RSN June 14 Fundraising
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Krugman writes: "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."

Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)
Portrait, New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, 06/15/09. (photo: Fred R. Conrad/NYT)


Romney's Sick Joke

By Paul Krugman, The New York Times

04 October 12

 

K, so Obama did a terrible job in the debate, and Romney did well. But in the end, this isn't or shouldn't be about theater criticism, it should be about substance. 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.


 

Comments   

We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.

General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.

Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.

- The RSN Team

 
+186 # ilenewells 2012-10-04 10:41
ObamaCare is just starting to scratch the surface of correcting some of the problems that have caused barriers to access to appropriate health care. Repealing, or at least a demonstration project for a partial repeal of, an archaic, discriminatory Medicaid Law that negatively impacts millions of people with serious mental illness and drug addiction. Romney would repeal all of that. He does not care about people like my brother.

Please read this... It was published here about a year ago, at the start of the OWS movement and when i heard the call to save Medicaid...thanks...

http://www.tinyurl.com/IWASAPERSON
 
 
+138 # MEBrowning 2012-10-04 11:32
ilenewells, your brother's heartbreaking story is a reminder that healthcare for all is vital, not just for people with physical illnesses, but also for those with mental and emotional disorders.

I well remember who closed the doors of the state hospitals in California. It was a Republican, of course: Ronald Reagan. And people wonder how we came to have so many homeless.
 
 
+44 # Rick Levy 2012-10-04 18:25
Part of then-Gov. Reagan's plan was treatment in halfway houses for those who were being turned out of state institutions. They never materialized-he nce the homeless.

I wonder if the voters would have accepted closing the mental hospitals if they knew that Reagan never really intended availability of alternative treatment for these patients.
 
 
+147 # Stafft 2012-10-04 11:38
I can't for the life of me, understand why citizens of the United States would want to lose house and home because they couldn't afford medical coverage. According to some, Romney's medicare plan will cost seniors an extra $6k a year? Is this right? How could anyone vote for that?
 
 
+95 # LeeBlack 2012-10-04 12:18
My biggest concern is pre-existing conditions. No competitive insurance company is going to take on people with pre-existing conditions.

I can't understand why companies aren't on board with a universal health plan - they complain about supplying employees with health insurance and universal care would be to their advantage.

I know ACA isn't universal care but a step toward it.

If we are the biggest, best country in the world can't we afford health care for citizens as do those 'lesser' (socialist) countries?
 
 
+48 # Susan W 2012-10-04 15:59
We may be one of the biggest but we are sure a long way from being the best, unless you are a millionaire.
 
 
+27 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-04 17:54
Or Politician
 
 
+4 # chomper2 2012-10-06 07:18
Same thing, or haven't you noted.
 
 
+10 # Old Man 2012-10-05 12:43
Quoting Susan W:
We may be one of the biggest but we are sure a long way from being the best, unless you are a millionaire.

What is scary is, if you have a million in assets and have medical problems they have a good chance of taking it all from you even if you have insurance.
Insurance companies pay squat these days.
 
 
+35 # doneasley 2012-10-04 17:34
Quoting LeeBlack:
... If we are the biggest, best country in the world can't we afford health care for citizens as do those 'lesser' (socialist) countries?


Sure we can, LeeBlack, but this huge effort to belittle and starve government, which started with the GREAT GOD REAGAN ("Government IS the problem"), has gradually emptied Uncle Sam's coffers. In 2006, Forbes magazine, for the first time, reported 400 U.S. billionaires. That's where the money is thanks to Reagan's TRICKLE DOWN VOODOO ECONOMICS, which was implemented on steroids by George W Bush! And Rmoney/Ryan are about to double down on that little trick. But the only thing that has trickled down is their DOO DOO!
 
 
+14 # Michael Lee Bugg 2012-10-05 08:42
LeeBlack, the companies who offer health insurance don't want to change for three reasons: it is a tax deductible business expense; they compete with other companies by offering better benefits, i.e. better health insurance; but mostly they want you dependent on them for health insurance and care because you will be dependent and less likely to quit and change jobs or demand better pay or working conditions!
 
 
+8 # Observer 47 2012-10-05 17:40
EXCELLENT analysis, Michael.
 
 
+5 # X Dane 2012-10-07 11:42
Michael Lee Bugg.
This is very interesting. You bring up something I have not heard anybody else mention........ .So many scream: we want our freedom!!! If we had universal single payer health care. PEOPLE WOULD BE MORE FREE because they would NOT have to stay in a job because of the health care concern???
 
 
+3 # X Dane 2012-10-07 11:31
LeeBlack and Susan.
That is one big point. If we had universal single payer health care. as I mentioned in my response to Stafft. In Denmark it is paid for in the taxes....and therefore businesses are NOT PENALIZED by having to provide it and they can compete with other countries on an even field.

And Susan We ARE one of the biggest, but you tell me if we still are the best?...Middle class families in the Scandinavian countries have 5-6 weeks vacation and earn enough, to travel to many other countries, including the US. And their children can attend university for free. Which is why they have a highly educated populations.

The right wing loves to ridicule "old Europe"
Many people here would like living as they do in many of the European countries.
Some of the countries obviously are in big trouble, but so are some of our states.
 
 
+33 # doneasley 2012-10-04 17:17
Quoting Stafft:
... According to some, Romney's medicare plan will cost seniors an extra $6k a year? Is this right? How could anyone vote for that?


