Skip to main content

Mitt Romney signs Romneycare in 2006 and campaigns against Obamacare in 2012.
Shocking news: Mitt Romney tries to have it both ways for a third time
Purely based on the substance, this was one of the more interesting moments of last night's debate. It started with President Obama raising Mitt Romney's promise to repeal Obamacare. "Governor Romney says we should replace it," the president said. But, he said, there's a problem.
OBAMA: The problem is, he hasn't described what exactly we'd replace it with, other than saying we're going to leave it to the states.

But the fact of the matter is that some of the prescriptions that he's offered, like letting you buy insurance across state lines, there's no indication that that somehow is going to help somebody who's got a pre-existing condition be able to finally buy insurance.

Romney, pressed by Jim Lehrer to explain how he'd replace Obamacare, responded:
ROMNEY: Well, actually it's — it's — it's a lengthy description. But, number one, preexisting conditions are covered under my plan. Number two, young people are able to stay on their family plan. That's already offered in the private marketplace. You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur.
That response—just five sentences long—amounts to a hat trick of deception, and it was clearly designed to blur the differences between Romney and the president on health care.

First, instead of actually saying what his plan is, Romney resorted to the old "it would take too long to explain it" dodge. But that's not true—to the extent he has previously articulated a plan for replacing Obamacare, it's been focused almost entirely on allowing people to purchase insurance across state lines and expanding tax deductions to the individual market. That doesn't take long to explain, but there's a problem: Romney's plan wouldn't deliver any of the benefits of Obamacare, and as the rest of Romney's answer showed, he wants to promise those very same benefits.

For example, Romney's second claim was that his plan covers people with pre-existing conditions. That probably sounded great to the debate audience, but the truth is that he has never released a health care plan that actually covers pre-existing conditions. In fact, earlier this year on Jay Leno's show, Romney said that his plan didn't cover them. Moreover, after the debate, his own top adviser conceded that President Obama was right: Romney would leave pre-existing conditions up to the states.

Pressed by TPM’s Evan McMorris-Santoro, Fehrnstrom said those who currently lack coverage because they have pre-existing conditions would need their states to implement their own laws — like Romney’s own Massachusetts health care law — that ban insurance company from discriminating against sick people.

“We’d like to see states do what Massachusetts did,” Fehrnstrom said. “In Massachusetts we have a ban on pre-existing conditions.”

So, if they'd like to see states do what Massachusetts did ... then why repeal Obamacare, which is modeled after what Massachusetts did? It makes no sense—and Romney knows it. That's why, during the debate, he flip-flopped and took the Obamacare position on preexisting conditions. And the reason he won't explain how he'd do that is because the only way he can do that is by leaving Obamacare in place. If he implements the plan he's proposed, preexisting conditions simply wouldn't be covered. And even his own campaign couldn't say otherwise.

The third and final element to Romney's answer was his statement that under his plan, "young people are able to stay on their family plan." To really appreciate Romney's brass, you have to take another look at his explanation for why that's would be the case. "That's already offered in the private marketplace," he said. "You don't have to have the government mandate that for that to occur."

To the extent that statement is true, Obamacare is the reason. The ability of young people to stay on their family plans isn't something that spontaneously started being "offered in the private marketplace." Instead, it became an option for young people because Obamacare requires it. In other words, Mitt Romney is either lying—because repealing Obamacare would eliminate that requirement—or he's saying that he doesn't want to repeal one of the central features of Obamacare.

To recap:

  1. Romney dodged explaining his health care plan by saying it was too "lengthy" to describe, which just isn't true.
  2. Romney, despite refusing to detail his plan, said it covered pre-existing conditions just like Obamacare even though he has previously taken the opposite position and even though his own campaign did not stand by his claim.
  3. Romney says his plan wouldn't kick young people of their family plans because he says young people are already able to get coverage through their parents. But Obamacare is what makes that possible, and if his plan is to continue that policy, he's endorsing a key element of Obamacare.

