I don't agree with that at all. At best a tie on style but on substance and truth, Romney kicked Presidential butt last night.
According to the factual veracity reports, I do believe Obama won this time.
I agree totally , especially on the budget as Mitt is suppose to be a serious business man ( who doesn't mind not paying his fair share of taxes )
Didn't watch. The ability to look good on TV has little to do with performance as President. If a year of listening to their polices and beliefs didn't give me enough info to ba<x>se my vote on then I'm lost.
He actually showed up so to his adoring fans, he wins. Before he lied his way into the Presidency, Obama could have been easily outed as a fiction of his own delusional imagination not capable of being President. Now, nearly four years later, half the country is still being swept away by both his written and rhetorical narrative, a narrative that only exists in the power of fiction. His fabricated "truth" about his Presidency, the use of his "blackness," and his class and gender warfare rhetoric may have worked, or maybe not. The main stream media and the intellectual (and I might add morally bankrupt) elite do not care about the truth. Sorry but discernment is evidently no longer one of the American public’s strong points either as much of the American public cannot be bothered with the truth when Obama's fiction is easier to believe. The Obama propaganda machine is "say it loud enough and often enough with skewed facts or statistics and say it with sincerity and the gullible public will believe it is true." Obama's deceitful rhetoric to hide his own political blundering, was on full display last night.
Most respecfully disagree.
Quite to the contrary, President Obama did not win. He may have come across with a slight edge to people who are already his supporters; However, several spot surveys of undecided voters indicated that Romney won with a margin of about two thirds and President Obama with about one third. This result surprised me because I actually thought it was a closer debate than that. I felt that President Obama won points for having improved so drastically from the first debate in which his performance was abysmal. However, in some respects he came across as negative and petty with the frequent interruptions. On substance, Mitt Romney clearly had more honest and factual information and even with the intervention by Ms Crowley in the president's favor, after fact checking, Romney proved significantly more accurate on the Libya issue and on the issue of oil, gas, and coal.<br />
At best (for the president), I would give it a tie. I do not believe the debate will significantly change the current momentum of the race, which is now in Romney's favor.
you must have taken some peyote last night. read the transcript on the day after. mitt did shut down a coal plant and i know which one because i worked there as a contractor. its in New Bedford. oil,gas and coal are finite resources and oil is sold on the commodities market and purchased by speculators who dont answer to the government ever.
Obama clearly won he acted more presidential where romney did his bullying crap.
a spot survey doesnt amount to anything because there is no way to tell how the questions were asked and the samole of people is so small
Keep drinking the cool aid Promethius. You and I will never agree on anything in the political world. In my view, Obama was petty, extremely negative, and failed to put forth any real notion of what he would do in a second term to fix all the problems he has caused. As for the coal plant in New Bedford -- who cares. He did that in the state of Massachusetts in accordance with MA laws and the will of the MA people. It seems to me that Romney has consistently throughout his life said what he intended to do, clearly stated his position, and then lived up to his promises. President Obama on the other hand has consistently failed to live up to his promises, continues to hide his own history and background, frequently tries to alter the past, and has a tendency to lie and mislead when it suits his purposes.
Promethius, I think you and I were watching two very different debates. Even CNN (Crowley's organization) has been fact checking and found Romney was correct and gave truthful answers. Crowley has even walked her pitch to Obama making a fool of herself on the Libya question and saying Romney was right and Obam was lying.
As for coal. I cannot speak to the New Bedford miine you mention, but I remember clearly Obama answering a question when running against McCain and then again on two different news programs that "You can open a coal mine once I am President, but you will go bankrupt with attorney fees, permits licensing and EPA investigations, OSHA permits and regulations once he is elected. Obama lied about that. Obama lied on the immigration issues also. Romney called him on one and Obama had no response because it was like the rest of his record as president, totally indefensible. Romney went down the line with all of Obama's failures and broken promises, and debt and unemployent levels and Obama did not even respond at all! Romney was definitely more Presidential and that is the observation of Joe Trippi (D), Juan Williams (rabid Liberal writer). CNN commentators and even Candy Crowley. Two different focus groups went from undecided to Romney saying this and Romney's accurate knowledge and Obam's lies and talking points saying nothing substantive. One group of undecideds was on Fox the other on CNN. Interesting enough, MSNBC's mad dog commentators can't make up their minds (their words, not mine) Which debate were you watching?