Thank you for a dose of reality, Dr. Hanson. I can't believe that anyone who watched the debate would call it for Obama on points. What the heck does that mean anyway? Style points? Factual points? Points on a specific plan? Please! All these went to Romney in spades--Obama had a couple cheap zingers, a moderator sitting on his side of the scales and a dismal record he could only defend with vague generalities and unverifiable statistics.

No, what I saw in Obama was a petty little man, in his full community-organizer mode, frowning, lying, fudging, dropping g's, insinuating, obfuscating and attacking with nothing of substance. Oh, and did I mention lying? Lied on Libya, lied on oil, lied on Romney's plan, lied on his own mother, lied on everything he could lie on. Meanwhile, Romney was presidential, beaming, positive, had tons of verifiable specifics, and even when he momentarily lost his cool, he did so against the lying Chicago hack we have the misfortune of calling our president.

Most debates, if not won clearly like last week's, are only conceded, not lost. They are conceded when you or yours give it to the other side--like Charles Krauthammer did, and like (I'm sad to say) our own J. Goldberg did. The hell did Obama win on points. Only if lying to the American people on issues that are a google search away while having no record to rely upon constitutes "points." Also, this debate is a perfect setup for the next, and the "terrorism/no terrorism" lie will be pounced upon as it should be.

As for Crowley, well, fish will swim, birds will fly and Liberal journalists will carry water for the Liberal candidate. One of the paradigm shifts (sorry for the cliche') we need to make sure that happens in the near future is that our side always call the Liberal media "Liberal" and not "mainstream." Let's face it: there is nothing mainstream any more about this bunch of hacks, and while the most-watched cable news network is never invited to moderate, we still get the Liberals at CNN and PBS to play moderator (and referee) in important events such as presidential debates. No more. Let's take the fight to these phonies.

His lie about his own deceased mother struck me as appalling, but indicative of Obama's character (or lack thereof). His mother most certainly did not raise him while working two jobs, she sent him back to Hawaii to be raised by his wealthy grandparents.

But Monsieur, how can you call an institution, owned and controlled by corporations, "liberal"?

Covering all of US history, which presidential candidate received the most money from Wall Street? Which candidate received the most money from oil companies?

If you didn't already know the answer is "Barack Obama," you haven't been paying attention. Huge corporations LOVE Obama. They are big enough that their bottom line will never be affected by his policies.

Middle America and small businesses, however, have been, in the words of Joe Biden, 'buried'. It should not come as a surprise that we aren't eager to dig the hole deeper.

Both candidates receive massive amounts from corporations.

Thank you for pointing out the obvious; however, I didn't ask you if both candidates received massive amounts of money, I asked you who has received the most in the history of the United States of America.

You also seemed to miss the point. Those corporations can afford to give to Obama (and Romney) because either way, no political policies will really affect their bottom line.

Middle America and small businesses WILL be affected by either Obama or Romney, negatively or positively respectively.

If you claim to speak for the 'little people' and Middle America, it's dishonest to support a candidate whose policies would continue to bury them.

Corporations control most of the wealth.

If "no political policies will really affect their bottom line", why are we fighting over crumbs?

I think you're getting to the root of things. Corporations - and the elderly - control massive percentages of this nation's wealth. Whether or not that is a problem is where we will disagree.

I've never hired anyone, signed a paycheck or given benefits to another person. I do not envy those at the top - I want to emulate them.

I will never accept the idea that that you can legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.

You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.

But Monsieur, how can you call an institution, owned and controlled by corporations, "liberal"?

The correct term is "leftist," not "liberal," because the leftists in this country are the furthest thing from "liberal" in the classical sense.

There is, however, a long tradition of leftism in big corporations, because big corporations know that it's far easier--and less expensive--to bribe an official to "certify" your product (or in Obama's case REQUIRE you to buy it) than it is to convince people to freely buy it.

Corporate Cronyism is a classic leftist method of controlling people and wealth.

Conservatives, in favor of limited government, regulation, and no corporate welfare--are in favor of FREE ENTERPRISE, which is the ANTITHESIS of leftists corporate cronyism.

Well, how about naming some names?

Are any of the major energy or financial sectors "liberal/leftist"?

How about the half dozen owners of 98% of US media? Any liberal/leftists there?

How many on the fortune 500 corporations are liberal/leftist?

General Electric, for starters. They are the third largest corporation on the planet and own NBC and Telemundo, 27 other television stations in the United States and many cable TV networks, including the History Channel, A&E, and Sci Fi Channel. They also owns the popular web-based TV website Hulu.

If you look at the Forbes richest 400 people, you'll see they are nearly all wealthy liberals. As to the Fortune 500, Apple springs to mind, with Steve Jobs alone being worth $8 billion at the time of his death. As a matter of fact, the Huffington Post says that the top 50 are massive Dem donors.
http://www.huffingtonpost.c...

Are you saying the 1% is mostly made up of liberals and/or leftists?