President Obama rebutted Romney's first and second points during the debate, with particular emphasis on Romney's recurring pattern of refusing to say how he'd achieve his promises. And he did make it clear that the way to achieve the promises made by Romney would be to keep Obamacare in place. But he didn't go for Romney's jugular and point out that Mitt Romney was essentially endorsing Obamacare in substance, if not name.

In the end, Romney's answer sounded good, but a key part of the reason that it sounded good is that he claimed President Obama's positions as his own—and didn't get called out for it. That might have been enough to give him a "win" last night, but last night was just one night. And as long as President Obama and his campaign are ready and willing to fight back and point out the gap between what Romney said last night and what he's said throughout the campaign, I don't think it's a victory that can be sustained.

Originally posted to The Jed Report on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 07:56 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  I thought he was up there promising the moon (12+ / 0-)

    but never telling us how he was going to pay for it.

    Usually when someone tries to sell you something and doesn't tell you the cost up front, it is waaaaaaay to expensive and doesn't really get the job done.

    "I watch Fox News for my comedy, and Comedy Central for my news." - Facebook Group

    by Sychotic1 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:00:45 AM PDT

  •  Missed opportunity: when Romney brought up (14+ / 0-)

    the discredited meme about "death panels" Obama missed an opportunity. In fact, Democrats consistently miss an opportunity on this one. Here is the answer I would like to hear:

    We already have unelected persons making decisions about our healthcare. Insurance companies do that all the time, and the motivation is purely their profit. Obamacare does not do this, private insurance does, and because of it, millions of people are routinely denied care they need, in some cases, life-saving care.
    •  Obamacare relies on private insurance. (0+ / 0-)

      Losing argument.

      Obama should have blasted Romney for his ER comments on 60 minutes.

      VULTURE/VOUCHER 2012. FUCK YOU, MIDDLE CLASS!

      by GOPGO2H3LL on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:22:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Not entirely true (0+ / 0-)

        The panels they're talking about are used to determine (among other things) which procedures must be covered by insurance.  While private insurance can deny payment for some procedure or other, under Obamacare the insurance companies will be forced to cover the procedure if it's been decided that it's necessary by the panel.

        Can this panel be gamed to deny coverage?  Sure, but at the same time it can also be used to deny coverage for ridiculous things like acupuncture and homeopathic "treatments."  There has to be some sort of policing of health care and while a bunch of government bureaucrats may not be an ideal solution, I'll take that over a random set of Insurance company CEO's working only for their bottom line any day.

        I have years of experience in medical billing review and some doctors and hospitals do everything they can to rip off insurance companies. Now I'm definitely not a fan of insurance companies and the insurance companies kill and rip-off people at a far larger scale than any provider submitting a bill twice on the chance it will get missed and both bills paid. But I certainly don't want people going to acupuncture clinics and charging their insurance company for the privilege.  

        [Terrorists] are a dime a dozen, they are all over the world and for every one we lock up there will be three to take his place. --Digby

        by rabel on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:59:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Well, like Romney said, the private sector can do (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      commonmass

      a better job then the government. At least when it comes to killing people for a profit.

      Except of course for the war profit killing. Though I think Romney has a private sector plan for that as well (cough, Iran, cough).

      Vote Tea Party Taliban! Bring the Burqa to America.

      by Pescadero Bill on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:25:05 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •   The private sector doesn't do a better job (0+ / 0-)

        when it comes to healthcare costs.

        Their adminstrative costs and profits take/took 25-28% of every dollar. Medicare administrative costs range from 4-6%.

        Obamacare has required that they spend more of every dollar on patient care, but it still leaves insurance companies keeping 15-20%.

        Today's problems are yesterday's solutions. Don Beck

        by Sherri in TX on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:52:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Romney's a used car salesman. A megaliar. (8+ / 0-)

    If the American people can't see that, then we're sunk.

