Official 2012 Presidential Debate Thread

[firstandten]

In over the last 4 to 5 years of reviewing the various fact check sites I've notice the Repubs are much more scrutinized with their facts and claims than Dems.

Why is that ? liberal bias ? the fact check sites have only the Dem facts and not the Repubs facts ?

There is a reason that every time you review a fact check site 6 to 7 times out of 10 they are nailing some Repub for being misleading, or in some cases telling an outright lie.

They are able to create talking points with the help of their right wing think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Center for American Progress. They present this cooked data with all of the conviction of a snake oil saleman and the low information middle class voter eats it up.

These debates tend to be a joke. Ryan and Romney make so many misleading statements you would need a computer at the debate desk just to check the truthfulness of the statements.

Ryan made one statement that I've loved. When asked about specifics of how he could close enough loopholes to cut taxes by 20% and not affect the basic middle class tax loophole of the mortgage interest deduction. He said that they are creating a "framework" and then they would get bi-partisian agreement.

If that isn't a bunch of BS then I've never heard BS in my life.

[firstandten]

Biden was very un-presidential. Condescending, disrespectful, rude and misbehaved. I guess that's how he feels he should act when he had nothing with substance to say?

Obama was very presidential and let Romney get away with his misleading statements and you see what that got him.

[rb336]

Biden was very un-presidential. Condescending, disrespectful, rude and misbehaved. I guess that's how he feels he should act when he had nothing with substance to say?

This is funny. here is the difference between republicans and dems - we admitted that Obama was flat. you can't admit that Ryan was simply outgunned by a much smarter man. good for the journalist for not letting Ryan get away with his bullshit

[coracle]

With apologies to Sergio Leone and of course [[empty chair) Clint; the VP Debate between Ryan; Biden and Moderator could have been more aptly called The Good; The Bad [[Odious) and the Ugly [[aligned with Odious).
I have never seen a shitface to beat Biden's "smile". He looked like a dummy sitting on somebody's knee.

[rb336]

see the comment just before yours. your boy got the crap beat out of him because ​"there is no there there"

[oladub]

Neither candidate was batting 100% with facts. Here is one list of the world's smartest man's top 'misstatements' from the vp debate. His 82 interruptions were just a distraction.

FACT CHECK: TOP TEN WORST LIES BY JOE BIDEN IN VP DEBATE [[<<<link with fact checks)

1. "Well, we weren’t told they wanted more security again."
2. "What we did is we saved $716 billion and put it back -- applied it to Medicare."
3. "It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card...I was there. I voted against him."
4. "No religious institution, Catholic or otherwise...has to be a vehicle to get contraception in any insurance policy they provide. That is a fact."
5. "No, they are not four years closer to a nuclear weapon."
6. "The congressman here cut embassy security in his budget by $300 million below what we asked for."
7. "You know, I heard that death panel argument from Sarah Palin. It seems that every vice presidential debate, I hear this kind of stuff about panels."
8. "Just let the taxes expire like they’re supposed to on those millionaires."
9. "The president has met with Bibi [Netanyahu] a dozen times....This is a bunch of stuff."
10. "With all due respect, that’s a bunch of malarkey....not a single thing he said is accurate."

[rb336]

breitbart - not exactly known for accuracy themselves. a good, independent look up of almost all of their statements will prove that. go ahead, I dare you

[oladub]

breitbart - not exactly known for accuracy themselves. a good, independent look up of almost all of their statements will prove that. go ahead, I dare you

Here is how I characterized the list. "Here is one list of the world's smartest man's top 'misstatements' from the vp debate." The words are those of the guy you think is so smart - not Brietbart's. A link was provided with Breitbart's reasons for claiming those were lies. Take it or leave it. Either those are Biden's statements or they aren't. If, Breitbart is wrong about #1, for instance, how so? Here is Breitbart's comments about Biden's first statement:

"Biden lied through his teeth about the fact that the administration--specifically, the State Department--had been told again and again that security on the ground in Libya, and in Benghazi in particular, was inadequate. The day before, in Congressional hearings on the Libya attacks, former regional security director Eric Nordstrom described his frustration with having those requests turned down by the government bureaucracy: "For me the Taliban is on the inside of the building."

