RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Volsky writes: "Pundits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney's strong debate performance ... But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers."

GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney with family following the first Presidential debate.  (Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images)
GOP Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney with family following the first Presidential debate. (Photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images)

Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes

By Igor Volsky, ThinkProgress

04 October 12


undits from both sides of the aisle have lauded Mitt Romney’s strong debate performance, praising his preparedness and ability to challenge President Obama’s policies and accomplishments. But Romney only accomplished this goal by repeatedly misleading viewers. He spoke for 38 minutes of the 90 minute debate and told at least 27 myths:

  • 1) "[G]et us energy independent, North American energy independent. That creates about 4 million jobs". Romney's plan for "energy independence" actually relies heavily on a study that assumes the U.S. continues with fuel efficiency standards set by the Obama administration. For instance, he uses Citigroup research based off the assumption that "'the United States will continue with strict fuel economy standards that will lower its oil demand." Since he promises to undo the Obama administration's new fuel efficiency standards, he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025.

  • 2) "I don't have a $5 trillion tax cut. I don't have a tax cut of a scale that you're talking about." A Tax Policy Center analysis of Romney's proposal for a 20 percent across-the-board tax cut in all federal income tax rates, eliminating the Alternative Minimum Tax, eliminating the estate tax and other tax reductions, would reduce federal revenue $480 billion in 2015. This amount to $5 trillion over the decade.

  • 3) "My view is that we ought to provide tax relief to people in the middle class. But I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people." If Romney hopes to provide tax relief to the middle class, then his $5 trillion tax cut would add to the deficit. There are not enough deductions in the tax code that primarily benefit rich people to make his math work.

  • 4) "My - my number-one principal is, there will be no tax cut that adds to the deficit. I want to underline that: no tax cut that adds to the deficit." As the Tax Policy Center concluded, Romney's plan can't both exempt middle class families from tax cuts and remain revenue neutral. "He's promised all these things and he can't do them all. In order for him to cover the cost of his tax cut without adding to the deficit, he'd have to find a way to raise taxes on middle income people or people making less than $200,000 a year," the Center found.

  • 5) "I will not under any circumstances raise taxes on middle-income families. I will lower taxes on middle-income families. Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it's completely wrong." The studies Romney cites actually further prove that Romney would, in fact, have to raise taxes on the middle class if he were to keep his promise not to lose revenue with his tax rate reduction.

  • 6) "I saw a study that came out today that said you're going to raise taxes by $3,000 to $4,000 on middle-income families." Romney is pointing to this study from the American Enterprise Institute. It actually found that rather than raise taxes to pay down the debt, the Obama administration's policies - those contained directly in his budget - would reduce the share of taxes that go toward servicing the debt by $1,289.89 per taxpayer in the $100,000 to $200,000 range.

  • 7) "And the reason is because small business pays that individual rate; 54 percent of America's workers work in businesses that are taxed not at the corporate tax rate, but at the individual tax rate....97 percent of the businesses are not - not taxed at the 35 percent tax rate, they're taxed at a lower rate. But those businesses that are in the last 3 percent of businesses happen to employ half - half of all the people who work in small business." Far less than half of the people affected by the expiration of the upper income tax cuts get any of their income at all from a small businesses. And those people could very well be receiving speaking fees or book royalties, which qualify as "small business income" but don't have a direct impact on job creation. It's actually hard to find a small business who think that they will be hurt if the marginal tax rate on income earned above $250,000 per year is increased.

  • 8) "Mr. President, all of the increase in natural gas and oil has happened on private land, not on government land. On government land, your administration has cut the number of permits and licenses in half." Oil production from federal lands is higher, not lower: Production from federal lands is up slightly in 2011 when compared to 2007. And the oil and gas industry is sitting on 7,000 approved permits to drill, that it hasn't begun exploring or developing.

  • 9) "The president's put it in place as much public debt - almost as much debt held by the public as all prior presidents combined." This is not even close to being true. When Obama took office, the national debt stood at $10.626 trillion. Now the national debt is over $16 trillion. That $5.374 trillion increase is nowhere near as much debt as all the other presidents combined.

  • 10) "That's why the National Federation of Independent Businesses said your plan will kill 700,000 jobs. I don't want to kill jobs in this environment." That study, produced by a right-wing advocacy organization, doesn't analyze what Obama has actually proposed.

  • 11) "What we do have right now is a setting where I'd like to bring money from overseas back to this country." Romney's plan to shift the country to a territorial tax system would allow corporations to do business and make profits overseas without ever being taxed on it in the United States. This encourages American companies to invest abroad and could cost the country up to 800,000 jobs.

  • 12) "I would like to take the Medicaid dollars that go to states and say to a state, you're going to get what you got last year, plus inflation, plus 1 percent, and then you're going to manage your care for your poor in the way you think best." Sending federal Medicaid funding to the states in the form of a block grant woud significantly reduce federal spending for Medicaid because the grant would not keep up with projected health care costs. A CBO estimate of a very similar proposal from Paul Ryan found that federal spending would be "35 percent lower in 2022 and 49 percent lower in 2030 than current projected federal spending" and as a result "states would face significant challenges in achieving sufficient cost savings through efficiencies to mitigate the loss of federal funding." "To maintain current service levels in the Medicaid program, states would probably need to consider additional changes, such as reducing their spending on other programs or raising additional revenues," the CBO found.

