All this “Romney looked good!” BS is oddly reminiscent of the rightwing meme in 2004 of, “who would you rather have a beer at a barbecue with?”

Just as having a beer with a recovering alcoholic was supposedly THE criteria for selecting a president in ’04, listening to lies from a good-looking father of 5 boys apparently is the criteria today . . .

.

@Doors17: thanks for trying :-))

@James Bain and Don D: Thanks for the interesting links.

Although people (me included) do tend to conflate deficit with debt when chatting about them, it’s pretty clear that there will be less/no need to borrow if spending does not exceed revenues. What Bush did violated that simple rule and it seems to me that Romney is proposing the same “policy” (I used that word advisedly)

Personally, I couldn’t care less if a candidate “looks presidential”. I want one who can do the math and remember what he says from one day to the next.

The Rupert Murdoch Enabled Fox Fanatics conform to The Terror described by Isaiah Berlin:

“Once you believe that the dogma is the one final answer to all human ills, if it is the final answer then no sacrifice is too great for it, and even if you were to kill for it then this is the one end to permanent bliss, happiness of mankind then surely it is worth it. If you believe there is a single answer to a single question the true answer, all the other answers being false, and all these answers can be put together and harmonized with each other and create the perfect universe then there is the temptation, if you think you have it, to do awful things.” – Isaiah Berlin

The Curvy Couch Propaganda, The Killer O’Reilly Fatwas (against women), the Sean Kkklannity Racism, the Rupert Murdoch Corruption of Politics, Police & Privacy Scandals, Father Jonathan Morris Voting Advice, all part of The Murdoch Empire of Obedience.

Bemused, I tried my best to find the answer for you, but depending on the bias of the writer I found it impossible to give an actuate number.

I think it’s safe to saying that our deficits increased dramatically under Bush compared to Clinton’s term. Of course whenever this increase was brought to the attention of the right, their responds was always, Bush is keeping us safe. It was important to say that with a great deal of emotion in your voice, as if how dare you bring it up, and why do you hate America?

We haven’t had a real balanced budget since March 1957, and that was soon wiped out by the recession of 1958, that cost the R’s control of the House until 1995. Our top tax rate back in the Eisenhower days was 91%. I don’t think the right wants to remind anyone of that fact.

Sure, Romney “looked good” if you prefer style over substance and spin/lies over facts. Pffft.

It’s been amazing to me (and many of those I discuss politics with) the absolute whining and bitching that FOX “news” and other conservative pundits are doing over the fact that many Democrats have said that Romney lied in the debate. Not only are they deliberately overlooking the vast majority of the spin/lies/shifting of positions that Romney spewed during the debate but they are being total hypocrites on the subject with regards to who is calling who a liar.

Did the talking heads at FOX “news” and elsewhere totally missed the part of the debate where a condescending Romney basically compared Obama to his 5 boys who, apparently, are big, fat liars? When Obama pointed out the math problems with Romney’s tax plan, Romney denied it and said, “Look, I’ve got five boys.* I’m used to people saying something that’s not always true but just keep on repeating it and ultimately hoping I’ll believe it but that is not the case."

Hmm, “keep repeating it” with the hopes that it will be believed? Sounds like Romney is definitely referring to Goebbels’ “big lie” and using it to go after Obama for challenging Romney on his tax plan. When Romney brought up his lying boys in the context of what Obama had just said, he was accusing Obama of being a liar – yet somehow FOX “news” managed to miss Romney’s insinuation?!?! He also said that Obama isn’t entitled to his own facts which is a more polite way to accuse someone of lying but FOX “news” is overlooking that too? Seriously?!

The few Dems/libs I’ve seen on FOX “news” since the debate have gone to bat on the Dems’ position that Romney told some lies during the debate but it completely pisses me off that none of them are challenging the FOX “news” talking heads on the point that Romney called Obama a liar DURING the freakin’ debate!

Btw, where was all the FOX “news” concern over someone being called a liar when a few weeks ago Romney said this to Stephanopoulos: “But I think the challenge that I’ll have in the debate is that the President tends to, how shall I say it, to say things that aren’t true.” Projection much, Mr. Etch-a-Sketch? Where was the FOX “news” outrage over Romney calling the President a liar, hmm?

