Poll results compiled by Nate Silver show the viewing public pretty much agreeing with the commentators who gave last night’s debate decision to Romney:
Instant-reaction polls conducted by CNN and CBS News suggest that Mitt Romney was the winner of the first presidential debate.
A CNN poll of debate-watchers found Mr. Romney very clearly ahead, with 67 percent of registered voters saying he won the debate, against just 25 percent for President Obama.
A CBS News poll of undecided voters who watched the debate found 46 percent siding with Mr. Romney, 22 percent for Mr. Obama and 32 percent saying it was a tie.
Google, which is experimenting with online surveys, found 38.9 percent of respondents saying they thought Mr. Obama performed better in a poll it conducted during the debate, against 35.5 percent for Mr. Romney and 25.6 percent who said it was a draw. But a second poll they conducted after the debate found 47.8 percent of respondents giving Mr. Romney the advantage, against 25.4 percent for Mr. Obama…
I still haven’t seen enough of the debate itself to know what I think. But from what I’m hearing, I’d have to actually watch it, which would be unusual for me. A lot of the advantage given to Romney sounds like it was based on visual impressions. Usually, I listening while Tweeting and blogging. Last night, rehearsal prevented me from doing anything with it at all…
Related Posts
An outfit called PeopleBrowsr, which styles itself “the global leader in social analytics and the creator of influence measure Kred,” reported this analysis of Twitter during the debate:
“Number of tweets overall. During the 90-minute debate, there were 10.4 million tweets mentioning Mitt Romney, Barack Obama or the debate.
“Tweets specifically mentioning Obama and ‘win or winner.’ Total: 29,677.
“Tweets specifically mentioning Romney and ‘win or winner.’ Total: 47,141.”
I missed the first 20 minutes of the debate, but I watched the rest of it. I thought Gov. Romney clearly outperformed President Obama, both in substance and in delivery.
Romney did very well, visually.
Romney clearly made the better presentation.
I think largely because he attacked and the President played it very safe.
I don’t know if that will change the race or not, or if the other 3 debates will be like this one.
I do think it is the first real good news for Romney in a long time. What I think that means is that the ‘excitement’ level among GOP partisans, especially those who were not feeling great about Romney, has really gone up in the last 24 hours.
Thing is, Romney was not throwing out red meat, GOP partisan details. For the first time I remember in this campaign, he was embracing his Massachusetts governing record. Now he did embrace conservative governing philosophy, but his details and policies were quite moderate – which is who I think he is anyhow.
Brad, your comment about listening vs. seeing a debate of course reminds one of the first Nixon/Kennedy debate, which most radio listeners felt Nixon had won while the TV audience had the opposite reaction.
I guess bud and J had busy schedules today that kept them from commenting on the debate.
What in the world will they do if Romney actually wins?
I didn’t see the debate, but from what I’ve been reading, it sounds like Obama may have forgotten that he’s not debating McCain anymore, where the visuals (let’s face it, old tired cranky guy vs. young energetic relaxed guy) just naturally favored him. Now Obama is the considerably more tired guy, facing somebody who looks Presidential (if you don’t actually listen to what he’s saying). The visuals do not automatically favor Obama this time, and it sounds like he did not totally absorb the fact that there would be the split screen, etc.
Still, remember the first debate 8 years ago? Kerry demolished Bush, on substance AND style, and GOP supporters generally acknowledged that just as most Democratic supporters now seem to admit that Obama underwhelmed last night. In the end, it did not matter…though I sure hope the election is not as razor-thin-close this time around as ’04.
Based on visual impressions alone, I thought Romney was just awful. Blinking rapidly, talking all over the moderator, smirking every time he stopped talking.
Now I see all these lefties saying Romney won. Weird. I really don’t get it.
@Doug – Someone probably needs to check on bud. After last night’s Obama flop, he might have seen the light and as they say in the South, “his cheese done fell off his cracker”.
I just read that Obama is bouncing back, in his rally in Denver today he was upbeat… yes, his teleprompter was up and running during the rally. After he loses the election, maybe he can find a career as a television news reader.
Onto brighter news, gasoline in parts of southern Kalifornia is reaching $6.00/gallon.
Bush v Kerry 2004. Kerry lost because he come across as a totally pompous ass and it cost him enough votes to swing it in favor of Bush.
Well, the fact is that John Kerry is a pompous ass, an extremely wealthy pompous ass.
