Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?_r=0

The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election.

The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.

That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.

None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.

When Mr. Romney accused the president of supporting a “trickle-down government,” Mr. Obama might have demanded to know what that means. He could then have pointed out that it is Mr. Romney whose economic plan is based on the discredited idea that high-end tax cuts trickle down to the middle class and poor.

Mr. Romney said he supported the idea of regulation but rejected the Dodd-Frank financial reform law because it was too generous to the big “New York banks.” This is an alternative-universe interpretation of a law that is deeply despised and opposed by the banks, but Mr. Obama missed several opportunities to point out how the law limits the corrosive practices, like derivatives trading, that led to the 2008 crash and puts in place vitally important consumer protections.

On health care, Mr. Romney pretended that he had an actual plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, and that it covered pre-existing conditions. He has no such plan, and his false claim finally roused the president to his only strong moment of the evening. The country doesn’t know the details, he said, of how Mr. Romney would replace Wall Street reform, or health care reform, or tax increases on the rich because Republicans don’t want people to understand the hard trade-offs involved in these decisions.

There are still two more presidential debates, and Mr. Obama has the facts on his side to expose the hollowness of his opponent. But first he has to decide to use them aggressively.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 4, 2012, on page A34 of the New York edition with the headline: An Unhelpful Debate.

typical liberal nonsense. romney killed it and the elite media don't want to accept it. facts, shacts, who cares. facts are for pinko liberals.

doofus_maximus wrote:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/opinion/an-unhelpful-presidential-debate.html?_r=0

The first debate between President Obama and Mitt Romney, so long anticipated, quickly sunk into an unenlightening recitation of tired talking points and mendacity. With few sparks and little clarity on the immense gulf that truly separates the two men and their policies, Wednesday’s encounter provided little guidance for voters still trying to understand the choice in next month’s election.

The Mitt Romney who appeared on the stage at the University of Denver seemed to be fleeing from the one who won the Republican nomination on a hard-right platform of tax cuts, budget slashing and indifference to the suffering of those at the bottom of the economic ladder. And Mr. Obama’s competitive edge from 2008 clearly dulled, as he missed repeated opportunities to challenge Mr. Romney on his falsehoods and turnabouts.

Virtually every time Mr. Romney spoke, he misrepresented the platform on which he and Paul Ryan are actually running. The most prominent example, taking up the first half-hour of the debate, was on taxes. Mr. Romney claimed, against considerable evidence, that he had no intention of cutting taxes on the rich or enacting a tax cut that would increase the deficit.

That simply isn’t true. Mr. Romney wants to restore the Bush-era tax cut that expires at the end of this year and largely benefits the wealthy. He wants to end the estate tax and the gift tax, providing a huge benefit only to those with multimillion-dollar estates, at a cost of more than $1 trillion over a decade to the deficit. He wants to preserve the generous rates on capital gains that benefit himself personally and others at his economic level. And he wants to cut everyone’s tax rates by 20 percent, which again would be a gigantic boon to the wealthy.

None of these would cost the Treasury a dime, he insisted, because he would reduce deductions and loopholes. But, as always, he refused to enumerate a single deduction he would erase. “What I’ve said is I won’t put in place a tax cut that adds to the deficit,” he said. “No economist can say Mitt Romney’s tax plan adds $5 trillion if I say I will not add to the deficit with my tax plan.”

In fact, many economists have said exactly that, and, without details, Mr. Romney can’t simply refute them. But rather than forcefully challenging this fiction, Mr. Obama chose to be polite and professorial, as if hoping that strings of details could hold up against blatant nonsense. Viewers were not helped by a series of pedestrian questions from the moderator, Jim Lehrer of PBS, who never jumped in to challenge either candidate on the facts.

When Mr. Romney accused the president of supporting a “trickle-down government,” Mr. Obama might have demanded to know what that means. He could then have pointed out that it is Mr. Romney whose economic plan is based on the discredited idea that high-end tax cuts trickle down to the middle class and poor.

