Fact-checking Romney's debate line

DR — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:51:28 GMT

It doesn't matter to Republicans if Barack Obama said it or not. They live in "What I Think " Land. Mitt Romney has a very bad habit of misunderstanding Barack Obama's positions ( See Sex Ed For Five Year Olds.....WHF? )I saw the debates . I laughed because they are all so cheesy and old. It looked like the 1980's. They are all outdated and so yesterday. The Democrats will win in 2008. Hands Down. The more I see Republicans debate, the more obvious that becomes.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Maureen — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:55:45 GMT

I am so dismayed at the reaction to Senator Obama's speech last week. I was finally able to watch his entire speech last night on CSpan and it was a truly great speech. You would never have thought that from listening to the reactions last week from Biden, Clinton, Romney.

Why do people have to lie so much and misinterpret everything their opponents are saying? Who the hell wants them as our president at this point?

His speech contained a lot of candor, something people aren't used to. Shocking isn't it.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Kent Santa Monica, CA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:05:17 GMT

Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney - I'll answer my own question - No....

That's about the only thing Mitt "Flip" Romney can do is come out with the movie analogy blasts ("Dr. Strangelove"), while never saying anything of substance....

Mitt's positions change like the weather, & one needs computer tracking to keep up with his ever chagning viewpoints....

Romney is nothing but an empty suit who would say ANYTHING to get elected....

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Joe Einloth — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:09:02 GMT

Romney lying? AGAIN???

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:12:30 GMT

Maureen, because lying is what they have left to work with. After taking a good look at what all has been said in the last couple weeks, I'm starting to think Obama is the only candidate who knows anything about security policies and therefore is the only candidate ready for primetime.

Guiliani is supposedly the security candidate yet hasn't even bothered to learn why bin Laden says he launched the 9-11 attacks.

Clinton seemingly doesn't know that nuclear strikes against non-governmental organizations was never "on the table" under any U.S. administration.

Tancredo wants to maintain a nuclear deterrence against Mecca and Medina - the true Dr. Strangelove proposal.

I don't know - I'm looking for knowledge out there in the field of candidates and coming up blank, other than with Obama.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Betty, Baltimore, MD — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:12:49 GMT

Romney is a cute little slimeball.

He went from Ted Kennedy to Ronald Reagan in 6 months.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Alex, Ponca City, OK — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:19:51 GMT

>>>A good follow-up question to Romney at the debate would have been: So you wouldn't pursue Al Qaeda in Pakistan if the government there isn't cooperating?<<<

Actually, Stephanopoulos did ask that question. Both Giuliani and Romney said they would keep the option open but wouldn't be idiotic enough to talk about it on national television when running for president. Those matters require just a little bit more discretion and secrecy to maintain the national security of our country. If you haven't heard, Obama's remarks sparked an anti-American rally in Pakistan.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

travis — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:20:21 GMT

Obama is incredibly naive! How can you launch an attack INSIDE Pakistan without permission from Pakistan? You can not do that in an ally country. Romney is right!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Howard, Manalapan — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:21:15 GMT

Note: The above comments have been approved (and written)by Keith Olbermann.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Jonathan Waiser — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:25:31 GMT

Flip Romney is not known for much else-so I can see why he is dumber by the day. Give him more airtime, and he will stand naked.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Dee of VA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:26:04 GMT

Maureen,

The media, including MSNBC, deserve most of the blame for a complete and deliberate misrepresentation of Senator Obama's comments. In fact, Senator Clinton echoed the exact same words during an interview on a radio station the exact same day, but the media didn't widely report them because by doing so it would have undermined their headlines and slant. They wanted to characterize Senator Obama as some sort of mad man threatening invasion of Pakistan. For the life of me, I can NOT see how anyone could interpret, "we will act" to mean sending in troops and invading Pakistan! Moreover, I'm shocked that more Americans do NOT want to know that the only thing standing between us and Al Qaeda is a quasi dictator, not our own president. It seems that we are just as ignorant of the danger that threatens us than pre-9/11.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

R E Curtis — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:27:03 GMT

How would I describe this kind of "opinion"? The bleating of an Osama sycophant? Pray you don't get what you deserve, Osama in the Whitehouse.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

JB Florida — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:28:36 GMT

thats it i'm jumping ship. there is nobody in either party that's worth pulling from a burning building. let 'em burn.
join the Libertarian Party. lp.org
Vote for personal responsibility
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for small government
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for the constitution
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for freedom of expression
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for America the Beautiful
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for politics, not as usual
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for the right to keep & bear arms
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote for border security
Vote for Ron Paul
Vote smart
Vote for Ron Paul

ronpaul2008.com
lp.org

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

RT, Colorado — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:29:17 GMT

This is a classic US political discussion. Nothing related to issues, just about who is on who's side. "Flip" Romney? Caring (or expending any energy) about who is running under what banner only feeds the frenzy of the two party system. They see us react emotionally and they play off of it thinking that is the way to a government seat. We allow them to turn presidential elections into popularity contests. It might as well be a soap opera.