  • 13) "I want to take that $716 billion you've cut and put it back into Medicare.... But the idea of cutting $716 billion from Medicare to be able to balance the additional cost of Obamacare is, in my opinion, a mistake. There's that number again. Romney is claiming that Obamacare siphons off $716 billion from Medicare, to the detriment of beneficiaries. In actuality, that money is saved primarily through reducing over-payments to insurance companies under Medicare Advantage, not payments to beneficiaries. Paul Ryan's budget plan keeps those same cuts, but directs them toward tax cuts for the rich and deficit reduction.

  • 14) "What I support is no change for current retirees and near-retirees to Medicare." Here is how Romney's Medicare plan will affect current seniors: 1) by repealing Obamacare, the 16 million seniors receiving preventive benefits without deductibles or co-pays and are saving $3.9 billion on prescription drugs will see a cost increase, 2) "premium support" will increase premiums for existing beneficiaries as private insurers lure healthier seniors out of the traditional Medicare program, 3) Romney/Ryan would also lower Medicaid spending significantly beginning next year, shifting federal spending to states and beneficiaries, and increasing costs for the 9 million Medicare recipients who are dependent on Medicaid.

  • 15) "Number two is for people coming along that are young, what I do to make sure that we can keep Medicare in place for them is to allow them either to choose the current Medicare program or a private plan. Their choice. They get to choose - and they'll have at least two plans that will be entirely at no cost to them." The Medicare program changes for everyone, even people who choose to remain in the traditional fee-for-service. Rather than relying on a guaranteed benefit, all beneficiaries will receive a premium support credit of $7,500 on average in 2023 to purchase coverage in traditional Medicare or private insurance. But that amount will only grow at a rate of GDP plus 1.5 percentage points and will not keep up with health care costs. So while the federal government will spend less on the program, seniors will pay more in premiums.

  • 16) "And, by the way the idea came not even from Paul Ryan or - or Senator Wyden, who's the co-author of the bill with - with Paul Ryan in the Senate, but also it came from Bill - Bill Clinton's chief of staff." Romney has rejected the Ryan/Wyden approach - which does not cap the growth of the "premium support" subsidy. Bill Clinton and his commission also voted down these changes to the Medicare program.

  • 17) "Well, I would repeal and replace it. We're not going to get rid of all regulation. You have to have regulation. And there are some parts of Dodd-Frank that make all the sense in the world." Romney has previously called for full repeal of Dodd-Frank, a law whose specific purpose is to regulate banks. MF Global's use of customer funds to pay for its own trading losses is just one bit of proof that the financial industry isn't responsible enough to protect consumers without regulation.

  • 18) "But I wouldn't designate five banks as too big to fail and give them a blank check. That's one of the unintended consequences of Dodd-Frank... We need to get rid of that provision because it's killing regional and small banks. They're getting hurt." The law merely says that the biggest, systemically risky banks need to abide by more stringent regulations. If those banks fail, they will be unwound by a new process in the Dodd-Frank law that protects taxpayers from having to pony up for a bailout.

  • 19) "And, unfortunately, when - when - when you look at Obamacare, the Congressional Budget Office has said it will cost $2,500 a year more than traditional insurance. So it's adding to cost." Obamacare will actually provide millions of families with tax credits to make health care more affordable.

  • 20) "[I]t puts in place an unelected board that's going to tell people ultimately what kind of treatments they can have. I don't like that idea." The Board, or IPAB is tasked with making binding recommendations to Congress for lowering health care spending, should Medicare costs exceed a target growth rate. Congress can accept the savings proposal or implement its own ideas through a super majority. The panel's plan will modify payments to providers but it cannot "include any recommendation to ration health care, raise revenues or Medicare beneficiary premiums...increase Medicare beneficiary cost-sharing (including deductibles, coinsurance, and co- payments), or otherwise restrict benefits or modify eligibility criteria" (Section 3403 of the ACA). Relying on health care experts rather than politicians to control health care costs has previously attracted bipartisan support and even Ryan himself proposed two IPAB-like structures in a 2009 health plan.

  • 21) "Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as Obamacare goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey and Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage." The Affordable Care Act would actually expand health care coverage to 30 million Americans, despite Romney fear mongering. According to CBO director Douglas Elmendorf, 3 million or less people would leave employer-sponsored health insurance coverage as a result of the law.

  • 22) "I like the way we did it [health care] in Massachusetts...What were some differences? We didn't raise taxes." Romney raised fees, but he can claim that he didn't increase taxes because the federal government funded almost half of his reforms.

  • 23) "It's why Republicans said, do not do this, and the Republicans had - had the plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside." The Affordable Care Act incorporates many Republican ideas including the individual mandate, state-based health care exchanges, high-risk insurance pools, and modified provisions that allow insurers to sell policies in multiple states. Republicans never offered a united bipartisan alternative.

  • 24) "Preexisting conditions are covered under my plan." Only people who are continuously insured would not be discriminated against because they suffer from pre-existing conditions. This protection would not be extended to people who are currently uninsured.