Are you suggesting that Eric Nordstrom was lying or that it doesn't matter because Breitbart, instead of the Daily Kos, reported it?

On the other hand, the organization Fact Check is funded by the same outfit that funded Obama in his community organizer days. I think Fact Check leans the other way in the sense that, for instance, the ACLU does some good work but is more likely to take up cases that promote the concerns of the left. Personally, I'm glad to have critiques from all perspectives of the political spectrum. They provide the service of being whistle blowers keeping each sides on their toes.

[firstandten]

Folks that blog on sites like free republic [[ right wing) have tried to make 2+2=5 for a long time. They are trying to make some casual relationships between Annenberg, and Obama and conclude that Obama must influence the Annenberg Public Policy Center and fact check . org. If you have that many problems with that site I check out Politifact. com a lot out of the tampa bay times.

But Breitbart, my goodness. Its like the Repubs came together and said ..look were are getting killed on these fact check sites. We will put together our own fact check site to co-sign on the distortions our candidates distort to the public.

Maybe if Romney wins he can create a new cabinet position called the Ministry of Propaganda and hire someone from the Breitbart organization to run it.

[coracle]

see the comment just before yours. your boy got the crap beat out of him because ​"there is no there there"

New American Standard Bible [[©1995) [[Proverbs 29.9)
When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.
[[But of course foolish old farts didn't have bright False Teeth in those days - they were not there there!)

[oladub]

Folks that blog on sites like free republic [[ right wing) have tried to make 2+2=5 for a long time. They are trying to make some casual relationships between Annenberg, and Obama and conclude that Obama must influence the Annenberg Public Policy Center and fact check . org. If you have that many problems with that site I check out Politifact. com a lot out of the tampa bay times.

But Breitbart, my goodness. Its like the Repubs came together and said ..look were are getting killed on these fact check sites. We will put together our own fact check site to co-sign on the distortions our candidates distort to the public.

Maybe if Romney wins he can create a new cabinet position called the Ministry of Propaganda and hire someone from the Breitbart organization to run it.

I welcomed Fact Checks contributions only noting that while Breitbart leans right, Fact Check leans left. No one has suggested that Obama influences Annenburg. The suggestion instead was that Annenburg influences as does Breitbart. Taken together, we get more facts; considered a good thing by some of us.

I notice that you ignored my open question about what specifically was wrong with Breitbart's reporting of Joe Blow's statement or what was inaccurate about Breitbart's response. However, I have an update. The White House is now saying that Joe's statement was technically correct because the State Department, an executive branch agency, failed to let the President and Joe know what was going on and, presumably, the White House never enquired. So maybe they're honest, just incompetent.

Biden:"We weren't told they wanted more security. We did not know they wanted more security there."

Truman: "The buck stops here"

What Ryan couldn't say because he sounded even crazier than Uncle Joe on wars was that if Obama hadn't helped overthrow Libya, these Al-Queda types woudn't have killed four Americans

[firstandten]

I welcomed Fact Checks contributions only noting that while Breitbart leans right, Fact Check leans left. No one has suggested that Obama influences Annenburg. The suggestion instead was that Annenburg influences as does Breitbart. Taken together, we get more facts; considered a good thing by some of us.

First of all I want to address the assumption you just made. I think we know what Breitbart is all about they shown it time after time. However you made an assumption that fact check leans left therefore they balance each other out. I do not accept that assumption. This is part of fact checks mission statement

"We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."

I accept that part of their mission statement as being true. I do not equate the fact they may nail more Repubs for there statements than Dems as being left-leaning... Maybe they just aren't telling the truth !