    •  His prices are so low, they're crazy. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Pescadero Bill, annieli

      The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

      by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:23:21 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  And here's a classic case of obfuscation... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      D in Northern Virginia

      from Mittster.  

      If the facts are against you, muddy the waters.  

      You got facts?!!!   I got facts!!!   Your facts aren't any more factual than mine.

      ROMNEY:  Now, you cite a study. There are six other studies that looked at the study you describe and say it’s completely wrong.

      I saw a study that came out today that said you’re going to raise taxes by 3,000 dollars to $4,000 on -- on middle-income families. There are all these studies out there.

      But let’s get to the bottom line. That is, I want to bring down rates. I want to bring down the rates down, at the same time lower deductions and exemptions and credits and so forth so we keep getting the revenue we need.

      Perhaps a reporter might want to ask Mr. Romney to list the"six other studies" he cites and to investigate the bona fides of their authors, but of course that would involve work, so what you get here is just another version of the "debate" over global warming.
      PRESIDENT:  I've got 900 Nobel scientists telling me that if we don't act soon and do so on a global scale, we could be facing conditions of drought, famine, crop failures and induced political conflicts beyond anything ever to confront mankind in known history.

      ROMNEY:  I've got 600 local weathermen and guys paid by Exxon Mobil who make it plain this is all nonsense.

      MEDIA:  Draw!

      LEHRER:  OK....we now are going to devote the next two minute segment to a review of health care policy.

      Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

      by dweb8231 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:27:03 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Was that during the exchange when... (0+ / 0-)

        Rmoney name-dropped McKinsey & Co.? Oooh, McKinsey -- the impressive consultativizing strategering company.

        The Republican brand: "Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich"

        by D in Northern Virginia on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:34:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  No....it was part of comments Romney made... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          D in Northern Virginia

          about passage of his health care plan in Massachusetts -- the plan which he today says he will totally eliminate if he becomes President:

          What we did, in a legislature 87 percent Democrat, we worked together. Two hundred legislators in my legislature -- only two voted against the plan by the time we were finished.

          What were some differences?

          We didn’t raise taxes. You’ve raised them by a trillion dollars under “Obamacare.”

          We didn’t cut Medicare. Of course, we don’t have Medicare, but we didn’t cut Medicare by $716 billion. We didn’t put in place a board that can tell people ultimately what treatments they’re going to receive.

          We didn’t -- we didn’t also do something that I think a number of people across this country recognize, which is put -- put people in a position where they’re going to lose the insurance they had and they wanted. Right now, the CBO says up to 20 million people will lose their insurance as “Obamacare” goes into effect next year. And likewise, a study by McKinsey & Company of American businesses said 30 percent of them are anticipating dropping people from coverage.

          So for those reasons, for the tax, for Medicare, for this board and for people losing their insurance, this is why the American people don’t want -- don’t want “Obamacare.” It’s why Republicans said, do not do this.

          And the Republicans had a -- had a plan. They put a plan out. They put out a plan, a bipartisan plan. It was swept aside. I think something this big, this important has to be done in a bipartisan basis. And we have to have a president who can reach across the aisle and fashion important legislation with the input from both parties.

          I'm not going to spend lots of time pointing out why all of this stuff is nonsense, but he's obviously comparing apples and oranges when it comes to the economic and political circumstances at play in each scenario.  He also completely (and conveniently) ignores the fact that the GOP from day one of Obama's Presidency was already colluding to block any legislative successes on his part as the best means to regain control of the White House and all of Congress.)

          Free markets would be a great idea, if markets were actually free.

          by dweb8231 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:42:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  So, why does he have percentages in the 40s? (0+ / 0-)

      We are an echo chamber here...talking to the choir.  A good portion of this country doesn't even bother to vote!  And those low information voters who tuned into that debate last night got some red meat from Romney and a lackluster response from Obama.....so, just like when they watch sports on the teevee.....the tough guy wins!  See?  That's how it will work.  We keep thinking that facts matter.......silly silly people.

      Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven. William Shakespeare

      by lutznancy on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:58:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  R-Money's night in a nutshell: (5+ / 0-)

    "If you can't dazzle 'em with facts, baffle 'em with bullshit."

  •  some thoughts (4+ / 0-)

    on obama-cares:

    romney said the states should craft their own health care plans... that's his "replacement"
    he said it at least twice, once in his close.
    so his proposal is to repeal obama-cares, and replace it with nothing.
    you think all those red states are chomping at the bit to pass their own healthcare plans? really? surely, red states will be battling with each other to attract insurance companies willing to insure people with pre-existing conditions, no?
    whatever.

    also i wish someone would point out this:
    they repeatedly claim obama-cares kills jobs, so by moving hcr to the states won't that kill jobs at the state level?

    Toleration is the greatest gift of the mind; it requires the same effort of the brain that it takes to balance oneself on a bicycle. -Helen Keller

    by ridemybike on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:06:59 AM PDT

  •  Sound Minus the Fury (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    D in Northern Virginia

    Last night's debate, according to Mike Flannigan, was full of sound minus the fury.

    JP
    http://welcomebacktopottersville.blogspot.com

    Defending bad taste and liberalism since 2005.

    by jurassicpork on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:07:20 AM PDT

  •  Trying to track this all makes my brane splode (7+ / 0-)

    A democratic president takes a republican plan for healthcare reform that madnates that Americans own private health insurance that the right wing despises and the corporatists oppose that the conservative-leaning supreme court upholds that Romney instituted in MA that he disavows and reavows and disavows...

    I literally cannot compute the ideological morass this represents.

  •  For those of you who hate the chess metaphor (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli, D in Northern Virginia

    I give it to you again.  

    heh.  

    Material grabbers will fall prey to a lot of tricks and traps.

    If your just concerned with grabbing your opponent's pieces, then you get a certain kind of game.  

    More advanced play requires setting up situations that lead to a positional advantage.  Often, players will sacrifice material in order to gain positional dominance.  

    The healthcare issue and taxes are prime examples.  They knew who they were going to run against.  They knew it would be pretty much the same policies as Bush on taxes, but they also knew about Romneycare.  

    Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

    by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:07:46 AM PDT

    •  we are still in the middle game and using (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      D in Northern Virginia

      combinations

      yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

      by annieli on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:15:49 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I wouldn't say that (0+ / 0-)

        I'd say we are in the process of trading down into an end game, and Romney was a man with nothing to lose, so he went all out for it.

        It may have a momentary impact, but I tend to doubt it.

        Incarceration Nation has a Jail Jones to feed its Imprisonment Addiction

        by otto on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 12:10:58 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Problem is your average person watching that (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    KingTag, rhauenstein

    debate has no clue they were just lied to over and over again.  And it's because Obama never pointed it out.

  •  Ins cos cannot cover pre-existing conditions (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Simplify, tb mare

    without the mandate that all buy insurance. Otherwise I will not buy insurance until I get sick and that does not work financially.

  •  Mingy politicians have two main interests, (0+ / 0-)

    in addition to staying in power.  First off, they resist the very notiion of obligations.  They don't want to owe anybody anything, not even public service. That's why they run for public office, after all.  They expect to tell, not be told what to do.
    The second thing, and this is closely related to getting elected and reelected, they want people to stay in place. That's one reason for making laws state-specific.  They figure that ruling is easier done locally. When people can just pick up and access whatever they need, wherever they land, then the people out to exploit them have a really hard time.
    The people, of course, have an interest in mobility--the essential ingredient in liberty.

    We organize governments to provide benefits and prevent abuse.

    by hannah on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:08:57 AM PDT

  •  Romney is a pathological liar (4+ / 0-)

    I'm convinced. He will say anything, anywhere, anytime, & believe it himself when he says it, even if it contradicts what he said an hour ago. If you call him a liar he doesn't understand what it means. It doesn't apply to him, ever.
    "I don't lie," he says to himself. He's been saying it to himself since the first time he told a lie, as a child.  