  • 25) "In one year, you provided $90 billion in breaks to the green energy world. Now, I like green energy as well, but that's about 50 years' worth of what oil and gas receives." The $90 billion was given out over several years and included loans, loan guarantees and grants through the American Recovery Act. $23 billion of the $90 billion "went toward "clean coal," energy-efficiency upgrades, updating the electricity grid and environmental clean-up, largely for old nuclear weapons sites."

  • 26) "I think about half of [the green firms Obama invested in], of the ones have been invested in have gone out of business. A number of them happened to be owned by people who were contributors to your campaigns." As of late last year, only "three out of the 26 recipients of 1705 loan guarantees have filed for bankruptcy, with losses estimated at just over $600 million."

  • 27) "If the president's reelected you'll see dramatic cuts to our military." Romney is referring to the sequester, which his running mate Paul Ryan supported. Obama opposes the military cuts and has asked Congress to formulate a balanced approach that would avoid the trigger. your social media marketing partner


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

+102 # pernsey 2012-10-04 15:25
Liar liar pants on fire...Mitt your lies didnt get covered up by your performance. Mitt will say anything to close the deal. Hes a corporate liar, Mitt looked deranged but he lied with fervor. If thats all it takes to win, to be fact free, lie, and be rude, but just have a lot of force while he says it. To me thats not a debate, its a liar speech. Obama was disgusted as I was with Mitt, Mitt is going to spread his lies, he will do or say anything to get elected.
+111 # PhilO 2012-10-04 22:02
I think that Obama should have responded to Romney's, "Mr. President, you are entitled to your own house and your own airplane, but you are not entitled to your own facts" with, "Mr Romney, you are entitled to your own houses (remind me how many of those do you have) and your own Cadilacs (remind me how many of those do you have), but you are not entitled to put thousands of Americans out of work to pay for all your things. In fact, unlike you, who seems to believe that it's your god-given right to greed; I, on the other hand, think it's my god-given responsibility to help people find jobs. You may call them the 47%, but I call them Americans."
+5 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-07 15:55
+46 # brux 2012-10-04 23:07
> To me thats not a debate, its a liar speech.

Yeah, it's been said before but these are hardly debates, they are more parallel campaign appearances.

Look on TV and radio and notice the commercials for the most ridiculous products, and you will notice that Americans are just stupid when it comes to being sold the most absurd products. Americans are suckers. So, why would the Presidential election be any different?
+6 # robniel 2012-10-05 07:30
The nomination process needs to include something for Liar-In-Chief.
+24 # wrknight 2012-10-05 08:06
One good reason for not watching the debates. It's much easier to spot the bullshit reading the text when you are not distracted by the theatrics.
+19 # Feral Dogz 2012-10-05 13:07
Quoting wrknight:
One good reason for not watching the debates. It's much easier to spot the bullshit reading the text when you are not distracted by the theatrics.

I listened on the radio, so I missed the visual theatrics, but I couldn't help but wonder if Romney was frothing a bit, as a dressage horse does when in full prance.

I detected nothing of substance in any claim he made or "idea" he may have presented.

A prancing, frothing, lying poser of a used car salesman is not what we need more of in Washington.
+85 # dovelane1 2012-10-04 16:35
I think Romney knows he can't win by telling the truth, so what does he have to lose by lying? And, in his world, the end justifies the means.

That rationalization allows him to be aggressive to the point of rudeness.
Anyone else notice how tightly his mnouth was clinched, and how hard it was for him to smile.

As Al Sharpton said on MSNBC after the debate, Mr. Romney perjured himself all the way through the debate. It's all "smoke and mirrors."

Romney (Mr. Smoke) an Ryan (Mr. Mirrors)are willing to do or say anything to CONTROL the outcome of the election. I can't help but wonder where the rest of Republican party is when he and Ryan start lying. What kind of "patriot" will it take in the Republican party to stand up and confront the lies? All I hear from the right is silence.

All it takes for evil to triumph is for good men and women to say and do nothing, and that is what the Republicans are doing - nothing.

I assume John McCain considers himself a patriot. Why hasn't he said anything about the lies? Why isn't he talking about Romney's tax returns? If you want creditability with people other than your own party, one would think this would be the way to get it.

It was said the one of the reasons Bush went into Iraq was to get even for his dad. I wonder if Romney is doing what he's doing because of his dad's failed bid to be president. Just thinking out loud.
+79 # CL38 2012-10-04 21:23
I think Romney is a psychopath. His motivation doesn't run that deep. It's all about greed, entitlement, belief that he's better than most.

John Dean, Republican, described the extreme right attitude, beliefs and (lack of) character in his book, Conservatives without Conscience.