[rb336]

New American Standard Bible [[©1995) [[Proverbs 29.9)
When a wise man has a controversy with a foolish man, The foolish man either rages or laughs, and there is no rest.
[[But of course foolish old farts didn't have bright False Teeth in those days - they were not there there!)

When a wise man is faced with a foolhardy opponent who can't back up his own thoughts, he has no recourse BUT to laugh. The fact that Ryan is heralded as the "intellectual" of the right speaks volumes. I'd hate to see what their idiots are like. Oh yeah, Dubya and Dan

[firstandten]

Just to show what a joke these debates have come to, four years ago Biden had to debate a light-weight piece of eye candy that he had to treat with kid gloves lest he face a voter back lash.

This time Biden faced a more formidable opponent and the viewership numbers were way down as a result. I guess it shows what people think is important.

[oladub]

First of all I want to address the assumption you just made. I think we know what Breitbart is all about they shown it time after time. However you made an assumption that fact check leans left therefore they balance each other out. I do not accept that assumption. This is part of fact checks mission statement

"We are a nonpartisan, nonprofit “consumer advocate” for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics. We monitor the factual accuracy of what is said by major U.S. political players in the form of TV ads, debates, speeches, interviews and news releases. Our goal is to apply the best practices of both journalism and scholarship, and to increase public knowledge and understanding."

I accept that part of their mission statement as being true. I do not equate the fact they may nail more Repubs for there statements than Dems as being left-leaning... Maybe they just aren't telling the truth !

Close but more my 'opinion' based on my experience with Fact Check than an assumption. We disagree about the balance. I have called Fact Check before for answering questions no one was asking creating, in effect, creating stereotypical straw men or empty chairs to win arguments with. Still, I'm grateful for when Fact Check, or Breitbart, throws some light on a matter that otherwise had been avoided. You don't seen to similarly appreciate it when Breitbart cast some light on Joe's lying although the White House later cleared that up by claiming incompetence rather than dishonesty with regards to Breitbart's response to #1. Fact Check responded to the same comment is a slithery manner claiming it didn't know what Obama and Biden knew, didn't connect the fact that the Department of State is an executive branch agency, and sort of tried to pass the blame off on someone named Lamb. I'm not suggesting that Fact Check lied but rather that Fact Check spun its answer.

I also liked Breitbart's response to #3 which credited Joe for not voting for Bush's tax cuts for the rich.

3. "It came from this man voting to put two wars on a credit card...I was there. I voted against him." "Biden voted for both the Iraq war and the Afghanistan war. He did not vote for George W. Bush's plan to extend coverage of Medicare to prescription drugs [[though he voted for an earlier, similar proposal), nor did he vote for the Bush tax cuts. But he voted for both of the wars he derided last night. To quote Bill Clinton's speech to the Democratic National Convention: "It takes some brass to attack a guy for doing what you did.""

For comparison, what did Fact Check have to say about that statement #3 by Uncle Joe?

[oladub]

Small edge Obama largely on style points. Where are you Obama supporters? The President seemed more comfortable addressing audience members and was 'cool' while Romney was stiff. My wife thought that Romney's stuttering hurt him.

The President made some hard hitting comments on Romney's projected spending that were effective pointing out that they didn't add up. Romney responded by reminding the audience that running up the debt from $10T to $16T and otherwise putting Obama's record into numbers make the point that they hadn't added up. i suspect that the question hurting Obama the most had to do with illegal aliens. Romney more or less stuck to his previous statements regarding legal vs. illegal immigration. Obama twice tried to link Romney with supporting the Arizona law supported by Americans 58-38% [[Pew 2012). Also, bringing up Fast and Furious while answering a gun control question helped Romney. Romney should have done much better on the Libya question.

Both liked free trade although they complained about China. Good lucK US workers.

Toward the end, Romney stuttered more and lost a bit of energy. Obama looked grim at one point.

