Posted on 10/16/2012 9:06:45 PM PDT by God luvs America
Having been invited to watch the debate with 3 liberal neighbors, I can tell you that Obama did not win.
They were happy to see Obama fighting a little, but had nothing to say, occasionally hissing at the TV when Romney spoke. One of my neighbors said to me (I’m from MA, watching in Maine) “Hey so you say Romney did a good job as Governor of Maine?” ... I said “yeah, as good a job as you can do with an 87% democrat legislature.”
This neighbor is a former businessman. I think he’s secretly thinking of pulling the Romney lever.
They left with very little to say. I said “hey, the media will call it a tie” just to be nice.
I stayed for desert with the neighbor who is devoutly liberal. I said, to be nice and make conversation, “well, so what do you think, will Obama win” ... she said “I don’t know if he can, I don’t know why he would want to.”
The argument against Romney that followed damned Obama with faint praise: “Maybe what this Romney wants to do is better, but I don’t think we should change the course we’re on ... stay the course.”
Be prepared to counsel your Liberal friends and neighbors. They are truly depressed. Their eyes were also openned in the first debate, and were held open to bright light by this debate. They may not vote for Romney, but the Obama they will vote for is a completely different man than the illusion they bought into, and they know it now.
When liberals remember Obama, the memories will be filled with anger and feelings of betrayal. As far as they’re concerned - he quit on them, leaving them to look like fools in front of the hateful conservative wolves. And of course, he did quit ... and of course ... they were fools.
It is going to be so boring when Obama is no longer president. Just like Trayvon...... LOL !!!!!
The above is the quintessential description of a successful businessman.
"With that said, is he a little power hungry? Probably. Is he always telling the truth? Probably not."
Power "hungry" can mean wanting to be in control since being in control IS a position of power, it simply comes with the territory and this is not or should not be viewed as a negative. It is wholly dependent on the reason one wants to be in control. Id it for better or worse? Power for powers sake is not a good thing but power for good is a good thing. A person who has no desire to take the reigns of the most powerful country ever to exist has no business running for president of this country.
As for truth. No one can be said to never lie. There are lies and there are lies. If your wife or girlfriend asks you if the new dress she bought makes her ass look big are you saying you would say yes it does? If the reason for a lie is to keep and hold power, power which is used for personal gain rather than the betterment of the majority then it is problematic, otherwise the performance of the individual in the job is what is most important.
Is there a link to those numbers? Or was that just read on air?
I can’t find those details on the CNN site. There are details of the similar poll from the first debate.
Excellent post! I sympathize. Both of my in-laws are rabid liberals living in Massachusetts. Their entire line of attack on this election entails Romney-bashing clichés. Very little can be positively said about Obama. Underneath all their leftist platitudes there are seething anger and disappointment with the Kenyan Marxist. This explains most of New England being most devoid of Obama yard signs and bumper stickers.
Yep!
They finally saw that there is no ‘there’ there. Even more than the lazy debate, that was the betrayal. He fooled them. Used them. Scammed them.
Couldn’t happen to a more naive group - perhaps for some, this is the mugging by reality. Stalin couldn’t hope for a more malleable citizenry than Liberal America.
That former Obama voter in the Frank Luntz focus group said it best.
... correction - I meant governor of MA, not Maine ... I’m from MA, currently in Maine ... gets confusing.
Well said.
-——So Buzzard Crowley’s former job was a bouncer at a bar ?-——
I thought she was a linebacker.
post #24 in this thread said they saw the internals while the Tea Party facebook page captured the screen shot on CNN: http://www.facebook.com/TheTeaParty.net
Saw someone on Twitchy point out that since debate #3 is foreign policy and the point about Obama not calling it a terror act has been pre-fact-checked, that Romney can now revisit it with emphasis in the next debate.
From the reports I have read, it appears that Crowley came prepared to respond to comments about Libya.
As a question for those of you who watched, was the effect of Crowley's interference to relieve Obama from having to either, one, repeat his lie, or, two, admit the truth?
By having Crowley repeat the lie at the debate and then admit the truth after the debate, there seems to be little focus on what Obama did in the debate? Did he purposely allow Crowley's lie to stand? Or did he purposely allow Crowley to defend the indefensible by re-telling the lie that he dare not repeat?
Someone needs to ask Obama, "Did Crowley lie when she said that Romney was "right in the main"? Or was she lying when she defended Obama?
We mustn't underestimate our enemies. This unseemly interference by Crowley in a Presidential debate wasn't an accident. Was it a conspiracy instigated by Obama and his handlers? It doesn't seem far-fetched to me.
“Maybe he could turn this whole thing around if, every time Romney scored a point, Zero just said “That’s racist.””
If zero were to try that, it would switch enough white voters who might otherwise have supported him to give Romney a landslide of by an almost unbelieveable margin. I this point I already believe the Romney win will be considered a landslide. Note...the bigger the Romney win, the bigger the Pubbie margin of victory in both the House and the Senate.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.