How proud his sons must be.
+13 # Regina 2012-10-05 09:54
Dubya seems to have been out to one-up his Poppy, whose foray into Iraq was limited to the reversal of Saddam's grab of Yemen. It's entirely possible that Mitt is out to one-up his Dad rather than "vindicate" him. But this is just armchair psychology sorta like Monday quarter-backing . The fact remains that Mitt is lusting for the presidency as just another conquest.
+19 # Street Level 2012-10-04 22:03
Anyone even thinking of voting Republican should see this.
+6 # pbbrodie 2012-10-05 06:42
This is so great!
I nearly died laughing but I was already awake.
+67 # Reductio Ad Absurdum 2012-10-04 22:47
Romney not only lies, he lies about his lies and keeps changing his lies. This guy is creepy-pathalog ical.
+50 # Kasandra 2012-10-04 23:19
Obama didn't have to win this round. All he had to do was be in his truth and know that what he's done in the time he's been in office has been motivated towards supporting the many facets of society, ending the war, tackling taxes, and so on. Mitt is just a phony salesman--But I'm alarmed about how many people still fall for these smooth con artists. If "the people" elect Romney I believe this country will watch itself fall on its face, and mebbe that's what it will take for a real wake up call. I hope we've already awakened and can see Mitt for what he is. It's very obvious to me, but perhaps not to the majority of voters.
+26 # jackloganbill 2012-10-05 06:57
Perhaps you are correct Kasandra, but in four years Mitt and a Republican majority can change the face of America forever. Mitt could install several young supreme court judges, Mitt and Congress could repeal the Affordable Health Care act, Social Security, Medicare, Mitt and Congress will dismantle agencies that protect the environment, help the poor and the most vulnerable members of society. Finally, Mitt and Congress will go to war. Ike prophesied of the miltary industrial power that could take over, and has taken over the right (which is wrong!).

I am sorry, but we cannot afford an awakening!
+12 # Regina 2012-10-05 09:56
You mean the majority of COUNTED voters -- don't lose sight of all those states that are "preventing voter fraud."
-54 # JackB 2012-10-04 23:30
It is common knowledge that Divine Barry cannot make a mistake so his performance the other night can only be blamed on Bush. There is simply no other possible explanation.

As we can see here the spin doctors are up to their eyeballs in damage control.
-33 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 06:59
Oh come now, Jack.

He's obviously playing some hyperdimensiona l chess strategy so far removed from reality that no mere mortal human could ever hope to comprehend it.

+35 # BradFromSalem 2012-10-05 09:09

You are absolutely correct. He was exhausted and looked it. Why? Simple.
Barack Hussein Obama, duly elected President of the United States of America has spent the last 3 1/2 years fixing as much as anyone could the damage done to the United Sates by one George Walker Bush, selected President of the United States of America.

Selected President Bush lied to the Congress of the United States and the United Nations so as to initiate a war of aggression. He supported and signed off on changes to our financial system that led to a near total collapse of the entire world's financial infrastructure. Selected President Bush squandered nearly any good will we had with other nations of the world and made a total mess of the finances of the United States itself.

Then, the Republican party after Back Obama was elected, not selected, treated all of his policy initiatives as if they were not worth the paper they were written on, while proposing ZERO solutions of their own that did not revolve around cutting the total income of all persons that make less than 200K.
After all that, Elected President Obama has presided over an economy that has outperformed Selected President Bush. You are a fool if you think the disaster that was Selected President Bush has no impact on this country because only 3 1/2 years have passed.
-32 # JackB 2012-10-05 09:36
Don't quit your day job.
+24 # mrfnk 2012-10-04 23:35
Romney Told 27 Myths in 38 Minutes. I wonder what his count was when he was speaking as Mormon Bishop.
+9 # jackloganbill 2012-10-05 07:00
Not sure how Mitt could pass a temple recommend of the questions is, "are you completely honest in all of your dealings...."

Hmmm...I'm no judge in Israel, but I think that would be a no in Mr Mitt's case... No temple for you Mitt. Oh, Ann, from your Bishop, you might want to drop the hem of your dresses, don't want the temple g____t to show.
+15 # pernsey 2012-10-05 08:47
Quoting jackloganbill:
Not sure how Mitt could pass a temple recommend of the questions is, "are you completely honest in all of your dealings...."

Hmmm...I'm no judge in Israel, but I think that would be a no in Mr Mitt's case... No temple for you Mitt. Oh, Ann, from your Bishop, you might want to drop the hem of your dresses, don't want the temple g____t to show.

He passes an interview by paying millions to the Mormon church. Im sure the kind of money he gives can buy him any position in the church that he wants. Hes a loon, but hes a rich loon, so Im sure the mormon church is happy to have him.
0 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-07 15:59
But note he does NOT contribute to causes outside of his Mormon ones... .
+47 # Delucastle 2012-10-05 00:06
I've lived in Massachusettsal l my 61 years now. In additon to raising fees in mass, Romney also cut sthe amount of State aid given to the cities and towns. They have had to reduce services, raise property taxes and raise their own fees to make up the difference. In essence, he balanced the budget by not paying his bills and saying "you pay it for me". This is what he'll do to America if elected. The Fed Govt will reduce State aid, forcing those States to raise their taxes. It's all a sham.
+7 # dovelane1 2012-10-05 15:29
Former Minnesota governor and Rep;ublican p[oliticians in Minnesota did exactly the same thing, with the exact same results. It was done on the backs of the state's middle class.

They borrowed from the funds the scfhools were supposed to get, and still haven't fully paid that fund back.

to his delusional thinking, his plan worked. Well, for him and his cronies, it worked fine.
+36 # WestWinds 2012-10-05 01:53
"Myths"? Is that what they are calling it these days? When I was a kid we called it good old fashion in-your-face lying.
+4 # Doll 2012-10-05 17:17
Yes, WestWinds, you are right.

Myth means a story with a deeper meaning regardless of whether it is true or not.