Based on what I have been able to determine and the clips of the debate (was en route from WVA last night) is that the Romney everyone watched is the Romney who was able to handle any situation and never come to the negotiation table unprepared. In the end, Obama and Romney are negotiating with the voters to earn their proxy and if last night is any indication, Romney may have the upper hand in the upcoming debates as well. Obama will have to bring his A++ game.
This is not a high school or collegiate debate exercise, this is the real thing and whoever comes across and is more successful in “PRESENTING” their case to the public, not necessarily “MAKING” their case, will come out ahead.
This is politics and another point to consider. This is the first time the public has been able to watch Romney in action against the opposing party and he come across much different than the image that has been presented in the media.
Phillip made a good point about Obama and McCain. After the first debate, there was no doubt in my mind about who was going to win in November.
Phillip — I told my husband that the best thing that could happen to President Obama last night would have been to have blacked out the split screen on Obama last night while he spoke.
But that would have been racist, yes?
Romney was more energetic and forceful. He was also deceptive and rude. His treatment of Jim Lehrer was as bad as the way Chris Matthews treats his guests. He completely reversed himself on his tax cut plans–his website still says he wants a 20% tax cut across the board, yet he denied wanting any kind of tax cuts for the wealthy last night. He wants to eliminate deductions, but won’t say which ones. Are they the mortgage, dependent, or tuition deductions? Romney said his approach to health care would cover pre-existing conditions. Today his campaign said that was not so. He claimed half of all green initiative recipients have folded. No where near the truth (3 of 26 have failed). (The $90 billion refers to green money in the stimulus; 16 billion was in loans–even Solyndra will pay part of their loan back.)He wants to eliminate PBS? He’ll reduce the deficit by .0000004% with that move (if I have my decimals in the right place). He claimed President Obama doubled the deficit. The CBO projected a 1.2 trillion for fiscal 2009 (Oct. 2008-Sept. 2009) deficit in January 2009–before this president spent a dime. The deficit has remained very close to that same amount for the last three years. (Not saying that’s a good thing, but that Romney lied about it.) Lying forcefully is still lying.
I don’t know what was wrong with President Obama last night, except that he appeared to underestimate his opponent, and Romney pressed the advantage.
All the punditocracy has declared Romney the winner. So be it. My initial impression BEFORE watching any of the spin was that it was about a draw. I though both men had their bad visual moments. Romney’s off-putting grin comes across as very pompus. Obama did look down and nodded way too much. Style points to Romney but not by as much as the pundits gave him.
I thought Romney was leading on talking points (as oppossed to style and demeaner) until Obama pointed out that Romney has consistently refused to come through with any details about any issue, especially his $5 trillion tax cut and the budget cuts/loopholes he’ll make to pay for it. Sacrificing Big Bird at the alter of fiscal conservatism is a joke in terms of the dollar amount involved. Yet Romney largely got away with that nonsense. In in event most of what Romney said was untrue. But in the world of presidential debates that seems not to matter.
Obama could have done better. And this will likely cost him 2-3 points of his lead. His odds of winning dropped from 85% to about 70%.
The new jobs report indicates an unemployment rate of 7.8%, exactly the same as it was when Obama was sworn in as POTUS. Public sector job growth remains sluggish and overall job growth is mediocre at best. Still it’s hard to deny that the economy is moving in the right direction. Do we really want to risk a return to the free-wheeling days of an unregulated banking industry and HUGE tax cuts for the wealthy? Seems pretty obvious to me which man would help the middle class the most.
Let’s talk just a moment about the biggest whopper Gov. Romney told during the debate. (Ok there are many that could get that distinction but this is my choice). That is the denial of his $5 trillion tax cut. It is simply a fact that a 20% reduction in all rates amounts to about a $5t loss of revenue from taxes. Further, given the higher rates on high earners the vast majority of that $5t go to the wealthy. As Obama said during the debate that is just a math problem. But he didn’t go far enough. There is one subtle point about these rates that I haven’t seen anyone mention.
If you reduce a big number by 20% that will amount to a much larger RATE reduction than a small number. Let’s look at the actual numbers. For the highest earners you cutting 20% from 35% reduces there RATE by 7%. (20% x 35 = 7%)For the lowest earners the reduction in the RATE only amounts to 2% (20% x 10 = 2%). Therefore the wealthy not only receive a huge DOLLAR windfall they get a 3.5 times greater RATE windfall.
