October 5, 2012

"When I got on the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney..."

"Whoever it was that was on stage last night doesn't want to be held accountable for what the real Mitt Romney has been saying for the last year.... Here's the truth...."

That's the Obama campaign's attempt at a post-debate zinger. It's as if Obama expected Mitt Romney to show up in the form that Obama supporters have been sculpting in the media! Perhaps that's how Obama's sparring partner in the debate prep portrayed Romney. Oh, how I'd love to get the secret video of Obama practicing debating Romney with John Kerry playing the role of Romney. I think it would explain a lot.

The next day, Obama was all hey, who was that guy, that spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney? I'd love to see the drafts of that speech so I could know what set of words evolved into "that spirited fellow." Did they send the draft back to the 18th century for tweaking?

When you zing, you've got to expect counter-zing. You can build on that meme. If Obama wants to nudge people to think that wasn't the real Mitt Romney, you can flip that and say it was Obama who seemed unfamiliar? Who was that tired, cranky character we saw next to Romney? It wasn't the Obama we know, the confident, striding, beaming, charismatic master of language and persuasion we've believed in and trusted these last 4 years.

Who was that very unspirited fellow who claimed to be Barack Obama? Whoever it was that was on stage Thursday night doesn't want to be held accountable for what the real Barack Obama has been saying for the 4 years.... Here's the truth....

229 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229
MayBee said...

To cut tax rates, I mean.

http://www.ocregister.com/opinion/tax-373637-percent-romney.html

Coketown said...

Paraphrase: "The reality I encountered was far different from what I was prepared for."

He should get that tattooed on his forehead. It would help explain the last few years.

Jay said...

Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut

Bullshit.

You keep repeating this silly lie.

AF said...

"No, the $5 Trillion doesn't come from Romney. That comes from Obama's favorite evaluation of Romney's proposals to cut tax rates.
"
Romney's proposal is a 20% cut in rates. He doesn't dispute that without offsets that would cost $5 trillion over 10 years.

Nathan Alexander said...

AF,
Why are you ignoring my explanation?

Oh, yeah: your point makes no sense if you address my explanation.

MayBee said...

What do you mean he does not dispute that? Why would Romney dispute or agree with such a thing?

He isn't proposing anything without offsets. Cutting rates without offsets is not his proposal and has nothing to do with Romney. That's Obama's fantasy.

Nathan Alexander said...

AF,
Since you are bothered by people don't explain things, why doesn't it bother you that when Obama says he's going to "ask millionairesandbillionaires who make more than $250k/year to pay...a little bit more", he doesn't explain:
1) how much "a little bit" is
or
2) what he's going to do if the millionairesandbillionaires who make more than $250k/year say "no" when he asks. He's actually going to compel them to pay, right?

Don't flat-out lies like Obama's "ask" bother you?

Nathan Alexander said...

@AF,
This is what Obama said at the debate:

"Now, Governor Romney’s proposal that he has been promoting for 18 months calls for a $5 trillion tax cut on top of $2 trillion of additional spending for our military. And he is saying that he is going to pay for it by closing loopholes and deductions. The problem is that he’s been asked a -- over a hundred times how you would close those deductions and loopholes and he hasn’t been able to identify them."

Completely accurate, entirely fair.


Completely inaccurate.

Romney already addressed it:
http://washingtonexaminer.com/romney-ive-got-5-boys-im-used-to-people-saying-something-over-and-over-so-ill-believe-it/article/2509804

This is actually accurate and fair.

Why do you ignore this to keep repeating a lie that even CNN debunked.

MayBee said...

Obama's lie at the campaign rally quoted in Althouse's post:

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: When I got on to the stage, I met this very spirited fellow who claimed to be Mitt Romney. But it couldn’t have been Mitt Romney because the real Mitt Romney has been running around the country for the last year promising $5 trillion in tax cuts that favor the wealthy. The fellow on stage last night said he didn’t know anything about that.


That is a lie.

Andy R. said...

Romney has made clear that his overall plan includes offsets, because the tax cuts themselves will cause a decrease in the amount of revenue coming in.

But Romney refuses to say how much in offsets is needed because he won't say how much of a drop in revenue his tax cuts will cause.