Romney did ok, Obama turned in a much improved performance, Candy Crowley was the best moderator to date, and the Latina lady who asked a question was hot.

[firstandten]

I actually decided to watch Tigers, Yankees. At least that game had an air of uncertainty about it. Obama pretty much did what I thought he would do. At this point people who are undecided about this race pretty much are either not listening or lying.

If there is not a World Series game on the next debate I will most likely watch it. I want to see what adjustments Romney makes and how aggressive Obama will be.

[Papasito]

They were both fighting for the best desk chair on the Titanic.

[poobert]

Small edge Obama largely on style points. Where are you Obama supporters? The President seemed more comfortable addressing audience members and was 'cool' while Romney was stiff. My wife thought that Romney's stuttering hurt him.

The President made some hard hitting comments on Romney's projected spending that were effective pointing out that they didn't add up. Romney responded by reminding the audience that running up the debt from $10T to $16T and otherwise putting Obama's record into numbers make the point that they hadn't added up. i suspect that the question hurting Obama the most had to do with illegal aliens. Romney more or less stuck to his previous statements regarding legal vs. illegal immigration. Obama twice tried to link Romney with supporting the Arizona law supported by Americans 58-38% [[Pew 2012). Also, bringing up Fast and Furious while answering a gun control question helped Romney. Romney should have done much better on the Libya question.

Both liked free trade although they complained about China. Good lucK US workers.

Toward the end, Romney stuttered more and lost a bit of energy. Obama looked grim at one point.

Romney did ok, Obama turned in a much improved performance, Candy Crowley was the best moderator to date, and the Latina lady who asked a question was hot.

I support the President. While President Obama didn't hit it out of the park, mostly because he didn't outline how the next 4 years would be substantially better, I think he still trounced Romney.

Romney reverted largely back to aloof-asshole mode. Saying condescendingly that you are a businessman so your budget numbers somehow make sense isn't convincing. Rather than specifics, he kept reminding us that he was a businessman and a governor. That's very special for him, but does not mean he should be president.

What I think may hurt him most was his stance on women. Keep in mind that they are the only absolute majority demographic in the electorate. His answer to the ever-prevalent glass ceiling, to a young woman, was that the economy will be so fucking fantastic under him that employers will magically just start treating women as equals. Okay. Also that he should get props because he hired a "binder full" of woman? What a saint. Or whatever the fuck Mormons become. Planet kings or something? He was markedly indifferent to the issues all women face.

He continues to screw up foreign policy. While that isn't a big deal to most of the electorate, it makes him look like a buffoon and he still appears to be using the Libya tragedy to score political points - and it still keeps backfiring.

My opinion, honestly, and objectively as I can be as a Democrat, is that the choice is clearly between a middling president or someone who would be an incredibly awful president.

[bailey]

My opinion, honestly, and objectively as I can be as a Democrat, is that the choice is clearly between a middling president or someone who would be an incredibly awful president.

As an independent I agree... Obama may be a flawed choice, but the mendacity displayed by Romney in the last decade of him running for this office is just incredible. The man clearly has no core beliefs about anything EXCEPT doing anything to get elected. I can find no reason to "hire" him over "firing" BO. Not only has he suddenly [[over the last primary) become a "severely conservative" on all the social issues-- from the debate last night we are now to understand that Romney is against tax cuts for the 1%, favors affirmative action for women, is proud of getting the uninsured down to near zero with his Romneycare mandate, loves Mexicans..because he is one, favors protectionism - except when democrats do it , and wants more free money for people to go to college . Huh? Any conservative going to defend ANY of those positions? Any conservative going to call him out for apparently lying his way through the primary process if these are truly his beliefs?

Of course NONE of that is discussed today. Today it's all about some word parsing of a rose garden speech and how the moderator gave 3 minutes more to obama. I fucking hate the way we elect leaders in this country. we get the leaders we deserve. Its never about the facts or positions, but how well they "sell" the pander.