Good luck Obama and good luck Mit. I can only hope the best person wins...

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Tim Pancoast, Dover, DE — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:39:39 GMT

Wow, I guess MSNBC wasn't realy paying attention. To me this was a sloppy job of fact checking. Stephanopoulos did ask a very similar follow up question, and Mitt Romney answered it. Obama did say what Mitt Romney says he did, minus the tea part. Barak might not have meant it the way it came out, and he may have backtracked and clarified his statements later, but he did say them.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Maureen — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:39:41 GMT

Didn't Giuiliani say yesterday he agreed with Senator Obama? And when is the press going to go back in history and talk about how naive some of our past presidents were? JFK - Bay of Pigs for starters!

Senator Obama is not naive. He's extremely intelligent. More so than anyone who is running for president in 2008.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:41:10 GMT

Alex, it is pretty cool how the whole world seems to be hanging on everything Obama says, while ignoring the other candidates. Wonder why that is.

I wonder why the Saudis and the rest of the Muslim world haven't said anything about Tancredo's proposal to maintain a nuclear deterrence against Mecca and Mecina?

Oh, and maybe the Pakistanis were responding to the way in which Obama's words were characterized, rather than his actual words. Just a thought. And, if we knew bin Laden's exact location and the Pakistanis didn't act on that knowledge, how much of an ally are they?

By the way, you do realize we've been violating sovereignty all over the place, right? We've launched drone-based missiles against targets in Yemen, we've launched naval gunfire attacks against targets in Somalia - all without the approval of the host nation.

I think the world knows if we have a shot at bin Laden, we're going to take it.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

lyn,MD — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:42:55 GMT

mitt...don't worry about him, he'll be saying something different tommorrow. In case everyone has forgotten the Bush Admin. told Pakistan the exact same thing about a month ago. The Sec. of Defense hedged on Sunday when ask on MTP. He finally said we'll tell them. Well OK... you'll tell them before you go ahead and do it. BTW Hillary and Edwards both came out with the same response. But of course it doesn't make for Naive soundbites.

MSM will you ever learn. Obama was right when he said in Atlanta on sat."There is no fool like an old fool".

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Maureen — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:43:45 GMT

And since the Republicans were able to "swift boat" John Kerry, why isn't anyone talking about another presidental candidate who bowed out of the Vietnam War? Romney was in France as a missionary is his reason during the War. Funny, he finished his "mission" in January 1969.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Mark, Burlington VT — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:48:47 GMT

These guys voted for and still support the President's misguided war in Iraq 100%. And have the gall to criticize Obama for telling it like it is on promoting diplomacy and fighting terrorism. No wonder "undecided" is the first choice of Republicans, and Ron Paul got more donations from members of the military than any other candidate.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

FL — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:48:57 GMT

So it looks like Romney doesn't want to hunt down Bin-Laden in Pakistan since Mushareff is not cooperating. But he wants to stay bogged down in Iraq and fight a civil war. This guys brilliant.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Chacko — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:49:07 GMT

HELLO... WHY THE ANTI-US rallies in PAKISTAN: becos you dont know them. They are such a buch of hooligans that whatever the mullah says, they will do. You have to be there to kinow these things. Some are ok but the they are overwhelmingly suppressed by these brain washed barbarians. Think how many times stpid thinhgs happen there and no one can do anything about it. A guy rapes a woman and then she is given 1000 whips in public. Where else can you see thistype of law. Its a pity that most americans dont know anything about other countries becos they are stpid enough to think the world revovles around them. The only way to get something is to put extreme pressure on them. All these years US needed them becos India had to go to Soviets for help. It was all strategic. We gave them F-16 and arms. Smartly enough, they got the nuclear techno from China who would sell that to anyone for money (in the 90's when they were not so rich). Now Pakistan is a key player since their chief Physicist was caught by US intelligence after he gave the nuclear technology to radicalists. You have to understand whta rides the mind of these people before you throw stones at your own such as Barack Obama. He was right on the money and spoke things loud which is usually hidden. In one sense it is good for the Pakistani's to know that cos it may act as a deterrent. I dont think Musharaaf has much time. He is even takin help from Benazir Bhutto, the same leader he sent away in exile to sort the country. DO YOU GET THE PICTURE NOW????.. Make a change in this country for a better and hopeful tomorrow. BO for 08. cheers