You're right, Stafft. The Rmoney/Ryan plan is to issue vouchers that will allow seniors to shop for insurance offered by PRIVATE insurers, who then set the rules and pay the providers. Now, tell me how it's cheaper for the governmennt to: (1) issue vouchers which are taken to an insurer, who (2) pays the provider (after his cut) for (3) medical services that you require? Medicare currently (1) pays the provider directly for (2) medical services provided. In each instance a copay is required, but the thing the Rmoney/Ryan plan doesn't tell you is that when your medical services exceed your vouchered amount, IT'S ON YOU TO PICK UP THE TAB FOR ALL SERVICES RENDERED THRU THE END OF THE YEAR! And, based on estimates, that amount averages $6,000.

Any time a the Regressives get near a social program, they want to privatize it. Medicare and Social Security have been well run programs, better than private insurers can provide, but Regressives want to get their hands ON THAT MONEY! After the Bush Recession - and that giant sucking sound that hit our 401K's - why would anyone in their right mind want to put their money in the hands of Wall Street thieves?

Your summary - "How could anyone vote for that?" - is RIGHT ON!
 
 
+19 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:16
But Bush raided the money we had saved up for Social Security to pay for two wars. Most of the trillions in debt that Romney and the Repugs keep whining about isn't owed to China, it is owed to seniors in the U.S.

Former Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan did a study of Social Security, showing that it was set up with one person in a family paying in (the old idea of the breadwinner and homemaker household). When two incomes became necessary to pay the rent or mortgage, suddenly Social Security had a big windfall. They tried to say it was bankrupt at that time (the 1980s) when it was the most flush, and he proved it. But he also proved that the fund, even then, was being raided. Sen. Moynihan proved that the fund will never run out, if it is administered properly and never raided. Well, just before the baby boom got to that special age, guess what "W" did to the Social Security fund.

The debate is one problem, but I often wonder why the Justice Dept. doesn't go after the crooks who have drained our treasury, and especially the Social Security fund. Those are the trillions owed.

Today I happened to glance at the obituaries, and noticed that many are in their mid 50s and early 60s. Due to pollution, stress, and general poor health, the baby boomers probably won't ever see that money anyway, so what are they worrying about?
 
 
+15 # James Smith 2012-10-05 04:43
It should be illegal to use the SSI funds for anything but their intended purpose. Anyone voting to raid those funds should be expelled from office and never hold another government job again at any level. Let them work for a living for a change.

In fact, allowing multiple terms is the root of the problems of the political process. See the essay at: http://slrman.wordpress.com/2010/08/03/term-limits/
 
 
+8 # Sweet Pea 2012-10-06 07:20
The people like my father that were living at the time that Social Security was started must be turning in their graves. My father was alive when it was started, and he so often made the statement, "Don't ever let the government claim any rights over Social Security. This is money that "people" put in. It doesn't belong to the government and don't let them try to tell you different."
 
 
+11 # Observer 47 2012-10-05 17:47
Well, W. was guilty of taking huge amounts from Social Security to pay for his wars, and last I checked, he's still wandering around on his ranch, clearing brush or something. It was decided early on by the present incumbent that Bush and Cheney would never be pursued for their crimes. And I believe it was one Nancy Pelosi who announced that impeachment was off the table. So...just goes to show that when it gets right down to it, paid-for politicians protect their own.
 
 
+3 # X Dane 2012-10-07 11:55
Doneasley;
That is the infuriating question: HOW COULD ANYONE VOTE FOR THAT. Obviously about half the country could!!!! They have heavy blinders on,....AND THEY WATCH FOX...
As one independent researcher said: Watching Fox makes you MISINFORMED
 
 
+1 # X Dane 2012-10-07 12:03
readerz.
Bush did NOT pay for ANYTHING, NOT the two wars, MOT the huge tax cut, Not the medical help to seniors. ALL OF IT WENT ON THE CREDIT CARD.
So now, and way into the future we will be paying for it. So will our kids and grand kids
 
 
+12 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-04 17:53
They are figuring on at least $2000 in higher premiums for us who pay for it, and employers....
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2012-10-07 11:08
Stafft.
You nailed it. I hear T bag....and other people too... insist: We want our freedom!! As you said Freedom to go bankrupt if you loose your job...and therefore also your health care.

I come from a country that has had a very successful single payer health care system for more than 80 YEARS. It is paid for in the taxes.

Unfortunately I can attest to how excellent it is for both my parents and I had TB ...60 years ago. We stayed at the best TB sanatorium. My dad 2 years, my mom 1 year. I was there first time 9 months, and second time, when I had a relapse, another 8 month...

And then two great medicines were developed: Pass and Streptomycin. They revolutionized the treatment of TB, which before had been mainly bed rest. I was totally cured and have never had any relapse, even though I have worked incredibly hard and in periods burned my candle at both ends.
 
 
+31 # Barbara K 2012-10-04 14:48
ilenewells: How unfair the system was for your brother. I didn't know that Medicaid didn't cover such an illness. How sad and I send you my sympathy. This should not happen to anyone. The new Health Care Act does cover Mental Health conditions, and we can be thankful for that.
 