I didn't say it. The Huffington Post said that the richest 50 corporations on earth are mostly leftists and/or liberals. Democratic candidates have taken in $58,100 from the richest 50 CEO's thus far, while Republicans have taken just $14,300.

The three richest men in America – Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Larry Ellison – all are liberals.

In a state-by-state, district-by-district comparison of wealth concentrations, Internal Revenue Service income data (2008) shows that the majority of the nation’s wealthiest congressional jurisdictions were represented by Democrats.

It also shows that more than half of the wealthiest households are concentrated in the 18 states where Democrats hold both Senate seats (as of 2008).

If you'd care to argue with their data, you can look up each business owner on opensecrets.org and verify it for yourself.

Much of the left is under the impression that the fabulously wealthy in this country are all radically conservative. If that were the case, why on earth is Hollywood actively campaigning for Obama - again?

Are you under the impression that corporations can't be liberal?

Of course they can, but how many are?

Most.

This was supposed to be in reply to Ron, but the system won't let me put it there.
---
Just look at all the corporations that donated to the Obama campaign. In general corporations love big govt. It's a lot easier to buy a politician than it is to compete in a free market.

How many are liberal with their budget?

What the deuce does that mean?

Zounds!

Any examples?

It amazes me that so many of the NRO gang thought the debate was a tie or an Obama win on points. Based on what criteria? Obama finally showing up and debating?

I did not watch the first debate so I do not have it to compare it to. But I thought Romney started off slow with the first question, but was for the most part on fire for the rest of the debate. Romney played on friendly turf - Obama's abject record of failure and the glaring lack of a second term agenda. There is no way Obama can spin himself out from this reality when the facts are not on his side. Even the Libya discussion was a win for Romney. The killing of bin Ladin narrative has been overtaken by a national security failure and an emerging scandal. It will come back to haunt Obama in the next debate and will follow him until the election. The debate did not happen in a vacuum. Romney reinforced the belief that the country is on the wrong track and the belief that he is a credible alternative to a failed president.

Crowley will now be a laughingstock. And after endless replays of her clumsy intervention, Obama will look like a momma's boy...could you say that louder, Mommy? Yeah, you tell that bad man to stop picking on me!

I don't think this will impact Ms. Crowley one bit. She's got a sincure post with CNN, after all.
As with the Biden debate, one's opinion of the President's shenanigans is directly related to one's political viewpoint. He made those that like him already like him more, and those that hate him already hate him more. What effect he had on the target of the debate, those undecided voters, or, one supposes, the waivering voters in both camps, remains to be seen. My gut tells me that the President did not do himself many facors here, but he may have energized his demoralized base sufficiently that the turn out to vote. The question is will that be enough? for the sake of the Republic, I hope not.

Obama was caught lying through his teeth - Candy tried to give him cover ... Obama ran squealing, saying he didn't want to talk about that anymore after pleading with Candy to move on ... "I just want to make sure everybody gets answers to their questions". The next question was CNN fav question on gun control. America got to see. The bald faced lies by Obama and the media. It was all on display. I think people are still so shocked by what transpired that it won't even begin to catch up until the morning and then will fester until next week's foreign policy debate followed by a sprint to the finish.

And on the gun control question Candy tried to run interference for Obama again when Romney brought up ATF's fast and furious.

They all say Obama did much better.
But this is damning with faint praise. He could hardly have done worse, could he?
Romney did better, too. He gets more and more impressive with every debate. He is the Man for the Job.
Romney 2 -- Obama 0

my favorite moment was when romney told obama to shut up and sit down...and he DID !!

I must have missed that.

Well, he was more respectful than that. And I don't think the President actually took a seat. But, other than that.....

Anyone with enough intelligence to discern Crowley's overt partisanship is outside the range of potential Obama voters.

The next debate is on foreign policy, correct? Romney will nail Obama for his lie in this debate then. Mr. President, in the last debate you said.... He will put him away.

oh yea.. romney will do great on foreign policy considering (1) his only policy difference is he wants to increase military spending by way more than the military requests, (2) obama got osama bin laden and shut down the iraq war after 8 years of Bush/Cheney non-sense, (3) romney's trip outside the US as a candidate made him a laughing stock, (4) his line about obama apologizing is not true and do you think obama won't be prepared for it?

Great username, by the way. I laughed for a couple of minutes. Anyway, you bring up a line of argument spouted by both Biden and Obama that pierced my brain - Romney wants to give more funding to the military than it has asked for.

It's such a kindergarten argument that I don't even know where to begin. Who is doing the asking? Obama appointees? Why does their boss feel that nothing should be given beyond what is specifically asked for? Why doesn't that attitude apply to executive orders for which nobody has asked? If the president sees a military need, should he, as commander-in-chief, ignore that need unless a general says "Simon says?"

As for points 2 through 4, repeating falsehoods won't make them true.

obama got osama bin laden

I'm SOOOO glad that you leftists AGREE that it's OK to unilaterally assassinate a foreign leader on the soil of a friendly nation--without warning them.