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Pete Caloger Bushkill, PA 18324 — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:56:13 GMT

Kent, yes indeed, he is the ultimate plastoid nothing in this race. And yes, the more he speaks, the more America will recoil. His performance in the Iowa debate was a disgrace - give us facts, not cute one-liners that are not delivered by their authors.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Chacko — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:00:23 GMT

Also to note the fact that MMM always wants the candidate they write about to win. That gives credibility. It is far different from truth. People want shcoking news. Otherwise who pays attention. MAUREEN spoke rightly. If you listen to the speech, it is fantastic and well thought. But MMM picked on the few lines that makes headlines. They mostly write about CLINTOn cos they want her to win. But the better guy is BO. Yearly KOS wants EDWARDS and the general public wants BARRY BO. Now we will have to wait and see who wins. If there is strength to DEMOCRACY, BO must win. I can find that HRC is the best FLIP -FLOPPER i have seen in recent politics just as ROMNEY is. Then comes EDDY. He talks about caring for the poor,lobbyists. What a farce. EDDY knows he is far behind in polls and MONEY. He needs to knock down HRC and BO. His main money comes from TRIAL lawyers (to be read as LIARS). He has taken such high percentage of all cases he won. If he truly cared, he would hav taken a small percentage such as 5% (5% of 10 million is 200,000). All his wealth came just from trial cases. You get the picture. Now he talks about lobbying.. cos he did not get much. He even took some earlier and then he realized that was all he could, he wanted to make an issue and forgot that he took. When he was asked about it, he had to return. SO that game is being played on HRC. barack is the only one in THIS election who was claen from the start. I respect that he gave his lucrative career to serve at an early age when he had all the odds to start the family. That's commitment. I am sure he must have taken PAC or lobbying to get into senate. Which common man can win an election without that. But I am gald he did not go that way this time. Look more closely into the issues and deeper into the candidates. You will see the BO is the best bet. I am sure he will enough wisdom and judgement from a scholarly and pratical team to guide him COS HE LISTENS... LISTENS ALSO TO PEOPLE.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Matt, NYC — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:02:06 GMT

Obama is not my candidate in 08, but attacking him over his Pakistan comments is rediculous. Anyone who would not bomb Pakistan if we have credible evidence terrorists inside are about to launch attacks on US soil does not understand terrorism and does not care to defend our country. Does Romney really believe defending Musharraf is worth thousands and thousands of American civilians dying from a terrorist attack?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

BH, Tampa, Florida — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:02:40 GMT

Why anyone cares about Obama's words is wasteful since Hillary is the nominee already. Obama will surely be her runningmate. The remainder of the democratic primary is boring since their ticket is established already.

Meanwhile the Republicans will be much more interesting to see who can emerge. Whether or not whoever wins their nomination ultimately stands a chance or not is a matter that is secondary to party nomination process now. It remains a unique cycle not only b/c the Deomcrats are favoring to categories of human beings to never before have been elected to the highest office, but also b/c there is no incumbent running from the outgoing Administration.

So we have the Republicans trying to collect the broken bits of conservatism that Bush has damaged while not saying, If you liked Bush, then elect me. Whoever can emerge her stands a good chance against Hillary for the same reason. When 2008 arrives, we will have had 20 years of a duopolistic reign in Washington DC by the Bush & Clinton families. Despite their differences, we could see a rejection of the american ruling monarchicalesque families as people get worn out on Bushes and Clintons.

So, like Sarkozy successfully sprang out of Chirac's Party in France running on the candidate of change, stealing the wind of the out of power, opponent party, a Republican very well could do the same here in 2008. Looking at the field honestly, I can see where either Rudy or Romney could make that case, successfully. I do think Fred Thompson's too lazy and too on the fence and has been testing the waters far too long to extend his teased popularity numbers to a building base of support if/when he does finally think the water is warm enough for anything more than his toes. I'll remain open towards him, but for the record I suspect he'll end up a fad and seeing him snuggling with Sean Hannity when all the other Republicans are displaying themselves in actual debates is just annoying and petty.

