E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
DENVER – Mitt Romney used his final scheduled public appearance before Wednesday's first presidential debate to dismiss the expectations game played by both campaigns in recent weeks and to rally supporters with retooled economic rhetoric geared towards middle class voters.
"People want to know who’s going to win," Romney said of the debate at the nearby University of Denver. "Who’s going to score the punches and who’s going to make the biggest difference in the arguments they make."
"There’s going to be all the scoring of winning and losing, and you know, in my view, it’s not so much winning and losing or even the people themselves — the president and myself — it’s about something bigger than that," Romney continued, dismissing the parlor game of expectations-setting that has defined much of the political discourse in recent days.
In his own form of spin, Romney said he was "delighted" about the chance to debate President Obama three times in the next month and declared that the debates, taken in sum, would "be conversation with the American people that will span almost an entire month."
Before a raucous crowd of more than 5,000 supporters, Romney infused his economic talking points with a middle-class focus that perhaps spoke to the recent debate prep designed to refine his message to best appeal to undecided voters.
"Income is down some $ 4,300 dollars a family and with a median income of about $50,000 dollars that means things are really tough for the American people," Romney said. "The middle class squeeze has been unbearable. Gasoline prices way up; food prices up; electricity prices up; health insurance prices up. The American middle class is struggling under this president."
In interviews before the event, Colorado supporters uniformly told NBC News that if Romney needed to show more of a personal understanding of middle class life on Wednesday if he wanted to siphon support from the president
"I really think that Mitt needs to be more personal with the American people," said Renee Salza, a Realtor and Republican who is supporting Romney. "I think a lot of people feel he's somewhat aloof and disconnected from everyday Americans."
Romney, who referenced Colorado's defense community at NORAD and the Air Force Academy, was also joined by a state icon of a different sort, NFL Hall of Fame quarterback John Elway, who endorsed Romney in a brief on-stage appearance.
“I must say today has been a very good day, not only because of what happened yesterday," Elway said, referencing the Broncos' thrashing of rival Oakland yesterday, "because I get the opportunity to introduce to you the next president of the United States, Governor Mitt Romney.”
Leave a Comment:
Don't boo.
VOTE!
Cheers.
There is no possible way Romney can even come close to winning the debate, so of course he is steeling his faithful for the inevitable. Here's why Romney is going to get crushed:
-- He has significantly less charisma that Barack Obama.
-- He will have to defend how he has been pro-gay, anti-gay; pro-choice, anti-choice; pro-healthcare, anti-healthcare; pro-equality, anti-equality.
-- He will be asked to actually talk about his plans if elected (which he refuses to do thus far in any meaningful detail).
-- He will get grilled about his tax returns.
-- He will get grilled about "you people", "I like to fire people", "47%", "I didn't know gays had families", and a host of other stupid, asinine comments he has uttered this year.
-- He can't talk about job creation when he is personally responsible for sending tens of thousands of American jobs to China while lining his own pockets.
-- He can't talk about service to America when he dodged the draft to become a Mormon "missionary" in France during the Viet Nam war.
-- He can't talk about patriotism when he can't even fly an American flag from his VERY LARGE yacht (it flies Cayman Island flags).
-- He can't talk about investing in America when almost every penny he made was earned overseas and is hidden in tax shelters overseas.
-- He can't talk about freedom when he wants to ban gay marriage and abortion.
-- He can't talk about "smaller government" when he wants the government involved in reproductive healthcare and wants the government deeply involved in the bedroom.
-- He can't talk about America as a place of opportunity when he wants to cut college grants and gut the public school system.
-- He can't talk about "Christian Values" when he wants to tear down the social safetynet that protects the aged, infirm, vulnerable, and the poorest of the poor -- for the sole purpose of transferring the money to billionaires.