Other people have pegged it at 5 trillion. Romney refuses to say how much of a drop in revenue he thinks the tax cutting part of his plan will involve all we have right now is the 5 trillion number.

Romney also refuses to say in what way he will make up this drop with his offsets.

MayBee said...

Here's what Cutter said to Erin Burnett:
BURNETT: But when he closes deductions he won’t be anywhere near $5 trillion. That’s our analysis.

CUTTER: Well with, okay, stipulated, it won’t be near $5 trillion, but it’s also not going to be the sum of $5 trillion in the loopholes that he’s going to close.


So Cutter stipulates that what Romney has promised to do won't be near $5 trillion.
So get this. The Obama campaign uses a liberal economic group's study to come up with the figure of $5trillion, then admits Romney hasn't promised a $5trillion tax cut, *then* tries to say he can't pay for the whole $5trillion with offsets.
But $5 Trillion is their number!

Matthew Sablan said...

On the cheating thing, it looks like it was a handkerchief.

MayBee said...

No, the 5 trillion number is not "all we have". It is all Obama uses.

Even so, it is fair to criticize Mitt's lack of specificity. Perhaps you would prefer him to say he's going to go through the tax code line by line for net tax neutrality.

But making up what he is proposing and then acting like Romney's changed his proposal when it's Obama who has been making stuff up is pretty cheeky.

Jay said...

He doesn't dispute that without offsets that would cost $5 trillion over 10 years.

Actually he stood on a debate stage on live television and disputed it for almost 2 hours you silly, full of shit liar.

Andy R. said...

Also, the five trillion number is from the independent non-partisan Tax Policy Center.

Jay said...

Andy R. said...
Also, the five trillion number is from the independent non-partisan Tax Policy Center.


Hysterical.

Its authors — one of whom is a recent Obama employee - are certainly not "non partisan"

You're fucking retarded.

Tank said...

Andy R

AF

Suggestion: Stop digging. The hole is deep enough already.

What is hard to understand about revenue neutral, or enhancing, tax reform involving lower overall rates, while simplifying [removing deductions and credits] the code. Have you ever seen the code and regulations? Or tried to read them?

Andy R. said...

What is hard to understand about revenue neutral, or enhancing, tax reform involving lower overall rates, while simplifying [removing deductions and credits] the code. Have you ever seen the code and regulations? Or tried to read them?

But that's not what Romney is claiming. Romney is saying he needs the offsets because his tax cuts will lead to a decrease in revenue.

But he won't tell us how much he needs in offsets because he won't tell us how big the decline in revenue will be.

damikesc said...

Obama: How dare that straw man strike back!

You can not keep the pre existing condition requirement without government playing a large role in making sure the insurance pool is expanded. That's a fact.

One way to do that --- sell insurance over state lines. That'd expand the pools immensely.

Does that mean you agree that the Romney tax cuts would cost a 5 trillion change in revenue?

Even Cutter doesn't believe that.

Matthew Sablan said...

"But he won't tell us how much he needs in offsets because he won't tell us how big the decline in revenue will be. "

-- Are you arguing that Romney is... trying to hide the decline?

... I'll be here all week.

Tank said...

Andy R. said...
What is hard to understand about revenue neutral, or enhancing, tax reform involving lower overall rates, while simplifying [removing deductions and credits] the code. Have you ever seen the code and regulations? Or tried to read them?

But that's not what Romney is claiming. Romney is saying he needs the offsets because his tax cuts will lead to a decrease in revenue.

But he won't tell us how much he needs in offsets because he won't tell us how big the decline in revenue will be.


I get it. You're too stupid to understand.

ricpic said...

I didn't see someone tired and cranky next to Romney, I saw someone at a loss without his prompter. I think that's what millions who have nothing invested in him saw.

furious_a said...

Debate Troofers. Heh!

Nathan Alexander said...