From what I read here, the debate changed no one’s mind.
@Tim – I hope that isn’t surprising to you.
Nope. Not surprised.
And Bart, your point about Kerry’s stuffy personality is a good one, too. Bush was generally perceived as more likeable than Kerry, and so while Kerry outperformed Bush at the debates (especially the first one) and closed the gap to nearly nothing by election day (with basically Ohio deciding the race) he was unable to overcome the “likeability gap” with the President.
Similarly, poll after poll shows a similar gap between Obama and Romney. I hate to rely on such a superficial yardstick for this country to make the right decision, since it seems so obvious to me that Obama towers over Romney on the merits alone, but I think we may see something similar, with a narrowing of the polls to something very small, and again perhaps one or two states deciding the race.
The following comments are observations and conclusions based on decades of observing human behavior.
First, Mitt Romney was a total unknown to most of America except for Republicans until Wednesday night. During the debate, he was engaged, knowledgeable, prepared, and surprisingly more likable than the popular perception of a “Snidley Whiplash” type character perpetrated by the opposition. This surprised many who depended on what they saw and/or listened to in the news media to form an opinion about Romney.
Kathryn and perhaps a couple of others who frequent this blog can attest to what it takes to prepare and plan for when entering into a negotiation when the stakes are so high. Kathryn has mentioned on previous posts her role in negotiations at a high level. And as mentioned in my first post, this is akin to a negotiation to obtain votes from the general public. This is an arena in which Romney does excel and can easily outperform Obama on any subject matter because Romney prepares so well. This may be a hard fact for Obama supporters to acknowledge but it is important to understand how critical it is when engaging in a public forum like a political debate.
Many of Romney’s points resonated with the audience, especially healthcare. Frank Luntz always has a post debate forum with a bipartisan group of voters. This time, 12 for Obama and 12 who voted for McCain in 2008. Many were exposed to Romney for the first time. If this group overwhelmingly found Romney to be the winner and making the most valid points, then it is possible to make a projection exponentially that a sizable percentage of the 67 million viewers could me moved further toward Romney than expected. Human nature accounted for, human’s instinctively like a winner and Romney come across as a winner. Obama, after watching some of the debate afterwards did not come across as a winner the way I expected. Humans also react strongly to first impressions and if the first impression stays as the predominant one, Obama will have a tough road ahead to remain in office.
The second and third debates will be of utmost importance to Obama and if does not walk away as the clear winner by a majority, they could very well cost him the election. Wonkish policy points will win in some quarters but overall, those points go over the heads of the viewers and they listen with their “eyes” more so than their ears if the one presenting the facts does so in a “winning” manner.
Good examples we are most familiar with: Kennedy v Nixon; Carter v Ford; Reagan v Carter and Dukakis; Clinton v Bush I and Dole; GWB v Gore and Kerry; and last but not least, Obama v McCain. With the exception of a couple of blowouts, the likable factor was a major factor in determining the elections.
Underestimating Romney will be a major mistake by Democrats, a very major one. He didn’t graduate at the top of his class at Harvard, MBA & JD, by just getting by. He worked hard and went to class fully prepared. His religion and background is based on hard work and preparation, taking nothing for granted.
You might find an article in the NYT – By JODI KANTOR
Published: December 24, 2011, interesting. It could be an eye opener.
Obama has had 4 years to make his case to the voters and Romney only a few weeks. At this point, I would not bet against Romney successfully closing the gap and walking away the winner.
First, Mitt Romney was a total unknown to most of America except for Republicans until Wednesday night.
-Bart
You’re kidding right? Mitt’s been running for president for the past 6 years and has made at least a gazillion television appearances. Unknown? Hardly. I will concede that the man who played Romney on Wednesday was a different version of Mitt. Just wait until next week and in front of a different audience we’ll see another Mitt. Sort of like the Sybil of candidates.
Kathryn and perhaps a couple of others who frequent this blog can attest to what it takes to prepare and plan for when entering into a negotiation when the stakes are so high.
-Bart
I can’t speak for Kathryn but the job is a whole lot easier if the candidate isn’t required to tell the truth. Sure all candidates exaggerate but Mitt Romney on Wednesday just flat out made stuff up. It was a breathtaking show of mendacity.
Underestimating Romney will be a major mistake by Democrats, a very major one.