    "There ain't no sanity clause." Chico Marx

    by DJ Rix on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:10:02 AM PDT

  •  that was my husband's immediate take away, too. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mistral Wind

    romney really buried himself with his base (especially) on that one.  the r's don't want any kind of govt-subsidized healthcare (even medicare) & for mitt to embrace it like he did, sent a clear message to the base that he didn't mean what he had been telling them all along -- he was doing it to get the nomination, & nothing more.

  •  Romney was said Vouchers for ppl under 60 (0+ / 0-)

    "Rick Perry talks a lot and he's not very bright. And that's a combination I like in Republicans." --- James Carville

    by LaurenMonica on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:11:53 AM PDT

  •  When I hear Romney or Ryan say (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    GOPGO2H3LL, tb mare

    "Too  lengthy"
    I think of Pinocchio's nose.

    If cats could blog, they wouldn't

    by crystal eyes on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:12:29 AM PDT

  •  who gets more sound bites (0+ / 0-)

    out of this debate, obama hands down, the more video of romliar put up the better, the undecideds will believe his own words before the dem spin, lets wait for the dust to settle then the romliar might be screaming a different tune the next time, again & again.  

  •  I thought this was one of many bad moments for R (0+ / 0-)

    It was almost as bad as when he tried to explain his tax plan.   Just on optics, the guy looked like he was unprepared and making it up as he went along.

    So if they want to push his debate performance, let's play this section and the one on taxes over and over.

  •  Romney "won" last night's debate because he lied (0+ / 0-)

    and Obama either couldn't or wouldn't call him on it assertively enough. That sort of strategy may have won him the election in 2000 or 2004, when the country was still willing if not eager to be lied to, but it didn't cut it in 2008 and it won't cut it in 2012. The public wants solutions that make sense and pass the reality test, not smoke and mirror policies obviously intended and if implemented sure to further enrich the already very rich and further impoverish everyone else, while ruining our finances and doing nothing to fix what's wrong with the country.

    In the past, they might have gotten away with such awful lying. This time, I don't believe it will, because the public sees and is sick of it. They want policies that ARE good, not ones that merely sound good. So every time Romney or one of this shilling surrogates "wins" a debate, the lose the public.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:18:25 AM PDT

  •  Obama's stroke of genius last night: (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    By making it look like Romney could win, he keeps all the Republican money aimed at the top of the ticket, where it will be wasted, instead of seeing it go downballot to help GOP congresscritters. Nicely played, sir.

    Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

    by hazzcon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:20:00 AM PDT

    •  Oh my God. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KingTag

      Epic denial.

      VULTURE/VOUCHER 2012. FUCK YOU, MIDDLE CLASS!

      by GOPGO2H3LL on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:24:26 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I was kidding. (0+ / 0-)

        I think all the kvetching is really overdone, though. Yeah, some people thought Romney came across better, whatevs. The debates don't really mean shit to anyone but the blowhard pundits. I have a very low opinion of anybody who is swayed by presidential debates. To me, that is an admission of extreme shallowness, but hey, its America.

        Let's go back to E Pluribus Unum

        by hazzcon on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:22:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  I just knew that the MSNBC see crowd, (0+ / 0-)

    especially Ed, were going to be unhinged after the debate. Ed even said "Doesn't the President watch cable?" Well, no, Ed. He has, uh, this country to run. Anyway, my take was that Rmoney wasn't good, he was a manic, like he broke the LDS rule about coffee and got stoked up on caffeine before the debate. So, next time, Mr. President, ignore the noise, and nail the bastard to the wall with his lies, and don't worry about being Presidential.

    I think, therefore I am. I think.

    by mcmom on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:21:41 AM PDT

  •  There was one statement Romney made (2+ / 0-)

    toward the end of the debate on that issue where he said what worked in MA should be used as the model for all the states.