There is, I do not believe, any deeper meaning to Romney's Lies.

We have also corrupted the meaning of the word, skeptic. It should be used to mean, "I don't know if it is true or not". but it has become to mean, "I don't belive it".
+25 # pres 2012-10-05 02:03
Mitt is already being treated as presidential material because when he lies his statements are referred to as "Myths".
Otherwise, most anybody else are described as liars!
He should fit right in the approach of Washington towards truth.
+32 # postpen 2012-10-05 03:32
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.
+6 # omacindy 2012-10-05 17:56
I am discovering that MANY others saw what you saw, and I did--the body language was scary and repulsive, even though on the surface it mimicked "real" cheer and happy aggression. It has taken two days for most of the pundits to revise their verdicts--I can only hope they learn something from their erring interpretations . And thank G-d for the folks (above and elsewhere) who LIKE a President in touch with reality, able to feel his own fear, his revulsion, and somehow muster the ability to tell the demonic Mitt "no." I think that this debate will end up transforming America in good directions.
-26 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 04:54
Romney is a hack. Incompetent and too transparent and easily seen through and not at all worth considering voting for.

He's out of his league. He wishes he could pass off the big lie as easily as Obama can and make people convince themselves they believe it, but there is no comparison. He's not nearly as good at it as Obama is.

He "works" for Obama. His entire campaign performance is designed to get Obama re-elected.

He's already getting all the policies of any republicans wet dream from Obama, without even having to get up in the morning and show up at the office.

From his or any republicans perspective, why would he want to mess up what he thinks he wants when he's already got it and he can let Obama take the blame?

The whole two party system is a set up. A con job. A circus show put on to fool people into thinking they're making a choice.

A suckers game.

Like a football game where the team owners rake in the millions while they couldn't care less which team the marks in the audience wave pom poms for, as long as they show up and buy tickets.
-2 # dovelane1 2012-10-05 15:41
You sound cynical. Of course, you could be correct. You could also be wrong. At present, this is just your opinion.

If you have any facts, it would help all of us if you would present your facts. Otherwise, make sure you mention that this is just your opinion.

It might also help if you would admit to the possibility that you could be wrong. Unless you have some facts that we mere mortals don't have.

It's hard for anyone, democrat, progressive, Republican, tea party, or what have you, to change their mind if they can't admit to the possibility that they might be wrong, or that someone else could be right.

When you have one person, or one party, acting as if they are always correct, like they could not possibly be wrong, what that does is invite everyone else to act the same way, but from the opposite point of view. The problems is not having belieffs, it is the fanatacism behind the belief system that causes the problems.

It is the "my way or the highway" attitude that invites everyone else to respond with their corresponding similar attitude.

If one wants to get to the truth, one doesn not have to have a passion for it. One has to have an unremitting readiness to admit they might be wrong.

From what I've seen, that mostly describes the conservative christian right in this country.

Of course, I could be wrong, but that is how it appears to me at present.
+4 # dick 2012-10-05 06:36
Waaah. Mommy, he told a fib. Grow up. This isn't Gentlemen's Croquet. Even Democrats agree that "Obama needs a wake up call" after his sleepy debate performance. Dems should be thrilled that Willard lied. It provides ammunition, if Barry can find the will to use it. I hope Clinton helps with next debate prep.
Barry looked oxygen deprived at Mile High, but Mitt has given him fuel. Now he needs to USE it.
+6 # jackloganbill 2012-10-05 06:40
Now, is it fair to ask...



WHY MR President, WHY?!?!?!?!?!
+5 # rockieball 2012-10-05 07:00
WHY!! I ask the same thing. He was doing with Romney what he has been doing with the Republicans in Congress, tried being a Mister Nice Guy.
+15 # 2012-10-05 08:10
Quoting jackloganbill:
Now, is it fair to ask...



WHY MR President, WHY?!?!?!?!?!

I think this may have been on purpose..let mitt tie himself in a knot of lies so people can see him for what he really is.
+6 # Texas Aggie 2012-10-05 12:21
Boy, I hope so, but given the information level of the average American voter, it is likely to backfire.
+4 # rockieball 2012-10-05 06:58
And not Mr. Etch-A-Sketch has done an about face and said on Fox (of course) to Hannutty (of Course) that he was wrong about the 47%.
0 # Human Right 2012-10-05 07:26
We voted for Obama & change
What they got was a president who took the entire defense department bureaucracy of a previously discredited administration into his administration inclusive of the Generals, Secretary of Defense and all the rest ( this has never happened before); then gave us more phony war. While president Obama was receiving the “Nobel Peace prize” he simultaneously and successfully defended the architect of torture in a San Francisco federal court. In addition, he sidetracked attempts of the ACLU to remove the illegal overseas prisons and never gave even a feeble attempt to close the infamous Guantanamo prison. He has never tried to return our revered habeas corpus or remove the immoral, illegal, Patriot Act. As this is written he has placed ill advised military intimidation and economic sanctions over innocent Iranian people and continues to fund the illegal Zionist settlers three generations removed from WWII, (many from New York) in the Middle East. Recently Obama signed a law (National Defense Authorization Act) making the “Patriot Act” permanent and the USA is now officially a military/police state with the habeas corpus long gone.
-17 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 07:33

He's so much better than Romney that there is absolutely no comparison.