 
+8 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:21
Mental illness and government support is a special dance. For a while, my daughter needed support. There are two different departments (and of course, different buildings in other parts of town) where a person must apply: Medicaid and Social Security. There are long lines, and very little time is given, and all papers must be with the person. The bureaucrats complain if somebody comes along, but for a person who cannot cope, this is an overwhelming experience. Those who are the bureaucrats don't get it, because they are just too busy. Clients used to have to come in every six months, and then it was every year, with copies of bills, rental statement from landlord, bank account, to the Medicaid office, and all those papers had to add to less than a person received or they would be looked at as a cheat. For a normal person, it is very confusing. There is a six month wait sometimes for coverage, and if denied, the denial can be appealed. But it is a difficult process. Mental health is very often covered, but if a family member can't accompany a client, they sometimes give up.
 
 
+3 # jackloganbill 2012-10-05 04:42
With all due respect to you and your daughter's condition...

You do realize that Medicaid is a state program and social security is a federal program, thus the reason for two buildings, two administrators? We would NEVER expect those two separate programs and agencies to be combined, correct?
 
 
+102 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-04 11:07
The President has already started addressing the debate on the campaign trail.

I am wondering how the Tea Party folks are taking Romney's "betrayal" by trying to appear moderate. Will they put pressure on him as they have in the past? It was certainly that occurred to me.

My only real complaint about Obama during the debate was when he predictably accepted that the deficit needs to be addressed now. I would have loved to see him flat out state, lets get people working first and foremost, until that happens we will never get out from under.

Of course he won't do it, but he could and should at least call out Romney's attempt at blaming the President for the ongoing fiscal problems as total reinvention of reality.

But even with those crticisms, Obama clearly had a handle on the numbers he used along with what they meant. Romney had numbers but they might just as well been the number of bananas that we didn't grow in Idaho due to the President's supposed lack of leadership.
 
 
+86 # lisamoskow 2012-10-04 11:09
Irritating.

"Winning" is about who is the most aggressive and obnoxious--the media "sees"
this as optimistic.

But yes, it is all about theater.
 
 
+98 # bluesapphire48 2012-10-04 12:27
I really feel that the assessments were mostly done by white males. I am a woman, and must have seen a different debate than the pundits did: I saw a wild-eyed, almost hysterical Romney debating a cool, collected, self-controlled Obama. At times, Obama looked really disgusted with R's clear distortions, but said nothing. The people who say that Romney won are people, I think, who have never had to keep quiet when a phoney, load-mouthed boss told them a lie. Just my opinion...
 
 
+13 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-04 17:57
I saw much more self control, good modulation, facts.
I would have loved Romney do what he does best jump up and down calling OB a liar because his face is looking like that know it all in grade school that never shut up
 
 
+21 # ghostperson 2012-10-04 20:11
I sure agree with the manic assessment. What the hell was he on?

Guess he practiced so much on his zingers that he was loaded, cocked and ready to blow so much so , that he interrupted Obama and took over the debate.

No wonder Ann Romney said she was worried about his mental state.

I noted the weird, inappropriate smile plastered on his face--well, welcome to Manchuria.

A friend of mine called him the "Manchurian candidate." Now I guess it's the "Manchurian candidate" on acid.
 
 
+21 # CL38 2012-10-04 20:58
I so agree with you. White males seem to equate bullying and dominance with leadership. It's isn't, it's authoritarianis m.

Obama is a thoughtful humanitarian who care about what he does and how it impacts others.

Romney is a dangerous, deceitful, greedy psychopath who will say what he anything to steal the Presidency. If elected, he'll begin implementing corporate raider policies to dismantle government, strip the middle class and impose his view of the world.
 
 
+11 # Texas Aggie 2012-10-05 10:33
I feel from my own experience that authoritarianis m is probably one of the root, basic, foundational evils of the world. Almost all of the things wrong with the world have their roots in authoritarianis m or are "fed and watered" by authoritarianis m. It's the old bit about power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
 
+4 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:01
Darlin, it isn't just white males.....it's ALL males.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-07 20:34
Quoting bmiluski:
Darlin, it isn't just white males.....it's ALL males.


HEY!!!! I'm one and I'm on your side. Well, except for statements like that.
 
 
+19 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:23
I'm a woman too, but I saw facts and figures that were outright lies unanswered by President Obama.

What also concerns me about the bullying is what would happen if there is a foreign problem that must be addressed, and Romney decides to pull that bully stance.
 
 
+65 # CL38 2012-10-04 12:35
We have to change this by refusing to be 'entertained' or thinking that authoritarian bullying and domination is leadership. We need to insist on the truth. We won't get it, but at least we won't be cajoled and misled yet again by Republicans.

Truth is something we'll never get from Romney unless he manages to steal the election.

By then, as with Bush, it will be far too late. We'd have to take to the streets. Anyone who voted for Bush who's thinking of electing Romney, look all around you at the damage Bush did.
 
 
+38 # pernsey 2012-10-04 14:20
Quoting lisamoskow:
Irritating.

"Winning" is about who is the most aggressive and obnoxious--the media "sees"
this as optimistic.

But yes, it is all about theater.


Yes Mitt was fact free, as usual, at almost a lie every minute he was allowed to speak. Performance isnt ontent, Mitt is a liar...Period!
 
 
+134 # ER444 2012-10-04 11:12
"So enough with the theater criticism; Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale."

AND it is President Obama's job to do it in the debates. Let's hope he gets a lot more aggressive in the next ones. This has been his problem for the last for years. He insists on "compromising" with "uncompromising people". He needs to sell his position and get some fight in his bones. Go, Barack, go !!!
 
