That's sweet. Thanks for sharing it. That has more substance to it than anything her husband stammered out tonight.
cept that history says otherwise... well, for starters, saying that you're going to lower taxes by 20% does equal about 5 trillion. Hate to break that to him. And just saying "no, I'm not going to cut taxes" doesn't make it true. Secondly, the election won't solely be decided on the economic debate. But remember, Kerry 'won' the 1st debate in 2004 too. Look how well that worked out for him. side note: It's interesting to think about how Romney didn't really embrace the right wing of the party, yet because of the blind drive to not have Obama in office, they don't seem to mind. I don't necessarily think Romney had a great debate, I just think by comparison he had a great debate. Obama dropped the ball a TON, was passive and allowed Romney to run the debate. He didn't call him on any lies he made, and basically he sat there and took it.
Except I didn't hear very much substance from Romney either. It's pretty easy to just say the guy in charge sucks at his job and you've got a better strategy. But when you say you're going to cut 5 trillion in taxes for the wealthy and not add to the deficit, you can't just say I'll cut loopholes and reduce deductions to counter a $5 trillion tax cut. Tell me what loopholes and what deductions please. If Romney has a plan that would actually accomplish this I would think he'd be giving specifics 24/7, because that would make independents like me vote for him. I'm looking for a reason to vote for him but I need more than empty rhetoric. Obama looked flat and like he didn't want to be there, and Romney looked like a man who'd say anything to get elected. Tonight really cemented to me the fact that we don't have a good choice between the two.
One would hope an incumbent President would be well into specifics going into his second term... this debate was a complete disaster for an incumbent President.
Obama's hardly the first incumbent to have a horrible first debate. Often though the second is a different story. Should be interesting.
Nothing really happened in this debate. Neither provided great substance, and both called each other out multiple times. It seems Romney is getting the victory because of his body language and tone. The fact checkers are out in full force right now. We'll have a better idea what actually happened tomorrow.
Haha. Just as I said earlier. The "objective fact-checkers" will put their spin on what was clearly a disaster for Obama. Problem is, this debate was a slaughter, and there is n way "fact checkers" can make it a win for Obama, because people go back to their lives tomorrow.
http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast...gging-the-first-presidential-debate-2012.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...at_obama_after_debate_romney_was_winning.html http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012...se-barack-obama-falls-to-mitt-romney-20121003
I'll tell you what I saw: Romney is more hungry for the office. Obama has been living in the real world for 4 years.
Or maybe not! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxpayer_Relief_Act_of_1997 I don't know where this $5T number comes from. A 20% tax cut ACROSS THE BOARD that reduces revenues by $5T would mean that they expect $25T in revenues over the next 10 years (from income tax). Considering revenues from income tax without the cuts would not even be $2T (or 1/10th of $20T, still short of that $25T) in 2017 (after year 5 of the 10 years), I find the claim to be questionable at best (bullshit, outright lie) at worst. I don't see why Romney should identify $5T (or whatever the real number is) in loopholes he'd eliminate. Him saying they're all on the table is an invitation to democrats and republicans in congress to take part in that decision. It's consistent with what he said about how ObamaCare got passed (a partisan vote, not a single republican). It's also consistent with him saying he wouldn't be signing a tax cut that wasn't revenue neutral. He actually said that. I went to Romney's WWW site for the first time ever yesterday and found a PDF file that is 172 pages of his economic plan. I think if he were giving specifics 24/7, he'd come of as wonky as Obama. But the 172 pages are there for all to see.
2 of America's most horrific enemies. Obama killed Bin Laden. Is Romney claiming to have killed Reagan?
Not that it means anything... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57525698/poll-uncommitted-voters-say-romney-wins-debate/ Poll: Uncommitted voters say Romney wins debate (CBS News) By a 2 to 1 margin, uncommitted voters crowned Mitt Romney the winner over President Obama in the first presidential debate in Debate, Colo., on Wednesday night, according to a 500-person instant poll taken by CBS News. In the moments following the candidates' performances on the University of Denver stage, 46 percent of voters gave the economy-centric debate to Romney, 22 percent said they believed the president was the winner, and 32 percent called it a tie. More good news for the GOP nominee: 56 percent of those polled said they viewed Romney in a better light after watching the debate. Eleven percent said their opinion of him dropped, and 32 percent cited no change in opinion. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/ CNN Poll: Romney wins debate by big margin (CNN) – Sixty-seven percent of registered voters who watched the debate said GOP nominee Mitt Romney won the debate, while 25% said President Barack Obama came out as the winner, according to a CNN/ORC International Poll released late Wednesday night. For the survey, 430 adult Americans were interviewed by telephone after the end of the debate. The poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the event.