Romney has no chance. No chance.

He could never get away with the things Obama does.

If Romeny tried appointing financial criminals like Geithner and rightwing warmongers like Gates or Panetta and filling the bank accounts of insurance companies the way Obama has, Democrats and Obama supporters all across the country would be screaming for his impeachment before he could even be inaugurated.

The streets surrounding the White House would be overflowing with hundreds of thousands of pitchfork and torch bearing very angry people.

That might even spark revolution, which the people who back these candidates and put on this two party scam circus show want to avoid at all costs.

Which may explain why Obama's got it sewn up. Which may explain his grin.
-6 # orwell, by george 2012-10-05 08:11
most people have not absorbed the message of occupy.
they think there's a difference.
don't endorse illegal war and this sick duopoly.
vote 3rd party.
+5 # Eliza D 2012-10-06 05:17
That's why we need someone like Rocky Anderson or Jill Stein. I must admit, it is really hard to reconcile these action with the rational,earnes t person we see on TV. When he was campaigning, Obama promised he would repeal the Patriot Act. He said that we are not a country that spies on its citizens. Instead, he expanded it.
+10 # Human Right 2012-10-05 07:28
In the "kerry/Bush debates Kerry soundly beat Bush. However the Zionist owned media turned Kerry the war hero into a draft dodger and Bush the draft dodger into a war hero also making Bush the winner of the debates. Bottom line is that the debates mean nothing and media ownership means everything.
-1 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-07 16:02
+15 # wrknight 2012-10-05 07:57
It just shows that Romney is an accomplished con artist who can lie with a convincing smile. Unfortunately, many people are taken in by con artists.

And speaking of con artists, Bain Capital's entire business plan is one of the greatest con jobs of all time. Taking companies in distress for 10 cents on the dollar, selling off what they have of value, and setting free what's left (solvent but much poorer). And for this "service" they charge outrageous management fees. Bain Capital's "service" is one that I hope to God I never have to experience.

Now the question is, is that the business model that Romney has for the U.S.?
-21 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 07:59
Either Romney or Obama will win. Most likely Obama. He's got it pretty much sewn up.

Romeny's really a waste of time to worry about. He's virtually no threat at all. He's tanking in the polls and has next to zero chance of being elected.

There is no equivalency between these two men.

Romney - or any other republican for that matter - would never have a hope of putting over all the foreign policy, healthcare and social security con jobs and droned kids all around the world on people that Obama has effortlessly managed to put over on them, and still have people cheering and believing that they'd supported anything even remotely resembling anything progressive.

And even if half the country is still sleepwalking in November and Romney does win, if he tried appointing financial criminals like Geithner and rightwing warmongers like Gates or Panetta and filling the bank accounts of insurance companies the way Obama has, Democrats and Obama supporters all across the country would be screaming for his impeachment before he could even be inaugurated.

The streets surrounding the White House would be overflowing with hundreds of thousands of pitchfork and torch bearing very angry people.

That might even spark revolution, which the people who back these candidates and put on this two party scam circus show want to avoid at all costs.

Which may explain why Obama's got it sewn up. Which may explain his grin.
+1 # WolfTotem 2012-10-05 08:00
Such TREMENDOUS economies!

With truth...
-14 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 08:01
The Supreme Court is a concern of course. I imagine Obama will choose his Supreme Court nominees very carefully, with the same kind of progressive forethought and "moving forward" divergence from corprate/neocon polices with which he chose his economic and military advisers. Maybe Tim Geithner and Lloyd Blankfein and Jamie Dimon, or Robert Gates and Leon Panetta, will help him pick his SC nominees, or just tell him who to appoint.

A lot of people have really liked Obamacare - one of Obama's other great progressive(sic ) triumphs - right from the start, too, and that's really helped him build his campaign war chest with corporate donations.

"It's a bonanza," said Robert Laszewski, a health insurance executive for 20 years who now tracks reform legislation as president of the consulting firm Health Policy and Strategy Associates Inc.

Some insurance company leaders continue to profess concern about the unpredictable course of President Obama's massive healthcare initiative, and they vigorously oppose elements of his agenda. But Laszewski said the industry's reaction to early negotiations boiled down to a single word: "Hallelujah!"
+20 # DIAMONDMARGE 2012-10-05 08:01
Why all this verbal delicacy? Romney didn't tell "myths"; HE TOLD LIES.
A myth is a symbolic story representative of beliefs; a lie is a deliberate misrepresentati on of reality in order to benefit the liar!
-14 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 08:23
Obama's plans for Social Security are really something, too.

It is not Obama's fault that even though he promised transparency there are still some people who are still unable to see through him.
"We've got to educate the American people at the same time we educate the President of the United States. The Republicans, Speaker Boehner or Majority Leader Cantor did not call for Social Security cuts in the budget deal. The President of the United States called for that," [John Conyers (D-Mich)], who has served in the House since 1965, said. "My response to him is to mass thousands of people in front of the White House to protest this," Conyers said strongly.
+6 # wrknight 2012-10-05 09:19
You make a claim that I have never heard or seen and I ask that you back up your claim with references to the specific statements in which Obama called for cuts in Social Security.