 
+66 # BobbyLip 2012-10-04 11:14
Without theater criticism, there'd be no election coverage at all, at least not in the mainstream media. Jefferson is spinning so fast in his grave that he's scoring on the Richter scale.
And actually, to say that the President's performance was lackluster at best is not criticism of his theatrical skills but noting his repeated failures to call Romney out and refute his many lies.
 
 
+13 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:16
PEOPLE!!!....Th ey don't care. Ryan was called out on his lies during the republican convention and he to this day has not stopped his lies. In fact romney repeated them during the debate.
 
 
+61 # barryg 2012-10-04 11:17
So what. Democrats don't get it. Ideas do not win elections. Emotion does. In fact even science now shows that all decisions are emotionally based. Obama was weak and did not even bring up Romney's history of sending jobs overseas when Romney talked job creation. A strong emotional lie repeated often with sincerity, even if false, will win.

And if the Repubs can keep it close, they can change the vote enough to win. They control the machines in many states. Look up Scytl. And the other company, whose name escapes me, is owned by ex Bain employees.
 
 
+86 # Barbara K 2012-10-04 11:21
Romneyhood doesn't have many people fooled. We know how he has been campaigning all year and he cannot just shake the Etch a Sketch and start over. We have working brains, well most of us. He is the worst candidate ever, no wonder the Rs didn't want him. He is a bully and bullied and lied his way thru the debate last night too. His glaring sneer at Obama must have really bugged him when Obama basically ignored this bully tactic. Once a liar always a liar is how I was raised to believe, and I have found it to be so true. Romneyhood lied all the way thru his campaign, now the debate, and every time he opens his mouth. He cannot be trusted to run this country. Does he honestly think we would put someone that devoid of any honor or character in the White House? He's not suited to be a bug killer.
 
 
+89 # marjb 2012-10-04 11:25
Was anyone else as appalled as I was by the way the media - starting with moderator John Lehrer - just ignored the fact that Romney couldn't open his mouth without spouting a falsehood? Lots of people actually DEPEND UPON these debates for their political information thinking (wrongly) that it's the best place to get at the truth.
 
 
+31 # DaveM 2012-10-04 11:30
It is worth noting that "Obamacare" is not what the President originally championed. It is an extremely watered-down version that was snipped and sliced to gain sufficient approval from Congress to pass. It is not "national health care". That was more or less what was originally proposed. It is not what was enacted.

So far, "Obamacare" as actually led to a slight reduction in benefits for low-income recipients. For example, co-pays on prescription drugs, which were removed for several years, have returned. Co-pays have also been reinstated for certain office visits and tests. Minor considerations, to be sure, but quite possibly a hint of things to come.
 
 
+16 # bluesapphire48 2012-10-04 12:29
And Obama didn't even let THE PUBLIC OPTION have any consideration at all. He took it "off the table" before the national debate on health care even began.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-10-07 20:40
Yes, because the Republicans made it clear that there would be absolutely no compromise.
 
 
+11 # Barbara K 2012-10-04 14:59
DaveM: People choose their own insurance and their own coverage on the ACA plan. They can choose a plan with no co-pays if they want to. For low income people, there is government subsidy available to pay for the premiums. 80% of the premiums must be used for health care and if not used, whatever isn't used of that 80% must be refunded to the clients. Just a couple of months ago millions of people got Millions of dollars refunded for the past year.
 
 
+3 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-05 04:28
Barbara,

Very few people choose their own insurance under Obamacare, Romneycare, or whatever it was we had before. For most people their employer chooses their insurance, or if they are retired the are on Medicare. There are a few other variations, but the entire choosing your insurance debate was always a moot point and a distraction from real debate about what cost effective, comprehensive health care should look like. Then, we can begin the next debate about what is the best way to get there from where we are today.
 
 
0 # bingers 2012-10-07 20:39
I'm on Medicare, and with Liver cancer, diabetes caused by the medication for my COPD and the COPD itself (all a result of a blood transfusion in 1981) I see a doctor and get lots of MRIs and EGDs and don't have any co-pays. Is that because I have supplemental insurance with BCBS?
 
 
+81 # jrmcq1 2012-10-04 11:38
Romney was making the same kind of spin-dizzy pitch he used to make at Bain Capital, lots of happy sizzle about how it's all blue sky ahead and don't pay attention to the collateral damage caused by his hostile takeovers. Easy to get away with when unconcerned with the 47% he ignores.
 
 
-23 # Jaysson Brae 2012-10-04 14:20
O and M are both Duopoly candidates.
Neither will ever really fight for any national health cares system that displeases their corporate campaign funders.
 
 
+32 # sapereaudeprime 2012-10-04 11:59
Romney has more faces than Janus, but with his dominant face, he drinks his tea from a jackboot.
 
 
+41 # zgpinc 2012-10-04 12:02
To be honest we were all hoping for a big NASCAR political smash up; thus it was a disappointing evening. That said, we on the liberal side wanted our hero to get in there mix it up, show he had some stuff and devastate his opponent, He did not. He spared, parried, but never broke a sweat, took a risk, or delivered a right hook. Thus, it was a deflating experience in our media age of instant gratification.
Obama makes the big mistake of assuming the politic relies on reason and logic. They don't.

While was honest about his desire to nix Obamacare. He never addresses, nor was made to, how the alternative was to be financed. More to the point, MR so reversed himself that it was like he hired a liberal understudy to go on stage for himself and flog ever onward for all the values we middle class cherish, while cutting taxes for small businessmen like Trump. Quite a series of logical leaps and where was the outrage by our media, even this morning?
 
