Bo-4
Senator
Some may recall that i was tough on Obama's Denver performance: https://www.politicaljack.com/forum...butt-s-been-kicked-yep-Willard-won-(my-rant-)
So now, i'm entitled to gloat. That was a beat-down of epic proportion and Romney was seriously rattled by both Crowley and Barack. Rule 1: Don't try to redefine debate rules by rolling over a female moderator. He got away with that same nonsense against a WEAK Jim Lehrer, but Candy would have none of it. Rule two: You simply don't say things to a sitting president like "you'll get your turn" or "let me give you some advice".
On Willards "5 point plan" (what a joke.. this is as bad as Herman Cain's 9-9-9 ;-)
"He doesn't have a 5 point plan, he has a ONE point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules."
And there was Libya which Obama succeeded in taking off the table entirely (nice job by Crowley fact-checking his unprepared pathetic ass on the spot about what was said in the Rose Garden and nice job by the president of suggesting it was unpresidential and offensive to politicize the event before the facts were in.
Even Conservatives weren't happy with Willard's horrendous foreign policy showing (the centerpiece of next debate):
The National Journal’s Yuval Levin writes that the one factor Republicans should worry about is that “Romney was neither effective nor sure-footed on foreign policy in this debate.” Could they already be trying to play the expectations game? "Foreign policy", the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol notes; “isn’t Romney’s natural subject.”
So very true THIS:
“Gov. Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, 'Here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion and we’re going to pay for it but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it.’ You wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal and neither would you, the American people. We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that.”
AND:
“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
AND:
The glorious moment at the very end when Mitt stepped in an especially ginormous pile by talking about 100% and opened the door for a sweet closing remark:
“When he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about: folks on social security who have worked all their lives; veterans, who sacrificed for this country; students, who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams but also this country’s dreams; soldiers, who are overseas fighting for us right now; people who are working hard every day.”
Yep, foreign policy next Monday? Sweet! :-D
So now, i'm entitled to gloat. That was a beat-down of epic proportion and Romney was seriously rattled by both Crowley and Barack. Rule 1: Don't try to redefine debate rules by rolling over a female moderator. He got away with that same nonsense against a WEAK Jim Lehrer, but Candy would have none of it. Rule two: You simply don't say things to a sitting president like "you'll get your turn" or "let me give you some advice".
On Willards "5 point plan" (what a joke.. this is as bad as Herman Cain's 9-9-9 ;-)
"He doesn't have a 5 point plan, he has a ONE point plan. And that plan is to make sure that folks at the top play by a different set of rules."
And there was Libya which Obama succeeded in taking off the table entirely (nice job by Crowley fact-checking his unprepared pathetic ass on the spot about what was said in the Rose Garden and nice job by the president of suggesting it was unpresidential and offensive to politicize the event before the facts were in.
Even Conservatives weren't happy with Willard's horrendous foreign policy showing (the centerpiece of next debate):
The National Journal’s Yuval Levin writes that the one factor Republicans should worry about is that “Romney was neither effective nor sure-footed on foreign policy in this debate.” Could they already be trying to play the expectations game? "Foreign policy", the Weekly Standard’s William Kristol notes; “isn’t Romney’s natural subject.”
So very true THIS:
“Gov. Romney was a very successful investor. If somebody came to you, governor, with a plan that said, 'Here, I want to spend $7 or $8 trillion and we’re going to pay for it but we can’t tell you until maybe after the election how we’re going to do it.’ You wouldn’t have taken such a sketchy deal and neither would you, the American people. We haven’t heard from the governor any specifics beyond Big Bird and eliminating funding for Planned Parenthood in terms of how he pays for that.”
AND:
“I don’t look at my pension. It’s not as big as yours, so it doesn’t take as long.”
AND:
The glorious moment at the very end when Mitt stepped in an especially ginormous pile by talking about 100% and opened the door for a sweet closing remark:
“When he said behind closed doors that 47 percent of the country considers themselves victims who refuse personal responsibility, think about who he was talking about: folks on social security who have worked all their lives; veterans, who sacrificed for this country; students, who are out there trying to hopefully advance their own dreams but also this country’s dreams; soldiers, who are overseas fighting for us right now; people who are working hard every day.”
Yep, foreign policy next Monday? Sweet! :-D