I also think Fred's procrastination is partly to blame for the drastic difference in money raised by the two parties candidates. His water-testing kit, I think, has kept a lot of money on the sidelines that would otherwise be committed to some other candidate by now. (Along with McCain's stupid bill which tipped the fundraising edge in favor of Democrats in general--which he's being punished for, alongside his inexplicable pro-illegal alien stance for that matter).

In any event, the Republicans have two nontypical candidates in Rudy and Romney who each were popular, successful elected officials in notably liberal states whereas the Democrats are favoring Hillary, a lady with very high unfavorables who will likely energize those with vote-against objectives, aiding whoever the Republican nominee might be, possibly botching an election year that the Democrats should easily win.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Sierra, San Francisco — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:08:13 GMT

'Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney' ......
Actually, Ken there has been.

Her name is Hillary Clinton !!
But, you left out deceitful, dishonest and vindictive

Clinton/Coulter '08
the Blonde ambition tour

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Giancarlo, Cambridge, MA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:09:05 GMT

Mitt Romney is trying to score cheap political points. I think Americans are tired of this and would like to see candidates ocassionally admit when another one is right on an issue or recognize that they agree with the substance of what someone else outside of their party is saying.

Obama got it right once again and he will prove the foreign policy establishment wrong when he takes office in Jan of 09.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Andrew P, New York, NY — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:10:17 GMT

So what exactly, did Romney get wrong or lie aboout? According to this article, Obama did say he would meet with our enemies without preconditions. And he did say he would go after Al-Qaeda targets in Pakistan. The authors of this article say a good questions for Romney is if he would not do the same in Pakistan. But what did he lie about or misrepresent regarding Obama's statements?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

nuanced — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:12:08 GMT

If the facts aren't on your side you must lie. Romney is just proving to his base that he can lie with the best of them -- it is actually considered to be an asset in the Republican party. As Stephen Colbert has said, the facts have a liberal bias.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Bee — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:18:07 GMT

I don't even understand this guy called Romney anymore. He like to speak from both side of his mouth - when is he going stop fli-floping?

I have never seen anybody score cheap political point than Romney. I still don't understand where he stand on the issues.

My question to Romney is this, what would you do if you have an actionable intelligent regarding Osama Bin Laden hideout in Pakistan and the government of Moshraf fail to act in all circumstances?

Romney, i'll be expecting my answer in the next few days.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

mikeeg,abdn,wa — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:22:58 GMT

TRUTH repubs don't need no stinkin truth..

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Peter Jones — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:24:30 GMT

I love how everyone on this message board is calling, by far the most successful person running for President, an idiot. Don't let his Harvard MBA or his half a billion dollars fool you. I guess you are smarter than he is. The truth is that Romney is a brilliant person who has fixed problems and excelled everywhere he has gone. This mess we call the current state of the government would be well served to have someone with his mind running things.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

hkm — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:29:56 GMT

Well, talk about mass deception ... where did obama say , he is going to bomb the parliament in pak ?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Matt , San Diego, CA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:35:31 GMT

Ron Paul destroyed that field. Too bad the George Stephanolopolopplolis didn't ask Dr.Paul(a Tax Payers best fried) any relevant questions pertaining to Health Care.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:35:47 GMT

Andrew, Obama never said he was going to bomb U.S. allies, and the "tea" characterization certainly wasn't an accurate reflection of Obama's answer on meeting with heads of state.

Its a non-serious characterization, presumably from a non-serious candidate - and it only serves to further turn voters off. Its no more accurate than saying, "Romney, while trying to figure out what he believes about abortion, seemingly hasn't had time to even think about who actually was responsible for the 9-11 attacks."

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Ethan Quern, Los Angeles CA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:38:00 GMT

Mitt Romney is a mean-spirited political opportunist. He actually admitted he LIED during a previous political campaign when he said he supported abortion-rights in liberal MA when he "really" felt the position wrong. So, come again? He ADMITTED he'll say ANYTHING to get elected. Americans, beware!!!

Frankly, all this dustup over Obama's foreign policy statements is making me MUCH MORE interested in him as candidate. Finally, a politician saying what needs to be said! Let the yahoos in Pakistan riot, they riot at the very name of America.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Ralph Reetz, Darien, Illinois — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:42:57 GMT

How clear can it be, Obama is a neophyte with an ego. Members of his own party are shuttering with antipation of yet another Obama mis-step, except for his presidential opponents, they are having a ball.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

BH, Tampa, Florida — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:48:50 GMT

Most politically motivated liberal partisans don't have to explain themselves when they charge a republican as a liar, b/c they just believe it by virtue of hearing it elsewhere. I don't think you can legitimately say Romney either lied or flip-flopped on his view on abortion, which is the topic they're trying to make the case that he cannot be trusted.