 
+57 # CL38 2012-10-04 12:12
Romney is a slick, dangerous, deceitful, greedy authoritarian with many smiling faces. He will impose corporate raider world views and take the country back to the days of ruling corporations and worker peons.

Like last night, Romney would smile while slitting our throats.
 
 
+46 # Delucastle 2012-10-04 12:16
I live in Mass. Here's how Romney balanced the State budget like a business. He cut the budget for all his departments (Cities & towns). The cities had to either cut services, raise taxes and fees or both. This is how he'll balance the budget if elected President. The depts will be the States. Goodbye State aid - that will be slashed until the budget is balanced. He as much as said so last night when he said the poor need to be fed but the people have to take care of each other. I read that as "hey, the Federal government will not do anything for its citizens but protect them from warring countries - you're all on your own for everything else". I'm also afraid of his brand of protection. Why doers he want to increase the Pentagon's budget when they didn't ask for it? What will we be protected from - contact with the outside World? It sounds too much like he wants to build up a private army to keep us all away from "outside influence" Is this the kind of America we want for our children and for ourselves?
 
 
+2 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:27
Drones for police to keep us in line? That's something started in the Bush administration that we could do without.
 
 
+7 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-05 04:49
Delucastle,

You forgot to mention the across the board fee increases for everything that people use. Then he has the audacity to claim that he didn't raise taxes!
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:22
Oh honey, the neo-cons already have an army, it's called Blackwater.
 
 
+46 # CL38 2012-10-04 12:18
Obama, there's no shame in showing some anger in the face of outright lies and deceit. In fact, it's appropriate. You aren't lowering yourself, by letting Romney see anger as you challenge every one of his lies---you're standing up for the rest of us. That's what we need you to do!
 
 
+7 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:29
I thought I saw him seething. The trouble was, he didn't hit back exposing the lies. Emotion isn't the only thing needed, but looking his opponent in the eye and telling the world that this man is indecent and unfit to lead the country.
 
 
+50 # jackloganbill 2012-10-04 12:20
God help us!

When a supposedly God-fearing man can lie with a smirk on his face and get away with it, well, God help us!
 
 
+9 # CL38 2012-10-04 20:49
He can only get away with this if we don't vote, if we don't stand against voter suppression and take to the streets if Romney steals this election.

If we think things got worse under Bush, Romney is even more dangerous.
 
 
+4 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:22
As they say "IF YOU LIKED GWBUSH, YOU'LL LOVE ROMNEY."
 
 
+28 # brux 2012-10-04 12:26
>> Romney needs to be held accountable for dishonesty on a huge scale.


This is exactly the Democrat's problem ... need to be held accountable ... by whom, how? The Democrat's mindset of what should happen if ... is always kicked aside by the bullying Republicans who use the latest business and neuroscience techniques to militarize the issue and go to war.

Obama was so busy trying to be a nice guy he was unable to think straight and not ready for Romney's psychological warfare, like comparing Obama to his 5 BOYS.

Obama was played like a violin by Romney, and what SHOULD happen is irrelevant, Obama himself should have kicked Romney's ass. He did not even take his foot off the ground - that he stared down at through the whole debate.
 
 
+19 # wipster 2012-10-04 12:47
I was very disappointed at how unprepared the President seemed to be. For instance, when it comes to Romney's 20% tax cut, all he need to do was quickly spell out the loopholes/deduc tions that would have to be eliminated in order to make them "revenue neutral" such as the mortgage deduction (which would stop housing in it's tracks), charitable deductions (Mormans would love that), medical deductions, etc. That's what the American people need to hear. Getting rid of Big Bird isn't even a drop in the bucket! Plus, he sould have asked Romney if he wants to maintain Defense spending at the same levels we've been spending while we fighting in Afghanistan, even if that conflict may have ended?

He also should have brought up the fact that except for a couple valuable provisions (coverage of adult children and acceptance of pre-existing conditions) Obamacare hasn't even gone into effect yet, and people are already benefiting from it.

Most, if not all, of Romney's lies should have been anticipated and his team should have helped him construct answers that would show Romney for the flip flopping lying user of other people's money that he is... instead they blew it.

Maybe as a friend said, this was just rope-a-doping, but it's a bit late in the game for that and Romney is no George Foreman.
 
 
+7 # wipster 2012-10-04 12:48
I was very disappointed at how unprepared the President seemed to be. For instance, when it comes to Romney's 20% tax cut, all he need to do was quickly spell out the loopholes/deduc tions that would have to be eliminated in order to make them "revenue neutral" such as the mortgage deduction (which would stop housing in it's tracks), charitable deductions (Mormans would love that), medical deductions, etc. That's what the American people need to hear. Getting rid of Big Bird isn't even a drop in the bucket! Plus, he sould have asked Romney if he wants to maintain Defense spending at the same levels we've been spending while we fighting in Afghanistan, even if that conflict may have ended?

He also should have brought up the fact that except for a couple valuable provisions (coverage of adult children and acceptance of pre-existing conditions) Obamacare hasn't even gone into effect yet, and people are already benefiting from it.

Most, if not all, of Romney's lies should have been anticipated and his team should have helped him construct answers that would show Romney for the flip flopping lying user of other people's money that he is... instead they blew it.

Maybe as a friend said, this was just rope-a-doping, but it's a bit late in the game for that and Romney is no George Foreman.
 