Mr. Romney said he supported the idea of regulation but rejected the Dodd-Frank financial reform law because it was too generous to the big “New York banks.” This is an alternative-universe interpretation of a law that is deeply despised and opposed by the banks, but Mr. Obama missed several opportunities to point out how the law limits the corrosive practices, like derivatives trading, that led to the 2008 crash and puts in place vitally important consumer protections.

On health care, Mr. Romney pretended that he had an actual plan to replace the Affordable Care Act, and that it covered pre-existing conditions. He has no such plan, and his false claim finally roused the president to his only strong moment of the evening. The country doesn’t know the details, he said, of how Mr. Romney would replace Wall Street reform, or health care reform, or tax increases on the rich because Republicans don’t want people to understand the hard trade-offs involved in these decisions.

There are still two more presidential debates, and Mr. Obama has the facts on his side to expose the hollowness of his opponent. But first he has to decide to use them aggressively.

A version of this editorial appeared in print on October 4, 2012, on page A34 of the New York edition with the headline: An Unhelpful Debate.

Everything is false.. Romney won and tore Obama into pieces. Therefore his policies and ideas were better.

Think realistically. How many read NYtimes and how many of the normal voters analyze this much? among those who voted for Obama and now on the fence:

Students/youth: I am not getting any job. unemployment is 13% for those in the 18-29 range.

middle agers: I lost my job 2 years ago and have been working temp jobs (forget that he even has part-time jobs).

Laid off 50s people: Obama saved Banks and helping them make millions in bonus. He is no different (forget that Bush started all this).

Rest: are we better off than 4 years ago. No we are not. People have rarely said they are better than in the past (psychologically past always comes across as happier times).

So unless Obama talks to people at their level with stats that they can relate to and understand, all these analyses are good only for the intellectual elite.

MaxEntropy_Man wrote:typical liberal nonsense. romney killed it and the elite media don't want to accept it. facts, shacts, who cares. facts are for pinko liberals.

Facts are for farts. (c) Uppili

Fact Checking - Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/factchecking-the-first-presidential-debate-of-2012/2012/10/04/9d47934e-0d66-11e2-bb5e-492c0d30bff6_blog.html

It is no secret that I admire/support Pres.Obama and will work hard to get him re-elected (and hope he does!) as U says..we have to be realistic about what sells in this telegenic and instant news, polls and pundits era - matters and works. And being objective about it (I have always tried to be objective- and when I am biased- will easily admit I am) ..have to face the "fact" that dear Pres. had a awful night and will blame him..there was no passion and fire..his heart was completely out of it..mind was half there..as much as a true romantic as I am..he did not have to do the "Happy Anniversary Sweetie" business..and as much humaneness I look for...this debate/election is not about just him and his feelings it is MUCH bigger- it has HUGE repercussions...so much is at stake nationally, internationally..

This was the night to be "A true professional politician"..wear that mask motivate himself.."be tough, sharp..perform like any professional"..and he was not and am quite unhappy about it..and will not cut him any slack for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-strong-debate-showing-puts-europe-edge-150035684.html

All is not lost..and will wait for the polls..but, he has made it much harder for him and all his supporters.

Will give a lot of kudos to Mr. Romney and his team..they prepared him well, to do "whatever" ) it takes, and he performed (bordering on Manic) dominated the stage and did extremely well.

*Never seen a politician like him, anywhere!

romney gives me aggressive-bipolar-liar vibes, and hence the heeby jeebies. Will watch more. Funny how my 13 year old spotted it in 20 minutes before she dozed off. Was telling me this morning - he sounds too glib to be truthful. Anyway, I have dealt with couple of people like romney in real life, so I carry that baggage. so far, a complete NO for romney.

If Obama looses in November, then it'll be because he could not convey this.

"money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/news/economy/obama-job-creation/index.html"

Will find out in November, how stupid American are.

Natalia Romanova wrote:romney gives me aggressive-bipolar-liar vibes, and hence the heeby jeebies. Will watch more. Funny how my 13 year old spotted it in 20 minutes before she dozed off. Was telling me this morning - he sounds too glib to be truthful. Anyway, I have dealt with couple of people like romney in real life, so I carry that baggage. so far, a complete NO for romney.