-Bart
I will agree with that 100%. I’m sure Wednesday’s debate has gotten their attention.
Please excuse some of the misspells. …viewers could “be” instead of “me”
and missing words
…and if does should be…and if “he” does…
Probably more but…
Obama left his notepad behind after the debate.
http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad3/ziggiey/BaracksDebateNotes.jpg
Bart, surely you’re not serious:
Romney a “total unknown to most of America except Republicans”? Leaving aside the fact that Republicans make up around 37% of Americans (making that a pretty big “except”), this is Romney’s 2nd presidential campaign, and he was the presumptive nominee for months before the convention. One would have to be a seriously “low-information voter” for Romney to rate as a total unknown.
However, I’ll concede that in one sense there is definitely an “unknown” quality to Romney: that is, it is “unknown” which position he will take on any given day.
Yes, I am serious. The American public did not know Mitt Romney very well until Wednesday night. It makes no difference if the percentage of Republicans is at 37%, he was still an unknown quantity until the debate.
No need to respond to bud. He could have mailed his response in. Same old, same old.
@Phillip,
Please accept my apology for not providing a more detailed answer to your response. Yes, the Romney name does have a high recognition factor as do other highly visible people in the news. My observation was to make the point that even with a high recognition factor; the majority of people have never had or taken advantage of an opportunity to actually watch Romney in action or in a one on one situation that had the same high value stakes as did the debate. Viewership of the Republican debates was not very high and primarily of interest in the respective states where they took place. On the national scene, as with most candidate selection processes, state debates are generally tuned out.
The exception was in 2008 when Obama was running because of the race factor and if you add the Clintons into the mix, it became a highly visible campaign and garnered the public interest like never before. Plus, adding the fact that Oprah introduced Obama to South Carolina and the nation at a rally in Columbia at the football stadium, the national stage was set for Obama and he never looked back. The nomination and presidency was his to lose from that point on.
The Wednesday night debate was an opportunity for Romney to audition to the general public in much greater numbers than ever before. The viewer numbers support this because this was the second highest watched debate since Reagan-Carter. 67 million is nothing to dismiss lightly especially when Romney was the clear winner according to the public and polls by a wide margin. When Romney ran in 2008, he was a non-factor and general opinion from the beginning was that McCain would end up as the candidate. Much the same as when Dole was nominated; it was his turn.
When running to become the candidate, the time to give detailed answers is very short when sharing the stage with several others vying for their time in the spotlight. It does diminish the quality of exposure time and does not allow the public to get to know a candidate based on “fast-food” answers. I know you are not a Romney supporter and in general do not agree with any of his positions. You view the world thru a different prism and your politics support it. Others see the world much differently but both sides see the same problems but support different approaches to solving them.
Personally, I believe Romney is the more pragmatic of the two when it comes to solving the financial problems we are facing. Before some heads explode, think about it for a moment use the word in the proper context when differentiating between the two. Pragmatic according to the dictionary definition and thesaurus implies a realistic, utilitarian, logical, and practical view of how things actually work. But, I will concede that applying the word “pragmatic” to anything or anyone political is a waste of time and emotional energy.
Personally, I believe Romney is the more pragmatic of the two when it comes to solving the financial problems we are facing.
-Bart
How can you possibly know? Mitt “Sybil” Romney has taken every position on every issue. Did you know he once signed an assualt rifle ban as Governor? He’s held a variety of positions on abortion. And now he has a brand new position on taxes. Hope that Etch-a-Sketch is industrial strength. Sybil is now trying to peddle the idea that he really won’t cut taxes for the wealthy even though his tax plan features a reduction in the tax rate on the highest bracket from 35% to 28%. How can any person consider that an indication of pragmatism?
My idea of pragmatism is someone who has core principals but is willing to reconsider when facts and evidence indicates a need to reconsider. Sybil considers pragmatism a matter of deciding what to say given the makeup of the audience.
Brad, really… “Sybil”? If I even attempted to call Obama a derogatory name it’d get yanked.
Steven, that seems like a relatively serviceable metaphor to me — even though it’s one with which I disagree. I don’t think think Romney has a split personality at all. He simply isn’t defined by the hot-button, litmus-test issues that left and right use to differentiate themselves.
But to change the subject slightly… The sort of pragmatism I value is not without principles, and does not overthrow principles. A pragmatist may believe quite firmly in such notions as peace, prosperity, order and liberty. And he will pursue whatever policies, in a given situation, might most further those aims.