[oladub]

poobert, We have had two awful presidents in a row now but you are right that Romney could be the third. Here we are 75 days from the "fiscal cliff" but neither candidate had a thing to say about it except full speed ahead with more spending programs and tax cuts.

I can't address your feelings about women's issues very well. I suspect the questioner was asking about specific bills to make everything even and/or enrich lawyers. Romney failed to support any such cure alls or a more paternalistic State while Obama mentioned such a bill and repeatedly brought up Planned Parenthood as if it was Social Security or some other government agency. Romney did mention that "There are 3.5 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office". Considering that there are about as many jobs now as when Obama became President, women haven't fared well under Obama. If you want more of same, that's your option.

You seem prejudiced against Mormons. Mormons are relatively well educated, healthy, and affluent including Mormon women who probably have husbands less inclined toward alcoholism and drugs but more likely to stay around and be good fathers. This isn't what every woman wants, I suspect, but there are always politicians promises and programs to fill in the gaps.

The only foreign policy brought up at this debate was the Obama lying and his administration's gross incompetency regarding the embassies and Fast an Furious. Two points Romney although it should have been more.

Romney did mention specifics; at least about the last four years. I apologize for taking up so much space below but things are better said in context. These are Romney quotes I gathered from the debate transcript:

ROMNEY: You've seen, as middle-income people in this country, incomes go down $4,300 a family, even as gasoline prices have gone up $2,000. Health insurance premiums, up $2,500. Food prices up. Utility prices up.
The middle-income families in America have been crushed over the last four years.

ROMNEY: We don't have to settle for, how many months, 43 months with unemployment above 8 percent, 23 million Americans struggling to find a good job right now.
There are 3.5 million more women living in poverty today than when the president took office.
We don't have to live like this.

ROMNEY: President Obama was right, he said that that was outrageous to have deficits as high as half a trillion dollars under the Bush years. He was right, but then he put in place deficits twice that size for every one of his four years. And his forecast for the next four years is more deficits, almost that large.

ROMNEY: I can tell you that if you were to elect President Obama, you know what you're going to get. You're going to get a repeat of the last four years. We just can't afford four more years like the last four years.
He said that by now we'd have unemployment at 5.4 percent. The difference between where it is and 5.4 percent is 9 million Americans without work.
I wasn't the one that said 5.4 percent. This was the president's plan. Didn't get there.
He said he would have by now put forward a plan to reform Medicare and Social Security, because he pointed out they're on the road to bankruptcy. He would reform them. He'd get that done. He hasn't even made a proposal on either one.
He said in his first year he'd put out an immigration plan that would deal with our immigration challenges. Didn't even file it.
This is a president who has not been able to do what he said he'd do. He said that he'd cut in half the deficit. He hasn't done that either. In fact, he doubled it. He said that by now middle-income families would have a reduction in their health insurance premiums by $2,500 a year. It's gone up by $2,500 a year. And if Obamacare is passed, or implemented -- it's already been passed -- if it's implemented fully, it'll be another $2,500 on top.
ROMNEY: The middle class is getting crushed under the policies of a president who has not understood what it takes to get the economy working again. He keeps saying, "Look, I've created 5 million jobs." That's after losing 5 million jobs. The entire record is such that the unemployment has not been reduced in this country. The unemployment, the number of people who are still looking for work, is still 23 million Americans.
There are more people in poverty, one out of six people in poverty.
How about food stamps? When he took office, 32 million people were on food stamps. Today, 47 million people are on food stamps. How about the growth of the economy? It's growing more slowly this year than last year, and more slowly last year than the year before.
The president wants to do well. I understand. But the policies he's put in place from Obamacare to Dodd-Frank to his tax policies to his regulatory policies, these policies combined have not let this economy take off and grow like it could have.
You might say, "Well, you got an example of one that worked better?" Yeah, in the Reagan recession where unemployment hit 10.8 percent, between that period -- the end of that recession and the equivalent of time to today, Ronald Reagan's recovery created twice as many jobs as this president's recovery. Five million jobs doesn't even keep up with our population growth. And the only reason the unemployment rate seems a little lower today is because of all the people that have dropped out of the workforce.
The president has tried, but his policies haven't worked. He's great as a -- as a -- as a speaker and describing his plans and his vision. That's wonderful, except we have a record to look at. And that record shows he just hasn't been able to cut the deficit, to put in place reforms for Medicare and Social Security to preserve them, to get us the rising incomes we need. Median income is down $4,300 a family and 23 million Americans out of work. That's what this election is about.