 
+6 # SpyderJan 2012-10-04 13:09
Quoting ilenewells:

Please read this... It was published here about a year ago, at the start of the OWS movement and when i heard the call to save Medicaid...thanks...

http://www.tinyurl.com/IWASAPERSON


Thank you so much for posting this Ilene. I had not seen it when it was first published.
 
 
+32 # chuckw38 2012-10-04 13:11
Sorry, best in the debate??? So what?? In my eyes, Mitt Romney will always be known as the Lying Liar that he is, and always has been.... Truth for Romney doesn't exist, unless he can spin it, twist it, re-fabricate it and make it "serve" his needs in some way.....
 
 
+19 # noitall 2012-10-04 13:11
I agree that Romney needs to be held accountable for his lies. It seems that with today's paradigm its "don't give a sucker an even break" and what you get away with, you get away with. There is no outrage by the American People that mandates accountability by our public leadership or leaders of business. Maintanence of this deficiency will and is lowering our quality of life and our standing in the world, BIG TIME. Both parties subscribe to this behavior as though Americans are below having a right to know what is being done by our leaders in our name. We hear it through "whistle blowers" who are treated like criminals for tipping us off. The belief of not killing the messenger is a thing of the past and we are the loser.
 
 
+34 # Smokey 2012-10-04 13:16
Organize, organize, organize... On more than one occasion, I've said, "Obama is not the messiah. Obama isn't superman. He's not going to rescue America by himself." If Romney tells a lie and Obama fails to respond - well, it's our job to get the truth to the voters.
 
 
-16 # brux 2012-10-04 15:39
yeah but what does it help us if we have a bad guy and an incompetent guy choice for leader ?
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:30
I have to assume that by the incompetent guy you're referring to President Obama. Next time you feel like spouting this stupidity, you might want to check out this website....

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/09/01/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/
 
 
-4 # brux 2012-10-05 15:40
I have to assume by competent you mean Obama's performance in the first debate ... Next time you think you can pull that kind of nonsense, go back and watch the debate and don't try to confuse the issue with condescending nonsense, please.
 
 
+1 # bingers 2012-10-07 20:47
Quoting brux:
yeah but what does it help us if we have a bad guy and an incompetent guy choice for leader ?


Yes, but they're both the same guy, Romney. It isn't incompetence that has caused Obama problems, it's a filibustertng Senate and a bat crap crazy House that cares more about their own power than they do the United States of America.. If you are a Republican politician and/or vote for them there are two things you cannot possibly be, a good Christian or a patriot. I might add intelligent, but some smart people are also psychopaths, so I'll allow you to believe in your intelligence, but it's centered in the lizard brain.
 
 
-8 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:32
No amount of money and phone calls in the world will make up for a candidate that doesn't try. If you have the money and time, then yes, get the truth out.
 
 
-6 # Dorcas Black 2012-10-04 13:16
Frankly, I listened to the entire debate and the BS was flying out of both their mouths. Both were promising to protect the middle class AND eliminate the deficit, which are mutually exclusive propositions. Sorry, I've read the CBO and other nonpartisan analyses, and that's a fact that neither one would admit to. Score Krugman's above point for Obama, though. Romney has been foolish for reversing himself on health care reform based on his own Mass. model, which reversal he obviously made to pander to his party's far-right base.
 
 
+3 # brux 2012-10-04 15:39
yeah, but there is no way Romney can create enough jobs with benefits in any way, let alone by relying on tax cuts to raise revenue ... it's nonsense, and Obama did not even have that big picture on his radar screen? yes, because it is within the paramaters of the one-party system not to attack on things that give away the game.
 
 
+39 # brel257 2012-10-04 13:23
It's interesting that Romney kept assuring seniors (over 60) that their Medicare wouldn't change. If his plan is better, than why wouldn't they want to change? He seems to imply that seniors wouldn't want to change their Medicare coverage for his new plan....that speaks volumes to me.
 
 
+33 # James Smith 2012-10-04 13:30
When have lies bothered either Romney or Ryan? At the convention, they seemed to be competing to see who could tell the most and most outrageous lies.
 
 
+30 # Charles3000 2012-10-04 13:35
I have known people like Romney. They think they are "on top of things" when they can say the right thing at the right time. They do not think about something being true or false. They only think, "..is this the right thing to say now..". Telling the truth or lying has no meaning to them. Another term that fits the syndrome is "pathological liar".
 
 
+4 # James Marcus 2012-10-04 13:38
Romney is dishonest. So is Obama. So are most of our Senators, Representatives , Supreme Court Judges, and Major media Outlets. 'We, the People', at the present moment, are barely heard from.
Interestingly, few are Screaming!
Between financial hardships, and Media Obfuscations, few know enough, or are motivated enough, to see this Demise of Democracy progress, apparently, almost without protest
 
 
+27 # WolfTotem 2012-10-04 13:39
Let’s hope the media sycophants make Romney too cocksure, so that he ends up falling into the quicksands of his own mendacity... And that Obama is mindful of Karl Popper's advice that "To attack a man for talking nonsense is like finding your mortal enemy drowning in a swamp and jumping in after him with a knife." Then his presidential aloofness could pay off – so long as he doesn’t forget, this time round, to point at his opponent as he sinks...

Still, we can never quite exclude the possibility that the bulk of the white male population may follow Romney into the swamp, not with a knife but a vote. As in Pieter Brueghel’s great picture, the Parable of the Blind – see http://www.artbible.info/art/large/556.html.