Princeton economics professor Harvey Rosen:
Obama was basing his claim on a study by the Tax Policy Center, a project of the center-left Brookings Institution and Urban Institute. But there are at least three critical flaws the the TPC study: (1) it assumes pro-growth tax reform can’t actually produce economic growth, (2) it assumes two tax expenditures worth $45 billion per year are not ‘on the table’, and (3) it assumes tax reform must pay for repealing Obamacare’s tax hikes, rather than assuming that the repeal of Obamacare’s spending will pay for repealing the tax hikes. If one corrects these erroneous assumptions, the math checks out.
The whopping growth rate required to make the math work? 2.29 percent, according to Rosen...which is easy to reach when you actually have a recovery.

Why has Obama prevented a recovery with his shackling of the energy industry and oppressive increase in regulatory policy from his agencies?

Christopher in MA said...

Obama brazenly asserted: "There is a tax break for companies moving jobs overseas"

Which of course is a complete & utter lie.


A lie which he repeated the next day at his public boo-boo kissing rally, insinuating that the only reason Romney said he'd never heard of it was because his accountant never mentioned it to him.

I'd ask the resident leftists here if they're ashamed to be carrying the water for a man who so blatantly lies to their faces, but as garage proved when he tried to explain away Obama's lie about Katrina relief, the last Democrat with shame died with Hubert Humprhey.

gloogle said...

There sure seem to be a lot of new socktrolls roaming the blog. They aren't very entertaining types, either. I guess they are just too depressed to carry out well their orders to protect his imperious majesty. I mean, watching your god get smashed to bits, geez....

Nora said...

"Pomney lied" schtik is the same bold faced lies as Axelrod always produces. People who watched the debates saw that Romney took Obama on his lies, when he attempted to missrepresent Romney's positions and ideas. Nothing prevented Obama doing the same, unless Romney did not lie, or Obama just does not have clue, ooutside the talking point he is provided with by his campaign.

The same goes for "Romney does not have details". The question that comes to mind is: "What details ever Obama produced during his campaigns, except for general promises? Will we even have a budget, if Obama stays?

At this time the only use for the media I have is a circus value for a few minutes a day: to check what idiocy in defence of Obama they come up next

Sammy said...

So to understand Democrats , Romney will be treated as the incumbent and Obama as the challenger.

Why do republicans , conservatives on this blog allow themselves to be on defense and liberals on offense .

Obama has been President for the last 4 years, it is Obama who doubled our deficits and has run over trillion dollar deficits every year for the last 4 years in office and CBO and Obama's own budget see no end to current spending and deficits.

It is Obama and democrats who took 2007 $ 2,7 trillion federal budget and increased the base line of the budget by over a trillion , it is Senate democrats who won't pass a budgt and exactly what has the more then trillion dollar annual spending given the American people, ah ..... Crony capitalism.

Why did Obama submit budgets to congress that received no republican OR democrat votes, what will Obama do to reduce HIS trillion dollars deficits, what will Obama do that will grow that ecomny and add 12 million jobs that were lost in the last 4 years, what will Obama do for the 23 million Americans who have given up on finding work, who have had to take part time work to survive.


Obama as President for 4 years prided over a stagnant ecomny , high unemployment, increase in food stamps, poverty, welfare, lower American wages, higher gas, food, healthcare costs .... he has done nothing but now has some secret plans that he's been hiding until Ameicans elect him for a second term.


What are Obama plans besides " balanced" and "fair share". to get America's finances in order without crippling taxes and cuts , that France, England , Italy, Grecce, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, any every other over indebted country have implemented but unlike America's deficts weren't as high as ours at 10% of GDP and without being the world's currency so can't print money and then buy our debt until that becomes like subprime mortgages , crashes and takes down the whole American econmy with it.

Skookum John said...

When I was in High School, I saw than VP Bush speak at a rally for Tommy Thompson. I remember thinking "this guy is nothing like the dumbass MSM protrays him as".

Every Republican in the last half century has been incessantly portrayed that way by the enemy news media. Even Eisenhower, the man who planned D-Day, was treated by the Adlai Stevenson groupies of the press as an incurious, doddering duffer who never came in from the golf course. Except Nixon, who was clearly too smart for that, and so was portrayed as an evil genius instead. Not sure yet what ludicrous stereotype they'll hang around President Romney's neck, but hang it they surely will.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 229 of 229   Newer› Newest»