*Also, with his “boys” retort, Romney got to paint himself as the wise father figure while he slyly implied that Obama is like a boy who fibs and/or is too immature to face facts. Not to mention that using the word “boy” (even if done in an implied manner and/or to make a separate point) to an African-American man wasn’t exactly an appropriate way for Romney to have framed his jab at Obama. If you think that some of the more racist right-wingers aren’t happily chuckling about the way Romney called Obama a “boy”, then you’d be mistaken because I heard some of it with my own ears last week when I overheard a discussion about the debate.

Off-hand, does anybody remember how much Clinton had left in the kitty when G.W.Bush took over? As I recall, he’d (Clinton) had not only drawn down the debt but generated a surplus (gosh, gee whiz)

The foxies like to compare deficit spending between Bush and Obama but I’ve never seen any mention of how much he (Bush) had in the kitty before he started borrowing. If Clinton had not left that little heritage, Bush’s spending would have been higher. Or not?

E’Trigan Leecso, first off when it comes to gas prices going from an average of $1.83 when Obama took over to what it is today, that should have a big asterisk next to it. In June 2008 gas here in California was between $4.50 to $4.90. Then came the financial meltdown and gas prices took a tumble with the rest of the economy. In fact in December 08 we were paying about a buck and half a gallon. So this low price was just a temporary illusion. Today because of a fire in August in the Chevron refinery in Richmond and another refinery in Torrance going down for an electrical problem our prices exploded 50 cents a gallon in just 36 hours last week. We’re back to around $4.50 again. I don’t blame the President, nor did I blame Bush, but as you know there are several factors that control the prices we pay.

In 2008 we lost 2.6 million jobs. Today we are gaining approximately 100k a month and have so for several months in a row and not losing over a half a million as we experienced in 08. More is needed of course, but can you name just one jobs bill the Republican Congress has agreed to? The word compromise does not exist with today’s GOP.

As far as our National Debt is concerned, these deficits only matter to the party of power. Is that fair and balanced to say? I don’t recall any outrage from the right when Bush and especially Reagan added on. Not a peep.

E’Trigan Leesco: most of what you suggest is Obama’s fault is the result of a meltdown that started under his predecessor. Getting out of that hole turned out to be a whole lot more complicated than anybody anticipated but progress has been made. To believe it could be any different is simply foolish.

FWIW: we never expected Obama to have a magic wan nor did you, but you write as though you do. That’s plumb dishonest of you (methinks).

I’ve just found it interesting watching the right wing repeatedly spiking the football after the debate and taking what feels like a record number of victory laps. They should certainly do this now, if they want to engage in that kind of behavior.

At this point, unless Obama completely fumbles the next two debates and the economy collapses within the next 20 days, they are still behind in enough places that their chances of winning are still below 30 percent. Assuming Obama does well in the next debate, which I believe is quite possible and likely, you’ll see the polls swing back in the other direction, at which point Fox News will go back to the idea that the polls are not to be believed.

The right wing confidently declared that Obama had no chance to be elected in 2008 for a whole pile of reasons. When all else failed, they turned to the “Tom Bradley Effect” card – painting the whole country as racist as the people to whom they were pandering. When they lost that election, they were completely shocked. Shock turned to rage and we’ve seen the results over the past 3 years and 9 months. Now they’ve spent the past two months throwing any attack they could at President Obama only to see his lead build. With a single debate where their opponent wasn’t challenged on the falsehoods he was saying, they somehow want us to think this election has been decided. As in 2008, I strongly doubt the American public agrees with them on this.

The master of phone hacking, political & police bribes, Rupert Murdoch assembled the liars of Fux Nuze. Liars support liars by lying about anything to further their cause.

As Billy Crystal’s “Fernando” character might say, MagicUnderwear Mitt looked marvelous. Just ignore the lies and deceit.

@doors17: It’s simple, doors.

Whenever a poll shows President Obama ahead, the response is, “polls don’t matter; the only poll that counts is on Election Day.”

When a poll shows Mittens ahead — even if it was one taken the day after the debate, skewed heavily in favor of Republicans, and only released yesterday — it is not only to be believed, but repeated and loudly celebrated.

Hope that helps.

.

I have one question. Are we now suppose to believe in polls again. I want to make sure.