    And what we did in Massachusetts is a model for the nation, state by state.
    If that's what Romney believes, then wouldn't repealing ACA be pretty idiotic?
  •  The lies on Obamacare (0+ / 0-)

    were shocking. He basically adopted the President positions and Obama just stood there. My wife was in shock. I am desperately praying for anything to knock the debates of the frontpage.

    They need to take Biden off the trail and prepare him for the debates.

  •  Romney's plan: Block grant Medicare to the states (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    annieli

    who can pass their own Romneycare plans plus vouchers.
    States can never afford their own Medicare plans. Medicare will be destroyed.

  •  Mitt trades short-term gain (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    D in Northern Virginia

    for long-term pain.  Heard this on MSNBC this morning and agree.  When folks realize that most of the great stuff they heard last night doesn't hold up to scrutiny, they'll turn against Mitt even stronger than before the debate.

  •  Bush did this same thing (0+ / 0-)

    but the truth is that he has never released a health care plan that actually covers pre-existing conditions.

    In his debate with Gore. On the more popular populist things Gore was for Bush would just more or less say he was for those things as well, but which wasn't really true.

  •  I just Do Not Get IT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FightinginVA, tb mare

    I debated in high school and college at a high level. I have judged many true debates and always did my flow sheets in judging and if one side was incorrect in what they were saying and the other side did not point that out- they lose.

    The President is not stupid. he knows and I think he was surprised, but I do not know why- if they had watched even one debate of Romney and all of his ads and campaign speeches. The man is a liar and it is the President's job to point that out and not assume the public knows anything.

    I think that he made the miscalculation, being close to Romney on stage, that Romney was coming off in a shrill way and that would transfer to the Indy voter. The polls in a few days will tell us that.

    The idea of likability does not seem to be  a problem on the campaign trail when he was blasting away at Romney or in his ads.  

    To simply say on the many occasions that he had  (whether it was that Romney cares about jobs and the middle class or talking about working with Dems in Congress, that first you have to learn to represent and talk with the American people and that when you demean and insult 47% of them inaccurately, you got a long way to go and work with anyone in Congress.

    When Romney said he did not know about companies moving offshore for tax advantage- for the president to simply point out that is not quite square with Romney's own actions of having offshore money and investments that he does not even seem fit to share with the people he wants to represent and move into the tax issue.

    To challenge moving everything to the States and discussing the right of choice, civil rights, voting rights and so forth. To say they agree on Social Security when the VP on Romney's ticket and the House Dem. want to privatize social security and ask Romney on the spot if he would pledge to fight against that.

    Why he did not mention Bush and ask Romney how his policies would be different than Bush?

    Why he could not remind the American people that four years ago, the head of the Fed, the sec of treasurer, the Dem and Rep. leadership in both the Senate and the House met in the Speaker's office and told them that if they did not do something immediately that there would be no economy left by Monday. That is the brink of where republicans took us to and you want to act like going back to that is a solution??????????

    I am not sure how any of these questions would have affected his likability and have written such to the White House.

  •  Romney's math don't add up. He's Bush on steroids. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    D in Northern Virginia

    Unfunded mandates.

  •  RMoney Is Hoping Enough Of The Electorate Are (0+ / 0-)

    stupid and won't question the ridiculous assertions he made about his "health care plan." It's the old political trick of telling people what they want to hear: "I won't get rid of what you like about the ACA (i.e. covering people with pre-existing conditions), but I will get rid of the thing you don't like (i.e. the individual mandate). Obama should have called Rmoney on this BS using Bill Clinton's words - do the math. If you get rid of the individual mandate, you CANNOT cover individuals with pre-existing conditions. It just doesn't work, period.  President Obama was not forceful enough in defending the ACA - he  needs to get on his game for the next debate. RMoney is slick, like a used car salesman, and President Obama needs to be aware of that.

  •  Would someone please catalog the mendacity? (0+ / 0-)

    Dozens of recent diaries have mentioned the "lies" of last night's debate. It would be so helpful to have a list of talking points around that, citing each Romney's false statements, the corresponding fact, and the source of the fact.