After the last 40 years, and after endless denunciations of even DISCUSSING doing something like that ("war crimes," anyone?), I was beginning to think that you leftists were actually serious that it was wrong.

But now I realize that you only think it's wrong when they OTHER side does it.

So does that mean that the next time the USA goes to unilaterally assassinate a foreign leader, you will praise the nation for doing so?

if the foreign "leader" is the leader of a criminal organization whose purpose is to murder as many people as possible, then under some circumstances I would praise, yes. It depends on the vacuum that's left behind. In bin laden's case, great call by Obama, and shame on Bush for not being able to do it for 7 years.

al Qaeda is a criminal organization?
Cool, maybe we should just have Holder file a RICO suit against them......
really? this is the best you've got?
Shame on Bush....
you know, sometimes the bad guys are just good at not doing what you want. Do you think that Obama would have had a prayer of getting bin Laden wothout seven years of Bush's searching?

Just don't forget that presidents have a little help from the armed forces, and from advisors who inform them of the options and give them the advice. There are a lot of circumstances in which about the only thing a president can do is say "all right, go ahead."

I have no problem whatsoever with "assassinating" a foreign leader on the soil of a friendly nation. However, that isn't what happened. Osama bin Laden was not a foreign leader. He was the titular head of a nebulous extranational terrorist organization with lcells in over two dozen conutries who was acting in furtherance of a shodowy agenda put forth by the faulty reading of a version of their holy book as described by their prophet, a seventh century sheep buggerer.

exactly -- anybody who thinks Romney has any kind of advantage on foreign policy -- even remotely -- is kidding themselves.. but well, the sad truth is right-wingers in this country now have a serious problem with reality (no, there's no global warming, poll-numbers are fake, unemployment numbers are fake... evolution didn't happen... too many guns on the streets of America do not contribute to the highest crime rates in the civilized world, etc etc etc.... sad and pathetic...)

Sorry fargo - everything you just posted is proving correct. You are the one who is misguided. Man made global warming is unproven and all global warming has stalled out - none for the last 15 years. The models the warmists loved seem to be slightly off. Noticed how the polls are moving - Obama has always been weak, adults and registered voter models are worthless, true Obama did throw in one whale of a bad debate performance to help get the pollsters to start to change but a process that only has a 9% response rate at best is a real problem. The polls aren't fake, but they are wrong, because even Ras - who we rightees tend to like - is having difficulty in this environment. Romney is going to win the popular vote - that has been obvious for more than a month, but it appears the electoral college is pretty safe as well. Guns don't cause crime - crooks and the gangland wars do. Gun crimes tend to be lower in gun carry states.

Should I go on? I appreciate your concern for all of us pathetic souls. But I would prefer your sympathy over your clear ignorance of the world around you.

LOL on evolution. Take off your helmet and see a shrink. there is a nice world out there

I gotta be optimistic here,

While Crowley was less obvious then Radditz, how can the average non political junkie independent American watch the show last night and not come away thinking ‘why is the media carrying the President’s water’?

Such introspection may or may not have an effect on this election but over the long run said voter will question, even if subconsciously, ‘how is the media spinning this one’?

End result, a slow erosion of liberal strawmen and clichés.

So while the debate is likely a draw, the obvious loser is the media and with that the Dems lose a significant ally and advantage they have had for years.
Of course don’t underestimate the ability of the Republicans to find a way to give the advantage back to the Dems. They are such Rope-A-Dopes! ‘OK that sounds like an impartial debate format. Yes we like that process, perfectly equitable and amiable. Martha Radditz unbiased, sure. Candy Crowley neutral with undecided Democrat voters in Long Island, New York, yes that’s fair, sounds great to us.'

Might as well voluntarily chop your leg off before racing a 100 meter dash…

It will be interesting to analyze later just when the tipping point came in the media's loss of credibility.

Romney could've ended this election on the spot with a cool, "You don't GET to be offended, Mr. President. You work for us."

Brilliant!

I watched the debate with a bunch of friends and we all thought that Romney did better than Obama. We were all surprised by Krauthammers synopsis of the debate and couldn't understand his reasoning. We saw a frustrated, angry President and an energetic passionate challenger. Obamas serial attacks and lies about Romney will not sit well with the few undecided voters. We also thought that Crowley did not help Obama one bit by trying to fact check Romney, and be wrong about that. Americans like a fair fight, and Romney was hit with a sucker punch.

Dr K is still - though conservative - a product of the DC cesspool. You lose perspective. Plus all conservatives try and be realistic if they can - we are almost always harder on the ones we love because we want them to be great.

Go USA! But this forum was not that good. Agree with youre article 100%. Both candidates could be better. In the end how is America going to get out of all the messes we are in and who is going to lead us there. I'm sure Obama is not the the guy - he's going nowhere. I just hope America can wake up and go to to polls to vote us to a better way.

Obama went hiding under Candy's extra-wide skirt like the true coward he is...