Romney simply states that he changed his mind, as Reagan and GHWB did. He ran for the Gov of Mass by stating he would not try to undo the law of the land, and he didn't try to. That doesn't mean he would sign into legislation things that would promote abortion, bills that would extend the application of that law for other means. He never said he would work to amplify the reach of pro-abortionists. Since he made no attempt to turn back the woman's "right to privacy" to abort her unborn child, he didn't lie. (I think the right to privacy allows me to commit murder in the privacy of my own home, not to mention other felonies as well, since that's my private property, mind you.)

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Just Saying, Here, Now — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:49:45 GMT

Wow! An anti-American rally in Pakistan! That is as rare as finding a cupcake in a bakery!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Neesha Fakir, Johannesburg, South Africa — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:52:21 GMT

I honestly don't think Obama meant it in that way, yes nobody is infallible and neither are Romney, McCain, Guilianni nor the other contenders.
I think Obama will have to rethink his foreign policy goals however they're not as infirm not erroneous as any of the other republican candidates. Obama is the expedient alternative to "conventional wisdom" and to the rather disappointing politics of the current administration. Lets be realistic and elect a man who is articulate, gender friendly, gay friendly, globally friendly and someone who will not make his country seem like a global police.
Go Obama!!!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

I thought.... — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:58:31 GMT

"'Has there ever been such an empty, vapid, disengenious, self-righteous, arrogant, pompous, sanctimonious, etc. politican as Mitt Romney' ......
Actually, Ken there has been."

I was really thinking the same thing, Ken. ESPECIALLY when you add:

"But, you left out deceitful, dishonest and vindictive"

He's still ambling around the White House wearing Neil Armstrong's helmet while shooting at Kennedy sculptures with Davy Crocket's gun drinking from Grants' flask.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Bill O. Rights, Holland, MI — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:00:28 GMT

Ron Paul won the debate according to ABC’s own poll and Drudge Report’s poll.

Ron Paul places 1st or 2nd in every straw poll, debate, and active participation survey. Including this ABC debate!

Ron Paul is 1st on YouTube, Meetup, MySpace, Technorati, Alexa, Clickz, Google, etc. The old media is just too slow to realize what is happening.

Dr. Ron Paul has the most contributions from U.S. military personnel and veterans above all other candidates. So support the troops and vote Ron Paul!

A big problem with our electoral processes is that the media generally supports the candidates with the most money. Those are the worst candidates because they are owned by special interest and lobbyists.

Ron Paul is the only major candidate not owned by military-industrial-complex, corporations, special interest, lobbyists, etc. Fix the system and vote Ron Paul. And tell everyone you know. Now is the time to set ourselves free.

Dr. Ron Paul is the man of integrity and courage that America needs at this time.

Visit YouTube and search Ron Paul to learn more...

Join the Revolution -- Vote Ron Paul!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:02:21 GMT

I know our foreign relationships with other countries can somtimes be complex, BUT is a country really an ally if we even have to discuss them not cooperating with us with getting Al Queda?

Also, Peter a Harvard MBA and a billion dollars doesn't necessarily mean you have the best ideas to run the country. It also doesn't mean you're the sharpest tool in the shed. I believe George W. Bush has a Harvard MBA and is a millionaire.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Joe Einloth — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:04:19 GMT

Romney's wealth makes him the best candidate? I'm not sure the skill sets transfer nearly as well as Peter Jones thinks. Next, you'll be trying to convince me the Redskins really DID win several Super Bowls under Dan Snyder's ownership. There's another example of wealth not equating with competence.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Jeff Morgan, Austin, TX — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:10:09 GMT

I think this reveals why no one else has laid down a comprehensive foreign policy. No matter what you say, it can be criticized in one way or another (correct or not).

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Bush Republican — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:12:43 GMT

Obama is the new John Kerry.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Nathan, WA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:12:43 GMT

If Obama is Dr. Strangelove then there is no doubt he'll win.

It's one of Kubrick's masterpieces.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Gidney. N. Cloyd, Frostbite Falls, Minn — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:14:26 GMT

Romney has also lied about the episode in which he supposedly strapped the family dog to the roof of the van during vacation trip. The pooch got to ride in the back. It was one of Patriarch Mitt's wives that got strapped to the roof.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:18:11 GMT

BH - I think the issue is more the timing of his mind changing, i.e. to coincide with elections. Go liberal to win in MA, go conservative to win nationally. That's suspect.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

RADFORD T. SMITH JR., DETROIT, MI. — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:19:10 GMT

Hi everyone...don't forget "GONZO -GATE".