Then there will be the fact that Mitt Romney will likely lose his cool. He is a billionaire who is unaccustomed to a black man from a middle-class background asking him questions he doesn't want to answer -- especially when Romney's Mormon faith tells him that black people aren't fully human. Mitt Romney will be revealed as an empty suit, bigot, and spoiled brat.
Romney lose his cool? Really?
You didn't happen to see the Univision interview with Obama did you? He is so thin skinned he will crumble if he faces tough questions like those posed by the Univision reporters.
Most of your comments are just plain bull crap. You talk about Romney has no plans, well read a little and listen a little. Romney has much more detailed plans than Obama. Hope and change is not a plan. Obama promised to cut the deficit in half during his first term and he did not. Either he did not and does not know what he is talking about or he is not telling the truth. He failed, time to try someone else.
...... SURE ROMNEY HAS A PLAN ... STEAL FROM THE POOR AND GIVE TO THE RICH .... good plan ....
OBAMA 2012
Debates don't really matter. Here is what we know. Obama is a compulsive liar and the only things he is good at is blaming someone else. He has no idea of what he is doing and the last 3 plus years are proof. We don't need 4 more years of failure. America simply can't afford his stupidity and continued bad decisions . Romney may not be the best choice but he is without a doubt the better choice.
It wasn't Obama who got a "gold medal" from FOX on most lies and distortions or whose campaign manager said and I quote "We won't let our campaign be dictated by the fact-checkers".
Mitt Romney tells 533 lies in 30 weeks, Steve Benen documents them
August 29, 2012 By Fred Clark 478 Comments
I’ve written about or linked to a great deal here “chronicling Mitt’s mendacity” — to borrow Steven Benen’s phrase.
Mitt Romney says many, many things that are not true. He says this despite being in possession of the correct facts of the matter.
Which is to say that Mitt Romney lies. A lot. He lies more than any other national candidate for office in my lifetime. And I was born before the Nixon administration.
This is documented. Proven. Validated, verified, demonstrated, catalogued and quantified. Mitt Romney lies.
Here are 30 — 30! — of Benen’s weekly “chronicling” posts. These are all backed up and sourced. These are not assertions, interpretations or allegations. These are facts, actual instances.
Over the past 30 weeks, Mitt Romney has told lie after lie after lie: I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, XV, XVI, XVII, XVIII, XIX, XX, XXI, XXII, XXIII, XXIV, XXV, XXVI, XXVII, XXVIII, XXIX, XXX.
Click those links. Read the lists. List after list of lie after lie. Hundreds of them — 533, to be exact, although Benen does not make any claim to providing a comprehensive chronicle.
This is unprecedented. “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” Romney’s pollster, Neil Newhouse, said.
This has produced what James Fallows calls the “post-truth” age — a relentlessly dishonest onslaught of brazen falsehoods with which the media and the political system are struggling to cope. What do you do when every article, every “fact-check,” every arbiter denounces a lie and corrects it, but then a politician just keeps repeating it?
It’s remarkable to behold.
One of the weirder aspects of this for me is watching this unfold in the politically conservative culture of my evangelical world. The most partisan evangelical conservatives are also those most likely to rant against “relativism” and to trumpet their status as defenders of “absolute truth.” Those same folks will dismiss this post — and all 30 of Benen’s posts above — as mere partisan attacks without ever bothering to examine the 533 factual instances of Mitt’s mendacity, chronicled.
That’s the only cognitive defense they have, I guess. Jam fingers in ears and shout la-la-la-you’re-being-partisan!
Because, you see, the fact that Mitt Romney said something he knew to be false is a partisan fact. And the fact that he has done this at least 533 times in the past 30 weeks is also partisan.
I suppose the other approach for Romney defenders who cannot bear to face the fact of those 533 facts will be to angrily pore over all of Benen’s lists, reading each one with a lawyerly eye.
Have at it. Please. Cherry-pick. Spin. Split hairs. Hand-wave away whichever lies you wish as mere misdemeanors and not full-fledged felonies against honesty.