Failure to back up your claim can only be construed as evidence of your willingness to perpetuate "myths" without evidence.
-11 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 09:41
You could follow the link... and watch and listen to Conyers say it... but you probably won't...
+4 # wrknight 2012-10-05 10:33
Is this the link you are refereing to?

If so, then you still need to back up your claim with more substantial proof than a politician's claim that Obama called for Social Security cuts.

If you are referring to some other link, please be more precise so that I and other readers don't have to guess at what link will take us to the truth.
-14 # fredboy 2012-10-05 08:23
And my candidate, Obama, let all 27 myths slide. Perhaps he was ignorant. Or perhaps he was afraid to speak up. Sounds real presidential, doesn't it?
+3 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-05 09:36
Why not keep quite instead of looking like some raving asshole.
I believe Mittens has given us a whole new debate I just hope we have a better moderator, perhaps a Sports Referee should be on side lines.
President OBama did not get sucked into the Woman's Rights, so I commend him. He stood there with experience, made his comments. I believe, letting the baffoon lie was great. The Meth Head could not stop licking his lips, moving his eyes, drooling like a rabid animal.
Took pride in that go ahead.
I know I saw a late part of debate where no matter what OB was gonna say Mitt was lunging OB took the punches, Kept his tongue in check. I hope Biden does the same. Perhaps some sarcasm since Ryan has no advantage over a man who has lost loved ones, fixed budget, worked to keep jobs in his State, and can work with Union and Non Union equally.
OB did just fine....
+15 # Dangoodbar 2012-10-05 08:48
I have no idea how anyone can say Romney won the debate when by my count Romney's campaign has issued 5 corrections/con tradictions of Romney's positions and facts.

I mean don't facts and consistency matter in a political debate.

What Romney's performance really reminded me of was an attorney with a losing case who submits briefs and makes arguments in the lower courts and then gets into the higher court and try’s to catch his opposition off guard by recasting the case in completely different way than his earlier filings and arguments. Attorney's call this "Gamesmanship.

I suppose Romney did win the Gamesmanship award. But few who resort to Gamesmanship ever prevail in regard to their cases because resorting to Gamesmanship is viewed as an admission that the attorney believes he has a losing case.

And another thing, when is the guy who got all his facts right be the lazy and unprepared debater. Rather, the guy who got all his facts right is the person who took the forum seriously and prepared accordingly.
+5 # wrknight 2012-10-05 09:43
Why should facts matter in a political debate when the winner is the one who gets the "Best Actor" award.
+7 # KittatinyHawk 2012-10-05 09:47
People from Media to here have to bash, judge.
Romney aggressiveness was not well used.
He was like the child in school who is always right, never shuts up. You ignore such cretins.
Romeny looked like he did a good long shot of Methamphetamine that night. Had some drool spills, eyes could not stop, some of the pictures made him look like a total baffoon esp the first encounter with the President It looked like he was afraid to shake his hand or have Pres OB touch him. Racism or stupidity, it looked bad. I would wonder how he acts around es he jump back, flail his arms up...scary
OB kept his temperment, I am sure he would have loved to counter but it was not time.
OB never said he was a debater. He told you outright he was not. He speaks, makes his subject known, does his brief and gets on to the next question.
The Loser was Lehrer. He is a bore and allowed the goon to go off the chart. I hope they have someone better for round two. I believe Barbra Walters could do the job of moderator and referee.
I agree with Letterman I think the wives should have discussion/deba te I know Michele would come out on top since she is her own self and a woman.
Then on to the kids. I believe the OB daughters would tie those boys into a pretzel and leave them to mold.
I believe there is some problems in that Mitt family is that perfect. It is like the Ken Doll and Barbie Fantasy....Step hen King style
+5 # Texas Aggie 2012-10-05 12:18
"I mean don't facts and consistency matter in a political debate. "

In a word, no. What matters is salesmanship and talking to the lowest common denominator. How do you think that Paul Lyan got to where he is? And Mitt Romney?
0 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-07 16:06
# Dangoodbar 2012-10-05 06:48
I have no idea how anyone can say Romney won the debate when by my count Romney's campaign has issued 5 corrections/con tradictions of Romney's positions and facts.

I mean don't facts and consistency matter in a political debate.

Facts do not seem to matter to dyed-in-the-woo l Republicans or to the largely uninformed voters.
+9 # reiverpacific 2012-10-05 09:41
Again as a taxpaying foreign resident, the way I got through this so-called debate monitored by a soft-pedaling PBS snooze-meister, was to attempt assume the role (with some difficulty for sure) of the average American "Swing voter", or every-four-year -activist who watches game shows, soaps and sitcoms the rest of the year and dines in front of the goggle-box, or listens to one of Clear Channel's ±1,300 stations on their way to work if they have a job, believing everything they see and hear, with a good percentage of barely-conceale d racism into the bargain.
THEN, and only THEN, does Twit even begin to even vaguely seem to be believable, especially when he shouts down the moderator with a barrage of heavily-rehears ed faux-enthusiasm and "look-a here" baloney-peddlin g, as if he was selling junk bonds to idiots!
It's a hard role to play but try it sometime; you might be surprised.
-14 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 10:43
Today, October 05, 2012...
The remark in question came during last week's debate about fiscal issues on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." In an otherwise forgettable conversation, things became newsworthy when the conversation turned to Obama's position on Social Security reforms. At that point, the president's consigliere, David Axelrod, responded not with a clear position, but instead by trying to halt the conversation.

