RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment
read more of todays top articles

Scheer writes: "Mitt Romney beat Barack Obama because he was more energetic in distorting the significance of their miniscule differences."

Mitt Romney and President Obama at the first presidential debate of 2012. (photo: Reuters/Jim Bourg/AP/Eric Gay)
Mitt Romney and President Obama at the first presidential debate of 2012. (photo: Reuters/Jim Bourg/AP/Eric Gay)

go to original article

e-max.it: your social media marketing partner
 

Comments   

A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

 
+6 # Activista 2012-10-05 13:06
"ask yourself whether it really matters who won Wednesday’s debate" agree - but there is a choice:
www.democracynow.org/2012/10/4/expanding_the_debate_exclusive_third_party
Clear chocie to status quo.
Ignore Obama/Romney, corporate money pupets
 
 
+10 # cordleycoit 2012-10-05 14:28
Yet another election of the choiceless choice. The bankers messenger boy Obama vrs. the corrupt banker Romney. Obama is on what drug to zone himself out Ryddlen Oxci, whatever it was was not good for him or his polls. Romny acted like he was on high quality meth along with bully boy's steroids. Too bad he could not find his foot notes to prove up his lying cotton mouth.
 
 
+7 # 666 2012-10-05 14:53
so the official choice is between the wall st pimp or wall st's bitch? and not between sodom and gomorrah?

hmmmm I'm gonna have to go 3rd party on this one...
 
 
+3 # MindDoc 2012-10-05 19:55
Quoting cordleycoit:
Too bad he could not find his foot notes to prove up his lying cotton mouth.


Well, actually, he did! (Slyly, though, so slick is Mitt)
In slo-mo, from video (via You Tube) :

http://bit.ly/MRcheat

From the folks at the Facts are-wonderful-t hings department
 
 
+18 # X Dane 2012-10-05 15:25
I understand the problems with both candidates..... But there is a reason to chose one over the other:........S UPREME COURT
 
 
+9 # DaveEwoldt 2012-10-05 17:34
Umm, how do you figure? The most conservative Supreme was unanimously (that means _all_ the Dems agreed) approved by the Senate.
 
 
+10 # dbriz 2012-10-05 18:23
Yeah right.

Obama appointed all three of the appellate court judges who ruled in favor of the NDAA abomination.

Forget it. Either party can block anyone they want to. It's all a sham.
 
 
+7 # beeyl 2012-10-05 22:17
And we're supposed to be impressed with Elena Kagan? I'm more impressed with Obama for finding in her the least progressive legal mind in the country about whom he could PRETEND had the potential to be liberal without laughing his ass off. Maybe it was because she clerked for Thurgood Marshall… but apparently and unfortunately, none of his extraordinary principles rubbed off on her.

And regarding Obama's guiding lights for making judicial decisions (which likely inform his SCOTUS nominations), he is the guy who left his OLC pick, Dawn Johnsen, out to dry so long she had to withdraw. And his justice department has repeatedly used the courts to make his administration the most secretive and unaccountable in our history - which most thought was unthinkable, given his immediate predecessor.
 
 
+18 # bikewriter 2012-10-05 15:33
You are correct, that both require knee pads when servicing Wall Street. The one real difference between the two, which is that government spending is required to restore the middle class and the economy,Obama didn't even mention, presumably for fear of offending the deficit hawks.But please don't sit this one out, as there are important differences in other areas, like, for example, saving the planet.
 
 
+7 # DaveEwoldt 2012-10-05 17:42
Oh, yeah, Obama has displayed such stellar leadership at the climate talks in Copenhagen, Durbin, Cancun and at Rio+20.
 
 
+9 # tonywicher 2012-10-05 18:34
I'm talking WW III if Romney gets in, not climate change. Not that WWIII isn't likely with Obama too, but at least there is some distance between Obama and Netanyahu. Obama may be Wall Street's bitch but I fear that Romney is Netanyahu's bitch.
 
 
+1 # beeyl 2012-10-05 22:20
That's always a possibility, but what evidence do you have to even worry about that? What kind of record does Romney have regarding any kind of foreign policy that would allow you to make such a prediction?
 
 
+3 # tonywicher 2012-10-06 03:10
All I am saying is that Romney and Netanyahu are very close. They went to business school together way back in the 70's. Netanyahu clearly wants Romney. There appears to be real distance between Obama and Netanyahu. Electing Romney would mean immediate war with Iran. With Obama we might at least get a foreign policy that is somewhat independent of Israel.
 
 
+14 # in deo veritas 2012-10-05 15:40
Regardless of the stupid chereographed debate, the fact is that Romney cannot back up any of his lies. He needs to be pinned to the wall and shown up for the fraud he really is. zpinocchio would lose out to him in a liar's contest. The media that covers this up is wall street's birch. Churchill was right when he told the world we were living in the presence of a consummate evil (Hitler). We are repeating that today. People listened then-now they are too busy gabbing on smartphones (made for stupid people) and watching shows with NO reality to them whatsoever. Therefore whatever happens, the public will be to blame for its own misery.
 
 
+5 # tonywicher 2012-10-05 18:51
Obama did not do any "pinning" in the first debate. As Scheer says, this is because Obama and Romney actually agree on all the major points.
 
 
+1 # Regina 2012-10-09 09:31
Romney has etched his sketches back and forth several times -- nothing he says can be taken as his actual plan, on any issue. His theme song is "Waltz me around again, Willie." His policy is to shadow box with the public, not commit to actual governance plans. Unfortunately there are gullible people who are being gulled by Rotating Romney.
 