What I object to in ideologues is their prejudice toward certain strategies. They believe we must always do X in Y situation. The simplest example of this is the people who believe taxes must always be cut, because they are always, in their estimation, too high. A pragmatist, to whom taxes are merely a tool, recognizes that sometimes taxes are too high, sometimes they’re just right, and sometimes, Baby Bear, they’re just right.
Brad,
We all know this blog is yours and you make the rules and decisions on what is acceptable and what is not. As for bud’s use of the word “Sybil” to describe Romney, based on his previous descriptions of Repulicans, conservatives, and others who do not agree with his particular political ideology, “Sybil” is kindergarten language.
When you allow bud to call Republicans and conservatives “bastards”, “sons of bitches”, and any other derogatory term that does not use the “f” bomb, the message is very clear. For bud, there are no boundaries, for everyone else, a different set of rules and standards.
This is not just a recent observation either. It has been a consistent message from you for years and apparently since bud never uses names, it is crystal clear that when he uses the “bastard”, “son of a bitch”, to list a couple of descriptions for Republicans and conservatives, it was not intended to exclude anyone who is a Republican or conservative. I am a conservative and there are no words you can use to sufficiently parse bud’s terminology to exclude those of us who are conservatives and frequent this blog when he engages in his leftist rants. Or is “bastard” a sufficient metaphor in your world to excuse bud’s use of offending language in what should be civil discourse?
And bud, if you even dare try to deny it, your denial will be one of the most egregious examples of hypocrisy on this blog since it started years ago.
Bart, when you said Bud had used that language, I thought, “Really?” and had to go check. And you were right. When I search “bastard” among approved comments, the only person I saw NOT using it ironically was Bud.
So I need to police that more closely.
Sometimes I miss things like that in lengthy comments from regulars. While Bud merely signs himself “Bud,” he is known to be William Bloom, so that sort of makes him a made guy, although not to the extent of Doug Ross or Kathryn Fenner. (“Bud” isn’t a pseudonym; it’s the nickname by which he is actually known to his friends.) That gives him some latitude.
But when I approve a comment with language like that, it’s an oversight.
I think the reason why those words don’t pop up in a quick scan of a comment (say, one that I’m approving on the run via my phone), is that what strikes me far more strongly is the general tenor of Bud’s attitude toward conservatives. There is such vehemence that words like “bastard” sort of get lost in it. It’s the vehemence, the utter dismissal of those with whom he disagrees, that bothers me more than the individual words.
I usually disagree with him when he’s in that mode, and it bothers me. But my usual stance on this blog is to err on the side of allowing something.
However, now that it’s been brought to my attention, I’ll take extra care with Bud’s comments for awhile, at least through Nov. 6. And perhaps Bud will help me by not getting so carried away, and watching his own language…
“And perhaps Bud will help me by not getting so carried away, and watching his own language…”
I won’t hold my breath.
If the recent jobs report is a true indication of a recovery and the unemployment number is below 8% that is a good thing for the nation. But, once you look at the numbers and if the experts are correct, the 114,000 new jobs created are well below the number to sustain a recovery and continue the gains in the positive column. Depending on the interpretation of the BLS projections of June, 2011 projecting thru 2021, the number jobs that need to be created each month to sustain the impetus for a full recovery ranges anywhere from 224,000 to 316,000, the report was short of the mark by 110,000/202,000 and the anemic growth trend continues. That is not a good thing for the nation.
An interesting aspect of the full report was the 873,000 jobs number of which 582,000 were part time and included somewhere in the numbers was another interesting factoid. There are 183,000 multiple job holders in the count. Another interesting note is that job growth at the federal level is growing while local and state government jobs are shrinking. If anything, the trend should be reversed which would indicate local and state economies are growing and jobs that were eliminated are being filled again due to an increase in tax revenues.
The U-6 number or the number of unemployed and underemployed remains at 14.7%. The number of unemployed people dropped by 456,000 last month but only 114,000 jobs were added. I am hesitant to use the term “new jobs” to describe the 114k until the number of jobs lost, approximately 8 million plus since 2008 according to CNN. So far, the administration has boasted of adding over 4 million “new” jobs. If you include the jobs created in the federal government, green industry , seasonal hiring, and part time jobs, then the numbers are accurate.