"I'll tell you what, when you get elected to the United States Senate and sit at that table, we'll have that discussion," he told the panel.

When pressed, Axelrod insisted that the election season meant no debate should proceed. "This is not the time, he said. "We're not going to have that discussion right now."

The 31 Million results you'll get on a google search for "obama proposes cuts social security" are rather revealing, too...
-12 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 10:51
Here are just the first few. You can do the google search on "obama proposes cuts social security" for the rest of the 31 Million stories about it....

In debt talks, Obama offers Social Security cuts - The Washington Post

Obama proposes cuts to Social Security - Political Hotsheet - CBS

Obama Proposes Social Security Cuts - The Daily Beast
-6 # Vern Radul 2012-10-05 15:36
Heh. :-)

Life would be easier for some I suppose, if there was a "make invisible" button instead of just a "thumb down" button, wouldn't it?
+2 # reiverpacific 2012-10-05 20:37
Quoting Antemedius:
Heh. :-)

Life would be easier for some I suppose, if there was a "make invisible" button instead of just a "thumb down" button, wouldn't it?

Au contraire mate. I went to the links you posted and they were all from 2011 when the government was running out of time and money to keep operating and Ob's back was to the wall. He had to come up with something and ended up by taking a vague middle road (as usual) with Bohner and Cantor on measures that displeased the core of both parties. This is why so much has been shoved under the carpet.
So I'm in part agreeing with you -probably from opposite perspectives- that solutions appear to be "Off the table" as long as there is a president who is willing to try and negotiate with the non-negotiable and a congress which is dedicated to getting rid of him before any issues affecting the common good are addressed. But that's only my own interpretation based on your offerings and there is so much more. For my part I wish that Obama would quit being Mr. Nice Guy and get the gloves off.
-2 # Vern Radul 2012-10-06 03:25
The First link is from Friday October 5, 2012...
+11 # Texas Aggie 2012-10-05 12:14
Someone needs to ask him how his blatant dishonesty reflects on Mormonism and on their recruitment campaigns. I would like to see a reporter say, "Gov. Romney, you lied out your ass during the debate and on the campaign trail. What kind of an image does that present to Americans of what Mormonism is and what it values? Do you think it helps them in the conversion process?
+2 # Cassandra2012 2012-10-07 16:11
Also, for someone like Mitt who wants to enlarge the military(/indus trial! complex) how does this square with his evading the Vietnam, draft by being a 'missionary' to FRANCE!
or the fact that not one of his 6' + sons served in ANY military organization (even the elite ones like West Point or the AirForce Academy...??

Apparently it's ok for other people to risk or sacrifice the lives of their children, but is 'entitled' to protect his ... .
+3 # MindDoc 2012-10-05 13:09
Gee, for the number crunching crowd, that's only .71 lies per minute, not quite the "lie a minute" we generally reference.

And then, today the Fox-coddled headline the new Superstar of rhetoric and fact-shifting declared that his own words (and position as stated in front of an audience - and camera) were "just completely wrong". Yes indeed. While it's unclear if this attempt to re-spin (~shake the etch-a-sketch) will have any traction or simply be yet another example of fact-shifting, it's nice to have words on tape. Positions on record. A media which still has a little it of integrity & abeyance to REALITY. (maybe)

Bottom line, imho: "Romney said it himself: His attitude, words, and perspective on real people: All 'just completely wrong". And shifting like the sand in his etch-a-sketch positions, someone with 'no core', a documented near-lie-per minute, and "no apologies" for his lifetime of accumulating wealth by exporting jobs to the countries he now bashes, and stashing his own staggering fortune, meanwhile, "offshore" and far from the treasury which serves "We the (human) people).

Let the fact-checking be honest and our eyes and ears be open to reality. Sorry, facts and personal qualities are not irrelevant.
+2 # MindDoc 2012-10-05 13:53
sorry for the typos!
+2 # crispy 2012-10-05 14:18
This analysis is a step in the right direction but has many typos and a few contradictions making it hard to read. I am sorry to be so harsh but education works best when it is given in a clear and accurate way.
# 9 Romney meant that Obama had added more to total debt than all previous presidents before him. I remember that statement was true for G Bush. Obama did not add more than Bush (2 terms)+ Clinton (no reduction in DEBT under 2 terms) + GHW Bush + Reagan (over $1 T just for Reagan).
Neither of the 5 preceding presidents faced a free fall economic situation and financial freeze.

Better than "he would cut oil consumption savings of 2 million barrels per day by 2025. "
I'd say "he would prevent the saving of 2 million barrels by 2025 under Mr Obama's new regulation.
2 negatives (cut and save make a sentence hard to understand).
'I'm not going to reduce the share of taxes paid by high-income people."
a 20% across the board would reduce the share the wealthy pay in total taxes from 10% to 9.3% if we use the figure that the top 10% pay 10% of total taxes.
In other words their share would go down by 7%!
Not bad...
+3 # robert10 2012-10-05 16:06
so why didn't Obama refute these myths like was done here?
+1 # CL38 2012-10-06 22:12
Romney's sons must be SO proud!

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.