    Anyone?

    This would be handy for a lot of other topics we discuss here too. Wouldn't it be great to have a list of talking points about each Republican congressional candidate?

    (I realize I should be willing to do this myself if I'm suggesting it, but I can't today.)

    *** All our work toward economic and social justice won't matter the slightest bit unless we start reversing global warming right now. ***

    by CupaJoe on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:39:50 AM PDT

  •  i thought he really looked (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    tb mare

    like a buffoon when he said he would stop funding pbs but he likes big bird and he even likes lehrer, that to me said everything about the promises he was making on the uppers he was on, very unprofessional and not presidential, that may work in a board room where everyone is intimidated by his wealth but not in the real world where he is now even though that thought hasn't resonated with him yet.

  •  A dandy "wish list" is not a measurable plan !! (0+ / 0-)

    Most of what Romney said is merely a wish list, composed to match as many other wish lists in the audience that he could.  It isn't in the least bit a workable plan.

    There is no problem definition, no solution and no analysis on how the solution solves the problem, or how much of the problem is addressed, and what the risks and shortcomings might be.

    Talk is cheap.

    I think that Republicanism is revealing itself as a personality disorder, not so much an ideology." -- Naomi Klein

    by AllanTBG on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:48:26 AM PDT

  •  Romney... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phrogge prince

    .....will say or do anything that is demanded by the moment.

    He is a complete cipher.

    As a result, it is impossible to pin him down and makes him extremely dangerous.

    If you catch him in a lie, he'll just deny it and make up something else, and say it with a totally straight face and accuse you of doing the exact same thing he just did.

    It's Karl Rove Jujitsu 2.0, the Romney Variant.

    Or put more simply, it's the "I know you are but what am I" second grade sandbox ploy adapted for presidential politics.

    "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!"

    by jkay on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 08:51:36 AM PDT

  •  I really don't think it should be too difficult to (0+ / 0-)

    refute Romney's lies and turn Romney's first positive moment in months into a negative.  I think the question is whether Obama feel threatened enough by Romney to change tactics and strategy.  He demonstrated a remarkable nimbleness and aggressiveness in early June in response to the slowing economy due to the Euro crisis and Romney's consolidation of the GOP vote post primary.  That's where the Bain ads and other attacks came from and how his stump speech evolved which put him into a solid lead prior to the debate.

    Obama has a tendency to complacency but when he is awoken, he really gets after it and can be every bit as calculating a politician as anyone out there.  That's what we need to see starting today.  The question is does the Obama team feel a sense of urgency or not.  Are they willing to adjust tactics to meet the challenge posed by Romney's lies?  Are they ready to play small ball?  Past performance suggests the answer is yes. However, I need to see that sense of urgency on the President's face.

    Alternative rock with something to say: http://www.myspace.com/globalshakedown

    by khyber900 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:02:32 AM PDT

  •  HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 09:16:04 AM PDT

  •  No one with pre-existing conditions is fooled (0+ / 0-)

    If you have a pre-existing condition (as I do), you've been following this closely. You know that pre-existing conditions can be covered only if there is a universal mandate.

    Besides, even if you didn't realize that, why would you trade Obamacare, which you have now, for a campaign promise from a known liar?

    (Then again, if I can purchase insurance across state lines, I guess I could get it from Massachusetts. I kid...)

    It looks like Romney's debate performance will be as thoroughly debunked as Ryan's convention speech. I'll be curious to see how Obama shifts strategy for the next one.

  •  Who was in charge of debate prep? John Kerry OMG! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phrogge prince

    I am not a fan of John Kerry or Bob Schrum. I think they are losers big time.

    John Kerry bambie like response to being swift boated makes me think that is where President got the bambie like debate response last night.

    Get john Kerry and his crew away from the president.  Let him be himself. none of this above thr fray crap that Kerry did in 2004 when he never refuted not one poit made against him.