A pointed aphorism from a more civilized age: "The most successful tempters and thus the most dangerous are the deluded deluders." Romney, his party, his paymasters and puppetmasters are all deluded deluders. It's the bottomless ignorance of so many compatriots that makes these people so dangerous. And the state we're all in at this time that multiplies the dangers a billionfold.
 
 
+10 # brux 2012-10-04 15:36
Romney is very focused and direct. He is cold, that is why I don't think he is going to let this touch him, either way. In a way it is a good sign for someone running for President, he really made out.

"To attack a man for talking nonsense is like finding your mortal enemy drowning in a swamp and jumping in after him with a knife."

Love that quote, but I think Obama would have done better had he done even a little attacking.
 
 
+18 # Billsy 2012-10-04 14:01
Who says Mitt did well? He looked excited and confident, comfortable spewing out his lies and obfuscation, but you're confusing style with substance. No one won the debate. It was empty and unmoderated. A bore..we turned it off after 15 minutes. Mitt's had a year of debating so is bound to be more confident with the circus side show. Hopefully, our pres. will get a shot of adrenaline before the next two, and we'll have a forceful moderator to control the flow and direction.
 
 
+2 # fredboy 2012-10-04 14:16
Too bad Obama was in what seemed like a funk. The guy couldn't explain anything. This is my candidate, and he choked. Jeez!
 
 
-7 # brux 2012-10-04 15:35
> Too bad Obama was in what seemed like a funk.

He came out there apparently thinking this was some kind of gentleman's game ... and he got cut up. Either case he looks bad, for being gullible or for not performing.

Then 13 hours later he issues some ... or his campaign issues their response ... ugh ... it just hurts to see this.

I'm thinking of voting Green since I live in CA and it won't matter.
 
 
+2 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:34
"I'm thinking of voting Green since I live in CA and it won't matter."

If enough people say that then it will matter and we'll get at least 4 more years of bush on steroids.
 
 
+1 # brux 2012-10-05 15:42
Yeah, thanks but I'm not stupid, if CA is contested I will vote for Obama, but thanks for that vote of confidence in your fellow progressive ... maybe you ought to waste you time attacking Republicans.
 
 
+25 # in deo veritas 2012-10-04 14:23
What is so pathetic about the public is its refusal to realize that regardless of promises, no matter which candidate "wins" they will be at the mercy of the lunatic teabaggers unless they are removed from the Congress. Based on what we have seen over the past two years, these fascist flunkies are opposed to every ,measure proposed to restore the economy. These Koch puppets would do the same thing to Romney as they have done to Obama-what they have done to all of us. It is like deja-vu when we were scared of Palin being a heartbeat away from the oval office! Only this time much much worse with Eddie Munster waiting in the wings. There is the real Koch puppet. WAKE UP and oust the teabaggers before it's too late! Vote em out in November!
 
 
+17 # in deo veritas 2012-10-04 14:28
Obama needs to make up ground in the next two debates and do it by going for the jugular"! The holes in Romney's campaign are still there larger than ever just waiting to be exploited. Attack! Attack! Attack! We are in a war to save our country and the old French maxim is the answer.
 
 
+17 # giraffee2012 2012-10-04 16:07
Mitty followed the prompts and lessons he took to "act" at the "debate" - I give some fault to the moderator who looked "overwhelmed" often.

Aside from the Medicare 'lie' - I hope all of you (even those who think President Obama should have dictated what he promised - instead of realizing the Mitch Turtle would organize the filibuster whenever....)

The most unusual take was Romney "acting" that he could mandate repealing "obamacare" --- Unless the Senate/House are majority GOP/TP -- Romoney cannot overturn a turnip!

And for those of you who won't vote for President Obama - AT LEAST vote for DEMS all the way in all other positions on your ballot and BTW if Mitt is elected - the RATS will multiply and then we can kiss .... good bye.

Mostly DO VOTE and drag all you know and don't know to the polls. Personally - I say VOTE OBAMA / DEM "All the Way" - oh yeah Frankie would.
 
 
+5 # Sweet Pea 2012-10-04 17:53
What seemed to bother me the most was that Obama said that he would have to make some changes to the 50-yr old's Social Secuity. What is he trying to do, reverse the main attribute he he has with people getting ready to retire in a another 10 or so years. These are a block of some of his own supporters. Why did he have to even bring it up?
 
 
+3 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:38
No, he said that his plan was good for 50 year olds, unlike the Romney/Ryan plan that really screws 50 year olds. Obama said that Romney was making the changes.
 
 
+16 # Kootenay Coyote 2012-10-04 17:58
Why are most of the punditry focussing on flash & not on fact? Or is the US Presidency just another tacky ‘Reality’ Show?
 
 
+6 # pernsey 2012-10-06 05:50
Quoting Kootenay Coyote:
Why are most of the punditry focussing on flash & not on fact? Or is the US Presidency just another tacky ‘Reality’ Show?


Thats something I wonder about too, like it doesnt matter if he just spewed a bunch of nonsense, look at the forceful conviction he had while he lies. Why is everyone marveling over how great Mitt can lie if he becomes president?
 
 
+2 # X Dane 2012-10-07 12:46
pernseey.

The worst thing is that for too many in the media it is a sport. They act like sharks,.... if a candidate is momentarily thrown off his/her game....they smell blood in the water, so they go on the attack...even if it is a candidate they and many others want.

This country is sport crazy and every four years we have the biggest possible sport.
 