[bailey]

Oladub. Romney's constant harping about the sluggish economy under Obama is just another example of his callow cynisism.

Come with me into the "way back machine".... and look at how Team R describes Romneys 4 years as Gov.

Governor Romney Inherited An Economy That Was Losing Jobs Each Month And Left Office With An Economy That Was Adding Jobs Each Month. [hmmm...sounds awfully familiar no? ]

After taking office at a time when the state was losing thousands of jobs every month, Governor Romney’s focus on fiscal responsibility helped create an environment where job growth returned to Massachusetts. Job growth increased throughout his term and the state added over 40,000 payroll jobs during his final year in office —the best year of job growth in Massachusetts over the past decade. Household employment grew by nearly 50,000 under Governor Romney and the unemployment rate declined to well under 5%.

As you can see, the Romney campaign is defending itself against the Dem attack line — that Massachusetts ranked 47th out of 50th in job creation when "Mr. Private Sector/I know how to grow the Economy" guy was running it — by pointing out that Romney should be judged by the job growth that happened after jobs losses were reversed, and even by the number of jobs that were added towards the end of his term.

So, if we apply Romney's own standard [[which i think is actually a fair one..both inherited messes that they had to clean up) for his own record to Obama's then the following chart should be of some guidance on how Obama should be viewed on the economy/jobs front.



​

Team R has to choose a standard by which to be judged... and it can't apply one to his own record and some other totally arbitrary standard of "not fast enough growth" to Obama's and still claim to be credible on the issue.

[oladub]

Bailey, Are any of those numbers Romney recited wrong? If not, then Obamanomics has been an abject failure. I think that if you go back to the Massachusetts economy, you will find that the unemployment rate was lower in MA than in most of the country to start with so it is harder to have job growth when a higher percentage are employed to begin with. In the end, MA had a lower unemployment rate than most of the Country even after adding Romneycare. Conclusion:Romney compromised with Democrats and managed to balance the State budget while adding a major new health initiative and keeping unemployment lower than most of the Country. How bad is that?

The overused graph you provided doesn't go far enough. Between 100,000 and 150,000 new jobs a month are required to even keep up with population increase. Given that fact, hiring under Obama is barely surpassing the break even point lately. The elephant in the room is the other and absent equation which is that to obtain such paltry results has meant the increase in the federal debt for $10T to $16T under Obama, over $16T printed and handed out by the Federal Reserve, and the new QE-infinity program to further flood the Country with dollars. All of that and we still have 7.8% unemployment with a higher percentage out of the work force? President Harding did better. He responded to over 11% unemployment by cutting government spending. Two years later unemployment was down to 3.6% although some bankers lost their shirts. Unfortunately, Romney is not made of the same stuff as Harding or Coolidge so he, most likely, will not be able to keep his promises either.

[bailey]

[QUOTE=oladub;345929][QUOTE]

Bailey, Are any of those numbers Romney recited wrong? If not, then Obamanomics has been an abject failure.

No. "abject failure" would be continuing to lose 800k jobs a month. Abject failure would be increasing unemployment. Abject failure would be a "depression" or double dip recession.