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

MK,MO — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:29:13 GMT

Peter Jones / intelligence does not equal wealth, truth be known to amass the kind of wealth romney has means you are most likely dishonest and a very accomplished liar without a sole, probably an accurate description of the mittster don't you think?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

CJ — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:31:27 GMT

Romney seems very fond of spinning words and positions into false statements and one-liners. Not too becomming of a POTUS candidate, this seems like a frequent symptom from the GOP side this year (Clinton's campaign too).

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Jon, Vancouver, WA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:41:40 GMT

I can't wait for Romney to be our president! It will be a great day for America to have him in office. I think everyone knew that Obama didn't literally say that he was going to "sit down for tea" with our enemies. Romney was trying to make the point that what Obama said was ridiculous - and it was.

Go Mitt!!!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Aamir Ali — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:51:12 GMT

Barack Obama's threats to Pakistan over a hypothetical sitation are meant to demonstrate his "toughness". In doing so he damages insults an ally and damages a relationship. I hope the Obama supporters can understand that much.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Houston — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:53:49 GMT

[["I mean, in one week he went from saying he's going to sit down you know, for tea, with our enemies, but then he's going to bomb our allies," ]]

It seems that Repub candidates like Romney (the serial Flip-Flopper) just can't pass up a lie they think sounds cute in order to smear an opponent from the other party.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Mark Morris — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 18:57:28 GMT

Romney is so fake and dishonest he makes me throw up in my mouth a bit every time he speaks!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

nuanced — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:09:03 GMT

Funny that Romney would mention Dr. Strangelove. Didn't they tell him at Harvard that Dr. Strangelove was modeled after Henry Kissinger? Hahahaha

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Richard, Washington State — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:11:38 GMT

Romney's line was great political rhetoric, it doesn't need to be scientifically supported.

Obama is proceeding through the typical evolution of "fresh, new" faces. He's smoother than Howard Dean but recent indications are that he's headed down the same road. The more he is seen, the less perfect he will seem and a good deal of the damage will be done by his own party.

Partisans can explain away his Pakistan and foreign policy gaffes but if he gets the nomination (assuming his own Democrat opponents don't take him apart first) the Republicans will thrash him with well produced commercials. That's politics.

The other thing about politics these days is that no candidate gets built up, only torn down. First by their own party opponents in the quest for the nomination, then in the general election and all the while in these little blogs.

Obama will be a fresh face until the DNC takes charge of his campaign, if he gets that far.

Sierra: Nice to know HRC, the leading Democrat candidate, has so much help to look forward to from the far left wing of the party. Right now I think Rudy has a better chance of holding onto evangelicals than Hillary has of retaining the Daily Kos audience. Third party anyone? A little Ross Perot in reverse? How about a Sheehan/Nader ticket?

P.S. I don't think Ann Coulter would allow Hillary to be at the top of the ticket.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Kato in Des Moines — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:22:18 GMT

Hey Mitt: When Ronald Reagan decided to meet and negotiate with Gorbachov, were they sipping tea too?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Lewis, Cincinnati, Ohio — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 19:37:16 GMT

Jon, Vancouver--the question Ronmey was asked was VERY serious and his answer wasn't serious at all. Do you really think that this he is the best republican to run the country?? If so, republicans have an extremly low threshold that has to be met...

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:04:53 GMT

Richard, the only problem with what you wrote is that from what we've seen the GOP is running a horde of very vulnerable candidates. Do you really want to get into the "politically good though unsupportable rhetoric" battle with any of those candidate?

Romney, Guiliani... who else are you thinking of nominating? It won't take a Karl Rove to think up the rhetorically funny though perhaps not fully fair commercials there. Unless you guys are going against Clinton, I think its going to be a tough cycle.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

J.D. in California — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:21:34 GMT

OH my, Romney has an MBA from Harvard. Well, that makes all the difference. We need more Harvard MBA's as president. Let's see...was any previous president also a Harvard MBA? Being a dumb democrat I don't know the answer. Oh, a republican friend just told me--George Bush is the only other president with an MBA, and as a coincidence, also from Harvard. Well, at least we know that both men were admitted to one of the hardest to be accepted to graduate programs in the US. You would have to be a genius, with a straight A grade point average and a perfect score on the GRE and SAT's, right? But, not only that, you would also have to have distinguished yourself in some manner as an undergraduate--such as Student Body President or having led a campaign to end poverty in Africa, or some such.

