued for their truth- they are valued for the attention they garner. That attention is the key to their bottom line. The big story is the Presidential Race and the more conflict, the closer the contest, the more clicks, the more listeners/viewers, and the bigger the profits.” Perhaps I was not clear enough?

Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Ongoing Stories