But how many of those charges do you think you can get dismissed? 10 percent? 20 percent? Maybe, if you’re that sort of person and you work really hard at it — if you’re willing to get even more pedantic and semantic and technical than even you are usually comfortable with — maybe you could half convince yourself that 50 percent of those lies somehow shouldn’t really count against Romney.
That still leaves more than 260 lies. That still leaves Mitt Romney as a convicted liar, 260 times over. And at that point you’ll have to join your friends with their fingers in their ears.
But you’ll still know.
Because everyone knows. Mitt Romney lies. A lot. That is what he does. That is who he is. And friend or foe, he does not care if you know it.
Romney infused his economic talking points with a middle-class focus that perhaps spoke to the recent debate prep designed to refine his message to best appeal to undecided voters.
But in private with the rich people he dismisses you.
That is so ridiculous. Let me ask you a question - Who gives people jobs so that they can earn a living?
Answer - Businesses, whether they be large or small.
If businesses feel they are under attack from federal regulations and taxes, how comfortable do you think they will be expanding - and by expanding, I mean hiring new people and making more product.
Answer - if they feel they are under they attack, they will pull back, not expand and lay off workers until they have the leanest bottom line possible. This is exactly what has occurred during the Obama presidency and it is why our economy and unemployment S#CK!!!!
but that's the issue, businesses aren't paying higher taxes than they were before Obama became president and they aren't being attacked by regulations.
Businesses hire when there is more demand for their products, period.Anyone that sells you something else is either misinformed or lying.
Making business owners more profitable through less regualtion or lower taxes does nothing but make business owners more profitable. It does not spur hiring.
Not being attacked by regulations under Obama? Seriously? You didn't catch the under cover video of the guy from the EPA talking about how they target companies to make examples out of them? You haven't paid attention to what this EPA is doing to the coal industry?
You are clueless
... MOM ... SURE ROMNEY GIVES JOBS ... TO CHINA, INDIA ... BANKERS IN THE CAYMEN ISLANDS ...
OBAMA 2012
If businesses feel they are under attack from federal regulations and taxes, how comfortable do you think they will be expanding - and by expanding, I mean hiring new people and making more product.
No one will create a job simply because there are less regulations or less taxes.
I'm a businessowner, this is the worst reasoning ever.
Great, not the same rhetoric but "re-tooled" rhetoric.
I can hardly control my enthusiasm.
I just love the smell of napalm, lies, distortions, out-of-context soundbites, racist comments, and particularly name-calling in the morning. Knock yourself out guys and convince yourselves that the Republican Party is the lesser of two evils. Just bring on the Syrian solution and roll the tanks over the 47% and anyone else who might disagree with the 1% and you might be...in your sociopathic dreams.
The question in my mind is. "Will Jim Leher lob the president softballs or will he swallow his bias and at least pretend to be fair?"
It would be nice if Leher was equally as tough on both of them and as tough as the Univision reporters were.
I suspect it is a safe bet that most of the questions will be about Romney issues and not about Obama issues. The news media should be required to register as promoters for Obama.
Seriously???
Half the FOX staff had to quit because they were actually trying for the GOP nomination.
Nope, no bias there,
Can any of you hardcore GOP'ers seriously say if the un-imaginable happened and your sister or daughter was impregnated by being raped you would force her to carry the pregnancy to term??
Are you truly that out of touch??
Do you believe politicians will twist words to make you believe lies? However, I'll wait until after the debates to make a final judgment on it.
No. I don't believe that. And neither does Romney. If you bothered to look into facts and not democrat talking points, you would realize that one of the major disagreements the far right had with Romney as a candidate was abortion.
Romney, like me and I suspect most of this center right nation, believes that when a mother's life is at stake, or in cases of rape or incest, the abortion decision should be left up to the woman. However, this casual approach to using abortion as a means of birth control, is offensive. It doesn't make sense from a health issue (abortions are not as risk free as people believe), it has turned what should be a real moral decision into something as casual as deciding to get your car washed and it is not cost effective.