This is exactly the reason Romney is behind in the polls when unemployment is north of 8% and the government just botched the reaction to a terrorist attack on an American consulate. Romney is the best thing that happened to Obama's reelection campaign. Most people sense that Romney is not genuine, because like you, most people have dealt with a couple of people like him. Not having watched yesterday's debate, I don't know if Romney has succeeded in countering that image with at least a large chunk of voters. I hope not, but time will tell.

Maria S wrote:It is no secret that I admire/support Pres.Obama and will work hard to get him re-elected (and hope he does!) as U says..we have to be realistic about what sells in this telegenic and instant news, polls and pundits era - matters and works. And being objective about it (I have always tried to be objective- and when I am biased- will easily admit I am) ..have to face the "fact" that dear Pres. had a awful night and will blame him..there was no passion and fire..his heart was completely out of it..mind was half there..as much as a true romantic as I am..he did not have to do the "Happy Anniversary Sweetie" business..and as much humaneness I look for...this debate/election is not about just him and his feelings it is MUCH bigger- it has HUGE repercussions...so much is at stake nationally, internationally..

This was the night to be "A true professional politician"..wear that mask motivate himself.."be tough, sharp..perform like any professional"..and he was not and am quite unhappy about it..and will not cut him any slack for it.

http://news.yahoo.com/romneys-strong-debate-showing-puts-europe-edge-150035684.html

All is not lost..and will wait for the polls..but, he has made it much harder for him and all his supporters.

Will give a lot of kudos to Mr. Romney and his team..they prepared him well, to do "whatever" ) it takes, and he performed (bordering on Manic) dominated the stage and did extremely well.

*Never seen a politician like him, anywhere!

As Obama supporters, let us hope that this debate debacle shakes any sense of complacent overconfidence that was beginning to creep into the campaign. It ain't over until the fat lady votes.

panini press wrote:

Natalia Romanova wrote:romney gives me aggressive-bipolar-liar vibes, and hence the heeby jeebies. Will watch more. Funny how my 13 year old spotted it in 20 minutes before she dozed off. Was telling me this morning - he sounds too glib to be truthful. Anyway, I have dealt with couple of people like romney in real life, so I carry that baggage. so far, a complete NO for romney.

This is exactly the reason Romney is behind in the polls when unemployment is north of 8% and the government just botched the reaction to a terrorist attack on an American consulate. Romney is the best thing that happened to Obama's reelection campaign. Most people sense that Romney is not genuine, because like you, most people have dealt with a couple of people like him. Not having watched yesterday's debate, I don't know if Romney has succeeded in countering that image with at least a large chunk of voters. I hope not, but time will tell.

High time team romney come up with some plans to back up all those 'i will' claims. Obama did manage to land one solid punch when he said - "u keep talking about sitting down on first day in office, but u never detail what u will do". Romney tried it defend it with something like - "one should have the right ideals, and policies can be made off off them", citing I think Reagan's example. But I guess the harm was done.

PavanP_Nahata_Plus_MAIyer wrote:If Obama looses in November, then it'll be because he could not convey this.

"money.cnn.com/2012/09/27/news/economy/obama-job-creation/index.html"

Will find out in November, how stupid American are.

hahaha at the lousy handle, and the lousier english. FAIL!

[quote="panini press"]

]As Obama supporters, let us hope that this debate debacle shakes any sense of complacent overconfidence that was beginning to creep into the campaign. It ain't over until the fat lady votes.

I have not lost hope Carvaka..and it's not just hope- I "expect" the Pres and his team to elevate their game. It's hard to believe he did even mention Women's Health Issues..among so many other lost opportunities.

*It's tempting to add a pathological label to what Mr. Romney displayed..but, I won't. No matter what it was..I demand (!) the President be focussed, sharp, passionate *(he really has accomplished so much he tout)..and not let us down.