 
+5 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-04 18:09
Best part of a first debate is the second one...Now OB will have some points to make, and questions to leave out there...
Kennedy had some need to ponder

Personally I give the debate to OB. He could have lunged on to the Women Elements of this Campaign. Many wondered why he did not champion us...I said he did at the right time to continue discussing women's issues would be poor judgement.
I was surprised this phony who so loves his wife...didn't jump in to save women. He did not, and he could have. He could have won the poll by diverting healthcare to women's issues.
However, as I noted late in the debate I forgot it was on, That if you briny up birth control, you will run into definition of rape which then leads to abortion. Perhaps a great discussion but I do not believe it can be discussed and women not be again treated like the third class citizen we seem to have reverted to Thanks to Women and Men alike. Women who have done it to us, are not Woman at all but a Clone of a very bad system.
I ask for nothing as a Woman but to be treated Faitly after all the Creator said we all are Equal as does American Policiy and Law Both very Hypocritical.

My Body deserves to be Debated upon but with a Panel of Women versus President/VP; Candidates maybe the wives. Let's see Their True Colors....with us in charge of the debate. Meet the Press move over
 
 
+5 # readerz 2012-10-04 21:42
1. Many people are already voting early. The first debate was very important.

2. If mentioning women is such a no-no, especially when Mitt chose a running-mate that wrote a bill with Akin that takes away women's rights, and Akin doesn't understand basic human physiology, well, if the American public isn't ready to think what it has done to women, then they are no different from the Taliban. I think of Ryan and Romney and I think of the worst abuses of women, because that is what their laws will lead to. That needs to be clearly stated.
 
 
+3 # fhunter 2012-10-04 21:12
Romney was like the Master to Obama's Apprentice. But the tragedy is that a Romney presidency with a 6:3 Supreme Court would end Democracy and make PLUTOCRACY the form of Government for generations.
 
 
+5 # RCW* 2012-10-05 01:23
The first debate was held on the night of Obama's wedding anniversary. Do you think it's possible he might have preferred to have been at home or out with his wife instead of having to respond to misogynist Romney, whose idea of a good time seems to be insisting that a woman who's pregnant, consequent to having been raped by a family member, ought to give birth to a baby?
 
 
+12 # postpen 2012-10-05 01:49
Actually, Romney was atrocious. He reminded me of a fox gloating over entrails-- his eyes frozen wide with what looked like speed, his eyebrows twitchin gup and down and then moving into an infantile pleading sideways glance and tilt of the head. That is, if used-car salesmen can be likened to lying, stealing foxes. Or would hyenas be a better comparison?
I really liked Obama.
More than any other president, he reminded me of Eisenhower and "I Like Ike", the days of democracy rather than sales pitches, a time when president could know what tragedy was and what war really cost.
The lies of Romney stood naked in the spotlight-- no need for Obama to stoop from his knowledge of the realities of being president to swat at them.

Just my impression-- I was shocked at the weakness of the moderator and the possibly pretaped interviews with "pundits' afterwards. Were they blind?
Did no one else see what I saw?
Romney lost. A cardboard imitation of what? Not a president. Terrifying and repulsive if you will simply take a look at his facial muscles.
 
 
+5 # pernsey 2012-10-06 05:48
"Terrifying and repulsive if you will simply take a look at his facial muscles."

Posten I saw it, the sneers of nasty delight in Mitts face, something is wrong with that man.
 
 
+7 # miltlee 2012-10-05 05:54
Mr. President - please be strong! You don't need to be bully to beat this joker - just tell us why we need universal health care - and how you can help stop climate change - and how you believe in all of us - especially the 47%.
That should take care of it.
 
 
+8 # ThinkRodan 2012-10-05 06:41
The most OUTRAGEOUS CASE OF BULLEYING happened when ROMNEY talked OVER THE MODERATOR and even threatened to CUT FUNDS to PBS a vital PUBLIC SERVICE TV outlet! I was appalled that the"MODERATOR" allowed this RUDE display from ROMNEY who is familiar with BULLYING others!
 
 
+3 # bmiluski 2012-10-05 11:38
Can't the moderator cut off someone's mike when they want to?
 
 
+1 # pernsey 2012-10-06 05:45
Quoting bmiluski:
Can't the moderator cut off someone's mike when they want to?


I dont know, but I wish he would have cut Mitt off.
 
 
+7 # Don Thomann 2012-10-05 07:32
All I can hope is that the president's team decided to let Romney "hoist himself by his own petard."
I'd like to think Obama is a very good poker player and a master at chess.
 
 
-6 # Activista 2012-10-05 10:25
I just listen to the real debate:
www.democracynow.org/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_exclusive_third_party
Please listen - compare differences - be brave, vote your consciousnesses - NOT the less of two evils - Obama/Romney are both the same - puppets of 1%. Vote - this could be your last chance to have ballot with the choice opposing 1% dictate.
 
 
+5 # indianfirst 2012-10-05 22:23
The reality is the president can't promise things the ultra conservative Congress will not deliver on. And come to think of it, Romney can't promise things the Democratic Senate is not likely to pass, either. But the Senate does not have the power to originate money bills and appropriations for the annual budget. Romney is a hair's breath away from taking control of the U.S. Supreme Court for a long, long time. We can't afford his kind of rule and remain a free nation. So look hard at the differences between the candidates and what their election will mean in terms of the entire government, not just the president's office.
 
 
+5 # pernsey 2012-10-06 05:44
Hopefully the ultra conservatives will be voted out and then Obama can get some constructive things done!
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.

RSNRSN