Oh, wait, my smart republican friend just told me there is a teeny tiny little loophole in the HBS admission process. You can be admitted if you are the indolent son of a wealthy powerful person. All it takes is a C average and no test scores. Hmmm. we do know that fits George Jr's history. But, Mitt? didn't he pull himself up by his bootstraps, coming from dire poverty in a small town in Utah to become a successful and obscenely wealthy venture capitalist? Oh, my friend tells me is was the indolent son of a former repub governor, from wealthy Grosse Point, Michigan, CEO of General Motors, and failed and repudiated presidental candidate, one George Romney.

Oh, well, at least these two were successful in using their royal births to advance to high office. Doesn't that qualify?

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Connie, Tn. — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:45:16 GMT

Just goes to show how popular Obama is becoming. The Repugs are worried about him now!! Way to go.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Mike, Texas — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:52:27 GMT

Another case of taking comments totally out of context. Mitt Romney must work for FOX noise. These are the same guys that voted against the continuation of the CHIPS program for poor children.
Oh yea sure let's give all the big corporations a big tax break cuz they need really need it. What a bunch of geniuses. Ron Paul is the only one that makes sense over there. Can't wait for the Bush/Cheney dictatorship to end.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Richard, Washington State — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:50:52 GMT

Paul: I don't have any illusions about this election, but I think it's more a matter of the political environment than a lack of good candidates. Either Guiliani or Romney would hold their own with Obama in a debate, whatever that's worth. Besides, if Bush could hold his own with a master debater like Gore, anything is possible, right?

This one is for you guys to lose. In the past you've often found a way, but the implosion would have to be monumental for it to happen now. On the other hand there is still time.

I think it will be Romney or Guiliani for the Republicans. I think McCain will make something of a comeback, but not enough. Thompson is a lot like Obama in that a lot of people are in love with the idea of him, not necessarily his qualifications (though his political experience and qualifications are comparable to Hillary's and in my view superior).

All in all I see two tiers of Republicans, but I would support any of the top 4 when it's time to vote in 2008.

Democrats unquestionably have the political momentum but I think you only have two viable candidates with Clinton the most likely to be nominated, mostly because to many people are still in love with Bill.

I think they are weak candidates on their own. For starters, Democrats have never seen fit to grant Hillary a 50% approval rating among Democrats. In a poll matchup against Guiliani, she doesn't exactly blow him away either.

I wouldn't take great comfort in that or that a lot of Democrats seem to be quite disenchanted with her. Take, for example, the YearlyKos reaction to the question about taking money from lobbyists. Will the YearlyKos types hold their noses and vote for Hillary?

Anyway, that's your strongest candidate right now.

Obama will be faced with experience questions and some of the things he has already said will come back to haunt him. He will either make more mistakes or allow himself to be reined in to the point of irrelevance.

Re: Political commercials. No political commercials are fair and political rhetoric isn't meant to be fair, only political. Politics are by nature partisan and political ads are designed to favor one's own candidate. Both parties are equally unfair under those parameters. The parties are mirror images in terms of campaign tactics.

Frankly, this time around I could go for funny unfair ads but neither party can be counted on for that and with Hillary you guys would be at a distinct disadvantage because she doesn't do funny very well. Maybe SHE should hire Karl Rove.

I think it's going to be closer than you think, but you guys definitely have the edge. Be careful not to let over-confidence lead to misunderestimation.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Steve Graves Albuquerque, NM — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 21:56:37 GMT

Hello! Quit looking at Obamma through rose colored glasses. Romney was right and Obamma did say that. You seem to conveniently ignore that Pakistan was very upset by his comments and criticized his comments as seen below:

Pakistan criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama on Friday for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

Democratic presidential hopeful, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers a speech about terrorism, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2007, at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Brian, Las Vegas — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 22:24:25 GMT

Romney's degree and business experience don't mean a whole lot. If you've noticed, he gets really REALLY angry anytime anyone crosses him (see the town hall meeting where someone asked him about the "No Obama, Osama, or Chelsea's Moma" sign), and while that can work ok in a boardroom it absolutely does not work in elected office. Also, if you want to talk about the ultimate inexperienced candidate, it's him...he has the least experience in elected office out of any of the candidates. The last candidate who ran with those qualifications (four years of governor and Harvard MBA) was...oh wait, George W. Bush!