I draw the line at using abortion as birth control and late term abortions where the aborting doctor kills the fetus if it miraculously survives
So your "pro-choice", thanks for clearing that up.
UIf pro choice means total unfettered abortion no matter what the reason and what stage of the pregnancy, no I am not pro choice.
However, if someone's life is in danger I think it's up to them. At that point it becomes their moral decision.
But aborting because you don't like the sex of the child? Or aborting at 6 months because your boyfriend dumped you? Because a baby is inconvenient? No way.
Pro choice - chose the pill, chose a condom, choose an IUD.
Oh, and for all you folks that thinks deregulation of business is the answer, just think of all the jobs that will be created when the ENRONS, Salon Brothers, Barclays/UBS/JPMorgan/CitiGroup, Goldman Sachs types are allowed to run amok and unrestrained, that ought to create plenty of jobs...lots of bankers in Switzerland and the Caymen Islands will be needed to hid the proceeds from all the looting. Enjoy your day.
Did any type of regulations enter into the picture of those companies? They were corrupt and they paid the price. The error was providing bailout. Micromanaging by regulation is not the answer.
Trickle-on economic theory rules!
Obama has played down the debates. Why is it only news if Romney does? Oh...forgot. NBC must make Romney look bad. That is their job. It will be funny when Romney wins. Journalism is dead.
Hey middle-class -- Romney's problem isn't the "liberal media." Ronald Reagan won 49 states long before even Fox existed. George W. Bush won twice with the same media we have today. And Romney's problem isn't that the polls are stacked either. Even Rasmussen has President Obama up by 3 and Fox has him up by 5. Mitt Romney's problem is Mitt Romney. He's a lousy candidate, with no ideas other than the failed policies of the past, who is running a lousy campaign. And if the Republican Party doesn't come up with some new ideas and find an entirely new group of leaders, we just may have another President Clinton in 2017.
Obama probably hasn't prepared for the debates either. Probably counts on there being a teleprompter for his answers.
In final public event before debate, Romney plays down expectations
Translation: 47 is a tough act to follow.
Yes because the "you didn't built it " comment was so inspiring....
Mitt/Ryan ... OBAMA AHEAD IN EVERY POLL ... U BUILT THAT ~!
It is so refreshing to hear Romney admit that he is in way over his head, that he is an air headed know nothing dirtbag and that the only thing he has ever done in is life is act privaleged, be entitled and been an arrogant ass. Oh yeah, there is all that stuff about him bankrupting companies, sending jobs overseas and pocketing workers pension money so he could stash it in his overseas tax haven accounts.
Yes there is all that... but at least he did it with his investors money not taxpayers!!!
But heck what are facts anyway... after all its not like Obama went to Harvard? Oh wait he did.
Obama invested in Solindra a company that he was told by his own people was a bad idea... but he took taxpayers dollars and thru it down that well.... yep that was smart... add more to our debt.. yeah that is smart... uhhh.
So, to recap, it's ok to send jobs overseas, bankrupt companies and steal pension money as long as you do it with investor's money? And when was something similar done with taxpayer money???
There is something wrong with going to Harvard?
As for you Solyndra rant. I have posted a rebutal in one of your later rants to answer that. Wow! It must be tough defending Mittens.
The lead story on NBC, typical, this is old news as usual, both candidates were on every media outlet last night trying to lower expectations. You gotta run something wqhen you don't want to talk about negative Obama news, middle east is burning, A Quida gaining momentum. economic forecast shows economy slowing , but not on NBC. The're running lead story about Apple Maps, anything but Obama. If their was positive news about this administration t's all over their Headlines, poor excuse for a media outlet.
NBC WE have to run this one so lets edit it.
Why are the American conservatives so much like the Taliban but cannot see this?
