Quote:Among many topics not mentioned during Wednesday night's first presidential debate was Mitt Romney's controversial comment about 47 percent of Americans viewing themselves as "entitled" to government benefits.

That comment, videotaped at a private Romney fundraiser for wealthy donors, has been at the epicenter of President Barack Obama's attacks on his GOP opponent over the past few weeks, with his campaign even putting out an ad on the topic. Its absence in the debate, therefore, was conspicuous and a bit head-scratching.

"Seriously, Dems, can you believe that Obama never used the 47% video? Incredible!" tweeted political analyst Larry Sabato. "Why not push the 47 percent comment that is the subject of saturation ads? Keep pres above it? Or deny Gov Romney chance to explain it?" wondered Carl Hulse of The New York Times. Some of the spin coming from the Obama campaign and its surrogates after the debate seemed contradictory or unbelievable. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley argued that Obama didn't mention the 47 percent comment because "he's a gentleman." "I think the president wanted to come in tonight and not deliver attack lines," said Obama campaign spokeswoman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04...37966.html

(October 4, 2012 at 1:33 am)cratehorus Wrote:

Quote:Among many topics not mentioned during Wednesday night's first presidential debate was Mitt Romney's controversial comment about 47 percent of Americans viewing themselves as "entitled" to government benefits.

That comment, videotaped at a private Romney fundraiser for wealthy donors, has been at the epicenter of President Barack Obama's attacks on his GOP opponent over the past few weeks, with his campaign even putting out an ad on the topic. Its absence in the debate, therefore, was conspicuous and a bit head-scratching.

"Seriously, Dems, can you believe that Obama never used the 47% video? Incredible!" tweeted political analyst Larry Sabato. "Why not push the 47 percent comment that is the subject of saturation ads? Keep pres above it? Or deny Gov Romney chance to explain it?" wondered Carl Hulse of The New York Times. Some of the spin coming from the Obama campaign and its surrogates after the debate seemed contradictory or unbelievable. Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley argued that Obama didn't mention the 47 percent comment because "he's a gentleman." "I think the president wanted to come in tonight and not deliver attack lines," said Obama campaign spokeswoman

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/04...37966.html

I hope Obama uses it in the next debate. Romney will take him apart with it.

I was very disappointed with Obama's performance overall. Romney trounced him in this debate. Romney was much better at keeping on point and reiterating his key phrases. You could see Obama getting pissed, and Romney just kept going when the moderator tried to ask a new question. Haven't read anything on it yet, but it wasn't good for Obama. As for the 47%, isn't Obama a millionaire too? That could backfire, along with being the "food stamp" president and all.

The consensus seems to be that Romney won the debate, but the real question is, was he able to make enough of a difference to make a difference in the outcome of the election?

I don't think anyone who watched the debate was on the fence... Everyone has already decided, except for those wacky, undecided voters, and let's face it... Do we really want those idiots, who don't even realize there is an election coming in 5 weeks, deciding things??

(October 4, 2012 at 8:23 am)festive1 Wrote: I don't think anyone who watched the debate was on the fence... Everyone has already decided, except for those wacky, undecided voters, and let's face it... Do we really want those idiots, who don't even realize there is an election coming in 5 weeks, deciding things??

...in a close race the undecideds can determine the election for either candidate...I always believed that the undecideds were a group of voters who were still trying to sort through the rhetoric to find the facts and were waiting for a forum like last night's debate where the candidates can really face off and challenge each others policies...

(October 4, 2012 at 8:23 am)festive1 Wrote: I don't think anyone who watched the debate was on the fence... Everyone has already decided, except for those wacky, undecided voters, and let's face it... Do we really want those idiots, who don't even realize there is an election coming in 5 weeks, deciding things??

Considering that undecided voters determine the great majority of elections? Yes, we want them. We need them, even if they are idiots. Welcome to the nature of politics in modern America: appealing to the lowest denominator.

There's another worry: Romney wins the debates, but he's already too far behind in the polls to win the election. What impact does it have on congressional races? I'd rather vote out the tea party wing of the Republican party with a moderate Republican in the white house than have a Democrat in the Oval office and a far right congress.

(October 4, 2012 at 8:23 am)festive1 Wrote: I don't think anyone who watched the debate was on the fence... Everyone has already decided, except for those wacky, undecided voters, and let's face it... Do we really want those idiots, who don't even realize there is an election coming in 5 weeks, deciding things??

How does being undecided mean that they don't know there is an election coming in five weeks? How does it make someone an idiot?

---

Romney can win debates all day long. It hardly matters. He can't speak without pissing people off.

Maybe I'm just to partisan... I don't see how someone could not know who they are voting for at this point.

I find it terribly funny that these are called "debates". They are not real debates.