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

renny — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 01:20:13 GMT

Obama recently gave a speech to the racist group La Raza, promising amnesty to the 20 to 30 million illegal aliens should he be elected. He is willing to sellout citizenship while pandering for votes.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Joe Blow — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 06:55:55 GMT

The last thing we need is an Episod of Big Love in White house, and we dont want a repeat of Lewinski. Obama is best bet.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 13:26:37 GMT

Richard - actually I'm an independent. I agree, its the Democrats race to lose. And I also agree it will be the usual tight split in popular vote. But Democrats race to lose - and Clinton would be the best bet they have to lose it.

It will come down to three factors, as always. One is which party gets its voters out. Another, and often the most important, is how independents split. And a third is the electoral calculus.

Independents are poised to break for the Democrat by about a 6-4 ratio. I'd guess that will tighten once the two sides start going at each other.

I'm not smart enough to figure out the electoral stuff at this point, though I know my state is in play and has been considered "red" for a long time. The Southwest also looks good for Democrats. The Republicans also seem to have an opening in some usually "blue" areas.

The big one, I think, is party energy. Right now Democrats should be favored in the energy/GOTV category. Look at how they are doing with fundraising. However, this radically shifts in favor of the Republicans if Clinton is nominated, because as you noted a lot of Democrats will have a hard time supporting her and no one energizes the Republicans more.

I think Obama would do fine in the general. I have no doubts the Republicans will go after him on experience, and there will be a lot of media focus on how much experience matters. Think about three presidents you consider to be among the best in our history and ask yourself how experienced they were. No need to answer that here, but the answer might surprise you. I think an argument that judgment and trustworthiness are more important will play with independents this cycle. And those are strong suits with Obama - even the so-called "misteps" are beginning to look pretty good. For instance, Obama seems to be the only candidate from either party who understands U.S. nuclear policy.

Edwards would do alright but I don't think he'd be as strong in the general. Yeah, I know he's white - but how many people who wouldn't vote for Obama out of racism would vote for any other Democrat? A few, but I really don't think many. And its probably offset by a few whites who will vote for Obama to prove to themselves they aren't racist. The thing about Edwards is that populist approach. He does it well, but politically speaking it hasn't been the best tactical move in the past.

Biden I think would get Kerry'd. He's been in the Senate long enough to have said a lot of things and voted on a lot of things that can be twisted to seem contradictory. And the guy won't stop talking.

Richardson hasn't grown into being a candidate. I like him and I think he'd be an okay president, but he just hasn't shown any ability to inspire or even give a sense of confidence that he's in charge of his surroundings. And he's kind of a goofy guy, too, which would open up the door to some strange episodes being thrown out there in negative ads. He likes to tickle one of his female aides, I've heard. I've read its all innocent but the same article said he takes it to an odd level. Things like that.

Dodd is kind of dumpy looking, though my impression of him has improved as he's gone along. Not that I think he has a shot at getting the nomination, but if he did, I think he's a guy who wouldn't hurt his own chances. This cycle, that may be enough for the Democrat.

So in terms of electability, I guess I'd have to go with Obama, Dodd and then Edwards. Maybe Edwards above Dodd because he is a better speaker, though the pretty boy thing works against him.

Just my two cents and of course we don't know what we don't know - what skeletons from the past might come tumbling out of anyone's closet.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

John Doe — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 14:41:39 GMT

"If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

This coming from the party that said that the Republicans have ruined our relations with countries around the world by prematurely invading them. Who is the real Flip-Floppper here?

Obama, Hilary and crew are the worst bunch of liars this country has ever seen. I would compare them to Stalin and Hitler. They want to see families disintegrated, America invaded from our southern borders, and the Terrorists to duplicate like rabbits all around the world. They WANT America to be destroyed. Those who support them are terrorists themselves.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Richard, Washington State — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 15:31:58 GMT

Paul: Sorry, made an assumption about party affiliation that apparently wasn't correct. Enjoyed the exchange, though. Don't know much about Dodd but agree 100% with your comments about Richardson. From what I've seen, I could be comfortable with him as president, but he's just not going to get it done in the primaries. Might be a good VP option. Hillary could be tickled pink to have him.

Fact-checking Romney's debate line

Norman P Whitzell, Salinas, PR. — Wed, 08 Aug 2007 16:19:54 GMT

What really matters here in the election (selection) of our next president may not be the party, but the philosophy of the individual who will lead this country. The candidate who seems less tainted by the Washington "in crowd" may be Ron Paul. Goofy?? What does the MSM want us to believe and then do the opposite. I like Kucinich who is liberal and Paul who is Conservative. Can either deliver our democracy back to us??? I am not convinced we have already gone too far in allowing it to straw from its intended course.
God, Please, Really, Bless America.