When you're strapping a woman down for a forced "trans-vaginal ultrasound" it isn't a great time for genuflection.
From someone that never really understood foreign policy what does that say.
Actually, expectations are running high for Romney. We're all hoping he'll give us a tour of the elevator.
For all of you on the left who don't understand the Obama method for handling the economy - look at it this way.
You make $100,000 a year. It is an income envied by all of your friends and neighbors. The only problem is you spend $125,000 a year so you have to borrow $25,000 a year to cover your expenses. However, as long as you can find someone to lend you the money, you don't worry about. You continue to borrow, throwing your money around, drinking $200 bottles of wine with dinner, driving the most expensive car you can find and just generally wasting your money. Before long, your $100,000 income is offset by the $100,000 in debt you have accrued. It is getting harder and harder to borrow and your sources start charging you much higher interest rates because it is becoming riskier and riskier to lend to you. Now, instead of needing to borrow $25,000, you have to borrow $35,000 to be able to cover the additional interest. That soon jumps to $40,000 and then $50,000.
But still, you drink the expensive wine. In fact, now you want to give it to your neighbors too. You want 2 expensive cars. You want the cleaning lady to come 5 times a week instaed of every other week. You insist on expensive vacations and designer shopping trips on Rodeo Drive. All of which, you pay for with borrowed money. And then, in a fashion similar to Alfred E. Newman, your attitude seems to be:
"What? Me worry?"
That is Obama's position. Spend, spend, spend.
mom, just a quick lesson in civics: Congress tells the President how much he can spend and on what he can spend it.
Now you know.
The 20 years of Reagan , Bush Sr. and Jr. they didn't have one balanced budget.
Dubya actually turned a huge surplus into a deficit in just one year.
The last GOP president to balance the budge was Eisenhower.
Ryan's own 2013 proposed budget is 1 trillion in the red with war funding (which he forgot, go figure)
I am not in any way defending outrageous deficit spending but how the heck can you single out Obama when every GOP policy and president past and future is spending like a drunken sailor??
Imom: No, that is a description of the Bush/Republican way of "budgeting". Remember Cheney saying "Deficits don't matter"? For generations Republicans have been running up budget deficits to enrich themselves and hurt the middle class. I know you will never hear that in the right wing echo chamber but it is the truth.
Listening to these Republicans, one would think that on January 19, 2009 the country was in great shape with a massive surplus, record low unemployment, a booming economy, increasing wages -- everything was just outstanding. Then -- Obama took office on Jan 20, 2009 and everything immediately came crashing down.
Now -- how about a reality check? The nation was much closer to that ideal on January 19, 2001 when Clinton left office but on January 19, 2009 when Bush left office, we were on the verge of a depression.
Mark Thomas
Yes, it's every it as much Pelosi, Reid and many repubs who are at fault for approving this out of control spending. But it's Obama's agenda - stimulis, Obamacare etc. If his agenda became cutting federal spending it would positively impact our economy. Instead, he panders to his fundraisers handing them our tax dollars to blow - Solyndra comes to mind.
Ann Romney said she fears for Mitt's mental and emotional state. Pretty scary for someone who wants to be president
You Republicans are HILARIOUS!!! This election is over. Obama will win in a landslide of Reagan proportions.
The fat lady has not sung yet! Do not count your chickens before they hatch.
And you know Bain will find some way to outsource the rubble.
Romney is a dolt
CK, I agree with you. It's way to early for anyone to thinking about a victory lap, although the money is on Obama.
True, but when the Titanic was listing 30 degrees and water was pouring in by the thousands of gallons per second you didn't need to be a rocket scientist to see how the story ended.