 
+11 # SMoonz 2012-10-05 15:42
Excellent points in this article.

I sat through the entire debate and at the end my conclusion was that it was a draw. Not because both candidates had valid points but because it was the same thing just worded differently.

Black Agenda Report had a great article on the 15 things Romney and Obama agree on. Funny thing is the majority of these things were not discussed in this debate and likely will be ignored in other debates.

At the end of the day these debates are a charade consisting of bought and paid for candidates who are all members of the same clique, attending corporate owned debates moderated by media members who are part of the same clique as the candidates, i.e. Council on Foreign Relations, etc.
 
 
+5 # tonywicher 2012-10-05 18:44
There are differences. Like neocons released anti-Islamic video, orchestrated riots and murder of Obama's ambassador. This was a political operation to embarass Obama and prove him weak. He sure looked weak in this debate. If he looks the other way instead of finding out and exposing the perpetrators then he is as weak as he looked in the debate and will lose. On the other hand he and Clinton may really fight this one. But I'm not holding my breath. Instead, I buought a plane ticket to NYC for Webster Tarpley's anti-austerity conference on October 27 to noon to 6pm 56 Walker Street Tribeca Manhattan. See you there!
 
 
+5 # beeyl 2012-10-05 22:24
1984 wasn't just a date on the calendar.
 
 
+13 # bluesapphire48 2012-10-05 16:10
If Romney "won" the debate, it was because Rethuglicans are more shameless, baldfaced liars than Democrats.
 
 
+2 # tonywicher 2012-10-05 18:48
Yeah, but why didn't Obama challenge Romney on his lies? So the Rebloodlicans are more shameless and baldfaced, whereas the Democrips are the more shameful, backstabbing liars. They're better at it, in a way, because they are able to con more or less rational Democrats.
 
 
+1 # MindDoc 2012-10-05 19:33
No room to argue? IMHO, Romney's entire campaign from minute #1 has been to argue that everything Obama has done to reverse the Bush disaster has been wrong, wrong, wrong. Why, why, Mitt has facts for every argument! So of course there's no room, and meanwhile Obama and even Jim Lehrer are getting beaten up for not being aggressive enough. Romney is aggressive, of course. "100 %". That's what he cares about. (Note that he is referring to 100% of Americans' disposable income, and not the "people" who he has yet to mention once, other than in "the American people don't want" bla bla bla. !00% BS is, well... "it is what is it".

Stay tuned. Both versions or reality and 'facts' will get edited into clear videos which (like the 47% candid camera piece) will feature the 'real' Romney, unleashed from his prep advisors, handlers, and patrons. The "winners/losers " horserace discussion of Debate # 1 will soon fade, in this 140-character news cycle and the top-shelf spin-meistering . Let's get over the 1st debate. It was dress-rehearsal . And 'the real Romney" - facts and positions and lack thereof - should make for a clear choice indeed: Do we believe that facts and positions DO matter? Or do we go with the partisan/tribal /fear-mongering interests burying us in propaganda and sideshows? The choice is OURS - Clean out ALL the big money lackeys and bring in a Congress who signs a pledge to serve the We the People.
 
 
+2 # Aunt Tom 2012-10-05 19:58
It's minuscule, not miniscule, for a petty but entirely useful comment. Truthdig ought to spell things write. Ha-ha And I still wonder how they decided which one would wear the blue tie and which one would wear the red one. Maybe they settled it by letting Obama wear blue if he wouldn't contradict Romney too much. What do you think?
 
 
+7 # Observer 47 2012-10-05 20:46
It's SO refreshing to read comments by someone who actually tells it like it is----there's not that much to choose between Obama and Romney. The Obama apologists who ignore the NDAA passage, the continued torture and rendition, the hand-outs to Wall Street, the permits to drill everywhere, the escalation in Afghanistan, the drone attacks, the military intervention in Yemen, Libya, Syria, and on and on, just make me crazy. ACA may have insured 45 million people, but it handed all that business directly to the private insurance companies, while single payer was taken off the table in a back-room deal. Romney as President is unthinkable, while Obama is horrendous. We need a better choice!
 
 
+4 # X Dane 2012-10-05 22:07
Observer 47
I certainly MUCH PREFER to see a single payer system. I came from a country with a successful single payer system, that has worked well for more than 80 years.

HOWEVER. it could NOT have been passed. This is not very good law, but it is the beginning, and a law, that I am sure, can and will be improved upon.

Our present system is immoral. Insurance companies should not have shareholders, because they make money by depriving patients of life saving treatments.
 
 
+3 # Observer 47 2012-10-06 23:27
Whether or not it could have been passed, the fact remains that Obama never even fought for it. As I said, he made a closed-door deal with the insurance companies and agreed not to even put it out there. The insurance companies got handed all those millions of new customers. Think they're gonna give it all up for single payer now?
 
 
+7 # beeyl 2012-10-05 22:37
So let's give 3rd party candidates more votes than they've ever got, at least since Perot. At this point in the game, I think that's the best recourse for those of us who want better choices than these two bowls of snot.
 
 
+5 # Eliza D 2012-10-06 11:23
Absolutely! Well said.
 
 
-4 # Regina 2012-10-09 09:35
Principle is noble, but reality will prevail. Vote third party and inherit the Republican monstrosity.
 
 
0 # fredboy 2012-10-06 14:10
Think you've had a bad day? How'd you like to be a black guy who just has his ass whipped on national TV by a rich white guy named Mitten?
 

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