    He never had an answer for flipflopping.

  •  The larger point Mitt seemed to be making (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    phrogge prince

    is that insurance companies don't need government to be making them do anything.  However, the fact that they didn't (and haven't) take good care of their customers and forced millions of people to go without healthcare coverage/access to healthcare is what led to Massachusetts-UNDER ROMNEY- to enact Romneycare, which, in turn, led to Obamacare (using the term approvingly as President Obama basically agreed to adopt it last night) being enacted.  After all, it's not like what was going on in Massachusetts was different than what is going on here in Indiana in terms of insurance.  People whom hate government intervention seem to overlook the fact that if things were going great in the private sector and most people were getting what they need, there'd be no need for government intervention/regulation.  However, when the private sector is left alone and nearly drags the country down into another Great Depression, to suggest that government can't/shouldn't intervene and try to put (back) in safeguards to ensure that it is less likely to happen over and over again is insane IMHO.  

  •  Romney's not just a flip-flopper, he's a (0+ / 0-)

    whirling dervish!

  •  The key quote is a killer (0+ / 0-)

    From TPM

    “We’d like to see states do what Massachusetts did,” Fehrnstrom said. “In Massachusetts we have a ban on pre-existing conditions.”
    So when Romney says "pre-existing conditions are covered under my plan," he's saying that he is planning to hope that someone else will do something about pre-existing conditions.  
  •  So far it's been a surreal morning. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight

    My family had 'dealing with my insane parents' day. My sister (the catholic) and her husband (the tea bagger) are....rabidly republican to say the least. I got hit with 'Romney is winning, no sane human should vote for Obama, he hates the military'. Add, 'he's a black Muslim who will declare marshal law and take over the country if we don't get him out'.  Then it got really weird 'Madonna says he's a Muslim, everyone knows he's a Muslim! Why else would he not show us his birth certificate?' I countered with, yes he did, it's online he was freaking born in god blessed Hawaii! He's not trying to take over the country, you are delusional. To which the reply was 'the OTHER birth certificate, the one from some other country, not sure which one. There is a reporter in Washington that found it but they aren't allowed to talk about it.' !?!?.....WHAT!?!  These are not uneducated people, my sister is an RN and her husband is a respiratory therapist, so WTF? Exactly what 'other' birth certificate and how did we get Obama hates the military and wants to rule the world. And I thought we were done with the whole Obama is a Muslim nonsence.  WTF!

    "And while it was regarded as pretty good evidence of criminality to be living in a slum, for some reason owning a whole street of them merely got you invited to the very best social occasions."

    by Shippo1776 on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 10:52:12 AM PDT

  •  Has anyone made the argument of portability (0+ / 0-)

    If I have worked all my life in one state and I want to move to another one I may have a real issue at some point if there isnt some commonality in health care.  Isnt that one good reason for federal laws?  We can go from one state to the next and have some sense that we are in the same place with some reasonable laws to govern our way of life.  The same is true of any safety net.  I think it makes for good business too.  If I am in business and I want to attract people from all over the country I am going to want there to be some similarity in benefits that those people may have paid for over the past few years.  Even if the state I have my business may have a better plan, how is that potential employee going to get moved into a new system if they have been paying towards something completely different for the past five years.  This I would think would be a serious problem.  Here we are in a housing crisis and there are people that cannot simply pick up and move to a state where they may find better job opportunities because they cannot get rid of their house.  Imagine if their retirement benefits were not portable, benefits (entitlements because they damn well paid for them so they are entitled to them) that they have paid good money for.  I would think this kind of argument might surprise good old Mitt.  Don't hit them on health care and the common sense of providing for our sick and elderly.  Hit them on business.  This whole thing will create "uncertainty" for too many employees which will hurt business.

    I'm a Second Amendment Liberal...and anyone that isn't has a pre-Bush mentality. It can happen here.

    by jrflorida on Thu Oct 04, 2012 at 11:53:44 AM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site