Less than promised...ok. I'll give them that. But miles from "abject failure".

Conclusion:Romney compromised with Democrats and managed to balance the State budget while adding a major new health initiative and keeping unemployment lower than most of the Country. How bad is that?

Laudable... a reason why, on paper I was a fan of Romney over McCain the first time around. However, he's run from that record like a scalded cat and can not seem to square when a Mandate is a Statist/Socialist/Marxist intrusion into personal freedoms and when it's not. Apparently it's ok to force people to get insurance against their will at the State level, but not at the Federal?

All of that and we still have 7.8% unemployment with a higher percentage out of the work force? President Harding did better. He responded to over 11% unemployment by cutting government spending. Two years later unemployment was down to 3.6% although some bankers lost their shirts. Unfortunately, Romney is not made of the same stuff as Harding or Coolidge so he, most likely, will not be able to keep his promises either.

Uh. wow. Well, I'd ask Europe how those austerity programs are working out before implementing them here.
and lets look at those Harding cuts:

Based on government census data [[PDF Series Y 466-471): between 1920 and 1923, major national security outlays dropped from 3,997 Million down to 680 Million while total government outlays dropped from 6,357 Million down to 3,137 Million. In other words, the military budget was slashed by 83% while the remaining civilian budget grew slightly.

Not only has Romney said that he'd INCREASE military spending...lets go to the tape and see what Romney himself said last night :

“I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.”
Fact check:The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.

... and p.s. 12 million jobs are predicted to be created BASED ON THE CURRENT POLICIES IN PLACE:

We asked the Romney campaign [where 12 million jobs number came from], and the answer turns out to be: totally different studies [than Moody's that predicted 12 Million Jobs over the next 4 years]… with completely different timelines.

For instance, the claim that 7 million jobs would be created from Romney’s tax plan is a 10-year number, derived from a study written by John W. Diamond, a professor at Rice University.


This study at least assesses the claimed effect of specific Romney policies. The rest of the numbers are even more squishy.


For instance, the 3-million-jobs claim for Romney’s energy policies appears largely based on a Citigroup Global Markets study that did not even evaluate Romney’s policies. Instead, the report predicted 2.7 million to 3.6 million jobs would be created over the next eight years, largely because of trends and policies already adopted — including tougher fuel efficiency standards that Romney has criticized and suggested he would reverse.

Romney is an incoherent mess on virtually every topic because he's taken all sides of every issue and refuses...outright refuses each and every time he's asked to support his claims with actual facts or explain what he'd do differently.

If one feels, like me,a bit let down by Mr. Hopey Changey...then how could one possibly feel any better about a guy that similarly will not specify the nuts and bolts of his plans and when pressed on his claims dissembles and resorts to easily disproved fabrications?

[Papasito]

No matter what happens in these debates, People on one side or the other are not going to change their vote. They are going to vote partisan whether they like their candidate or not.
The so-called "undecided" are going to do what they're going to do.
They have to sort through the lies and BS both candidates are spewing out - Obama's giving the same speeches and campaign tactics as he did 4 years ago, and Romney is saying whatever he can to be elected. A pair of lying politicians. Welcome to America.

I really think they should pass a law where Politicians get 60 days to campaign before an election. They've drug this out over a year and are spending over a billion dollars between them. Obama has broken all kinds of fundraising records, while trying to be the "poor underdog", and Romney has been doing pretty well in the cash raking over the last year himself.

But a BILLION + DOLLARS to run for President, when our country is a disaster? Come on, give me a break. Money can be much better spent.
As a matter of fact, wasn't one of the things Obama promised in 2008 "Campaign Finance Reform" ?

Another forgotten promise...

Obama Wants Reforms in Campaign Financing

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2...ign-financing/

Oh, that's right... he dropped the ball.

Obama dropped ball on campaign reform

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-18/o...?_s=PM:OPINION



Something needs to be done. These elections are completely out of control.