« You Go, Girlfriend! | Main | Thought for the Day »

October 16, 2012

Debate

Not quite 20 minutes into the debate and the President has called his opponent a liar 5 times. Oops! Six.

Impressive.

9:20: Romney. "The test of whether a policy is working is the price you pay at the pump".

9:22: Obama: Gas was under $2 a gallon when I got elected. Why was that? B/c the economy was getting ready to tank.

Gas is twice that now. When prices double, that means the econony is improving! Obamanomics: it's like magic!

9:32: So far, Crowley isn't doing a bad job.

10:08: Illegal immigrants started Google and Intel.

Posted by Cassandra at October 16, 2012 09:19 PM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.villainouscompany.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/4376

Comments

An economy that is working has lower prices, not higher ones.

Higher prices come about as a result of taxation.
"the Time Keepers are all working?"

Bwahahahaha...

Hold on, Obama. The unchaining of the wimmin from their EZ Bake ovens is coming.

9:47 He has called him a liar at least twice now.

Posted by: Carolyn at October 16, 2012 09:47 PM

That explanation of the price of gas then and now was one of the most stunning examples of economic ignorance I've heard in a while, but it doesn't seem to be getting much play. There's more focus on the President's bald-faced lies about reducing federal drilling permits and the Benghazi attack.

So the President said about gas prices:

"[T]here’s no doubt that world demand’s gone up, but our production is going up, and we’re using oil more efficiently. . . . And the proof is our oil imports are down to the lowest levels in 20 years. Oil production is up, natural gas production is up, and, most importantly, we’re also starting to build cars that are more efficient. . . . He said when I took office, the price of gasoline was $1.80, $1.86. Why is that? Because the economy was on the verge of collapse. . . ." Totally incoherent. Is our demand up, or have we depressed demand by improving energy efficiency? Does he think world demand is up but U.S. demand is down? If U.S. demand is down and U.S. production is up, why are U.S. prices increasing? Is he trying to argue that prices four years ago were some kind of temporary downward blip? That the $4 gas we're seeing now was somehow part of the pre-2008 crash landscape, which we're returning to after a few years of $2 gas that resulted strictly from a crash?

Posted by: Texan99 at October 17, 2012 12:37 AM

"That explanation of the price of gas then and now was one of the most stunning examples of economic ignorance I've heard in a while, but it doesn't seem to be getting much play. There's more focus on the President's bald-faced lies about reducing federal drilling permits and the Benghazi attack"…

Yup. Pretty amazing...

Even so, were I inclined to guess how this POTUS has evolved these past four years, I'd say The Won has become extremely transparent to all but the base and the Obamaphone demographic.

Then there's the dead skunk in the middle of the road aroma that permiates darned near everything this Administration touches.

I'm beginning to sense a new morning in America.

Posted by: bthun at October 17, 2012 01:09 AM

"There's more focus on the President's bald-faced lies about reducing federal drilling permits...."

This might be part of the reason why. Kinda hard to ignore shit like that if yer payin' yer attention bill.
0>;~}

Posted by: DL Sly at October 17, 2012 01:33 AM

The absolute stunner of the evening was Obama's 180 about being a believer in the free enterprise and free markets. Stolen right out of Romney's playbook and Romney' 'good legislation' to support the free market.

Absolutley amazing.

Obama came out swinging. Romney did nail Obama about his pension. What breathtaking ignorance and total brattiness 'I know my pension isn't as large as yours," and "I haven't looked at my penion."

Leadership? It isn't Obama.

Posted by: Carolyn at October 17, 2012 07:00 AM

Didn't Sarah Palin say that about the oil leases when she was governor of Alaska?

Posted by: Carolyn at October 17, 2012 07:05 AM

Appears your comment about Candy Crowley doing a good job was a bit premature. Painting his opponent as a liar has been a central tenant of the President's strategy. Then the man calling the other a liar with every breath was dramatically caught out and called out for lying. It was an enormous and indefensible mistake. The tension was building, it might have had an historic resolution. But Ms "Not Just a Spectator" inappropriately inserted herself and destroyed the opportunity. It's quite amusing to search the news for Crowley at the moment, the headlines are mostly from yesterday, calling for her to be forceful. Many of those articles have gender tones to them; encouraging her to assert herself not just as a journalist but as a woman not be marginalized on the national political stage. With the candidates courting the "woman's vote" and fully aware of the need to be especially deferential to Ms. Crowley, an imperfect and unbalanced dynamic was already in place. These debates place rules on the candidates *and* the moderator. Last night, Candy Crowley showed us why. It was an unfortunate moment, in an unfortunate drama.

Posted by: kavu at October 17, 2012 08:47 AM

Many of those articles have gender tones to them; encouraging her to assert herself not just as a journalist but as a woman not be marginalized on the national political stage. With the candidates courting the "woman's vote" and fully aware of the need to be especially deferential to Ms. Crowley, an imperfect and unbalanced dynamic was already in place.

I agree that the gender rhetoric was dumb, but I think candidates in a debate should be respectful of the moderator because if they're not, debates degenerate into a free for all. That doesn't have anything to do with male/female issues - it's simply a following the rules issue. I think less of any candidate when they try to run roughshod over the moderator (as Biden did during the VP debate, though oddly that somehow wasn't sexism because Dems can't be sexist :p).

Crowley screwed up with the Libya remark. There's no getting around that: moderators are not fact checkers. She realized, I think, what she had done and tried to correct the mistake but I doubt that will do any good.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 17, 2012 08:55 AM

The debate went about the way I thought it would.

Romney was better on substance, Obama does better on style and "lawyerly" responses that don't say much but play well.

Posted by: Cassandra at October 17, 2012 08:56 AM

Then there's the dead skunk in the middle of the road....

OK, I couldn't resist. Blame it on bthun.

So the President said about gas prices....

Cross-posted from Grim's:

"This view of economics...has a long, venerable history. Recall FDR's imposition of farm price supports and labor price hard floors, followed by a "need" for food stamps because those price manipulations put food out of reach of even more people."

Technicolor.

Eric Hines

Posted by: E Hines at October 17, 2012 10:00 AM

"OK, I couldn't resist. Blame it on bthun."

Hey! Wait ah second.

Ain't responsibility for aroma within that thar purview of the Secretary of Stank? BuckStop#87...

Posted by: Larry at October 17, 2012 12:05 PM

" BuckStop#87..."

Is that anywhere near Bucksnort?

Posted by: Snarkammando at October 17, 2012 12:43 PM

Post a comment

To reduce comment spam, comments on older posts are put into moderation 5 days after the last activity. Comments with more than one link also go into moderation. If you don't see your comment after posting it, try refreshing the screen. If you still don't see it, your comment is probably in the moderation queue.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)