Jeb Bush--2016
@williamofrites....just a fact... Bain was a private company and what you do with stockholders money is a completely different matter on what you do with tax payers like Obama has done. He invested in Solindra...why is the federal government investing in projects they know to be bad as Obama knew on this one... told by his own economist (which he ignored)... If you are going to invest and run the country like a company I would rather have someone that knows what he is doing. You can say a lot of things but Romney has made money.... lost some but made more. I want him to invest not Obama... we invested four years and look where we are? Bigger debt, higher prices.... no more.
SFlaMom, the last GOP president to balance the budget was Eisenhower.
I doubt you were even alive then.
So your "all business" approach would work until South Dakota under-performed???
What would you do , sell it to China??
A CEO looks out for investors, a president looks out for EVERYONE.
Mom Why is it O.K. for Bush to spend trillions yes trillions of dollars on unjust wars that kill innocent people but Pres. Obama spending money to try to help the economy is terrible? How can Bush add a Medicare Drug benefit that is not paid for with the republicans supporting this not complaining about. Pres, Obama adds temporary debt and it is going to destroy the country?
prog.1, Maybe when you get a little older you can research your questions and get answers and hopefully understand them.
This is not an election between Obama and Bush. I didn't think Bush was a particulalry good president. I think Obama is in WAY over his head and that he is not effective. I think Romney at least understands the economy.
You can't fix what you dont understand. That's Obama's problem
Romney is just another Bush. He pretty much says so himself. Alot of his own party has suggested he explain hoe his policies will be different than Bush he does not do this. Many of Romney's advisors worked for Bush.
The only expectation I have is that Obama with compassion and caring will make Romney look very cold and distant. It really does not matter what they say but how they say it.
Thats it... you want to show compassion? That is how you will judge a man? Not by his actions but his demeanor while he is doing it? How ridiculous.
We are in a worse state of ecomonics and our embassies are being attacked. But you want compassion. I want someone that will get us out of this downfall and maybe just maybe protect our citizens here and overseas. I really don't care if he is caring, I want a bull dog not a lap dog.
If you think compassion is not a virtue for the president of the United States you might as well be a "vulture capitalist" that destroys companies and people for profit.
Oh ,wait a minute..........
SFlaMom
You really do need to control your rage. I did not say this is how I would judge a man because I am only one person. I feel this is how the country as a whole will judge the debate. I also want someone to get us out of the downfall but I have heard no specifics out of Romney and for that reason I will not vote for him.
I want someone that will get us out of this downfall and maybe just maybe protect our citizens here and overseas
Deregulation is more of a talking point with Republicans than something they are serious about. Time and history shows that consumers must have some amout of protection. Most regulations come into being because of abusive business preactices etc. etc.
Here in Michigan the current Republican Governor ran on the idea of de-regulation... what he ended up doing was passing the emergency manager law, a regulation that if a town or city was in the red budget wise it can be taken over with no input from the local government, talk about "small government".
Under the Ryan Plan: if Romney loses, can he take a deduction for "casualty loss"?
So did Obama when he did a rally in Nevada.... so please save me the pun.
Here's a question I want answered and do not see reported anywhere...
Lockheed Martin HQ in Virginia stated that they are laying off a couple of thousand workers in Jan 2013 and they are compelled by law to send home a letter stating those layoffs 60 days prior. That is the law! But it seems that they got a letter from the White House stating to hold off those announcements until after the election and if they got any fines or were sued for not abiding the law the federal government will pay for the defense.
How come you have not reported this at all anywhere? I will tell you because you are baised. This announcement would come right before Nov 6 and Virgina is a swing state isn't it? How deceitful if this were a Republican the media would be slamming it until it bled. Shameful!!!
You do realize that layoff is related to refusal of republicans to agree to even one penny increase in taxes and their general aversion to compromise, right?
OK, 60 days prior to Jan. 15th is Nov. 15th.
OK???
No not OK... show me where you saw Jan 15th... ?
I chose the statistical middle of the month.
You have a better system let's hear it.
Well isn't that convinient then.... typical. Need I say more? You don't have the answer so we will give one that is statistical... really?