old people give good candy, the kids know this.
the way Romney and Ryan want to change the system the kids know the old folks won’t like it.
they want candy not a punch in the face.
a powerful indicator in both regards.
According to rumors, Romney’s goal isn’t to make Obama look like an idiot, but like a liar. He intends to be a fact checker to everything Obama says.
I guess the idea is to turn the tables on Obama. Romney has the reputation of being fact challenged, Obama doesn’t for some reason. So if Romney exposes him several times, maybe that makes voters question Obama’s integrity.
It’s as good a strategy as any. I hope it works for him. The media sure isn’t going after Obama for lying the way they go after Romney.
As far as I could tell, watching the man for eight years, extemporaneous discourse was not Mr. G W Bush’s strong point. I winced more than once watching the POTUS try to wind the words of his native tongue into something recognizable only to have them fall into heaps of mangled syllables.
Personally, I do not expect our current president to be as awkward in his presentation.
No, but that’s not the only weakness. Romney could make him appear whiny by getting him to constantly make excuses(Bush did the same thing by constantly saying “This is hard work”), Obama could make an obvious gaffe on the facts(like Ford’s Eastern Europe gaffe), he could come off as way too arrogant(Al Gore), or he could come off as too aloof(Dukakis when asked about the death penalty). There’s more than one way to win a debate.
Romney has to have three perfect debates, and get Obama to make a fatal mistake at some point. Or maybe Romney will get lucky and get bailed out by a moderator asking a question Obama isn’t prepared for. Like “Approximately how much is the national debt?” If I was a moderator, I’d make that my first question.
“Uh, I thought your campaign had sheer contempt for fact-checking, Governor Momjeans? Is this another flip-flop on your part? Which Governor Momjeans is talkling today?”
Contempt for fact checkers, not fact checking.
This sounds ridiculous even coming from you. If Romney tries to say something even remotely close to this on a national stage he’ll look like a moron.
You can’t make a big deal out of how your campaign doesn’t care about these petty little fact checkers and then make yourself out to be Fact Checker in Chief.
Jesus. Romney needs to pick one (1) narrative and stick with it for longer than two days.
Hate the sinner but love the sin?
I wonder why that could be?
Could that reason be that Romney is a serial liar and Obama is not?
“For some reason”? Could you please speculate a little as to just what that reason might be? And why it, for some reason, seems to matter to so many people?
One of the morning pundit shows had a comment last week - “follow the money.” The GOP superPACs have, as some have put it, more money than Satan. If they choose not to spend it on Romney and instead throw it to Congressional races then you know it is done.
And it appears to now be the case. End of August the superPACs were spending $10 million a week for Romney. Now they are down to $2 million a week and for 6 weeks running spending less for Romney than superPACs are spending for Obama. In their own accounts the Romney camp has been outraised $432 to 279 million and Obama’s accounts have $33 million more cash on hand and $13 million less debt.
Rove’s superPAC is apparently shifting to a Congressional focus as well. Rove may be evil but he is no fool politically. You don’t waste your donors’ money on lost causes; put it where it might actually bring a return on the investment.
Done.
Not good news for many Democrats in tight Congressional races though … the freed up GOP superPAC money bombs are going to hurt them.
Well, not necessarily. As long as Obama’s lead remains substantial, that means the DNC and other Democratic funding sources can start moving their money downticket too.
Plus if the general gets out of hand, Obama’s coattails could grow enough to counter the down-ticket money bomb effect.
As long as we’re allowing rumors to substitute for reality, the NYTimes is reporting that Romney is going to rely on one-liners - zingers.
This has had the predictable follow-up: the Twitter feed #MittZingers.
Obama is a serial liar. The media just chooses to portray him a lot better than he is. At least SNL seems to get it these days. They ripped Obama last night.
Tell me how Obama is a serial liar. I don’t see him as being any slimier than what you’d expect from a politician, while Romney seems to live in a world of falsehood. It isn’t ‘fair and balanced’ to make such a distinction I suppose, but it jibes with what I’ve seen.
How is Obama a liar on par with Romney?
So they’re going to rely on Mitt’s comedy chops?
If true, I think we can go ahead and start printing up those Obama inauguration invitations.
Examples?