However, in the real world, until the jobs that were lost have been regained, 8 million, whether by rehiring for eliminated jobs or creating jobs by small businesses starting to open again, the term “new” is meaningless to the man or woman who is still looking for positive growth in the job market.
Not being one of the conspiracy theorists adhering to the belief the people who work for BLS are involved in some vast conspiracy to cook the books. It is virtually impossible for that many people to keep their mouths shut and someone not spill the beans if a conspiracy exists. When Pentagon secrets cannot be kept, how can a public agency run by the government be expected to do the same?
As for Romney’s supposed $5 trillion tax cut, that has been proven to be a lie perpetrated by the Obama campaign. The author of the article Obama’s campaign has used as reference has publically disclaimed the position the ad supports. Verbatim from Princeton professor Harvey Rosen: “ I can’t tell exactly how the Obama campaign reached that characterization of my work. It might be that they assume that Governor Romney wants to keep the taxes from the Affordable Care Act in place, despite the fact that the Governor has called for its complete repeal. The main conclusion of my study is that under plausible assumptions, a proposal along the lines suggested by Governor Romney can both be revenue neutral and keep the net tax burden on taxpayers with incomes above $200,000 about the same. That is, an increase in the tax burden on lower and middle income individuals is not required in order to make the overall plan revenue neutral. “
I thought the Sybil comment was appropriate given Governor Romneys well known proclivity to take very different positions on the same issue. It’s supposed to be humorous. This seems like an appropriate term to apply to someone who changes his position (and political personality) depending on the audience he his speaking to at the time. One of his own campaign staffers used the term “Etch-a-Sketch” not a liberal or a democrat so you cannot claim his campaign strategy is to articulate a heartfealt vision for America. Rather it’s a cynical strategy of appealing to the most voters without regard to any core values.
All you Ronald Reagan supporters should be aghast at how he flips and flops on the issues. I didn’t care much for Reagan but he had the vision thing nailed down. Even his most ardent critics never questioned his core beliefs. That doesn’t seem too much to ask for a candidate who has made it this far.
And by the way Bart and SD II get a sense of humor. Can’t we have a bit of fun while we debate serious issues.
“And by the way Bart and SD II get a sense of humor. Can’t we have a bit of fun while we debate serious issues.”….bud
Last resort of a failed argument; deflection, smoke and mirrors, and lame responses/accusations.
@bud – “And by the way Bart and SD II get a sense of humor.”
Say something humorous and we’ll all have a good laugh.
… Le’t take a look at what Gov. Romney actually was defending during the debate. Basically he had a five part goal:
1. A 20 percent reduction in marginal personal income tax rates.
2. Elimination of the estate tax.
3. Elimination of the Alternative Minimum Tax.
4. Enough base-broadening, through the elimination of tax expenditures, to fully pay for policies 1 through 3.
5. Preservation of incentives for saving and investment.
Virtually everyone except for Rosen finds this list impossible to achieve. And even Rosen is assuming an astounding growth rate of 3%. In reality this list is implausible. But what is really dishonest about the whole Romney claim is that he simply does not stipulate what tax loopholes he will get rid of. Unless he does then all we have to go on is that he’s proposing a 20% cut in the federal income tax rate. And that amounts to a $5 trillion tax cut. Nothing about what the president said is at all a lie. It’s just math.
what strikes me far more strongly is the general tenor of Bud’s attitude toward conservatives. There is such vehemence that words like “bastard” sort of get lost in it. It’s the vehemence, the utter dismissal of those with whom he disagrees, that bothers me more than the individual words.
-Brat
“Attitude”, “vehemence”, “dismissal” of conservatives. I won’t back down on my strident disagreement with today’s conservative politics. It is just not a tenable approach to the problems we are facing today.
@bud
“that bothers me more than the individual words.
-Brat”
Was that a typo or another failed attempt at humor?
It sort of works either way…
Typo
[Some material removed because I want to end the Bart-Bud thing amicably, and move on…]
However, it does make one scratch their head in wonder when the Obama campaign uses Rosen as an authoritative source in an ad but Rosen disputes the conclusion the Obama campaign ad tries to perpetrate as fact. If they are not capable of vetting their own sources any better than this example, what message does it send?
@Brad – “It sort of works either way…”
So you’re calling Bart a brat?
No, Steven… I was saying I could see how someone could take it either way…
From one of those foreign newspapers, Obama thought he won.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/columnists/columnist-1072450/Toby-Harnden.html